did anyone ever want this?

[shimmin]

It worked well for the original MOO, but I think part of what made it work well is the paucity of game elements analagous to specific city improvements. Industry, planetary defenses, waste cleanup, etc., all had a high degree of abstraction in MOO.

[Addled Platypus]

I like the decision of only 1 item to build

If you guess wrong, to bad: if you switch a penalty

It would take longer to build items if at a low percent.

That is after a while I have city specific builds

Some pure military, science etc. All you have to do is switch things around to get cities to grow and produce faster

[Russian_King]

its a pretty cool idea, but i agree with the last guy that said u alredy use different cities for different stuff to build. however, this would be a nice addition for some of those especially industrial cities i seem to get recorded over 200 shields per turn with only 20 corruption! the only thing this city is good to build for is nukes!

[Zoetrope]

Space Empires 3 (late 1990's) was turn-based, and it had an unlimited number of queues per colony (at least I never reached the limit).

I built many space docks (queues) around each settled planet, and each space dock was continually busy constructing ships, starbases, other space docks, and/or whatever else it could.

Didn't slow the game one iota.

Combat was interesting too (unlike Civ's stupid "combat system").

Each player had their own tech tree.

You could design your own units (ships) and trial them against known enemy designs in the Combat Simulator (a simulated battlefield).

SE3 was especially addictive as multiplayer (PBEM), but the AI was fairly competitive despite all the strategems I used.

It did have spacelanes (which some MOO3 ex-players dislike) but SE3 also had large (about 12x12) solar system maps for each star, and those arenas were where the building was done, while the combat occurred on separate maps (about 30x30 each) representing the combat square in the solar system. If a planet was within the square, its defences took part.

[MrFun]

meh

[Dauphin]

Hey Fun, whereyoubin?

[Zoid]

Yeah, man. There´s three threads in OT asking where you are...

[Zoid]

Re: did anyone ever want this?

Originally posted by MRT144
ability to build multiple units or facilities at the same time and allocate where the building materials went instead of being forced to choose one thing and stick with it or lose points for change.

example, building a wonder and a phalanx at the same time, and divide the cost or allocate the cost to each one accordign to your priority.

I think it´s an excellent idea. Multiple building queues

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrFun
meh

MrFun sighting!

[patcon]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
If you guess wrong, to bad: if you switch a penalty

The switching penalty (losing half of your already allocated shields when switching from an improvement to a unit or vice versa) was in Civ2. I don't recall seeing this in Civ3. It was "realistic" in the sense that resources spent in building a temple don't really help building a phalanx, but I still hated it.

I'm not sure I see much use in multiple queues for improvements or units, unless you've got shields which are going to be wasted when an item requires fewer shields to finish then you are producing (i.e., your cathedral needs 10 more shields and you're producing 15 shields per turn.) It would be nice if you could use those extra 5 shields to get a jump on the next thing you want to build. A simpler way to deal with this, though, would be when the pop-up announces "cathedral done" and asks "what next?" any excess production already starts the next project. A major shield producer could conceivably go through several iterations in a single turn, if several items could be finished. That could lead to interesting choices - "Do I build multiple cheap units or one expensive unit in this city?" As it is now, once a city can produce Modern Armor why would I have it produce Mech Inf?

That being said about multiple queues for improvements/units, I would like to see something like multiple queues for dealing with wonders. While wonder building is usually a mad dash to try to finish before another civ, there are times when I might want to build a newly-available improvement or a needed defensive unit in a city which is working on a wonder. Dedicating a city to doing nothing but building "Hanging Gardens" for the next 40 turns, while you discover currency in the meantime and could use the marketplace to help keep the workers happy is ridiculous and "unrealistic". Does anyone think that all other building stopped in Rhodes while the Colossus was being built?
Suggestion: A city building a wonder can designate one other project to build concurrently. Any, or all, of the city's shield production can be allocated to this other project; allowing a wonder to be put on the "back burner" when other needs arise, without completely losing all the work which has been done. Of course the objection to this is that the AI would probably have trouble dealing with this option.

While I'm on the subject of building wonders, allow me this rant. I get so ticked off when the city that has just spent the last 40 turns working on a wonder and is 2 turns away from finishing it has its entire work wasted when another civ sneaks in. I've just built a 300-shield library! If my people have been building "The Great Wall", why should it suddenly be worthless just because somebody else built it first? It wouldn't be this huge cultural icon or draw visitors from around the world, but wouldn't it offer protection to my cities?
Suggestion: A great wonder only confers culture points and tourism revenue to the first civ to build it, but other civs who were already building it can still finish it (as a small wonder) to get the other benefits such as barracks or walls.