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

City Types and their Buildings, Effects, Features

Discussion in 'Civ4Col - Medieval: Conquests' started by Kailric, Oct 3, 2014.

  1. Nightinggale

    Nightinggale Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,001
    Thinking a bit about being too big and automated cities.

    The threshold of being "too big" should be set in map size. Bigger maps allow more cities.
    CivEffects should have a modifier for size, not just add +1. This makes it scale to all map sizes.

    You should be able to regain control of your automated city if a CivEffect creates a free slot for you. Perhaps there should be a delay of say 5 turns from requesting a city until you actually gain control over it. That way you can't control too many cities by just switching control on and off multiple times each turn.

    You should be able to view your automated cities, possibly making certain recommendations, but no direct control.

    Possibly be able to send/request citizens.

    Possibly include them in trade routes (like telling them to produce lots of ore you can pick up)

    Make this limitation a game option, which allows the player to turn it on or off due to personal taste.

    Figure out if the AI kills this entire idea. If you can have 7 cities and then some you don't exploit fully and the AI can have 30 fully exploited cities, you lose.

    Figure out if this is way too much work compared to what we gain. That is highly likely.
     
  2. Lib.Spi't

    Lib.Spi't Overlord of the Wasteland

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,672
    Location:
    UK
    I don't think employing a 'forced' limit in col is really worth it.

    The CK2 concept is part of a completely different system.

    What would be intereting though is if we can employ some cost/benefit to this idea of automation/vassalage/devolution of control.

    In bts 'Colonies' had their own maintainance costs, and it got to a point where it was deemed better to create an independent vassal than keep it yourself.

    Perhaps something along the lines of a 'vassal' city is more efficient in something, or one thing of your choosing.

    So something like you found a mining town, give it to your vassal and tell the vassal to mine. The city then won't produce other goods, or has some major down turn in the production of other things, but it gets an upturn in the production of your choice, in this case mining.

    You get the tax of the vassal, you get the 'increased productivity' of the vassal, and you can 'levy' your vassal, you also get the added bonus of one less city to micro-manage.

    We could then maybe 'flip' the limit, so it is a vassal limit rather than a personal control limit. So you want to look for terrains that can be specialised (coasts or flatland and crops for food) and then set your town to a specilised vassal... A bit like the city type system we have now...

    When we get to the point of loyalty and unity, we could introduce some ideas of needing to maintain the control of vassals, and neesing to keep them supplied as part of your kingdom to keep them happy, as their 'focus' won't allow them to take care of their own needs and desires.

    Things like techs or civeffects in general could then unlock new or 'wider' focusses, allowing you to set better and more diverse specialisms for your vassal holdings.
     
  3. Kailric

    Kailric Jack of All Trades

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,094
    Location:
    Marooned, Y'isrumgone
    Here's one idea, if you neglect Administration and Law production your Citizens will start to turn into "Criminals".

    I got the idea as to what historically happened to Rome when the Pope's moved to France. Rome slowly descended into a insignificant town full of criminals.

    It was Pope Sixtus in the 15th century who had all the criminals rounded up and killed.
     
  4. Nightinggale

    Nightinggale Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,001
    I think it will break the game if your hard to get experts turns into criminals because the population restrictions prevents you from adding law enforcement. It could be more like having a random growth unit, which is a criminal. If you neglect law enforcement, some of your newly grown units will be criminals. The risk increase the less law enforcement you have.

    However I'm not sure I like the gameplay concept of that idea at all. I think we should rather focus on what we currently have and is currently adding and aim for a release in the near future. There is a limit to "wild" features I plan for a gameplay I haven't tried yet.
     
  5. Kailric

    Kailric Jack of All Trades

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,094
    Location:
    Marooned, Y'isrumgone
    Night, you little unbeliever, you always assume when I post things I aim to change it for the coming release. Nay, I but share my ideas.

    In the Civ games we had "Corruption", but there was no Citizen Units in the Civ games, so I started thinking that our Citizens could become "Corrupted" as it has been shown to do historically when there is lack of Law and Administration. We for sure wouldn't turn a Master Distiller into a Criminal Unit. This would best be done with a Promotion perhaps. It would be nice to change the look of the Unit, so we could have Promotions that do that. Or, like I did with slaves in my Privateer mod, simply add a new variable to the unit showing what it was before it become a slave or in this case a Criminal.

