Thread Tools
Old April 19, 2003, 11:48   #91
Spiffor
Civilization III Democracy GamePtWDG LegolandApolytoners Hall of Fame
 
Spiffor's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: jihadding against Danish Feta
Posts: 6,182
An idea that has just occured to me, and I didn't weighted the pros and cons, so it might turn out being a bad idea.

For information, I am in favor of reducing the Roads' and railroads' usefeulness, to avoid the map being cluttered by road/railroad improvements. IMO, Road/railroads should be used for transportation and trade network. The following idea is influenced by this opnion.

So, I have thought about other Public Works that actually connect cities to each other : telegraph/telephone lines, and fiber optics lines. These are not upgrades from the railroad, but are spearated PW that can be done on tiles that already have roads/railroads.
Fiber optics are the upgrade of the telegraph line, exactly like Railroad is the upgrade to Road.
Telegraph/Telephone lines would reduce corruption drastically, and increase money significantly in cities that are connected with it to the capital. Fiber optics lines would also boost research and entertainment in these cities.

If cities are connected to foreign cities with telegraph/telephon or fiber optics, it makes spying between those cities less costly. Also, the calculation behind culture flipping changes :
It doesn't take into account the foreign squares into the city radius anymore (only the amount of foreign pop, the overall culture rating and the proximity to the capitol are taken into account), but all cities, including within your borders, could turn to your opponent. The good news is that it works both ways, so that a player cannot afford to only give culture to border cities.

Telegraph/Telephone lines and fiber optics should be able to be built on shore/sea/ocean tiles. I don't know if there should be a unit specifically designed to make sea improvements, or if a worker in a boat would do the trick (if there are other sea improvements, a specific unit would be good).

It is very possible this idea is bad. What do you think ?
__________________
"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
"I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
"I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis
Spiffor is offline  
Old April 19, 2003, 12:52   #92
Stefu
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Stefu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Posts: 5,301
I still continue to advocate the religion model that was defined and refined in The List's religion thread. I've pondered about this quite a bit and added to it somewhat.

In the model, religion would be a whole game concept in itself, and an important one at that. Religions would be independent from civilizations - they'd spread independently, and while civilizations can interact with them in many ways, they can still behave unexpectedly.

Basically, each religion would constitute mainly of it's adherents. These adherents are normal citizens in your and AI's empires - each citizen in a city would have a faith. In the beginning of the game all of them would be Pagans or something, then later on religions would begin to appear.

They'd start with a Prophet. A Prophet is a special unit (the Religion thread's final summary had him as a citizen, but I've thought about this and having a physical unit somehow seems nicer). He's computer-controlled. He just pops up at some city at some point of the game, then starts converting the populace. He's a fast converter, converting one person in one turn, and continuing this process until a half or so of the people are converted, then moving to the biggest city nearby (His movement rate is 2 - if there are no big cities nearby he can walk to, he can use a boat with a movement rate of 4.) and converting the people there.

Each religion would have specific attributes (a point of much debate in The List thread, and I opposed the attributes too, but the national attributes didn't work out too badly and it'd be nice to have religions that are different from each other than by name.) These attributes would be based on the religion's doctrines, for instance having Dietary Regulations could decrease the amount of food city produces while improving it's health. How much effect the religion has in city's production or trade or so on would be based on what percentage of the people in the city are members of that particular religion.

Now, the prophet disappears after 20 turns or so. After that, the religion has whatever people he has converted. The religion will soon convert more. Conversions are basically like battles between citizens -each adherent of a religion has an Evangelism rating and a Conviction rating, which are like Attack and Defense ratings, and victories in battles result to new people being converted. People in nearby cities and cities connected to other cities with trade routes (presuming those are brought back) will also figure in these battles. There's a detailed explanation in The List, which can be downloaded here.

From early on, the you can take different approaches to the religion. When the prophet appears, you basically have four ways to treat him. You can kill him, which has a 50% chance of him just dying without much harm done (other than few believers which can easily be snuffed out) and 50% chance of martyring him, which means that largish numbers of people throughout the empire are instantly converted and you have a huge problem in your hand. You can banish him, which has a smaller chance of martyrdom and results to the prophet being banished to the nearest nation to you (of course the religion can spread from there to your nation and will have a negative outlook towards you from the beginning.) You can tolerate him, which means he'll go on pretty much as described. And you can accept his message right away, which makes the religion your State Religion (more of that later on), converts a number of people throughout your empire to the religion, and gives prophet some extra conversion boost when converting your people.

