Building in Fractions

[ThisNameIsTooLo]

One thing that has always bothered me with the Civ series in general is how regular units and buildings will take decades, even centuries, to build. In that huge gap of time, your city won't get any new military recruits or bonuses to city output.

I've always thought that, for example, building a Library involved relatively quick construction of a storage space and a considerably slower gathering of literary material over the years to pack the shelves. I would think that a 70% completed Library would have more than half of its wings constructed and ready, with less than a third of its shelves still empty. Don't you think that, from what's been completed so far, the city should be receiving +0.35 Science for every citizen?

I'd like to have it so that, when you are constructing a building (not a National or World Wonder), the building provides a fraction of its effects to the city based on how complete it is. And yes, I think it should be possible to stop construction partway and get the partial bonuses from the building. After all, who is to say that a Library must be built to a certain size before it can be considered useful? Perhaps this particular Library is completely constructed, just 30% smaller.

The same goes for military units. If it takes 15 turns to train a Pikeman unit, then surely after 12 turns there would be some soldiers available for use. For this aspect of production, it would be nice to have the unit appear one turn after production starts, but with its HP capped to the percent amount by which it was built.

Here's how it would work. Say you're building a Warrior, and it takes 10 turns to complete. After 1 turn, a Warrior unit capped at 10% HP appears in the city. If it stays in the city, each subsequent turn will raise its HP cap by an additional 10%, until finally it reaches 100% strength. On the other hand, if the 10% complete Warrior moves out of the city, the city will produce a new Warrior unit at 10% max HP next turn.

Just because you end a unit's production prematurely doesn't mean its potential is stunted forever. It would be possible to move a unit into a tile occupied by another unit of the same type, if their combined completeness is less than 100%, and merge them into a unit of combined completeness. For instance, a 40% complete Musketman can merge with a 30% complete Musketman and result in a 70% complete Musketman. (Though I'm not certain whether units should still be allowed to heal through fortification.)

[OmniPotent42]

Or a Hanging Gardens that provides only 3 food when 50% complete?
I don't think that this can apply to wonders very well, but overall great idea.
Would be interesting to see workshops complete logistically faster.

[ThisNameIsTooLo]

Originally Posted by OmniPotent42

Or a Hanging Gardens that provides only 3 food when 50% complete?
I don't think that this can apply to wonders very well

I know. That's why I said:

Originally Posted by ThisNameIsTooLo

when you are constructing a building (not a National or World Wonder)

[OmniPotent42]

Oh. Good Job.

[I_qua_I]

There is something appealing about having the option to invest more in a given building for a more substantial output though I see too many unfavorable downsides to the model you're proposing.

First, the impact of our building choices are not felt as severely as the current model. For example, say you want to build a library but the army you have is draining your reserves fast. As things are now we are in a position where we need to make a (meaningful) choice. Do we go ahead with our plans for that library or stall science in order to get a marketplace up and running? If we do go for the marketplace we must now wait longer to get our science going. If we choose the library we better hope to capture a city or two to keep the gold piled high. If we fail to do that we know that it might be a while until we can save our treasury with the marketplace.

On your model, however, the consequences are dampened a bit, rendering our final decision less meaningful. How so? Say we do decide that the marketplace must be a priority. What's keeping us from building just the minimum amount to where we are satisfied and then quickly switching over to the library only to "complete" the marketplace in the future. Sure, we are inconvenienced for prioritizing the marketplace but not as severely as the current model. Though sometimes it puts us in a tough position I like having to make choices that carry more weight.

Second, it seems untidy and overly fussy. As things are now it is easy to calculate the amount of science a library in a given city is producing just by looking at the population. On your model, however, we might need to do some extra investigating. Are we now going to have to check the city screen to see just how much we invested in a building in the past every time we want to make any kind of assessment or will this information (a worse alternative, I think) be somehow available to us from outside the city the way population is. Either way things will either be very cluttered or much more complex. It would only get worse if we had to start dealing with "messier" numbers i.e. things like 18% instead of a solid, more mentally calculable percentage.

As for the units, I don't think this idea would work at all. Even if their strength is almost negligible there are many ridiculously-gamebreaking advantages to having all your cities being able to produce a unit every turn consistently at any point in the game (especially during the earlier eras when production is still relatively low.) The mechanic you're proposing could (and would) easily be abused by a person who just keeps pumping these 1-turn units out to stall an advancing army from encroaching upon a city until his "real" army can make it across the empire. Sure, this might now be a reasonable strategy but only because we actually have to invest more in these suicide units. Further, roads would be less important as lacking internal mobility would not be as risky. There are probably more, but I think this loophole is a sufficient deterrent from implementing these ideas into the game.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally Posted by I_qua_I

Second, it seems untidy and overly fussy. As things are now it is easy to calculate the amount of science a library in a given city is producing just by looking at the population. On your model, however, we might need to do some extra investigating. Are we now going to have to check the city screen to see just how much we invested in a building in the past every time we want to make any kind of assessment or will this information (a worse alternative, I think) be somehow available to us from outside the city the way population is. Either way things will either be very cluttered or much more complex. It would only get worse if we had to start dealing with "messier" numbers i.e. things like 18% instead of a solid, more mentally calculable percentage.

