Buildings

I don't know if its been discussed but I think we should be able to build houses for more growth, but you have to constantly do it (not a lot) to keep the happiness up and to allow the city to grow further (and please! Don't let there be a limit to the population!!)

Also, I was reading the cruise missile thread, I think that you should be able to hit certain parts of the city (if you have the technology) and houses could be one of them, so thats a better way of killing the population of a city. Actualy, I think telling any unit to attack certain parts of a city would be a good idea.

With regards to your cruise missile idea, I think it should be given to bombers, which means a more realistic WWII in the air scenario could be made.

How about as a bomber or CM option where you can hit areas of dense population. I don't like the idea of "building" houses but I agree there should be a way to attack an area of high pop density to lower the city's pop by 1 pt. (or a percentage of the pop).

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

[MidKnight Lament]

Loki - For what reason exactly? How is it going to improve the game? Sounds like more effort for not much gain. Like a SimCiv.

- MKL

[UltraSonix]

You realise that each head in a city is supposed to be 10,000s people, so building "houses" would be more like building an new town's worth of house anyway. So building houses would probably be a bit unrealistic.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

noooooooooooooooooooo!

you misunderstand me

Firstly, UltraSonix, obviously I'm not talking about a house per person. Look at it like this, the city has 2,000,000 and I would like to see it grow, so obviously, I'm gonna have to build houses for people to live in, so I click on houses in the build menu, and it builds like...200,000 houses or something, and so your city can grow to 4,000,000 over time.

It's not a whole new town! It's a whole new suburb/s!

And now, I have got houses as an option to attack in a city, I can now directly lower the population of a city, CORRECTLY!

Hopefully you see my point in this. I mean, building houses for a civilization is a huge aspect, or do you think we should all live on dirt?

noooooooooooooooooooo!

you misunderstand me

Firstly, UltraSonix, obviously I'm not talking about a house per person. Look at it like this, the city has 2,000,000 and I would like to see it grow, so obviously, I'm gonna have to build houses for people to live in, so I click on houses in the build menu, and it builds like...200,000 houses or something, and so your city can grow to 4,000,000 over time.

It's not a whole new town! It's a whole new suburb/s!

And now, I have got houses as an option to attack in a city, I can now directly lower the population of a city, CORRECTLY!

Hopefully you see my point in this. I mean, building houses for a civilization is a huge aspect, or do you think we should all live on dirt?

[STING]

in another thread we were just discussing simplicity...

yeah sure we can make civ 3 feature-rich to make it as realistic as possible... but would it be playable?

frankly, I think this form of micromanagement would really stagnate the gameplay speed...

[UltraSonix]

Yeah, simplicity.

This idea just seems a bit over-the-top...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

geez! sounds like you can't handle running a civilization!

If you want to play a simple game! Go play civ1 for gods sake!

[Theben]

For realism's sake, go take a look at Thailand and all it's empty highrises after its boom-economy building spree. Actual construction doesn't make more humans.

Christs sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DON'T YOU PEOPLE HAVE ANY ****ING IMAGINATIONS!?

DO I HAVE TO ****ING EXPLAIN *E V E R Y T H I N G*??

Can't you just use your logical sense!?

OBVIOUSLY! <<<<<<< !!!!!!!!!!!!!! In the future, things are going to change, If I don't build enough houses for people to live in, I'm going to get a lot of diseases, and poverty, crime etc, THUS lowering the population, because their health is dropping to a point where they are dying!! So, you build houses to keep these problems down!

I'm soo sick and tired of explaining myself to a point where I would be writing a book on it! I expect you people to use your imaginations to your advantage! don't look at my suggestions as THE SUGGESTION, look at my suggestions (AND EVERYONE ELSES FOR THEIR SAKE) as something to work on to make it something worth putting in the game!

God! you ppl act like freakin babies!

[Christantine]

Three Cheers for L o k i!!!
If you want to see someone else explain themselves every post they make go check out my thread...

...Back on topic...

I do have to agree with the others though because that would be micro micro management. Maybe to progress in city size you would have to build housing complexes after the Sewer System like at size 20 and on you would have to build a bigger housing complex every other pop point to advance to a larger one.

------------------
I came, I saw, I conquered...my allies!!
[This message has been edited by Christantine (edited May 30, 2000).]

