2 production queues?

[uncle_jesse]

I've always wanted this in Civ IV, being able to build a wonder and train a unit at the same time, it would make so much more sense and would make the early a lot more interesting. You could decide how many hammers you want to use between building an archer and a monument, maybe split them 50/50 or devote all the hammers to what you need most. What do you think?

 

[mitsho]

What's the point? In civ4, hammers are saved, so you can stop the wonder building for quickly churning out a unit. Afterwards, you can go on with the wonder as if nothing happened. It will get you there in the same time. (this is of course assuming civ4-system).

It's like: 2 * 2 = 2 + 2 !

 

[AlpsStranger]

What's the point? In civ4, hammers are saved, so you can stop the wonder building for quickly churning out a unit. Afterwards, you can go on with the wonder as if nothing happened. It will get you there in the same time. (this is of course assuming civ4-system).

It's like: 2 * 2 = 2 + 2 !

I think the only way to implement the system properly would be to *force* a 50/50 split. Otherwise Mitsho's objection is correct and it would often not be in your interest to set it to anything but 100%/0%. On the other hand, the game could be spiced up considerably with a forced split. Maybe building a factory in a city would cause the production queue to be 50%/50%/50%, for a net 150%.

Just a thought.

 

[Yared]

@Mitsho: But it's not realistic. My country doesn't stop producing soldiers just because a new public transportation system is built.

Of course, if we ever entered a war I'm sure they'd stop diverting money to the PTS and divert it to the weapon industry, etc.

 

[mitsho]

In my opinion this is a place where gameplay trumps realism, simplicity trumps complexity.

Two Productions queues which you can allocate actually would make it slower, as you will have both units/buildings at a later time whereas otherwise (100%-0%) you will have one earlier.

Unless of course, these queues are fixed but what if you need to beeline for a wonder? (that would get people complaining), and as stated, better have less complexity here where there are no advantages!

 

[TheNiceOne]

I think the only way to implement the system properly would be to *force* a 50/50 split. Otherwise Mitsho's objection is correct and it would often not be in your interest to set it to anything but 100%/0%. On the other hand, the game could be spiced up considerably with a forced split. Maybe building a factory in a city would cause the production queue to be 50%/50%/50%, for a net 150%.

But as mitsho writes, what's the point? The only "advantage" you gain by multiple queues is that some of the builds are finished later than if you build one at the time. Here's an example:

A city is making 20 hammers a turn. You want to build a wonder costing 300 hammers and one unit costing 40 hammers.

With the current system, if you first build the unit (2 turns), and then the wonder (15 turns), you get the wonder after 17 turns.

By implementing a multiple 50/50 queue system, you will get your unit out after 4 turns, by the time you have put 40 hammers into the wonders, and need 13 more turns to get the wonder finished, getting the wonder after a total of 17 turns.

So all you gain by the multiple queue system is to delay the unit by 2 turns, so what's the reason for wanting this?

 

[AlpsStranger]

But as mitsho writes, what's the point? The only "advantage" you gain by multiple queues is that some of the builds are finished later than if you build one at the time. Here's an example:

A city is making 20 hammers a turn. You want to build a wonder costing 300 hammers and one unit costing 40 hammers.

With the current system, if you first build the unit (2 turns), and then the wonder (15 turns), you get the wonder after 17 turns.

By implementing a multiple 50/50 queue system, you will get your unit out after 4 turns, by the time you have put 40 hammers into the wonders, and need 13 more turns to get the wonder finished, getting the wonder after a total of 17 turns.

So all you gain by the multiple queue system is to delay the unit by 2 turns, so what's the reason for wanting this?

Of course it would delay units. I wasn't claiming it wouldn't. I was saying that if you added it and made the split optional it would be pointless. We agree with each other on this point it seems.

As for forcing everyone into the 50/50 split? I just think it would be a neat thing to try. If I were developing a Civilization game I might be tempted to playtest it and see if it sticks. Call it a hunch.

 

[Herrhals]

they should do what they do in the Total War games.

Have 2 queues, one for soldiers and siege and one for buildings. They work simultaneously

Easy. This is better.

 

[Yared]

And the soldier queue should take population points.

 

[Megajames75]

Empire Total War allows multiple building and units to be made at once, I don't suggest to that extent, but being able to build and train at the same time makes sense.

