Manufacturing Capability Should Come Before End Product

[Lancer]

An example given by Markos in his thread on worker units gave me the idea behind this thread.

Why can we build tanks in cities without factories? Certainly basic units like archers should be able to be built without a manufacturing base, but tanks? Same with nukes, can't build those without a specialized factory in reality. Should there be different types of factory?

That aside, the factory should be built before the product, yes?

I think it would add a new dimention to the game, but it's such a new though for me that I haven't considered the pros and cons enough to form an opinion as to whether it should be implemented in the game.

What do you guys think?

[MrFun]

A BIG con:

Already, without your suggestion, you do not have enough time to produce a reasonable number of new military units before they become obsolete, so now with your suggestion, we would have to build factories BEFORE building new units such as Tanks?

Guess what - that might mean that we would have the Tanks become obsolete just when we get enough cities done with factories!

[Lancer]

The cost of factories are not written in stone MrFun, and partricularly the pace at which game time passes or sci comes in isn't. Also, the problems you mention would be shared by all. In reality, particularly these days, a weapons system is obsolete soon after being produced, but then so is everyone elses. Science marches on.

[Ilkuul]

I agree that you should have the means of production before you can produce! After all, you can't produce a unit without the prerequisite civ advance anyway, so this would just be a logical extension of the same idea; and Firaxis have taken a significant step in this direction already by linking production to possession of the appropriate resources.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Very good idea! And I don't think it could be that much of a problem. I mean, factories would be around BEFORE Armor, I'm sure. You'd need factories to build artillery, at the very least. Factories can be used for many units and mechanized units shouldn't be built without one... great idea!

[MrFun]

I want realism to be implemented as much as reasonably possible, but when it comes to taking the fun out of the game, that is not acceptable. I find it difficult already to utilize different units before they become obsolete with something better.

In my opinion, this idea really would not be so great. How real of a game do you want, and then, how much of the fun factor do you want to sacrifice?

[Lancer]

Reality is fun.

[jdlessl]

Well, reality usually alternates between terminal boredom and unbearable misery, but on the whole it's been quite interesting.

Lots of people here say that Civ shouldn't be SimHistory, but really, I can't think of any better description for the game. The more realism the better. If it's done properly (ie, you get factories with 18th century tech, so when tank tech comes along your major cities are all set to produce them), it will detract nothing from the game and add that extra layer of strategy and thought to it. When I play Unreal Tournament, my brain shuts down. When I play Civ, I want to have to think more than I do during my finals.

If we want to have an epic game, the best thing to model it after is the past 6000 years of human history.

[SerapisIV]

I like the idea of requiring factories, at least for the modern era units. It would an an economic effect to warfare and espionage. If a spy takes out a factory, suddenly you can't produce armored units. Also how likely is a just captured city whose factory was destroyed to be producing a mech infantry for defense? It can easily build rifleman, or partisans, who only need guns, but armor or howitzers? Come on.

The only other requirement I'd like to see is a marketplace (which is the closest I can think of to a blacksmith) for the artillery units, though not including catapults which only require wood.

I like building requirements for some units, but only in a small, highly defined group, the late mechanized units, and the cannon type artillery units.

I haven't figured out how to treat air units or ship units, particularly the post-industrial units, destroyers and up. This idea is really one that would need to be play-tested to make sure it doesn't imbalance the game or add too much complexity.

Wait a second...sudden realization. As it stands currently in Civ, how many players construct 80shield tanks or nuclear weapons in a city without a factory anyway? By the end game, rapid production is paramount, such that it pays off to build the factory before the tank anyway.

[Zeevico]

I don't think anyone has realized how perfect Civ2 really is. Look at it this way: Without a factory, it would take an average city 20-8 turns to produce a tank. THE ONLY REASON THEY CREATED A FACTORY WAS SO YOU COULD BUILD ALL OF THESE EXPENSIVE THINGS MORE QUICKLY. You could build a tank in a production of 1 city with no factory. You could, but it would take a hundred turns to do so. Same with a nuke. BUT perhaps you could have a penalty for it. Maybe the tank's equipment would be crappy (no factory to properly assemble parts), so you would get a 1 firepower penalty for the first few turns.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Civ2 perfect? It was good, but I thought it should be renamed to CivConquest, because that is all it was in the end. By requiring factories for heavy arms (pre-requisites for building) you add some strategy into the game. Instead of pumping out unit after unit and neglecting making improvements, the improvements should be a part of making units.

And imagine how wonders such as 'factories in every city' would be now worth .

[SerapisIV]

Zeevico, the idea of factories being a prereq for mechanized units adds strategy without micromanagement. It also focuses the player on city improvement over conquest, something that the recent reveleations on the game, culture, 2 pop for settlers, appears to be something that Sid is trying to stress in this iteration of Civ. Giving a firepower penaly adds only micromanagement to your armies (attack with a full armor, or a weakened armor) without effecting strategy. While I like the micromanagement of settlers (I know I'm in the minority here) I didn't enjoy as much the army micromanagement of SMAC as the more general military strategy of CivIII which is much more economic in nature, which side can crank stuff out faster, ie better infrastructure.

Imran, didn't they get rid of those improvements in Civ2? That was Civ1 that had the factory wonder right? I really hope that doesn't return, it is way too powerful, especially in the hands of a human player against the AI.
[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 07, 2001).]

[Imran Siddiqui]

I never played Civ1, so I couldn't tell ya . But there wasn't a wonder that had every city get a factory in Civ2. There were wonders that gave you a cathedral in every city, etc.

[MrFun]

Zeevico makes a good point -- Factories already serve a function in that it's required in order to produce units more efficiently.

I'm not going to surrendure to you on this, Lancer -- just don't send a nuke my way out of spite.

[Henrik]

I agree, factories should be required (I have been changing my opinion for almost every post I've read though ), just becouse you have a city whit a large population and lots of mined hills, you shouldn't be able to churn out tanks untill you actually built the factory, this could also be extended to affect some improvements (it actually allready is affection which improvements you can build).
Also I imagine the great use this could have in scenarios, you could have shipyards and weapons manufactories in a 17th century scenario, etc, etc...