Diverting City Production

[warpstorm]

Originally posted by yoshi

I can't speak for most , but personally I rather dislike having to suffer the consequences of building a city in the wrong place for the entire game.

Here is where I differ in opinion with you, yoshi. A poor city placement should haunt you the rest of the game. City placement is one of the crucial strategic decisions in the game. Anything that lowers the strategic impact of this would be a bad thing IMHO.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Heh. Yeah, it's just that I'm really keen on this one as it would really enhance the strategic element of city production; i.e. cities would not be limited the output of their own tiles and small strategiccites could be beefed up as they well should be. (I notice you didn't mention anything about that strategic element which is one of the main justifications for this 'idea.')

If by easier, you mean less limited in terms of city-related strategy then yes, this will make the game easier. When you say skill and strategy, are you referring to the placment of cities? Because that's the only strategic element that would be degraded by 'diverting.' As I said in a previous post, the fact that you have to suffer as a result of settling in the wrong place is absurd --putting aside a map where there aren't enough good tiles anywhere (desert). Reality doesn't work that way so why should Civ3 if it can be changed?

You would have more micromanaging to do, which I guess could increase the quantity of strategy, but not the quality. I prefer quality over quantity. You lose the need for building cities in 'just the right spot', and all that would matter is that you get as many tiles under your control. Currently, there is certain trade-offs depending on exactly where you put your city. With your idea, you lose all of these trade-offs.

Why shouldn't you suffer for building in the wrong spot? Give me a better reason than realism. Realism is the worst excuse, because with realism then the game would never let you get past 3900 BC as a leader never controls an empire for more than 100 years. In fact, I could say that suffering from poor city placement IS realism. In reality, whole cities are WIPED OUT by being built in the wrong spot, which is much worse than simply not producing many shields (for example: Pompeii being built near a volcano, cities being flooded by being built in low-lying areas).

CTP had some form of trading resources or something between cities. I found the format too confusing and for the most part ignored that aspect of the game. Players want a game that is challenging, but easy to understand how to play.

but personally I rather dislike having to suffer the consequences of building a city in the wrong place for the entire game.

Ever hear the phrase, "Location, location, location". Also there is the handy option called "abandon city".

With your idea there is less of a need to explore in the early game and scouts (and the expansionists trait) are even less powerful. Send those exploring units out to uncover as much of the map as possible, so you don't build cities in the wrong spot.

Initially, I thought Civ3 was a work in progress where they would gradually phase in new stuff that is reallly above and beyond anything in Civ2 (like diverting shields, for instance), but two expansions later that does not seem to be the case. Judging by the progress of Civ3 thus far, I think I could post ideas like this till the cows come home and would probably never get a response, let alone have it considered for inclusion into the next expansion. Civ3 is not a leap from Civ2, let's face it. It's a souped up copy of it. The engine may be different, but the rules, concepts, ect. remain all to familiar. No BIG changes (like diverting production, for instance) have been made, nor does there seem to be any interest on the part of designers to go in that direction.

Really? I keep hearing how Civ2 was so easy and exploitable. There have been plenty of BIG changes, but I guess it's just not the things YOU want (some of which would make the game easier for the human). Where is the strategy in "oh, I need 40 shields this turn and the city is producing 45 shields, so I'll just divert 5 shields to another city"? That's tedium and extra work, not strategy.

Going from Civ2 to civ3 (and then to Civ4) are sequals and the program/code is an entire re-write, and there are many changes. Although there is a huge change, you have to keep some of the ideas/concepts to keep in tradition with the 'civ series'. Going from one sequal to another shouldn't be like going from CTP to Civ.

Going from Civ3 to PTW, etc. is an expansion and is just taking the Civ3 code and making a few additions/changes. The majority of the major changes were started on months ago, because it takes that long to make those major changes. Programming those major changes is more difficult than you seem to think it is.

Even some of the rule changes will be drastic that some may call it Civ4, because they will have to change some of their strategies.

Clearly it won't but that certainly isn't because these issues failed to be addressed (by players at least). As you said, the idea of transferring production/food has been brought up many times in the past. That goes for a good many other equally reasonable things that are not in Conquests (or it's never been mentioned once). Yet they seem to have the budget to dedicate to plenty of useless scenarios.

Just because players want it, doesn't mean it HAS to be in there. I'll admit that I liked the idea of food transferring as I hate having cities with an odd number of food, or those cities in mountains/hills being so limited in size. But then I realized what a super-powerhouse a size 20 city working all mountains would be. Which city do you think will build every wonder?