 

[say1988]

It doesn't make sense unless the building of Units and Buildings are dependent on different resources. In that case they can and should be switched.

 

[morss_4]

I don't think this makes sense from a gameplay standpoint.

If you can have your cake and eat it too the player is no longer forced to make a choice. Removing choices from the game is bad. No longer will you have to weigh the merits of getting that axe rush going vs. building some granaries, you can just do both. While that may SOUND great I think it removes a layer of strategic depth from the game.

 

[Takhisis]

What if we could introduce separate imrpovements so you can have as many queues as they'd allow? For references I'd suggest the Workshops in the X-COM series: every item manufactured by the engineers at each base consumes a certain amount of workshop space, and if you want to manufcture more items you need to build more workshops to get extra workshop space. You can build several 'small' items or one huge fightercraft.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I don't think this makes sense from a gameplay standpoint.

If you can have your cake and eat it too the player is no longer forced to make a choice. Removing choices from the game is bad. No longer will you have to weigh the merits of getting that axe rush going vs. building some granaries, you can just do both. While that may SOUND great I think it removes a layer of strategic depth from the game.

If this turned out to be demonstrably true in play testing I would be forced to agree. That would be the whole point of testing it

 

[Tholish]

Maybe have queues called production buildings. An arms production factory or training camp makes units, a construction material workshop makes buildings. So each building acts like a mini city that can only produce one kind of thing. Then you could customize them, or shift resources or population around to emphasize this one or that one. Your siege workshop would require a certain number of skilled catapult builders, but by moving some stonecutters over from the wonder workshop to help as unskilled labor, you could accelerate a catapult unit a bit (to the great detriment of the wonder project).

DIGRESSION: I was trying to make a really in depth civ like game once with something called Game Maker (totally inadequate for what I wanted to do) in which tech discoveries took the form of a single person who knew the new tech, and they had to train others. So, a tech is really a form of specialist or "missionary" like unit. The first bronze worker, for example, could either set up a bronze working shop, set up a bronze working school, or spend his life writing a book about bronze working. Then other bronze workers who learned from him could be moved to other cities to teach the new tech. So, basically, I had this whole screen for each city, breaking down the population according to profession. It included things like home maker and student and retiree, each with their function. And you could kind of shift them around, get some rosie the riveters, bring back the old retired engineer to teach or what have you. Just couldn't do an AI for it, the tools weren't there and the engine was way to slow.

But what I'm saying is, you would be customizing your queue ratio by customizing the buildings you build.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Maybe have queues called production buildings. An arms production factory or training camp makes units, a construction material workshop makes buildings. So each building acts like a mini city that can only produce one kind of thing. Then you could customize them, or shift resources or population around to emphasize this one or that one. Your siege workshop would require a certain number of skilled catapult builders, but by moving some stonecutters over from the wonder workshop to help as unskilled labor, you could accelerate a catapult unit a bit (to the great detriment of the wonder project).

This sounds like a fine concept for a (one-) city simulation game, but while I like certain micromanagement with my CIV game, this looks like way too much mm, considering the tens of cities you have.

 

[uncle_jesse]

they should do what they do in the Total War games.

Have 2 queues, one for soldiers and siege and one for buildings. They work simultaneously

Easy. This is better.

Yeah that's basically what I was trying to say, everything would be produced at a normal amount but if you wanted to you could devote 100% to one thing or another, maybe have a whole different resource altoghter for making units! Use hammers for buildings and some sort of special resource like wood, iron or whatever they have to go towards units, the more of one resource you have the faster it's produced maybe?

 

[Draknith]

I like the idea of having a production for city buildings and a seperate queue for military.

What about having the two productions slots only after a seperate military building facility (barracks) were built.

I also agree that military production should take from the population.

 

[Souron]

Constantly turning out units is not a good policy, but having a separate queue for units encourages this.

Unless units are limited by a different resource than buildings, it makes sense for them to have the same queue.

 

[Bahmo]

I was thinking along the lines Yared was. Maybe training units can be made a little bit more like drafting them was, taking less time and maybe being simultaneous, but also subtracting some population and in turn, production points that could go towards your building. I don't care incredibly much whether there are two production queus, but I do want the game to allow for more rapid production of more units. The reason is that I want Civ to stop being a race to modern times, and start being a total historical reenactment like it claims. I don't want to miss the chance to fight a major military conflict in every era if I hope to build universities and surge forward; I want to do both.