Well, here it is. If anybody has any quibbles or outright rants, speak soon. This is already past the deadline. I'm sending a copy of this to Yin as I post, here, but I'm sure he'll wait at least a few days before sending in the final wishlist...
Radical Ideas Summary V2.0
Once again the Radical Ideas thread was one of the most popular and most inspiring in the project. Since those who hope Civ 3 is just a small step forward have less to worry about 
, this summary is dedicated to those who feel Civ 3 ought not to be “Civ 2.5.” A cursory glance through the Radical Ideas thread reveals, ironically, a very serious effort on the part of some seriously dedicated civ fans to make the game truer to history, deeper strategically, and much more fun..
NOTE: Each of the following ideas are presented first in the context of Civ 2, then in terms of how they will benefit Civ 3, and finally as a summary of the discussion they inspired. Enjoy! -- Raingoon
1. AI
2. Barbarian Units
3. City Models
4. Diplomacy
5. Dynasties
6. Gameplay Issues
7. Interface
8. ICS Problem
9. Maps
10. Multiplayer
11. Population & Migration
12. Religion
13. Research
14. Settlers vs. Public Works
15. Victory/Defeat Conditions
16. Turn Length
17. Scoring
18. Tribes and Nomads
19. Culture
20. Units
21. Wonders & Improvements
1. AI
1.1) Separate AI Files
In the context of Civ 2: AI files are no longer integrated into any other files.
New Benefits: This allows easy updates to the AI only, without affecting the rest of the game.
Discussion: None needed.
1.2) Variable AI Entities
In the context of Civ 2: Like governors in SMAC, there should be AI entities who are generals and/or civic administrators, and they should be variable as to their abilities.
New Benefits: Assuming SE choices, some would allow you to choose the AI you wanted for a certain task, and what level of power it had, and some would impose limitations on you. These AIs could also be programmable by gamers. The effect would be to give the player the ability to instruct their military AI or civil administrator AI to accomplish certain tasks – how they accomplished the tasks would depend on the quality of the AI. For example, “…You would give an AI an instruction like… ‘use these troops to take these cities’ (or you might be limited to: ‘use these troops to attack this enemy’ or ‘use troops (and the AI picks the troops) to attck this enemy’ or a variety of other ones (affected by SE setting)…” The AIs would be available in “bins” to the players and the computer players – with the better AIs available to the computer player on the higher difficulty levels.
Discussion: See the SE thread for further thoughts.
2. Barbarian Units
2.1) Trade with Barbarians
In the context of Civ2: Barbarian units were an underused game element, where as history suggests their role was much greater.
New Benefits: Trading with barbarrians who pass your way (and you dissuade from attacking) could include being able to hire them to attack another civilization. In addition to the trade increasing your economy, this would add a realistic group of mercenaries to the game.
Discussion: “…Each barbarrian group would have an aggression factor, the ones that are more aggresive would not trade and would cost more to hire… Maybe even each group would have an aggression factor towards each civilization and would be cheaper to hire against some than others and would deal with some more and not others.”
3. City Models
3.1) The “Town Center Model”
In the context of Civ 2: Settlers would not found cities, but rather “town centers;” citizens would now be actual units on the map which the player would send to an empty square to build city improvements on adjacent squares within the town radius. Citizen units could be stacked to build faster and would not dissapear after completing their task. Further, you could send the citizen to a tile that already had an improvement and tell it to work there, which would give you the benefits of that improvement -- again, stacking to increase output. A citizen unit could be made into a military unit, a diplomat, or a settler. City walls would literally surround the city radius.
New Benefits: Fist, the visual satisfaction of seeing cities on the main map. Second, enhanced interface showing a city’s current needs instantly, and which cities are small, which are growing fast. Third, only when the town center is captured would the city be considered captured – thus street to street fighting is introduced.
Discussion: Some prefer less graphics on the terrain, as in Civ 2.
3.2) The “No City” Model
In the context of Civ 2: Some wish that cities were done away with all together, leaving squares/hexes to represent population, though not in the abstract (i.e., size 1 or 2) but literally by the millions of population per hex. In this case, groups of hexes form to create a city, with a nucleus hex representing the actual “city” and smaller “towns” springing up around it.
New Benefits: Advocates of having population counted per hex argue that in Civ 2 cities can take up 21 squares, which is equal to 459,515 square miles relative to the actual earth. This means a city, in Earth terms, a Civ 2 city is 5 times larger than the entire area of the current U.K. In this model, it would be proportionate. Additionally, you wouldn’t have to look for the perfect area to build a city, people can live almost anywhere. There would be no more jumping from city to city telling it what to build. The “mayor” could handle that.
Discussion: Hexes would have population limits; when a hex exceeded its limit, the population would migrate to neighboring hexes. Forts would supplant city walls, and invasion would mean population deaths per hex as the army advanced. Further, hexes might have two or three different types of "people" in it, the people of your empire, any “native” people, and maybe slaves from a conquered nation. Food grown in hexes is pooled as a nation and distributed everywhere. Any surplus can now be stockpiled and traded to other civilizations for money or other goods your nation might need. In general, the only things you should have to worry about are diplomacy, defense, setting policy, keeping the military up to date, starting a war if it is in the nation’s best interest, and expansion of the empire. In general, this model attempts to take a step back and have the player define certain perameters, but none so unrealistic as determining what food rations the population eats, what buildings they elect to build, etc. Instead, the cities grow more on their own, across groups of hexes, a la Sim City.
Alternative viewpoints state that Civ3 should not be Sim City 4000.
3.3.) The Production Sphere
In the context of Civ 2: A city gleaned resources from squares up to a distance of 3 units away on the X/Y axis. The production sphere would add another dimension -- the Z axis.
New Benefits: A lot more squares to exploit. True floating cities that can harvest squares above the ground. In effect, exploitable “cubes.”
Discussion: “…Sure, you can't build a farm in mid-air, at least not until you've reached the NanoTech age, and you can't build a mine at the Earth's core, at least not until you've developed some pretty good heat sinks... and think of the defense!”
3.4) The Village Model
In the context of Civ 2: Villages function as terrain improvers, by either farming or mining. They are all size 1, though size 2 might be possible late in the game, increasing productivity. Food and Mined resources are automatically sent to a nearby host city, whose population either gathers resources from it's own square, or processes the resources the villages send them (all population in a city not gathering from its own square are either labourers, traders, or scientists). Otherwise, cities function the same as in Civ 2.
New Benefits: “City radius is no longer used. You can use every square in your territory if you desire, and keep the cities in logical places, like on the coast and river junctions, where cities historically thrived.” Rural population is represented and strategically important (to capture or defend). Makes the logical split between resources and industry easier to manage.
Further, the villages belong to a region and send food straight to it. Cities in the region receive it as needed. Infrastructue is still placed in individual cities, but the industry is calculated centrally, to ease micromanagement. Regions are likewise good for reducing micromanagment, and the overall model more accurately shows the rural/urban population shift brought about by better agriculture.
Discussion: Villages are the only place to put non-specialists. These would work the village squares, gathering materials from the square they were on and nowhere else. Cities contain only specialists -- labourers produce industry, which is used to process the resources harvested in the countryside. “…Villages would be built by a "public works" type system, rather than by a unit. They could be autobuilt by the AI or queued by the player… Villages don't count towards any particular city, but are shared within a region. …The maximum distance from the main city would be dependant upon the technology level, or whether it is linked by road, railroad, etc.” It was suggested that you can transfer villagers along a clear road, so if the enemy blocks off your road, the only place you can put the villagers is in the city – which would have a maxium capacity beyond which negative effects begin to be felt.
In times of war, villagers come into the city.
Ocean square villages would spawn fishing villages, and oil platforms later.
“…I have proposed that food affects happiness, which affects gowth (as opposed to directly affecting growth). This removes the potential cheese of putting all your citizens on farms to boost growth…”
At the start only one city per region. As techs advance, you can choose which region your cities go in but there would be a max # of squares within region borders depending on your tech level. It was suggested that all villagers be content – “if villagers' happiness is affected, it should only be by famine.” Others question if villages are terrain improvements, why have people live in them at all? -- “It offers no advantages and only more micromanagement.”
Some thought settlers building villages (as opposed to the AI) represents a problem, as it amounts to getting free population. “Regardless of that,” they said, “the settlers should now take 2 population to build... One for the new city they will make, and one for the village next to it (that will spawn).” Out of this debate a clearer idea emerged: “Use a setler to 'flag' a square, and the next available villager will move there… to build a village, all that is needed is a pop point (from the city).”
Additionally, villages can be moved by click and drag. Same, perhaps, with population moving from city to city, limited to one unit a turn, and perhaps only then when connected by roads.
In terms of implentation, the village comes first. You would start the game with a handful of villages and can choose 1 to become your first city. Population is added only when a city has a whole pop point to send to the countyside. Any growth from the villages is added to the city as a small boost.
3.4.1) Villages Becoming Cities.
In the context of Civ 2: Distinct from CivX, when villages reach a certain size, they become cities. This is the only way to make a new city until the discovery of an advance which allows settlers.
New Benefits: Clearly defined regions. A “settled” city starts its own region, while normally grown cities belong to the same region as the village they grew out of. This would take the necessity of production away from expansion, since one wouldn't need to necessarily build cities with settlers. Building a provincial capital would allow you to select the borders of that capital’s new region.
Discussion: To limit ICS, make it so that the square a city is on does not produce any resources or food. Some think villages should never be able to grow into cities without direct intervention -- spontaneous city growth would lead to a loss of strategic control.
