Announcement

**the Octopus** · May 21, 1999, 01:06

<center><h3><u>TECHNOLOGY</u></h3></center>

I have reorganized the summary of the first three technology threads into sections. Since this is such a major reorganization, there is a very real danger that I may have lost something in the process of cutting and pasting this thing together. Everyone should pay special attention to make sure that I didn't drop anything. I've made an effort to improve the explanation for a few of the items. Some of them still need work, but I guess that is for the new thread master to deal with.

<u>Section I: The Research Process (How do I do research into technology?)</u>

1) MULTIPLE TOPIC RESEARCH -- Many of the following ideas require that you be able to research several ideas at once. There must be some advantage to researching things in parallel rather than serially, or else no one will do it.

2) TECHNOLOGICAL FIELDS -- Many of the following ideas require that the techs be placed into a small number of broad categories. So far, the suggestions have been: Philosophy, Agriculture, Economics, Math&Physics, and Psychology. Effort should probably be made to make the different fields roughly equal in terms of number and usefulness of techs (trying to put the old tech tree into these categories give Math&Physics a big advantage...)

3) MAXIMUM RESEARCH RATE -- Have a maximum rate at which research can be accumulated. No amount of "prodding" will enable your scientists to research faster than some basic human limit (probably limited by communication in the real world, what game effect should limit this?)

4) HAVE THE NUMBER OF TECH POINTS REQUIRED FOR A TECH BE FIXED INSTEAD OF RELATIVE -- Pottery should not be just as hard to research as Nuclear Fission, even if you are actively researching them both in 1945. Basing the number of research points needed for a particular tech on the number of techs you already possess can lead to ridiculous situations like that. (editor's note -- apparently the old civ's had anti-synergy, the more you know, the harder it is to learn )

5) TECHS SHOULD BE HARDER TO RESEARCH -- It is unrealistic for a civ to have the ability to realistically research every tech in the game without help -- historically nobody has developed everything. Techs should have a higher cost relative to the number of research points that are expected to be produced by an empire than in previous games.

6) DIFFERENT COST FOR 'TRAILBLAZERS' AND 'FOLLOWERS' -- The first civ to research a tech should have to pay a steeper cost than those who come after, since pioneering new technology is hard, while reproducing an already known advance is easier (Maybe this should be based only on civs you have diplomatic contact with? It doesn't do you much good if a tribe on the other side of the planet discovers the wheel, but you never hear about it...)

7) BASIC THEORETICAL RESEARCH -- Have some reserch points devoted to "basic research" that isn't likely to produce any specific advances (i.e. won't give you a specific building or unit or something), but which enhance research in other areas (e.g. research in "Basic Physics" might enhance the speed at which you research "Lasers", "Nuclear Fission", and "Nuclear Fusion", but you could achieve those advances without doing the basic research, just at a higher cost. This would be a tradeoff -- Do I want Fission now, or do I want to invest a little more up front, and be sure of getting all three sooner in the long run, even though I wouldn't get any specific advance until later).

8) TECH PRESERVATION -- If a civ doesn't work to maintain a technology (e.g. by building libraries) they should lose the tech. This can simulate the Dark Ages. (Question -- how to keep this from being micromanagement headache?)

9) LESS DETERMINISTIC RESEARCH PROGRESS -- Instead of just "100 Research Points gets you an advance" it should be "100 Research Points gives you a 5% chance of discovering tech each turn, 110 RP gives you 10% chance of discovering it each turn, etc". This way you can have a rough idea of when you will discover a new technology, but you can never be exactly sure because there is an element of uncertainty, just like science in the real world. This is basically how things were done in Master of Orion 1.

10) TECH SYNERGY -- you can research multiple techs simultaneously, and researching related techs provides synnergistic effects, i.e. researching "Physics" and "Calculus" together would get you done faster than researching "Physics" and "Communism", since the results of one field are applicable to the other.

11) RESEARCH SYNERGY THROUGH DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS -- We should get bonuses to our technology development rate if we are on friendly diplomatic terms with other civs researching similar technology because of international science conferences, wider circulation technical journals, access to each other's research, etc.

12) TECH BLEED -- Scientific Advances should be able to "leak out" from high-tech civs to low-tech civs. The rate of leakage should be proportional to the age of the tech (If we drove up to a stone-age tribe they would probably realize the significance of our advanced "wheel" technology before we even got out of the car...) and also proportional to the level of diplomatic relations (if we constantly interact with another society, we are likely to be more familiar with their technology).

13) AI TECH TRADING INTELLIGENCE -- Make sure that the AIs only make tech trades that make sense. Why trade for "Mass Transit" if you don't have "Automobile"?

14) REVERSE ENGINEERING -- Fighting and destroying or capturing enemy units with superior technology should aid in the discovery of that technology.

15) DEVELOPMENT INERTIA -- It doesn't make sense that the same researchers who just gave you "Nuclear Fission" would be able to turn around and give you "Television, because they are only peripherally related. Scientists are specialized, and can't easily be pushed around to different fields. You should have multiple "teams", each of which is working on a different project. When they are done with one, they will research a second project in the same field at a faster rate than an unrelated field (or pay a higher cost to research an "outside our expertise" field -- the effect is the same).

16) RESEARCH PRIORITY SLIDER BARS WITH 'INERTIA' -- There should be several fields of research (see item 2) and you can set different allocations for the different fields (e.g. 25% of research points to Philosophy, 25% to Ag, 50% to Econ.). However, whenever you change the allocation, you take a hit to the "efficiency" at which you research (i.e. number of research points per turn decreases), which is proportional to the magnitude of the change. This "efficiency hit" gradually diminishes over time (an exponential decay?) until your society reaches "scientific equilibrium" at the new settings. This effect is likely to result in a "character" for different civs, because some will emphasize one field over another, and be unlikely to change because of the cost.

17) STARTING POSITION DEPENDENT CIV SPECIALTIES -- When a civ is placed on the map, give it a tech specialty. This solves the problem of saying "the Phonecians should get a seafaring bonus because they had a maritime empire" by instead giving a civ that starts close to water a maritime bonus (and if that happened to be the Phonecians, then you could play the Phonecians like the existed historically, although hopefully they'd last longer ). A tech specialty would be a small bonus to research in related fields (or simply a higher beginning allocation to a certain field, if the RESEARCH PRIORITY SLIDER BARS WITH 'INERTIA' ssystem is used). The bonus should disappear in modern times. (not necessary with SLIDER BAR system) Maybe give user the option to decide which type of place to start in, so that he or she can determine character of civ?

18) HISTORICAL ERA SHOULD PLAY A ROLE -- Since in ancient times scholars studied a wide variety of fields (they were real Renaissance men ) it makes sense to have tech specialization only play a role in more modern types of research (e.g. an ancient Greek philosopher might have contemplated both the role and practice of government as well as the laws of motion).

