c177# WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM OF MY SHOE?

[MarkG]

WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM OF MY SHOE?
More reality in war, peace and your people!

By Will Morris

[Grumbold]

Yes, it is a long recognised flaw of the Civ games. There are all sorts of ways they might have chosen to approach it. Maximum manpower pools. Unit upkeep costs continuing for several turns after loss to represent war pensions. Overall unhappiness modifier and productivity loss for heavy unit losses. Population cost for building or losing units. I'd like to see all of these experimented with. Personally though I can't come up with an easy system that can cope with Soviet Russia losing millions of troops and stoically enduring with the type of furore that hits the headlines if one of 'our boys' gets scratched or captured on a NATO peacekeeping mission. In forty years the West has gone from stoical about casualties to hysterical. Who knows what could change to make it swing back?

Civ covers too much timespan and cultural change for there to be an easy answer. Complex models are more for the historical wargamers than the casual gaming public, and it will be the gaming public which will buy the most copies.

[Tutankamun]

I think Firaxis should come out with a few Civilization offshoots that focus on certain issues like popular opinion and things. It would be very interesting if you could fall out of power because you've pissed off all your citizens. I think racial hatred would be an interesting twist, where the earlier you go to war with someone, the less chance you have of becoming their allies down the road because your units keep spontaneously attacking them.

[Father Beast]

A while ago, I staged an invasion with a bunch of units I pulled from only 4 cities. I was a democracy at the time, but the out of city unhappiness wasn't too much.
What's interesting is that My invasion was a dismal failure, and all the units got Killed! in response to all those sons of The City going to war and never coming home was that the cities all started celebrating We Love The President Day, presumably for my genius in getting all their sons and daughters killed in action.

A bit more dramatic example than the column gives, but it shows up one of the unrealities of the game that ought to be fixed sometime. I just don't know if it will for civ3.

[tniem]

I agree 100% about what you are saying and have said in the past that your citizen's opinions should matter a whole lot more.

One thing, though, I would like to add is that just because you are losing a war or are suffering heavy losses does it mean that your public is going to be against the war. They may be unhappy but they might still support the war for whatever reason - belief in a stronger nation, hatred of another country, or belief the war is necessary.

What I am saying is that implementing such a feature would be tough to get the public's actual opinion to impact the game in a meaningful and realistic way.

[Solver]

Agree with the author. When I was checking demographics in Civ I for the first time, I wondered what the heck does that population approval mean. I saw no big effect of it.

When you're democracy, people could simply overrule your decision, as you're not a monarch or tyrant. For example, the Tanks will refuse to move where you send them.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I heartily agree with the above article. For too long I have felt that war in the Civ series has been consequence free!!
The best solutions I have seen for changing this situation are as follows (note, these are not my ideas):
1) Units should each cost a variable # of bushels. As long as the unit exists, those bushels cannot be used towards population growth. If the unit is ever destroyed, then those bushels are lost for GOOD, and any population points gained from these bushels are lost also. (This works best if the game works on a regional bushel pool, so that bushels will be randomly deleted from multiple cities). This means that, if enough of your units are destroyed (especially manpower intensive units), then you will see a serious population decline.

2) The longer units are outside your borders (or actively engaged in a war), the more your populations happiness should drop. The number of happiness points you lose would depend on your government type. Note that being in an allied city would not count as being outside your borders.

3) The number of turns a unit is engaged in a war on foreign territory, the more morale they should lose. This would increase the chance of a route or the unit disbanding.

4) Unit damage (and unit destruction) should effect both unit morale and Population happiness, as described above.

5) When you end a war or disband a unit, you should get a bonus for your civ, in terms of of a 2-3 turn productivity and happiness bonus . This has been euphamistically referred to as the "Bringing the Boys Back Home" effect.

The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Grumbold]

There ought to be consequences, but I don't think any of these work well. I'd rather we kept the consequences out of the game until someone can come up with a truly workable model.