3.4.2) List of Possible City Specialists Under “The Village Model”[LIST}[*] artisan/laborers process minerals sent from your mining villages.[*] merchant/traders generate money and are necessary to open trade routes (one per merchant).[*] wise men/scientist – the more you have the quicker you research.[*] actors/entertainers: these make your citizens happy – also, a rock n’ roll tech? Electric guitar?[*] military specialists: these specialist represents the military-industrial complex of your empire.[*] official/bureaucrats: these collect taxes and help to assimilate the population into your civ.[*] priest/clergy: these convert your population to your religion and in general make people happy.[*] philosophers: these people look for the meaning of life and man's place in it. [*] the middle class as the general, or “normal” citizen (replacing ealier peasants, and serfs).[/LIST]Discussion: Some don't see the point of philosphers. Some believe bureaucrats should lessen corruption. Also -- “a lot of the concept of speciallists is sort of silly. A whole pop point doesn't become scientists, only a few do, the rest are regular citizens. Maybe of your citydwellers only half the citizens after the 4th can specialize.”
3.5) Problems with the Village Model vs. Civ2 Model
Discussion:
“…If I have been focusing on food production and am invaded, it will take me several turns to reorganize to get the resources needed for defense (whereas in CivX it was handled more efficiently)… The village concept makes it far too easy for an invading army to destroy another civ's economy, adds a lot of micromanagement to solve a problem (the city radius) that really isn't that troublesome.”
An easier solution suggested would be to have an equivalent of the supply pods in SMAC. The supply pod unit could set up a base outside of the various city radii that would funnel supplies back to the origin city. This would seem to keep the ease of the city radius, while allowing relatively easy expansion outside of the radius for those players who are so inclined.
Historically, most villages next to major metropolitan centers turn into cities themselves. This could create a new ICS problem as huge numbers of cities are clustered together.
Which city gets which supplies? How to keep track of them all?
Some solutions to problems raised by The Village Model are to fight ICS, you don't get a citizen to place in the field until size 2. This would require a minimum amount of food, etc. in the city square for it to grow, build, etc. Limit the distance villages can send supplies to 1 square w/o roads, 3 with, but further with RR's.
Also, players build villages with settlers, PW, or engineers. Then, the only way to allow them to grow into another city is by settling on them with yet another a settler, or by having the village build a "town center", costing the same as a settler.
3.6) The Village-Town-Metropolis Model
In the context of Civ 2: Here again, the alternative is to use real population numbers (ie 10,390, not “10”). City growth would not depend on food but on other factors, represented by a population growth whose default might be 3% per turn, the other factors adding a few percentage points up or down. Food in this case would only determine if growth were positive or negative (i.e., a food defiicit).
New Benefits. Lack of micromanagment. Citizens wouldn’t work squares. Instead, there would be sliders that would allow the player to distribute the pop among tasks like agriculture, industry, economy, military, happiness. With the sliders, the player would change percentages of population, not actual numbers of population. This would reduce micromanagement, especially for large cities.
3.7) Size Determines Type of City
New Benefits:
Village: 1-4 citizens, no specialists and non-militaristic buildings requiring more than 1 coin for maintainance (i.e. bank) are not allowed. Village radius 1.
Small city: 5-10 citizens, 3rd level improvements (stoch exchange, research lab, mfg plant) and superhighways are not allowed. City radius as now.
Large city: 11-18 citizens. Requires sewer system. City radius 36 squares (radius 3 except 3 squares for every corner).
Huge city: More than 18 citizens. City radius 48 squares (radius 3).
Discussion: By changing the radius for cities of different sizes, you might destroy any chance of planning a civilization. For instance, when starting, you could have villages 3 squares apart with 8 squares in each city radius. Then, by the time they're all metropolises, they are overlapping horribly.
3.8) The Modified Village Model
New Benefits: Simplicity. This keeps the village as a terrain improvement, but kills the other ideas of the larger model. 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.
4. Diplomacy
4.1) The Princess Factor
In the context of Civ 2: Historically, many civílizations united against their foes by intermarriage (prince weds princess). This was not modeled previously. Civ 3 should have an expensive unit that first appears in mid-to-late game, called the "princess."
Benefits: The princess unit can be used to force a merger of your civilization with any other with which you have an embassy.
Discussion: The resulting combined population should be less than the largest civ on the map at the time (otherwise it would be too powerful). And you also should have to get her to the other capital without being killed off. This strategy can only be used once for each player, and only for absorbing AI's, not human civ's. The idea is to introduce some interesting new strategies which are consistent with historical events, and to make it a little more difficult for the civ with a big lead that thinks it has won the game already. A merger is roughly equivalent to buying all the AI's cities for the cost of the princess.
Others suggest that the princess unit only work under a monarchy, and maybe despotism. Others think an automatic alliance is enough, instead of 'merging' the civilizations. In effect, “forcing” an alliance on a civ that otherwise would like to go to war with you.
4.2) The Treaty Screen
In the context of Civ 2: There would be a new ‘Treaty Screen' which would allow you to set the perameters of a treaty. It would be divided into 4 catagories – Government, Economic, Social, and Political. These would address, respectively, imposing government choices on your foes, demanding tribute, demanding the forced migration or oppression of social groups (i.e., religious or ethnic), and lastly, demanding the establishment of political protectorates or even the division of your foe’s former empire.
