land development

[w11184]

i dont like the way how by the end of the game every patch of land on the map is either irrigated or got a railroad on it (most likely both), that is just so unrealistic.

i reckon there should be ways to control the development of land and make things such as railway more important and stretegic. like when fighting a war, your oppenents would want to destroy a railroad collecting two cities so to cut off supply lines. because at the moment, if they destroy one patch of railroad, i would just go round the other way and it still takes only one turn!

 

[Suki]

just have a cost attached to terrain improvements and their maintanance
it wouldn't take much of a amntanance cost to make it not worth railing any but the real good tiles and short paths from city to city

 

[Cilpot]

I agree, w11184. Railroads everywhere are ugly and not very realistic.

 

[belunar]

Another thing to consider is that roads, irrigation ditches, mines, and railroads do deteriorate after a while and do need maintenence. Maybe that could be another worker function, repairing and maintaining land improvements.

 

[w11184]

Another thing to consider is that roads, irrigation ditches, mines, and railroads do deteriorate after a while and do need maintenence. Maybe that could be another worker function, repairing and maintaining land improvements.

maybe, but that would involve too much micro-management. my thinking was put more importance on railroads and also make it more realistic. i mean what country in the world would you find every piece of land has railroad track on it?

 

[xerox]

Wow I could not have asked for a better intro!!
I think that it would be great to have Specialized workers
1. WOODSMAN
a. Clears forrest and jungle twice as fast
b. All other tasks half as fast
2. FARMER
a. Irrigates twice as fast
b. Can create farmland (extra food per square).
c. Can Plant WINE, INCENSE, SPICES, SILK, RUBBER, WHEAT
d. Can Raise HORSES, CATTLE, FURS
e. All other tasks half as fast
3. ROADWORKER
a. Makes roads and railroads twice as fast
b. All other tasks half as fast
4. HAZMAT CREW
a. Cleans up pollution twice as fast
b. All other tasks half as fast
5. ENGINEER
a. Only worker that can do TerraForming (see below)
b. All other tasks half as fast
6. HANDYMAN
a. Same as current worker - all tasks at standard speed
b. All captured workers become Handyman with half speed - after
a certain number of turns (maybe a function of culture ratio)
foriegn worker becomes native worker

In Civ2 we had the ability to TerraForm
1. Civ2 rules may work here
2. May need to discover certain Tech to be able to do each change
a. Need Explosives to change Mountains to Hills and Hills to Plains
b. Need Engineering to change Tundra to Plains, Deserts to Plains
and Plains to Grassland
3. Special "Engineer" Worker type required
4. Resources & Luxuries tied to specific terrain type are lost
if Res/Lux is compatible with new terrain it stays
5. May be able to CREATE limitted number of certain Resources, Bonuses,
or Luxuries on appropriate terrain types if they already exist at
least once and there is a trade route from one of the originals
1. WINE, INCENSE, SPICES, SILK, FURS
2. HORSES, RUBBER
3. WHEAT, CATTLE
The theory is that if I have access to WHEAT then I can plant more WHEAT somewhere else. (applies to INCENSE,SPICES,WINE,RUBBER also)
If I have access to HORSES then I can make baby HORSES (not me personally but I think you get my idea) (applies to FURS,CATTLE,SILK also)

 

[Rush_Limbaugh]

I like your ideas about specialized workers. This would allow civilizations with one major problem (i.e., being in the middle of a massive jungle) to improve their status more quickly. It would also be far more realistic- specialization is crucial to an efficient work force. I don't like the idea of workers developing luxuries though. Much of the game revolves around the fact that recources are limited, making trade and war beneficial. The game would be much less exciting if luxuries became too common. The planting of wheat or other bonus, non-tradable recources is an idea that has much more merit.

 

[belunar]

I agree with the idea of specialised workers. Let me add in my opinions on each.

Woodsman, when clear a forest get more shields from clearing than a standard worker as they are better at dealing with woods. Maybe have the Engineering tech advansment as a requirement since that is where you also gain the abilty to plant forests. In addition they could get sheilds off any forest, new or replanted, rather than how workers are only able to get shields off a forest the first time they cut it and are not able to gain shields off replanted forest. As far as planting forests go, maybe makeing it so the Woodsman unit can also plant forest twice as fast as standard worker units.

Farmers, I agree to A and E, Farmland wise, maybe makeing it so they dont gain that ability untill an appropriate advance is made to the middle or late end of the first age. Maybe makeing it so that other units could make farmland, but that farmland doesnt function as effeciantly as that made by Farmers and takes longer to be made. As far as the planting/raising the luxury/resorce items, I can see why you suggested it, though it does go against the premise that luxury and resorce items are scarce. If something like this was implemented I could see putting the requirment that one already has access to that resorce, and that the most that could be added would be something like 50% added to what existed. Example, if there are 6 Wine resorces on the entire map only 3 more could be grown this way. Also they would need to be added in the appropriate terrain type, so no growing wine in a desert, or horses in a jungle.

Roadworker, I see no problems with it as is.

Hazmat, I see no problem with it, though can see that it would need an appriate tech advance, probly sometime in the space age.

Engineer, I can see it being staged. Each terrain type that they are able to convert between needing certin tech advances.

Handyman, sounds ok, just like a name change is all.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I don't see that introducing a maintainance cost needs to add too much micromanagement to the game. All you need is a section of your budgetary screen where you can assign a % of your nations resources to Public Works. This budget would create both the points neccessary to actually BUILD an improvement and pay the maintainance for any already built-all in one easy action! If you don't have enough resources to pay for PW, then your existing improvements will start to suffer, probably through a combination of lost productivity (i.e. loss of shield/food production) and increased pollution from the food and shields you still DO produce!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oh and, in addition, you should have an AI 'treasurer' in the game. Like the governer, your treasurer can make all of the important economic decisions for you. Both how to raise finance-through taxes and levies-and how best to allocate the funds you have, like defense, education/science, employment/industry, public works and the like. The 'treasurers' decisions will be in some part based on your civ characteristics, what faction of your society is currently in ascendancy and your current government. For instance, a treasurer from an expansionist civ would probably assign a greater portion of the nations wealth to public works and defense. A treasurer from a scientific civ might allocate greater resources towards science and foreign affairs.
Anyway, just some thoughts!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[w11184]

I don't see that introducing a maintainance cost needs to add too much micromanagement to the game. All you need is a section of your budgetary screen where you can assign a % of your nations resources to Public Works. This budget would create both the points neccessary to actually BUILD an improvement and pay the maintainance for any already built-all in one easy action! If you don't have enough resources to pay for PW, then your existing improvements will start to suffer, probably through a combination of lost productivity (i.e. loss of shield/food production) and increased pollution from the food and shields you still DO produce!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

i think the maintenence cost is a good idea and never said that it would increase micromanagement, that was aim at the other poster - hence the quote.