Simple Unit Building Idea

nato · June 7, 2002, 03:52

Someone may have thought of this before, but here is a radical idea...

How about, except for settlers and workers, cities:

1. Must have a barracks to build ground units
2. Must have a harbor to build naval units
3. Must have an airport to build air units

A possible exception might be basic defender units, like spearmen, which might be able to be built by any city.

I think this might be very interesting. Even if 1 is too extreme, 2 and 3 make a lot of sense. Just an idea.

Any thoughts?

Nym · June 7, 2002, 05:16

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
I think this might be very interesting. Even if 1 is too extreme, 2 and 3 make a lot of sense.

Same remark, but interesting idea, especially for 2 and 3.

AIL · June 7, 2002, 05:25

Especially for 3 I agree... The Airport is almost useless as it is now and so you could add some sense...
I don't know if the Editor allows itto be done like that... for buildings however it is possible to have a building as requirement so why not for Units too...

Harovan · June 7, 2002, 05:42

Good idea. But what units would they build? Veterans? Hardly, because this would narrow down the unit experience line. Regulars? This would give militaristic civs still a greater advantage in leader generation - cheap barracks and twice the sooner unit promotion.

graeme · June 7, 2002, 06:40

Quote:

Especially for 3 I agree...

I don't understand the reasoning behind 3, why would you need an airport to build aircraft? Surely they are just build in factories.

Also I think that what would be better than 2 is a new city improvement, docks. This would require the city to be next to a river before ships could be built. Or something. Haven't really thought about it too much.

Graeme

Jethro83 · June 7, 2002, 06:49

Quote:

Originally posted by graeme
I don't understand the reasoning behind 3, why would you need an airport to build aircraft? Surely they are just build in factories.

I'm certain that aircraft are built in factories. But you still need a place set aside where they can take off and land safely, and maintain communications with ground control.

Anyway, I don't agree with Idea 1, about ground units requiring barracks.

As for idea 2, requiring a harbour, I don't agree with either. However, you should need a harbour in the city to carry out repairs on the ship (since the tech for harbour and tech for first naval unit are the same, it seems reasonable).

But idea 3, I definitely agree. Churning your jet fighters out of their factories is one thing, but having a hangar for them to stay in, and a runway for them to be able to take off and land safely is another.

graeme · June 7, 2002, 07:11

Quote:

I'm certain that aircraft are built in factories. But you still need a place set aside where they can take off and land safely, and maintain communications with ground control.

Thats a good point, but this relates to the control and utilisation of the aircraft rather than their manufacture.

Graeme

Harovan · June 7, 2002, 07:22

As for the factory vs. airport discussion:

The aircraft works in Dresden, Germany were located right next to the airport. You certainly must have both. Or you will have to transport the detais via roads and must assemble them in the airfield, at least for the bigger planes, not talking about small fighters.

Panag · June 7, 2002, 08:17

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
Someone may have thought of this before, but here is a radical idea...

How about, except for settlers and workers, cities:

1. Must have a barracks to build ground units
2. Must have a harbor to build naval units
3. Must have an airport to build air units

A possible exception might be basic defender units, like spearmen, which might be able to be built by any city.

I think this might be very interesting. Even if 1 is too extreme, 2 and 3 make a lot of sense. Just an idea.

Any thoughts?

hi ,

okay , BUT ; harbor for fishing , PORT for naval units , .....

have a nice day

Sava · June 7, 2002, 09:09

Makes sense... but when does Firaxis listen to Apolytoners who have ideas that make sense?

Apocalypse · June 7, 2002, 09:29

A barracks required seems a little extreme, and it isn't required in real life for an entity to produce a unit. Habors might be a little too much also.

The airport idea would be really nice though. I rarely build them in Civ games, and if I do it is one per continent.

Solver · June 7, 2002, 09:45

Alas, I'm against the idea, it's a bit too radical for me. The barracks one is completely radical, but the others seem pretty much so for me, too.

dunk · June 7, 2002, 11:12

I like the airport idea. The other two make the game too difficult. Maybe require a harbor for sail age on, but not galleys or caravels.

Maybe something like this for airplanes...

