Rush building: cheap or effective

phunny pharmer · July 8, 2000, 22:54

I haven't seen a post about this one yet. My personal feelings is that it is very unfair. In the real world, no matter how much you pay people, there is only a certain amount of speed bonus. For instance, to form a tank or armor unit, money won't help your tank commanders gain experience. Also, if there is only such and such amount of building material available, you can't complete the building even if you pay the workmen a fortune.

However, rush building should not be left out of the game completely. By paying hefty bonuses to the right people, jobs are done much faster. However, I think rush building should be more expensive, and can only complete up to 70% of the project.

What do you think?

TheLimey · July 9, 2000, 01:50

With everything in 'civ', you have to take everything with a grain of salt.

Civ only 'tips its hat' towards reality, and rightly so or it wouldn't be a 'game' anymore.

Rushbuying is abstracted for utility. Sid knew that sometimes, you needed that phalanx now!

Consider build queues and turn lengths as the artificial constructs that they are and this concept fits right in alongside those.

Don't confuse a feature thats in there for gameplay reasons, for one that has a lack of realism.

Lord Magnus · July 9, 2000, 13:24

Also don't forget that one turn in Civ2 at its shortest is one year, therefore the workers have more than enough time to complete a tank or a SDI improvement and obtain the needed resources. In fact it would be more unrealistic to have a city produce only ONE tank per year. But along the lines of what Limey was saying, you can't have total reality in a game or else you'd be living it.

------------------
Learn the mistakes of yesterday to prevent the ones of tomorrow...

[This message has been edited by Lord Magnus (edited July 09, 2000).]

UltraSonix · July 10, 2000, 04:36

quote:

Rushbuying is abstracted for utility. Sid knew that sometimes, you needed that phalanx now!

Personally, if a tank's rolling towards my undefended capital, I'd say: "Screw realism! Give me my mech-inf!"

And besides the point on:

quote:

Also don't forget that one turn in Civ2 at its shortest is one year

is well-made, anyway.

Adm.Naismith · July 10, 2000, 09:13

Hmmm, I'm not sure about your idea of "abstract level" about rush building.

If any Army of tank (of course a tank is not a single object, I hope Lord Magnus agree it's only a simbol of the whole group) take 10 turns (years) to build, how can any amount of money rush the whole process to end in a ninth of time.

It's a very bad suggestion to every project manager boss, IMO!

I understand UltraSonix fear:

quote:

Personally, if a tank's rolling towards my undefended capital, I'd say: "Screw realism! Give me my mech-inf!"

but good planned defense is the game, rush to cover mistakes is not for real general!

Back serius, I agree with phunny pharmer there should be introduce some limits to rush building, but also understand that a build concept of "all finished or nothing" is not very realistic on units production.

I mean, if it take eight turn (year) to build a whole wing of fighter, why I can't have anything ready till the end of the eighth turn?

How about half of the wing ready after four or six year?

"Whole army production" was forced when units are "full force or destroyed", but now we can have a unit with some hit points already gone!

Using this model Firaxis can let a player to "force out on the battlefield" a unit after half or two/third of development, with (let's say before any game balancing check by me) half of hit points (we get an untrained, half force unit).

This way you can oppose some resistence against any incoming enemy, avoiding the "empty city syndrome" UltraSonix speak about.

Of course this approach has a flaw: with current rules we can have the unit completed as a repair process after one or more turns, on the field or in base/cities.

We can counter this introducing a "repair cost" proportional to the cost of rush build the remaining unit part.

It will also be more realistic to add same cost to repair units hitted by enemy.

Repair cost can be equal everywere or kept higher on the battlefield (outside cities, fortress or airbases).

Cost will be deducted from whole civ tresury or from supporting city (as already happens to city improvement costs).

The main problem is to avoid added micromgmt: how can we avoid to order every units if make repair next turn or not, just to left money for more urgent tasks?

Any suggestion?

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited July 10, 2000).]

TheLimey · July 10, 2000, 11:25

The point about the abstraction of production is that the production level X, is the most efficient and cost effective way to work. Its 'monetary costs' are abstracted away to nothing. The process of rush buying would be the extra cost of rushing raw materials to the site, paying for extra labour, and paying for overtime, etc.

