• 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.
FWIW I also thought it was pretty cruel to lock the ability to purchase post-renaissance naval units behind a strategic resource that player might not have.
I missed that the seaport no longer required coal, so yes that removes one of my major objections. Is it worth an extra 500 hammers and 3 maintenance for 10% gold....almost certainly not. So this is a nerf to islands, but the nerf is less than what I feared, as the coal cost was definitely the biggest cost.

If your note above is the real purpose of this than fair enough, it just feels like the primary justification for this change is an exploit that really doesn't happen in game right now (or if it does I don't think its that exploitive because now your units are slower).

If the real purpose here is to clean up perceived issues between the TS and SP so be it, lets say that. I still feel like saying this is to "fix" city connections is disingenuous.... this is in reality a "fix" to the seaport plain and simple. I would argue lets not even bother with the new artwork and new ICC stuff. Just say that connections require a rail line (as it works today) or seaport, and then make the changes to the seaport noted above.

Or...just allow the train stations to also buy naval units, and let the players continue to strategize on whether they want a SP or a TS in a city. Strategic decisions are good right?
 
These costs are offset by the lower cost of inland cities, which will get the same bonuses from the coaling station as they get from the current train station for less. It's a rather narrow argument to say that island cities are nerfed by this change without looking at the change on empires as a whole.

The seaport will also be faster to set up, and will therefore give its :c5production: bonus to sea tiles faster, alleviating your concern at least partially.
If your note above is the real purpose of this than fair enough, it just feels like the primary justification for this change is an exploit that really doesn't happen in game right now (or if it does I don't think its that exploitive because now your units are slower).
It's not. The change's real purpose is fixing how rail connections work now, which is that you are considered to have a rail connection if you have 1 rail tile next to a city, and villages are considered railway connected, and give the attending bonus, even if all you have done is put a railway under a single tile. The initial village bonus requires a road that connects 2 cities together; the industrial bonus does not require the same for railways.

All of the other changes are more or less incidental, the seaport needs to be more freely available if its main purpose is to propagate super-city-connections like a lighthouse v2.0. I think the change provides better verisimilitude anyways, which is why I supported @KungCheops' intentions.
 
Last edited:
It's not. The change's real purpose is fixing how rail connections work now, which is that you are considered to have a rail connection if you have 1 rail tile next to a city, and villages are considered railway connected, and give the attending bonus, even if all you have done is put a railway under a single tile. The initial village bonus requires a road that connects 2 cities together; the industrial bonus does not require the same for railways.

All of the other changes are more or less incidental, the seaport needs to be more freely available if its main purpose is to propagate super-city-connections like a lighthouse v2.0. I think the change provides better verisimilitude anyways, which is why I supported @KungCheops' intentions.
If that's the case, than I don't see why we need changes to the seaport at all.

Just simply have your new ICC, and train stations require the new ICC to be built. Train Stations and Seaport bonuses work exactly as they do today. Overall if you aren't using the exploit, nothing has changed. This is a scapel change to remove the exploit.

Now if you want to truly change the seaport, make that a separate proposal, because its not a change that is really needed to make this ICC thing work.
 
We need some way to upgrade overseas connections. Seaports are the most logical place to add that necessary piece. Without it, train stations would only be buildable on the same landmass as the capital
 
Last edited:
We need some way to upgrade overseas connections. Seaports are the most logical place to add that necessary piece. Without it, train stations would only be buildable on the same landmass as the capital
you've already got that covered with this note:

  • ICCs require a full rail connection to the capital, a seaport, or full rail connection to a city with a seaport

Seaport cities don't need an upgraded ICC (or you can give them the upgraded ICC for cleanliness but since they remain mutually exclusive with the TS its more a cosmetic change), and they support TS in other cities just as they do today.
 
Seaport cities don't need an upgraded ICC
But upgraded ICCs require a seaport, which means you would need coal with the current paradigm
 
But upgraded ICCs require a seaport, which means you would need coal with the current paradigm
and the sole purpose of ICC is to build a coal consuming building....so you need coal to get any benefit anyway.

The only scenario where you have it doesn't work as well is if you build a coastal city that you won't want to build a seaport, but make a connection to an inland city where you do. Yes thats a weakness, but its a corner case that I don't think is worth a complete rebalance of these core buildings, especially since the exploit this is fixing I would argue is even more of a corner case.
 
And boost villages.

At this point I would say your criticism is well noted, but I disagree that pulling the seaport off it is warranted. I will keep the proposal as is.
I think you're being a bit precious with your sentiment towards island cities.
 
I think you're being a bit precious with your sentiment towards island cities.
And I think you are being too disruptive to fix an exploit I'm not convinced is even happening that much in real games.

But your right we have laid down our arguments there isn't much left to go thru. Perhaps I will consider a counterproposal.
 
especially since the exploit this is fixing I would argue is even more of a corner case.
This I do take issue with.

I always upgrade roads under villlages and adjacent to cities to unlock train stations first. This unlocks the railway bonuses many many turns in advance. This is standard practice that I do every game; if people aren't doing the same thing they are playing suboptimally.

Also yes, I absolutely leave roads unupgraded on non-village tiles if that is not a high-traffic road to a city far from my front line. This saves me 1:c5gold: in improvement maintenance for the game with no downside. Is it really a corner case if I do this every game?
 
Please can it be named "Fueling Station" and just reference the first of their kind as Coaling Stations in the Civilopedia?
 
After discussion with the sponsor, I am amending the original proposal with these changes, for discussion:
  • Industrial City Connections 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: * 1.1) + (capital :c5citizen: * 0.15)] - 1
    • All policies, wonders, and abilities that increase :c5gold: given by :c5trade:city connections will also increase the :c5production: Production given by ICCs
  • Train Station % :c5production: Production modifier reduced from 25% to 20%.
This is a relatively modest amount of flat :c5production:, but gives the ICC a self-contained bonus, rather than solely providing access to things you can build (coaling stations) and improve (village boost).
The only thing that currently is in the game that boosts the % of :c5gold: gold from city connections is Machu Picchu (+15%), and that wonder would benefit from a buff.
 
Industrial City Connections 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: * 1.1) + (capital :c5citizen: * 0.15)] - 1
This formula is from vanilla, VP uses a different one: [(city :c5citizen: * 0.5) + ( :c5capital: Capital :c5citizen: * 0.06)] - 1

Just tested on IGE, to be sure, and rechecked the numbers on my latest game. The gold values are consistent with the new VP formula.
 
Muuuch weaker than vanilla. I suspected that was different from vanilla but figured I could employ Cunningham’s law. Thanks!
 
The only thing that currently is in the game that boosts the % of :c5gold: gold from city connections is Machu Picchu (+15%), and that wonder would benefit from a buff.
You forgot the Colosseum. That gives a bigger bonus once 8 of them have been built.
 
I am sponsoring this one.

Edit: does the word "sponsor" need to be included or is "sponsoring" enough?
If I can CTRL+F "sponsor" and find it it's good :thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom