C2C - Housing

[Hydromancerx]

As you may have seen in C2C there are a series of "huts" that you can build in the prehistoric era. They are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Residential buildings I have had planned. It all started with an old post for RoM/AND. Over the month my idea has changed a bit based on my skills, game limitations and of course what mod its going into. Here is how I in-vision it for C2C.

Density
Low = -1 +1
Medium = -2 +2 +1
High = -3 +3 +2
Super = -4 +4 +3
Mega = -5 +5 +4
Uber = -6 +6 +5

Low (Req Size 1 City)
Medium (Req Size 6 City)
High (Req Size 13 City)
Super (Req Size 25 City)
Mega (Req Size 50 City)
Uber (Req Size 100 City)

Wealth
$ = +1
$$ = +2
$$$ = +3
$$$$ = +4
and so on ...

Tech Level
Prehistoric = +1
Ancient = +2
Classical = +3
Medieval = +4
Renaissance = +5
Industrial = +6
Modern = +7
Trans-Human = +8
Galactic = +9

For instance the Huts would be under Prehistoric + Low Density + $ Wealth.

 

[Hydromancerx]

There would also be different external requirements for each type of building.

Huts
Density: Low
Wealth: $
Req Tech: Sheller Building
Obsolete: City Planning
Req Buildings: -
Req Water: No
Req Power: No
Replaces: -

Hovels
Density: Low
Wealth: $
Req Tech: Sedentary Lifestyle
Obsolete: Architecture
Req Buildings: -
Req Water: Yes
Req Power: No
Replaces: Huts

Insula
Density: Medium
Wealth: $
Req Tech: City Planning
Obsolete: Architecture
Req Buildings: -
Req Water: Yes
Req Power: No
Replaces: -

Domus
Density: Medium
Wealth: $$
Req Tech: City Planning
Obsolete: Architecture
Req Buildings: Water Pipes
Req Water: Yes
Req Power: No
Replaces: -

Villa
Density: Medium
Wealth: $$$
Req Tech: City Planning
Obsolete: Architecture
Req Buildings: Water Pipes AND Sewer System
Req Water: Yes
Req Power: No
Replaces: -

More coming soon ...

- Cottage
- Manor
- Estate
- Shanty Town
- Homestead
- Modern House
- Apartments
- Highrises
- Arcology Housing
- Colony Arcology
- Launch Arcology
- Seed Ship
- Advanced Seed Ship

 

[little_cyclone]

Would it be possible to add commerce instead of gold? That way the buildings addition to the economy is spread across the players Tax/Culture/Science/Espionage settings, as opposed to going directly into the coffers, which can be debilitating when the buildings go obsolete..

 

[Hydromancerx]

I want to try to avoid commerce as much as possible due to the science impact it has. I am not saying no, but we already went through all the buildings to avoid "commerce" whenever possible and replace it with gold.

 

[Hydromancerx]

So i have been adjusting things and so far it goes like this ...

Grass Hut -> Wood Hut -> Bone Hut -> Hide Tent -> Mud Hut -> Stone Hut

Grass Hut: -3 +1
Wood Hut: -3 +1 +1
Bone Hut: -2 +1 +1
Hide Tent: -2 +1 +1 +1
Mud Hut: -1 +1 +1 +1
Stone Hut: -1 +1 +1 +2

Note these are all low density prehistoric houses. The Longhouse will be considered a medium density prehistoric house.

Longhouse: -2 +2 +1 +1

And the Igloo is a special building ...

Igloo: -1 +1 +1 +1

Note that you should be able to build the Low Density, Medium Density and Igloo all at the same time. However the low density will replace each other.

The next step will be something like a Hovel for the low density ancient housing and insula for the medium density ancient housing

 

[JosEPh_II]

The 1st 2 with -3 scare me, but then most of the stuff with *-* sign in front does too!

I'm very glad the + is still attached to the "better" ones.

Personal opinion here, but I'd really like to see the Longhouse have less of a penalty. Historically the Native American Longhouse housed a bigger population and the "community" that lived in them ate better (better food supply because of permanent building so hunting, gathering and farming were all used) than the "huts'" and "tent" cultures (which did not always have all 3 food producing means).

