Manufacturing Capability Should Come Before End Product

[Imran Siddiqui]

People can build tanks without factories? How does steel get processed? How does the oil get made? How do the pieces get put together? I don't get this line of argument.

And I'm arguing it is BETTER for strategy of the game.

[Jarouik]

Contrary to cyclotron7, I think adding the mandatory requirement of e.g. a factory to building a tank might be a benefit. This would, once again, limit the usefulness of many small cities in favour of fewer big ones, since the only cities you could build high-tech weaponry in would be the ones that have been improved far enough to have the infrastructure (e.g. a factory) required to build a tank. In Civ2, given that you have enough money, you can wage war by only rush-building all the required units in small border cities or the cities you have just conquered, whereas it would take the effort of your whole civilization if tanks, bombers etc. could only be built in major industrial centers. Keep in mind, too, that you will very probably have factories in many cities already by the time you discover the technologies required to build tanks etc., so this would not delay their production, but just bring in a new and in my opinion interesting strategic element: even if you had the money to rush-build your army, you would still have to consider beforehand which cities should be improved to the industrial centers capable of producing high-tech units. Granted, you could rush-build factories (if rush-building is included, as I think it should be) in small cities and then start producing/rush-building tanks, but nevertheless this would become more expensive and take more time so that you would not be likely to do this in every city, forcing you to pick only some cities to make your industrial centers. In addition, I feel this adds to the realism in the game, since I think the expensive cost of rush-building e.g. a tank represents the huge amount of resources committed to the infrastructure of the city so that it will be able to build the tank, so I think this could be more accurately modelled by actually having to build a factory in the city first, so the resources given to the city would have a lasting effect: after all, if you take a small frontier city and use half of your empire's available funds to build a huge army there, this is bound to permanently improve the infrastructure there, making the city an industrial center capable of producing armies more quickly in the future as well, so why not model the effect by actually having to build the factory first? Of course, this would only apply to modern high-tech units; infantry and other early or low-cost units should be able to be built anywhere, since requiring you to e.g. build a barracks in every city just to build military units at all would not add any strategic elements to the game, since you would have to build them everywhere anyway, so we can consider that every city has basic military installations to begin with.

Sorry for the long-winded explanation; this is my first post, so perhaps I got too excited.

[MrFun]

I do not want a game that is 150% reality and -50% fun.

Next thing you know, you'll want it to be required to produce every little tool for Workers before they can build roads, or set farms. How about if we require cities to equip Workers with shovels first, and then later, have to equip Workers with jackhammers?

Not to mention that we already have very little time in previous civ games to actually use enough of the units before they become obsolete or something better comes along. These ideas discussed here would make it even worse.

RIDICULOUS

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 04-09-2001 08:52 PM It's called adding more strategy and prohibition of the creation of massive armed forces before you have the structures in place to create them. Basically making it a bit less war driven. A perfect idea, if I do say so myself. I don't see how adding strategy is bad. You seem to like making Civ into a war game, I don't.

More strategy? Imran, the only thing that your "factory" would add is the amount of turns to complete your first tank. This accomplishes the exact same thing as a factory in Civ2, except you are adding more rules. If I have a small city, I will slowly build a factory, and then build a tank. In Civ2 I would just slowly build a tank. Note that the end result is still the same; a small city building a tank very slowly. It is pointless to add such a required structure.

Futhermore, shields in Civ2 represent maufacturing power as well as raw materials. If you have any shields, it is assumed that your town has at least some small factories (The "factory" improvement is somewhat of a misnomer; it seems to represent a very large, government-funded industrial complex) to produce units and buildings. We aren't talking about making a tank in some auto body shop... these "small cities" are cities with tens of thousands of people, and at least some modest manufacturing capability.

Imran, I don't want a war game. Most of the time when I play Civ2, I go for the AC win or just a really high score (I call it an economic win). What I DO want is a game that is balanced in all regards. If you think that war is more prevelent than trade in Civ2, the answer would be to enhance trade, not tie down war.

The problem I find with all these so-called "mandatory" ideas is that they impose restrictions without a bonus to gameplay. I still don't see any positive result from your factory rule... is your only motivator "realism"? If so, I would think carefully about whether realism in this case is just making playing the game more difficult. Why are you propoosing uneccesary rules that do not benefit gameplay, and in fact achieve the same goal?

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Maccabee2]

I like the idea because I think it will add enough to strategy to make it worthwhile. It would add a new dimension to the game because you would need to guard not only your Wonders cities, but also your factory cities. Hence the added dimension that a sprawling empire of 100+ small cities (like the Vikings of Civ2) could not so easily defeat a smaller, but more industrial based nation of larger cities.
So, you could require:
factory to build artillery, tanks, airplanes and up
docks to build galleons and up
shipyard to build destroyers and up

A good example from history is that as the Wehrmacht pushed deeper into the Soviet Union, Stalin had to disassemble his factories in the West (sell an improvement?) and rebuild them farther East where he knew the Nazis couldn't reach them.
Targeting the cities that form the backbone of your industrial base could be a new AI stategy, and human as well.
If you don't like micromanagement, perhaps you should stick with AOE or another RTS.


[This message has been edited by Maccabee2 (edited April 12, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Maccabee2 on 04-11-2001 05:03 PM I like the idea because I think it will add enough to strategy to make it worthwhile. It would add a new dimension to the game because you would need to guard not only your Wonders cities, but also your factory cities. Hence the added dimension that a sprawling empire of 100+ small cities (like the Vikings of Civ2) could not so easily defeat a smaller, but more industrial based nation of larger cities.

Isn't this the same as Civ2? You need to guard not only your wonder cities, but your cities with high production. No need for a factory!

quote: A good example from history is that as the Wehrmacht pushed deeper into the Soviet Union, Stalin had to disassemble his factories in the West (sell an improvement?) and rebuild them farther East where he new the Nazis couldn't reach them. Targeting the cities that form the backbone of your industrial base could be a new AI stategy, and human as well.

This is also the same as Civ2. I sell my westernmost factories (Civ2 factories) in the cities that will soon be taken, and build them again in my eastern cities to boost production. Again, no need for required factories!

quote: If you don't like micromanagement, perhaps you should stick with AOE or another RTS.

Micromanagement is not the issue. I like microing. I don't like microing for no good reason, however. You people have yet to show me one difference between your system and Civ2, other than the fact that in your system you make people build more uselss stuff.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[SerapisIV]

How is attaching production ability to the ability to create large and complex units adding useless stuff to build? You don't see the M1 tanks being built in some Podunk town that only has agriculture. It takes a factory, a focusing of the industiral production of a city. A factory does not just represent increased productivity, it represents a focusing of resources, creation of infrastructure to transport those resources and the collection of technology and labor to create either large amounts of small things (razor blades) or high quality built complex things (tooling machinery, tanks, etc)

[Lancer]

SerapisIV, thanks for the heads up on the gearing thing. Also I like your views on factory destruction when a city changes hands ending the unrealistic instant swapping of high tech unit production.

Henrik, shipyards yes!

Well, I like the strategic bombing aspect brought up by Dienstag alot.

Jarouik makes a good point that this puts the production focus back in the big cities, and away from the small towns. I agree w/ Jaroik strongly that this would eliminate the strategy of expanding outward like a virus. This is the cure for that game illness. No huge civ without a heart can produce tanks or modern weapons, so such civs must fall to folks who develope their civs, and build their core cities into the heart of their civ.

*****One more idea for folks to think on. A factory, once built, splits the production capability in the city screen. The factory would get its own production box. This way you could build both a bank and a bomber at the same time in the same city. The bank would be at the same rate as whatever the town produced without the factory, the factory would be a standard factory rate, which could be increased by obtaining new sci perhaps? Then, when you are ready to change from tank to plane production, you have to >>build<< a re-gearing of the factory, in the factory. Wouldn't take too long, not anything like the price of the factory itself.

Thoughts?

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by Lancer on 04-11-2001 11:56 PM Jarouik makes a good point that this puts the production focus back in the big cities, and away from the small towns. I agree w/ Jaroik strongly that this would eliminate the strategy of expanding outward like a virus. This is the cure for that game illness. No huge civ without a heart can produce tanks or modern weapons, so such civs must fall to folks who develope their civs, and build their core cities into the heart of their civ. *****One more idea for folks to think on. A factory, once built, splits the production capability in the city screen. The factory would get its own production box. This way you could build both a bank and a bomber at the same time in the same city. The bank would be at the same rate as whatever the town produced without the factory, the factory would be a standard factory rate, which could be increased by obtaining new sci perhaps? Then, when you are ready to change from tank to plane production, you have to >>build<< a re-gearing of the factory, in the factory. Wouldn't take too long, not anything like the price of the factory itself.

No problem Lancer.

I like the idea of limiting the huge expansion of a civ you speak of, as long as it isn't so strong that we end up with huge CTP civs being only 30 cities. I never played the game, but that what previous posts have claimed.

I like the idea of dual production, a civ should be able to build a tank and temple at the same time. The only question I think should be raised would be the splitting of shields. This feature would be useful in end games with large shield production, but not in the early-game, though it would help get rid of wasted shields if over a few building productions you can dump your extra shields into random unit and not waste turns building it. That would've made caravan prodcution in early Civ games more useful.

[Maccabee2]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-11-2001 10:43 PM How is attaching production ability to the ability to create large and complex units adding useless stuff to build? You don't see the M1 tanks being built in some Podunk town that only has agriculture. It takes a factory, a focusing of the industiral production of a city. A factory does not just represent increased productivity, it represents a focusing of resources, creation of infrastructure to transport those resources and the collection of technology and labor to create either large amounts of small things (razor blades) or high quality built complex things (tooling machinery, tanks, etc)

Thank you, SerapisIV. Well said. Cyclotron7, SerapisIV provided your good reason. A factory is not useless, because it is the historical and natural prerequisite to building any modern weaponry, modern in this context referring to the beginning of the 20th century and beyond. A whole empire of cottage industries or Early Industrial Age mills won't produce a single tank or fighter plane of even WWI vintage. They don't have the ability. It took the assembly line methods of the modern factory. That is the utility of the factory, and the logic you seek. If it doesn't persuade you, I hope it will at least give you pause to reconsider the adamancy of your stance. Thank you for reading my post.