1) Units should each cost a variable # of bushels. As long as the unit exists, those bushels cannot be used towards population growth. If the unit is ever destroyed, then those bushels are lost for GOOD, and any population points gained from these bushels are lost also. (This works best if the game works on a regional bushel pool, so that bushels will be randomly deleted from multiple cities). This means that, if enough of your units are destroyed (especially manpower intensive units), then you will see a serious population decline.

Just being in the military never stopped anyone breeding. Rather the contrary. Instead it should influence the national productivity if there aren't enough workers on the farms or in the factories. If you withhold food then sooner or later there will be a 'boom' when you disband the unit and release the food pool. Alternatively clawing it back could cause mass depopulation with units that can last hundreds of turns. Just having a food support cost for armies in the same way as settlers might be a start, but the population growth model in Civ is so screwy already that if you want to improve it you should start from scratch.

2) The longer units are outside your borders (or actively engaged in a war), the more your populations happiness should drop. The number of happiness points you lose would depend on your government type. Note that being in an allied city would not count as being outside your borders.

Winning a war or fighting a war where no-one gets killed rarely upsets anyone. Capturing an enemy city would cancel the effect since the territory becomes yours. Most importantly, if you are fighting for a cause your people believe in then hardship, casualties and years of fighting are endured with fortitude even in a liberal democracy.

3) The number of turns a unit is engaged in a war on foreign territory, the more morale they should lose. This would increase the chance of a route or the unit disbanding.

Same as 2. If the unit is still alive, its probably winning. As long as it is getting paid, drunk and laid occasionally then it is unlikely to be unhappy. Loss or gain of culturally important cities might be a better way of affecting unit morale in future Civ games.

4) Unit damage (and unit destruction) should effect both unit morale and Population happiness, as described above.

The reaction is still largely dependent on whether your people believe the cause is right.

5) When you end a war or disband a unit, you should get a bonus for your civ, in terms of of a 2-3 turn productivity and happiness bonus . This has been euphamistically referred to as the "Bringing the Boys Back Home" effect.

This could be severely abusable. The effect of welcoming home victorious troops is wildly different from withdrawing in defeat or after an inconclusive engagement.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Grumbold,

I just thought I'd make a couple of points (mostly clarification), concerning the issues you've raised:

1) The reason that bushels has been suggested for modelling unit cost is as follows:
"x bushels=1population point and 1 pop. point=x people, then 1 bushel=x people"
Thus by assigning units a "bushel" cost, you would in effect be assgining them a cost in "People". As long as these units are stationed in a city, they still contribute to the bushel pool, but once moved out of a city (or a nation?), then the bushels they use would be greyed out. If destroyed, then the bushels disappear. Obviously, if this occurs on a large enough scale, then massive depopulation could occur. Additionally, if you have large numbers of high cost units outside of your borders, then temporary depopulation will occur (just until they are returned). Lastly, a damaged unit should return only a fraction of its original bushel cost if its later disbanded.

2) This was suggested to give units fighting a defensive war a "home-ground advantage" and would only take effect in very protracted conflicts. Obviously city captures and war victories should partially counteract the unhappiness effect of a foreign war. Lastly, advances like Nationalism and Propaganda, as well as government type, should also effect happiness levels during a "Foreign" war(as these make it easier for the government to argue that their war is "Just").

3) I agree, same as 2) above. How "just" the conflict appears, as well as government type, should have an effect unit morale.

4) I'm talking more "Army" scale combat here. Morale should only be effected if a unit has suffered enough damage to take it down to yellow (or even red). In an army, however, if a unit survives, but more than half of its stack has been wiped out, then that units morale should be effected.

