Landmarks

[loco-newf]

Yes, I know. Landmarks have been discussed before. But here's an idea...

I'm a builder and a culture buff. I LOVE to win with 20k culture. I beam with pride at my accomplishment. Having said that, I thought of a practical way to implement Landmarks.

If a civ wanted to make a particular game tile (mountain, lake, whatever) a Landmark, it could be done by allowing a city to dedicate so many turns of production towards it. In other words, BUILT IT! Maybe, once it was completed, it would generate an extra culture point per turn or become a tourist attraction over time...

 

[Pook]

I missed the earlier thread. What exactly do you mean by a landmark? Is this something like Sydney Opera House or Mount Rushmore, something epic that's built by humans?

 

[illphil]

i dont really get the difference between these and wonders except maybe smaller scale.

 

[Mewtarthio]

By "landmarks" he refers to namable features of the map. And I think the first Civ to discover a feature should get naming rights. If another Civ manages to fully control it, that Civ should be able to rename it.

Back to the topic's main point, how is this any different from a culture-producing building?

 

[akhicks]

If the landmark is really impressive - say Grand Canyon or Angel Falls, or similar, then you could obviously get tourism from it. But also in the latter game environmental damage could limit or remove their worth.

 

[loco-newf]

The idea is to get bonus culture and commerce by investing a Wonder-sized amount of production. The Landmark is essentially a wonder with no tech requirement, but no other bonuses normally attributed to Wonders.

Of course, if the idea turns out to be broken, just allow for naming of landmarks for free. They're cool...

 

[ShADoW^HawK]

I think that whole landmark idea is quite good. I hate to be too far ahead of all my oponents, but not feel like going to war, so then I just do wealth in my cities. I LIKE TO BUILD, not just click wealth (although it is nice to have 2,000,000+ $ in my bank account ). Anyway, also, this could take up one square, so it would give you lots of extra commerce (through tourism), but you couldn't grow food/mine it (unless of course it was a mining landmark or a food landmark--like maybe each civ would have the possibility to build a hyponics (or whatever thing its called to have plants grow without soil) center where you would not only generate extra food but also generate a lot of gold from scientists and people visiting it. Of course, I don't think they should be in cities, I think that you'd have to make them a bit off the side of cities, like 1 square or so.

 

[Stefanskantine]

I don't think landmarks should give culture. Maybe tourism in the modern age, if you keep them unpolluted/unirrigated/unrailroaded to model national parks or something.

 

[ShADoW^HawK]

But, they would give culture. One of the main things that people think of when they think of the US is the statue of liberty, Mount Rushmore, Grand Canyon, all great cultural things, and George W. Bush, the opposite (incredibly horrible cultural representation).

 

[General Porkins]

i agree with stefanskantine. my proposal is that with ecology or perhaps a new 'conservation' tech (either early modern or late industrial) you could have workers create national parks on unaltered squares, which would generate a lot of commerce. this would give some incentive not to clear all forests and mine all mountains or even clear jungles or swamps.

 

[ShADoW^HawK]

But, what about landmarks like niagra falls and the grand canyon... you don't need to create those, they're already there, and they generate commerce. Of course, things like Statue of Liberty and other things that you build would generate culture as well as commerce, and would generally be in a city, but they should simply be wonders. I think that we should allow landmarks that occur in nature to be there, and just build a landmark outpost there, which would simply be putting a worker over there and saying landmark outpost (which would be like a colony, except it would generate commerce instead of letting you use a raw material). Also, you'd have to do that, you couldn't just build a city next to it, because it wouldn't be preserved by urban sprawl. Also, I think that if you have a multiple of x number of great wonders, you should generate y extra income. So, if you had over 5 GWs, you'd generate 10 extra gold income every turn from tourism, and if you had 15 GWs, you'd generate 30 gold income every turn, because, well, lots of people do collectively pay lots of money to see things like the Pyramids and the Statue of Liberty

 

[Shyrramar]

Am I the only one who thinks this a bad idea? As some others, I really don't see the difference between "landmarks" and wonders, and I surely wouldn't want to be building all sorts of landmarks all over the place. Wouldn't it be just as easy to make all those wonders show up on the map? That's the only difference between wonders and these landmarks, now isn't it?

 

[loco-newf]

You're close, Shadow Hawk. My idea is that you build a Landmark like a Wonder. It's a HUGE project, so it will take a lot of time (think of carving a mountain). Once it's complete, you select a tile inside that city's radius. That tile becomes the landmark. I'm thinking it should be a mountain or forest, at least. Who wants to visit endless fields of wheat?

As far as culture, maybe just one point per turn with no doubling effect over time. The big thing is that it will eventually produce tourism dollars. And, for those of us who like to build (Shadow Hawk), it gives us something to do other than produce Wealth...

 

[joebasstard]

I like this idea a lot: anything that adds to the uniqueness of terrain or civs or cities or units is good, as far as I'm concerned.