Power plants and strategical resources

[Mars]

It would be too annoying in my opinion, though quite realistic, to have a resource as upkeep, its understandable for an improvement, it was annoying for me just to have those food support for the settlers much less require it for units to move

[El hidalgo]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I found CtP's decision to unlink the proximity of water with irrigation and farmland sensible. The maps are just too macro-scale to show all the small rivers

Actually, it depends on the map scale. In the Mediterranean map that came with Civ 2, I believe the Tiber is represented (or in any case the Po is), whereas those rivers don't appear in even the largest world map. So you can make maps as micro-scale as you want. For this reason, among others, I propose keeping the requirement in (not like it makes a difference now).

I hope that certain wonders are linked to at least terrain requirements. I mean come one, how can you build the Hoover Dam if you're not near a river? Or the Lighthouse if you're not near the sea? Ridiculous.

[The Templar]

how can you build the Hoover Dam if you're not near a river? Or the Lighthouse if you're not near the sea? Ridiculous.

I suppose you could build it - it just wouldn't do anything.

[El hidalgo]

Originally posted by The Templar


I suppose you could build it - it just wouldn't do anything.

Good point! I like that -- you can build it but you don't get any advantages from it. I proprose that that be the rule.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Faboba
To require resources in the upkeep of buildings is fairly ludicrous consider in a war - you lose your city which you generate all your uranium in - all your power plants are destroyed - it's insane.

No one said the buildings would be destroyed just stop functioning. There is a difference. If your source of coal were removed I don't see how a regular power plant would work anyhow, since they need coal to run, not when built.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by El hidalgo
Actually, it depends on the map scale. In the Mediterranean map that came with Civ 2, I believe the Tiber is represented (or in any case the Po is), whereas those rivers don't appear in even the largest world map. So you can make maps as micro-scale as you want. For this reason, among others, I propose keeping the requirement in (not like it makes a difference now).

I hope that certain wonders are linked to at least terrain requirements. I mean come one, how can you build the Hoover Dam if you're not near a river? Or the Lighthouse if you're not near the sea? Ridiculous.

In the standard Civ game you generate a whole world. It would be nice if the rules made some sense on that basis. In CtP you could not irrigate desert even if it was next to the sea or a river until you had discovered certain advanced tech. More sensible than proximity to one arbitrary river allocated to your entire continent IMO.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
CTP 1 and 2 were NOT developed by the Firaxis team and will not be a source of ideas or code.

Hmm, think so? Then where did the idea of resources to use and trade come in from? The idea of armies?

Some ideas might have come from the devlopers sure, but you can't see a game, notice a feature that would improve your own game and then claim you never got any outside ideas.

It's absurb to say they didn't get *any* ideas from the CtP series.

[Ozymandous]

Re: Question

Originally posted by cassembler
Ok, let's assume that the resource system is the simplest we've mentioned- if you have access to A horse, then you can switch or initiate the construction of horsemen in any city that has access to it.

So, if you're crankin' out horsemen, and your horsey supply fizzles, then can you just keep makin' horsemen if you don't switch production to something else?

???

Hopefully some dude pops up and says, "Hey punk, you no make no more horsemen."

I would think the build queue would either delete the horseman it was building and then go to the next item, or send a pop-up window and have you change production to something else like what happens if someone beats you to a wonder you're building.

[El hidalgo]

Originally posted by Grumbold


In the standard Civ game you generate a whole world. It would be nice if the rules made some sense on that basis. In CtP you could not irrigate desert even if it was next to the sea or a river until you had discovered certain advanced tech. More sensible than proximity to one arbitrary river allocated to your entire continent IMO.

Well, if it's a completely fictional (i.e. randomly generated) map, then there is no basis for assuming there are lots of tiny rivers too small to represent on the map. Maybe there are no such rivers, maybe there are. Impossible to say since there is no micro-scale representation of the same world to compare it to, let alone anything in the real world. And I don't know what sort of advanced tech you would need to irrigate a desert; the most ancient civs of the world did it (Mesopotamia, Indus, Egypt).

I prefer the requirement of proximity to rivers to irrigate for reasons both of historical accuracy (major civs did develop on these major rivers, not on the many minor rivers not represented in civ earth maps) and for reasons of gameplay -- it makes rivers more vital, more of a strategic resource, like resources in civ 3. It's desirable to control rivers because of their great benefit just as it's desirable to control oil because of its great benefit. And that just adds interest to the game, IMO.