Urban Citizens

[Shadowstrike]

Crossing my fingers and hoping for a CTP2 like city model (which IMHO is a fine idea), I also hope that the selection of specialists for cities will be better then Elvis/taxman/Einstein. Ideally, they would come in "slots" like units, with the scenario editor allowing you to create as many as you want and change the pictures and the abilities to your liking (through a simple bonus system, allowing the boosting of city resources by a number or percentage). However, barring that I would like to see more variation in city specialists. My idea is that they would become availble and obsolete with technologies, and give different bonuses (i.e. science, tax, science+tax, food+production, etc) and make them somewhat useable. What do you think?

[wittlich]

I agree that the specialist should be more dynamic and able to change with the times. On a related thread titled "Making Trade Essential...", the point was made about adding the "laborer' to the city specialists (to have 4 types instead of the standard 3). I agree that the Laborer should be added to the "specialist pool." I believe that adding the Laborer and making the city specialists more dynamic and able to do more as the civilization developes is an excellent point.

[Windborne]

I'd like the laboror, the tax-man, the scientist, the slave, and maybe an old fasioned form of the laboror early on called the craftsman.

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: I'd like the laboror, the tax-man, the scientist, the slave, and maybe an old fasioned form of the laboror early on called the craftsman.

Windborne, I too support "slave" specialist, because slavery had (and has) a relevant place in human history. Of course I'm not speaking of Slave as I red CTP introduced (special unit with super power), but "specialist" you add fighting wars (prisoner), by law or by trading.

About other specialist (e.g. craftsman), I think they fit better in a "Public Work" model, where you have all the available resources in city range (dynamic changing by city growth) automatically worked by your population, with specialist needed to fine tune main production.

So we can have farmer/fisherman for food, etc.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Roman]

I would add a labourer and a farmer to the Civ2 system of specialists. Otherwise I would keep it the same.

[Wernazuma II]

add a farmer?

that's what 80% of the citizens in civ2 were!

i once made a thread about this but it seems it isn't in the related threads thread anymore

i would suggest following types:

farmers/miners ->create food, 'arrows' and shields
labourers -> manufacture the shields
servicemen -> transform arrows into luxury
upper class -> transform arrows into money and science

i'd suggest the following rules:
a)citizens have to be farmers until all people are fed either by their production or food trade routes
b)the ratio of labourers and servicemen to upper class must be at least 1:1 (not more upper class)
c)servicemen becoming increasingly more important in modern societies
d)if there are no more shields to manufacture or arrows to transform, people are considered unemployed and are automatically unhappy.
e) in industrial age a city can have as many industries as upper class citizens.
e.a) exception for communism: a city can have as many industries as they want but cost a lot of maintainance.

what do you think?
what do you think?

[DarkCloud]

OOC: Wernazuma II, about your account; alert the mods in the "Apolyton" section of this site.

What I know about your profile is
-
REG: Aug 12 or 11,2000 or 1999 (cant remember exactly)
POSTS: 302-327

Apolyton crashed a while ago...

[Youngsun]

Another great thread which deserve to thrive!

Field workers such as farmers/miners/fishers should be lumped togrther as just "field workers" and they repersent rural population.

Anyone who doesn't engage in basic resource gathering work will do their job in the city and called "specialists" and they represent urban population

"Labour idea" was suggested by monolith94 in resource thread and I like it very much.


Field workers are farmers,fishers and miners who repersent country folks(usually content people but quite disloyal to central authority)

Labours are factory workers,construction labourers who represent lower class or bottom of urban pop(usually dissatisfied,rebellious)

Taxmen are corporate business people and salarymen who should repersent middle class of urban pop(content people)

Scientists are teachers,professors,doctors and researchers who repersent upper class or top of urban pop(happy people)

Entertainers are content~happy people and generate happiness for not very content people.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 20, 2001).]

[GaryGuanine]

I don't think the laborer is a good idea. I don't think it comes from history. Think of it this way. Up until industrialization (early 19th Century), cities were centers of commerce, not industry. The specialists in the game represent how you spend your "trade". One for coins, one for lightbulbs, and one for happy. The increase in labor efficiency brought about by industrialization is represented by the factory city improvement. It takes a significant amount of time to build, and it is the first (except for the Crusade) improvement that increases production. It is the laborer.

Gary

[Wernazuma II]

i have to disagree.
cities before industrialization were as much production centers. from the athenian ceramics production, armor in medieval milan etc. i think there really should be a division of available resources that are "harvested" by farmers and their further use.

[Trachmir]

Here's a thought, how about dividing labor into 3 specialists (similar to trade):

1) Craftsman: Adds additional city production.
2) Armorer: Adds aditional military production (This assumes seperate queues for city improvements/military units which I feel is a must)
3) Engineer: Creates Public Works ala ctp
perhaps even a fourth:
4) Corporate: works like capatilism

In this case Capatilism and Infrastructure are no longer needed as "buildable structures"

[GaryGuanine]

Cities were certainly not "as much" production centers as they are now. Sure, there was some industry, but I don't think that it warrants a type of citizen. I mean, why would it be called the "Industrial Revolution", and not the "Industrial change in the way of producing goods, though not that drastic." Cities developed as centers of trade, not industry. The entire point of the Taxman/Elvis/Einstein people is to divide up your trade. Why would Europe not have industrialized before it had if there was a "laborer" available to them?

Gary

[Youngsun]

Cities have been the centre of both commerce and industry long before the Industrialisation. Massive commercial activities simply can not take place unless there are some industries which produce things in large quantity. What about rennaisance period glass industry in the Italian cities? The Silk industry in Chinese cities through many dynasties perhaps? Of course, the collection of skilled craftsmen are one thing while labours who work in industrial complex is another. Still the present civ resource management system requires some change. Field workers repersenting both resource gatherers and industry workers makes things hardly realistic, furthermore this contributes ICS a lot by giving advantages to those who don't grow their cities well in terms of infra-structures. You simply build more cities rather than nurture existing cities. Only big cities can afford numerous city specialists, which I prefer to put them as Urban population, and by allowing to have labour specialist, who provide extensive labour point, that can be produce primarily by labours, people will be encouraged to have big well developed cities to outproduce the enemies who have many small sized cities which can not afford city specialist.

[GaryGuanine]

Actually, Youngsun, I see the laborer unbalancing the game considerably. The ICS strat would be so much more justified. You would have cities of, say, 5 size, maybe even less, with just enough food to support some farmers and the rest laborers. Then all people would do is use the extra shields to make hordes and hordes of military units and settlers. Production would be so inflated that people could mass produce units so quickly. I guess you could figure out some way to change everything, but then it wouldn't be Civ.

And I still think cities were not *huge* centers of industry before Industrialization. Most of the fledgling industries (Italian glass, Dutch textiles, Chinese silk) were very regional and related to very localized resources. THIS IS WHY Civ has special resource squares. That's what they represent. They significantly impact the development of a city, making it an industrial powerhouse (coal, iron), or a huge trading center (silk, gold).

Gary

[Youngsun]

quote: 5 size, maybe even less, with just enough food to support some farmers and the rest laborers. Then all people would do is use the extra shields to make hordes and hordes of military units

For the present shield system, that may happen but with the new resource system not a chance!

If cities were not the centres for industry then what was it? country side?

If you are so worried about modern things appear in the middle of ancient era, what about scientist or elvies?
Labour may sound modern but still can represent ancient era craftsmen just as elvies representing ancient era entertainers.