Thread Tools
Old November 23, 2000, 19:18   #1
DarkCloud
staff
NationStatesAlpha Centauri Democracy GameCivilization II Democracy GameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamSpanish CiversCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamApolyton Storywriters' GuildAge of Nations TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
 
DarkCloud's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Deity of Lists
Posts: 11,873
Revolutionary Civ Ideas
DLT of Sidgames-
quote:


The suggestions posted for a more realistic Capital are great! But I think speciality shouldn't be restricted only to Capitals.


I'm keen on ideas where:


- City improvements have "levels". You build a level 1 Bank that has to be improved as you population grows when you have the technology. This means Level 1 buildings are cheaper, but obligates you to upgrade them. Also makes Wonders less easy to make, with interruptions for upgrade.


- Specific buildings that allow for specific unit production. (e.g. you'll need churches before you can build Crusaders in the city, marketplace before caravans, seaport before naval units, factory before armour etc etc.)


- Specialised industries that have to be built (with restricted numbers, of course) to make poor, out-of-the-way cities significant.


- Religious centres that generate "religious aura" to add to crusade fervour, general morale, or additional perks for a fundamentalist government.

Colonialism - Well, when Imperialist powers procure colonies in the Old World, they don't exactly OWN the cities. (Shanghai, for example) However, they do have jurisdiction and trade concessions within these territories. Its not reflected in CivI or CivII.


Timothy-
quote:


I had another idea that might fit into this list. Specialised industries. For example, a city has industry specialised in making airplane-parts. That might mean that shields are converted into resourches that can only be used for building airplanes.
Of course, the specialization might mean that you get more resourches for the smae amount of, shields. Specialized industry might also help in research..


DarkCloud is offline  
Old November 23, 2000, 20:42   #2
shadowlessasasin
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 20
In my opinion, I think micromanagement is tedius as it is in the old Civ games. Perhaps, those in favor of more mircromanagement may like your ideas. (And let me say that if Civ game is designed to be a micromanagement game, then I think your ideas are excellent) However, to rule an empire, the prospect of having to micromanage every small details makes Civ game very tedius. One can argue that there's always automated governors, automated villagers that can do the job for us players without our player's having to keep tract of every single city. However, I think the problem with this "automation of decision making" is that the AI, who will be making hte decisions for us, isn't sophisticated enough to make decisions exactly like the way we wanted it to be. And since micromanagement, as the game is designed, is an important and foundamental part to macromanagement of empire, letting computer AI take care of micromanagment might result in conflict with our player's goal, strategies..etc.
Also, I think too much mircomanagment will not be able to create an empire building game as it should be, which is MACROmanagement, ruling the empire as a whole, not ruling an empire as individual cities.
In my opinion, I think, for the lack of better word, the "production box system" should be revised a little bit. Instead of production box for every small cities, there should be production box for the empire as a whole, while maintaing the feature of production box for individual cities.
The way this "production-for-an-empire-as-a-whole-and production-for-individual-city-system" may resemble something like the following:

Lets say I want to build in the city of Biejing the Great Wall of China, but the city of Beijing will take too many years before the Wall is done. SO I go to the "production box for the empire" and designate several cities, such as Shanghai, Taipei, Caton and Hankao to all work on the construction of Great wall of China together iwth the city of Beijing. So, lets say Beijing have two units of resource while, Taipei have three, Shanghai have four, Canton have one and HanKao have four. If Beijing is building the wall, it will have two units of resources every term to build its wall. But now that Shanghai, Taipei, Hankao and Caton are designated to help build the Wall, Beijing now gets 2+3+4+1+4=14 units of resources every term, WHILE Shanghai, Taipei, Canton and Hankao gets no resources to build whatever they want to build.

This feature still leaves the micromanagment of the cities intact. The only addition is that, by allowing the transfer of resources to other cities, it makes construction faster, and it is a form macromanagement of an empire as a whole, not micromanagement of individual cities that have nothing to do with each other.

Many might aruge that this is really an uneeded new feature because the productions are still happening without this new feature. This new feature only offers the benefit of faster production. It offers, in a general sense, time advantage
But all experienced empire gamers should realize the implication that this feature may offer, as well as so many myriad of new type of strategies that can come out of this new feature.

I am asuming that empire boarder is going to be in Civ III. Lets say China is in war with India. Obviously India may most likely send troops by crossing the Hymalaya mountains to the Southern part of China. By allowing transfer of resources, the cities in Southern part of China may raise armies much much faster than it would be able to in the old Civ games.

