 |
| |
|
|
vovan
|
|
Introduction
Traditionally, city improvements have played a large role in the strategy of any civ player, because of their large infulence on the productivity of the cities in the game. I suppose we have reason to believe that they will still occupy a prominent position in Civ4. Howoever, there is still plenty to discuss: new buildings, new building effects, revision of old buildings - all that goes here.
Summary
None Yet
Related Threads
Get Rid of Building Every Improvement Everywhere by polypheus
Potentially Crazy Production/City Improvement/Tile Improvement idea! by Drachasor
Corruption/Waste/Riots/Pollution by Drachasor
Table of Contents
None Yet
The Ideas
1. More Variety:
There's a general desire for more variety in buildings. It takes manifestation in different, ideas, but it all can be summed up the same way - more variety is desirable.
1.1. Culturally-Linked Improvements:
Chrush: I'd like to have culturally related city improvements. For instance the temple could be culturally subdivided in Shrine, temple, chapel or whatever. They wouldn't change if you conquer a city, so that you keep a part of that culture.
Daz: if the civ whose city your invading is of the same religion(?!) you keep the culture....
1.2. Branching Improvements:
General Ludd: A branching tree of small wonders, which in effect would allow you to "personalise" or basically define the culture of your nation through the different wonders you decide to build or forfeit.
1.3. Civ-Specific Improvements:
Japher: If you are playin a specific race. Yeah, yeah, we all complain about the Germans building the Pyramids, but what about civ specific improvements? Each getting their own wonder and small wonder, similar to the UU?
1.4. Improvements Changing Over the Ages:
Fosse: Could we please have the names and graphics of buildings update according to discovered technologies? It feels absurd to be building "aqueducts" in a city founded in the information age, after all.
Let aqueducts in the ancient age become sewers after the middle ages.
Let collesseums turn into stadiums.
etc.
The building could keep the same effect through time and a small (optional) message could alert the player that "Burial Mounds" have been replaced with "Memorial Cemetaries" so that they don't get lost.
The graphics already change, just make the names change too!
2. Building Prerequisites:
Japher: I would like more city improvements that come available only if: you have the correct resource available to make it. Not only have more luxury resource, but then a special building that can be made from this luxury. I.e. farmers markets, totem poles, or the like. Also have similar building for if you have coal you can make x, if you have oil you can make y. Sort of like with that one building you could build if you only had oil AND coil, but for just one resource...
3. Negative Improvement Effects:
Fosse: Bring negative effects into improvments. The punishment sphere from SMAC was a neat improvment, because it had only limited use (and role play value!). The only negative effect of improvments is upkeep costs,and that's a little boring.
4. Improvemens Becoming Obsolete:
lajzar: I'd prefer to see older buildings simply become irrelevant.
The ancient age barracks improvement only provides its benefit to pre-gunpowder units, then you need a military camp improvement to get that benefit for more modern units.
After a certain tech (plumbing?), a small wonder (national water grid?) becomes available which will build an aqueduct-equivalent in every city.
The coloseum improvement loses a point of effectiveness with electronics, and another with mass media. You can stil benefit from it if you really need that extra point of happiness, but except for the largest cities, you'll be better served by destroying it and buildinbg a more modern stadium.
Basically, the old improvements should become irrelevant through natural changes within the game.
Conclusion
None Yet
Last edited by vovan on 11-07-2004 at 01:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vovan
|
|
The "Just in Case" post.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vovan
|
|
The "What if we have lots of discussion" post.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vovan
|
|
The "Pushing my luck double-posting" post.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chrush
|
|
Culturally related improvements
I'd like to have culturally related city improvements.
For instance the temple could be culturally subdivided in Shrine, temple, chapel or whatever. They wouldn't change if you conquer a city, so that you keep a part of that culture.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Naokaukodem
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Daz
To add to Crush's comment: if the civ whose city your invading is of the same religion(?!) you keep the culture....
didn't think about this one too long, so go on and shoot me... |
Can this ever happen?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chrush
Culturally related improvements
I'd like to have culturally related city improvements.
For instance the temple could be culturally subdivided in Shrine, temple, chapel or whatever. They wouldn't change if you conquer a city, so that you keep a part of that culture. |
Don't forget mosque and synagogue. I don't know if the game could do anything about it, but for some religions what the game calls a temple should be a chapel and what the game calls a cathedral should be a temple.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vovan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Deathmerchant
And even for religous reasons, I should also be able to build both a temple and a shrine, or whatever. After all, many countries are multi-cultural, so I shouldn't have to choose between the two. So I don't think seperating buildings according to religion, or having to choose between two buildings are very good ideas. |
I think you may be misunderstanding the idea a little bit. What is ixnay was talking about is essentially having the same building have different names for different cultures. I think the first step towards this has already been made in previous civ games. Look at the flavours in Civ3 for instance. If we take a look at the temple, it already looks different in a Japanese city, say, and a German city. So, ixnay is essentially proposing taking this further, and actually naming the buildings differently - like a temple for a european nation, or shrine for an asian nation, etc, though the buildings would have exactly the same effect.
