On the topic of City Package and Unpackage

[UWHabs]

NO IT IS NOT how the world worked for most of history.

The limitation on which 'units' or weapons a given army/society used was never based on what resources they had unless the resource was completely unavailable anywhere in their world, and the only example of that was the Horse, which went extinct throughout the Americas and thus was completely unavailable to any society there.

But in Eurasia, horses once domesticated were spread from Japan to Ireland, over mountains, across seas and straits, to any spot they could physically survive and breed (which left out only tropical Africa, where no large animal not immune to the tsetse fly could survive)

It works in Civ because Civ has always treated resources as immoveable, when in fact any animal or vegetable resource is very moveable and by modern times virtually infinitely moveable, But, and this is the important part:

Fixed Resources is a GAME MECHANIC only, and one that warps most of the game into artificial patterns and strategies.

The answer is not to argue about how to deal with an artificial game mechanic, it is to change the ^%$#@& game mechanic so that in-game you can actually play a semi-historically based narrative, not an artificial fantasy narrative based on static resources and their consequences.

Movable resources would be a little tough, always hard to balance anything and avoid a case of you just "planting" a bunch of horses. I've always viewed the resources too not necessarily as being the only places in the world that those resources exist, but just territory that is particularly valuable for that resource. Like you can make wine in the Okanagan region in British Columbia or in the Niagara valley in Canada, but neither of them would be a "wine" resource. That would be limited to your Bordeaux, maybe Napa Valley, etc... The truly special ones. Same with iron deposits - those aren't the only places you find iron, but spots where there's a particularly abundant or quality.

When you think of it that way, then the civ 7 model makes a little more sense. Empires all over the planet would have used some combination of iron or copper for their weapons through history, but if you live in an area with a higher quality iron deposit, then you have better iron for your swords so maybe you have a slight edge in battle. It's not like you just can't find something you can fashion into a sword so you're just going to give up trying.

Modern resources like oil, coal, rubber, etc.. are probably the slight exception, it's not like you can swap out and use like a steam powered tank and come close to someone burning oil in it. I'd be more inclined for the modern era to have resources actually gate-keep some units, which would also be another way the modern era gets spiced up fighting for resources.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think the way Civ has modelled this in past is good enough. Absolutely some resources were not accessible everywhere in the world, the Aztecs didn’t use iron weapons for instance. The game utilises trade as the method for spreading resources if you don’t have access to them. That is the point of comparative advantage. If your civ doesn’t have iron but has resources which other civs want then you trade. I don’t see the issue, that is really how the world works.

You (and several others on this Thread) are mistaking Resource for Technology. The Aztecs did not miss iron weapons and tools because they had no access to Iron, but because they did not have the high-temperature ovens/kilns/crucibles to work iron. The Greeks and Romans both had access to iron in abundance, yet the European world was over 1000 years behind China in getting Cast Iron because they did not have the very high temperature kiln/oven technology China developed for high-temperature pottery (proto-porcelain) and then used to melt and cast iron.

There are almost always two sides to the problem: having the resource, and having the technology to make use of the resource. - Well, actually three sides, the biggest problem is your society having any Need for the new resource/technology, which is a lot tricker and much more of a 'soft' problem and therefore very, very difficult to show in a game.

The other problem, which the game has never addressed, is the dramatic change in resource requirements that came with Industrialization. Before that, no one had to develop a specific trade route to get what they wanted, because they needed the resource in such relatively small quantities that pack animals or even pack people could haul it in. As far back as the early Bronze Age trade goods were flowing from central Asia to India and the middle east: gemstones, luxury items like perfume and dye materials, and the 'raw materials' like copper and tin for bronze-making - because, for instance, 50 pounds of Bronze was more than enough to equip a warrior with weapons and armor, and that could be carried by a single mule or donkey.

With Industrialization that changed dramatically, and it also changed geopolitics and trade dramatically. A Roman Legion of 5000 men could be equipped with iron-based body armor and iron weapons for a total of about 125 tons of wrought iron/steel in 50 pound lots (1 legionaries' share). A single kilometer of 19th century railroad required a minimum of 70 - 100 tons of steel just for the rails, let alone the spikes, locomotives (average 25 - 100 tons each) and cars (even wooden cars included up to half a ton of steel components like wheels, frame and couplings). The requirements in iron ore, coal, and other raw materials went up by orders of magnitude. - And consequently, required major trade routes because few countries had direct access on their own territory to the quantities of easily-accessed iron, coal, copper, tin, zinc, lime, etc required for the Industrial Age - and those routes had to carry materials by the 1000s of tons, not by the 100s of pounds.

I know of no war fought before 1800 to get access to iron, coal, or any other raw material, whereas the wars of the twentieth century were all about access to 'required' materials to wage more wars. World War Two can be (and has been) described as "The Oil War" because the war was fought (and won/lost) almost entirely over oil supplies and access to them.

All of which means that Resources should be treated very differently between (in Civ VII terms) the Exploration and earlier Ages and the Modern Age in their impact on the ability to build and use units and their impact on the prosperity of your Civ. The current changing of resource types and effects between Ages in the game only scratches the surface of what could be modeled.

Although I freely admit whether it should be modeled in all its potentially unbalancing effects is another question . . .

 

[Crashdummy]

I'm not sure I get what you meant by "we already have farms in the game". Are you saying towns shouldn't be able to transfer food to cities? Or that farm towns are already too powerful as things stand, so buffing them further would invalidate resorts, mines, forts, urban, etc?

Cities shouldnt NEED towns providing food for them. Its ok as an alternative, but it shouldnt be necessary like the proposal asked for

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Movable resources would be a little tough, always hard to balance anything and avoid a case of you just "planting" a bunch of horses. I've always viewed the resources too not necessarily as being the only places in the world that those resources exist, but just territory that is particularly valuable for that resource. Like you can make wine in the Okanagan region in British Columbia or in the Niagara valley in Canada, but neither of them would be a "wine" resource. That would be limited to your Bordeaux, maybe Napa Valley, etc... The truly special ones. Same with iron deposits - those aren't the only places you find iron, but spots where there's a particularly abundant or quality.

Thank you for using wine and the wine grape as an example, because it kind of proves my point about moveable resources.

Wine was made from numerous vegetable materials as far back as the Neolithic in China, Arica and the middle east, but the ancestor of the modern wine grapes originated in the Caucasus Mountain area and was first used there to make the (distant) ancestor of modern wine about 6500 - 6000 BCE. With the modern advances in DNA technologies they can track the spread of that grape right across Europe to show when 'modern wine' (as depicted in the Civ games) was available in, say, Greece, Rome, Gaul and Spain. At rhe nominal start of the game (4000 BCE) it was in fact still spreading and not available in the same areas it would be available in some turns later.

The same is true for most other animal/vegetable Resources. The modern horse was originally only found in a northern swatch of land from Mongolia across central Asia to approximately northern Poland. Humans introduced them (after domestication, which took over 2000 years) to the rest of Europe, and India, and China, an the middle East (and again, they didn't reach any of those areas until some 1500 - 2000 years after the nominal start of the game). Cattle were originally domesticated (based on current evidence, which could change tomorrow) in northern India, and spread to the middle East and only later to Europe and Asia - they were NOT all over the planet ready to be corralled and used in 4000 BCE, or even in 3000 BCE a milennia later.

All of which, as Civ does, can be abstracted. The tech Domestication required to use cattle can be interpreted as the advent of both cattle and the ability to use them effectively as a Resource. It has, Dog knows, worked so far in 7 renditions of the game . . .

But
Moveable animal/vegetable resources requiring (initially) very specific terrain/climate conditions and combinations to acquire potentially gives the gamer a whole new set of strategic decisions to make. And even more if we accept the corollary, that initially a great many Civs may find themselves with resources Unique to their starting position, like potentially domesticable Horses, Cattle, Elephants, Wine grapes, Olive trees, etc. They may spread to your neighbors regardless of what you want (because there is virtually no evidence of anybody managing to stop such spread before the Modern Age: see China's fruitless effort to keep silk a monopoly) but your Viv could exploit them first and to you advantage - for a time.

It's a question of how much complexity and where we want it in the game, and what kind and how much strategic decision making the game wants to throw at the gamer.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I have been playing some hours of Europa Universalis V since it came out last week, and it has orders of magnitude more detail in the social, political, diplomatic, economic aspects of the '4X' genre than Civ ever attempted. And it is, right now, a ghastly mess of problems, which have required 3 'updates' (Frantic Fixes) in its first week, with another one tomorrow. If Civ VII is near one end of the complexity and playability spectrum EU V is near the other end and neither is anywhere near Optimum IMHO.

 

[McSpank01]

I know of no war fought before 1800 to get access to iron, coal, or any other raw material

This is just not true, there were many wars in the antiquity age to get access to Iron mines, I’m quite sure the Romans were involved in many of them.

 

[Evie]

Then it shouldn't be hard to name, say, ten such wars.

"I'm quite sure, trust me bro" is not exactly cutting it as far as rational arguments (Especially not when made in response to several multi paragraph posts that look in some depth at various aspect of the history of resources and trade).

(Note: we are talking about wars where the purpose of the war was getting access to iron mines in order to be able to make iron tools and weapons. Not a war where the purpose was to seize control of an important source of wealth by seizing control of the iron trade. It has to be about strategic access.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This is just not true, there were many wars in the antiquity age to get access to Iron mines, I’m quite sure the Romans were involved in many of them.

The great sources of iron and other minerals for the Roman Empire outside of Italy (where there were workable deposits in the north of the peninsula) were Iberia, Britannia and Noricum (modern Austria).

A case could be made that the Romans conquered Iberia partially for minerals, because it was known as a source for centuries before Rome got there, but primarily the minerals were gold and silver and the primary reason given (by the Romans) for going there was that too many Iberians were allied with Carthage.

Noricum was on the way to Greece and, again, the first minerals exploited there were alluvial gold deposits. The Celts already there were exploiting the local iron ore and trading wrought iron and steel products to the Romans, and Rome continued exploiting the iron, but it was not mentioned as a reason to take the place originally.

And finally, the conquest of Dacia (107 CE) was also primarily for its resources, but the specific resource named was Gold, not iron. In fact, they got so much gold out of the new province that it suppressed the value of gold in the Empire for a time.

And on the other hand, iron smelted with coal was being exported to Rome from the Rhine Valley outside the Empire by the 2nd century CE and earlier iron, gold, and silver were all traded from Iberia and iron from Gaul (southern France) during the Republic. Any iron Rome thought it needed it could get by trade: when it conquered iron sources it was because there was something else there like silver or gold or politics that drew them.

 

[Gorbles]

Cities shouldnt NEED towns providing food for them. Its ok as an alternative, but it shouldnt be necessary like the proposal asked for

Why not? Where do you think most farmland sits?

It's not exactly in or around urban centres, is it?

 

[stealth_nsk]

To me real-world basis is secondary. From gameplay perspective, towns are a great way to reduce micromanagement. Feeding cities from towns is also pretty logical concept if we consider towns as a way to grab some minimal territory and its resources - such towns need to stop growing at some point and this stop need to give some advantages.

I can't say I really like this whole system. For one, without tile switching those limited towns are hard to do right - they either grab tiles they shouldn't or don't have access to tiles thry'd better work. Also, the whole notion of stopping growth tied to specialization is a bit off to me.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

To me real-world basis is secondary. From gameplay perspective, towns are a great way to reduce micromanagement. Feeding cities from towns is also pretty logical concept if we consider towns as a way to grab some minimal territory and its resources - such towns need to stop growing at some point and this stop need to give some advantages.

I can't say I really like this whole system. For one, without tile switching those limited towns are hard to do right - they either grab tiles they shouldn't or don't have access to tiles thry'd better work. Also, the whole notion of stopping growth tied to specialization is a bit off to me.

Like so much in the Civ VII mechanics, it's a step in rhe right direction, but only a very hesitant one. I suspect, in fact, that there was some sort of 'ton current' running through the game design atmosphere, because the Millenia game also had subordinate towns designed to capture more territory to exploit. which seemed to me to be very similar to what Civ VII was trying.

The problems with the towns are similar to the problems with the cities: they start to 'sprawl' across the landscape just like the cities do, as if every town is intended to be as big as a city someday. They shouldn't be, if they are intended to 'feed' cities. In fact, a great many towns remain towns for centuries as perfectly desirable places for people to live (in the developed world, in fact, many are considered better places to lie than the cities) with no real impulse to grow.

Circling back to the city sprawl problem, towns should be very limited in the tiles they can work, so that their placement has to be very carefully considered and from the start you know that some of them will never grow into cities because:
1. There's only a few good tiles around them, but you really, really wanted to exploit them so you sprung for a settlement there.
2. They are far more valuable enhancing the nearest city than trying to compete with it for tiles. In fact, I'd suggest that towns should have very limited growth potential until they become cities: if you want them to compete, you'd have to specifically decide to make them competitive.

 

[Crashdummy]

Why not? Where do you think most farmland sits?

It's not exactly in or around urban centres, is it?

Depends on the Age. In Antiquity they were VERY close to Urban centers because that made them easier to defend

And in Modern you can even not have farms because you can buy the food from someone else

Now, Civilization is a game, in terms of gameplay, i t hink it would be bad for the game for Cities to NEEDS farm town to grow, because that would severely limit towns variety

 

[Gorbles]

Depends on the Age. In Antiquity they were VERY close to Urban centers because that made them easier to defend

And in Modern you can even not have farms because you can buy the food from someone else

Now, Civilization is a game, in terms of gameplay, i t hink it would be bad for the game for Cities to NEEDS farm town to grow, because that would severely limit towns variety

In Antiquity you didn't really have "urban" centres for the most part either. It's a rather modern concept.

But the way I see it, Civ VII does a reasonable job of modelling this. The idea that Towns start off providing food, but increasingly specialise according to your needs is a bit gamified (how a settlement was founded tended to decide its direction, from border forts to industrial centres), but it's a step up from "everything is a City".

I don't think you need every Town to be a food hub, but the concept of needing a balance between Towns and Cities appeals to me in a game about growing an empire.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Like so much in the Civ VII mechanics, it's a step in rhe right direction, but only a very hesitant one. I suspect, in fact, that there was some sort of 'ton current' running through the game design atmosphere, because the Millenia game also had subordinate towns designed to capture more territory to exploit. which seemed to me to be very similar to what Civ VII was trying.

Civ5 had Puppet Cities, so yep, the concept is in the air for long time.

The problems with the towns are similar to the problems with the cities: they start to 'sprawl' across the landscape just like the cities do, as if every town is intended to be as big as a city someday. They shouldn't be, if they are intended to 'feed' cities. In fact, a great many towns remain towns for centuries as perfectly desirable places for people to live (in the developed world, in fact, many are considered better places to lie than the cities) with no real impulse to grow.

That's there stopping growth comes handy. But again, that's not gameplay perspective, that's real world parallels.

Circling back to the city sprawl problem, towns should be very limited in the tiles they can work, so that their placement has to be very carefully considered and from the start you know that some of them will never grow into cities because:
1. There's only a few good tiles around them, but you really, really wanted to exploit them so you sprung for a settlement there.
2. They are far more valuable enhancing the nearest city than trying to compete with it for tiles. In fact, I'd suggest that towns should have very limited growth potential until they become cities: if you want them to compete, you'd have to specifically decide to make them competitive.

The problem I see here (again from gameplay perspective) is that this would force towns turning into cities if you need to grab the land. That way of forcing is likely to take out strategic choice.

And from simulation perspective, as I said, the level of abstraction is too high. You could imagine villages in each tile, or several villages per tile, or village serving several tiles... whatever.

 

[UWHabs]

You could split towns to be a much bigger distinction from cities. Like you could give them explicitly different rules - maybe they can only stretch 2 tiles out instead of 3, have them not block placement of cities otherwise, maybe you also can abandon them/absorb them into nearby cities, and stuff like that. Obviously you'd change settlement limit to not count them the same as cities, but almost treat them more like the old colonies from civ 3. There's a part of me that would like that more, it would help you fill in your borders more if you could have more smaller towns scattered over the countryside, with many of them implicitly or even explicitly not really able to develop into a city.

I've definitely started to try to not think about every town location as a city/urban centre. Earlier games I'd use map tacks to mark my UD in every settlement I build, now I'm a lot more specific about picking my maybe 3-4 spots I feel like I want to develop.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

The problems with the towns are similar to the problems with the cities: they start to 'sprawl' across the landscape just like the cities do, as if every town is intended to be as big as a city someday.

If towns had no urban sprawl at all, that woud make them more distinct from cities. It would work better visually as your cities would be the big metros with sprawl and the towns would just one tile. One possible solution to this would be to limit towns to only the center tile but up the number of buildings to say 4. This way towns would have no sprawl to differentiate them from cities but could still house a few more buildings to be useful.

 

[Krikkit1]

If towns had no urban sprawl at all, that woud make them more distinct from cities. It would work better visually as your cities would be the big metros with sprawl and the towns would just one tile. One possible solution to this would be to limit towns to only the center tile but up the number of buildings to say 4. This way towns would have no sprawl to differentiate them from cities but could still house a few more buildings to be useful.

A big problem with that would be Harbors/Quays (and later on Ports) that Can't be in the City Center.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

A big problem with that would be Harbors/Quays (and later on Ports) that Can't be in the City Center.

I think anything built on water would get a pass, considering urban sprawl isn't a problem for the water tiles, or those buildings are only available for certain towns like fishing town, trade outposts, or urban centers.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think anything built on water would get a pass, considering urban sprawl isn't a problem for the water tiles, or those buildings are only available for certain towns like fishing town, trade outposts, or urban centers.

The other issue then is Reaching the water... if the city center isn't on the Water.. then no Quays/Harbors/Ports?

 

[SupremacyKing2]

The other issue then is Reaching the water... if the city center isn't on the Water.. then no Quays/Harbors/Ports?

I think the town center tile would need to be adjacent to water to build quays, harbors or ports.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I found the whole idea of unstacking cities, but not towns, to be really weird:
1. The less consistent game design is, the harder it's to grasp the game.
2. What to do with buildings once town is upgraded to city? Why have specific mechanics for this if towns could just have same buildings as cities.
3. Having different methods of building in cities and towns means having more graphical assets and thus less readability.
4. But most importantly, I don't see a single value this system would bring to the game.