Conversely, a city with a high enough shield level to build units in a single turn has sufficient workers, raw materials, and effective machinery etc., to get the job done 'now'.

The idea about 'releasing units early' but not at full strength is kind of interesting, but sounds like it might be an ICS'ers dream.

Would you not risk releasing a unit early if it could heal on the way, or if it was being used in a low risk exploration exercise? If it does cost cash to repair, isn't that ultimately the same thing as rush buying?

====
How about having Garrison units automatically created (and upgraded) in cities ala CtP with MedMod.

The garrison size is based around the city size. You still have to support them, although at half cost. They cannot move or attack. They do count as martial law units though.

While it is a small case of getting something for nothing, it reduces micromanagement, allowing you to concentrate on point defense and offense. Everyone I know who's played it, likes that concept.

phunny pharmer · July 10, 2000, 16:15

Adm.Naismith: I like the suggestion!!! However, this brings me back to the old question- where do you draw the line. For instance, can you rush build the fighter wing, and let them have 50% of the hit points when they are deployed? Or do you only let them have 33%? 20%? What's the lowest that you can go?

I must admit that TheLimey brings up a good point with the CtP-based garrison . However, I have not played CtP and do not know how this works. If the garrison is destroyed in an attack (but the city is not taken), is the garrison there on the next turn? Also, if the garrison does regenerate, can you also rush build a unit in the city, as well as bring in more reinforcements?

The other point that I wanted to bring up with rush building includes city improvements. How much can you rush build a wonder? A temple? A recycling plant? If your city is in disorder, should you be able to pay more money to some of your ***citizens in disorder*** to solve the problem? It seems strange.

TheLimey · July 10, 2000, 16:28

The Garrison only appears in Wes' MedMod (although its roots may have been in another mod done while I was away from Apolyton), and not in the regular game.

The concept works like this... a size 1 city gets 1 garrison unit. A size 5 might get 2 units. Size 9, 3... and so on...

I don't have the exact figures... I never really took that much notice, but you get the idea.

They are created upon the creation of the city, and not conquering or revolution etc.

If the garrison is destroyed, it is gone. Garrisons are, however, reformed when a new size is reached, that changes the size of the garrison, or a new tech is reached that introduces a new defensive unit type... like warriors, phalanx, riflemen... etc in Civ2.

You can't build them, and they don't 'cost anything' except support... they are automatic... and they do not alter your ability to further defend the city at all.

--

You make a good point about cities in disorder and rush building. It does seem strange that you can just pay to fix the happiness problem.

Perhaps there should be an additional penalty cost to rush build if the city is in disorder.

However, I don't see there being a general problem distinguishing between improvements and units... You should still be able to pay the extra to rush in the raw materials, hire extra construction workers etc... The principal is the same to me.

Its interesting that in CtP, you can define (by government type) how much it costs to rush build one unit of production for units, buildings or wonders. They don't alter the setting in the basic game, except as a whole to make rush building more expensive for modern governments. It was pretty much always out of the question price wise to be able to rush a wonder, except when there is a couple of turns to go.

[This message has been edited by TheLimey (edited July 10, 2000).]

Lord Magnus · July 10, 2000, 19:34

quote:

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 07-10-2000 09:13 AM
...If any Army of tank (of course a tank is not a single object, I hope Lord Magnus agree it's only a simbol of the whole group)...

I'll agree with you there (even though people could argue against you) but it doesn't matter if you got a big industrial base with modern technology. During WW2 Germany ALONE was producing hundreds of bombers a MONTH (I'm not 100% on this but I'm sure I read it in a social textbook, send a link to disprove me). Today the U.S. if they got their economy in "total war" mode, they could easily produce thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of bombers or tanks in a month. It seems to me that the current system of production is more unrealistic than previously thought (although it is the best we got so far...)

------------------
Learn the mistakes of yesterday to prevent the ones of tomorrow...

