The Realists' List

[Captain]

I'm not sure how well this would work in a game, but since you asked about realism...

I've been 'guest' reading this BBS for several months now - something that I haven't found any substantial discussion on is this:
GENERATIONS
A 5 yr old isn't the same as a 25 yr old isn't the same as a 50 yr old.
They have different abilities and also different attitudes. One of the primary modes of societal revolution or core change is that of a new generation coming to power/maturity. If you want realism, there should be an indication of how many are children, how many are of working age, and how many 'retired' (a very recent concept). Consider schooling, labour, and dependency. Children are the future but in the present, they contribute little and drain a lot (look at a parent's finances vs childless people). Recall that until the institution of the public education system in the 19th century, the primary mode of societal reproduction has been the family unit - that is, values and conduct are passed on and modified generationally. There are many other ways this would affect gameplay, but I just want to raise the concept.

Two other things that I think should be discussed more are GENDER and ETHNICITY. In our lifetimes, the difference in status has been significantly reduced. Remember that until the 19th century, women were not 'persons', and were treated by many as chattel (property). Yet, civilization is impossible without women. Also, today racism remains a huge problem, but consider how much worse it used to be, even just 50 yrs ago! Civ should reflect the immense historical discrepancies b/w such groups in the past.

Comments?

[Captain]

Oh, I just thought of something else that's pretty fundamental but hasn't been given enough consideration, COMMUNICATION.
While it may make the game virtually impossible to play, we should keep in mind that instant communication around the globe is pretty much a 20th century phenomenon. Marconi's radio transmission was only about 100 yrs ago. Wireless comm dates pretty much from then. Prior to that and still in heavy use is cable comm, either wire or fibre optic, from late 1800's of telegraphs to modern net systems.
But the key thing is that before those and air mail, everything was sent by courier (a person who carries a physical letter or object, not FedEx or UPS specifically).
That means that to communicate with a city about 100 km away, it would take at least one day with a clear path on horseback. Even the vaunted runner system of the Incas took 3 days to cross empire end to end. Magellan took 3 years to circumnavigate the globe. Sure that was first voyage but even later with well-known shipping routes, the British Parliament often could not restrain many of their overseas representatives. For examples, Clive in India did as he pleased - by the time the Parliament found out, it was six months later. How much more difficult was it for kings to retain control over the distant reaches of their domain. Large ancient empires with poor infrastructure had serious, crippling communications problems. Admittedly, signals could be used a la Great Wall Fires of Mulan - but eventually a courier is needed to convey orders directly. In ships this was the worst case, signal flags for comm, but for distinct orders or letters, it could be 6 mo to 2 yrs before you got word.

Basically, the point is that the further away a unit or city is, there should be a delay. And if a unit or city is surrounded, then comm is cutoff and they should have to act on their own without your direct control.

It may make it unplayable, but it'd be more realistic. Plus, it would add a lot more emphasis to research on comm and infrastructure since you'd be itching to get instant comm and better control.

(this is probably only significant for smaller timescales, but on the other hand, think about how can a unit move only 1 space, but then report back to you on exploration and go back with further orders when they're 50 spaces away? - it don't jive)

[Captain]

while I'm on it, what about DISEASE?

The fact is that most armies were primarily destroyed by DISEASE, not actual battle. By the time armies actually met each other, half their numbers were gone due to disease. Then the actual battles didn't kill that many percentage-wise. Since when one side saw it was losing, it would flee.
Take a look at any of the stats and you'll see for yourself how shocking it is. The after battle wounds that inevitably got infected usally killed more than actual battle. An otherwise minor cut meant death from infection.

Not until Florence Nightingale's revamp of field hospitals, and aseptic techniques (which actually came before germ theory) did post-battle mortalities decline.

If you think about it, civilian disease was a major factor in limiting productivity, inventiveness, and research. Most people barely survived, subsisting on the minimum. Poor nutrition, poor sanitation, lack of knoweldge of the spread of disease (ring around the posie) crippled many.

Since everyone was too busy trying to survive and dying much earlier than these days (few people reached old age, and infant mortality was 100's of times higher), no one had the time or luxury to engage in non-essential activities. When they did, they were able to improve their knowledge and thus become producers of knowledge and culture instead of just consumers and reproducers.