19) LOCATION DEPENDENT RESEARCH LABS -- Research is done in labs and universities, and labs and universities have to actually exist somewhere. If you are counting on your scientists who are developing "Nuclear Fission" to win the war for you, but the city they are conducting the research in gets captured, you should be up a creek...

20) DIFFERENTIATED 'SCIENCE BUILDINGS' -- Have buildings which enhance the scientific output of a city differentiated: You have your choice of a Physics Lab, a Biological Research Hospital, etc., which only add their bonus when the city is contributing to the appropriate kind of research. (Maybe this is an option when you build a science building, e.g.: "Do you want this Library to be general, or specific to a particular field?")

21) SCIENCE CITY IMPROVEMENTS MORE IMPORTANT FOR SCIENCE THAN ECONOMIC BUILDINGS -- Apparently in CtP, buildings which boost your economic output are more worthwhile for your research progress than Libraries and such. Don't do that in Civ 3.

22) DIFFERENT BUILDINGS HELP WITH DIFFERENT KINDS OF RESEARCH -- Barracks can conduct military research, temples can conduct religous/philosophical research, etc.

23) BLIND TECH -- People seem to either love or hate the blind research from SMAC.

24) BLIND 'HISTORICAL' TECH -- research follow Blind Tech model up until Industrialization, after which the player can use the Directed model, emulating the superior control and direction that people have over scientific discovery with modern methods.

25) BLIND 'HISTORICAL' TECH ALTERNATIVE -- Have a 'ratio' which controls how many techs you get to pick. When you first start, all of your tech choices are blind. Then after some time, you get to pick every 5th tech. Then every 4th tech, etc., so you start with no control but eventually get complete control.

26) SERENDIPITOUS ADVANCES -- Technology discovered "accidentally". Basically a random event that gives you a tech advance.

27) FAMOUS SCIENTISTS -- Scientific personalities, such as Einstein or Pasteur might provide some "flavor" to the scientific experience. Maybe these are random events that give you one time bonuses? ("Pasteur has established a laboratory in Paris, science output doubles in Paris for one turn" or something).

28) ARTIFACTS -- Similar to the Alien Artifacts in SMAC, these would be similar to the "goodie huts", but would simply help research into a particular technology.

<u>Section II: The Tech Tree (How do I get specific techs?)</u>

29) LOTS OF TECHS -- Some people think we need lots, and I mean LOTS of techs. Others think that too many techs may be bad, because they would grow hard to differentiate.

30) MULTIPLE PREREQS -- More than just two should be possible. This suggestion is probably implicit in some of the more ambitious prereq schemes.

31) MULTIPLE PATHS TO A PARTICULAR ADVANCE -- Instead of having rigid prerequisites that demand that a civ follow a particular research path to get to a tech, allow several different ways to achieve a particular advance. Thre are several alternatives...

32) PREREQUISITE EQUIVALENCE -- instead of having a hard and fast prerequisite, allow some of them to be 'equivalence classed'. For example, if you wanted to develop "Technocracy", you need the advance on "Microchip", as well as knowledge of three government types, such as "Democracy", "Fascism", and "Monarchy".

33) BOOLEAN PREREQS -- The prerequisites should be specified with boolean logic, i.e. AND, OR, NOT. For example, the prerequisite for "Labor Union" might be "Capitalism" and "Assembly Line", because the workers band together naturally to fight for rights, OR "Communism" and "Mass Media", because the communist activists are able to convince large numbers of workers to bargain collectively. However, "Capitalism" and "Mass Media" wouldn't do anything to advance "Labor Unions" without the other techs. -- Labor Union <= (Capitalism AND Assembly Line) OR (Communism AND Mass Media).

34) PREREQUISITE POINTS -- In this suggestion, different technologies each contribute a certain point value to satisfying the prerequisite of a follow-on technology. For example, If you were interested in researching "Trench Warfare", you might need to gather 10 prereq points, where "Machine Guns" would give you 4, "Artillery" would give you 7, "Chemical Warfare" would give you 3, and "Conscription" would give you 3. Supporters of this concept argue that many of the other suggestions in this list can be incorporated into this new scheme (for example, DIPLOMATIC SYNNERGY can be implemented by giving you a prereq point for having diplomatic relations with a civ that already has the tech in question) and that it will allow multiple different strategies, making the new complexity worthwhile. Others oppose the system because it seems too complex. The debate rages Sorry, still not an optimal explanation. I'd like to have a better example -- Bell, can you come up with one, preferably using techs we are familiar with from Civ or SMAC, not very low level like longbow/crossbow, so people can relate a bit more easily?

35) REDUNDANT TECHS -- have multiple different ways to achieve the same in-game effect (say, a 2-1-1 unit or a "makes one unhappy person content" building) with different technological paths (for example, either "Religious Fanatacism" or "Professional Standing Army" techs might allow the 2-1-1 unit over the 1-1-1 unit). This allows different civilizations to take a less "cookie-cutter" approach to technological development, since there are no longer an "vital" technologies. (Maybe this and MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TECHNOLOGY are redundant, or at least related?)

36) MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TECHNOLOGY -- Developing one technology might not make sense when another one already existed. "Green Industries" and "Advanced Toxic Waste Disposal" might be examples of this.

37) RANDOM TECH TREE!!!! -- As long as there are multiple paths to each tech, there can be a probability that each path may or may not exist in a particular game. This adds to the excitement, and also the realism, since you can never quite be sure what your scientists will come up with until they come up with it. This is probably more easily accomplished if the REDUNDANT TECHS idea is implemented, since there is less likelihood of a civ being stranded without easy access to an important feature.

38) OFFSHOOT TECHS -- Minor technologies related to Major Technologies (i.e. Major techs are the ones we are familiar with) that are recieved as a random bonus for researching the Major Tech. They're not available every game, and only give a small bonus. Example: Researching "Warrior Code" might give you "Longbow" technology, which would give you better archers. Hypothetically these "minor techs" could be linked to specific civs to give them "character".

39) FORBID 'OUT-OF-ORDER' TECH -- If you don't have the prereqs for a tech, you shouldn't be able to use it, even if you trade for it, etc. If (through some quirk of fate) Columbus has plans for an A-Bomb, and traded them to the Native Americans he met, it is unlikely that they would have been able to nuke Europe, since they didn't have the infrastructure to make use of the idea. Suggested enhancement to this suggestion -- link things to "literacy", or possibly "era" (e.g. bronze-age tribe can't use Renaissance idea).

40) MAKE TECH TREE REFLECT GAME SITUATION -- the current game situation should affect the tech tree. A land-locked civ is unlikely to develop "Navigation", and a civ with poor mineral resources is unlikely to develop "Advanced Mining".

41) HAVE GOVERNMENT/DIPLOMATIC CHOICES AFFECT TECH DEVELOPMENT -- Would a Democratic government ever research "Doctrine: Loyalty"?

42) FACTION/CIVILIZATION SPECIFIC TECH TREES -- different cultures look at the world in different ways, so it wouldn't be surprising to see that they would follow different paths or discover different technologies in different orders. (concerns over accusations of unfairness and "racism" abound...)

43) CONCEPTS vs. APPLICATIONS -- Instead of an "all techs are equivalent" way of looking at the world, break techs into "concepts" and "applications". A "concept" might be "Gunpowder", while an "application" might be "Musket" or "Tunnel Construction". The application techs would all have a concept tech as a prerequisite, and the concept techs only (mostly?) have other concepts as their prereqs. This way, a civ can be very advanced in general principles, or concentrate on developing known techniques. This might reflect the differences between invention and innovation.

44) SENSIBLE TECH/ADVANCE CORRELATION -- Certain advances were linked to techs that really didn't make sense, e.g. "Labor Union" and "Mechanized Infantry". Don't do that.

45) RANDOMIZED APPLICATIONS -- Techs shouldn't always give you the same benefit. Some games, a specific tech might give you a particular unit, in others it might give you a building, etc.

46) ARMS RACES -- There should be more differentiation between "identical" techs. All of the major powers had "tanks" in World War II, but the designs of some countries were superior to those of others. (How might this be implemented without too much micromanagment? Since the rate of "obsolecense" is relatively quick, would this effect be too small to bother modelling in Civ III?)

47) SPACING OF TECHS IN THE TREE -- Make sure that the techs are judiciously placed in the tree so we don't have too few in one era and too many in another. Try to keep it balanced.

48) SUPPORTING TECHS FOR OTHER IDEAS IN OTHER THREADS -- Some ideas in other threads give new abilities (such as specific types of specialist citizens) so it makes sense to have techs that bestow these abilities.

49) DOWNLOADING TECHS -- Firaxis should periodically expand the tech tree by posted new techs on the website to incorporate into the game (Could this be done without ruining play balance?)

<u>The Techs Themselves...</u>

50) TECH ADVANCES TIED TO GAME FEATURES -- Features such as 'borders' should only be enables once the appropriate tech is discovered. (Any discussion about this? Good, bad?)

51) RESOURCE LIMITATION LIFTING TECHS -- In SMAC there were some techs that you needed to research before you could gather more than 2 resources of each type. While an interesting idea, the implementation in SMAC was too limiting. The techs which lifted the limits were too indispensible, and came in too late, often choking off an empire until they could be found. I'd like to include some concrete suggestions for improving this. Shining1 suggested that resource limits should be a function of Social Engineering. Other thoughts?.

52) EVERY TECH SHOULD HAVE SOME 'BASIC' BENEFIT -- Each tech should have some effect of the 'basic' parameters of a civ, the kind of things that are likely to be influenced by Social Engineering (e.g. "Trade" should benefit your Economy rating, and "Crop Rotation" should benefit your Growth).

53) GET RID OF OVERBROAD TECHS -- For example, "Industrialization" encompasses many things (technical, social, and economic), and should not be lumped into a single tech.

54) AN OPTION FOR A LESS 'MECHANISTIC' WORLDVIEW -- Some people feel that Civ emphasis science and technology, not allowing for the possibility of a civilization that has a less mechanistic worldview, and focuses instead on other pursuits, like philosophy or psychology. Is this workable? Suggestions? Could this have happened, even if it didn't historically?

55) MORE EMPHASIS ON FOOD MAKING TECHS -- Plants cultivation, Farming, Irrigation, Genetic manipultion...

56) GREATER EMPHASIS ON THE ARTS -- The tech tree in general focuses on military hardware and hard science, leaving the Arts somewhat unaddressed (this suggestion probably needs to be fleshed out more). some posters question whether this is a good suggestion.

57) MAKE ARTS ADVANCES 'SCORE BOOSTERS' -- Maybe Art and Culture advances should simply be score boosters (like "Future Tech") or one time benefits.

58) TECHNOLOGY SHOULD INCREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ENTERTAINERS -- Certain technologies should enhance the effectiveness of your "entertainer" specialists in the city screen (e.g. Television).

59) TECH: Music -- A dead end tech that adds +50% to the effectiveness of entertainers. So an entertainer gains an early boost of +100% with the discover of music and construction of a market place. This suggestion seems to be even more unpopular than last time. Should it be removed or altered to make it more palatable?

60) TECH: Computers -- if you're reading this list, you know what these are

61) TECH: Programming -- the art/science of making computers do what you want.

62) TECH: Systems Analysis -- ??

63) TECH: Computing Machine -- A mechanical or electrical device that demonstrates that arithmetic and logical tasks can be done by machines. Examples would be an adding machine or a punch-card sorter. This would be a pre-req for...

64) TECH: Stored Program Computer -- A device which maintains its instruction sequence in a dynamic storage medium (e.g. the DRAM in the computer you're using right now). Allows much more flexibility than a direct input computing machine.

65) TECH: The Transistor -- Among other things, can be used to build digital logic circuits. The transistor is the basis for all modern computers. Integrated Circuits (ICs) use transistors to accomplish most of thier functions. The Transistor is what made the "Information Age" possible.

66) TECH: Vacuum Tubes -- Among other things, can be used to build digital logic circuits. Vacuum Tubes were the basis for the first electronic computers. (This is an excellent candidate for some of the prereq ideas -- Transistors and Vacuum Tubes are mostly unrelated technologies that both allow computers, but the Transistor has other benefits. So the prereq for "Computers" might be "Computing Machine AND Vacuum Tubes OR Computing Machine AND Transistors", but you need "Transistor AND Computers" for Microprocessors).

67) TECH: High Level Programming Languages -- Give the user an easier way to program computers.

68) TECH: Calendar

69) TECH: Astrology

70) TECH: Algebra

71) TECH: Calculus

72) TECH: Orbital Mechanics

73) TECH: Architecture

74) TECH: Plumbing

75) TECH: Engineering

76) TECH: Simple Machines

77) TECH: Clockwork

78) TECH: Gearworks (not sure exactly what is meant here...)

79) TECH: Electromagnetism

80) TECH: Thermodynamics

81) TECH: Relativity -- Important concept in modern physics.

82) TECH: Electric Light

83) TECH: Periodic Table -- An important advance in chemistry. Realizing the "order" of chemical elements allowed discovery of new ones and prediction of their properties. Aided understanding of underlying theory of chemistry.

