Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Civ 4 - megacities

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 1:13:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

One thing I would like to see in Civ 4 is big modern megacities. Surely we
can have a way to create really big cities in the modern age.
Perhaps this could be done with a new ability for settlers to found a suburb
in each square ajoining the city square. Doing this could increase the city
radius by one square all the way around for but only for cities size 21 and
above. Small cities within two or three squares of the main city centre
could even be swallowed up to become suburbs of the megacity.
Large, sprawling cities began to appear in the real world with the advent of
the motor car, so this settler ability should be available with the
motorised transport tech.

Just imagine the production, commerce and science you would get as three or
four smaller cities transform into one sprawling metropolis of maybe size 50
or 60!
Polution could be a problem, just as in the real world :-)
Once formed, perhaps these cities could be allowed to divide its production
to allow TWO things to be built by the city at once, one being a unit and
the other a city improvement. Or concentrate all production on a wonder.

Another thing I want to see is the ability to send food from smaller cities
to the big cities as happens in the real world.
I'm sure LA, New York, Tokyo etc. don't grow all their food within the city
radius so why should this be so in Civ?

Anyway, that's some ideas I have.
Your comments please!

More about : civ megacities

Anonymous
January 11, 2005 2:46:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:13:39 GMT, "Byron Creek"
<byroncreek@hotmail.com> wrote:

>One thing I would like to see in Civ 4 is big modern megacities. Surely we
>can have a way to create really big cities in the modern age.
>Perhaps this could be done with a new ability for settlers to found a suburb
>in each square ajoining the city square. Doing this could increase the city
>radius by one square all the way around for but only for cities size 21 and
>above. Small cities within two or three squares of the main city centre
>could even be swallowed up to become suburbs of the megacity.
>Large, sprawling cities began to appear in the real world with the advent of
>the motor car, so this settler ability should be available with the
>motorised transport tech.

I'd like to see cities permitted to grow up to the culture
limit.

I would eliminate city flipping--I don't think that's what's
going to happen. Rather, I would like to see migration. People would
move from inferior cities to superior cities. If the inferior city
was within the culture limit of the superior city they might even
bring a building with them (and if the last unit went, all buildings
would be guaranteed to go over also.) The end result would be
megacities that gobbled up anything near them.

>Just imagine the production, commerce and science you would get as three or
>four smaller cities transform into one sprawling metropolis of maybe size 50
>or 60!

It should be able to go higher than that. Look at the world,
there are places with single cities that comprise a substantial
percentage of the population of the country.

>Polution could be a problem, just as in the real world :-)
>Once formed, perhaps these cities could be allowed to divide its production
>to allow TWO things to be built by the city at once, one being a unit and
>the other a city improvement. Or concentrate all production on a wonder.

No. One thing at a time but production wouldn't be limited to a
single item per turn. It would build as much of the queue as it
could.

>Another thing I want to see is the ability to send food from smaller cities
>to the big cities as happens in the real world.

I'd do it slightly differently. For any given city, allow it to
be assigned to import or export any number of food units--total
imports obviously being limited to total exports. This would carry a
slight cost, say 1 credit per 10 food. I would also like to see this
with shields.
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 9:05:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:46:39 -0800, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:13:39 GMT, "Byron Creek"
><byroncreek@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>One thing I would like to see in Civ 4 is big modern megacities. Surely we
>>can have a way to create really big cities in the modern age.
>>Perhaps this could be done with a new ability for settlers to found a suburb
>>in each square ajoining the city square. Doing this could increase the city
>>radius by one square all the way around for but only for cities size 21 and
>>above. Small cities within two or three squares of the main city centre
>>could even be swallowed up to become suburbs of the megacity.
>>Large, sprawling cities began to appear in the real world with the advent of
>>the motor car, so this settler ability should be available with the
>>motorised transport tech.
>
> I'd like to see cities permitted to grow up to the culture
>limit.

Allowing increase in city size without substantially altering how
city improvements work would have *serious* balance problems. In
Civ3, cities limited to size 6 are economically crippled compared to
the size 12 competitors, but the game offers a relatively low cost
(but high tech in ancient era) fix for the problem (aqueducts). The
jump from size 12 to 20 isn't nearly as powerful, but it significantly
enhances the cost effectiveness of the expensive improvements
(university, bank, and factory notably).

Jumping the size up even to a full three radius, no squares "blocked
out," would put 49 squares to work -- more than doubling the current
limit. Unless the rules were changed to multiply the costs -- build
and maintain, including some charge for existing improvements -- such
megacities would blow away all smaller types in productivity.

The Civ cities don't really represent just cities -- it is a region
-- state or county or province, whatever you want to call it.

High population cities would be no bigger in area than lesser
cities. It is a matter of economics and food supply which allows
modern super-cities, and there isn't a linear relationship between the
population and productivity. Really huge cities don't end up
manufacturing that much more than ordinary metropolises.

What they *do* have is a lot more commercial infrastructure. And of
course, a lot more administration to manage it all. You could
effectively represent this sort of thing via city improvements of some
type, though the current Civ3 editor won't let you do enough (sigh).

First simple thing would be a food bonus improvement (like Civ2
refrigeration allowed). That would let the city grow larger, even
though no more squares would be in use.

Second would be more high-cost economic enhancers, perhaps requiring
massive populations in order to be built. One simple idea would be
"suburban sprawl," which would transform surrounding farmland into
increased population support. The more good living area available,
the larger the city can grow.

As well, you'd need some new happiness enhancers -- expensive, but
worthwhile for super-huge populations -- and commerce boosters.

> I would eliminate city flipping--I don't think that's what's
>going to happen. Rather, I would like to see migration. People would
>move from inferior cities to superior cities. If the inferior city
>was within the culture limit of the superior city they might even
>bring a building with them (and if the last unit went, all buildings
>would be guaranteed to go over also.) The end result would be
>megacities that gobbled up anything near them.

I think that would be a bit complicated to deal with. City
flipping, OTOH, isn't a bad representation of how city-states changed
allegiance in pre-industrial times.

A lot of the game issues in Civ spur from using the same set of
operating rules for both the modern area and all earlier times.
Having the era change how cultural conversion works would be a start
-- it should be a *lot* harder for a state to simply convert freely in
the modern era.

Borders also should be harder in the modern era -- border violations
on any large scale are a causus belli, and the AI (and players) just
wouldn't do it.

>>Just imagine the production, commerce and science you would get as three or
>>four smaller cities transform into one sprawling metropolis of maybe size 50
>>or 60!
>
> It should be able to go higher than that. Look at the world,
>there are places with single cities that comprise a substantial
>percentage of the population of the country.

City size, while never quite a match for real world in Civ,
represents larger population numbers with much larger increases in the
descriptive population. A size 20 city is much more than double a
size 10 in population (though it is only double in productivity).

We don't -- not so far at least -- get real world metropolises
fusing into single, highly efficient economic entities. The highest
population cities in the world aren't much bigger than many smaller
cities. In fact, they are often smaller in area.


Unless you're going to go into future era tech, that isn't going to
change. It seems to me that this idea reflects that sort of thing,
something which would only truly apply in the extreme end game, or if
the modern era was extended.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/&gt;
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/&gt;
Related resources
Anonymous
January 11, 2005 9:43:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

i like this idea very much....