Although the limited communication/contact with other societies due to poor transport and security limited the spread of disease, as soon as conatct was made, disaster happened. Native Americans were wiped out primarily by disease. (the resistant ones were then shot or starved to death). Of the approx 25 million native 'Mexicans', 24 million died of disease brought by europeans.

So far, no game adquately reflects the effects of disease.

[Captain]

uh, yeah I know I've gone post crazy, but just one more:
OVERPOPULATION!!!

civ 2 as it is has no way of having OVERPopulation. The bigger the pop, the better according to this game. Plus it naturally caps itself by food production. In reality, this isn't the case, people reproduce independently of food, they don't survive necessarily, but they're there. Many countries out there don't have food surpluses but their pop continues to grow! (primarily Africa).

There are slums, displaced people, refugees, pollution, disease, etc that are all amplified by overpopulation. Plus huge populations are very difficult to govern even as an authoritarian/autocratic state! There should be some WAY serious penalties for OVERpopulation.

I guess in general, of all the things lacking, it's depth to the whole people aspect of the game. civilization is about humanity - people working together to create a society, a whole greater than its sum. But the game as is is pretty much a territory/terrain & production game with few human aspects. I get the feeling I'm ruling a bunch of robots or sheep, not interacting with the dynamic societies that we live in.

(don't get me wrong though, i still love CIV!)

[Lung]

I'm not an expert on any of these, but as a Civ2 and CTP warmonger, i have some good insights into warfare which i'd like to share

POPULATION/UNIT PRODUCTION
==========================
Firstly is the question of units in relation to population. Units should relate to population, except for tech units e.g. catapult, cannon, tank, bomber, ICBM. Sure, some of them require personnel, but it is small in comparison to infrantry units. However, Civ2 had it right in that you could only produce one military unit per population point. Apparently Civ3 will have support in terms of gold? This is even better, but infantry units should be limited to population points. In an old thread, i proposed that militia units be created directly from population points. I suggested that militia unit production cause temporary population loss, but that a larger number of units could be created for each pop point i.e. more than one. Militia units could be disbanded for an increase in population when required, although killed militia units are lost to population forever. The production costs of creating militia units would then relate to arms and training.

I also have a number of other concepts, some of which have been mentioned by others, although all of these concepts would involve minimal development, with little in the way of graphics or features required.

CAMOUFLAGE
==========
Certain units should be able to be invisible until they move, at least after a turn. Perhaps a tech advance called camouflage? Anyway, this would enable armies to effectively ambush the enemy, perhaps even allowing for a bonus attack strength for the ambushers or reduced defence strength for the ambushees. As an enemy unit, they should appear shaded or similar to signify a unit with camouflage ability. Of course, if they move, you won't know This would add greatly to gameplay, as it would give the defender more options. It would also deter attackers from approaching on a wide front.

SURRENDER
=========
Units could be given orders to fight to the death, which would make them more susceptible to bribery, or otherwise surrender. Until the Geneva Convention (which could be added to the diplomacy model), surrendered units could be enslaved. After the Geneva Convention, captured units could only be imprisoned, at cost to the victors. A city would then have to be selected for a prison camp. I'll leave it to others to debate whether this could be abused so prisoners be subjected to effective slavery ala WWII Japanese prison camps.

MINEFIELDS
==========
Perhaps a Miltary Engineer unit could turn a tile into a minefield, known only to the mine-laying civ. Any military unit would suffer damage to cross it. Minefields could be dismantled by M/Engineers in one turn. Other options could be barbed wire, which slows down units, and tank traps, which slow down tanks. Also sea mines could be added, presumably to waters on continental shelves.

I'm sure that there are plenty of other great ideas out there

[polymths]

quote: Originally posted by Lung on 05-14-2001 10:58 PM I'm not an expert on any of these, but as a Civ2 and CTP warmonger, i have some good insights into warfare which i'd like to share POPULATION/UNIT PRODUCTION ========================== Firstly is the question of units in relation to population. Units should relate to population, except for tech units e.g. catapult, cannon, tank, bomber, ICBM. Sure, some of them require personnel, but it is small in comparison to infrantry units. However, Civ2 had it right in that you could only produce one military unit per population point. Apparently Civ3 will have support in terms of gold? This is even better, but infantry units should be limited to population points. In an old thread, i proposed that militia units be created directly from population points. I suggested that militia unit production cause temporary population loss, but that a larger number of units could be created for each pop point i.e. more than one. Militia units could be disbanded for an increase in population when required, although killed militia units are lost to population forever. The production costs of creating militia units would then relate to arms and training.