84) TECH: Industrial Chemistry

85) TECH: Ceramics -- Presumably the branch of modern materials science, not just plates and bowls...

86) TECH: Lens Grinding

87) TECH: Copper Smelting (before bronze)

88) TECH: Artificial Fertilizers

89) TECH: Geology

90) TECH: Oceanography is this a tech on its own?

91) TECH: Herbal Remedies

92) TECH: Cash Crops -- farm goods which are grown primarily for export because they can command a high price, not because of their local food value. Coffee, cotton, and tobacco might be examples.

93) TECH: Crop Rotation -- Important agricultural concept. Improves farm productivity.

94) TECH: Anatomy

95) TECH: Physiology

96) TECH: Surgery -- cutting people up to make them healthy. In early years, mostly limited to amputations, etc.

97) TECH: Botany

98) TECH: Cell Theory

99) TECH: Germ Theory

100) TECH: Immunization

101) TECH: Antibiotics

102) TECH: Genetics/Inheritance Theory -- Gregor Mendel style understanding of inheritance.

103) TECH: Evolution -- presumably you mean Darwinian Evolution, i.e. evolution via Natural Selection

104) TECH: DNA

105) TECH: Credit

106) TECH: Capital Markets

107) TECH: Keynesian Economics -- The notion that government fiscal (i.e. taxes and spending) policy should be used to limit the effects of the business cycle: low spending during boom years, high spending during recession/depression.

108) TECH: Geography

109) TECH: History

110) TECH: Tragedy/Literature

111) TECH: Rhetoric

112) TECH: Sculpture

113) TECH: Potter's Wheel

114) TECH: Painting

115) TECH: Weaving

116) TECH: The Loom -- important for weaving

117) TECH: The Pump

118) TECH: Internal Combustion Engine

119) TECH: Submersibles

120) TECH: Microbotics (little robots), Astrobotics (space robots?), Hydrobotics (water robots?).

121) TECH: Satellites -- "What goes up must... just keep going around."

122) TECH: Brewing

123) TECH: Masonry

124) TECH: The Bow

125) TECH: Gunnery

126) TECH: Standing Army -- The army is composed of professional soldiers employed by the state, not just regular citizens who grabbed weapons to support the war effort, and then went back to their lives afterward.

127) TECHS: Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Deterrence, Nuclear Warfighting, Nuclear Defense

128) TECHS (future, possibly realistic): cloning, orbital construction, commercial spacefaring, wakeways, artificial intelligence, spaceport, xenobiology (exobiology), terraforming, eugenics, metallic foam, neural interface, nanotechnology, laser induced fusion, zero point energy, hydroponics, microgee agriculture, xenopsychology, cryogenics, nanomedicine (cell repair), personality constructs, mass drivers (without aliens, xenobiology is mostly useless, xenopsychology even more so , what is practical application of cryogenics in game terms? What are personality constructs and wakeways?)

129) TECHS (future, and "realism" questionable): warp drive, psychohistory, robopsychology, ICE, eptification, elite conscription, phaser, turbolaser, artificial gravity (antigravity), universal translator, scrith, hyperatomic motivator, twin ion engine, liquid metal (mimetic polyalloy), positronic matrix, spindizzy generator, planckscale machines, antimatter containment, ekumen, matter replication, Anti- anything (matter, gravity, realisty...), Kinetic Weapons (????), Inertia Nullification (thanks to the space operas of E.E. "Doc" Smith) (I don't know what a lot of these are, and a lot of the ones I do know are definitely impossible in the "real world")

130) TECH: Dyson Sphere -- a huge sphere that encloses a star, thus capturing all of a star's radiated energy. Problem: vast undertaking to construct. There is no way it can be done in a Civ III timeframe. Problem: A sperical shell generates no net gravitational field on the inside, i.e. you do not get pulled toward the surface of the sphere on the inside. This is due to the inverse-square nature of gravity and the geometry of the spere. Net result - what's keeping the star in the middle, and not bumping into the sides?

131) TECH: Ringworld -- more popular alternative to Dyson Sphere, just a big huge ring around a star. Still not realistic for Civ III.

132) SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT THAT HAVE BEEN OFFERED AS TECHS BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THEY FIT: Social Refortm, Women's Movement, Aristocracy, Imperialism, Total War, Environmental Ethics, Entrepenurialism, Globalization, Humanism, Empiricism, Nuclear Disarmament, Animism (early religion), Heliocentrism, Discipline, Art of War, Mercantilism, Rationalization (a la Max Weber) ???, The Enlightenment, Money Economy, Herbalism,

133) FIELDS OF SCIENCE THAT WERE OFFERED BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THEY FIT: Physical Chemistry, Organic Chemistry

134) ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE BEEN OFFERED AS TECHS BUT I'M NOT SURE IF THEY FIT: Venture Capitalism, Mercanary Warfare, Multinational Corporation, Agricultural Investment, Mechanical Farming, Training, Mobilization, Urbanization, Regulation, Revolution, Fortifications

[This message has been edited by the Octopus (edited May 26, 1999).]

**Shining1** · May 21, 1999, 01:59

1. REGIONAL MENU SCREEN

The idea for a regional menu grew out of the need to make micromanagement of cities, especially towards the endgame, less of a problem. In addition, a majority of posters felt that the current setup in civII and smac did not 'feel' correct - more like a collection of individual city states than a cooperative, organised civilisation.

1.1) GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONALISATION -- Every civilisation is divided up into different regions, based on a capital surrounded by a radius 8 area of land (or square, etc). Citys that are properly linked to the capital within this radius (i.e by road) can exchange resources, and the player can access any city from any other city with that region from the regional map, a popup feature within the city menu. Regions can be named, have their own internal borders, can be set identical production queues, and make city management a simpler process. As well, some social engineering factors (values) and the tax rate can be altered for each region. (done either through options in the capital of the region or the social settings screen).

1.2) PROGRESSIVE REGIONALISATION -- many posters felt that the first system, having a fixed distance around the capital city, was too limiting. The suggestions was that regions begin as individual cities, and gradually expand as a civilisation advances.

1.3) REGIONAL IMPROVEMENTS -- Regionalisation also opens the door for regional improvements, which would be: 1) structures built in one city but which affect every city in that region (suggest stock exchange, federal police force, as examples). 2) improvements built on a regional basis (from the regional window) and which exist only a regional improvement (i.e not present in any particular city). Some wonders may also operate on a regional basis (suggest Hoover dam and J.S Bach's cathedral, if retained).

1.4) HOW TO APPLY REGIONS -- There are a myriad of suggestions around as to how to impliment the regional build and management options. Some posters feel that regions should control everything, taking resources from cities and building improvements, units, etc CtP style, and only applying them to an individual city once construction is completed. The city menu would then be greatly reduced, even eliminated, as a game feature. I feel this is too limiting initally, but would become very useful in the late game, where micromanaging individual cities becomes exceedingly tiresome.

