SOCIAL ENGINEERING/GOVERNMENT (ver 2.0): Hosted by Bell - Page 2

Harel · July 21, 1999, 16:09

First, for Ecce Homo:

I would like to say how great Israel was, but in 1948 we were just as primtive and "barbaric" as the egyptains. Insdustry was non-existnt. We couldn't repair any tanks. You know why? We didn't have any! Not till the last stages of the war. We fought with small cannons and molotove bottles. We won only because of civ "morale bonus". We might have the best tank in the world now, but sure as hell not then. But, indeed infra-structre is a good idea. A small civ with a good holding could out-do a big civ with bad infra-structre.

Secondly, for Maniac:

Thats true Maniac, but doesn't only apply to wealth!
For example, some countries have armies which are much stronger then thier size. Taiwan, for example have a scientifical advange that supress most of the world even due it's a very small country.

The point you made about democracy/wealth it true. However, consider this:
a one city civ with democracy/wealth vs.
10 city civ with democracy/wealth.
Big civ still will get 10 times the money, since they both get the +X percent to income.
The point is, the advange should be bigger when smaller civ choose it. The civ still won't be able to compete in everything, but it could match it rivals in THAT specific cataogry.

Trade is a good equalizer but some small civ choose not only to excel in economics but in other matters.
Sparta, that for sometime was an independt country has a legndery army. Sure, it could not have defeated the entire greek army, but it would have been one big fight! Indeed, there was such a great battle.
So, sparta has a big morale bonus. In civ term, that is "power". Even when greek was in war ( choosing "power" ), sparta soldiers were much better. They got a bigger morale bonus.

I would belive it be fun, and accurate to add this into civ. Trade with small civ would be useful as they would give almost the same trade value as bigger civ. They got get technology almost opening the route for trade swap. In civ II a small civ had no tech to suggest and so just kept dropping down and down, having no hope to get something new. Even with "knowladge".
So, when fighting the comp, even if you become the huge civ you can still lose by zealous small civ.

Many people complained that the AI attacks when he don't have a chance. When, now he will.
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited July 21, 1999).]

Maniac · July 21, 1999, 17:03

Ok Harel, I see it as my job to fit your ideas in my SE idea (read all my previous threads). Tell me if you find the following good enough to represent small countries' benefits.

1) If you defend your capital or your last city, you get an automatic(=without SE) HUGE defense bonus. Since on an civ earth map Taiwan and Israel are only one city they will always get that bonus. The more cities you have, the less defense bonus you get. If you have 10 cities you don't get a bonus.

2) Use the monopoly system from CTP. A monopoly gives you an ENORMOUS trade bonus. One city civs may always have a monopoly on something.

3) You are not limited to 3 trade routes as in all previous civ versions. That way monopoly cities could trade their stuff to every other civ and get SUPERENORMOUS trade.

4) Small civs are immune for negative Morale.

5) In an earlier thread I promised to think about giving Social Factors to my SE Choices.

Corporate/Free Market : +2Economy, -3Planet, -5Police

Transnational : +3Economy, +2Industry, -3Environment, -5Police, -2Morale
(= Improved Free Market, available due to some future tech, got the idea from the book Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson)

Wealth : +1Economy, +1Industry, -2Morale

6) A civ with an immunity for Morale and a Transnational/Wealth economy would get this :
+4Economy, +3Industry, -3Environment, -5Police, -0Morale.

7) In Civ3 Industry will probably be represented by increasing Shield output and not by decreasing the cost of things to avoid the Industry cheat of SMAC. Thus, with that increased Industry a small civ will be able to support a decent army, but it will not be able to get expansionistic due to the -5 Police.

8) Before you begin to type 'a large civ with 30 cities will have the same benefits'...
NO! They will have a -4 Morale hit, so you can hold them off for a while.

9) Harel, if you aren't satisfied now, you *seriously* overestimate Israel's power.

10) Bell, I would like to see some of this mentioned in The List v2.0. I wouldn't like to have the feeling I wasted all my time to please 1 person.

------------------
M@ni@c-SMAniaC
depends on what site I am.

Harel · July 21, 1999, 17:19

Your ideas are fine and good Maniac but not perfect. They are not perfect cause you force a certain mix of SE on the minor civ in order for her to be comptetive.
Because they are smaller, they need to Max out thier bonus. And since they have no minus morale, regardless of thier SE picks, they will ALWAYS pick the option which gives them +money -morale cause they won't be effected by it. By this, you confine them into one narrow road.
What if the smaller civ is a militaritic one? Like Israel? Sparta? Even Taiwan posses quite a fierce little army.
They won't be able to take the +morale -money option, cause they would really hurt themself and they need to pick the only thing which allows them to float, in your system. However, while some small countries relay on a strong economical/poltical power to sway off enemies, some fend them off with a quality and mighty warrios.
Taiwan, such a small country, defy China with the prospect it's out-standingly advance army. Same thing for Israel.

Besides, smaller civ always held a comptetive edge, even in older days. The transnational option is futuristic. What about sparta? The minoun ( while they lasted? ). Hebrew in older days?

Beside, how do you define "no-minus-morale" to small civ? One city? What if i build two? I get none? What makes you a small civ?

The point is, that smaller nation DO exel in some regions. That is a fact. Take the "TV-test". The US has 80 times more economical power then Israel. Do you hear 80 times more news on the US then Israel? Does the US has a 80 times strogner army, sell 80 times more product, has 80 times more scienctifc advance? The answer is no. Thats also true for a huge array or smaller, or weaker nations.

The defence bonus is a good idea, but just like what I suggest it depend on the number of cities. Why not have the SE bonus size depend on the amount of cities?

1 city = +50%
2,3 cities = +40%
4,5,6 cities = +30%
7,8,9,10 cities = +20%
11 and more = +10%

for every SE goal bonus. Or something in this area.

IMPORTANT! this only applies to the GOAL SE modifactor. The goverment and market bonus will stay the same. Only for the goal bonus, I say again. Only for what the civ decides to excel in.

