Auto-Build, Luxury Resources, and Quality of Life

[Dancing Hoskuld]

In my current (and recent) games, on snail, it is not the units or buildings that are a problem. It is the fact that they are going obsolete or need upgrading before I can build them. About half way through the Classic period I getting a new tech every 5-6 turns. That is without any scribal schools, libraries or monasteries! It basically stays that way for the rest of the game with a few brief periods where it takes 10-14 turns per tech when I first advance an era.

Oops I missed a whole page of comments.

I like the "bushy" approach. We even have a simple one in game - the castle upgrades/additions. If we had that it would make more sense to autobuild the upgrades base building of the tree if you had already built the original. For example if there was a "building bush" which had its root/base building of "Basket Maker's Hut" then if you had built it in your city it would be natural to auto upgrade it to the factory when you got that tech.

Naturally you would need a whole new pedia page to describe show this.

 

[RidetheSpiral23]

Strictly speaking I'm not suggesting chains per se, but rather a bushier structure, and also an interaction between categories so that they are not mutually exclusive, but trying to go deep in many sub-trees winds up being very expensive.

Take shops as an example. These could appear in several tiers (things like Malls would presumably be later tier, marketplaces relatively early). Whether (at a given tier) there are a large number of individual shop types, or just a few is an independent design decision. Similarly whether (some) buildings in later tiers actually replace those in earlier tiers is again an independent decision.

Mostly I'm just suggesting categorization with category-level interactions to make one choice dis-favor another, and higher level examples in any given category require the lower level ones first.

Okay think I know where you are going with that. So almost similar to a tech tree kinda of setup but with more dependencies. Example...

You decide to focus early on production so you build a rock gatherer and a bark gatherer and finally a stone tool workshop. This would open up the ability to build possibly a club workshop or stone axe workshop. Therefore you would have more production and better equipped troops but you would possibly be missing out on buildings like rain dance and fire dance because you neglected to build a dance hut. But eventually if you did build a dance hut you would already have the building requirements to make a percussion instrument maker because of your workshop.

Overall this would limit the building selection to what you were actively trying to accomplish in a city but you would still be able to build the basics of each type. This would help out players who don't like to build a ton and don't want to stare at a huge list of buildings and also enable the option for the the builder types to still have the ability to have all of those buildings.

 

[ls612]

Strictly speaking I'm not suggesting chains per se, but rather a bushier structure, and also an interaction between categories so that they are not mutually exclusive, but trying to go deep in many sub-trees winds up being very expensive.

Take shops as an example. These could appear in several tiers (things like Malls would presumably be later tier, marketplaces relatively early). Whether (at a given tier) there are a large number of individual shop types, or just a few is an independent design decision. Similarly whether (some) buildings in later tiers actually replace those in earlier tiers is again an independent decision.

Mostly I'm just suggesting categorization with category-level interactions to make one choice dis-favor another, and higher level examples in any given category require the lower level ones first.

Aren't many buildings like this already? For instance, you need a Trade Post to build almost every economic building and a Barracks to build almost every early military building.

I think of it more like a pyramid. If you ahve a bunch of lower level buildings you can build a few mid-level buildings and one or two top buildings. But the lowest level should be auto-built buildings which represent the citizenry functioning normally given what resources and conditions they have.

 

[JosEPh_II]

@SgtSlick,

Next time you quote me use the whole context. You cherry picked and ignored the reason for the final statement. Don't care if you think it's totally wrong or not. Reply to the whole thought process. If you disagree with the whole process that's fine. Your one liner cherry picked response is out of place.

@RidetheSpiral,
Agree or disagree, but comment on the idea not the personality. I'm try to point something out, and I have that right, not being difficult. If you disagree fine. But don't think you have the right to castigate me for having an opinion, whether that opinion is right or wrong in your eyes.

JosEPh

 

[Koshling]

Aren't many buildings like this already? For instance, you need a Trade Post to build almost every economic building and a Barracks to build almost every early military building.

I think of it more like a pyramid. If you ahve a bunch of lower level buildings you can build a few mid-level buildings and one or two top buildings. But the lowest level should be auto-built buildings which represent the citizenry functioning normally given what resources and conditions they have.

