New Buildings: Final Stage

Following from the discussion in the New Buildings thread, let's finalize the suggestions presented there. The basic revised idea is to expand gameplay by adding some new interesting feature with one or more of these lategame buildings:

Skyscraper

• Industrial/modern era.
• Population or yield-per-population bonuses
• Uses iron (steel), or resourceless.

Airport

• Industrial/modern era
• Trade or diplomatic bonuses.
• Uses aluminum, or resourceless.

Highway

• Industrial/modern era
• Unknown bonuses.
• Uses oil, or resourceless.

So the Suspension Bridge is out/replaced by the Skyscraper? What about a choice between using your iron for Skyscraper (food) or Suspension Bridge (production)? Might be overpowered though)?

Does the Skyscraper replaces the Medical Lab now? sounds good. I think the Food per Population for the Skyscraper fits best as it scales best for Tall, it's exponential and all

If the bonus based on # of cities connected by harbor is doable, would that be possible for the Airport as well? But based on total number of connected cities? It would fit. Thus my propositions:

Skyscraper
available with Penicillin (may be renamed as it doesn't fit at all, but the tech seems strange anyways, if we move it, something else should be placed here)
uses 1 iron
adds 3 per population (not sure what's balanced)

Warehouse
available with Economics (?)
requires harbor
+1 and + 1 per city connected per harbour and city state friends (worthwhile for wide and CS-focused empires

Airport
available with Electronics (or Flight?)
+1 and + 1 per city connected by trade route (or other airports in the empire?) and city state friends

(I think we could use a late game boster aside from that?)

I'm still against any late-game iron-dependent buildings at all. I think a skyscraper makes much more sense than a suspension bridge. Lots of cities aren't in places where they would need bridges, whereas skyscrapers are more universal.

I don't think that food per pop is a good idea; if you do it, I wouldn't add anything more than 0.5 food per pop, anything more would be horribly unbalanced. Remember that this effect will stack with the Freedom specialist effect!

I think making the warehouse a network-effect building could work, but I would stay away from doing it on the airport; the warehouse is limited by coastal cities, the airport isn't. Also I don't think I would tie it into city states, particularly not just at friend level.

Another possibility would be to have the airport be stronger (and not network-linked) but require aluminium (idea being: there is a tradeoff between military and commercial airline use?); not much requires aluminium atm IIRC. But again I'm nervous about the AI's ability to make sensible tradeoff decisions.

Not sure why the hydro should use iron per se either. You can build very large energy based dams without steel or concrete.

And iron is not a strategic resource in the modern era; it is very common. The iron strategic resources don't represent the only iron on the planet, they represent the easily accessible ore deposits that can be access with primitive mining technology.

Its worth going back through our intended late game strategic resource requirements.

My understanding is that the intended design is:
Oil: tank line (land cruiser, tank, modern armor), battleship line (battleship, missile cruiser)
Aluminium: bomber line, spaceship parts?
Uranium: atomic bomb/missile, nuclear power plant, GDR.

Is that right?

Fighter planes would be aluminum too (start with oil, goes to alum with jets).
Default has rocket artillery (and modern armor) as alum too. Rockets are defensible (if strange since they're coming from a non-required line). The armor is just weird. You don't make tanks out of aluminum. Even uranium makes more sense because of the shells (not that I'd recommend that).

I would consider putting the carrier in there too somewhere. The GK AI seems to like building them too much.

Fighter planes would be aluminum too (start with oil, goes to alum with jets).

Click to expand...

Is this intended? The last versions of VEM I played had aluminium on bomber but not fighter.

I don't think we should switch resource requirements in GEM; the full line should use the same resource.

Default has rocket artillery (and modern armor) as alum too.

Click to expand...

I know this is vanilla, but again based on the versions of VEM I played I thought there was consensus to make the tank link all oil, and to remove the strategic resource requirement for rocket artillery (though I think slightly reduce the stats on it).

I would consider putting the carrier in there too somewhere. The GK AI seems to like building them too much.

Click to expand...

I don't think the carrier is useful enough to warrant a strategic resource requirement; it can't even attack. I think the only way I would do this is if it could be altered to actually have a ranged effect strike and interdiction effect built-in, rather than on requiring land-based units.

I know the vanilla AI liked them too much, but I thought that VEM managed to tweak that somehow.

Is the GK AI able to use the carriers effectively (the vanilla AI couldn't)? I haven't played much military late-game.

Ahriman said:

Is this intended? The last versions of VEM I played had aluminium on bomber but not fighter.

I don't think we should switch resource requirements in GEM; the full line should use the same resource.

I don't think the carrier is useful enough to warrant a strategic resource requirement; it can't even attack. I think the only way I would do this is if it could be altered to actually have a ranged effect strike and interdiction effect built-in, rather than on requiring land-based units.

I know the vanilla AI liked them too much, but I thought that VEM managed to tweak that somehow.

Is the GK AI able to use the carriers effectively (the vanilla AI couldn't)? I haven't played much military late-game.

Click to expand...

