RADICAL IDEAS (ver1.1): Hosted by Rong

[Eggman]

I think you are talking to me, Flavor Dave. I am the Eggman (coo-coo-ka-choo).

I am flexible on the maintenance costs. Whatever works best. Some possible options that come to mind:
1) You have to pay full maintenance. Obviously, having lots of excess buildings is not a good idea.
2) You still have to pay maintenance but since you aren't using them, the cost is reduced by half. There is no wear and tear from use so the costs are reduced.
3) You do not have to pay maintenance. They just don't work.
4) You do not have to pay maintence. However, if you do not use the building for a for a long time, the buildings start falling apart on their own. You do not get any money if they become ruined since they are now abandoned buildings.
5) Etc.

Here are some reasons why I like this idea:
1) Larger cities are more valuable. This provides motivation for those perfectionist players to build the infrastructure.
2) Realism. I know I am talking to the wrong person on this (No, I don't want to die of old age) but many of these city improvements are not practical for small cities or villages. How many real life size one villages have city walls? Moreover, could Hiroshima use factories and banks after it had its population reduced dramatically by the bomb? How useful is a city if half its population just emigrated or became refugees from your merciless army?
3) ICS is neutered somewhat. Ten small cities, even with the bonus production of the base square are weak compared to a size ten city since they can't build marketplaces or libraries or even barracks until they get larger (not much larger - obviously play balance is key here).

[Flavor Dave]

I don't have a problem with realism. I just would make it secondary to gameplay. In your case, I would disregard the whole realism thing, and consider your idea an attempt to rein in the ICS. But my question is, don't the maintenance costs do what you propose? Why would you build a bank in a small city, anyway--why invest 120 shields in an improvement that costs 3 (or is it 2) maintenance, and won't make you any money. You're better off building 3 settlers, anyway.

Plus, what you're suggesting would really hurt the AI, as it is now programmed. Like I said, those size 3 cities in 1950 will have all of the improvements. It's fun to go after the big cities and leave the small ones untouched, and then watch the AIs gold reserve plummet, as the maintenance costs kill it. At least if the AI is gonna build all of that stuff, it should get something out of it.

[Bigcivfan]

I like your idea of military units being restricted to city size, Eggman. Although realism comes second to fun in CIVIII, it is often the realism that makes the game fun. I suggested that each unit should count as one citizen of the city. This would represent that a part of the population would be drawn away to serve in the army. If a unit of yours went to a city, it would add one pop. to the city, representing the effect of a garrison of soldiers on the local economy.

[Eggman]

Well, I really wasn't thinking of banks and stock markets. They self-regulate. I was thinking more of city walls, cathedrals, factories, barracks, universities and stuff like that. The way I see it, it should have somewhat limited effect on early development (except for size one and two cities which should be useless and near useless respectively). Your population will usually be around the target size when you are ready to build them anyway. Where it really shines is in war situations where losses in population wreck true havoc. Those bombing raids suddenly hurt a whole lot more. You care if refugees are trying to get away (BTW, did I mention I like the idea of refugees?) And you, the totalitarian dictator, may want to close your borders to immigration out of self-preservation.

As for the units, if you can't build anything bigger than a warrior or phalanx unit (except in the capital where these restrictions don't count), ICS loses its luster. I hope.

Just a thought. Feel free to improve or disprove it.

[Theben]

I think yer talking to Eggman.

[Jakester]

OK. I put this on the other civ3 section but it didn't get noticed so here it is again and PLEASE someone just tell me what u think about my ideas here. I think a new approach to creating new cities could be implemented in civ3. First of all governments usually didnt have control over new settlements. Religion or overcrowding were usually main reasons. I'm not to sure where to go with this but i have a couple of ideas. First: settler units are created randomly when conditons in the city arent too good. Second: or maybe towns could pop up when the conditons I talked are in affect or people seeking new new riches and adventure. Does california gold rush mean anything. Suitable sites around your empire could turn into towns . Towns could be something like a city just be spread out more across the map. This would make a larger map funner and maybe easier to play.Your military units could create military outposts and fortresses to protect these towns which would soon combine to make cities and people would build towns around your forts because of the protection they offered like in the wild west when america was growing but indians were still a threat. This stuff isn't to radical but it I think using some of these ideas could possibly improve the game in many ways.

( "hit em hard and hit em fast") George Patton

[yin26]

O.K. I don't know what happened to Rong, and nobody else has volunteered to do the summary. Soooo, I'll have to do it (and GAME ATMOSPHERE--any takers?).

I'm going to close this thread relatively soon, but anything below my post here will NOT make it into version 1 of the list.

Re: the game atmosphere thread, I came across a fresh post from Dominique on the Clash of Civs thread - she's actually a thread master there. I'd like to do it but I can't.....