Why the Request: Units Require Improvements?

[yoshi]

This is a long standing request made by many a civer and seems to be a reasonable enough, yet it has not been clearly addressed.

What are the advantages of making Units dependent on City Improvements?
a) Increases the unique requirements of unit-building beyond just it's Prerquisite and Strategic Resource (putting UUs aside). This added requirement means that players will choose which units to build basing their decision on the cost of maintaining that City Improvement in addition to the cost of building and maintaining the unit requiring that Improvement (resources aside). For instance, it will not be worth building a unit requiring an imrovement in a small city due to obvious reasons of cost-benefit. Thus forcing there to be more diversity of unit production in different cities.
b) It would only be cost-effective to build Unit Improvements in cities with a lot of production. Thus making the capture of those cities more essential to reducing the enemy's capacity to wage war. Bombing such improvements would have a similar effect, thus adding a strategic element to the game (in the direction of the 'Powered City Improvements' thread, only applied to units).
For example, if the enemy has a 'War Factory' which allows it to produce Tanks, bombing or sabotaging that improvement would prevent the enemy from building more.
c) In terms of realism, small cities cannot produce such units for lack of the means to do so (assuming they even have access to the required resource(s), thus you don't get the very CIV-like effect of every city building Bombers, for instance.
d) When applied to scenarios, this concept could be used in as many ways as modders can think up. (Scenarios where only one city can build a certain unit would be a typical example --something many wanted to do in Civ2 scenarios, but couldn't.)
e) Civs with lots of production no longer have such a big advantage --they must follow up with infrastructure.

Why not?
a) Strategic Resources already set a limit on which cities can build certain units (although most players will make it their business to connect all their cities from the start).
b) Takes away from Civ3's simple game engine; i.e. complicates unit-building.
c) Limits the unit potential of large civs (although most infantry units would not require an improvement).
d) An added expense thus penalizing poor civs (that's the idea --rich civ's Tanks face off with poor civ's Infantry).
d) ...I can think of a few more reasons but none of them are good enough to justify not including this concept into the game.

If you have a pro/con arguement, by all means write it.

 

[nini1972]

Almost fully satisfied with your reasons, just some notes:

- it's sure that large productive civs no longer get a superior, unreachable advantage if they can't forge expensive units in each city, but
it's also true that poor civs have to stop all of their predicted and planned wars, 'cause of the lack of gold.

 

[tctatheel7]

i've supported this idea since i first heard it. first of all, it makes sense. how could a city without a factory build planes and tanks? secondly, it would add a new strategic deminsion, which, ironicly, most strategy games are lacking (amount of strategy actually used, that is). also, it would be great for scenarios (i'm planning a Medieval: Total War scenario based on this idea)

 

[RegentMan]

I think it would be good for the editor and scenarios. But in game, it would hurt small civs, would have to find the resources, build the improvements, then build the actual unit after going through all of that. But, like I said, it should be an option in the editor.

 

[yoshi]

...it's also true that poor civs have to stop all of their predicted and planned wars, 'cause of the lack of gold.

Poor civs would still have the option of building most foot units, so they certainly wouldn't be helpless. As for those ambitious civs, now there's a bigger reason to get cash...by any means necessary. After all, that's EXACTLY how it works in the real world.

...most strategy games are lacking...

Sadly true, but most RTS (e.g. AofE) games require certain improvements to be built before the units can, so it's not that the people at CIV Co. aren't aware of this concept --not to mention that it seems logical enough.

...it would hurt small civs, would have to find the resources, build the improvements, then build the actual unit after going through all of that.

As I said above they wouldn't be completely helpless because they could still build basic defensive foot units. Putting realism aside, it gives players incentive to plan unit-building and to focus on building a few big cities rather than many small ones which in this case would be practically useless for purposes of expansion --would also make the tactic of building many small cities at the outset a waste of time, thus giving such colonizing civs less of a military advantage and giving small civs a chance. (That AI tactic has always irritated me because those cities aren't even worth capturing.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional City Improvement Concept:

You've all probably thought of this at one time or another: what about civ-specific improvments; i.e. adding owner list to Improvment screen in Editor? Civs have unique units, so why not unique improvments as well?