    Edit: And of course, these Criminals can be converted back to what they where before they started doing illegal acts. For a Artisan, being a Criminals would mean that you are using your production for your own gains, and thus the Lord of the Manor is gaining less.
     
  6. Kailric

    Kailric Jack of All Trades

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,094
    Location:
    Marooned, Y'isrumgone
    I've been thinking on the citytypes and I'm trying to decide if it adds too the fun or just makes things complicated trying to balance out the citytypes, that's if the players realize there are citytypes. So, along with my idea to trim down the more advanced features I am thinking we should put citytypes on hold. Citytypes are currently far from what I originally invisioned, that being each citytype has its own screen layout and things as such to make them really unique. And this would require lots more programming and work. So, instead of the Citytypes monasteries and outpost would be converted to Special Improvements. Here is where we need ideas to make these Improvements unique if we go this route.

    Besides normal Improvment bonuses these improvements could be used to gain access to Bonuses outside your borders (like Civ4 Colonies right) however with the ease of founding a new village there would need to be some advantage to doing this. Anyway, I'll be thinking on this as I'm writing this from my phone and it's tedious.

    I'm thinking that the main focus of testing should be with Techs, Perks, and Civics as these features can make a huge impact on the game and playstyles. These alone give the player so much to do already. So by minimizing other features we can concentrate on this features and really make them a fun, vital, and strategic part of the game.
     
  7. Nightinggale

    Nightinggale Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,001
    I don't like the current implementation. I'm not talking about the ingame setup, but rather the actual code. It's hardcoded and really restrictive to expansion. This mean long term plans should touch this part, but I don't think it's urgent.

    If we stick to the current game implementation, I would like to move the setup to a new xml file, making it more dynamic and add options to xml modders.

    For the gameplay, I'm not feeling that I get the full potential from this feature. I get the impression that the best strategy is to build monasteries more or less exclusively. This will allow lots of research and you get ahead of everybody else.

    If we are to make cities to be less clones of each other, we can add more requirements to building xml. For a start, right now we have building requirements to build the next building in a chain. If we add a NOT require building list, we can make the player pick between multiple buildings and decide the type of city that way. Adding other requirements like terrain or river would also add to uniqueness and adds to planning of city placement.

    I'm thinking more in line of the fishing boat from RaR. IM:C seems to be friendly towards allowing cities to be placed everywhere to gather everything. RaR on the other hand have a tendency to place good bonuses on snowy hills with no food supply or lumber. Automated transports do wonders for such mining colonies, but I have also encountered vast mountain ranges of peaks, with rendered access to silver impossible.

    We should make something, which makes "mineral fishing boats" interesting. Perhaps something like a bad effect from having too many cities. Something like corruption if you expand too quickly or... there are plenty of options. Maybe add a city level to tell how well developed it is with buildings and add penalties if too many/too many % are of too low level. Something like law and order level.

    Agreed. CivEffects is a great expansion compared to last release and we only touch the tip of the iceberg with what they can do. It's mostly complete, but so far the goal has been to recreate last release with the new setup. We should really put some effort into figuring out how to set up xml to make the best use of this setup. I think we shouldn't aim to do that in the next release as I would like just to keep what we have and make it stable. We shouldn't wait too long to "unlock" a stable dll for submods.

    I disabled prohibited civics today in the civic screen as it wasn't working and I will make a correct implementation from scratch after next release. While testing this I discovered that the revolution button was drawn outside the screen. Turns out that that screen adjusts horribly to different resolutions, or possibly just to different aspect radios. While there are some bad looking we could live with, the missing button needs to be fixed. To be fair, it does look good in some resolutions (the aspect radio Kailric used while writing it?).
     
  8. Lib.Spi't

    Lib.Spi't Overlord of the Wasteland

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,672
    Location:
    UK
    I would just like to throw in a vote towards the level of 'Fun' of citytypes.

    This is ranked up there as one of my favourite features (with bags of future potential) of Col. Mods.

    So from a road map perspective I would be absolutely gutted to see it gone forever!

    It ranks almost as high as how much I loved trains in Westward Ho! (There is something about that mod that has a special place in my heart!)

