Please post your ideas about buildings!

Houman

Hi everybody,

As i had already explain to Houman in a PM, i hope some changes about two buildings: walls and castles.

I had just finished to read for the second time a school book of military warfare during the Middle Age. Among the conclusions, one seem very interesting to adapt to TR. Walls and castles should give the besieged a bonus "of first strike", such as the promo Drill I and/or Drill II. Why ? Because of their knowledge of the battlefield (they know the city or castle they are defending better than the besieger), they are best protected (even if some walls are crumbling or if there is a breach), they usually use all kind of bows or thrown weapons that weakened besieger before hand to hand fight,...

So, i suggest to create a kind of promo that allow units inside cities protected by walls and castles to strike first. The same system as the promo aid familly could be used.
- walls should give a chance to strike first, as Drill I.
- castles should give a first strike, as Drill II.
All units inside walls/castles should received this aid promo as bonus.

I wait for comments, guys.

The Frog.

It sounds perfectly logical, but the balance of civ seems a bit too far towards defense already.

I think this should be implemented, but we also need some countermeasures against heavily defended cities, like the ability to poison the water supply, or send in a spy to open the city gates.

Also, it should be easier to blockade resources around cities. It's not fair that although workers can't get to the square your units are standing on, local farmers can still get full yield from the square right next to it. I think that when you are near an enemy city, you should have a zone of control, where all tiles within 1 space of the unit are blockaded. This would allow you to actually starve the defenders.

Currently, if you try to do this, because you spread your units so thinly, the enemy just strikes out from the city and picks off your sieging units. This is unfair, and most of all, unrealistic. Sending workers out of the city to work any tiles would involve opening the gates, thus allowing besiegers to get in.

the idea about starving the city to death sounds fine, but there should be some countermeasures as well.. Some kind of food stockpile buliding (only active during war time, it could make up for the food you loose in case of a siege for x turns), coz when you block all of the citys workable tiles the city will very quickly shrink and starve which is not as realistic as it sounds (some sieges lasted for many years) also when the city is situated on the cost it can work the water tiles as long they are not blocked by enemy navy.. some kind of food suply train should be introduced so that you could breach throu the sige and supply the city with food.. just my 2 cents..

Mmm, sounds like an opportunity for the Berlin Airlift :)

Agree with WarKirby that CIV 4 is already too heavily slanted to defense; but this could be a good idea if there is a decent countermeasure for the offense. I remember in CIV 3 that if you stationed lets say 3 catapults (cannons, howitzers, multiple rocket launchers) that you got a free shot at the attackers. So if you had 3 cannons you got a free shot at an equal number of attackers (unless all of your melee units were killed then your siege units were either captured or destroyed dependent on the opponents level of technology). That is what I really miss the ability to capture an enemies siege units and/or a ship or two when you capture their cities. It could really turn the tide in a battle. As a side note....just imagine how some of the naval battles in the north Atlantic and/or the Mediterranean Sea might have turned out if the Germans (thank God they didn't) had made a concerted push to capture a good portion of the powerfull French fleet. I think that is an element that has always been missing from the Civ games.

I disagree with you Hian on the castle idea (for once :lol: ). The city defence bonus already signifies the added opportunities and more favourable circumstances of the defenders. At least it does for me. Any more bonuses and cities may become impregnable, which would not make conquerors very happy.

Cities can already be starved, but it only affects population. If we could starve cities and weaken soldiers THAT would be superb. hmmm... i know. If a unit or units are in a city when it loses a population they gain the starvation promotion. -40% strength. Cumulative, so if in the city when another pop is lost its another 40% strength lost. Third starvation and they are too weak to defend. Granted this would be one long siege. Trebuchets and catapaults should also have the throw carcass option. -3 to cities health for 5 turns. Was used historically on sieged cities as im sure you guys know.

To starve a city just fill all the food squares. It requires a lot of troops, but make sure the units the enemy can attack (+) when it sallies are the strongest (knights, longbowmen on hills). Can even use scouts or plain warriors to block the rest of the squares to save cost. A cost minimised blockade gentlemen. :mischief:

------
-+++-
-+C+-
-+++-
------

Too many of these implications can cause some serious issues on regards to the AI and balance and just because something is historically sound doesn't give enough reason to implement IMO anyway... defensively towns historically used moats during wartime as sewage septics to deter invaders from crossing them (just a thought to counterbalance the how the defenders too can or historically should be able to inflict health damage on the attackers then...when its comes down to it after the smoke clears this probably will be a whole other game with all the inuitive and creative suggestions people keep making it will soon take up more space than the game itself)... this game requires imagination and ellaboration... a basic said element is supposed to constitute and represent the idealology of an element... if we were to map every facet of the game historically it wouldn't be playable... theres got to be a compromise with realism, what historically occured (think rewriting history, most of thiese historically cited ideas have no grounds if history is being rewritte, mostly the more detailed and lavish thoughts anyway) and of course balance fun factor etc... this game isn't meant to educate you in being a real emperor or general etc...