Lung, please visit the "Reduce population when military unit is built" thread. Using Theben's initial idea, I have modified it only slightly to come up with a very simple model for reducing population WITHOUT losing a whole population head point for every unit.

(BTW, only settlers cost population point reduction).

The idea is that every unit would cost a certain number of bushels. The bushel loss would be spread out amongst all your cities.

This has the effect of simulating population loss realistically, requires little effort on the part of Firaxis to implement, and require absolutely no change in the population model of Civ1/Civ2!!!

In fact, if I am not mistaken, although population point/head DOES CHANGE throughout the game, the bushel/head is relatively constant! (You will note that the "bushel box" increases at larger population points.

Everyone please join that thread to give me your opinion!



[This message has been edited by polymths (edited May 14, 2001).]

[Pedrun]

Captain, your ideas seem a little off. The generation issue is not that important and it is kind of difficult to know the generations numbers when each turn counts many years. Yet i dont think it is a good idea. The same about the comunication idea: why do you think turns in the past of the game are longer than the present ones. We are making distances smallers . Disease is a good idea could go as random events but the changes that it happen could be prevented with some improvments(drugstore, Hospital). The overpopulation does give penalties (your idea is a little late ).

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Decisions, Decisions:

AI Personalities: I believe that the AI behind each civ should have certain recognisable character traits (at first), but that these can change gradually over time, depending on how over civs treat them. In combat however-each AI should be almost completely unpredictable!

Time Scale: Definitely SHORTER!!! and with each turn broken down into either All Move, then All Fight or All Move, All Fight, then All Move again!

Resources: These should definitely be finite. Once they're gone, you have to find you new sources, driving conflict and colonization.

Combat: Preferably an "Optional" Tactical screen, but failing that I'd like to see a stacked combat system where all units in a stack fight simultaneously against a unit in the opposing stack. I definitely think that there should be a tie-in between population and units.

Tech: Simultaneous Tech research a-la "Birth of the Federation".

Nation: I feel that the ideas of Culture, Borders and Regional resources all help to creating the feel of a coherent nation (Perhaps some government types may feature the city-state over the nation, but each city shares the same culture?)

Society: I definitely want my citizens to have a greater say in important decisions (especially democratic governments). I think The Joker had the best idea for this. With the Absolutity Index (between 0-9) determining how much public support you need for major decisions and Faction Support ratings for different government types (sort of like the Factions of Planet). You have to bribe or cajole some of these factions to get your way!

Religion: This should be an adjunct of Culture. Where you produce special religious units that follow the "State" religion. You can then send these units to other nations cities and have them conduct a "Conversion" attack (the difficulty based on the current Culture rating), which slowly reduces the cultural rating of the target city. This could eventually put the city in your hands, or make it easier to assimilate if you conquer it later!

Economy: I want to have the ability to levy taxes on different sections of society in order to get the money I need for projects! I then want to be able to allocate my budget to various areas (research, education, health, military etc) using a percentage allocation system!

Anyway, sorry for the length of the post, but you wanted to know our ideas.
Thanks,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[Rhuarc]

Captain, I understand what you are saying, but CIV is supposed to be a game, not an exact recreation of the past. Plus, some of the things you have spoken of may not be in Civ2, but were represented, albeit poorly, in the CTP series. Over population does cause unhappiness. Improvements like the aquaduct help to aleviate unhappiness caused by cities that are too crowded. This may just be me talking, but there is a difference between having a realistic game, and having to worry about every detail of human life.

[Pedrun]

See, we are getting somewhere . We got some common points. Those are:

-AI Personalities - Changeble during the game.

-Tech- Simultaneous tech

-Resources- finites

-Society - We have gotta have public support in democratic governments. I think that to make unpleasent decisions to citzens (like war and increase pollution) the leader must have a certain happiness pre-requisite. This way you cant initiate a war if your civ is not happy. Acting like the Senate in civ2 but less random. Happiness was going to also measure the trust and the regard a pop has to its leader.

-Culture- There has to be some kind of cultural measurent for each city. That varies accordig to improvments, government, religious changes and war (among others things). Conquered city starts with few culture. Cultural Level is a constant happiness moddifier (Ex Cultural level: -6 Happines).

