Goods

[Ziffer]

I hope there will be many goods in the game. Caesar can became more difficult with many types of resources. It seems to me that difficulty was the main C3 advantage.
I believe minimal set for houses is: food (wheat, fruits, vegetables, meat, fish, olive oil), clothing, ware, furniture, wine, jewellery, resources for building/repairing (wood, stone and/or bricks, marble, may be sculptures for rich estates), weapons for military, pergamen for schools, libraries and senate.

And I think each building would use wood and bricks or something else. I believe using real materials such as wood is better than old way of building and expanding houses (simply paying some money). Houses would need much resources if they expand (from 2*2 to 3*3 and 4*4) and few of those each month or other period.

[MarkDuffy]

Although I voted yes, it really doesn't matter. There are decisions that TM will have to make to fit all of our wants into a game everyone will be able to play within today's evolution of computer power & still have their excellent 3D which must be kept.

CBing should be about building. This means building buildings (and rebuilding cuz the game somehow destroys them ).

Building buildings creates what some would call the boring/slow/player doesn't control aspect of a game. Time & distance. You can't just slap down buildings. You have to plan ahead & build up the supplies.

So I voted Yes. Absolutely!

[reachrishikh]

Although I'm a staunch supporter of realism, I still voted no, because this would slow down the game very much. Imagine having to wait for supplies every time you need to build buildings. Although this worked perfectly well in Age of Empires, it won't work here because of the considerable difference in the number of buildings to be built in it and in the Citybuilders. And the game would also require to provide you with some amount of stockpile of resources to build the buildings, along with cash. But unlike AOE, where there are a limited no. of resources, and they are stored and displayed along with the cash on the top of the screen, here we have all our goods stored physically in warehouses.
They would also need to provide some sort of storage facility somewhere on the map containing the stockpile of starting resources in the beginning of the game then.

[vic_4]

I voted no, I like the concept that you need building materials only for governement buildings. Private houses have always been built by the owners at their expense, so houses should be for free as all private buildings, it could be an interesting possibility to build houses or production buildings with your materials but then you own them and can rent or use for production hiring laborers.

[Ziffer]

I believe it's not a big problem and this improving of the game could make it more realistic. Buildings would be build of wood and bricks but not of moneys.

First huts would need no wood. Little houses needing some wood is not hard burden for players (I just suggest new type of goods). It's OK if estates need many resources: the game would not be easy.

And it wouldn't be carriers for transfer resources between warehouse and houses IMHO, so houses can improve immediately. This would not slow down the game because this doesn't need many resources of computer (just multiplicating coefficient and number of house of each type, then adding this numbers, and then reducing the number of resources in warehouse, other procedures would be the same). 3D graphics needs MANY resources of your computer but not this procedures.

[imhotep3147]

I disagreed soley based on previous CBs that used marble as a resource. It takes entirely too long to quarry and/or is too expensive. And I can't see it being used to upgrade a hovel of some sort to a nicer hovel of the same sort. Same for stone....however if they were to require wood or bricks, that probably wouldn't offend me too much.....

[Azeem]

I vote yes. I like the idea of needing building materials for all sorts of buildings. Having buildings require certain materials adds a lot more to the game.

It kind of reminds me of "The Settlers" series though. Is this where you got the idea from?

[Ziffer]

Originally Posted by Azeem

Is this where you got the idea from?

No. I have never played "Settlers" but I want to try it.

[Aumtehoutep]

they have done this idea before ... to a small degree

in Emperor you lay plots for houses and people move in in tents then get shacks .... if they are going to upgrade to small houses .. then you have to provide them with hemp to make stronger houses ....

seems to me like you're just suggesting a furthering of this idea ...

it looks like we'll do zoning for residential in Ceasar4 ... adding buiding materials as a requirement for a house to upgrade is really no big deal ...

but I would definately not include it for initial settlement by new citizens


another idea I think would be cool is when buildings become vacant ... what if one of the citizens in your city BOUGHT that plot of land and used it to expand thier own home or added a private garden alongside thier house ... or even built themselves a new store closer to thier house ... I'd love to see the AI include such quirky possiblities
==
Disclaimer: All opinions expressed above are correct, and should not be disputed as they emanate from one who is Righteous and devoid of fault.