I am not sure about that though. I think this may be somewhat confusing to players. If they see different names, it is only natural that they assume the buildings are different and have different effects...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
Don't know where to put this, but I would like more city improvements that come available only if:
a) you have the correct resource available to make it. Not only have more luxury resource, but then a special building that can be made from this luxury. I.e. farmers markets, totem poles, or the like. Also have similar building for if you have coal you can make x, if you have oil you can make y. Sort of like with that one building you could build if you only had oil AND coil, but for just one resource... (I obviously haven't played in a while).
b) if you are playin a specific race. Yeah, yeah, we all complain about the Germans building the Pyramids, but what about civ specific improvements? Each getting their own wonder and small wonder, similar to the UU?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deathmerchant
|
|
I agree Japher, buildings shuold be more restricive in their construction, as in Civ2, I mean really, every city building a hydroelectric power station? Really now.  Resource restricted buildings would be great, you can only build a coal planet if you had coal, makes sense, i'd say?
Vovan, the last part of my post was directed at General Ludd, sry for the confusion.
quote:
As an example, one of the earlier wonders could be a choice between various temples which then defines your nation's religion from there on. |
This is what I was referring to, having a choice between various temples, which defines the religion of your country. I didn't think that would be a good idea. Just the thought of choosing your religion by building a wonder doesn't sound appealing. It should be a different option seperate of city improvements.
As for naming buildings differently for different civs,  . I thought the same thing though, people may get confused when changing from civ to civ, which is why I think it was just simply named one name in the other civ games. Or not, maybe I'm being to harsh on the average intellegence of the people that play these games, since obviously it's a fairly bright crowd in here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:37
|
|
This is a small thing, but great games are made in the details!
Could we please have the names and graphics of buildings update according to discovered technologies? It feels absurd to be building "aqueducts" in a city founded in the information age, after all.
Let aqueducts in the ancient age become sewers after the middle ages.
Let collesseums turn into stadiums.
etc.
The building could keep the same effect through time and a small (optional) message could alert the player that "Burial Mounds" have been replaced with "Memorial Cemetaries" so that they don't get lost.
The graphics already change, just make the names change too!
On a more gameplay effecting note:
Bring negative effects into improvments. The punishment sphere from SMAC was a neat improvment, because it had only limited use (and role play value!). The only negative effect of improvments is upkeep costs,and that's a little boring.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
|
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Could we please have the names and graphics of buildings update according to discovered technologies? It feels absurd to be building "aqueducts" in a city founded in the information age, after all.
|
I agree.
quote:
Bring negative effects into improvments |
Nice. Thus, deciding weather to build something or not would be part of the game instead of just building one of everything. It would continue to help cities serve a more singular purpose, instead of ubermegacity which does everything. Which, IMO, should exist, but be few and far between.
To continue on your idea of having names and graphics change over time to reflect tech advancements; If you have already built an aquaduct, and you get a new tech, the aquaduct shouldn't just change to sewers, advance should be made to improve it. Improvements to existing structures could be used for the temple idea as well; it's an improvement not just a rebuild. Thus, it would be cheaper. Graineries upgrade to wharehouse, barracks upgrade to base, etc... I know it doesn't really do much to the actual game play, but it can give a better feel to the game, instead of having seemingly obsolete buildings around, and would also, once again, help to make the city more unique.
I guess that is what I am looking for; uniqueness. There should be cities that would be more cultural and political (i.e. New York, Paris, London, etc.), cities that are more industrial (i.e. Essen, Philly, etc.), and cities that are more agricultural (Fresno, have no idea of any others) - similar for science based and economic based. Building a military base, silo, factory, etc. in a cultural/political city would depress that influence, while, at the same time, building a stock market in an Ag city would be a bad idea, and not earn as much money as one in say Chicago.
I'm not sure how that would affect the cultural boundaries, or if it should, or if culture should be a sum of all your towns culture and not just a "distance from capitol" type thing. Especially with the dawn of the communication age where places like Hollywood have a great culture influence on places very far away.
However, to reiterate, I would like to see uniquess add to the cities in some way, I too would like to see "obsolete" buidings change or go away, and I am still on wondering about how such a thing would play with cultural bounderies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lajzar
Rather than have buldings get renamed as time goes by, I'd prefer to see older buildings simply become irrelevant.
|
That seems like an approach that would work, but is a much more substantial change than what I proposed, which is only a change in the cosmetic sense.
One of the nice things about SMAC compared to the Civ series is that you never felt anachronistic building a Recylcing Tanks (a first level tech building) in cities that you built ten turns before the game wound up ending.
If they decide to make a major design change that encompasses your suggestion, then that's fine.. if not, then please at least do something subtle!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
What about just updating the icon's picture?
We still have aqueducts today, though the issue with them feeling weird is that we don't need them everywhere. Take a place like desert area though, and they are needed.
Barracks have the same name, but they look a lot different. Looks are the main thing that changes.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
Not everything that was around in the olden days will still exist.
That, and I agree with the idea of an update fee - why does what some eggheads do in a lab mysteriously transform a chariot into a tank?!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-06-2004 05:09
|