--
From Adam Webb, Overlag
www.tacticalgamer.com
CS:SOURCE server now active :D 

"Byron Creek" <byroncreek@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nFNEd.114126$K7.73274@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> One thing I would like to see in Civ 4 is big modern megacities. Surely we
> can have a way to create really big cities in the modern age.
> Perhaps this could be done with a new ability for settlers to found a
suburb
> in each square ajoining the city square. Doing this could increase the
city
> radius by one square all the way around for but only for cities size 21
and
> above. Small cities within two or three squares of the main city centre
> could even be swallowed up to become suburbs of the megacity.
> Large, sprawling cities began to appear in the real world with the advent
of
> the motor car, so this settler ability should be available with the
> motorised transport tech.
>
> Just imagine the production, commerce and science you would get as three
or
> four smaller cities transform into one sprawling metropolis of maybe size
50
> or 60!
> Polution could be a problem, just as in the real world :-)
> Once formed, perhaps these cities could be allowed to divide its
production
> to allow TWO things to be built by the city at once, one being a unit and
> the other a city improvement. Or concentrate all production on a wonder.
>
> Another thing I want to see is the ability to send food from smaller
cities
> to the big cities as happens in the real world.
> I'm sure LA, New York, Tokyo etc. don't grow all their food within the
city
> radius so why should this be so in Civ?
>
> Anyway, that's some ideas I have.
> Your comments please!
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.830 / Virus Database: 565 - Release Date: 06/01/2005
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 7:37:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Loren Pechtel <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:69a8u09uqa9q3fglrepbthdb29kf109ek6@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:13:39 GMT, "Byron Creek"
> <byroncreek@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>One thing I would like to see in Civ 4 is big modern megacities.
>>Surely we can have a way to create really big cities in the modern
>>age. Perhaps this could be done with a new ability for settlers to
>>found a suburb in each square ajoining the city square. Doing this
>>could increase the city radius by one square all the way around
>>for but only for cities size 21 and above. Small cities within two
>>or three squares of the main city centre could even be swallowed
>>up to become suburbs of the megacity. Large, sprawling cities
>>began to appear in the real world with the advent of the motor
>>car, so this settler ability should be available with the
>>motorised transport tech.
>
> I'd like to see cities permitted to grow up to the culture
> limit.
>
> I would eliminate city flipping--I don't think that's what's
> going to happen. Rather, I would like to see migration. People
> would move from inferior cities to superior cities. If the
> inferior city was within the culture limit of the superior city
> they might even bring a building with them (and if the last unit
> went, all buildings would be guaranteed to go over also.) The end
> result would be megacities that gobbled up anything near them.
>
>>Just imagine the production, commerce and science you would get as
>>three or four smaller cities transform into one sprawling
>>metropolis of maybe size 50 or 60!
>
> It should be able to go higher than that. Look at the world,
> there are places with single cities that comprise a substantial
> percentage of the population of the country.

I dislike the idea of megacities using up more of the map. I think
that is the idea of any pop 21+ city. After a certain point, extra
people add to the city's economy more than it's productivity. And the
specialists gained in Civ now represent that well.

>>Polution could be a problem, just as in the real world :-)
>>Once formed, perhaps these cities could be allowed to divide its
>>production to allow TWO things to be built by the city at once,
>>one being a unit and the other a city improvement. Or concentrate
>>all production on a wonder.
>
> No. One thing at a time but production wouldn't be limited
> to a
> single item per turn. It would build as much of the queue as it
> could.

This is an improvement a long time in coming. It gives actual
purpose to the build queue, and it makes sense too! Perhaps extra
shields (after queue is emptied) could be converted to wealth or "trade
goods" (which could be trade, duh) before wealth is discovered.

>>Another thing I want to see is the ability to send food from
>>smaller cities to the big cities as happens in the real world.
>
> I'd do it slightly differently. For any given city, allow
> it to
> be assigned to import or export any number of food units--total
> imports obviously being limited to total exports. This would
> carry a slight cost, say 1 credit per 10 food. I would also like
> to see this with shields.

How about all excess food is deposited into civ-wide storage.
Cities short on food would withdraw from this storage. Excess could be
traded internationally, or lost if not traded. Food can't be kept
forever.

