Size1 cities limited to 3 improvements?

[Gammaray fan]

In the real world, country towns cannot have as many buildings as large cities because there would be no one to work in them. Since the Colonization system of assigning workers to certain buildings will probably not be implemented, the only way to accurately model this factor into the game is to create arbitrary limits to the number of improvements a city can build based on its population. Eg Size1:3imp. Size2:5imp. etc.
BENEFITS: this system would force the player to develop his/her cities differently depending on geographic location (if preventable natural disasters are implemented), and game factors (border cities more likely to have city walls, and baracks), and the type of game they are playing (a science oriented player will have libraries etc/cultural player will have temples+wonders etc/trader will have marketplaces etc/militarist will have city walls, barracks etc.)
RESULT: cities across the globe will not look identical. Allows different styles of play to influence the game more directly. Every game, every civ will have unique cities!

[airdrik]

I like it, and I like the limits you have, because most of the time, by the time you have built your third improovment, your city has grown some. Actually, perhaps the limits should be a little more restrictive, ie. 2 in size 1 cities, 3 in size 2 cities, 5 in size 3 cities, 7 in size 4 cities, +2/city size. Or 2/city size up to size about 10, then 1/size above that.

[connorkimbro]

Hmm. . it's a good idea, but i think it shouldn't be so cut and dry. perhaps if you build a building, that might INCREASE population growth, as you say, "people" are needed to work there, so people might move there to find jobs? it wouldn't be more simulated than simcity is, civ isn't after all a "city" simulator. . but something to that effect could be included.
i don't think it's really necessary though, but an interesting possiblity.


EDIT!!!

Just thought of this. This is SORT of already done. . in that buildings require upkeep, which is taken from the cities resources, which are produced by the workers.
[This message has been edited by connorkimbro (edited April 26, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

Have you ever seen a size 1 building with 4 or more improvements in it? If you have, what is the use? Nearly all improvements increase something by percentage, and if the tiny city produces 1 gold a marketplace won't do much. I think the idea of limiting improvements is useless, as I have not seen any problems with the current method and the game is quite balanced without this in regards to buildings and population.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Ecthy]

Yeah, I don't think I even start building improvements in CIV2 before the city is at least at size 2 or even 3... I don't really see the point in that suggestion...

[Gramphos]

I don't think it's useful, it would only delay the game...
You don’t build that many improvements in small cities anyway. And some Improvements do not need workers.
The only thing to do, if you want more realistic cities, is to add minimum size of the city for building a specific improvement (as in Colonization)

[Ralf]

Good idea!! Not only should there be limits how many city-improvements that can be supported by a given small city-population. Also, there should be limits how many cities you can found, and how large your empire can be, without the proper amount of administrating and law & order type of city-improvements within that empire.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 04-26-2001 05:49 PM Good idea!! Not only should there be limits how many city-improvements that can be supported by a given small city-population. Also, there should be limits how many cities you can found, and how large your empire can be, without the proper amount of administrating and law & order type of city-improvements within that empire.

I see your solution, but I have yet to see any kind of need... why exactly is this better than Civ2? I don't see how the Civ2 improvement system was even slightly unbalanced or of poor design, so why add rule after rule changing a game that doesn't need it? You only fix something that's broken, and until you prove to me the Civ2 system is needy in some way (and don't just say "more realism!!!" Give me a gameplay reason) there is no reason to contemplate any more rules.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Lawrence of Arabia]

No limitations

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

[Gammaray fan]

THIS IS A LONG POST BUT PLEASE READ IT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT
I'll give you a gameplay reason for arbitrary limits. Currently, a decent sized city (say, size 6) will have pretty much the same improvements in them if you choose to play a builder game (ie. not just barracks and pumping out military units). All civs end up building granary, city walls, marketplace, temple and other standard improvements. The only optional improvements that people might not build are improvements like Cathedral or Colloseum. This essentially means that city improvements are always the same, and do not really affect what type of game you play. As the world in 'Black and White' is said to change depending on the type of God you are, in Civ3 your cities should reflect how you play the game. With harsh limits, a city of size 6 say, must choose whether it builds a bank, or a university, or a cathedral. The gameplay effect of this is that cities will now actively be part of your gameplay strategy, just as changing tax and science rates directly affect your strategy. Choices are the way to allow the player to come up with significantly different styles of play, and for each of your enemies to be significantly different. The Civ-
Specific bonuses in SMAC were introduced for gameplay reasons. (ie. in order to provide different civs which forced you to play a different game) Forcing players to think about which improvements they build essentially is a system of civ-specific bonuses 'on the run', where the player creates their own bonuses each game, as they play! THIS IS A PURELY GAMEPLAY REASON. My supporting suggestion on another thread was to have to choose between 2 military units a tech gave you (eg. either legion or samurai). THis is again an example of forcing the player to choose, in order to make the player think actively, throughout the game, what sort of game he wants to play. This is a far cry from civ2 and CTP where the only real choice that the player had was between a builder and a military game. Much of the game was concerned with mundame 'housekeeping' such as building improvements. The reason why builder versus military was possible was primarily because you were forced to CHOOSE in the tech tree (do you want chivalry, or will you skip it because you don't need knights) CHOICE is the key to civilisation, and CHOICE is what has made it FUN and REPLAYABLE. It is not how good the AI is, or whatever. CHOICE is the key, and the more choice there is, the more FUN and STRATEGY there is to the game, and the more REPLAYABLE it is, because there will be an infinite number of choice combinations that will make up every game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cyclotron]

Thank you for giving me a good gameplay reason, and I must say I wholeheartedly agree with more choice. However, I wonder if building limits might actually stife choice! Consider this: I need to build a temple to quell the unhappiness in my size 4 city, so I do. I already have a marketplace too, so I can build no more improvements. Sice I cannot build any more improvements, I am now restricted to building only units and wonders.

Do you see my point? I like your idea, but sometimes it is true that rules to create choice end up stifling other choice by their very nature: They are more rules.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Roman]

I oppose such limits. More choice can be provided by a greater variety of improvements instead.

[Gammaray fan]

Good point, I concede. If there were so many improvements that it was impossible to build even half of them at any one time, the player would seriously have to think about which wonders he/she built! Perhaps this will require improvements to be era specific (since we know tech will be), and can only be built in that era. Otherwise, a player will be able to go and build all of them at the end of the game.
What do other people think of improvement overload, and era specific improvements? (they go hand in hand)

[Cyclotron]

Improvement "overload": I think that with balancing, this is not a problem. If too many improvements are build, the player will have to pay a very large amount of maintainance. That is the balancer for improvements. It will be a better balancer in Civ3, too, since Firaxis has been making comments about increasing the uses and value of gold.

Age specific improvements: Bad idea, IMO! Any time restrictions impose one time line and one way of progress on to others. Firaxis has ages... but these look like they won't make any gameplay difference (they haven't before). It is frustrating to work hard to build improvements for your cities, and then suddenly discover a new tech that nulls all your accomplishments and start over in a new age. Improvements should be constistently acting, long term structures that bolster the progress and power of your Civ. Making them impermanent destroys this.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[SK138]

I think it is a great idea to only have a certain number of buildings per populace. This is also good because a lot of times people will build a rotten city but have tons of buildings in it and the city is a good place to fortify but the population is still 1.