Idea- New terrain improvements?

[MattH]

It seems like CIV III needs more terrain improvements. The most obvious would be adding farms that upgrade from irrigation. Another idea is different types or railroads. You would build basic rr track (only movement bonus, no shield/trade/food bonus) and then be able to upgrade it to high speed (adds a 'tourism', or $$ bonus). Heavy rails would add a shield bonus. More than one type could be in each square, but they would cost $ to maintain, maybe 1/3 gp per extra rail, if that is possible.

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but maybe resources should need an extra improvement to be used. Oil would need an oil rig and a pipeline built to a city. Coal, iron, gems, etc. would need a mine.

Any other ideas, or is this just adding to much baggage to the game?

[WarpStorm]

I like the removal of second level farms. Too much micromanagement for very little payoff.

To me these ideas seem like they would slow the game down but not add any fun.

Sorry, just my opinion.

[Spiffor]

I think extra terrain improvements must be balanced by the reduction of existing terrain improvements, i.e the limitation of roads/railroads.

To me, roads/railroads should be only used to move units and connect to the trade network. Commerce and production bonuses should come from something else (I think commerce should be dependant on the population, the infrastructure, and how well the city is connected to others, NOT from worked tiles).
My biggest motivation to this is that a road/railroad sprawl is ugly and unintuitive for the newbies.

I suggested to add telegraph lines and fiber optics to connect cities between each other, which would give them extra bonuses, like reduced corruption, increased money output, increased research or increased happiness.

If railroads stop to bring a production bonus, it would be time to have upgraded irrigation, mines, and to have a forest improvement, sawmill for example.

[Kuciwalker]

Urbanization.

[epics]

Re: Idea- New terrain improvements?

Originally posted by MattH

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but maybe resources should need an extra improvement to be used. Oil would need an oil rig and a pipeline built to a city. Coal, iron, gems, etc. would need a mine.

Yeah, cool, was thinig about the same thing !!! This would be also nice if an oil tile would have number litres, coal tons of .., coal etc.

Spiffor
I think extra terrain improvements must be balanced by the reduction of existing terrain improvements, i.e the limitation of roads/railroads.

Agree

[Inverse Icarus]

i think they should have left the supermarket in, and made THAT give the bonus food, rather than the rail tiles themselves.

[Sandman]

I'd replace 'irrigation' with 'cultivation', and make only certain types of cultivation require a source of water, i.e. plains and flood plains.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I have a couple of thoughts I'd like to add to the debate!

First, though I don't think that there should neccessarily be any more terrain improvements-per se. What they should do, though, si include a new level to the editor which would allow to to edit existing terrain improvements, as well as create new ones!!
This way, individual players would be able to create several layers of farming, roads, rail and mines-but ONLY IF THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT!!! They can also create new tile improvements, like supply depots or "urbanization" (as mentioned above) if they want them
The second thing I feel is that all terrain improvements should carry a maintainance cost/turn. This would help reduce "Sprawl" in my opinion (especially RR sprawl). This trait, along with movement bonus, pollution rate, extra food, extra production and extra commerce, should all be open to editing!!
Lastly, there should be city improvements, and wonders, which have tile improvements as a prerequisite!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[Colonel Rhombus]

I'd be happy with anything that negates the necessity of building railroads in every square to maximise resources.

In the Civilization of my dreasm, railroads would double movement rates, not elimiate them. They might increase production to squares that have been mined and nothing else.

I want to see farms back in. That would be nice.

On a totally unrelated note, I'd also like to see different units (i.e., Carriers, Battleships, etc.) cost more maintenence per turn than other units.

[vee4473]

I'd like to see the "o" command (i think it was) that was in civ2 that allowed engineers to transform plains to grass etc..

Or is it there and i never knew it after all this time?


Being stuck on bad terrain with no means to improve it is poo-poo.

[Colonel Rhombus]

Transforming terrain creates too much flexibility, in my opinion. If you can transform even the worst terrain into a grassland utopia, then it detracts from the skill of city placement.

I'd bring some form of food trades between cities back, though not necessarily in the form of food caravans.

[Menlas]

Above all, I'd like to see the good old CTP improvements :

- air base

- watching station

- radar station

etc

[Robert]

All the CTP terrain improvements made me crazy.
I love the civ3 terrain improvements.

I think the only terrain thing that could be changed in civ is that cities should grow over several tiles. (so that even their influence zone should grow) and parts of (big) cities can be conquered.

[Agathon]

When you win a great battle (i.e. produce a leader) the game should mark the victory with a small stele on the tile. Imagine the map if a bloodthirsty warmonger like Arrian was playing - it would look like a graveyard.

[Argos65987]

Originally posted by Colonel Rhombus

I'd bring some form of food trades between cities back, though not necessarily in the form of food caravans.

I agree - there should be some way to move food between cities. I also have always thought that extra food should be available as a commodity to trade.