 

[tctatheel7]

Originally posted by yoshi

Additional City Improvement Concept:

You've all probably thought of this at one time or another: what about civ-specific improvments; i.e. adding owner list to Improvment screen in Editor? Civs have unique units, so why not unique improvments as well?

actually, I've never thought about this, but it does make sense. For example, instead of Cathedrals, the Arabs, Babylonians, and Persians could build mosques, and budist/hindu civs could build shrines. they wouldn't have to be any different though. they could just give them all the same stats as Cathedrals but different names and graphics

 

[yoshi]

That's the idea. If units were to require improvments, the improvments could be unique as well, thus if improbvemnts were captured they could not be used by the nemeny (i.e. if unit-improvment captured, the enemy can build its own units with it but if the improvment is unique, the enemy has no use for it).
Unique improvements could have different stats just as UUs do.
This request seems very appropriate to Conquests considering how much more UU-oriented it is meant to be.

 

[ww2commander]

I strongly agree with Yoshi's post.

Making certain units dependant on improvements makes it possible to stop conquerers from using the facilities.

In addition, this feature would substitute (kind of) on the lack of events. At least you can force the AI to build certain units in cities.

WW2 Scenario Example:
Having a 'Panther' production factory in a city stops Germans building Panther tanks in every cities except major production locations such as Berlin, Bonn etc.

When these cities are captured, the Allies can't switch production to T-34 or Shermans as it would represent the fact that the factories are inoperative and/or destroyed.

This allows for more realistic scenario creation.

However, from what I have read...the Templar Knights wonder in C2C will probably have to implement this feature to work???

 

[yoshi]

...this feature would substitute (kind of) on the lack of events.

Instead taking away unit techs of creating units in certain cities for civs using Events (thus enesuring that those units will only be 'built' in those cities), you could just give certain cities the unit-improvements and then take away its tech so that other cities couldn't build it. Although Events still have an enourmous number of other applications (see the C3C/Requests/'Events' thread).

...the Templar Knights wonder in C2C will probably have to implement this feature to work???

That was only a suggestion. I would assume that this wonder's 'free unit' ability is hard-coded into the main Civ3 program --not part of an underlying scripting language that Firaxis/Atari just hasen't told us about yet.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

As you know, I've LONG been a strong advocate of Improvement-specific units! i.e. how exactly CAN you build a nuclear weapon if you don't have a nuclear reactor to make Uranium into plutonium ! I do agree, though, that the vanilla game default should "NO" improvement-specific units-with the option of adding both in the opening screen AND through the editor (where you could also add a host of NEW buildings and the improvements that are built by them)!!
I think another way of balancing a lack of these improvements is to bring back Unit Trading! This way, small "Third World" Civs can always buy their tanks, mech infantry and the like from their Superpower ally !!!
Anyway, just an idea.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[yoshi]

This way, small "Third World" Civs can always buy their tanks, mech infantry and the like from their Superpower ally !!!

Yes I forgot to mention that as an option. Iraq could buy outdated Tanks from the USSR so they could put up a fight against US forces...for about two seconds. Would beef things up a bit buy enforcing the need for arms trading --hey, that's the way the real world works, so why not civ? That would be good.

...you could also add a host of NEW buildings and the improvements that are built by them...

Some Civ3 require improvments...if that's what you meant.

For those of you who don't want unit-improvements, programmers could easily implement a preference concerning this.

[Speaking of making the game more strategic, I was also thinking about the idea of being able to treansfer a certain percentage of production form one city to another. This would also allow cities with unit-improvements to focus production there --cities without UIs have nothing better to do than send surplus production to that city. But I'll post a new thread for that.]