5) The happiness bonus you recieve should depend on the circumstances. For example, happiness effects for disbanding a unit should depend on how damaged the unit was at the time. The more damaged, the less bonus (same for production bonus). The number of victories the unit was involved in should also influence the happiness/production bonus your civ recieves. Units disbanded without having engaged in combat should not give any bonus to happiness/production.
Therefore, as an example-happiness/production bonus for disbanding a unit could equal
# of victories for unit-damage to unit at disbanding. Happiness/production bonus for ending a war could equal (# of victories+#of tiles/cities captured)-(# of losses+# of cities/tiles lost) at time of peace declaration.
Lastly, if you are returning a large number of units home, then obviously any lost population points will be regained, leading to an increase in production (which is partly tied into (1) above).

Anyway, I hope these clarifications help to explain my points a bit better.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[Recurve]

If you can program a game to have a realistic populous you could probably also build yourself an android.

Both of which aren't possible at present, of course.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Recurve
If you can program a game to have a realistic populous you could probably also build yourself an android.

Both of which aren't possible at present, of course.

Recurve, may be (I underline it: may be) you miss some good model where posted around here in the past, to model population reaction to war and nation development in general.

They are large scale model, where the general behavior of population can easily been considered as "statistical realistic".

Building an android is a completely different bunch of problems, IMHO.

The limit of "internal affair" proposed is probably that it's a bit too much for game more generalized, as Civilization is: it can't be the best detailed Wargame, nor the better Diplomacy game or the better Merchant game.

We love it so much we have in our eyes too high target for Civ III: as when we left teen-ager unrealistic model of best lovers for us (well, some of us left, at least ), so we are discovering Firaxis trimmed most of our dreams.

A realistic population model seems "killed in action", I'm afraid.

[Chevin]

Now I know I am just going to be trashed for posting this, but after reading the newsletter on this and then some of the following posts I felt I had to say something.

I think the fact that people arn't upset about heavy casualties as a good thing. Particularly since I am a heavy casualty gamer.

I loved Civ I and II for the elements of empire building and conquest. But I was unhappy with having to balance peoples happines in the cities. My games consisted of years of steady building and prepairing. Expanding my empire fist by settlers till I had reached my neighbors borders, then by war once I had used up all my room. I always had to be a fundimentalism when I went to war. My democracy wouldn't stand after I moved 20+ units out of each city.

This was always the funnest part of the game for me, the all out war part.

Now I agree with you guys. If I found the roles of running an empire part of the challenge I think you are right the people should have more to say then. They should be concerned that there sons, daughters, husbands, etc are dying in a war in a distant land in cataclysmic numbers. But I wouldn't enjoy this nearly as much as some of you would. I would find it frustrating that the next version of the game I enjoyed so much was changed so that I can not play it the way I enjoy to play. I would never be able to have a huge campaign of all out war again.

The only solution I can think of to your desires and my desires is to make this kind of a thing based on your Government. SO yes a democracy would be upset by such losses but a comunism wouldn't be.

Just wanted to point out that many people love the same game for differant reasons, and that not all ideas make us all happy.

Have a nice day and forgive my spelling.

Chevin.

[Adm.Naismith]

Chevin, in any decent, or at least half baked, model of population, you should have many tricks to use to press your population to sustain a war.

If you manage to raise your population religion fanatism, you can have a long "holy war".

If you manage to develop a feeling against atrocities, you can have a "international rescue operation".

If you manage internal economic factors, you can fight a commercial war until a war on field is declared on you.

If you develop and sustain terrorism on another country, you had most of the same. Collateral effects are possible (see Afghanistan), but who cares?

In a game sense, every model you add must have enough tools to manage it. Adding thins out of control simply don't add to playability nor to fun.

Any warmonger can be happy. Only it must be a real smart warmonger.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Adm.Naismith is right,

Having a more "realistic" reaction to warfare would by no means make a war impossible or even very difficult. Many factors would influence how well accepted a war is by the population, these factors are:

Government type: Nationalistic, Dictatorial and Theocratic governments are more easily able to fight long wars because of their ability to manipulate or control their populations. Conversely, populations from democratic nations would be more accepting of a war against these types of nations (whether such a war is truly "Just" or not).