Benefits: many new diplomatic demand possibilities – E.g., you could demand that a nation take up alliances with other nations. The political option would allow for the creation of whole new nations, giving them names, leaders, governments and political positions.
Discussion: Each nation you created as the result of a treaty could alternatively be able to set up its own borders, government, leaders and determine its relations with other nations. This option might be preferable to you if you felt you did not have the strength to hold on to what would have been land you annexed, but wanted a friendly buffer zone between you and your enemy. Or you might not be playing a conquer game and might only have wanted to free a religion or ethnic group.
In general, there should be more haggling over options in treaties! “…Something like: I want to buy a nice chunk of land from someone, they come back with a price, I say too high so I throw in a tech they don't have. They come back with a counter offer with a price per hex + the tech + demand I stop fighting their friends. I agree, treaty is signed, techs get traded, and land gets annexed.”
Other possible issues for negotiation in Civ 3 treaties:
- Trade limits
- Tariffs vs. whether to allow free trade
- Allow students of other nations to learn in your schools.
- Set who gets the rights to fishing in a certain area and where do the territorial waters around your country extend.
- How many hexes do signatory nations keep there military units from their borders.
- Treaties to jointly discover a tech, or jointly build a WoW that both nations would reap the benefits from.
- Treaties that would allow your nation to use signatory military bases in a war with a third nation, when you are not otherwise allied with the signatory nation.
- Treaties to allow your country to move military troops through or retreat into another country.
- 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.
5. Dynasties
5.1) Family Tree
In the context of Civ 2: In the past, the multi-millenial nature of Civ created a need for a coherent structure to your civilization -- in other words, a history.
New Benefits: Having leaders with characteristics would mean the player could select which offspring took over the reigns of power according to what qualities the nation needed at that time. If you have been at war for too long, then pick the correct offspring to make peace. Conversetly, if peace is getting old, people are hungry, and we need more living room, then pick an offspring who is a military genius.
Discussion: Civilization is called Civilization. Not Dynasty. “…To me, this implies that I'm not playing a leader, a government, or a dynasty. I am playing a Civilization. I'd like to see the entire concept of the "leader" thrown out. I am the Civilization. To anybody that says, ‘How can you play a civilization? That's not realistic,’ I would suggest that you go buy yourself a nice flight simulator… at the same time, I think Firaxis needs to make that more clear by dropping the pretense of having a ‘leader.’’
6. Gameplay Issues
6.1) Balancing Civs More Realistically
In the context of Civ 2: a civ with 30 cities was 10 times stronger then one with 3 cities ( if not more ). This isn't true in real life – Israel, for example, leads the world in several technologies and it's army is far better trained than would be modeled in Civ 2.
To solve this, the “power model” in Civ 3 would add, for example, +10% for the morale in a US size civ, but a +50% bonus for a civ like Israel. Smaller civs get much bigger bonuses for the same modifier than bigger civs.
Benefits: More realistic. It will make civ much more intersting, as conquering a smaller civ will be more difficult. Also, it opens the road for the much missed diplomacy, trade and scientific learning.
6.2) Gaming into the Future
This quote says it all: “…Also, I will be SEVERELY dissapointed if the game doesn't continue into the future. To not do this would be a step down from CTP, and then your getting pretty low indeed. And the more space colonization and the like that can be fit into the game, the better.”
7. Interface
7.1) The Power Graph
In the context of Civ 2: there should be a tab-feature for the power graph.
Benefits: The user could select which feature he or she wanted to examine. Tabs might be OVERALL, MILITARY, MONEY/INFRASTRUCTURE, and TECH. Each would rate the abilities of each nation.
Discussion: …”The military tab would not only take in to account the number of units, but also their tech level.”
8. ICS Problem
In the context of Civ 2: “Infinite City Sleaze” was the term for the infamous strategy of mass producing cities in order to overwhelm the oposition. Solutions for ICS abound, and many were discussed throughout the Radical Ideas thread. They can be found here under “Population and Migration,” and elsewhere. Like in this discussion here (the benefits being obvious):
Discussion: “…Maintaining a large empire, especially in ancient times, should be a difficult, yet not impossible, task in Civ 3.” Here is a series of increasingly severe penalizing effects designed roughly according to what historical Rome experienced. For the more cities you own:
- increased unhappiness [starts when # of cities goes over limit]
- increased corruption = less science, money, production
- low military unit morale
- chance of spontaneously falling to anarchy = civil war, or throne war, can happen several times
- increased military unit costs = military service less appealing to populace
- chance of massive barbarian hordes invading = they are looking for an opportunity to plunder a weak, overextended empire; may happen several times and they may found their own civilization if they capture your city.
