In the country i live most "improvements" are 'paying for themselves'. Sure a mass transit system has to be maintained but the money for it is got from the tickets they sell. There is a policy in all public services (like mass transit, banking, posting e.t.c) won't cost money for the government and also not bring in more money to the government.
In civ-terms this means that many improvements should require no maintance.
This gives a dilemma.
Bacouse one single improvement can cost maintance, no maintance or bring money to you it may have different effects depending what you choose.
I'll give an example:
If you have a hospital it will have it's biggest effect when you pay maintance (beacouse poor people now can afford going to the doctor). If you skip paying maintance the hospital will not help so many people (since fewer people can afford going to the doctor).
If you decide to get rich on this hospital it will work even more badly, but you will get money from it.
It is a fact although that some improvements has to cost maintance. But it's also a fact that actual buildings is not the most important things in some areas. FE a small police force don't need a big expensive police station. The scool is not actually needed, only the teachers in it.
Maybe it should work like this.
The tax that you collect can go into different areas like:
- Education xx%
- Police xx%
- Trade xx%
- Health xx%
e.t.c
The percentages is not percentage of the tax money, it's more percentages of how much it's possible to invest in that area.
So for instance education is on 20 %.
A city with no improvements will cost maybe 1 gold per 1000 people. And a school will cost 4 gold and support up to 3000 people with an educationlevel of 100 % but in this case it can support 15000 people.
The city has 14000 people. a educationlevel of 20% will in this city cost 14 gold, but once a school is built it will only cost 4 gold.
The numbers and so on should be balanced but i think you get the picture.
In civ-terms this means that many improvements should require no maintance.
This gives a dilemma.
Bacouse one single improvement can cost maintance, no maintance or bring money to you it may have different effects depending what you choose.
I'll give an example:
If you have a hospital it will have it's biggest effect when you pay maintance (beacouse poor people now can afford going to the doctor). If you skip paying maintance the hospital will not help so many people (since fewer people can afford going to the doctor).
If you decide to get rich on this hospital it will work even more badly, but you will get money from it.
It is a fact although that some improvements has to cost maintance. But it's also a fact that actual buildings is not the most important things in some areas. FE a small police force don't need a big expensive police station. The scool is not actually needed, only the teachers in it.
Maybe it should work like this.
The tax that you collect can go into different areas like:
- Education xx%
- Police xx%
- Trade xx%
- Health xx%
e.t.c
The percentages is not percentage of the tax money, it's more percentages of how much it's possible to invest in that area.
So for instance education is on 20 %.
A city with no improvements will cost maybe 1 gold per 1000 people. And a school will cost 4 gold and support up to 3000 people with an educationlevel of 100 % but in this case it can support 15000 people.
The city has 14000 people. a educationlevel of 20% will in this city cost 14 gold, but once a school is built it will only cost 4 gold.
The numbers and so on should be balanced but i think you get the picture.
Comment