Either an airport or an airfield within its city radius will allow construction of airplanes. I mean, the plane is built in a factory, but what are you going to do with it when it's done if there's no airfield? Take off from Main Street?

Destroyer · June 7, 2002, 11:35

Are veteran air units worth the cost of an airport?

One good thing about airports is that they can receive as many units airlifted as you have other airports.

The port in civ 2 was one of the most pointless buildings in the game.

SultanofATL · June 7, 2002, 12:08

how about missions except for rebasing being disabled for a plane unless it is in a city with an airport. This would add a new level of strategy.

Navyman · June 7, 2002, 12:14

At least for modern large naval units like the destroyer, carrier, and battleship the city MUST be required to build something like "Shipyards" or something. We don't see piddly little coastal towns with just a library being able to build 90,000 ton carriers.

And Shipyards should only be able to be built if a coastal city has had a harbor for over 100 years. Let's face it, not every country can build destroyers, or battleships, or for that matter a carrier. Being able to build these massive ships requires a tradition of ship building and naval architecture which the harbor requirement could fill.

But then if it is going to be this difficult to gain a naval capabilty, it should be worth it. My sugguestion would be make the carrier be capable of carrying 8-12 aircrafts. Battleship attack range and power be increased, and destroyers be able to take down aircraft. This maybe too radical a change but I thought I would throw it out there for some comments.

candidgamera · June 7, 2002, 12:55

nato:

posted a couple of times beating this drum, and will help you beat it again: it takes infrastructure to build units especially modern ones. Consider that the game now lets "Kotzebue, Alaska" build a carrier if you have the money, which is ludicrous considering US only builds carriers in one place. I put pop cost now on anything in industrial and up - 3 for carriers and battleships. Done right this might help AI unit diarhea.

Would make it multilevel too: for ships, modern ones say frigate and up I'd say shipyard and harbor. for destroyers up navy base also and for carriers or planes going on carriers naval air station.
similar for air units. Along the lines of navyman's comments.
Navy's cost money and resources no doubt, but that's consistent with history too.

Just the way Civ works makes doing this the it really works hard:
US trains sailors at one base.
US trains pilots in another.
US builds carriers in another.
. . . builds planes in another place.
all come together in Civ terms as planes off a carrier.

However, putting these into building requirements for a city would be a workable compromise. Might need to make the actual units cost less to balance for the building requirements.

Sidebar:
Have had some ideas for some time on feeding these troops too, and keeping them linked to where they were built, but not quite the way Civ II does, and putting this together with a concrete method for war weariness. workers consumable to make units and demobilize too. Have to post on this.

Jon Shafer · June 7, 2002, 13:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Makes sense... but when does Firaxis listen to Apolytoners who have ideas that make sense?

More often then you think, give them some credit. They said during the chat that most of their ideas for patches came from HERE, of all places.

Besides, you could probably make most of these changes with the current editor.

Panag · June 7, 2002, 14:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Navyman
At least for modern large naval units like the destroyer, carrier, and battleship the city MUST be required to build something like "Shipyards" or something. We don't see piddly little coastal towns with just a library being able to build 90,000 ton carriers.

And Shipyards should only be able to be built if a coastal city has had a harbor for over 100 years. Let's face it, not every country can build destroyers, or battleships, or for that matter a carrier. Being able to build these massive ships requires a tradition of ship building and naval architecture which the harbor requirement could fill.

But then if it is going to be this difficult to gain a naval capabilty, it should be worth it. My sugguestion would be make the carrier be capable of carrying 8-12 aircrafts. Battleship attack range and power be increased, and destroyers be able to take down aircraft. This maybe too radical a change but I thought I would throw it out there for some comments.

hi ,

there should be ports , one to make that carrier faster then in that only lib town , two it should be needed for the building of veteran ship's , also , it should repair them faster , like in civ2 , but a complete new concept , ...

have a nice day

Captain · June 7, 2002, 14:59

Nato,

what about just adding a BUILDING requirement to certain units?

Which specific building would depend on what you set it to in the editor.