Sorry, not taking a shot at you... nonetheless a good idea just seems a bit lavish besides there are more precedented task at hand but, than again I'm not doing the programming

Hold on, you posted the same thing in two different discussions? Are you trying to stifle debate and suggestions?

Im not offended. Starvation can already be used against an enemy, my suggestion just reminded me of the crowded promotion. And im thinking it might not be so hard to add the starved 'promotion'.

@MindProphetX: Regardless of how relevant it might be, copying and pasting your post is rather insulting.

Besides, the heavy defensibility of cities is one of the most important aspects of the game, and I'm sure we can all agree the current representation leaves something to be desired.

@Los Tirano: I really don't think it's fair that citizens can work tiles next to your own soldiers. You shouldn't need to cover every square to cut off production.

And surrounding a city doesn't work because you are forced to spread troops thin, and since the defender has all their troops together, giving them stack aid bonuses, they can easily destroy sieging troops.

Quite right Warkirby. But given the uncertainties of actual distance between squares it makes sense they can work the tiles.

"And surrounding a city doesn't work because you are forced to spread troops thin, and since the defender has all their troops together, giving them stack aid bonuses, they can easily destroy sieging troops."

My strategy is one for the end game, or the end of a civ. Its not so faulty, because its saved for the last well defended city of a civ. All resources are cut so they cannot build new powerful units. Referring to the medieval era they are forced to attack the first line with longbowmen or bowmen, the first line will be ideally knights. Backup will be ready to plug any holes. Used this first after a mass conquistador attack. By the end of the war the final city was surrounded by knight equivalent units. Was free to build catapaults at my leisure and bring them as i pleased. i wouldnt do it for the first city however... :goodjob:

lol, did I post the same thing in two forums, dumb... my bad, but your right so the orators would put it, thats what these boards are for, the ingenuity and creativity a group of people can bring... by no means am i stifling and seriously didn't mean to double post across two boards or whatever...

Hi guys,

As i can read, most (if not all) of you not agree with this suggestion. It's not a problem at all. Really.
I know that the game is already very defensive. My wish was just to add a more realistic taste to middle age and renaissance warfare, where war of siege was the common law and open fields battles very very few. Just remember that there was only 3 great battles during the Hundred Years War between France and England whereas the sieges were so numerous that it is still impossible to exactly know their number....

The Frog.

CMAR, in response to |
.............................|
...........................\.|./
.............................\/

I got cloning mercs. But it doesn't belong here. *goes to warlords thread*

Hi everybody,

As i had already explain to Houman in a PM, i hope some changes about two buildings: walls and castles.

I had just finished to read for the second time a school book of military warfare during the Middle Age. Among the conclusions, one seem very interesting to adapt to TR. Walls and castles should give the besieged a bonus "of first strike", such as the promo Drill I and/or Drill II. Why ? Because of their knowledge of the battlefield (they know the city or castle they are defending better than the besieger), they are best protected (even if some walls are crumbling or if there is a breach), they usually use all kind of bows or thrown weapons that weakened besieger before hand to hand fight,...

So, i suggest to create a kind of promo that allow units inside cities protected by walls and castles to strike first. The same system as the promo aid familly could be used.
- walls should give a chance to strike first, as Drill I.
- castles should give a first strike, as Drill II.
All units inside walls/castles should received this aid promo as bonus.

I wait for comments, guys.

The Frog.

Not promotions, as upgrading your units whith that promotions would be a waste than.
But walls and castle should give "immune to first strike" as you need to get past the gate or destroy walls by siege weapons.

Also castles and walls should dubble stack bonuses as well as some retrat bonus.

And another thing. Having great leader or great general or hight level unit should give you a "break siege" promotion, that gives your unit astonishing bonus to attack and retreat as well as +1 movement(if you break siege you can move back to castle not end turn on open title).


And my idea. Can library and university slow down razing city and make rebelion when capturing new city last longer ? As at least in my country, the educated were the strongest and hardest to stop oposition (vs Hitler lets say) as killing innocent that didnt do a armed uprising is, well not good and rare leaders might order to kill em whith "cold blood".

Not so stupid as my post got you guys used to, right ?;)

Hi everybody,

As i had already explain to Houman in a PM, i hope some changes about two buildings: walls and castles.

