• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

[Vote] (7-50) Industrial City Connections

Include in VP?


  • Total voters
    97
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
10,523
Location
Alberta, Canada
This proposal was made at the behest of @KungCheops

Current situation

There are many weird interactions with how railroad connections work.
  • Railroad connections don't actually require full rail connections to the capital. They just require 1 rail tile next to the city. That's too easy and unintuitive.
  • The way rail bonuses work, you can alternate rail/road tiles on a route to maximize village yields while minimizing maintenance costs. This is a bad incentive; you should be motivated to build full rail connections.
  • Seaports and train stations are mutually exclusive and that's weird. in a modern city, a major seaport would be the most important place to have a train station.
  • There is no visual or UI indication that a rail connection exists, or that it is different from a road connection
Solution
  • Create a new Industrial City Connection (ICC)
  • ICCs require a full rail connection to the capital, a seaport, or full rail connection to a city with a seaport
  • These city connections have a modified version of the :c5trade: logo under cities which is now orange, and upside down
  • ICCs provide :c5production: Production in the city, scaling with the population of the city and the capital. The amount of connection :c5production:given is identical to the amount of :c5gold: given by :c5trade:city connections.
    • The calculation is [(city :c5citizen: * 0.5) + (capital :c5citizen: * 0.06)] - 1
    • All policies, wonders, and abilities that increase :c5gold: given by :c5trade:city connections will also increase the :c5production: Production given by ICCs (eg. Machu Picchu)
  • ICCs boost villages along them by +1 :c5production::c5gold:. Bonus is doubled if a Trade Route passes through them. The current railway bonus that allows you to build pathwork routes is therefore replaced by a bonus that require s a full rail connection between the 2 cities
  • ICCs unlock train stations in connected cities, which are now called "coaling stations".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuelling_station
  • Coaling Station % :c5production: Production modifier reduced from 25% to 20%
  • Seaports and Coaling stations are no longer mutually exclusive, seaports no longer require coal, and the 25%:c5production:production modifier is removed from Seaports.
  • Seaport and Coaling Station building costs are lowered from 1500:c5production: and 1250 :c5production:, respectively, to 1000:c5production: each. This cost is consistent with the costs of other 1st tier industrial buildings (Zoo, Public School, Hotel)
  • Seaport and Coaling Station maintenance costs are lowered from 7:c5gold: to 5:c5gold:. This cost is consistent with the costs of other 1st tier industrial buildings (Zoo, Public School, Hotel)
  • Policy change: division of labour - remove bonus to Seaports.
End results:
  • Seaports more directly become a sort of industrial super-lighthouse
  • :c5trade:City connections can now provide :c5gold:gold and :c5production:production, making them (and the things that boost them) stronger overall.
  • inland cities mostly unaffected, except the building costs are lower and Coaling Stations are slightly weaker
  • Coastal seaport cities can now get access to that 10%:c5gold: bonus on train stations without sacrificing their ability to buy naval units
  • slightly higher :c5production: and :c5gold: infrastructure investment required in coastal cities overall
  • Villages industrial boost now requires a full rail connection between 2 cities, making it take longer and more expensive to upgrade
  • More industrial buildings conform to standard build cost conventions. manipulating building costs as a balance parameter should die in a fire.
  • building railroads now gives coherent incentives and fewer gamey exploits for only doing half the job. More AI-friendly.
  • With seaports no longer requiring Coal, post-renaissance naval unit purchases are no longer gated by a strategic resource players might not have.
  • better verisimilitude
 
Last edited:
Any changes to Industry's Division of Labor? The one that adds +3%:c5gold::c5production: to both buildings and +100% :c5production: Production towards building them.
 
Ah, good catch. I’ll amend to drop the bonus to seaports.

Edit: this would also affect commerce raiders, but that does not merit a change here. Also, I have another proposal to change that.
 
Last edited:
the title here is misleading. This really has nothing to do with trade routes at all, and frankly it really doesn't even that much to do with city connections, because how many people are using this "exploit".

The real change is the seaport, and the fact that if I'm reading this right, island cities with seaports will get a major nerf with that this change, because they won't have access to the coaling station, where the +25% prod bonus now comes from.
 
I think the second line of the "Solution" is missing half a sentence.
 