Nobody thinks to things like that really...

So I would like you to develop this :

First, the impact of our building choices are not felt as severely as the current model. For example, say you want to build a library but the army you have is draining your reserves fast. As things are now we are in a position where we need to make a (meaningful) choice. Do we go ahead with our plans for that library or stall science in order to get a marketplace up and running? If we do go for the marketplace we must now wait longer to get our science going. If we choose the library we better hope to capture a city or two to keep the gold piled high. If we fail to do that we know that it might be a while until we can save our treasury with the marketplace.

On your model, however, the consequences are dampened a bit, rendering our final decision less meaningful. How so? Say we do decide that the marketplace must be a priority. What's keeping us from building just the minimum amount to where we are satisfied and then quickly switching over to the library only to "complete" the marketplace in the future. Sure, we are inconvenienced for prioritizing the marketplace but not as severely as the current model. Though sometimes it puts us in a tough position I like having to make choices that carry more weight.

As for that :

As for the units, I don't think this idea would work at all. Even if their strength is almost negligible there are many ridiculously-gamebreaking advantages to having all your cities being able to produce a unit every turn consistently at any point in the game (especially during the earlier eras when production is still relatively low.) The mechanic you're proposing could (and would) easily be abused by a person who just keeps pumping these 1-turn units out to stall an advancing army from encroaching upon a city until his "real" army can make it across the empire. Sure, this might now be a reasonable strategy but only because we actually have to invest more in these suicide units. Further, roads would be less important as lacking internal mobility would not be as risky. There are probably more, but I think this loophole is a sufficient deterrent from implementing these ideas into the game.

It may delay city conquest for a bit, but the defender could not continue like that indefinitely. Ten kills would already mean being backward in production. Of course, the mechanic "1 hp hero" may have to be scrapped.

[ThisNameIsTooLo]

Well, okay. How about this:

All building effects are reduced to 1/5th their usual production cost and effect, and you can build up to 5 of each building in a city.

[OmniPotent42]

Originally Posted by I_qua_I

As for the units, I don't think this idea would work at all. Even if their strength is almost negligible there are many ridiculously-gamebreaking advantages to having all your cities being able to produce a unit every turn consistently at any point in the game (especially during the earlier eras when production is still relatively low.) The mechanic you're proposing could (and would) easily be abused by a person who just keeps pumping these 1-turn units out to stall an advancing army from encroaching upon a city until his "real" army can make it across the empire. Sure, this might now be a reasonable strategy but only because we actually have to invest more in these suicide units. Further, roads would be less important as lacking internal mobility would not be as risky. There are probably more, but I think this loophole is a sufficient deterrent from implementing these ideas into the game.

I wouldn't care, that just means more experience for me!

[I_qua_I]

Originally Posted by ThisNameIsTooLo

Well, okay. How about this:

All building effects are reduced to 1/5th their usual production cost and effect, and you can build up to 5 of each building in a city.

Again, this just minimizes the consequences of our choices and seems overly fussy.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally Posted by I_qua_I

Again, this just minimizes the consequences of our choices and seems overly fussy.

I don't think it's overly fussy at all.

[I_qua_I]

Originally Posted by Naokaukodem

I don't think it's overly fussy at all.

I do, though I guess it might just boil down to a matter of opinion. I know I would find it unnecessary to build a monument, then a monument, then a monument, then a monument, and then a monument for the same benefit the current model gives. It's just a bunch of additional clicks for something that doesn't really require them. When I'm done with that I'll move on to a granary, then a granary, then a granary, then a granary, then a granary, and after that a library, then a library, then a library, and a library, and a library, and a workshop, and a workshop, and a workshop, etc.

Imagine this mechanic in a wide empire! A few cities is bad enough but being bothered to build 5 buildingXs for every city to complete what can be completed with one selection now is not something I would appreciate.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally Posted by I_qua_I

I do, though I guess it might just boil down to a matter of opinion. I know I would find it unnecessary to build a monument, then a monument, then a monument, then a monument, and then a monument for the same benefit the current model gives. It's just a bunch of additional clicks for something that doesn't really require them. When I'm done with that I'll move on to a granary, then a granary, then a granary, then a granary, then a granary, and after that a library, then a library, then a library, and a library, and a library, and a workshop, and a workshop, and a workshop, etc.