I had just finished to read for the second time a school book of military warfare during the Middle Age. Among the conclusions, one seem very interesting to adapt to TR. Walls and castles should give the besieged a bonus "of first strike", such as the promo Drill I and/or Drill II. Why ? Because of their knowledge of the battlefield (they know the city or castle they are defending better than the besieger), they are best protected (even if some walls are crumbling or if there is a breach), they usually use all kind of bows or thrown weapons that weakened besieger before hand to hand fight,...

So, i suggest to create a kind of promo that allow units inside cities protected by walls and castles to strike first. The same system as the promo aid familly could be used.
- walls should give a chance to strike first, as Drill I.
- castles should give a first strike, as Drill II.
All units inside walls/castles should received this aid promo as bonus.

I wait for comments, guys.

The Frog.

i like it. first strike in warlords minimizes damage caused by colateral damage. which seems realistic and the units have an extra chance seeing as they are behind walls.

these first strike bonuses, i wonder do want you them to be temporary(when a units is in the city only) or when a unit is produced in that particular walled/castled city they get the drill one/two?

i like it. first strike in warlords minimizes damage caused by colateral damage. which seems realistic and the units have an extra chance seeing as they are behind walls.

these first strike bonuses, i wonder do want you them to be temporary(when a units is in the city only) or when a unit is produced in that particular walled/castled city they get the drill one/two?

Spartan117,

The bonus should be only temporary, when a unit is in the city. The wall and the castle gives the bonus (Drill I or Drill II) if you are effectively protected by them. In fact, it's like the bonus of "stack" of units. (heavy aid, cavalry aid,....).

The Frog.

(sigh) there are too many defensive bonuses and benefits already. Since wars often involve taking a few units in the field, destroying an army sent to halt the advance and then taking cities, if all units behind walls are immune to first strikes then you make the first strike giving promotions far more useless. Archers get these bonuses to signify their ranged attacks, when they get more first strikes it smbolises their speed of firing, ability, better weapons etc. Taking first strikes nullifies all that. :( They become crap and just as average as normal troops when it really counts, taking cities.

Sorry Froggie. I'm With Los Tirano on this one.

WarKirby

maybe instead of being immune to first strikes which can be pretty overpowerful, units can recieve an extra first strike when then have walls or castles in place. So inorder to get these first strike bonuses one must build walls first, making walls and castles much more important and usefull.

That being said. A guy designed different castles. These could possibly used to be a Unique building for some civilization or possibly used as the fort graphic for middle ages.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=187808

Good point a uniquer castle.

We need some variation in castle styles in general. It's strange that china, japan et al use medieval european castles.

WarKirby

Also regarding the wall debate. There should be some alternative use besides provided 50% city defense. If my culture provides say 50% cultural defense, there is no need to build walls. Which realistically doesnt make sense. So adding more alternative effects to walls would make sense in my opinion. It would make senese to add an extra first strike to units stationed in a city that has built walls.

Edit:

wall also adds a soldier citizen i believe. However i think there should be an addition to defense.

In the Realism world map, the map can be quite crowded in Europe so i think making city defense with walls a bit stronger fits reasonably.

The bonus from walls is cumulative with culture, giving you +100%.

Wall giving soldier specialist? I assume you haven't upgraded to warlords yet?

You really should.

In the Realism world map, the map can be quite crowded in Europe so i think making city defense with walls a bit stronger fits reasonably

Wrong. In a crowded area, where space and resources are limited, civs cannot establish a sufficient economy to support a large army, making them les capable of taking cities than usual. If you're going to go with this mindset, a reduction -not an increase- would make more sense.

However you are forgetting that there are other parts of the world too. Changing the walls will affect everyone.

WarKirby

The bonus from walls is cumulative with culture, giving you +100%.
Wall giving soldier specialist? I assume you haven't upgraded to warlords yet?

You really should.


Wrong. In a crowded area, where space and resources are limited, civs cannot establish a sufficient economy to support a large army, making them les capable of taking cities than usual. If you're going to go with this mindset, a reduction -not an increase- would make more sense.

However you are forgetting that there are other parts of the world too. Changing the walls will affect everyone.

WarKirby

ok you caught me, i have yet to play warlords BETA version:shifty:
I was waiting for the GOLD version to come out.:mischief:

If i have say 50% cultural defense bonus in my city, if i build walls they themselves dont actually do anything which in my opinion doesnt make sense.

Since the soldier citizen is not there anymore, then i think the first strike bonus should be added. this would decrease effectiveness of collateral damage just by a little bit and give a small little step to units defending the city which i think would make sense.

If i have say 50% cultural defense bonus in my city, if i build walls they themselves dont actually do anything which in my opinion doesnt make sense.

I told you before. Walls and cultural defense add together to give your total defense bonus. 50% culture defense + walls = 100% defense bonus

I told you before. Walls and cultural defense add together to give your total defense bonus. 50% culture defense + walls = 100% defense bonus

sarcastically speaking:rolleyes: :lol:

no i told "YOU" before!!! :mischief: :D :lol: :lol: just kidding but anyway.....

Walls and cultural defense add together to give your total defense bonus. 50% culture defense + walls = 100% defense bonus

That is just not so. When i read this I even conducted experiments with world builder.:king:

Example:

in a city with 60% cultural defense. If i were to build a wall in the city, the resulting % defense is 60%. The walls dont add on to the city defense bonuse if its already above 50%. This applies to castles as well. Your city defense has a peak at 100% regardless of having origainal 80% cultural defense+walls+castle. The only exceptions is if i were to build the Aztec wonder(the name eludes me right now/the wonder adds +25% to all cities)
By building this wonder the maximum that can be reached is 125% city defense.

Conduct some test yourself if you dont believe me.:crazyeye: :D


50% for walls + 50% original defense prewalled does not equal 100%

It equals 50%

50% for walls + 60%cultural defense does not equal 110%

It equals 60%

It doesnt matter if you have legendary culture plus walls and castles the maxiumum city defense you get is 100%

Which to me doesnt make any sense. So i think having "A single"(just one) first strike is deserving.:D

In conclusion what i originally said was right. If i have 50% from cultural affects, there is absolutely no point for me to build walls(i do not get any affect from them) unless i want to build castles.

sarcastically speaking:rolleyes: :lol:

no i told "YOU" before!!! :mischief: :D :lol: :lol: just kidding but anyway.....



That is just not so. When i read this I even conducted experiments with world builder.:king:

Example:

in a city with 60% cultural defense. If i were to build a wall in the city, the resulting % defense is 60%. The walls dont add on to the city defense bonuse if its already above 50%. This applies to castles as well. Your city defense has a peak at 100% regardless of having origainal 80% cultural defense+walls+castle. The only exceptions is if i were to build the Aztec wonder(the name eludes me right now/the wonder adds +25% to all cities)
By building this wonder the maximum that can be reached is 125% city defense.

Conduct some test yourself if you dont believe me.:crazyeye: :D


50% for walls + 50% original defense prewalled does not equal 100%

It equals 50%

50% for walls + 60%cultural defense does not equal 110%

It equals 60%

It doesnt matter if you have legendary culture plus walls and castles the maxiumum city defense you get is 100%

Which to me doesnt make any sense. So i think having "A single"(just one) first strike is deserving.:D

In conclusion what i originally said was right. If i have 50% from cultural affects, there is absolutely no point for me to build walls(i do not get any affect from them) unless i want to build castles.

Yeap, that's right. The best of your defense bonus (either cultural or wall+castle) is used in fight. Nevertheless, you can go to more than 100% with the wonder chichen itza (+25% added to your def, whatever is the best cultural or walls+castle).
I agree with you about the useless of walls when you reach 60% def with culture. I think it's not logical. Even the strongest cultural cities had walls. For exemple, in France, our capital city Paris had walls and strong forts until the first world war !!! They were destroyed during the 20s to allow the growth of the city...
In an other Mod TAM (The Ancient Mediterannean) if i'm right, cultural def bonus is low. That gives walls a more important usefullness.

The Frog.

Yeap, that's right. The best of your defense bonus (either cultural or wall+castle) is used in fight. Nevertheless, you can go to more than 100% with the wonder chichen itza (+25% added to your def, whatever is the best cultural or walls+castle).
I agree with you about the useless of walls when you reach 60% def with culture. I think it's not logical. Even the strongest cultural cities had walls. For exemple, in France, our capital city Paris had walls and strong forts until the first world war !!! They were destroyed during the 20s to allow the growth of the city...
In an other Mod TAM (The Ancient Mediterannean) if i'm right, cultural def bonus is low. That gives walls a more important usefullness.

The Frog.
That is true about TAM. Walls take on a more important role in TAM because of the low cultural defense bonus.

... my post wasnt posted or erazed...

Long time no post here.

Well i got WTR and new building + ub.
But still missing something.

