Wish list for CTP2(future Mods)

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann
Yeah that is a really interesting thing, another idea: If you don't have montians or hills in your empire than sorry for you no stone working. That would be terrain dependent techs. It is true that this would require a new tech tree. As it would need a lot of auxilery techs that you get for having a good in your borders that can be checked over the CityCollectingGood function if the good is not traded otherwise I can check all the terrain tiles around the city, maybe the city[0] array can be used as loaction (city radius), that would make things easier, forts surroundings could be checked if the fort is finished.

Probably the only place its difficult to find stone is sand-dune desert, but if we were to be specific - use hill/mountains as holding stone, then maybe stoneworking shouldn't be such a big thing? The ancient Iraqi civ(someone help me), built mostly with mud-brick and they built one of the ancient wonders(Ziggurt thing), any stone or wood they used needed to be imported from afar. In fact without stone/wood they had one of the most advanced civs at that time(the most advanced?). But maybe a small change to the tech-tree would be needed to impliment this kind of thing. So instead of just stoneworking to be able to build structures like pyramids/greatwalls you could research Mud-Brick as well? Or maybe allow Stone to be findable on all tiles(bar sea)?
And for city area's for these goods to be available, could it be extended to your civs borders and work in the same way, that way you won't be too restricted in choseing your city site(but maybe this would be a good thing?). The fort thing sounds good too, if there was a specific thing you wanted outside of your borders you could use the forts Zone of control to gain control of that good/tile(sounds alot like Civ3's colony thing)? The thing that is nice about all this(if it can be worked out) is that balanced well it will add a big slice of strategy to the game, not to mention a bit more realism(and less of the one oil deposit on the whole map like in Civ3 ,maybe this is fixed, i haven't checked in a week or so?).

[Harovan]

What sense makes adding strategic resources, if everybody has everything? Resources like oil and uranium are scarce as a matter of fact, and very unevenly spread over the surface. Why else the gulf states are swimming in oil while other countries have none? I have yet to see a Civ3 game (and I've seen a lot of them) where I can't acquire all 8 resources in one or the other way.

It's a lot a matter of map settings too. Of course, who choses "warm/wet" as map setting to have maximum grassland, shouldn't wonder why desert resources like oil are especially scarce.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
What sense makes adding strategic resources, if everybody has everything? Resources like oil and uranium are scarce as a matter of fact, and very unevenly spread over the surface. Why else the gulf states are swimming in oil while other countries have none?

Well certain resources are very common; wood/stone for example and others aren't like oil(although quite a few countries do have oil, even us(U.K)!)/Uranium. In terms of using CTP2's current trade good placement IMHO this is a well representitive system of resource placement. At the momment it's a bit speculative cause i haven't done a complete resource to techtree list, although a few of the early ones like requireing advance 'metalworking' + an ore deposit(either tile improvement or trade good) + advance 'mining' (and maybe a mine placed on the ore resource?) ,would be a prerequisite for building a Hoplite/Phalanx type of unit.
It could be a very complex system(i'd like it to be), but the hardist part i'm sure will be getting the AI to use it properly and trying to get it in the Diplomacy system, so it might have to be simple. The idea is not to penalise a developing civ, just add a stategic angle that the player and AI can take advantage of. So for example, you want to stop the agressive mongolian empire building more mounted archers that he keeps sending to pillage in your lands, so you invade his city with the Horse(?) resource. He may well expand to another location with horses(or trade for them?), so you only stop him in the short term, but the resources are not so rare that you will only ever have a few items of one kind on the map(the U.S. produces it's own oil right, as does russia etc,etc)
So on that track when i hear stories of 1 oil resource on a Civ3 map - and nobody can get hold of it(bar 1civ), so nobody can build tanks - that IMO is the wrong way to impliment it, it just makes people restart the game.Your experience may be different, but alot of people were(and still are last time i looked)not very happy when put in this situation.
There is a good thread on Strategic resources and adding culture here

[Aqtaca]

Guys, i am astonished by the precision you wish to achieve, and i want to help you in this project.
I'm not a programmer, so i'll just be giving the ideas.

