Thread Tools
Old August 12, 1999, 16:39   #91
FinnishGuy
Warlord
 
Local Time: 10:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Finland
Posts: 201
Will,

No, world conquest wouldn't be ruled out "until really late" in the game. Like I tried to point out, it would still be possible although challenging to build or conquer a large empire in ancient times. For example, player might simply get lucky and not experience any of the items 4, 6 and 7. Nationalism wouldn't be the only advance that reduces the penalties, but the last. There would be other things earlier like adoption of a religion with higher moral code, or some Wonders to build. And the reduction very much depends on your tech advances, so the quicker you research the sooner you get rid of the penalties. Hey, have Nationalism by 2000BC, go conquer.

But really, world conquest shouldn't be an issue without proper development first. How CAN the world be conquered with primitive technologies and as leader of people who about remind cavemen in their thinking and moral? World conquest requires global logistics, communication networks, means of transportation, etc., resources that didn't exist in ancient times.

A tribal chief doesn't know how to run an empire, even such pretty advanced people like the Romans failed. A lot of technological, intellectual and spiritual evolution is needed for succesfully ruling an empire. This is what my proposal tries to address.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by FinnishGuy (edited August 12, 1999).]</font>
FinnishGuy is offline  
Old August 12, 1999, 16:56   #92
Gordon the Whale
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 08:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 31
By changing the radius so bluntly for cities of different sizes, you completely destroy any chance of planning a civilization... When you are starting, you will have villages 3 squares apart, with 8 squares in each city radius. Then, by the time they're all metropolises, they are overlapping horribly. With villages, you control where the city radius goes, and with regionalized goods, overlap is unimportant. Speaking of regionalized goods:

The village system, as I believe has already been mentioned, depends upon a difference between industry and resources. How many resources belongs in different threads, but assume for all discussions of villages that there are two things, industry and resources. The villages produce resources. The simplest division is between two resources: food and "shields." The food from the village (minus its own requirements) is distributed throughout the region, as a regional surplus in food. There have been ample discussions in varied places about the effects of food, I think we don't need to go into that. The food is divided first by need, then the surplus is divided by population. Shields (or more distinct resources) are used for production, but cannot be used alone. They require the workers in the city. Each city "produces" industry. Industry is produced by workers. Industry represents the amount of work that can be done in the city, and industry is where production comes from. If your Phalanx costs 20 shields, you need 20 shields (from villages) to build a Phalanx. However, the city you are building the Phalanx in can only build it so fast... If it's industry is 2, it takes 10 turns. If industry is 20, it takes one turn. If industry is 60, three in one turn. However, the villages must be producing enough "shields." Shields are divided up like food, equally within each region. Basically, this means that if you have a shield defacit, all cities in the region begin to get a % drop in production. If you have a surplus, it can be stored for later, with some percentage decay rate.

On village placement: I agree with Theben's limitations. Count rivers and coastlines as roads for these purposes, though.

On villages becoming cities: Like Ember said, a settler can turn a village into a city (this ends up with a slightly bigger city than if you'd just built it with the settler in the middle of nowhere, but also ends up with a city in the same region the village was) Also, a village can build a "town hall." I like this idea, but here is a question: What does the village use to build? By definition, it has no industry. Maybe only allow the settler route.

Not up to my usual long-winded standards, but that was a LOT to reply to, and I've been gone quite a while.
Gordon the Whale is offline  
Old August 12, 1999, 17:41   #93
Theben
Deity
 
Theben's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Posts: 15,132
double trouble
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Theben (edited August 12, 1999).]</font>
Theben is offline  
Old August 12, 1999, 17:41   #94
Theben
Deity
 
Theben's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Posts: 15,132
Another idea, this one keeps the village as a TI but kills the other ideas thrown around.

Cities still have their 2 radius. In order to extend them you must build a "village" TI, outside the city radius only. It sends the resources of the tile to the city, -1 food, with the above distance limits. If there is no food it subtracts -1 from the city's other sources. The limiting factor is simply to allow but 1 village per 2 population of the city. It acts in all other regards as a "supply crawler" from SMAC (except it can't move), with no support costs other than the 1 food. This differs from a "supply depot" as they only extend supply lines.
Very simplistic I know. But it could work.
Theben is offline  
Old August 12, 1999, 23:26   #95
ember
Warlord
 
ember's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 221
Theben, that's actually how the whole village idea came up in the first place.

I suggested to make supply units a TI instead, then the issue of maint. came up, and when the maint. was a pop point, 'inhabited squares' the need to differentiate between within city radius and farther away evaporated...

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
ember is offline  
Old August 13, 1999, 00:54   #96
will I
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 08:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Arlington, VA, USA
Posts: 49
Finnish Guy:
I think your proposal would effectively rule out global conquest as an option until really late in the game, which strikes me as a bad thing.

Ember:

It seems like your village concept is a clever concept that is basically unnecessary. Theben's proposal of allowing only the second population unit to go out into the field would eliminate ICS much more easily.

I've heard it said that the village would represent the fact that rural populations were exposed to attack. But that really doesn't reflect reality for most of our history. The type of scorched earth combat that this view tries to represent didn't really begin until Europe's Thirty Years War, and wasn't prevalent until much later. Prior to that point, barbarians might occasionally raid to steal food or slaves, but they very seldom destroyed whole villages. This tendency is amply represented by allowing barbarians to destroy improvements.