No, you're missing the point. Not only is there a requirement up the tree (leaves need branches, need boughs...) but also a penalty across the tree (working the military branch gives production [or other]) penalties against [some] other branches (possibly not at the first tier, but progressively as you deepen the branch). The idea is not only to produce chains that need support (what we have [a little of] now), but also to give a choice mechanic that makes you think about what direction you want to take as more than just an in-what-order choice.

Also doing it all within explicit categorization tags allows it to be turned off as a game option cleanly. Thus you can satisfy both SgtSlick (have to choose between branches in order to get the higher tier goodies) and Joseph (just turn off the game option).

 

[RidetheSpiral23]

No, you're missing the point. Not only is there a requirement up the tree (leaves need branches, need boughs...) but also a penalty across the tree (working the military branch gives production [or other]) penalties against [some] other branches (possibly not at the first tier, but progressively as you deepen the branch). The idea is not only to produce chains that need support (what we have [a little of] now), but also to give a choice mechanic that makes you think about what direction you want to take as more than just an in-what-order choice.

Also doing it all within explicit categorization tags allows it to be turned off as a game option cleanly. Thus you can satisfy both SgtSlick (have to choose between branches in order to get the higher tier goodies) and Joseph (just turn off the game option).

I like this idea so far but I kinda like the idea of longer building chains a little more. Who knows, maybe a combination of everyones ideas would work best. What would the "categories" be and what one would each penalize?

 

[ls612]

No, you're missing the point. Not only is there a requirement up the tree (leaves need branches, need boughs...) but also a penalty across the tree (working the military branch gives production [or other]) penalties against [some] other branches (possibly not at the first tier, but progressively as you deepen the branch). The idea is not only to produce chains that need support (what we have [a little of] now), but also to give a choice mechanic that makes you think about what direction you want to take as more than just an in-what-order choice.

Also doing it all within explicit categorization tags allows it to be turned off as a game option cleanly. Thus you can satisfy both SgtSlick (have to choose between branches in order to get the higher tier goodies) and Joseph (just turn off the game option).

Oh, I missed that. I am not certain if I'd like somewhat forced specialization, but whether or not you are using that option the multiplicity of buildings that do essentially the same thing need to be controlled somehow. I would prefer it by Auto-Build, but there are other ways.

 

[Taxman66]

Some comments/thoughts/suggestions:

Implementing these ideas is going to have secondary effects, particularly amongst those wonders/guild buildings that cause buildings being created throughout all your cities.

I think the free/auto built buildings shouldn't necessarily automatically all appear immediately (upon tech discovery and/or era). I think it would be nice if it was somewhat also dependent upon city size; production capacity; gold/commerce capacity; and culture level. Still the further up the tech tree you are would still be important so some of initial buildings would appear initially, but you wouldn't get everything right away, more expensive or more 'modern' buildings would still appear but take a bit longer before they show up.

Additionally, what would be neat would be to have the ability to set a certain percentage of a city's hammer production towards dedicated private (i.e. automated) investment (which would exclude particular gov't buildings; or even allow additional proclomation exclusions: i.e. no sickness buildings, or no unhappiness buildings under any circumstances. I do trust the AI not to build those buildings normally if it would cause no growth or unhappy citizens). The disadvantage to such would obviously be lack of control, the advantage would be to gain a better boost/return on investment. Frex: If I set 10% of hammer production to private investement I might get a return of 15% hammers, but the investers/rich/'AI' would build what they wanted (sorta like factory construction on certain political settings of Victoria 2). The bonus investment return could/should be dependent upon civic choices as well. *This idea also has the advantage of letting the player determine just how much micro/macro balance he wants.*

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

auto build already takes city size requirement of the building into account.

In principle I like the idea (if private construction option is on) of being able to set aside the amount of available for private construction because it would give control to the player and because you could set the min/max limits on the value of it in the civics.

 

[Taxman66]

auto build already takes city size requirement of the building into account.

That's not what I meant. I meant that a newly founded (pop: 1) city would not get all the auto-built buildings right away. It might get all the really old tech buildings and start getting the more advanced/harder to build buildings over time. Obviously the size requirement buildings would have to wait as well. Whereas a captured barbarian city of larger size (say pop: 5) might get more auto-built buildings right away and the others quicker.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Ultimately since i am the "building guy" on the project I will have to be the one changing stuff. After reading feedback and thinking it over I would like to try something. I hope you guys will like it and lets move on to more pressing subjects on the mod. Like multi-maps and the georealism stuff. In short thanks for all the feedback guys.