1. Slavery
-victory enslavement
first of all, drop that whole slaver/slavemaster/whatever idea-it's completely wrong in this case- all military units apart from ranged and artillerical should be able to achieve enslavement.

secondly, i must make a digression here, concerning the building of units.

to make a unit, you need more than resources for equipment- you need HUMANS. Constructing a unit would drain some of human population from the city. (Until the emancipation act is proclaimed, only men could be conscripted- meaning you have only half of the population at conscripting disposal unitil then ). After the battle, damage inflicted upon a unit could be repaired by conscripting more people either from a nearest city or from a homecity or anycity.

now, after the battle, the victorious side would take prisoners from ALL defeated units, let's say 10% from menpower which certain defeated unit had prior to entering the battle.
So, now we have a number of prisoners; instead of adding automaticaly 10000 slaves to the nearest city even if the defeated unit was a diplomat or spy.
further more, the victor would get the report of the captured enemies and would be able to decide how many of them would he kill, how many to spare and release (hey, why not show mercyful to the enemy people-propaganda) and how many would he sent as slaves to ANY city in his empire he prefers, not the nearest one (i always hated that rule in the game).

These slaves would be the ones of state, the player could liberate them if he wished to or sell them to slave market, where he would get money for selling them , but would also lose any control over them. Of course, slaves made in victoryenslavement way would have to be men. This means introducing the category of sexes into game... can you do it?

-slavery by slavers
here we need slavers. they could attack cities... harvesting men, women and children, but i suggest we create it as a merchant unit specialized in buying humans in foreign lands. This was what happened in Africa in 16th-19th century.
Also, when enemy city falls, no matter of it's size , wealth,... the player should be given option to raze it to the ground, pillage and again enslave the population. and again choose how many of the captives and which ones to spare, to kill, to enslave.

I must dissapoint you, but the ancient civilizations didn't have vast ammounts of slaves. Egypt, Persia, Sumeria, Hittetes,... in none of them did the number of slaves pass 20% of total population. Greek polises and Roman empire were the ones who introduced vast numbers of slaves.
And slavery lived even in the christian Europe, and again got it's massiveness in the form of slavery in South America.
Also, emancipation act should be proclaimed by each civilization separetely. Slavery wasn't over in Britain when it was in France or in US when it was in Britain or in South America when it was in US...

i'm going to stop now about slavery and shut up, as i am still a rookie on this forum

[Aqtaca]

a slight correction
when i first mentioned emancipation act in my post up

to make a unit, you need more than resources for equipment- you need HUMANS. Constructing a unit would drain some of human population from the city. (Until the emancipation act is proclaimed, only men could be conscripted- meaning you have only half of the population at conscripting disposal unitil then ).

here, emancipation act is the one that proclaimed equality of sexes, not the one that proclaimed freedom of slaves

[Bluevoss]

If you played one of the earlier MedMods, most of the early units were slavers. And guess what - after a quick round of combat, most cities grew to emense sizes. You had size 15 cities with before 3000bc. It so unballance the game that I took the insto-slave function back out in my version.

I rather like the idea of slavery as presented in the game. One assumes that an army that is willing to take slaves would be equipted as such (slavemasters). Not all armies too them, to the slavermaster is a good way to determine if yours will or not.

One of the better suggestions I've heard is the idea of turning the city that you destroy into a nomad, simulating the ability of conquring armies to march the crushed people into "bondage". The Egyptians and Babalonians were famous for doing this.

[Pedrunn]

Originally posted by Aqtaca
to make a unit, you need more than resources for equipment- you need HUMANS. Constructing a unit would drain some of human population from the city.

A little patient this concpt is already added in my Absolute State v2.0 mod. While building units remove pop disbading adds pop for infantry, archers and mounted units (Eg. this wont happen with ships, aircrafts, cannons or tanks).
Wich is in play test, balancing and small changes needed phase.

Originally posted by Aqtaca
now, after the battle, the victorious side would take prisoners from ALL defeated units, let's say 10% from menpower which certain defeated unit had prior to entering the battle.
So, now we have a number of prisoners; instead of adding automaticaly 10000 slaves to the nearest city even if the defeated unit was a diplomat or spy.

Although it isnt completely correct i gave all infantry and mounted units until the the industrial age the ability of victory enslavment wich gives 10000 (a pop) for battle.

Originally posted by Aqtaca
-slavery by slavers
here we need slavers. they could attack cities... harvesting men, women and children, but i suggest we create it as a merchant unit specialized in buying humans in foreign lands. This was what happened in Africa in 16th-19th century.

Good point. Maybe someone could make the code to add this order (see "new orders" thread). And it should be used by the regular slave unit.

Originally posted by Aqtaca
Also, when enemy city falls, no matter of it's size , wealth,... the player should be given option to raze it to the ground, pillage and again enslave the population. and again choose how many of the captives and which ones to spare, to kill, to enslave.

