Feedback: Units

[Simon_Jester]

This sounds like a good idea. I trust you to work out the details, get most of them right, then slowly correct the mistakes over the next three editions.

 

[Eucalyptus]

I'm thinking of adding a Colonist unit, which is an upgrade to the Settler much like the Labourer is the upgrade to the Worker. The Colonist would be unlocked at Urban Planning (early Renaissance), be more expensive to build but would found cities that have some basic infrastructure already. At the moment I'm thinking a Colonist founded city would get a free Granary, Smokehouse, Kiln, Well, and Harbour (if coastal).

Alternatively/additionally the Colonist could found cities that start at a larger size but I think this is less interesting than having free buildings and the ones listed above would ensure quick growth anyway. Any thoughts on this proposal?

Yes I do. This is an inspired idea!

Cost, transport

I imagine such a Colonist to be accompanied by many ships (Galleons!) full of accompanying (prefabricated!) building materials and tools. So, I'd like the list of included buildings to reflect those `transportable' on ships and those that are actually easy to build with the steel tools of the age. I hope that the build cost of the Colonist exactly equals that of a Settler plus all the included buildings. This makes Colonists a fair mechanism to transfer production from one location to another.

I'd like a single Colonist to occupy an entire Galleon (3 spaces, or 3/4 spaces on a Transport). Is this possible? I'd also like them to be captureable: Such valuable objects should be protected! (Could Galleons holding them be made capturable?)

Problems: Would the AI know to protect their Colonists? Would they build them at all when they were so expensive?


Building list

The proposed building list has a naturalness, except for the Harbour, which as a building has always been a little gamey --- real world harbours come in two flavours: free geographic formations obtained by winning settlement races (think Sydney Harbour) and later, expensive constructions (Rotterdam). Not including a Harbour would mean that the Colonist production cost, which would be independent of whether they later settle on a coast or inland, was fairer.

I also note that the list includes none of the buildings that I prioritise for later settlements --- those that generate production and food (a Kiln generates production only later). My initial builds are generally Tannery, Cemetery, Lighthouse (not necessarily in that order). Of these, I find it hard to imagine a Lighthouse being transported by ship, and a Cemetery should take some time to fill before it is recognisable as such. In contrast, a Tannery is more reasonable to include. Its presence would also ensure that a Colonist-founded city had some guaranteed basic production, which would improve playability.

So, in my opinion, a better building list is Granary, Smokehouse, Tannery, Kiln and Well.

Check: Are any of these unique? Would that generate idiosyncrasies?


Larger settlements

A Colonist could also settle a 2-population city, which would further improve startup time --- raise the production cost by that of a Settler. Perhaps this needs play testing: Include both a 1-Colonist and a 2-Colonist?


Nice side effect

As it is now, a civilization that wins the technology race to Galleons, can sometimes, with serious preparation (whew!), colonise all the isolated continents and oceanic islands before the competition even notices. If the Colonist superseded the Settler at the time that Galleons become available (or earlier?), then a high build cost for Colonist would help reduce the possibility of instant Empire-on-which-the-sun-never-sets.

 

[Skidizzle]

Yes I do. This is an inspired idea!

Cost, transport

I imagine such a Colonist to be accompanied by many ships (Galleons!) full of accompanying (prefabricated!) building materials and tools. So, I'd like the list of included buildings to reflect those `transportable' on ships and those that are actually easy to build with the steel tools of the age. I hope that the build cost of the Colonist exactly equals that of a Settler plus all the included buildings. This makes Colonists a fair mechanism to transfer production from one location to another.

I have a different idea I'd like to propose. Leave the settler unit as it is and have the colonist not be an upgrade, but rather a unit of its own that joins the city like a great person. Upon joining he would auto construct a tannery, smokehouse, granary, kiln and well. This leave you with a cheaper option if you have to quickly build a settler, and still gives us the ability to make more advanced colonies. Plus, it would have the added effect of taking up more cargo space on transports to represent the added materials for buildings.

