Civ should be about nations, not collections of cities

[Cyclotron]

Thanks DrSpike, I try...

Originally posted by Trifna
I NEVER talked about buildings. And said in the message you replied to that I was talking ONLY OF UNITS. So I kinda wonder if you saw what I meant or if you're thinking of something I never talked of... It's the same dan system than now, but it's just in one single place and you allow your shields on units you wish, that's it!

When I said building, I meant building things, which includes units. I was using building as a verb. I usually refer to structures as "improvements" or somesuch.

[Trifna]

IMHO, the underlying model to Civ is History, not a dogma called "city model"...
Of course adinistration of a civ will pass by decomposition of its physical components, which may be cities since the physical decomposition view of a civ is through cities but this is no dogma. If it gets bigger and more linked, the physical decomposition may pass by regions/zones/pop agglomerations, as same as a very little civ of 2 cities in some game could be administrated by neighborhood.

A production that is coming specifically from one city should be linked to this city, and a production that it mobile and can be produced anywhere on the territory should be linked to... anywhere.

And my model doesn't limit the building choice at all: same number of shields, same units to produce. The only difference is that you can chose how many shields to put on each type of units, like in modern reality.

Here's an exemple:

[units column] [shields/turn alocation column]
Infantry..........................13
Tank...............................25
Settler............................5
Worker...........................11
.
.
.


In what such a model would limit the player?? It's the opposite, and it seems like a better interface.



Nota Bene: If it's really a problem for some, I don't see the problem about letting the city interfaces right as they are while puting what I'm saying... It wouldn't change alot of stuff.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Trifna
IMHO, the underlying model to Civ is History, not a dogma called "city model"...

If that were true, "Age of Empires" could be easily considered a Civ game. Will you support that?

In what such a model would limit the player?? It's the opposite, and it seems like a better interface.

What's the point? Why does removing shields from city control make the game better? It seems like your model would make ICS explode (many small cities could pool their shields) and it would enable tiny cities on the borders to generate units as if they were massive metropolises.

So, the system IMO is silly and abstract, and I don't see any actual benefit since you are still assigning shields to all your myriad projects. In fact, it seems more complicated, since now not only do I have to assign shields for projects, but I have to measure exactly the amount of shields needed for each project without wasting a single one. It's silly enough that I have to calculate the number of beakers necessary to get a tech with no overflow to maximize my tech advancement; It's just ludicrous to have to micromanage my unit building in the same way.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by cyclotron7

So, the system IMO is silly and abstract, and I don't see any actual benefit since you are still assigning shields to all your myriad projects.

Exactly.......the idea is sold as reducing micro, but that is either not the case (defeating the object), or is the case and the cost is removing some of the depth in the game.

IMO this idea has not been sold either on merit or micro-reducing arguments......I'm glad the original civ designers came up with the city model for civ games.

[LDiCesare]

One flaw with civ's city approach (less so with CtP) is that many squares in your empire are actually lost. So you'd better put a city on each of them if you want to be optimal. You can still disband the cities when they reach a big size if they start preventing another nice city from growing. I don't think it is really fun to lost all those nice squares, though I agree that it makes for intetesting decisions.

In fact, it seems more complicated, since now not only do I have to assign shields for projects, but I have to measure exactly the amount of shields needed for each project without wasting a single one. It's silly enough that I have to calculate the number of beakers necessary to get a tech with no overflow to maximize my tech advancement

Speak of asilly design: Why do beakers have to be lost? There is no reason. They could be capitalized for the next tech. It is possible to have two techs in a turn, but you have to have at least two cities in order for that to be possible. What's the point in such a restricition?
Same for shields: Assign them as a percentage distribution, and collect the waste for the next project. Where's the problem there?

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

Speak of asilly design: Why do beakers have to be lost? There is no reason. They could be capitalized for the next tech. It is possible to have two techs in a turn, but you have to have at least two cities in order for that to be possible. What's the point in such a restricition?
Same for shields: Assign them as a percentage distribution, and collect the waste for the next project. Where's the problem there?