Defense vs. offense: Fighting a war in a foreign land, particularly a protracted one, can be tough, especially as the casualties mount. This is very different to a war where you are defending "The Motherland" from an aggressor. Even very high casualties can become acceptable (look at the defense of Stalingrad in WWII). To a lesser extent, this will also apply to defending the nation of a staunch ally.

Success vs. Failure: A war, no matter how unjust, can still be popular with the people if their side is Winning. Victory can be measured in armies/units destroyed and cities/tiles captured. The more you win, the more happy your people become, often to the point where it can overcome the unhappiness caused by starting the war in the first place. Additionally capturing key luxary and resource tiles will also counteract unhappiness!
Conversely, a very just war can quickly become unpopular if your casualties begin to mount!

Propoganda: This is the biggest key to making a war popular, and should be an advance in the game (maybe late 19th to early 20th century). Obviously other techs (like Mass media and Nationalism) will make propoganda more effective, as will certain government types.

Obviously, the way these factors come together will decide how unhappy (or happy) your population will be during a war, and is far more realistic than the "You're a Democracy, so if you move a unit out of your city that city will become unhappy" model used in CivII. Allowing you to manipulate (and be manipulated by) your population.

The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Chevin]

I think I have been misunderstood. And I think I need to point out a few things to help you all understand.

I love Civ II. I still play it to this day. I am looking very forward to Civ III because I am hoping it will have the following things.

Larger maps
More civs per game
more military units to use
a longer tech tree
more resources
more things to build in cities
a simplified way to control your people.

I can't tell you how much I love building up my super war cities. I carefully alter the land around my city to make the most use out of its resources to produce shields. More shields more units!
I have this problem where I am forced to build cathedrals and other structures because the game has a bug in it where your people can become unhappy. These structures are a waste up resources and It infuriates me to have to build them.

Now lets be honest. Your ideas about the role your people should play being more detailed sounds like a pretty good idea. It does in fact make perfect sense that they should be more than just a number.
I will hate the game if they are, but thats besides the point.

Now many of you have probably written me off as a warmongering bloodthirsty moron who can't tie his shoes.

All it seems I like to do in my previous post is kill things and burn cities, (actually it would be nice to burn a city to the ground and thus remove it from the game, but I digress)

I love to manage my land to get those high productions that create good military producing cities.
I love to build forts in strategic positions, and hide airbases close to my enemies.
I love to slowly unfold my plan of conquest moving units to key positions getting poised to strike.
And most of all I love the chaos that follows as my air/land/sea forces let loose on an unsuspecting enemy. I have landed 20 transports of units in a single turn in my attacks. I always trade to my enemies railroad technology so they will have built me a good network of roads to use when my invasion comes.

Now Civ II does support this and despite the drawback of having unhappines there was a quick way around it all, be a fundmentalism. I was happy with this solution because It didn't require I manage anything. I could just wage my war and focus on the fun of the conquest.

I really don't want to have to do something to premeditate a war. Or motivate my people to fight one.

I know this feature is going to be in the game so I yield my ideas and accept that I wont be buying this game after all.

I don't want you all to think I am just trying to flame, I just wanted to offer my opinion and point out that not all of us are interested in managing our people to such detail. And maybe firaxis will make the interface so easy that the extra features will be easy to comprehend at a glance and manage.

I really hoped the new game would add more to the military aspect and less to the social aspect, I was happy about what I am seeing about the military aspect, I am not happy about the social. Please do me and the rest of the warmongers our there a favor and let us turn unhappines for these reasons off.

Thank You

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Chevin,

I for one don't misunderstand you. Like you I have been quite bloodthirsty when playing Civ II but, then again, the AI often doesn't let you do it any other way. Therein lies part of the problem, the ease with which the AI and other players can launch a war against you (often if you're doing TOO well). This is why I want to see a model for conflict which, though not making war too difficult, should at least give people pause (i.e. make them consider all options before going to war!):
1) a better diplomacy system that allows stronger alliances with AI Civ's etc.
2) Better modelling of a populations reactions to protracted or costly wars
3) A system of unit supply and unit attrition that force players and AI's to construct and defend supply structures in enemy territory in order to extend your range of activity.