I don't think that this unit should be capturable though. Unless its only as a worker like the settler. Unless its possible to have it found a city with half and half culture. Because it wouldn't make since for settlers/colonists to completely forsake their heritage and culture just because they're held at gunpoint.

 

[Eucalyptus]

I have a different idea I'd like to propose. Leave the settler unit as it is and have the colonist not be an upgrade, but rather a unit of its own that joins the city like a great person. Upon joining he would auto construct a tannery, smokehouse, granary, kiln and well. This leave you with a cheaper option if you have to quickly build a settler, and still gives us the ability to make more advanced colonies. Plus, it would have the added effect of taking up more cargo space on transports to represent the added materials for buildings.

This sounds like Australian history to me --- first claim as much land as possible using any 'settlers' available (to keep the French out!), and then later do some real building.

Can I call such a version of the colonist a "Supply Ship"? Indeed, separating the functions of Settler and Supply Ship would make colonization easier. However, it would also further facilitate the construction of my instant Empire-on-which-the-sun-never-sets.

I don't think that this unit should be capturable though. Unless its only as a worker like the settler. Unless its possible to have it found a city with half and half culture. Because it wouldn't make since for settlers/colonists to completely forsake their heritage and culture just because they're held at gunpoint.

Indeed, Settlers aren't captureable as Settlers for the reasons that you describe. Whilst Workers are, I've always found it a pity that they aren't then called "Slaves" in Civ IV (as was the case in Civ III), which they are.

However, wouldn't a ship of supplies and tools actually be inherently more captureable than a posse of people?

 

[Xyth]

This sounds like a good idea. I trust you to work out the details, get most of them right, then slowly correct the mistakes over the next three editions.

Hehe yep.

The proposed building list has a naturalness, except for the Harbour, which as a building has always been a little gamey --- real world harbours come in two flavours: free geographic formations obtained by winning settlement races (think Sydney Harbour) and later, expensive constructions (Rotterdam). Not including a Harbour would mean that the Colonist production cost, which would be independent of whether they later settle on a coast or inland, was fairer.

I also note that the list includes none of the buildings that I prioritise for later settlements --- those that generate production and food (a Kiln generates production only later). My initial builds are generally Tannery, Cemetery, Lighthouse (not necessarily in that order). Of these, I find it hard to imagine a Lighthouse being transported by ship, and a Cemetery should take some time to fill before it is recognisable as such. In contrast, a Tannery is more reasonable to include. Its presence would also ensure that a Colonist-founded city had some guaranteed basic production, which would improve playability.

So, in my opinion, a better building list is Granary, Smokehouse, Tannery, Kiln and Well.

The main reason I want to include the Harbour is so that coastal cities get immediate benefit from nearby food resources, just like inland cities would. So how does this building selection sound:

• Smokehouse
• Well
• Kiln
• Tannery
• Granary (if inland)
• Harbour (if coastal)​

Check: Are any of these unique? Would that generate idiosyncrasies?

The Inca have a Granary replacement, and the Phoenicians and Portuguese have Harbour replacements. I don't see this being problematic unless said UBs are already too strong.

I hope that the build cost of the Colonist exactly equals that of a Settler plus all the included buildings. This makes Colonists a fair mechanism to transfer production from one location to another.

Smokehouse (40) + Well (40) + Kiln (50) + Tannery (60) + Granary (60) = 250. An important factor to consider is that Colonists should also require food to produce, not just hammers. I'll need to do some thinking and testing on this.

Problems: Would the AI know to protect their Colonists?

The AI would treat Colonists exactly the same as Settlers. From its point of view, Colonists are Settlers - just more expensive. It won't be aware of the free buildings until they're built. The AI is usually fairly decent at protecting its settlers.

I'd like a single Colonist to occupy an entire Galleon (3 spaces, or 3/4 spaces on a Transport). Is this possible? I'd also like them to be captureable: Such valuable objects should be protected! (Could Galleons holding them be made capturable?)

There's no way of making a Colonist occupy an entire transport without also making it multiple units. This creates AI issues, described below.

