 |
| |
|
|
MattH
|
 |
Go sneer at that cow creamer!
Jul 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
It seems like CIV III needs more terrain improvements. The most obvious would be adding farms that upgrade from irrigation. Another idea is different types or railroads. You would build basic rr track (only movement bonus, no shield/trade/food bonus) and then be able to upgrade it to high speed (adds a 'tourism', or $$ bonus). Heavy rails would add a shield bonus. More than one type could be in each square, but they would cost $ to maintain, maybe 1/3 gp per extra rail, if that is possible.
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but maybe resources should need an extra improvement to be used. Oil would need an oil rig and a pipeline built to a city. Coal, iron, gems, etc. would need a mine.
Any other ideas, or is this just adding to much baggage to the game?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:27
|
|
I think extra terrain improvements must be balanced by the reduction of existing terrain improvements, i.e the limitation of roads/railroads.
To me, roads/railroads should be only used to move units and connect to the trade network. Commerce and production bonuses should come from something else (I think commerce should be dependant on the population, the infrastructure, and how well the city is connected to others, NOT from worked tiles).
My biggest motivation to this is that a road/railroad sprawl is ugly and unintuitive for the newbies.
I suggested to add telegraph lines and fiber optics to connect cities between each other, which would give them extra bonuses, like reduced corruption, increased money output, increased research or increased happiness.
If railroads stop to bring a production bonus, it would be time to have upgraded irrigation, mines, and to have a forest improvement, sawmill for example.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:27
|
|
OK, I have a couple of thoughts I'd like to add to the debate!
First, though I don't think that there should neccessarily be any more terrain improvements-per se. What they should do, though, si include a new level to the editor which would allow to to edit existing terrain improvements, as well as create new ones!!
This way, individual players would be able to create several layers of farming, roads, rail and mines-but ONLY IF THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT!!! They can also create new tile improvements, like supply depots or "urbanization" (as mentioned above) if they want them
The second thing I feel is that all terrain improvements should carry a maintainance cost/turn. This would help reduce "Sprawl" in my opinion (especially RR sprawl). This trait, along with movement bonus, pollution rate, extra food, extra production and extra commerce, should all be open to editing!!
Lastly, there should be city improvements, and wonders, which have tile improvements as a prerequisite!!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
brianshapiro
|
|
Berkeley
Nov 2001
time: 21:27
|
|
Matth ,
regarding large cities , what did you think of my suggestion to change the city from a single square representation, to one like what is in Railroad Tycoon, but within the city borders, with both housing and industries that appear in the radius over time, and can individually have troops move on them to block production.
point 1 on
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=82409
also, the ability to have more improvements is needed in the editor, even if more improvements aren't added to the main game.
after all, farms in the main game might not be worth it, but say a scenario of the 18th-19th century might have both farms and railroads to make it richer.
(and firaxis should really make it so scenarios that dont begin in the earliest era can generate civilizations with their cities, and units , etc so you can start mid-game on a random map)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:27
|
|
Hey Spiffor,
Fabulous idea about trade in food and shields. Like other people, I have often felt, myself, that such a thing should be possible within the game, for both domestic and international trade (but without the micromanagement of caravans!) Some additional points worth considering would be, internal trade between cities of the same civ, on different continents, would obviously face the same limitations as luxury and resource trades with other civs (like tech and improvement requirements-though this has probably already been assumed!) Your idea also highlights ANOTHER reason why trade, especially overseas, should be represented by visible "Trade Routes" a la CtP!
Lastly, you have shown perfectly, with your illustration, that the idea could be implemented in Civ3, with a patch or, at least, an expansion!!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
altF18
|
|
Earth
Mar 2003
time: 05:27
|
|
ok, here's my idea for road, RR, and Terrain Improvements.
For Roads and Railroads, i agree with Spiffor that they should be only for quick transportation of units and establishing trade routes. and not in the way that you need one connected to the resource you want. instead, resoucres need only be in the city-radius for access by a worker.
roads/RR would allow them to be shipped between cities. so if you do not have a system of roads connecting Rome and Berlin, you cannot trade between those two cities.
to prevent ugly road/RR sprawl, I thought of a new way of laying them - ala Trade Empires.
