New buildings!

[mitsho]

World Trade Organization (or World Bank) definately sounds better as a World Wonder than Bretton-Woods, while Commonwealth definately sounds good for a national wonder that requires whatever buildings we chose for them.

The buildings should become available late Rennaissance and boost the yields allocated to that city through the cs-distribution system by +10 / + 10 / + 13 % totaling at 33% or so. Don't know what to do with military city states. OR we have a + 10 / 15 line buildable everywhere and warehouses requiring harbors providing another +10 %.

A question is wether city states need that boost. It would probably mean lowering their benefits first...

 

[Ahriman]

World Trade Organization (or World Bank) definately sounds better as a World Wonder than Bretton-Woods, while Commonwealth definately sounds good for a national wonder that requires whatever buildings we chose for them.

The buildings should become available late Rennaissance and boost the yields allocated to that city through the cs-distribution system by +10 / + 10 / + 13 % totaling at 33% or so. Don't know what to do with military city states. OR we have a + 10 / 15 line buildable everywhere and warehouses requiring harbors providing another +10 %.

A question is wether city states need that boost. It would probably mean lowering their benefits first...

The World Bank is a development agency; it lends money to poor countries to finance development projects (infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc.). It has nothing to do with the global trading system. And the International Monetary Fund is much more important than the World Trade Organization - the WTO is really very small, and basically just functions as a disputes resolution body. Most of the action is really done by bilateral trade negotiations between countries.
Most people think these institutions are waaay more significant than they really are.

I don't think every national wonder should necessarily have to require buildings in every city. If you did want that, you could require constabulary, but the espionage buildings in their current form you don't want to build everywhere almost by definition.

I don't think that CS boosters if we had them are interesting enough to need multiple different buildings. A single building or a single wonder is more what I had in mind. I don't think there is scope for a full line of buildings, and if they only boosted the CS contribution in their own city, that would be very weak.

 

[mitsho]

but you are in the buildings thread that's why I am brainstorming about buildings

Well, the effects don't really translate that well into gameplay anyways, I'm fully aware of what the institutions do

 

[bwoww78]

I don't think that CS boosters if we had them are interesting enough to need multiple different buildings.

what if construction required being friends with X number of CSs or if CS friendship boosted production...?

(likely too complicated, not balanced, but just an idea)

 

[albie_123]

When I made my suggestion, I envisioned the buildings gradually improving City-State gifts as to replace the current Era-based improvement.

This means that someone who has ignored diplomacy the entire game will not get the same amount from a City-State ally in the Modern era that a diplomatic leader will.

Names are irrelevant at this point, gameplay and missing features are the important issues.

 

[Thalassicus]

@albie_123
I see what you mean: instead of automatically getting passive bonuses to citystate yields as our era progresses, we build structures to improve those yields. It might lean us towards all-or-nothing approaches to citystates though. Is there a way we could adapt this to encourage everyone to invest in an average of 2 citystates?

 

[mitsho]

Either make it dependent on city state type (each building brings the yield of that type to 100 %).

OR (and I like that one better)

make it dependent on range. So that in the early ages, you can get benefits from all city states, but those close to you give better yields (technology et al). In essence, city states are beneficial, but if you want more choice, you need to invest. This system of course bites itself with the not really customizable quest system of G&K.

It would also fit with a "trade route"-themed line of buildings: xy (Ancient ERa?) - > Postal Station -> Warehouse (transcontinental) -> Mainstation -> Airport. Hmm, these are too many, I guess we can pick and chose . Also, the "Via Appia" or "Torre de Belém" could be a World or National Wonder.

Then the question is wether the range counts from the capital or from the city it's built in. the latter may make the Airport superfluous in some cases. Or make the number of buildings buildable capped at say 4 and each building gives 25% increase. Or so? Doable?

 

[rhammer640]

Either make it dependent on city state type (each building brings the yield of that type to 100 %).

OR (and I like that one better)

make it dependent on range. So that in the early ages, you can get benefits from all city states, but those close to you give better yields (technology et al). In essence, city states are beneficial, but if you want more choice, you need to invest. This system of course bites itself with the not really customizable quest system of G&K.

It would also fit with a "trade route"-themed line of buildings: xy (Ancient ERa?) - > Postal Station -> Warehouse (transcontinental) -> Mainstation -> Airport. Hmm, these are too many, I guess we can pick and chose . Also, the "Via Appia" or "Torre de Belém" could be a World or National Wonder.

Then the question is wether the range counts from the capital or from the city it's built in. the latter may make the Airport superfluous in some cases. Or make the number of buildings buildable capped at say 4 and each building gives 25% increase. Or so? Doable?

I second this concept if possible, i think range should play more of a role in CS decisions.

 

[albie_123]

@Mitsho
It's a little complicated - how about a simple maximum tile radius for each of your cities to recieve rewards from City-States (eg. If a city is X tiles away, it recieves 100 percent of rewards, and if another city is X+1 tiles away, it recieves either 25 or 50) and the buildings increase that range, up to Airport, which is unlimited range?

I'm still not sold on the range idea, though - I find that the CSD mod does that much more simply and in a more fun and intuitive way.

 

[Stalker0]

Again: why is this needed?

I think a skyscraper is fine, but I don't think it needs to consume iron. Iron is simply not a strategic resource anymore in the modern world, because it is so easy to mine and it is so common. Similarly; horses are no longer a strategic resource. A strategic resource is one where you are limited in what you can do by how much of it you have.

Like many things I have been debating lately, I agree with this to a point.

On the one hand, you are right that iron and horses are commodities in today's world, that don't really have strategic value. On the other hand, neither does aluminum. Once we found economical ways to smelt it alumnimum is pretty plentiful.

I would say that the modern strategic resource would actually be rare earth metals. Used in tons of scientific, medical, and military equipment....and yet still a pretty rare resource, and ones currently that only a few countries control.


As to the original point, I don't think strategic resources all need to remain viable throughout the game. Now, I will say that horses tend to remain viable a lot longer due to Calvary and lancers....so if strategic extension was important I think iron needs it far more than horses.

 

[mitsho]

@Mitsho
It's a little complicated - how about a simple maximum tile radius for each of your cities to recieve rewards from City-States (eg. If a city is X tiles away, it recieves 100 percent of rewards, and if another city is X+1 tiles away, it recieves either 25 or 50) and the buildings increase that range, up to Airport, which is unlimited range?

I'm still not sold on the range idea, though - I find that the CSD mod does that much more simply and in a more fun and intuitive way.

But that is what I was trying to say... What was the added complexity I had?

I do agree that the system should be simple and clear. If I get it right, your original proposal was just a National Wonder which can be built by era and enhances the trade for the whole civilization. So the Via Appia grants the Classical Era bonus, Marco Polo's Embassy the medieval one, the Torre de Bélem the Rennaisance one, the East India Company the ... and so on?

Might be easier to code and is absolutely fine, though I agree, there need to be better names than I just wrote down above

 

[Ahriman]

I would stay away from making city states depend on range. That kind of mechanic is find for modmods, but many of us really don't enjoy that in the main game. It is a big difference strategically from vanilla - and not one the AI understands. It also ends up favoring Wide empires, which will be closer to city states, whereas I think that small concentrated Tall empires with lots of CS allies should still be feasible.

I also don't think that separate building lines for different CS types would be nearly interesting enough. I would either have a single building or wonder (not a single line; a single building) that boosted CS benefits, or leave things how they are.

Is there a way we could adapt this to encourage everyone to invest in an average of 2 citystates?

I don't think this is a desirable design goal. It is very different from vanilla. Going for city states or not should both be viable strategies. I would not want to start penalizing players who want to have a very CS-intensive strategy.

I also don't think there is enough reason for a line of trade-route boosting buildings. Trade routes are already just gold from population. I can see the scope for 1-2 buildings, but an entire line of buildings would be very hard to balance, particularly since trade routes are calculated only at the empire level.

On the other hand, neither does aluminum.

True, but there is a need for some kind of late game resource. I'd be fine with changing Aluminium to "Rare earths", but I don't think it matters much. Aluminium is there mostly from the 1950s, where production capacity was low enough that it really was rare and important. There were strategic considerations and limitations on consumer use, because aluminium was so important for 1950s aircraft frames.
I also think there are good gameplay reasons to have resources wax and wane; if my region is weak in horses and iron but strong in oil and aluminum, I'll be weaker early on but more powerful late game. If your region is strong in iron and horses and weak in oil and aluminium, you'll be stronger early on but you should be weaker late game. The early game power is already very strong, because early game power can let you take territory which then has the late game resources. Iron and horses don't need to be boosted further (or rather won't once they are made rare enough and once we do sufficient unit rebalancing to make the strategic resource units sufficiently superior).

But that is what I was trying to say... What was the added complexity I had?

CSD adds complexity to a modmod, not to the core mod.

 

[albie_123]

@Mitsho

My bad, I was tired when I read your post.