I have a different idea I'd like to propose. Leave the settler unit as it is and have the colonist not be an upgrade, but rather a unit of its own that joins the city like a great person. Upon joining he would auto construct a tannery, smokehouse, granary, kiln and well. This leave you with a cheaper option if you have to quickly build a settler, and still gives us the ability to make more advanced colonies. Plus, it would have the added effect of taking up more cargo space on transports to represent the added materials for buildings.

This approach, while great in theory, will cause AI problems in practice. I can probably get the AI build and use such units, but it won't understand how to use them at a strategic level. As a result, doing it this way will give the human player a significant advantage. Having the unit as the upgrade to the settler, while less elegant, avoids this issue.

As it is now, a civilization that wins the technology race to Galleons, can sometimes, with serious preparation (whew!), colonise all the isolated continents and oceanic islands before the competition even notices. If the Colonist superseded the Settler at the time that Galleons become available (or earlier?), then a high build cost for Colonist would help reduce the possibility of instant Empire-on-which-the-sun-never-sets.

Colonists will probably be available at Urban Planning. One of it's prerequisites is Charter, the tech that unlocks Galleons. I can't really place Colonists earlier than Charter as that's pretty much placing them in the Medieval era.

Indeed, Settlers aren't captureable as Settlers for the reasons that you describe. Whilst Workers are, I've always found it a pity that they aren't then called "Slaves" in Civ IV (as was the case in Civ III), which they are.

I think it's primarily because of the Slavery civic. Makes no sense to be capturing slaves if you're running a different Labour civic.

 

[Eucalyptus]

The main reason I want to include the Harbour is so that coastal cities get immediate benefit from nearby food resources, just like inland cities would. So how does this building selection sound:

• Smokehouse
• Well
• Kiln
• Tannery
• Granary (if inland)
• Harbour (if coastal)​

...

Smokehouse (40) + Well (40) + Kiln (50) + Tannery (60) + Granary (60) = 250. An important factor to consider is that Colonists should also require food to produce, not just hammers. I'll need to do some thinking and testing on this.

Sire, if we don't found the planned city of Adelaide on the coast, that Harbour that we stashed away in the last Galleon can be magically tansformed into a Granary, after we're dragged it inland for 5 months and instead founded Broken Hill.

Apart from my reservations about being able to transport a Harbour by ship, I find a Granary/Harbour choice a bit gamey. How would the hammer cost of the Colonist be fairly determined?

In the Era in question, Civilizations always have enough food resources to ensure that new coastal cities begin with sufficient health to be able to grow for a long time without any help from buildings. So, coastal cities don't need Harbours for their initial growth. In contrast, a disconnected inland city founded in the middle of Flood Plains might prove so unhealthy as to be initially ungrowable, and need help from a Granary. However, such cities are quite unhistorical. Colonies were first founded on coasts, and only later expanded inland, for logistic reasons.


Alternative: What other lightweight objects could a Colonist carry? A Worker or two? This might be nice for gameplay: I often forget to ship labour with my Settler --- that icebound city has to wait 60 years before the Galleon has made a full round trip to provide Workers to Mine their Iron and Camp their Furs. In all that time, the poor citizens have been doing nothing other than eating the 3 Seals that my automated Work Boats have furnished them with whilst I wasn't looking.

An important factor to consider is that Colonists should also require food to produce, not just hammers.

I'm happy with this. It's even more justifiable for a 2-Colonist than a 1-Colonist, and more than even more justifiable if Worker or two is included.

 

[Simon_Jester]

In the Era in question, Civilizations always have enough food resources to ensure that new coastal cities begin with sufficient health to be able to grow for a long time without any help from buildings. So, coastal cities don't need Harbours for their initial growth. In contrast, a disconnected inland city founded in the middle of Flood Plains might prove so unhealthy as to be initially ungrowable, and need help from a Granary. However, such cities are quite unhistorical. Colonies were first founded on coasts, and only later expanded inland, for logistic reasons.

In my opinion, the Harbor building doesn't just represent a physical 'harbor,' in the sense of 'an enclosed body of water sheltered from wind and wave, in which ships can dock safely.' It represents the infrastructure of a significant-sized port facility: warehouses, large wharfs, local transportation networks that can move cargo from the ship a short distance inland (i.e. to other places 'on the tile'), and so on.

