Simple Unit Building Idea

[Travathian]

Keep in mind, a lot of the late game units require strategic resources to be built. Maybe as a compromise to some of these ideas, these units could be built without the strategic resource, if a certain building is available.

Heck this could be used throughout the game. A laboratory in a city means it doesnt need saltpeter, a coal plant means it doesnt need oil, etc etc.

[cracker]

I posted this basic topic for discussion back on April 24th over on CIVFanatics.

Here is the link to the original topic post:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...threadid=21122

And since I did not post that info over here on Poly I have repeated the text here for the convenience of those who have not cross registered.

The key points are that the ability to limit units to only being built in a city with a specific improvement/wonder and the ability to limit the number of units that can be built in ratio to the number of cities already exists in the game and has been "well tested" with armies. These features are currently had coded to armies only and should just be converted to being unit setting features that may not be used for most units that have already been released.

-------------- April 24 message text ------

This is an open letter to the Firaxis development team, Sid (the Game God), and all the game players and mod makers who can focus on what we like about Civ3 and how to get the next level of enjoyment with the minimum programming changes and time lag.

I think that most of the key tools and code features are already in the game, it is just that the game is handicapped by lack of a big picture approach to implementation.

Much of this is found in hard-coded “kluges” to problems instead of implementing the same solution with a broader approach that will allow for flexibility, adjustment, and adaptation without each increment commanding programming resources in each subsequent patch.

The best “Worst Example” in the current game is probably found in the implementation of Armies.

Armies are a unique unit in that they are currently the only unit that is limited to the number of cities AND Armies are also unique in that they are the only unit that can be limited to being built in a city that has a specific small wonder or improvement already built.

FLASHING LIGHTBULB AND CLANGING GONG.

Why would someone spend the effort to write these coding constraints and then hardcode the restrictions into the general settings for the game that limits the use of the programming to only one specific unit???

Why not set these choices as options on the units dialog and then make Armies the only current choice where this dialog applies to the unit released in the standard Civ3 product?

Expanding the usefulness of this programming would only require adding a drop down menu to the units dialog page that would let the editor restrict building of units to a city where a specific wonder or improvement has been built. FLASHING GOLD STAR and CASH REGISTER DING.

You would also add a check box to engage a ratio restriction on the units that would let you restrict the number of units that can be maintained relative to the number of cities, or number of improvements, or number of another type of units. For simplicity this Ratio should be implemented per 100 items of the restricting prerequisite. ANOTHER FLASHING GOLD STAR and CASH REGISTER DING.

Implementing these army like features to be potentially applicable to any or all units will give you a set of tools that can be used by the game play balancing Nazis to help control balance without just simply making the units worthless, ineffective, technically and financially inaccessible.

---------
Other simple unit features that should be implemented along the same philosophical approach should include:


A unit support cost multiplier and a transport utilization factor. Both of these factors should be implemented based on a 100 factor being the 100 to 100 ratio.

An “obsolete by upgrade” flag that allows units to be built and then upgraded without eliminating the ability to build the first unit as is the current default implementation.

Units “upgrade cost multiplier” that allows the upgrade costs to be defined as more or less than the standard calculated shield to gold ratio of 100%. This feature will allow units to be built in some towns and cities and then “sent to school” in other cities for the upgrade without making it impossible for towns to build the lower units.

A “targeted unit” selection box and factor that allows each unit to have a defined other unit where its major attack or defense strength is most effective. This last item will have significant impact on letting the game play balance advocates control specific results without creating universal destroyer or universally worthless units. Examples of implementing this set of choices would be perhaps an A10 Warthog against tanks or a machine gun against infantry. These selective choices would avoid the seemingly silly scenarios where a longbow man kills a tank or where galleys can sink privateers 60% of the time.

----------------------

Note that most of these simple drop down box restrictions and other ratio restrictions already exist and have been tested in the game code for units and for improvements/wonders (witness Armies, Wall Street, Battlefield Medicine, and SDI). Just take the coding and tie it to the appropriate drop down boxes and ratio boxes on the units pages and improvement/wonder pages and the result will be 15 orders of magnitude closer to a rave reviewed product by the core group of users that will drive all the market expansion.