I've also heard it said that villages would reflect a city's resource pool better than the artificial city zone in Civ1/2. I disagree. In ancient times, most cities' resource pools were defined by proximity to the resources or to a river or ocean. Road transport of all but the smallest items was prohibitively expensive. I believe that this would be better reflected by making the city radius one square in the early part of the game, with perhaps an extension to include river tiles two squares away. Perhaps in later parts of the game, we could have something like the SMAC supply pods, which extract resources outside the city radius and ship them to the city.

I think these suggestions would remedy the asserted problems of the city radius without adding the massive complexity and unrealistic vulnerability of the village system.

will I is offline  
Old August 13, 1999, 13:44   #97
JamesJKirk
Civilization II PBEM
King
 
JamesJKirk's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dixon, CA USA
Posts: 1,156
Since most of us plan on having games with a large number of tribes, why not have a few tribes belong to each of about 7 or so civilizations. The civs have similar cultures and whatnot, and while they may not always get along, they typically will if they're up against another civilization. It can start out with about seven civs and about 4 or 5 tribers per civ, initially, the player would mainly be concerned with increasing his or her power within their own civ, and growing more powerful than all other civs. Early in the game, there's a very high chance that Barbarians will eventually destroy your tribe and civ, but it doesn't matter so much if you're the leader of your civ, because a new civ will descend from the old one, and it will be centered around your old capital. If you aren't the best tribe in your civ, the game's over. At some point you will have to start concentrating on colonizing the globe and subjecting other tribes from other civs to your power and holding back the progress of other civs. AS for your colonies, you could decide whether you want to transport your people overseas to live in them and push the natives inland, if you want to have the natives live under your complete control (which provides cheap labor), Or have a mix between that. At some point the colonies will probably want to rebel unless they're VERY happy, and you'll probably want to keep close relations with them (selling them goods and offering protection) so that they'll need you over peoples in their own civs. A main objective to win this way would be to unite your civ into a single tribe where your nation is the undisputed leader, and to have a good number of peoples out side your civ choose to follow you rather than the leaders of your own civ. For a better understanding of the civilizational system, I really sugest reading "The Clash of Civilizations and the REmaking of World Order" by Samuel Huntington.
JamesJKirk is offline  
Old August 13, 1999, 15:35   #98
will I
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 08:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Arlington, VA, USA
Posts: 49
Theben has succinctly described my proposal. If that concept was the seed for the more elaborate village proposal, I, for one, would vote strongly to keep it a seed. For all of the reasons I've described in prior posts, I think the more "advanced" village concept adds pointless management activities and increases the scope for annoying and unrealistic AI scorched earth tactics, while not providing any meaningful improvement to the city radius + supply pod approach used in SMAC.
will I is offline  
Old August 14, 1999, 03:00   #99
don Don
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
There is some discussion of this village idea in the Terrain Improvement thread, too. I believe that the placement of workers in a tile (on the city screen) is the equivalent of having villages (likely several) in that tile.

I favor the idea of special Village TIs for other uses. For example, an inland city with shore tiles in its radius could use a village on a shore tile to serve as a port. The city could then build ships, but not port improvements (other than Harbor). If some improvements are necessary for ship production, an idea I favor, then building the improvements would confer only the ability to build that type of ship; no other ship effects (vet status, fast repair) would accrue.

I prefer the idea of special TI's rather than Supply Crawlers. A Village TI could be used to assign the resource to a city if connected via road or rail. Road would offer some partial utilization of the resources, and rail the full value. Could coexist with mine, fortress, airbase, etc. Or a Depot improvement could serve the same purpose by a different name (especially after RR).

I would also like to see a Suburb TI only for plains & grasslands. Preq: Automobile. This represents small cities economically tied to the major city (heard of SMSA?) that, in ages past, would have been cities in their own right by population size. Could coexist with irrigation & farms (these tile are 50-100 miles across, ya know). Would allow an extra "worker" in the square producing only trade (2 trade units, perhaps). This allow for much bigger cities, as we have in the real world (Mexico city would be size 49).

These ideas aren't really radical, but they fit in with the general discussion. Of course, I'd really prefer a linear city size model… that's radical!
 
Old August 15, 1999, 14:19   #100
Jon Miller
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II MultiplayerRise of Nations MultiplayerPtWDG Vox ControliC4DG Vox
OTF Moderator
 
Jon Miller's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 13,063
Hi all

I have a really radical idea (have had it for a while, didn't think this forum was the place to post it but here it is)

my idea is massive multiplayer online civ

what made me post it was sovereign

my idea was that on an earth world that is much larger in size than any civ one (maybe real size with real size cities) you would build cities and civilizations

the management would be such that you can have people under you (and that they can rebel and try to start their own civ)

the game would start as all civ games do at 4000 bc

you would control a bloodline that could marry with others have children ect

if your bloodline dies out you have to restart the game

if another player captures all your blood line you then play under them in the management role they set you too

marrying out your bloodline would than be advantageous and would mean that you too would be allied

each member of your familly would be listed and you would have very complete government

government would be such that you can set different players, if you have completely captured their bloodline, to control a region for you

they would do this under the threat of eradication

you would of course have to watch them to keep them from rebelling against you

in a republic the players in that civ would control different factions in the senate and would have to do actions to get them more popular so that they get more power

