The 3rd best thing that Civ never had: The x10 system

Maniac · March 8, 2000, 14:52

Great idea, Joker!

Maniac · March 8, 2000, 14:57

By the way, three months ago, between two and three o'clock at night, walking back and forth, I worked out a new and accurate population/resources system in my mind, but unfortunately, I have forgotten most of it by now...

PS: I haven't really done anything to deserve the title 'legendary'. Infamous and notorious would be better descriptions, I think.

M@ni@c

[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited March 08, 2000).]

Xin Yu · March 8, 2000, 15:07

That's a fine idea. How about make it 12? Twelve workers can work on a square, and when you put the 13th on, one of them will betray you (JK).

Maniac · March 8, 2000, 15:10

Great! I always wanted to have a tooth-smiling face!

The Joker · March 9, 2000, 01:44

This system was used a lot beck when we discussed our SE models. But now it seems to be more or less forgotten, which is a huge shame, as it could make Civ3 a much better game. The legendary Civer M@ni@c was the first to introduce it (at least for me), so why not quote him when describing it:

"The x10 system means that everything will be ten times bigger. That means that now a grassland would produce 20 food instead of 2, but citizens should also need 20 food every turn. Same for labor/resources and trade. Trade x10 means also taxes, science and luxuries x10. After a while becomes clear that x10 has numerous applications. For example you can have techs that increase your overall food production of squares with 10%. Or you can give units a different support, so you can show the difference between Riflemen and Tank support. Now you can represent that units need food and gold as their pay. In short, there are many applications and therefore I think x10 must be in Civ3."

Besides this I think that we could have population done x10 too! This would mean that each population would create the same amount of ressources as it did before, but you can now have up to 10 workers on the same square. This would make it possible to have realistic population growth, as it could be done more dynamically in stead of in steps, and, most important, it could make it possible for units to take population out of the city in which it was built.

I originally wanted a population that was completely analogue and no map squares, but this i propably too revolutionary. This gives most of the advantages of the analogue population plus the playability and ease of the old population model.

What do you think?

NoviceCEO · March 11, 2000, 18:09

I'm with you. "x10ing" everything will give us more realistic numbers. I always hated the fusion power in smac (doubles all units strength and lowers the cost with a single damn tech).

I've posted something sometime ago critiscizing the use of integer-numbers only. I would also enjoy a totally analog system, but if can't be done, give us the x10!

VetLegion · March 12, 2000, 20:51

CTP has this x10 system. I believe it is working fine.

MadWoodster · March 13, 2000, 12:24

CTP's 10x system made it alot more playable though they didn't do the citizen idea that sounds great though.

Sirotnikov · March 13, 2000, 18:36

I also support the x10 idea, which will let fine differences to be expressed. It would also make possible eliminating wierd things like phalanx killing a tank. phalanx would have not 20 but 5 defence, which will be ok since units in his period will have 5 - 15 attack. but a tank, will have 100 attack, so that no early unit could survive. Mech inf. will have 60.

I really want that.

S. Kroeze · May 21, 2000, 05:13

I have never proclaimed my adherence to this ×10 system. I guess late is better than never!

quote:

"The x10 system means that everything will be ten times bigger. That means that now a grassland would produce 20 food instead of 2, but citizens should also need 20 food every turn. Same for labor/resources and trade. Trade x10 means also taxes, science and luxuries x10. After a while becomes clear that x10 has numerous applications. For example you can have techs that increase your overall food production of squares with 10%. Or you can give units a different support, so you can show the difference between Riflemen and Tank support. Now you can represent that units need food and gold as their pay. In short, there are many applications and therefore I think x10 must be in Civ3."

Besides this I think that we could have population done x10 too! This would mean that each population would create the same amount of ressources as it did before, but you can now have up to 10 workers on the same square. This would make it possible to have realistic population growth, as it could be done more dynamically in stead of in steps, and, most important, it could make it possible for units to take population out of the city in which it was built."

I still pray for the day the 21-square model will finally be abolished. Until then this ×10 system could solve many of the present problems. Population should be counted in numbers, NOT in heads!