If you have played this game, you would know what I'm talking about - instead of building roads one tile at a time, you lay down the line for your workers to finish. in Trade Empires, once you laid down the road, it was there. in civ, the workers would have to still build it tile by tile, but they will be following a direct line and so would be 'automated' for the next set of turns.
to lay down a road line, you would need an active worker, choose to build a road, and then move your cursor over the stretch of land you plan to place your line. your worker than follows this and builds the road from where it began to where you ended. this would
encourage and in a way, force mostly straight and direct roads, instead of having multiple turn offs and mazes.
the planning line would be like the pathing line in CtP, and so could follow almost any path with whatever twists and turns required. maybe there could even be points where you confirm a stretch and begin another, until you have a good long road line laid down.
Terrain Improvements, like roads, should also have costs, both for maintennace and building. your national infrastructure shouldn't come free. taxes have their reasons other than stuffing your pockets. 
for building, roads could cost something like 2 gold per tile, and than 1 gold every turn after for upkeep. if your fail to pay for your maintennace, roads would fall into disrepair and thus, disappear. (think about Rome and their roads that fell apart when the empire fell and they stopped paying for their upkeep...)
RR would cost more.
On Railroads, the infinite move system ought to be replaced (as has been suggested infinitely) and only give units more moves, not free ones.
as for extra terrain improvements, i suggest this:
they should be strategic and not dynamic as they are - for instance, instead of just giving any tile extra production, Mines would 'allow' the accumilation of resources such as coal or iron.
Irrigation would be the same, but Farms are needed. Perhaps Irrigated squares should Automatically upgrade to Farmland, which would give more food.
Oil Rigs would be for accessing Oil and Natural Gas deposits, and Offshore Oil Platforms are needed, for offshore oil and gas. How would these be built?
 maybe workers would simply disappear after choosing to build an offshore Platform,
and come back once the rig is done. they'd have to be on the shoreline to do this, of course.
other resources wouldn't need any improvements, or road connections, to acquire. like Civ 2, you would just need a worker on it.
as for pipelines or telegraph lines, that is too distinctive and should remain abstact.
though, i acknowledge communications needs some kind of emphasis in the game.
those are my suggestions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
epics
|
|
the idea that we have to pay for maintaning road/RR is, IMO, a must. But the way, the game is built, it would be too expensive. I vote for changing commerce/food/shields income from a tile the way it is in CTP. i.e. instead of 2 commerce in Civ3, in Ctp there is 20, but also system of maintenance is different: units don't cost 1 gold, but for exemple 5. With this system we could do few things:
1) 1 tile of road costing 1 gpt wouldn't ruin our economy as it would do now
2) the cost of supporting a worrior and a carrier is the same!! quite odd! With this new system: worrior 1, carrier: 12, and so on.
3)Also buildings' maintenance could be changed
|
|
| |
|
|
|
altF18
|
|
Earth
Mar 2003
time: 05:27
|
|
agreed. since roads and RR would cost moeny under this new concept, the only way they would generate money would be the way they do - via trade.
since they're needed to run trade routes, there's the income from them - usually trade income should cost more than road upkeep.
as for wealth from terrain, the way i see it, wealth should not come directly from land tiles, but from the resoucres of them. For instance, instead of spices just giving money, your city would collect spices in a resource pool, and the spices there will generate ++ commerce, or you could trade those spices.
lumber from trees would also be accumilated in the resource pool, and it would naturally be used for production, but you could always trade what you dont want for gold.
cotton would accumilate, and generate gold, or be traded, or, if a new concept is agreed upon (i will not discuss it here, but bring it up, again, in the Civ 4 thread, and this time press it and explain, defend it, try to show what it would add) - Manufacturing, you could take your cotton, or one of them, and manufacture it into Textiles. this new good would generate even more commerce, especially from trade.
it would be a luxury item for sure.
to establish trade abroad, you'll need road connections of harbors. so their usefullness (besides movement) would remain existant.
i agree with epics idea of boosting up the gold level, too.
this would make the game more flexible and allow things like RR/Road cost, and yes, Unit support cost differance.
but what about my idea for road placement?
would you guys prefer pathing it to having your worker build it up one tile at a time?
@Spiffor's idea
hmmm, great idea for food, but don't you think that's a little to easy? i mean, with that, a city on the heart of the desert could obtain good rations from the national pool without even having connections to them!
same with resources and shields, a bit too easy for cities to acquire their needs... IMO
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-04-2003 22:22
etc. 
|