Like harbor required to build ships other than workboat and galley.
Drydock required to build oil ships.
Forge or Smithy (new building, but no idea for cost and who will make it) that gives free combat I or + 4 expiriance to all melee units and +2 to mounted knights (as they got stables also).
Fletcher (also new one) that gives +4 xp to foot archery units and +2 to mounted archery units (as they got stables as well).
Factory/assembly line needed to build Tanks and planes.
Chemistry (new one) to build gunpowder units.
Airport to build airplanes and have them stationing (dont know if made allready).

Any comments ?

Long time no post here.

Well i got WTR and new building + ub.
But still missing something.

Like harbor required to build ships other than workboat and galley.
Drydock required to build oil ships.
Forge or Smithy (new building, but no idea for cost and who will make it) that gives free combat I or + 4 expiriance to all melee units and +2 to mounted knights (as they got stables also).
Fletcher (also new one) that gives +4 xp to foot archery units and +2 to mounted archery units (as they got stables as well).
Factory/assembly line needed to build Tanks and planes.
Chemistry (new one) to build gunpowder units.
Airport to build airplanes and have them stationing (dont know if made allready).

Any comments ?

Hi man,

I agree with only parts of your idea. Such as a factory/assembly line to build all vehicules units. It's an idea we can think about...

The Frog.

What i mean is that Vikings mostly made their own wepons in their own hime, as blacksmith service was too expancive, his skill not much higher and their steel wasnt very good. That why i want to make smithy, not private one, but whith special steel obtained by head of nation not black smith and the smith will be also well trained and selected by head of nation, not a boy who think that being a smith is a good job.

Its also like in French in middle ages. France didnt had good armor, becouse they didnt have many people whith skill and quality resources, unlike Italian this city you conquared (forgot :p).

And saying coments i meant something more creative than "yes"/"no".

But factory, drydock and airport are my "most" serious suggestions. + they dont need any special graphic customization. Only XML's edit.

Anaztazioch: I like all your ideas, though the numbers are too much. They would need to be cut down for implementation.

WarKirby

@ WarKirby

Any propositions ?
Mayby free promotions instead for xp ?
Or bonus to production units ? Like factory wont help you build walls... they rely more on man strength and resources, not parts made in factory, to avoid
- Hey boss, where do we install ATI x800xt on south wall ? From inside of city, or ouside ?
- Isnt that in north gate allready ?
- No sir, north gate has Aston Martin db9 lock.

@ WarKirby

Any propositions ?
Mayby free promotions instead for xp ?
Or bonus to production units ? Like factory wont help you build walls... they rely more on man strength and resources, not parts made in factory, to avoid
- Hey boss, where do we install ATI x800xt on south wall ? From inside of city, or ouside ?
- Isnt that in north gate allready ?
- No sir, north gate has Aston Martin db9 lock.

Hi man,

I suppose that WarKirby wanted to say is that the easier to create your idea is, the easier you could see it added as a true "good evolution" of TR.
Even if most of your ideas seem interesting, only one seem trully realistic: a factory as pre requisite to build all vehicules units (tanks, humvee,...). It's not very difficult to implement (i suppose) and would be logical.

The Frog.

Thanks for twisting my words Hian, but what I was actually saying is that it's a good idea in all it's aspects, but that the bonuses provided would be too powerful.

I think all of those ideas add realism, but the experience bonuses should be cut in half from Anaztazioch's suggestion.

Also, I think it should be a gunpowder mill, (prerequisite gunpowder) which would be required for musketmen, grenadiers, riflemen and cavalry. Becoming obsolete with assembly line, which would allow the gun factory to replace it, and be a prerequisite for infantry, marines, commandos, and any vehicle which has guns on it.

I've always thought it a bit unrealistic that a size 1 village could churn out a tank or a squad of marines given enough time. Building requirements for these units would add much more realism methinks.

WarKirby

@ WarKirby

gunpowder mill - that the word i forgot and used "Chemistry".

@ Hian the Frog

I understanded WarKirby's #34.
I asked him about
I like all your ideas, though the numbers are too much.
and i got answear
I think all of those ideas add realism, but the experience bonuses should be cut in half from Anaztazioch's suggestion.

So i dont think we misunderstand exept for that chemistry mill.

And implanting this doesnt look hard, only few changes in XML. Only need "commands" and can do it my self, but testing is other side. And XML alone isnt enough. But just to check how stables word (+xp to type unit [mounted in this instance]) and coal plant/nuclear plat (required resource). This way i will know how to make a factory give xp for mounted units :lol: and make it require a resource (this can be also used in making timber workshop you spoke in resources). Also its not look at crusader/mujahid, learn the command making it require temple, and paste that to tank.

So we will have a tank requireing temple and factory that gives mounted units free xp and recuries coal/uranium. :D From this its just lear how to change temple into factory and delate resource requiremant from factory.