JosEPh

 

[Hydromancerx]

@JosEPh_II

1. I had to give them all different stats, which are progressively better as you go, thus the beginning got pushed back by the base ancient level building and then worked backwards. In short why would you say build a wood hut if the grass hut had the same stats and replaced the grass hut?

2a. Longhouses were not just for Native Americans, viking had longhouses as well other Europeans and even some Asian cultures.

2b. The stats are to counter the +2 production. More people means more food needed, as well as more workers. Since its is considered a medium density house it gets +2 production and -2 food.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

But they don't replace, you seem to be able to build all of them and have them active at the same time. They certainly don't require the earlier versions.

 

[Hydromancerx]

But they don't replace, you seem to be able to build all of them and have them active at the same time. They certainly don't require the earlier versions.

Your not reading. I said ..

So i have been adjusting things and so far it goes like this ...

Which means in my next update they will be.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Thanks for pointing me to this C2C thread. (I may need to go through the forums to see all of the other C2C threads I may be missing - I usually only take a look at my 'subscriptions' to stay up to date with things due to the complexity of searching through the forums.)

Ok, there are a number of notes I have about these buildings.

1) The concept of trading off food for production, health and gold is interesting but it has some unexpected design flaws.

• - food + production gives the AI trouble. Its currently designed to build all + production buildings cheap enough to be built with 10 rounds or so, then + food buildings cheap enough to be built within 10 rounds, then ALL the rest of the buildings that add production, then ALL the rest of the buildings that add food.
  
  
• As a result of this process, this means that early hut buildings were already choking off growth (sometimes even to the point of starvation) until the cheaper food buildings were built which put the AI a couple rounds behind the more clever player who holds off building the hut buildings until they can sustain them.
  
  
• Normally, this would be the preferred method of build order due to the fact that once the production buildings are built, it makes the food buildings faster to build and as you are growing, the added food keeps you overcoming the added food requirements for the next growth.
  
  
• But when you have a production building that takes food away, you would want to hold off on building that until you don't need the food as much. Unfortunately, I could not see how to program that in the building routine dll consideration as I could not see how to create a call to check for NEGATIVE effects from a particular building. (Perhaps a better programmer could though...)

2) I feel when we create lines of buildings such as this, or any other, we need to consider the real world impact it has and assign our values accordingly. This is how we will naturally work our way into balance is to emulate RL as closely as possible. Thus, I have the following considerations in mind:

• Food: I somewhat disagree with the premise of negative food in the first place. I don't see how having improved housing would lead to reduced population growth. If anything I think it'd be somewhat the opposite. It wouldn't generate additional food, of course, but it would make less food necessary for growth. (An addon line of buildings with these as prereqs could be personal gardens that could add a bit of food as well, perhaps in minimal percentages +1%, that sort of thing.)
  
  
• Production: I also bear a little disagreement with extra production coming from these buildings. If anything, citizens having a home may keep them from working as much! (Maslow's Heirarchy: We need Air, Water, Food, Shelter (in that order) Beyond that is mostly 'want' items. The need to put effort into the community is largely driven by our needs and many will begin to falter in their efforts once they have those needs fulfilled. I see Hut buildings as 'housing' aka 'shelter' so I would think production would instead see a slight diminishment rather than an improvement.(-1-5%)
  
  
• Health: Yes. People are able to stay indoors to avoid sicknesses and wild animal threats and such. Everyone has their own 'castle' as it were.
  
  
• Happiness: Probably should have some Happiness benefit actually. People are more at peace with a roof over their heads (again, Maslow's Heirarchy) - perhaps one of the more critical things to keep the populace happy actually. (Though this makes the point that there should be a rapidly increasing degree (with population) of UNhappiness without them.)
  
  
• Gold: Certainly. Gold is taxes and few things are taxed as roughly as individual property ownership. However, this should be related to a civic choice. I could imagine if/before property taxes were put in place there would be no state income benefits from housing.
  
  
• Research: Probably no real effect here.
  