- chance of empire breaking up [may occur when you have more cities than three times limit]
Also the strength (or chance) of each effect would increase with increasing number of cities. New inspiring ideologies (and religions) and more advanced forms of government would increase the city limit and thus reduce or perhaps finally eliminate the penalizing effects.
There are those who believe the above proposal would rule out global conquest as an option until late in the game, which isn’t desirable.
9. Maps
9.1) Mapmaking is required for permanent terrain on the game map.
In the context of Civ 2: Like the fog of war of past, but more so. Terrain would only be visible by units, no more. Once a unit moves, terrain no longer in its sight would return to black again.
New Benefits: Mapmaking would mean all terrains would remain seen.
Discussion: “…It would do 2 things: give the programmers 1 more thing to worry about, and make everyone research mapmaking ASAP. I'm not sure if it adds to the game overall…”
Another idea was that the game map could be displayed as flat unit the world is proven to be round by someone, when the game map would become a sphere.
10. Multiplayer
10.1) Massive Multiplayer Online Civ - Bloodlines
In the context of Civ 2: The game would be played on an earth world that is much larger in size than any civ. You would build cities and civilizations to actual scale, and some players would play regions within civs, and can rebel and try to start their own civ, etc.
New benefits: Fun.
Discussion: You would play a bloodline that could marry with others and have children. If your bloodline dies out you have to restart the game.
Marrying would be the equivaletn of making an alliance. Each member of your familly would be listed. Government would be such that you can tell different players, if you have completely captured their bloodline, to control a region for you, which they would do under the threat of eradication. The converse is of course also possible, and rebellion remains a possibility.
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 got more power. In general, play could move as in SMAC’s simultaneous mode. New players would start along the edges of civilization and in historical areas. In the game you could “launch huge realistic campaigns against others, or manage a real looking and acting civ…”
11. Population and Migration
11.1) A New Population Growth Model
In the context of Civ 2: In order to separate pop growth from food production, the population in cities should be recorded as x.xxx. This allows fractional population points, with growth rates expressed as a percentage increase per turn – though not counted until they reached the next whole number. For example, a growth rate of .025 would be expressed as 2.5% per turn.
Benefits: Attacks that hit population centers can now do fractional population points of damage.
Discussion: All variable numbers should depend on SE choices and tech. This system is designed to be compatable with the “Village Model” discussed under “Cities,” above. Other Base growth modifiers can be factored in, such as villages (+0.2%) or medicine (+2%), etc.
11.2) Migration Based on Happiness
In the context of Civ 2: consider a “happiness rating,” which would be (#happy - #unhappy) / # total. This would give 0 for all content, 100 for all happy, and -100 for all unhappy. It can be applied to a city, a region, a civ or the entire world.
Benefits: When taken with a new percentage growth model for pop growth, migration patterns can now be more accurately modeled. The advantages of including this is that large unhappy cites will tend to slow down growth or shrink, while smaller cities will pick up the extra people.
Discussion: “In-civ migration = (city happiness - civ happiness) / Y. Y depends on SE and the overall level of transportation availabble. Between civs migration = (city happiness - world happiness) / Z. Z depends on SE and transport of all players. For this calcualtion government types can influence the happiness factor used -- democracy might add 10 points, while communism subtracts 10 points to reflect that democracies never have had problems with too many people trying to flee from them…” An Iron Curtain Wonder prevents all emmigration between civs.
11.3) Migration Based on Employment Opportunity
In the context of Civ 2: the player should have more opportunity to shape the forces that cause his citizens to migrate, rather than moving them him/herself and building a city, or having them simply stagnant. For instance, it is suggested when building a city you choose a tile, and people will move to that site gradually if conditions are good. The following discussion defines “good conditions” for immigration as employment opportunity, where employment opportunity = more resources present in the location than population units. If people outnumber resources in a city, there is unemployment and people will emigrate to a city where the converse is true.
Benefits: This system would solve the ICS problem (see below), and by balancing labor with resources in a city, it would for the first time model unemployment in Civ. Also, it would more accurately show the forces of immigration throughout history.
Discussion: Thus, cities built in large grasslands tracks will not be big cities since there is a minimum of resources (work) available. There would be large emigration out of such an agricultural area. 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 solve the ICS problem AND the problem that large cities might not be possible under this model since all the people would go to new cities, it was suggested that when a city reaches two population, it gets a bonus of 20 labor and 20 trade (using a x10 system). A size three population gets 30 labor/30 trade, and so on (for migration purposes trade is considered to be a resource). This would solve the ICS problem, since large cities are much bigger production and trade centers than many small ones. Food distribution should depend on tech level, SE/government choice, and transportation network, ranging from no distribution at all in the beginning (cities feeding themselves) to an empire-wide “food box” where food is automatically sent wherever needed.
So, migration would be dependent on the resources of the surrounding terrain, as in reality. The smallest cities would be more agricultural oriented, the biggest would be the economic cities. If you wanted to move people to agricultural areas, you would have to pay them a subsidy e.g., per population unit 400 (x10!) gold (the current price of a settler in shields).
