No more temples to build in modern ages !

[BeeBee]

In civ2, when founding/capturing a city in the last centuries, you still had to construct all the old buildings like temples and colosseums. How unrealistic! Something should be changed. (perhaps colosseums replaced by stadiums).

On the other hand cities with old buildings (built in the right time!) could perhaps benefit from their monuments by the tech tourism (when constructing a tourisme office e.g.).

------------------
C'est dur etre bébé

[Jon Miller]

temples become churches (for western society)

collesiums become stadiums

and soo on

if they have the same effect why have diffreent names

Jon miller

[BeeBee]

Why? Just one word: realism.
That's what a civ game is about (at least for me).

I know there are also players who don't give a f*** about realism, but I am not one of them. Everyone his opinion...

I think that there's a point to be made about some outdate improvements (temples, aqueduct, etc.) But how about making certain improvements obsolete during certain discoveries. The Aqueduct should become obsolete with the arrival of sewer systems and things like that.

But as far as religious ipmrovements, I feel that you should have to choose a religion (much the same as you choose a govt.) and it has advantages and disadvantages. (Example: Islam - free support for a fundamentalist unit.)

Than depending on what you choose, churches or temples become obsolete. But both should have the same effect on your city. Make sense? Any suggestions?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited April 16, 2000).]

[BeeBee]

Makes sense

only,
the "choosing" a government or religion kind of disturbs me...
I mean changing a government or religion is not a thing that a nation suddenly decides to do between their soup and potatoes. This is something that grows and evolves slowly.
Don't know yet how to implement this in a game...

------------------
C'est dur etre bébé

[MidKnight Lament]

There's a few OK religion models around. The one in EC3 would be a good place to start for anyone who hasn't seen it. Note that in that model a religious victory would be added.

- MKL

[Gord McLeod]

I think it should be pointed out that temples are by no means antiquated or outdated - they are still constructed on a regular basis in many areas of the world. Don't confuse a structure that doesn't exist often in North America with one that has died out worldwide. Heck, it's possible to find modern temples even today in North America. And aquaducts are still used as well, though usually in a more modern form.

[Atahualpa]

quote: The Aqueduct should become obsolete with the arrival of sewer system

you drink water from the sewer system?

ata

Yes, I for myself made considerations about this topic. I even started to create whole tables where those buildings should be listed up in a certain row for the special era.
I'd say that we have to think about the eras and ages the game has to cover before we are talking about the cultural and civilian improvements. The eras/ages should be:
1. Ancient (Bronze Age, Iron Age, "Roman Empire-Age" etc.) 2500BC-400AD (Rome's Fall)

2. Mid Ages (Dark Ages, Feudal Ages, etc.) 400-1450 (Constantinople's Fall)

3. Pre-Industrial (Renaissance, 16th - 18th century) 1450 - 1815 (Napoleon Defeated)

4. Industrial/Imperialism Age (1815-1914)

5. Great Wars (1914-1945)

6. Modern Times (1945 until now)

7. Perhaps Future?

Surely, the years shouldn't be an important influence in the game; if a civ is faster than the others, it should be able to reach the certain ages before the others, but I just want to give an exemple...

I also think that the building types should depend on the civilization/culture/religion

Now, we can talk about the buildings for the certain ages.
Example:
1. Ancient: Temple, Marketplace

2. Mid-Ages: Church, Marketplace

3. Pre-Industrial: Church, Marketplace, but different from 2.)

4. Industrial: Church, Marke...
OK, I think from a certain point on, there won't be many changes anymore, except the Marketplace would become a Supermarket in the Modern times or something similar.

What I wanted to say is: a general discussion doesn't make very much sense, it would be more interesting and also efficient, if we started to get a little system into our considerations.

I hope this post will be replied, after my bad experiences in this forum ...

------------------
"The more I know, the more do I know that I don't know anything" - forgotten who said that...
"Within the peace, enemy attacks us..." - Kaiser Wilhelm II, August 1914
"Hell, yeah!" - James Hetfiels, while singing "Master Of Puppets" on Metallica-S&M-concert in spring 1999 in San Francisco

quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa on 04-17-2000 04:41 AM you drink water from the sewer system?