P.S I am glad you read the Mars triology. True a grand piece of SF proweress.
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited July 21, 1999).]

Harel · July 22, 1999, 00:22

I will post this both in social changes and radical changes, as it a truely a fundemntal change to civ. However, it relates to the social change screen.

Big civ vs Small civ

And no, I don't mean another post on minor civs. Not at all. I am talking about the power balance in today world.

Now, the USA, for example span 250 million people and a production value of 9 trillion dollars. My own country, for relevence ( Israel ) has 6 million people and and a total GNP 110 billion dollars.
Now, is the US has a 80 times stronger political, militarical, and scientifcal power? Hardly.
Small countries are often stronger then thier size. In civ II, a civ with 30 cities was 10 times stronger then one with 3 cities ( if not more ). If both players play equally well, atleast.
This isn't true in real life, like I alborate. Taking Israel example again, it's the lead country in several technologies ( rocketery, moleculric biology and aeronotics ) and it's army is extreamly well trained.
While there is no doubt that America can win a war with Israel, a total war such as this would create much more casaulties for the US then what Israel apparant size might suggest.

Monaco produce much more money ( due to trade and tourrism ) then thier size.

Switzerland is a rather small country in popultion, but they have the highest GNP per person in the world. And so on.

Even moderete size countries, such as France, England and germany ( moderete in comparsion with russia and the us ) they posses a great political and industrial which exel thier size.

The point is, that smaller civ can compete, somewhat with thier bigger opponenets.
The way this can be addressed in civ III is having a culmative social modificator.

What do I mean? The "power" model will add, for example +10% for the morale in a US size civ, but a +50% bonus for a civ like Israel. Same thing for science, economy, etc.
In the one region the smaller civ choose to excel, it while get a much bigger bonus from the same modifactor then a mighter civ might get even if she choose the same modifactor.
Either "knowldge" will add a fix +research points ( which, ofcourse will effect a small civ much more then a bigger civ ) or the +% they get will depend upon the total resources.
I do belive this will make civ much more intersting, as conquering smaller civ will be much more diffuclt. Opening the road for the much missed diplomacy, trade and scientific learning. The peacful world which lacks in civ II ( atleast, it doesn't have that much appeal as in the real world ).
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited July 21, 1999).]

Maniac · July 22, 1999, 10:19

Harel :
Yes I do force small civs to have a certain SE setting and I did it intentionally.
Why?
Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Brunei... all doing well. Why? They are Free Market!
Libanon, Sikkim, North Korea, all those Meso-American countries... all doing bad. Why? No real Free Market!
That's why I force small countries to have a certain SE setting.

If you read my thread carefully, you would know that the Industry bonus allows them to have a good and large army. Not invincible but if you really think that the Israelians can hold off the Americans, I say: Wake up!
And if you loose a lot of units, you can still rushbuy new ones. That's why China doesn't attack Taiwan. Because Taiwan has lots of money to spend on war economy if they need to.

About Sparta, compared to other Greek polei, they had a large territory.
And the Minoans were a trade nation!
The Hebrews in older days meant nothing. Ok, you could defeat the Filistines, but against the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians... your pathetic army couldn't do anything.
It's thanks to the Americans and English you have a good nation. Otherwise you would be worthless.

About your "TV-test". Yes I hear 80 times more about USA than Israel. It's only because you are Israelian you think the opposite.
The only reason you come in the news is because your aggresive people keep staying in Libanon and the Golan Hights.

Oh yes, for a change yesterday I heart some Israelian scientist discovered that flowers stay longer fresh with Viagra in their water. You may really be proud on this magnificent 'scientific' breakthrough!

My own country, Belgium, would also be represented by one city, Brussels. And we don't 'excel' in something.

Yesterday I have too given some further thought about my first point about Defense bonus(the one you agreed with). The Belgian army sucks, so I think you should only get a slight defense bonus.

Let's start with the point I maybe agree with.
+10 cities = +10%
1 city = +50%
Do you mean that for example +2 Economy would become +10 Economy or do you mean +2 would become +3 ?
The last idea is good, but +10 Economy is well a *little* overexaggerated.
Do you mean with "Goal" "Value" ?
Nations with +10 Morale or +10Support seem unrealistic to me.

Harel · July 22, 1999, 10:55

Still, you don't follow me Maniac. It's true that the small countries with a free market rival those without. Thats true with every country, regardless of size.

If YOU had read my post carefully, you would have seen I only ment to SLIGHTLY augment the Goal SE.
What is the Goal SE? In SMAC, you had a goverment section, a market section, a future society section and a goal section ( power, wealth, knowladge ).

Choosing free market has nothing to do with a country choosing the "power" SE to be a militaritisc country.
In your system, they must select free market AND wealth since that it the only way to they can have some real advantge.

However, a country like Israel or Sparta should be able to select the attribute "power" to get a morale bonus since those countries hardly can be said to have a +0 morale bonus ( in your system ). They posses a smaller, yet more qualified army.
And no, never I ment to any country to get a crazy bonus like +10 morale. All I said, the finite bonus gotting from the goal SE ( power, wealth, knowladge ) should be slightly offest in the favourtism of smaller countries.
This doesn't have to regard to one-city civ, btw. It can easily reflect a small civ of 2-3 cities in comparsion to an empire of 30 cities.

While I said that Israel has no chance in winning a war with the US, or even scoring a good hit we can delay them. And btw, this is backed up in stratigic simultion.

Also, a few things: pentium II, MMX pentium, Avocado ( what you eat is a gentic alter fruit. Originaly a jungle fruit ), many combat missiles, ICQ, optic fibers ( yes, really ), Air ballon to open blood cells ( like in heart surgery ), Nielon fabric (!), Acamol, and much much more. The relation? All developed in Israel. Not only Viegara

About our aggression. Well, your right about that. Try it on Singapore. Taiwan. Any other country. Try to measure the amount of product first developed in every country ( the patent insititute of every country can show that ), the items which the country posses an agreed "monopoly", etc. The point is, while the US is great in it powers, those powers are not equal to other countries when reduced to a fixed scale.
A single, round 5 million city in the US cant match to Israel or Singapore.
Nor can New-York match to Taiwan in the grand total of things.

