Removed Features & Replacements: Maintenance, Corruption/Waste, Rioting & Pollution

[Roman]

Re: Re: Removed Features & Replacements: Maintenance, Corruption/Waste, Rioting & Pollution

Originally posted by Xorbon


Frankly, I don't see what was so "unfun" about maintenance. Assuming building maintenance has been removed, I'd be interested in seeing what has replaced it.

I completely agree with you. That's why I put 'unfun' in quotation marks. Pollution, however, was unfun as implemented in Civ III.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by Roman
I completely agree with you. That's why I put 'unfun' in quotation marks. Pollution, however, was unfun as implemented in Civ III.

I know. I was agreeing with you in the first place. And I did notice you put 'unfun' in quotation marks. That's why I used double-quotes.

And, yes, the 'whack-a-mole' pollution is very unfun (notice the lack of quotes ).

And as for corruption, the only thing I didn't like about it was the severity. Once Civ 3 Conquests came along, there were enough ways of dealing with corruption that I didn't mind it anymore.

[MattPilot]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Hmmm, perhaps if you made it based on population in some way-rather than tiles. For instance, a size 1 city might only be able to build 2-or 3-city improvements, wheras a size 5 city might be able to build 10 or 11 city improvements. Another idea might be that an unhappy citizen reduces the number of slots available for building or-if you have already reached your limit-one of your buildings becomes non-functional until you make that citizen content-to sort of increase the impact of the idle, unhappy worker effect (they not only won't work at the mine, they won't work at the factory either !)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

That would actually be quite interesting. I'd support something along those lines.

[Roman]

Originally posted by Xorbon


I know. I was agreeing with you in the first place. And I did notice you put 'unfun' in quotation marks. That's why I used double-quotes.

Hehe, yes, I was not sure whether you are agreeing with me consciously or misinterpreting my post - hence I felt the need to clarify.

[quote]And, yes, the 'whack-a-mole' pollution is very unfun (notice the lack of quotes ).[/qupte]

It is indeed.

And as for corruption, the only thing I didn't like about it was the severity. Once Civ 3 Conquests came along, there were enough ways of dealing with corruption that I didn't mind it anymore.

I was neutral on corruption/waste. Unlike pollution, it was at least a balancing mechanism, but it could get annoying in large civilizations, especially those trying to colonize a new, faraway continent on the largest of maps. That said, the new city maintenance concept does appear to be better than corruption, so it will probably make a good replacement.

[sophist]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Hmmm, perhaps if you made it based on population in some way-rather than tiles. For instance, a size 1 city might only be able to build 2-or 3-city improvements, wheras a size 5 city might be able to build 10 or 11 city improvements. Another idea might be that an unhappy citizen reduces the number of slots available for building or-if you have already reached your limit-one of your buildings becomes non-functional until you make that citizen content-to sort of increase the impact of the idle, unhappy worker effect (they not only won't work at the mine, they won't work at the factory either !)

This idea has potential. I definitely think you're on the right track. What worries me is the degree to which this reduces the player's options. It may be foolish to put a temple, a cathedral, a library, a university, a marketplace, a bank, and a stock exchange in a city of size 2, but if you're willing to pay all that maintenance for such meager benefit, well, the game shouldn't keep you from being stupid.

[MattPilot]

You could also make population = amount of building slots available. Got 10 pop? Built 10 buildings.

So what if population becomes less than # of buildings? Just add an effect - either simply deactivating its effects, or someting more complex that affects the hapiness of the citizens - whatever. Or it has no effect at all - you just can't build until the pop is back up.

[Roman]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Hmmm, perhaps if you made it based on population in some way-rather than tiles. For instance, a size 1 city might only be able to build 2-or 3-city improvements, wheras a size 5 city might be able to build 10 or 11 city improvements. Another idea might be that an unhappy citizen reduces the number of slots available for building or-if you have already reached your limit-one of your buildings becomes non-functional until you make that citizen content-to sort of increase the impact of the idle, unhappy worker effect (they not only won't work at the mine, they won't work at the factory either !)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

That would be a potential alternative to building maintenance, but I still prefer building maintenance to be kept as it was - among other things it provides a disincentives to having all buildings everywhere, but retains flexibility so you can still have as many buildings as you are willing to pay for in a city...