What's that got to do with the city model? You can include those suggestions for beakers and shields within the existing city model; in fact similar ideas are scattered around in city-based civ already: civ2 has beakers that overflow in some circumstances, and the shield system in SMAC has overflowing shields.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
One flaw with civ's city approach (less so with CtP) is that many squares in your empire are actually lost. So you'd better put a city on each of them if you want to be optimal. You can still disband the cities when they reach a big size if they start preventing another nice city from growing. I don't think it is really fun to lost all those nice squares, though I agree that it makes for intetesting decisions.

The utilization of squares by cities can change without removing the city model. What you just mentioned is not a flaw with a city approach, but a "flaw" in how cities use and occupy squares. Implementing your ideas doesn't necessitate the removal of the city system.

Speak of asilly design: Why do beakers have to be lost? There is no reason. They could be capitalized for the next tech. It is possible to have two techs in a turn, but you have to have at least two cities in order for that to be possible. What's the point in such a restricition?

Well, admittably for beakers it doesn't make much sense, but for shields without the cap you could make several units in a turn, which screws with the game in a variety of ways.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


If that were true, "Age of Empires" could be easily considered a Civ game. Will you support that?

WHAT??? Hey, AoE is RTS! Do you really think your exemple is viable?

What's the point? Why does removing shields from city control make the game better? It seems like your model would make ICS explode (many small cities could pool their shields) and it would enable tiny cities on the borders to generate units as if they were massive metropolises.

Little cities would produce as little as before... What's the point? And in fact, in a country little cities DO produce some little parts of bigger constructions.

So, the system IMO is silly and abstract, and I don't see any actual benefit since you are still assigning shields to all your myriad projects. In fact, it seems more complicated, since now not only do I have to assign shields for projects, but I have to measure exactly the amount of shields needed for each project without wasting a single one. It's silly enough that I have to calculate the number of beakers necessary to get a tech with no overflow to maximize my tech advancement; It's just ludicrous to have to micromanage my unit building in the same way.

Well you have to calculate it as much as you presently have to calculate it for each city. In this wy, you even see your global production in a look.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Trifna
WHAT??? Hey, AoE is RTS! Do you really think your exemple is viable?

I'm well aware that AoE is RTS; I own it. You said:

IMHO, the underlying model to Civ is History, not a dogma called "city model."

If that is so, than would you admit that any history oriented game is Civ? You didn't mention anything about RTS or TBS, or FPS or RPG for that matter...

Little cities would produce as little as before... What's the point? And in fact, in a country little cities DO produce some little parts of bigger constructions.

Yes, but with your combined resource system, units could be produced in little cities using the industrial might of larger cities. It somewhat devalues large cities, because although the capture of a large city will remove that production capacity other cities can still pump out tanks quite quickly with the conglomerated production of other cities.

Of course, the main point is: what does de-centralization of production do for the game? In my opinion, nothing. You are still assigning the same amount of shields to roughly the same amount of projects, except you have made the system needlessly abstract and (dare I say it) unrealistic.

Well you have to calculate it as much as you presently have to calculate it for each city. In this wy, you even see your global production in a look.

That is incorrect. I don't calculate shields for my individual city projects, unless I'm building a wonder. If a rifleman takes 3 turns, so be it. With your system, in order to maximize shield usage I would have to carefully plan and count the shields that should be allocated to each task. I don't see that as fun.

Being able to see your "global production in a look" is an excellent idea, but you don't need to change the city system to do that. A window that summed up the production queues of all cities and allowed you to change their productions from that window would serve the same purpose without changing a system that, IMO, is not broken.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Trifna
Of course not! What I proposed is not an automatic movement of units system but an automatic production system! It creates, then you move the units to some new place if you wish!

Originally posted by Trifna
*SNIP*

[units column] [shields/turn alocation column]
Infantry..........................13
Tank...............................25
Settler............................5
Worker...........................11
.
.
.

So... where is the [City Production in column]?

It'll end up just, or more as complicated as before.

Since buildings and wonders won't be included in this model... you'll need to micromanage the number of shields assigned to each project AND THEN the assigned shields have to come from the cities. How will the remainder be calculated? Evenly? This will get VERY messy.

As I've said before... it also ignores enemy activity. Are you going to answer the criticism... or does your silence infer consent?

There is already an easier to manage build system, in a game interface; the Nation Manager in CtP2. Its not ideal: From a perspective of data interface programmer, its missing filtering and some additional control functionality. However, its already versatile, flexible AND functional.

Note the sortable columns.

