30-06-2005 07:13									#1
	Removed Features & Replacements: Maintenance, Corruption/Waste, Rioting & Pollution Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Is there any word yet on what replaces the supposedly 'unfun' maintenance as a balancing factor and a factor in ensuring that not all cities have all improvements? Out of all the removed features of the previous games, this one has me 'concerned' the most. To be honest, I am sorry to see maintenance go the way of the dodo.

How about corruption/waste and rioting - are these going to be replaced with other balancing features mitigating infinite city sprawl/sleeze/strategy? I was neutral about these features - I am not too bothered to see them go as long as there are other balancing factors to replace them.

As to pollution, I already know it is being integrated into the new health concept and am very glad for it, since I found pollution as it was implemented in say Civ III extremely annoying, while frankly not being much of a balancing factor - it would not really affect your civilization very much if dealt with, but dealing with it was unfun and tedious.

	30-06-2005 09:42									#2
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Maintenance is not going the way of the dodo.* Instead, corruption is manifested as increased maintenance (and courthouse decreases maintenance). Instead of rioting, unhappy people just don't do squat -- they refuse to contribute to the common good (or evil )

* Ref: Civ 4 preview at 1UP.COM
Also, CFC discussion - New 1UP Preview & Movie

Last edited by Jaybe on 30-06-2005 at 09:58

	30-06-2005 10:28									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Health.

	30-06-2005 11:54									#4
	Put an end to popups!

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

Pollution=Health (particularly negative health).

Corruption=City Maintainance.

Rioting=Citizen no longer works (Lost Hammers/Food/Commerce).

I actually haven't heard any of the game designers say that they are removing maintainance costs for individual improvements though!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

	30-06-2005 12:07									#5
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Jaybe Maintenance is not going the way of the dodo.* Instead, corruption is manifested as increased maintenance (and courthouse decreases maintenance). Instead of rioting, unhappy people just don't do squat -- they refuse to contribute to the common good (or evil ) * Ref: Civ 4 preview at 1UP.COM Also, CFC discussion - New 1UP Preview & Movie

Interesting - I very much like the idea of city maintenance as a replacement for corruption/waste - this sounds like a great system. Unhappy people simply not contributing instead of rioting is also good.
That said, there is no indication in the previews you linked (which I have now read) that maintenance of city improvements has remained in the game - instead, there seems to be a new concept of city maintenance replacing corruption. This, of course, does not act as a deterrent to building all buildings in every city as original maintenance concepts did... unless, of course, this original building maintenance is built into the new city maintenance concept. This is something I would not assume to be the case, though, as Firaxis has stated in the past that they are removing maintenance. They could have changed their minds, I suppose, but we won't know until they say so.

	30-06-2005 12:12									#6
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Well, I think that City Maintainance and individual City (and tile) improvement maintainance should be in the game together. The latter would be good to stop people from building every improvement for every city (which would be in line with their claims that cities will become much more specialised in Civ4).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

	30-06-2005 12:20									#7
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker Well, I think that City Maintainance and individual City (and tile) improvement maintainance should be in the game together. The latter would be good to stop people from building every improvement for every city (which would be in line with their claims that cities will become much more specialised in Civ4). Yours, Aussie_Lurker.

I think so too. BTW: I don't think there will be tile improvement maintenance - it has no historic inertia from previous games, there have been no hints that it will be in any of the previews, etc....

As to 'removing maintenance' from the game, it was mentioned in some of the early previews and design presentations. Maybe they changed their minds about removing it and integrated it with the city maintenance concept. That would be good news.

	30-06-2005 18:47									#8
	Support Apolyton

Y'know, I'm slightly annoyed that rioting has been removed altogether. I would prefer if things had to get really, really bad before they started to riot (but keep the non-productivity when things are just bad.)

As it is now, can you just treat cities like absolute crap and the worst that'll happen is that they'll cost you more money and not produce anything?

