I'm trying to sort out the ideological question, because it's hard to give feedback when I don't know what's the ideal goal.
So there are three proposed factors for what the production cost should be based off of:
1. Real-world material
2. Real-world complexity
3. In-game technology level
And as a fourth factor (4.), there's also the value of the building itself, ie the yields and benefits of having it. This is a necessary factor for the sake of the game.
All four of these factor should (I assume we all agree) have some sort of positive relationship with building cost. As 1., 2., 3., or 4. increases, production cost increases.
It seems like Thunderbrd wants 1., 2., and 3. to all be involved, at least some combination of.
Production as a measure of material (1) has the strongest precedent in vanilla civ, imo. Unspent production is lumber, metal and stone. After it's been spent, I interpret it as
infrastructure. When building a university, part of the cost is setting up the campus.
But vanilla civ also has examples of (2), where the cost of the infrastructure cannot entirely explain the game's production cost, but C2C introduces much more, especially with Paleolithic-era 'gathering' buildings. Noraid2 calls it 'complexity', but I interpret it as
social organization. It's the time and effort required to train and mobilize the work force. With relation to technology, I interpret this as the implementation of the theory, after the theory has been 'researched'.
There's no real-world explanation for why better technology should increase its cost, assuming the other two factors remain constant, so this is purely a game mechanic. But we can consider the implications of the game mechanics:
- I see no way to differentiate 1. and 2. without re-inventing the game, so the C2C team + community will need to agree on some way to average them.
- If a building has low 1., high 3., and reasonable 4., and we decide its final production cost will be high, then the explanation for its cost is in the complexity (2). We have decided that this building takes longer to build because it's more complex; the building's particular yields (4.) are the reward for an investment of hammers.
- If a building has low 1., high 3., and reasonable 4., and we decide its final production cost will be low, then the explanation is in the technology (3). We have decided that, once a society knows how, the building is actually very easy to set up and implement. The investment is the beakers; the yields (4.) are a reward for being technologically advanced.
First you need to decide what relationship 1. will have with 2. Then, you must decide the relationship between that (the result of 1. and 2.) and 3. Does scientific discovery sometimes find more efficient ways to do what once would have taken longer? Or does increased technology always mean bigger, more complex projects? The final hammer-cost should be compared to 4., because this determines how 'good' a building is. These will be main-objective buildings. Right now, buildings like the forge and the stone tool workshop are very good, and I assume they've been designed this way to match their 'importance'. Some other buildings, however, I feel have an outsized benefit for their meager importance, such as the Bridal Shop and the Magic Shop.
You don't have to do it in this order; it all depends on which variable you want to hold constant. But once I understand the vision you're aiming for, I can give some feedback on which buildings feel like they have the wrong production cost.
a city generates every 5 turns?