Fixed:
  • ICCs require a full rail connection to the capital, a seaport, or full rail connection to a city with a seaport
 
Basically,
City Connection <-> Lighthouse
Industrial City Connection <-> Seaport, but not available for a single city on an island?

Are you also going to change Villages or do I need to open another proposal?
 
So same as the ancient City Connection then. Probably need to specify there also needs to be a visible open water path to a seaport city with ICC, instead of just needing a seaport.

I don't know what you plan to propose, and I would talk to @KungCheops
Villages need to be on an ICC to get +2 :c5production: :c5culture:, not just a Railroad on a normal City Connection.

In extension, add a new overlay in Strategic View to show ICC.
 
So same as the ancient City Connection then. Probably need to specify there also needs to be a visible open water path to a seaport city with ICC, instead of just needing a seaport.
  • Seaports more directly become a sort of industrial super-lighthouse
 
The way rail bonuses work, you can alternate rail/road tiles on a route to maximize village yields while minimizing maintenance costs. This is a weird and bad incentive.
You did mention this with no solution to fix it.
 
Villages only get ancient bonus on route to capital
Villages only get industrial bonus on industrial route to capital.

ie. Villages +1 :c5production::c5gold: on railways is given by the existence of an ICC between the capital and the city, not by the railroad. This means you need a full rail connection to the next city before villages are boosted.

updated the OP, thanks for pointing that out.
 
Last edited:
Now that airports create city connections, with this proposal would they create ICCs?
 
Keeping them separate would make sense. I don't think Airport allows for efficient big volumes for trade.
Most exchange of resources is made by train, truck, and by sea.
I would say why not just introduce a new type for air city connection as well?
 
Now that airports create city connections, with this proposal would they create ICCs?
no change intended to affect airports. If you are only able to connect via airport now then you don't have the prereqs for the current seaport or train station
 
I will note this still nerfs island cities, who now need to build a seaport to get the connection, then build the Train Station to get their +25%. that costs an extra 250 hammers (which island cities often have precious few hammers), 2 maintenance, and most importantly...1 coal.

To me this whole thing seems like a major overeaction. The AI doesn't do this, and frankly if a human wants to remove all of the speed benefits of full rail lines just to shave a few gold of maintenance more power to them.
 
I will note this still nerfs island cities, who now need to build a seaport to get the connection, then build the Train Station to get their +25%. that costs an extra 250 hammers (which island cities often have precious few hammers), 2 maintenance, and most importantly...1 coal.

To me this whole thing seems like a major overeaction. The AI doesn't do this, and frankly if a human wants to remove all of the speed benefits of full rail lines just to shave a few gold of maintenance more power to them.
But seaports will not reqiure coal.
 
I will note this still nerfs island cities, who now need to build a seaport to get the connection, then build the Train Station to get their +25%. that costs an extra 250 hammers (which island cities often have precious few hammers), 2 maintenance, and most importantly...1 coal.

To me this whole thing seems like a major overeaction. The AI doesn't do this, and frankly if a human wants to remove all of the speed benefits of full rail lines just to shave a few gold of maintenance more power to them.
My original intent with the rework wasn't to rebalance, but to clarify and simplify mechanics that are currently fairly messy (and a bit exploitable).
I don't remember exactly what we said but I think we were discussing reducing the maintenance (and production cost) of seaports and coaling stations to be more in line with other buildings in the early industrial era, and removing the coal requirement on seaports.
 
I will note this still nerfs island cities, who now need to build a seaport to get the connection, then build the Train Station to get their +25%.
that costs an extra 250 hammers (which island cities often have precious few hammers),
2 maintenance, and most importantly...
1 coal.
They will get an additional +10% :c5gold: for building both coaling station and seaport in comparison to the current seaport alone
Both buildings together will cost 500:c5production: more than the current seaport alone (1500 vs 1000+1000)
Both buildings together will cost 3:c5gold: maintenance per turn more than the current seaport alone (7 vs 5+5). Obviously this is offset considerably by the 10% gold modifier
Only the coaling station costs coal, so the total SR cost of both will be the same as the current seaport.

FWIW I also think it's pretty cruel to lock the ability to purchase post-renaissance naval units behind a strategic resource that players might not have.
Maybe I should put that up in the rationale.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom