Infra Support Requirements for Improvements

[Dwynn]

I've thought about this and believe I even suggested it ages ago, but I think this war  begets it to be resuggested.

Infrastructure needs to play more of an impact in a city's operational status. This is going to probably be a very poorly received suggestion, but right now this war has demonstrated again that city-count is a huge indication of which way a war is going to usually fall. This is because military units are directly tied city count, so those with the higher city count should have a distinct advantage. However, as we see people are eager to get infra shaved off their nations so their higher city count advantage becomes unbeatable. I mean a 22 city nation declaring on a 14 city nation, pack it up. There's no point in even showing up for the war.

So my suggestion to try to combat this? When a city's infrastructure is below the slot-requirement, improvements randomly go "offline" for a turn. Then the next turn it's randomized again. Think about it, infrastructure is literally the logistics of your nation. If a city doesn't have the logistics to support the amount of improvements that you have in it, shouldn't there be some sort of penalty for it? Now, I know what you're thinking.. "This gives the attacker the advantage right away!" well.... maybe? I mean defenders can destroy infra just as well.

This may alleviate some of the lopsidedness of wars because it will require nations to maintain their city infrastructure to be at peak operational status. Maybe an improvement doesn't go offline, maybe instead it just functions at a penalized rate. Also, power plants could be put at a lower chance (but still a chance) of going into offline/penalized mode because most cities would make sure their power infrastructure is sorted and good.

I'm just spit-balling, but I think it might add another dynamic to the war game as well instead of the "hey lets rush to get each other close as we can to beige then sit there for 12 turns" that war basically is now.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

No, this wouldn't alleviate anything, except the burden of homogeneous city count blobs having to deal with the negatives of their strategy, or anyone they drag down having any hope ever of coming back.

I see no reason for this. And anyway, people would just do what most of my cities are now. Drop the infra and improvements.

[Dwynn]

41 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

No, this wouldn't alleviate anything, except the burden of homogeneous city count blobs having to deal with the negatives of their strategy, or anyone they drag down having any hope ever of coming back.

I see no reason for this. And anyway, people would just do what most of my cities are now. Drop the infra and improvements.

That's a valid point that they would just drop infra and improvements. It could be said that a city should have X amount of support improvements to support the military improvements but that would require even more complexity. However, if a nation were to simply sell down and go military only improvements, they lose a good chunk of their income so I see that as a fair trade off.

Though I don't see how it would cause homogeneous city blobs to avoid the negative consequences of infra lost. In fact it would cost them more making war more strategic for the smaller city nations.

[True King]

I think it’s good to have the improvements as something which lasts a bit longer than infra in war, so it’s not so annoying losing infra people just quit when suddenly all their improvements stop working. Already is a population requirement for military units.