putting civilians in buildings

phunny pharmer · June 8, 2000, 14:55

I am new to this forum, but I have seen many ideas discussed here that I like and agree with. However, this idea may have been proposed before but...
Would it be a good idea to place people in buildings? Thus, instead of a worker, you could create a scientist by putting him in a science building. Depending on the level of the building, the scientist would provide a +10% boost or something. Thus, although a building would provide a small intristic advantage to a civilization, the main benefits of a science city is the fact that scientists work there.
Let me use an example from Civ 2. If the library was applied to this model, then the basic library (80 shields, I think) would provide a hypothetical 15% bonus to science. However, if a scientist is added to the building, then the bonus goes up five percent, another scientist brings it up another ten percent, and a third ups it another twenty percent for a total of 50% max (putting a limit on the bonus). Thus, the growth rate of adding more scientists to a building
Why should this idea be used, people might ask. Well, I'll put it this way: in a size thirty city in CIV 2, I found that much of my city was still agrarian in nature. Only the buildings added to my economy, not the people themselves. Thus, instead of ruling a civilization run by people, I was running a civilization run by buildings.
Many people specialize in a different field. Thus, this would allow cities to specialize, because the bonuses would get bigger and bigger. This would eliminate the 'super city' idea, that has built everything that it can build. A city can have basic level tax production, or basic level shields production, and then focus solely on science (or whatever).
This idea also represents modern society. Only a tiny fraction of the population in an industrialized society farms or mines. Many of the others work in processing, offices, or specific jobs that do not require work on the 'land'. This system would promote an urbanized society, since an agrarian one with few scientists (or whatever) would quickly be overrun by one that used buildings to the utmost.
Is this a good idea?

June 8, 2000, 15:16

I understand what you are saying. (BTW: Welcome to Apolyton) However, I think the idea is taken care of by "converting" workers to Entertainers, Scientists, or Taxmen. I think when you create a scientist you are symbolising that he works somewhere. And it does raise the science yield for the city. Are you proposing that we place scientists in the highest building available (library -> University -> Research Lab)? If so, what would we do with Taxmen and Entertainers? I understand that an entertainer could go in a colleseum (stadium)but there is no room for furthering his ability. Also, I could argue that scientists don't work in a library or a university. Research lab - yes. But not really the others. I think the symbolics of changing a worker to a scientist are good enough.

However, I do agree that in Civ it doesn't feel like you're ruling over people. I don't feel like I'm ruling buildings, I feel like I'm ruling those damn heads. So that's something I'd like to see change. It has been suggested that if Civ 3 uses real pop (PLEASE!) that we should just send a percentage of the people to different areas of work. Is that kinda the same thing as what you wanted?

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

N_A · June 8, 2000, 16:19

Not necessarily. I think cities should span severl squares and have population densities. For example, an attack on a city could devestate parts of the city, and affect certain population or productions.

Par4 · June 8, 2000, 18:29

I agree with orange, I don't really see the point. Just having a % of the pop scientists is enough for me. If they want to go work in a library fine, but I don't want to make them.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

June 8, 2000, 20:12

N_A - "not necessarily" to what?

Par4 - Thanks

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

N_A · June 8, 2000, 20:41

Sorry, I should have been a little more specific. Considering that Civ3 uses real civilians with free will, different scientists will want to work with different organizations, and they should have a distribution throughout the city. These population densitied and distribution schemes would be important when a city is under attack.

June 8, 2000, 21:37

Eh, I'm still not convinced. I think the current system is just fine. Because if we have targets for destruction (Bomber, Cruise missle) and you want to destroy a library - the science rate will drop, along with the population which may cause you to put your scientist back in the field. The less Micromanagement - the better.

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

June 8, 2000, 22:16

I agree with OrangeSfwr. As for what you do with the taxmen, I say put them in the collesium too. They can feed the lions.

UltraSonix · June 9, 2000, 05:14

In reference to the original subject, I agree that there's no need for putting scientists etc in buildings specifically. This is because in Civ+/SMAC you could already designate special people to do certain things. And if the city also had a relvent building it would boost the productivity of the scientist. So this is pretty much the same have having a person inside the building.

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