Lol! No I meant as far as city size improvements. But very funny! I needed a laugh...


------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Adm.Naismith]

I remember some time ago about a thread where was pointed out how silly is developing a city later: it will be very difficult to catch earlier cities, because the development (and growing) model doesn't change during game timeline.

It has been suggested to let cities been founded (according to civ era/tech development) with some improvement already built from start (or same effect in place).

This way, we can try to keep up interest in founding new cities later, helping also building player that develop they cities slowly.

In fact, I would like a more enhanced model, as people immigration, villages developing into cities, and the like already appeared on The List 2.0.
Still, if I must been limited to a more conventional CIV approach, I would like some tweaking into city enhancement model, without force me into an endless "build queue" of improvement for newest town.

------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by Andz83 on 04-17-2000 03:02 PM The eras/ages should be: 1. Ancient (Bronze Age, Iron Age, "Roman Empire-Age" etc.) 2500BC-400AD (Rome's Fall) 2. Mid Ages (Dark Ages, Feudal Ages, etc.) 400-1450 (Constantinople's Fall) 3. Pre-Industrial (Renaissance, 16th - 18th century) 1450 - 1815 (Napoleon Defeated) 4. Industrial/Imperialism Age (1815-1914) 5. Great Wars (1914-1945) 6. Modern Times (1945 until now) 7. Perhaps Future?

If we are going to have so many time periods from the middle ages on shouldn't Ancient time be altered. Even in your description you put three time periods together. At least, Roman/Greek should be seperated from early ancient time period. They had many differences in religion, government, and armies.

In my overview there aren't many time periods for the middle ages! Only one: middle ages:
But you're right about the thing with the ancient times. But in the ancient times the differences between the particular eras weren't as large as the ones bewtween the middle eras or the modern eras, I think

[Gord McLeod]

quote: Originally posted by Andz83 on 04-20-2000 11:25 AM In my overview there aren't many time periods for the middle ages! Only one: middle ages: But you're right about the thing with the ancient times. But in the ancient times the differences between the particular eras weren't as large as the ones bewtween the middle eras or the modern eras, I think

There's no reason to think the differences were any larger or smaller than they are these days - we simply have less information and data available about the more ancient times, and so we have less of a basis to separate periods out into convenient groups. Humans have always been very good at diversity and radical change... it's not really a modern innovation.

It IS pointless to try to develop a city later than about 1000 A.D. using the Civ 2 model because they're are just to many improvements to build and with such little resources (starting at a level 1) it's impossible. I propose that cities built by engineers start at level 5 (or as large as supportable) and come complete with certain outdated advancements (Marketplace, Library, Temple)

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[MidKnight Lament]

An important feature which needs to be in Civ3 is the ability to move food stocks from one city to another within your empire. Without it, the game remains unrealistic.

If a system was in place where you could move food from a high-producing city (perhaps at some small cost) then you could focus it towards a new city which you want to build up quickly. With an influx of food, you'd find that new cities could grow quite quickly if you wanted them to. Combine that with better tile improvements as the game goes on, and it shouldn't be too difficult to build up cities that you want to focus on.

This is pretty important. Imagine that you find a uranium deposit in an area that you don't have a city. You don't want have to wait ages before being able to utilise it properly, so you'd make sure that that city gets a more than adequate supply of food from your primary farming cities so that it grows quickly and efficiently. With all those extra citizens, you'd find that you could build plenty of city improvements quick-smart, and enable yourself to start mining that uranium in no time.

- MKL

[dStryker]

quote: Originally posted by BeeBee on 04-14-2000 10:39 PM In civ2, when founding/capturing a city in the last centuries, you still had to construct all the old buildings like temples and colosseums. How unrealistic! Something should be changed. (perhaps colosseums replaced by stadiums).

