Amazingly bad buildings?

[SammyKhalifa]

The worst has to be Taj Mahal. 100 turns for a wonder for 8 turns of golden age? Then, it has no real benefit other than culture (I think) after that?

♥

Taj Mahal gave me a 50+ turn GA last night.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Giving mines +1 with Dynamite and Trading posts +1 with Economics (but making them +1 without)
would help.

 

[zonk]

Something has to be seriously tweaked here, else all those buildings are only good for very small 'empires'.

Buildings are too expensive and provide too little bonus. Those +xp buildings are unnecessary as you can gain xp faster by beating up barbarians.

So, either those buildings cost less shields or provide better gains. They said, you need to specialize your cities. However, now what you build for a bigger empire are +happiness buildings and + gold stuff. This has nothing to do with diversifying your cities.

Penalties for big empires are so big, it is not civilization as it used to be. Civ games have always been about building something big. Just look at the silly nation wonders. Must have the building in every city? So, again you are discouraged to expand.

Penalties for big, highly populated empires are so big...

I agree with you otherwise, though. It really feels like the high build time/high maintenance cost/lacking bonus aspect of buildings was yet another attempt to stop city spam.

The problem is - it makes it worse. I'm spamming cities more than ever... I just never build anything in them.

Sure, you eventually take a city count unhappiness hit -- but the population unhappiness is where the pain is, so elementary.... simply max production in your new cities and set them to work as either gold producers or science producers.

I have an absolute ton of 1 or 2 pop cities that have not and will not ever build anything - you might as well just give me the option to turn settlers into 'GP tile improvements' - because that's essentially what I'm doing.... Settling a city just like a GP to nothing but crank out a little more gold or science (or culture, if my civ has a zero cost culture building). The only 'cost decision' -- do I spend on additional roads or MAYBE a harbor in order to get the trade route bonus.

This strategy basically means no national wonders, but I've done the math - and I'm still coming out ahead

 

[zonk]

BTW -

The other problem... there's really no "distance from capital" penalty that I'm able to find... I suppose you could say trade network is harder -- but it seems like there's little point in "logically" expanding. Instead -- I just pick the best spots on the continent and scatter all over the place.

The AI, at least, seems to recognize this (sometimes), too... though - it can be very schizophrenic about it. About 1/3 of the time, I'll notice the AI builds a second city halfway across the continent.

In my last game - Hiawatha started out in the equivalent of Alaska, and while I didn't see his settlement moves - when I met him, he had 4 cities... and one of them was in the geographic equivalent of Tierra del Fuego! I actually couldn't even figure out how he ended up there or why -- it was a 2 tile desert isle, with only fish nearby... until I hit oil (the AI can still apparently see hidden/not yet uncovered tile bonus). The manual says that ruins can produce settlers -- though -- I haven't seen this yet (I'm a serial save/reload for GH bonuses), so maybe stumbled onto a city or settler.

 

[bhavv]

The game needs much more production, or cheaper building / wonder costs.

The cost of building things, and their maintenance right now is ridiculously unfun, I remember back when they made Civ IV, their motto was for the game to be fun.

Building things and managing your empire in Civ V is far more frustrating than it is fun.

 

[Stalker0]

BTW -

The other problem... there's really no "distance from capital" penalty that I'm able to find... I suppose you could say trade network is harder -- but it seems like there's little point in "logically" expanding. Instead -- I just pick the best spots on the continent and scatter all over the place.

This is actually a benefit to me. I like the freedom to expand where I want. Now the drawback of that is that your far away cities don't have road access and are much more vulnerable to invasion. Right now of course because of the bad war AI that isn't the case.

 

[Cymsdale]

Taj Mahal gave me a 50+ turn GA last night.

Maybe it's dependent on game speed. When I built it, I didn't get quite 50+, but it was certainly much more than 8. It was long enough for me to be spoiled enough to be severely disappointed when the GA ended.

EDIT: I was playing on standard FYI.

 

[zonk]

Maybe it's dependent on game speed. When I built it, I didn't get quite 50+, but it was certainly much more than 8. It was long enough for me to be spoiled enough to be severely disappointed when the GA ended.

None of the in-game GA listings scale to game speed, it seems... In a desperate attempt to milk more out of the game, I'm only playing on marathon now -- and none of the GA listings are accurate (even with wonder modifiers calculated).

 

[learner gamer]

Giving mines +1 with Dynamite and Trading posts +1 with Economics (but making them +1 without)
would help.

Funnily enough, I’ve also been thinking something similar about trading posts. IMHO, the buy versus build decision seems rather skewed at the moment, favouring:
(a) buying over building (given the lack of hammers around); and
(b) buying military units over buildings (given the smaller net benefit of many buildings in civ 5)

and, of course, (a) can be re-balanced by increasing hammer availability and / or lowering the gold available from trading posts.

