24-01-2002 04:01									#31
	Re: 2 radical ideas for Civ4 Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by GePap Here are two new game concepts that i think would make for a better civ game, Civ4: Manpower: the civ line horribly undervalues the importance of population. The mongols are an important civ because they conquered many but they themselves never built much if anything- all their people were busy either fighting or herding- no time, or place really, to create large agricultural cities. I think that there should be a value called manpower, based on pop. To do ANYTHING, you would need a certain amount of manpower- to farm, to build, to run buildings. Thus, buildings not only need the money to be run, but the people to staff them. War would become more difficult since creating units would mean lowering the available manpower for other things- since your men are away at war. This concept could certainly be made more complex (diff. between skilled and unskilled labor, so forth) if anyone wanted- but the basic notion I think is sound and would make for a much deeper gaming experience.

You can sort of do that now, simply add a population cost to any military unit. I'd recommend that you only use it for units that appear later though. I discovered that the AI doesn't bother building military all that much at first, focusing instead on Settlers. I was falling behind in the early expansion. Oh yeah, it's not really a good idea with defensive units.

	25-01-2002 03:09									#32
	Limits Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The diplomat

I like your idea, but I would put some limits in it. Certain structures should only be built by the state as opposed to allowing all to be built by the public sector. Relegious institutions (in the game, large temples or Cathedrals), military or administrative buildings (courts, barracks, police, SAM, coastal batteries) and large infrastructure (harbors, airports, mass transit) are really never built by private sectors, since it takes so much money and time, plus its mot much into private interests to do it. So, what to do with that cash you build up? I say, the idea is fine for economic buildings, (markets, banks, factoriers) and scientific ones [where private money pays upkeep], but I say , use it for happiness and science! I would keep your efficience difference (private more than public) so that, private wealth flows into the money you spend for science and luxuries, meaning a large private sector leads to faster science and happier folks (which is true). To counteract this thought, things would have to be made more expensive, because it might get to the point, like in civ2 and civ3 now, where you have ridiculous amounts of money and you steamroll. I mean, there must be a reasons to raise taxes (if , as I say, this extra private wealth goes into reaserch and luxuries [more likely luxuries depending on civ and government type] then no need to raise taxes over that). So military units should be made more expensive, and so with buildings.

	25-01-2002 04:56									#33
	Re: Limits Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by GePap The diplomat I like your idea, but I would put some limits in it. Certain structures should only be built by the state as opposed to allowing all to be built by the public sector. Relegious institutions (in the game, large temples or Cathedrals), military or administrative buildings (courts, barracks, police, SAM, coastal batteries) and large infrastructure (harbors, airports, mass transit) are really never built by private sectors, since it takes so much money and time, plus its mot much into private interests to do it. So, what to do with that cash you build up? I say, the idea is fine for economic buildings, (markets, banks, factoriers) and scientific ones [where private money pays upkeep], but I say , use it for happiness and science! I would keep your efficience difference (private more than public) so that, private wealth flows into the money you spend for science and luxuries, meaning a large private sector leads to faster science and happier folks (which is true). To counteract this thought, things would have to be made more expensive, because it might get to the point, like in civ2 and civ3 now, where you have ridiculous amounts of money and you steamroll. I mean, there must be a reasons to raise taxes (if , as I say, this extra private wealth goes into reaserch and luxuries [more likely luxuries depending on civ and government type] then no need to raise taxes over that). So military units should be made more expensive, and so with buildings.

Thanks for answering. I actually was going to mention that certain buildings would only be built by the player so I agree with you.

It is very important that there still be a good number of city improvements that are allowed to be built automatically by the city otherwise the whole idea would not do much for the player. The whole idea is to have a neat econ model that also relieves some of the micromanagment. So there still needs to be lots of city improvements that the city can build automatically so as to make the idea viable.

I would also just add that ALL wonders should be public sector and could never be built automatically by the city. That is something that the player should have to build.

Your idea for what to do about excess gold is good too. Thanks.