This open letter really is meant to focus on encouraging the philosophical shift to make the features of the game more accessible for simple adjustment because we need to recognize that the hundreds of creative minds in the game play and modification community will use features in new and creative ways that may go well beyond anything that the original creators can envision.

Also, this letter should emphasize a need for an approach to game play balancing that does not simply focus on rendering the included unit incapable of reasonable and cost effective functioning. There ought to be a winning game strategy that includes valid reasons for building and using each unit in the game instead of a philosophy that actively tries to prevent the units from being any advantage to the human player if the unit are built and utilized in an appropriate strategy.

... cracker .... (I have a real name and prewritten help files, just email me)

[candidgamera]

cracker:

absolutely.

probably said a million times elsewhere, but its like there's a thought process to CivIII that went to a point and then just stopped.

[Willem]

Re: Simple Unit Building Idea

Originally posted by nato
Someone may have thought of this before, but here is a radical idea...

How about, except for settlers and workers, cities:

1. Must have a barracks to build ground units
2. Must have a harbor to build naval units
3. Must have an airport to build air units

A possible exception might be basic defender units, like spearmen, which might be able to be built by any city.

I think this might be very interesting. Even if 1 is too extreme, 2 and 3 make a lot of sense. Just an idea.

Any thoughts?

Yes this has been discussed many times before. I suspect that the reason Firaxis doesn't do this now is that the AI is a rather sporadic builder. If the there were a building specific unit like you suggest, the human player would have a huge advantage over the AI. It would make the game very lopsided.

[nato]

Well, just to be clear, I did not at all expect to be the first to have thought of this ... it seems very intuitive. I just never saw it mentioned before; I must have missed it. It has not come up in Civ3 General recently at least, I don't think.

How well the AI can handle something is always a major consideration, that is a good point. However, I'm not sure why this would be such a huge problem for the AI, at least compared to many things in Civ3. Maybe I'm missing something...

[Panag]

hi ,

Firaxis , please put more buildings in , ......

any comment , .....it will get you freeeeeeeee beer , ....

have a nice day

[Willem]

Originally posted by nato

How well the AI can handle something is always a major consideration, that is a good point. However, I'm not sure why this would be such a huge problem for the AI, at least compared to many things in Civ3. Maybe I'm missing something...

Have a look around at some AI cities next time you play, especially in the Industrial/Modern eras. You'll see that in comparison to you, it's a really crappy builder. Better yet, play a entire game with the Governor in charge of all production, including structures. By the end of the game, you'll have a hodge-podge of buildings that don't always make sense to have. Tying units to a specific structure would be very detrimental to the AI.

I used to think the same way you do, but I began to realize that it wouldn't be practical. Maybe in Civ IV, after they've made some improvements in the AI.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Willem


Have a look around at some AI cities next time you play, especially in the Industrial/Modern eras. You'll see that in comparison to you, it's a really crappy builder. Better yet, play a entire game with the Governor in charge of all production, including structures. By the end of the game, you'll have a hodge-podge of buildings that don't always make sense to have. Tying units to a specific structure would be very detrimental to the AI.

I used to think the same way you do, but I began to realize that it wouldn't be practical. Maybe in Civ IV, after they've made some improvements in the AI.

hi ,

Willem , there are also examples where the comp does not build factories , because the AI does not have the tech's against pollution , .....also , put the default level of the AI at deity , total different gameplay , ...

have a nice day

[candidgamera]

Originally posted by Willem


Have a look around at some AI cities next time you play, especially in the Industrial/Modern eras. You'll see that in comparison to you, it's a really crappy builder. Better yet, play a entire game with the Governor in charge of all production, including structures. By the end of the game, you'll have a hodge-podge of buildings that don't always make sense to have. Tying units to a specific structure would be very detrimental to the AI.

