Completely new idea for city management

AzNtoccata · January 14, 2001, 02:03

While it would be realistic, I don't know whether it'll make the game boring or not. I think that you should "zone" houses, factories, farms etc which slowly build over time. Houses house people (duh!) farms produce food then fill houses with people (more duh!). Terrain is still important because if you build farms on grassland, it'll produce more than on a mountain. For building stuff in a city, I think you should be able to build more than 1 stuff and then assign people and resources to the different projects. Governments play an important role in this cause while a Republic might be more free (scientific advancement), you can't "force" as many people to work on government projects than say...communism. I think this is a great idea and solves many problems that people don't like. Feedback?

AzNtoccata · January 14, 2001, 02:13

All right, I thought of some basic city buildings down (not improvements)

Houses: Houses population, basically functions as aqueduct sorta thing

Farms: do food, basically feeds and expandes population

Factories: actually putting the people into government work (you can only assign some factories to do work for you, others are private. Has to do with the government prob I mentioned earlier). Basically the blender that mixes resources from mines and people from houses into the good 'ol shields that can go into various projects

Mines: Collects resources and sent to factory

Marketplace: collects "trade". I know it sounds weird but marketplace collects the trade both from the terrain and from toher cities

Bank (money center? whatever?): converts trade into $$$. Basically limits how much of trade you can turn into hard cash

Reserearch center: same as bank cept for beakers

Theatre: same as bank cept for goblets

As you research stuff, you upgrade (should be automatic to save trouble, but occurs over time) building to be more effective. such as improving simple marketplaces to the modern commercial skyscrapers we know and love and from simple mud huts to the apartment buildings.
These are the basics, maybe add barracks to limit how much units you can build or something but I think i got basics down

AzNtoccata · January 14, 2001, 02:33

I'll organize my thoughts into one huge organized essay later. Sorry for messiness, but when you get great ideas, get them down before you forget =).

AzNtoccata · January 14, 2001, 02:44

I think that this is the greatest idea so far from city management. Earlier posts only complain about things but don't try and solve it.

oh btw: my idea creates diversity in the types of building you build in each square. If you cluster all your homes in 1 tile and the enemy comes along and occupies it, suddenly your factories don't have any more workers. I support the refugee idea propsed earlier. When large number of people are displaced by destruction of houses, refugees are created.

DarkCloud · January 15, 2001, 19:53

AzN, abou the city management zoning, good idea and more like real life.
Each zoning would cost money on the city screen; this would make better
use for the city screen.
You would zone for
a: Homes (Luxury, Medial, Cheapo)
b: Stores (Large, Small)
c: Industry (Heavy, Medial, Light)

Zoning is a perfect new idea- good work AzNtoccata!

Urban Ranger · January 16, 2001, 00:19

Not sure if that should be implemented. If we need to manage each of the cities like SimCity it would be a micromanagement nightmare!

bagdar · January 16, 2001, 17:41

quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 01-15-2001 11:19 PM
If we need to manage each of the cities like SimCity it would be a micromanagement nightmare!

I agree, with Civ you can't go that far as to planning where the houses go! Besides, a city improvement called "house" just doesn't sound right. No multiple sim-cities.

Brent · January 16, 2001, 18:15

Well I do think that at least you should be able to build more than one of the same improvement in one city, which I thought you meant at first, but you also should be able to build more than one thing at a time.

Sirotnikov · January 16, 2001, 18:38

Zoning doen't have to require one to actually have a little city map and mark squares!

You can simply adjust a slider that would mark how much goes into building residential, how much into industri and how much into stores.

This is important since you can then specialize cities!

I think this should be added to every city screen.

Brent · January 16, 2001, 18:50

It's a nice thought, but too simple compared to what we're used to.

tniem · January 16, 2001, 21:36

quote:

Originally posted by Sirotnikov on 01-16-2001 05:38 PM
You can simply adjust a slider that would mark how much goes into building residential, how much into industri and how much into stores.

This is important since you can then specialize cities!

I think this should be added to every city screen.

Always like an idea that uses sliders.

But to Civ mixed with SimCity - Firaxis wouldn't dare...

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · January 18, 2001, 20:38

Not to be rude or anything, but this WAS talked about a while back, but good idea to bring it up again.

I like the idea of 'zoning' buildings. Maybe you could put different buildings in different areas, for example:

government area: 1. capital building. 2. government building. these two would be different, the latter would be the main offices, the civs memory home (a bunch of memory stuff to keep the spirit alive, it would include historical stuff that that civ did), your 'throne room' would be here too. the government building would have the House of Representatives and senate chambers (if playing with a democracy or republic), the high council chambers, etc.

residential areas: 1. houses. 2. parks, recreation centers, etc. the latter would (of course) house the people. the parks and such would be the stuff that kept the people happy.

then there would also be a 'military' compound area, and a bussiness area.

MrFun · January 18, 2001, 21:36

Sounds like some of you want to add more and more complexity to the game and thus taking away the fun of the game.

That is my opinion, anyways.

tniem · January 20, 2001, 17:05

quote:

Originally posted by MrFun on 01-18-2001 08:36 PM
Sounds like some of you want to add more and more complexity to the game and thus taking away the fun of the game.

That is my opinion, anyways.

Never understand why complexity detracts from the fun.

I personally do not want to have to zone my cities or tell them how to grow, but if Firaxis were to do it in a responsible way then it might be fun.

Brent · January 21, 2001, 03:01

probably for the same reason that nobody likes games to be challenging, eh?

Yog-Sothoth · January 21, 2001, 08:10

quote:

Originally posted by Brent on 01-21-2001 02:01 AM
probably for the same reason that nobody likes games to be challenging, eh?

I want my civ game to be challenging, but I want it to challenge my intellect by f.e. having great AI, not challenge my patience by making me play mini-Sim City on every city in my civ game.

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · January 24, 2001, 21:19

You are right, I dont want to be playing Sim-city either. Although you do have to admit, there is pride with you seeing a city YOU built that is absolutely humungous, and awesome.

Grumbold · January 25, 2001, 07:55

Micromanaging every city would indeed be a nightmare but I would quite like this idea if it was done for your capital only. How you designed it could reflect on general happiness, efficiency, education, military, crime and pollution modifiers for your empire as a whole. The only drawback is that anything which increases the length of a turn is going to make Multiplayer less playable at the expense of 1 player / PBEM.