Terrain Improvement?

[snoopy369]

woo hoo! SoW commands is a spectacular idea.

I (as anyone following this remembers) love the worker, and SoW commands would take away a lot of the negatives I think workers have. SuperWorkers are a cool idea as well, sort of an expansion on "Engineer" in civ2, but i think probably the added complexity is not worth it (just as PW adds more complexity than the negligible value it would add, imho). Nonetheless, i'd love to see the 'ability' added into the editor, so mods could include one. (Heck, it might be possible now, with the right fooling around. Anyone?)

-Joe
Remember, simpler is better!

[Daz]

I voted keep it as it is... Workers are part of the CIV series, and they are not a problem (unless you have 200 of them...), though ......

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by patcon


The "Guild Hall" idea got me to thinking, superworker specialized units. Once a civ acquires a requisite tech (different techs for different actions) a city with a Guild Hall and build superworkers skilled in one particular action (farmers, miners, road crews, lumberjacks, swamp rats, EPA workers, etc.). These would cost as much as 2 normal workers (shields and pop). The superworker would work at his specialized action with the speed of 3 normal workers (a gain of 50%), but at the speed of 1 normal worker on other actions (a loss of 50%, the price of specialization). Maybe allow workers to join into superworker specialized units; 2 workers can travel to a city with a Guild Hall and be upgraded into a superworker in a manner similar to military upgrades. (If the idea of combining 2 units into 1 is too hard, just make them more expensive in shields an 1 in pop.)

Just when things were sounding good along comes another great idea

[Arrian]

Wow, close poll. I voted workers. I actually like the little buggers.

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Workers.

But I admit there needs to be some mechanism to reduce the tedium of terraforming. Either that or make it more fun like in SMAC, but I doubt they want Civ4 to be on that complexity level.

What I would really like to see is less terraforming in general. Does it not bother anyone else that you can have the map covered in Roads and Mines by the early Medieval era? Were mines so common in real-world ancient times that they covered the entire globe? If terraforming were to be made more expensive but with greater rewards, we would have less tedium and more interest in what improvements to put where.

A upkeep cost on tile improvements sounds pretty good to me.

[Arrian]

I'm definitely for only allowing mines on tiles that make sense (hills, mountains) and irrigation the same way (desert, plains, grassland), and all for making it worth your while to concentrate only on the best tiles at first... and as time goes on with better tech/governments other tiles begin to be worthwhile to develop, until at the end you've done the whole map, or nearly.

-Arrian

[Addled Platypus]

This is your Mine
This is your mine in C3
Mines are a terrible thing to waste



I will put down the key board and walk away slowly, but not for long

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Arrian
I'm definitely for only allowing mines on tiles that make sense (hills, mountains) and irrigation the same way (desert, plains, grassland)...

But irrigating a forest turns it into a grassland

You can build irrigation on hills too (terraces). As for mines, they shouldn't do anything unless there's some sort of deposit in the area (oil, coal, iron, etc.). Otherwise they are just holes in the ground.

[snoopy369]

Not really. Mining will generally find *something*. It's just a matter of how useful and cost effective that material is to extract. Deposits, in civ3 at least, are meant to indicate *large* quantities of that mineral. Unless you're going to tell me that there are only 8-10 locations in the world that have coal? :P

Certainly the civ3 concept of mines is intended to balance gameplay, not to be perfectly realistic. You should have a strategic choice with each square you use: do you use it for food primarily, or for shields? Irrigation and mining allows you to make that choice (on grassland and/or plains anyways, which most squares can be turned into, excepting hills and mountains, and tundra).

[Addled Platypus]

As the turns go by and I recieve AI civ's maps, more often than not the larger cities have about every tile in thier radius mined.

So one would think there is good thingd about mining grasslands, esoecially bonus grassslands.

What makes it real funny, I never see them with pollution problems.

[Arrian]

Funny, with Conquests I often find myself muttering about how the AI over-irrigates, and how bad it is at dealing with its pollution (not enough workers to zap it right away. I play wack-a-mole better than the AI ).

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

Arrian - maybe your AI's strategy is to run you out of food by causing global warming (but keeping plenty of irrigated squares for its food needs) while PR's AI prefers to whackamole and build lots of mines

[Japher]

Not really. Mining will generally find *something*. It's just a matter of how useful and cost effective that material is to extract.