People wanted scenarios and they are getting them. Sure, not everyone wants scenarios (I don't like scenarios either, because to me they are boring after you've played them once or twice since you know the map and everything). I wouldn't call them useless, because they satisfy a certain portion of the players. And the important thing is that the features in those scenarios can be used by mod-makers to add into their own mods/scenarios, and some of the features are added into the standard random map games, so it adds value to everyone's game, from the mod players to random map players.

Sorry, I forgot about one thing. Part of the reason for being able to divert shields is so that little cities in remote regions can build units, defenses, ect.

And what's wrong with your core cities building the units and sending them where they are needed? Why does that distant city NEED to produce military?

You already can divert production to a certain extent.
1. Build wealth and then use the gold to rush things.
2. Build units, send them to another city and then disband the unit for shields.
You can divert population by building workers/settlers and then using the 'join city' command.

 

[yoshi]

what did you think of my idea...of creating a pool of resources/shields/food connected by road or railroad

Pooling resources using that method seems to be a little too elaborate for CIV's simple interace.

a. All cities connected with roads should have access to half the food, resources, and shields that are extra and available from all surrounding cities.

This is essentially what Diverting Production is about --with some differences (I'll get to that).

A poor city placement should haunt you the rest of the game. City placement is one of the crucial strategic decisions in the game.

In my opinion anything that 'haunts' you shouldn't be considered a good thing, but I'll address this in my reply to Bamspeedy.

You would have more micromanaging to do, which I guess could increase the quantity of strategy, but not the quality.

When I said Diverting shields/food would be as easy as using the 'Go To' order, I was referring to the interface (which is simplicity itself), not the program mechanics (which are something the player does not see anyway). Also keep in mind that Diverting Production would be accompanied by a cost in gold per turn of use, thus a player would only want to use this when very necessary. There would also a limit to the amount of Shields /Food that could be transferred, but I'll get to that.
I agree, good city placement should play a role in CIV's strategy, but it should be a minor one --by no means a method of 'haunting' the player; just essential enough to force the player to put a little thought into placement, but not so much as to be mathematically linked to a player's success overall. Diverting Production is, in part, meant to give a degree of flexibility to this. The actual strategic nature of Diverting Porduction lies more in the general geographical location of cities, not their exact placement in relation to tiles.

You lose the need for building cities in 'just the right spot', and all that would matter is that you get as many tiles under your control. Currently, there is certain trade-offs depending on exactly where you put your city. With your idea, you lose all of these trade-offs.

I agree, good city placement should play a role in CIV's strategy, but it should be a minor one --by no means a method of 'haunting' the player; just essential enough to force the player to put a little thought into placement, but not so much as to be mathematically linked to a player's success overall. Diverting Production is, in part, meant to give a degree of flexibility to this, not to eliminate to eliminate it altogether.

The actual strategic nature of Diverting Porduction lies more in the general geographical location of cities, not their exact placement in relation to tiles.
Fisrtly, let m The actual strategic nature of Diverting Porduction lies more in the general geographical location of cities, not their exact placement in relation to tiles.
I'll use the example of Murmansk again (primary Russian naval port/ship yard). As Civ3 is, Murmansk is unable to build naval units the way it does in reality --without adding special high production tiles around it which would only apply to scenarios and not the core game. Why? Because it is in a northern region that has few shields, let alone enough food to maintain the Citizens needed to use the necessary production tiles. Althogh the 'reality' arguement may not be relevant to CIV in other cases, it is here. Without Diverting Shields to Murmansk (as is the case with the city in reality), it's strategic purpose is partially nullified.
Now you say, "then what's to prevent you from diverting food in addition to shields to Murmansk and turning it into a mega-city?" This is not something I addressed properly before. There would be a clear limit to the amount of Shileds/Food Diverted to a city. Earlier, it was suggested that it be a percentage of the shileds form eachselected city. On further consideration (also based on the issues you have raised), this would distort the city/tile relationship too much.

The most logical system would seem to be setting a limit (through the Editor) of x shields/food that could be diverted per city. Combined with the fact that it costs gold per turn per transfer, doing this too many times would be quite costly, if not unaffordable --Communist govts. would only pay 50%(?). The problem is that Food and Shields cannot be equal as Diverting the same amount of Food as Shields would have the effect of either transferring more than the surplus Food of a city (which is not a lot) or transferring too few shields, depending on the set amount. That is, if you set the transferable limit to 2 then you can only transfer 2 Food or 2 Shields for 2 gold. Food would be too much if transferred by multiple cities and shields would be too few if transferred by a couple of cities. Really, the problem is with the Food allowing a city like Murmansk to grow to the size of a city like Moscow. I guess the simplest solution here would be to set a limit on the total amount of Food (and a seperate setting for Shields, that would logically be higher) that can be diverted to 1 city.

