Civ4: City Specializations?

[Andreiguy]

Civ's city system seems fundamentally flawed.
First of all, cities should contribute to the NATION, not just to themselves. The player could then assign revenues to specific cities.
A specialization (which could be made after a city reaches a size of 4 or 5, say) would not mean that a city is bound to that, for example a trading, industrial, or administrative city would produce some food, but after a point would need to be supported from the national supply.
Specializations would give specific targets in war, for example, a targeted attack on industry, a blockade of a trading city, or a "shock and awe" attack on an administrative city.

TRADING City - (Hong Kong, China) Such cities would bring wealth to the nation. They would not have to be on water, but would have very large bonuses if they were, especially in the early ages.

INDUSTRIAL City - (Detriot) Such cities would produce units and provide shields for large improvements and wonders in other cities for a nation.

AGRICULTURAL City - (Kansas City) Just because cities like Kansas City are centers for agriculture doesn't mean they're the biggest cities...In Civ 3, they would be. In Civ4 they could support the other cities with food.

ADMINISTRATIVE City - (Denver) Like the effects of the Forbidden Palace, these cities would have no corruption and would dramatically reduce it around them. Capitals would not have to be administrative, but would be by default.

RESEARCH City - (Space City, Russia) These cities would have huge research bonuses, but would be severly hampered in growth if not supported by other cities.

ENTERTAINMENT City - (Los Angeles) These cities would bring large happiness bonuses (depending on size) to the entire nation.

Once a city reaches a certain size, it could double, triple, etc. up depending on its surroundings.
New York, size 30, for example, could be TRADING, INDUSTRIAL, and ENTERTAINMENT.

In a national system, shields could then by traded via diplomacy. This would be much more realistic.

[pedrojedi]

That's a great idea! But it would be definitely be a Civ4 trait, and such change in the mechanics of the game would require a a lot of change from the current systems, to make it feasable but not too easy to kick some AI ass, since such changes would definitely benefit the human player, IF the AI of civ3 were applicable in this setting.

Advantages of this system would be a new "environment"/map that would could use, in a simple way: an in-nation trade-route map, making trade routes through the civ linking cities with happiness, food, and the player must set the optimum distribution.

There's also another opinion... Such configuration already exists, but in a much less detailed degree. You can set a city to be commercial, agricultural, scientific or productive, just by choosing some city improvements and not building them in other cities. The flaw is, you'll have a great disadvantage over the AI and there are no trade routes to bring a high happiness city's happy resources to a productive sad city with low resources.

[Spiffor]

I think city specialization will be done naturally if there is a comprehensive way to trade food and shields between cities and civs.

For example, if food can be traded, a city surrounded by hills becomes a viable site, bent on producing massive amounts of shields. If food can be traded, you can turn the whole population of your Newton's University city into scientists, and let them get fed by cities whose sole purpose will be agriculture (that's assuming scientists' output rises when there are proper improvements). If shields can be traded, your remote island city can become a naval powerhouse.

Some time ago, I thought of an easy interface to trade food and shields.
The basic principle is this : you take some food from a connected city, so that it gets pooled, and you give this pooled food to another city. No caravan units, no bilateral logic. The logic is not "City A sends food to City B". The logic is 'City A gives food to the nation's pool ; City B takes food from the nation's pool".

More precisely, it could like like this. Here is City A :

Notice the +and - buttons left of the bar. By clicking the - button, you take food from the city to give it to the pool.

Once you have taken 2 food, the trade advisor could look like this :


There is now food City B can use.

Click on the + button, and voilà ! City B will grow again.


Same mechanics with shields. Food and shields in the "pool" would be tradable with other Civs the same way as resources and luxuries.

[pedrojedi]

Nice simple idea

edit: It would also give a new diplomatic option!

[Panag]

hi ,

, it seems new traits are needed , ....


what should indeed be needed is something like "city states" civ's , civ's that only have one or two cities , they should be able to produce a bit faster , have loads of money , etc , .....

great idea

have a nice day

[Gramphos]

I love Spiffors idea.

That and stockpiling (per tradenetwork level) of all resources would be a very good thing for Civ4.

[The Mad Monk]

I was thinking along the same term as Spiffor, myself.

Both the civ money system, and the MoO2 freighter system show ways in which this could be accomplished. This pooling system represents a third. Abuses could be prevented (to food, and especially to shields) by requiring the building of freighters (otherwise nonexistant, like MoO2 frieghters), having the ability to send food and shields dependent on trade routes, like Civ3 resources, and having losses to the pool, based on overall corruption rates.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
having the ability to send food and shields dependent on trade routes, like Civ3 resources, and having losses to the pool, based on overall corruption rates.

I was precisely thinking along these lines, but maybe the waste would also be dependant of tech (better alimentation techs makes food waste less terrible).

I don't know for the freighters, though, it might be too much micromanagement.

[The Mad Monk]

You wouldn't actually have to move freighters around; what 'freighters' would do is dictate the maximum size of the pool, and/or how much could be sent from or to a given city. That way, it would be up to the player to decide how much to build up the internal trade network, knowing that cities that are building freighters can't be focusing on their own improvement or producing units.

[pedrojedi]

It would be aproximatelly like CtP

[Fishman]

I've found that some city specialization happens because of terraine and wonders. Iron Works, collosus, Newtons create city specializations.

As more of a builder type myself, most primary cities tend to get the same buildings. More building types might be the answer.

Have you tried Kal-el's Double your Pleasure mod?
With so many more wonders and buildings and slower growth, city specialization is more important.

[Panag]

Originally posted by pedrojedi
It would be aproximatelly like CtP

hi ,


, it should be way morte improved then CtP

have a nice day

[Spiffor]

I haven't tried the DyP mod, but I should give it a go. Does the AI understand it, and play with it with sufficient wits ?

[pedrojedi]

panag, that's why I said "aproximatelly".

Building a good web of trading should be possible in a future civ game, since it would make commercial attacks more varied and you could concentrate certain products on certain cities, creating monopolies and stuff.

[Egbert]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I haven't tried the DyP mod, but I should give it a go. Does the AI understand it, and play with it with sufficient wits ?

The AI does O.K. but does suffer a bit as is usual with modifications. You will therefore most probably need to go up a level in difficulty.

Excellent mod, I recommend you try it. I no longer play vanilla Civ since I found DyP.