[lajzar]

Personally, I'd like to see building maintenance unchanged. The idea of having a limited total number of buildinsg per city, either limited by city radius or by population, just doesn't make sense ona civ scale. however, I think having the more advanced buildings require a minimum population to be built would work. This system was used in Colonization.

[Straybow]

as posted by me in Size of City Improvements
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, a member named Vagabond had an idea which he termed Urbanization.

The soul of Urbanization is to make city improvements function like tiles in the city radius. They are represented as blocks along the edges of the city map. Citizens can be placed in those blocks instead of on the terrain map. The city improvement defines what benefits you get.

For example, a Civ2 Library adds 50% to Science. By putting a worker in the Library it might go up to +75%. A Civ2 University adds 50% to Science. The graphics for University might contain two blocks, and placing a worker in a block adds 25 to the percentage bonus. Then a Research Lab might have 3 such blocks.

Note that this concept does not remove Specialists, who can do the same thing with lesser efficiency.

Rather than limiting the number of buildings, just make it possible for the larger city to have an advantage over the smaller city.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, Straybow, I think a combination of Lazjar's idea (having some improvements require a minimum population) and your idea (where increased population grants bonuses to existing improvements) would be the best way to do it-and if it isn't in the Vanilla game, then I feel certain that it will be easier enough to Mod in !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Straybow
Rather than limiting the number of buildings, just make it possible for the larger city to have an advantage over the smaller city.

Which it does, in that a Library is a multiplier of the science rate, so a city with 10 base science derives less benefit than a city of 20 base science. Done and done.

[Sir Og]

The building slots idea is a somewhat simplyfied (and maybe better) version of my idea to implement something similar to employment. Emplyment would effect growth, happines and efficiency of city improvements.

I think it is not a good idea to limit the number of buildings in any way. If you are going to implement a limit however it should be a combination of both human(population) and natural (tiles) recources.

[Alexander I]

I don't see why you shouldn't be able to build every building in a city.

I can understand how you wouldn't need a barracks in every city, but it's usually the first building available so most cities may end up with it anyway.

But how many cities have you heard of without a library, marketplace, some place of worship (temple/cathedral), etc., etc.?

[Straybow]

Originally posted by sophist

Originally posted by Straybow
Rather than limiting the number of buildings, just make it possible for the larger city to have an advantage over the smaller city.

Which it does, in that a Library is a multiplier of the science rate, so a city with 10 base science derives less benefit than a city of 20 base science. Done and done.

Who says in Civ4 the primary power of city improvements will be multipliers? They could be changed to create tax/lux/sci directly, or to do both (like structures in MoO2). I don't know either way.

If in Civ2 (under Rep/Dem or celebrating Mon) I build a city and quickly set up 3 trade routes with large cities I can be running 20+ trade arrows. Since most tiles return only 2 arrows, that's the equivalent of a size 10 city without trade routes.

Since I hope Civ4 will reintroduce trade to remove most of the suckiness of Civ3 it makes a big difference. If they don't, there is a significant chance I won't buy Civ4 either. I want Civ, not a slowly evolving wargame.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Straybow
Who says in Civ4 the primary power of city improvements will be multipliers?

Nothing, except that's the way it was done in Civ1, Civ2, and Civ3.

Originally posted by Straybow
If in Civ2 (under Rep/Dem or celebrating Mon) I build a city and quickly set up 3 trade routes with large cities I can be running 20+ trade arrows. Since most tiles return only 2 arrows, that's the equivalent of a size 10 city without trade routes.

That's a flaw, not a feature. You shouldn't have to micromanage the creation of trade routes. And Nowheresville shouldn't be able to have 20+ trade just a couple of turns after its founding. What are those other cities doing trading so much with a little pipsqueak town that has no people, no industry, no resources, and no heritage?

Originally posted by Straybow
Since I hope Civ4 will reintroduce trade to remove most of the suckiness of Civ3 it makes a big difference. If they don't, there is a significant chance I won't buy Civ4 either. I want Civ, not a slowly evolving wargame.

On this I agree. Trade should be essential to the game, rather than an add-on. That's why I favor a more pervasive, fundamental model rather than something that's tacked on by moving little pictures of camels around.