Get Rid of City Improvements!

[St Leo]

Size 20 cities do not remain without a bank indefinetly in real life - why should they in civ? Instead of building city improvements, they should automatically come to exist based on terrain, social engineering, and an expanded tax rate control panel. Cities should be limited to building units and wonders, thus reducing micromanagement and providing a smoother journey through the ages.

------------------
St. Leo
http://ziggurat.sidgames.com/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

[TheLimey]

Why not just abstract the whole civilization totally? Just generate random numbers each turn to simulate success or failure.

I don't agree. City improvements aren't the problem in civ... they get built at relatively slow rates, and take virtually no management anyway.

Wheres the big loss in micromanagement?

[UltraSonix]

I actually partially agree with St Leo, but I have a different perspective.

How about having a few improvements that are awarded free upon availability to certain civs. This was already done in SMAC where, for example, all the University cities were given a free network node. So perhaps a civ that was heavily steeped in economic-orientated social-enginnering choices would receive free banks etc. But this would be limited so that civs would still have to build the vast majority of improvements.

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

[Tiberius]

I agree with TheLimey but I want to say more: not the micromanagement is the problem in Civ2, but to much micromanagement. Some people actually like to micromanage (like myself). I just hope that Firaxis will keep a right balance between micromanagement and the other elements of the game.


[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited June 27, 2000).]

[Grier]

You shouldnt take things so literaly, for example a bank improvement does not represent a high-street branch of a commercial bank, but rather a regional office for the civ's central bank (such as the Eurpoean Central Bank, the bank of England, or a member of the Fedral Reserve).

Besides, one of the aspects of the game is the trade off between building city improvements and units.

[Par4]

I'm sure Firaxis will fix the city improvements, I'm too lazy to post all mine here but I've always felt it was very unrealistic.

------------------
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
There is no spoon
-The Matrix
Let's kick it up a notch!!
-Emeril Lagasse
Fresh Soy makes Tofu so silky
-Ming Tsai

[abuzayd]

I'm sure that Civ 3 will, like SMAC, have a relatively advanced governor option, so you can eliminate the micromanagement if you want to.

What I would like to see would be the ability to create and save one or more "templates" for one's production queue, then simply select the template instead of having to fill in each queue separately.

[phunny pharmer]

I agree partially, St Leo, however:

1) What will you replace it with? Having civs just churn out wonders and military units isn't realistic either.

2) How do you represent the bonuses that urbanization and industrialization bring to a civilization?

3) How else will you increase your science output. Pure trade arrows just won't do it.

I think the problem is not the fact that there are too many city improvements, but I think that there are too few. Look around you in a democracy: what percent of what's built goes to the military, or to a monumental project that could be considered a wonder? I would guess more than two thirds of what's built in real life goes to building city improvements, for tangible civilian benefits. Thus, I think that the game needs more building choices (at least in later ages) to reflect this.

[Ari Rahikkala]

Get rid of city improvements - NO!

St Leo, do you know what the player is in Civilization games? I can't remember was it somebody from Civ team, but somebody has said that the player is the "spirit of that civilization", NOT its highest leader.

Civilization without city improvements is like Sim city without residential areas.

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Originally posted by Grier on 06-27-2000 04:09 AM You shouldnt take things so literaly, for example a bank improvement does not represent a high-street branch of a commercial bank, but rather a regional office for the civ's central bank (such as the Eurpoean Central Bank, the bank of England, or a member of the Fedral Reserve). Besides, one of the aspects of the game is the trade off between building city improvements and units.

I totally agree.

- MKL

[Jordal]

Phunny Pharmer, In the US most of the tax revenue goes to the military. Does the government build the banks? I think that some structures should be built randomly by the civilians.

[UltraSonix]

Ah, but Jordal, what LightEning said above also applies:

quote: St Leo, do you know what the player is in Civilization games? I can't remember was it somebody from Civ team, but somebody has said that the player is the "spirit of that civilization", NOT its highest leader.

So in effect, you building a bank (which is really a banking system, I know), it sort of represents the civilians building it anyway. It's a bit hard to explain but I'm trying to say that the player in the game is also representing the people (eg when build units/change gov).