That said, the question I’d ask (and I don’t know the answer) is whether lowering the early gold received from a trading post will prove too detrimental, given the desire to get early gold to ally with Civ 5’s city states and / or buy tiles and /or buy units for early war. Out of curio therefore Krikkitone, do you not think that raising early hammer availability might be a better alternative, given that it would avoid these issues? (I’m asking BTW because I know from my early days lurking in the Civ 4 forums just how much you contributed to Civ 4. ) If the answer is no, can I ask why you think early (ie. pre dynamite) hammer availability is sufficient not to warrant increasing? Is it because, as I mentioned in another thread, the early way forward is to emphasize hammers in city screens to increase production? Or is there another reason?

One last thing all. I realise I made a major boob in my earlier post re: the re-introduction of windmills as a tile improvement. In short, I didn’t clarify that I believe they should only be able to be built as tile improvements on grassland or plains tiles (in the same way that Civ 5 will not allow the building of that name to be built in a city on a hill.) In short, what I was trying to get across is that I think there’s room in Civ 5 for a tile improvement (apart from the manufactory) that adds hammers to a (particularly non-riverside) grassland or plains tile. (I’d like to see riverside grassland or plains tiles meanwhile have the option of having watermill improvements built on them, as I mentioned in my earlier post.) That way, the civver has the choice of adding food (via a farm), gold (via a trading post) or hammers (via what I’ve called a windmill) to these tiles. IMHO, this could bring much needed production to cities that have very few hills in the vicinity (particularly if they also have very few forests for lumbermills) and / or enhance the production of high hammer cities. Sorry for not making this clear earlier.

 

[vranasm]

everyone should think what will make the game more fun... and sorry nerfing TPs will not mean bigger fun.

I admit seeing mines getting back their +2 instead of +1 is my favourite, but at the same time I would like to increase hammer costs of units (well on the other hand is there the "supply" thing no one bothers with since depleting the limit with the build times is completely unrealistic), or just plainly lower costs of buildings, increase effects, let the maintenance as is and let's see...
I still have some hard feelings seeing some requirements... for example best happy building is +4 happy, -3 gold, meaning it allows 4 more citizens which 1.5 of them are right away eaten at maintenance and you even didnt start to grow into it.
The global hapiness is too anonymous and I am affraid it isnt well thought out.

 

[Infiltrator]

Anyone also notice some wonders being utterly useless? I.E. Pyramids.. 50% worker production? Worker production is only important for the 1st, 2nd worker, and by that time you won't have the wonder.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

In short, what I was trying to get across is that I think there’s room in Civ 5 for a tile improvement (apart from the manufactory) that adds hammers to a (particularly non-riverside) grassland or plains tile. (I’d like to see riverside grassland or plains tiles meanwhile have the option of having watermill improvements built on them, as I mentioned in my earlier post.) That way, the civver has the choice of adding food (via a farm), gold (via a trading post) or hammers (via what I’ve called a windmill) to these tiles. .

That I disagree with. The limitation of terrain is important.

I'd would probably be better to not allow trading posts on hills.... but allow farms on All hills...

So hills would be
Food/Production

Forests would be
Production/Gold

Flatland would be
Gold/Food

I guess +2 hammers for mines is probably OK early game, because those hills require 2 excess food
2 Food->4 Hammers... is the same as a Forest with a Lumbermill (1 food->2 Hammers)

4 Hammers could then be
1 Mine+2 Farms
2 Mills+2 Farms
4 Plains farms
The Mine is better for Happiness

Eventually (with Fertilizer, Steam Power, etc.) it is 12 Hammers through
3 Mines+3 Farms
4 Mills+2 Farms
2 Mines+4 Plains Farms
3 Mills+3 Plains Farms

And all are the same for Happiness



The Gold-Hammer balance is interesting because Buildings and units compete for Both.
BUT
Gold+Units are Imperial, Production+Buildings are local

So a Hammer can be spent
1. On a unit built here to move throughout the empire
2. On a Building Here.


Gold can be spent in so many other ways
1. On Unit/Building/Improvement maintenance.... ONLY Gold can do this
2. On Units/Buildings anywhere in the empire..replacing Hammers
3. On City States


Actually, an idea for making Railroads Really useful, ditch the 50% bonus, instead... if a city is connected by rail to the Capital, it can "Build" ie Send Hammers to the Capital and the Capital can "Build" ie Send Hammers to it. (this could be limited to Buildings/Units, and the Capital couldn't 'send' to a city that was sending to it) But it would make Hammers>Gold because they can be Delocalized.

So the default would be all cities Building theire buildings, then sending excess to the capital, which sends it out to cities that are still building, or cities that are building units.