	30-06-2005 18:53									#9
	Support Apolyton

quote: As it is now, can you just treat cities like absolute crap and the worst that'll happen is that they'll cost you more money and not produce anything?

Which is worse than a riot. A rioting city is absolutely nothing in Civ3. A city that you treat like crap in Civ4 but that wouldn't riot would take your money, be useless anyway if 10 out of 11 citizens refused to work, so it would be a huge drain for your economy.

	30-06-2005 22:45									#10
	Get a bigger avatar today!

What i'd like to see, in regards to the buildings/improvements, is to only have limited slots available. Knights of Honor has a system like that.. you gotta plan what you build in what city and what you expect each city to accomplish.

I'm going to name a relative low number now (just for example, so don't freak out ). Lets say 8 - one for each tile around the city radius (cities with more land tiles could support more buildings)

So i'm in the ancient age and i start out building walls, temple, barracks, collosseum (sp?), market, library, harbor, etc.... I quickly fill up all slots and advance through the ages, and i have more buildings available to build, but no available slots. So all one can do is destroy improvements he no longer needs. Not every city needs barracks - not every city needs walls. Now some improvements should be upgradeable - like temple to cathedral/church, or market to bank.

Anyhow - the main point is, if we have a limited amount of building slots, we will be forced to specialize and make some tough decisions. I like how "Knights of Honor" does it - very good game.

	01-07-2005 02:32									#11
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Yes KOH is a great game and the idea of so many improvement slots would certainly make civ more interesting addiing an extra layer of strategic choice.

But even if this is not in the finished game i suppose someone could mod it that way ?

	01-07-2005 03:18									#12
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The problem with this idea is what must happen if for some reason the city radius decreases (due to cultural influence for instance) to a lower number then there are facilities. What must happen with those non-supported facilities above the supported tiles? Autodisband?

	01-07-2005 03:44									#13
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

GeoModder - the idea that slots available is tied to tiles available was just a secondary thought, which would give the player an extra level of management as to where the optimal city placement is.


The main point is that there should be only certain amount of slots available (either variable as discussed above, or fixed for all cities) to build city improvements.

	01-07-2005 04:23									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hmmm, perhaps if you made it based on population in some way-rather than tiles. For instance, a size 1 city might only be able to build 2-or 3-city improvements, wheras a size 5 city might be able to build 10 or 11 city improvements. Another idea might be that an unhappy citizen reduces the number of slots available for building or-if you have already reached your limit-one of your buildings becomes non-functional until you make that citizen content-to sort of increase the impact of the idle, unhappy worker effect (they not only won't work at the mine, they won't work at the factory either !)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

	01-07-2005 06:01									#15
	Re: Removed Features & Replacements: Maintenance, Corruption/Waste, Rioting & Pollution Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Roman Is there any word yet on what replaces the supposedly 'unfun' maintenance as a balancing factor and a factor in ensuring that not all cities have all improvements? Out of all the removed features of the previous games, this one has me 'concerned' the most. To be honest, I am sorry to see maintenance go the way of the dodo.

Frankly, I don't see what was so "unfun" about maintenance. Assuming building maintenance has been removed, I'd be interested in seeing what has replaced it.

	01-07-2005 06:44									#16
	Re: Re: Removed Features & Replacements: Maintenance, Corruption/Waste, Rioting & Pollution Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Xorbon Frankly, I don't see what was so "unfun" about maintenance. Assuming building maintenance has been removed, I'd be interested in seeing what has replaced it.

I completely agree with you. That's why I put 'unfun' in quotation marks. Pollution, however, was unfun as implemented in Civ III.

	01-07-2005 07:07									#17
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Roman I completely agree with you. That's why I put 'unfun' in quotation marks. Pollution, however, was unfun as implemented in Civ III.

I know. I was agreeing with you in the first place. And I did notice you put 'unfun' in quotation marks. That's why I used double-quotes.

And, yes, the 'whack-a-mole' pollution is very unfun (notice the lack of quotes ).