I keep hearing how Civ2 was so easy and exploitable.

I was. Civ3 is not as much so, but is more tedious; i.e. it's more time-consuming but not really that much more challenging. (And almost as boring --the long turns certainly don't help.)

...and there are many changes.

From the gameplay point of view, Civ3 is not a big improvement --I'm taking what the game needs and the time-frame involved into account, not just what was changed from Civ2. Certainly the function of Cities is one of the things that has been changed the least.

Just because players want it, doesn't mean it HAS to be in there.

Yes, that's up to the developer. But there is a degree of consences between player/developer --especially where CIV is concerned. If something will enhance gameplay (like diverting production) and do what other games don't (thus attracting more players = more sales), then there is little reason not to opt for new stuff. I think there is a degree of nostalgia invloved where anything really new, no matter how reasonable, will be rejected because it deviates from the original too much for civfanatics. Personally, I'm not a fantic of CIV, I'm just someone who likes a quality game, found one, and now has good reason to expect more of the same kind of innovative thinking that started it all. Unfortuately, Civ3 is not innovative. There is little in it that you can't find in other games, and plenty that isn't in it (that should be) that IS in other less innovative titles. Many players have asked for new stuff that is appropriate to this title but few have been satisfied (or they got a half-assed version of what they asked for). Whether budget constraints are to blame is debatable. But I don't want to get into this arguement as it has been done and this thread is only meant about the 'Diverting Production' concept --sorry for the rant.

Which city do you think will build every wonder?

This is due to the over-simplification of Wonders, not cities.

And what's wrong with your core cities building the units and sending them where they are needed? Why does that distant city NEED to produce military?

In the case of naval units, the need for this should be clear (see the Murmansk example). In other cases, it is more for infrastructure, like building an expensive improvement in a small city for instance.

You already can divert production to a certain extent.

That's a good one.

You would need to change the whole city production process.

Good thing you brought that up. What about counting the shields as 'diverted' before the change of turn? I'm sure Civ3's designers could come up witht the most appropriate solution --afterall that's what they're paid for.

 

[Bamspeedy]

In my opinion anything that 'haunts' you shouldn't be considered a good thing, but I'll address this in my reply to Bamspeedy.

Oh, so you want a game where there are no consequences of your actions? (or at least only short-term consequences).

If something will enhance gameplay (like diverting production)

Sorry, IMO, this would not improve gameplay.

In the case of naval units, the need for this should be clear (see the Murmansk example).

Coastal cities have a trade-off that requires strategy. Do you work the coastal tiles for lots of gold, or do you work the land tiles for shields/production. With your method you get the best of both worlds.

When I said Diverting shields/food would be as easy as using the 'Go To' order, I was referring to the interface (which is simplicity itself), not the program mechanics (which are something the player does not see anyway).

Yes, but I'm just saying what problems could arise from it and why it would require so much time because they would have to test this forwards, backwards, sideways, upside-down, etc. to make sure it always worked like it is supposed to.

What about the interface for showing YOU that the shields are being diverted from City A to City B? You only mentioned a pop-up for when you first tell it to divert the shields. What about later on when you want to re-look at where all your shields are going. They would have to re-design the F1 screen, city view screen, etc.

Combined with the fact that it costs gold per turn per transfer, doing this too many times would be quite costly, if not unaffordable --

Um, tell me again why you don't just use the gold to rush things in that city instead of paying gold to divert the shields? Seems redundant.

 

[Spacedog]

Originally posted by Aussie_Lurker
Great idea Yoshi, and one which would be especially good for the 'Age of Sail' C3C scenario !!! After all, aside from population pressures, the European powers also settled the "New World" in order to exploit its VAST natural resources, like timber and minerals-much of this went back to the relatively resource-starved cities of Europe!!!

Speaking of timber, shouldn't boats in the Middle Ages (Frigate, Caravel, etc.) require forests (i.e. timber) to build?

[From www.wikipedia.com] While every nation has trees and wood, ship timber is a far more limited product. The ideal woods were oak and spruce, and large trees were required. The British shipping industry, by the late seventeenth century, became utterly dependent upon imports of Baltic timber.

This sure would make forest tiles more valuable, and timber could be a tradeable commodity. Is this something that can be modded with the editor?

The best way I could see the maximum transfer rates working, for both food and production, would be to have 1-2 techs, per age, which gradually increase the maximum amount of shields/food you can move about.
For example, in the Ancient Age, you might only be able to divert 2 shields, and no food, out of your cities. When you gain a specific tech, this might increase to 4 shields/0 food. Then 8 shields/2 food, 16 shields/4 food and so on-into the modern age!!