TheLimey · July 10, 2000, 22:07

In the mid war years, Germany was building huge numbers of bombers... I don't have exact numbers, but if loses were anything over a dozen a day IIRC... then it would have to be.

The units never were singular... can you imagine producing a 'single figure' phalanx... doesn't sound so good.

Where is the difficulty in the exact numbers of figures in a unit though? It seems to be like a discussion of how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

If the system is abstracted, but works... and plays well... why change it?

Adm.Naismith · July 11, 2000, 03:23

The Limey, about your opinion:

quote:

The point about the abstraction of production is that the production level X, is the most
efficient and cost effective way to work. Its 'monetary costs' are abstracted away to nothing. The process of rush buying would be the extra cost of rushing raw materials to
the site, paying for extra labour, and paying for overtime, etc.

Conversely, a city with a high enough shield level to build units in a single turn has
sufficient workers, raw materials, and effective machinery etc., to get the job done
'now'.

It doesn't sound realistic to me, in such extent. There is no way the most efficient way to produce any goods takes five or ten times more than the quicker available.
You already know that old "a baby take 9 months to grow to life into a woman, try to make it born in a month putting 9 woman at work"!

So, we can once hurry production to a level, then we must wait its natural completion.

quote:

The idea about 'releasing units early' but not at full strength is kind of interesting, but sounds like it might be an ICS'ers dream.

Would you not risk releasing a unit early if it could heal on the way, or if it was being
used in a low risk exploration exercise?

Yes, but if your unit is released quite weak, you haven't lots of hope it will survive to any encounter. And if you have to use money to replenish/repair it instead of shields its a tactical decision you must take, as any other in the game.

quote:

If it does cost cash to repair, isn't that ultimately the same thing as rush buying?

No, I don't explain it very well. In SMAC model your unit is automatically repaired on the field some percent every turn it rest (no fight).
Actually it doesn't repair to 100% outside of a city. Only with a late tech advance you can repair it 100% in one turn.

So, in my proposal, you can e.g rush build your "ten turn" Knight to the eight turn level (it will be the new effect of the actual rush button), but it'll have the lower morale level (like in SMAC, corrective points from barracks/s.e. level apart) and half the points of strenght taken (as if damaged).

Next (resting) turn it will cost some money to regain a 25% of strenght, then next turn again it will pay same amount to go to full strenght.

Now you have the unit full force after the original ten turns, but keeping the morale penalty, just for having the opportunity of using it in emergency (e.g. city defence from barbarians) some turns before.

In the process you use money (instead of shields) as in actual rush building.

Hope I better explained now (sorry, my english doesn't help).

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

TheLimey · July 11, 2000, 08:59

I can see your point... and I think you've shifted my view a little.

That's just for units though... how about buildings? No rush building for them?

If you've been building a cathedral for 10 of 12 turns and need an additional defender (soon)? Say you didn't want to loose the production, and wanted to rush the Cathedral first, then a defender... would you allow that?

phunny pharmer · July 11, 2000, 13:05

Also, in addition to all of this, there should be some number in game.txt or civ3.txt where you can increase the percentage of cost by X amount when you play. Thus, each individual game can have a different rush cost...

TheLimey · July 11, 2000, 14:18

per government would seem even better... perhaps even with the ability to change it in events.txt, or whatever, on the fly.

Par4 · July 11, 2000, 16:36

Rush building, severe penalties in the other markets because you are telling your people to get on a government job and help build something. I say loss of everything that city makes except that unit you are constructing. Happiness loss too for having to work overtime to construct the unit.

Rush building should always finish that unit that it is building, so instead of wasting all that manpower on 1 unit why not 5 tanks etc. So if you had a massive city it could be building a ship, 5 tanks, 5 airplanes a turn or something. 1 thing a turn is unrealistic.

My $.02

------------------
King Par4!!

fldmarshallpar4@icqmail.com

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

Lord Magnus · July 11, 2000, 19:39

Limey: Sure the current system works, but I'd rather play a system that is more realistic and is more playable if one is implemented in Civ3. You're almost saying "if it isn't broke, why fix it," which I disagree with, anything can be improved.

------------------
Learn the mistakes of yesterday to prevent the ones of tomorrow...