[Czech Centurian]

I agreed but it should only be luxury palaces and they should source the material themselves. For civic buildings temples etc you should be able to. What about marble used to construct baths.

[arcan]

I voted yes. But in that case buildings shouldn't be able to retrograde in status. Maybe deteriorate but not retrograde.

[Aumtehoutep]

I see you're point ... if the player has to relinquish resources for these buildings it can be a hefty drain and they would expect that building to stay there until they destroyed it ...

but if the citizens had a built-in desire to better thier homes they would need to purchase and provide the needed materials ... that's feasible ... just like any other need they had ... and infrastructure to provide building materials is already there and being used for things like monuments

We've all seen the little messages that say this house needs water before it can upgrade. What's so different if if needs 2 loads of wood and a load of clay?

[arcan]

ye"s but when the house has no more water it downgrades to a small hutt. This shouldn't be possible in case wood, stones,... are needed to upgrade the house in the first place.
Untill I'm quite advanced in the game, it sometimes happens that some houses keep upgrading/downgrading/upgrading/... imagine what resources it would cost!!!
something lke simcity would be more viable : the building doesn't downgrade but looks shabbier and hosts more people with fewer needs.

[Ziffer]

If the house had 10 units of stone and downgraded because it had not received the wine it would still have 10 units of stone and would be able to upgrade again if it will receive the wine from the market without need to obtaining more wood.

I think if the house hadn't receive wood/stone/marble/sculptures/smth.else for a long time it would have to break and to downgrade one level. If houses need to get materials once and will not break player can easily pull down all buildings producing wood and stone, and it's not interesting and looks not realistic.

And what do you think about the list of resources I wrote above (wood, ... , jewellery)?

[arcan]

you mean the wood, stones, etc required to upgrade wouldn't be used for the construction of the upgraded house? That's how I saw it : A house required 10 woods 10 stones to upgrade. They get it, and stones and wood are used as construction materials.

[Ziffer]

Originally Posted by Czech Centurian

What about marble used to construct baths.

I think it's good idea. IMHO emples, estates, senate, academie, may be smth. else would need marble too.

And what about architect office would need some wood,stone,marble for reparing all buildings?

[Ziffer]

Originally Posted by arcan

you mean the wood, stones, etc required to upgrade wouldn't be used for the construction of the upgraded house? That's how I saw it : A house required 10 woods 10 stones to upgrade. They get it, and stones and wood are used as construction materials.

I mean that if the house costs 10 units of stone and it downgrades to a house which costs 9 units of stone it would put 10-9=1 unit in reserve.

"A house required 10 woods 10 stones to upgrade. They get it, and stones and wood are used as construction materials." - I agree.

[arcan]

Originally Posted by Ziffer

I mean that if the house costs 10 units of stone and it downgrades to a house which costs 9 units of stone it would put 10-9=1 unit in reserve.

"A house required 10 woods 10 stones to upgrade. They get it, and stones and wood are used as construction materials." - I agree.

In the last case, downgrading shouldn't be possible. It would make costs prohibitive when an area keeps upgrading/dg/ug... besides it wouldn't be realistic.

[EmperorJay]

In my opinion, a building should require X materials to be build and/or upgrade but it should not require any materials for maintenance. It would just be too complex and annoying to keep an eye on every single building to see if they have enough resources for maintenance. It would be better to have it so that only the Engineer (or whatever he's called in Caesar IV (if he's in there at all )) requires resources so that he can perform maintenance.

[Ziffer]

Originally Posted by EmperorJay

It would be better to have it so that only the Engineer (or whatever he's called in Caesar IV (if he's in there at all )) requires resources so that he can perform maintenance.

Yes, I think it would be really better. New version: if the house downgrades, 10-9=1 unit of stone comes to warehouse (or engineer/architect office for reparing houses and all other buildings in the city).