Civ3 settings to increase realism

[Ozymandias]

Re: Soldiers are people

Originally posted by Explorer579
Soldiers are people, therefore when we build units that require people, the population should decrease! This apply to most combat units, but not to units such as ships or airplanes.

I used the editor to decrease the population by one for soldier units. It worked! The game was much more realistic. The games was not much affected. I have to admit, I rarely play modern eras, and the effects of this change on late game is unknown. Anyway, anything that limits the number of units on the map is appreciated (I hate to have to control 300 units!)

By the way: Immagine the million of soldiers who died in WWII in Europe or the hundreds of thousands killed by Alexander the Great. These destroyed armys affected population growth (directly through death or indirectly through widows with no more children). Therefore decreasing the population by 1 when building a soldier unit increases the realism!

Try it and tell me what you think.

I'm glad to hear this works, as I'm planning on using it to simulate feudalism in my 1050CE mod.

Another historical note -- in WWI, the German Army did its best to let its soldiers have leaves at home under almost all circumstances. The French did not. The net result -- a generation later -- was that Germany's population of young men of conscription age was greater than France's could have been ...

-Oz

[Explorer579]

Posted by Brizey in a different thread

The real problem in civ, as far as accuracy and playability, has always been that the units move either too slow or too fast relative to the development speed. This, coupled with city-discrete construction sends realism out the window and makes playabilty real tough.

For example, it can take hundreds of years to create a warrior unit in the early game. That is generations! Heck, the game turn is longer than the prehistoric average life-span! And if it really took 200 years to move a military unit from one city to another, it would be impossible for a despot to control the civilization.

Another example: in the modern game, the spaceship is the only thing that cities can cooperate to build. This is totally contrary to reality, in which the simplest items are manufactured from parts supplied from all over the world.

The jump from 1/3 movement roads to infinite RR is just another symptom of this overall 'disease'.

On the other hand, I have played games that tried to make production more realistic, and they suck. What makes civ such a great game is that the overall mathematical scheme is built up from basic building blocks that are single digit (read: human comprehendible) numbers. This is really the genius behind the civ franchise.

[Explorer579]

Barbarians and realism

I may have commented before that the history of the ancient and middle ages world was shaped by the history of nomadic/barbarian tribes and hordes (Mongols, Bedouin, Ottomans, Hons, Germanic tribes, Berber, etc. )

The barbarians are too weak by default in civ3. I went to the editor and increased the default strength of the barberians. It was fun! The game became challenging with my biggest concern during ancient time to defend my cities from barberians and not to expand anywhere before i have adequate defense.

The strategy also shift to keeping your cities connected, increasing boundaries, and making sure there is no no-man land around you. With the default settings, barberians were to weak to cause any hassle (unless there was a massive barberian uprising).

With the increased barberian strength, a massive barberian uprising causes a Jenkiz Khan/Holako effect, with hordes sweaping the continent! Now this is realistic playing...

I also play unpassable mountains. Some mountain-locked areas with great riches remain controlled by barberians with 20 knights until advanced stages of the game! You can see civilizations trying to get into these rich lands, only to be defeated by the barbarian knights! It is like taming Mongolia or the Arabian peninsula. No ancient/middle age power could do it!

Try it! I think it is under general settings of the Editor. Pick the initial barbarian unit and the advanced barbarian unit of your choice. The stronger the barbarians, the bigger the challenge!

[Aidun]

I have some ideas:

