CIVILIZATIONS (ver2.1): hosted by LordStone1

[mindlace]

Shining1- see my comments in CUSTOMIZATION about city icons.

Nomad Units
A nomad unit should be descrete from a nomad civ's military units, and vulnerable to attack, so that a military escort is necessary/desirable.

Nomad Plunder
Nomad units should get a mineral/food bonus when they plunder a tile improvement. They should also be able to plunder city improvements and get bonuses.

Nomad Reproduction
I think the 'new nomad with food overflow' is better than produce new nomad. I don't think it should scale up- The incentive for claiming territory with settled cities will come from strategic/tactical considerations.
I also want to be able to make nomad units from a city- so if I'm nomadic, I can take the population of a city I've conquored, put them on horses, and strip their city to the ground for everything it's worth.

I love nomads! I must say that if nomads become reality, I will try very hard to be an almost-totally-nomadic Civ, with a few border cities for defence, an internal research or production city, then swarms of nomads over the rest of your turf. I'd want to take it all the way up to the trip to AC.

~mindlace

[Cartagia the Great]

Stefu, Notliketea? All Soc.history.what-if people!? well, smeg I am to. I lurk more than post, but am plannign a good one soon I'm Mono aka Crooooow BTW. Nice to see some fellow What-if'ers out there.

This does, of course, mean we're all going to ahve to work together on soem Harry Turtledove scenerios, and I'd like to do one on that wonderful Manzikert what-if by Rhazib

[mhistbuff]

Nomads. There should not be "nomad warriors" and "nomad archers". Just 1 simple nomad unit. This unit, with the proper technology, becomes a "nomad archer" or a "nomad warrior,' etc. It is a settler/warrior/caravan, being able to settle(but not improve), attack, and trade with cities (w/out being lost). There is no production of shields, food, or trade (excepting from caravan action). Each time it trades with a city, it increases the chance of gaining a technological advance, as does wondering through a poplated area. I like the nomad concept, but you shouldn't be allowed to build a nomad unit, it would be a little unbalencing to game play. Barbarians could be like this and perhaps your first unit. Goodie huts could result in a nomad unit as could a particularly bad random natural disaster (resulting in the loss of the city).

[jof]

Mindlace:
>weak nomad unit & discrete military units...
Exactly, you choose to explore quicker by separating a nomad unit from its supported military units (& risk the loss of all!) or protect the nomad unit (possibly stacked with a defender, if stack-movement is implemented in general).
>nomad plunder tiles & cities...
Do you think getting the (higher!) yield from an improved tile & preventing at the same time a foreign city to use its own tile isn't bonus enough? Ok, maybe the yield should be computed in this case with the "We love _plundering_ day"-rule .
How shall the weak nomad unit plunder city improvements (which nearly all military units can't damage)? I think nomad units shouldn't have sabotage qualities.
>nomad reproduction...
You're right, the incentive for nomads to settle down will come from the strategical/tactical advantages of cities. But on the other hand, if you start with 1 lonely nomad unit and reproduce it after 5-10 turns (which I think would be good in the beginning) you have to limit/slow down somehow the exponential growth later (64 nomad units after 50 turns, 8192 after 100 turns...) to give city-based civs a chance at all!
A balance between nomad-based civs (advantage in the beginning) and city-based civs (advantage in the end) can be done by scaling up the foodbox-size. Or maybe it's better to use unhappiness as limiting factor? -> Own rioting (redhead nomads turn into barbarian (redflag nomads after a couple of turns???

Mhistbuff:
I propose every player starts with 1 single nomad unit without the knowledge of <settling> (allows founding cities), possibly without <irrigation>, <mining> and <roadbuilding>, certainly without <currency> or <trade>. If the nomad unit can't gather food&shield&arrows (only from the tile it's currently upon), how shall any player gain any technological advance (on its own)? How shall the nomad units be reproduced (i.e. grow larger than just the starting unit)? I don't think we should have cities first & more nomads later.

I like your idea of gaining chances for advances(*) from nomad unit's contact with cities or peaceful "wandering through populated area". How can this be modelled in more detail and terms of game effect?

Yes, nomad units also should be in goodie huts (instead of settlers?).


Without AI it's just FRXS

(*) reminds me of Jimi H. talking about _applause in the pause_

[jof]

Mhistbuff:
I propose every player starts with 1 single nomad unit without the knowledge of {settling} (allows founding cities), possibly without {irrigation}, {mining} and {roadbuilding}, certainly without {currency} or {trade}. If the nomad unit can't gather food&shield&arrows (only from the tile it's currently upon), how shall any player gain any technological advance (on its own)? How shall the nomad units be reproduced (i.e. grow larger than just the starting unit)? Shall the nomad unit defenceless open goodie huts, hoping for a settler unit or the {settling} advance? I don't think we should have cities first & (more) nomads later.

jof, sorry for the html trouble post

[ember]

it seems to me that nomads, as they are now are going to be a huge ICS problem, unless you are severly limited in number.

Could nomads not just replace early settlers?

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[mindlace]

Jof:
Nomad reproduction
The thing is, nomads won't ever be producing more then their square. As the nomad moves, there will be many times when it's in a square that produces 1 or 0 food, in which case they only maintain themselves or have to feed off their stores.
A city's foodbox gets bigger as the population grows. What triggers the growth in the foodbox? reproduction, I suppose. Does a new nomad unit inherit it's parent's foodbox or does it start with a new one?

Plundering city improvements- it would only happen if all the military units in the city were destroyed but you had not conquored(sp?) the city. For every improvement you plundered, you would get 25% of the improvement shield cost in gold, and the improvement would be destroyed.

If you can't do this, how can you be the barbarians sacking rome?

plundering tile improvements
Taking the food/minerals from a tile improvement is just 'living off the land'. If you destroy the improvement (stripping everything of value) you get a one-time bonus depending on the improvement- one time mineral, one time food.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by mindlace (edited August 15, 1999).]</font>

[jof]

ember:
>a huge ICS problem,
"ICS"? Can't decode this abbreviation.
(not nativly english speaking)
>unless you are severly limited in number.
sounds interesting!

