Cottages and Trading Posts

[Polobo]

I hate Trading Post spam so much, which is odd because I never hated cottage spam, though now that I think about it I kind of disliked it. Cities shouldn't cover the entire workable area. Even in the modern area I prefer to have a one tile city. I think it bothers me because it makes no logical sense to have multiple trading posts within a city radius. It's just nonsensical.

I'll definitely be looking for a mod to be rid of Trading Post spam.

Being raised in the Detroit metro area there were at least 8 "trading centers" in the greater geographic area - they are more commonly known as MALLS...

The main improvement I'd probably make would be to tie the construction of trading post to city population - though it is quite probable that most balanced cities will naturally tend toward a reasonable ratio anyway. Just think of a "trade spam" city as a major commerence center for the entire civ where merchants from all over come to trade; and also where the major guilds have their houses.

 

[Polobo]

My guess is one reason cottage spam was so prevalent was the need to "work" them in order to get any major benefit - thus you had to get as much up and working early. Since this is not the case in Civ5 you can wait to build a TP until you need it - and swapping it out for something else is not a huge loss like it was in Civ4.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Forests give Science eh?

The University (building) make sall worked Jungles produce 2 science. None of the un-improved terrain that we have seen produces science on its own.

And it's ALSO looking like you can flip tiles between city control!

2k Greg confirmed that you can switch which city works a given tile through the same mechanic as in Civ IV. There is no indication yet whether or not this changes which city "owns" the tile, which would be important should either city be captured.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I feel that trading posts themselves aren't as important as cottages were in Civ4 (under certain strategies). Since cities cost maintenance, cottage spam helped make up for over-expansion and keep your cities viable. Trading posts have no effect on the number of cities you have. You'll only need them if you need to make money.

That being said, there is a problem (at least with me) with "Worker boredom". I could see myself filling up every tile with trading posts unless I need it for a farm (although I'm just as likely to have farm spam, imo).

 

[Polobo]

That being said, there is a problem (at least with me) with "Worker boredom". I could see myself filling up every tile with trading posts unless I need it for a farm (although I'm just as likely to have farm spam, imo).

From what I've gathered worker boredom should be less of an issue simply because you should generally disband idle workers.

They "comparatively" cost less to build and have a maintenance cost so it should be advantageous to disband them and rebuild them later.

None of the above is confirmed, but combined with generally slower culture spread (so there are fewer tiles that can be improved) it should be possible - once you stop founding new cities - to gradually decrease the number of workers in the pool.

 

[Szpilman]

Also I believe I have heard workers no longer eat up food for producing. At least for me that makes it more accessible to produce late game, when production ain't really an issue but you'd still want to keep the city growing. For early game too, maybe.

 

[Kaldskryke]

<lurker mode off>
I read that improvements have a per-turn gold cost now, which I suppose means that spamming TPs before they can be Worked would be a bad idea. If a TP produces more gold than it consumes (how else would it work?) they'll still be attractive in the long run, but at least it won't be quite like Civ4 where I'd cottage all my grass or FP at the soonest convenience.

edit: found the quote from the Economic Advisor: "We are making money! Our current greatest expense is improvement maintenance, costing us 4 gold a turn. Only improve tiles that we must to continue growing, or this cost may grow out of control." Taken from this page.

 

[Set]

^I thought you only payed maintenance for roads however because she says improvement maintenace this would indicate otherwise

 

[KrikkitTwo]

^I thought you only payed maintenance for roads however because she says improvement maintenace this would indicate otherwise

Was answered in another thread, it is only roads+railroads.

However, the game could be modded for any Improvements to need maintenance, and that is why it is generic.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=375159

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9481840&postcount=27

added link to other thread

 

[Kaldskryke]

Was answered in another thread, it is only roads+railroads.

However, the game could be modded for any Improvements to need maintenance, and that is why it is generic.

Okay, sorry for not lurking moar. Link to this proof?

