Should certain buildings already be present, when you form a city in certain eras?

[MrBullterrier]

Greetings All,
This is an issue I believe everybody must have had at one point or another and if it has been addressed by another thread before mine I apologise.
Now, when cities form in real life they usually do so in several different ways. The most wide spread method is for a few neighbouring settlements/villages to merge into a city, thus sharing economic power and civil services (hospitals, police, etc. ), or it can be a state initiative- The city of Tsukuba in Japan for example was formed in the fifties with the intention of it being a scientific center of the land, while in the US and other countries there have been/are closed settlements with military applications and/or research.
Long talk, small point- In most of these cases Cities form with certain prerequisites having been met. One such prerequisite is the presence of much needed services and bildings which provide them.
If we accept that to be true, then shouldn't new cities in Civilization have certain buildings already present in later stages of the game? This may be just me, but building a granary and an aqueduct for a settlement in the modern age has always seemed kind of a drag in later gameplay. One can argue that a new settlement starts with fairly little, because of little population, but keep in mind that the demands of the people have risen with time and so have the standarts, that a city must fulfill in order to be populated. It's just hard to imagine a group of moderners leaving their homes in order to live in a place with no running water and a place to buy groceries.
What is your opinion?

 

[RedRalph]

Agree wholeheartedly.

 

[Suho1004]

I do agree that founding a city late in the game can be a drag in terms of catching up. This is somewhat alleviated if you're running Universal Suffrage (allowing you to buy production), but it would be nice to have some basic buildings, like a granary, aqueduct, library, and courthouse.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I agree in terms of realism.

When talking about gameplay, I would like to take a look at the latest version of the game and assume we integrate such a feature in that game.

In civ4, you get a single population point city and the ability to use a 9 tile cultural area in return for a 100 settler. To get more out of such a settler, you'd need to invest more hammers in order to keep a stable relation between costs and benefits within the game. So if the city should have a granary when it is founded, then the settler should somehow include the cost of the 60 granary. I'd argue that the cost should be a little higher than 60 because you also get the benefit of transporting production, so I'd go for 100 + 1.5 * 60 = 190 for a total cost of the new colonist type unit. The new colonist type unit would be an upgrade to the normal settler and would become available with a certain technology (say construction/engineering in civilization 4). I believe various mods of civilization 4 have already taken this route.

 

[need my speed]

However, then you would have your city later, thus giving others the time to settle a city on your planned spot, and your new city will have less culture and population then it could have had...So there are both positive and negatives. But, I think the positives outweigh the negatives, because a Settler is produced in a single turn, or 2, or 3, but not much, and those extra 90 hammers won't add more then a turn or 2, 3.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Making cash-rushing available earlier would help alleviate this problem (which I do agree is a problem).

 

[Xzylvador]

I agree in terms of realism.

When talking about gameplay, I would like to take a look at the latest version of the game and assume we integrate such a feature in that game.

In civ4, you get a single population point city and the ability to use a 9 tile cultural area in return for a 100 settler. To get more out of such a settler, you'd need to invest more hammers in order to keep a stable relation between costs and benefits within the game. So if the city should have a granary when it is founded, then the settler should somehow include the cost of the 60 granary. I'd argue that the cost should be a little higher than 60 because you also get the benefit of transporting production, so I'd go for 100 + 1.5 * 60 = 190 for a total cost of the new colonist type unit. The new colonist type unit would be an upgrade to the normal settler and would become available with a certain technology (say construction/engineering in civilization 4). I believe various mods of civilization 4 have already taken this route.

Rise of Mankind has it for sure... only way I play Civ nowadays.
Instead of a size 1 city without buildings, a pioneer builds like a size 3 city with several of the cheap but required buildings that citizens of that age would probably demand.
I have to say that I never really built many of the "upgraded settler" units anyways, because usually by that time, every somewhat decent spot to build a city has already been taken. But sometimes, you'll find that island noone discovered/settled before, or just decide to commit genicide by razing enemy cities and building your own there.

Another option, instead of obsoleting Settlers, is allowing the merging of them into a small city... older Civ games had this and it could be expanded on.
Say, a Settler always builds an empty size 1 city.
But, when far enough in tech, you can send a second Settler unit to a small city, and expending it there will add 1 to the city size and build a cheap building. Could only be done 4 times maximum or something, and the city must be below a certain population for this to be allowed.
First time, +1 pop, granary
Second time, +1 pop, library
Third time, lighthouse in coastal; market in land
Fourth time, courthouse

 

[mechaerik]

Definitely agree.

In Civ4, I think it was a relatively simple change in the founding code, to check for current era rather than starting era (because IIRC, starting in later eras made settlers found cities with buildings in them).

 

[Willem]

If we accept that to be true, then shouldn't new cities in Civilization have certain buildings already present in later stages of the game?

While this may be true in real-life, this is a game and there's a question of balance to be considered.

 

[MrBullterrier]

Personally, I don't see how the game balance will be disrupted by having some buildings be created along with a city. Maybe if you were way ahead of the other civs in terms of era/technology and then the game becomes too easy, but achieving that at higher dificulty levels is near impossible(for me at least). There have been some interesting suggestions in this thread, like the use of multiple settlers on the same city in order to stimulate growth and build things(Xzylvador), or the upgraded version of a settler, which takes longer to build(Roland and NMS). In Civ3 I remember you could use workers and settlers to join a city, thus giving it a +1 Population. Certain Wonders like the Pyramids and the Great Library caused every city to recieve a granary and a library. What I'm trying to say is, there's more than one way to skin a cat, so devising a way to effectively add this feature into the upcoming Civ5 without disrupting the dificulty, shouldn't be such a complicated matter.

 

[Alki]

What about the new towns in Britain in the 60s? Milton Keynes and the others were greenfields until the developer got his pen out. Everything was built from scratch and paid for by the gubment.

Perhaps we could have an option in the modern era of paying for any buildings you would like to have when the city is founded?

 

[MrBullterrier]

There is another issue in the whole settler/city building system, that I would like to address. Oddly enough it's one that may actually procure more balance for the game, thank take from it. Whenever you make a settler form a city, that city always starts with population 1 and then continues to grow on its own. This is all very well, but shouldn't the people, who make this population come from somewhere? We have all experienced riots in our fair cities, which are based on the old yet always popular sentiment: "It's just too crowded!". It kinda struck me in Civ4, that you weren't able to decrease the populace of a city in any other way, short of sacrifising it. Well call me a no good, ultra-liberal, naive, leftie, drugged up communist, but aren't there alternatives ?!? Is the act of simple migration from one overcrowded metropolis to a new colony so hard to implement? I'm sorry for the constant references to different parts of the series today, but a similar mechanic was present in Civ3 and I believe it worked pretty well. This is probably a theory for a whole different thread, so let me just say, how I believe it can be used in combination with the original idea we are discussing.
I'm growing very fond of the idea of having different settler units, which appear as you progress and have a choice between. My suggestion is that Settlers should cost Population. Different Settlers should be prised differently, according to what they bring(starting populace,buildings, possibly a worker for the end-game ones). The first Settlers will practically be the same as in Civ4 and will cost only 1 population, so that you are not really slowed down in the beginning. With time the newer ones will cost more(I imagine a maximum of 3 or 4P) and there will always be a chance, that not all of them are used for starting Population of the city. They(the people that is) can either fall victim to sickness and never make it to the city, or be used as an exchange for the buildings, which will be made with the city.
There is a vast number of ways in which to make the game more balanced by such methods, but what do you think?

 

[Alki]

We had that in Britain in the 80s too. Gubment tells unemployed scum to move to find work instead of be unemployed. That's all well and good for single people but not so good for families and people with commitments.

Can you really imagine the German Govt moving a million people from the former DDR to the former west just to solve social problems? Do you think that is in the slightest way realistic? I can imagine the riots now.

What we could see is people from overcrowded cities slowly seeping out, on their own initiative, and move to other happier less crowded cities.

 

[MrBullterrier]

I was actually thinking more in the lines of people being unhappy with where they are and therefore moving away in search of greener pastures. Many people left East Germany, when the wall fell, so I do believe it is realistic and if anything commitment to your family would be another motive to seek better living conditions.
Anyway this also depends strongly on the regime a country is under, but that's a different topic.

 

[Alki]

Of course, but a government doesn't initiate that move to work and wealth; the population themselves do.

 

[MrBullterrier]

Of course, but a government doesn't initiate that move to work and wealth; the population themselves do.

We're probably getting a bit carried away with discussing realism here and how the idea could function in our world, but I am getting interested in what you are saying. First of- a government can initiate the act of people migration at a reasonable number and pace. Whether that results in general disapprovement or not depends on a lot of variable factors like the level of support the people have for their government, their level of toleration for state control etc. . Some countries will be more likely to perform such acts on orders, while others won't.
Second- Even in places where you wouldn't normally assume such a thing possible(not going to name examples), there are ways to make people want what the governing party needs and then all said party needs do is to graciously present them with the means for making it happen. We can speak all day of democracies and human rights, and all that jazz, but in the end can you think of a country, which doesn't in some way influence the opinion of the masses?
This is an interesting discussion, but I'm afraid we're getting rather off topic here, so if you wish to discuss it further I'll have to ask, that we do so somewhere else.

 

[Earthling]

Rather than a colonist/different settler type I'd rather like the ability to buy buildings upon founding a city. But yes, the idea is already there, used in mods, and even in Civ4 can be tied to eras easily - for instance starting a game with like a Medieval start even does this automatically!

For the regular game though I would do something like make it an option, with buildings unlocked by era, that can be bought for a discount when the city is founded. So after the classical era you buy a granary or lighthouse for 60 gold upon founding a new city, after medieval a courthouse and library for costs appropriate to those buildings, and so on for a lot of basic infrastructure. The idea that this basic infrastructure should be cheaper with new cities at later technological eras I agree with - also I don't think cities should get quite so devastated as they do during wartime either.

Civ III had a much better system because it had a better military bombardment system - it made perfect sense that prolonged sieges, bombers, artillery would destroy more infrastructure. But a city losing nearly every building automatically upon capture just becomes a pain. If there was an option like in the Total War franchise, where the conqueror could choose or not choose to "sack" the city along with occupying it (of course you can already "raze" cities ) that would be good too.

 

[Yakk]

I tossed together a half-assed "infrastructure wonders" mod.

It was a series of national wonders that auto-built a given low-tech improvement in all of your cities.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Does everyone here realise that some buildings do indeed come free in new cities if you have the starting era not set to Ancient? You also get free population points IIRC.
For example, on Modern era starts, new cities get a granary, forge and lighthouse (if applicable) and the settlers cost more to compensate.

 

[Naokaukodem]

also I don't think cities should get quite so devastated as they do during wartime either.

Civ III had a much better system because it had a better military bombardment system - it made perfect sense that prolonged sieges, bombers, artillery would destroy more infrastructure. But a city losing nearly every building automatically upon capture just becomes a pain. If there was an option like in the Total War franchise, where the conqueror could choose or not choose to "sack" the city along with occupying it (of course you can already "raze" cities ) that would be good too.

That. I don't think this topic is that much important, but it makes me think about that. It would be cool if we could keep most of the buildings inside a city when we conquer it. If we don't want this city, because for example we couldn't afford its defense for now, then just raze it.

It makes me think also that when we raze a city, population should go into other cities.