Martin Guhman already added this option but i am a bit reluctant because the AI cant use it and even if it could we would need a new code to teach them.

Originally posted by Aqtaca
i'm going to stop now about slavery and shut up, as i am still a rookie on this forum

Please dont. We do want to hear your idea. As Montesquieu would say
"I may not agree with nothing you are saying but i will fight for death so that you have the right to say it"
(Sorry if it isnt correctly translated from Portuguese)

[Bluevoss]

One thing to consider about units and reduction of population-

Most armies are made up of young people. For example, WW1, the average was 18 or 19 (I suppose). Really, you need to find people who are fit, can carry a rifle and pack all day, but quite frankly, are optomistic about charging machine guns.

My wandering point is that the population used for units is probably NOT the same population that provides manufacting and production capabilites in a society (the craftsmen and welders, all who have learned their skills, and who tend to be about 25-40).

Two points of issue come up with this-

1) Societies are differrent. I figure that the age for a Spartan formation would be different than the age of a platoon in Vietnam. When you are trying to come up with hard-n-fast rules over history (taking into account societies, governments, situations, etc) there is little that will hold true in every case.

2) There is a limit to how many people can go under arms. Prolonged wars tend to drain societies "white". Britain and Germany, after WW1, found themselves "missing" a generation, with so many members of the youthful generation killed or maimed.

I don't know if this is simulatable or fixable beyond unit costs - about the only thing you might do is increase a unit cost as more and more men are placed into service. I.e. the first unit might take '3' turns to build, the next '4', then '5'.
Or, you could make it so that as you build more units, your production drops (as more and more craftsmen go into service).

Interesting, indeed.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Pedrunn
Martin Gu[e]hman[n] already added this option but i am a bit reluctant because the AI cant use it and even if it could we would need a new code to teach them.

Actual this would be easy to do, it is just a question wheather the go over the city limit if it adds this city to its empire. So if the AI is over the city limit slavery in acient times and resettlement in modern times. Actual I thought this code addition is not necessary, or did you ever see an AI that hit the city limit.

Originally posted by Bluevoss
Or, you could make it so that as you build more units, your production drops (as more and more craftsmen go into service).

Actual this concept is already in the game, because you pay your army maintance in global production. (In Civ2 every city sopports its units with production shield loacally, until I build enough cities to give all of my units the city owner none.)

-Martin

[Bluevoss]

It might be in the game, but you hardly feel it. I've never had so many units out that I felt like I was digging into older populations to man my legions.

Still, I guess it could be boosted. I'm fine with it, myself...

[Aqtaca]

I like the generation idea in the army.
That way, when army is out of town, industry stagnates, as only these young people can work.
But when army is back in it's city, it's not required to dispand them. They can be sentineled or smth. And when we wish to activate them, they are again reduced from city.

But this whole generation idea seems so complicated. Not just to make it happen, but in the game. I think it would require too much of player's attention.

[Aqtaca]

And how do you people insert those little images right under your username????

[Harovan]

They are called Avatars and available under control panel/Edit Options. Check the link row at top of this page. You can choose a default Avatar there, when you have up to 499 posts, and upload a custom one from 500 upward.

[The Big Mc]

just to see if anybody’s interested because I know you lot are after some changes to the map editor I found a way of changing the cheat mode button on the menu to editor makes my feel allot better as it is not like cheating at all

[child of Thor]

Big MC, just because you can fool yourself you are not cheating, doesn't mean you can fool everyone else!!!!
I like it

EDIT: OK i know its not for playing the game - it just made me laugh!

[child of Thor]

Slavery
This one really troubles me. I don't like to use it my games(moral grounds - nothing else), but i usually do a bit of it(especially if some civ enslaved me first.
Nearly all ancient civs/peoples used slaves of some sort or another - it was almost vital to ancient man it seems. MiddleEast,America's,Europe,Africa,Asia (don't know about Aborigonal Australia?) all ruleing people's in these area's used slaves. So it's a huge part of early civillised mankind. And it has huge repercussions, that i feel aren't powerfully enough expressed in the game. It doesn't seem to make too a huge a difference when The Emancipation Act happens. In the games i've played all that happens is maybe a bit of revolution in a few cities of the most slave crazy nations. I've never seen a civ ripped apart by revolt, which has happened on the odd occasion. How a people once enslaved view their oppressors is important(at the risk of massive oversimplification), the MiddleEast conflict is a case in point that can trace its origins to slavery on a large scale by the egyptian Pharohs. I think any nation(within the game) that undertakes mass-slavery as a means to get-ahead should suffer permanent loss of regard with the enslaved civ. I'll continue this some more later.