You can have control over how you treat that religion after that initial event, too. There are five attitudes between which you choose. Toleration is the basic attitude, which means everything goes pretty much as described. More positive attitudes are "Promotion", which means that while the religion's not officially your state religion, it's clear you favor it. The religion spreads faster and it likes you better, but you can only promote one religion and other religions might not like this. Even more drastic is declaring the religion your State Religion, which means that that's the official religion, now. It spreads really fast, but other religions become even more PO'd. More negative attitudes are Intoleration, which means that the religion's allowed to live, but it's members have to pay special taxes and can't spread it openly, which leads to the religion not spreading as fast. And then there's good old Persecution, which means, basically, conversion to something else or the sword. The religion just won't spread at all and other religions trying to convert that religion's members get a bonus. If you have a State Religion, the Intoleration's the best option other religions can get - if you Promote a religion, then Toleration's the best the rest get. (I realize many European countries have state religions now and can accept other religions much like, but what I have in mind is closer to Taliban in Afghanistan than present-day Britain.)

I've talked about religions not liking you. Well, fair's fair - you can choose your attitude towards a religion, so they can choose their attitude towards you. These range from Holy through Pious, Lukewarm, Impious to Damned - and they effect the happiness of that religion's adherents. If the religion considers you Holy, then the people are very happy - if it considers you Damned, then they are very unhappy. Effects of actions like persecution and promotion are pretty guessable.

So the religions can make your people happy or unhappy. That's not all! Each religion, of course, has a leader who will pester you much like AI empires. The religion might ask for contributions, for example - those, and the tithes it collects from believers, form the religion's main source of income (it uses this income mainly to build Clerics, which it sends to far-away cities to help in their conversion, and in various shrines, temples and churches which it uses to make the people it's converted stay converted!) If the religion likes you, it can loan you money, bless your troops or citizens for a period of time (which offers benefits) or give you other nice perks. On the other hand, it can also require you to attack other nations - the ones which persecute the members of that religion, for example - or make peace with your enemies that are members of same religion. If the religion doesn't like you, it can use it's weight to get other nations to not like you, either.

This forms the basic religion model I currently have in mind. For more, you can read the Religion summary in The List - while there are many components that I've pre-empted in my newer design or which have been made obsolete or impossible in Civ3, there's still much more good stuff. I also have some more ideas concerning the religion model, but I'll post this first and sort the other ideas later.

One more thing. One topic of discussion was whether real religions (like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism) so on should be used. Naturally this is a touchy subject, especially with special attributes, but I do believe this can be pulled off. Of course, the player should be allowed the choice between real religions and random religions (Long live prophet Turywenzo and the faith of Turywenzoism!) with random attributes.
__________________
"Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self." - Dennis Kucinich, candidate for the U. S. presidency
"That’s the future of the Democratic Party: providing Republicans with a number of cute (but not that bright) comfort women." - Adam Yoshida, Canada's gift to the world
Stefu is offline  
Old April 19, 2003, 12:52   #93
Spiffor
Civilization III Democracy GamePtWDG LegolandApolytoners Hall of Fame
 
Spiffor's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: jihadding against Danish Feta
Posts: 6,182
AltF18 :

I am all for the "acts and bills" idea, because it would allow to take drastic decisions with high bonuses without the need to build big or small wonders, notably for Universal Suffrage and such. But these acts would have to be difficult ot be agreed on, and they should have high drawbacks.

Wonders give huge bonuses because they have a huge drawback, that is their terrible cost. Acts should have drawbacks according to the bonuses they give too.


However, I am against you idea of energy, refining etc. Sure, it adds more stuff to the game. But does it add more depht ? More fun ? More interest ?
I think it does only add some clutter and no fun, but I may have missed the point.
__________________
"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
"I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
"I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis
Spiffor is offline  
Old April 19, 2003, 14:58   #94
epics
Warlord
 
epics's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: PL
Posts: 136
AltF18: Yes for "acts and bills".
We should have also the techs/wonders/improvments providing some negative effect. The people are happy of something but this thing also brings some negative stuff (not talking only about pullution)

NO for this energy stuff.
But this thing with selling resources is good (I mentioned it on some thread about 3 months ago). Should be able to sell to cities: oil and coal.