I think that, if all of these things are included then we warmongers can still have a blood and carnage but, like any real leader, will have to balance this against our long term strategic interests.

The_Aussie_Lurker.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Chevin
I know this feature is going to be in the game so I yield my ideas and accept that I wont be buying this game after all.

What feature?

The feature where people must be happy to fight a war? The feature where we have to gage their opinions much more?

I for one don't believe it is going to be in the game. Sure diplomacy and culture is going to be a bigger part of the game. But Sid said it himself, warmogering quickly became the biggest part of the civ series and with that in mind they are tweaking that aspect of the game. It does not appear to me atleast that it is going to become that much harder to wage war, while I may be wrong, I don't think its going to happen.

Just because someone wrote a column saying he wished it was more realistic and the rest of us feel the same way, means that:

a) Firaxis is going to implement it.
b) It is even possible to implement
c) This opinion was stated early enough for a change to the game

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Actually tniem, I do remember seeing an interview with Firaxis concerning the Diplomacy model for CivIII. They issued a warning about forming Mutual Defense Pacts saying something along the lines of ..."if that Civ is later attacked, and you're not mobilised for war, then your people could get very unhappy". I can't remember the details, but I can see what Chevin might be referring to. It is all very vague, and I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays in the game.
For my part I do hope that CivIII has population models which give the feel of ruling over REAL people (both in War and Peace) and not mere abstractions (ie. population points who occasionally get upset until you build a colluseum et al), but again I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Chevin
Now many of you have probably written me off as a warmongering bloodthirsty moron who can't tie his shoes.

(snipped by me - Adm.)

I don't want you all to think I am just trying to flame, I just wanted to offer my opinion and point out that not all of us are interested in managing our people to such detail. And maybe firaxis will make the interface so easy that the extra features will be easy to comprehend at a glance and manage.

No, I never think of someone here at Apolyton as a moron, as long he/she act within netiquette, as I think you do, politely writing your opinion.
Warmongering in Civ is OK, of course: not my way of playing it, but as correct as any other strategy AFAIK.

I prefer to play pure wargame when I want to wage great detailed battles, Civ (or SMAC) when I want to play as a great leader, but it's only a matter of personal preference.

You aren't flaming anyone, IMO. Don't worry!

[Recurve]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
3) A system of unit supply and unit attrition that force players and AI's to construct and defend supply structures in enemy territory in order to extend your range of activity.
The_Aussie_Lurker.

I love the idea of logistics, but how could you introduce such a system without harming playability? You've got me thinking (a painful experience).

Your Propaganda advance would also be a nice touch - to take it one step further, this advance could activate a Menu (nothing too complicated) so you could tweak the nature of the message going out (like Stalin did). Or you could leave it to the appropriate AI Adviser.

If you've just lost a few thousand men in battle you could intensify the message to help prevent unrest, but take the Propaganda too far and your people will cease to believe you (mass unrest at home and poor morale on the battlefield).

But I believe it should be available from around 1 AD, not the 19th century (Octavian launched a very successful propaganda campaign against Anthony/Cleopatra).

[Recurve]

Originally posted by Chevin
Larger maps
More civs per game
more military units to use
a longer tech tree
more resources
more things to build in cities

Too right Chevin. Let's have more of all of the above (I notice you listed map size first).

For your sake I hope there will be an option that curtails the social aspect, but I doubt it very much. I reckon you'll adapt to whatever Civ3 throws at you and find an effective way of keeping the people down (consider it a challange).

If you choose an icon for your name, make it a leather boot!

[Zealot]

I think that the Demographics should help us to see if we have a balanced civ. Civ 2's demographics were pretty incorrect and useless.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Recurve,

Thanks for the feedback. I just thought I'd explain my views on unit supply and attrition to you, so you can see that they need not effect playability. If you have any further questions after this, I'd be happy to answer them.