>Could nomads not just replace early settlers?
Well, both can found cities and "somehow" are nomads like early settlers.
But nomads can't improve tiles (and should cost less shields, if producable in a city). Settlers can't reproduce themselves and can't produce & maintain military units directly. I want both functionalities and not merged in one "super-unit".
What would be the benefit of replacing?

mindlace:
>plundering tile improvements
>Taking the food/minerals from a tile improvement is just 'living off the land'.
yes, "plundering"
>If you destroy the improvement ...
ok, "pillaging" (p-key)
>you get a one-time bonus depending on the improvement - one time mineral, one time food.
How big should this bonus be?

>Plundering city improvements
>it would only happen if all the military units in the city were destroyed ...
Ah, I see, you're right!
>For every improvement you plundered, you would get 25% of the improvement shield cost in gold, and the improvement would be destroyed.
I would rather discuss this as an option (sacking instead of conquering an empty city) for all units, not special to nomads.

>Nomad reproduction
Nomads need _never_ food or shield support. I think, they would avoid desert, glacier & mountain (i.e. seldom move unto such terrain) and prefer grassland (special ressources & irrigated tiles), mainly mixed with forest & plains, and so gaining approx. 1.5 food per turn (net).
When its food box becomes full, 1 nomad unit splits in 2 new, independend nomad units
with their own, empty (and scaled up) food boxes, dividing evenly the content of the old unit's production box into their own, independend production boxes as well as dividing supported units of the old nomad unit between the 2 new units. The food box is enlarged on every split (e.g. 10, 20, 30, 50 etc. food).

[Stefu]

Cartagia: NO, actually we should start working about "How West Was WEird" scenario. Come on, the earlier parts, I just had idea how well it would fit into Civ scenario! Navoo Legion, Sherman's Dragoons, Rancheros...

BTW, I'm posting a thread for soc.hist.what-iffers there.

[itokugawa]

My opinion for nomads:

1)You start with nomads instead of settlers.

2)It is not reliable to let them producing units by 2 ways (a)As population grows in cities, b)As cities produce units.

3)Probably the most reliable is to produce other units with production but they also have a (not limitless) granary for hard times (i.e to cross a desert).

4)common points with settlers: Can found cities and when produced the population of the city is reduced by 1.

5)Differences with settlers: a)Have military power, b)required shields: 20+the required number of shields for the relative non nomadic unit (i.e. 30 for nomad warrior and 60 for nomad knight), c)Can pilage but not improve.

6)Use only the square they occupy. Everything as despotism except food: 1/2 of this of monarchy (round up) but they require only 1 food unit per turn. If 2 or more nomads in the same square they take all the food of the square and 2 of them divide it between each other.

7)When produced (from city or other nomad) you can give them from the granary of the city or other nomad. Similarly exchange of food is possible when 2 nomads or nomads and city are at the same square.

8)They have no home city and they can capture other cities.

9)Barbarians are nomads and there should be many barbarian tribes.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

I posted on nomadic civs a looong time ago, so I guess I'd better jump into the nomaderie again.
My concept was that the Nomad unit would represent a Tribal Group with many of the characteristics of a city plus the ability to move. As stated in earlier posts, they couldn't improve tiles, but they could exploit them for food/shields. A Tribe would keep expanding until it hit its sustainable Population limit, then either move or split off into two groups - no separate 'settler' required.
Tribes automatically form a military unit for each point of population, and those units are higher Morale/Experience than ordinary units (depending on the Morale Grades decided on: if 5 or 6 grades, Nomads would be about 2nd or 3rd highest). Other units can be built in excess of this number, but if units are lost in combat in excess of the population, population is also lost - there's not a lot of excess in a nomad group. Nomad units would be same as other military types, except nomad Light Horse (Horseman) or Horse Archers would have slightly better mobility (I proposed 6 move instead of 5, but it depends on mobility algorithms finalized in the game). They could not build units requiring beyond a certain Production cost, which would be a quick way to prohibit them from building things they never built, like Musketeers, Catapults, Cannon, etc.
Tribal units could get some equivalents t City Improvements. The ones I proposed are:
Bazaar -equivalent to Market
Shaman's Hut - equivalent to Library
Wagon Burgh - equivalent to City Walls, but not as strong
Sacred Grove - equivalent to Temple
Nomad Civs would get bonuses in diffusing Tech and in Trade, because they tend to contact a lot of Civilizations informally in their wandering.
All of which, I think, would make the Nomad option viable for about the first 5 - 6000 years of the game. Once your settled opponents get gunpowder, as historically, the nomads start to seriously hurt. By then. though, most of them will (to survive) have conquered a few enemy cities and settled down, as the Mongols, Vandals, Goths, Scythians, Huns, Pechenegs, Parthians, etc did historically.

[Maniac]

Hi, I was thinking yesterday about migration of peoples. After a while, I came up with this. I posted it in more than one thread –sorry if it annoys you- cause it covers a lot of areas.

Colonization/Migration

“How to simulate the migration of the ‘barbarian’ people at the end of the Roman Empire?” I asked myself. Cause they were in Civ2 terms some kind of settlers with a big attack and defense.
There should be a unit that represents some migrating people. Good, simply 4-2-1, settlers, one could say. But that would be an expensive unit. But the fact is that migration was unorganized and didn’t require 40 shields. It was instantaneous. In fact, there was never an organized migration of 10000 people, or just 10000 people saying “let’s found another city”.
So I began thinking about something else…

In Civ3 the Terrain Improver/Former could be deleted, well, now I suggest the City Founder unit would also loose much of it’s use until late in the game when planned colonization exists.
I am against automatic city building by the AI as some people suggest. What I suggest is you can point a tile where people may found a city. It may be any square 1) on a continent where there is already a city of yours and 2) not next to another city. All the rest is automatic with a migration system. People will move to that spot gradually if conditions are good.