I thought it was fairly clear I'd rather tanks be oil based. I'd be content with a nerf to rockets instead of a strat requirement as well.

I can't recall where VEM was on fighters. I'll have to check. I think it is more coherent to make it all one or the other, but my preference would be for aluminum. There's a lot in oil already and the trade-off of army versus navy is fine there, plus we'd be (re)moving two of the three alum requirements already (I think that leaves helos too). We may as well leave both fighters and bombers there.

If the carrier is improved or if the AI isn't building a ton of them, I think it's fine. I have no idea why they build them instead of destroyers. They don't seem any more effective at using them. I have visions of stack of doom fleets from BTS with carrier groups and their air strikes roaming up and down my coast. But no, they're not using them like that. We could wait and see what happens with the armies changes.

We may as well leave both fighters and bombers there.

Click to expand...

The problem is; the fighter is only useful if the other player also has aircraft nearby. Otherwise the bomber is clearly superior. I haven't seen the AI use aircraft much even in the late-game (though I often get bored and quit by then) so I'd use bombers most of the time. Fighters risk being underpowered if they also use an aluminium.

I could see helos using aluminium, that would be reasonable. They may need stat tweaking of course.

I have no idea why they build them instead of destroyers.

Click to expand...

Are carriers higher base strength than destroyers?

guys, getting a bit off topic here, not? I agree that ressource requirements for the later eras can be looked at again and that one ressource could be doulbe military-civilian use (to create a trifecta of coal (civ), oil/alum (mil) and alum/oil (civ and/or mil)). The rest belongs to the Army thread

The Hydro Plant would use Iron simply for gameplay reasons I guess (to create that tradeoff between Skyscraper or Hydroplant).

@Ahriman where exactly is the problem for the Airport to be a network building? Too much stack-effect? I guess that could also be reached with the Warehouse as coastal cities can be quite common. Also, the building is available earlier increasing its power. If we could make the airport's worth raise on the amount of total # of airports in the world, that would be a nice balancement, right? since a catch-up civ would benefit a lot more from that, simulating a global spread?

Yes. Sorry. Armies thread needs to be created.

I don't think there would be much of a trade-off. Iron is fairly easy to obtain by the late game because you have no other use for it. It also doesn't make much sense for hydro plants at least.

Also. Because that's a building requiring it and iron unit requirements would have expired by then, you can glitch out the system by obtaining iron in trade, building new buildings as desired, and then letting the trade or CS alliance expire and keep the building. Ditto when you conquer someone with the buildings already there.

It doesn't sound like it's actually a functional requirement preventing you from building anything as a result. I would vote for neither building requiring it and the skyscraper simply replacing the med labs as a tall-er oriented growth device with per food (.5 sounds reasonable, +1 is too much). There might be a functional game play reason to limit its construction but other than aluminum, I'm not sure any resource would actually achieve that goal.

If it has no requirement, I propose that it be something like .25 food per pop and the 25% growth speed bonus from med labs combined in one (probably at 10% instead of 25%).

The Hydro Plant would use Iron simply for gameplay reasons I guess (to create that tradeoff between Skyscraper or Hydroplant).

Click to expand...

I'd prefer that neither used iron. Iron isn't a modern strategic resource. And I don't see any logical reason for trading off between hydroplants and skyscrapers. Why not both?

Ahriman where exactly is the problem for the Airport to be a network building?

Click to expand...

It could be built in every city, which mean the upper end is basically unbounded, and balance problems can get really bad. Suppose I have 15 cities. Adding a 16th airport has +16 gold and +16 culture in that 16th city *and* increases all the existing airports by +1/+1 each, for a total effect of +31 gold/+31 culture, before gold and culture multipliers. The 17th one adds +33 gold/culture. It gets out of control.

This is less likely with the Warehouse because of the coastal limitation.

If we could make the airport's worth raise on the amount of total # of airports in the world, that would be a nice balancement, right? since a catch-up civ would benefit a lot more from that, simulating a global spread?

Click to expand...

I don't like the idea that my infrastructure ends up benefiting other civs or enemy civs, and every city in the world makes the potential problems on the high end even worse; what if there are 40 airports in the world, for 40 gold each, for a total of 1600 gold per turn, becoming ~2,500 gold per turn with banks and markets? That risks destroying the late game world economy. The Mint and Stock exchange do this already, and need dramatic nerfs.

I don't think we need late-game catchup mechanics. As stated before, I'm opposed to too many catchup mechanics; the way to make the end-game challenging is not to try to have catchup mechanics for the little guys, its to allow the big guy AIs to crush the weaker ones and become superpowers in their own right. I will be much more threatened by one really powerful AI than I will be by three moderate strength ones.

Ahriman said:

Are carriers higher base strength than destroyers?

Click to expand...

No, lower.

The suspension bridge and hydro plant are alternatives for the same building, so we'll use either one or the other. Bridges are a more realistic and common use of steel than hydro plants, but it's not too important to me either way.