    I do agree that it probably needs work and tweaking and more documenting. (although with the tutorial popups I think this is actually one of the better documented features)

    But overall I think it is a really great part, that just needs even more love in the future to make it really stand out.

    Obviously with strong and important reasons to build all three types.

    Towns for long term development and economic growth becoming the (pre-industrial) industrial sites, with 'factories' and strong merchant classes.

    Monasteries for early knowledge and raw resources but stagnating in the late game.

    Outposts for defense and military developments with increased combat yield outputs and the strongest walls and unit creation.

    I already have lots of plans for city types for VIE and (ah maybe someday) WHM.

    So once again I would be gutted to see them lost. I do as always love the idea of seeing them become more XML friendly!
     
  9. Nightinggale

    Nightinggale Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,001
    Ok, lets say we make citytypes into some xml only feature. What would be needed? Professions should set which citytype they make. Buildings can require citytypes to be possible to build. Anything else?

    That would precisely be a reason why citytypes can be gamebreaking. If one type is good early on and poor later, then the player would have to switch types, but... that's just not possible. Particularly the concept of cities not possible to build early on is an issue. Once you can build them, you already covered your section of the map with cities, making it tricky to find vacant land where it makes sense to add the new type.

    Maybe we should add a building, which rather than adding a building will change the city type. Actually why not just make the city type a building? As buildings can depend on other buildings, adding a number of buildings where only one can be present would be the same as deciding which citytype to use by selecting a building. If we add the ability to tear down a specific building and all the buildings having that one as requirement, then we will also open for changing city type, though it will require a lot of construction to do so.

    The benefit of using the building approach is that all we need to do is to add the building NOT list to the dll and the rest will be pure xml. Adding the ability to tear down buildings would be a new feature, but it could be useful for multiple purposes. Moving city types to xml is a major task, which requires a whole lot more coding.
     
  10. Kailric

    Kailric Jack of All Trades

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,094
    Location:
    Marooned, Y'isrumgone
    I Agree with you on both accounts.

    I am having similar thoughts. Also, all Col players are familiar with the setup of building your city infrastructure from within the city and also using improvements outside the city. So we should stick with those concepts for now (plus there is the pedia pages for buildings and improvements which makes learning their abilities easy). The center building can determine which direction the player wants to take, with the center building having branches the player can choose from. Doing a little research I've come up with this...

    Village Hall: all your settlements start with a village hall with upgrades from there.
    But at some point they can choose between three final center administrative building types. Perhaps...

    Guild Hall- Allows you to focus on trade and commerce
    Cathedral- Allows you to focus on Religion and Research
    Citadel- Allows you to focus on military and defense

    Each Administrative building can unlock its own unique buildings the player can build as well. Also, you may can simply build over a center building to change the city's focus, however this would cause issues with the mentioned unlocked buildings which perhaps would become unusable.

    I looked up the difference between a Citadel and a Castle and there is quite a big difference. A Citadel is the core fortified area of a town or city and it means "little city", while Castles where mostly homes for nobility. Citadels where not always homes of nobility and could also be used for public defense, so it fits here quite nicely. A change like this would mostly be XML code work so I think it could fit into next release, however we do need a fully thought out Administrative tree players can work through.

    I like the idea of Corruption and it is why I added the Law yield, however it needs a focused expansion of its own to be done right, so it will have to come later. The thing about bonuses in M:C or Col for that matter is that they don't add much, like a +1, so there isn't a need to hunt them down at the moment. In Civ4 there was a huge need as they unlocked new techs and allowed you make deals. So what could be the reason to acquire these bonuses, or build these improvements?

    To start with there could be 2 or 3 unique improvements that players can toy with: Monasteries, Outposts, and perhaps Castles.

    Outposts: well these could simply be the first tier of the Stronghold improvements. They allow your troops to rest, add defense, as well as perhaps train your troops and do auto patrols for Bandits and wild animals.

    Monasteries: could be super farms adding to in city production, but require a Bonus to be present in order to be built. Perhaps only built by Monks, which consumes the Monk, like a missionary in native villages. There should be extra added bonuses as well. Perhaps there could be a chance for a random unit to spawn at a Monastery from time to time. The unit could be a Benedict Monk, or a (special) Wagon load of some good(s) produced at the monastery, perhaps a Bonus to research, or perhaps discover a new Tech altogether. They could also help strengthen relations with the local tribesmen, depending on how susceptible the locals are to religion.