Spiffor:those telegraph stuff is waaaay too complicated

Stefu: I don't think this unit, Prophet, is needed. The religion just occure. We can tolerate it more or less (see how the religion thing was solved in EU). Nations with different religion could hate each other ie. catolic and islam and those countires would hate each other too.
epics is offline  
Old April 19, 2003, 15:10   #95
Stefu
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Stefu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Posts: 5,301
For some reason, I like the idea of the prophet unit, travelling from city to city. It can symbolize the early spread of the religion. Also, one of my ideas is that after the religion's gained a foothold, there could be minor prophets, who behave much like the big guy but often try to convert heathens in lands outside of the religion's original land. They would also be units.
__________________
"Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self." - Dennis Kucinich, candidate for the U. S. presidency
"That’s the future of the Democratic Party: providing Republicans with a number of cute (but not that bright) comfort women." - Adam Yoshida, Canada's gift to the world
Stefu is offline  
Old April 19, 2003, 16:23   #96
altF18
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 53
Religion
i agree this should be implemented, but not how you suggest. instead, how about it be a like a government- you choose your State Religion and this adds some bonuses, has drawbacks and increases certain Improvements effects (i.e temple)
Religions should be named and set, not free, though this might bother some people.
the religions should be Paganism, the earliest one, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Christianity.
Each has their own unique attributes (islam is better for militaries and control over despotic states, buddhism is good for contentment among large and not so rich ppls, christianity makes more ppl happy and generates good gold etc. etc. )
Civs of the same Religion have better attitudes towards eachother.
altF18 is offline  
Old April 19, 2003, 17:33   #97
altF18
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 53
So, i see no one liked my Energy idea? is it because this is a whole new concept, and thus skeptical?
or does it seem like just an addon extra clutter?
i think it'll add more depth, yes, as you'll now have a new thing to worry about - making sure to keep up with Energy demands in order to stay Modernized. Sure, its like a new food bar, but that gives something to fight/trade and build for.
I myseld scraped the refining process to a level -
its like this, for your incoming oil to be counted as energy, you'll need a refinery. once you built it, oil automatically starts adding to energy.
same with coal, uranium, etc.
when more than needed is coming in, your city will have those resources to either trade or, another new concept, manufacture.
Oil is no longer needed just to support the Military, you need it for your Civ as a whole.
Take Japan - no army, but they still import oil for energy.
And it doesn't have to be used up one per pop. unit - maybe instead Energy would be for, yes, the Military, instead of raw oil, the Factory could require 2 energy units per workers there. (so a fatory of three workers would use up 6 energy) and certain improvements would use the rest. For instance, Mass Media could take 1 energy per 3 pop. units. Mass Transportation would guzzle up quite a bit. Thus, Energy would be the backbone for the Modern Infrastructure, the Military, and the Industrial empire of your civ.
I like the extra clutter it adds, imo, giving more depth and meaning to the use of resources, and something differant in the modern ages.
As for Manufacturing,
this too adds a bit more depth tp the Commerce and Trade aspects of the game, makes for a more Economic alternative rather than basically warfare.
it works like this, Maufactured Goods, or Goods for short, simply take the place of Luxuary items in Civ 3. In fact, thats all they are. Some luxuary goods remain that and cant be manufactured, like Spices, but others would need this extra process, which also generates extra cash.
Say you have a worker on Cotton - sent to the city, this would generate only a small bit of gold.
Now you could go into the Industry section in the city screen, see you have 1 cotton Raw Material. You could convert this into Textiles, using up 1 production unit to make 1 textile unit. this gets automatically sold to the city for, now, more gold than raw cotton.
or you could trade it to a foreign city in demand of textile and get even more gold.
Where does manufacturing production coem from?
well, you 'hire' a pop. unit into the Industry screen, (thus preventing him from working an outside tile) and he provides you the ability to manufacture 1 good per turn. hire another and you could manufature 2 of the same good (keep one, trade the other) or 1 of two differant kinds. 3 workers, 3 production.
with the Factory improvement, Workers would now be supply 3 units of production instead of one, expanding your ability to Mass Produce goods and become richer than before.
And you needn't micromanage any of this.
Your governor could choose how much pop. works resoucres and how much works Industry.
The Industry could be automated to build how much of each product it chooeses, and what products it choose. this cannot be changed by you in Democracies, or capitalist states, you could butt in and make changes any (or all) the time in Socialist states like Communisms or Despotisms.
Goods generate more commerce than raw materials, and also happiness among your citizens. (or some could increase production, like Machinery, or Biotechnology could increase science etc. Automobiles would require oil and steel to build, and would be high in demand, generating great commerce)
You need not micromanage it, but you would have to work your Civ usually in order to allow the process going. You still have to go out and open up resoucres for your taking and find markets amongst foreign civs.
If you played Simcity2000, its like that screen for Industry actually means something.
though this adds a bit of complexity and i guess, clutter, i think its managable and i for one, woudl enjoy managing these sorts of economic aspects of my civ.
like i said, it adds to the economic and commercial aspects of the game, and quite possibly allows a new sort of Economic Victory. After hearing your input on this, (which would probably be mostly negative, the way it looks ) i'll think about specualting on that.
i look forward to your opinions and thank you for bareing through my rant.
altF18 is offline  
Old April 19, 2003, 17:48   #98
altF18
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 53
acts & bills
I'm glad the acts & bill responses are positive.
and i agree, with the drastic changes they make, they need some sort of drawbacks.
Emancipation Act has a good enough cost already - preventing you the use of slaves and thus maybe damaging your economic strength.
as for the others, we'll need to come up with both effects and costs for them.
so far, here's a few acts & bills i could come up with:
Constitution
Universal Suffrage
Patriot Act this would be a bill that would increase National Security by allowing you more power over the your citizens, making your agencies free to infringe on certain rights and liberties in the name of security. Thus, it'll be harder for spies to be planted in your cities (i'll elaborate on this just now) easier for you to detect them, harder for enemies and 'terrorists' to commit acts in your cities, and, it even cuts down on crime. The drawbacks of course would be major unhappiness due to lack of liberty and freedom, and the constant infringements on privacy, and perhaps some other things. I like this bill, but it'll also be very hard to pull pass the Senate - though naturally this'll ease down if something horrible happened recently, or if crime was soaring nationwide, or some enemy civ was really messing up domestic affairs via spies or otherwise, like if that wonder suddenly blew up......
altF18 is offline  
Old April 19, 2003, 18:07   #99
altF18
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 53
on Religion again, there would also be Atheism, which would have no effect on temples and such (save minusing their natural ones) but it would generally increase Production, in a way, and people would also be easier to remain content in some conditions instead of looking for better happier lives. (so you could run a good Stalinist, or was it Leninist? Russia-type Empire )