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:49:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

suburbs in adjoining sqaures -- very cool idea
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 11:33:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:05:57 -0600, Jeffery S. Jones
<jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

>> I'd like to see cities permitted to grow up to the culture
>>limit.
>
> Allowing increase in city size without substantially altering how
>city improvements work would have *serious* balance problems. In
>Civ3, cities limited to size 6 are economically crippled compared to
>the size 12 competitors, but the game offers a relatively low cost
>(but high tech in ancient era) fix for the problem (aqueducts). The
>jump from size 12 to 20 isn't nearly as powerful, but it significantly
>enhances the cost effectiveness of the expensive improvements
>(university, bank, and factory notably).

1) I would like to see the upkeep on improvements scale with the
size of the city.

2) What's so catastrophic about megacities being more powerful?

>> I would eliminate city flipping--I don't think that's what's
>>going to happen. Rather, I would like to see migration. People would
>>move from inferior cities to superior cities. If the inferior city
>>was within the culture limit of the superior city they might even
>>bring a building with them (and if the last unit went, all buildings
>>would be guaranteed to go over also.) The end result would be
>>megacities that gobbled up anything near them.
>
> I think that would be a bit complicated to deal with. City
>flipping, OTOH, isn't a bad representation of how city-states changed
>allegiance in pre-industrial times.

What would be so hard to deal with about it? Low grade cities
would find their people and buildings leaving for superior nearby
cities.

> A lot of the game issues in Civ spur from using the same set of
>operating rules for both the modern area and all earlier times.
>Having the era change how cultural conversion works would be a start
>-- it should be a *lot* harder for a state to simply convert freely in
>the modern era.

True--it might make sense in old times but not now.

> Borders also should be harder in the modern era -- border violations
>on any large scale are a causus belli, and the AI (and players) just
>wouldn't do it.

Yeah, the AI stinks in that regard.
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 1:58:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

< cvt >
> > I'd like to see cities permitted to grow vp to the cvltvre
> >limit.
>
> Allowing increase in city size withovt svbstantially altering how
> city improvements work wovld have *seriovs* balance problems. In
> Civ3, cities limited to size 6 are economically crippled compared to
> the size 12 competitors, bvt the game offers a relatively low cost
> (bvt high tech in ancient era) fix for the problem (aqvedvcts). The
> jvmp from size 12 to 20 isn't nearly as powerfvl, bvt it significantly
> enhances the cost effectiveness of the expensive improvements
> (vniversity, bank, and factory notably).
>
> Jvmping the size vp even to a fvll three radivs, no sqvares "blocked
> ovt," wovld pvt 49 sqvares to work -- more than dovbling the cvrrent
> limit. Unless the rvles were changed to mvltiply the costs -- bvild
> and maintain, inclvding some charge for existing improvements -- svch
> megacities wovld blow away all smaller types in prodvctivity.
>
> The Civ cities don't really represent jvst cities -- it is a region
> -- state or covnty or province, whatever yov want to call it.
>
> High popvlation cities wovld be no bigger in area than lesser
> cities. It is a matter of economics and food svpply which allows
> modern svper-cities, and there isn't a linear relationship between the
> popvlation and prodvctivity. Really hvge cities don't end vp
> manvfactvring that mvch more than ordinary metropolises.
>
> What they *do* have is a lot more commercial infrastrvctvre. And of
> covrse, a lot more administration to manage it all. Yov covld
> effectively represent this sort of thing via city improvements of some
> type, thovgh the cvrrent Civ3 editor won't let yov do enovgh (sigh).
>
> First simple thing wovld be a food bonvs improvement (like Civ2
> refrigeration allowed). That wovld let the city grow larger, even
> thovgh no more sqvares wovld be in vse.
>
> Second wovld be more high-cost economic enhancers, perhaps reqviring
> massive popvlations in order to be bvilt. One simple idea wovld be
> "svbvrban sprawl," which wovld transform svrrovnding farmland into
> increased popvlation svpport. The more good living area available,
> the larger the city can grow.
>
> As well, yov'd need some new happiness enhancers -- expensive, bvt
> worthwhile for svper-hvge popvlations -- and commerce boosters.