I was actually imagining a line of 2 buildings (Classical, Renaissance) that were built in any city, giving it a +50 to a +100 percent increase in gifts recieved - meaning if you don't care if your capital gets extra food, it doesn't have to! This gives players a much greater control over where their City State rewards go. Right now, I hate having my Capital get as much food as a recently founded city that could really use the extra growth. This also means diplomatic leaders have to work for the bonus - right now, they get it for free, whereas a militaristic leader has to build a line of buildings to gain extra XP. Not exactly fair.

Finally, how I would ensure that it doesn't put non-caring leaders at a huge disadvantage is by making the buildings scale equally (that is, the second building has an equal bonus to the first, not an increasing one).

It's not perfect, but, it's a lot less passive than the current one, and means diplomatic success isn't just based on having more gold than the other guy.

@Ahriman

Right now, City States are a backup for anyone. Been ignoring them the whole game? Don't worry, you can buy them all and recieve the same rewards as someone who has dedicated themselves to diplomacy.

In my mind, that's not only nonsensical, but not fun.

 

[Ahriman]

This also means diplomatic leaders have to work for the bonus - right now, they get it for free

I don't get this. You don't get them free, you have to have the CS influence. The bonuses/rewards are supposed to be the payoff for investing in city states.

Right now, City States are a backup for anyone. Been ignoring them the whole game? Don't worry, you can buy them all and recieve the same rewards as someone who has dedicated themselves to diplomacy.

In my mind, that's not only nonsensical, but not fun.

I don't see a problem with this. The bonuses are about forward looking benefits. If I invest in acquiring a city state, I get the benefits. If I do it early, I get those benefits for a long time. If I invest late, I don't get the benefits.

If you were dedicating yourself to diplomacy, then you get were getting the rewards from diplomacy.

Its the same for every other mechanic. Buying a factory doesn't have a lower payoff just because I wasn't running a production-oriented strategy before.

I don't have any problem with a power who somehow manages to acquire massive amounts of gold in the late-game getting all the CS benefits if they can afford to buy them up. That's what gold is for.

And I find that once the UN is built, other civs bid pretty seriously for the CS alliances.

I also don't see anything nonsensical. Isn't this basically what the US and USSR did? It didn't matter that the US/USSR hadn't had centuries of good relations with various minor powers, they were the superpowers and they were able to expend the resources to bid for minor state influence. The government of Cuba didn't tell Moscow "sorry, you weren't our friend in 1650, we won't be your ally".

I don't see why current performance should depend on past performance except to the extent that past performance affects my current capability (eg years of food boosts from Maritime CS alliances means that I have a larger economy today and more gold with which to buy/defend CS alliances).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

@albie_123
I see what you mean: instead of automatically getting passive bonuses to citystate yields as our era progresses, we build structures to improve those yields. It might lean us towards all-or-nothing approaches to citystates though. Is there a way we could adapt this to encourage everyone to invest in an average of 2 citystates?

Actually, interesting you should mention this. I recently picked up the "More Mercantile Mod"-one I'm really enjoying BTW-but it got me to thinking.....what if the unique luxuries of these City States could somehow be boosted by buildings within your empire (whether new or existing). I think the example that most easily comes to mind was the "Literature" resource. Well how about if access to this luxury granted +1 Culture to Libraries, +1 Science to Universities, & +1 Gold to Book Store (a new building?) In a similar vein, it would be good to have buildings that allowed you to more greatly tap into the benefits of the Cultural, Maritime, Religious & Militaristic City-States.

Aussie.

 

[Thalassicus]

I would stay away from making city states depend on range. That kind of mechanic is find for modmods, but many of us really don't enjoy that in the main game. It is a big difference strategically from vanilla - and not one the AI understands.

I'm okay with leaving distance rules out. However, just to clarify one point, the AI does understand how to use diplomat units. It's the same AI routines used for Great Merchants.

 

[Ahriman]

However, just to clarify one point, the AI does understand how to use diplomat units. It's the same AI routines used for Great Merchants.

It knows how to use them literally. But that isn't the same as being good at making sensible rational decisions about which city states to use. I *think* the great merchant always goes to the closest non-allied CS. There isn't any logic in there about, for example, avoiding dangerous areas.

 

[Thalassicus]

I agree, the advantage of bribes is we can directly control those AI decisions. I created a new AI purchasing system in vem in the spring, you might have missed, which improved their economic decisions across the board (most people said the smarter AI was like +1 difficulty level). I'll hopefully have time to port that AI enhancement over to gem in the next week or two.