By analogy, anyone with brains will know that even a size 1 city has a "marketplace" in the sense of "a large open area where people trade." What they won't have, or won't necessarily have, is major trading emporiums that draw goods in from great distances, with established merchant houses to keep business running smoothly. That is what the Marketplace improvement represents to me.

 

[Xyth]

Sire, if we don't found the planned city of Adelaide on the coast, that Harbour that we stashed away in the last Galleon can be magically tansformed into a Granary, after we're dragged it inland for 5 months and instead founded Broken Hill.

I don't consider the Colonist unit to be carrying prefabricated buildings or components, this is quite ahistorical for the era, not to mention impractical. The raw materials (lumber, stone, etc) are still coming from the region settled. However, what the Colonist unit is bringing with it are crucial supplies (tools, ropes, metal fastenings and appliances, etc), blueprints, and most importantly: expertise. That last element is what distinguishes a Colonist from a Settler; the experts among the colonists are what make setting up food/water systems and basic industry so quickly possible. Settlers are setting out to make what they can of wherever they end up, Colonists are setting out to (re)create exactly what they need wherever they end up.

Apart from my reservations about being able to transport a Harbour by ship, I find a Granary/Harbour choice a bit gamey. How would the hammer cost of the Colonist be fairly determined?

There's only a difference of 20 hammers between them, I don't think it will matter much. To be honest though, I'm beginning to feel that the cost of a Colonist shouldn't directly match the cost of the granted buildings. Firstly, because it's reasonable to assume that Renaissance folk are more efficient at setting up new cities than Ancient folk, and secondly because my tests are showing that the AI is reluctant to build colonists when their cost is set that high.

Trying a cost of 200 hammers at the moment to see how that goes.

In the Era in question, Civilizations always have enough food resources to ensure that new coastal cities begin with sufficient health to be able to grow for a long time without any help from buildings. So, coastal cities don't need Harbours for their initial growth. In contrast, a disconnected inland city founded in the middle of Flood Plains might prove so unhealthy as to be initially ungrowable, and need help from a Granary. However, such cities are quite unhistorical. Colonies were first founded on coasts, and only later expanded inland, for logistic reasons.

I guess it's simpler for both to get a Granary and neither a Harbour but then perhaps a free Harbour creates an incentive to found coastal cities over inland ones, matching history?

Alternative: What other lightweight objects could a Colonist carry? A Worker or two? This might be nice for gameplay: I often forget to ship labour with my Settler --- that icebound city has to wait 60 years before the Galleon has made a full round trip to provide Workers to Mine their Iron and Camp their Furs. In all that time, the poor citizens have been doing nothing other than eating the 3 Seals that my automated Work Boats have furnished them with whilst I wasn't looking.

Plausible, though one tends to have several spare workers floating around one's empire that could be readily shipped off to new lands. The challenge, as always, is to remember to do so. Not sure on this one. Certainly not in addition to the current lineup of buildings.

In my opinion, the Harbor building doesn't just represent a physical 'harbor,' in the sense of 'an enclosed body of water sheltered from wind and wave, in which ships can dock safely.' It represents the infrastructure of a significant-sized port facility: warehouses, large wharfs, local transportation networks that can move cargo from the ship a short distance inland (i.e. to other places 'on the tile'), and so on.

By analogy, anyone with brains will know that even a size 1 city has a "marketplace" in the sense of "a large open area where people trade." What they won't have, or won't necessarily have, is major trading emporiums that draw goods in from great distances, with established merchant houses to keep business running smoothly. That is what the Marketplace improvement represents to me.

Likewise for both.

 

[Eucalyptus]

I don't consider the Colonist unit to be carrying prefabricated buildings or components, this is quite ahistorical for the era, not to mention impractical. The raw materials (lumber, stone, etc) are still coming from the region settled. However, what the Colonist unit is bringing with it are crucial supplies (tools, ropes, metal fastenings and appliances, etc), blueprints, and most importantly: expertise. That last element is what distinguishes a Colonist from a Settler; the experts among the colonists are what make setting up food/water systems and basic industry so quickly possible.