Roads: there should be different types of roads, paths in the early years, Roman roads throughout the rest of the ancient times, the middle ages, and industrial age, highway's in the modern age. Workers should be able to upgrade these roads.
Secondary concerning roads: paths can be made through mountain areas, Roman roads not until in the industrial ages, the first highway's could not be build through mountain area's.
Roads that are but poorly used slowly get to a lower roadtype: highways without trafic along it decay to Roman roads, decay to paths, decay to land without road. This should also prevent the AI of building road everywhere, because the unused road slowly disapears.
Roads should also cost upkeep as long as they are in your territory. Roads outside it should decay faster because of lack of upkeep.
Another thing concerning roads: some roads cost longer time to tread then others: through the flat dutch lands is far easier than through the mountans. Roads in hills and mountains should so give less bonus than paths on grassland, plains, or other flat types of land.
Roads should also be accessible to any civ, even if they lie on another civs territory: if the civ does not want other civs to use their roads, or territory at all, it should attack them or reconsider. Passage Ageements are then but agreemens to take away the insurance of losing your units.
Railroads shouldn't give a unit unlimited traveling ability. traveling par train costs time and though it is less than by carrige over a road, it takes some time.
It is also quite unrealistic that players can move units over railroads without having trains build. To use the railroads, players should buid trains. The ability to always move by rail is also unrealistic. Does a civ hav so many trainwagons that massive armies can be moved in one turn? I suggest creating trains as units that can transport units like transport over sea is organized. The units can step out of the train at any moment, but trains can also be emptied in cities like tranportships. Trains should only be able to move over RR-squares. If this isn't possible, you can think of making special RR-terrain: trains can then only move over this type of terrain.
NEW ROADTYPE: PIPELINES. Why can't anyone make pipelines, most common in the modern times. There should be a possibility to construct these on land as well as sea, making oil at sea a useful recource. Navy is now also of more use: enemy ships could destroy these, so you have to protect them. Offshore platforms can then be really offshore.

Next: recources.
I am still wondering how civ's that have just one source of coal or something in their empire can use it in every city in their empire from the earliest ages. Recources can provide for an unlimited numer of cities for a certain time. This is really unrealistic. I know about five breads and three fishes in the bible, but this is absurd! Recources should only be able to provide a random number of cities of it.

Naval units can travel endless without getting new fuel or new stocks. In Civ2 air-units had to return to some city to get new fuel. This should also be a rule to naval units. I know that it makes them weaker, but that was the reason that the Japanese won a major seabattle agains the Russians in the late 19th century: the Russians had to go back to Vladivostock to get new coal for their ships. The Japanese attacked them while they were steaming through Japanese territorial waters to get new coal.
This causes that ships cannot move too far. For this I have also a solution: stockships and fuelships, who can provide new fuel or new stocks. A fleet can take a few with it and use them while they travel. The stockships reset the fuel- or stockrate of ships and get lost themselves by the command "refuel" or "add stocks".
Units that are without fuel or stocks should be lost, like triremes in the sea.

I think however that all units should go back once to a friendly city to reset their stockrates and cannot travel endless. Restocking should also be able at goody huts, wich should not disapear after units have gone into it, exept if they create units. Goody huts shouldn't though contain new treasures they should only provide new stocks for traveling units. They should disapear when it comes behind the cultural borders of a civ. It can then change into a frienly or unfrendly unit randomly. It must be able to destroy goodyhuts, but they should also pop up like barbarian camps: the wandering nomads. It should also be possible that they disapear because of nothing and pop up elswere nearby. Goodyhuts that pop up should not contain treasures or it becomes all too easy. They should also just change randomly in new civs as was already mentioned, but only in areas that lie far away from existing civs, to make it impossible that "the people of the goodyhut have heard of a civ" so they get confrontated with new culture which they can join or oppose.

Concerning timber:
It should be able to workers to plant trees that can provide timber on terraintypes that are useful to that: grasslands, plains, tundra's and hills. This was done by Richelieu in France during the 18th century. He forgot however that oaktrees grow very slow, so there is now a wood full of oaktrees useful to make ships now they are not needed anymore.
All types of terrain should be able to have timber on it, except for floodplains and desert and water of couse.
Mountains mai contain it, but it cannot be rebuild on it once the timber is exhausted.

There is another ting that is quite strange: trading with oter civ's is done by the government. In the real world it is not the government that trades, but companies in the country. I suggest that civs should attract companies in to be able to trade. The trade-agreemens should still be made by the government, but not just because they have the recource within their borders.

At last: playing Civilisation is like being in the world of a commercial: everything is beautiful, exept your enemy. That is also unrealistic. In our world disasters happen, like tornado's, floods, plagues etc. All civ's should get them once. It makes the world mightiest civs weak and creates new chances for the smaller civs.

I hope this can be put in a mod. Perhaps to some ideas civ3 can provide not the solution I suggested, or no solution at all, but at least it must be tried, or maybe Firaxis can pick it up and put it in a patch. Civ3 shall though be much dificulter to play than without this "realism".