  
• Culture: Perhaps a bit. Maybe +1 or so. This is due to the fact that having individual housing generates an atmosphere of individuality which is key in promoting cultural growth. Having our own homes makes us all interior decorators and yardscapers even back through the stone ages.
  
  
• Espionage: I don't see any effect this would have on espionage. Though neighborhoods certainly do have their rumor mills, it doesn't usually reach government ears (LATE housing perhaps, as big bro finds ways to watch what's transpiring inside homes...)
  
  
• Maintenance: Crime rate... yes. Not intense, mind you, but giving citizens their own hovels can certainly give them the privacy necessary to plan and carry out crime.
  
  
• Defense: I would think housing may lessen defenses actually as they represent a weak spot in city defense. Its easier to invade a residential neighborhood and carry out guerilla warfare from there as an attempts to fight in this area tend to offer the threat of collateral damage to the citizenry, putting the defenders at a disadvantage. Additionally, many times the residential needs of the populace may quickly outgrow walls and other defenses, giving the invaders some cover outside the walls when they come in to attack.

3) PLEASE Pluralize these buildings in their names! These are not to be considered one hut... such would not have much use in the city. Instead, I view them as a residential district being established and defining what sort of housing is generaly being utilized there.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Thunderbrd

First i would like to say I am using Sim City 4 as a base of balance. Where it has 3 types residential (houses), commercial (markets and offices) and industrial (factories and farms).

1. The reason for negative food is 2 fold. First there have been complains even since AND that cities grow too fast. Then with the addition of so many buildings giving food there needed to be an anti-food. Thus the more people you have the more food you would eat. In short we need something to keep the excess food from making all the cities grow like crazy.

2a. I understand your logic however houses themselves are not producing any food. That's what the farms are for, thus they would be consuming food.

2b. Housing means workers. Thus more people means more production.

2c. Health is more on the level of not being homeless. As the houses get better in each era the health of the houses get better. Such as homes getting piped water, electricity, garbage services, etc.

2d. Like in sim city different wealth houses will give different gold. This is well established and should not be changed

2e. Yep. Research is not a factor in housing.

2f. This would only be in special houses i would think. We already have so much culture at the moment that having another source would be problematic.

2g. Yeah this should not be a factor at the moment.

2h. I am not sure what you mean. Please explain more.

2i. Hmm. This is probably worth looking into.

3. Yeah just a minor tweak. its hard to do any districting before City Planning.

4. One major problem i have run into for later eras is naming. Basically this is all i have so far ...

Ancient Era / Classical Era
- Low Density | Low Wealth = Hovels
- Low Density | Medium Wealth = Domuses
- Low Density | High Wealth = Villas
- Medium Density | Low Wealth = Insulas
- Medium Density | Medium Wealth = ?
- Medium Density | High Wealth = ?

Medieval Era / Renaissance Era
- Low Density | Low Wealth = Cottages
- Low Density | Medium Wealth = ?
- Low Density | High Wealth = ?
- Medium Density | Low Wealth = ?
- Medium Density | Medium Wealth = ?
- Medium Density | High Wealth = ?

Industrial Era / Modern Era
- Low Density | Low Wealth = Ghetto
- Low Density | Medium Wealth = Suburbs
- Low Density | High Wealth = ?
- Medium Density | Low Wealth = ? Apartments
- Medium Density | Medium Wealth = ?
- Medium Density | High Wealth = ?
- High Density | Low Wealth = ? Highrise
- High Density | Medium Wealth = ?
- High Density | High Wealth = ?

Trans-Human Era / Galactic Era
- Low Density | Low Wealth = ?
- Low Density | Medium Wealth = ?
- Low Density | High Wealth = ?
- Medium Density | Low Wealth = ?
- Medium Density | Medium Wealth = ?
- Medium Density | High Wealth = ?
- High Density | Low Wealth = ?
- High Density | Medium Wealth = ?
- High Density | High Wealth = ?
- Super Density | Low Wealth = Arcology Slums
- Super Density | Medium Wealth = Arcology Suburbs
- Super Density | High Wealth = Arcology Upperclass

Not sure what the names should be. ;/ Please give feed back on naming and organization.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

When this mod was first proposed I thought it represented the move towards specialisation because fewer people were needed to produce the food needed for the family (ie slaves) tribe or nation. I think we may have a better mechanism for reducing the city growth due to population. Look at my new "C2C - Unhealth" thread. Which is still a work in progress.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Look at my new "C2C - Unhealth" thread. Which is still a work in progress.