early on you can be let men or women rule or both

if you have men only than you are introuble if you have only female members and you lose control of the city

besides the stuff to make this good for massive online most rules could be found in these forums

play could move like in smac simultaneous mode

play would go on over like 3 years to take the world to 2000 ad (turns would of course be less time as would tech learning)

new players would start along the edges of civilization and in historical areas

if there are no more places for cities of a bloodline to start one would start in the freeist, largest nation with the fewest bloodlines in it (a new family moving up in the world) or maybe after a certain time you can choose what to do

governments will be extremely customizable so that you can mske all sorts of ones even like the US or Rome

this is a crazy idea but I had it a while ago and I want it

humans are funner to play against then AI

I think this would be cool

I lied, many things would have to be changed because of the scale change (and many things would/could grow more realistic)

maybe we could even make it real time (but with speeded up time

maybe we could even make it play to two turns and die of old age

time could be linear in it in any case

wouldn't it be fun to launch huge realist campaigns against others, or manage a real looking and acting civ

maybe even we could make squares much much smaller and have it so that cities can spread and become larger

I'm being taken to the asylum now

Jon Miller
Jon Miller is offline  
Old August 15, 1999, 14:28   #101
Jon Miller
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II MultiplayerRise of Nations MultiplayerPtWDG Vox ControliC4DG Vox
OTF Moderator
 
Jon Miller's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 13,063
back from the asylum for one last bit of craziness

it could be real time with you being in the group or city where your person is (when you die you go to the heir in your bloodline, people have nonseable stats that give stuff like charisma and other things) and for you to command anything you have to send out messangers, which take time to get there

they games real time aspect would be slow enough that we would not have time management as a major factor

the scale would be such that if the player left with the players troops the player could see them all the way and command them in battle (a reason to keep fallen bloodlines arround)

you could still send messangers in the field

a player in the world would not have to be a civ ruler

in a republic they could have political power

they could be like the pope

they could get rich and have economical power

the cities by the way and land would be real simulaated

they could become generals and governors

and of course they can rebel

Jon Miller
Jon Miller is offline  
Old August 16, 1999, 04:27   #102
Jon Miller
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II MultiplayerRise of Nations MultiplayerPtWDG Vox ControliC4DG Vox
OTF Moderator
 
Jon Miller's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 13,063
Hi all

I am no longer loony but here is a radical idea

cut out with approximating everything

make everything linear like it really is

techs, cities, units, time (turns)

if you use linear cities, modern cities would produce so much more that of course you could do more (and learn more) in less time than ancient ones

make it so that if nothing happens arround you (nothing that you have a governor set to handle ir anything) it just speeds you by so that you do not have to press enter for so man turns early in the game

wow these forums have been quiet recently (and the smac forums have actually picked up a little)

Jon Miller
Jon Miller is offline  
Old August 19, 1999, 19:45   #103
Fugi the Great
Warlord
 
Fugi the Great's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Sheboygan,WI,USA
Posts: 221
Personal Post #100 - A Century Civer?

Jimmy - Alright, another REAL population guy!

JamesJKirk - You an ancestor of James T. Kirk? Sorry, had to ask. Liked your idea of tribes. It reminded me of the Mongol Hordes, and how they never really amounted to anything until they were united in a common effort by a great leader. The different Mongol tribes took up a lot of area in Asia, but each tribe had their own agendas. With this idea, your tribe would not be able to control the whole of the Mongol empire, until you could get all the other tribes united. How long you are in control depends upon what you did to become the leader, temporary alliances, tribal marriage, largest tribe, voted to be leader... Even if the empire starts fracturing back into tribes after you finally united it, like the Mongol empire did, the individual tribes would still be considered part of the greater CIV, where all parts come together for mutual defense of the CIV, though may not necessarily come together to expand the CIV. The only problem with this may be, how do you get to be the leader if you are stuck with a tribe in a lousy area with no way to make your tribe within the CIV any bigger? If there are 7 CIVs with 5 tribes each, does the AI treat each tribe with in the CIV as a seperate civ thereby making 35 civs, where each set of 5 of those civs just happen to be extremely friendly toward each other and share whatever technologies, benefits, and/or hardships of the other tribes within the CIV?
Fugi the Great is offline  
Old August 21, 1999, 16:32   #104
Maniac
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameC4DG Team Alpha CentauriansACDG The Cybernetic ConsciousnessACDG Planet University of TechnologyPolyCast TeamACDG3 Spartans
 
Maniac's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Gent, Belgium
Posts: 10,712
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
Maniac is offline  
Old August 21, 1999, 16:56   #105
JamesJKirk
Civilization II PBEM
King
 
JamesJKirk's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dixon, CA USA
Posts: 1,156
Fugi-
I forgive you for the joke, I'm immune to them at this point in my life. Anyway, I was thinking that tribes in the same civ would be more likely to make more meaningful (longer) alliances since they would have more in common culturally, so there would essentially be 35 civs, but each would get along best with those in their own civilization unless circumstance forced them to do otherwise (as in the cold war). The idea of different tribes in each civ allows more depth to the game and realism, since it'd very damned hard to conquer the globe, at least w/o having everyone dependant on you.
JamesJKirk is offline  
Old August 24, 1999, 18:06   #106
ember
Warlord
 
ember's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 221
M@ni@c:

A few points.
Hitorically all major cities are on major rivers or the ocean. Or both.