Loki, you saw my post about the CM/Bomber option right? Just checkin'. Wouldn't want you to be PO'd at me

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Par4]

GEEZ just give orders to units for city attacks, residental, comerical, industrial, government, utilities. Pick one and that unit will consentrate on it, or pick none and it is done evenly. I don't think we should be moving planes so this could be given to a base or in a window. Simple, not really hard, if we don't have thousands of units moving around in Civ3.

Edit:How did this get posted here, this is for another topic???????????????

For this one I don't like it, you don't build housing the people do, does the government, anywhere any time build housing or suburbs for millions of people???
------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
OMG if your hard drive dies,
And you ain't got backup of your files
Life sucks
Although I am doing a lot more Mountain Biking
[This message has been edited by Par4 (edited May 31, 2000).]

[UltraSonix]

Geez Loki, you seem to get at anything. Must be 'cause the cricket team over the Tasman ain't doing so well...

Anyway, Civ3 is about being playable by a large majority of people, not just hardcore turn-based experts. That's why Sid Meier has stated that the game won't use cutting-edge graphic so more people will be able to play. This also relates to that new graphics-engine thread of yours. Simplicity is often where elegance lies.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited May 31, 2000).]

[Grier]

I hate to be a nay sayer, but nay. It didnt hit me until the other day, but I finaly realised that the reason that I play CTP less than Civ2 is that CTP has too much stuff.

Each turn should be spent planning and executing your grand strategy, not micromanaging your cities.

Too many cities with too many buildings means too much work.

[The Joker]

Grier:

I fully agree! Civ3 should have as little city management as possibly! Ideally the boring chores of moving around people in the cities to maximize production, trade output etc would be completely removed, and with armies you should be able to move several units as one, thus not having to move around 80 units in the game.

In stead your time should be spend on fascinating new concepts like advanced diplomacy, trade that has actual effect on your empire and simply holding your empire together.

Think about how much time we spend on city management in Civ2, that could be spend so much better!

Christanine: Exactly what I was thinking, thanks for rewording it for me.

Orange: I saw it, I'm not PO'd at you.

UltraSonic: Actualy, this forum is the only thing that pisses me off in my current life right now. And can you give me the link to where Sid Meier said they won't use cutting edge graphics?

Grier: The only reason why CTP sucked is because they put too many USELESS features in it! If they put features that make sense, then that would be a whole different game!

Think of the houses as the build option to build when you have nothing else to build. Like the capitalization was. It's just a build option to fix up the city!

Maybe instead of calling it "houses" you can call it "suburbs" (I know you mentioned that, but I'm building on the idea)

Ok, my idea for building suburbs ties in with migration. If you build suburbs in a city than it will act the same way a sewer system did. But slightly different b/c of the changes people have suggested to the Aqueduct and SS. I listed a system that I think illustrates my theory.

Aqueduct - cities above size 8 are more likely to have migration and disease is decreased. (NOT a requirement to go beyond size 8)

Sewer System - cities above size 15 are more likely to have migration and disease is decresased. (NOT a requirement to go beyond size 15)


Suburbs - cities above size 21 are more likely to have migration and disease is decreased. (NOT a requirement to go beyond size 21)

Along with this...
A level 9 city without an aqueduct will begin to see decreasing migration and increasing disease. But at or below 8 no changes will occur. If the city has an aqueduct and is at or below size 8 than disease in the city is decreased, no affect on migration. (Change the number and name of improvement to apply the above to SS and Suburbs)


I think the system makes sense. Loki, do I have your approval?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"
[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited May 31, 2000).]

[Hasdrubal]

How about we keep the city building as it is, with a special 'Loki' button added. Press it, and you get to manually build houses for your residents. You can choose the architectural styles of the houses, maybe add some playgrounds or schools and, hell, even help pick out curtains that match with the wallpaper!
(Hope you can take a joke...)
There will just be to much micromanagement involved. But keep the ideas coming, Loki. You can't hit the bull's eye all the time. If nobody would ever imagine something new, we'd all still be playing checkers.

------------------
Ceterum censeo Romanem esse delendam.

Thats a better way of doing it Orange, because you're right, people do continously grow with or without SS's or aqueducts.

Hasdrubal, thats the best idea I've ever read!

[UltraSonix]

Sorry for the late reply Loki, it was 'cause of the stupid cable connection here in Melbourne (Anyone reading from Australia - don't get Bigpond Advance).

The juicy interview with Sid Meier is in mp3/ra at:
http://www.gemonthly.com/features/civ3/index.htm

In it he says stuff like how civ3 won't be using cutting edge graphics so that many people would be able to play.

(This will also be posted in the game engine thread.)

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...