I think there isn’t a migration system yet, except one based on happiness. I would let it play a much larger part in the game.
The automatic migration system would try to find a balance between labor and resources in a city.
This is to represent unemployment. If there is more labor(people) than resources(work) there is unemployment. And no work means that people migrate to parts where there is more work to do.
If there are more resources(work) than labor(people) there is work available and people migrate to other already existing cities with more resources or they will move to a spot you chose as a new city.
So cities built in large grasslands tracks will not be big cities since there would be large emigration out of the agricultural area without work.
Small cities will always have more resources than labor since they always have N+1 worked squares, where N is the size of the city. But to both solve the ICS problem AND the possible problem that large cities would not be possible since ALL the people would go to new cities, I came up with this.
The city square normally produces the amount of food if the square is irrigated, the amount of minerals with a limit of at least one and one trade if a road would normally produce trade.
I would add the following. If a city reaches two population, it gets for free 20 labor and 20 trade (don’t forget I use the x10 system). If a city reaches size 3, it produces an extra 30 labor and 30 trade in the city square. And so on… The extra bonuses are because in Civ2 a city with size 1 had 10000 people, a city with size 2 30000 and 3 60000… So of course the second population ‘unit’ produces double as much as the first, the thirth triple… or otherwise told the second pop unit produces 20 labor, the thirth 30. And of course a large city means more trade for the same reason; there are more people.
This would solve the ICS problem, since large cities are MUCH bigger production and trade centers as many small ones. I hope I have persuaded guys who would want to reduce the city square production to 0 food, shields and trade. I think my solution solves the ICS problem better since 0-0-0 city square production makes small cities produce too less trade and resources in the beginning and therefore seriously reduces migration to the newly built city.
And because the extra labor is balanced with the extra trade, automatic migration out of a city because there is a large population (much labor in my system) and too less resources compared with the population is impossible. So migration would be totally dependent of the resources of the surrounding terrain, as in reality.
This will represent more accurately the flow of people and the growth of cities in history. In CivX that was represented totally wrong with excess food since most big cities now and in the old days were mostly the big trade cities and some/most of them are were in half desert like terrain.
That would mean a lot more trade, so the game economical system could need some rebalancing. But don’t forget that people have suggested much more uses for gold eg troop support, religion, and if you read on, I suggest gold I also needed for colonization/migration.
So, let me define resources. Although in the Economy/Trade thread it is usually referred to as the replacement of shields, for this case I also count trade as resources.
So the biggest cities will be as in reality the economical cities.
But if you would some trade cities on a Civ2 map, they would have a lack of food eg Palmyra, Petra, Bokhara… So there is need for a general ‘food box’ for the entire empire. I don’t know sure, but I thought it existed in CTP. After all the food is ‘collected’, it becomes distributed over the empire as needed. Perhaps the efficiency of food transport (your SE Corruption/Bureaucracy rate)would also have to do something with how well food is distributed.
For example in a Federal structure with a Bureaucracy bonus food transport would be better than in the Confederate structure. Or if the above isn’t accepted, I insist that food trade routes are automatic and unlimited, so you don’t have to build a 50 shield caravan.

But of course the state has to say something too in migration. However before people are willing to move, they have to be paid a lot. So if you would want to speed up the growth of new cities or if you would want to move people to a food producing area with no other resources (eg a large Grassland track) you would have to pay them. I suggest per population unit 400 (x10!) gold (the price of a settlers in shields).

Population also x10?

I have a suggestion. It isn’t necessary for my migration model to work, but it would make it more precise since migration per 10000 is kinda rude and sudden. If population is also multiplied by 10, the migration model could be more precise. Migration could be more slowly, which is better.
Then you would have to pay only 40 gold for one pop unit.
Popx10 would make it impossible to have a population box as in all civlike games.
I suggest a simple box with the following information.
Happy : 20
Content : 70 + -
Unhappy : 10
Taxmen : 0 + -
Scientists : 0 +-
Entertainers : 0 + -
Rest : 0
So you would have a simple box showing the amount of people that have which happiness level or job.
The +’s and –’s are to switch eg a normal content citizen to an entertainer. For example if you would want to switch a content citizen (you can only make content citizens a special citizen (= taxmen, scientists, entertainers) and only happy citizens special if there aren’t any content ones. Unhappy people you could never makes special) to an entertainer, you click the minus of content. Then there appears automatically 1 (or perhaps 10?) in the Rest. Then click the +.of entertainer.

Recuitment

Doing pop x10 would also make a recruitment system possible, since if you keep the normal pop system, the mobilization of even one pop unit would mean a lot of Riflemen units = unbalancing and unrealistic. If it’s used, then you should not build Musketeers or Riflemen, but Muskets, Spears, Bows or Rifles. They could be stored and don’t require support. Then, in times of war, people could be mobilized, = one population unit disappears from the cities. You could mobilize people as far as you have guns, spears or any weapon in stock. Of course, if the units are killed, they can’t return to the normal city population after the war. This would simulate the loss of population in wars. However conscripted units would have the worst possible morale/experience. If you have Draft or Civil Duty as your SE Army choice, the experience could be a bit higher.

Settlers/Unit Workshop

Settlers should still exist, but they shouldn’t have the same use. First of all, you shouldn’t able to build them for reasons I have already explained. You could only get them if you click the “Migrate” button. Then your city would disband and in that process all buildings in the city would of course also be disbanded. Per 10 population units in the popx10 system, you should get one settlers. You should also be able to give the settlers any weapons you have in stock, eg spears, guns… basically creating something like armed nomads, as Diodorus wants to represents with his Tribe/Nomad ideas he presented several times in the Civilizations thread I think. That Settlers units would follow the same rules as Diodorus presented in his Nomad posts.
So the German population migration can be represented. If horses can also be built on the same way as spears and guns, you could even simulate people like the Huns or Mongols.
What I am suggesting is that in a city every item can be built: shields, chain mail, swords, guns, horses, or in later areas tanks. Then in the unit workshop you could create your army with the available weapons. So in a city you only built equipment, but to form a real army, you have to mobilize a population unit.
That means in peace time you can maintain a small army and in war recruit more units in a short time.
As I said before, mobilized units would have a bad experience/morale level.
To give them better experience, they should stay 3 turns in a city with a Barracks and then they would get 2 experience upgrades. Later in the game there could be a similar building, called Military Academy.

Oversea Colonization

Colonization oversea should require a unit I think. Some Sea Unit looking like a boat of Colombus. It should have a large movement range. And it should be able to move on land. If it moves on land it founds a coastal city. That way you expand oversea. More realistic.

Upgrading units

Upgrading units would be simplier. Just move them in a city, go to the unit workshop and change the item, you would want to change. Upgrading reduces the experience level with one.