This would be editable so that by playtesting of hundreds/thousands of apolytoners and civfanatics, we could come up with better balance.
if not airport, then factory.

also would be good for scenarios.
if designing special WW2 scenario, you could add a building "aircraft factory" that is a prereq for planes. you could add a building "Launch centre" that is a prereq for building V2 rockets.
want to stop the V2 rockets? you don't have to take over the city, just bomb the Launch pad.
want to stop Panzer production? bomb the factories.

Trip:
It's not currently possible with the existing editor and Firaxis hasn't given any indication that building prereqs for units will be implemented.
those interested should keep posting about it, especially if they have a good rapport with firaxis.

Jon Shafer · June 7, 2002, 15:01

Well, I would have thought something like that would have been obvious, but I guess I was wrong. ^_^

Panag · June 7, 2002, 15:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
Nato,

what about just adding a BUILDING requirement to certain units?

Which specific building would depend on what you set it to in the editor.

This would be editable so that by playtesting of hundreds/thousands of apolytoners and civfanatics, we could come up with better balance.
if not airport, then factory.

also would be good for scenarios.
if designing special WW2 scenario, you could add a building "aircraft factory" that is a prereq for planes. you could add a building "Launch centre" that is a prereq for building V2 rockets.
want to stop the V2 rockets? you don't have to take over the city, just bomb the Launch pad.
want to stop Panzer production? bomb the factories.

Trip:
It's not currently possible with the existing editor and Firaxis hasn't given any indication that building prereqs for units will be implemented.
those interested should keep posting about it, especially if they have a good rapport with firaxis.

hi ,

that ww2 stuff sounds like fun , .....try to bomb the factory , .....one shall have to try a long time , ......

have a nice day

Catt · June 7, 2002, 15:22

While I acknowledge the "realism" logic of the suggestion, my fear is that it would greatly damage gameplay, especially in the ancient age. What's a barracks cost, 40 shields? Being forced to build a barracks in a new city before building ground units would be a killer -- on anything above Regent level, your population would grow and become quite unhappy while you're waiting for the barracks to finish (1 - because fewer military police, 2 - because no ability to control city growth through building workers/settlers). It would essentially force you to specify your first two or three cities as the "ground unit prioducers" and avoid building barracks in later cities until your empire was up and humming, with luxuries aplenty and trade deals going.

Similar, but progressively lesser problems, with both harbors and airports.

This IMHO, together with some of the other posts here, strongly argues for leaving the unit build requirements as they are.

Catt

Spiffor · June 7, 2002, 16:07

Nato's ideas are too radical for me, but I wouldn't mind a "building prereq" box for each unit individually. For example, I'd like to build tanks only in cities which have a factory, even if I want to recruit my infantry anywhere.

Panag · June 7, 2002, 16:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Catt
While I acknowledge the "realism" logic of the suggestion, my fear is that it would greatly damage gameplay, especially in the ancient age. What's a barracks cost, 40 shields? Being forced to build a barracks in a new city before building ground units would be a killer -- on anything above Regent level, your population would grow and become quite unhappy while you're waiting for the barracks to finish (1 - because fewer military police, 2 - because no ability to control city growth through building workers/settlers). It would essentially force you to specify your first two or three cities as the "ground unit prioducers" and avoid building barracks in later cities until your empire was up and humming, with luxuries aplenty and trade deals going.

Similar, but progressively lesser problems, with both harbors and airports.

This IMHO, together with some of the other posts here, strongly argues for leaving the unit build requirements as they are.

Catt

hi ,

the building should not be a must , just to produce a veteran , if you dont use the building , you have a to pay a bit more , and its a regular , ...

have a nice day

candidgamera · June 7, 2002, 17:27

Catt:

Would think the early game units wouldn't need a barracks to be built as now, but if a barracks is built they are veteran- representing better training, per Panang. For modern I'd make it needed to even make certain units and combat required to get to veteran.

I mentally treat modern units from about Muskets on as a sort of "division" - they have a bombardment, roadmaking ability - and they cost pop and ought to have building requirements. (Also allow them to add to cities).

Navyman:
reading your post again, guess I'm seconding it with my comments (sorry for being repititious) - definitely agree, Maritime Tradition should matter more.