Imagine this mechanic in a wide empire! A few cities is bad enough but being bothered to build 5 buildingXs for every city to complete what can be completed with one selection now is not something I would appreciate.

OK, point made, but you said the same thing for the OP...

[Drawmeus]

First off, buildings don't just represent the physical structure and contents - it represents the whole physical, political and social construct. An empty Barracks won't result in better trained soldiers - when you build a Barracks, that represents building a Barracks, all of its support structures, and you've built up military organizational and training protocols that result in better trained soldiers. When you build a Courthouse, that doesn't just represent an ornate building, it represents building up a colonial government capable of maintaining law and order within the city.

It's still unrealistic that you build it all in one chunk. It's also unrealistic that:
- Deploying soldiers doesn't reduce the population of your city.
- You can't build many different buildings at once.
- You can't build cities too close together.

All of these things are unrealistic, because all of them are models, not simulations of how running a city works. By taking away some detail that won't be missed by most players, you get a game that flows together better.

If someone wants to model this all out in EU-levels of detail, that could be a fun game but it won't be very much like playing Civilization. But everyone's preferred level of detail will be different; I could see some call for higher granularity. There's nothing wrong with it, it'd just result in a rather different game.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally Posted by Drawmeus

First off, buildings don't just represent the physical structure and contents - it represents the whole physical, political and social construct.

Actually not. All this is represented by the technology.

[Drawmeus]

Originally Posted by Naokaukodem

Actually not. All this is represented by the technology.

I don't think so - or else you should see e.g. effectiveness gains in your troops immediately on researching a tech AND buildings giving any benefit at all makes no sense in the first place. A barracks is just a building. It is nothing else. If you've already got the military organization, the training paradigms, and so on, and building a barracks literally just means building dedicated housing for your troops - just the physical structure providing all the benefit vs having all the social and political constructs providing 0% of the benefit is one helluva lot weirder than the fact that you build it all in one go. I mean, if we're just being literal, maybe you are literally building a single barracks, and that's why you build it all at once? Half-finished buildings are 0% habitable.

No, I think the difference between the technology that unlocks Barracks and building a Barracks in Civ has to represent the difference between having someone who wrote the Infantry Tactics Training Manual versus training up an officer corps capable of applying it.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally Posted by Drawmeus

I don't think so - or else you should see e.g. effectiveness gains in your troops immediately on researching a tech

That's a possibility of the game, by the way it was the case in Civ2 with leonardo's workshop.

AND buildings giving any benefit at all makes no sense in the first place.

Really ? So why are we sending our noobs in a barracks then ?

A barracks is just a building. It is nothing else. If you've already got the military organization, the training paradigms, and so on, and building a barracks literally just means building dedicated housing for your troops - just the physical structure providing all the benefit vs having all the social and political constructs providing 0% of the benefit is one helluva lot weirder than the fact that you build it all in one go. I mean, if we're just being literal, maybe you are literally building a single barracks, and that's why you build it all at once? Half-finished buildings are 0% habitable.

Yes, I think that's more the first idea. You build a barracks, until it's not achieved you can't use it.

Because, if what you are saying was true, your first barracks would cost around the actual cost of a barracks, but the nexts ? Their cost would be ridiculously low. But it's not the case.

No, I think the difference between the technology that unlocks Barracks and building a Barracks in Civ has to represent the difference between having someone who wrote the Infantry Tactics Training Manual versus training up an officer corps capable of applying it.

You can build a barracks without writing if i'm right. Also, it's not just a book that can make things evolve that much, in antiquity at least. It's a whole nation/city-state way of life. That to be represented by technology in Civ.

However i'm not debating about the rest of your first post, as you can notice, because the fact that we have to let aside perfect realism in order to let the game going is probably true. But there's also the fact that games tend to be more realistic and accurate, and that Civ series didn't evolve that much at all in its core basis. So it's troubling when it comes to see that actually, a barracks makes eons to be built.

[ThisNameIsTooLo]

May I suggest that you go easy on the winking smileys? They confuse the tone of your post, almost making it seem flirtatious. I assume that's not what you're trying to convey.

[Drawmeus]

Originally Posted by Naokaukodem

That's a possibility of the game, by the way it was the case in Civ2 with leonardo's workshop.



Really ? So why are we sending our noobs in a barracks then ?

You're really intent on scoring verbal points by using the least favorable interpretation of each quote, aren't you?

It makes no sense that building a simple dormitory is the most important thing you can do to make your troops more experienced, so powerful that it is as good as participating in several battles.

Yes, I think that's more the first idea. You build a barracks, until it's not achieved you can't use it.