Population Growth

As you might have guessed, I totally disagree food production has anything to do with pop growth. Food only is needed to feed the people.
Came up with the following. Not worked out in details, since I am no social historian.
But everybody can guess that population growth is dependent of two factors : the # children a family has and how long people live.
The # of children would be dependent on how many food there are produced since in earlier times children were assumed as working forces(child labor). So the more children a farmer has, the easier for him, the more free working forces he has and the less people he has to employ and pay.
So pop growth still has to do something with food, but indirectly. It should also be affected by your SE Growth or Urbanization factor. The eg Socialism Value would increase the number of children.

With the techology advance of Industrialization also the # of shields/resources would affect your pop growth. Means that suddenly two factors affect pop growth. That could simulate the fast pop growth around the same time of the Industrial Revolution.

The second thing affecting pop growth is how long people live. That should be affected by some techs like Medicine. In general the life expectancy would increase over time if medicine betters. It should also be determined by your SE Environment factor. Living in a polluted country should decrease your life expectancy.

Wow, are you still reading this? As you have read, what I am suggesting solves some problems like ICS plus it also includes some ideas of others like recruitment, nomads, migration…
It could be a real improvement for Civ3.

Goodbye
M@ni@c

[mzilikazi]

Great post, M@ni@c... I too would love to see nomads in the game; I think they have a place in the modern world too as refugees, displaced by war and occupation of enemy cities - i.e. instead of or as well as population loss, a "refugee/nomad" unit would be generated, and could then wander around until it found a new home.

[Maniac]

Mzilikazi :

Glad you liked it. You are the only until now that responded to this post (is it just me or are there less people around here the last few days?). Refugees are OK. In 1000 BC they could walk around with some spears and now with some rifles (or totally nothing if they're real refugees, then they have an attack of 0).
Do you just like the nomads or also the other ideas?

Were you the one that posted the Great Zimbabwe post in the Wonders thread?
Since I seem to have nuked the place, I'll repeat here what I wanted to say to you.
I prefer the Granary use for the Zimbabwe wonder and for Pyramids I like Diodorus' idea of a bonus to Public Works.

[mzilikazi]

You're right - it's a load quieter... I guess everyone's on holiday.

I liked most of your post, not just the nomads... demographic factors (i.e. population inflows/outflows due to migration, and the net effect of birth and death rates) should control population growth. Food is an element of this, but so is happiness, pollution, disease, sanitation, eductaion, contraception, wealth - you name it. We would need a simple model, but just using food is oversimplifying IMHO.

Glad you liked the Zimbabwe wonder... (on the Wonders thread) and I agree that the granary effect is probably the most appropriate, especially if a more appropriate effect is found for the Pyramids. I just hope that African influences are included in Civ3 - or at the very least, that the American bias isn't too strong... (and I mean no disrespect to America by that - so don't flame me).

[Westergaard]

Good post, M@nia@c. I like almost everything of it, specially the colonization-like aproach to units and their weapons, and the rest of the army stuff. I also totally agree that food-production shouldn't be related to population-growth in any way, but the fact that food-production is an upper limit to population, and food-production is again related to amount of arable lands and farming-technology.

You write:
If there are more resources(work) than labor(people) there is work available and people migrate to other already existing cities with more resources or they will move to a spot you chose as a new city.

I don't like this part, because I don't think people move because they are unemployed, they move because they are unhappy. So I think that unemployement should cause unhapiness, and unhapiness cause emigration. This way people would still move away, when unemployed. But also when their religion was persecuted, or they lived in an overcrowded city, or they were othervise unhappy with their conditions. Good idea about unemployement tough. Should be most relevant in industrial and modern times.

My only objection against the unemployement idea is that I see resources/labour a bit different. In my opinion, resources should be very easy to transport between cities inside your empire (ie you wouldn't need a unit, you'd just "start" a route between two cities, and it'll instantly appear). Something like the food-distribution that you proposed. This way a mining city with a lot of mines, miners and minerals, but few workers would be possible. It could ship minerals to the bigger cities where there was plenty of workers and factories to process the minerals, but not enough mines to keep up with the demand. I'm not sure if unemployement could be shown in this model.

I think that the automatic migration is good, but I see a problem in it. Migration would only happen when people were unhappy or unemployed or whatever. And while this is very realistic, it's not very good for the gameplay. Players would try to create situations which left the people poor, which is not a very good idea for a leader to do on purpose, an btw very unrealistic in reality. I have no idea how this could be solved, but it is a problem that needs to be considered, othervise Firaxis might just keep the old system, because of this flaw.


You're right. There are fewer people around. Strange...
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Westergaard (edited August 23, 1999).]</font>

[Maniac]

Mzilikazi

Holidays

In Europe most people leave on vacation the July or August the first, creating massive traffic-jams. Perhaps in the USA most people go on holidays on the end of August.

Wonders thread in exile

I agree about that American bias. Some could be solved by just renaming, like Hoover to Aswan Dam. Or another possible solution could be a different name for each style.
One for classical, one for monolith style...
BTW, has anyone checked if you can still post on Wonders? Will have to try that...

Unfortunately I don't know that much about African civilizations. Had Benin or Ghana also buildings that can be called wonders?

Population Growth

I agree pollution should increase the death rate. This can also be affected by the SE Environment factor.
Same with disease and sanitation. I think cities should continue to grow even if they haven't an eg aquaduct. The bad side should of course be more diseases and chances on a plague. Also very unhappy citizens.
How to implement education and contraception I don't see...
Perhaps wealth can just be represented that a high amount of trade in a city increases wealth, decreasing deaths?

Migration and Westergaard

About resource transportation.
First of all, I agree you shouldn't need a unit to transport (I would hate building a costly caravan just for transporting one resource), a route should indeed instantly appear. But perhaps the further you want to transport, the more resources go lost. So in the ancient age, it would be difficult and limited, but as technology advances it
should become easier and easier.