Good idea to start this excellent thread btw.

[photar74]

Resources leading to technologies

I have been working on creating a more realistic mod for civ 3 as well, and one frustration I have had is the apparent inability to make having certain resources prerequisities for certain technologies.

For example, ameridian civs, in the real world (Aztecs, Incas, etc.), never developed the wheel because they did have have access to draft animals that made wheel-structured vehicles viable means of transport. In order to simulate something like this, having a source of horses should be a prerequisite for The Wheel. The tech tree could go something like this:

The tech "Horseback Riding" + the resource "horses" makes reseaching technology "The Wheel" possible.

Really, this sort of thing should exist throughout the game. People don't figure out how to work with Iron (Iron Working) until they know what Iron is and have it. Civs did not figure out the concept of Iron working in the abstract and then go in search of Iron so that they could apply this idea to reality. The resource comes first, the idea / application second.

Instead of the resource becoming visible when its applicaiton is discovered, the resource should become visible when the technology that first allows its applicaiton into units and/or buildings becomes possible to research. In other words, a more realistic tech tree would work like this:

Horses are always visible, and horses plus any other necessary technology are required to discover any technology that allows for their practical application (The Wheel, Horseback Riding, Chivalry, etc.)

Bronze Working allows Iron to become visible, and Iron plus any other necessary technologies is required in order to discover Iron Working, Feudalism, Steam Engine, etc.)

Invention allows Salpeter to become visible, and Salpeter plus any other necessary technologies is required for Gunpowder, Military tradition, etc.

And so on and so forth. If anyone knows how to make resources required for technologies, please let me know.


I'd also like to make it impossible for any civ to participate in the trading, extorting, or giving away of technologies until that civ has discoverd Scientific Method. However, I would like there to be a 1% or 2% chance every turn that civs within the same trading network spontaneously learn a technology owned by another civ within that trading network. All in all, I think this would allow for a far, far more realistic model of human "progress."

If anyone knows how do this for a mod, please let me know.

[Explorer579]

Re: Resources leading to technologies

Originally posted by photar74

I'd also like to make it impossible for any civ to participate in the trading, extorting, or giving away of technologies until that civ has discoverd Scientific Method. However, I would like there to be a 1% or 2% chance every turn that civs within the same trading network spontaneously learn a technology owned by another civ within that trading network. All in all, I think this would allow for a far, far more realistic model of human "progress."

I disagree. Civilizations could learn a technology without learning Scientific Method, particularly when it comes to learning early technologies such as granary, iron working, etc.

In civ2, I used to like the idea of learning a technology when you concquer a city. I miss this feature. Now of course, you can take 3 cities, and force the defeated civilization to give y ou 3 technologies. It ends up having the same effect.

[Ozymandias]

Re: Re: Resources leading to technologies

Originally posted by Explorer579


I disagree. Civilizations could learn a technology without learning Scientific Method, particularly when it comes to learning early technologies such as granary, iron working, etc.

Indeed. We should ABSOLUTELY not even discount Alchemy -- the failure of its stated goals (lead into gold, homunculi, The Philosopher's Stone et. al.) taught our ancestors a lot about what DIDN't work, thereby sowing the seeds for true chemistry, the Scienterrific Method, etc. After all, trial-and-error is ultimately the root of much -- all? -- of our scientific inquiry.

Also, there is much debate of the chicken-or-egg-first sort about what spurred particular technologies. For instance, I've read compelling enough theory for me to posit in my own modding that the first Wheel was actually a potter's wheel -- so Pottery & Horse Domestication are the necessary precursors to The Wheel.

-- And some of it was very goal oriented. Chariots were all the vogue in early domesticated days because we hadn't yet bred large enough horses for much riding, let alone destriers for carrying knights wearing plate armor. So we set out to breed larger animals.

This is not to say that I'm entirely philosophically disinclined towards Photar's POV -- feedback among observation, necessity, and available means would, I think, be the true basis of the synergy of discovery.

Abraxas,

Oz

[photar74]

I never said thar civs shouldn't be allowed to discover a tech without scientific method, I said that they shouldn't be allowed to trade techs without scientific method. I had two points, and that was one of them.