BTW, belgium is great in it's trade, always have. Can't you deny that Belgium posses huge harbors, and excel in trade which it's political and economical effects far supress that of Belgium real size?
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited July 22, 1999).]

Maniac · July 22, 1999, 11:17

Israel = Free Market/Power
+2Eco, -3Env, -5Pol, and +3Support, +3Morale because of a +50% Bonus. That seems reasonable to me. +Immunity for Industry, so no -2Industry.

Taiwan = Free Market/Wealth
+3Eco,+1Ind, -3Env, -5Pol, and +50% makes +4 Eco and 1.5 Industry. +Immunity from Wealth's negative factor.

My suggestion : Small civcountries (=less than 5 or 10 cities?) get +50% to their Value(not Goal) modifiers and get an immunity for their value choice.

Good enough for me. Together with what I said on the other post, that would do. Do you agree now?

About the Belgian harbors. Yes, Belgium has a big harbor = Antwerpen. But about that "always good in trade". I think you confuse with my northern neighbours The Netherlands. After the Netherlands separated from Flanders because of protestantism, the trade in Flanders lowered because the Dutch closed the 'Schelde' and ships couldn't pass to Antwerpen.
Done with the history lesson.

Did Israel really develop the Pentium MMX? I thought Intel did that. Or is Intel Israelian?
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 22, 1999).]

Harel · July 22, 1999, 13:33

Ofcourse Maniac. That would do fine. I belive the "no-negative effect" to be the real edge here. However, I do have several comments:

1. Since we might play on a small map, or have lots of civ, a FIXED number for being a small civ is wrong. Therefor, the level of the bonus gotten for the Value ( not goal, sorry ) SE will be defined by either:
A. the number of cities, in a comultive effect: 1 = +50%, 2 = 45%, etc..
B. your position in the world scale ( 8th civ ( last ) = +50%, 7th civ = +45%, etc... )

But, how will that co-exist with the "no-minus" idea? You might say we have to set a rigid number, below it you will gain no minus and increased values bonus , above it it will act as the norm.
Thier are problems with a rigid number. What if some civ will choose not to expand from 5 to 6 cities cause that will render thier bonus non-existant? In order to encourge growth, thier must be no number which you might not want to raise above.
Therefor, the bonus from the value should slowly deminish over time.
However, how can the "no-minus" lower along the way? Simple. Let's consider this:

1 city = +50% to Value bonus, no minus.
2 cities = +45% to value
3 cities = +40% to value, no more then -1
4 cities = +35% to value, no more then -1
5 cities = +30% to value, no more then -2
...
11 cities = normal value, minus as normal
etc, etc, etc.
Remember the +value is to augmant the value bonus after is current size. The value selection would still be effective to empires 11 and up.
For example, wealth would still give +2 to economy. It would just give +3 to a 1 city. However, i belive the SE bonus should be pin-point to fractions, so that +1.8 eco would still give a bonus highter then +1 eco.
So, for example: if +1 eco gave you +1 in every city ( let's stay 10 cities for +10 bonus )and +2 eco gave you +1 in every square
( let's say 30 square for +30 bonus ), then a +1.8 would give you +26 ( 80% of the difference between the +10 and +30, plus the original +10 ).

2. Thanks of the history lesson. Indeed, I was reffering to the netherland of yore. However, belgium still posses some expretee ( but, not being off a belgium origin, I just don't know what it is

).

3. Indeed, the pentium was made by Intel, but the MMX principle was developed by Israeli scientitist working in Intel ( in Haifa hi-tech complex, near my base by the way ) which developed the MMX, and then the pentium II series ( which includes MMX ) and the Katami 3d orders for the new pentium III.

In civ, it's was too easy for a big civ to take over it's puny opponents. If that AI, or player, due to a poor starting location to some selection, is behind in size, it would have less troops and poorer technology. By storming in, you could just take it over with out one hit.
In this system, while not wieling that much power, smaller civ might be useful when alive to the big empires. A small country with knowldge value might gain scientific advance easier and cheaper then it's big opponenets. So, the big empire might just give that country tribute to put in Science taxtion and show an abdunce of technology.
Also, the minor civ might wield enough economical power to allow it to be useful in trade.
And last but not list, the smaller one can have enough qualified armies to make the big empire think twice before attacking.

I do belive that increasing the value SE is the only way to go: in the end, democracy doesn't give a bigger bonus to israel then it does to America ( but then, America is a republic ). Nor does the type of market you yield.
This idea has its logic even without the evidence around us: Isn't it logical for a small country to easier shape itself around a single idea?
It's easier for a tiny nation to center itself around research, money or military. Big empires must posses more diversity. Can you imgine the entire greek empire using Spartan values? The military code work better when it's society was small and wedged toghter. As the empire expand, it's harder to control the public, therfor harder to shape thier values and wills.

[This message has been edited by Harel (edited July 22, 1999).]

Colon™ · July 22, 1999, 14:35

About this discussion of small nation vs big ones, a small nation does not necessarily gains advantages, becomes stronger or becomes more important then it's should be because it's small but because of other factors.
Israel is more important in international politics then it should be because it's a Jewish country that lies in the centre of a moslim world which causes great deal of friction with it's neighbours. That moslim world also happens to have a central position between Asia, Africa and Europe, and not to forget lots of oil.
If that original plan of creating a zionist state in Ruanda would have succeed far few people would have cared and it probably would not have had a significant importance in international politics or economy.
Belgium currently is very important for trade and economy, simply because it not only has a highly developed one, but also because it lies in the heart of one of the most industrialised and richest parts of the world. (West Europe)
Belgium always has been "good" in trade (I understand trade as transit industry here) simply because of it's position, it would never have lots of transit and following industry, large harbors if it would have been somewhere in Siberia.
Only if the political situation prevents it, it's logical that a central nation (especially when it's central in either a rich, either a close populated regio) is a trade nation.
And if you're central positioned and have a well developed economy, it's logical that political importance tends to follow as well.

