Irrigation, minning and roads

[rremus]

Hi,
I'm a fan of the ancient part of the game, so I suggest to start from a prehistoric time line.
The initial settler could be a bunch of hunter-gatheres, lacking the ability to create cities. They move around, settle for a few turns and increase in numbers. When the simple resources (fruits, wild animals) in the arrea are exhausted, the camp can be lifted and the setllers could search another location. The difference between a camp and a city would be that a camp can be lifted, alowing the settlers to search another location. A camp could turn into a city if stay in a location long enough to increase in size to the "city" size. If a camp is lifted after had growed a little, more settlers will result from it. A City cannot be lifted.
The 'default' Irrigation, Minning and Road Building should be researched for.
Maybe even certain types of cultures types can be searched for, like grains, potates, corn etc. Having researched grains, an extra food could be provided from plain terrain type. At start, the only terrains providing food should be the ones having fruit or animal or fish resources.
Minning could be searched for only after bronze working. Road Building is quite advanced, I think it should be searched for only after Trade. But Trade should be much earlier, before currency for sure!
Also, the start age should be around 8000 BC, much earlier than the current game. Maybe they could even programm in the finnish of the last Ice Age, sea level rissing, retreat of glaciers etc.

[Shadowstrike]

This could be a neat concept. But remeber that during the "Ice" Age, people were already setting down in what is now the Sahara desert (which was fertile then) and building homes. I would really like the idea of gradual climate changes though... it could represent Ice Ages and the like...

[UltraSonix]

rremus's idea should only be option for those that want to do so. I for one, think the game is slow enough as it is.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

[Seeker]

Civ should use a system more like Imperialism 1, especially with developers, trade good transport, the marketplace, ect.

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Rremus,

I agree with all your ideas, suggestions, arguments used and conclusions reached!

My ideal Civilization game would start in 8000BC and time would never pass more quickly than five years a turn.

[Helios]

I certainly like the idea that irrigation, mining, and roads have to be researched. I'm not sure about the rest, though.

[Evil Capitalist]

quote: Originally posted by S. Kroeze on 10-15-2000 11:27 AM My ideal Civilization game would start in 8000BC and time would never pass more quickly than five years a turn.

5 years per turn? So WW1 would last 1 turn, WW2 would last 1 turn, The seven years war would last 1 turn, The Gulf war would last 1 turn, the Kosovo airstrikes would last 1 turn.

Do I see a practical problem with your proposal?

[Va-Toran]

While a good idea for a game in its own right, where you have movable camps and little population. I think RRemus' idea is not really sutible for Civ3, as the game is long enough as it is.
[This message has been edited by Va-Toran (edited October 16, 2000).]

[Adm.Naismith]

Evil Capitalist, I understand that S.Kroeze means the other way: no more turns equals to 50 or 10 years.
Anyway, we are speaking of civilization scale, not tactical squad game. It doesn't add an inch if time slow down to a week every turn, IMHO!

We are spending at least 5 years just for change European monetary system to the Euro, not to mention how many years we are spending to introduce a common set of laws, a real UE government and so on.

Kossovo is a minor incident, on this timescale, and truly is in world view. I don't want to insult anyone, but we must think at proper leader level to enjoy a Civ game.

In a game where military troops come from nowhere (no city population is reduced when you build and lost an army: please read again history books about effects of WWI and II on population) we are asking for micromgmt of monthly/weekly unit movement?. I can't believe it!



------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Lord Silvi]

The best time of a Civ game are the first 2000 years.
Dont let it be over in a few turns!

[rremus]

I think the reason I (and maybe others) enjoy more the early part of the game is that in this period the game is more balanced when playing with the AI. Later, the differences become too big when one civ has such an advantage in military unit types. In rare games where you are balanced in power with one or more civs in later stages, they ussually don't hesitate to use nukes and that takes out much of the fun...

I would like an all ancient scenario. Starting very early and ending before industrialisation.

[UltraSonix]

quote: I think the reason I (and maybe others) enjoy more the early part of the game is that in this period the game is more balanced when playing with the AI.

Perhaps there should be a toggle option at the start of the game - you can opt for a involved game based in ancient times, medieval times, modern times, where everyone starts off with the same [amount/quality] starting techs, units, cities, etc. Or you can just choose to play the normal civ game. Everyone's happy!

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

[Az]

you know .. those climatic changes could be implimented in a great way with ..... ( oh the horror!)
rize and fall of empires ....


no actually that sounds like a good Idea . imagine to youself. : around 10k bc the climat begins to change ..... the area of the sahara is a big bunch of plains and grassland , with rivers etc. and then ... in the middle of it ...a small bunch of 4 tiles appeares ..
another tile appears every 50 years but it will be growing around some kind of a center ..not randomly but by layers ... and then ... when the land will become infertile the cities on it will die out . .

and *bang!* rise and fall of civs.

[Caesar]

I like that last idea actually... they had something like this in SMAC, I believe... one faction could do some terraforming that would change the climate in the region of another faction, and therefore harm them.

In the advanced game this could be cool for Civ3 too, but...

More interesting is the concept of long-term climactic changes and their consequences on civilizations. To some extent this already exists: I remember back in Civ1 days I had a massive globe-spanning empire on an Earth map, and then in the endgame because of my massive pollution and disinterest in sending out settlers to clean it all up, my irrigation gradually turned into swamp land, on a global scale, and each year my population starved to death... I had several tens of thousands of death a year! It was mad.

So... this was my fault... and this should be extended in Civ3... but also, natural stuff, like ice ages, would be cool.

Caesar.

[Shogun Gunner]

I also like the idea of starting early and smaller number of years for those early turns.

Don't forget about the "quick start" option. They could easily give two or three options.

1. rremus' propsal (8000 B.C.)
2. "Classic Start" Civ II
3. Accelerated start (actually a Civ II option also)

I agree with the more balanced A.I. play comment and I also have an interest of starting the game from very, very beginning.

This ideas would take too much time to play??? Isn't that what we are already doing with Civ??? My wife certainly thinks so. She doesn't get it...but she does like it when I play her tribe!