Actually, I think it should be the other way around. It would be much easier to transport food between cities than it would be to transfer production, especially in Ancient Times. Food would be transported in pottery. The transfer of production, which was mostly manual labor, especially in Ancient Times and Middle Ages, would require moving people from one city to another, and that you can already do in the game.

In order to transport food, you should be required to have Pottery and the cities must be connected by roads or harbors. It should also cost you two food to transport one (in other words, you ship two food, but one gets lost/spoiled during transit). The Wheel should increase the number of food you can transport between cities (say from 1 to 2). Railroads should also increase the amount of food you can transport, perhaps even making it unlimited, provided the two cities are connected by railroads (though it should still cost you 2 for 1). The city manager could even handle this automatically by transferring food from a city with a surplus to one that doesn't have enough. I also like the idea of it costing you gold to transport food (shipping companies do like to get paid).

Transferring production, without transferring laborers/people, should come much later and require railroads and Industrialization. This would be similar to how cars are built in the U.S. using transmissions built in Canada. Perhaps this could also cost you 2 for 1 in addition to gold.

Originally posted by bamspeedy
I'll admit that I liked the idea of food transferring as I hate having cities with an odd number of food, or those cities in mountains/hills being so limited in size. But then I realized what a super-powerhouse a size 20 city working all mountains would be. Which city do you think will build every wonder?

Yes, but you would have to do a lot of planning to get a city in the mountains that large. You would have to have a lot of other cities producing a lot of extra food in order to support that one city. And if they are producing mostly food, then they are not producing many shields of their own and, thus, would not be able to produce city improvements or units. They would, in turn, be dependent on other cities to provide units for defense. Plus, you could always prohibit using transferred shields to produce Wonders, just like you can't hurry production on Wonders.

Spacedog

 

[brianshapiro]

yoshi

i suggested the pool idea because it seems to me having different routes for diverting production would become too much for the player to memorize and manage, one of the reasons i think caravans were taken out. how would you propose it be done so it be simple?

brian

 

[Bamspeedy]

Yes, but you would have to do a lot of planning to get a city in the mountains that large. You would have to have a lot of other cities producing a lot of extra food in order to support that one city. And if they are producing mostly food, then they are not producing many shields of their own and, thus, would not be able to produce city improvements or units. They would, in turn, be dependent on other cities to provide units for defense. Plus, you could always prohibit using transferred shields to produce Wonders, just like you can't hurry production on Wonders.

What else would I do with those 'floodplain cities'? They have lots of food, but little to no shields.

How about when all your cities are maxed out in size, yet they are still producing 2 extra food even though everything is mined (no hills/mountains to work for example). Every city diverting 2 food to the all-mountain city would easily get you that super-city. Heck, you would only need 11 of them to do this pre-hospitals, and they wouldn't even need to be maxed out in size, just irrigate an extra tile or two.

Speaking of timber, shouldn't boats in the Middle Ages (Frigate, Caravel, etc.) require forests (i.e. timber) to build?

The DyP (Double Your Pleasure) mod used to have 'timber' as a strategic resource. Don't know if it still does or not. They had problems with the AI not building any ships at all (ships that required resources), and they think at least part of the problem was that ships were requiring too many resources (some ships needed 3 resources) for the AI to get a hold of (and some AI not having timber).

So yes, you could add timber as a resource and have it only appear on forests. But the AI has the nasty habit of chopping down all the forests (except on tundra), so if timber is going to 'deplete', then the AI will suffer.

 

[yoshi]

Oh, so you want a game where there are no consequences of your actions? (or at least only short-term consequences).

Diverting Production does not have that result for reasons I have already outlined.

Sorry, IMO, this would not improve gameplay.

I think I also mentioned something concerning supply routes at beginning of this thread. Esentially, Roads must connect cities transferring production thus they can be blocked by the enemy resulting in the crippling of dependent cities. This would definitely make gameplay more strategic. I can't see how good city placement is so important that to include Diverting Production into the game would cause Civ3's gameplay to worsten. Nothing you have said thus far indicates that this would not improve gameplay. Granted it will change gameplay, but why not for the better?

With your method you get the best of both worlds.

Your point is clear, but there is nothing in it that makes Diverting Production out to be a bad thing.
I'm going to use the 'reality arguement' because supposedly this game is based on it: in reality, cities are not exclusively dependent on the output of their surrounding territory. It applies directly to the game in that cities on islands, thin strips of land, ect. are not limited to that. The case of Japan is a very good example of this. Another example is Britain during the peak of it's empirial power. In Civ3, civ occupying limited land suffer thus the only hope they have of survival is to expand. Reality is like this with one exeption: in reality resources plundered from conquered territory is sent ('diverted') back to the mother country allowing her to flurish --not so in Civ3.

