How much longer 'till that marketplace will be built?

It can take up to 800 years to construct a marketplace. I find something extremely wrong with that. Besides the fact that the production system should be redone (another thread), the shield system is inacurate. Marketplaces do not take 800 years to create, even if that is only 40 turns in a game. I'm not picking on marketplaces obviously, it's the whole system. It just doesn't work. one more quick thing to add...why is currency the pre-req for trade? Don't you have to know how to trade before you can make money to trade with? It's called barter, before coin money it was how trading was done. Than the romans made coins. The marketplace reminded me of that and I don't feel like starting a new thread.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Earthling7]

If you don't want to start another thread, then STOP!!!

Anyways, I started a thread on TWEAKS, in case you're interested, addressing the little things like the trade issue...

Care to comment?

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

[Steve Clark]

By the time you are building marketplaces (a mid-game improvement), you should have enough caravans to build it in one turn. In most games, I build all mid-game wonders/improvements almost exclusively with caravans. I agree, 800 years is far too much time to waste building improvements, thence one of the great uses of caravans.

For wonders, Yes, but in Civ 2 caravans can not be used to build improvements, only wonders. I haven't played SMAC or CTP, only Civ 1 and 2. But still, why should you have to use a few caravans to help bulid a market place. They don't neccessarily require a lot of construction.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Gord McLeod]

Steve, marketplaces may be mid-game improvements in your playing style but the same doesn't necessarily hold true for all styles. Marketplaces are very definitely an 'as early as possible' improvement in my games.

[Steve Clark]

I think all I was saying was instead waiting 800 years to build a marketplace, use caravans to help speed that along. How? Send them into the city and simply disband them. The 20-25 shields you get can save quite a few turns. Obviously you are building marketplaces in those high trade cities that can give you a boost to the tax income, otherwise they would be a waste. Those type of cities generally have low shield productions, thus any help from disbanding caravans will be beneficial.

It would be great if you come over to the Civ2-Strategy forum, there you will find many folks who could add to this debate on caravans, marketplaces, trades, etc.

[Slingshot]

The whole ancient era gets glossed over, in my opinion.

This should be a time where:
1. The tech race is less important from turn to turn, although when techs are discovered, they mean something big. (eg. invention of the chariot or iron weapons = big military, advantage).
2. There is nothing but time. Don't jump hundreds of years at a time. Jump at smaller intervals. Divide the ancient times into prehistory, stone age, bronze age, iron age. Have some fun with nomadic civs for a while. Be a stone-aged Ghengis Kahn!

The ancient times should be an era where certain aspects of the game (such as political organization, low-tech warfare, development of philosophy, climate-dependant cultures) are highlighted. In my opinion, the industrial-revolution mentality (that shadows the whole genre) should not be so prevalent yet. Cultures should not have to worry so much about developing the superconductor before 0AD. There's plenty of time for that stuff later.

[MidKnight Lament]

I like your thinking, Slingshot, but how do you suggest we make sure people don't spend most of their time rushing for advances right from the get-go?

- MKL

[Slingshot]

How about this:

In a despotism, people could care less about the exploits of a scientist.

In fact, most people would shun such an individual, calling him/her an alchemist instead of a chemist, or a magician/witch instead of an inventor.

The result would be poor science performance in anything but weapons techs.

Warefare should be extremely easy, so that people can spend lots of time roaming around and fighting, for example.

There should have to be a lot of work put into techs like jurisprudance, monarchial thinking, etc.

I am thinking about the fact that the ancient greeks seemed to be so inventive, and yet so many aspects of the ancient sciences are very backwards.

Obviously people weren't stupid back then, but I imagine there was a lot of fear and resistance to new technologies. We could set up the performance of gov'ts, etc, so that this is reflected.

Even further, there could be more social-engineering-based techs that need to be discovered before the nuts-and-bolts technologies can be harnessed.

For example,
- environmentalism before anything like green power or pollution control.
- rennaisance (or age-of-reason)-type advances before any indudustrial revolution advances/improvements
- monotheism before advances in middle-aged tactics (or units like archers & legions)
- domestication advances before bronze-age tools are permitted
- a gov't type between despotism and monarchy, establishment of law and currency before settlements can be made bigger than three population units

*** Imagine if it took a little while to make cities bigger than 3 pop units. Imagine it was because a critical number of advances needed to be discovered (instead of a city improvement like granary or aqueduct).
Imagine also that certain elements like war, basic diplomacy and espionage options were very easy to conduct. You would have an era with a new flavour, where discover, treaties, limited warfare, etc. were very important. This could result in a map where empires are spread out all over the place, only to collapse into civ offshoots because of distance, disease, etc.