Sparta was another example, this time militarily, but it wasn't because they were small that they automatically recieve a "bonus". The reason they had a great army is because they were trained from childhood to be a good soldier, it was a part of being a Spartan, of their culture. And why did this culture rose in the first place ? Because once they had serious slave rebellions which could be only surpressed with serious difficulty. To prevent such a thing from happening again they militarised themselves and became very vigiliant. The constant fear of their slaves rebelling if they would show signs of weakness kept them that way, and after a while it became their culture.

Of course Harel has a very good point that such a thing is unlikely to happen with big nations because it's far harder to form or direct a big one then a smaller one.

And Maniac, I'm afraid you still didn't got me when I was talking about internal politics and that things are not balanced in real life but forget about it.

Maniac · July 22, 1999, 16:50

Harel :
1)You're right about that the number of cities to be a small civ should depend on the map size. I always play on the largest possible map, so I tend to forget to take small maps into account.

On a tiny map 1 city should get the 50% bonus.
Small = 1.5
Normal = 2
Large = 2.5
On a huge map 3 cities would still get that 50% bonus.
Or perhaps it should be based on the squares of the map(to please players playing on a customized map), but I don't know the actual size of the predetermined maps and the squares they have, so I certainly can't say anything about customized maps.

I don't like your idea to depend the bonus on how strong your civ is compared to the others (8th civ gets that bonus, 7th that one ...). Because if I for example am the biggest civ and the computer civs are approximately of the same size, it wouldn't be honest to give the 8th civ, that has one city less than number 7, a larger bonus than number 7.
So let it depend on # of cities.

About slowly diminishing the bonus dependent on # of cities. Although basically it's a good idea, I think it's hard to apply in Civ3.
It's kind a hard to give a 20% bonus to +2Industry.
+22% Industry is kinda hard to give to a city producing 5 Minerals.

My radical solution : multiply ALL things in Civ3 by 10.
Food, Unit, Building, Wonder cost, trade, building maintainance, technology cost, 20 Luxuries to make one citizen happy and off course Mineral production.
That way a 22% bonus to 50 Minerals should be 61 Minerals. That doesn't sound odd.

So a +1.5 Economy bonus should be 5 extra trade per square and +2 Economy = +10 trade/square.

2) Belgian beer, chocolats and pork should be famous. Belgium has also high graduated people and a very good scholar system.

3) Do you live in a base? Are you a soldier? That would explain your Israelian chauvinism.

4) You said that big empires must posses more diversity. I agree. There is a thread where regions are discussed. A good idea : every region production should be counted together to get a super production. Every region should be able to have a different SE setting, but very different SE setting would increase the chance of a revolution.

Colon :
Trade is indeed dependent on a country's position. Therefore I should use CTP's trade system. Trade routes should be showed on the map. A city on a trade route would have a trade bonus. Antwerp, Palmyra, Petra, Bokhara(on Silk Trade Route). So a trade route from Rome to China would also effect some cities between them.

BTW, I didn't give a lot of attention to your internal-external politics problem because I don't really get what you're trying to say. Now, if you came with some more concrete examples or a partial solution for your problem, we could find a solution for your problem.

Flavor Dave · July 22, 1999, 16:55

Harel, you big galoot!!!

Sure, the rest of the world would hate the US in real life if it conquered Israel. But please, get your head into the game. If this was civ, Israel would be a teeny pathetic city, probably about size 3. The US would squash it like a bug. And with impunity, since the Israeli navy could never get its nukes or air force or one damn Israeli soldier to America. OTOH, the US would dominate the Med. Sea, and could conquer Israel whenever we felt like it.

In Civ terms, Israel is the little teeny speck you leave alive so you can go for a score maximizing game.

Repeat after me: in Civ terms, in Civ terms, in Civ terms, in Civ terms, in Civ terms, in Civ terms, in Civ terms, in Civ terms, in Civ terms, in Civ terms, in Civ terms, in Civ terms, in Civ terms, in Civ terms, in Civ terms, in Civ terms.

Harel · July 22, 1999, 17:22

To dear Flavor dave:

Hmmm.
Hrmm.
Strangest thing, I thought we were here to make civ III a better game.
Hrmmm.

Let's see. Can the US indeed take over Israel, Taiwan, Singapore, or any other small country with out politcal, militaral and economical damange? NO.

Then, is it good for a game which tries to be realistic like civ to be so un-realistic in the showing of modern combat and poltical tension and balance?
NO.
So what do we do? WE CHANGE IT.

What did I do? Suggested a way to make such a change work. To make small civ stronger, thus showing that it is not that easy IN REAL LIFE TERM to squash a civ, any civ, regardless of size.
I used Israel, for the most simple reason that I know off it. It's my country, in the end. I tried to bring a way to make the game more realistic.
Americans tend to thing they can do anything. Well, I can tell you one thing: israel citizen or not, israel miltary officer or not, you can't destory the IDF with ease. Nor can you defeat Tawian. Singapore. Borney. Monaco ( well, might not Monaco ).

Civ II allowed you to do what ever you want. If you had the cash and power, you could just storm in. Can you really do that in the modern world? Where is the delicate power balance? The zeal in which soldiers defend thier homeland?

By giving small countries a bonus, they might be useful, like in real life. Singapore is used by world powers are a source of free commerce. Most "empires" gain by her great economical power.
In the last 10 years, Israel has been a research house for the American army and many hi-tech companies, including Intel, IBM and microsoft.
Most of the cash donation american loves to mention they give to Israel is returned when America buys off new Israeli technology much cheaper then most nations. As an Israeli officer, I can tell you that it's very possible that the American excatly end up with profit after the entire darn thing. For example, the Pythoan, Popai, and Harpon missiles are all Israelies. Israel develop for America and herself the world leading targeting systems and aeronotics.