[Bluevoss]

Thor,

The problem is, outside of America (and THIS is only becuase we've gotten to an age where PR and media drive a number of issues) slavery did not have far reaching effects. Most of the time, slaves were eventually absorbed into the host civilization.

Where are the Phoenicians? The Carthigians? All were destroyed by other civilizations, the survivors sold into slavery and scattered to other cities, absorbed in a number of generations. There are no hard feelings becuase, after a number of generations, the former-slaves no longer associate with their former nations. They are too busy getting ahead in their "homeland".

As for the Jews in Egypt, one has to be very careful to determine what is myth, and what is reality. There is a growing belief that a lot of the "slavery" was simply labor looking for someplace to be used (Canaan being a poor region, while Egypt was opulant in wealth and food). As for the Exidous, its getting harder and harder to pin down just when that happened.

The worst case of slavery I can think of were the Germans "enslaving" Eastern Europian Jews, and the Russians "enslaving" German military units. In the former case, there is still the echo of a discussion taking place, in the second, there is little if anything about it.

As an twenty-first century citizen, I am discusted by the thought of slavery. But playing a simulation of the ancient world, I'll engage in it whenever possible. Hats off to Activision for putting this needed historic aspect into the game.

[Pedrunn]

Actually the emancipation act in real life started (was build) with the Americans in 1776 and had effect until about 1830's when the Latin America became independent and freed their slaves (Except for sme countries like Brazil) influenced by the neighbors from the north and the French Revolution. So i do think there was a revolution and it did expand. Maybe beeing one turn like it is represented by the game is unrealist yet effective and close to represent what happened.

[The Big Mc]

Well I also think activsion did a good job putting slaves in ( I am putting the future version in my mod androids). witch you can make your self or steel them form your enemies

I would love to see the underwater terrain take off like activsion intended with changing deep see to shallow and vies versa . activsion put in a fifth tile imp box but I cant seam to get it to work right)

I am also working on a mine I found in the ctp1 zfs files could be good

But manly my moding is slowing down for a bit because it is exam time over here

[Aqtaca]

I disagree, Pedrunn on this matter. Slavery worldwide can't be ended by just one nation proclaiming freedom to it's slaves.

It even can't be ended in one civilizaton without a conflict- look what happened to US when Lincoln proclaimed freedom to all slaves. A civil war between South whose cities had huge numbers of slaves and North who had already become industrial land. A conflict of interests.

Aborigines didn't have slavery because their level of culture and society were on the level of 5000 BC Europe/Near East.
As we call it in archaeology, "Tribalo-clanic community". All members in that community were equal in rights and property was communal. In time, private property came to be and soon you had class of the rich exploitors and class of the poor exploitees. Not to waste your time any longer, as this has nothing to do with what we are trying to achieve here.

I am OK with it in the game. but i do mind i can get 10000 slaves from a victory (when i have slavemaster) whether i destroyed an army of 12 hoplites or 1 Prophet. It's ridiculous! 10000 is an unreasonably high number of slaves unless i enslave populations.
From army i can't get more than 5000, and i'm talking about 12 sized army.
I want to have enforced resettlement- and once i destroy a city, i want to get nomad units. Also, we should have an option of transporting population from one city to another, and an option where a settler can be added to a city.

Now, when we enter the age of "enlightment", when slavery is banned, exploatation of foreign lands doesn't have to stop- we can import immigrants. France does, Germany does, so why shouldn't my Aztecs? Basicaly, slavery transcends into " more refined means of exploatation". What a eufemism!

Have you guys thought of what i was saying about exploiting resources beyond your area of control with a unit we would borrow from Alpha Centauri or by building a colony.

Also, a new idea struck me yestreday while i was building my house in forest- i was eaten alive by mosquitos.
We should introduce terrain influence to units. You can't have an army marching through infernal desert without a drop of water for 50 years and when (if) they get out, they are 100% healthy.
Same goes for mountains, swamps, jungles and glaciers/tundras.
they would freeze, die of malaria. that was in civ 3 as well, just with cities and settler units.

[The Big Mc]

Hi

for the resources collecting felicity how about getting the old trading station to do it
you billed it as a tile imp but it also has a small zone of control.

[Pedrunn]

Originally posted by Aqtaca
I disagree, Pedrunn on this matter. Slavery worldwide can't be ended by just one nation proclaiming freedom to it's slaves.