I allready checked the "basics" in XML, but didnt look deeper to actually begain this.


@ WarKirby

I've always thought it a bit unrealistic that a size 1 village could churn out a tank or a squad of marines given enough time. Building requirements for these units would add much more realism methinks.

Ever heared of military bases whith the size of a city ?:lol:

Well its allready taken care of. See in reality people from smaller citoes go to bigger cities for training, and than go stationing in their home town [its in Poland]. Same this is "simulated" in CivIV. Note that big city makes tank in 4 turns, while smaller (1 pop) need 20 or more turns. Also smaller cities cant draft. So unless you point out something more specified i say NO

And a small beta bug in WTR.

After building Great Wall there are movie problems. First we have a new Fraxis movie of Great Wall, than we have TR custom Great Wall movie that stops in middle and its sound loops untill you click [ok]. Same problem might be whith all Warlords wonders that also are in WTR.

About hireing mercenaries this.

In Barbarian mod (Warlords original mod) you have a camp unit where bought units spawn, and you buy them via "close to" mercenary screen.

What im proposing is a building "fighters guild", that can be build rather fast and in every city, but there will be a limit of 1 per civ. Limit will look like palace. "Fighters guild" will mark a city where hired mercenaries will spawn.
"Fighters guild" could use modified/unmodified camp unit script.

Also "fighters guild" can be an improvement, but it will be harder to make 1 improvement for civ...

Sound good to me. Very rational, the spawning point for mercenaries does need to be defined, and changeable.

I dont like the fact that when you take a city a lot of its buildings are razed and you have to rebuild them.. It leads to situations in which you find yourself building a coloseum in a city that you just recently took from your enemy and its Modern Era.. What do you need a coloseum or a forge in modern era ? absolutely nothing..

here are my thought bout this issue :

1. Make buildings era dependent. Lets say you can build the coloseum till medieval era, and afterwards you cant.. In renesaince era some other building with a similar effect should be introduced. Cities which menaged to build the coloseum would be better, coz they would get +1 hap (you could do the same with forge and other buildngs).. Simpler(not better imo) sollution would be just to rename those buildings (coloseum-->stadium, etc).

2. I havent got a slitest idea, how does razing buildings on capture work, but it seems to me that when capturing a mature city you dont have to build granery and some other buildings.. but still most of them are destroyed. This has nothing to do with realism.. every building should have a % chance that during bombadment of defences or garrisoning troops it will be destroyed (max one building per one bombardment / attack). The % valu should differ according to building, ie factory, granery, barracks should have a high percentage (more likly to get destroyed), and buildings like theatre, colloseum, temple (which are not strategic targets) should have a better chance of NOT being razed.. Values should be adjusted for balance.

What do You think ?

@ noid

Forge is needed. You think fences are made in factories ? The beautiful ones not simple wire fences. Or locks or hinge. Forge is needed even in modern age, not to mention my armor is hand made not a factory crap.

Coloseum. Well lets think, what is colloseum for. Gladiators fought in it. It was not a battle arena, but more entertainment.
In modern ages we got spanish bullfighting pits, boxing gals, football (soccer) arenas, olympic stadiums. They are close to Coloseum, only differance is that we got entertainment with much less bloodshred.

Also you might come up with stables, like they are not needed in modern age. Well having stables, renting horses, teaching horseback riding, sports with horses and hippoterapy.

And renaming buildings ? Thats impossible, or will slow down game to 486 prcessor...

Also temples are not strategic target - say that to crusades against Islam.

And noid - you are saying that theatre is not a target in war. We dont have to search far. Terrorist threat. They attack everywhere, their goal is to terrorize and kill as many as possible.


And TR team mentioned that they will try to make razing buildings harder/slower when capturing it. Reading readme.txt as well as being whith TR in forums from August (TR 1.0) should tell you that Houman was trying to make temples harder to raze. But i dont care actually. I mostly raze cities :)

@anaztazioch

I think you didnt get my point..

1. I dont see how a "blacksmith" who made your armor or the guy who makes fences (i know what kind do you have in mind) ads 25% to Cracows production (buildings or military). Those buildings still exist in our times, but building them in modern era (rebuilding after a city capture was the case a had in mind) to get +25% hammers is about realism at all.

2. As to coloseums, its the same as with forge.. You dont build coloseums nowadays (at least not for the sake of entertaining ppl) You could name it a "arena in which games are held for the amusement of ppl" instead of a coloseum.. this aint TR..

3.There are some "stables" in Sopot, but i cant see how are they helping our military ? And since you dont use cavalery anymore, stables should be buildable only till industrail age ?