The point is, Israel ( and Taiwan also ) research much better ( per cost ), and therefor are a source of profit for both sizes. The "empires" gives cash in which the tiny nation advanced in research which is shared. By giving small countires, if they select the "knowladge" value a big bonus, we can show the way things really work in the modern world.

BTW, Israel has 5 million people. In civ term, thats might be one city: but big city and well developed. Not "size 3" like you said.
Also, the Vietnam war proved that you don't need to destory the enemy cities to win the war. Just it's forces. And Israel can destory all american forces in her immdiate area, just like Taiwan could wipe out all american in the japan-sea area. If ( like it should ) public support would drop after losing so many troops, then the US would probaly pronunce a cease fire.

To colon:

If a tiny nation means to survive, it must adapt. If not, it would perish in a matter of few months. Belgium is a trade country due to her location. If she would have been in Sybria she would have been a country which excel in mining, for example.
Israel must excel in combat due to her constant struggle and friction. If the jewish nation would have been in Rowanda, it would have probaly excel in farming, or deserting terraforming.
The point is, if they don't excel in something they would die. Quickly. Small civ adapt quickly to thier surrounding. They would always posses an edge over a bigger nation.

Why? A smaller nation is better controled, more effiecent. You can better know your people and better control them. You can adapt to the surrounding better.
America is huge, covering a wide array of climates. It's people consist of many types of belief and styles. It's hard to control such a nation. You must have a huge, and bulky beucarcty system.
Because smaller nation are by far more agile and better controled, a directed effort is much more useful.
Singapore can allow herself to divluge entirely in trade, forgaring research and military. Can the US do the same? If the US won't posses an army, she would have been over-runned. Singapore is a smaller fish, and can allow herself to direct herself.
Israel can allow herself to spend 35% of her budget on defence. It has constant struggle. It's hard to imgine any other big democracy managing to draw such a huge sum to the military would revolts for the public.

To Maniac:

About doubling everything by 10. Yes. Perfect ( mainly because I also said such a thing about 3 months ago in the city thread

). Setting everything by map size is a small solution but still not accurate. I agree that the "civ-scale" is also wrong. The only way, indeed, is to increase the values and allow for a "deminshing" algoritem which uses the number of cities.

BTW, the minoun werent a trader nation. For the most plain reason that they were alone. The minoun date back to 2,400 BC: in that time hardly any other empire arose and was aware to the minoun. The pheonican only rouse to power in the dying dies of the minoun.
The minoun were a peaceful researching nation, almost un-aware to the concept of war. They have almost met no nation beyong thier borders. When they were invaded by a primtive tribe from the area of modern Turkey they lost even due they possesed a HUGE technological edge. They lost because they had no army. They didn't know they had to have one.
A trader country would have been far more aware to the danger of the outside.

BTW, Yes I am a soldier. We have drafts in Israel. I don't live in the base, and have quite a full life outside of it.
While I like my country ( and dislike it also for many reasons ), I don't post this because I want "israel to be stronger". Maybe because I like in a small country I can see that the power balance is not as the "Empires" would like it to be. Maybe, in some way I am not as true to the real as I like. However, I know my reasoning is sound.

Smaller countries are more agile. That just plain logic. They can better extert themself. When they choose to specilize in something, it's obivous they would do better then the bigger, bulkier conterparts.

Therefor, I am accused in un-truthfullness. But, riddle me this: is it not the "empire" citizen of america that are blind to the fact that thier nation is only good due to her size? That in small scale they are no match for any other country?

Flavor dave doesn't want me to stretch the rules in favor of small countries. Did we not stretch the rules for America? Can anyone have one good reason why America been a nation on civ II? Because it's an economical empire in the modern age, no other reason.
Well, I want some flaming of my own: you enjoyed saying that Israel "are a puny 3 pop city" and that the US can't just about nuke us with one flick of a wrist.
Well, my friend, in 4000 bc ( when civ II start ) your people lived in caves, studying the philoshopical aspect of "arragghhh!" and "ohohohoho". We allready fought, learned, written, improved. Farmed. Built.
In ALL truthfullness America shouldn't appear in civ III. It's not a real empire. Just a big colony of the british. That, mind you, still lived in caves back in the 4,000 BC. Only in 0 AC did the british island start to have some sort of a civilaztion.

Everyone seem to accept such a blunt favourtism to America only because they hold the big bucks now. But no ones is willing to ballance the game to support better realism.
Favourtism to Israel, you say?
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited July 22, 1999).]

Maniac · July 22, 1999, 18:24

Again, to Harel :
1) Minoans had trade with Egyptians.

2) I don't want the Americans in Civ3 either!!!!!!!!
I only didn't say so because I thought noone would agree with me. USA is so short in the history of humanity it is worthless and their arrogance is bigger than the Pacific Ocean. Actually I am very anti-American. There, I said it. Now my reputation is blowed( if I had any after only 5 days of posting).

3)Now after we solved the small(but big in culture, those Americans have none) country problem, what do you think about my suggestion to have cities on a trade route also have a bonus? That way Belgium and the Netherlands should be real trade countries.

4) If a scientific alliance is possible in Civ3, Israel and Belgium(it has many universities doing research) would be even better represented.(alliance with USA or in my case with EU)
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 22, 1999).]

Colon™ · July 22, 1999, 18:34

Harel there's a flaw in you logics, I agree that small nations have certain advantages, but you always give examples of small nations who survive because of specialisation, are stronger in relation but forget that the majority of the small nations are not stronger in relation.
I find it incorrect that you make a clear distinction between small nations and large nations and say that small nations are stronger in relation while large countries have certain advantages on their own that small nations don't have. (larger labor pool, large internal market for instance)
Of course Israel is stronger in relation, Belgium a larger trade country in relation, but Georgia isn't, Ecuador isn't, Tunesia isn't.
The reason certain small nations are stronger in relation has nothing to do with the fact that they're small but with other factors.
Israel had lots of determined and well eductated people, that made them strong, Belgium has a central position, that makes them a trade country.

