STRUCTURE DAMAGE
This supercedes my post on the "suggestions" page.

Structures have hit points= to the cost of building them. Certain units
(spies/saboteurs, catapults, cannons, sappers, bombers) and random disasters(floods,
fires), riots/rebellion, nukes, and actual conquest thru military action would inflict
damage upon the structures. You would pay gold or you may allocate a portion of your
city's shield production for repairs. Any number of structures can be repaired per turn.
Effects would be:

0-49% damage=no effect on structure, 1 gold repairs 2 damage or 1 shield repairs 4

50-99% damage=structure disabled. Gives no benefits to city, x2 repair as above

100%=structure destroyed. Must be rebuilt.

A disabled structure will start functioning again once it has been repaired to the 0-49%
range, but cost of repair will stay as 50-99% until completely repaired.

How I see it function in the game:
Spies/saboteurs/sappers: These would inflict random amounts of small damage to one
structure at a time, based on the total hp's of the particular building. Sappers would be
limited to city walls. However the successful act of sabotage would prevent the
structure from working for, say, 1-3 turns, or 1 turn after the minor damage is repaired.

Catapults/cannons/artillery/howitzer + bombers: Inflict minor amounts of damage to a
few structures during bombardment. They may specifically target city walls to do
medium amounts of damage, to that structure only. Bombers may specifically target
any city building, but may be repulsed by AA fire, fighters, bad weather, etc. Prior to
laser targeting their chances of success will be low.

Floods, fires, riots, cause low/medium/high damage to some/many structures depending
on the city's preparedness. Fires would be limited by aqueducts, wells, etc.; riots by
police station &/or barracks. You get the idea. This would also be based on each
building's total hp's.

Nukes: Depends on power of nuke. All structures take damage, most in the high range,
some will be destroyed. The rest would take medium.

Conquest would inflict low/medium damage on most/all structures when the city fell,
but rarely will a structure be destroyed when the city is conquered.

low=about 10% damage or 4-7 hp's
medium=about 20-25% damage or 12-17 hp's
high=50-60% damage. Only happens to cities hit with random disaster's that are
unprepared, or nuked.

DonDon
Questioned cost (later I halved repair costs), suggested:

· A "free repair" rate, something like 1 shield × city size each turn.
· Add 1 or more to "free repair" for: Con, Bri, Exp, RR, & Aut. (Each effects construction
technology)
· Repairing w/o interrupting current construction by setting % rate.
· Pop-up menu (click on improvement) for selling, setting priority for "free" and shield
repairs, and buying repairs (set rate in $/turn).
· Allow settlers & engineers in city to repair improvements, 2 & 4 shields/turn added to
"free repair" rate.
· Add another special citizen type: construction crew, adds 2 shields to "free repair," 4
after Exp, sorta like a temporary settler or engineer.

David James
Questioned incentives to repair much past 49%, why not be % reductions, liked
donDon's ideas.

itokugawa
Liked the idea of structural damage, suggested pay extra $ to lower spy success.
Suggested that some buildings should have more hits based on importance, such as
city walls and SDIs.

Theben
I envision a number next to each built structure in the city screen representing the
total damage, color-coded like units. Green=0 damage, yellow=1-49%, red=50-99%.
You would click on the number and a pop-up window would let you repair the items,
w/o limit of how many and how often you can repair. Gold is subtracted from your
treasury, shields are counted similar to supported units for that turn.
Replied to David James % reductions don't work for each building type, and you should
repair or you risk building's destruction later.
Disagreed with Itokugawa, repairs should be based on cost of building to keep player
happy.

A good idea IF:

you keep the game balanced between money, science, production, and military. Your idea also puts to use many of the minor techs from the tech thread--they could be for all the minor city improvements.

franchising makes malls available (in the marketplace/banks line); multinationalism makes the multinational corporation possible, etc.

public education makes public schools available; particle theory (or whatever) makes particle accelerator available, etc.

I kinda agree. When it comes to Civ3, I'm pretty conservative--I don't want change for the sake of change, only change that will be real improvement. And my maxed out cities are kinda boring in the end game, and kinda unrealistic.

Angry Overlap: the more squares are overlapped, the more crowded people feel. So if 1 square is shared by 2 cities, fine, but if 3 cities share the same square, one citizen (in _each_ city) becomes unhappy.
This would kill ICS dead- as soon as you have 3 cities, that 1 worker is pissed in each of them, and since several squares overlap, they're going to be pissed for a long time. You could mitigate this with improvements/psych/specialists, but that would defeat the point of the ICS strategy.

Look around at some of the most populous nations. They are often third world, and the enormous population is a problem, not an asset. If population was always and asset, as it is in Civ, China would be the #1 nation in every possible aspect today.

Especially consider the aqueduct (which can be thought of as fresh water). In Civ, a city will not grow without fresh water. In the real world, overpopulation without fresh water is the real problem. Same thing applies to sewer systems.

What I propose is that population grow, continuously. No limitations. Of course, excess food would speed growth, or increase happiness. If a city has no aqueduct, only the first 8 population points participate in generating taxes, resources, food, etc. All others consume food, but give nothing. Building an aqueduct would allow up to 12 (or whatever) population points to contribute. Beyond this, a sewer system is required.

Of course, if the population grows beyond the food level, what is the point of having food at all? Maybe for every point of food defecit, one population point be made unhappy, and as such, unproductive.

I think that this may allow for advanced nations to have large populations and productive cities, while the less advanced nations have a burden of overpopulation.

Advantages: Can't be used as a wall to stop enemy armies, but still can be pillaged.
Do not have to worry about keeping tarack of additional units...
It allows for offshore platforms and remote mines, and basically simulates mini-colonies, ones that are less than a full city...

I forget who it was (I'm sorry, but this thread is so long that I get a headache looking for specific text and the author of said text), but somebody way back when suggested that some city improvements become outdated, the example being Drill Fields for ancient armies, Barracks for middle-tech armies, and Maneuver Fields for modern armies. Another statement/suggestion made by someone was that they hated granaries because no modern city would have a granary.

Well, if we have Wonders become outdated and useless, why not have the same restriction on city improvements? "Because there are so many city improvements and so few Wonders, and the argument doesn't hold." Wrong. Look at the Units upgrades in SMAC: don't spend the money, you've got lousy outdated units, spend the money, you've got your modern units. Why not do the same for certain city improvements? Drill Fields would still work for modern armies, but not as well as Barracks would, and Barracks would not work as well as a Maneuvers field. You would not have to build a Drill Field or Barracks prior to building a Maneuver Field, in fact it would be cheaper just to build a Maneuvers Field, but you CANNOT build a Maneuvers Field until late in the game and so you must ask yourself the question: build now and be stuck with shoddy merchandise or expensive upgrades later, or build later and be stuck with shoddy cities now?

Then I read the arguments against improved barracks. Well, since at gunpowder and mobile warfare you have to rebuild, what difference does it make? Perhaps you can keep barracks at each stage, but they only repair instantly. So, you'd sell most of these, you might keep one or two near the front, for a while. It wouldn't be worth the 1G upkeep elswhere.

Basic barracks=+1 to vet level
Improved barracks=+2 " " "
etc.

I did not intend that all city improvements require upgrades, only a few key improvements (barracks and city wall to name a few) which would lose their effectiveness as time goes by if not replaced/upgraded. As Flavor Dave says, you've got to replace your barracks anyway, right? Why not a. have the different names (drill field, barracks, maneuvers field) for the new improvements, and b. allow the player to keep his or her old rotting drill fields, which would still serve some purpose but not work at 100% efficiency, until the player gets around to replacing/upgrading them. If they ever do.

If we wanted to take this to an extreme, all food/resource gathering could be done by villages, and all trade/industry by cities.

Adding a second pop to a village would give a bonus of 50% to what it collects. Usefull for special resouce squares.

If a settler why bother? Just build another city.

I got the idea of divorcing resouce gathering from cities while I was writing the previous post. Does it belong in Radical, or is here ok?

My idea is basically that villages, all size 1, farm and mine. (size 2 might give a 50-75% increase, for late game). THese goods are all automatically sent to a nearby host city. The city only gathers resources from it's square, but all the extra population is in the form of labourers, traders, and scientists.

Cities are hadled mostly as now.
Villages are TI's. Vilage improvments are also TI's. adding advanced farms, or silos, or a bettermines are all TI's.
By this model, a farmer would have to support ~twice as many pop as in CIV2.
All Food and natural resouces are 'made' in terrain squares.
All industry and trade are 'made' in cities, by citizens.

Along with that, a Train Station City Improvement would give some trade bonus based on City Size, plus a little trade bonus based on # of that civ's cities connected by rail within some tech-related distance.