My other, more urgent point is that you should not be allowed to discover Iron Working until you have Iron, or Horseback Riding without Horses. Did people figure out how to ride horses, and then go look for these things they had never seen before but knew how to ride?

The points about tech trading and tech discovery were separate. I never said that Scientific Method should be the prerec for all technologies. Even the quote from my post that you use doesn't say that.

Ozy's point about Knights actually brings up why I feel that tech trading (though not tech discovery) should not be allowed until scientific method. Knights were made possible because saddle technology from China had made its way to western europe around the time of Charlamange. Did Charlamange buy the tech "improved saddle" from the Chinese? Of course not--it simply worked its way across the Eurasian continet through trade. Connected trade networks should lead to spontaneous dioscovery of techs--not two ancient depots trading writing for iron working.

None of this was really my point in coming here anyway. I just wanted to know if anyone knew how to make having a particular resource a prereq for researching a particular technology. If others people out there don't like how that would affect the game, or if they reject such a materialistic view of human knowledge, fine. I'm not here to argue about how base connects to superstructure--this really isn't an expansive enough forum to do that anyway. I just want to know if it is possible to make a resource a technology prereq.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by photar74
I just want to know if it is possible to make a resource a technology prereq.

You raise many interesting points which cut to the heart of the Civ engine.

However, sadly, in answer to your specific question, I can't think of a way to do it, as the only prerequisites which can be set to discover a new tech is another 1 or several techs -- so it's a bit of a Catch-22.

Nonetheless, I'm curious -- What trigger would you use to have the resources appear in the first place? Would a "precursor" tech cause them to appear? -- Bronze working makes iron ore appear which leads you to figure out how to smelt the stuff etc.?

Actually, if that's the case, then the trade-network approach you describe is, I think, actually fairly well modelled, as I can only imagine that the whole notion of a Civ advance simulates the incorporation of a new technology into a society's infrastructure -- which makes the wholesale trading notion make better sense. For example, all of Japan's industrial age railroads were built by English companies, and it is certainly possible to buy techs with resources and gold, both in the game and in reality.

-- Of course, if you're a "real world" fanatic like me, and the idea of indigenous American peoples being required to discover Horseback Riding without an equine in sight gives you hives -- well, then the best approach is probably going to be altering the tech tree. Out of the box, it's a ludicrous model of history, yet much can be accomplished via the editor.

Anyway, apologies if I've been ramlbing -- I just realized how late it is ...

Best,

Oz

[Willem]

Originally posted by twilight
I am experimenting with the editor. You can make mountains impassible. No units can then pass them except air units. This makes sense considering that no units could pass the Himalayas. Only then, you can't land on mountains.

Okay, but is it possible to give some units the ability to cross them? I think of Mountaintroops (Gebirgsjäger) for example.

If you give most of your units the "Wheeled" flag in the editor, except for just a few, then they can't pass through the mountains unless there's a road. Virtually all of my Ancient and Middle Ages units are now wheeled, which makes the terrain an important strategic element early in the game, as it should be.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Willem


If you give most of your units the "Wheeled" flag in the editor, except for just a few, then they can't pass through the mountains unless there's a road. Virtually all of my Ancient and Middle Ages units are now wheeled, which makes the terrain an important strategic element early in the game, as it should be.

The "Wheeled" approach is one I'm using now, but I have some questions & thoughts I wouldn't mind some feedback on --

1. Shouldn't Mountains (yeah, and we'd probably need to address a certain height or "ruggedness" to precisely differntiiate Mountains from Hills -- but keeping it abstract for now) TRULY be impssable? The few military campaigns (as opposed to guerilla actions etc.) fought in "Mountains" have centered around control of key passes -- Khyber, St. Bernard's, etc. And this is readily simulated by having -- at a hypothetical 2x2 square of tiles -- Moutains and Hills diagonal to each other. Oui-la, a pass.

1a. I would further suggest that the few campaigns where this historically did 't apply were by and large geopolitically insignificant, such as the Sino-Indian conflict in the early 1960s, ot the failed Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Austro-Italian Alpine Front of WWI.