 

[Ian Beale]

Yep i agree with most of the ideas here. I especially like the arms trading idea. The reacot required to build nukes also sounds good as you don't just need the resources. Maybe you could have to build a launcher as well?

 

[Pirate]

Originally posted by Aussie_Lurker
...how exactly CAN you build a nuclear weapon if you don't have a nuclear reactor to make Uranium into plutonium

A nuclear power plant and nuclear processing facilities are not the same thing. You can build nuclear weapons in purely scientific facilities and don't necessarily have to have your industrial sector hooked up to nuclear power.

Which brings me to my point about how this overcomplicates the system of improvements. We do not need to build every single building in the city. We can assume a certain amount of infrastructure and a certain amount of internal trade going on (this is why one luxury will create happieness in every city, not just the one that has the luxury). I'd rather see production linked to something more intrinsic, like city size. A village of size 2 can't build bombers, but we can assume a metropolis size 16 has the necessary manufacturing capacity to build planes without having to waste production on a very specific, limited building.

 

[yoshi]

A nuclear power plant and nuclear processing facilities are not the same thing.

Nuclear Plants require Uranium in order produce Plutonium. Thus Nukes require both the Uranium Resource (Plutonium can't be made from nothing) and a Nuclear Plant (the Plutonium is implied with the Plant). This keps with the simplicity of the Civ3 core-game. You could always add other required improvements using the Editor and make it very realistic if you wanted to.

Which brings me to my point about how this overcomplicates the system of improvements. We do not need to build every single building in the city.

Most of the unit-improvements would be those that already exist in the game; i.e. Barracks allows heavy foot units and Mounted units and gives all units (improvment-based or not) 'Regular' status as well as healing units in a turn. The unit-specific improvements I was talking about earlier would probably be in scenarios --but not necessarily. Personally, I think that naval units are most in need of a seperate 'Ship Yard' improvement that lets them be built, but the Port Facility would do for the core-game. The reason for having unit-improvements is not just to prevent small cities from building certain units but also to provide players with strategic initiatives; i.e. player will go for cities with these improvements first in order to prevent the enemy from building more units (at present there is no such incentive except that big cities will tend to build units faster) and for their own purposes as well --if applicable.

I don't understand players that complain about this concept. Aside from being logical, it just adds depth to the game. This is a strategy game, so more adding strategic elements is supposed to be good. Besides, don't you think there's something wrong with having every city, no matter how small, building any kind of units they like?

In scenarios this addition would do wonders. You could have certain UIs that allow certain cities to build certain units --as is the case in reality. In modern scenarios bombing these improvements would cripple the enemy (in WW2 bombing weapons factories was a favourite past-time of both sides).

If you combined this with the powered improvements concept (see thread), it would be well worth your while to limit these improvments to certain cites as your power plants could only supply so much power. The potential applications of this addition are numerous. So now players have to strategize just a little bit more, big deal. How could you not like the idea?
As far as I am concerned, stuff like this should have been in CIV as far back as Civ2.

Maybe those who believe that neat additions like this should be included into C3C should do as Xen does and spam it all over CFC!

Why don't company reps. like Jeff from Atari post on the request posts? I know there certain company parameters in which they are allowed to address issues, so just a few words would do. I think most of us would be eager to hear what the Co. has to say even if its only superficial.

 

[Pirate]

Alright, Yoshi, you convinced me. Jets can't take off without an airport. Early prop planes may have been able to use rudimentary runways (see rural airports - a runway and a shed, that's it), but a specialized airport should be necessary for more advanced jets. I get your point and agree.

I just get worried when it sounds like people equate "strategy game" with "micromanage every detail".