Link please. I can't find it.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Link please. I can't find it.

Sorry, that is because I decided that top priority should go to getting all the schema files updated so we can have a working modders version of C2C.

It is currently in notepad on my machine.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I don't feel that we can legitimately see housing as being more people. More people is more population. Housing is where the people go at the end of the day. Food would not be increased nor decreased as a result of housing. But it would allow for individual people to store a share of the food produced, thus having a minor granary-like effect. Also, when people have homes and privacy, they are more likely to procreate. I don't feel this is the arena to be taking food away.

What should cause a loss of food is a matter of:

• Unhealth - as DH mentioned. Unhealth isn't so much a loss of food (though can represent unhealth in the food sources.) but does represent a loss of life that creates a drag on population growth.
  
  
• Waste - This is a metric that tends to go overlooked and underconsidered. Waste would be generated by poor storage factors. It tends to be inherant in the current design of the amount of food necessary for growth. But interestingly enough, there are factors in waste that are not being taken into consideration by the current game model. For example, it is much harder to store food for any length of time in warmer climates. There could be areas where vermin are more prevelant. Prehistory would be rife with waste before proper storage was invented. Thus, we could simply move to increase the amount of food necessary for growth drastically and require these buildings to counteract that increase. This is a much easier means of enacting growth control anyhow. Might be needing to be done in the dll and if so I'm not currently sure where but the base food for growth amount must be around somewhere. Additionally, some buildings already existing may be rationalized as creating waste, a Market for example, where much spoils as it awaits purchase. That could be legitimately given a penalty to the amount of food necessary for the city to grow.
  
  
• Taking a hard look at what gives us such food overages currently - Might be just me but IMO, the religious food buildings are far too intense in their benefits. I have a hard time realistically justifying the extent of benefit they offer.
  
  
• Troops - Feeding an army is not only going to cost the kingdom gold to purchase from private vendors (military upkeep) but would also drain food supplies from the nation as a whole. We should seek to somehow mod the dll to create a drain on food for each troop (say -.1 food from each city per troop/total amount of cities (thus 10 troops would drain a 1 city nation of 1 food in that city.) In fact, if units could be given a tag for this metric it would be even better because we could then give different units different values. A Cavalry unit would certainly take up a lot more food (for the horses) than a tank.

As for names,

Ancient Era / Classical Era
- Low Density | Low Wealth = Hovels
- Low Density | Medium Wealth = Domuses
- Low Density | High Wealth = Villas
- Medium Density | Low Wealth = Insulas
- Medium Density | Medium Wealth = ?
- Medium Density | High Wealth = ?

Medieval Era / Renaissance Era
- Low Density | Low Wealth = Shantys
- Low Density | Medium Wealth = Cottages
- Low Density | High Wealth = Cabins
- Medium Density | Low Wealth = Slums
- Medium Density | Medium Wealth = Commons
- Medium Density | High Wealth = Mansions

Industrial Era / Modern Era
- Low Density | Low Wealth = Ghetto
- Low Density | Medium Wealth = Manufactured Homes
- Low Density | High Wealth = Estates
- Medium Density | Low Wealth = Apartments
- Medium Density | Medium Wealth = Suburbs
- Medium Density | High Wealth = Gated Communities
- High Density | Low Wealth = Projects
- High Density | Medium Wealth = RV Parks
- High Density | High Wealth = Suites

Trans-Human Era / Galactic Era
- Low Density | Low Wealth = Dugouts
- Low Density | Medium Wealth = Smart Homes
- Low Density | High Wealth = Chateau
- Medium Density | Low Wealth = Modular Highrise
- Medium Density | Medium Wealth = Modular Homes
- Medium Density | High Wealth = High-tech Manor
- High Density | Low Wealth = Refugee Camps
- High Density | Medium Wealth = Time Shares
- High Density | High Wealth = Holochambers
- Super Density | Low Wealth = Arcology Slums
- Super Density | Medium Wealth = Arcology Suburbs
- Super Density | High Wealth = Arcology Upperclass

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I don't feel that we can legitimately see housing as being more people. More people is more population. Housing is where the people go at the end of the day. Food would not be increased nor decreased as a result of housing. But it would allow for individual people to store a share of the food produced, thus having a minor granary-like effect. Also, when people have homes and privacy, they are more likely to procreate. I don't feel this is the arena to be taking food away.

What should cause a loss of food is a matter of:

• Unhealth - as DH mentioned. Unhealth isn't so much a loss of food (though can represent unhealth in the food sources.) but does represent a loss of life that creates a drag on population growth.
  
  
• Waste - This is a metric that tends to go overlooked and underconsidered. Waste would be generated by poor storage factors. It tends to be inherant in the current design of the amount of food necessary for growth. But interestingly enough, there are factors in waste that are not being taken into consideration by the current game model. For example, it is much harder to store food for any length of time in warmer climates. There could be areas where vermin are more prevelant. Prehistory would be rife with waste before proper storage was invented. Thus, we could simply move to increase the amount of food necessary for growth drastically and require these buildings to counteract that increase. This is a much easier means of enacting growth control anyhow. Might be needing to be done in the dll and if so I'm not currently sure where but the base food for growth amount must be around somewhere. Additionally, some buildings already existing may be rationalized as creating waste, a Market for example, where much spoils as it awaits purchase. That could be legitimately given a penalty to the amount of food necessary for the city to grow.
  
  
• Taking a hard look at what gives us such food overages currently - Might be just me but IMO, the religious food buildings are far too intense in their benefits. I have a hard time realistically justifying the extent of benefit they offer.
  
  
• Troops - Feeding an army is not only going to cost the kingdom gold to purchase from private vendors (military upkeep) but would also drain food supplies from the nation as a whole. We should seek to somehow mod the dll to create a drain on food for each troop (say -.1 food from each city per troop/total amount of cities (thus 10 troops would drain a 1 city nation of 1 food in that city.) In fact, if units could be given a tag for this metric it would be even better because we could then give different units different values. A Cavalry unit would certainly take up a lot more food (for the horses) than a tank.

As for names,

I was thinking of Unhealthiness as including an component to increase the cost in food of getting to the next population level. Basically covering child/mother motality. However waste could be covered similarly. Ie costs an extra % of food to grow. the bigger then city the more waste due to distribution and so forth.

Religion bonuses on food have been greatly changed and represent "knowledge" about what is being grown etc.

Feeding troops I am not so sure about. Until "standing army" they basically feed themselves except in times of war. There have been a bunch of mechanics suggested for feeding troops in times of war. One recently on the AND forums which has merit. It even opens it up to "scortched earth" policies as well as "Royal hunting preserves" which were used to feed armies and navies in times of war.

 

[Hydromancerx]

So it looks like we agree on the wealth giving gold and tech level giving health but are arguing over the density factor.

As you can see from my chart below that as density goes up you get more unhealthiness However I also have more people backed in means more mouths to feed and more workers ( - Food and + Production ).

How would you guys redo the density in an easy to understand form?

Density
Low = -1 +1
Medium = -2 +2 +1
High = -3 +3 +2
Super = -4 +4 +3
Mega = -5 +5 +4
Uber = -6 +6 +5

Low (Req Size 1 City)
Medium (Req Size 6 City)
High (Req Size 13 City)
Super (Req Size 25 City)
Mega (Req Size 50 City)
Uber (Req Size 100 City)

Wealth
$ = +1
$$ = +2
$$$ = +3
$$$$ = +4
and so on ...

Tech Level
Prehistoric = +1
Ancient = +2
Classical = +3
Medieval = +4
Renaissance = +5
Industrial = +6
Modern = +7
Trans-Human = +8
Galactic = +9

Also where should these other buildings fit in ...