That way Buildings could be put up fast.
(It couldn't go to Courthouses, or to/from Puppet Cities)


Somne wonders could stand a boost as well... (Pyramids being +100% worker action or +50% worker action and +1 Worker movement might be good)

 

[Pococurante]

I just did a run on Warlord at standard speed just get a feel for the lower level difficulty. I was able to hold an area equivalent to the Americas, had a lot of cities none more than 9 pop, and built just about every building in roughly 75% of them. I tried to rely on CS as proxies and prop up my economy. The problem with that was then I had to spend the 19th and 20th century propping them up (because the CS were perma-war with three AIs). Losing a CS was catastrophic for my food supply.

Don't rely on CS to carry you all the way through. You become too brittle to take AIs nibbling around your empire. Those food buildings are your insurance policy.

Additional note: if I hadn't cheezed out and gone for a DV my economy would have crashed by the 21st century.

 

[zonk]

Anyone also notice some wonders being utterly useless? I.E. Pyramids.. 50% worker production? Worker production is only important for the 1st, 2nd worker, and by that time you won't have the wonder.

I think MOST wonders are useless (and I'm an admitted wonderwhore) -- but ironically, the Pyramids is actually one that I disagree with. 50% worker time is extremely useful - I generally get the pyramids before most bonuses are unlocked -- and even if I mostly build TPs -- and I definitely find this bonus useful. This is especially true with roads and railroads.

 

[Traks]

Maintenance cost for most buildings kills their appeal.
Unfortunately I think that all should be rebalanced from 0. Taking Civ3 or better 4, measure how long it takes there would be good start.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Maybe it's dependent on game speed. When I built it, I didn't get quite 50+, but it was certainly much more than 8. It was long enough for me to be spoiled enough to be severely disappointed when the GA ended.

EDIT: I was playing on standard FYI.

Standard speed, With Persia, and the wonder and civic that extend GA length. I thought it would be good, but not quite that good. I wonder if there's some kind of flaw in how they stack bonuses . . .

 

[Buccaneer]

I appreciate that I think they were going for a more balanced approach of you not wanting to build every building in every city ala Civ4, but it does seem for some of the buildings that the benefit vs. maintenance should be tweaked somewhat. I think it really encourages city specialization.

I like that idea (of not wanting or needing to build every building). But Civ5 needs to give us more viable choices. In other words, when a choice comes up to build, make each of the choices worthwhile and thus, enhance the decision-making process. Right now, it's worth not to build in some cases because there are no/little advantages.

 

[strollen]

The problem isn't that building in Civ V are too bad but the buildings in Civ IV were too good.
Take a forge 120 hammer I typically could build it my capital in 5 or 6 turns and it would pay for it self in 20 or so turns. I actually like most of you I would typical whip the darn thing. Oh and as added bonus it typically added 1 or 2 happiness. The penalty of 1 unhealthiness was irrelevant 90% of the time. In game lasting several hundred turns of course you build forges. The ROI or payback on most buildings in Civ IV was ridiculously high. There is no strategy involved in Forges in Civ IV because they were beneficially in all but a very few cities. The exception I guess is that if you are going for early conquest win maybe shouldn't build them. Now I don't know if the AI always built forges by the last expansion/patch but they didn't in the beginning. Giving humans a big advantage that the AI made up for but getting production advantages. Granaries were another no brainer in Civ IV.


In Civ V there are only two no brainer buildings libraries everywhere, and factories in a city with 1/2 way decent production city. I would think a monument would qualify as no brainer build but I am not sure. In all other situation you have to engage your brain and do a bit of calculations, is worth investing 20 or 30 turns to build something that will only provide a 20 or 25% bonus. Often the answer will be no I'll only recoup my investment after more than 100 turns. I guess I should build something else gee maybe a happiness building or culture, bank /market or a university which provides a big bonus to science.
Now I'll agree that Firaxis probably made the pendulum swing to far over in the other direction and buildings in Civ V provides such a low ROI that you may never. Ironically the forge maybe an example of an always build improvement Civ IV and a never build in Civ V. However, people should at least consider the possibility that rather than Civ V being wrong, that Civ IV was wrong.

 

[Ikael]

However, people should at least consider the possibility that rather than Civ V being wrong, that Civ IV was wrong.

Civ IV building system made it so building was fun, for you gain inmediate, tangible effects and consequences of your actions, and forced you to make hard choices between developing your cities VS building armies and furthermore, even if in the endgame you would end up with cities populated with almost every type of building on them, the building order would define and specialize each city trought the ages.

Meanliwhile, in comparation the Civ V building system punish builders, and takes the decision away from the player: if you have 30 or so buildings possible yet only a couple of them are useful, you are not giving 30 options to the player, but rather limiting him to 2 or 3 and turning every city into a "vainlla city", with little, if any possibility of specialization.

How in the world can a limiting, non flexible, restricted system be better? Sid Meier once said that "gaming is a series of interesting decisions". Civ V building system revolves around taking decisions and options from the player's hand. It is plain and simple bad game design.

 

[adecoy95]

alot of the wonders seem pretty meh, imo, some of them dont even have any noticable bonuses, like +1 culture