TheLimey · July 11, 2000, 22:24

Maybe you didn't read my later post in response to Adm.Naismith, where I wrote 'I can see your point... and I think you've shifted my view a little.'

I'm not sure whether it IS an improvement to disallow rush building... it may be or may be not

I think that there possibly should be at least the option however to keep it the way it is, along with a release early with reduced hps. A per-government-per-unit-or-improvement-or-wonder factor to increase the cost by would be highly elegant and flexible, for the rush build 'mode'.

Of course, under play testing and balancing at Firaxis, they may find that it doesn't work well, or upsets the balance in some way... or is so good that its the only option to go with.

Ultimately many ideas like this are impossible to guage gameplay-wise without seeing them in reality.

Adm.Naismith · July 12, 2000, 03:02

TheLimey, I have no problem with your point about "save that already done work" when you switch production. I posted some words on the same line on another thread. I haven't a solution, still working on it

About rush building buildings (no pun intended), I simply keep on my idea of "rush to a point", not the whole bank or police station. I don't think that state of buildings will be added (too much tactical effort, IMHO) as someone asked for, months ago, so I can't see a way to reproduce an "half bank" effect.

About your proposal of "automatic garrison" I can't judge it (I never played CTP, mod or not).

I understand it can simplify the AI job, so may be it is a viable suggestion.

Generally speaking, I agree with you that some suggestions are not difficult to realize, simply must checked and balanced with some working game model.

But that's work for Firaxis, we can't do all for them, right?

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited July 12, 2000).]

phunny pharmer · July 12, 2000, 14:30

I found that especially in later portions of the game, I was hardly building anything in my larger cities. I would let stuff build for a turn (so the price would be lower) and then buy it. Perhaps there should be a time limit for rush building? This would allow the rapid construction of something critical, but would let building of normal things continue at the speed of materials intake.

Also, how about this for a rush building idea. Every turn, you can take x amount of materials/shields/minerals out of the production line. These materials could be saved, and used to rush build stuff. Then, materials could be used to 'rush build' something at a rate of 2 to 1, in addition to gold. When the shield treasury of the city is exhausted, then the stockpiles of nearby cities are used, but the gold rate is ten times more expensive.

Would this work? Or would this allow more rule-bending?

Theben · July 12, 2000, 15:41

A couple o' ideas:

Multiple build items per city/region, allowing a player to build that pikeman while continuing to finish a cathedral

City/Regional stores: You set aside a portion of contruction (also food & money) per turn (if desired) to build things later. There may be loss over time due to deterioration (ember)

Greater productive capacity than currently allowed in civ

A purchasing system, similar to MOO 1, where money buys x2 or x3 production for x# of turns. No more insta-builds.

Switching construction puts the old item(s) on hold while the new one needs to be built from scratch. Similar items (temple->university; APC-> riflemen) may use shields from original, with a little loss due to switch- or maybe not.

My @@ cents.

Par4 · July 12, 2000, 18:51

I want to see Civ3 have queues building say 10 squadrons of fighters in a size 20 city that can finish them in 2 turns where it would have wasted lots of production on 1 each turn. Also there should be 2 types of queues, units, buildings and in the unit queue you can build as many things as you want but it will take a while. So you could click 2 battleships and move it into the queue, 10 fighters, 10 armor all at the same time and if you are large enough in that region they will all come out in stacks, if theres a military academy. Ready to move.

Domestic production would be for building a system of the designated improvement which is what is in Civ already. They should mainly cost money and take a few turns to complete a system, as in real life but can be rushed. Improvements need to cost a lot to maintain but should give big bonuses so you can sell them off to the people or a corporation, giving different effects to the city, or keep them as your own and absorb the cost. More strategy.

Rush building should only happen when there is excess supplies. The city would take a hit in everything because people are reassigned to government jobs for a year to complete it hurting the schools, food production everything. But if you have the excess you can produce alot, and coupled with storage could be very good.

anyway that is my 3 types of production I would like to see. so... what do you think?

------------------
King Par4!!

fldmarshallpar4@icqmail.com

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