2. What happens if terrain is marked impassable yet a unit yet a unit has the "Ignore Move Cost" flag checked for that terrain? -- many possible solutions might lie here ...

A further nore -- it might be helpful to revist at least one approach other aspect of map-makng differently, as there are areas -- e.g., the Iranian and Anatolian plateaus -- which currently need to be represented by flatlands ringed by Mountains and/or Hills

AND ... #3 ... DRUM ROLL MAESTRO ..

Why Oh Why can't we get at the attributes of "Pine Forest", "Bonus Grasslands", and "Snow-Covered Mountains" TERRAIN TILES to edit them?????

All for now --

Oz

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ozymandias

1. Shouldn't Mountains (yeah, and we'd probably need to address a certain height or "ruggedness" to precisely differntiiate Mountains from Hills -- but keeping it abstract for now) TRULY be impssable? The few military campaigns (as opposed to guerilla actions etc.) fought in "Mountains" have centered around control of key passes -- Khyber, St. Bernard's, etc. And this is readily simulated by having -- at a hypothetical 2x2 square of tiles -- Moutains and Hills diagonal to each other. Oui-la, a pass.

But it is possible to build a road/railroad through a mountain range in real life, why not the game? One thing I've done is create another Worker unit, called the Engineer available with (guess when). It's not a wheeled unit like my Worker, so I can't build roads through mountains until then. I'd say that's a decent compromise.

2. What happens if terrain is marked impassable yet a unit yet a unit has the "Ignore Move Cost" flag checked for that terrain? -- many possible solutions might lie here ...

I've wondered that myself, but haven't tried it out yet. I'm finding it's just as easy to be generous with the Wheeled flag.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Willem

One thing I've done is create another Worker unit, called the Engineer available with (guess when). It's not a wheeled unit like my Worker, so I can't build roads through mountains until then. I'd say that's a decent compromise.

Clearly a decent approach -- and one which I've considered variations on for Forests, Tundra and Desert as well, as I think it best viz ICC (and other reasons) for cities not to be buildable on these tiles.

So my problem becomes needing to over-use the Wheeled flag. If it's needful to keep Settlers away etc., then do I have to build roads in Forests for Knights to enter? This doesn't seem realistic, although they clearly shouldn't be able to cross the Alps without a road, which means I'm forced to choose between two unrealistic situations.

-Oz

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


Clearly a decent approach -- and one which I've considered variations on for Forests, Tundra and Desert as well, as I think it best viz ICC (and other reasons) for cities not to be buildable on these tiles.

So my problem becomes needing to over-use the Wheeled flag. If it's needful to keep Settlers away etc., then do I have to build roads in Forests for Knights to enter? This doesn't seem realistic, although they clearly shouldn't be able to cross the Alps without a road, which means I'm forced to choose between two unrealistic situations.

-Oz

I don't see what's unrealistic about Knights needing a road through Forests, horses certainly aren't in their element in that terrain. Especially with a rider that no doubt weighs several hundred pounds.

But it's not really necessary since all you have to do is flag Forests as being unsuitable for city building. Same with Tundra and Desert, which is what I've done. Other units can still cross them, including the Settller, they just can't build a city there. Just as they can't build a city in Mountains in the default game.
There's not really a conflict there at all.

[Willem]

Re: Soldiers are people

Originally posted by Explorer579
Soldiers are people, therefore when we build units that require people, the population should decrease! This apply to most combat units, but not to units such as ships or airplanes.

I used the editor to decrease the population by one for soldier units. It worked! The game was much more realistic. The games was not much affected. I have to admit, I rarely play modern eras, and the effects of this change on late game is unknown. Anyway, anything that limits the number of units on the map is appreciated (I hate to have to control 300 units!)

By the way: Immagine the million of soldiers who died in WWII in Europe or the hundreds of thousands killed by Alexander the Great. These destroyed armys affected population growth (directly through death or indirectly through widows with no more children). Therefore decreasing the population by 1 when building a soldier unit increases the realism!

Try it and tell me what you think.

I did and I discovered that I was at a serious disadvantage to the AI, who apparently doesn't build to many military units early in the game. This left me on every occasion with a starting empire half as small as any of the other civs.