 

[Calouste]

From what I've gathered worker boredom should be less of an issue simply because you should generally disband idle workers.

They "comparatively" cost less to build and have a maintenance cost so it should be advantageous to disband them and rebuild them later.

None of the above is confirmed, but combined with generally slower culture spread (so there are fewer tiles that can be improved) it should be possible - once you stop founding new cities - to gradually decrease the number of workers in the pool.

I think you'll also build less workers because there is less to do. You don't need to build roads to connect resources for example. We don't even know if chopping still produces hammers, and in any case with the Lumbermill improvement available early and more tactical combat, it's probably better to leave forest up. Improvements also seem to add less value in a number of cases (+1 to a hill instead of 2 like it was in Civ4) for example, so working unimproved tiles might not be as bad as in Civ4, or at least might not be worth the investment in an extra worker.

 

[Disgustipated]

the more I think about it, the more I think the name should change along with the graphics. Maybe not have incremental gold increases as before. But a trading post in modern times? Trading post should evolve into suburbs or towns with accompanying graphics.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Changing the name would just be unnecessary confusion. However, if they do change the graphics, it'll be a reasonable compromise (hard core fans can rationalize that it represents something else by then, while less serious fans can go on building them without being confused by different names).

 

[Howard Mahler]

I do not like this change.

The cottage. etc. was a good innovation. Having one improvement that grew over time provided variety. It also required/rewarded some different type of planning and tradeoffs. Planning and tradeoffs are part of the reason why some of us play this type of game.

Were cottages/towns too powerful compared to other improvements in Civ IV?
I do not know.

If they were, one could tweak the balance.
Make the time for them to improve to each stage longer.
Other improvements increase with tach advances. One could have additional ways that some of these other improvements increase with tech advances to make them stronger compared to cottages.

Seems like yet another case of let's do something completely different because what we have may not be perfect.

With respect to the name change, couldn't care less.

 

[JonoLith]

Make the time for them to improve to each stage longer.

It seems to me that the amount of time invested was already too long. The problem was that losing an upgraded cottage was horrifically bad, because so much time had been invested into it. So, if there were to be any balance change, it would be to reduce the amount of time needed for it to upgrade, not lengthen it. And if you reduce it enough, then eventually the entire mechanic just becomes pointless.


And frankly, why is the Cottage the ONLY improvement that does this?

 

[mjs0]

Okay, sorry for not lurking moar. Link to this proof?

This is the statement from Greg:

Roads and railroads are the only improvements that cost per turn.

Railroads replace roads, and provide both benefits, so the total cost is 2, not 3.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Changing the name would just be unnecessary confusion. However, if they do change the graphics, it'll be a reasonable compromise (hard core fans can rationalize that it represents something else by then, while less serious fans can go on building them without being confused by different names).

They should change what the name is, but not throughout the game.

"Trade Center" sounds generic enough

 

[Szpilman]

"Trading center" would have been a much better naming choice from the get-go.

 

[Polobo]

The problem I had with the cottage mechanic was that simply working it cause it to grow. The only reason I can apply to that is that more people were flocking there; but then you are in effect competing with the true "city" for population; and if those people were to go to the actual city they would be nowhere near as productive. It seems contrived.

A better mechanic in Civ4 (and maybe even 5) would be to build "suburbs" that decrease unhappiness. It would not be worked as such but it would "grow" as a function of the total number of suburbs and the size of the attached city. Once it gets beyond a certain size it could not be "undone" but would begin to provide gold/commerce.

With the new system I just think of it like a large flea-market/farmers-market/exposition/mall. The graphics can and do change for each period though I do not have a reference to what they do look like in each (and it may change anyway).

 

[Rexflex]

Cottage spam in Civ IV was ugly, but not just because of the spam. When worked up to towns it was nothing but ugly city sprawl.

I'm still not fond of the trading post graphic being as crowded as it is (all be it less ugly) and would be happier with the spam if the trading post had fewer tents per hex.