What about economy?

[Danielos]

I´m a little worried that there is so little talk about the economical/demographic engine of Civ 5. Will Civ 5 stick to the now archaic city formula once again? It is time to rebuild this engine as well. Introduce:

* Manpower
* Quantifiable resources
* Trades in wood/food between cities

It really is ridiculous to have a stagnant mountain city next to a sprawling fertile city with no option to transport food from the latter!

 

[Ymir9]

I think it's about time Civ stopped being all about cities.
What if cities could grow on the map like other improvements, providing culture and population, but that all the work and production was actually performed in the tiles (or hexes) themselves. If cities could grow larger than one hex this means it's also possible to capture parts of cities. Wars might end with national borders drawn right down the middle of what used to be huge capitals for instance.

I'd also like a new hex-based production orientation to make cities less necessary in general in the early game. Many nomadic and semi-nomadic civs did far better than their sedentary counterparts for instance. It'd be great if hex-based production allowed for some sort of "mobile city" for nomadic civs for instance.

In this sense cities would act more like passive terrain improvements (albeit very important ones) rather than the nexus of all domestic activity.

Anyway, all wild speculation. I doubt Firaxis will do away with such a fundamental aspect of the game as city-based management and production, though it would be very refreshing if they did.

 

[Camikaze]

The way resources work is apparently being changed, so that's a start at least. I would appreciate more info on economic changes, too, but I doubt it's really what comprises the best promo material.

 

[helpless_writer]

I think it's about time Civ stopped being all about cities.
What if cities could grow on the map like other improvements, providing culture and population, but that all the work and production was actually performed in the tiles (or hexes) themselves. If cities could grow larger than one hex this means it's also possible to capture parts of cities. Wars might end with national borders drawn right down the middle of what used to be huge capitals for instance..

I agree, especially the way its setup in Civ4 where basically you allocate where the citizens work so then shouldn't it be a main city in the middle then different towns (which I guess we can build through workers) so going with what you said its somewhat like real life. Or would that be to much micromanagement (since now we have to think about transportation to and from the city and such) but then again I mean factories started many towns around the world which eventually became cities...

 

[Hypernova]

It really is ridiculous to have a stagnant mountain city next to a sprawling fertile city with no option to transport food from the latter!

This argument against the current mechanics of Civ I've seen a bit now, and I use to be completely supportive of it. However, while it is true that in the modern age the idea of cities harvesting their food from the surrounding countryside is laughable and the idea that food supply is what determines their growth even more so, the proposed replacement where you can transfer food around your empire is worse, because the current Civ system does a good job at representing what is absolutely true of the modern world, that fertile areas have a far higher population density than less fertile areas. The fact that we get less food locally than we used to has not changed this and population growth rates show this is not changing (just look at a terrain map of the world, population density of an area generally goes down as it gets less green).

However it is true that huge cities were never big because they had a lot of food at arms reach, it seems to have more to do with commerce. Silk road cities were large for example, and small settlements in England exploded in size with the industrial revolution. Maybe we need a system where the fertility of the surrounding land acts as a cap on size but growth is ultimately driven by another commerce/industry based method.

 

[Thormodr]

This argument against the current mechanics of Civ I've seen a bit now, and I use to be completely supportive of it. However, while it is true that in the modern age the idea of cities harvesting their food from the surrounding countryside is laughable and the idea that food supply is what determines their growth even more so, the proposed replacement where you can transfer food around your empire is worse, because the current Civ system does a good job at representing what is absolutely true of the modern world, that fertile areas have a far higher population density than less fertile areas. The fact that we get less food locally than we used to has not changed this and population growth rates show this is not changing (just look at a terrain map of the world, population density of an area generally goes down as it gets less green).

However it is true that huge cities were never big because they had a lot of food at arms reach, it seems to have more to do with commerce. Silk road cities were large for example, and small settlements in England exploded in size with the industrial revolution. Maybe we need a system where the fertility of the surrounding land acts as a cap on size but growth is ultimately driven by another commerce/industry based method.

I like the idea of transporting food to cities that don't have enough. You could have "breadbasket" cities that support cities in the arctic for example. This would be largely dependent on transportation, so a certain level of tech would have to be reached first before you could do this. Especially overland routes as it just wasn't efficient until quite recently.

 

[mrt144]

I like the idea of transporting food to cities that don't have enough. You could have "breadbasket" cities that support cities in the arctic for example. This would be largely dependent on transportation, so a certain level of tech would have to be reached first before you could do this. Especially overland routes as it just wasn't efficient until quite recently.

But would it be fun to micromanage this?

 

[Thormodr]

But would it be fun to micromanage this?

I don't imagine it would be too hard. You'd only have a few food poor cities and a few food rich cities to deal with.

 

[Tholish]

while it is true that in the modern age the idea of cities harvesting their food from the surrounding countryside is laughable and the idea that food supply is what determines their growth even more so, the proposed replacement where you can transfer food around your empire is worse.

When thinking about THE game people tend to forget that it has a tech tree. Why not have different mechanics in different eras?

New mechanics can be something you earn with getting a later tech. With grain ships, railroads, canning, refrigeration etc...comes less dependence on local food supplies.

With long range artillery comes an ability to shoot over the front lines. They come up with one mechanic for the whole game then can't come up with anything for techs to do and have a problem when an anachronistic mechanic is anachronistic.

Attach different mechanics to different eras, thats civ coolness in its essence.

 

[mrt144]

I don't imagine it would be too hard. You'd only have a few food poor cities and a few food rich cities to deal with.

Maybe if this game resembled Civ IV in scale of cities you build and land but it already seems like it's going to be much larger than Civ IV. Micromanaging isn't bad necessarily until it impedes the will to play. Most late games of strategy games devolve into this.

 

[mrt144]

When thinking about THE game people tend to forget that it has a tech tree. Why not have different mechanics in different eras?

New mechanics can be something you earn with getting a later tech. With grain ships, railroads, canning, refrigeration etc...comes less dependence on local food supplies.

With long range artillery comes an ability to shoot over the front lines. They come up with one mechanic for the whole game then can't come up with anything for techs to do and have a problem when an anachronistic mechanic is anachronistic.

Attach different mechanics to different eras, thats civ coolness in its essence.

That's what civics attempted to do in some regards. The advantage of some civics was that they didn't become obsolete or inherently inferior to later civics. Hopefully, if they implemented this idea of era mechanics, it wouldn't lead to the situation of being worse off for progression (In Civ IV there are a few times where tech advancement can lead to less productivity in beakers, coins, etc etc due to wonder canceling).

 

[Thormodr]

Maybe if this game resembled Civ IV in scale of cities you build and land but it already seems like it's going to be much larger than Civ IV. Micromanaging isn't bad necessarily until it impedes the will to play. Most late games of strategy games devolve into this.

I guess it all comes down to play styles. I have a friend who is an extreme micromanager. He has everything plotted out on a spreadsheet and spends hours analyzing the game before he even plays it. I am sort of in the middle. I like some micromanagement but not too much. I'd want Firaxis to err on the side of being more complex though if their was a choice. If I wanted simplicity then I could play Civ Rev 2. Assuming that comes out of course.

 

[mrt144]

I guess it all comes down to play styles. I have a friend who is an extreme micromanager. He has everything plotted out on a spreadsheet and spends hours analyzing the game before he even plays it. I am sort of in the middle. I like some micromanagement but not too much. I'd want Firaxis to err on the side of being more complex though if their was a choice. If I wanted simplicity then I could play Civ Rev 2. Assuming that comes out of course.

I think Civ IV had a great balance of fun vs. micromanaging. The late game became tedious at times, and for some of my friends really boring, but I loved the late game with all the choices and strategies you had.