1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Buildo-holics anonymous.

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by skallben, Dec 15, 2012.

  1. Greizer85

    Greizer85 Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,210
    I too am a compulsive builder... I find it helps to think like this though: 'which gives more benefits in the end: a wonder or a new city?' The answer is very often 'a new city', as it's a new place to build things, you get luxuries to trade, more science and gold and at times defense. Ofc the policy costs are a thing to consider, but a city still beats out a wonder almost any time, especially when you consider the very real possibility of losing in a wonder race to an AI civ. If you lose the city founding race, you can simply capture the AI city, while with wonders you get a paltry amount of gold that in no way compensates for losing all those turns of valueable production. I find that on Immortal most wonders are not worth the gamble, as for all you know Egypt with marble might exist in the game (unless you choose the opponents ofc).
     
  2. compwiz1202

    compwiz1202 King

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    703
    Location:
    Bethlehem, PA, USA
    LOL, I did that once when it was one turn to Colossus and someone beat me. I was in war mode in an instant and the Colossus was MINE! :D
     
  3. Hammer Rabbi

    Hammer Rabbi Deity GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Messages:
    4,460
    Location:
    USA
    Hello. My name is Hammer. And I am 12 days sober from not playing small and tall defensive builder games. I've been trying to live the anti-builder life by refusing to have cities with more than 10 buildings, by avoiding the buildings that are 5 turns faster than units or dancing around the fact that the university is still 40 turns away, by resisting National NIGHTMARES begging and pleading to just finish 4 more of their unnecessary blights they call buildings. ICS has really helped my addiction but it's hard. I dream at night about running through gardens, temples, and opera houses longing for their glorious benefits and when I wake up I realize that I'm not actually in them. It's tough ... but I'm resisting and I plan to extend this into another 12 days and beyond! I will not be defeated by one ... more ... building!

    Thank you,
    Hammer
     
  4. Mesin

    Mesin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Messages:
    16
    Hello, my name is Nick, and I'm a build-aholic. I just can't stop building. I don't know what to do, I want to stop, but I need those workshops, I need those walls in case of a war, oh, I can build barracks, I don't make military units, but I should build them just in case. War? What's war? It's where units kill each other? What's that good for? Absolutely nothing if you ask me. War would mean that I have to take time away from making buildings, I can't do that, who would? Must keep building... just one more building...
     
  5. WimpyTheWarrior

    WimpyTheWarrior Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    294
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Hi Wimpy here and I've been a builder since Civilization I. (1991) But I have a pre-Civ heritage in the old paper and dice war games (think ADG's World in Flames) so for me Civ was the first game where I could BUILD something, not TAKE something. If I'm going to play a conquest game for my tastes I would prefer a wargame, not Civ. So I am not an especially GOOD Civ player, but I am a HAPPY Civ player builder.
     
  6. davidescott

    davidescott Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    I'm a compulsive builder and a compulsive terrain developer. The game just doesn't seem done until every tile on the board is fully developed and fully utilized. Isn't that the goal of civilization, maximum utilization of the planets resources? Of course this means I've never completed a game because by the end each turn takes 4 hours to complete.

    I want to play a cross between SimCity and Civilization. In SimCity the complexity comes from the second-order effects of building something. You zone a region for industrial purposes and it pollutes your water supply, you allow gambling and crime goes up, but your relationships with neighbors are non-existent or always trivial and positive. Your neighbor needs X so you provide it and everyone benefits.

    In Civilization building is always positive. Build a factory more production, build a university more science. You never have a case where building X damages Y, so there is no need to balance choices, just build build build. The complexity in Civ is trying to determine the build order. If you choose to build too early your neighbor attacks your city and destroys something of value, if you build too late your neighbor completes the wonder before you do.

    I want a game that has the complexity of both, I need to have a reason to NOT build something rather than a continually updating priority list of when to build something. Since I don't have that in CIV I'm always fighting the desire to build everything and stay at peace as long as possible, and find myself fighting little fires on my way towards perfection. For SimCity I need a reason to place the factory in a less than ideal spot, rather than let the clock run at 100x in order to place it in the best spot.

    In the end both games end up in the same final state. Perfection in the year 10000AD. The only difference is the path taken to that. In SimCity it is methodical tile by tile and never an incorrect move, in Civ it is haphazard with numerous things that must be undone or taken out of order.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some more extensive thoughts on what this might be like:

    I actually think the whole game would be a lot better if cities were removed. Replace cities with improvements placed directly on the tiles, but have those improvements be automatically upgraded according to some budget directives.

    I imagine a game where each tile has a number of values associated with it including:
    Production quantities: food, science, commerce, industry
    Influence values: race/language, religion, military strength

    Instead of building cities you would place objects that have a regional effect. You would start out with a camp (level 1) which gives you military influence over a small area from which you collect from the four production quantities based on that influence. You then get to budget from the collected production how much to dedicate to building up existing improvements or building some other improvement.

    The kinds of improvements would be either improvements that increase production levels: farms for food, school for science, etc... or that increase influence values: roads for race/language, churchs for religion, military bases/camps for military strength.

    The production improvements would be dependent on other accessible production improvements. In order to level up your town X+1, you need to upgrade the roads and nearby farms to provide sufficient access to food. Similarly to level-up a factory you need a town. You could set global budgets which would cause existing improvements to level-up to the point where they either outstrip nearby resources or
    the budget balances the increased upkeep requirements of the higher level. Similarly if you under-budget then your farms and towns can level-down. You would be be able to override the global budget in particular areas to make a region have a particular purpose (a farming area has a low industry/commerce budget but a high food/transport budget).

    Each of the influence types would be better at extracting one kind of resource over another. For instance high military strength allows a lot of industry and food extraction, but is not very good at science and terrible at commerce. Roads complement military strength by being good at science and commerce but not doing much for food or industrial extraction (althought they increase the range that all production quantities can be transported). And religion negatively affects science, but is great for food and commerce and spreads faster.

    The rate of growth of each influence type would be dependent upon the others. So if Civ A has high religion, but low military and transportation and is trying to spread into Civ B which has low religion but high military and transportation then the more fervent religion of culture B would be slower to grow into those tiles that are more strongly "A's"

    The whole notion of the borders of a civilization would be more fluid. A tile can be simultaneously A's because A has a strong military presence, but also B's because of the religious affiliation of the citizens, while C keeps an interest because the people in that tile used to be C's until they were converted to another religion and held under the military rule of a third. As a result all get some share of the output of the tiles, and all have ways to increase their control. C for instance my build a nearby military base to try and increase his military influence (a cold war) or directly attack the military base of A (a real war).

    You could even have civil wars if you let your civilization get too out of sync with itself. Areas that are under-funded and have their own race or religious affiliation distinct from that of the surrounding tiles may revolt and align themselves with a spontaneous military uprising that requires your attention to put down.

    It would be like a competitive SimCity where placing a police station is not just an effort at eliminating crime in my city, but also trying to steal the benefits of my neighboring cities.
     
  7. Zaimejs

    Zaimejs Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,053
    Location:
    Nebraska
    Great post. One example of the way it used to be is that you could only build one plant... solar, nuclear, whatever. And nuclear could blow up... I would love to see more balance.
     
  8. thegingerninja

    thegingerninja Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    258
    Location:
    I'm like, totally not a hobo...
    I have been playing as Egypt and Thebes has 40 or 50% bonus to wonder production. I spam out wonders when suddenly two of my precious wonders are build by Korea and the Maya. The Maya decide to attack my weak military and i go MAKE MY DAY!
     
  9. compwiz1202

    compwiz1202 King

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    703
    Location:
    Bethlehem, PA, USA
    Woot! Dominated with Korea without building a single building. Granted it was settler :D Now I have to try different difficulties and different victory types on Settler. I wonder if I can win anything but domination without buildings.
     
  10. Argive

    Argive Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2012
    Messages:
    47
    Location:
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Oh good, so I'm not alone or a loser :) Sometimes I build wonders just to build them; they're so cool. I even wish I could see them more easily on the map--I worked hard to build them, dammit, and some of them are so tiny! My eyes!

    Some people already noted this, but I'd like to second them: Allying militaristic city-states is a great help for those with our condition :)

    And yes, wonders should be at risk of being destroyed upon capture.
     

Share This Page