{The List} Terrain and terrain improvements

[DarkCloud]

But then the problem isn't solved. If you agree that rails covering every tile is a problem (and I don't know if you do), then leaving the production boost in place will mean that it is always better to lay down the railroad spaghetti. Unless the upkeep is extremely high, but that just creates its own problem.

I actually don't think that it's a problem. I think that it's realistic enough. I mean, the world WAS covered with rails in the days before the car, airplane, etc.

However, I think that your suggestion here:

Why not keep the upkeep, remove infinite movment, and remove the production bonus, then give every city that is connected to your civ via rail an X percent production and comemrce increase (raw materials move faster for production, finished goods move faster for commerce), and a Y percent production boost for every city that is connected to another Civ via rail?

Does make more sense in the way of increasing production. IF the RxR's aren't connected, then what use are they- but if they are connected to a city THEN they can increase productivity AND trade!
Very good solution.

--

I'd like to see an "industry" or "settlement" improvement that comes with industrialization and can be created like an outpost or airfield - it eats a worker. It gives a big shield and trade bonus but cuts all food production. This would also require the ability to ship food between cities.

Hmmm... How about industrialized zoning (or developed zoning)? That way the game could represent the industry with a few smokestacks that represent the development of a tile square... sort of like a modern-day mining square that can be made on plains and prairie? Reasonably good idea- but then we have to worry about the land becoming choked with these- unless they contribute significantly to pollution in their parent city and can only be built within city squares or upon railroads.

[okblacke]

Originally posted by skywalker
I'd like pollution to be removed. It doesn't really provide the player with any strategic choices (come on... are you actually going to forgo building Factories and Hospitals? It wouldn't help you anyways, even in the long run.) and it is incredibly annoying.

And, I think, it's exaggerated. (Though, strategy-wise, someone here said they don't build hospitals till they get ecology.) At the same time, the lava and nuclear fallout aspect is pretty good.

Pollution could remain in a few ways: Having a negative effect on happiness in big cities; having an OCCASIONAL blotch appear in extraordinary circumstances like the above-mentioned.

[Kuciwalker]

Pollution from nukes (and volcanoes, though they are a bit... odd ) is fine. It's pollution from industrialization and high pop that is pointless.

[okblacke]

My opinion (everyone's got one):

As far as rail/road sprawl and the production bonus goes, I've always assumed that was meant to abstract outlying communities. In other words, not all population is going to live downtown, even in ancient times. Hence I don't feel a strong need for urban sprawl or against rail/road sprawl. (And anyone who thinks highway sprawl isn't real needs to visit Southern California.)

The best arguments I've seen here for changing the system is to reduce the dreaded MM (and these are good arguments). I worry about whether they'll make some other part of Civ collapse, though.

If infinite rail movement is removed, I'd like to suggest a finer approach overall:

Right now we have movement over terrain (1 for 1 or less on rough terrain), movement over roads (3 for 1) and movement over railroads (infinity for 0). This seems a little coarse.

In particular, "roads != roads". The Roman roads were unsurpassed until modern times, I believe. And the US interstate system virtually obsolesces (is that a word?) the rail.

We could have no roads, basic roads, Roman-type roads, rails and highways. A compelling set of multipliers might be 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8. (Maybe tweak those last two?)

And now for a more radical idea: Change the concept of "city radius" to match up with road and transportation technology. Right now, whether it's 4,000 BC and you don't even have The Wheel, or it's 2150 AD and you have satellites and spaceships, a city works its two-square radius.

Well, what if a city could work any square within one-half turn's worth of travel? (Half to get out there, half to get back.) This would be a combination of roads, tech and resources. Using the 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 multipliers:

In stone-age times, it would kill ICS. Before you could get much use out of a new city, it would have to be connected at least to its surroundings. Horses and The Wheel would increase city radius to one. (You might need other non-combat type animal resources, though, like mules, camels and elephants.)

Roman roads would increase the radius to 2. You'd get a lot of closely placed cities, too, at least until the industrial age.