4. Temples arent strategic targets unless, they hold some kind of weapons. soldiers, comand post..

5. I was talking about sieges not terrorist threat.. terrorist can strike anytime, anyplace.. A theater, a school, a public restroom..

I know that those things are not top priority.. But if its TR let it be TR all the way :)

@ Noid

It is TR...

1. If we "eraze" forge, this will lower production in city by 25% in modern age. Thus tanks will be longer to build, or lower hammer cost. That wouls lead to many changes in units and i tell you its like searching a sign of eaten potato in poo.
How they do to military production.I dont know, i never were in a military.
But my brother is playing guitar, and he coult tell you how big in quality is the differance betwean the guitar made in factory and guitar made by blacksmith and carpenter.

Another thing is that what you do whith broken part in a tank ? Replace it of course :lol:. But the broken part goes to forge or smelter. Forge repairs part, or unfolt into part of differant resource, than go to smelter to get melted than back to forge to make a new part or to factory to make even new part.

2. Well to tell the truth there was only one Colosseum. And it was in Rome. Others were just a fighting pits. So this should be a national wonder actually.
So colosseums werent build back than :). Thats why i say colosseum is an entertaitment building like stadium.

3. In Crcow i know of 5 stables. 3 relaxation, 1 speciality (hippoterapy) and 1 for rent a horse. I know even a tribal village as Warsaw has few :lol:

4. Temples were a sacred places. There were a place of protection while siege took place. But Cristians on their Crusades pillaged, robbed nearelly all Jewish, Orthdox and Muslim temples they came across. So religion didnt took actually place. Only gold.

And you may think of "humanity" in a war. Not kill civilians, warn about bombardment to make civils hide in shelters. But did Hitler done that ? "humanity" is an ONZ idea, to make wars less horrifying, there fore more pleasurable and profitable.

5. I know. But note that every building is a good cover... or bad cover... depending if your hiding from rifle or ICBM... Also after conquest you got a time to make new citzens adopt to your rule. Some rebelions witch may lead to razing cities. Just look arround how Warsaw did look after Germans have conquared it, that take a look how it looked like after uprising.
Have that in your calcualtion.

Too many buildings are razed, but it doesnt bother me that much. Wonders are worser. After conquaring London the pyramids the dissapeared. All i wanted is Representation in 800bc...

Great Idea, I am all for the colosseum as a national or world wonder.:goodjob:

Go Flavian Amphitheater!!!:lol:

Great Idea, I am all for the colosseum as a national or world wonder.:goodjob:

Go Flavian Amphitheater!!!:lol:

Spartan117,

If i well remember, there was a mod in Civ3 that gives you "Circus Maximus" when you built X arenas, or something like that...
Flavian Amphitheather could be a good new wonder. Buildable when X colosseums are built, like the forbidden palace or shakespeare theather.

But what could be the bonus of such a wonder ?

The Frog.

World wonder Coliseum:
+1 gold per city, +1 happynes i city where it was build, +1 happyness in all cities with slavary, +10% chance of slave uprising, can be built only in classical and earlier, obsolates whith democracy or liberalism. 130% of pyramids hammer cost. Requires access to stone and atleast 7population.

Gold for sold tickets, happynes couse pple are happy when blood fly infront of em, more happyness when slavary becouse slavary makes more "volatiers" for gladiator fight. Rebelion chance couse Spartan was a gladiotor not "only" a slave.

National Wonder such as Red Cross, Oxford Univerity should have no happines in city where it was build and 99.853% pyramids cost. Rest tay same. But in World Map Rome can have like 4 cities (Rome, Sycyly, Venece, And the island west). So i say that most civs wont be able to build it up becouse they wont have enpught cities.


National Wonder like Heroic Epic.
Only gold and 75% of pyramids hammer cost.



I think Colisseum is best.

Anaztazioch seems to have the most rational arguments here. The sports stadiums so many go to are the modern colliseums, forges are still around and helpful to production etc etc.

Renaming the buildings every new era is a little bit... anal. It shows a focus far too much on the pointless small stuff. As for losing buildings when a city is taken, the army decided to go a bit nuts, and thats the outcome, certinaly has historical precedent, occupying armies have always destroyed and pillaged. You can prevent this by not losing your cities. If it troubles you so much, play defensively.

Go more buildings!