And as for corruption, the only thing I didn't like about it was the severity. Once Civ 3 Conquests came along, there were enough ways of dealing with corruption that I didn't mind it anymore.

	01-07-2005 07:08									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker Hmmm, perhaps if you made it based on population in some way-rather than tiles. For instance, a size 1 city might only be able to build 2-or 3-city improvements, wheras a size 5 city might be able to build 10 or 11 city improvements. Another idea might be that an unhappy citizen reduces the number of slots available for building or-if you have already reached your limit-one of your buildings becomes non-functional until you make that citizen content-to sort of increase the impact of the idle, unhappy worker effect (they not only won't work at the mine, they won't work at the factory either !) Yours, Aussie_Lurker.

That would actually be quite interesting. I'd support something along those lines.

	01-07-2005 09:19									#19
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Xorbon I know. I was agreeing with you in the first place. And I did notice you put 'unfun' in quotation marks. That's why I used double-quotes.

Hehe, yes, I was not sure whether you are agreeing with me consciously or misinterpreting my post - hence I felt the need to clarify.

quote: And, yes, the 'whack-a-mole' pollution is very unfun (notice the lack of quotes ).[/qupte] It is indeed. [quote]And as for corruption, the only thing I didn't like about it was the severity. Once Civ 3 Conquests came along, there were enough ways of dealing with corruption that I didn't mind it anymore.

I was neutral on corruption/waste. Unlike pollution, it was at least a balancing mechanism, but it could get annoying in large civilizations, especially those trying to colonize a new, faraway continent on the largest of maps. That said, the new city maintenance concept does appear to be better than corruption, so it will probably make a good replacement.

	01-07-2005 18:00									#20
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker Hmmm, perhaps if you made it based on population in some way-rather than tiles. For instance, a size 1 city might only be able to build 2-or 3-city improvements, wheras a size 5 city might be able to build 10 or 11 city improvements. Another idea might be that an unhappy citizen reduces the number of slots available for building or-if you have already reached your limit-one of your buildings becomes non-functional until you make that citizen content-to sort of increase the impact of the idle, unhappy worker effect (they not only won't work at the mine, they won't work at the factory either !)

This idea has potential. I definitely think you're on the right track. What worries me is the degree to which this reduces the player's options. It may be foolish to put a temple, a cathedral, a library, a university, a marketplace, a bank, and a stock exchange in a city of size 2, but if you're willing to pay all that maintenance for such meager benefit, well, the game shouldn't keep you from being stupid.

	02-07-2005 01:23									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

You could also make population = amount of building slots available. Got 10 pop? Built 10 buildings.

So what if population becomes less than # of buildings? Just add an effect - either simply deactivating its effects, or someting more complex that affects the hapiness of the citizens - whatever. Or it has no effect at all - you just can't build until the pop is back up.

	02-07-2005 02:50									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker Hmmm, perhaps if you made it based on population in some way-rather than tiles. For instance, a size 1 city might only be able to build 2-or 3-city improvements, wheras a size 5 city might be able to build 10 or 11 city improvements. Another idea might be that an unhappy citizen reduces the number of slots available for building or-if you have already reached your limit-one of your buildings becomes non-functional until you make that citizen content-to sort of increase the impact of the idle, unhappy worker effect (they not only won't work at the mine, they won't work at the factory either !) Yours, Aussie_Lurker.

That would be a potential alternative to building maintenance, but I still prefer building maintenance to be kept as it was - among other things it provides a disincentives to having all buildings everywhere, but retains flexibility so you can still have as many buildings as you are willing to pay for in a city...

	02-07-2005 06:00									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Personally, I'd like to see building maintenance unchanged. The idea of having a limited total number of buildinsg per city, either limited by city radius or by population, just doesn't make sense ona civ scale. however, I think having the more advanced buildings require a minimum population to be built would work. This system was used in Colonization.