BTW I would still like the "auto-build at tech" code to be made since it should still ally to my idea.

Since my return to modding here I've seen the Macro sentiments grow and grow to the point that valued core modders and players have gravitated more over to the renewed AND2 project (which probably would never have come to be if Macro had been more in balance in C2C - instead we'd all be making our progress here!)

Just because AND2 makes something doesn't mean we have to follow. Especially on the issue of macro vs. micro. AND is always going to be about the macro. The great things about C2C is we make the stuff we as modders want and not for what is "popular". If I wanted to make what is popular I would be working at some game company making "casual games".

I honestly think C2C is popular because of is originality and modders making what they want. This free expression of creativity is what makes C2C great. As Afforess would say "If you want something in the mod go make it yourself." Which is what I plan to do with C2C buildings.

And I am confidant enough with this mod that having some go to AND2 is fine. If you like more of the macro stuff then go. No one is forcing you to only play C2C.

For as long as I can remember modding and even requesting modding I was told "too much!" This is just the beginning. There are many buildings on my TODO list and I do not plan on stopping anytime soon.

 

[SilentConfusion]

Ultimately since i am the "building guy" on the project I will have to be the one changing stuff. After reading feedback and thinking it over I would like to try something. I hope you guys will like it and lets move on to more pressing subjects on the mod. Like multi-maps and the georealism stuff. In short thanks for all the feedback guys.

BTW I would still like the "auto-build at tech" code to be made since it should still ally to my idea.

You say you have an idea and that you hope we like it. Would you tell us about your idea? I am curious.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Your missing the point - making a queue list that you can/will essentially follow every game is NOT a strategy. Not mentioning the fact that this 'keenly devised' list is comprised of 80%+ of the buildings..

You would like the project I have in mind eventually, which would I think accomplish some more strategy along these lines than limiting how many buildings we can build would as it would give cause not to build what would otherwise normally be considered key buildings.

The idea goes along the lines of greatly increasing the amount of GP pts needed to birth a GP, then making nearly all buildings provide a small amount of GP pts. Thus if you wanted to enable yourself to have anything but an absolutely random GP emergence, you'd have to really specialize your cities towards the GP types you want to be able to build (then plug those GP battery sites full of things that will enhance the birth rate output too!)

This is one way. I also like Koshling's idea, though it would certainly enforce the specialization even further and sometimes there's cross specialization motivations on a number of C2C wonders now so some of that we'd want to possibly revisit during such a mod project.

The reality is, increasing the build costs on buildings would not mean I change my approach... would only mean I'm less capable of reaching the goals I set for myself before being willing to build military. Would only make it so my cities get less done. That's it. Period. Maybe only a little would it adjust what I'd do after finally getting all production and food buildings completed as by then my cities would be rotting in filth and crime. I'd still build in pretty much the same priority order overall. Just slower and getting less done. And I'd really slow down my research because what's the point of unlocking buildings you can't get to building soon yet?

@SgtSlick
I agree with you mostly. I'm tires of shift clicking a list of 1 turn buildings. It's idiotic. Also I agree that units should be more hammers, specifically the atlatl. If I have pretty high production by when I get them I can build several in one turn.

Wouldn't that just make it harder to experience a war in a given era you'd like to plan it around?

@Thunderbrd
Your idea sounds okay. I don't love it, but maybe the scale of which it would be implemented differs from my opinion to yours. It's probably mostly my bias of not liking too many buildings to be auto built. Why even have them in the game in the first place? You know what I mean man?

So you don't want cities to auto-build too many buildings but you want there to be less buildings to have to build, yet also appreciate the variety of content? I'm not sure there's a happy medium in all that. But the beauty of the system I'm suggesting is that if you want more control, you keep more categories private and if you want less micromanagement, you privatize more. Thus if you want NO buildings to be autobuilt (well, beyond the reasons we have already for the most part) then you'd simply not privatize any categories of buildings at all. Therefore, even though the whole thing would be a game option, even INgame you have full right to chose control vs automation (which isn't even really automation exactly, but rather a whole different way buildings emerge entirely.)