Indeed! Cancel that order to found Broken Hill first.

I guess it's simpler for both to get a Granary and neither a Harbour but then perhaps a free Harbour creates an incentive to found coastal cities over inland ones, matching history?

Taken the other way, if neither building is included, then the incentive to not found unconnected inland cities is stronger. A natural colonisation order is: Found coastal city, develop local resources, build roads inland, found (connected) inland city.

Not including either building would also help justify reducing the cost of the Colonist. Including the Tannery also means that there is sufficient production to construct these buildings fairly rapidly.

Firstly, because it's reasonable to assume that Renaissance folk are more efficient at setting up new cities than Ancient folk,

Extending this line of reasoning: In all cities, the cost of buildings that are unlocked with Ancient Era technologies could decrease with Era to represent things such as better (steel!) tools. I wouldn't seriously suggest its implementation!

and secondly because my tests are showing that the AI is reluctant to build colonists when their cost is set that high.

Trying a cost of 200 hammers at the moment to see how that goes.

I thought that there was some kind of "AILikesToBuild" parameter that could be tweaked --- in this case to be the sum of the Settler plus all included buildings. Possible kludgy solution: Can the AI be tricked into thinking that the cost is that of a Settler when making the build decision? That is, feed the cost for Settler into their calculation for build decision, but then make the cost that of the Colonist?

 

[Xyth]

Taken the other way, if neither building is included, then the incentive to not found unconnected inland cities is stronger. A natural colonisation order is: Found coastal city, develop local resources, build roads inland, found (connected) inland city.

Not including either building would also help justify reducing the cost of the Colonist. Including the Tannery also means that there is sufficient production to construct these buildings fairly rapidly.

That works. I'll leave the Granary and Harbour out and we can make adjustments later if need be. It would make for slower growth but better to have a combination of growth and production.

I thought that there was some kind of "AILikesToBuild" parameter that could be tweaked --- in this case to be the sum of the Settler plus all included buildings. Possible kludgy solution: Can the AI be tricked into thinking that the cost is that of a Settler when making the build decision? That is, feed the cost for Settler into their calculation for build decision, but then make the cost that of the Colonist?

There is such an option (iAIWeight) but it can cause as many problems as it solves. It doesn't always discriminate between unit roles for example, so you can end up with the AI building Colonists when it really wanted Heavy Horseman for example. I try to avoid using it where possible. It's really designed to funnel the AI into certain strategies, rather than for helping it to make better choices within its current strategy.

There's no method that I can see to trick the AI into thinking an item is cheaper than it is.

 

[davidtylr]

I was thinking instead of getting the greenery, Well, harbour and so on... when you first build a city with a colonist. what if these things are built automatically as you progress in the technology tree, found wonders, national wonders or even have a resource.

 

[Eucalyptus]

That works. I'll leave the Granary and Harbour out and we can make adjustments later if need be. It would make for slower growth but better to have a combination of growth and production.

While we are discussing the Colonist:

I assume that the chance to build Settler vanishes after the Colonist becomes available. Yes? Is the Colonist then really an upgrade from a Settler in that a preexisting Settler can be upgraded to a Colonist by spending gold? That sounds logical to me but I have a nagging suspicion suspect that it may lead to rorts or contradictions. Ideas?

I haven't yet played an HR game long enough to be able to build Labourers, so I don't know their relationship to Workers. Is it analogous?

 

[Simon_Jester]

I was thinking instead of getting the greenery, Well, harbour and so on... when you first build a city with a colonist. what if these things are built automatically as you progress in the technology tree, found wonders, national wonders or even have a resource.

How automatically?

Are we talking "add a thing to every city when you discover a tech?" What tech- the tech that allows granaries, or some tech far down the tree like Refrigeration?

Are we talking "if you have Tech X, all new cities automatically gain improvement Y when created?" Because that could probably be added to the game without too much trouble- just have an event that triggers every time a city is founded.