Yes, but I'm just saying what problems could arise from it and why it would require so much time because they would have to test this forwards, backwards, sideways, upside-down, etc. to make sure it always worked like it is supposed to.

That's what designers do (and play-testers for that matter) so it will be the case for every aspect of the game. No arguement.

What about later on when you want to re-look at where all your shields are going. They would have to re-design the F1 screen, city view screen, etc.

I should think the F1 screen wouldn't have to change in any significant way except that if a city is diverting production or having it diverted to it, then you just have a the name of the giver/reciever city in small letters next to it. What's the big deal?

Um, tell me again why you don't just use the gold to rush things in that city instead of paying gold to divert the shields? Seems redundant.

Firstly, certain governments don't have this option (they have the 'Forced Labour' option, which I think could use some work...but never mind).
Secondly, this doesn't include Food, so if you can transfer one you might as well include the other.
Thirdly, the strategic 'supply route' element is lost.
Fourthly, shields and gold are not the same. Nor are they equally expensive. Building a Battleship in a city with low production is a HUGE cost in gold. Diverted Production (especially if combined with multiple cities will cost you far less). It would have the additional effect of equalizing production-based Communism with Commerce-based Democracy; i.e. Democracies no onger have the advantage of being able to buying units/improvements in these small cities whereas the Commies have to lose citizens --which is probably not an option in small cities.
Fifthly, the 'island civ' example I gave above.
There are reasons for this. It isn't redundant.

This sure would make forest tiles more valuable, and timber could be a tradeable commodity. Is this something that can be modded with the editor?

Wood as a Strategic Resource for wooden ship units? Why not?
I'll tie in your post to the rest of the thread: shields could be diverted from cities with high-production tiles such as Forest.

In order to transport food, you should be required to have Pottery...

Having a tech requirement for Diverting Food would give the civs with this tech too much of an advantage, as their cities could grow much faster --would unbalance the game. That said, there should be the OPTION of setting a prerequisite for both diverting food and shields (this has applications in scenarios and for players who want to play without Diverting Production by just not making it available) --I really dislike hard-coded characteristics and I think that every aspect of the Rules should be moddable.

Transferring production, without transferring laborers/people, should come much later and require railroads and Industrialization.

Transferring of labour has been a reality almost as long as Food trade has --think of the building of the Pyramids in Egypt.
Perhaps connecting cities with Railroads would double the number of shields transferred or something --representing industrial revolution. Nice.

And if they are producing mostly food, then they are not producing many shields of their own and, thus, would not be able to produce city improvements or units.

Diverting Food only means that the giver city has (2?) less than its Food tiles provide it with. Shields would be unaffected.

Plus, you could always prohibit using transferred shields to produce Wonders, just like you can't hurry production on Wonders.

Again, think of the Pyramids. Actually, one of the reasons for Diverting Shields is so as to partially reproduce the effect of Caravans contributing to Wonders in Civ2.

 

[Bamspeedy]

That's what designers do (and play-testers for that matter) so it will be the case for every aspect of the game. No arguement.

I'm not argueing that aspect. But the designers and testers need TIME! The beta testing is nearly completely over. Too late for your radical changes. I guess there might possibly be enough time to program in a major change, but then there would be NO time to test that new feature. I don't think anyone wants them to add in a feature that may not even work. It would give more people something to gripe about ("oh no! look I found another bug!").

Diverting Production does not have that result for reasons I have already outlined.

You have no long-term consequences. Just plop down a city anywhere and eventually it will be just as productive as if you built it anywhere else nearby. As for realism, if you don't build your business (certain industries anyways) in the best location, it is not quite as efficient. You should be rewarded for building in the best location.

I think I also mentioned something concerning supply routes at beginning of this thread. Esentially, Roads must connect cities transferring production thus they can be blocked by the enemy resulting in the crippling of dependent cities. This would definitely make gameplay more strategic. I can't see how good city placement is so important that to include Diverting Production into the game would cause Civ3's gameplay to worsten. Nothing you have said thus far indicates that this would not improve gameplay. Granted it will change gameplay, but why not for the better?

There already is an incentive to cut off their trade routes (roads), because of strategic resources and luxuries. Being connected to the capital by roads also reduces corruption. I feel this would not add to gameplay because it does nothing but give the human more of an advantage (because the human would divert the shields more INTELLIGENTLY than the AI), and increases micromanagement (which not too many players want).