For the rest I agree with what you say, we're trying TO HELP (some seem to forget that

) to make a new game here with as a main goal, realism.

Maniac · July 22, 1999, 18:34

Flavor Dave, do you really think your country's army can beat and rule the entire Mediterranean Sea

.
The fleets and fundamentalists of the surrounding countries would give the USA army a hard time.
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 23, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 23, 1999).]

Maniac · July 22, 1999, 18:41

Colon, in one of my threads I said it was necessary to have a free market for a small country to be succesful.
I don't think we need to 'help' making Civ3. If we don't make Brian Reynolds clear we want some serious changes, he's just gonna make Civ2 with some tweaks.

Harel · July 22, 1999, 19:12

To maniac:

1. No, it was the Pheonican. The minoun pre-decess the modern ( northen ) egypt empire.

2. Great idea about trade Maniac but I allready have that covered in my economics thread. BTW, I seen your post there and:
A. I am the thread master for quite some time.
B. You can post everything you want, everywhere you want, anytime.

To colon:

2. Even a single city in civ is very large in land and in populace. I belive we can determine that a nation that managed build such a city is either:
A. has specific advantages.
B. is backed up by great resources.

3. I mention only Israel and Belgium and neglect Gorgia because ( and to all Grozians, don't take this the wrong way ) while Israel might be considered a civ ( even if small ) thier is no way Georgia can. It's too weak. A civ that can be truelly called a civ is either very good at something or very big. We can't incluce every group of people along history, cant we? Just the most notified.
And if someone is going to say now that the hebrew people are not notifed along history I am going to smack him silly

.
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited July 22, 1999).]

Flavor Dave · July 22, 1999, 19:20

"Flavor Dave, do you really think your country's army can beat and rule the entire world."

Perhaps your reading ability isn't up to snuff, but I explicity wrote that no nation is capable of conquering the entire planet. Perhaps English isn't your first language, so I understand. I await your apology.

Harel, fine, OK, howzabout I concede it's unrealistic. I don't think so, but OK, for the sake of argument, I'll give. So what??

You want to make small civs stronger. To make the game more realistic. What is the worst part of the game? It's when you're going for world conquest, and you're trying to finish off the inevitable triumph. Your suggestion wouldn't change the outcome, just the amount of time (and pain) it would take to do it. Your suggestion is akin to saying that going to the dentist would be better if you didn't use novacaine.

I don't have a problem with realism at all. I'm all for realism. But in most of your suggestions for Civ, and especially for this one, I don't get the sense that you're someone who has played alot of Civ, loves the game, but wants to make it better.

Instead, I get the sense that you're someone that played Civ a few times, and got frustrated that it doesn't more accurately reflect reality. That is a bassackwards way of looking at things. More realism+same playability=better game. But what you're doing is more realism+worse playabitity=worse game.

Look at it this way--forget realism for a second. How would your change affect the game? As I see it, if the bonus is minor, it still won't help small civs enough. If it's large, it just means trading one "surefire" strategy (rampant expansion) for another (perfectionism.)

But, I'd like to here your take on how your ideas would play out in the game.

If you want realism, why don't you play two turns and die of old age. I mean, your freakin' obsessed with the idea, why not take it to its logical conclusion.

Besides, you still haven't touched on one of my main points, which is that what you want is ALREADY IN THE GAME, indirectly. That's cuz civs with few cities will have really great cities. And your lack of understanding of the advantage of having a small civ is what leads me to believe you really haven't played alot of Civ. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you've just played one strategy every single game.

Harel · July 22, 1999, 19:50

Well, Flavor Dave, your right and wrong.
Yes, I did get frustred with civ do to it's un-accuracy.
But still, I spend long-long nights on civ. Just like master of orion, those are games that you start playing and notice that 10 hours have passed.
What makes the game finish painful as the game, not how hard it is to kill the other opponents. Units produce way to slow and move about the map in such a slow and ridiculs speed that indeed finding and killing all enemies is an awful drag.
If a turn is several years, that a horse unit can move quite a big portion of the world in such a time, even after you balance it out for "playability".
That term, however, is very flexive. While realism is obivious, it's not always very clear is the game is easy or hard to play.
I am now playing a new space game called Malkari. People say it's playability is low. I find that due to an easy interface, the game is more easy to understand then that awful CtP.

A revoke of the game interface and engine can easily allow us to implamnt realistic features by not hampering the subjective "playability". Besides, civ doesn't need a better interface: the current one is fine. No, it's need a new set of more realistic rules.

By making both unit movement and production faster ( maybe making turns shorter also ), all the problems of "finish" would be solved. Once you muster your forces, you could wipe out everyone in a matter of a few turns.
The only point is, that the smaller nations would put up more of a fight.

But, the great importance of the idea is to encourge trade and diplomacy which are very weak in civ II. You have more motivation to conquesr the enemy then to trade with them. But if he was harder by military and stronger in economy, that might stop the game from being a "blood fest".

But, I conculded from your post that YOU don't play enough civ. Building all the required structres in time is often futile: you need to buy them. A small civ can hardly obtain the cash for a new libary fast enough.
Also, because of the greater income larger civ would always win the race for a wonder as they can just buy out the wonder. With multiple wonders the bigger civ would sky-rocket. The small civ has no chance.

Perfectionism won't be the "new-and-only" way to win civ. The military ways need to be easier and more realistic also. It doesn't take 10 years to produce one knight.
However, they are enough civ gamers who wants to build and maximze thier own little piece of haven.
Let the expansionist and the militaritic ones duel it out in the heavens of the empires.
We are content with our 5 cities, properly farmed and mended. It's not the only way, but it IS a way. In civ II, if you didn't expand fast enough you lost in the end. everytime.
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited July 22, 1999).]

