Unconventional Warfare in Civ III

[MidKnight Lament]

Ok, I'm going to try to start a sensible discussion here - that is, one that doesn't have people posting 'CTP sucks' by simple reflex. Hopefully anyone like that has got it out of their system by now.

One of the initial gripes people had about CTP was unconventional warfare. For some people it was just too different, and they didn't like the amount of power that was given to the units. Either that, or they found them too annoying.

For the books, I think unconventional warfare was a good edition, but I know a lot of people have argued that it should have been done better. I was hoping to spark some debate on how this could actually be done the way people want in Civ3.

Of course, another option is not to have it all, but I subscribe to the opinion that a game with an historical basis like Civ, couldn't be doing a good job if it just ignored things like Slavery. After all, it wasn't just a passing phase. Perhaps it could be done differently though. Any ideas on how? I'm looking for all those people who bagged the crap out of CTP to come in with some constructive comment here.

The concepts brought forth in regards to a religious model have somewhat diminished the need for a unit like the Cleric as it appeared in CTP. But would we still like a religious unit? And what would it do? How powerful would it be?

A top-class diplomacy model would help appease some want for Lawyers - or at least some representation of their influence in the modern age. But do we still need something else? Would the dimplomacy model cover everything we want to represent?

And what about the Corporate Branches? Any ideas on how this could be done better?

Feel free to have a go at the other unconventional warfare units that were in CTP as well. But remember that I'm hoping for constructive suggestions here, not deconstructive critiques like we've been subjected to in the past.

------------------
- MKL

[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited March 12, 2000).]

[korn469]

MidKnight Lament

i have only watched some of my friends play CtP but from the looks of it and what i have read the unconventional units look unbalanced...i also think that spy's in civ2 are unbalanced and so are probe teams in SMAC

however i do think that unconventional do have a place in a civ game

so could you give me a list of all of the unconventional units from CtP, what they did, and a short analysis of the unit? i think that would be a good starting spot...once you figure out why a unit is unbalanced then you can fix+improve it

korn469

[MidKnight Lament]

This isn't going to be the most comprehensive list you've ever seen, and there might be a few errors, because I don't use some of these units, but here goes.

Most, if not all unit attacks have a probability of success that is affected by a few different things. Cities will become "wary" after an attack is noticed, and following attacks will have less probability of success afterwards.

Subversive Units

(Can only be seen by other subversive and terror units). Most of these cost gold. Units will live another day if their attack is successful.

Slaver

Slaves are added to one of your city's population, but you feed them less and don't pay them.

- "Enslaves" settlers
- "Capture Slave" from city by luring them away. Pop goes down by 1.
- Captures slaves if it's stacked with a military unit that is victorious in battle.

Cleric

- "Coverts" a city. City then payes tithes to your civ in gold each turn until the city can rid itself of your influence.
- "Sell Indulgences" gives you gold in return for making an enemy citier happier.
- "Soothsay" makes ememy city unhappy.

Abolitionist

- "Free Slaves" frees one slave from a slaver's city.
- Train armies in an enemy city (who is using slaves) to riot in that city.

Terror Units

(Can only be seen by other terror units).

Spy

- Spy on city 'screen' (or what's left of it in CTP)
- Steal Advance
- Plant Nuke
- Incite Revolution

Ecoterrorist

- Plants a nanovirus in an enemy city which has the possibility of spreading to other cities via trade routes. Nanovirus destroys all wonders and imrovements.
- Cause unhappiness

Infector

-Releases plague in an enemy city which has the possibility of spreading to other cities via trade routes. Plague lowers happiness.

Eco Ranger

-Destroys all man-made buildings and infrastructure. Eco Ranger is destroyed in the process. All land is put back to it's 'natural' state.

Cyber Ninja

- Same as spy, but with higer chance of success

Trade Units

(Can only be seen by other trade units and terror units).

Lawyer

- "Injuction" stops enemy city building anything on that turn. Useful when racing for wonders.
- "Sue" destroys trade units, and can 'release' a franchised city (Caused by Corporate Branch)

Televangelist

- Acts like a more powerful Cleric

Corporate Branch

- "Franchises" enemy cities. Each turn the city gives 10% of it's production to your coffers.

Subneural Ads

- Causes unhappiness


------------------

- MKL

[MidKnight Lament]

Now, having posted that, I'm not going to say I agree with them all. Eco Rangers (whilst being bloody deadly efficient) are too 'out there'. Cyber Ninjas are laughable. Subnueral Ads are a bit futuristic.

But my main concerns in regard to Uncoventional Warfare is representing:

- Slavery
- Religious Conversion
- Corporations
- (and of course, ye olde) Spy

------------------

- MKL

[Youngsun]

Midknight Lament

About corporations

I have always thought there are better ways to deal with how to implement corporations into civ games.