It even can't be ended in one civilizaton without a conflict- look what happened to US when Lincoln proclaimed freedom to all slaves. A civil war between South whose cities had huge numbers of slaves and North who had already become industrial land. A conflict of interests.

Maybe, but the US independence did influenced other countries to proclame independence therefore, not to mention the Monroe Doutrine where the kind of "sponsored" those.
The independence of the Latin America was a process the took a few decades to complete (if you exclude excepcion lik Cuba) and had influenced by many factors wich mostly was the sucess of the Iluminist Doutrines in US.

Originally posted by Aqtaca
I am OK with it in the game. but i do mind i can get 10000 slaves from a victory (when i have slavemaster) whether i destroyed an army of 12 hoplites or 1 Prophet. It's ridiculous! 10000 is an unreasonably high number of slaves unless i enslave populations.
From army i can't get more than 5000, and i'm talking about 12 sized army.
I want to have enforced resettlement- and once i destroy a city, i want to get nomad units. Also, we should have an option of transporting population from one city to another, and an option where a settler can be added to a city.

Actually for my mod i think the 10000 pop count too exagerate i am looking a way to set this count to 1000. I am still looking for a way to implement this.

Originally posted by Aqtaca
Have you guys thought of what i was saying about exploiting resources beyond your area of control with a unit we would borrow from Alpha Centauri or by building a colony.

I know how to implement the colony idea quite easy. We just need a code to teach the AI how to use it and make cities with size 0 impossible to receive slaves.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Aqtaca
Also, a new idea struck me yestreday while i was building my house in forest- i was eaten alive by mosquitos.
We should introduce terrain influence to units. You can't have an army marching through infernal desert without a drop of water for 50 years and when (if) they get out, they are 100% healthy.
Same goes for mountains, swamps, jungles and glaciers/tundras.
they would freeze, die of malaria. that was in civ 3 as well, just with cities and settler units.

There's also a chance in Civ3 that military units die of disease, if you leave them on a jungle or floodplain tile, although it's not big (would be annoying). The cultural assimilation of foreign citizens (in captured cities or from added foreign workers) depending from the government works also nicely. This is certainly something CtP2 could learn from Civ3.

[The Big Mc]

I did not know you could get slave from a battle.

Could this be extended to a prize system a infantry kills a canon you lose the infantry and get the canon ( if you have the advance)

[Bluevoss]

A little change in direction here -

Something I'd like to see is the deplomacy in the game enhanced. I understand that (for reasons of keeping pressure on the play) everyone pretty much hates your guts.

What I think the game really neads (for playballence) would be a way that if you were small, everyone pretty much likes you (there should still be a chance that another nation just hates you and crushes you for no reason). When you are small, you should have a good chance of getting map exhanges and treaties out of similar-sized nations. As you get larger, nations should be more and more atagonistic (to keep you from running away with the game).

I just wish there was some way that you COULD get a diplomatic victory under new mods like Cradle.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by The Big Mc
activsion put in a fifth tile imp box but I cant seam to get it to work right)

The fith tile imp box is only as an outcomented piece of code in the *.ldl file present. There is no sign of it in the ctp2.exe, so they never tried to implemented it, it was just on the design sheet, I guess it was intended for ocean terraforming.

-Martin

[child of Thor]

Slavery continued

Ok.Good points.
Aqtaca, i like that idea of transportation of population, wonder how or what you would need to do that in the game?Maybe the cities with the best facilities would attrack more of this 'transient' population(a small percentage of worldpop?) and be more likely to migrateto these cities?
Or if you wanted to just send x amount of population within your own empire, what is the best way to do this? Say the pretext was a massive earthquake that halved pop in city A so you send 20,000(2 pop points) from city B to help the damaged city recover quicker. This would be fine but it would in reality be a very traumatic time for those citizens who are nominated to up sticks and leave - what would be their incentive to do this(apart from the mad dictator forcing them?), should the happiness be reduced, should it be very expensive to do?what kind of costs should be involved to just stop the player from abuseing this to just pump his pop around to crank up his production?

World wide slavery i don't know much about. But I know for example that slaves were taken on a small indivdual scale by nearly all ancient british folk(Celts/Britons).(and vikings used to enslave people from their 'holiday' journeys.Thralls, bondsmen/bondswomen). The romans in turn enslaved the Britons etc etc. It was a usefull source of 'production' when you lived in smallish, clan based settlements. It was also seen as a status symbol. With these peoples you were often 'born' into servitude, and traded as such. This practice(at least in the U.K, and probably europe too), was around for a long time, really right up untill the discovery of the New world when there was a marked shift in slavery and of course the Slave Trade of the Africa's to the new colony's.
Slavery was widespread since at least 2000bc in UK(slave burials with important persons) and probably earlier right up untill the start of the American Civil war. So i know it happend here(western europe) on a very wide scale('Thrall' status is written in Viking law).
So yes it needs to be in the game(and is). I feel it just needs more pressence on the game.