The village system allows you to have early cities only on these squares and have all the food and resources brought in from the inland and fishing villages.

Happyness can be seen as how much people want to live in a city... In this case it is the biggest factor in immegration/emmigration. Up unitl recently unemployment has not been an issue. Everyone could have some work, even if that was as a labourer or in the fields.

A river/costal city square would give a bonsu to trade and a bonsu to growth, making these very attractive spots for cities.
No food or resources are gathered from theses squares so the resouce formula is N + M, where N is the labour/trade from N city pop, and M is the food/resources from M village pop.

One unit of labour does not neccisarily 'work one unit of resources' It depends on what you are building.
Ancient units are an even mix, modern units require more labour than ancient.
NAval units require more resources than land.
Improvments require lot's of resources.
Spy's, etc. require only labour.

I have proposed 'fractional pop points'.
These would allow a city to grow and recruit as you describe, but keep the simplicity of having less than 200 specialists to keep track of...

I believe that a straight recruitment system is needlesly complicated, but if you build units as normal and if the unit is killed have a certain amount of pop removed from it's home city. The nation as a whole should provide for the support, but the home city would take the pop hit. Max units suppoted = 2-5 x pop. Play balance decides this.

To upraged units I agree, move them in a city, say upgrade, x gold and y turns later They are the next class of unit better.



------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
ember is offline  
Old August 26, 1999, 13:18   #107
Fugi the Great
Warlord
 
Fugi the Great's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Sheboygan,WI,USA
Posts: 221
Man, I thought my posts were long, but I think M@ni@c takes the cake. I think I'm going to have to print this one out and see if I can find some time to read that book of his with out falling asleep.


Fugi the Great is offline  
Old August 26, 1999, 18:06   #108
Cartagia the Great
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 08:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Wisconsin(the greatest dere hey!)
Posts: 70
Sorry for the miss post of this on Social Engeneering. here is where I meant to post these.

Many people have put forth their ideas for diplomacy in this thread, and I have helped. However, I believe that I would like to try and post down my entire thoughts on how treaties should work. I apologize if this has already appeared.

let us start out with the war between the Russian Empire and the Republic of Wisconsin(I always add them to the game, so sue me :P). The war progress, with neither side able to take each other's capital, but Wisconsin is deffiantly on top. In Desperation Russia sends a message whihc reports that they would be willing to discuss a treaty.

Wisconsin ,war weary, and with unhappiness due to this, agrees to this. Immediatly they go to the 'Treaty Screen'. This would be the screen which would allow you to set the peramiters of the treaty. They would be divided into 4 catagories


Government:
Economic:
Social:
Politicle:

GOVERNMENT:

The Government header more or less speaks for itself. This would impose on the other nation the government of the winner's choice. Waisconsin could demand that Russia becomes a Republic, Monarcy ect.

ECONOMIC:

Once again this is rather self explanitory. This is where Wisconsin could demand a certian monetary exchange to Russia, forcing them to pay tribute either per turn, or in one lump sum.

SOCIAL:

This one is a bit more intersting. Under this catagory one can set certian permaiters dealing with the people in the other Empire. For instance, Wisconsin could ahve a large minority of Chinese in their Empire who are on good terms with the government. They could demand that all Chinese under Russian government are sent into Wisconsin. Like wise they could also say that certian nationalities, such as the Romans should be opressed.

Tarrifs could also be demanded, as could differant building resrictions in cities.

POLITICLE:

This might prove to be the most intersting of catagories, and the easiest way to contain another nation if need be. It would be under here where you owuld demand the status of protectorate from another nation, as well as cut up their empire and take certian cities away.

Those are, however, the most common things. Other options would be available as well. For instance, you could demand that a nation take up alliances with other nations.

the most intersting option, in my opinion, could be the creating of other nations. In this area one would be able to create new nations, giving them names, leaders, and politicle stances. They could either be based on a prior ethnic group(in which case a majority of the people in this nation must be of the ethniticity choosen or atleast contain a few of thier cities)

One could also create a ficticiouse nation such as the Philonthroper Republic. All people owuld hodl their old ethnic ID, but would devleope into that nationality after a while.

Each nation you create, you would be able to set up it's boardres, government, it's leaders and it's relations with other nations.

Now, you might ask yourself why you would wish to do such a thing, and not jsut annex the entire nation. First of all, you may feel that you don't ahve the streangth to hold on to the rest of it, and you wish for your enemy to be strong enough to resist OHER nations. Also you might only have wanted to free a religion or ethnic group. Finally, heaving to strict of a treaty might very well destroy your relations with other nations.