A signicant number of posters felt again that regions should be run according to historical rules, starting as a group of city states (a greek ethnos for instance), and gradually becoming more and more interlinked, ending up as more or less a single entity, such as the northwest U.S.A.

1.5 REGIONAL MENU INTERFACE (still currently my own suggestions)

* GEOGRAPHICAL VIEW - a slightly zoomed out version of the 3D isometric view, showing the capital at the centre and the surrounding cities. Each city menu can be accessed from this screen in either a right-click and hold popup form or the actual thing itself.

This has an option to shows resource output per city below each city, and also any resource transfer to cities within this region.

* BY CITY VIEW - a menu showing infrastructure for each city, including improvments, garrisions, resource production and current production (this would take approximately 2 lines per city, based on civII). You cannot view the geography using this form of the window.

Regional Menu Options:
* POOL RESOURCES - allows resources to be contributed to 'regional projects', and, once the appropriate transport tech has been discovered, to build city improvements for an individual city using this system.

* SET BUILD QUEUE - allows the player to set an item or list of items as the current production for EVERY city in the region, and allows the player to set exceptions to this. Useful for changing over techs, e.g building musketeers and an upgraded barracks upon discovering gunpowder.

* REGIONAL TERRAFORMING - allows the player to take a number of citizens from a city or cities, and use them to make a terraform build queue of areas of the regional terrain. These citizens do not have to be settler units (terraformin and settler unit ideas described below).

* INCLUDE CITY/EXCLUDE CITY: given the likelyhood that a large number of cities will overlap in any regional setup, this gives the oppotunity to set a particularly city as part of the region or not. Suggest two methods: a button on the regional screen that will switch to a cursor that toggles city status when clicked, and an inside city button that will show the available regions (based on radius?) and allow the player to select one.

Finally, the "find city" buttons on the city menu screen are replaced with the "view region" and "view capital" screens.

1.6 WORTH OF REGIONS -- While there seems enough by way of material to justify the inclusion of regions in some form in CivIII, it is still uncertain whether they are the best way to solve city micromanagment issues. A simple resource transfer system, the ability to move from city to city easily using a map view (suggest a system similar to the point and click Total Annihiliation mini-map, with bigger dots perhaps), and a well implemented build queue system, with the ability to send the same orders to multiple cities, all would help.

2. CITY MENU SCREEN

Ideas and suggestions for improving the current city menu system.

2.1) TERRAFORMING -- Terraforming is now handled by citizens from inside the city menu, by settlers from the main map, or, when the appropriate transport tech is discovered, from the regional menu. Each city gets a terraforming build queue, and a 'hurry' button to rush improvements for money. A certain number of citizens are allocated jobs as Masons, Yeomen or Engineers (each of which builds faster than before). Terraforming outside a city is handled the normal way, using settlers, or by workers from the regional map, as mentioned above.

As such, the main map will need a 'work in progress' type icon to indicate the current square around each city that is being improved (only one square at a time can be done, unless settlers are used externally).
An RTS type system, with an inbetween icon to indication an incomplete building, is suggested (currently, there is no way in SMAC or CivII to stop terraforming, move away, and return to the job, knowing that X turns have been completed with Y turns left to go).

This system makes terraforming simpler and much quicker, if required, allowing the basic links between cities to be established quickly.

2.2) SETTLERS -- These become more flexible, as well as being able to leave the city and terraform/found citys, they can also temporarily rejoin a city population as either workers or terraformers (done as an option in the list of options each unit has when activated in the city). They can provide external benefits to a city, able to both terraform terrain outside the city square and access production squares similarly inaccessable, when within the city region (think combined terraformer/supply crawler behaviour). This issue seems to cause some confusion, and it has been suggested that the interface for all terraforming units - whether inside or outside the city - be the same to avoid confusion. I agree.

There is also a suggestion for movement benefits (*2 move or all squares cost 1) for units within your own borders, which would make terraforming less of a problem, even when outside the defined regions of your empire.

Finally, the hardy Settler citizens are never unhappy, making them a welcome addition to any city menu.

2.3) UNIT PRODUCTION -- A suggestion that many units, particularly offensive fighters, should require their own structure to be produced before they can be constructed was generally well received. A system that allowed any city to build that era's basic infantry (i.e civilian milita type mobilisation), but required more complex units, especially offensive forces, to have facilities in place is what is currently proposed.

In addition, upgrades to these facilities make more workshop items available. Feedback for this is positive. Any more comments?

It was also suggested that structures inside a city be allowed to produce units concurrently, so you can have a barracks building a swordsman AND and siege workshop building a catapult simultainiously in the same city.

A similar idea was proposed for structures, but eventually abandoned. However, it was agreed that current production of a structure should be allowed to be mothballed, if the player wishes to change production temporarily.

Posters were divided over which permutation of these rules should apply to Wonders - there was a general feeling that they should require more attention (2/3 of production was suggested) than normal units or structures.

Envisioned construction window - much like civII (bottom left) but with six slots - three buildings (top of window), three unit facilities (bottom of window) (reflecting the limited skills of a single city - as in real life).

2.4) CURRENT MILITARY IMPROVEMENTS:

CIVILIAN MILITA: produces clubs and bronze spears, swords, and armour. This 'structure' is always present in a new city, and allows the most basic of weapons (of any age) to be constructed.

ANCIENT BARRACKS: Produces more complicated infantry units (iron weapons and bows, when technology allows), as well as mounted units.
+ Stables (provides horses)
+ Archery range (makes bows)
+ Blacksmith (steel weapons)

SIEGE WORKSHOP: Produces ancient mechanical devices, catapults, balista, siege engines.
+ forge (iron components for ballista, etc)
+ gantry (constructs siege engines)

HARBOUR: Not military per se, but can support addons that allow military units.
+ Construction yard (builds triemes)

DEEP HARBOUR
+ Construction yard (builds galleys/frigates)
+ Forge (builds ironclad vessels)
+ Coastal defense (+50% to land/sea engagements)

The ideas for military infrastructure go well with the idea to divide civIII into Ages, similar to AoE, but not crap.

2.5) INFRASTRUCTURE RATING -- A suggestion that a system of 'levels' for city developement in various areas, e.g industry and religion. A city with a higher level in one area is more effective at that task, and infrastructure is built to increase the city's level. This would work very well with social engineering, if the settings were the same. For instance (using modified SMAC settings):

Factory (+5 industry)
Library (+5 research)
Hospital (+2 growth)

Social settings would then have to increase city production, instead of decreasing the production required for completion of a task. (No bad thing - this would avoid the potential industry cheat in SMAC).