as for spies, or I should put it, a new form of Espionage,
it would be like this: instead of just doing it like in Cic 3, you would now go into the Intelligence screen, but now you would need to "Commission Spy"
you could only do this to nations you have an Embassy in, unless you have built the Natinal Wonder - Intelligence Agency. now you could do it to any civ.
after commisioning spy and choosing civ you commisioned it to, you must choose which City the spy goes to. After this, you leave the spy ther, and he gathers "Intelligence", 1 per turn, 2 in the capital.
with 1 intell, he could attempt a mission, but will only have a 10% chance of sucess. let him sit and gather for 4 turns, its 40%, 10 turns (or 5 in the capital) and chances are he'll most likely succeed with the mission you assigned him, whether it be for Critical Information or saboutage. after a mission, all or up to 10 intell. is used up, but the spy may stay (he could even pull two missions if he sat there a good 20 turns!)
or he might get caught and captured, or escape.
escape and though the civ would be weary, you wouldnt be compromised, if hes captured, well, International Incident .
chances of capture are greater from the capital.
So, that's my Spy/Espionage idea, along with everything else. Look forward to your opinions/suggestions/criticisms of them, and for your own ones too!
altF18 is offline  
Old April 19, 2003, 18:10   #100
altF18
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 53
one last thing concerning Religion - you would start out with your own called Cultural (meaning whatever your people made up to follow) which would have no effects on anything and no converting ability. there would also be None, or Freedom of Worship, or whatever name you could call it. I'm sure there's a name for it.
altF18 is offline  
Old April 20, 2003, 15:07   #101
epics
Warlord
 
epics's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: PL
Posts: 136
yaa, in the beggining would be "Everybody Worship You". I like that

If you want that thing with manufacture etc. play Colonization.

About spy: so if he is in another city than capitol can he steal techs??

Tommorow I will think about those acts&bills thing.

Stefu: maybe you're right, a unit would be nice.
epics is offline  
Old April 20, 2003, 17:01   #102
Stefu
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Stefu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: CLOWNS WIT DA DOWNS 4 LIFE YO!
Posts: 5,301
Quote:
instead, how about it be a like a government- you choose your State Religion and this adds some bonuses, has drawbacks and increases certain Improvements effects (i.e temple)
See, I don't like this. It doesn't really add that much to the game - it would just be another Social Engineering option. The wonderful part about religions being independent from players is that it adds a whole new dimension to the game a player has to take care about.
__________________
"Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self." - Dennis Kucinich, candidate for the U. S. presidency
"That’s the future of the Democratic Party: providing Republicans with a number of cute (but not that bright) comfort women." - Adam Yoshida, Canada's gift to the world
Stefu is offline  
Old April 21, 2003, 02:38   #103
epics
Warlord
 
epics's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: PL
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally posted by Stefu


See, I don't like this. It doesn't really add that much to the game - it would just be another Social Engineering option. The wonderful part about religions being independent from players is that it adds a whole new dimension to the game a player has to take care about.
But if we choose our state religion our citizens wouldn't have to have the same religion. It would creat some problems maybe lower income if city's religion is different than the state religion, but it would be also complicated.
Religion, the way you want it to be, is too complicated for civ, maybe in the future the hole game concept would be changed so allowing to implement the religion, but this is a job for the Firaxis guys
epics is offline  
Old April 21, 2003, 11:30   #104
TheArsenal
Apolyton University
Prince
 
TheArsenal's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 900
Quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor

For information, I am in favor of reducing the Roads' and railroads' usefeulness, to avoid the map being cluttered by road/railroad improvements. IMO, Road/railroads should be used for transportation and trade network. The following idea is influenced by this opnion.