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

[phunny pharmer]

Jordal: I may be getting off topic, but I don't think that the US government spends the majority of its revenue on the military or maters related to the military. 'Most' here is probably too strong a word.
However, I will admit that the US does spend a large amount on the military, and I would like to see that reflected in Civ 3. In essence, how much money does the US government spend on banks? Libraries? Sewer systems? I don't think that the Civ 2 improvements are balanced.
The US spends a large amount of money on education. I would like to see public, government-sponsored schools that cost a fair amount to maintain. These could be improvements of the university improvement, but should also be prerequisites for much more advanced improvements, such as nuclear power plants, manufacturing plants, and recycling centers.
I would also be interested in having a monetary price tag put on military units. For instance, all gunpowder units will cost 1 gold/turn to support, all armored 2/turn, and all battleships/aircraft 3 gold/turn. Early units should not be paid, because they were paid with plunder (I know that this is a generalization, but for the sake of simplicity, this would not be a bad system). This would also slow down large armies, because they would march on their gold supply.
Also, this would give builders an economic advantage. With smaller armies, the military would have less of a budget and there would be more money available for economic improvements. However, their security might be compromised. In many ways, that is the dilemma in the US. Economic and internal improvement or military power? This should be represented in Civ 3.

[TheLimey]

You need to remember that 'civ' is all about abstraction. You can assume that there is money other than the revenue that you see, going towards things like schools and so on.

If it doesn't play a role, then its abstracted.

How about the entertainment industry? Or TV, or advertising?

All huge industries, just abstracted away. Thats the point of civ though.

[UltraSonix]

What can I say? - Limey's right - Civ can't possibly represent everything.

(I just realised, though. I don't think Civ2 had a "school" improvement, did it? I know it had library and uni, so maybe there should also be a high school and a primary school - that's what we call 'em here in Australia.)

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

[phunny pharmer]

UltraSonix: The names are the same in the United States.

I must say, thinking about this topic has made me change my position. I think that it is something that needs addressing in Civ 3.
There is another thing that I would like to see the game reflect (and I think city improvements would be the only way to represent this). In ancient times, only a small percentage of the population was educated. This continued through the dark ages, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. Only with the beginning of nationalism, industrialization, and modernization did full blown schooling come to pass.
I don't think that the game represents this at all. In the last few hundred years, science has become more popularized, with large numbers of people working in 'scientific' fields (at least in Civ 2 terms, where everything was measured in manners of breakthroughs).
Also, science is now being used by the general public. The internet, the airplane, and the internal combustion engine are now being used by scientists and commoners.
However, these breakthroughs are no longer funded by the government in capitalist societies (except in military, top secret, and a few other areas). These breakthroughs are made by private companies and private individuals, even though state grants or subsides help. I think that St Leo wanted to reflect this with his proposition to eliminate city improvements.
The irony is that lazzez-faire capitalism does not want government involvement. All true democracies have 'democratic' economies controlled to a large extent by the laws of supply and demand. Therefore, if citizens of an empire demand a bank, then a bank is built. However, the government does not step in and state 'this bank is being built here'. Thus, St Leo's way to represent this contradiction is to eliminate all city improvements. This would be a good idea for a democracy
However, I think that economic city improvements should be voted on by the people. Instead of the useless advisors that Civ 2 presented, have advisors that state 'the citizens want a bank' as more of an ultimatum in a communist or fundamentalist regime. This could also happen in a republic. A refusal of the people's demand could make the city enter civil disorder (if they want the improvement enough). This could represent the dealings that each civilization has with its people.

[Az]

very correct! I never thought about it seriously but now it seems damn right .
I think that democracies should place all their production as capitalization during peace . ( to simulate taxes from private industries , which are not mobilized during peace ) . and it should be set so that finances whould be in a bad shape during war
also , most of the banks are not goverment run . so what's the soultion ?


. do U get my point ?

------------------
Prepare to Land !
[This message has been edited by Dalgetti (edited June 30, 2000).]