As Gord McLeod said, temples are by no means outdated. You're probably thinking in the "Western" way. Temples are still constructed throughout the world. Just think of a modern-day temple as a Western church. Churches are by no means outdated. Neither are temples.

quote: I'd say that we have to think about the eras and ages the game has to cover before we are talking about the cultural and civilian improvements. The eras/ages should be: 1. Ancient (Bronze Age, Iron Age, "Roman Empire-Age" etc.) 2500BC-400AD (Rome's Fall) 2. Mid Ages (Dark Ages, Feudal Ages, etc.) 400-1450 (Constantinople's Fall) 3. Pre-Industrial (Renaissance, 16th - 18th century) 1450 - 1815 (Napoleon Defeated) 4. Industrial/Imperialism Age (1815-1914) 5. Great Wars (1914-1945) 6. Modern Times (1945 until now) 7. Perhaps Future?

My version:

1. Early Ancient (Bronze Age, Iron Age (to some extent), 3500 BC-1000 BC)
2. Late Ancient (Iron Age, Greco-Roman period, 1000 BC-AD 400)
3. Middle Ages (400-1500)
4. Renaissance (1500-1800)
5. Industrial Age (1800-1900)
6. Modern (1900-Present)
7. Future

As you can see they are a bit generic and they're close to what Andz83 had, but the ancient age has been separated and a few other things changed. Also, we have to remember that Civ is not a "replay Earth" game; rather, it is "make your own Earth". That's why the times should not be that exact.

MKL, they already have that in Civ2 by using caravans, though it is not exactly a good model in my opinion. Way too simplistic.
[This message has been edited by dStryker (edited April 28, 2000).]

[MidKnight Lament]

You're right. Caravans didn't do it well. That's why we need a better model. The underlying factor is that it's entirely unreasonable and unrealistic to force cities to be self-sufficient with their food.

I didn't try to claim the best way to model this because I haven't thought about it enough; I was just pointing out that a better internal trade system (particularly with food) would assist in devloping late-founded cities faster, thereby helping to diminsh the problem of them always being vastly inferior to early-founded cities.

My apologies if I sounded a little strong there.

- MKL

[Urban Ranger]

Why are temples obsolete?

Just because there aren't temples in Christianity doesn't mean that other religions (e.g. Buddhism, Hinduism) wouldn't continue to build them.

As a matter of fact, just a couple of years back a new Buddhist temple was build in California.

Hell there's a buddhist temple located 20 minutes from my house. And I live in suburban PA, USA. Temple's aren't obsolete. There's just got to be another way of showing their value. In America a temple won't make 1/4 of the people happy. It won't even make 1/400 of the population happy. But in China a cathedral doesn't mean much either. A new religion model must be implemented, but it may screw up the wonders system. That is my only concern (E.G. Mich.'s Chapel)

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Jon Miller]

the religious buildings refere to those used by whatever religion is dominant there

cathedrals just represent a large religious presense/building that takes care of many followers and so keeps many people content, it is just a representation of it

I don't think civ needs (like warcraft 2 had) a different picture and name for every civilization that does the same thing, I would rather firaxis spent their time on other things

Jon Miller

[MidKnight Lament]

You're right on the money, Jon. All improvements are only representations. People take their meanings far too literally. It's the same reason you shouldn't have to build 30 supermarkets in a large city.

- MKL

[BeeBee]

I can understand that temples aren't necessarily obsolete in modern days, but one thing that bothers me in civ2 is the fact that when founding a new city at the end, you still have to build the whole list of constructions. Frankly, this is boring !!
Or don't you feel this like me?

------------------
C'est dur etre bébé

I hear ya beebee, that's why I like the trade and tech level idea (forget who had it) I feel if you start a city after you have knowledge of a certain tech it should automatically be in your city...or something along those lines.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[MidKnight Lament]

Important distinction - Are you opposed to having your city use production to build them, or are you opposed to having to issue lots of commands/set up a queue to get them all built?

- MKL

Actually, just the latter. It takes so much time!!

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[MidKnight Lament]

Thought so. After all, it's probably unreasonable to suggest that all those improvements (old as they may be) don't require production.

