CITY IMPROVEMENTS (ver1.1): Hosted by CyberShy

[yin26]

-=*MOVING THE THREAD UP*=-

[crusher]

This is not a new improvment but a idea for the library.

each city library holds 200 years of information. sketchy at first but better as time goes on. you chose what years are recorded in a given library. if a library is captured or unmatained you lose the info on those given years. Kind of like built in viking scribe cliff notes with areas that say

------years lost due to fire in 1415--------
this way its like real record keeping

------------------
"War does not determine who is right,It determines who is left."
-Crusher-

[Flavor Dave]

I approach the general question of what changes need to be made in CivIII as, what aspect of CivII need improving as a game, not what needs improving to better reflect history. It is too easy early in the game and late in the game to take cities, and too hard in the middle.

One way to make it easier to defend cities early is to have a 40 shield improvement called barricades or outposts or something, that work like city walls, but not as well (doubles defense perhaps). Then, when the city has more shield capacity, you can upgrade it to full fledged city walls for another 40 shields. And later in the game, another upgrade costing 40 or 80 shields, that doubles defense against howies.

Medieval fair is a really cool idea, I think it would be neat on the city screen. But what would be its purpose? Is it a happiness improvement or a trade improvement? And, wouldn't it then be redundant to either cathedrals or banks? I don't get it.

One thing that bothers me and many other civvers here is how hard it is to use caravans early in the game, esp. on maps without alot of water. It takes too darn long to get the caravans anywhere. I had an idea that I put under units, that you could have the option of converting an explorer into a trading post, like a settler becoming a city. The trading post would be a fortress, and the explorer would have a1, d3. Any caravan within X squares (15?) could be instantly moved there. Like a paradrop. So, you use your explorer to scout the Chinese territory, and then it sets up a trading post.

You could also come up with a city improvement that does for caravans what barracks do for military units. If you have a city that you want to make a trading center, build a..what, a customs house? And any caravan built there could have some kind of enhanced movement ability. You'd have to either make the improvement cheap, or the enhanced movement pretty spectacular, or else it isn't worth building. I favor making it cheap.

The only other problem I can think of with CivII is that there probably needs to be one more pollution control device. When I have a really great city, even mass transit and recycling center don't stop pollution.

In general, we shouldn't add too many "net" improvements; there are already enough things to build as it is. I do think that the cost of some of the other improvements should be less.

Unless--one thing about CivII is that improvements get progressively more expensive. The only way to incorporate these ideas is to have a bunch of these "late" improvements have little effect, but be cheap. A city park costs 40 shields, and makes one citizen happy. A TV station costs 80, and makes 2 happy. A theme park costs 120, and makes 3 happy.

Given the stupid way the AI uses nukes, SDI should be a LOT cheaper. The huge expense of SDI makes nukes too much of a headache. If the AI actually used them to conquer, that would be one thing. Making SDI cheaper would unbalance the game in your favor. But its just an annoyance that takes away from my enjoyment of the game. And recycling centers and mass transit should either be cheaper, or they should work better.

Also, on this thread I see the same mistake over and over again that I'm seeing on the other "suggestion" threads. Folks are thinking about how to make Civ a more perfect reflection of reality, rather than making it a more perfect GAME. Think about the GAME aspect of it.

[NotLikeTea]

I would like to see the deemphasis of city walls, as the game progresses.

Look a round you... how many cities have city walls anymore? Once the modern age came around, walls were no longer used.

[Flavor Dave]

The post above is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Yes, nowadays, you don't see City Walls. (Of course, you do see the modern equivalent, army bases all over the place, but hey, we have to be literal here, don't we? And, we had the Berlin Wall too, right? I wonder what the borders of Israel look like.)

OK, say city walls become obsolete at, say, mobile warfare. Well, then there is ONE BEST WAY to win--build armor, and go on the rampage. Not's idea would obviously make the GAME worse as a GAME.

Another problem with the post above is that the poster doesn't realize that war is a much more important part of Civ, in modern times, than of the real world. In the real world of today, everybody gangs up on anyone who starts a way. But if you put this into Civ, whoever was in the lead entering the modern era would win, since you couldn't bring down that Civ with war.

That's why there aren't many city walls today. It's b/c there aren't alot of cities that fear foreign invasion.

If you wanted to make Civ realistic, you'd have to have insurrection be a much bigger threat than war in the modern era.

But then, if you wanted to make Civ realistic, you'd play two turns and die of old age.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Flavor Dave (edited June 05, 1999).]</font>

[Ecce Homo]

Why are there hardly any City walls today?

1: Modern artillery, missiles and planes can shoot across them like if they weren't there.

2: Nowadays, cities are too big and too rapidly growing to wall.

Let us concentrate on the first point, the strategic one. The appearance of fortifications has varied throughout world history. The decisive factor has been the enemy's technology - the forts in the Wild West were built of wood because that was enough to withstand the natives' arrows. One of the most sophisticated defensive lines ever was the border of Iraq during Desert Storm, because the US armed forces are maybe the world's most advanced ones.

Thus, the form of defenses should be an issue of cost and demand rather than technology.

-Suggestion for defensive structures-

WALL
Available with Masonry. If Civ 3 contains different resources, there could be a choice between wood, brick, stone or a compound. The wall is built "slot by slot"; each "slot" protects one unit (primarily), one citizen (second) or one city improvement (third).

Close combat units cannot attack what is protected by the wall - they can however attack the wall itself. Range attack units can bombard across the wall - random citizens, units and city improvements might be lost.

FORTRESS
Available with Construction (or Engineering). It is also built slot by slot, but is of course more expensive and cannot protect city improvements.

Units can only attack the fortress itself. As it is damaged, random slots are destroyed and the hosted unit/citizens are damaged/lost.

BOMB SHELTER
Available with Radar. Works like a Fortress, but is harder to destroy - does even give some protection against nuclear arms.

[NotLikeTea]

I really like the idea of a bomb shelter. We here in Canada had the Deifenbunker, to house important politicians and scientists in case of disaster.

Building one in your capital should make for more interesting battles to capture a spacecraft before it is launched.

What about air raid sirens?

[wheathin]

Gun Emplacements

After about 1550, every old walled city in Europe was obsolete. This was one reason why monarchs with access to bombards (early cannon) could force intransigent cities and lords to submit to the growing central authority. Defenses for cities had to be totally reconstructed, and were far more expensive. The new art of fortifications under Vauban, a french expert, created the more modern look of glacis, shield, ditches, earthworks and gun embrassures designed for murderous enfilading fire.

Civ3 should at least incorporate a new defensive improvement for the 1650's and after (lasts until air power, requires a post-gunpowder, pre-industrial, construction tech like Metallurgy) to reflect the fact that simple maintenance of a city wall would not have protected the inhabitants. They would have had to invest substantial sums of money and effor to buliding the new structures, or give up on walls altogether and declare and "open" city.

wheathin

[Ecce Homo]

Wheathin, good points!

I still think fortifications should be limited by need rather than by technology. Great fortresses should be available, but not built until the enemies have got cannons.

[MBD]

My two cents today:
I'd like to see a group of buildings which give the arts some representation in the game and improve either "quality of life" or happiness (and, of course, player score) such as a theater, opera, museum. The player can allocate some money from the yearly budget to support them.
I'd like to be able to "build" works of art that could be pillaged or stolen on the capture of a city and which could survive from ancient times to the present, similar to the paintings/sculptures in any museum today.
I'd like a (small) variety of factories/industries so that a city can specialize in producing certain types of things, like weapons.
I'd like there to be a way to dedicate a city to a particular activity, such as a manufacturing city, a religious center, an administrative center, or even a gambling center. I can see that building more than one of any type of building can be a headache. Maybe you could have different sizes/costs of a building, like a factory, where a larger factory produces more.
In the area of production, a guild building could improve efficiency, and a warehouse could improve the value of a trade route.
I also would like to see more ancient/medieval buildings.

[EnochF]

A quick suggestion about Airports:

They should be able to handle more than one airlift per turn. However, I understand that giving them unlimited airlifts per turn is also undesirable and might affect game balance, so let's compromise somehow. Either a flat rate of three or five airlifts per turn, or the number of airlifts depends on the population of the city (i.e., an airport can airlift X times, where X = the population divided by 5, rounded down).

Oh, and I also forgot to mention that I like the Mill improvement from CtP. It's a great early-mid-game boost to production.

[NotLikeTea]

More of a philosophy that a concrete idea..

I'd like to see more negative effects on improvements. As is, the more the better, always. SMAC went in the right direction with Punishment Spheres and Genejack Factories, but with advantages and disadvantages.

Could make for more variety in cities, rather than identical super infrastructured burgs.

[Ecce Homo]

About Airports and Airlifts...

Let's have an improvement called Runway. You can have one or many in a city - each one of them allowing one Airlift per turn. When they are not used for airlifting they are used as Caravans à la CtP. Each Runway cost one shield a turn, representing the demand of fuel and spareparts for the aircraft.

You can also have a Dock improvement, allowing "sealifts" and a Railway Station improvement, allowing "rail-lifts". This would certainly reduce micromanagement.

[Cartagia the Great]

I feel the need to, once again, state my beliefe that there should be city improvments that, like some special units, could only be built in certian governments and would have no affect, or better yet, a negative affect in order forms of government.

Perhapse, even, differant buildings would have differant affects under differant governments.

Here is a few examples of what I'd propose:

Re-education camps: Built under a Fachist government they would decrease the city population by one, but would turns three unhappy people into happy(brain washing :P)
Under any other form of government these centers would be a terrible reminder of a darker past and would create 2 unhappiness in each city they occupy. they would need to be sold. But, by selling them, you don't gain any money

Cathedral: Under a Monarchy, Feudal, Tribal and City State government they would make two unhappy people neutral. In a Republic and Democracy they would do this to only one pop, due to the govenrment no longer favoring one religion. Under a Fachism and Communism, these govenrments disapprovle of religion would lead people to look upon Cathedrals as a relic from the past, and would create two unhappiness due to loss of support fro the govenrment to religions

The liberary, under most governments, would have an increased science rate. Due to Fachist and Communism's banning of certian materials, they would be reduced in effictivness

the Voting Booth could be a building which increases happiness in Republic and Democracies, and decreased happiness in all other forms of government, due to lack of voting.

Those exxact examples don't need to be used, but what do you all think of them?

[NotLikeTea]

I don't know if it's a result of communism, or just the Soviet Unions, but they were very good at "Science cities", entire towns dedicated to rocketry, or nuclear energy. Could this be incorporated somehow? While the science bonus looks reasonable for communism, keep in mind it was the USSR to launch the first sattelite, the first animal into space, and the first man into space. Not too shabby!