You're right about that. Players should create unhappy citizens on purpose.
Perhaps something I suggested in the SE thread can solve it.
Happy citizens produce 50% more and unhappy citizens 50% less. Easy to do with the x10 system. The loss of resources could be that great that it's cheaper to just pay them 4 gold to migrate.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

M@ni@c: Couple of problems with your model...
First, in the model of expansion by migration that I learned years ago (population geography), it is only in the modern era that resource/jobs is the deciding factor. In ancient times it is simply population pressure on food production. In other words, the migration patterns will vary with the Technology available. When agriculture is primitive, food will be marginal, and at a fairly low point in the city growth someone will move somewhere where they can get/farm enough to eat. Once most people are not ‘growing their own’ but working for money to buy their own, lack of jobs becomes critical to staying or going. Also, you missed the very real historical migration for Social Reasons: religious persecution or freedom (thousands of Irish Catholics and French Huegenots from one part of Europe to another, Puritans et al to the USA).
Food cannot be distributed throughout a civilization until you get the proper transportation technology: railroads. You’re right in that all the major megapolis’s in the ancient world were trading cities, but you missed the point that all of them were either in the middle of extremely fertile areas (heavily irrigated Nile, Euphrates valleys) or they were able to bring in food by river or sea: Rome, Alexandria, Byzantium/Constantinople, Babylon... You cannot, I say again, cannot, deliver any usable quantity of food by any form of land transportation based on animal power. The traction animals eat too much of the food they haul! I’ve posted this all over until I’m becoming fanatic about it, but the city radius MUST be variable according to the terrain, especially according to river or sea transport that allows bulk resources like food to be delivered from further away. Once railroads tie the civ together, those resources can be delivered from virtually anywhere and you can talk about Regional or Civ-wide food resources.
Also, Nomads are NOT Settlers. They have no intention of settling anywhere, they’d have to change their entire way of life and cultural values. The Nomad Unit represents a concentration of migrating hunter-gatherer or herding groups. I used that abstraction because it allows the relative concentration of population and resources required to get some of the advantages of concentration of resources that a stationary city has: equivalents as I listed for Markets, Libraries, Temples, City Walls, etc. Otherwise, the Nomadic Civ misses out on 1/4 of the Civ Quadrilateral: the Build in Build, Grow, Explore, Conquer. Nomadic Tribal Units
The Volkerwanderung that overran Rome and western/ Mediterranean Europe can be represented perfectly well with the Nomad/Tribal Units. If a bunch of small cities suddenly moves into your area, siphoning off resources from the stationary cities and accompanied by mobile combat units with higher morale and mobility, the stationary Empire/Civ is going to hurt. If that Civ’s forces are attacking a Wagon Burgh-protected Tribal Unit when a bunch of the Tribe’s Knights (Armored Lancers) attack them, we have just recreated Adrianople and the (probable) destruction of the Western Roman Army in 378 AD by the Visigoths!
Dividing all the numbers by 10 allows more precision, but it’s all artificial and abstracted... The Population ‘points’ in the game are just that, an abstraction of actual population figures which represent, as near as I can tell, the city and its supporting country population. After all, Jericho the ‘first’ city only had about 1000 people inside the walls, so even in your 10x it would only be 1/10!
Mobilization and recruitment are worthy goals, and the Combat/Unit threads have seen a lot of postings on that (mine included, slong with some stuff in SE) but a 10,000 population point is not basically out of line with the basic military unit. I know in ancient times everybody wants to consider a Legion unit to be one legion, but that's still 3600 to 5000 men - too many to be raised from a total population of 10,000 by far! In modern times, a divisional slice in world war two for an infantry division would be 22,000 (Soviet) to 50,000 (US). Again, far more than a single population point can support.
On the other hand, if we are going to use Specialists to represent assignment of labor, a smaller population 'size' would be useful: you'd have to have a huge basic population before you will be supporting 10,000 Entertainers or Sceintists, even including students, all in one city. Trouble is, if you use the 10x for Specialists, you're either going to need a lot of points for each military unit, or you are going to be representing a pitifully small army for the size of your empire.
Either way, as I stated before, the numbers are all abstractions. Pick any number you want and attach population figures to it for 'Mind Candy', but it's still historically meaningless. With a minimum time period of 12 months for movement and activity, the game is bound to be abstracted in a lot of ways...

[mzilikazi]

M@ni@c... you're right about the holidays. I'm a Brit, so I know when they're all away. Maybe I was confused because I have my own holiday coming up in September. Anyway, irrelevant...

I am so glad you made the point about wonders having the same function and different names/styles - linked to civ city style. We have had a lot of discussion on a similar topic, i.e. using civ styles to determine unit appearance (e.g. samurai and swordsman and brave - or whatever - all have the same function and prerequisites, but a different icon - to fit with the look of a Civ). It suddenly occurred to me on the train home last night that this could work for Wonders too, so I am really pleased to see that you have posted it. I think this is a feature which must be in Civ, and has wide ranging implications. The choice of city style (currenlty between Bronze age, Medieaval, Classical and Oriental - to which I would add, at least, Middle Eastern, Aboriginal (not just Australia, but many more 'tribal' societies), Slavonic etc...) now determines just the look of the city - until the industrial era begins. I previously propsed that the Civ style should extend to governing the look and the name of units and of some city improvements - again until the industrial age begins. Adding this to what M@ni@c suggests above, we could extend it further so that some wonders would have their name and look governed by civ style choice - but again, just their style, not their game function. This is purely an aesthetic question. For wonders, the different styles could continue after industrialisation has been discovered, so that (as M@ni@c suggests) the Hoover Dam, if built by a Middle-East Civ style, would be called the Aswan Dam; if by an Aboriginal Civ, it would be the Kariba Dam etc... The appoll program could be built by a Classical or Mediaeval style Civ, but a Slavonic one would build the Sputnik Program. An Oriental Civ could build Sun Tzu's, but an Aboriginal (or whatever) Civ would build an identically functioning wonder called Shaka's Induna, and a Classical Civ would build the Campus of Mars (I have forgotten most of my Latin, but it's something like that). More suggestions on these lines from anyone??
Remember, it's all just names - the game effect is zero; but it was the atmosphere and the flavour of Civ2 which scored so highly above the dullness of CTP. IMHO, a stylistic feature like this would add immeasurably to this flavour. An additional impact: all wonders then become possibilities only, not certainties as they are now... if Shaka's Induna is built by the Zulus, then the Chinese would not be able to build Sun Tzu's. I like that - wonders become less wonderful if they get built every7 time you play.