	03-07-2005 06:22									#24
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: as posted by me in Size of City Improvements A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, a member named Vagabond had an idea which he termed Urbanization. The soul of Urbanization is to make city improvements function like tiles in the city radius. They are represented as blocks along the edges of the city map. Citizens can be placed in those blocks instead of on the terrain map. The city improvement defines what benefits you get. For example, a Civ2 Library adds 50% to Science. By putting a worker in the Library it might go up to +75%. A Civ2 University adds 50% to Science. The graphics for University might contain two blocks, and placing a worker in a block adds 25 to the percentage bonus. Then a Research Lab might have 3 such blocks. Note that this concept does not remove Specialists, who can do the same thing with lesser efficiency.

Rather than limiting the number of buildings, just make it possible for the larger city to have an advantage over the smaller city.

	03-07-2005 08:27									#25
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Actually, Straybow, I think a combination of Lazjar's idea (having some improvements require a minimum population) and your idea (where increased population grants bonuses to existing improvements) would be the best way to do it-and if it isn't in the Vanilla game, then I feel certain that it will be easier enough to Mod in !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

	03-07-2005 08:37									#26
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Straybow Rather than limiting the number of buildings, just make it possible for the larger city to have an advantage over the smaller city.

Which it does, in that a Library is a multiplier of the science rate, so a city with 10 base science derives less benefit than a city of 20 base science. Done and done.

	03-07-2005 13:36									#27
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The building slots idea is a somewhat simplyfied (and maybe better) version of my idea to implement something similar to employment. Emplyment would effect growth, happines and efficiency of city improvements.

I think it is not a good idea to limit the number of buildings in any way. If you are going to implement a limit however it should be a combination of both human(population) and natural (tiles) recources.

	03-07-2005 19:04									#28
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I don't see why you shouldn't be able to build every building in a city.

I can understand how you wouldn't need a barracks in every city, but it's usually the first building available so most cities may end up with it anyway.

But how many cities have you heard of without a library, marketplace, some place of worship (temple/cathedral), etc., etc.?

	04-07-2005 06:41									#29
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by sophist quote: Originally posted by Straybow Rather than limiting the number of buildings, just make it possible for the larger city to have an advantage over the smaller city. Which it does, in that a Library is a multiplier of the science rate, so a city with 10 base science derives less benefit than a city of 20 base science. Done and done.

Who says in Civ4 the primary power of city improvements will be multipliers? They could be changed to create tax/lux/sci directly, or to do both (like structures in MoO2). I don't know either way.

If in Civ2 (under Rep/Dem or celebrating Mon) I build a city and quickly set up 3 trade routes with large cities I can be running 20+ trade arrows. Since most tiles return only 2 arrows, that's the equivalent of a size 10 city without trade routes.

Since I hope Civ4 will reintroduce trade to remove most of the suckiness of Civ3 it makes a big difference. If they don't, there is a significant chance I won't buy Civ4 either. I want Civ, not a slowly evolving wargame.

	04-07-2005 06:49									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Straybow Who says in Civ4 the primary power of city improvements will be multipliers?

Nothing, except that's the way it was done in Civ1, Civ2, and Civ3.

quote: Originally posted by Straybow If in Civ2 (under Rep/Dem or celebrating Mon) I build a city and quickly set up 3 trade routes with large cities I can be running 20+ trade arrows. Since most tiles return only 2 arrows, that's the equivalent of a size 10 city without trade routes.

That's a flaw, not a feature. You shouldn't have to micromanage the creation of trade routes. And Nowheresville shouldn't be able to have 20+ trade just a couple of turns after its founding. What are those other cities doing trading so much with a little pipsqueak town that has no people, no industry, no resources, and no heritage?

quote: Originally posted by Straybow Since I hope Civ4 will reintroduce trade to remove most of the suckiness of Civ3 it makes a big difference. If they don't, there is a significant chance I won't buy Civ4 either. I want Civ, not a slowly evolving wargame.

On this I agree. Trade should be essential to the game, rather than an add-on. That's why I favor a more pervasive, fundamental model rather than something that's tacked on by moving little pictures of camels around.