 

[davidtylr]

How automatically?

Are we talking "add a thing to every city when you discover a tech?" What tech- the tech that allows granaries, or some tech far down the tree like Refrigeration?

Are we talking "if you have Tech X, all new cities automatically gain improvement Y when created?" Because that could probably be added to the game without too much trouble- just have an event that triggers every time a city is founded.

Sorry. I wasn't clear enough. I just come off night shift.

When I discover urban planning then a colonist will become available. At first it might just automatically build a well. but for example when i discover refrigeration colonist will also automatically build a granary. I was thinking it could also apply to wonders, National wonders, Getting resources.

 

[Eucalyptus]

Sorry. I wasn't clear enough. I just come off night shift.

When I discover urban planning then a colonist will become available. At first it might just automatically build a well. but for example when i discover refrigeration colonist will also automatically build a granary. I was thinking it could also apply to wonders, National wonders, Getting resources.

There would have to be an enormous gap between the initial empowering technology and the final get-it-free technology for this effect not to be unbalancing. (Your example is of good situation!)

I am concerned that this structure might make the mid-game-overseas-colony-rush a real game-breaker. Moreover, knowing that a certain building will magically appear in all cities at a point in the future may motivate a human player to avoid ever building it in the usual fashion, whilst the AI would go on blindly wasting hammers.

 

[Xyth]

I was thinking instead of getting the greenery, Well, harbour and so on... when you first build a city with a colonist. what if these things are built automatically as you progress in the technology tree, found wonders, national wonders or even have a resource.

I am concerned that this structure might make the mid-game-overseas-colony-rush a real game-breaker. Moreover, knowing that a certain building will magically appear in all cities at a point in the future may motivate a human player to avoid ever building it in the usual fashion, whilst the AI would go on blindly wasting hammers.

That's exactly the problem with such an approach. The AI will be completely unaware that it gets these buildings for free and will not plan for it. It's also a bit complicated to determine which cities were founded by which type of unit after it's happened.

I assume that the chance to build Settler vanishes after the Colonist becomes available. Yes? Is the Colonist then really an upgrade from a Settler in that a preexisting Settler can be upgraded to a Colonist by spending gold? That sounds logical to me but I have a nagging suspicion suspect that it may lead to rorts or contradictions. Ideas?

I haven't yet played an HR game long enough to be able to build Labourers, so I don't know their relationship to Workers. Is it analogous?

Yep. The Colonist will replace the Settler, just as the Labourer replaces the Worker. In both cases the player can upgrade the earlier unit to the later one for a price. Said price should be calculated quite high because a Settler has an effective hammer cost of 0.

If a player can afford a mass upgrade of Setters at that time they're probably already well in the lead anyway. Not to mention that all those new cities will increase maintenance costs significantly. A Progressive leader running the Standing Army civic could be problematic though. I should add some checks to one or both of those so that the discount only applies to military units.

 

[Eucalyptus]

Thinking about the Colonist reminded me of something that else that bothers me.


Observation

The currently-possible large Renaissance-Era polar cities are just silly.


Proposal

Let all water tiles within 2 tiles of an Ice tile have a base yield of 0 food. Also, forbid Fur on Ice.


Backgrond

After I have Galleons, I am allowed to colonise any speck of land that I can find. On many global maps this includes the whole of `Antarctica': land that is, say, more than 70 degrees of latitude from the Equator (arguably, 60 degrees). I am firstly motivated to found polar cities to grab resources (in particular, Silver, but later Oil and Gas). (The extra seafood and metals are also valuable when the Corporations get going, but I'd rather that Corporations worked differently.) Such cities are, due to their trade routes, sometimes profitable even at their inception. Moreover, after building a Lighthouse, each such city can eventually grow to a remarkable size, limited only by the number of water tiles in its fat cross (modulo Sid's Sushi!). It is even possible to found a polar city on a single-tile island of barren Ice with no bonus tiles --- growth is very slow but the result is the same.

