Do city improvements need to be cheaper?

[DrFell]

First I'd like to say as with most of my posts I'm primarily thinking of MP here. I know it's a big long but it couldn't be avoided.

Ok let's face it, although civ3 was designed to reduce the problem of 'ICS' and general neglect of city management, it has failed. Not counting the AIs obsession with covering every square of land with cities, the best way to get production up fast is to keep sending out settlers to build more cities in the early game, for a couple reasons (some make ICS even better in civ3) :

----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 - No matter how corrupt they get, they always produce 1 shield and 1 commerce, and they can be made even more productive for virtually no cost (taxmen cities, pop rushing, drafting).

2 - Luxuries and strategic resources are often spread around the map so getting cities out there to claim land for current and future resources is a good idea... otherwise you face having to take the resource via military force, or even worse (and more unlikely) have to trade for it.

3 - No caravans = no easy way of increasing the amount of trade your cities produce makes improvements like marketplaces and libraries much less likely to be worth building in the early game. In civ2 you could build caravans, deliver them off for the bonus and extra trade, and then build improvements in the cities which rapidly payed off (or buy improvments with the cash, as improvements cost less in gold than they do in civ3).

4 - City improvements are just too costly, and to top it all off they of course cost maintenance every turn. For example, let's think of a marketplace, one of the better deals of the ancient and medieval ages:

A market costs 100 shields to build. 100 shields = 400 gold, and markets increase the gold production in a city by 50%. Say for an average city of size >12< in republic (note I'm not talking about small cities here) 2 trade per city square worked, 13 squares worked, that is 26 trade (assuming the city is 0 corrupt). Now assuming you put taxes on 100% you're benefitting by 13 gold per turn. But how much is 13 gold per turn when converted into shields? 3 shields per turn, plus one gold remaining, which goes to pay for the market.

Now think about what you could also do with those 100 shields. Say you build 3 settlers, send them out to even very poor sites, and you instantly get one shield and one commerce per city, with NO maintenance costs, each of which grows in say, 10 turns (allowing you to hire taxmen perhaps?), and you save 10 shields on top of that. The only pain is the loss of population, but with the fixed food box size the population is rapidly replenished, and the little cities you build can pump out workers eventually (every 10 turns in despotism) so they really do pay off in the long run.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact is, with the way things are, the vast majority of the game it is not even worth growing cities above size 6 unless they happen to be by a river. Until factories and hospitals come about, a lot of these improvements are just simply not worth building, far better to produce military, workers, and settlers right up until the industrial age. Even many wonders are worthless (the only real reason to build big cities in the ancient age). Culture is also not a big deal since you can raze any high culture cities you occupy, so improvements are not great for that unless your opponent is stupid enough to try capturing huge culture cities.

So what realisticly can we do about this? Well, reasons 1 and 2 are very difficult to 'fix' because they would require a change in game mechanics, to some degree. 3 is even worse as caravans are no longer a game concept. However, 4 is easy to change. Cut down the costs of ancient age commerce/ low level happiness improvements considerably! Markets should cost 60 shields, as should libraries. Temples should cost 40 shields (perhaps, and give 1 culture per turn rather than 2), and Aqueducts should be 80 shields. Going in to the middle ages, banks should be 120 shields or less, and universities should be the same cost as banks. Also we could do with a couple new improvments (like a 'stock exchange' super bank improvement). Things are better balanced in the later ages so not many changes are needed there.

Without making some changes I think MP will just be a rush to expand via ICS and a constant war fest. Not that that bothers me in the ancient age, as war is the best part of the game. But it would be nice to see some flexibility later on such as in the middle ages, as the first time big cities become valuable is in the industrial age. But by that time everyone would likely have such large armies and be trapped in wars such that there would be no time for them to build up their cities, as it would be easier to go wartime mobilization and continue cranking out advanced units. I highly doubt any games will reach the mid-industrial age though except ones played by very peaceful players, or diplogames, as everyone will get wiped out in the first two ages.

Thoughts?

[punkbass2000]

A lot of these changes sound familiar...

(Civ2)

[Spiffor]

I admit my experience in MP is to do complete games with close friends...

I don't think the improvements should be cheaper, for very simple reasons :
- there are not enough improvements in Civ3, and you end up having built everything in all of your cities by the beginning of industrial. Lessening the cost would only worsenthis feeling, and even the most peaceful builder would have nothing else to do than churning out units.
- High building costs mean that a true warmonger cannot afford them for a long time, and hence suffers in terms of culture. If building costs were cheaper, warmongering wouldn't have any drawbacks.
- Your demonstration is good, but you seem to forget that gold isn't only used to make shields : it's used to develop science (and players won't trade science as much as the AI does), to buy resources / luxuries, to bribe allies or to appease hostile Civs. That's why a marketplace in a size 12 city is much better than 3 rotten towns. Plus, these rotten towns affect corruptin in your core cities as well.

[DrFell]

Originally posted by Spiffor
- there are not enough improvements in Civ3, and you end up having built everything in all of your cities by the beginning of industrial. Lessening the cost would only worsenthis feeling, and even the most peaceful builder would have nothing else to do than churning out units.

The solution is more improvements put into the game (which is what Firaxis might do). Anyway, I don't build improvements which will end up being worthless (rather would build units, which effectively forces me into warmonger mode as I've got to use them for something) and by the industrial age I often have no improvements at all in my cities, because none of them pay off.

- High building costs mean that a true warmonger cannot afford them for a long time, and hence suffers in terms of culture. If building costs were cheaper, warmongering wouldn't have any drawbacks.

True, but culture is no big deal if you're attacked by say, 30 knights who go onto raze rather than capture your cities. What's your culture going to do to stop that

- Your demonstration is good, but you seem to forget that gold isn't only used to make shields : it's used to develop science (and players won't trade science as much as the AI does)

Running at 100% sci is possible if you have no libraries in your cities. Unfortunately if you have improvements it is not possible, you will be forced to crank up taxes to pay for the costs which will lower science rate proportionally. But I did say the libraries might be worth it - haven't tried them out but they are definitely a better deal than markets.

to buy resources / luxuries, to bribe allies or to appease hostile Civs. That's why a marketplace in a size 12 city is much better than 3 rotten towns. Plus, these rotten towns affect corruptin in your core cities as well.

Resources and lux can be taken though, if you focus on cities and get a good area of land. Always better to have the resource for free rather than trading it IMO. And remember, the small towns will still produce commerce of their own, and I'm not sure they do affect the production of core cities, just of newly built cities (will look it up sometime). When they grow to larger size they can also hire taxmen and/or build wealth for greater income if it's needed.