multiple production

[baoren]

Like for what I said for research, I think would be nice to have possibility to produce different things in a city. I think would be nice also to split city improvements and units productions, and to link the number of possible units produced to the population of a civ.

 

[Theoden]

There is a few issues about the idea. It would require a lot of micromanaging to assign production to several items. Another thing is that it would make the game more complex and that isn't what I want in civ4.

Theoden

 

[baoren]

again, I'm not thinking in the classic civilization point of view. I think this game is the best, but it needs to change a little bit something in its base points. Maybe the idea looks not simple, but it is possible to delvelope it in a simple way.

 

[Sobassis]

Baoren
Good idea but it should only be possible if you have wasted shields, or are producing more than X number of shields a turn and you set a split rate between the different things you are trying to produce

 

[Jon Shafer]

Baoren: If you say Civ should add something like multiple city builds which requires changes beyond the current design, then you have to explain your idea further because otherwise people will think you just want a single aspect changed from how things are now. How would you change things so that multiple builds fit within the system better, rather than simply adding extra micromanagement?

Baoren
Good idea but it should only be possible if you have wasted shields, or are producing more than X number of shields a turn and you set a split rate between the different things you are trying to produce

Why not just have the shields carry over to the next thing you build? Simpler that way...

 

[Albow]

I think that if your city has barracks then you should be able to 'build' a unit in the barracks, and still be making improvements to the city. How would you split shields, well, 50,50 except for a wartime economy. In which case, it is 100% to barracks (kind of like it is now, as you cannot build other items).

If your barracks is empty, then it all goes to the city improvement, and vice versa!

still simple, and you get to do both!

to take this idea further, I think once you build a factory, you should be able to build 2 units at a time. Whatchathink?

 

[Jon Shafer]

.....

No.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, I think that a simpler way might be to have 2 or 3 'production' improvements each age specific for making units, and which gives you a seperate build queue for unit construction. If you are not building any units, then some or all of the shields from these military improvements would go into your general industrial pool. Also, if you mobilise for war, then your military shield output is boosted, but at the expense of your civilian shields.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Deathgoroth]

Like for what I said for research, I think would be nice to have possibility to produce different things in a city.

The believe the issue here concerns the loss of shields when switching production, or the risk of loosing them in a domestic to military production switch. Keep the game as it is! Let's say, hypothetically, you're pondering on building a cathedral or a rifleman, you know your defense is less than adeqate and you need riflemen, but your growth is slow and your people are angry, so you deside on the cathedral praying to the godly AI to NOT send you to war. The excitement is tremendous as some not excactly trustworthy neighbours are lurking by your border only a few tiles from your cathedral building city ! With your suggestion, this excitement will all be gone! But on the other hand it will be more realistic. We must ask ourselves:

Does the reduction of risk make the game better?
Does added feeling of reality make the game any better?
Does added complexity make the game better?

As for me it goes:
No.
yes.
No.

As the question of reality is the least important of these, allthough important, I vote against the proposal of multiple production. And, by the way, I am also against the carry-over production idea. There should at least be a penalty, say no less than 50% production loss of the surplus if one were alowed to carry over.

I think would be nice also (...) to link the number of possible units produced to the population of a civ.

Correct me if mistaken, but isn't that how it works now?

 

[Dwarven Zerker]

We must ask ourselves:

Does the reduction of risk make the game better?
Does added feeling of reality make the game any better?
Does added complexity make the game better?

As for me it goes:
No.
yes.
No.

Agreed with the exception that added complexity is good only if it increases the reality aspect of the game.

Correct me if mistaken, but isn't that how it works now?

To a small degree. A civ with 15 size 1 townes will have less military support costs than a different civ with 1 size 15 city yet both have the same population.

 

[norwegianviking]

I think that if your city has barracks then you should be able to 'build' a unit in the barracks, and still be making improvements to the city. How would you split shields, well, 50,50 except for a wartime economy. In which case, it is 100% to barracks (kind of like it is now, as you cannot build other items).

If your barracks is empty, then it all goes to the city improvement, and vice versa!

still simple, and you get to do both!

to take this idea further, I think once you build a factory, you should be able to build 2 units at a time. Whatchathink?

I like this idea.

 

[rhialto]

No to multiple production, as it reduces the risk aspect and strategic decision in making a city improvement or a unit.

Yes to carrying over production shields to the next item, IF you have assigned something in the build queue. If you haven't got a specific item in your queue, then any excess shields after something is built should default to building "wealth".

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

That really does depend on HOW you do it, Rhialto. In my population/production model, all improvements require a minimum population in order to function at all, so if you build lots of 'military production' improvements, you are potentially drawing population away from your civilian production, commerce and education facilities. Combined with the fact that many units also cost population in my model, and you can see how taking the military path becomes a very difficult choice! This is even MORE the case if you have switched your nation to a 'military economy'!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

lurker, do you have your entire model posted anywhere in one easy place to read?

Its kind of hard to either praise or poke holes in a model that cannot be seen anywhere.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think that the most complete version of my model is actually in the United Economic Theory II thread by Trade-Peror! It has sort of evolved over time, rather than all come together at once! I will briefly summarise it here for you, though.
Each city has a REAL population (i.e. 10,000 people, 100,000 people etc-not 1 pop-head, 2 pop-heads etc!)
Each tile you decide to work has a specific population cost, which you can choose to raise or lower depending on the extent to which you over or underexploit your tiles.
Improvements will also have a population cost, the number of each type of improvement will determine they specialisation, if any, of that city. You can choose to increase the specialisation of a city, manually, within certain limits.
Units you build will cost population too, this population will not be returned until you disband that unit. Also, if a unit is damaged, it will only return a % of its original population to the city upom disbanding.
Hope that helps.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.