Even Greenland would be bad enough, but being able to colonise Antarctica at a profit with Galleons in the Renaissance Era is, ahem, somewhat unhistorical. It is not viable even in the present day, and we're approaching the Future Era, in game terms. Maybe in a future globalised world economy it will become viable ...

Real polar settlements have only ever been small: There have been tribal communities (Inuit villages) who lived by subsistence on seafood and sea mammals, and later sealing and whaling stations, mining communities and research stations. None of these settlements could have ever grown to the size of a city. The reason that polar colonisation is impossible is of course that the ice sheet, the short summers and the lack of soil mean that agriculture, animal husbandry and forestry are essentially impossible. The only food comes from the sea, and that is very limited. Although the Civ IV health model suggests that all food resources owned by a Civilization are available in all its cities, it's a stretch to imagine that a Renaissance Era empire could or would have shipped enough grains and vegetables to Antarctica in return for seal pelts, silver and whale products, and even today, it's not economically viable to run cities north of the taiga.


Solutions

So, is there a way in HR to make polar colonisation either impossible or else keep polar cities small?

An easy, gamey kludge would be to simply forbid settling at 70 or more degrees of latitude from the Equator. But this would impoverish the game rather than enriching it, and deny access to resources. Moreover, it demands the determination of latitude (available in Civ III!) but this knowledge should only be visible late in the game. Furthermore, it isn't meaningful on maps that aren't global, and is silly on warmer worlds with non-ice tiles at these latitudes.


Instead natural factors that reflect geographical realities should be used. Ice itself yields no food: The problem lies in the overly fertile polar coastal waters.

A natural implementation would be to give all water tiles (including Coast, Ocean and Fresh Water) within a 2 tile radius of each Ice tile a base yield of 0 food (instead of 1). This would mean that cities could still be founded, but that their sizes would remain constrained by their numbers of seafood bonus tiles, that a Lighthouse would still marginally help growth, and that cities founded for desperate resource-grabs (with say Oil but without bonus food tiles) would not grow at all, and represent stations whose costs can only be justified by access to resources (this would resemble a Civ III-style Colony). Yields are determined in-game, and not by the map generator, I hope ...

Whilst discussing Ice, I note that I sometimes find Fur resources on Ice, but this is unrealistic. I presume that the Fur is there to make the polar cities more interesting. In reality, furred land mammals (think Arctic Fox and Polar Bear) can sometimes exist in economically-viable numbers on Tundra but never on Ice. Can Fur on Ice be forbidden by the map generator?


Further thoughts

The same issue also applies to cities founded on single-tile oceanic islands in warmer climates. Whilst shallow coastal seas are generally productive of seafood, deep oceans are generally empty: Modern floating factory fishing fleets need to strip-mine a huge amount of ocean to be viable. Perhaps all Ocean (but not Coast) tiles should have a base yield of 0 food? That would reduce the growth of some core coastal cities, but perhaps not substantially.

 

[Xyth]

An easy, gamey kludge would be to simply forbid settling at 70 or more degrees of latitude from the Equator. But this would impoverish the game rather than enriching it, and deny access to resources. Moreover, it demands the determination of latitude (available in Civ III!) but this knowledge should only be visible late in the game. Furthermore, it isn't meaningful on maps that aren't global, and is silly on warmer worlds with non-ice tiles at these latitudes.

The easiest solution is to disallow city founding on Ice tiles. This can be done in a combination of 3 ways: no founding on ice whatsoever, founding only on coastal ice tiles, or founding only on ice near a fresh water source. These restrictions, if imposed, cannot be removed by technology later in the game as there's no way to code the AI to understand such a change. So it would have to be for the full length of the game. This doesn't strike me as unrealistic, as you mention we're not exactly founding cities in the (Ant)arctic in the 21st century, just outposts and towns at best. This approach would deny access to some resources though.

Instead natural factors that reflect geographical realities should be used. Ice itself yields no food: The problem lies in the overly fertile polar coastal waters.