Flavor Dave · July 23, 1999, 00:49

Harel--

I think we may be talking about different things, or different times of the game. Because you talked about a small civ buying a library, which comes very early in the game. I thought you were talking about the 19th c. and later, for the perfectionist (Germans, me;-) civs.

Or, perhaps you are talking about the concept of minor civs. In this concept, Civ would still have up to 7 civs, but there would be a bunch of minor civs, of, say, 1 to 4 cities, to trade with, use in diplomacy, etc. Minor civs wouldn't build wonders, and wouldn't attack unless attacked. They would add greatly to diplomacy.

To use the analogy of Israel, go back 20 years, and Israel would be a minor civ (one city) allied with the US, while the Arab states would be a "large minor" (4 cities) civ allied with the Russians. The US and Russia wouldn't directly fight, they'd use their allied civs.

Actually, if you go to the strategy thread, alot of oldtimers are hooked on winning the one city challenge. One player actually got to AC in like 1861, with one city!!!! So, I disagree that you are forced to expand. I've found that the best single strategy is to build approx. 8 great cities, and I mean great. The other civs leave you alone. Then, once you have Hoover Dam and factories in all of your cities, you're set. Normally the other civs will attack.

Unfortunately, this is where it kinda breaks down. Due to the advantage the offense has late in the game, it is difficult to defend your little piece of heaven. You are almost forced to "punish" those attacking you. I've suggested that in Civ3, the balance between attack and defend stay more constant throughout the game. That would directly address your concern, IMO. In any event, it is completely untrue that you must expand to win.

What I meant about perfectionism being the one and only way to win was ONLY IF the bonuses you suggest for small civs are fairly large. If they are small, then they're really rather pointless.

Another way to reward perfectionism would be to add a victory condition kinda like the following: in the year 2020, all civs are set at 50% luxury. The civ with the highest "approval rating" wins. Or the most happy citizens.

As far as the "wonder race" goes, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Only the human player can buy wonders.

Also, you talked about the big civ skyrocketing ahead of the small civ. I don't understand. I mean, it's you against ALL of the AI civs, not just one of them. If you're strong enough in 1750, or 1850, they all ally against you anyway. Please explain.

As far as the issue of it doesn't take 10 years to produce a knight, that's true. But the only way around your issue would be to completely change the scale of the game. The map should be 10 times as large, there should be 10 times as many turns. Don't know if I like that. I never really worried about the year stuff, I think in terms of game turns. You can call the year anything you want to, really.

Harel · July 23, 1999, 07:39

Civ III, unlike civ II would also include multi-player. Therefor, we also must think about the human vs human race.
8 cities, while not being big, is by no measure a "minor" civ.
And no, I don't mean the concept of "minor" civ that was suggsted in LordStone thread, and Idea i support greatly.
That suggestion said that "minor" civ have limited diplomacy and other options.
"Small" civs are just like thier bigger contarpart it options, they are just on a much reduced scale.

The bonuses won't be too big or too small. I will give an example:
a 1 city civ, with all the require upgrades, wealth SE, all trade she can have, and the suggested upgrade.
10 city civ, no trade, no buildings, no nothing.

The bigger civ would still produce more cash, but just a little more. The smaller civ could rival the bigger civ by just one topic. Her armies would suck, her technology would suck, but she would have enough money to go on.
And since she has all that money on one city, that city could bloom.
Ofcourse, the bigger civ would still be mighter and could just take over the smaller one. But her trade would have sufficent appeal to let her stay alive.

A military small civ would posses units ( if she choose the upgrade "power" SE ) this get +3 or +4 to morale. Now, this isn't enough to fight an army ten times your size, but it would balance things more in the favor of the smaller civ.

The size of the bonus is around +100% to the Value SE from SMAC. If power gave you +2 morale, +2 support -2 eco, the upgraded one would give you +4morale, +4 support, -0 eco ( the negative would also be elminated ).
This size of bonus is only to one or two cities. Bigger small civ would get a much smaller bonus. This isn't enouhg to totaly offset the game, but it would balance things more.

About the "Wonder race". A bigger, human controlled civ would just buy off the wonder first. We aren't just playing VS AI. The point is, to build a strong city you need an economical backbone which is from other cities.

About the turns: the year value does not matter. What I mean is, that unit movement and production should be twice of three times faster in compersion to the other time scales on civ: the rate in which you build buildings, your city increase it's popultion or you research tech.
Therefor, this way we can "feel" it's the middle ages because you will have enough time to build, and move a huge fleet of knights before it's allready muskets.

Harel · July 23, 1999, 14:21

More then in multiplayer, I wanted the bonus to enable the human player, when playing against the AI not nessecry be the expanstionist one.
In civ II, when playing the comp you had to strive in order to be the biggest civ on Earth.
With this bonus, you can play "perfectionism" not as a fetish method but as a truly possible way to play the game.
You mentione one player who played with one city till the 1821 AD. Well, what if you could play the game, not not lose when you are 1 city?
You can still win. You can ally up and build the starship to AC with someone, help your allies with resources to kill all the other civs, or being so popular that you win by being elected president.
I want "perfectionism" to be effective.

Therefor, I belive the best middle-ground it to until limit the bonus to human players. Either to multiplayer or limit it to you when you play against the comp.

Flavor Dave · July 23, 1999, 15:35

1. Harel--you misunderstood--the player didn't SURVIVE until 1861 (not 1821), he WON THE GAME!!! That's when he landed on AC.
2. "In civ II, when playing the comp you had to strive in order to be the biggest civ on Earth."

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong here. It is a very effective strategy to build a 8-10 city perfectionist civ. And even a guy like me can make this work at 5 cities. I've done it many times. It's a fun, fast game.

