Changing culture model

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Tbh I think this is why SMAC SE style is good............it provides a simplistic version of what Uber wants without falling into the traps I outlined. Whether you could make a more complex structure based on behaviour work I don't know, but it wouldn't be easy.

well, see, ideally, we'd have the SMAC government system on top of it, governmental control of your traits. So you could be a warmonger culture with despotic communist tendencies, or you could be a builder democratic capitialism.

the flip side would be interesting as well, a warmongering despotic capitialism or what have you.

perhaps the traits you have should influence the happiness of your people in certain governments as well.

[The diplomat]

I love the idea of the player's actions affecting the civ's uniqe traits. Here is one way of doing:

if the civ gets a certain ratio of a certain city improvements compared to all city improvements, then you would get bonuses/penalties to reflect your culture:

For example:
-if 60% of city improvements are commercial type, then all cities produce 5% more gold, +5% more gold from trade treaties, -10% more unrest (comercial pursuits create social/economic divisions).
-If 60% of city improvements are military, then all mitary units are 10% cheaper to build, peace treaties cause more unrest, declaration of wars cause less unrest (warmongering culture favors war).
-If 60% of city improvements are social (ie temples, colloseums etc...), then all cities get -10% unrest, and all cities produce -10% less gold (social awareness seeks more economic equality which hurts profits).
-If 60% of city improvements are educational (ie library, university, research lab), then all cities, get +10% research, military units cost 10% more expensive (intellectual opposition to warmongering).

Numbers are arbitrary, but you get the idea.

I think this would create a sense of culture. It would also allow a civ's culture to change. As you built different city improvements to meet your specific needs, the ratios would change, and therefore you could change categories and get different bonuses.

A similar approach could be taken with units.
-If you win x battles as attacker with a certain unit, then future units would get +1 attack. ie, if I win say 15 battles as attacker with an archer unit, then all future archers, would get +1 attack.
-Same thing as defender. If I win x battles as defender, then future units would get +1 defense.
This would work with all units. So if I win x battles as attacker with swordsman, then future swordsman would get bonus, if the unit were horseman then , horseman would get bonus etc...

This would create unique units based on how the player uses a particular unit. It would be historically consistent. Civs developped special units because they became experts in using that particular unit. For example, the Romans developped the legendary legion because of how they used their swordsman.
This would also help players with starting positions that maybe lack certain strategic ressources. In civ3, if I lack iron, I can't build swordsman, and will be at a disadvantage in the early game. With this idea, I could use lots of archers, and maybe gain an archer bonus, that would help me stay competitive.
It also naturally reflects geographies. If I start in a region, with horses, but no iron, I can build horseman, I will use them, and maybe gain +1 attack for my horseman. Another civ, that has iron but no horses, may gain a bonus for their swordsman but not for their horseman.

So, I think these 2 ideas could implement what has been discussed in this thread, pretty well.

[The diplomat]

I just want to add that I think this would more rewarding to the player than fixed civ traits. It would mean that at the beginning of every game, every civ would be a blank slate. How you play, would affect your civ traits. If I build barracks right away, then I would gain the aforementionned militaristic traits which might affect how I continue. Later in the game, I might become commercial. I think this would be much more rewarding to the player.

Not to mention that it would provide a better what if situation. After all, I could play as the romans, and develop unique archers because of a war with a neighbor that involved a lot of archers, and maybe I become a social civ. Or maybe I play as the Romans and become militaristic. It would provide a better sense of what if history, that civ is all about.

[brianshapiro]

my idea was to have tech development dependent on the resources in the area, this would lead individual civs to develop differently based on geography. another idea would be to have the development based more broadly on player actions, so say, building a quota of pikemen is necessary for the development of feudalism, gathering a quota of horses necessary for the development of horseback riding, etc to generally have advancement of technology in the game more directly linked to player actions

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by brianshapiro
my idea was to have tech development dependent on the resources in the area, this would lead individual civs to develop differently based on geography. another idea would be to have the development based more broadly on player actions, so say, building a quota of pikemen is necessary for the development of feudalism, gathering a quota of horses necessary for the development of horseback riding, etc to generally have advancement of technology in the game more directly linked to player actions

Great idea too!

[Spiffor]

Good idea briansaphiro

But let me add my input here (I really find your idea good, the following post is about implementing it reasonably). We have to completely change our understanding of a 'tech tree' to apply it. I mean, if all or most techs are dependent from extra-research factors, they should not be needed for future techs.

For example, if you need to build X pikemen for feudalism, Feudalism should not be a requirement for "constitutional monarchy" or for "guild" techs, as both these techs can be wanted by players who don't crave for military power.

I'm thinking out loud, but maybe the 'tech tree' should be much more loose : there are different paths of progress which are nearly independent of each other, and the only common link between these tech-trees are "pure knowledge" advances. I am referring to the philosophical thinking of a time, that makes things possible. For example, both Free Enterprise and Modern Discipline share the 'philosophical' idea that nobles aren't always the best leaders.

Techs that have non-scientific requirements should not be necessary to other techs, OR should be able to be circumvened by other techs which do not share the requirements. For example, let's say Iron Working needs you to amass some quantity of iron first, and is a prerequisite to construction ; If there is no iron around, there must be another way to Construction (like a 'Wood Working' tech or something)

[The Strangers]

I did have a thought on culture a few days ago. I believe that every 100 turns (rather than a set number of years), a civilization should decide what their cultural emphasis should be. There would be a wide range of options for this, all with different impacts. Let's take some cultural traits from nations today as an example:

The U.S.A. :- Proud of their long standing political/legal system.
Impact on civilization :- War weariness halved when fighting nation using alternate political system, the effect of courthouses and police stations doubled.

The U.K. :- Proud of maritime military history.
Impact on Civ :- Nation supports cost of all maritime units, no unhappiness caused when citizens conscrpited into maritime units.

Japan :- Strong inherant military tradition in past.
Impact on Civ :- Units attack/defense doubled when weakened by opponent, half the country's military units supported by government.

And so on. Culture would become a way in which control the direction a nation is taking, and borders would be conrolled by the size of the civilization. The type of culture you wish your nation to have would be changed every 100 turns, because as pointed out, culture does change.

[Sirotnikov]

obviously geography is a hgue factor but it can't affect the player directly. only AI.

IE if I'm on an Island, I shouldn't be forced to become a naval exploring expansionist civilization. I would be most likely coerced into it, or out right choose it (if I were a good player) but the game shouldn't "force me".


How can we represent civilization traits?

In my idea wonders, governments, and tech-tree.

How?

Well wonders are easy - suppose you're on an Island and you want to become a naval civ. To become a naval civ you decide to build a wonder which helps you in the seas (improves your triremes, gives your ships more movement, improves trade, whatever).

If you want to be a cultural civ - you build a culture increasing wonder, etc.

That calls for many wonders for different types, and some "types" recurring each era.

The government, should also have effect. I'm talking about an advanced social workshop model, when you have several sliders, changing your civ traits.
ie:
Religious --- Atheist
Planned Economy --- Free economy
Liberal rule --- Totalitarian rule
Centralized govt --- Disperesed govt.
Rule of one - Rule of elite - Rule of senate - Rule of people
nationalist --- universalist
etc

The availability of settings is of course dependant of techs, and has impact on your research, units, cities and what not.


And technology - the technology tree should be very big, and many technologies should be unnecessary except to players who want a specific goal. For instance, you could research some extra military techs you could do without, to be better at that. Or some scientific techs.

It should be made impossible to have EVERYTHING going for you. In Civ II you pretty much explored everything except possibly dead-end techs.

I say make many strings of dead-end techs, to allow specialization.


Furthermore, resources and such should affect your armies / trade / science.

If you don't have horses you can't improve army or make fast trade...

such things.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
The government, should also have effect. I'm talking about an advanced social workshop model, when you have several sliders, changing your civ traits.
ie:
Religious --- Atheist
Planned Economy --- Free economy
Liberal rule --- Totalitarian rule
Centralized govt --- Disperesed govt.
Rule of one - Rule of elite - Rule of senate - Rule of people
nationalist --- universalist
etc

I like it. I do have one comment. The bonuses/penalties should be set in such a way that the player doesn't just put all the sliders in the middle and leave them there the whole game. Otherwise, it kinda defeats the purpose of sliders.

Id' suggest the bonus penalty choices could be something like this (where h=happiness, e=economy),

(+5h/-5e) (+4h/-4e) (+3h/-3e) (+2h/-2e) (-2h/+2e)
(-3h/+3e) (-4h/+4e) (-5h/+5e)

Note that with this scheme, there is no neutral middle, even in the middle, the player would haver to choose between either +2happiness and -2 economy or the reverse, -2happiness and +2 economy.

[Trifna]

I think that is all case there is normally a middle. But it doesn't mean to have a slider, it can simply be a bit like SMAC, with a few options that are each a "model".

[Sirotnikov]

I like it. I do have one comment. The bonuses/penalties should be set in such a way that the player doesn't just put all the sliders in the middle and leave them there the whole game. Otherwise, it kinda defeats the purpose of sliders.

agreed to some extent.

but I do think that most players will take the opportunity to change the sliders for a temporary boost (for a certain reduce in other fields)

[Trifna]

I think that if we want to see what a changing culture model would be like, it'd be a good idea to continue from Sirotnikov's post. There's everything that would be needed in it. It seems simple, convenient, and coherent with reality thus ingame.

But I would add that ANY change with the sliders shouldn't just *POOF* it changed. You should put your slider somewhere and see the change slowly going to where you put your slider.

[Cyclotron]

Should we have the sliders impacting the civilization, or the civilization impacting the sliders?

What I mean is, perhaps the most interesting way to accrue bonuses, for say, nationalism would not be to push around a nationalism slider, but to have your foreign policy actions push that slider about according to your game actions.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Should we have the sliders impacting the civilization, or the civilization impacting the sliders?

Why not both?

You could have the player be able to move sliders, and also have your civ's culture move the sliders. Like in reality, it would sometimes be a struggle between what the leader wants and what the people want.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Religious --- Atheist
Planned Economy --- Free economy
Liberal rule --- Totalitarian rule
Centralized govt --- Disperesed govt.
Rule of one - Rule of elite - Rule of senate - Rule of people
nationalist --- universalist

I expanded on your idea a bit. How about this:

religion
religious------atheist

economy
planned--------capitalism

politics
totalitarian-------democracy

militarism
pacifism----------warmongering

administration
centralized-----------decentralized

moral code
traditional-------progressive

social structure
tribal------------global

labor
slavery------------free