Specializing cities through permits.

[remconius]

In the Jesse Smith Video Interview I heard him talk about being able to hand out 19 types of town permits to specialize cities.

Does anybody know how this works?

 

[Slax]

I've never heard of this. Can you quote him?

 

[mitsho]

I think he was talking about governors (as in civ3) where you can say them to specialize in xy - food, production or money in civ3. In civIV you can specialize them in the regions which can give Great Leaders (economy, science, religion, etc. ...).

But we need to see how useful they really are?

mitsho

 

[apatheist]

I hope specializing cities isn't something you can switch on and off whenever you like. i.e., you can't turn Amsterdam from a trading city in one turn to a science city in the next and a production city the next. It should be something that is accumulated and embedded more deeply in the fabric of the city, so to speak.

In the United States, for instance, New York, Boston, and San Francisco have long been financial centers. Houston is big in energy. Silicon Valley is big in technology. Los Angeles is big in media. That specialization is only a little bit of a result of governance and infrastructure, and much more the result of the expertise of people. Silicon Valley started around the nucleus of Stanford. They founded companies that attracted geeks who started more companies that attracted more geeks etc.

I'd like to see the civ games be able to model an educated, specialist citizenry like that (not specialist in the same sense as in previous games, of course). In other words, the specialization doesn't come from governor configuration or stuff like that, but rather that the citizens themselves automatically specialize and citizens of a specialty tend to flock together. There should be things that you can do to influence that, but you shouldn't be able to make it happen by fiat.

 

[Legionary37]

Yes. Specialists like Scientists etc. should yield alot more, but should take a long time to "devolp" hence yielding large benefits later on.

 

[lion1976]

I'd like to see the civ games be able to model an educated, specialist citizenry like that (not specialist in the same sense as in previous games, of course). In other words, the specialization doesn't come from governor configuration or stuff like that, but rather that the citizens themselves automatically specialize and citizens of a specialty tend to flock together. There should be things that you can do to influence that, but you shouldn't be able to make it happen by fiat.

i very much agree, but: this only makes sense for free-market-style economic systems, like capitalism. here you have free movement of people and capital, making freely evolving agglomeration processes, like the one you described, legally possible in the first place. here specialization shouldn't come from a governor. unlike, for example, in communism or totalitarianism: here it makes more sense to have a governor do specialisation planning.

 

[peanut35]

actually i think it makes sense for communism too...the government says you are good at something, say science, and so send you to the science capital of the empire, so i don't think it should only rely on capitalism and free-open economy. I think it makes perfect sense for a communist society as well.

 

[Avayaman]

i think it's just the kind of "governor" you will appoint for the city, which will prioritize certain city improvements/units, depending on what kind of "specialty" you want for the city.

 

[Darwin420]

In the scope of Civ, specializing a city by issuing a "permit" works better and makes more sense than it happening naturally. I hope that the most benefit will come after a city has been specialized for a long time, and that the penalty is steep for switching its specialization. It'll make for true industrial centers, and science centers.. maybe giving bonuses to the construction of related buildings? (library is cheaper in science city; factory cheaper in industrial city?)

Of course, it might make limited-city games a bit more difficult....

 

[apatheist]

i very much agree, but: this only makes sense for free-market-style economic systems, like capitalism. here you have free movement of people and capital, making freely evolving agglomeration processes, like the one you described, legally possible in the first place. here specialization shouldn't come from a governor. unlike, for example, in communism or totalitarianism: here it makes more sense to have a governor do specialisation planning.

The fundamentals of the free market have existed in every government and economy since the first cities. Capitalist economies differ not in that they obey those fundamentals, but rather that they do less to obstruct their operation. Both China (the Great Leap Forward) and the USSR (Five year plans) learned that lesson the hard way. The same is true of other types of specialization. You can't force creativity to occur. You can only alter the environment to encourage or discourage it. Non-democratic, non-capitalist systems seem to be less conducive to it, but it still exists. You can command people to be doctors, jesters, or blacksmiths by fiat, but they're not going to be as good as those who come to it on their own. History is full of examples of rulers who failed to understand these principles.

 

[Avayaman]

You can command people to be doctors, jesters, or blacksmiths by fiat, but they're not going to be as good as those who come to it on their own. History is full of examples of rulers who failed to understand these principles.

hmmm.. which makes me think that maybe the reason why I like CIV is because i DO get to push people around...

 

[apatheist]

hmmm.. which makes me think that maybe the reason why I like CIV is because i DO get to push people around...

It depends. I think of units and improvements as things you command by fiat. A city, though, I think of as being more like a garden. A good city must be grown, tended, fertilized, watered, pruned, etc. It's the best of both worlds, hopefully. Even the most dictatorial of regimes in the world has depended on the cooperation of some of its citizens.

 

[Avayaman]

cities by specialization should hopefully give more character to the cities. I hate it that cities always follow similar paths... all have temples, barracks, etc etc.

there should be limited slots to force specialization or paths to follow.

i mean not all cities have barracks of collesiums or airports.

 

[BarbarianSlayer]

cities by specialization should hopefully give more character to the cities. I hate it that cities always follow similar paths... all have temples, barracks, etc etc.

there should be limited slots to force specialization or paths to follow.

i mean not all cities have barracks of collesiums or airports.

I like this idea, but maybe you should get more slots as your city grows. For example, most larger cities will have more buildings, temples, stadiums, etc., while a smaller city will only have a church and residential areas. Smaller cities would have to remain specialized, while the larger cities would be able to fill out with more attractions/enhancements.

 

[HourlyDaily]

There are some good ideas here.

I like the citizen specialisation idea. Maybe it could be worked out by the game turns the citizens have been working at that one job. At some point you will have to switch from an agrarian civ but you will need to work out the best time to switch to philosophers, or to artists, scientists etc.

The slots in the city idea makes sense, because a small city does not have the manpower or the need for big improvements (except cathedrals/shrines) until the population grows. Or the city could become a specialist city in that way eg: Tourist destination (Wonder) or a Silicon Valley (built late on in the game.) You could argue that a small city is restricted as it is by having limited hammers to build things until it gets bigger. But you could also argue that it is best to build granaries, temples etc. the same way every time resulting in no specialisation.

I haven't finished thinking about the possibilities yet but maybe some civ players will not like the restrictions placed on them.

 

[apatheist]

The problem with a limited number of slots is that it limits the player's options without giving anything back in return. It may be a smart strategy to overbuild a particular city, or it might be a stupid strategy. It should be the player's option to play stupidly and have 20 gpt of maintenance in a pop 1 city. The game shouldn't say flat out "you can't do this," it should say "well, it's a dumb idea, but you're the boss and you're paying for it."

 

[joethreeblah]

There are some good ideas here.

I like the citizen specialisation idea. Maybe it could be worked out by the game turns the citizens have been working at that one job. At some point you will have to switch from an agrarian civ but you will need to work out the best time to switch to philosophers, or to artists, scientists etc.

The slots in the city idea makes sense, because a small city does not have the manpower or the need for big improvements (except cathedrals/shrines) until the population grows. Or the city could become a specialist city in that way eg: Tourist destination (Wonder) or a Silicon Valley (built late on in the game.) You could argue that a small city is restricted as it is by having limited hammers to build things until it gets bigger. But you could also argue that it is best to build granaries, temples etc. the same way every time resulting in no specialisation.

I haven't finished thinking about the possibilities yet but maybe some civ players will not like the restrictions placed on them.

Maybe a group of folks from one city might go visit a colluseam in another city close by

 

[remconius]

This is what Jesse Smith actually says:

The building aspect: as you explore you found new cities to expand your empire. Your're gonna have to build town permits. There are 19 town permits that have been added to the game. So That means figuring out how to specialize these cities to get the optimal output that you're looking for in that city. We feel for builders that is a lot more interesting than what has been previously offered. ​

I think he might be right as it was quite a common strategy in civ3 to specialize cities. One city builds barracks and only units, Other cities focus on food and settler/worker production.
In civ4 there will be more diversity in this area.

 

[remconius]

So it's not to do with Specialists and proabably not a time-gained effect.

I would expect that all cities start with general average abilities like the old civs. Then you hand out a limited number of permits:
(just guessing here)
advanced farming (+1 food to all grassland)
advanced mining (+1 hammer to all mountains)
etc.

As you can share resources you could use your farming city to supply food to your mining cities...

It would be interesting to learn more about this.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

From what I heard in that video, I got the impression that it also had something to do with the specific resources-and the various tile improvements you can build on them. When combined with the specialists within your city, you get an overall level of city specialisation-which in turn improves your chance of getting Great People. I confess, though, that a lot of that is speculation on my part.
I do agree with Apatheist, though, that it would be much better if city specialisation was more organic in nature!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.