Also the other nation coudl reject the treaty, and dicerking could go on(FUN!), but there is always thei dea that if you want peace enough, you'll take what you can get.
Cartagia the Great is offline  
Old August 26, 1999, 22:15   #109
Fugi the Great
Warlord
 
Fugi the Great's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Sheboygan,WI,USA
Posts: 221
Cartagia the Great - Hey cool, a fellow Wisconsinite.
You bring up a good point, that not all wars are started just because one nation didn't want to give another nation a certain technology, or feel like giving in to pressure to pay for the continuing protection / friendship of another. That you don't always want to beat the crap out of another nation, and just leave them for the wolves, they sometimes are needed for a buffer area between you and another large empire on the other side of the guys you just got done fighting.
I also would like to change the way we do diplomacy so there is more compromises and haggling over options in a treaty. Something like: I want to buy a nice chunk of land from someone (Louisiana Purchase), they come back with a price for it (credits per hex), I say its too high priced so I ask what the price would be if I threw in a tech they don't have, or a chunk of land I have no use for, or a quantity of food I may have stockpiled, or whatever. They come back with a counter offer with a price per hex + the tech + stop fighting their friends. I agree, treaty is signed, techs get traded, and land gets annexed. Where we could set the trade limits, tariffs, or even allow free trade.
Treaties that allow students of other nations to learn in your schools. Treaties to set who gets the rights to fishing in a certain area and where do the territorial waters around your country extend. How far the agreeing nations keep there military units from the border. Treaties to jountly discover something instead of - you do this and we'll do that and then we'll trade techs. Or maybe even a jount venture to build a WoW that both nations would reap the benefits from. Treaties that would allow your nation to use their military bases in a war with a third nation, eventhough we are not allied with the nation we have the treaty with. Treaties to ALLOW your country to move military troops through or retreat into another country, the nation that agrees to this is usually seen as an automatic ally by the attacking nation and could become a target of aggression itself. Mutual defense treaties. Treaties that would limit the amount of expansion in a certain direction, or will allow you to attack a certain nation but only up to a certain point. Treaties where two nations would become allied against a third nation if it should attack. More discussion with other nations to get multiple nations to join a NATO or Warsaw Pact. Treaties that ban certain weapons or make nations help in the fight against pollution. Treaties to buy food or other resources from another nation for an agreed upon time.
It just seems that when you get into the more modern eras, that there are not enough treaties to keep the peace, where nations would find it more advantageous to remain friendly with another nation then to kick the crap out of them and ruin your economy.

P.S. - It would be easier to set up border treaties, or sell land to another nation if you didn't have to worry about how screwed up your cities would get if you stay with the current city ideas. Or even trading a city if you wouldn't have to worry about the other 20 squares that go along with it, the nice chunk of your nation that disappears with it, and the corrisponding border shift if you were playing SMAC. That was one of the reasons I wanted to throw out the current city concept, and let each hex have a population. Borders would then move like they are supposed to, instead of huge chunks of empires trading places, you also then trade individual hexes and not care too much about it. If your troops didn't move into the hex, didn't buy it or trade it, then it doesn't belong to you - yet.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Fugi the Great (edited August 26, 1999).]</font>
Fugi the Great is offline  
Old August 31, 1999, 10:42   #110
jof
Settler
 
Local Time: 08:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 19
Proposal: Add to the game Nomadic Civilizations on a Mobile Population Base
Purpose: A larger spectrum of strategies to start a game with and more flexible paths to victory.
---
As first part of the "sweep of time" trilogy, civilizations could start a bit earlier without the knowledge of agriculture, as nomadic civs: tribes of hunter/gatherers. (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 have advantages in the beginning; once their city-based opponents get gunpowder, 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 (V990831) 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 "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 mobile(!) equivalents to city improvements:
Chieftain's Hut - requires warrior code, equiv. to Palace
Sacred Grove - requires ceremonial burial, equiv. to Temple
Shaman's Hut - requires map making, equiv. to Library
Bazaar - requires currency, equiv. to Market Place
Wagon Burgh - requires wheel, equiv. 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 found 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:
(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. [Overrun your inert enemies behind their fences while your own population base is highly flexible: suitable distributed moving targets between nowhere and everywhere. Hurry up, your advantage is diminishing, conquer enough cities with your superior (in terms of mobility & morale/experience) horseXXXX units before your wild & free life is finally doomed by the advance of gunpowder...]
(chinese) PERFECTIONIST, explore neighbourhood for a good city location, develop asap the advance "settling", build city, irrigation, granary, phalanx etc. [Improve your cities & agriculture, dig in and build up city walls, defend tenacious every of your precious improvements. Grow fast, grow faster than you loose power to your nasty enemies in the dark ages. And hold on tight, your time will come, to throw them back and finally destroy them and prosper peacefully...]
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 a (foreign) 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?

---
jof is offline  
Old September 1, 1999, 08:45   #111
Radegast2
Settler
 
Local Time: 08:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Surbiton,Surrey,UK
Posts: 22
I trust this is the correct thread for the following, I apologize if it's inappropriate topic.

SETTLERS, PUBLIC WORKS and ENGINEERS

While I don't want to enter the Public Works/Terraformer/Settlers debate I would like to say that all three have their attractions, and certain individuals style and likes/dislikes influence their opinions of each method. So, why not allow all three methods to be available? The Civ settler/engineer is a really useful unit in the early game, your city will produce one, it will irrigate/mine one or two squares and then build a road off to where it finally decides to build the next city, possibly exploring on the way. This formula is then repeated as required. SMAC's implementaton of the former/colony pod forces the strategic decision of founding a new base or improving existing ones, the support costs acting as a natural break on the quantity of formers that could be produced. Formers also have the advantage of being emergency defenders/perimeter defences too. The public works concept with pure settlers has the advantage of being an excellent model of the civilization working together, wealth produced at the core of the empire can be used to improve the periphery quickly and efficiently. It also can significant speed up gameplay by reducing micromanagement in the later stages of the game.