That would make for an interesting map when the world changed from a backwards, non-tech obsessed place to one that practically worshiped science and progress!

[Gord McLeod]

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark on 04-13-2000 05:20 PM I think all I was saying was instead waiting 800 years to build a marketplace, use caravans to help speed that along. How? Send them into the city and simply disband them. The 20-25 shields you get can save quite a few turns. Obviously you are building marketplaces in those high trade cities that can give you a boost to the tax income, otherwise they would be a waste. Those type of cities generally have low shield productions, thus any help from disbanding caravans will be beneficial.

Actually I build them in all cities, not just high-trade cities. They are one of the early cornerstones of my technological edge. Anything that gives me even a slight bonus to technology, I grab, as it quickly adds up even in less trade-oriented cities, and catapaults me to the top of the civ/faction charts very quickly.

[Steve Clark]

Um, Gord, marketplaces only adds a 50% bonus to tax (income), it does not affect the number of science (research) arrows. Also, with marketplaces costing 1 gold for support, it only makes sense to build this when you have at least 4 golds in income.

Please come over to Civ2-Strategy, there you would find folks that talks about playing every way imaginable. Most of us emperor/deity players however, are getting by with building as few improvements as possible. Come on over, it's a great place to find ways to play better, as it has with me.

[Gord McLeod]

I don't play Civ2 anymore, so going to the strategy forum wouldn't have much value to me. I'll just stick here for now. Yes, the marketplace doesn't add any direct benefit to your science output... but it sure makes it easier to get the science improvements faster. I take *every* advantage... direct or indirect.

[Sten Sture]

Yo Steven! Long time no post for me - having a baby does that...

My thoughts on City improvements and the time that it takes to build them - I have liked the results of experiments where I decrease the shield cost of early improvements and increase the sheild and maintanence cost of later improvements. Marketplaces are 80 shield improvements costing one coin in carry, I like them better as 40 shield improvements with the one carry. Bank level improvements requiring 160 with a 4 coin carry, etc forces the developing civ to put forth some effort.

Very high mining and irrigation improvements also encourage city development in lieu of small city expansion. Nemo's RedFront scenario makes great use of such.

In Civ2, I never actually build improvements for much more than one turn... I usually use the bonus income from caravans to rush build everything. Steve - DONT DISBAND - DELIVER!!!

quote: Originally posted by Gord McLeod on 04-14-2000 03:23 PM Actually I build them in all cities, not just high-trade cities. They are one of the early cornerstones of my technological edge. Anything that gives me even a slight bonus to technology, I grab, as it quickly adds up even in less trade-oriented cities, and catapaults me to the top of the civ/faction charts very quickly.

You have the same style i have, all my cities recieve improvements as soon as I discover them. Especially economic and science improvements. I am usually the most advanced Civ in the world for the whole game, even if my military stength is a joke to other coutnries.

To Steve Clark, with the added income from marketplaces, the science rate can be increased. That's what Gordy meant (I think).

Slingshot - I agree with you whole heartedly, the BC era gets completely blown over. How can sciences like the wheel take hundreds of years to develop? I liked your ideas, very historically accurate!

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Gord McLeod]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 04-14-2000 06:31 PM You have the same style i have, all my cities recieve improvements as soon as I discover them. Especially economic and science improvements. I am usually the most advanced Civ in the world for the whole game, even if my military stength is a joke to other coutnries.

Mine seems like a joke a lot of the time, but I'm often equipped with units so far beyond what my opponents are capable of building that the number of units is meaningless. I can't count the number of games where I've staged a "major offensive" using two units and obliterated several civs with them.

quote: To Steve Clark, with the added income from marketplaces, the science rate can be increased. That's what Gordy meant (I think).

Only partly...that's an aspect of it most assuredly, but it also helps to make it easier to raise money to hurry improvements along. I don't build many caravans unless I'm working on Wonders... they're too ineffecient.

[The diplomat]

to solve the problem of items taking unrealistic amounts of turns to build in the beginning, how about calculating the time to completion by years rather than by turns. Then using how many years is a turn to tell the player when the item will be completed. For example, let's say we have two cities that are absolutely equal in all regards, and both are building the same item. The only difference is that one city is building the item in 3000 BC, the other in 1989 AD. Since both cities are equal, they both produce the item in say 20 years, but the city in 3000 BC will complete the item in 1 turn (because 1 turn = 20 years) and the other city in 1989 AD will complete the same item in 20 turns (because 1 turn = 1 year).

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[SandMonkey]

quote: Originally posted by Gord McLeod on 04-14-2000 07:13 PM I don't build many caravans unless I'm working on Wonders... they're too ineffecient.

wow... you really should come in the the Strategy section... if not to post, just to learn about some stuff befopre making comments like that... the caravan/freight is probably one of the MOST efficient units in the game; that and the diplomat/spy. A caravan can single handedly fuel an entire economy in trade, thus pushing you ahead.



------------------
SandMonkey

"Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a qtip"
-Homer Simpson

"Ecky ecky ecky!"
"It's just a flesh wound!"
- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

[MidKnight Lament]

Slingshot - I agree. Most of our research and advancement has been achieved quite recently in historical terms. I don't think I agree with everything you said, but I love the sentiment. Perhaps their should be happiness penalties for spending so many resources on science when your people are probably still quite scared of witchcraft and alchemy is unreliable. Your ideas would give a much greater sense of eras than what it is now where Ancient just means 'start of the game'. It would give it more feeling.

- MKL

[Gord McLeod]

quote: Originally posted by SandMonkey on 04-14-2000 11:00 PM wow... you really should come in the the Strategy section... if not to post, just to learn about some stuff befopre making comments like that... the caravan/freight is probably one of the MOST efficient units in the game; that and the diplomat/spy. A caravan can single handedly fuel an entire economy in trade, thus pushing you ahead.

I took the meaning to be when used as 'building a caravan and sending it to another city to disband it and gain half its value towards completing units and structures other than Wonders', which IMO is very ineffecient compared to some alternatives.
When used for trade, yes, they are pretty useful.

[Gord McLeod]

quote: Originally posted by MidKnight Lament on 04-14-2000 11:46 PM Slingshot - I agree. Most of our research and advancement has been achieved quite recently in historical terms. I don't think I agree with everything you said, but I love the sentiment. Perhaps their should be happiness penalties for spending so many resources on science when your people are probably still quite scared of witchcraft and alchemy is unreliable.

Maybe this could be simulated by having a tighter cap on the allowable percentage of science for early styles of governments... I've found that SMAC is pretty enjoyable with the slower tech advancement option selected. It makes you work a bit harder for every advance.

[Neon Deon]

Ouch 800 years to do a market place!
Well ok since in BC a turn can equal up to 50 years. But thats another story Maybee
cities should get production for population size. A shield per city size or a shield for every 2 city sizes. So a 2 city would give u one extra shield and a 42 city would give u 21 extra shields. Have the people produce

[Sirotnikov]

quote: Originally posted by Slingshot on 04-13-2000 05:29 PM The whole ancient era gets glossed over, in my opinion. This should be a time where: 1. The tech race is less important from turn to turn, although when techs are discovered, they mean something big. (eg. invention of the chariot or iron weapons = big military, advantage). 2. There is nothing but time. Don't jump hundreds of years at a time. Jump at smaller intervals. Divide the ancient times into prehistory, stone age, bronze age, iron age. Have some fun with nomadic civs for a while. Be a stone-aged Ghengis Kahn! The ancient times should be an era where certain aspects of the game (such as political organization, low-tech warfare, development of philosophy, climate-dependant cultures) are highlighted. In my opinion, the industrial-revolution mentality (that shadows the whole genre) should not be so prevalent yet. Cultures should not have to worry so much about developing the superconductor before 0AD. There's plenty of time for that stuff later.

I couldn't agree more. Many many things happened in history before the roman empire and even before the greek emipre. Especially in the middle east and far east cultures. Even in the Bible there are many wars mentioned.

Usually, unless I play on a small size map with 7 civs, by the time my units get to other nations I can already build elephants. And chariots, not to mention they are made too weak in civ 2, last for a short time. No enough time to wage serious wars. Most ancient wars I begin to fight with elephants (once every 4 games with chariots) and I finish them when I already have crusaders and knights.

Also about tweaks, how come in the world map, in the ancient world it takes lots of turns and because each turn is often 10 or more years, it takes almost centuries to get from the Carthage to Rome? I mean, in the real life it took only three years or so. And that was done the hard way (through the alps)!

quote: Originally posted by Gord McLeod on 04-14-2000 07:13 PM Mine seems like a joke a lot of the time, but I'm often equipped with units so far beyond what my opponents are capable of building that the number of units is meaningless. I can't count the number of games where I've staged a "major offensive" using two units and obliterated several civs with them.

Yah I know what you mean, and that stupid list has me ranked dead last when I'm so advanced - my units destroy whole Civs!

Ok moving on, another problem with production is that Civ 2 production works on a ratio. I noticed that it will take as much time for a level 10 civ with 10 production shields to build a market place as a level one city with one production shield. It's rediculous! 10 production shields should mulitply production by 10!

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited April 16, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited April 16, 2000).]

quote: Originally posted by The Mad Viking on 04-17-2000 12:34 PM Orange - you must have 9 shield going to waste or unit support, because there is no such ratio. If you have 10 shields actually in production, you will build your market in 8 turns.... ...And a marketplace isn't just a physical facility - it repressnts the effort and time taken to develop enough recognition to bring in the trade. You think you can just set up some stalls and *poof!* venders will appear? That how I see it, anyway.

What I originally said was worded wrong, I guess I should've re-read what I said about the production. What I guess I was trying to point out is that a city at a high level should be able to produce things faster than a level one city, whether or not there are enough "shields". There are more people and therefore more workers to complete the task. Before industrialization and factories, this can be a problem.

I also understand what you're saying about the marketplace being a center of trade. That does make sense, but it doesn't change the fact that it can be produced rather quickly. (Replace Marketplace with Library and you'll see my gripe)

Maybe the success of a marketplace should be determined by the city's size. The marketplace should produce more money depending on the size of your city. (e.g. Level 1 city, increases tax revenue by 10%, level 10 increases tax revenue by 50%, level 20 increases tax revenue 100%, and increasing in incriments of 5%)

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Originally posted by The And a marketplace isn't just a physical facility - it repressnts the effort and time taken to develop enough recognition to bring in the trade. You think you can just set up some stalls and *poof!* venders will appear?

Dead right. I have the same gripe about people who think building one supermarket (or library or bank or whatever) in a city isn't enough. They think one supermarket can't service a city. But it's what the supermarket represents. It's not just physically one building.

- MKL

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by MidKnight Lament on 04-17-2000 08:05 PM Dead right. I have the same gripe about people who think building one supermarket (or library or bank or whatever) in a city isn't enough. They think one supermarket can't service a city. But it's what the supermarket represents. It's not just physically one building.

I agree, but shouldn't then a percentage of your population have to work in the city to work in the factories, libraries, marketplaces, etc.

I think that a great way to get rid of micromanagement would be in every city to say a percentage of the population working as farmers, a percentage working in buildings, mines, science improvements, etc. You could maximize one item and the game would figure the percentage needed to keep the city alieve or happy.

[The Mad Viking]

Orange - you must have 9 shield going to waste or unit support, because there is no such ratio. If you have 10 shields actually in production, you will build your market in 8 turns.

Slingshot - I agree more emphasis on ancient.

Everyone - But to do it properly, you will find plagues, crop failures, petty insurrections, pestilence etc. Progress in those days consisted of 1 step forward and one step back, over and over, until finally, two steps forward. Then one back, one forward, one back....

And a marketplace isn't just a physical facility - it repressnts the effort and time taken to develop enough recognition to bring in the trade. You think you can just set up some stalls and *poof!* venders will appear?

That how I see it, anyway.

[The Mad Viking]

A percentage of your population works at trade, some at food, some at production. You decide that, symbolically, by which tiles you work. When you move your workers onto the ocean and the silk square, you're putting more to work in markets, banks and stock Xs; put 'em on mines and forests, they're also going to the factory...

(How I see it)


As far as city size and market effects:
In a size 10 democratic city, your marketplace will earn you 5 or 10 extra gold; in a size 3 monarchy you may only get 1 to pay the upkeep cost with.

[MidKnight Lament]

Mad Viking - I agree. We already have control over that sort of thing. Perhaps a little indirectly, but we do.

- MKL