So, I have thought about other Public Works that actually connect cities to each other : telegraph/telephone lines, and fiber optics lines. These are not upgrades from the railroad, but are spearated PW that can be done on tiles that already have roads/railroads.
Fiber optics are the upgrade of the telegraph line, exactly like Railroad is the upgrade to Road.
Telegraph/Telephone lines would reduce corruption drastically, and increase money significantly in cities that are connected with it to the capital. Fiber optics lines would also boost research and entertainment in these cities.
Not sure if the additional types of PW is a good idea or not - and I'm thinking out loud as well - but from a strategic standpoint fewer roads would be very interesting. With fewer roadways connecting each city, and fewer means to move units quickly, protecting them becomes that much more important. And would in turn make pillaging a far more powerful and useful tool, in particular bombardment of railroads. That said, as bombardment is not the most accurate means of destruction in the first place, I don't think this would make it too over-powered.

I'm not a big fan of the clutter on the map either. So, another thought adding to yours:

While telegraph/telephone/fiber optic lines would probably be a complex addition, you may be able to bundle those ideas into type of roads, or road upgrades. Meaning, roads start out as dirt, then can be upgraded to cobblestone, then railroad, then asphault, then freeways, superhighways, etc.
__________________
"Guess what? I got a fever! And the only prescription is ... more cow bell!"
TheArsenal is offline  
Old April 24, 2003, 11:48   #105
Fosse
Alpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4WDG Stratega
King
 
Local Time: 16:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668
The problem with only reducing the usefullness of roads and railroads is that a human or AI with the worker force needed will still put roads everywhere eventually. I think that a maintnence fee is needed to help keep road building balanced.

The AI should be given very good rules of where and when to build roads, to prevent it from crippleing its economy by employing traditional AI improvment "strategies."


As for telephone/fibre obtics... I'm all for giving the industrial and modern ages something to distinguish them from the ancient/medeival besides different units. I'm a fan of changing the way you play the game as time goes on... so by the end commerce is more important than production, we have to worry about the energy needs of our civ, and we have global diplomacy.

If telephon/fiberoptics were implemented in a non-micromanaging way, I'd support them as big corruption reducers. This would actually be nice because corruption is viable in ancient and mideival times, but not so much after industrialization.

Perhaps just paying a fee on your F1 screen to hookup individual cities to your capital... no worker managment.
Fosse is offline  
Old April 24, 2003, 22:57   #106
dexters
Apolyton Storywriters' Guild
King
 
dexters's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,141
Ack. The road building mechanism is actually one of the refined things that shouldn't be tinkered with.

The idea has stayed unchanged from Civ to Civ3 for good reason. As it stands, Civ is a 500+ turn game. I doubt Civ 4 would be any different. Players spend most of the game building roads and improvements around their cities. It is usually only until the last 50 turns or so that a decent player can expect to experience having TOO MANY workers around. And usually, pollution and conquest keeps those workers pretty busy doing new things.

If we go and introduce fibre optics, telephone lines and all this stuff, it adds nothing to the game, except force gamers to repeat the same process.

A possible improvement to the road model is to take the road upkeep idea suggested and couple it with improved worker efficiency. This means workers can do things faster. This would make them more valuable to have around, and at the same time reduce the need to have an army of 20 workers running around.

Anyways...
I do like the road improvement idea. But Civ isn't a road building game. Railroad and standard road is about as detailed as you really need to go. A third type of road may be feasable, but imagine each facet of the game being expanded by just 1 extra option. You'd get a game so large that it becomes unplayable.

I feel strongly that Civ 4 should avoid messing up things that work, or increasing the tedium of playing the game.

Civ 4 will reinforce things in Civ1, 2, and 3 that are fun to players.

And let's be honest here. Warfare is where it is at. We should get more UU's for each Civ. Maybe we should also get culture specific buildings.

And a new facet that has come to the forefront in Civ3 with our kind of computing power is the diplomacy aspect. I would expect a major improvement in that direction. More formal alliances may be possible. Something like NATO, where groupings of civilizations could enter into a comprehensive alliance.

Lastly, one thing we will likely see improvement or an ovhaul is the culture thing. I have a feeling Culture may be dropped for something more appropriate in Civ4. Sphere of influence is probably more appropriate. In this case, the border around each city could be affected by your culture buildings, military size, and overall cultural and economic rank of the Civ.

Last edited by dexters; April 24, 2003 at 23:08.
dexters is offline  
Old April 26, 2003, 12:14   #107
Admiral PJ
PtWDG Lux Invicta
Prince
 
Admiral PJ's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Southeast England , UK
Posts: 592
My game:
I can release screenshots soon, I jjust have to fix some errors in the code, but it was working before i got windows XP and Net compilers, so it won't take long.. the new directx9 is needing some new code, for compatibility with this nice new update.
I'm workingon a full website for the game Mantra:New Horizons.

I agree with the recent comments about diplomacy,
I think more needs to be done with this area, currently it seems too abstracted and needs to be more personal.
Its a shame things like cease fires were taken out, but the new stuff makes up for things mostly.

New diplo options: Neutrality - a country signs a neutrality pact with someone like germany, whereby they don't make wars on germanys allies or their enemies (though they could later become germanies ally).. only wars on germanies non allied etc aligned countries. This would be interesting if a country made a neutrality pact with 2 sides of a war and therefore would be safe for both sides to go through.. though warfare in the neutrals country should be banned(a problem in civ3).

BRIAN:
about your ideas, which appear very useful, I agree with your approach to a realistic world social/millitary simulator.
I've thought about some very similar ideas for my own games, I want to incorporate organisations like religions and industrial corporations that are AI controlled and independantly build and manage much of the civilisation.
Seeding is a sensible approach to allowing this organic development process to be player controlled, i'm still trying to work out the mechanics for this myself, but I intend to have laws and economic constraints which the player can use when he wants to limit or help certain companies, much as a real commercial state does.
It would have been interesting to see this corporation idea in civ3, they were going to do something similar i think but it never made it.. maybe civ4 will be the time.

I'm hoping to involve strategic situations with science research like you were talking about, with things like solar star research being possible when you make a star space observatory station near the sun.
Early ancient sciences were maybe more social and academic and didn't require as strict prerequisites.
I like your ideas about science and cultures developing in different ways, this could be used to make some interesting situations.. such as 1 nation becoming strong in naval technology, another in millitary technology, a bit like the civ3 way of not requiring some civs for era advancement.
civ3's tech tree was far too sparse for my liking, but the era idea was a good one i'd always argued for.. though there needs to be at least 6 eras, mid ages are abstracted and need to be spread over mediaval, rennaisance and enlightenment, and go into industrial more to steam power etc.

I find maps are good when done as archipelagos, but they're very limited by the landscape types.. I guess this wasn't a major area they focused on.
Allowing editable terrain types would be good, there aren't anywhere near enough, maybe resources should have defence and move bonuses as well.

What annoys me is rivers can be used to travel on, perhaps the map generator could make a river as a long line of lake going inland, make it another landscape type.. that could be bridged.

See my civ3 Mod Mantra Revolution coming soon (its not my main Mantra game which isn't to do with iciv3, its a commercial game designed and written from scratch by me)

governments should be improved .. just need a few more and they need to allow special units.

Civ3 was great and had lots of exciting new features, but it would be nice to see more depth in some areas and more refinement, but not to destract from a fast fun gaming experience.

AdmiralPJ
master of the C (seas.. C coding language.. gettit?)



Admiral PJ is offline  
Old April 26, 2003, 13:28   #108
epics
Warlord
 
epics's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: PL
Posts: 136
as for those acts&bills:
Feudalism-this "tech" created peasants which were working on nobels fields for free. They were very unhappy with that.
In civ maybe a citizen working on an irrigated tile would become unhappy or content (or maybe 3 citizens on that tile would creat one content/unhappy).

New ideas comming up soon...
epics is offline  
Old April 27, 2003, 06:41   #109
altF18
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 53
Economic Model
feudalism is actuallly an economic system than a bill,
and thats another thing that could be implemented.
Government / Economic System
Governments would be the same, Despotism, Monarchy, Republic, Democracy, Communism, "Fundamentalism"
Economic Models could be Feudalism, Capitalism, Socialism, and what more.
Governments could choose what economy it has, though some are restricted.
For instance, a Democracy could have either of these Economic Systems: Capitalism, Socialism.
Communism could have Socialism, Nationalism maybe? where the state directly controls the economy? and later on, Capitalism as China is beginning to embrace today though they do not embrace freedom in Governemnt, or Democracy.
Monarchy starts with a Feudal economic system, though it could choose Socialism, or to be constitutional, Capitalism. (Britain would be a capitalistic democracy, not a monarchy though it has a queen - jordan is more the monarchy capitalist state)
Of course, there would be restraints on the economic system still based on government. Fundamentalist countries could be Nationalist like Iran, or Iraq was, or perhaps Socialist. They'd prevent Capitalism as it opens the doors to infidel corporations.
Despotisms are usually controlled, though through outside influence and pressure, they could choose to open up their doors to Capitalism, maintaining their dictatorship over the population, but allowing foreign investment in their resoucres. Like a bunch of states around the world, esp, in South America and Africa.
Nationalist and Socialist Communisms would be antagonist to the Capitalist system, as it would supress the factor of Free Enterprise, and Multinational investments. Capitalist societies would compete for the domination of the Free Market, like America almost does today. When you control the dominating Economic Empire, this could be a victory condition.
How you went avout achieving it is up to elaboration.
I think it would be neat and add more potential to the game, especially downplaying the need to conquer every city on the map, or the unrealistic victory of simply controlling most of the land. Instead of having a colonial empire, which would be hard to manage, this Economic Empire would be more ideal. And the military would still play a major part in the deal. afterall, America doesn't maintain its influence over the world without its military presence and overthowing of rogue states who fail to play the economic game.
All i need to perfect this model, if you guys agree on it, is a way for one to control the market. foreign investment in resources through corporations is the realistic way of doing it, but how would that be implemented in the game?
And how would your economic empire be determined?
if you like the idea, please elaborate on it.
if not, ah well. i think it would be neat, and a good change in the game. simply having new civ games without anything really new is a bummer. i think we could do more than add improvement - teach the old dog New tricks.
I look forward to your opinions on this.
altF18 is offline  
Old April 27, 2003, 07:10   #110
altF18
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 53
Religion and Cultural Influence
I'm all for the State Religion concept. This is to the point and practical, wheras the other suggestion makes too much an issue out of Religion. though it played a major part in the growth of Civilizations, that stresses it waaay too much. By simply having a social tweaking State Religion, we get everything we need. Religion in the game, a way to emphasis certain cultural bonuses, a social structure that could determine things such as happiness, war weariness, etc. and even act as a diplomatic tool - same religion civs tend to be closer than different ones. Crusades or Jihads could be lauched, and a low costing unit (supported by the church) either a Crusader for Christianity or a Fanatic or Mameluke for Islam, could be built to wage war only against dif. religion civs.
And like mentioned, not everyone in a city has to adhere to the state religion. Like espionage, if you have a state religion, you could commision missionaries to certain cities, who in turn convert as many citizens as they can to your religion. this gives you more Cultural Influence on that city, and thus, on that Civ as a whole if you convert enough in enough cities.
As much as i like the Culture idea in civ3, i disagree with the fact that it determines your borders and can make citites join you. this is ridiculous IMO and should be removed. Instead, you still would accumulate Culture, which gives you points and bonueses (like happiness, perhaps) but your Cultural Influence will in no way expand your borders. But it still could be imposed on foreign civs if it is high enough, higher than there's if you are near their territory, or spread to their civs through means such as religious conversion, propaganda, and mass media. having a cultural influence on civs would not make you take their cities over. instead, it should make that civ more friendly to you, and something else - i cant think of what.
Perhaps a bonus of some sort.
If you agree with my ideas, perhaps it could be fine tuned.
if not, i appreciate constructive criticism.

-altF18 idea wight for a new civilization
altF18 is offline  
Old April 27, 2003, 08:31   #111
epics
Warlord
 
epics's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: PL
Posts: 136
Yeah, good idea with those Government / Economic System. Now we have to think about pros and cons of those. Economic System would give happines/unhappines, increased/decreased speed of workers, benefits in shield/commerse output and maybe new, exceptional types of buildings.
This idea of beeing an Economic Empire would need implementin manufacturing goods, couse selling only resources wouldn't be very complicated and wouldn't bring enything to the game.

High culture could influence diplomat abilities: they see we are cultural and stuff, they like us more, they give more money/luxuries/resources

Quote:
altf18
if you have a state religion, you could commision missionaries to certain cities, who in turn convert as many citizens as they can to your religion. this gives you more Cultural Influence on that city, and thus, on that Civ as a whole if you convert enough in enough cities
too complicated. maybe religious buldings would influence ours and foreign citizens thus changing thier religion.
epics is offline  
Old April 27, 2003, 09:43   #112
WarpStorm
King
 
WarpStorm's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Right down the road
Posts: 2,321
There are serious marketing issues with implementing religion in a high profile game (I like EU and how it did it, but it ain't a high profile game; Civ4 would be). You have to be real careful how you present it, especially if you show any modern religion in a bad light. Lawsuits suck.
__________________
Seemingly Benign
Download Watercolor Terrain - New Conquests Watercolor Terrain
WarpStorm is offline  
Old April 27, 2003, 10:56   #113
Azeem
Prince
 
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 310
I added "Religion" as advances in my "Some Mod Ideas" thread in the "Creation" section of the Apolyton CivIII forums. "Religions" were generally techs that allowed you to build certain things that would give you bonuses and were divided into certain research paths, thus you would have to choose which path of "Religion" to research. I didn't include "Mujahadin" and "Jihad" or "Crusaders" and "Inquisition" since those could offend Muslims and Christians.
__________________
"When we begin to regulate, there is naming,
but when there has been naming
we should also know when to stop.
Only by knowing when to stop can we avoid danger." - Lao-zi, the "Dao-de-jing"
Azeem is offline  
Old April 27, 2003, 11:02   #114
Fosse
Alpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4WDG Stratega
King
 
Local Time: 16:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668
Religion could be more abstracted.... add a social engineering choice, not where you choose a religion, but instead whether or not your state recognizes one religion as official, accepts or persecutes others, is completely secular, etc.

Official religion that persecutes others could increase military police limit, decrease research rate, and discourage immigration. Official religion that does not persecute others could discourage immigration, and increase the effects of religious buildings. Secular countries would get a research bonus, reduced effect of religious structures, and increased immigration.

Something along those lines. Some restrictions according to tech levels and other social choices are needed. Obviously, a Theocratic government can't be secular.
Fosse is offline  
Old April 27, 2003, 13:34   #115
WarpStorm
King
 
WarpStorm's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Right down the road
Posts: 2,321
Quote:
Originally posted by Fosse
Secular countries would get a research bonus, reduced effect of religious structures, and increased immigration.
Obviously you come from a country that is secular. Your bias is showing through.
__________________
Seemingly Benign
Download Watercolor Terrain - New Conquests Watercolor Terrain
WarpStorm is offline  
Old April 27, 2003, 15:23   #116
Master Zen
PtWDG Glory of WarApolytoners Hall of FameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamSpanish CiversPtWDG2 Latin LoversC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
Master Zen's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: of naughty
Posts: 10,579
Quote:
Originally posted by WarpStorm


Obviously you come from a country that is secular. Your bias is showing through.
I agree, even though I'm not religious, I admit it has absolutely nothing to do with either happiness or science. Secular countries can be just as happy as religious ones, and religious countries could be just as scientific too.

Look at the middle ages. Western Europe, in the height of the Catholic Church's power hardly advanced in science. On the other hand, another highly-religious empire: the Arabs, were extremely scientific and gave us most of the major discoveries of the day.
__________________
A true ally stabs you in the front.

Secretary General of the U.N. & IV Emperor of the Glory of War PTWDG | VIII Consul of Apolyton PTW ISDG | GoWman in Stormia CIVDG | Lurker Troll Extraordinaire C3C ISDG Final | V Gran Huevote Team Latin Lover | Webmaster Master Zen Online | CivELO (3°)
Master Zen is offline  
Old April 27, 2003, 19:25   #117
Fosse
Alpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4WDG Stratega
King
 
Local Time: 16:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668
Well, I'm trying to make things translate into a workable model for Civ 3 so I might contribute to the topic at hand, not make social commentary or show my bias.

The ideas for effects of various religious choices were off the top of my head, and were intended to show how my idea would work in a Civ-like game.

Anyway... my point was that religion could work in a Civ game if we look not at what the religion of our citizens is, but instead at how we treat religion in general as a Civ.

What is everybody's reaction to the IDEA? We can discuss bonuses/penalties of the choices further if we like, but if we'd rather have messiah units or something else then it's a moot point.
Fosse is offline  
Old April 27, 2003, 20:25   #118
Spiffor
Civilization III Democracy GamePtWDG LegolandApolytoners Hall of Fame
 
Spiffor's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: jihadding against Danish Feta
Posts: 6,182
I think the idea is sound Fosse. However, I should read a bit more of Stefu's idea of religion, which seems to be more ambitious, but maybe more complicated as well, before deciding which of the two is better.
__________________
"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
"I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
"I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis
Spiffor is offline  
Old April 28, 2003, 11:39   #119
altF18
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 53
stefus idea is neat, but its too ambitious, and too complicated for a civ game. it stresses a bit much on religion, and thats something not as important as the other aspects of the game save as a social tool.
i mean, i know religion plays a part in a civ, but stefus idea plays too much with religion. it should be as important or appearent as he would like.
i mean, i know religion played a role in the shaping of nations, such as the expansion of arab/turkish territories, and the crusades, and other areas, but its role is not as major in that it could and should never enable a 'victory' condition, and has little role in foreign and international affairs and policy. (realistically and would be gamewise )
as i said, it should only be a social tool, and perhaps have an influence on culture.
fosse's idea also sounds neat, but having religions as independent institutions, again emphasizes too much on this area. and i dont fully understand it either.
please explain some more.
would you have to choose your stance on all religions?

still, i prefer you either choose a state religion, or have freedom of worship.
opinions?
altF18 is offline  
Old April 28, 2003, 11:59   #120
Fosse
Alpha Centauri PBEMCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4WDG Stratega
King
 
Local Time: 16:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,668
Actually, the idea I'm advocating completely ignores religion as a seperate institution, which is why I like it. It addresses the existence of religion, and the role of religion in history, without adding an extra sub-game.

I see religion being implemented as a social engineering (we have to come up with a better name for a Civ atmoshere) choice in which you choose how your civ deals with religion in general.

Thus, you won't be setting your policy towards each possible religion. Instead there will simply be one policy that changes your civ's ratings, like choosing "Police State" or "Fundamentalist" in SMAC.

There would be pluses and minuses to having a state religion, being secular, disallowing religion in your country, having no policy, etc.

Under this plan, individual religions wouldn't exist at all, except in the player's mind.

Does that clear things up F18?
Fosse is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:57.


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