I qvite agree with the way yov see the matter - and really wovldn't like to
see cities with a radivs of three sqvares or more. Something on the lines of
the Alpha Centavri "svpply crawler" (a vnit that lets a city exploit some of
the resovrces of a distant sqvare), depending on tech and general and local
transport and infrastrvctvre leve,l wovld be better, IMHO. Also, some
improvements (maybe at small wonder level) might be introdvced to boost
food, or indvstry, or science, money, entertainment efficacy etc. in a whole
region arovnd the city they're bvilt in. This might reqvire discovery of
appropriate techs, and the radivs of the affected area might be selected by
the player (with different costs), or be extended after bvilding (and/or new
discoveries) with fvrther investements (maybe not only shields bvt also
money, or research beakers, or reqviring another wonder or small wonder).

More generally, the game might vse some kind of zoning of empires into
smaller svb-vnits (region, provinces, etc.), not only for corrvption
redvcing pvrposes (mvltiple Prohibited Palaces), bvt also for several other
ends: i.e. for internal trade, or food, indvstrial and financiary exchange.
That might generate a host of other opportvnities (and risks): cvltvral
differences, for instance with inter-fecvndation and competition bvt also
rivalry, religiovs dissent, foreign inflvence and covert or not-so covert
foreign intervention and fights, that might excalate to dangerovs levels vp
to civil war and secession... All affected perhaps by discoveries like
Administrative Decentralization, Federalism, Confederation, or Internal
Migration, that might for instance affect the way Governments works, or
others discoveries at the cvltvral level (some instances: Nationalism,
National Identity, Tolerance, Ecvmenism, Melting Pot, Mvltiethnic
Society...maybe even things like Racism, Svper-Man Ideology, Ethnic pvrity?
They might carry, in some cases, great short terms advantages and enormovs
long-term risks in internal politicy, diplomatic penalities, etc. ) This
part of the "tech" tree might present mvtvally exclvsive paths, or things
that can be researched only if svfficient time after some previovs
"discoveries" has passed to make it possible to reopen the discvssion of
some issves, or depend on the originary traits of each tribe (think France
and Switzerland on Centralism and Federalism), external inflvences,
ideologies imposed after military victories, cvltvral victory of militarily
conqvered rivals (Greece/Rome)...

Also good might be a greater flexibility in Government choices - again along
the lines of Alpha Centavry - exp. bvt not only in modern times. We might
have different level of citizen's rights and avtonomy of the jvdiciary (rvle
of law), of censorship and freedom of expression, of state endorsing or
imposing or financing religiovs organizations; different level of state
intervention in the economy and/or in social conflicts (state ownerships of
selected indvstries or infrastrvctvre; anti-trvst laws; labor protection,
strike-breaking, prohibition (or imposition) of Unions; pollvtion
prevention, consvmer's rights; expansive or deflactive attitvde of central
banks - antother empire-wide improvement worth considering in itself, BTW).
Jvst to name a few possibilities to chose among - and /or give modders the
chance to.

< cvt >

> A lot of the game issves in Civ spvr from vsing the same set of
> operating rvles for both the modern area and all earlier times.

This is a very acvte observation, A good formvlation of something I knew was
there bvt covldn't identify exactly. IMHO, this id a point that shovld
became pivotal in any Civ 4 project worth its salt.

> Having the era change how cvltvral conversion works wovld be a start
> -- it shovld be a *lot* harder for a state to simply convert freely in
> the modern era.

I do not think so, in this case - see the territorial re-adjvstments and
secessions in Eastern Evrope after the fall of the Soviet Empire, with all
the gamvt from bloody ethnic war to peacefvl redrawing of borders. I'd say,
rather, that cvltvral conversions shovld often trigger civil wars (and risk
pvshing big empires to confrontation and war too); and often there shovld be
a period of "indipendency" or "avtonomy" before joining another empire (or
going back to the original one). This shovld be able to happen (maybe with
diffent probability levels) in all eras.