11.4) Population X10 Advantages
In the context of Civ 2: multiplying population x10 would allow for more ambitious gameplay than what Civ 2’s population model supported.
Benefits: For instance, it would have the effect of slowing things like the above proposed migration model down to a realistic rate. A Popx10 model would also make a recruitment system possible. Under the normal pop system, the mobilization of even one pop unit would mean a lot of Riflemen units = unbalancing and unrealistic. Under the new system, you would simply build the Rifles and store them. They don’t require support until one population unit was mobilized to be a Rifleman. That unit disappears from the city population, and if killed, does not return. This would simulate the loss of population in wars. Would also allow for the modeling of conscripted soldiers vs. a vollunteer army. There would be a unit workshop where available hardward (still built in cities) was matched with a citizen from the population pool and a unit is mobilized. Low morale of drafted units could be beefed up by keeping them in a city with a barracks for X turns.
Discussion: “Upgrading units in a Pop X10 system would be simpler. Just move them in a city, go to the unit workshop and change the item, you would want to change… reducing the experience level by one.” Popx10 would, however, make it impossible to have the population box of previous civ-like games. An alternative box would be (the +’s and –’s are to switch eg a normal content citizen to an entertainer):
Happy : 20
Content : 70 + -
Unhappy : 10
Taxmen : 0 + -
Scientists : 0 +-
Entertainers : 0 + -
Rest : 0
11.5) Oversea Colonization
Discussion: Colonization overseas should require a Sea Unit looking like Colombus’ boat. It should have a large movement range and be able to land. If it lands it founds a coastal city. That way you expand oversea. More realistic.
12. Religion
12.1) SE Ideologies
In the context of Civ 2: Each citizen in the city window should be labeled with an SE idelology to represent the beliefs of your population. If a majority of citizens in a city have the same SE choice that you would be able to set for your civ, "We love the ... days” would occur. When riots occured, they would become drones and demand that you change your SE choices to match theirs.
The SE choice of a citizen would influence when it becomes a "drone." For example, citizens with the "power" SE choice would become drones if you lost a city in battle. "Wealth" citizens would become drones if taxes were too high. "Democracy" citizens would become drones if you were a tyranny. "Green" citizens would become drones if there were too much pollution etc.
Benefits: a new important concept: ideology as a force in history, deeper gameplay -- real revolutions and civil wars would occur now, due to conflicting ideologies of your citizens, you could influence other civs ideologically -- maybe successfully start a revolution, in history, civs did play big roles in other civ's civil wars or revolutions.
Discussion: instead of writing their SE choice under the citizen, you could make a different citizen icon for each of the SE choices...
13. Research
13.1) Random inventors show up in your civ as events.
In the context of Civ2: Think “Philosophy Appears in…”
New Benefits: If a cost is associated with taking on the random inventor, but an important invention not assured by doing so, then a difficult choice is created for the player. Do you turn him/her away or do you help them make their idea work?
Discussion: Greek Fire almost wasn't Greek. Arabs first rejected the idea when it was brought tot them. In the game, some ideas will end up nowhere, just wasting your money, and some will end us possibly saving your hide. Also, the inventor would be able to research several different areas, as in MOO.
14. Settler vs. Public Works
14.1 Settlers, Public Works & Engineers – All in Civ 3
In the context of Civ 2: the settler/engineer is a useful unit in the early game, building, developing and exploring. SMAC's former/colony pod forces the strategic decision of founding a new base or improving existing ones, and the public works concept with pure settlers has the advantage of being an excellent model of the civilization working together, as well as speeding up gameplay by reducing micromanagement in the latter stages of the game.
New Benefits: The three together compensate for each other’s weaknesses.
Discussion: “…Each of these methods have their drawbacks. The settler function seems to become redundant about half way through the game… 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, (and) public works allow the tactic of massive improvements to a city in one hit, suddenly everywhere there are mines, farms etc. So, why can't all of these types co-exist within the game, as time progresses?
15. Victory/Defeat Conditions
15.1) Alien Punishment
In the context of Civ 2: This idea suggests that if you screw up the world with pollution and nukes, aliens should come down and take you over.
Benefits: It could be a losing sequence, with a movie of aliens blowing up your cities. This would raise the stakes considerably for all-out nuclear war, etc.
Discussion: None needed.
15.2) A Better End Game
In the context of Civ 2: CIV, CTP and SMAC are all won either by conquering the entire planet or by building some massive special project. Perhaps Civ 3 needs a different ending -- 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 the aliens invade. If you are not in charge of all the world, some of the civs will ally with you, some will ally with them.
Benefits: A stronger end game, like Colonization had – also provides motivation to join together with former enemies or hurry up and conquer.
Discussion: “…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 and have super units. And they will be aggressive. Defeat them you win, or face extinction.”
15.3) Armegeddon Astroid
In the context of Civ 2: The new game should include sickness, disease, pestilence, epidemics, earthquakes, floods, mini ice ages, volcanos -- And why not an asteroid or comet striking the Earth?