We have talked of more African wonders: perhaps difficult to find many conventional examples, as African wonders have tended not to be constructions as we in the west might perceive a wonder to be. Great Zimbabwe is a rare exception. In some ways, Africa is so blessed with Natural Wonders (which I hope appear in Civ3) that it has not needed to construct its own. My own area of knowledge does not extend far beyond Zimbabwe (any African players of the game??) but I believe there could be a commerce-type wonder from the Ashanti Goldfields in Ghana; an early Science wonder from the Dogon wise men (the guys who supposedly had an electric battery way bach when..); a very early happiness wonder in the Bushman Paintings across Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe. On more modern wonders we get into controversial ground, but we might find a modern happiness (at least a discontent-stopper) in South Africa's Rugby World Cup of 1995. Think creatively!!! If we rename wonders according to civ-type, we will need these wonders - alongside potential wonders from other Civ-types.

[mzilikazi]

And, while I am ranting anyway, let's get the following off my chest!

I would be very pleased to see Civs from a much wider background included in Civ3 (ie with proper graphics, leader pics etc - not just from my customisations). My own area of preference would be to see more Civs in the game from sub-Saharan Africa; and not just the Zulus. The Carthaginians and Egyptians are obviously not from sub-Saharan Africa.
I would be very keen to see some or all of the following major civilisations represented:
Shona - possible leader: Robert Mugabe - actual builders of the Great Zimbabwe wonder in the Middle ages. Eventually conquered and temporarily subdued by...
Ndebele - leader Lobengula or Mzilikazi - cousins of the Zulus; led uprisings against the British, including beginning the war which led to the foundation of zimbabwe (subsequently dominated by teh Shona).

Masai - names? - East African tribe who have possibly found transcendence already on a very different tech tree... tend to reject most aspects of modernity

Swahili - led by Tippoo Tib (not the official leader, but a prominent citizen with cool name - based around East Africa and zanzibar, and strong links with Arabs. Made wealthy on ivory and slave trading...

there are many more... e.g. Dogon, Hausa, Ashanti, San - who could be included. But please chaps, let's have more than just the Zulus - great nation though they are!!!

[Theben]

x2 post

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Theben (edited August 24, 1999).]</font>

[Theben]

I've been pushing for the Mali empire for a while now, and there were the city-states of East Africa which were quite powerful before the Portuguese came along with cannons.

You could also use the Bantu, even though they were never unified as a nation. But niether were the Celts & Vikings.

[jof]

LordStone1 and all: I have assimilated (thankfully) ideas from the fruitful discussion with Diodorus Sicilus, mindlace, mhistbuff, itokugawa, Mo & E, changed my proposal, making the version from August 3 obsolet.
----
As first part of "sweep of time" civilizations could start a bit earlier without agriculture, as nomadic civs. The traditional start with the advances "settling", irrigation, mining and road building should be included as one of the accelerated startup options. The nomad-tribe-based civs should have advantages in the beginning; once their city-based opponents get gunpowder, as historically, they start to seriously hurt. By then, though, most of them will (to survive) have conquered a few enemy cities and settled down, as they did historically.
This proposal for an implementation of nomadic civilizations is based on one new special unit, the _NOMAD TRIBE_ UNIT (all other units remaining the same). The _nomad tribe_ unit as population base represents a Tribal Group with many of the characteristics of a city plus the ability to move.
When a game starts from the very beginning (8000BC?), every civ gets one weak _nomad tribe_ unit (0a, 1d, 1m, 1h, 1f) with 1 population point. _nomad tribe_ units can have multiple pop. points (limited by happiness) and are generated by splitting 1 unit into 2 units and removed by founding a city with them or adding to a city their population point[s] (like settlers). While exploring the environs they live off the land and have no home city, ie. need never food or shield support.

Like a WALKING CITY a _nomad tribe_ unit gathers food&shield&trade from the tile it is currently on (occasionally preventing a local city to use this tile). It must move every turn or will get _no_ resources (e.g. fortified in emergency). The first/only population point of the _nomad tribe_ unit reaps _all_ food&shields&trade points from the occupied tile according to the current government type -- Nothing is subtracted as maintenance for the unit itself! Further pop. points reap additionally (shields+1 & trade+1) per pop. point, but _no_ food from the occupied tile. Thereafter this tile is exhausted for "further pop. points"-number of turns (yield=0), symbolized by a pollution-like icon. So the multiple _nomad tribe_ units leave temporary traces behind them, happy hunting -- this also prevents them from occupying the same (special resource or self-improved) tiles "too soon" again (for example on automated patrol routes).
Every _nomad tribe_ unit has a name (reference for the supported units), a short list of TRIBE IMPROVEMENTS and a food & production box, which are displayed, when it becomes the active unit. _nomad tribe_ units can't improve terrain with roads, irrigation, mines etc. and cannot produce wonders; they can produce units and some equivalents to city improvements:
Chieftain's Hut - equivalent to Palace
Sacred Grove - equivalent to Temple
Shaman's Hut - equivalent to Library
Bazaar - equivalent to Market Place
Wagon Burgh - equivalent to City Walls, but not as strong
When a _nomad tribe_ unit founds a city, the tribe improvements are changed into their city equivalents.

_nomad tribe_ units may gain advances through the collection of TRADE POINTS, just like regular cities. Every civ gets 1 tradepoint per turn for free (to lessen the advantage for starting with the _nomad tribe_ unit near river tiles). Once the "settling" advance is acquired, they may build cities.

With the appropriate civilization advance a _nomad tribe_ unit can build the tribe improvements mentioned above and units (warriors, horsemen, settlers, diplomats etc.) by emptying a full PRODUCTION BOX. 1 military unit per population point of the _nomad tribe_ unit is free of support in despotism (&monarchy?). Further units are supported from the _nomad tribe_ unit's production box with 1 shield per turn (or 1 food, if the prod. box is empty (and disbanded, if the food box is empty too)). Settlers need 1 shield & 1 food support.
The MILITARY UNITS produced by a _nomad tribe_ unit are some of the regular types, except higher Morale/Experience than ordinary units and mounted types have slightly better mobility. The units it can produce should be limited to infantry and mounted, so no vehicles. Maybe they could not build units requiring beyond a certain Production cost, which would be a quick way to prohibit them from building things they never built, like Musketeers, Catapults, Cannon, etc?

When its FOOD BOX becomes full, 1 _nomad tribe_ unit _may_ split in 2 new, independend _nomad tribe_ units with their own, empty (and scaled up) food boxes, dividing the content of the old unit's production box into their own, independend production boxes as well as dividing supported units of the old unit between the 2 new units; tribe improvements remain together at 1 (the bigger) new unit.
Alternatively to the split the _nomad tribe_ unit _may_ accumulate, ie. clear & scale up its full food box and increase the pop. points by one.
To provide one mechanism towards building cities (and to escape the general "exponential growth" problem!), the food box is enlarged on every split or accumulation (e.g. 10, 10, 20, 30, 50 etc. food). This numbers should play-balance a variety of starting strategies between the following extremes:
(chinese) PERFECTIONIST, explore neighbourhood for a good city location, develop asap the advance "settling", build city, irrigation, granary, phalanx etc.
(mongolian) EXPANSIONIST, explore continent for goodie huts & weak civs, develop asap horseback riding, wheel etc., conquer cities and/or plunder their irrigated & mined tiles with swarms of simple _nomad tribe_ units.
As long as _nomad tribe_ units want to grow, they would avoid desert, glacier & mountain (0 food) and prefer grassland, special resources & irrigated tiles (2+ food), mainly mixed with forest & plains (1 food), and so gaining approx. 1.5 food per turn (net).
[With the FOODBOX-SIZES 10, 10, 20, 30, 50, 80, 130.. & approx. 1.5 food per turn gathered by a _nomad tribe_ unit, it would need 7, 7, 13, 20, 33, 53, 87.. turns to fill them. I.e. during the first 7, 13, 27, 47, 80, 133, 220.. turns there would be max. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64.. _nomad tribe_ units (of course if not accumulated or killed or used for cities).]

Another mechanism towards building cities and balance between the splitting or accumulating of _nomad tribe_ units is provided by UNHAPPINESS (riot factor): Unhappiness/Inefficiency from distance translates into rebellion after a time unless serious steps are taken to avoid it. Own rioting (redhead) _nomad tribe_ units on the circumference of the empire turn into barbarian (redflag) _nomad tribe_ units after a couple of turns (10?) and split off from the starting civ.
[Early-game BARBARIANS should have more options than just attack anything that moves: provide trading partners, info about other civs they contact, middle-men for tech transfers. Variety in Barbarians comes both from giving them a range of attitudes and mentioned interactions, but also some diplomatic exchange as well: You can buy off barbarians into not attacking you, joining you, attacking someone else, etc. Trading a lot with them would make them like you more (or, occasionally, lust after what you've got and raid you if you don't keep some military force around. And they should rely a lot on the way nomadic civs worked, by raids or hiring themselves out as mercenaries or try to join your empire but settling in the borders... There should be many barbarian tribes, but barbarians of the same tribe should land near each other. If barbarians stay too long without being attacked, then they should found thier own cities and become a small city-state. Finally the threat to civs also change over time and/or technology: barbarians to peasant rebellions to religious fanatics and terrorists.]

Goodie huts can result in a _nomad tribe_ unit.

Questions:
_nomad tribe_ units are really weak and probably can't survive a heavy battle (they can fortify, but that would prevent them from gathering food). Should ZONES OF CONTROL apply to them?

I think cities should be able to produce _nomad tribe_ units (kind of supply crawlers). When such a unit is created in a city, the number of citizens is reduced by 1. Number of shields required to produce a _nomad tribe_ unit?20? How about the initial foodbox-size of the _nomad tribe_ unit?80?

Taking the resources from a tile improvement is just 'living off the land'. If a _nomad tribe_ unit destroys the improvement (pillage it), should it get a one-time bonus depending on the improvement? How big should this bonus be?
On the other hand, they might get peaceful bonuses in diffusing Tech and in Trade, because they tend to contact a lot of Civilizations informally in their wandering. Each time a _nomad tribe_ unit trades with a city, it increases the chance of gaining a technological advance, as does wandering through a populated area. How can this be modelled in more detail and terms of game effect?

[Maniac]

Diodorus Sicilus :

About that jobs are only a deciding factor in the modern era, you're probably right. The people couldn't migrate anyway even if they wanted, no means of transport available. So let's make resource production a depending factor from the Industrial Revolution.
You're right in the ancient era food was a deciding factor, but it was not the factor. Again, some trade cities were located on very infertile places, yet they were large.

About persecution. In the religion model persecuted citizens become very unhappy. So if a migration model is based on happiness, their migration is already included.

About food transportation. Ok, in the early game, the food production of the city would only include the city's production itself. When there are more advanced (Roman, Rail?)roads, it is dependent on the region's production and in the modern age it depends on your whole civ's production.

About that trade cities you called. They were indeed founded on good spots. I am talking about the real desert or steppe cities like Palmyra, Petra, Bokhara.
The only reason they got big is because they were built along trade routes. So if there isn't a communal food pot for all your cities (BTW, I'm not really a big supporter of the idea. Just were giving a possible solution to simulate how desert cities survived.), I insist that transporting food is made a bit easier. In Civ2 you had to build a 50 shield caravan for just one more food. I think it should be something instantaneous and diplomatic like "you give per turn 10 food to my city and I give you something else in return (trade icons? or if the ideas on the Economy/Trade thread are worked out something better, a specific item). That would make food trade with other civs possible. Something impossible in Civ2.

Ok, let's recall them to Colonizers or Refugees.
->can found cities
->can have weapons
->can't be built in a city. To 'make' one you have to disband a city.
I think my Colonizer unit is better than your Nomad unit to represent the Volkerwanderung.
Since as I recall,
1) Nomads can't reappear out of already established cities, making representing the Visi- and Ostrogoths impossible since they had some kind of a fix territory.
2) Your nomads have to conquer a city to (re)establish themself. But the Goths weren't the only one moving. They were also many people going over the Rhine. And some other people out of Central Europe migrated to the East of the Rhine. So basically the only thing those guys did was moving one spot to the west. That can't be represented if they first have to conquer a city.

BTW, if you divide pop units by 10, one pop unit is 1000 = size of Jericho.

Mzilikazi :

I have read the topic in Civ3 - General/Suggestions about different units (actually graphics and names) for each civ. I think this is easy to do. Just take a look to the numberous scenarios on the net and even in CiC and FW and I'm sure Firaxis has an abundance of different unit/building/wonder names with the same effects.

BTW, I hope you have posted that proposals on some official threads. Otherwise they won't get in the list.

About natural wonders. Are that wonders to be constructed or natural landmarks as in SMAC with some good production or SE benefit?

I agree on all you say, except I wouldn't include Rugby (nor cricket) as a wonder.

To all :

Does the USA really has to be included as a civ? I think it's too modern.
All civs in CivX are pretty old. Only the Americans are an exception. I kind of find them unhistorical to include. BTW, I think the Classical City Style sucks for them. Another reason to exclude them. Stupid if you have to make a new city style for just one civ.

[mzilikazi]

M@ni@c: To clarify - when I said that Africa is abundantly blessed with Natural Wonders of teh world, I was indeed talking about naturally occurring ecological and geographical features. I have not played SMAC, so I don't know how they are treated there... hope they're in Civ3 in a big way.

regarding "The Rugby World Cup 1995 as a Wonder"... I know, I know - stupid idea, and I never really expected anyone to let me get away with it. But - from one who was there, and watched his own country take a sound thrashing - the feelings of confidence, unity and euphoria which arose from the tournament not only in South Africa but also in Botswana and Zimbabwe, across all classes and population groups, were remarkable. If that's not a happiness wonder I don't know what is. Obviously this is the wrong trhead for it, but it does bring us back to the old question of including "[Your favourite sport] as a wonder" in Civ3. I for one would like to see this...

I share your difficulties with including America as a Civ. It feels very odd to be attacked by American Phalanxes, as the concept is so utterly alien. Much stranger than sinking a Babylonian Aegis Cruiser, because (if things had turned out differently and Babylon still existed) the Babylonian cruiser could have been a possibility. Unlike America in antiquity... nonetheless, much though I hate to admit it, I think America probably should be included as a Civ - partly just to make sure the game sells, the faith grows, and one day we get a Civ4 to make all our dreams come true. Also, many scenarios will include America, so it is important to have the artwork on the disc. But I have to disagree with you on one point - I think the Classical pattern is probably the right Civ style for the Americans, with the Neo-Classical White House as a potent symbol of the Civilisation. I suppose we could have some rather offensive fun thinking up new Civ styles for American cities... but I don't think I quite dare start that one off.

Theben - glad to see you back; and glad you were calling for more African representation in Civ3 way back when... I would have some concerns about using the Bantu as a Civilisation, however, due to the connotations the word picked up in the old South African regime. It is a perfectly acceptable scientific word, describing a linguistic grouping, but tarnished by use in a racist context - our game designers might have to think carefully before using it. there are plenty of individual tribes/Civs which could be used.

I think all of the above on nomads is brilliant - I don't care whose system wins out, or whether there are elements of both, but the concept has to be in the game. Is it going to be possible for an entirely nomadic civilisation to win? Perhaps through a transcendence type research/happiness victory? I think that would be an important feature, otherwise players will all rush to learn how to build cities, and nomads (other than AI) will not feature heavily in usage by victory-minded players.

[Maniac]

Most natural landmarks give a +1 bonus to food, resources or trade. Another landmark gives a +1 bonus to resources and trade. Another +1 Planet (SE).

If sport is included as something wonderlike, I think it should be a Special Project (wonders that can be built be every civ, I thought).

Because there is one white house, it doesn't mean that all American cities should be classical.
I rather prefer something like the cotton manor style in the South.

[jof]

M@ni@c:
Precision has little value of its own, and too much details can kill a game, as "Destiny" has unfortunately(!) shown. In the end it's a game (or it should be ). So the most important questions are:
1) is the gameplay fun?
2) is the gameplay fun, again?
3) does it make historically sense, is it realistic etc?
Besides that I consent Diodorus' profound analysis relative to population pressure, food distribution, abstraction and 'Mind Candy'.


itokugawa:
I agree with most points of your last message, but have concerns about the topics 2/3) and 5a):

2/3) Cities are the population base of settled civs. _nomad tribe_ units are the population base of nomadic civs. Both population growths depend on the same resource: food.
_All other_ units can only be produced with shields. What is unreliable with this? It would help to have an argument backing your statements 2) and 3).
Problem:
As I understand it, would nomadic warriors (production cost: 30 shields) by running or sitting on forest tiles (2 shields) reproduce themselves every 15 turns, ie. 2 nomadic warriors after 15 turns, 256 after 120 turns (80 turns on coal). If those nomadic warriors found and join cities, this would be quicker city growth than regular possible.

5a) This super-units with topical attack value, effortless self-reproduction (in comparison with ordinary military units), ability to found a city combined with no shield support from and no "unhappiness from home" in republic for their home city ... change gameplay a lot and unbalance the whole gamesystem. They cost only 20 shields more? What a bargain!
Example:
A nomadic knight, produced in a city on the edge of riot costs 1 population point (and sets free herewith an ordinary pikeman, needed for martial law so far) and 60 shields. After 30 turns on forest tiles he reproduces himself: Together with the half nomadic knight he saved his home city for support shields we have 2.5 nomadic knights, and so on. You have to do great acts with your ordinary knight in this 30 turns, to justify the 40 shields production cost for 1 lonely unit.

In fact, your approach to implement nomadic game elements as optional _nomadic quality of ordinary (= mostly military) units_ seems to me more as an approach to a nomadic army than an approach to a nomadic civilization.


Diodorus Sicilus:
I'm not sure with the "Chieftain's Hut" as equivalent to "Palace". Probably every tribe had its chieftain, so something for all the tribes is required. What do you think?

[Maniac]

If you mean with too much precision the x10 population, you're right. If there is another recruitment system everything is ok to me and x10 isn't needed. However on the rest of my large post, I don't see anything that should cause too much precision.

[ember]

I divised 'fractional population growth'
In this growth is not measured by food stored, but by thosanths of a pop point per turn. Have units that die cause a loss of 0.02 to 0.2 pop points, and it works well

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[Maniac]

In that fractional system, is population lineair (1 =10000, 2 = 20000, 3 = 30000) or is it as in Civ2 (1 = 10000, 2 = 30000, 3 = 60000)?

If it's lineair, two problems :
1) Then cities reach size 20 too soon. What about cities with a million inhabitants?
2) Then my suggestion of labor increasing with the size 1 = 10 labor, 2 = 30 labor... doesn't work. Means that ICS isn't solved anymore.

If it's as in Civ2, a problem :
Loosing 0.2 population points would mean loosing much less soldiers in a city size 1 city than in a city size 20 city.