Rails would increase radius to three.

Highways would increase the radius to a whopping four. (Using SoCal as an example, it has been said that a lot of the robustness and resilience of that economy has to do with the fact that workers can move around to where the work is without resettling.)

Note that a four radius city sprawl would promote the megalopolis, cause big cities to encroach more on smaller ones, allow incredible flexibility for what a city could produce and also make it a lot less likely that any city would actually ever work all the squares in its radius.

This system might work really well with the "public works" system suggested by others. (I guess I should check out CTPs 1&2.) Certain pop points of a city would be designated public workers, the larger the city, the more needed.

[joncha]

Pollution should stay more-or-less as is (for industrial/modern eras at least) but their should be more ways to clean it up... earlier "green" tech, forests within your borders reducing pollution, the ability to plant forests as heat sinks, etc.

As for railroads, I agree with removing the infinite movement, but I strongly disagree with just putting a multiplier in its place. Why would a tank move faster than infantry on the same train? If anything, the passenger train your infantry travelled on would be FASTER than the freight train you sent your armour on.

So... I think a set range for rail would be better, either as a airport-style rebasing thing (maybe a rail depot city improvement?) or a fixed movement multiplier that makes EVERY unit move at, say, twice the speed of the fastest unit.

jon.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by joncha
As for railroads, I agree with removing the infinite movement, but I strongly disagree with just putting a multiplier in its place. Why would a tank move faster than infantry on the same train? If anything, the passenger train your infantry travelled on would be FASTER than the freight train you sent your armour on.

So... I think a set range for rail would be better, either as a airport-style rebasing thing (maybe a rail depot city improvement?) or a fixed movement multiplier that makes EVERY unit move at, say, twice the speed of the fastest unit.

jon.

Great point. And I think the rebasing thing is a good idea, but it would have to work invisibly for the player. So if I want to go from point A to point B all I should need to do is use the GoTo command. If the rail is the fastest way to get there, it should automatically use it without my needing to micromanage it the way you currently have to micromanage airlifting.

[Nikolai]

wrylachlan: Done. Thanks for the summary. I had very little time when I updated with you two's ideas last time you see.
Updated!

[wrylachlan]

Choke Points

I've been thinking about all the different modifications I would like to make to the civ terrain and improvements model, and they all come down to one thing - making the game more tactically interesting by creating differentiation and choke points.

The reason I would want to get rid of the total railroad coverage is that when every tile is RR there is no tactical differentiation between tiles.

Making it easier to land on some coastal tiles vs. others = tactical differentiation.

Rivers that can only be crossed at bridges or fords = tactical differentiation.

Terrain that has the ability to do damage to your units (desert/jungle) = tactical differentiation
--------------------------------------------
Given that differentiation is what I want, I'd like to suggest a few changes.
1) Make visibility more important by increasing the sight range of scouts and outposts in relation to the terrain. Regular units get 2x vision on hills, 3x on mountains. Scouts/Outposts should get 2.5x, 4x. This would make Scouts/Outposts much more tactically valuable.

2) Remove the rounding of movement values. Currently a unit with 1 move is guaranteed to move 1 tile regardless of the movement required for that tile. This makes all land essentially the same throughout the early game, and by the time you have 2 move units, you've got roads everywhere.

Instead, if you have 1 movement point and try to move into a tile which requires 2, you loose a turn and need to wait till next turn to move. Maybe its indicated by a graphic of the unit moving towards the tile.

3)Have more tiles which are totally impassible and/or impassible in a certain direction. The code is already in the game for not being able to go from one tile to another in a certain direction. Its used for wheeled units crossing rivers without a road. Why not add in cliffs, or mountains that are too steep to climb.

This would allow further differentiation of units based on their ability to overcome the obstacle - A special Forces unit that can climb cliffs, or a Mountain warrior that can travel on mountains that are totally impassable to other units.

Maybe there are mountains that only workers can get to, so to cross them with other units you MUST build a road.
-------------------------------------
All of this would lead to a game where the terrain is a much larger factor in your decision making, which I think is a good thing.