> Borders also shovld be harder in the modern era -- border violations
> on any large scale are a cavsvs belli, and the AI (and players) jvst
> wovldn't do it.

Good idea.

< cvt - this post is already too long . In the main, I agree with the ideas
expressed here by Jeffery Jones >

Of covrse, all the proposals I ovtlined above shovld be carefvlly
considered, sifted, and implemented in svch a way as to enhance gameplay (as
opposed to enhance complexity for its own sake). Which is a wholly different
(and mvch more difficvlt) level of qvestions. Here, I've been in a sort of
"brainstorming" (or dream-wish...) mode, tossing in some ideas as material
to play with...

And I've ideas for foreign policy and research too - I've already expressed
some of them in other, oldish threads of whishes list for Civ 4 or something
like that. Maybe I'll dvst them in some other posts...

Alfredo
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 1:58:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

< cut >

> >>Once formed, perhaps these cities could be allowed to divide its
> >>production to allow TWO things to be built by the city at once,
> >>one being a unit and the other a city improvement. Or concentrate
> >>all production on a wonder.
> >
> > No. One thing at a time but production wouldn't be limited
> > to a
> > single item per turn. It would build as much of the queue as it
> > could.
>
> This is an improvement a long time in coming. It gives actual
> purpose to the build queue, and it makes sense too! Perhaps extra
> shields (after queue is emptied) could be converted to wealth or "trade
> goods" (which could be trade, duh) before wealth is discovered.

I rather like the idea of having two build queues, a military and a "civil"
one, GalCiv style. The fault in GalCiv, IMHO, is that you set the percent of
total production to allocate to each queue only at Empire-wide level. I'd
much prefer to be able to change this setting in individual cities

After all, RL goes on like that - multitasking (and not only in modern
times): while the Cathedral of St. Pietro was being built in Rome, for
instance, Michelangelo also directed the building of fortifications and
papal troops were still recruited and trained (soon to be proven
insufficient against the imperial troops, however; but we all know the Lord
seem to be on the side of big armies - and that the Catholic Church is
insufferably corrupted and always deserves punishment - take your pick )

Of course, a real imitation of real life would be micromanagement hell
("allocate 53% of total shield production for infantry, 12% for a settler,
31% for marketplace, and use the rest in the name of the Lord for the
Cathedral that will be hopeful be completed before next century expire" -
and all that calculating turns to completion for each item, prospect of
population growth - or loss, if settlers or workers are produced - and new
squares to use...) but 2 queues for each city, with a not too bright but
reliable governor if possible, might be useful and fun.

< cut >

Alfredo
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 8:17:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Alfredo Tutino" <powernews@libero.it> wrote in
news:82DFd.3088$GU.86381@twister1.libero.it:

> < cut >
>
>> >>Once formed, perhaps these cities could be allowed to divide
>> >>its production to allow TWO things to be built by the city at
>> >>once, one being a unit and the other a city improvement. Or
>> >>concentrate all production on a wonder.
>> >
>> > No. One thing at a time but production wouldn't be
>> > limited to a
>> > single item per turn. It would build as much of the queue as
>> > it could.
>>
>> This is an improvement a long time in coming. It gives actual
>> purpose to the build queue, and it makes sense too! Perhaps
>> extra shields (after queue is emptied) could be converted to
>> wealth or "trade goods" (which could be trade, duh) before wealth
>> is discovered.
>
> I rather like the idea of having two build queues, a military and
> a "civil" one, GalCiv style. The fault in GalCiv, IMHO, is that
> you set the percent of total production to allocate to each queue
> only at Empire-wide level. I'd much prefer to be able to change
> this setting in individual cities
>
> After all, RL goes on like that - multitasking (and not only in
> modern times): while the Cathedral of St. Pietro was being built
> in Rome, for instance, Michelangelo also directed the building of
> fortifications and papal troops were still recruited and trained
> (soon to be proven insufficient against the imperial troops,
> however; but we all know the Lord seem to be on the side of big
> armies - and that the Catholic Church is insufferably corrupted
> and always deserves punishment - take your pick )
>
> Of course, a real imitation of real life would be micromanagement
> hell ("allocate 53% of total shield production for infantry, 12%
> for a settler, 31% for marketplace, and use the rest in the name
> of the Lord for the Cathedral that will be hopeful be completed
> before next century expire" - and all that calculating turns to
> completion for each item, prospect of population growth - or loss,
> if settlers or workers are produced - and new squares to use...)
> but 2 queues for each city, with a not too bright but reliable
> governor if possible, might be useful and fun.