[MrBaggins]

In the next pic, there is the second tab of the Nation Manager, giving an overview of building orders and build times.

Again, the columns are sortable to give you different perspectives on your nation.

In the previous tab I had selected a group of cities to work with. These selections have carried over, and I've removed a city from the selection.

There is, as you'll note, a mass 'RushBuy' button.

[MrBaggins]

In the last pic, i'm showing the group build manager. You'll note I'm working with 4 cities: Houston, Philadelphia, Memphis and San Diego.

List columns are again, sortable. I've created a queue for these four cities, that can be inserted at the head of their existing queues, appended at the end of their queues, or replace their existing queues entirely. Units, Buildings and Wonders can be included in the queues.

Custom queues can be created, saved and loaded. Any queue can easily be reordered.

[LDiCesare]

That is incorrect. I don't calculate shields for my individual city projects, unless I'm building a wonder. If a rifleman takes 3 turns, so be it. With your system, in order to maximize shield usage I would have to carefully plan and count the shields that should be allocated to each task. I don't see that as fun.

I do calculate shields for individual units. If I have 11 shields produced with a forest in the city, I will often do 11 shields + X trade on one turn, then 9 shields + (X+3) trade on the following so as not to waste shields nor trade. Especially useful for things that require 2 or 3 turns to build, and in cities with shields around multiples of 5 and mostly of 10 shields.
The point remains IMO that if you remove the caps on beakers and shields (and I can't see any good reason why I couldn't build 10 units in a city in one turn if that city has the power to do it, except that 1- the military model is poor 2- units should cost population), then providing high level breakup of orders works.
btw providing a percentage of all input already exists in several games of the genre: for science in moo, where you can spend your science on one or several techs, expressed in proportions, and public works in CtP which is a percentage of your total production.

I think the city collection feeling vs. empire feeling doesn't come from cities existing, but from the lack (in civ2, much less do in CtP2) of means to act upon the whole empire by giving a few orders (like "switch production everywhere to tanks except in ApolytonCity").

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
I do calculate shields for individual units. If I have 11 shields produced with a forest in the city, I will often do 11 shields + X trade on one turn, then 9 shields + (X+3) trade on the following so as not to waste shields nor trade. Especially useful for things that require 2 or 3 turns to build, and in cities with shields around multiples of 5 and mostly of 10 shields.

Very well, but whereas in the city system I can choose whether to "fine tune" my game like that or not, your system gives me no choice.

The point remains IMO that if you remove the caps on beakers and shields (and I can't see any good reason why I couldn't build 10 units in a city in one turn if that city has the power to do it, except that 1- the military model is poor 2- units should cost population),

Lots of systems would have to be changed, including the combat system, the unit production system, the military police rules, etc.

I'm not even sure if you could change the military system adequately. Pumping out multiple units a turn could very easily make wars of conquest impossible, because on any turn I could allocate all possible shields to one city, and end up with an instant army.

The problem with this is that there is no longer a buildup in terms of forces; there is really no way to outflank an enemy or strike at his forgotten weak spot because he can mobilize large armies there instantly, producing many units every turn.

Even if you were to make units require population points, I could still pummel any invading force by scrapping all my cities down to size one. In a good game, doing this would hurt my productive capability, but under your system it does not because my teeming hordes are already created on the turn that my cities become desolate villages.

The point is, production hinges on the idea that it takes time, no matter the amount of shields you have. Letting cities combine shields ensures that any good player will never spend more than one turn doing anything... the removal of shield caps adds insult to injury by making units take less than one turn.

Production is about turns and shields. Your idea would gut the system, and not replace it with anything meaningful.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
btw providing a percentage of all input already exists in several games of the genre: for science in moo, where you can spend your science on one or several techs, expressed in proportions, and public works in CtP which is a percentage of your total production.

I don't own moo, I can't comment. As for CtP, I despise PW, so that's probably not the best comparison to make to me.

I think the city collection feeling vs. empire feeling doesn't come from cities existing, but from the lack (in civ2, much less do in CtP2) of means to act upon the whole empire by giving a few orders (like "switch production everywhere to tanks except in ApolytonCity").

I would totally accept a system that made the conducting of city orders easier; that's fine. I just don't think changing the city system is necessary, or even productive to that end. Interface changes, as far as I can see, can handle most if not all of the complaints brought up here.