2.6) SPECIALISTS

Serf - unhappy worker, suffers -1/3 production (see below)
Worker - works in city radius square
Farmer* - improves food output by 1 in square
Trader* - improves arrows ouput by 1 in square
Miner* - improves shields output by 1 in square.
Mason - terraforming unit.
Settler - special unit, can work or terraform, but cannot be a specialist. Can move from town to town. Must be constructed first, as per civII rules. Never becomes unhappy.
Scientist - + sci
Tax collector - + tax (limit 1 per 5 citizens)
Entertainer**- produces luxuries (make normal citizen happy).
Priest** - makes unhappy citizen happy (1 per 5 citizens allowed)
Governor - available only in regional centres, or cities outside of a region. Improves efficiency for region or city (by +3, assuming a 0-10 scale for each social engineering value). Only one allowed, and only at capital/regional centres (represents the regional beuracracy - a significant investment in human resources in any culture to date).

* Farmers and traders appear automatically when in the right square, and require certain technologies to be discovered first. They can also be manually selected. However, they limit mineral output to a maximum of 2. A Miner get +1 minerals, but destroys ALL food output in their square (they also appear much later in the game).

** Entertainers and priests both improve city happiness, but in different ways. Entertainers affect both normal and unhappy citizens, in the normal CivII way. Priests affect ONLY unhappy citizens, making them normal. Thus, priests are usually first required, but are limited, both by the number allowed and in that they do not generate happy citizens.

Happy citizens make better specialists, adding +1 to tax, sci, or effic. Priests and Entertainers are not improved by this, however.

Unhappy citizens are less productive, slowing terraforming and work output by 1/3. They cannot become specialists (including farmers, etc), and may revolt if present in great enough numbers. They represent the discontent part of the population, the landless peasants etc.

2.7) OTHER SUGGESTIONS --

* Trachyr has suggested that food be divided up into various types (meat, produce, dairy, etc). I feel this creates too much unnecessary micromangement, especially at the end game. However, if done on a regional or global scale, this could be an interesting addition to the game (the vegetarian empire? ).

* There was also a suggestion of reducing the city radius size to 1 square instead of 2 (cutting available land from 21 squares to 9, but allowing more cities to be built. While increasing individual management problems, with the regional approach this may be overcome, and result in more realistic empires. It also leads to more use of specialists, since excess population cannot be used as workers (though more obvious benefits from using happy citizens as specialists *might* overcome this somewhat in other models).

List of names.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Shining1 (edited June 04, 1999).]</font>

**Robert** · May 21, 1999, 04:56

<H3>List of Current City Improvements:<H5>

• Baracks
• Granary
• Palace
• City Walls
• Temple
• Library
• Courthouse
• Marketplace
• Aqueduct
• Colosseum
• Harbor
• University
• Bank
• Cathedral
• Power Plant
• Stock Exchange
• Sewer System
• Port Facility
• Coastal Fortress
• Super Highways
• Factory
• Airport
• Mass Transit
• Hydro Plant
• Police Station
• Recycling Center
• Supermarket
• Nuclear Plant
• SAM Missile Battery
• Offshore Platform
• SDI Defense
• Research Lab
• Solar Plant
• Manufacturing Plant

Ordered by purpose [MBD's idea]

• Food
Granary, Aqueduct, Harbor, Sewer System, Supermarket

• Defense
Baracks, City Walls, Coastal Fortress, SAM Missile Battery, SDI Defense

• Science
Library, University, Research Lab

• Money / luxerious / Economy
Marketplace, Bank, Stock Exchange, Super Highways, Palace, Courthouse

• Production
Power Plant, Factory, Hydro Plant, Nuclear Plant, Offshore Platform, Solar Plant, Manufacturing Plant

• Hapiness
Cathedral, Colosseum, Temple

• Special
Recycling Center, Police Station, Mass Transit, Airport, Port Facility,

<hr>
<hr>

<H3>List of ideas for new Improvements:<H5>

• Theater [EnochF]
• City Clock [EnochF]
• Hospital [EnochF]
• Cinema [EnochF]
• Pharmacy [EnochF]
• Television [EnochF]
• Security Monitor [EnochF]
• Fusion Plant [EnochF]
• Base Support Structures [Trachmyr] <== read more under the 'new ideas' section
• Pastuerization Plant (Adds 25% to total food due to the reduction in losses to spoilage.) [Sieve Too]
• Pesticide Plant (Adds another 25% to total food but increases pollution) [Sieve Too]

<hr>
<hr>

<H3>List of other /new ideas<H5>

• Make improvements that belong to a nation or a religion or a gouvernament. [CyberShy]

examples:
# Muslim nations will never be allowed to build churches.
# Temples only work till 500 AD
# Communism disalbes churches / temples. (till another gouvernament is chosen)
# Wind Mills are typicall dutch improvements
# Mc Donalds has double the impact in the USA then in other countries etc. etc.
<hr>
• I'd resuggest in this new thread that the player be allowed to build miltiples of certain improvements [within limits, of course], with diminishing returns for subsequent iterations. [Druid2]

examples:
[lab = +100% ... lab*2 = +180% ... lab*3 = +%230% .. max build of "n".. which is set in a modifiable parameter file]

In addition to this idea: In big cities, more than one improvement of one type should be needed. I don't think there was only one Granary in ancient Rome. [Ecce Homo]

In addition to this idea: each new building of the same type will have a reduced effect, let's say 25% less than the previous one. Suppose you built 3 stables, then the first one builds a cavalry regiment using 100 shields, the second using 125 shields, the third using 150 shields. Some improvements, such as aqueducts and sewer systems, should not be able to build multiple times [Transcend]

In addition to this idea: Give cities the option to build multiple improvements when they become bigger. City of 10 can have 1 Marketplace, city of 18 can hae 2 Marketplaces, city of 26 can have 3 marketplaces etc.etc. [CyberShy]

In addition to this idea: 1 Granary in a 8 people city works 100% but one granary in a 9+ city works 70% and one Granary in a 15+ city works 50%. Now you're forced to build a 2nd Granary when your city become 9. [CyberShy]
<hr>
• That city improvements that effect science be dedicated to a technology category and the benefit gained through that improvement can only be applied to that category (or could be changed with a penalty.) [Zorloc]
<hr>
• Base Support Structures... a new city improvement
This Improvement includes ALL of the CRITICAL structures of PAST under a single name and structure, including all the benefits of it. The old buildings will be replaced, and the upkeep costs will be low. Auto upgrade or build upgrades when you move to a new age. (read more below in Trackmyr's post] [Trachmyr]
<hr>
• There seems to be some general agreement with the suggestion that some unit chassis and weapons require improvements to be built before the unit itself can be done.
In this case, extra city improvements will be needed in order to produce units - about 15 - 20 new structures need to be designed (spanning the whole of history, though). [Shining1]
<hr>
• City improvements must become inactive when technology gets better. (like wonders don't work forever) and be replaced with others. [CyberShy]