Another new feature that I like to recommand to the production box is to keep the resources that would have been wasted away if productions are changed before completion in the old Civ games.

For example, if I am almost done building a new pyramid when a barbarian horde suddenly appeared next to my defenseless city, I will obviously need to raise an army to defend this city. So I'll have to change the production box so that it creates a unit of pikemen. However, doing so will mean wasting away all the resources that I've accumulated for construction of pyramid. I think this is really frustrating when this happen. So a new feature should allow production box of....oh lets say...five different production at once.
The city of Shanghai for example may have 60 units of resources. it assigns 10 units of resources to aid Beijing in building of Great Wall (1st proudction of the five allowed in each city). Then it assigns 30 units of resources to building of a bank in Shanghai(2nd of the five production allowed in each city), and it lends or, if the players are generous, gives the remaining 20 units of resources to Japan (third productin of the five productions allowed in each city), an allie of China. Suddenly, Shanghai, being defenseless, is going to be attacked by the Manchurians swepting down from the North. So Shanghai build a new pikemen unit (fourth production of the five production allowed in each city) by transfering the resources it is suppose to use to help Beijing build the Wall, build the bank and give to Japan to raise a new army of pikemen for JUST this term. Then in the next term, everything goes back to it was before. This way, no resources are wasted because of some events that unexpectly happens

I would also recommand taking off the punishment feature that punishes players for changing production before a production is completed. I think this discourages player to learn to be flexible and responds to unexpected changes in conditions.

[This message has been edited by shadowlessasasin (edited November 23, 2000).]
shadowlessasasin is offline  
Old November 23, 2000, 21:06   #3
Shogun Gunner
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization IV: MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMApolyton Storywriters' GuildCivilization III Democracy GameCall to Power II MultiplayerCall to Power MultiplayerC3CDG Team BabylonPtWDG Vox ControliCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Shogun Gunner's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:55
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Potomac Falls, Virginia
Posts: 6,258
quote:

Originally posted by shadowlessasasin on 11-23-2000 07:42 PM
Lets say I want to build in the city of Biejing the Great Wall of China, but the city of Beijing will take too many years before the Wall is done. SO I go to the "production box for the empire" and designate several cities, such as Shanghai, Taipei, Caton and Hankao to all work on the construction of Great wall of China together iwth the city of Beijing. So, lets say Beijing have two units of resource while, Taipei have three, Shanghai have four, Canton have one and HanKao have four. If Beijing is building the wall, it will have two units of resources every term to build its wall. But now that Shanghai, Taipei, Hankao and Caton are designated to help build the Wall, Beijing now gets 2+3+4+1+4=14 units of resources every term, WHILE Shanghai, Taipei, Canton and Hankao gets no resources to build whatever they want to build.
[This message has been edited by shadowlessasasin (edited November 23, 2000).]



Don't the caravans provide this function?

If resources were pooled in a way you describe, there has to be some cost to transporting the materials, people, etc to the new work site. There should be some waste.

I like your idea of multiple productions at once. I see no reason why the shouldn't or couldn't be implemented. If I want to build a granary and phalanx at the same time, why can't i?

I think the Civ II manual gives good rational to why switching production from city improvement to unit (or vice versa) causes a loss of 50% of the shields. It's something along the lines of switching from building a bank to courthouse isn't really that much different, but switching to a military unit is completely different type of production. Plus it avoids the "human cheat" that was prevelant in Civ I.
Shogun Gunner is offline  
Old November 23, 2000, 21:28   #4
shadowlessasasin
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 20
quote:

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner on 11-23-2000 08:06 PM

Don't the caravans provide this function?

If resources were pooled in a way you describe, there has to be some cost to transporting the materials, people, etc to the new work site. There should be some waste.

I like your idea of multiple productions at once. I see no reason why the shouldn't or couldn't be implemented. If I want to build a granary and phalanx at the same time, why can't i?

I think the Civ II manual gives good rational to why switching production from city improvement to unit (or vice versa) causes a loss of 50% of the shields. It's something along the lines of switching from building a bank to courthouse isn't really that much different, but switching to a military unit is completely different type of production. Plus it avoids the "human cheat" that was prevelant in Civ I.


Yes, caravan provide this function for only construction of wonder. But I am thinking about transfering resources to other cities for all type of proudction, not just wonder. The point of this is so that cities actually have some interactions, and that the empire we rule aren't just a loose confederation of cities.
In fact, for an empire we rule to be more than a loose confederation of cities, we should have some transfer of food too so that we might have a city build right on the Hymalay mountains and another city build in a complete grassland. This way, the grassland city can supply the mountain city with food and mountain city can supply grassland city with resources.
As for the loss of time and materials that are wasted in the transportation of materials, you make a good point. I personally don't think we need to be so realistic that we take such small detail into account. But many people do like realism, so if wastes should be involved in transfer of materials from a city to another, it should still be negligible. If 10 units of resources are to be transfered to Beijing from Shanghai for construction of a bank, then only 9 units of resources really went into construction of the bank, while the one unit of resources are the cost of transportations.
What do you think?
By the way, did you like the idea of being able to transfer resources to rival civilzatioN? I thought that's kind of cool. It addes complication to diplomacy aspects of the game.

shadowlessasasin is offline  
Old November 23, 2000, 23:10   #5
Shogun Gunner
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization IV: MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMApolyton Storywriters' GuildCivilization III Democracy GameCall to Power II MultiplayerCall to Power MultiplayerC3CDG Team BabylonPtWDG Vox ControliCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Shogun Gunner's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:55
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Potomac Falls, Virginia
Posts: 6,258
I agree with a the concept of the empire being more than a loose confederation of cities. The transfer of food does already exist in Civ II, so it's good suggestion to introduce the transfer of shields. I had not thought of that before you posted this.

Maybe you are right, the amount of waste may be negligible...especially if you have roads/railroads. I could go either way on that.

I DO like your idea of transfering resources to rival or allied civilizations. Instead of having to cough up gold, a allied or enemy civ may demand shields! Very cool.

Both you and I started a separate topic concerning economics and warfare that dovetails into this topic. We share a similiar outlook. This adds an immense realism to the game. We can only hope FIRAXIS reads these posts and takes them into account.
Shogun Gunner is offline  
Old November 23, 2000, 23:23   #6
shadowlessasasin
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 20
quote:

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner on 11-23-2000 10:10 PM
I agree with a the concept of the empire being more than a loose confederation of cities. The transfer of food does already exist in Civ II, so it's good suggestion to introduce the transfer of shields. I had not thought of that before you posted this.

Maybe you are right, the amount of waste may be negligible...especially if you have roads/railroads. I could go either way on that.

I DO like your idea of transfering resources to rival or allied civilizations. Instead of having to cough up gold, a allied or enemy civ may demand shields! Very cool.

Both you and I started a separate topic concerning economics and warfare that dovetails into this topic. We share a similiar outlook. This adds an immense realism to the game. We can only hope FIRAXIS reads these posts and takes them into account.


True that the transfer of food exists in Civ II. But, and correct me if I am wrong, transfer of food is irreversible in Civ II. Also, given that there are only a max of three trade routes permitted in each city, transfer of food will take one route, allowing only two routes from which that city, which makes the transfer, prosper from actual trading.

That's why I advocate the idea of a trading screen as some else had suggested in another threads. I also advocate the number of trade routes determined by how much the city produce. Put it abstractly, if a city produce ten units of good, then the city can have three avaiable trade routes. If the city increase the units of good to 20, then the city will now get six trade routes.

shadowlessasasin is offline  
Old November 24, 2000, 00:16   #7
Dom Pedro II
King
 
Dom Pedro II's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The College of New Jersey
Posts: 1,098
I think that focusing on individual cities is essential for the market economy. You build cities near resources, you determine where the resources are sent, and you can then build improvements to produce manufactured commodities. You reap a profit by selling these commodities to other civilizations.

A region heavy with particular resources can have many cities gathering that natural resource. An entire civilization can be based on one commodity like oil or cotton. Then, if the player decides to have certain cities with a supply of raw materials producing manufactured goods they can build those improvements needed. Specialized industry is created that way. The best thing to do is not to have each city producing all manufactured goods but rather to have certain cities producing certain goods.

I don't think it should be empire-wide trading. I think there should be a trade screen that allows the player to establish trade routes with other civilization's cities. The trade screen would make this micromanagement much simpler.

The trade screen would also show city inventories. This is important. I think that the "production" shields should be done away with. Instead, I think that all units and improvements should be bought. In addition, some commodities are required to build a unit in a given city. So, to build a Galleon, for example, you would go into a shore city, put down 500 gold (or whatever) for the ship and the city must have 30 wood to complete the ship. The next turn, you get your galleon.

Factories, population, and all other things that affect production should be used to affect the prices of units and buildings, and how many of them can be built at once. A more industrialized city can put out more Bombers per turn than a less industrialized city.

I don't know about specific buildings to produce specific units. It may be too much, and I definitely think that certain cities should not produce more moral. That IS too much micromanagement.

The key to it is more micromanagement on macromanagement screens. In other words have all cities listed on one screen and you make your changes from there. The trouble with empire-as-a-whole is that until recent times, communication and transportation would be too poor to make it realistic.

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

"I think anybody who doesn't think I'm smart enough to handle this job is under-estimating" - George "Dubya" Bush

Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889). :Hannibal3
Dom Pedro II is offline  
Old November 24, 2000, 00:57   #8
Shogun Gunner
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization IV: MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMApolyton Storywriters' GuildCivilization III Democracy GameCall to Power II MultiplayerCall to Power MultiplayerC3CDG Team BabylonPtWDG Vox ControliCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Shogun Gunner's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:55
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Potomac Falls, Virginia
Posts: 6,258
quote:

Originally posted by shadowlessasasin on 11-23-2000 10:23 PM
True that the transfer of food exists in Civ II. But, and correct me if I am wrong, transfer of food is irreversible in Civ II. Also, given that there are only a max of three trade routes permitted in each city, transfer of food will take one route, allowing only two routes from which that city, which makes the transfer, prosper from actual trading.

That's why I advocate the idea of a trading screen as some else had suggested in another threads. I also advocate the number of trade routes determined by how much the city produce. Put it abstractly, if a city produce ten units of good, then the city can have three avaiable trade routes. If the city increase the units of good to 20, then the city will now get six trade routes.



Correct. Also correct that it takes one of your trade routes. Transfer of food is not reversible. I always found that silly. If you choose to send food, you can't choose to stop? My guess there was no easy way to program the game to allow breaking of food supply route without allowing breaking normal trade routes.

I haven't come to firm conclusion if I'm a proponent of the trading screen. I am somewhat fond (maybe used to) the caravan system of Civ II. I agree there are a lot of limitations and improvements need to be made.

Why would you put limits on the number of trade routes? I think that trade should exist to the level that civ can support. For example, if a city produces or mines 10 goods, they should be able to trade on these 10 goods. No limit, except for the limit of natural resources. If that's done in a trading screen, that's fine. I just hope it's different than the Call to Power trading system. Yuck.
Shogun Gunner is offline  
Old November 24, 2000, 01:04   #9
shadowlessasasin
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 20
quote:

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II on 11-23-2000 11:16 PM
I think that focusing on individual cities is essential for the market economy. You build cities near resources, you determine where the resources are sent, and you can then build improvements to produce manufactured commodities. You reap a profit by selling these commodities to other civilizations.

That's what I said in my thread about trading. On this one I agree with you.

A region heavy with particular resources can have many cities gathering that natural resource. An entire civilization can be based on one commodity like oil or cotton. Then, if the player decides to have certain cities with a supply of raw materials producing manufactured goods they can build those improvements needed. Specialized industry is created that way. The best thing to do is not to have each city producing all manufactured goods but rather to have certain cities producing certain goods.

This is why the transfer of resources, as I've mentioned previously, would allow specialization. However, you are suggesting complication to this specialization, by catagorizing these resources into different type of resources such as trees, fishes..etc. On this point, I agree with you

I don't think it should be empire-wide trading. I think there should be a trade screen that allows the player to establish trade routes with other civilization's cities. The trade screen would make this micromanagement much simpler.

Well, I guess when I said macromanagment of empire, I realy mean giving more interactions between cities. For example allowing transfer of resources and food between cities will allow cities to specialize in certain production, as you have suggested. I also agree with you on the trade screen. Trade screen should be micromanaged in the sense that it is city trading with city, not empire trading with empire.

The trade screen would also show city inventories. This is important. I think that the "production" shields should be done away with. Instead, I think that all units and improvements should be bought. In addition, some commodities are required to build a unit in a given city. So, to build a Galleon, for example, you would go into a shore city, put down 500 gold (or whatever) for the ship and the city must have 30 wood to complete the ship. The next turn, you get your galleon.

Agreed

Factories, population, and all other things that affect production should be used to affect the prices of units and buildings, and how many of them can be built at once. A more industrialized city can put out more Bombers per turn than a less industrialized city.

Agreed

I don't know about specific buildings to produce specific units. It may be too much, and I definitely think that certain cities should not produce more moral. That IS too much micromanagement.

Agreed

The key to it is more micromanagement on macromanagement screens. In other words have all cities listed on one screen and you make your changes from there. The trouble with empire-as-a-whole is that until recent times, communication and transportation would be too poor to make it realistic.

In my opinion though, I think too much emphasizes had been placed on micromanagment. That's why I think there need to be features that are macromanagement of empire as a whole. My recommandation about transfer of resources to other cities do exactly macromanagment,without taking away the micromanagement of cities. This, in my opinion, is a perfect way of satisfying both the macromanagers and micromanagers.




shadowlessasasin is offline  
Old November 24, 2000, 01:09   #10
shadowlessasasin
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 20
quote:

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner on 11-23-2000 11:57 PM
Correct. Also correct that it takes one of your trade routes. Transfer of food is not reversible. I always found that silly. If you choose to send food, you can't choose to stop? My guess there was no easy way to program the game to allow breaking of food supply route without allowing breaking normal trade routes.

I haven't come to firm conclusion if I'm a proponent of the trading screen. I am somewhat fond (maybe used to) the caravan system of Civ II. I agree there are a lot of limitations and improvements need to be made.

Why would you put limits on the number of trade routes? I think that trade should exist to the level that civ can support. For example, if a city produces or mines 10 goods, they should be able to trade on these 10 goods. No limit, except for the limit of natural resources. If that's done in a trading screen, that's fine. I just hope it's different than the Call to Power trading system. Yuck.


Well....my reasoning is that if a city produce ten goods, then they would need some of these goods for their own, and trade the surplus to the cities that also need it. I guess a better way to put it is that determination of number of trade routes should be based on the suplus of goods that a city produce. The definition of surlus is the amount left over after neccessary consumption.


shadowlessasasin is offline  
Old November 24, 2000, 01:16   #11
Shogun Gunner
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization IV: MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMApolyton Storywriters' GuildCivilization III Democracy GameCall to Power II MultiplayerCall to Power MultiplayerC3CDG Team BabylonPtWDG Vox ControliCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Shogun Gunner's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:55
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Potomac Falls, Virginia
Posts: 6,258
That's logical. There's another post in a related thread (I think it's from Dom Pedro II) that suggests moving away totally from shield production and do everything based on a monetary system. You would use gold to purchase units and improvements. Somehow production and surplus (for trading) could be worked into this system.
Shogun Gunner is offline  
Old November 26, 2000, 07:31   #12
Wazell
Chieftain
 
Wazell's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Fine Land
Posts: 85
Well. If shields are taken away and players only use gold to build things, Civ3 would have a very simple economic model, and I don't think that'd be good. In fact, even the current production system is too abstract, I prefer something more Colonization-like. So you should use wood and stone to build ancient buildings, metals to build military etc. Transferring these commodities from city to city would be more realistic than moving shields. This transfer costs money naturally. If there's no road, river or sea connect between two cities, transfer costs much more than using your railroad system. How much money the transfer takes, could also depend on your empire's corruption level.

Specific buildings that allow for specific unit production is good idea, especially for scenario making. In normal game I think that at least producing airplanes should require some sort of a building.

Being able to raise your armies quickly by transferring production does not sound good. That's simply not realistic. If you are americans in Vietnamese war, you can't build your whole army in a small base in southern Vietnam, because it's not possible to transfer resources like this. You have to build the army in big cities of mainland usa and then transport them to war area. Though the way how it's done in Civ2 is very tedious, at least if transporting by ship is involved. Perhaps there would be some vectoring system like in Warlords games: when city builds a unit, it automatically sends them to another player-specified city and unit arrives two turns later. Now that reduces micromanagement!
Wazell is offline  
Old November 26, 2000, 09:10   #13
Mark_Everson
 
Mark_Everson's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:55
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 3,442
Wazell:

I have to take exception to your suggestion that Civ 3 use Colonization-like resource-specific production. That was one of the two factors that IMO made Colonization virtually unplayable with 10 or more colonies. That almost turns the game into an accounting simulation since its critical that all the right stuff show up at the right times, etc. I'd rather go to work, at least I get the feel the micromanagement is accomplishing something there
(The second game-killer IMO is training all those bloody specialists... Indespensible for an efficient economy, but takes a Huge amount of time.)

All:

The way we're handling special commodities like metals, oil, etc. in Clash addresses some of the economic inputs required for a strong economy without absolutely requiring certain commodities. (BTW people in the real world can usually get around limitations of commodities, at least in a crude way, if the need is there.) The basic idea is to give local production bonuses if the right special commodities are available to the economy. And we have merchants that are self-motivated (they try to make money) by bringing the right special commodities to the right places. This gives IMO the right flavor of local production limitations without the hassle of a ton of micromanagement.

If you're interested, check out clash.apolyton.net/frame , look under Economy (index at left) and then Special Commodities.



------------------
Mark Everson
Project lead for The Clash of Civilizations
(That means I do the things nobody else wants to do ;-) )
This Radically different civ game needs your suggestions and/or criticism of our design.
Check our our Forum right here at Apolyton...

Mark_Everson is offline  
Old November 26, 2000, 15:04   #14
Dom Pedro II
King
 
Dom Pedro II's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The College of New Jersey
Posts: 1,098
I don't think materials should apply to city improvements. The reason is that people have managed to build buildings out of lots of things over the course of history. People can usually construct shelter out of almost anything in any environment. But I think units and wonders should have material restrictions. And the way to "transfer" materials is simply to set up a trade route. It's not that tough.
Dom Pedro II is offline  
Old April 25, 2001, 21:35   #15
To_Serve_Man
Warlord
 
To_Serve_Man's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:55
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Albany, NY, USA
Posts: 128
Heres a Revolutionary Civ idea for cities. When you play Civ2, if you build a city in the modern time periods, that city still needs Aqueducts, Market places, Collesums(sp?) and a slew of buildings that your population would technically consider them relics! I believe that having to build such ancient buildings would be very silly. It is clear that the majority of the Civ players want the 'Endless City' 'shortcut' gone. So you may not be building any more cities in AD 1800. So this mostly applies to cities that are neglected and/or captured by military force and their city improvements have been destroyed. So to fix this un-realistic and odd problem, one could:

1) Once you hit a modern age, change the names of those buildings to something modern. Aqueducts could change to City Water, Market Places could be named to Super Market (if that is not an upgrade already).

2) Give 'em the ol Leonardo's Workshop and force the city to Sell them and build the newer, modern counterparts.

3) Not do anything..

....Just some observations I made in my travels through Civland....
To_Serve_Man is offline  
Old April 26, 2001, 09:45   #16
jglidewell
Warlord
 
Local Time: 19:55
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: manassas va usa
Posts: 102
quote:

Originally posted by To_Serve_Man on 04-25-2001 09:35 PM

1) Once you hit a modern age, change the names of those buildings to something modern. Aqueducts could change to City Water, Market Places could be named to Super Market (if that is not an upgrade already).

2) Give 'em the ol Leonardo's Workshop and force the city to Sell them and build the newer, modern counterparts.

3) Not do anything..

....Just some observations I made in my travels through Civland....


You should be forced to upgrade them as an older market place becomes ineficient and inadaquite for a larger population. You should also be able to sell the improvements to other civs as well.
jglidewell is offline  
Old April 26, 2001, 16:50   #17
Ecthy
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameSpanish Civers
Emperor
 
Local Time: 02:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,491
I still don't understand why we just don't get an option to choose between micro- and macro-management during the game... narrow-minded bastards...
Ecthy is offline  
Old April 27, 2001, 00:08   #18
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
Isn't there enough micromanagement already without doing all these upgrading and specialty buildings?

Who are these idiots?

Urban Ranger is offline  
Old April 27, 2001, 09:49   #19
jglidewell
Warlord
 
Local Time: 19:55
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: manassas va usa
Posts: 102
quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 04-26-2001 12:08 PM
Isn't there enough micromanagement already without doing all these upgrading and specialty buildings?

Who are these idiots?




You might like Dunkin Donuts for coffee but I prefer Starbucks.

Choices is what makes the game fun. As a rule, the more of them the better it is, but not to the point that it seems a chore. The nitty gritty of my economy is no chore to me, just as it might seem no chore to Genghis Brawn in managing the nitty gritty of his armies.

jglidewell is offline  
Old April 27, 2001, 10:18   #20
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:55
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
Dunkin Donuts? Starbucks?

Who do you think I am? Somebody who has no taste?
Urban Ranger is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:55.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team