A natural implementation would be to give all water tiles (including Coast, Ocean and Fresh Water) within a 2 tile radius of each Ice tile a base yield of 0 food (instead of 1). This would mean that cities could still be founded, but that their sizes would remain constrained by their numbers of seafood bonus tiles, that a Lighthouse would still marginally help growth, and that cities founded for desperate resource-grabs (with say Oil but without bonus food tiles) would not grow at all, and represent stations whose costs can only be justified by access to resources (this would resemble a Civ III-style
Colony). Yields are determined in-game, and not by the map generator, I hope ...

I've often felt that the 'sea ice' terrain feature isn't implemented in a particularly meaningful way. If I could adapt the graphics for it I could imagine it being used as a 'coast replacement' in polar regions. Still navigable but slow and dangerous, somewhat like reefs. It would allow for more interesting distribution of yields and resources too.

Whilst discussing Ice, I note that I sometimes find Fur resources on Ice, but this is unrealistic. I presume that the Fur is there to make the polar cities more interesting. In reality, furred land mammals (think Arctic Fox and Polar Bear) can sometimes exist in economically-viable numbers on Tundra but never on Ice. Can Fur on Ice be forbidden by the map generator?

Don't think I ever meant to allow Fur on Ice tiles. Removed for 1.17.

The same issue also applies to cities founded on single-tile oceanic islands in warmer climates. Whilst shallow coastal seas are generally productive of seafood, deep oceans are generally empty: Modern floating factory fishing fleets need to strip-mine a huge amount of ocean to be viable. Perhaps all Ocean (but not Coast) tiles should have a base yield of 0 food? That would reduce the growth of some core coastal cities, but perhaps not substantially.

I'd have to think about any wider repercussions of that. Also, the extended coasts option makes the issue a bit more complicated.

 

[Eucalyptus]

Sorry, I've been away for some time ...

The easiest solution is to disallow city founding on Ice tiles. This can be done in a combination of 3 ways: no founding on ice whatsoever, founding only on coastal ice tiles, or founding only on ice near a fresh water source. These restrictions, if imposed, cannot be removed by technology later in the game as there's no way to code the AI to understand such a change. So it would have to be for the full length of the game. This doesn't strike me as unrealistic, as you mention we're not exactly founding cities in the (Ant)arctic in the 21st century, just outposts and towns at best. This approach would deny access to some resources though.

I don't see how such implementations would yield results that would substantially differ from a crude latitude limitation. They might also mean that in some circumstances it would become impossible to settle on the only tile that has access to seafood resources, which would reduce playability.

Furthermore, they wouldn't limit city size, which is what really bothers me about the current setup: My complaint really is primarily about the fertility of the water tiles.

I've often felt that the 'sea ice' terrain feature isn't implemented in a particularly meaningful way. If I could adapt the graphics for it I could imagine it being used as a 'coast replacement' in polar regions. Still navigable but slow and dangerous, somewhat like reefs. It would allow for more interesting distribution of yields and resources too.

Indeed! But there's a difference between permanent sea ice, whose geographic effect is much the same as flat land ice, and seasonal sea ice. I imagine the permanent sea ice to be what I currently see on the map (no yields, passable only by submarines and air units) and the seasonal sea ice to be my low-food-yield polar water tiles.

I'd be happy to see low-yield, reduced-navigability polar water tiles with a new appearance!

 

[Xyth]

I don't see how such implementations would yield results that would substantially differ from a crude latitude limitation. They might also mean that in some circumstances it would become impossible to settle on the only tile that has access to seafood resources, which would reduce playability.

Furthermore, they wouldn't limit city size, which is what really bothers me about the current setup: My complaint really is primarily about the fertility of the water tiles.

Given it's just a simple toggle, how about we try disallowing city founding on ice tiles for 1.17 (very nearly finished) and see how it feels. I can look into the more effective sea ice solution for 1.18.

Indeed! But there's a difference between permanent sea ice, whose geographic effect is much the same as flat land ice, and seasonal sea ice. I imagine the permanent sea ice to be what I currently see on the map (no yields, passable only by submarines and air units) and the seasonal sea ice to be my low-food-yield polar water tiles.

I'd be happy to see low-yield, reduced-navigability polar water tiles with a new appearance!

I can definitely see the value in having two varieties.