I dislike the 2 queues, even in Galciv. Since something in
production is worthless until it is built, it only makes sense to build
single things as fast as possible. So one queue that can complete
multiple items would be more efficient.

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 11:17:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Kevin 'Keeper' Foster" <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95DE306CAD2Ekdfosterrogerscom@130.133.1.4...
> "Alfredo Tutino" <powernews@libero.it> wrote in
> news:82DFd.3088$GU.86381@twister1.libero.it:
>
> > < cut >
> >
> >> >>Once formed, perhaps these cities could be allowed to divide
> >> >>its production to allow TWO things to be built by the city at
> >> >>once, one being a unit and the other a city improvement. Or
> >> >>concentrate all production on a wonder.
> >> >
> >> > No. One thing at a time but production wouldn't be
> >> > limited to a
> >> > single item per turn. It would build as much of the queue as
> >> > it could.
> >>
> >> This is an improvement a long time in coming. It gives actual
> >> purpose to the build queue, and it makes sense too! Perhaps
> >> extra shields (after queue is emptied) could be converted to
> >> wealth or "trade goods" (which could be trade, duh) before wealth
> >> is discovered.
> >
> > I rather like the idea of having two build queues, a military and
> > a "civil" one, GalCiv style. The fault in GalCiv, IMHO, is that
> > you set the percent of total production to allocate to each queue
> > only at Empire-wide level. I'd much prefer to be able to change
> > this setting in individual cities
> >
> > After all, RL goes on like that - multitasking (and not only in
> > modern times): while the Cathedral of St. Pietro was being built
> > in Rome, for instance, Michelangelo also directed the building of
> > fortifications and papal troops were still recruited and trained
> > (soon to be proven insufficient against the imperial troops,
> > however; but we all know the Lord seem to be on the side of big
> > armies - and that the Catholic Church is insufferably corrupted
> > and always deserves punishment - take your pick )
> >
> > Of course, a real imitation of real life would be micromanagement
> > hell ("allocate 53% of total shield production for infantry, 12%
> > for a settler, 31% for marketplace, and use the rest in the name
> > of the Lord for the Cathedral that will be hopeful be completed
> > before next century expire" - and all that calculating turns to
> > completion for each item, prospect of population growth - or loss,
> > if settlers or workers are produced - and new squares to use...)
> > but 2 queues for each city, with a not too bright but reliable
> > governor if possible, might be useful and fun.
>
> I dislike the 2 queues, even in Galciv. Since something in
> production is worthless until it is built, it only makes sense to build
> single things as fast as possible. So one queue that can complete
> multiple items would be more efficient.
>
> --
> ICQ: 8105495
> AIM: KeeperGFA
> EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
> "If we did the things we are capable of,
> we would astound ourselves." - Edison
That's OK - the mechanics behind it can always make it less efficient the
more simultaneous items you are manufacturing to leave the advantage to
single item production. But it would be nice to be able to assign a definate
portion of production to improving the city and the rest to defending or
populating the realm.

Garrie
!