1. It should be much harder to keep a city happy that has a high proportion of slaves.

2. Riots/rebellion much higher frequency of happening in slave cities.On that note corruption/crime?

3. Higher garrison requirements for slave cities.

4. Permanent effect on any nation you slave against(and vice versa) doesn't have to be massive. I don't forgive the english what they did to my countrymen, doesn't mean i want to kill them all though (scots and irish feel the same)

5. Lowering of regard from other neighbour nations if you take slaves(unless they do also?).

6. No slaves from battle - only a combat unit(weakest type - press ganged,no real will to fight?)

7. No automatic slaves from cityconquest(but an option like 'absorb' and comparable regard agustmens) just a nomad.

8. So the only way to get slaves is buy actively getting them from cities with i guess the slaver unit?

In the game if you decide to be an out and out slave maniac its really very easy to get too(IMO)powerfull from it, so some real 'problems' to being a slaveing nation need to be thought about,and a way to make this apply for the AI as well.

like the 'degrading' of troops out in the field along time - i know that should be a factor, its realistic(and strategic!). Maybe should have a limit to how much damage is taken, so they get to a weakend state but don't just drop dead at some point?

Diplomacy does need some balancing, but its been very hard for the modders to get a decent, competitive game in single player - and this has been a casualty of that to some extent. That's why i love MP - its much more realistic(and frustrating - no more little tricks to get your way!). Still Peter is looking at this so we will have to see what can be done. It's probably one of the biggest things that can make a difference to this game.fingers crossed

[Bluevoss]

I think its hard (in reality) to actually "move" people from one city to another. Regardless of disasters, its usually more trouble than its worth to pick up a portion of a population and shift it to another city. For one thing - a city is an integrated unit, and by pulling out (say) 20%, you probably damage the cities output by 40% (or more).

For example, as ruler, you decide that you want to shift people to a war-torn city. You give the order to each of your commanders to gather so many citizens for the move. And you know how that works - eventually some flunky in charge of a squad lazily clears out one street out of his 10 block detail - at thats it for "The Street of Bakers". With no bakeries, that part of the city falls into poverty and ruin fairly quickly. The ruler ends up moving populations back to make up for those killed in riots.

Really, the only times I can remember mass-migrations of people from one place to another, its generally at the end of a spear/gun.

One of the better suggestions I've read was to tie population to happyness. If you have a large city but can keep it happy, people will still move there. But if there are riots more and more frequently, people will not come there (or will leave). That would give a greater reason to keep your empire happier than the usual "Just above riot state" that so many of us use.

[The Big Mc]

Well could we trade slaves, make a good slave and use the free slave command to lose one slave per city until there all gone. You could do this and it would be good the code in slic can’t be that hard and for the sprite a few seconds work and its all done. Same with the pop relay but could be very hard to implement both ideas

The event I can think of mass movement of people is the evacuations in London in the second world war.

As well as when England gave up Hong Kong many people left to live in England

[Aqtaca]

Still, i wouldn't implement slaves in 10 000 score added to a city.
I would add few thousands, depending on how many units (and which ones) you defeated.
As for migrations. Well, let's say like this:
Your own people you can't move whenever wherever...
let's say it depends on goverment. If you are a deity-ruler, with absolute authority over life and death you can.
If you are in republic or democracy, you can't.
Also, if a city would be hit by a catastrophy, i would suggest that surviving people from that city start fleeing to other cities. Also, if there is a max city size, people would tend to immigrate themselves. If possible, to a city that is smaller and yet founded by their own city.
And yes, one more thing about earthquakes and catstrophies. I think we should introduce terrain effect here too. You can't have hurricanes in lands near North Pole and you can't have earthquakes in plain regions, with no mountains. Earthquakes happen in regions with so called "chain mountains", where the crashes of continental geo-plates happen.

You still haven't sad anything about my idea of exploting resources beyond your borders with a unit we could borrow from Alpha centauri or a colony borrowed from Civ 3.
I'm all for introducing concepts of religion and nation.

I thank to Sir Ralph for telling me how to add those pictures under username.

Child of Thor, are you a Welshman?