    Castles: Building on the idea that Castles where homes of nobility, a Castle could require a Nobleman in order to be built, which consumes the Noble. They would offer strategic defense bonuses for starters, with yield bonuses similar to Strongholds. Offer better auto hunts. Then perhaps offer a chance at a random unit as well such as a Page, Squire, Noble, or even some Clergy man as many times extra siblings where sent off to monasteries as not to cause trouble with the first born son. They could also help to expand your borders, faster than you could by founding a village and attempting to build up the infrastructure. They could also help with local relations, or help keep the peace at least.

    That's some ideas to start with...

    Yes, this is true. I've learned a bunch about aspect ratio of late so perhaps my new found knowledge can benefit in this area.
     
  11. Kailric

    Kailric Jack of All Trades

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,094
    Location:
    Marooned, Y'isrumgone
    Yeah, Night and I are on the same trail here. I posted my post above before I read you guys last two posts.:goodjob:
     
  12. Lib.Spi't

    Lib.Spi't Overlord of the Wasteland

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,672
    Location:
    UK
    I am all for looking at and modifying the implementation of the city types, I just wanted to say that I think it is a good and fun system.

    As to the 'can't undo monasteries' I found this to be a strategic element of the game, where you have to evolve a decision about whether to surge ahead in the early game with monasteries under threat of being left behind later, or go slower and capitalise more on late game advances.

    The other thing could one day be the implementation of some kind of reformation edict that sees your monasteries destroyed for money or somehow replaced. :p
     
  13. Nightinggale

    Nightinggale Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,001
    I disagree that xml is "free" work as in we can just do it before next release. Setup isn't instant and it needs to be play tested to ensure that it will not hurt gameplay or game balance.

    I just had an idea, which deals with bonuses and works towards preventing extreme expansion at the same time. Plotgroups can count the number of each bonus they have. I disabled the code for now at compiletime because it isn't used, but it's there and can be activated by adding just a single define.

    We can make bonuses provide production bonuses, not only to the plot, but to all cities in the plotgroup. The bonus would then be xml value * num bonuses in plotgroup/num cities, capped at the xml value (3 bonuses and a single city will not give +300%). This will make it interesting to spread cultural influence and add improvements to bonuses you can't reach from any city. At the same time you hurt your production each time you place an additional city, meaning it might not be worth it to build cities on poor locations even if they are free. Naturally the bonus should be big enough to matter, yet small enough not to break the game if you happen not to have any of the bonus you would like.

    The AI worker code should be expanded to connect all bonuses or it would be an unfair human advantage.

    I get your point, but at the same time it sucks to invent a new city type after you filled the land. Changing the type with a penalty (such as high hammer cost) counters this problem quite nicely.
     
  14. Lib.Spi't

    Lib.Spi't Overlord of the Wasteland

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,672
    Location:
    UK
    I do like the idea of being able to switch city types, with the fear of watching all those things that were before disappear along with it.

    The Monks have burnt down their weaving shop in protest of the loss of their monastery!! :trouble:
     
  15. Kailric

    Kailric Jack of All Trades

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,094
    Location:
    Marooned, Y'isrumgone
    Well, currently the game is unbalanced as you say it is best to just plant Monasteries to gain the advantage of massed research. For next release I say we shoot for more than just "stable" but a more balanced game. The "Citytype" can be defined by what types of buildings the player constructs instead of what unit founded the city. It can be a gradual change so that you can't just mass build research bases to gain an advantage. Perhaps the player is confronted early on with choices that will determine the type of city, say in order to have an Administrative Religious/Research center you will have build a Cathedral (which historically this fits as well as these buildings and the clergy that resided in them often ruled large areas). But in order to build a Cathedral you need other optional prerequisite buildings. There could be two spots on the city screen where these optional buildings are built. You can Research to build several types of these but you have to plan on what type of final administrative building you want so that you meet its requirements.