With this in mind, can you think of a better way to get those old improvements built using city production, but without requiring heaps of your time? That would probably be a better solution than automatically getting those 'old' improvements.

I keep coming up with ideas for this, but really they're just like advisors and build queues. I'm unconvinced that there's much of a problem here if we've got good advisors and/or build queues.

- MKL
[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited May 01, 2000).]

Glad you asked...

Solutions for “outdated improvements” and other ideas for wonders

Discover Banking (prereq – Currency) - all new cities come equipped with marketplace

Discover Monotheism (prereq – Polytheism) - all new cities come equipped with temple

Discover University (prereq. Writing) - all new cities come equipped with library

Build "Adam Smith..." wonder (prereq – banking) - all new cities come equipped with Bank.

Build "SETI..." wonder – counts as research lab in all cities (current)

Build “Mich’s Chapel” wonder – counts as cathedral in all cities (current)

Build “Da Vinci” wonder – counts as barracks* in all cities.
*Any city with barracks automatically upgrades units.

Build “Magellan’s Expedition” wonder – knowledge of all ocean tiles? (Not sure about this one, a little much?)

Build “Issac Newton…” (prereq. University) wonder – counts as university in all new cities.

Build “Statue of Liberty” wonder (prereq Democracy) – counts as police station* in all cities.
*Police station reduces corruption and waste by 100% (cummulative with Courthouse)
Why does a police station deal with military units? I think it should work like an improved courthouse. And why does Communism allow police stations? Police were around before Karl Marx (or at least some form). Democracy (IMHO) is a better prereq for building police stations.

Build “Women’s Sufferage” wonder – decreases unhappy citizen on continent by two per city (makes more sense than the giving each city a police station, IMHO)

I feel the United Nations will serve a much greater purpose if the number of civs is expanded, but that is another thread…

All ideas are IMHO so please I’m open to (and expecting) suggestions and comments…


------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Adm.Naismith]

I call myself a "wonder maniac" because I love to own everyone on the planet (Earth, Alpha centauri Planet or random map), building or stealing it!

BUT, and is a very big problem, they are so unrealistic, also as symbol of greather efforts and infrastructure!

They are also unbalancing, because usually a good human player grab much of it before of any AI faction. First step to the early end of game.

I really like more to link some enhancement to condition generally available to any faction: call it "age" reached, or level of development.

My draft proposal: why don't try to define some benchmark, some indicator of how well our Civ is. When it reaches some predefined level we enter that civ into this age.

An example: we build enough cathedral into our city to reach some level as 1 cathedral out of 2 city or 1 cathedral every 10 "head of people": our civilization enter the "faith era" where every new city founded develop automatically a temple effect (by natural effort of populace, by private initiative, chose one ).

Of course you can also fall back, if you abuse of your bonus and you fall under a level about 1 out of 3 city or 1 every 20.

If that happen you will lose your "virtual temple" and must cope with the unhappyness, the revolt etc. until you step up again.

Effects:

1) when enough of a more advanced improvement is built you don't need to build more old one

2) a builder can use better developed city to help new, recent city, and counter ICS players

3) you must decide if keep old (real) temple paying maintenance just to stop a major fall back if any occours (now we decide the same when we build some Wonders, but it's more easy to defend that only city to avoid trouble)

4) any civ can reach an age, because is not "only for one owner" as wonder, and we can also model some partial effect to any country in strict alliance (influence and share of social vision)

5) if we have a simple panel to check the level and a warning system we can take care of this "age" concept with less micromanagement of any "build queue + caravan help + settler help + wonders" I can imagine.

Of course we can extend the same concept to banks and other city enhancement.

Ok, anyone like it?

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

(A little off topic)

Heh, "wonder maniac"! I'm the king of that. I know I'm going against my nature when playing the game, but I think it's stupid to have the message telling when your opponent is building, or almost finished a wonder. I just buy the wonder to be assured I get it. I feel like I'm cheating :-( I think if someone starts building a wonder no one else should be able to build it. There should be a different system for wonder construction too. It's just not very accurate (Civ2).

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~