@Tirano

Im not loosing my cities.. I just dont like that after a war of conquest you have to dive it to micromenagament.. and occupying armies havent always destroyed and pilaged.. Lets look at romes expansion, most of the battles were fought and won in the open filed, and after defeating the enemy they just took control of the cities (there are exeptions.. Carthage for instance). Wars were often waged to gain control over a certien territory, reasource, city.. Not to destroy or anahilate all.. The longer the siege, the more attackas on the city, the more buildings should have a chance to be raised.. but if the enemy has only few week defenders, and the city is taken, i dont see why all, or almost all of the buildings should be destroyed..

@Tirano

Wars were often waged to gain control over a certien territory, reasource, city.. Not to destroy or anahilate all.. The longer the siege, the more attackas on the city, the more buildings should have a chance to be raised.. but if the enemy has only few week defenders, and the city is taken, i dont see why all, or almost all of the buildings should be destroyed..

I like this idea, and maybe technology like smart weapons or similar should reduce amount of destroyed buildings after capturing city by 50%.

@ julko
@ noid

Check how Baghdad looked after capturing by US army. I belive this would be a good example of how much building are being razed even with "smart weapons".

Have you checked it ? or are these only your preasumprions ? please provide a refrence :P

No i did not check it. I told you to do this, as this is your idea. Bring up the chance of reduce amount of destroyed buildings after capturing city, by knowing what did the Baghdad looked after capturing, and how does it look now.

Also point out the chance of razing city after capturing, so that reduction from smart weapon can actually work.

Like having 70% chance of razing building for each building. And 50% reduction from smart weapons.
Now does this mean that smart weapons lowers by 50% [70%-50%=20%].
Or lower the chance BY 50% [70%-70%x50%=70%-35%=35%]

Understand ? Its your idea, make it grow. If we find it interasting and possible of implanting, many links, other ideas/upgrades of your idea as well as "referances" will show up.

@Tirano

Im not loosing my cities.. I just dont like that after a war of conquest you have to dive it to micromenagament.. and occupying armies havent always destroyed and pilaged.. Lets look at romes expansion, most of the battles were fought and won in the open filed, and after defeating the enemy they just took control of the cities (there are exeptions.. Carthage for instance). Wars were often waged to gain control over a certien territory, reasource, city.. Not to destroy or anahilate all.. The longer the siege, the more attackas on the city, the more buildings should have a chance to be raised.. but if the enemy has only few week defenders, and the city is taken, i dont see why all, or almost all of the buildings should be destroyed..

As for this post.

Well you can fight and pillage improvements not attacking cities, and after some turns offer peace as well as some cities. But if given cities this way also loose buiding, than its...anal, as Los Tirano said.

Bagdad is not the best example IMO, coz its "the most recently captured city" in a war.. And we are talking about 6000 years if civ timelinie.. As i pointed out earlier on, untill the middle ages most of the battles were fought in the open field, and the outcome of the battles would decide about the future of the cities, villiges etc.. Ancients didnt have the siege technology to destroy whole cities with all building during sieges. Their machines were able to crush walls (sometimes) and kill the deffenders, not sistematicly raze all structures in a city.. (that was only avalable with the introduction of cannons). Sometimes after capture conquerors (like Mongols) would decide to raze/torch all of the buildings and slaughter all the citizens (to make a good example for the rest of the enemy citis, and make them think that resistance is not the best option).

examples

siege of Constantinopole : "On 29 May 1453, Sultan Mehmet II “the Conqueror”, entered Constantinople after a 53–day siege during which his cannon had torn a huge hole in the Walls of Theodosius II. Istanbul became the third capital of the Ottoman Empire in 1453." - Wikipedia. No mention of the city destruction ? The church of Hagia Sophia destroyed ? no !! changed from christian temple to a muslim Mosq..(other christan temples were also made in to mosques) The city becoms the capital of Ottoman Empire.. I dont suppose they had to rebuild it from scratch..

Mongols under Temujins rule had were the typical conquerors i mentioned earlier.. They would crush all resistance in their way, and kill anybody that didnt submit to their will.. They razed and torched a lot of cities, BUT only after taking them in long siges, or after storming the walls.. They didnt have the means to destroy structures protected by the walls, only after breaching the defences they could wreck havoc and destrouction.

In my opinion CIV was made the way it is to avoid situations in which you take a mature city, wait untill resistance is over and quickly start producing military units and rush them on the civ you took the city from.. It might by ok from the gameplay point of view, BUT from realism point of view its (Czech Skoda factories producing german tanks, and taking new recruits from the conquerd land are only a few examples).

My idea how to change this is to make most of the buildings in the city stay after a capture, only long and "bloody" sieges should resault in destruction of some or most of the buildings (leningrad, stalingrad). If you are willing to implement the feature i would be more then happy to provide a detailed model for how i see it.

cheers

I am interested.

But i dont know how to make it "ballanced".