Because, if what you are saying was true, your first barracks would cost around the actual cost of a barracks, but the nexts ? Their cost would be ridiculously low. But it's not the case.

Why would it be? When you have the tech, you have the capability of training the required personnel - you've worked out how to do it. When you build the building, you in fact train up those personnel - going from the theoretical knowledge of how to train them to the actual fact of having trained them. If you want another barracks in another city, you have to train up another group of personnel.

In any case, if it's NOT true, why can't you build a second barracks in the same city?

You can build a barracks without writing if i'm right. Also, it's not just a book that can make things evolve that much, in antiquity at least. It's a whole nation/city-state way of life. That to be represented by technology in Civ.

Again with going for verbal points over substance! People in your empire now possess the know-how of establishing military training regimens, whether it's written down or you're a pre-literate people maintaining the information as part of an oral history.

However i'm not debating about the rest of your first post, as you can notice, because the fact that we have to let aside perfect realism in order to let the game going is probably true. But there's also the fact that games tend to be more realistic and accurate, and that Civ series didn't evolve that much at all in its core basis. So it's troubling when it comes to see that actually, a barracks makes eons to be built.

ALL games set aside perfect realism in favor of some level of abstract modelling; the question is just where that line should be drawn. I actually agree that there can be fun to be had in a more simulationist version of an empire building game, but it's not troubling that Civ didn't go there. Civ is and has been game first, simulation distant second, and I hope it continues in that vein; I've got Europa Universalis and other hardcore simulationist games to scratch that itch. Civ is a more lightweight experience - still a dedicated strategy game, but not one that tries to be realistic moment to moment.

There are people who want to play EU, people who want to play Civ, people who want to play both (that's me!), and people who want to play something in the middle. There'd be nothing wrong with a mod that moved Civ more towards EU, and for people who'd enjoy it, more power to them. I have no problem with it, as long as that's not the direction that the Civ series itself takes.

[Naokaukodem]

Originally Posted by Drawmeus

It makes no sense that building a simple dormitory is the most important thing you can do to make your troops more experienced, so powerful that it is as good as participating in several battles.

So, why are we, in reality, building barracks ? Sure, we don't only build barracks, but it takes some effort. (barracks are often small cities inside the cities by themselves) You talk about barracks, but about theaters for example, is the building time takes account of the time the actors learn their text, and the author to write it ? Or a wonder like Notre Dame, is the formation of the prists inside took into account ? Seems rather odd and superfluous.

The thing is that in Civ, those things aren't took into account. They are considered a permanent acquisition. You don't start to learn to your kids the basis of your culture just because you built a barracks. You do it since eons, it's the basis of culture. Do you have to build a barracks in order to transmit your knowledge to your kids ? I don't think so. Face it, building a barracks is just that.

Why would it be? When you have the tech, you have the capability of training the required personnel - you've worked out how to do it. When you build the building, you in fact train up those personnel - going from the theoretical knowledge of how to train them to the actual fact of having trained them. If you want another barracks in another city, you have to train up another group of personnel.

You talked about political and social construct. I assume those once acquired are acquired for good and do not need a repetition.

In any case, if it's NOT true, why can't you build a second barracks in the same city?

And if it's true, why can't you build a second barracks in the same city ?

And by the way, if it was true, it wouldn't change the problem at all. The time to train training people is comparable in scale to the time needed to build a complex like a barracks.

Again with going for verbal points over substance! People in your empire now possess the know-how of establishing military training regimens, whether it's written down or you're a pre-literate people maintaining the information as part of an oral history.

Yes, and because it's oral / gestual, people that carry this knowledge over also know how to train kids. No need to form them out of nowhere.

ALL games set aside perfect realism in favor of some level of abstract modelling; the question is just where that line should be drawn. I actually agree that there can be fun to be had in a more simulationist version of an empire building game, but it's not troubling that Civ didn't go there. Civ is and has been game first, simulation distant second, and I hope it continues in that vein; I've got Europa Universalis and other hardcore simulationist games to scratch that itch. Civ is a more lightweight experience - still a dedicated strategy game, but not one that tries to be realistic moment to moment.

There are people who want to play EU, people who want to play Civ, people who want to play both (that's me!), and people who want to play something in the middle. There'd be nothing wrong with a mod that moved Civ more towards EU, and for people who'd enjoy it, more power to them. I have no problem with it, as long as that's not the direction that the Civ series itself takes.

The problem is that a building makes eons to be built. No mean if the game is less realistic than another one, it just hits the senses. As the lack of inter-cities trading can hit them. It's not about making Civ a more realistic game, it's about to improve it. There's no game that goes from 4000 BC to 2050 AD other than Civ. I find the OP's solution simple and elegant in order to improve this bit, even if that would probably mean changing other things.