- Shanty Town
- Estate
- Villa

They were put in by GeneralStaff i believe and should be included in our new housing system.

 

[Thunderbrd]

My suggestion then:

By era (quality of housing)
Prehistoric: -1% Needed for city to grow, +1
Ancient: -2% Needed for city to grow, +2
Classical: -3% Needed for city to grow, +3
Medieval: -4% Needed for city to grow, +4
Rennaissance: -5% Needed for city to grow, +5
Industrial: -10% Needed for city to grow, +6
Modern: -15% Needed for city to grow, +7, +1
Transhuman: -20% Needed for city to grow, +8, +1
Galactic: -25% Needed for city to grow, +9, +1

By Density
Low = +3 , -2% Defense
Medium = +2 , +1, -5% Defense
High = +1 ,+2, -10% Defense
Super = +3, -15% Defense
Mega = +4, -20% Defense
Uber = +5, -25% Defense

By Wealth
Low = +15% Maintenance
Medium = +10% Maintenance
High = +5% Maintenance

For each housing district: additional -1% (I presume you will allow 1 type of each density/wealth combination/era right?)

Happiness would be tough to work out. I suggest we double the amount of unhappiness by population - then make each density/wealth combination district give: -5% unhappiness by population. (cap at -100%) Does this mean more unhappiness overall, in particular for earlier cities? Yes. And I think we need it to help make keeping cities happy a bit tougher earlier on.

Gold as you have it is appropriate for now. Down the road (not too far) I'm looking at creating adjusting some traits based on civic selections and this would be one. I don't think we'd have extra gold income for the state unless we are taxing the property values etc... With the simpler taxation system we currently have, such settings are appropriate.

 

[Koshling]

My suggestion then:

By era (quality of housing)
Prehistoric: -1% Needed for city to grow, +1
Ancient: -2% Needed for city to grow, +2
Classical: -3% Needed for city to grow, +3
Medieval: -4% Needed for city to grow, +4
Rennaissance: -5% Needed for city to grow, +5
Industrial: -10% Needed for city to grow, +6
Modern: -15% Needed for city to grow, +7, +1
Transhuman: -20% Needed for city to grow, +8, +1
Galactic: -25% Needed for city to grow, +9, +1

By Density
Low = +3 , -2% Defense
Medium = +2 , +1, -5% Defense
High = +1 ,+2, -10% Defense
Super = +3, -15% Defense
Mega = +4, -20% Defense
Uber = +5, -25% Defense

By Wealth
Low = +15% Maintenance
Medium = +10% Maintenance
High = +5% Maintenance

For each housing district: additional -1% (I presume you will allow 1 type of each density/wealth combination/era right?)

Happiness would be tough to work out. I suggest we double the amount of unhappiness by population - then make each density/wealth combination district give: -5% unhappiness by population. (cap at -100%) Does this mean more unhappiness overall, in particular for earlier cities? Yes. And I think we need it to help make keeping cities happy a bit tougher earlier on.

Gold as you have it is appropriate for now. Down the road (not too far) I'm looking at creating adjusting some traits based on civic selections and this would be one. I don't think we'd have extra gold income for the state unless we are taxing the property values etc... With the simpler taxation system we currently have, such settings are appropriate.

Thus might make abstract sense, but from a game balance perspective reducing the food required to grow is on the same side of the scales as increasing food, so it reverses the current purpose these buildings serve to counteract over abundance of food.

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Thunderbrd

So now why would anyone want to make a building? Sounds like its a crappy deal if each building is giving -% , -% Defense, -% and +% Maintenance in exchange for what + and + and sometimes ?

it seems to me that the and would cancel out much of the time and the +% Maintenance and + would too. So what you get a benefit of while all the other things are going down.

Remember buildings are optional. You want the player to WANT to build them. Otherwise they will just skip building them.

I think i am going to stick to my original plans while adding some -% Defense. Becuase with my proposal you would have ...

Pros: +, +
Neutral: / (Depends upon the density and era)
Cons: -, - defense