Why can we build tanks in cities without factories? Certainly basic units like archers should be able to be built without a manufacturing base, but tanks? Same with nukes, can't build those without a specialized factory in reality. Should there be different types of factory?

That aside, the factory should be built before the product, yes?

I think it would add a new dimention to the game, but it's such a new though for me that I haven't considered the pros and cons enough to form an opinion as to whether it should be implemented in the game.

Already, without your suggestion, you do not have enough time to produce a reasonable number of new military units before they become obsolete, so now with your suggestion, we would have to build factories BEFORE building new units such as Tanks?

Lots of people here say that Civ shouldn't be SimHistory, but really, I can't think of any better description for the game. The more realism the better. If it's done properly (ie, you get factories with 18th century tech, so when tank tech comes along your major cities are all set to produce them), it will detract nothing from the game and add that extra layer of strategy and thought to it. When I play Unreal Tournament, my brain shuts down. When I play Civ, I want to have to think more than I do during my finals.

The only other requirement I'd like to see is a marketplace (which is the closest I can think of to a blacksmith) for the artillery units, though not including catapults which only require wood.

I like building requirements for some units, but only in a small, highly defined group, the late mechanized units, and the cannon type artillery units.

I haven't figured out how to treat air units or ship units, particularly the post-industrial units, destroyers and up. This idea is really one that would need to be play-tested to make sure it doesn't imbalance the game or add too much complexity.

Also, for ships, I'd like to see ships such as galleons and up require a basic docks improvement. Ships such as those are large enough that you can't just build them on a random beach and push them in. Some kind of infrastructure should be required. Basic ships like caravels and triremes, those could be built by armies as needed, where needed as ancient writings show occurred, but the actual engineering and scientific knowledge required to build larger ships isn't something that just occurs in a city, some kind of dock or prepared infrastructure is necessary before large vessels can be built.

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-08-2001 11:33 AM Also, for ships, I'd like to see ships such as galleons and up require a basic docks improvement. Ships such as those are large enough that you can't just build them on a random beach and push them in...

That's a good point, Serapis. And it would also be good, IMHO, if such a docks improvement gave veteran status to ships built there. It's always seemed to me that the Port Facility came too late in the game (at least, the way I play).

I like realism, so it's not cool when some factory-less city in Greenland tries to spend eighty years building a tank. No one has ever spent so long creating a single military unit in real life, so in the game they shouldn't be allowed to. Aircraft carriers may take a couple years, but that's it. It should either take for a given city to produce a unit, or be impossible for that city.

Here's an example of what happens when production is so dependant on shields per city. I mean, if I have two cities that each produce 80 shields a turn, I basically get 2 tanks a turn (assuming tank take 80 shields, ignoring support). In 20 turns I've made 40 tanks. Now if one of my opponents has 40 cities that each only produce 4 shields per turn, he too has the potential to build 40 tanks, but only after 20 turns before which he has nothing. If I go to war, I can totally whoop him before he produces a single tank, assuming he doesn't rush-buy (which is another interesting bit of unreality).

I'm told that when the Germans were invading Stalingrad, the Soviet tank factory there was sending tanks to fight right off the end of the assembly line. Even if this isn't true, it doesn't seem that you should have to construct an entire armored division before any of the tanks are useful.

I know that in the boad game World In Flames, you total up your country's Build Points (basically equals number of Factories times your Production Multiple, unless you're short on resources) and spend it on units within certain restrictions (One of which is a gearing limit, so if you haven't built any ships lately then you can't just go build 10 ships all at once. This simulates your workers/factories not all being able to suddenly switch what they're doing.) Each unit has a basic time which it takes to complete: i.e. 4 turns for an armor unit. So you have to look ahead and all that. It's a great game, but totally unlike Civ so I don't know how much of this is helpful. I mostly wanted to throw out more ideas. I think such a system would be more realistic, but maybe too abstract since you can't say which, if any, city built the unit. Hope this helps.

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-08-2001 11:33 AM factories should be a requirement it should be a generic factory, rather then specialized factories which only add micromanagement without really adding fun.

This is what I meant!!

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-08-2001 12:05 PM I think that port facilities should still be used for veterancy. Though you should get them a bit earlier. Waiting till combined arms (after flight???) is too long.

OK, I see what you mean. I agree, as long you do get veteran ships quite a lot earlier!

Many RTS games use this building limit. The reason it works for them is because this, plus money, is the only qualifyer. In Civ, technology prevents you from building tanks from the start. Adding a factory to make them available only delays their production, something that can be done just as easily by slowing the tech paradigm if one was so inclined. As the factory simply means a bit more production, one could also reach the same result by increasing the cost per unit. There is therefore no purpose for a qualifying structure in Civ3, as this role is already fufilled by technology and production.

As I wholeheartedly oppose mandatory resources, so I oppose these mandatory structures which add more management and tedium without any benefit to the player.

Next thing you know, you'll want it to be required to produce every little tool for Workers before they can build roads, or set farms. How about if we require cities to equip Workers with shovels first, and then later, have to equip Workers with jackhammers?

Not to mention that we already have very little time in previous civ games to actually use enough of the units before they become obsolete or something better comes along. These ideas discussed here would make it even worse.

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 04-09-2001 08:52 PM It's called adding more strategy and prohibition of the creation of massive armed forces before you have the structures in place to create them. Basically making it a bit less war driven. A perfect idea, if I do say so myself. I don't see how adding strategy is bad. You seem to like making Civ into a war game, I don't.

More strategy? Imran, the only thing that your "factory" would add is the amount of turns to complete your first tank. This accomplishes the exact same thing as a factory in Civ2, except you are adding more rules. If I have a small city, I will slowly build a factory, and then build a tank. In Civ2 I would just slowly build a tank. Note that the end result is still the same; a small city building a tank very slowly. It is pointless to add such a required structure.

Futhermore, shields in Civ2 represent maufacturing power as well as raw materials. If you have any shields, it is assumed that your town has at least some small factories (The "factory" improvement is somewhat of a misnomer; it seems to represent a very large, government-funded industrial complex) to produce units and buildings. We aren't talking about making a tank in some auto body shop... these "small cities" are cities with tens of thousands of people, and at least some modest manufacturing capability.

Imran, I don't want a war game. Most of the time when I play Civ2, I go for the AC win or just a really high score (I call it an economic win). What I DO want is a game that is balanced in all regards. If you think that war is more prevelent than trade in Civ2, the answer would be to enhance trade, not tie down war.

The problem I find with all these so-called "mandatory" ideas is that they impose restrictions without a bonus to gameplay. I still don't see any positive result from your factory rule... is your only motivator "realism"? If so, I would think carefully about whether realism in this case is just making playing the game more difficult. Why are you propoosing uneccesary rules that do not benefit gameplay, and in fact achieve the same goal?

quote: Originally posted by Maccabee2 on 04-11-2001 05:03 PM I like the idea because I think it will add enough to strategy to make it worthwhile. It would add a new dimension to the game because you would need to guard not only your Wonders cities, but also your factory cities. Hence the added dimension that a sprawling empire of 100+ small cities (like the Vikings of Civ2) could not so easily defeat a smaller, but more industrial based nation of larger cities.

Isn't this the same as Civ2? You need to guard not only your wonder cities, but your cities with high production. No need for a factory!

quote: A good example from history is that as the Wehrmacht pushed deeper into the Soviet Union, Stalin had to disassemble his factories in the West (sell an improvement?) and rebuild them farther East where he new the Nazis couldn't reach them. Targeting the cities that form the backbone of your industrial base could be a new AI stategy, and human as well.

This is also the same as Civ2. I sell my westernmost factories (Civ2 factories) in the cities that will soon be taken, and build them again in my eastern cities to boost production. Again, no need for required factories!

quote: If you don't like micromanagement, perhaps you should stick with AOE or another RTS.

Micromanagement is not the issue. I like microing. I don't like microing for no good reason, however. You people have yet to show me one difference between your system and Civ2, other than the fact that in your system you make people build more uselss stuff.

Henrik, shipyards yes!

Well, I like the strategic bombing aspect brought up by Dienstag alot.

Jarouik makes a good point that this puts the production focus back in the big cities, and away from the small towns. I agree w/ Jaroik strongly that this would eliminate the strategy of expanding outward like a virus. This is the cure for that game illness. No huge civ without a heart can produce tanks or modern weapons, so such civs must fall to folks who develope their civs, and build their core cities into the heart of their civ.

*****One more idea for folks to think on. A factory, once built, splits the production capability in the city screen. The factory would get its own production box. This way you could build both a bank and a bomber at the same time in the same city. The bank would be at the same rate as whatever the town produced without the factory, the factory would be a standard factory rate, which could be increased by obtaining new sci perhaps? Then, when you are ready to change from tank to plane production, you have to >>build<< a re-gearing of the factory, in the factory. Wouldn't take too long, not anything like the price of the factory itself.

Thoughts?

quote: Originally posted by Lancer on 04-11-2001 11:56 PM Jarouik makes a good point that this puts the production focus back in the big cities, and away from the small towns. I agree w/ Jaroik strongly that this would eliminate the strategy of expanding outward like a virus. This is the cure for that game illness. No huge civ without a heart can produce tanks or modern weapons, so such civs must fall to folks who develope their civs, and build their core cities into the heart of their civ. *****One more idea for folks to think on. A factory, once built, splits the production capability in the city screen. The factory would get its own production box. This way you could build both a bank and a bomber at the same time in the same city. The bank would be at the same rate as whatever the town produced without the factory, the factory would be a standard factory rate, which could be increased by obtaining new sci perhaps? Then, when you are ready to change from tank to plane production, you have to >>build<< a re-gearing of the factory, in the factory. Wouldn't take too long, not anything like the price of the factory itself.

No problem Lancer.

I like the idea of limiting the huge expansion of a civ you speak of, as long as it isn't so strong that we end up with huge CTP civs being only 30 cities. I never played the game, but that what previous posts have claimed.

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-11-2001 10:43 PM How is attaching production ability to the ability to create large and complex units adding useless stuff to build? You don't see the M1 tanks being built in some Podunk town that only has agriculture. It takes a factory, a focusing of the industiral production of a city. A factory does not just represent increased productivity, it represents a focusing of resources, creation of infrastructure to transport those resources and the collection of technology and labor to create either large amounts of small things (razor blades) or high quality built complex things (tooling machinery, tanks, etc)

Thank you, SerapisIV. Well said. Cyclotron7, SerapisIV provided your good reason. A factory is not useless, because it is the historical and natural prerequisite to building any modern weaponry, modern in this context referring to the beginning of the 20th century and beyond. A whole empire of cottage industries or Early Industrial Age mills won't produce a single tank or fighter plane of even WWI vintage. They don't have the ability. It took the assembly line methods of the modern factory. That is the utility of the factory, and the logic you seek. If it doesn't persuade you, I hope it will at least give you pause to reconsider the adamancy of your stance. Thank you for reading my post.