Tile Improvements Cost Gold to Build

[yoshi]

Giving Tile Improvements an initial build cost would create a better connection between infrastucture and wealth. A civ would have to think twice before building tile improvements all over the place. Would prevent civs from improveing everything in the first part of the game. Also, it would give more incentive to maintain a large treasury. There would also be an economic balancing effect: spending a lot on tiel improvements such as Roads would pay off as the Roads would increase income created by those tiles. And personally I dislike the fact that just because a civ has a lot of workers, it can completely improve the surrounding terrian at no cost --minus the Workers, which only cost shileds anyway. This change would make tile improvemnts (and the game in general) more wealth-based than just production-based.
From the combat-strategy point of view, pillaging would have a far greater economic effect then just removing an improvement only to have a Worker rebuild it at no cost.

I can't believe nobody's mentioned this (as far as I know).

Having tile improvements also have maintenance costs would be interesting...but that might be pushing it.

 

[yoshi]

Actually, now that I think of it, why not apply this to everything; i.e. units and city improvments as well? By including a gold cost factor when building stuff, the value of gold (which until now has not been useful beyond diplomacy and rush building) as a strategic element in the game is multiplied tenfold!
After all, it makes sense that the labor involved in building something is paid, in addition to the materials used to build it.

 

[slothman]

If it were true then the amout of gold you get would have to be increased. Otherwise you could easily lose money at the begining of the game and not be able to build anymore. You probably wouldn't even be able to afford 1 road from a lux resource.

 

[yoshi]

Lets say you would require 3 gold to build a road on a tile. You're saying you couldn't afford 3 gold every few turns in the early game?
You prove my point. If a player is going to build things he has to be economically proficient as well --in order to afford them. This becomes more challenging as the game progresses and everything becomes more expensive, thus making production more economically oriented (as opposed to just having shields and patience.

 

[Ian Beale]

Nah i like it as it is.

 

[arkammler]

Have it as an option set at 0 for a cost.

 

[yoshi]

Why? What's wrong with giving the player more to think about, i.e. making the game even more strategic than it already is?

Just a quick question:
Let's say Jesse Smith (Atari/Firaxis) said, "We're working on a new Tile Improvement concept: they now cost gold to build. This will give players something to think about before improving the land too much and ensure that terrain improvement stays limited in the early game and becomes a bigger economic factor in the later game. Wealth has not been as essential as it should be in the CIV series so this new rule will give players who are good with economics a chance to exploit strategic advatages that have not been a factor until now. And for those die-hard civers out there, we've included a seperate in-game preference that can be deactived so the game will play as it does now."
Would you really have cause to complain?

Personally I think (as do most capitalist consumers) that more is better. Having more to do is something that civers thrive on --what most players don't like is excessive amounts of micro-management, but that doesn't really apply to this. Besides, if people didn't want new features in CIV then Civ3 would never have come out.

 

[yoshi]

Have it as an option set at 0 for a cost.

Exactly.

 

[warpstorm]

Since you have to pay gold for your workers already I don't like this idea. I'm already paying ~100 gold a turn in the late game already to improve my tiles.

 

[yoshi]

100 gold...wow. That means you have 100 Workers running around? That means you're empire is sprawling --or you're repeatedly building improvements on the same tiles, which is possible if you automate you're Workers (including that annoying pollution of course).

I can see where the problem is. Having tile improvements cost gold in that case would definitely bankrupt you quickly --esspecially if you're at war and we all know how the Ai just loves to pillage. I guess all I can say is that this would require a change in strategy, i.e. build fewer Workers. That would slow you down a bit, but keep in mind that this would also apply to the other civs, so it wouldn't necessarily unbalance the game.

[BTW, sorry I never mentioned this, but nice tile sets in PTW.]

 

[Roland Johansen]

Yoshi, you started another thread (request) about individual unit upkeep costs. You could combine that with this idea and give workers an upkeep of 3 per turn (or something you like). It would have a similar effect as what you're proposing now. Not exactly the same, but probably easier to implement for the programmers.

 

[yoshi]

It would have a similar effect as what you're proposing now. Not exactly the same, but probably easier to implement for the programmers.

You're right about it being easier to program, as incorperating a line that removes x # of gold from owner's treasury each time a tile improvement is built would be harder to implement than simply adding a unit cost caption to the Unit screen in the Editor. I don't think would significantely affect the developer's budget though.

Without this change though, the pillageing element is lost (i.e. re-improving a tile after it has been pillaged costs you nothing).

Having higher maintenance for Workers would mean that you would essentially be paying for the improvement even when a Worker isn't active, so this would be quite wasteful. I suppose it could be assumed that this is a result of 'road maintenance' or something, but this is about specific rule changes/additions, not assumptions.

And if this initial cost were to be applied to Units and City Improvements as well, maintenance would not cover it.


BTW, the reason why I don't speak of the whether or not the AI would be able to handle these new factors is because I think it should be assumed that any new addition/change to the game is followed up equivilant changes to the AI by programmers. If not, they wouldn't be doing what they're paid to do.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Originally posted by yoshi

You're right about it being easier to program, as incorperating a line that removes x # of gold from owner's treasury each time a tile improvement is built would be harder to implement than simply adding a unit cost caption to the Unit screen in the Editor. I don't think would significantely affect the developer's budget though.

Probably not. I'm not a programmer, I just thought about combining you're 2 ideas.

Without this change though, the pillageing element is lost (i.e. re-improving a tile after it has been pillaged costs you nothing).

You'll need workers to reimprove and they cost upkeep, so I don't see the difference

Having higher maintenance for Workers would mean that you would essentially be paying for the improvement even when a Worker isn't active, so this would be quite wasteful. I suppose it could be assumed that this is a result of 'road maintenance' or something, but this is about specific rule changes/additions, not assumptions.

If you want to have the capacity to change/improve a lot of tiles per turn, then this will cost you because you need to maintain a large expensive workforce. It is different than the cost per tile-improvement, but not necessarily worse.

And if this initial cost were to be applied to Units and City Improvements as well, maintenance would not cover it.

Production and commerce are two different ways to meassure the productivity of your cities. I don't see why both should be needed to build improvements, but I also don't see why not. It could be an interesting change.

BTW, the reason why I don't speak of the whether or not the AI would be able to handle these new factors is because I think it should be assumed that any new addition/change to the game is followed up equivilant changes to the AI by programmers. If not, they wouldn't be doing what they're paid to do.

Agreed. But the more difficult you make the game, the worse the AI will be. It is remarkable that the AI can prove a challenge in the game as it is (allthough I would like it to be a bigger challenge). But this shouldn't stop you with coming up with other good improvements for CivIII.

 

[yoshi]

You'll need workers to reimprove and they cost upkeep, so I don't see the difference

I see your point. I guess it would just be more of a hassle since the Workers are already built so you have to maintain them anyway thus the reimproving is an additional cost.

If you want to have the capacity to change/improve a lot of tiles per turn, then this will cost you because you need to maintain a large expensive workforce. It is different than the cost per tile-improvement, but not necessarily worse.

I guess the main difference is that tile costs ensure that a civ has to pay up just like everyone else in order to have an infrastructure, even if it only uses a small number of Workers to improve terrian.

 

[Ian Beale]

I meant that i think it works well enough as it is. I like the other guy have 100+ workers so feel that reflects the costs of making an improvement. Would i complain if it was offered as a feature? No. I just think that there are other areas of the game which should take precedence.

 

[yoshi]

I like the other guy have 100+ workers so feel that reflects the costs of making an improvement.

I refer you to my reply to Roland Johansen.

I just think that there are other areas of the game which should take precedence.

That's true. (See the 'Individual Unit Maintenance' thread.)