<hr>
<hr>

<H3>List of new purposes / names for old improvements<H5>

• Superhighways ==> Shopping Mall / Mall / Downtown / Commercial Centre [VaderTwo]
• use the highways as an option in the roads/terraforming area instead [VaderTwo]
• I'm in favour of retaining all CivII structures, though possibly in a somewhat modified state [Shining1]

<hr>
<hr>

<H3>List of people involved with this thread<H5>

• CyberShy
• MBD
• Druid2
• Zorloc
• Mo (please some more explanation)
• EnochF
• VaderTwo
• Ecco Homo
• Trachmyr
• Sieve Too
• Transcend
• Shining1

JT · May 21, 1999, 13:39

UNITS
Spy Planes-multiple turns of feul, long range, no armor or weapon. Used for scouting.

Patriots-draftees from cities

Sea Engineers-terraform the sea

Supply Trucks-supply one nutrient/mineral/gold(whichever is chosen) from home city
to city truck is assigned to.

Assassin-Like spy, except kills prominent researchers or builders to set enemy back.

Anti-sub Helicopter-Maybe with a sonar beacon that extends a square in every
direction so you can pick up the subs?

Merchant Fleet-Caravans on the sea. I like this one _a lot_.

Air Transport-Airplane that transports units

AWAC-Like spy plane, but shorter range. Gives support to any attacked air units
within 4 squares.

Spy Sattelites-Keep constant watch over a certain area.

Refugee-If city is captured, this unit appears. Can add its population to another city. No
offense or defense.

Intelligance(sp?) Unit - Anti-spy protection

Longbowmen-Advanced archers

Cannonades-Between Cannons and Artillery

Arqbues-Between longbowmen and musketeers

Biplane-Drops paratroopers

Guerrila-ignore ZOCs, but have weak attack. Mainly for pillaging and defense.

Mobile Radar Jammer-creates "cloud" of blackness one square in every direction

Crop Plauge Plane-Destroys farm and irrigation

Mobile SAM-doubles defense of units stacked with it against air attacks

Mobile SDI-obvious

V2s-Missle that destroys all units and improvements in square

Nuclear Bombs-Armed on bombers and dropped

Decoys-Fake units with no attack or defense that are used to draw the enemy out of
position

Officers-Units that add morale to other units with them in stack. Appear randomly at
first, then trained later in game.

National Guard-Appointed like elvises or scientists. At first the weaker version,
seasonal army. Then, with appropriate advance, it turns into the more powerful National
Guard.

CONCEPTS

Losing Experience-Over time, units not in battle slowly lose experience down to the
"hardened" level, assuming we have the SMAC morale in Civ3.

Flags-Not just colors, real flags that you could customize if you wanted to using
Clarisworks or something

Graphics-Make sure units look like what they're supposed to be, not like in SMAC.
Maybe have units from different cultures look different?

Air-Completely automate air units

Transport size-Units are given size ratings. Transport units can hold a certain size
rating. Prevents the eternally annoying transports that can hold 8 tanks but not 9 spies.

Range-Different range missles depending on tech.

Cash-Units should cost money instead of minerals to support

Off Alert-Take units off alert. They gather their own resources when off alert, so
support canceled. Attack and Defense lowered, though.

Nukes-nuked area cannot be entered by units for x turns. If city is nuked, city cannot
build buildings for x turns. Nuked country can launch "retaliation attack" automaticly
when nuked. Increase range of nukes. Give nukes effects of PB's from SMAC?

Long-range attacking units-catpults and other long-range units can attack from a few
squares away

Raising armies-instead of building armies, you raise them through your cities

Support-Nation supports unit instead of city.

Tech upgrades-Option to upgrade units with whatever you discover once you discover
it. Example: You have an archers unit defending a town. You discover Bronze
Working.You can now add bronze armor to your archer unit if you wish.

Seperate armies and weapons-The people are drafted from a city while their weapons
are built in another.

Training Grounds-Not letting certain units that have to be trained, like an archer or a
knight, be built until barracks are built.

Upgrade-Upgrade unit when new tech comes.

Cost-Cost of maintinance should grow or decrease over time.

Morale-Morale levels for units like SMAC.

Veteran-Over time, units gain morale levels.

Missle Silos-terrain improvement. Have a 50% chance of surviving nuke blast. Units
inside not damaged if silo survives, destroyed if silo destroyed.

COPIED FROM POSTERS(I hope noone minds)

offense: this value determines the amount of damage done with a successful hit before
modifiers.

defense: this value is how much less damage a unit takes from a successful hit by
another unit due to armor, mobility, etc.

hit points: this value is how much damage the unit takes before it pushes up daisies.

morale: this value determines the percentage to successfully land a hit and also
modifies the offensive value by a set percentage modifier. it also eventually increases
with successive (successful) battles. let's say it ranges from 1 to 5 (as in smac but a less
prosaic form).

range: movement points per turn.

now let's wade through an example title bout: in this corner, a rookie legion is attacking
the veteran chariot in black trunks... ding ding!
"legion x" (o:4/d:2/h:10/m:1)
"chariot y" (o:4/d:1/h:10/m:4)
let's also assume that the battle is to the death (as in the coliseum of yore)...

round 1 (part a):
x attacks y. x has a 1 in 5 chance of hitting y (due to his cruddy morale). x luckily
manages to hit y. (first blood goes to the young punk!). x does 4 damage (+0% due to
low morale) and y subtracts only 1 damage due to his defense value and gains no
bonuses because he wasn't fortified at the end of the previous turn and is standing on
a plains tile (next time seek some cover at the end of the turn).
x finally deals 3 damage total to y.
y has 7 hit points remaining.

round 1 (part deux):
y counterattacks x in his phase of combat (if x had managed to deal 10 hit points after
modifiers and minus y's defense in the first hit, y wouldn't be counterattacking, he'd be
dead). y has a 4 in 5 chance of hitting x. y hits (hey, you gotta like the odds). y does 4
damage +80% due to high morale (alright, we can rescale this during beta-testing 'cause
that might be a bit too high). y actually does 7 damage and x defends 2 hit points due to
his fancy roman shield. x is also standing on a forest which gives +50% to his defense
rating. x defends an additional 1 hit point of damage. x is down to 6 hit points.

round 2: (part one) x attacks y again...