I used to think the same way you do, but I began to realize that it wouldn't be practical. Maybe in Civ IV, after they've made some improvements in the AI.

discouraging to think something this basic has to wait for civ4. On the other hand maybe this the left handed way to cut unit diarhea by the AI - "she's made of wood and therefore she's a witch" have to invoke barracks all the way or it would be 10000 warriors

[Willem]

Originally posted by candidgamera


discouraging to think something this basic has to wait for civ4. On the other hand maybe this the left handed way to cut unit diarhea by the AI - "she's made of wood and therefore she's a witch" have to invoke barracks all the way or it would be 10000 warriors

There's a very simple way of reducing the number of units in a game. Go to Governments in the editor and increase the basic maintenance costs for each gov. They won't be able to afford as many units, but then either will you.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Willem


There's a very simple way of reducing the number of units in a game. Go to Governments in the editor and increase the basic maintenance costs for each gov. They won't be able to afford as many units, but then either will you.

hi ,

and just why would one do that , this puts all the fun out , .......

have a nice day

[cracker]

There are a number of realtively simple things that can be done to limit the number of units that can be built.

Increasing the basic unit support costs from 1 up to 2 or 3 would limit the units built for sure, but it would logically cripple the human player even more than the AIs so that doesn't seem like a very bright idea.

Having all the units have the exact same unit support cost has been another thing that should not be hard coded. It would be very simple to set a unit support cost multiplier on the units page of the editor so that battleships might get a support cost of 400 gold per 100 battleships while mines and missles could have a support cost of 20 gold per 100.

Without implementing alternative methods of controlling the number and type of units that get built in the game, we end up with the bad set of circumstances where the only limiting values that get set are controlled by making the units extra expensive or funcationally handicapped.

In the big picture, these limit changes that let you specify that the number of units of a certain type that can be built should be limited to the number of cities or limited to the number of another type of unit DO NOT have to impact any standard game play issues that already exist. There is just no logical reason to have these program functions available in the code and then hardcode them so that they cannot be applied to more than one unit. Its the logical equivalent of figuring out how to build the Model T car cheaply and then saying, "but Oh by the way, only Henry Ford can drive one."

[playshogi]

Frankly, not only is the airport useless, but air units themselves are quite useless. I never build any. Artillery, with unlimited rail movement, are much more flexible.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Willem


Have a look around at some AI cities next time you play, especially in the Industrial/Modern eras. You'll see that in comparison to you, it's a really crappy builder. Better yet, play a entire game with the Governor in charge of all production, including structures. By the end of the game, you'll have a hodge-podge of buildings that don't always make sense to have. Tying units to a specific structure would be very detrimental to the AI.

I used to think the same way you do, but I began to realize that it wouldn't be practical. Maybe in Civ IV, after they've made some improvements in the AI.

Has anyone seen the AI go for the small wonder to build armies? If so that would prove that the AI is capable of understanding the need to complete a building in order to get to a unit.

[Willem]

Originally posted by cracker

Increasing the basic unit support costs from 1 up to 2 or 3 would limit the units built for sure, but it would logically cripple the human player even more than the AIs so that doesn't seem like a very bright idea.

I've been doing that in my games, and I don't have any problems with it. There's still plenty of units on the map, and I don't feel it cripples me at all. In fact, it probably gives me something of an advantage since I can do a better job of generating revenue than the AI can.

Having all the units have the exact same unit support cost has been another thing that should not be hard coded. It would be very simple to set a unit support cost multiplier on the units page of the editor so that battleships might get a support cost of 400 gold per 100 battleships while mines and missles could have a support cost of 20 gold per 100.

I certainly agree with you there. It makes no sense to me that Modern Armour has the same maintenance costs as an Archer. Each unit should have it's own costs associated with it, not just a blanket rate for everything. At the very least, the cost for a unit should increase in each era. And I agree with your argument, there should be no reason why this can't be adjusted in the units screen, instead of hardcoded.