Why can't a city build more power facilities? Just because you've got a hydro plant doesn't mean you can't build a fossil fuel plant as well, and a nuclear plant, etc. The surplus electrical capacity will attract industry, effectively multiplying factory output. By keeping it to one of each type the effect would be limited.

By the way, the effect of multiple power facilities should be additive at the power stage of production calculation, but each stage should be a cumulative multiplier (the cumulative effect idea is already in the summary).

Base shields
x(1+n) for factory (n=1 at Ind, n=1.5 after SE)
x(1+#) for # power facilities
x(1+m) for Mfg Plant (m=1 at MP, m=1.5 after Rob)

Note: Ind w/factory would come before SE, Mfg Plant available at MP.

ECONOMY would be a % that is added/subtracted from trade.
EFFICIENCY: A % reduction/increase in corruption(/waste?) in the city.
SUPPORT: Each city would have a base SUPPORT % (10-20%?). This % is subtracted (added if a - value) from the combined cost of all maintenance of units (units would have production & money support costs, possibly food too). SE choices increase/decrease the % modifier.
MORALE should different than the EXPERIENCE bonuses provided to units. Morale would be a small % bonus/penalty independent of Experience, but does combine with it to influence combat. FE, in SMAC, if you attack from a city w/ a Children's Creche you get +25% to attack, or you can have your % modifier's halved due to low Morale. This is Morale. Experience is the actual level of troop prepardness, training, etc. Experience affects att/def/LASS strength but Morale affects att/def/LASS AND Experience.
EXPERIENCE: Only a minimal bonus/penalty should be possible with this SE. Most experience should come from training (and this only to a point; maybe up to hardened as SMAC?) & actual combat (all the way to elite status). Again, a % would be applied as in SMAC, but it would be in smaller increments.
POLICE represents the controls you can exert on your people. It adds to your
happiness rating after all other happiness factors have been applied, but cannot increase happiness to a positive rating.
GROWTH is affected by happiness and many other factors, including food. It's a % increase/decrease in the city's growth rate.
ENVIRONMENT: A % reduction/increase in pollution output. At certain (+) levels it can add a % to trade from wilderness squares, however a Environment SE choice should also be accompanied by a loss of Economy & Growth.
SECURITY: A % bonus/penalty to enemy espionage missions that affect you.
ESPIONAGE: A % bonus/penalty to your espionage missions.
DIPLOMACY: A % bonus/penalty to your Reputation vs. other civs.
INDUSTRY is so powerful and easily abused in SMAC it should not have any SE modifiers. It may only be modified by technology & City Improvements, as a % bonus(/penalty?) to a city's Resource and Labor output.
RESEARCH: as SMAC, but with smaller % increments.
HAPPINESS as described by me elsewhere.

These are the Civil Effects-CE (plus any others that you may wish to add). Each +1 or -1 correlates to a +5% or -5% change in the total of the related CE, with the exception of Happiness, +/- 2%, because it is so powerful. At certain levels each category may have other special abilities (like immunity to spy bribes; PROBE in SMAC). How they interact:

Social Engineering: As per SMAC; each SE has +/- to several CEs.
Technology: Usually adds +'s to 1 or more CE's, but may penalize some.
City Improvements: Depends on method used. If like civ2, each building adds a large amount to it's CE(s); i.e. a marketplace would add +10 to Economy & Happiness (+50%). If like Star Trek: Birth of the Federation, each building adds +1, +2, or +3 (or -) to it's given category (don Don, take note), and you build several buildings of each type in each city (obviously at a lower cost than now).

This simply lumps all of the most important city improvements of the previous Tech Age into a single catagory. The reason is simple, I hate having to buy marketplaces, aqueducts, ect. for Modern era cities that I just built. In this case all Critical items from the ancient age to the industrial age (but not the modern age as it is not a "past" age) can be built using just one city improvement (in fact more "advanced" settlers should automatically build this when the city is built). It does NOT take 20 years to bring a newly built city into the modern age, and CIV3 should understand this... especially if more improvements will be added.

Other notes: This does not include any Military/Defence structure, nor anything else that is not of the most basic variety.
Upkeep costs should go down...
When a city advances a tech age and posseses all of the included items that go in the Basic Support Stuctures "Package", those improvements dissapear and are replaced by the Basic Support Structures.
If a city advances a tech age and does not posses all of the componet improvements, they can then build the Basic Support Stuctures improvement at a reduced cost (Based on the % of stuctures needed)