I am new to this forum, but I have seen many ideas discussed here that I like and agree with. However, this idea may have been proposed before but...
Would it be a good idea to place people in buildings? Thus, instead of a worker, you could create a scientist by putting him in a science building. Depending on the level of the building, the scientist would provide a +10% boost or something. Thus, although a building would provide a small intristic advantage to a civilization, the main benefits of a science city is the fact that scientists work there.
Let me use an example from Civ 2. If the library was applied to this model, then the basic library (80 shields, I think) would provide a hypothetical 15% bonus to science. However, if a scientist is added to the building, then the bonus goes up five percent, another scientist brings it up another ten percent, and a third ups it another twenty percent for a total of 50% max (putting a limit on the bonus). Thus, the growth rate of adding more scientists to a building
Why should this idea be used, people might ask. Well, I'll put it this way: in a size thirty city in CIV 2, I found that much of my city was still agrarian in nature. Only the buildings added to my economy, not the people themselves. Thus, instead of ruling a civilization run by people, I was running a civilization run by buildings.
Many people specialize in a different field. Thus, this would allow cities to specialize, because the bonuses would get bigger and bigger. This would eliminate the 'super city' idea, that has built everything that it can build. A city can have basic level tax production, or basic level shields production, and then focus solely on science (or whatever).
This idea also represents modern society. Only a tiny fraction of the population in an industrialized society farms or mines. Many of the others work in processing, offices, or specific jobs that do not require work on the 'land'. This system would promote an urbanized society, since an agrarian one with few scientists (or whatever) would quickly be overrun by one that used buildings to the utmost.
Is this a good idea?
Would it be a good idea to place people in buildings? Thus, instead of a worker, you could create a scientist by putting him in a science building. Depending on the level of the building, the scientist would provide a +10% boost or something. Thus, although a building would provide a small intristic advantage to a civilization, the main benefits of a science city is the fact that scientists work there.
Let me use an example from Civ 2. If the library was applied to this model, then the basic library (80 shields, I think) would provide a hypothetical 15% bonus to science. However, if a scientist is added to the building, then the bonus goes up five percent, another scientist brings it up another ten percent, and a third ups it another twenty percent for a total of 50% max (putting a limit on the bonus). Thus, the growth rate of adding more scientists to a building
Why should this idea be used, people might ask. Well, I'll put it this way: in a size thirty city in CIV 2, I found that much of my city was still agrarian in nature. Only the buildings added to my economy, not the people themselves. Thus, instead of ruling a civilization run by people, I was running a civilization run by buildings.
Many people specialize in a different field. Thus, this would allow cities to specialize, because the bonuses would get bigger and bigger. This would eliminate the 'super city' idea, that has built everything that it can build. A city can have basic level tax production, or basic level shields production, and then focus solely on science (or whatever).
This idea also represents modern society. Only a tiny fraction of the population in an industrialized society farms or mines. Many of the others work in processing, offices, or specific jobs that do not require work on the 'land'. This system would promote an urbanized society, since an agrarian one with few scientists (or whatever) would quickly be overrun by one that used buildings to the utmost.
Is this a good idea?
Comment