-Relligion - Increase happiness in your city through improvments and wonders. Clerical units that convert cities enemy as a way of getting then by reducing the cultural city level. And this clerics could increase the cultural level of your city.

Anyone against this ideas? We still have to decide about Warfare, Governments, Stockpilling, Time Scale, Economy, Tile Improvments and The map

[Mathphysto]

Captain - Interesting points about generations, but I think that is a difficult point to model in and of itself. Afterall, how many generations have generally conformed to tradition in the past? You didn't see generational revolutions in medieval Europe, for example. I think that the fall of religion and the rise of science in the past century has allowed change to become more common. Afterall, it was the existential brooding of the beatniks in the 50s that really ignited the revolutions of the 60s. So, if you model the effect of religion as a social sedative which loses power as you gain more techs, you might have a fairly simple yet realistic model of the social motivation for change - which is almost always initiated by the young.

Good ideas by all, btw. I like the idea of an Absolutity index to weight the importance of public opinion.

What about tile improvements, though (assuming we don't have a continuous map)? Should they be built by the business AI? Or should only some (eg - farms) be built by the business AI, while others must be constructed by the State (eg - roads)?

And about trade - what about implementing tariffs, so that a player has a finer degree of control over his/her trade with a foreign power than on/off (embargo)? Also, shouldn't trade be conducted between businesses (except in Communist gvmts, since the State is the capitalist), and the State only gets gold from the tariffs?

Also, it seems that pretty much everyone wants to involve public opinion. But exactly how? It doesn't seem straightforward to me as to how one may model the effects of the economy, religion, national security, crime, education, etc, on the views of the people. One is going to have to introduce many new variables in order to ascribe these new properties to the public. So what should they be? Average income? A National Security Threat Factor (eg - DefCon 1)? Funding for education - assuming you have public education?

[Pedrun]

Mathphisto i dont think we should be arguing about tile improvments. Although i like to discuss how to make the game better it is already decided by Firaxis. Workers will be. the only thing to decide is if the tile imps will be free (like civ2) or cost something ( ireally hope it cost gold) besides the time and the units.

Trade is half way done (if it isnt done yet). And so far it is better than i imagined.

Public Opinions - I'd like to say my idea again. The publics opinion should be decide by the pop happiness. To declare war you must have a defined amount of happiness (definned by the current government; If the gov is too tiranic the amount is few, if it is Democratic your civ has to be very happy) if you dont have it the action is stopped. War has to decrease the happiness. Loosing units too. So it will be very difficult to declare a 2nd war.

In my ideal game happiness also is changed by the cultural level (Again i think it should be a constant happ modifier - this is a crossig over with the ethnicity idea). That way the happiness will be very changeble during the game, Becoming one of the most important concept. Note that if a civ is too big the happiness decreases according to the cultural level (conquered cities will revolt) and Capital distance. This way reality increases ( big civs like Rome, Turks and Russians did fall because of revolution caused by culture discrepances).

[Captain]

Well, a cool reception for my ideas, but that's alright - I knew they weren't very feasible for a game, but I just wanted to mention them cuz I thought it'd be more realistic if we could somehow incorporate them. It's probably too late for civ 3 but I can always hope for civ 4.
Plus, I realize I only mentioned the ideas without mentioning how to put them into the game. For generations, maybe just a separate indicator of children?

About TIMESCALE, I think it should be shorter and linear. (1turn=1yr?) I don't like the idea of a shortening scale that's only used for tech advances to rep the increasing rate of tech advance. Why not just make the earlier techs take an equal amount beakers instead of having beaker cost rise? Since you make more beakers as time goes on, scientific progress speeds up - then we wouldn't need this contracting timescale.

I know some people will say that this makes the early game boring as you have to wait more turns for needed techs, but it makes the early warfare period much more viable. In the present situation, I never really fight unless my offensive units are way stronger than my rivals (ie. from crusaders until they get musketeers, from cavalry until riflemen, then howitzers). this way, there might actually be ancient battles instead of a race to howitzers. eg. who's going to build a caravel to explore the world when before it completes its trip, you've got destroyers lapping it?

what do you think? would this make the game way too long to be playable?