Basically, units would have a Range stat. This would be the number of hexes they can go into enemy/unknown territory (the range would be measured from your nearest border/city). If you exceed this range, then your unit begins to Immediately (ie. that turn) lose HP's (probably based on a formula like: # of hexes*turn length(years)*maintainance index(eg tanks require more maintainance than foot-soldiers)). Obviously HP loss would also effect Firepower, Morale, Attack strength etc. Civilian and Spec Ops units would have the highest range, and mechanized units would have the shortest, and range would be modified by terrain in the same way as movement.
"How do you increase a units range so you can continue your invasion?" I hear you ask: there a 2 ways: 1) Capture and subdue an enemy city with at least 1 barracks and 1 granary or 2) Build a fortress in enemy territory and connect it to a friendly city by a road/RR (this fortress becomes a de-facto supply depot). Obviously the deeper you penetrate into enemy territory, the longer (and more vulnerable) your supply lines become. This makes capturing cities close to your border vital, even if they have no greater strategic significance because, if a supply fortress or its connecting road/RR are destroyed or captured, then your units will start to suffer the range penalty mentioned above (which is what happened to Napolean on his trek to Moscow!).
Anyway, thats my idea in a nutshell, I'd be interested to hear what you think.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Recurve]

Hi Aussie_Lurker

Yeah, sounds like a very workable model indeed. It wouldn’t interrupt the gameplay in any way, and would be simple to introduce.

You’d be forced to secure your lines of communication, particularly in a large territory (I also refer to Moscow). This would make units like Partisans far more potent (blow away a few bridges and your units will suffer big time). With the shoe on the other foot, you could blow your own bridges, remove sections or road (wait there)?!? Coming to think of it, this system wouldn’t work if you could take away whole sections of road instantly, as is the case now. But of course you could fix that by making pillaging take 2-3-4 turns (as long as it took to build the improvement in the first place maybe). But bridges could be blown instantly!

In any case, the system you propose is workable and would enhance gameplay tremendously. I only hope someone from Firaxis has stumbled on the same idea!

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Recurve,
Actually, the model is still workable if the following changes were made to the movement system:

1) Give all units MORE MP's, especially at the beginning of the game (This won't unbalance the game, as your units will be limited by their range).

2) Make building and pillaging cost MP's instead of taking multiple turns (eg. a mine might cost 3 MP's to build, instead of 3 turns).Each additional unit helping out will reduce the MP cost (but never below 1 MP).

3) Split the turn up into 3 phases: Movement, action, finish movement. Basically everyone moves. Then combat and other actions are performed and lastly, any units with MP's remaining can finish moving.

Anyway, Again I'd be interested to hear what you think of this.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[Grumbold]

I don't want to make a huge post so i shall keep to only one point

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
1) The reason that bushels has been suggested for modelling unit cost is as follows:
"x bushels=1population point and 1 pop. point=x people, then 1 bushel=x people"

One of the key problems is that the number of people supported by a bushel changes dramatically as the game progresses. A '1 bushel' unit would represent vast quantities of people in later eras. If the game used actual population numbers rather than 'heads' and the scale remained linear then it would be much easier to devise as good support and morale model.

[Recurve]

Hi Aussie_Lurker

I will have to engage my brain on this one.

[Mech Assassin]

I really think, there should be a difference between offensive and defensive war. I mean, who would not be willing to defend their country (from Nazi Germany in WW2 for example).

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Recurve
Hi Aussie_Lurker

I will have to engage my brain on this one.

Gee Recurve, your brain really need a vacation! It's been seven days, and you still didn't post your oppinion!

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Again,

Grumbold says that the problem with using bushels to model the cost of military units is that each bushel supports a different number of people in different eras.
I don't see this as being a problem, as you'd simply have units in modern eras cost less (in bushels), than a similarly sized ancient/medieval unit-problem solved!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker