Discuss Big Gameplay Issues Now. . .Small Issues Later

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


no they couldn't

because to be atheistic, you would have to have the squashing of ideas

and the free flow of ideas is fundamental to democracy

so it would be impossible

religious liberty is as fundamental to democracy as freedom of press

Jon Miller

Democracy=People vote.

It doesn't mean free press, it doesn't mean free religion, it doesn't even mean no slaves and votes for women.

My idea is to get rid of the current Civ model in which a "government" choice means chosing an economy style and military positions. If a player wants to establish a democratic politcal system that values religion, then I want them to be able to do it, no matter how foolish you or I or their simulated populace thinks it is.

Now, once again, so that we might remain on-topic... that was my example, please focus on my idea: Do you like it? Why or why not? What would you change?

[Jon Miller]

yes

the people vote

but they aren't really voting if there are no ideas circulated

if no ideas are circulated, than all they can vote for is who they are told to

so in reality it is no democracy

it is like, you can vote, but you can only vote for the president

it is just a dictatorship with a covering of democracy (Which is easily seen through)

democracies can easily survive(and even thrive) when not everyone was free

Athens most certainly did, as did Rome, and the early US

but without the exchange of ideas, which are a fundamental part of freedom of religion and of press, there is nothing to vote on, and so the ability to vote is meaningless

the reason I don't like it is that most of the different set ups are stupid (This was true in smac), there are really only like 6 choices which anyone would make, and we might as well get rid of SE and just offer up those 6 governments

Jon Miller

[TechWins]

they are (hopefully) looking at ideas, and maybe seeing something in one that they can use

Well, it's a lot easier to find an idea that is worthwhile when it is organized and there is more depth and explanation behind the idea. An organized list of ideas is likely to be more effective, simple as that. I'm done arguing this, because it's irrelevant me having to back up the thought that an organized list of ideas is better than a random group of ideas.

[Jon Miller]

well

you don't make a lot of sense

Jon Miller

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
the reason I don't like it is that most of the different set ups are stupid (This was true in smac), there are really only like 6 choices which anyone would make, and we might as well get rid of SE and just offer up those 6 governments

Jon Miller

This is where we'll disagree then. I will concede that many ideas are not great in the SMAC social engineering, just like it isn't smart to defend all of your cities with longbowmen and assault your neighbor with pikes.

A monarchy with a laissez faire economic policy would be a be able to play and feel different than a democracy with a planned market. Both of these are theoretically possible... and a lot more so than interstellar ships in the 1600s.

And my idea of having additional value options that become available as the game progresses is to have increased control as the game goes on, letting people and AIs optimize their Civ to be the builder, the warmonger, or the hybrid that they want to be.



Another big game play issue I'd like to address:

Make a Signifigant portion of research passive

Governments in history have really "researched" so little of what we know, and "traded" even less. 90% of the Civ techs are things that people figrued out. How many states "researched" philosophy, after all?

I suggest having two tech trees... one that just sort of happens, and one that is player directed.

In the first, "natural" tech tree, the player is informed of what great new developments have sprung up that he can now take advantage of. In the second, he directs the research and funds it out of the treasury.

Techs in both trees could have prerequisites in the other, to keep things running in a sensible way. The player can only indirectly increase the rate at which "natural" techs are discovered, and cannot trade these techs.
Things that would impact the rate of "natural" discovery...
*Other Civs with contact knowing it. If the Greeks have come up with a great new way to rotate crops, then the Romans will take notice.
*Health of citizenry. People who are well fed and have a roof over their heads don't spend all day worrying about dying, so they can devote some time to figuring out how to build better buildings.
*Various government attitudes. If the player's government supports one religion (since we're on that debate already), then maybe some "natural" tech's discoveries are retarded. Gallileo, anyone? If the player's government supports universal free speech, ideas in general will develop faster.
*Other... um.. help me out here.

"Directed" tech research can be traded to other civs, since it would represent applicable things such as weapons and tactics that the average person wouldn't be able to spread. "Natural" techs would trigger the potential. So instead of saying: "You guys, invent gunpowder and apply it to something!" You would learn one day that some people have discovered an interesting explosive, then you'd say, "Try to make a weapon out of it, here' some gold to keep you going." Then a few years later you have powder weapons.


What do you think, gang?

[Brent]

I always automate my workers, so I wouldn't mind not needing units to do worker jobs. I'd like to be able to build more than one thing in the same city at the same time. I'd like to be able to build a transport with automatic land units onboard.

[TechWins]

Why would you ever want to build two (or more) things at the sametime? Say you have 2 production shields to use in your city. You want to build 2 improvements that both cost 100 shields. Building them simultaneiously it will take you 100 turns to have both improvements done. Building them seperately will still take you 100 turn to have both improvements, however, at 50 turns you will have one of the improvements done. It's more efficient receiving the benefit of one of the improvements for 50 turns rather than not.