So, when you build a mine it access a specific type of deposit that is semi-randomly determine and dependent on terrain? This could allot for the uncovering of resources through direct actions. Mines could uncover minerals, metals, quarries, etc. which can be used directly by the city or traded to other cities.

The same should be done for farming, allotting for specific type of crops.

Thus, the specific resources are not visible until you actually have the tech to identify and have discovered it.

I like the individual worker with a public works that acts as an overall worker queue. That can get complicated as you might want to be able to tell the worker to take an item from the queue that is next in line and closest in proximity to their current location, as well as being able to prioritize such functions.

There should also be ill effects for over mining and over irrigating such as pollution, but also "natural" disaster such as land slides or soild degredation.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Japher


So, when you build a mine it access a specific type of deposit that is semi-randomly determine and dependent on terrain? This could allot for the uncovering of resources through direct actions. Mines could uncover minerals, metals, quarries, etc. which can be used directly by the city or traded to other cities.

What a great idea!! Workers could also gain the "Prospecting" ability, that takes a certain number of turns to determine if there really is a mineral resource available on a tile. The number of turns would have to be arranged so that prospecting would pay off most if not all of the time.

[snoopy369]

Prospecting is definitely a cool idea. Heck, instead of iron and whatnot showing up on the map once you discover iron working, *all* of your resources would come up through prospecting. It would take say 4 turns for an ancient era resource to maybe 16 turns for a modern era one, 4 extra per era, and there would be maybe 2x or 3x as many resources (since it's hard to find them ). Some cultures would have bonusses to this, and sometimes goody huts would show you minerals (maybe when they 'reveal the map' to you they'd reveal any deposits of appropriate minerals). Also perhaps make a "prospector" unit that can prospect in a 2 square radius or something (in longer period of time, say 2x as long) but can't do any worker actions other than this...

Mines though i doubt will change in and of themselves to require a resource to be functional. They serve a gameplay purpose, if not a reality purpose, that is quite necessary. Perhaps a renaming (from "mine" to "mill" or something) for appropriate squares; but then civ1 fanatics would be outraged.

[Japher]

The prosepecting is a great idea! Would it be an ancient skill though? Also, a unit that could only prospect has good and bad points, it would be nice to see the engineer unit comeback with the prospecting bonus of being able to prospect in a greater number of skills as well as build mines, roads, rail, landfills(?), wetlands, protected forests/land etc... pretty much the same thing a worker would be able to do only more efficiently (even if it takes longer).

A "mill", IMO, wouldn't be a mine replacement, but a farm replacement along a river that would sacrifice food some food resources for sheild bonuses. A mine replacement would be something like a "quarry" that would produce stone or a luxury resource like marble as well as give shield bonuses, but less than a mine of stone or coal.

I think what we are looking at is to have terrain surrounding a city play a greater role in what it is the city can make, how it behaves, and how it influences the town in general. As well, we want to make the surrounding areas contribute more to the uniqueness of the city (which there doesn't seem to be any of) and to have the town also effect the surrounding areas in return.

Adding prosepecting would add another dimension to city uniquess and the game through trade realtions (can't trade it if you don't know if you have it, even if you have the required tech to know it exists), civilization type (ag, science, etc... building farm land because it's easier for your civ, only to have to destroy it when you discover plutonium under the corn), and unit management.

Good ideas

[Kuciwalker]

Prospecting sounds like just a bunch more MM...

[Arrian]

I'm leaning toward that view of it too, young Kuciwalker (nice merger of old and new names, btw).

It sorta sounds neat... until I consider the actual in-game action. I don't think it adds anything much in the way of strategy, and what it does add in "immersion" seems likely to be cancelled out by tedium. IMO, of course.

-Arrian

[Addled Platypus]

not to sound too silly


Would hydroponics be a:

Terrian Improvement?
Tech?
engineering?
half breed?


what's the verdict?

[Japher]

Hydroponics? - A city improvement?

The MMing for prosepect could be a problem. However, it's not like you HAVE to do it.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Japher
Hydroponics? - A city improvement?

The MMing for prosepect could be a problem. However, it's not like you HAVE to do it.

Just like you don't *have* to build roads, or try to find good locations for new cities?

-Drachasor

[snoopy369]

Hydroponics could be either city improvement or terrain improvement, depending on your view of it.

You certainly could make prospecting an option (checkbox). Then you wouldn't HAVE to do it. And it could also be made only to work with luxuries or something that's not vital to the game, just a bit of an advantage.

However, I'd like to argue that it's not necessarily going to add a lot of complication or micromanagement. Particularly if it's automated well. A good automation would include an option to "Prospect TO here" as well as "Prospect around" (prospect in an ever-increasing-radius circle, or in some AI-decided "good pattern".) Heck, how much more tedious would this then be than any of the other worker actions you use? Yes, it's just one more worker action, but i'd say that is compensated by the fact that you'd have more resources out there to be found, and thus more likelihood it's near by and not way the heck out halfway across the world for one saltpeter, which requires an awful lot of MMing to road all the way to it (unless you automate it.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Prospecting wouldn't be so much MM if it was done as a 'funded Public Works' action-instead of a 'worker action'. Also, cities with governers set would probably automatically assign PW points to prospecting within there city radius. Lastly, as has been mentioned elsewehere, tiles with terrain improvements on them already would automatically 'prospect' for resources!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Kuciwalker]

It's still just another, useless, step in the chain.

[snoopy369]

sigh ... prospecting as a funded public works action would be horribly boring. It would just be another science... much cooler to have different types of terrain have different types of resource, and choose to expend resources prospecting in certain areas hoping to find certain things. More strategic.

And yes, a PW could do that too. But it would be horribly complex, and at that point might as well build the workers.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Not really. Mining will generally find *something*.

Yes, generally lots of soil and rocks.

Originally posted by snoopy369
Deposits, in civ3 at least, are meant to indicate *large* quantities of that mineral. Unless you're going to tell me that there are only 8-10 locations in the world that have coal?

Very close to the surface? Probably not more than that.

Originally posted by snoopy369
Certainly the civ3 concept of mines is intended to balance gameplay, not to be perfectly realistic.

I don't see how it is balancing to grant more shields for holes in the ground on any tile.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dominae
What a great idea!! Workers could also gain the "Prospecting" ability, that takes a certain number of turns to determine if there really is a mineral resource available on a tile.

Nah, don't do that. Just make it an implicit ability, so when a tile is mined the first time, it will take a bit longer (2 turns sounds good). You will then know if there are any mineral deposits underground.

[Addled Platypus]

So pollution will only show in active mine sites?

Nothing worse than five mines and all pollute.

All those who agree say hurrumph

[Drachasor]

Remember comrades, this is a GAME. Just because something is realistic doesn't mean it would be a good addition.

Realistic things that are bad additions:

Decisions made for you by a governing body (cursed democracies)...

Military coups performed on YOU. (or non-military ones)...

Hurricanes, Earthquakes, dealing with the issue of weather patterns, worker rights, individual monopolies, corrupt government officies (that aren't bribed by foreign interests), etc, etc, etc.

Oh, and prospecting.

[semi-rant]

Seriously, what does prospecting add to the game but annoyance and tedium? It is already assumed that prospecting is done. You get a small boost in production out of a regular mine, and a much larger one when that mine is over a particular concentration of resources (such as iron or coal). That's all the hassle I want to deal with, and I think you'd quickly tire of building mine after mine and finding out there is nothing there, or constantly building workers just to prospect around your territory.

It isn't fun, and it isn't a good change to make to the game. It adds basically nothing except tedium.

[/semi-rant]

-Drachasor

[Japher]

Seriously, what does prospecting add to the game but annoyance and tedium?

What does it add?

-A limiting factor to urban sprawl and settler diahrea
-A limiting factor to creating super cities
-A time limiting factor to keep settlers from just randomly building mines, rail, farms for no other reason but to give a town resources which it might not otherwise have, or maybe should have
-Unique city traits
-Trade limitations
-The second guess in your head that maybe I should of made sure that was the best place to irrigate, what if there are diamonds or gold in them thar hills?

I can agree that it is a game and that ot everything needs to be reality based. I can also concur that prospecting may add too much MMing to the game. However, I like MMing and I don't think adding another worker function that has similar risk/reward options will hinder more than it will help in maintaining control of the game and stop people from terraforming their continent into mines and railroads.