Should cities be able to build 2 things at the same time?

[patcon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This was brought up before.

The conclusion was it doesn't make a difference. A city could only produce so much a turn, so having two queues won't make building faster.

While I'm not sure I'm in favor of this concept, I can see situations where it would speed production. In the late game I have had cities churning out 90 shields per turn. If I want to build units costing 60 shields, I can build 1 and waste 30 shields per turn. If I had 2 build queues, I could assign 60 shields to completely finish 1 unit and 30 shields to half-finish another, then the next turn use 30 shields to finish the half-built unit and 60 shields to completely another unit. Therefore, 3 units built in 2 turns with zero shields wasted, as opposed to 2 units built in 2 turns with 60 shields wasted or 3 units built in 3 turns with 90 shields wasted.

[korn469]

While I'm not sure I'm in favor of this concept, I can see situations where it would speed production. In the late game I have had cities churning out 90 shields per turn. If I want to build units costing 60 shields, I can build 1 and waste 30 shields per turn. If I had 2 build queues, I could assign 60 shields to completely finish 1 unit and 30 shields to half-finish another, then the next turn use 30 shields to finish the half-built unit and 60 shields to completely another unit. Therefore, 3 units built in 2 turns with zero shields wasted, as opposed to 2 units built in 2 turns with 60 shields wasted or 3 units built in 3 turns with 90 shields wasted.

I pretty much agree with your analysis here. Multiple build queues with huge population and more specialist types that add shields could allow players to have some truly monsterous size 30 or 40 supercities that could churn out multiple units/space ship parts etc. Other than that I don't see them doing much.

[Xorbon]

An advantage of having multiple build queues is when you're building an expensive item (such as a wonder) and you suddenly find a need for a certain improvement or a unit. In Civ 3, you'd have to choose between abandoning the wonder in order to build your emergency unit or improvement, or having to wait until your wonder is completed before you can start on the new build. I've had to make this choice many times in my games.

[lajzar]

Originally posted by patcon


While I'm not sure I'm in favor of this concept, I can see situations where it would speed production. In the late game I have had cities churning out 90 shields per turn. If I want to build units costing 60 shields, I can build 1 and waste 30 shields per turn. If I had 2 build queues, I could assign 60 shields to completely finish 1 unit and 30 shields to half-finish another, then the next turn use 30 shields to finish the half-built unit and 60 shields to completely another unit. Therefore, 3 units built in 2 turns with zero shields wasted, as opposed to 2 units built in 2 turns with 60 shields wasted or 3 units built in 3 turns with 90 shields wasted.

This issue could be solved much more neatly by having rollover production.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Xorbon
An advantage of having multiple build queues is when you're building an expensive item (such as a wonder) and you suddenly find a need for a certain improvement or a unit. In Civ 3, you'd have to choose between abandoning the wonder in order to build your emergency unit or improvement, or having to wait until your wonder is completed before you can start on the new build. I've had to make this choice many times in my games.

Originally posted by
patcon
While I'm not sure I'm in favor of this concept, I can see situations where it would speed production. In the late game I have had cities churning out 90 shields per turn. If I want to build units costing 60 shields, I can build 1 and waste 30 shields per turn. If I had 2 build queues, I could assign 60 shields to completely finish 1 unit and 30 shields to half-finish another, then the next turn use 30 shields to finish the half-built unit and 60 shields to completely another unit. Therefore, 3 units built in 2 turns with zero shields wasted, as opposed to 2 units built in 2 turns with 60 shields wasted or 3 units built in 3 turns with 90 shields wasted.

Both fine points. I still think thought a more fundamental change should be in order than this.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by patcon
While I'm not sure I'm in favor of this concept, I can see situations where it would speed production. In the late game I have had cities churning out 90 shields per turn. If I want to build units costing 60 shields, I can build 1 and waste 30 shields per turn. If I had 2 build queues, I could assign 60 shields to completely finish 1 unit and 30 shields to half-finish another, then the next turn use 30 shields to finish the half-built unit and 60 shields to completely another unit. Therefore, 3 units built in 2 turns with zero shields wasted, as opposed to 2 units built in 2 turns with 60 shields wasted or 3 units built in 3 turns with 90 shields wasted.

All you need to do is carry over the shields to the next item, rather than have multiple queues...(more busywork with multiple queues)

Originally posted by Xorbonn
An advantage of having multiple build queues is when you're building an expensive item (such as a wonder) and you suddenly find a need for a certain improvement or a unit. In Civ 3, you'd have to choose between abandoning the wonder in order to build your emergency unit or improvement, or having to wait until your wonder is completed before you can start on the new build. I've had to make this choice many times in my games.

...And end up taking away strategic decisionmaking in the process. Having a city become suddenly vunerable because it is locked into a long-term construction process is good gameplay. Having a gameplay element that allows you to quickly bail out of that critical situation without paying significant consequences dumbs down the idea that you need to take a long-term approach to your game.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Having a city become suddenly vunerable because it is locked into a long-term construction process is good gameplay. Having a gameplay element that allows you to quickly bail out of that critical situation without paying significant consequences dumbs down the idea that you need to take a long-term approach to your game.

Yes, that is a very good point. I take a dim view on rushing -- which leads to the inevitable cheats, workaround, hoodhinking the AI, etc. I'm not against rushing - but hexagonian said it well here -- there should be appropriate costs for every decision.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by hexagonian
...And end up taking away strategic decisionmaking in the process. Having a city become suddenly vunerable because it is locked into a long-term construction process is good gameplay. Having a gameplay element that allows you to quickly bail out of that critical situation without paying significant consequences dumbs down the idea that you need to take a long-term approach to your game.

Very good point. The mindset I had was of the advantages of double city builds; I didn't give much thought to the effects on strategic choices.

By the way, my nickname only has one 'n'. Now you must die.

[kolaps]

That is a good idea, but i think that it will be beeter if you will need to build a factory to produce a millitary unit(or a group of milittary units) Tank factory, stable, shipyard......So strategic precision bombing will be more important! When you start to buid a factory you choose what units will you build( You choose an armor ,transport capacity, range, depanding on your technological achivments). So better units will cost more and money will play a bigger role in war. That is realistic and that will give place for tactics.l

[korn469]

I think that carrying over production is a good idea, but the main strategic decision making advantage of having multiple build queues if for large cities to have more use. If only metros had two build queues it would make large supercities more attractive than what they are under the current rules. That would aid perfectionists and allow for more strategies to thrive in civ4. So I think that properly executed multiple builde queues could have a beneficial though somewhat limitied use.