Corporations today are the driving forces of nations' economy and some of them have even bigger trade volumes than some other nations. We can no longer ignore nor exclude them from the game and they deserve to appear in later stage of the game as a separate entities from nations as many MNEs do.

CivII made no big deal of these very existance of corporations by letting a player to control whole economy of his/her own.

CTP took little bit different approach by having a unit of "Corporate Branch" though it was interesting still I was dissatified with this simplification of corporate activities.

The key solution has to come from upgraded trade and economy system of CivIII game.

Corporations should have their own AI and act like civs.

I posted similar idea about corporations at Clash forum.

quote: Corporations should be allowed to do many things that merchants could not. 1.Each corporation should have its own characteristics and management style just like other civs' characteristics(Expansionist~perfectionist) 2.They also should have their own factory(if they are manufacturing firms), service outlet(if they are service-oriented firms)or mine(resource-selling firms) 3.Coporations should compete each other like other civs do. 4.Corporations can conduct their own research (Which is important for market economy civs to be tech-leading nations) 5.Corporations can brach out city by city as their business progress. 6.Corporations can be specialised in one area of business(Ford,IBM,etc)or many kind of business(Japanses keiretsu-Mitsubishi). 7.Number of corporations should be limited to reduce our CPU's burden(Some will be out of business.Some will prosper.Some will start) 8.Corporations will have thier own corporate HQ(usually in capital city of its civ which it belongs) 9.There should be a ranking of world corporations like Top 5 corporation,etc and its owning civs. 10.Two or more corporations can be combined(Merging & Annexation) 11.Corporations that have branches in many other civs will be upgraded to MNE(Multi National Enterprise)

Surely this means more burdens for our CPU and lots of work for the programmers but since we are not satisfied with current trade and economy system of the game,there will be an upgrade of this part of the game then maybe this kind of concept can be accomodated into the game(I hope so)

[korn469]

Youngsun

i agree with you to a point about corporations but currently the civ model would make it hard for corporate civs to exist for the following reasons

1. there is only one of a certain kind facility per city (only one temple, only one barracks ect.)
2. tile improvements have no effects unless population work them and only civs have population
3. only civs can determine what a city produces
4. resources are generic
5. only civs can control land

and those are just the problems i can think of off the tope of my head, i am sure that there are many more

to solve those problems we would have to put in some major changes like...

1. multiple facilities per city
2. once built a tile improvement automatically sends resources back to the city
or
whoever owns the tile improvements pays the workers
3. each factory/workshop/market place can produce one thing with the facilities owner determining production
4. have a couple classes of resources
5. have corporations have the ability to purpchase land or at least own the tile improvements on the land (and thereby own the production)

all of those solutions have individual problems and most importantly if you added those improvements would it take away the civ feel of the game and would it create a micromanagement hell?

korn469

[Youngsun]

Korn

You are right Korn the current game engine can not deal with things like corporations that's why we need to see major overhaul in this area.

We need to introduce "Private ownership" of city improvements or tile improvements.

Private ownership should apply to only corporations if that starts to apply to the public,it will be too complicated.

Capitalist economy should be able to have multiple existance of city improvement.

ieA)
New York: BankA(FirmA owned) Factory(FirmB owned) Supermarket(FirmC owned) BankB(FirmB owned) city hall(state owned)

Moscow: Bank(State owned) Factory(State owned) Supermarket(state owned)

New York's city improvements are fully privatised except city hall and police station. Financial giant firmA holds its ownership of BankA and newly established BankB's activities make the competition close to cut-throat!

There is no direct revenue for the US government from the New York's banks since they are owned by FirmA(BankA) and FirmB(BankB)but the government gets more revenues by collecting taxes from these firms.

New York Factory is owned by industrial giant FirmB and this factory will produce 2000 M1A3 tanks until the year 2001. The payment has been made by the defense department.
After year 2001 the government is planning to buy some fighter jets from FirmD which holds lots of advanced aerodynamics technologies. This one will be a joint project with firmH from Canada and firmJ from Mexico.

Moscow is not allowed to have more than one city improvement but all of them are fully controllable. You can build whatever you want from the Moscow factory.

Although New York enjoys higher productivity due to privatisation, the player can not force city improvements to close or move. Some firms like B and D which engage defense industry and hold important technologies for national defense are closely watched and controlled by the government under relavant legislations.

ieB)
Tokyo:FactoryA(FirmA) FactoryB(FirmB) FactoryC(FirmC)

Singapore:Port facility(State owned) Air port(State owned) Factory(FirmA)

FirmA is Japan's famous auto maker and its FactoryA now produce 200 vehicles of trade commodities each turn.

FirmA also has factory in Singapore which produce 500 consumer electronics of trade commodity each turn.

Japanese government can't control its corporations' activities. Firms have their own AI and decide what to produce themselves.
So what the player can do? He/she can collect taxes from the corporations and make a trade pact with other nations which allows easier access to their markets. "Tariff" can be a useful tool to protect your own industry.

Capitalist economy have some drawbacks. If firms reckon cityA is not lucrative place to run a business they will simply shut down their business(Usually small cities)So when a player think of privatisation of power and water supply, he/she has to think again!

ieC)
Mining firmA from CivA wants to establish and activate a goldmine in a tile which belongs to civB. Foreign minister advises the player the current relationship between two countries is satisfactory and the player gives permision to FirmA. Another player who control civB gets report from his trade minister "FirmA from civA wants to lease this tile for mining purpose for 30 turns. Shall we accapt the offer?".

Korn I rather say privatisation will reduce micromanagement problems because it is almost the same as automation of city production with smarter AI. Folks who play communist civs may have micromagement problems but that's their own wish.

I think people who play democratic civs should spent most of their time to satisfy people and only guide the whole economy generally not spending time on specific city productions,etc.

I'll be really glad if the game can adopt even small fraction of this idea because I know I'm asking too much to the programmers.

[MidKnight Lament]

Wow. Hit me with a doozy first up. I'm of the opinion that uncoventional units were moulded to a purpose rather than the other way around. What else could they have called a unit that stole production? Corporate Branches were a trade unit, and they did steal stuff, but there wasn't much realism there. On that point, I'll agree with you there, Youngsun.

I think your idea might be leaning to far towards realism though. I mean, realism is a good thing, as long as it benefits the game. And in some of those ideas, I'm left wondering why it would make me want to play the game any more. No offense intended. Perhaps you should highlight the advantages that a relatively complex model like this would bring to the game.

There's one thing that you're most definitely right about though. The influence of corporations is far too large to be ignored in Civ3. They need to be represented somehow. Hopefully someone can come up with a concept which will be both simple and realistic. There's a lot to be said for simplicity. (says the man who brought you the relatively complex concept of prereq points )

Further suggestions also graciously welcomed...

------------------

- MKL
[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited March 13, 2000).]

[Adm.Naismith]

MidKnight, I never played CTP, so this is only my thinking on what you explained before.

My point is that is a big mistake to make Units to fight Unconventional Warfare, as we make Unit to fight Conventional Warfare.

I'm finally thinking also Diplomat and Spy Units are wrong. Treaty, trade pact, espionage mission, should happen on a different scale, model and field than usual units actions.

I think Firaxis should work more on abstract level, with some panel where you can order and finance this kind of things. You can have detailed reports (as messages, newspapers, secret defense reports and the like) to add spice to the board of numbers, no units wandering on the map.

I have lot of hope into new religion, trade and diplomacy threads of the List, and I'm sure they can add lot of Unconventional warfare into the game by themself.

The private model of youngsun is (IMHO) over sophisticated, really a whole game by itself.
But you can add some Corporation effects adding them to the model who help or stop you during trade pact, war declarations and the like. I'm thinking about some advice like "the USA Corporations will be glad to finance the government in exchange of some reserved info on Other Country corporations. Would you finance the Echelon Secret Project in exchange of xxxx trade/tax points? (Warning: if other country discover your role into this you will loss trade points and diplomatic status)" - Just an example -


------------------
Adm.Naismith AKA mcostant

[MidKnight Lament]

Adm.Naismith - That's sounding more like it.

One thing that I thought CTP did make vast improvements in was trade. This was partly due to the fact that you didn't have to trek caravans all over the map. It was all managed from one series of screens. This made it much more managable. There's no reason why corporations couldn't be represented in a similar fashion.

Oh, and about spies, I think there's room for improvement there too. I'm not sure that they should be units on a map either. I'd much rather see a "spy network" constantly trying to gather information from various civs by infiltrating their ranks. You could allocate a certain amount of funds towards maintaining this network. Perhaps there could me an overlay map on which you could place your spies. I believe this idea could add intricacies if used with a good diplomacy model and with the "internal politics" idea suggested in EC3.

And btw, don't be turned off by the fact that I used the phrase "Unconventional Warfare". I was using it as little more than a label that I thought everyone would identify with.

[Sir Shiva]

I think that there should be certain extra-political elements in Civ3..