I should think the F1 screen wouldn't have to change in any significant way except that if a city is diverting production or having it diverted to it, then you just have a the name of the giver/reciever city in small letters next to it. What's the big deal?

You would need to have the name of the city the shields are coming from and the number of shields. Also the name of the city the food is coming from and how much. I think the screen would look pretty cluttered and crappy if you ask me. Still haven't mentioned how the city screen would handle this extra feature.

 

[yoshi]

i suggested the pool idea because it seems to me having different routes for diverting production would become too much for the player to memorize and manage, one of the reasons i think caravans were taken out. how would you propose it be done so it be simple?

The 'routes' for diverting production are only relevant if you take distance into account (i.e the further away the higher the cost). Instead of having unecessary pathfinding I think it would be easier to base it on distance of squares, regardless of movement.
The other option is to just make the cost the same for any distance and screw realism, even though I don't like the idea (strategy is also affected as distances are definitely a factor in colonialism). Pooling resources would be somewhat different from what you described as there can only be x # of food/shields transferred between cities (to x limit?). The real difficulty with DIverting Production is to keep it as simple as possible so that it doesn't involve too much micromanagment. I think the system I'm proposing could be even simpler but I can't think of how right off the bat. I try to base it on the already-existing Civ3 interface as much as possible.

What else would I do with those 'floodplain cities'? They have lots of food, but little to no shields.

You could divert shields from your 'mountain' city to your 'flood' city and vicerversa, thus they would both gain from the other's surplus. You would also want a 'cash' city to give you enough gold to keep the transfer going. That's really the difference between poor and rich civs: poor civ can't afford this option...just like in reality.

---------------------------------

So yes, you could add timber as a resource and have it only appear on forests. But the AI has the nasty habit of chopping down all the forests...

It's funny you should mention that.
Just the other day I was experimenting with a 'Lumber' unit in Civ2. I made it an immobile Barbarian air unit that could be attacked by a Special 'Worker' unit that could attack air. When the Worker destroys the Lumber, an expensive 'Raw Materials' unit would appear in your capital city. That unit could then be sent wherever and disbanded to create shields (the Civ2 eqivilant of diverting shields ).

 

[Bamspeedy]

You could divert shields from your 'mountain' city to your 'flood' city and vicerversa, thus they would both gain from the other's surplus. You would also want a 'cash' city to give you enough gold to keep the transfer going. That's really the difference between poor and rich civs: poor civ can't afford this option...just like in reality.

Best of both worlds again.

And this would cause the big civs to get more powerful and the small civs even weaker. If you want to say that is realism, then why isn't Canada or Russia more of a world super power than the U.S.?

Cities would be more 'clone-like' as they all would end up being the same.

 

[yoshi]

If you want to say that is realism, then why isn't Canada or Russia more of a world super power than the U.S.?

Canada's population is too small in proportion to its land mass and Russia is too poor. There are other reasons but Civ3 is not that specific --reality is just meant to provide a guideline, not to be taken literally.

Cities would be more 'clone-like' as they all would end up being the same.

You raise a good point. Clearly there is a need for a limitation on the number of shields that can be diverted to a single city in order to prevent 'cloning.' Although the cost of gold would prevent any but the richest civ from 'equalizing' many of it's cities, let's assume for the sake of arguement that gold is not an issue. Setting a limit would mean that big, productive cities would still have an advantage as they start out with more thus will always have more --assuming the maximum number of shields are diverted.
The same would go for food, only the limit would be lower so as to prevent the creation of big cities out of nothing.

I guess there might possibly be enough time to program in a major change, but then there would be NO time to test that new feature.

Yes I get it, there's no time for new stuff...no need to rub it in.

You should be rewarded for building in the best location.

This is where the limitation I mentioned above comes into it. Location would still be important as well-placed cities would ultimately be better off than others, only now bad or unavoidable city placement would not have such severe consequences. Alos remember that it would cost you to divert production.
But as I implied earlier, this is a minor reason for Diverting Production.

I feel this would not add to gameplay because it does nothing but give the human more of an advantage (because the human would divert the shields more INTELLIGENTLY than the AI), and increases micromanagement (which not too many players want).

As you said earlier, the AI already does most things less intelligently than most human players. What's one more thing? I would think that Diverting Production, being very mathematical would be a sinch for the AI, but then again who knows how the program would react? (Not worth contemplating really.)
You're very hooked on the micromanagement issue. Persoanlly, I HATE micromanagement and I try to make sure that the ideas I propose require as little of it as possible. I already went over the issue of micromanagement.