Captain:
Like it - on the bombing factories.

Also like the ideas above on aircraft factories needed to be built to build planes - similar to emphasizing difficulty in building modern ships. Think it ends up being airport+air force base+aircraft factory requirement per my last post - "civworld logic":

"dunk999: Either an airport or an airfield within its city radius will allow construction of airplanes. I mean, the plane is built in a factory, but what are you going to do with it when it's done if there's no airfield? Take off from Main Street?" agreed.

The "building required" flag would need a "in city" added to it also would think. Seems like if it were to be done, might want 3-4 building requirements chooseable - like required resources are now.

This is all stuff to avoid arguement over by putting into the editor so its optional and explorable. But a bigger issue is even if its in the editor, does the AI work with it sensibly? Not that I don't want it. Wonder if that's why F. guys may not want to do it.

candidgamera · June 7, 2002, 17:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
Nato,

This would be editable so that by playtesting of hundreds/thousands of apolytoners and civfanatics, we could come up with better balance.
if not airport, then factory.

Reminds me of "an infinite number of monkeys behind typewriters coming up with Hamlet"

Message to Fireaxis: give me a "typewriter".

sidebar: anybody given more than the SAM an air strength yet?

Panag · June 7, 2002, 18:30

hi ,

as for the buildings , what about a sewer system , .....

further more , a radar building should allow air-units to go further then 8 spaces , .....

have a nice day

nato · June 7, 2002, 23:03

Right now, I think Civ3 is very very warmonger. I was thinking this might weaken warmongering. Also, I thought it might lead towards more specialized cities, which I think is very cool and more strategic than all generalist cities.

Given comments, especially Sir Ralph's about what level units would be, and everyone who thinks it would be too radical, I think a slightly revised version might be:

0. All cities can build settlers, workers, and conscript level defenders (the spearman/pike/rifleman line). Drafting continues to give you a conscript level defender.

1. All cities must have a barracks to build other ground units, who start out as regulars. Defenders built in a barracks city also come out as regulars (not conscripts).

2. All cities must have a port to build naval units, who start out as regulars. Only cities with ports can repair naval units.

3. All cities must have an airport to build air units, who start out as regulars.

0, allowing cities to build defenders without a barracks makes 1 less of a radical change. I think it is also vital so that non-warmongers don't have to build barracks to have some basic defense.

1 would make offensive warfare harder I hope, which I think is good because currently war is so strong. It would also boost the power of the militaristic trait, which many people feel is weak on large maps.

2 would slow down exploration across the seas, because a port would have to be built first. I think this is good ... however, if you don't agree, maybe the Galley could be excepted, just like spearman guys are from 1.

Like panag says, I agree it should be a harbor for fishing food bonus, and a new building port for shipbuilding ... I would also think the new building port should be the building that allows over seas connection to the trade routes.

3 basically just gives airports more reason to be built and is more realistic.

Overall, 1 makes early offensive units a little harder to get out. I think this would be great because early war is so strong. 2 and 3 make naval and air units harder to get out. I think it would be fun and strategic to make cities more specialized. I also think it would be good to make it a slightly bigger step to cross the seas.

Captains building requirement for some units would be fantastic and straightforward. candidgamera, I figured someone had already thought of this, so I guess it was you... I think its a cool idea.

Thanks all for reading and replying...

candidgamera · June 8, 2002, 00:09

nato:

suspect, judging from the sheer size of this community more have thought of it too. Nice to see it getting discussion though. keep banging the drum I guess.

good general outline with your last post. Kind of makes veteran and elite mean more - have to go to war to get them or do some fighting.

some points:

harbor needed for overseas trade and repair, agreed.

but also shipyards needed also for galleons, caravels -and up - shipyards like a specialized factory, like having to build aircraft factories to build planes.

naval bases too for say frigates on.

especially agree with your first comment - the sheer number of units the AI builds without consequence has to have some to do with how the game drags now - "as they all 80 of them wander around the jungle without visible means of support like zombies".

kind of why I put in pop cost for modern units.
come on 260 riders?!

AI never seems to upgrade either.