Apart from Religion, Corporations (I'm not sure I like the idea though), NGOs etc.,
there could be some international terrorist organisations.. You should be allowed to negotiate with them, pay them to concentrate terrorist activities againts another country (perhaps while still being at peace - Pakistan's proxy war against India springs to mind), declare war on the terrorist organisations (Osama bin Laden, Chechnya) and other such things..

[Sirotnikov]

Ok, I'm gonna expand an idea I already mentioned in another thread.
All unconventional things should be a non-units system.
that includes:

Trade, Espionage, Religion, Corps (sub division of trade), Slavery, Terrorism, and others.

I will explain my ideas, but remember, they are in no way final. I think much work needs to be made.


Trade:

Although I like the camels I think they are to be used only in the beginning or only to initiate trade. In civ2 one had no way of changing or manipulating trade after it has been initiated.

Suggestion:
You set the price per turn for a resource and discuss it with the other civ. Then each turn you get that sum. The price is higher when the client civ is further and when the client is in great need, and when you're the only one supplying the resource. You (or the client civ) can argue to change the price later, what can lead to a new agreement or a termination of the agreement.

Question: Also money? I sell money for more money like in civ2 where both sides get money? ho dumb is that? What does the client civ get?
Answer: I don't know yet. I thought about trading shields. you sell shields. It is just like civ2's capitalization where you sell shields and get money, only trade gives you a much bigger revenue. The client civ uses shields to finish a big army of tanks or something. It should be made so it will be more efficient to trade and get shields to use for the tank, than to 'buy' a tank. for instance, in buying, you need 3$ per shield, in trade you can argue about the price, usually around 2$ per shield. That means you save money when trading. And the civ that is giving the shields isn't losing because it doesn't pay money for the shileds. They are created automatically. If she would want to buy shields to finish her market, it would be again, better for her to trade for it. It's my little suggestion.

Corporations:
I thnik it should be less realistic than youngsun's idea. more like CTP in a sence that each nation is a corporation. Instead of just giving units, you can make a trade with another nation to sell them units without them getting the science for it or having to spend shields. For instance, america is selling apachees to france. not that france doesn't know how to build them, america simply has a better production system. Or maybe they have their own mudel, if the unit creation model is similar to SMAC. America simply developed a better heli. so france and canada and others will buy it from her while making their own helicopters. Then america has a monopoly in the heli's market. Until someine develops a copycat (must buy one apachee and explore it) and sell it for cheaper. This would make a more realistic trade together with shields that can be traded when it's a dry season for apachees.

I have to go now (school night) but tommorow I'll explain the models for espionage and other things I have in mind. Espionage, as trade should be a MAJOR system incorporated in the game, instead of a unit.

See ya'll in 24 hours or so.

[Sirotnikov]

I typed really fast and I noticed a few spelling typos. please excuse me.

PS. mudel = model. NOT nudels or something so don't you have funny ideas.

[lago]

MKL, the EcoRanger isn't a stealth unit, which is a good thing since it's the single most destructive unit in the game.

Random thoughts on the others:

The Slaver is one of the easiest to use and understand, and the AI knows how to use it, as well. One very popular mod for CtP made some changes in the city garrison needed to prevent a slave revolt, but it's still effective. However, the player should be able to select the city to receive slaves, rather than have the game select, IMO.

The Abolitionist works basically like the Slaver in reverse, and the AI also uses this one effectively.

I think that the 'upgrades' of stealth units (Televangelist for Cleric, Subneural Ad for Corp. Branch, and Cyber Ninja (!) for Spy, don't really deliver enough of a boost or difference to justify them (especially the last). Just my opinion. The Televangelist does move a lot faster than the Cleric, though.

The Corporate Branch does one thing that seems very realistic to me. Against a weak AI opponent, it can turn that civilization's economy into a virtual colony. I sometimes find myself competing against the other 'major' powers to establish franchises, sort of like the European scramble for Africa.

I mention how easy they seem to be to implement, and how well the AI does in fact implement them, because I doubt that at this stage Firaxis is interested in re-creating major sections of the game just to work them in. But the better unconventional units definitely add a new dimension to the game and make it a lot more interesting.

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Originally posted by lago on 03-13-2000 06:41 PM MKL, the EcoRanger isn't a stealth unit, which is a good thing since it's the single most destructive unit in the game.

I stand corrected. Actually, I wasn't doing them off the top my head; I was summarising the manual. And I think (again, might be wrong) it was listed under terror units in there. But you're quite correct.

lago - you're also on the mark when you say that some of the unconventional units were good. I'll not argue that some of them were pretty weak, but slavers, clerics and corporations were pretty useful. These concepts should be expanded upon. Don't let the other fanciful unconventional units give the bread-and-butter ones a bad name.

I'm particularly interested in how people foresee a "spy network" or "espionage screen" might work.

- MKL