Buildings

[bmwc3]

Just a thought. Having buildings built on a rating system.
It could be on a 1 to 5 star rating where the building would become more effective but cost more hammers based on the scale. Say you were building a barracks in a city, the higher rating you commisioned the building, the more xp it grants to a new unit. If you build a level 1 building, later on you would could have the chance to upgrade it but it would cost more hammers. This would be could if you were going for speed and just need a little boost or if you were trying to create mini wonders of the world. It would give cities a little more distinction such as the Great Colosseum of Rome.

 

[GigaNerd]

If we can just pimp out our Libraries, then why would we need Universities?



My point is that this would result in overpowered buildings too early in the game. Why bother building a University if you can upgrade your Library to the point where it severely overpowers it? (especially in the Ancient Era)

I wouldn't mind having a single upgrade (which could represent upsizing buildings), but four upgrades are just a bit too much. Sorry.

 

[bmwc3]

Well my thinking, a 3 or 4 rated building would be an equal to a regular and the upgrades would not be too crazy or OP. My thinking on this would be have the 5 rated ones as mini wonders so that only one civ can build the level 5 in one city and that would countinue to let the player have more of a decision in the course of history.

 

[alms66]

I actually like the idea. If a '3' is normal, then 1 and 2 are downgrades and 3 and 4 are upgrades, so that you could build on the lower end or higher end depending on your situation. It would also be neat if this system eliminated building wonders of the world so that the first person to build a 5 star building got the wonder instead. For example, if a 5 star Harbor would become the Colossus, you'd get the benefit of building the 5 star Harbor, but because you were the first to do it, your Harbor would be renamed "Harbor -The Colossus" and you'd get some additional benefits as well. It would be cool if you built a Harbor of say 1 star, that you could later upgrade that to 2, 3, 4 or 5 star also.

I'm also assuming the upgrades/downgrades aren't too extreme in either shield cost or effect of the building...

 

[eireksten]

My point is that this would result in overpowered buildings too early in the game. Why bother building a University if you can upgrade your Library to the point where it severely overpowers it?

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion Have you ever heard of balancing? If the game contained a system like this, all of it would have to be balanced to fit in the game.

Not sure what I think about the idea myself. Unless it's relatively easy to see the benefit of the lower-level ones over the higher-level ones, it could easily add more complexity than fun to the game. I'm a fan of the latter.

 

[Ahriman]

We already have this system in various versions of Civ; we have markets, bank, stock exchange.
Library, university, research lab.
Forge, factory, manufacturing plant.

These are effectively gold/beaker/hammer boosters mark 1, 2, 3.

Civ is a technologically based game; you are limited by your level of tech. If you want a bigger research booster, you have to research the education tech, not just build a "better" library.

And % boosters are already scaled to the city because they are % boosters. A library in a city with lots of commerce gives you more extra beakers than a library in a city with only a few commerce.

 

[Trias]

We already have this system in various versions of Civ; we have markets, bank, stock exchange.
Library, university, research lab.
Forge, factory, manufacturing plant.

These are effectively gold/beaker/hammer boosters mark 1, 2, 3.

I think it would not be a bad idea to actually treat them as such. Example, University obsoletes* library when it becomes available, and you can upgrade your old libraries to universities.

This would help reduce the number of build options for cities founded later in the game. As the game currently is, cities founded after the classical age rarely catch up to the rest of your cities. This is in part because the new cities have a gazillion city improvement to build to catch up. The same thing happens for cities captured late in the game.

*In the same way that units become obsolete. i.e. you can no longer build them, but the ones you have build still have the same effect.

 

[Ramesses]

^ I suggested a similar idea once. I hope something like it gets implemented.

 

[Kyriakos]

I really like this idea, it gives a lot more space for planning and finessing your game. Hopefully with the source code you can implement such changes

 

[awesome]

yeah, i like the idea of buildings becoming obsolete. and maybe the upgraded library could become a university, just like an upgraded say cavalry becomes a helicopter or something like that.

 

[Zhahz]

yeah, i like the idea of buildings becoming obsolete. and maybe the upgraded library could become a university, just like an upgraded say cavalry becomes a helicopter or something like that.

Doesn't make any sense to me.

When you develop helecopters cavalry become pretty much obsolete (maybe used for ceremonial stuff but far less for active duty). It's kinda hard to just renovate and keep a unit going (adding a rocket launcher and chain gun to a horse wouldn't make it into an attack helecopter, for ex - vs a librarly where the building can last 100's of years or the contents can be relocated/preserved/new copies obtained indefinitely).

Libraries never become obsolete and a university isn't just a better library. They're different in purpose (in reality, in the game they're just research generation). I wouldn't even call a bank a better markey - they're different enough in purpose as well (in reality and somewhat in the game too).

Eh, it'll be interesting to see what they do with buildings and a lot of things. Bring on the gameplay examples! Months of wild speculation and crazy ideas is torturous.