    Once the main administrative building is built you still have the option to over right its prerequisite buildings in order to change the city's focus, however, if a prerequisite building is removed it greatly reduces the administrative buildings effect. Say a Cathedral requires a Library, the Library could give a bonus to Cathedrals so when the Library is removed the bonus is removed thus diminishing the Cathedral's effect. This would make it so you still have to plan your cities early on or have to face massive reconstruction costs, but at the same time it doesn't lock in the focus of the city.


    I'll have to wrap my head around this some more, but I think you are on to something. I have already added AI code to make them start to build roads and I believe they take bonuses into consideration as well.


    There could be a Civic that allows you to reconstruct your cities. Like Sovereignty could allow you to change the city without protests as it would upset people to see their work place melted down in exchange of another.
     
  16. Kailric

    Kailric Jack of All Trades

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,094
    Location:
    Marooned, Y'isrumgone
    Here is another thought I had regarding citytypes and Civics at some later date... some Civics could require a Certain amount of city types. Like Ecclesiastical could require 2 Religious Centers, or Feudalism could require 2 Militaristic.
     
  17. Nightinggale

    Nightinggale Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,001
    Then what would happen if you go below that number? You could lose cities in war or change them (if type becomes changeable).

    I thought about the plotgroup bonuses and how to encourage to develop cities rather than just expand wildly. I came up with the idea to add a new field to building info, which would provide extra working slots as the city increase in size. A building could then have 2 slots + 1 for every 5 population, possibly with a max cap. This might be a good idea for research as it would really counter the "build 5 cities with just researchers" exploit.

    The core idea should be fairly easy to code, but I'm not sure how the game will react to changing the number of working slots while you are in the city screen. Particularly I wonder what would happen if you move a unit out and a used slot goes away. What happens to the unit in that slot? Getting it to work well might require a whole lot more effort than just getting it to work.
     
  18. Kailric

    Kailric Jack of All Trades

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,094
    Location:
    Marooned, Y'isrumgone
    There have been other versions of Civ or mods that required a number of buildings and such for certain benefits so this has been done. The rule would simply be that the requirement is to Reach the amount, not to maintain it.

    I think your on to something here too. We've been having some really great ideas lately. We can easily add code that will update the Worker Slots as needed. The code updates the entire city screen actually, but we can add code the only updates the work slots if we want to. The great thing is we have full access to the python so we can add what ever we want there.

    This idea could go a long way to stopping the all out city sprawl. We could focus on ideas such as these that speed up city building and encourage players to spend time on their first cities instead of spawning more.

    I'm thinking though, that additional worker slots wouldn't start to benefit a whole lot until later in the game, unless we reduce worker slots as it is now. But perhaps there could be other benefits to keeping the population increasing. Over the coming days I'll be play testing and thinking on such matters.
     
  19. Nightinggale

    Nightinggale Chieftain Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,001
    Sure we should reduce worker slots if we add some depending on population. We could make research slots to be 0 + 1 for every 4 population. That would require a population of 12 to get the current 3 slots, but at the same time the giant city with 20 people can have 5 researchers.
     
  20. Lib.Spi't

    Lib.Spi't Overlord of the Wasteland

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,672
    Location:
    UK
    Could this same effect not just be achieved with a building prereq system?

    So all village buildings start with 1 slot, then at pop 5 you unlock town buildings which have 2 slots and 15 is city buildings, etc. whatever. (These buildings would also produce more, so having 1 Town is better than 3 Villages or whatever.)

    If you also shift it so that buildings take a lot of hammers (and therefore a big gold purchase) and shift carpenter's buidings to produce more hammers (So if you have staffed carpenter buildings everything takes a 'nice' amount of time, but without one they take forever and cost a fortune just to buy out.)

    Would that not be a quicker, simpler and less potentially frought system?

    We have a prereqpopsize tag in FTTW for both buildings and units, so that only larger cities can produce the best stuff.

    This seems like a more 'realistic' (such a pointless word in Civ/Col Discussions :D) solution.

    If the scenario is to stop 'spamming' you would have to increase your city size, and invest in that cities structures, if you then emptied the city to spam villages, all those buildings and investments would be sitting wasted, but they would not magically shrink just because no one is there.

    But like I say it would avoid (I would think) many potential problems.

    Tech could then simply unlock the Town/City/Whatever size buildings.

    It would achieve the same goal of 'investor encouragement' though wouldn't it?
     

Share This Page