Late game resources:

Aluminum

• abundant
• strategic air
• stackable units are better for AI

Oil

• rare
• strategic land/sea

Steel

• abundant
• steel buildings and bridges
• steel industries are important in modern era

Uranium

• rare
• nuclear plants and bombs

Thalassicus said:

The suspension bridge and hydro plant are alternatives for the same building, so we'll use either one or the other. I think bridges are more realistic and common than hydro plants, but it's not too important to me either way.

Click to expand...

Hydroelectric power is both more common and more important than suspension bridges. That is important to me either way. We could talk about modifying their effects, but otherwise that's a crucial building.

Airport makes sense as an alum requirement.

I don't think an iron requirement will work on any late-game buildings.

I'm using steel (iron) as a flavorful thing in the late game like how Ironclads need iron. It's for fun.

Late game resources:

Aluminum
abundant
strategic air
stackable units are better for AI
Oil
rare
strategic land/sea
Steel
abundant
steel buildings and bridges
steel industries are important in modern era
Uranium
rare
nuclear plants and bombs

Click to expand...

This is not very explanatory. What does "strategic air" mean?

Also, it makes it sound like you are planning to introduce a steel resource?!?
Iron ore is not rare in the modern era. Nor is steel. They are not strategic.
The steel industry is no more important than many many other industries that we do not specifically represent; car manufacturing, housing construction, insurance, retail, etc.

I'm using steel to create a choice between different yields in the late game.

Click to expand...

Why? Hydroplant is limited by rivers. Why should I have to give up skyscrapers to get a river bonus? The bonus isn't even that big, normally ~+8 per river city. Which is not that much late-game.

There are already choices between different yields from all the other late-game buildings; I can't have everything everywhere, so if I spend time building one it means I'm not building another. I don't see why the strategic resource system needs to be used here.

I think it is totally ok for iron to basically be obsolete from the renaissance onwards. Just as it was in Civ4.

I'm not sure how "steel" creates an argument that hydro plants would be irrelevant by requiring lots of steel, or be something routinely traded off with suspension bridges. Basically steel doesn't seem to be something we lack for in developed societies.

I think you've got a perspective of hydro power still with massive reinforced concrete steel dams (the wonder variety) as compared to their usual design and wide spread deployment around the globe if you're considering replacing them or reducing their role.

I don't think a late game building with strategic resource requirements from an earlier era is going to be limited in the practical game play sense nor does it make sense to use an "abundant" resource as though there's a limitation associated with it. The only times steel has been "limited" in practical terms are massive global wars and massive steel based projects (eg, wonders). General infrastructure hasn't been limited by it. In game terms, it would be very easy to acquire iron/steel and use it for modern buildings, and then not worry about keeping the connections for trade and still have the buildings laying around making your cities better. This is true unless we use an absurdly large per object requirement that would be unrealistic.

Generally speaking, I don't think we should include suspension bridges. They're very cool. They're not very important conceptually. It's like having the tallest building in the world. Compare with the importance of skyscrapers to reflect greater modern urban density. What real life application exactly are suspension bridges representing that isn't already done by having bridges on your roads/rails and extra trade on rivers?

mystikx21 said:

I don't think a late game building with strategic resource requirements from an earlier era is going to be limited in the practical game play sense nor does it make sense to use an "abundant" resource as though there's a limitation associated with it.

Click to expand...

Each player territory has approximately 5 iron, so a building which uses 5 steel clearly is limited to 1 city per owned territory. In the other thread we discussed how a better requirement would probably be 3-4 iron. It's similar to factories and coal. It's a fun thing, and if you feel it won't really impact your gameplay, that's okay. It happens so late it usually won't matter much.

1) Because it's a building and not a unit, there's no practical way to limit construction. You can always build more factories by temporarily acquiring coal and building them (or capturing the AIs cities with intact factories). The same would be true of iron-requiring late buildings. There would be some practical limitation if you have 3-5 required per because there's only so much available on the map, but that limitation would not be 1 or 2 per civ. We generally agree to abide by not exploiting this limitation, especially if there are GotM type contests, but if these buildings are powerful enough, one can see the draw for doing otherwise. By those rights, I also don't see how this should be applied to hydro plants (or suspension bridges). Neither as described sounds very powerful that it should require a strategic limitation.

2) It's not realistic to have these requirements late in the game because iron and steel are not strategic resources in the modern era. This is especially true if the requirements are massive. These concepts can be constructed without much limitation in the modern era. The limitation in game would be which cities would benefit the most from them in the smaller time frame they would be available. Eg, you could build a hydro plant on this city that it would affect 2 or 3 tiles, but there's also one where it could affect 10 and you should do something else in the first city. Ditto a tall-oriented skyscraper that significantly impacts larger cities. If it only adds a small quantity of food, a hospital is sufficient.

Airports at least rely on airplanes so we can leave a strategic requirement there since the military units must rely on them and make them reasonably powerful (adding air unit XP would be one option. A commercial function of some kind would follow logically too).

3) On the positive side of the ledger, I'd rather include superhighways than suspension bridges. (and leave hydro alone). These are a more realistic modern concept that is missing. Ideally they could improve villages if possible. If not, they could add gold in some other way.