I think the screen would look pretty cluttered and crappy if you ask me. Still haven't mentioned how the city screen would handle this extra feature.

If designers were unable to find a way of keeping the F1 screen uncluttered, then they would probably resort to apop-up system like right-clicking on the city name or something; i.e. the simplest, most asthetic solution available.
As for the City screen, I can't see why it would be any more problematic than the F1 screen. I assume a similar solution would apply. These are really just details. Getting the concept to (hypothetically) function properly and as straightforwardly as possible, as well as getting it to meet the needs of the majority of players is the main problem.

 

[Spacedog]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
The DyP (Double Your Pleasure) mod used to have 'timber' as a strategic resource. Don't know if it still does or not. They had problems with the AI not building any ships at all (ships that required resources), and they think at least part of the problem was that ships were requiring too many resources (some ships needed 3 resources) for the AI to get a hold of (and some AI not having timber).

So yes, you could add timber as a resource and have it only appear on forests. But the AI has the nasty habit of chopping down all the forests (except on tundra), so if timber is going to 'deplete', then the AI will suffer.

I just think it odd that the "Age of Wooden Ships" requires iron instead of wood to make ships. There is even an old game called Wooden Ships and Iron Men, so I could see how it would require iron to create the men, but it should require wood to create the boats.

 

[Bamspeedy]

So, would you be willing to accept the fact that a civ might not be able to build some of these ships if they got stuck with no timber?

What ships would you include in this list?

Ships currently available in the middle ages:
Caravel-Astronomy-no resources
Galleon-Magnetism-no resources
Frigate-Magnetism-needs iron and saltpeter

If you add timber to frigate that is 3 resources and often the AI will have a hard time getting all 3 simultaneously (especially on more crowded maps), that it will be rare to see the AI build these.

If you add timber to caravel, do you want a civ stuck with just galleys (transport 2) all the way up until magnetism?

If you add timber to both caravels and galleons, then their next best transporting ship isn't until combustion!

 

[Spacedog]

Originally posted by yoshi
Having a tech requirement for Diverting Food would give the civs with this tech too much of an advantage, as their cities could grow much faster --would unbalance the game.

Pottery and The Wheel are some of the first Techs researched and come fairly early in the game, so I don't think it would give a civ an advantage for very long. Plus, if it is costly to transfer food (in lost food and gold) then it would not be something you would enter into without serious consideration. And in the beginning of the game, you are more concerned with building up the population of ALL your cities, so diverting food from one to another, would slow the growth of that city and probably not greatly increase the growth of the other.

The main thing I am trying to correct with the transfer of food is the situation where one city has too little food and people starving and another city has a surplus. Why can't I ship food from one city to another?

That said, there should be the OPTION of setting a prerequisite for both diverting food and shields (this has applications in scenarios and for players who want to play without Diverting Production by just not making it available) --I really dislike hard-coded characteristics and I think that every aspect of the Rules should be moddable.

Agreed. I was mainly thinking of the core game. I think most things should be moddable (is that a word?).

Transferring of labour has been a reality almost as long as Food trade has --think of the building of the Pyramids in Egypt.

The Pyramids were built by farmers who left their farms for months at a time and travelled to the location where the Pyramids were being built. You can already do this in the game (build a worker, move him to a new city and have him join that city).

Diverting Food only means that the giver city has (2?) less than its Food tiles provide it with. Shields would be unaffected.

Correct, except that if you irrigate a tile to produce more food, you can't mine it to produce more shields. So you are giving up the possibility of producing more shields in that city to produce more food. Plus, you would have to produce much more food than you need because you lose half in the transfer. Or perhaps it should cost 3 food to transport 1 (maybe the Hospital tech could reduce it to 2 for 1).

My point is that it should be costly to transfer food or shields, so you wouldn't do it all the time or without seriously considering the consequences, but it should be an option.

Spacedog

 

[Spacedog]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
So, would you be willing to accept the fact that a civ might not be able to build some of these ships if they got stuck with no timber?

What ships would you include in this list?

Ships currently available in the middle ages:
Caravel-Astronomy-no resources
Galleon-Magnetism-no resources
Frigate-Magnetism-needs iron and saltpeter

If you add timber to frigate that is 3 resources and often the AI will have a hard time getting all 3 simultaneously (especially on more crowded maps), that it will be rare to see the AI build these.

If you add timber to caravel, do you want a civ stuck with just galleys (transport 2) all the way up until magnetism?

If you add timber to both caravels and galleons, then their next best transporting ship isn't until combustion!

There are already many units that require certain resources (iron, oil, etc.) to build. No resource, no unit.