Benefits: Higher stakes. Again, a stronger end game – “Can you successfully get every faction on Earth helping and cooporating to find a way to stop the astroid from hitting or try living through the after effects of the nuclear winter?”
Discussion: 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 -- 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.
16. Turn Length
16.1) One year turns throughout the game
In the context of Civ 2: turns in the ancient era are at average a few seconds, in the last century several minutes.
Benefits: sensible - time has not exactly slowed down during the last centuries. More emphasis on ancient history (which some say is under-represented). More sensible movement chronology -- a unit no longer needs many centuries to cross a continent.
Discussion: Might make for extremely long games, with very little action each turn. The game length would increase from 600 to 6000 turns. The solution for this is the player should just have a few things to take care of each turn. A bit of this could be done by using CtP's systems for trade and terraforming. Unit movement could be made easier with improved GoTo functions.
16.2) Variable Turn Lengths
Discussion: Alternatively, instead of one year turns, why not link the length of game turns to level of technology of the civ? Why not allow game turns to reduce from 20 years to 5 years once Philosophy is discovered? From 5 years to 2 years once the Enlightenment period begins. and from 2 to 1 year per turn once the Industrial Revolution kicks in. Future technology may increase productivity in terms of game time even further.
Civs who were lagging on the tech tree would either get fewer turns to play or have all facets of their production factored down when competing civs discovered key advances. Thus, one of the measures of your success would be the number of turns needed to win, not just points at the end.
17. Scoring
17.1) Score every turn
In the context of Civ 2: instead of the SMAC/Civ one-time end-of-game score, you would accumulate points every turn from population, cash in treasury, owned wonders, etc. Perhaps there could also be one time grants for military success (capturing cities), being first to research a technology, completing a wonder, etc.
Benefits: In this model, getting completely destroyed would be an acceptable ending as you can still have a decent score. It would be a better measure of your success throuout the game. Also stops the “cheat” of increasing luxuries just before the end of the game to artificially inflate your score.
Discussion: “…The points would represent your civilization's heritage (cultural, technological, religious...). We all think our western culture owes a lot to the ancient Romans, but in Civ 2 scoring terms they would be complete losers because they were wiped out and hence scored 0%...”
18. Tribes and Nomads
18.1) Basic Tribes Model
In the context of Civ 2: Each Civ would now have 4 or 5 tribes, the player beginning the game as one tribe in a struggle to unite all tribes in the civ together. If you lose the early game power struggle, game’s over.
Benefits: The idea of different tribes in each civ allows more depth to the game and realism. This models the Mongol Hordes and how they never amounted to anything until they were united in a common effort by a great leader. How long you are in control depends upon temporary alliances, tribal marriage, whether yours was the largest tribe or if you were elected as leader...
Discussion: Under this model it would be possible to have 35 tribes, each behaving independently. But tribes in the same civ would be more likely to make longer alliances since they would have more in common culturally.
18.2) Nomadic Civilizations
In the Context of Civ 2: start the game earlier with 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.
New benefits: A larger spectrum of strategies to start a game with and more flexible paths to victory.
Discussion: When a game starts (8000BC?), every civ gets one “Nomad Tribe Unit” (0a, 1d, 1m, 1h, 1f) worth 1 population point. Nomad units can have multiple pop. points by splitting 1 unit into 2 units, or removing them by founding a city. Until then, they are “walking cities,” gathering food and resources from the tile they are on. Note, it must move every turn or will get no resources.
Every nomad unit has a name, a short list of “tribe improvements” and a food & production box which are displayed when active. When its food box becomes full, the tribe unit may split in two or the one may instead grow in strength. The nomad tribe unit can produce other units and some mobile equivalents to city improvements, using its own “production box”:
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.
Military units produced have slightly better mobility, limited to infantry and mounted. When a nomad tribe unit acquires “settling,” (or agriculture?) they found a city. The tribe improvements are changed into their city equivalents. Tribes gain advances through its own collection of trade points, just like regular cities.
Nomad tribes can be expansionist (Mongolian), or perfectionist (Chinese), and unhappiness (calculated by distance from center of civ) can lead to riots, eventually turning nomads into rogue barbarian units.
18.3) Alternate Nomadic Model
In the context of Civ 2: You could start the game with one “Chief Nomad” and a couple of friendly tribes you don’t control, but share knowledge with. Eventually, you and all those tribes who survive will start to settle down, with each friendly tribe building a village, near which you might want your Chief Nomad to settle, creating a “town center” (see “The Town Center Model” under “New City Models”).
New Benefits: When you get your first city you already know a small area, which is historically accurate. First cities won't magically appear from nothing, instead they are placed in the vicinity of existing population centers. Tribes can be used as a base for different cultures.
Discussion: Rather than being the one and only place for resource gathering, cities would become “nodes” where things happen in the beginning. For example, the villages are first in line gathering resources from the tiles they are 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. Later, the “Capitol” (not the same as a Palace) is heralded by the advent of the Railroad and can potentially pool all of a nations resources. It would be possible for entire nations to break off in one fell swoop.