That's the problem I have with your whole premise. When playing a small perfectionist strategy, you DON'T NEED THE HELP!! Really, trust me, Harel, you don't. If you did have to be the biggest and baddest to have a chance to win, then you'd have a point. But you don't. You've again stated that you're just trying to give small civs a chance, but the small civs do just fine without your help.

What you are suggesting will just make the following strategy funnel mandatory for excellence:

1. Build science city.
2. Build the Oracle.
3. Stop at ~8 cities.
4. Build lots of settlers to perfect your terrain.
5. Give your cities all the key improvements.
6. Go republic once you have some trade routes and marketplaces.
7. We love to size 8.

The game at this point is over. You haven't even gotten to monotheism, but your science rate and tax revenue and production are already so awesome that you can get every key wonder you want.

Try playing this way without the bonuses you suggest, and see how powerful it is. Then you'll realize that the human doesn't need the bonuses you're talking about to make a 5 or 7 or 10 city civ viable. And with the bonuses, it's just flatout simple.

Maniac · July 23, 1999, 17:32

Flavor dave : I want to upgrade small civs to make world conquest less desirable(I agree one nation conquering the world is unrealistic), trade more profitable and off course to make small civs more realistic, not to make it easier for human perfectionist players.
Although it is possible to win with only 8 cities ( I have too won with one city in SMAC.), the AI tends to be unfriendlier to you than when you're a large civ. This should be solved in Civ3. They should be friendlier to you if you are a big trader.

Harel, instead of saying 1 city 50% bonus and 5 cities only 25% bonus, wouldn't it be better to make a City State SE choice. +20% Food production, +20% Industry, +20% Trade, but -4 Efficiency. Very bad for civs with even only 8 cities. That would also solve the problem of 'how many cities should a small civs be allowed to have on a huge map?' because on a huge map a city on 30 squares of the capital has much less corruption as the same city on a tiny map. In SMAC anyway.

The Minoan Kingdom lasted from 3000 to 1500 BC. They had trade with the OLD Egyptian Empire and with the Greeks. Some (I don't) think they had conquered Athens. They had a big war and trade fleet and they did get conquered by some barbarians in 1400 BC because they had no army ANYMORE. Because their civilization was destroyed by a vulcano eruption in 1500 BC. Some (me too) think that's where Plato got his idea for Atlantis.

Theben · July 23, 1999, 17:40

Forgive me if I interrupt you two. I didn't read everything (been away for 2 days) but it seems the real problem is that small AI civs are too weak for Harel's taste. Single-city player civs are quite capable of winning civ2/SMAC &/or at least causing AI civs much grief in the process. What he wants is basically a smarter AI, yes?

There are other ways to save small civs from the expansionist's axe:

-Better alliances (Q: Why didn't Austria-Hungary attack Serbia? A: They're allied w/ Russia!)
-More realistic support needed for troops & supply routes, which would be more expensive away from home territories.
-Unhappiness at home when troops start to die. This should be ignored when defending your own territory (more likely to benefit a small civ).
-Democratic societies & troops less willing to engage in wars without moral justification.

Maniac · July 23, 1999, 18:05

How do you think you can tell that AI to defend his ally's City instead of attacking his ally's enemy territory?
To make it worthwhile for large civs having smaller allies you should still have trade bonuses and some other benefits.

Flavor Dave · July 23, 1999, 20:47

"Flavor dave : I want to upgrade small civs to make world conquest less desirable"

Why? If you don't like to win by world conquest, then don't do it. Essentially, you're saying that since YOU like going to AC, since YOU don't like world conquest, you want to change the game so everyone else has to play your way. Do I have that about right?

theben, actually, Harel is saying that when the Human player is small, with 5-8 cities, the Human is too weak. He's NOT talking about the AI civs, as near as I can tell.

Theben · July 23, 1999, 21:43

Maniac,
In SMAC you can tell an AI faction to attack a certain city. In civ3 maybe you could tell an ally to defend a specific city. As far as the AI telling another AI civ what to do, I don't know. That's up to the programmers.
Also in SMAC having trade pacts with different civs is more beneficial than if you have a trade pact with 1 large civ, as each city can have but 1 trade route per faction. If something similar to this is used in civ3, the trade benefit is built in.

Flav Dave, if that's true then I disagree.

Flavor Dave · July 24, 1999, 00:41

OK, so now it seems that you're saying smaller civs should get a bonus so that a small civ can survive in multiplayer. I have no opinion on that. But I still think that for you vs. the computer, it is either a bad idea (if the bonuses are big enough) or a pointless idea (if they aren't big enough.)

Maniac · July 24, 1999, 14:44

Flavor Dave : In some of my Civ2 and almost all of my SMAC games I win by conquest. You're wrong I don't like conquest. For me conquest is some pleasant distraction between the serious work of city management.
What I hate is that conquest is too easy and too safe.

too easy : solution : better AI

too safe : The problem is conquest has no bad side effects. So everyone conquers and conquers (me too) as if it's the most normal thing in the world.
At the end of the game you control most of the world. Very unrealistic. I want to fix that.

1)In SMAC after 50 years your people become as happy as the ones of the cities you founded. You should have problems with 'nationalists' throughout the rest of the game. +you should have revolutions in the conquered cities. That would eliminate my tactic of leaving the middle of the empire almost undefended, because you should always have an army nearby to suppress the revolutionists. If you have to keep troops in your own territory, you could spend less time else. This is more realistic.

2) I have witnessed several times that AI Civs switch from war to alliances in a few turns. Bad.

3) Having a city is better than not having a city.
That was always true in CivX. In reality it isn't. People work harder for their own or for their country. It's better to take as much advantage as possible of a country and let it alone the rest of the time, as USA does with Israel, than to actually need to control it.
Economic alliances and trade should be upgraded so trading with a country is more beneficial than to conquer it and loose the trade.

I want to make conquest less desirable because conquering the world is unrealistic, not because I don't like conquest.
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 24, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 24, 1999).]