Besides, forest tiles, which is all that would be required, are much more plentiful than iron or oil. And since I suggested that timber be a tradeable commodity, if you did not have any forest tiles, you could either go find some, go take some from someone else, trade for timber, or do without boats. The British Navy, who ruled the waves for a few hundred years, was totally dependent on foreign sources of timber in the 17th and 18th centuries because they had already depleted their own forests. That was part of the reason they needed overseas colonies.

Caravels are still pretty small, so you could argue that you wouldn't need forests to build those. But Galleons and Frigates should definitely require forests. Huge trees were needed just to make the masts for these ships.

As for Frigates needing 3 resources to build, I would not require iron to build them, so it would still only need 2 resources. My point is that these boats were made out of wood, and yet it does not require wood to build them. Even though the USS Constitution is called "Old Ironsides," it was made out of wood, not iron. Ironclads would then be the first ship to require iron to build.

I guess the gamemakers were thinking that Frigates shoot iron cannon balls (hence they need iron and saltpeter to build), but I would be much more concerned with what the ship is actually made of than what it is shooting. It would be fairly easy to scrape together enough iron to make a cannon ball. It is something entirely different to come up with enough iron to build an entire ship.

Spacedog

 

[Bamspeedy]

There are already many units that require certain resources (iron, oil, etc.) to build. No resource, no unit.

Yes, but for game-balancing purposes, there are some units available for each time frame to give resource-less civs at least a chance. If all of those ships required timber, then a civ would have a galley as their best ship until the industrial age. But if you let caravels stay as not needing resources, then that isn't quite so bad.

I think they kept most of the transporting ships (except the transport) as not requiring resources for game balancing purposes. Everyone can transport their troops, but they need resources to have a real 'navy' (attack ships). If they don't have transports, it would be hard to get a settler off of your island to go claim the resources in the first place.

I understand your point about the frigates, but I don't think it's worth it to add a resource that is only going to be used for 1 or 2 units.

 

[yoshi]

What ships would you include in this list?

Smaller ones. Hold of 1 instead of 3. Seems a little specific for Civ3's core game though. If you do that, then you need to have the same balancing effect for groung units (e.g. if you can't build Muskeman then you build Milita which are weaker but require no resources). [What's with the ship talk all of a sudden?]

Pottery and The Wheel are some of the first Techs researched and come fairly early in the game, so I don't think it would give a civ an advantage for very long. Plus, if it is costly to transfer food (in lost food and gold) then it would not be something you would enter into without serious consideration. And in the beginning of the game, you are more concerned with building up the population of ALL your cities, so diverting food from one to another, would slow the growth of that city and probably not greatly increase the growth of the other.

It is precisely due to the fact that tose techs get discovered so early that it seems somewhat redundant to make 'Diverting' available through them.
Considering that there are quite a few Wonders that become available with early tech (if you don't get them to begin with), and how much of a difference those Wonders can make to a civ's development at that stage, the civ lucky enoughto get 'Diverting' tech could use this to divert shields to the city building the Wonder, whereas the other civs wouldn't.

Why can't I ship food from one city to another?

Exactly.

...moddable (is that a word?).

No. But then neither is 'mod.'

You can already do this in the game (build a worker, move him to a new city and have him join that city).

Although that would technically constitute sending 'shields' to another city, I was thinking more in terms of 'Diverting' shields, which would be simpler and allow your other cities to focus on building other things rather than Workers/Settlers. But you do make a good point and many civers have used this strategy to beef up Wonder-building cities.

Correct, except that if you irrigate a tile to produce more food, you can't mine it to produce more shields. So you are giving up the possibility of producing more shields in that city to produce more food.

The idea is that cities that have a surplus can send it to other needy cities --like one that would otherwise use its shields tiles but can't because it doesn't have enough Food/Citizens to do both.

Plus, you would have to produce much more food than you need because you lose half in the transfer. Or perhaps it should cost 3 food to transport 1 (maybe the Hospital tech could reduce it to 2 for 1).

I don't think I mentioned anything about that. Aside from the cost in gold, there is no penalty. Corruption still affects the shields/food once they 'arrive' though.

My point is that it should be costly to transfer food or shields, so you wouldn't do it all the time or without seriously considering the consequences, but it should be an option.

Yes, that's one of the limiting factors I mentioned earlier.

 

[slothman]

I still like the average corruption for both. I'm assuming that if corruption does affect it then only the destination city's corruption will be used.

 

[yoshi]

Yes. For simplicity, corruption would only affect the reciever's total shields --including the transferred shields-- 'following' the transfer (as opposer to during). Giver would be unaffected.