@whisperr
What's the problem with workers???

She's got some interesting pov on this. I'm trying to urge her to start a thread on the topic.

 

[Hydromancerx]

You say you have an idea and that you hope we like it. Would you tell us about your idea? I am curious.

I am resurrecting this idea.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Just because AND2 makes something doesn't mean we have to follow. Especially on the issue of macro vs. micro. AND is always going to be about the macro. The great things about C2C is we make the stuff we as modders want and not for what is "popular". If I wanted to make what is popular I would be working at some game company making "casual games".

I honestly think C2C is popular because of is originality and modders making what they want. This free expression of creativity is what makes C2C great. As Afforess would say "If you want something in the mod go make it yourself." Which is what I plan to do with C2C buildings.

And I am confidant enough with this mod that having some go to AND2 is fine. If you like more of the macro stuff then go. No one is forcing you to only play C2C.

For as long as I can remember modding and even requesting modding I was told "too much!" This is just the beginning. There are many buildings on my TODO list and I do not plan on stopping anytime soon.

I apologize for overlooking one major factor in what I was trying to say there. And that is this:

Any company knows that you cannot make everyone happy with whatever product they present. Civ in and of itself doesn't appeal to all gamers. What you MUST do if you have a hope of success at all is to identify your target market and what it is they thrive on and DO THAT! Don't just do that, but do it to an extreme more than anyone has ever done before.

I fully agree that this is the very success of C2C! And although I got to wandering a bit in making that point and got somewhat off track, that's really what it was I was trying to say. We can also enable options to help bring further 'target markets' into the mod's fold however. And this point I think I made a bit too strongly. But that's what options are about, widening the appeal. If ls612 believes all this is necessary, than I urge strongly that it be a game option rather than the core norm, which already greatly appeals to those of us who love all this great diversity!

I can understand those on the Macro side of the fence and I think we can offer them something that appeals. But let's not ever forget that all this great detail is exactly what has thrust C2C into the forefront of all CivIV mods on this site!

I, for one, pray to God you don't give up and that you carry on and keep giving us more of the great stuff you've given us so far!

 

[RidetheSpiral23]

@Thunderbrd
I think a happy medium is making the building costs higher (creating a feel of more importance instead of build now or later attitude) and limiting the amount of buildings that show in the queue based upon how many and what types of buildings the player has already built. Also whisperr is your wife?! Welcome!

@Hydro
Good luck and have fun man. I just beg you to consider other play styles other than builder when you are adding stuff. Also I would love to see the no more animal resources on map thing...

 

[AIAndy]

The reality is, increasing the build costs on buildings would not mean I change my approach... would only mean I'm less capable of reaching the goals I set for myself before being willing to build military. Would only make it so my cities get less done. That's it. Period. Maybe only a little would it adjust what I'd do after finally getting all production and food buildings completed as by then my cities would be rotting in filth and crime. I'd still build in pretty much the same priority order overall. Just slower and getting less done. And I'd really slow down my research because what's the point of unlocking buildings you can't get to building soon yet?

Tbh where is the interesting choice in regards to war when you always only do it when you cannot do anything else?
There has to be a sacrifice, some reasoning if it is worth it at the moment, not just an "oh, we don't have anything else to do at the moment, lets go to war."

 

[Thunderbrd]

Tbh where is the interesting choice in regards to war when you always only do it when you cannot do anything else?
There has to be a sacrifice, some reasoning if it is worth it at the moment, not just an "oh, we don't have anything else to do at the moment, lets go to war."

Well... that's really not how I feel about it. I don't just go to war when I have nothing else to do. I just try to make sure that I have the absolute maximum production and xp output possible before building units. When to go to war is obviously not only driven this way but I would resist going to war if I constantly had more buildings to catch up on! Because to do so means to fall further behind in the race to keep up with the production to tech discovery ratio.

It's more about that. If I can't keep up on buildings, then I feel it's worthless to unlock more.

 

[Taxman66]

I agree.

 

[SilentConfusion]

I am resurrecting this idea.

Thanks. Looks interesting.