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I think what most of us here can agree on is that this kind of feature should be given as a game "OPTION" in the start up screen. Even then, in the Vanilla game, it should be at it's most simple-as stipulated by Yoshi. i.e. Factory for Tanks/mech infantry, Mfg plant for advanced armour and cruise missiles, nuclear plants for Tac Nukes and ICBM's!! If modders and scenario writers want to make this system more complicated, then the tools should be available for them to do so in the editor!!! What I can't stress, enough, is that the player should have the choice in these matters.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Black Waltz]

I'm sorry. But I don't see the need for this. There is already a way to keep smaller cities building modern units - shield cost.

 

[Costa e Silva]

I think it's a very needed "mechanism".
They could be put on Scenario Editor only...

Sometime ago i thnik about put templar's in the game...
But give this unit to one euro civ isn't fair... To all isn't cool...
So the solution was made a Wonder (Templars Head Quarters, or Montalban Castle for example) that make possible to his owner to built the unit... This is very good to the game, and made a lot of possibilities...

Jesuits, Knights of St. Jonh... If some wonders could be exclusive to some nations, that's something that also help...

 

[yoshi]

Alright, Yoshi, you convinced me.

Wow. You're the first civfanatic that I haven't had to reply to 6 times in order for them to see the logic behind something. Thank you. You made my day.

I just get worried when it sounds like people equate "strategy game" with "micromanage every detail".

You are right to worry, there are quite a few civers out there who just love to micromanage. I am not one of them. If micromanage ment isn't necessary, then a player shouldn't have to waste time with it. The unit-improvement thing is not meant to increase micromanagement but rather to keep players thinking strategically about unit production --in fact, if anything, it actually limits micromanagement in part because primary unit production is now limited to a few cities instead of all of them.

What I can't stress, enough, is that the player should have the choice in these matters.

I'll add to that by saying that pretty much everything in the game should be alterable (there is still a lot of hard-coded stuff in it that shouldn't be).

There is already a way to keep smaller cities building modern units -shield cost.

By the time a few turns have passed most cities have grown enough to build units within a reasonable amount of time --this is highly unrealistic. The UI represents the infrastructure needed to build certain units, something smaller cites would not be able to do. For instance, a small city next to a shield resource may have enough shields to rival bigger cities so you would build a UI there as it would be worth your while to do so During WW2 small Russian cities in the Urals were built up to include factories in which to build weaponry, but this was as a last resort as their large cities to the west were under threat --usually, the big cities would have the factories and the small cities would not (i.e. would be limited to conscripting infantry, and even then they would require some infrastructure with which to build small arms and ammunition --but only a scenario would include that kind of complexity). And to be frank, it irritates me that a civ can keep fighting you with advanced units even after you've obliterated its armies and taken its big cities --when you're victorious, it should mean something. Limiting small cities is only one aspect of UIs. I'd say that the strategic arguement is pretty strong.

They could be put on Scenario Editor only...

Why only scenarios? I would say that the concept is simple enough to be included into the core game without distorting it too much.

If some wonders could be exclusive to some nations, that's something that also help...

Yes, that would be one of many good applications for UIs. Personally, I always thought that having the Chinese build the Pyramids was in contrast to the rest of the game's historical realism. I know that the wonder is only representative of a general wonder, not a specific historical wonder, but civ should really have the capacity to build their own unique wonders. Unlike UIs, I would include some sort of additional prerequisite (e.g. high level of happiness) in order to make the wonder available --most wonders were built during times of affluence, not at any time as CIV would have it. If the UI concept also applied to wonders, then the 'Knights Templar' effect could be reproduced by any wonder. this would mean that certain UUs could only be built if a certain wonder were built, thus basing their appearance on the civ's level of success instead of just getting it no matter what; i.e. the Romans would probably not have developed advanced Legion Tactics had they not been successful and just remained an insignificant civ.

[I noticed nobody commented on the Atari reps. comment...I didn't think it was realistic either.]

 

[slothman]

What would be good is if we also had a "1 building - any city" type improvement. That is you only need 1 building but can build the units in any city. This allows things like "steelworks" which need iron and coal but allows battleships anywhere effectively giving you a steel resource.