[wrylachlan]

What if the movement cost of a tile was not determined by the tile itself, but the tile border? For example Grassland:Grassland is 1, but Mountains:Grassland is 2. Similarly Grasslands:Mountain is 3 because you're climbing up the mountain, but Mountain:Mountain is only 2 because you're walking along the ridge.
------------------------------------------
For ZOC, I'd like to see the ZOC only extend to the surrounding 1 tile radius or where you can move in 1 turn, whichever is smaller. Thus if I can't cross a river in a turn, I have no ZOC on the tiles across the river. Similarly if we accept the creation of cliffs, etc. which are total barriers to movement, I can't ZOC the tile on the other side of the cliff.

Or maybe I don't get the traditional ZOC that makes the enemy stop across the river, but if I have a bombard unit they get a free shot.

[Kuciwalker]

2) Remove the rounding of movement values. Currently a unit with 1 move is guaranteed to move 1 tile regardless of the movement required for that tile. This makes all land essentially the same throughout the early game, and by the time you have 2 move units, you've got roads everywhere.

Two-move units come with a starting tech, so no, you dont' have roads everywhere and the rounding INCREASES tactical differentiation - it increases the relative value of foot units in difficult terrain.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by skywalker

2) Remove the rounding of movement values. Currently a unit with 1 move is guaranteed to move 1 tile regardless of the movement required for that tile. This makes all land essentially the same throughout the early game, and by the time you have 2 move units, you've got roads everywhere.

Two-move units come with a starting tech, so no, you dont' have roads everywhere

let the hyperbole be. It wants to live.

and the rounding INCREASES tactical differentiation - it increases the relative value of foot units in difficult terrain.

Yes. It does. And I'm not against increasing the relative value of foot units in difficult terrain. However I am against 1 move foot units treating mountains as indistinguishable from grasslands, which is what they do now.

I'd rather see an additional movement penalty for mounted units in certain terrain. For instance if mountains were 2 movement points +1 for mounted units, without rounding, it would take a 1 move foot unit 2 turns and a mounted 2 move unit would also take 2 turns. A system like this would preserve the comparative advantage of foot in difficult terrain and also differentiate the different terrains for the 1 move unit.

Side note - under the system above I would make a Settler a 1 move mounted unit, which would (I think) change the distribution of early cities in a more realistic manner since settlers would tend to follow the path of least resistance.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by skywalker
and the rounding INCREASES tactical differentiation - it increases the relative value of foot units in difficult terrain.

But DECREASES the tactical differentiation of different land values. With wrylachlan's idea there could be the long, hard but unexpected mountain pass, or the quick and obvious tromp across the open grasses.

You could probably also make a strong case that it actually helps to eliminate the considerations of movement points between units on some maps, not increases it as you suggest. Imagine there is a mountain range that you must cross to get to your enemy. Do you send horses or swords?

If horses still moved over mountains faster than feet though...

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, and about pollution - its penalty should not occur on the same turn the pollution occurs (so I still work the tile during the beginning of the turn it appears, but not at the beginning of the next turn).

This is because cities that are balance food-wise can starve slowly from pollution (because each time the pollution occurs, a bit of food is lost from the granary which isn't replaced until the city loses and then gains a pop point).

[Bleyn]

A thought on pollution. What if it wasn't all or nothing like now. Rather it had scales. So a square could be lightly polluted and just be losing a little food, and commerce and maybe an industrial resource. Or moderately polluted and lose more. Or heavily polluted and lose everything.

Polluted squares would have a higher chance of becoming more polluted than non-polluted squares. The more pollution, the longer to clean up. But only if one failed to clean up pollution would it get to the point of totally losing the use of a square.

It would make pollution less annoying. It could also be made more realistic by having the higher levels of pollution only coming from industrial sources, and the lowest being generated by population and industry. Thus pollution could appear earlier in its lowest forms.

[Kuciwalker]

That would create the same problem in food-balanced cities.