[Captain]

comments on main ideas so far (comments are mostly on realism, not so much on gameplay):

1) Changing AI, yes! I think every 30-50 yrs is a good idea to replicate the changing of leadership, but not complete unpredictability - it's a skill to be able to 'read' your opponents like in a poker game

2) Shorter Timescale & linear (non-changing), allows more viable ancient warfare & society, solves other time problems, also makes tactical battles a realistic option, possibly makes game too long

3) Map tiles, hex might be interesting, while continuous is more realistic, the tiles are realistic enough since most terrain seems to be grouped into sizeable areas. I don't know how to do it, but a GLOBE would be awesome!

4) Finite resources, yes for non-renewables like oil and gas. Also for rare metals or radioactives. No for renewables like wood, food, etc. That's reality. I like the way Firaxis has the resources not showing up on the map til you research them (no "future" planting of cities)

5) Simultaneous research. It should also be BLIND research, until a breakthrough, then you get a preview and you can then concentrate funding until you get it. I think MOO had something like this.

6) Society, public opinion ideas so far seem really good, simple and doable. Pedrun's ideas are good, but Mathphysto brings up a lot of other good points not covered by Pedrun's model.

7) No FUTURE techs, it's very unpredictable and possibly ridiculous. Only the near future should be allowed.

8) Simultaneous Production. A city doesn't just work on one thing at a time, they can do many. Also, when raising an army, you should be able to convert unlimited civilian units into militia/infantry at a time. More complex units like ships and tanks and planes might take more time, but militia shouldn't. You should be able to raise a huge army (poorly equipped) in one turn.

9) Along those military lines, use the bushel method or subtract a head from city pop when making a military unit, see polmyths thread

10) MORE CIVS!!! 7 is not enough.

11) Separate economy and government. don't know enough about econ to suggest good options. I think the main difference should be level of control, whether free market capitalist or centrally planned communistic.

12) Corporations should control businesses in a free market economy. Govt just gets taxes and impose tarriffs. In a centrally planned communistic one, you control it directly with "crown" or state owned businesses.

13) There was an idea somewhere (I forget where) about building your own government forms. I thought that was cool. It just needs to be simplified.

14) ENERGY. There was already a huge discussion on this before, but I'm putting it up here since Firaxis didn't listen to it. ENERGY must be in any realistic game.

15) Simultaneous Turns (incl battles). Mentioned before elsewhere and I love the idea. In reality, nations don't take 'turns' at battle or movement. this would also prevent the rolling howie attacks with no chance of countering, or the one sided nuking.

16) RELIGION is super important for realism but I have NO clue so far how we could ever implement this in a non-superficial way. Should they be abstracted into conceptual categories or follow historical lines?

17) Same with CULTURE. It's kindof abstract too but needs representation somehow.

18) COMMUNICATION. I know no one else likes this idea, but I still think its important. How about that until you get the radio or telegraph, your units mvt points are reduced once you pass a certain radius from any of your towns? This simulates the elapsed time in getting orders out to distant places.

19) don't remember who mentioned it first, but I like the idea of just plain making the game HARDER. No one's ever conquered the whole world so far, and even holding together a civ for more than a few thousand years is rare! Make me work for victory, or even to survive!

20) Disease, overpop, gender, ethnicity, and generations. Just cuz.

Sorry for the long post - you all have such good ideas!

[Mathphysto]

Pedrun - I thought that there was a roaming rumor that Civ3 might have an independent business AI. If so, I don't think it's out of the question for Firaxis to give that AI the ability to build some tile improvements. I think that would be very interesting, in making domestic relations more important to a civ's success. Before, the only domestic issues one had to address was the happiness level. Now they're adding culture - but why not business or even religion? These factors would make it harder to survive and succeed.

Captain - Nice list! Good points about simultaneous production and energy. About the "bushel" method of tying military production to the population - it's not a bad idea, but I still like my idea more (of course! ). I wanted a conscription rate instituted, which would be determined by the population (and possibly their average age and health), and a "threat factor" determined by the power of other civs and their diplomatic relations with the player's civ. Then, to build a unit, one would draw X many conscripts from the available pool, plus pay Y gold, and Z material resources.

For example, if a civ has 200,000 citizens available for conscription, then the total number of conscripts in military units may not exceed 200,000. So if a tank unit costs 5,000 conscripts, one could build a max of 40 tank units.

I've also thought that there could be other systematic factors which affect the conscription rate. For example, in civs where religion was powerful, there should be some bonus to the conscription rate. Or if a nation has alot of culture, conscription should increase (I'm going to defend my motherland!).