Stuff2 · May 21, 2000, 11:36

Why not x16? Hexadecimal systems are very easy for the computer to handle.

Par4 · May 21, 2000, 13:03

Hey I like this idea. You could also use it to show how much of the population of that city is in the military, or other things, could be a demographic, cities with largest enlistment % and more realistic pop numbers. Also the game could have region populations(if we get regions, look city-village thread) that count the little cities around your big central city which reflect how much food and stuff you can collect.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

Akron · May 24, 2000, 22:01

I agree. It would make nearly everything better. It would also really help in showing ethnicity and religion, which will be much more important (I hope) in civ 3. But how exactly will the population heads work? It civ 2, the first head counts as 10,000, the next as 20,000 and so forth. Though that helps to crunch the numbers, is it really the right thing? It doesn't allow for certain things to be displayed correctly, such as ethnicity and religion, and other citizen specific things. Maybe if every pop head was to be counted as a flat 10,000, it would work better. But then we'd be having cities of 10,000,000 using 1000 pop heads! That could be a problem. But extending it to 100,000 per pop head would be bad too, as early cities never had so many people. Then again, maybe just using charts and graphs to display stuff like ethnicity, happiness, and religion might be best.

I agree, allowing 10 population guys to one tile would be cool too.

Par4 · May 24, 2000, 23:30

I'm thinking of a head for each type of person, and there could be different overlays, ie press people and it goes into religion or ethnicity/race or press money jobs and income, class(lower middle upper) maybe employeer(like the corporation or government or small business/self empolyed/unemployed). Under the heads would be number and above could be total number of people in that group or the city.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

Seeker · May 25, 2000, 01:04

Maybe the ancient heads could be 1000s and the modern heads are 10000s??

tniem · May 27, 2000, 13:00

If the 10x system is used then you wouldn't need heads instead you would have 46% of the population in a city farming, 25% in factories and other buisinesses, 17% researching in local facilities, 10% youth in school and at home, and 2% retired in nursing homes. Just a thought.

Theben · May 27, 2000, 16:59

quote:

Originally posted by tniem on 05-27-2000 01:00 PM
If the 10x system is used then you wouldn't need heads instead you would have 46% of the population in a city farming, 25% in factories and other buisinesses, 17% researching in local facilities, 10% youth in school and at home, and 2% retired in nursing homes. Just a thought.

True...but consider that the entire game (and most games) are just heaps of percentages compared against each other. The graphics are what makes the game player-friendly. As for the heads themselves, I had envisioned racially identifiable faces (race) with various styles of dress on the head & bust (culture & tech advancement) and a symbol over the head (noting religion).

That's MY thought.

p.s. Yes, notorious is the most accurate definition of Mani@c.

The Joker · May 29, 2000, 07:39

Sorry, double post.
[This message has been edited by The Joker (edited May 29, 2000).]

The Joker · May 29, 2000, 07:40

I like Tniem's idea. Ideally I would like to have the heads and the city ressource management completely replaced with something new, in which you wouldn't have to micromanage a lot of heads to the squares they work best, but simply lay out the overall strategy (like having 20% of the pop producing food, 40% producing stuff in the factories, 10% getting energy and 20% making trade and 10% researching), and then the game itself would put the people at where they would do most good.

I would like to completely loose the 21 squares system, and possibly having a nongrid world (spherical of cause) in stead.

PS: Ok, notorious is the best describtion of Maniac!

Az · June 1, 2000, 04:36

quote:

Originally posted by Seeker on 05-25-2000 01:04 AM
Maybe the ancient heads could be 1000s and the modern heads are 10000s??

well , no , I dont think so . I remember those jumps from 20 million to 200 million in CTP . didn't like it AT ALL !!

but the other ideas are really nice . and when the heads will be replaced by that percentage. much more realistic .

great Ideas guys plz keep posting.

------------------
Prepare to Land !

Maniac · June 3, 2000, 15:59

For those of you interested in a new and better population system, check out my new thread!