However, each of these methods have their drawbacks. In all cases, the settler function seems to become redundant about half way through the game. By this stage, the space near you is pretty much taken by your own and opposing cities, if you want more lebensraum you go capture it. And in any case the time it takes to build a city up to any reasonable production level means there is little benefit in founding new cities int the 'new worlds' past a certain point. Only if settler units can be used to shift population from one city to another do they have any use. In Civ (and SMAC?) this can only be done to bring a city to a certain size, in CTP I've yet to work out how this can be done. And the build cost is fairly high for simple population transfer. The terraformer facility suffers in the end from there generally being far to many of them to manage without wasting a lot of time each go, so for me at least by the time the end game comes round and I'm in planet conquer mode I just don't bother. Public works allow the tactic of massive improvements to a city in one hit, suddenly everywhere is mines, farms etc. Also, in order to avoid resource wasteage in the early game (there is precious little to go round, why waste any), you should be altering the PW percentage every turn, rush buying when the job is almost complete and maxing public works for one turn.

In effect, terraformers give the player a challenge to resolve during the early game but too much micro-management towards the end, public works are sort of the opposite.

So, why can't all of these types co-exist within the game, as time progresses. Initially, the settler/engineer does the work, these early descisons of what to improve and where to build are absolutely crucial to sucess or failure. But these boys can only develop to a fairly primitive level, public works expenditure is needed to improve these squares further. Now the ability to fund public works only comes with the governments above despotism where presumably your civilization has developed from local tribes to a city state conglomerate. There is probably a case for limiting the total percentage a given government can assign to public works as well. However, if public works are applied to an unimproved square, they are significantly more expensive. This simulates the experts laying the groundwork, public works being considered gradual maintenance and improvement over time. It also will have the effect of limiting just how much improvement can be done to a single city at one time, but it may be that absolute limits may also need to be applied (i.e. only 3 squares in any city radius can be improved at any time, upgrading a square losses ALL resource from that square etc.). Public works improvements also take time as would settler improvments. But, settlers and public works can be combined together to produce improvements in a more cost effective manner.

Utimately perhaps, the longer you apply your settler/public works bugdet the more productive the square becomes. For example, say that 'farming' a square takes 5 turns, costs 50 and improves production by 10. So each turn production is increased by two and the PW budget is decreased by 10. So partial/interrupted improvments become allowed.

Settlers however carry a relativly high resource drain on the city/civ that supports them, and contain a population point. Their prime function really is to found new cities, the terraform ability is there to allow a civilization/city to kickstart. As the civilization progresses, a new unit becomes available, say with the advance of engineering. These are civil engineers(!), and are to all purposes the SMAC terraformers. These are cheaper and cost less to support than settlers, but cannot found cities. They can however construct certain terrain improvements that are not available through public work, I'm thinking here of maybe fortifications, bridges, tunnels, airfields etc. etc. When these improvements first become available civil enginers must build them, with probably some public work investment too, but after some time or another advance, they can be built by public works alone. There might even be some form of evolution with these engineers as well, you need a different type of engineer to build forts from airfields. I always used to love my 'combat engineers' in civ II, the guys who went in and built the road/railroad/fortess combiniation that let me get next to a city without the risk of one hit destroying me. Not possible in CTP, not required in SMAC.

Around about this time also, a 'migrant' unit could be produced. This simply allows a population point to be moved from one city to another, but does not have the capacity to form a new city. However, this would not be without disadvantage to both the producing and recieving city. In addition to the resource cost to build (which need not be that high), there is also a support cost that is much higher in terms of food especially, than that of a population point in a city. The purpose of this is primarily to discourage players from stockpiling migrants to overcome say happiness or resource shortfalls. To the recieving city, perhaps a happiness hit (immigration invariably causes discontent, on both sides) for a time and possibly a resource hit as well to simulate the additional infrastructure needed. This will discourage the player from dumping 20 migrants into a new city all in one hit.

This migrant unit would allow rapid growth and development of new or conquered areas at some cost to the established center, therby allowing colonization in the later game. After all, founding a new city after 1800 in pointless in CIV and CTP, but look at all the great cities of the USA, and how big were they in civ terms in 1800?

As the game progresses further and spreads into the colonization of undersea, space or, who knows, Alpha Centauri, the settler/engineer makes a re-appearance. Radically more expensive, and only able to work in its designated realm these bring us back to the management technique of the first few turns. But then, when you first expand to the sea bed, or space, or AC then you want to micromanage these ventures, but the main civ should be fairly autopilot, i.e. public works. These units should found new cities at sizes greater than 1, probably 3 so that again they can be kick started. They perhaps also come with a package of improvements ready built. There could also be the option of a 'super settler' for land use, allowing effective very late game colonization to the last bits of the world.


I have deliberatly not been precise with when and how much things should cost in here, I belive that only the game designer can be precise on that score. And I accept that there are bound to be some drawbacks that I have not yet considered, I'd be delighted to hear them. But, perhaps the debate between seetler/public works can be resolved by taking the best elements of both systems into CivIII
Radegast2 is offline  
Old September 1, 1999, 09:18   #112
Radegast2
Settler
 
Local Time: 08:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Surbiton,Surrey,UK
Posts: 22
I guess this one goes here too, there doesn't seem to be a topic on victory conditions.

WINNING the GAME of CIV III

CIV, CTP and SMAC are all won either by conquering the entire planet (or thereabouts) or by building some massive special project (Spaceship, trancendance etc, Alien life). Perhaps CIV III needs a different ending?

So, try this for size. Your task is to unite the world to face the Alien Invasion! Diplomatically, militarily or by means of special projects you bring the planet under your control. At some point, perhaps semi random based on progress in the game, the aliens invade. If you are not in charge of the all the world, some of the civs will ally with you, some will ally with them. If you are the stongest, perhaps you get the weakest etc.

Anyway, the Aliens invade, you don't know where, or in what strength. They might come with primarily naval, air, ampibious or ground troops, or they could be balanced. But they will be tough. They will have super units. And they will be aggressive. Defeat them you win, or face extinction.

This has sort of been done before, in Colonization, with the War of Independence. But there you could choose the time, and predict the place. But with this, you would be forced to keep them in the back of your mind, and be forced to maintain a balanced defence against the possibility during the late game. Because you won't know where and when (well vaugely) they're gonna come.

Just thought it might make the end game that much more worthwhile.
Radegast2 is offline  
Old September 2, 1999, 00:31   #113
Fugi the Great
Warlord
 
Fugi the Great's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Sheboygan,WI,USA
Posts: 221
Include sickness, disease, pestilence, epidemics, earthquakes, floods, mini ice ages, volcanos. And why not an asteroid or comet strike the Earth?

The year is 1999. Two years ago world scientists discovered a mile wide asteroid heading for Earth, set to crash into the earth in 2028, which will destroy civilization as we know it. At first they thought it was going to hit, then they thought it would miss us by a comfortable margin, but earlier this year, they found an error in the calculations (not really), and found out it will definitely hit the Earth.
Can you successfully get every faction / nation on Earth helping and cooporating to find a way to stop it from hitting or try living through the after effects of the nuclear winter. Do you plan for it hitting and build a ship to carry a small population to a different planet or star, try destroying the asteroid, deflecting the asteroid, or do them all at the same time depending upon the help you are getting and the funds and/or time you have available? You could even have a few fall to Earth even earlier, since there is a record of the sky falling in recorded history. After all, that's where the legend of Dragon came from.
Having large chunks of the heavens fall on densely populated areas earlier in the game may not really be fair, it might even make you not want to finish the game, but if you could maybe have them fall in remote areas, where the effects can be felt world wide may be fair. Of course if you have a large one fall early on wiping out civilization, then the reminents will have to just start over, trying to rebuild from scratch, and maybe even relearn the old technologies. Maybe in a game like that there should be NO time limit, since it may keep on happening over and over again. Of course with a game with no time limit, where there is the possiblity that your civilization gets wiped out, then we should be scoring every turn like some else has already suggested.
Maybe even have the colony of humans that got away help to try rebuild the shattered cities.

Just a couple of stupid ideas I had after watching something on TLC.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Fugi the Great (edited September 02, 1999).]</font>
Fugi the Great is offline  
Old September 2, 1999, 19:50   #114
SWPIGWANG
 
Local Time: 08:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: the country we call canada
Posts: 187
No nomand troops Only SETTLERS
SWPIGWANG is offline  
Old September 3, 1999, 19:18   #115
SWPIGWANG
 
Local Time: 08:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: the country we call canada
Posts: 187
I just have an idea.
We all know Civs have diffent culture, but
thouse AREN'T IN CIV

So How about research culture like tech(But
With lux+trade).

learning culture can do the following things
1.make people happy
2.help trade
3.affect SE
4.speical troops

Each Civ would have diffect set of culture
to reasearch.culture world be transfered
slowly when two civ trade.
SWPIGWANG is offline  
Old September 3, 1999, 22:26   #116
Jimmy
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 08:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Madison, IN, USA
Posts: 59
SWPIGWANG: your idea sounds really good. It has a lot of potential.
Jimmy is offline  
Old September 11, 1999, 21:57   #117
Odalrick
Settler
 
Local Time: 08:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Växjö
Posts: 1
I like the nomads idea, and also the village idea. These could be combined and would also solve a problem, or lack of realism.
You start the game some millennia earlier and get one Chief Nomad (the leading tribe) and a couple of friedly tribes. You would have no control over these extra tribes but they would share their knowledge of the world with you while within a certain range of the Chief Nomad. Across the map several barbarian nomads are also dropped, as well as all the other Civs chiefs.
Now, you move about exploring for about say 40 turns after which you discover the advance "Settling" and you can found a city with your Chief. While you have moved about the tribes have divided into more tribes and fought the barbarians and so on (whatever you want to make of it) but the point is, now all those tribes will start to settle down, some chance each tribe will build a village. You will go looking for a good spot to place your town centre, surronded by villages and so on.
Benefits from this are:
1. A small area already known when you get your first city. I think that the first cities knew a bit more about the area they were founded in than CivX grants.
2. The first cities won't magically appear from nothing, instead they are placed in the vicinity of existing pop centres.
3. The tribes can be used as a base for cultures.

Rater than being the one and only place for resource gatering, as per CivX, cities will only be a node where things happen in the beginning.
I was thinking something like this:
The Village are the first in the line gatering resources from the tiles they are placed on.
Cities gather resources from Villages within 3 tiles, and house smaller upgrades like Marketplace and Temple. Cities may not be placed less than 4 tiles apart.
Strongholds become avilable from Feudalism, gather resources from Cities inside an 8 tile radius and construct regional improvements like the Bank and Cathedral. Cities may not be upgraded to a Stronghold if less than 14 tiles from another stronghold.
The Capitol (not the same as a Place) is heralded by the advent of the Railroad and can potetially pool all of a nations resources, as long as a chain of cities can be traced to the Capitol, liked with Railroad and no more than 8 tiles apart. No two Capitols may be linked to each other.
Capitols are places of commerce and as such are the places to build Stock Exchance and Research Lab.

This would naturally require a ratio of resource spending for each Node, with categories including, but not limited to, Military, Infrastructure, Expansion and Public Works.

Revolt would be handled on the highest level possible, making it possible for entire nations to break off in one fell swoop.
This would explain USAs independecy as a whole (London couldn't trace a chain to America, making it nessecary to build another Capitol. Is this "theory" historically acurate?)

Wonders would be built in specific tiles and Nodes inside a radius would contribute to their completion.

Military Units could be built in special TIs (mostly useful under a Capital)or could be handled as i intend to show in another postin thes thread after i get some sleep.
Odalrick is offline  
Old September 21, 1999, 03:16   #118
jof
Settler
 
Local Time: 08:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 19
Proposal: Add to the game Nomadic Civilizations on a Mobile Population Base
Purpose: A larger spectrum of strategies to start a game with and more flexible paths to victory.

Synopsis: The nomad tribe unit represents a Tribal Group with many of the characteristics of a city plus the ability to move. It can have multiple population points, gathers food&shields&trade and can build some "tribe improvements" & slightly superior horse-based units, but has no military value on its own. Potential growth problems are countered by scaling down their ability to reproduce and the risc to lose permanent unhappy (rioting) nomad tribe units spontaneously to the barbarians...

Description: As first part of the "sweep of time" trilogy, civilizations could start a bit earlier without the knowledge of agriculture, as nomadic civs: tribes of hunter/gatherers. (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 have advantages in the beginning; once their city-based opponents get gunpowder, 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 (V990909) for an implementation of nomadic civilizations is based on one new special unit, the NOMAD TRIBE UNIT (all other units remaining the same). 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, i.e. need never food or shield support.

Like a WALKING CITY a nomad tribe unit gathers food&shields&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 "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 own 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 mobile(!) equivalents to city improvements:
Chieftain's Hut - requires warrior code, equiv. to Palace
Sacred Grove - requires ceremonial burial, equiv. to Temple
Shaman's Hut - requires map making, equiv. to Library
Bazaar - requires currency, equiv. to Market Place
Wagon Burgh - requires wheel, equiv. 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 found 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, i.e. 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:
(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. {Overrun your inert enemies behind their fences while your own population base is highly flexible: suitable distributed moving targets between nowhere and everywhere. Hurry up, your advantage is diminishing, conquer enough cities with your superior horseXXXX units before your wild & free life is finally doomed by the advance of gunpowder...}
(chinese) PERFECTIONIST, explore neighbourhood for a good city location, develop asap the advance "settling", build city, irrigation, granary, phalanx etc. {Improve your cities & agriculture, dig in and build up city walls, defend tenacious every of your precious improvements. Grow fast, grow faster than you lose power to your nasty enemies in the dark ages. And hold on tight, your time will come, to throw them back and finally destroy them and prosper peacefully...}
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 (redshield) nomad tribe units after a couple of turns (10?, fix or with increasing 'chance' to happen?) and split off from its 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 different 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 their 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 battle (they can fortify, but that would prevent them from gathering food). Should zones of control apply to them?

I think cities should also 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. So in later stages of the game the nomad tribe unit can be used to migrate pop. points between cities. Number of shields required to produce a nomad tribe unit?20? How about the initial foodbox-size of the nomad tribe unit?80?

Should there be a (variable, dependent on number of turns or advances?) latency time for a nomad tribe unit between the build-command (b-key) and the actual foundation of the city (for play balance, e.g. to increase or decrease 'migration' in modern times)? 5-10 turns?

Taking the resources from a tile improvement is just 'living off the land'. If a nomad tribe unit destroys a (foreign) 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?

Thanks: This proposal was improved with the help from Diodorus Sicilus, Alfonso, Hugo Rune, mindlace, mhistbuff, itokugawa, Mo & E
jof is offline  
Old September 24, 1999, 19:13   #119
raingoon
Prince
 
raingoon's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 500
Korn469 has asked me to substitute summarize this thread for him.

If anybody else wants the job, or is already doing it, let me know! Otherwise, I'll post the summary for this thread after the weekend.
raingoon is offline  
Old September 28, 1999, 02:44   #120
JamesJKirk
Civilization II PBEM
King
 
JamesJKirk's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:26
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dixon, CA USA
Posts: 1,156
Here's an idea I've been thinking of:

Once the UN is built, there will be a UN pseudo-civ, somewhat like the barbarians, not under the control of a specific AI, they act under orders from the general assembly, and are considered "bad" to kill. But then again if you're doing bad enough stuff to get UN troops sent to your place, you probably won't care.

JamesJKirk is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:26.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team