19. Culture
In the context of Civ 2: there is no culture modeled in the game, per se. How about researching culture as a tech? The resulting advance would affect luxury and trade.
New Benefits: new way to make more people happy, help trade, affect SE, special troops.
Discussion: Each Civ would have a different culture set, and the “research” would actually be carried out slowly as a transference of trade between two civs. Eventually the accumulation of enough trade exchanged would result in the discovery of “culture.”
20. Units
20.1) Unit Supply Bar
In the context of Civ 2: The supply bar would look like the health bar in Civ 2. Supplies themselves would be in addition to the regular resource support. There could be a function to take a percentage of your city production and funnel it into supplies.
New Benefits: Supplies would model fuel, food, and ammunition in the Civ 3.
Discussion: Ancient units would require some supply, modern much more. Distance becomes a factor -- the farther away, the more it costs to supply them, while advances like Airplane, etc. could reduce this cost. Other factors such as aircraft carriers vary the drain on your supplies.
20.2) Unit Morale
In the context of Civ 2: The morale would be the multiplier on the unit attack, represented as a bar graph similar to the health bar.
New Benefits: Morale would introduce the concept of leaders benefits on the battlefield.
Discussion: The morale standing would represent lowest to highest attainable morale. For example, “Low=55%, Medium =80%, High=105%, Highest=130%.”
Morale could further quantify or modify unit status thus:
Conscript = Rush bought unit (Low Morale)
Regular = Produced Normally (Medium Morale)
Veteran = Some Combat (High Morale)
Elite = Hardened Vet (Highest Morale)
Commander = (Increases units within 1 square morale by 20%)
General = (Increases units within 2 squares morale by 45%)
It was suggested that it would be impossible to go beyond Veteran without combat experience.
20.3) Unit Leaders
Discussion: Some want MOO2-like leaders, while others would rather have pysical units on the battlefield. They could be named for great leaders in history, or they could be made-up and hirable by any civ. But there is some question as to the realism of leader units in a strategic game like Civ, as opposed to a tactical game. The advantage, again, is to stack them for morale benefits, giving the leader himself a zero ATT/DEF modifier. Other abilities might include bribing, ambushing, natural concealment. A third possibility is the Pax Imperia model, where leader units are generic with only minor abilities, helpful but not unbalancing.
20.4) Military Units Built by Companies
In the context of Civ 2: units often became obsolete before they were built. And cities being able to build the military unit is not a realistic model.
New Benefits: Model a military economy, add to strategic planning.
Discussion: Have a company (i.e., Rockwell, Northrup) build the hardware. The nation pays for it, and then takes delivery of the hardware to meet up with the conscripted or volunteer human element. Then have them train a while with the new hardware, creating the unit at the most current technology level available. E.g., the nation putting in an order to Acme Armaments for 3,000 tanks @ X cost. Then raise a human army to use those tanks, 5 people per tank plus support and maintenance personnel for each so say 10 people for each, so raise an extra 5,000 people per year for those tanks. Other countries could also offer hardware for sale, but buying abroad would mean unemployment at home, and putting money in a rival nations pockets to be used against us in the future.
21. Wonders & Improvements
21.1) Make Wonders More Realistic
In the context of Civ 2: Instead of granaries, pyramids had to do with religion. Also, have them built by civil engineer units on the game map.
New Benefits: More realism, more strategy. Engineers can't be building roads, walls, etc. and wonders at the same time. They also have the chance of getting killed, and could be yanked off the job if needed for a new area, which of course will slow down building of the Wonder. The visible Wonder on the game map could be captured and/or destroyed.
Discussion: Also, wonders, after expired, may become a tourist attraction and give you a percentage of each civ's annual income, minus a maintenance cost.
21.2) City Improvements Causing Negative Effects
In the context of Civ 2: A foreign missioner can convert your temple to produce unhappy citizens. A marketplace can be converted to black market and eat your income.
New Benefits: City improvements can be subverted by the enemy and be used against you, making citizens unhappier or taking money from your treasury.
Discussion: The religion summary supports this idea, suggesting ways a unit can subvert another civ’s “positive” improvements and turning them negative, making the player vulnerable to a savvy opponent.
Contributors:
Korn469, DarthVeda, Theben, Jakester, EnochF, croxis, Jimmy, Eggman, NotLikeTea, FinnishGuy, Alexander’sHorse, Fugi the Great, Flavor Dave, Jon Miller, Crashn, Technophile, Darkstarr, Ecce Homo, Rusty Nail, Harel, dinoman2, Xin Yu, ember, Gordon the Whale, MBrazier, itokugawa, raingoon, Tornado7, tatterdemalion, will, Diodorus Sicilus, JamesJKirk, don don, M@ni@c, Cartagia the Great, jof, Radegast2, SWPIGWANG, Odalrick, the diplomat