And so on until one of them (presumably x) is dead. this favors a strongly moraled
attacker and bonuses could accrue to the defender based on terrain/fortification/city
walls (adding a bonus to the defense rating). The beauty is that more advanced units
gain in hit points and defense to the point where even the most veteran phalanx could
never have enough of an offensive rating to overcome the natural defense rating of a
tank, let alone dent it's hit points enough to kill the tank before the fatal blow is
returned. the escalating defense rating of the advanced units would essentially block all
the damage of an inferior unit whether or not the unit scored a successful hit and the
retribution strike would be so likely to kill with the first successful hit with rising
offensive values. even an inexperienced tank unit (which would land a hit only 20% of
the time) would eventually kill the phalanx before any hit points could _ever_ be taken
off him.

Additionally, stacked combat could be resolved unit vs. unit as in smac in this manner
with collateral damage confered on the surviving stack members of the losing defender.
This system also works exactly the same with artillery, air to ground combat or ship to
ship, except that there is no counterattack phase to each round unless the defender unit
y) has a long distance attack (artillery, anti-air or ship based cannon, respectively) as
well.

------------------
-Civ3 Thread Master of OTHER and UNITS.
"We get the paperwork, you get the game!"

**evil conquerer** · May 21, 1999, 16:27

Here is a list of all the different ideas mentioned, in no particular order:

<hr>

EnochF: The map should have different styles depending on the age it's in. For example, it could be a papyrus scroll during the rennaisance, a map with a compass arrow and fancy European script during the rennaisance, and a viewscreen in the future (JT).
Potential problems/caveats: May make map hard to read.

Ecce Homo: Animate the water tiles.
Problems: May make it hard to customise the map tiles
Suggested fix: Have an animated format for the default that is replacable with a common 2D (.pcx?) format for customization.

Many people: Bring back the throne room!. But make it customizable according to which civilization you have (for example, the Japanese have samurai armor hanging on the wall, the Europeans have knight armor, etc.) Some people also support the palace instead of the throne room, or something completely different.
Problems: May make it hard to customize civlizations.
Potential solutions: In the civlization's text file, have an option to say which kind of throne room is used.

JT: Show wonders in the map grid somewhere within the city's radius.
Problems: May make it hard to see what's in that square.
Solutions: Make the wonder show up under units and special resources(?), make wonder invisible with terrain viewing key (T in SMAC and Civ II).

Many people: Either make the units 2D (unacceptable in a modern game, IMNSHO) or have an alternative 2D format to customize the units with. In SMAC, for example, a historical MOD pack is impossible because there is no way to modify the unit pix ("those chariots look pretty silly with particle impactors" ).
Suggested fix: Provide an alternate 2D graphics file (.pcx?) to provide for the customization of units.

Many people: City architecture should be cilivization-specific.
Implementation: Provide a setting in the civilization's text file to determine the architecture style. This could be the same setting that determines the throne room and unit(?) styles.

Many people: The graphics should not slow down the game too much or require ultra-fast machines in order to run acceptably. For example, the animation for founding a new city in Civ's I and II (something unfortunately missing in SMAC) would just be a pain if there wasn't a way to skip it. The high-res graphics in SMAC ran unacceptably slow on my machine (PII-300 w/ 64 MB, in case you're wondering), but the low-res units looked just fine and ran much better.
Solution: Make the graphics as good as you can without slowing down the game.

evil conquerer: If the units are modular (as in SMAC), the different sections of the unit should be clearly visible. I didn't have this problem, but some people complained that the different weapons and special abilites were hard to tell apart.
Possible solution: Weapons and special abilities may have to be exaggerated slightly on the map screen.

EnochF: If terraforming can be done from inside the city, there should be an icon that indicates work in progress on that square.
Potential problem: Might obscure the resources in that square.

Debate: Should the units be 2D or 3D?
2D isometric: Would make the units easier to edit. Would also make the units move faster (exception: CTP ).
True 3D: Anything less would be unacceptable for a new game. The units would simply look better. An alternate 2D format for editing could be made available relatively easily.

Icedan: Check out <a href="http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Keep/3402/Civ.htm">http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Keep/3402/Civ.htm</a> for a quick sketch of what the 3D graphics could look like.
Potential problem: No sense of distance at all.
Solution: I dunno, maybe some kind of gridline system.

Trachmyr: A style of graphics similar to Lords of the Realm II.

Rusty Nail: Make fog of war an option and don't make it too hard to see the terrain through the fog of war. For units and terrain, clarity is very important.

evil conquerer: Bring back the city view! It gives the user a sense of satisfaction, even if it is completely useless.

Eggman: Change the monocolor shield to a flag with a symbol on it. For example, the British would have a union jack, etc.
Potential problem: Customization.
Solution: Leave a space in the faction file for a customizable flag.

Andy B: Make cities look different based on their position on the globe (ex. glacier cities have little igloos, etc.)
Potential problem: May conflict with the idea to have unique cities for different civilizations.
Solution: Pick one, Firaxis . If you can combine the two, that would be awesome.

Fugi the Great: If the graphics are unbearably slow (i.e. CTP) then have a key to speed up the animation of units when they're on a long GOTO, by skipping frames, substituting a 2D unit graphic, or by something else. Make sure you can still see where the unit is going, though.

<hr>

If I missed anybody's please tell me and I'll gladly put it in. If you disagree with any of the suggested fixes or anything on the list, please feel free to post here with your suggestion.

Credits:
JT
Ecce Homo
Pythagoras
Fugi the Great
meowser
Mo
evil conquerer
Shining1
Trachmyr
EnochF
Icedan
E
Atahualpa
longchamp
don Don
Andy B
Depp
Eggman
Darkstarr
LordStone1

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by evil conquerer (edited May 31, 1999).]</font>

**EnochF** · May 21, 1999, 17:55

Okay, I just compiled this. No particular order yet.

WORLD'S GREATEST: Ecce Homo
By paying double the shield cost, a civilization can build a World's Greatest city improvement, which grants a small bonus for that city (double effect, as in +100% gold for marketplaces, 4 citizens happy for temples, etc.) Another civilization can pay double that to outdo the current World's Greatest. A temple = 20 shields, the first World's Greatest = 40, someone else spends 80 to outdo them, etc.
Pythagoras: Suggests limited timespan for world's greatest.
kmj: Suggests "bidding" for world's greatest. Suggests world's greatest can go obsolete, i.e. World's Greatest Marketplace loses all bonuses upon discovery of Banking.

PROGRAMMABLE WONDERS: EnochF
A long series of flags allows players to redefine current wonders and create new ones to a much larger extent. Any Wonders dropped from the final release of the game might still persist as possible game effects to be used by scenario and modpack designers.

WONDER DETERRENTS: Ufa
Random negative effects for more powerful wonders. Leonardo's might leave a percentage of units not upgraded. Lighthouse has a chance to burn out each turn. Or, as an alternative to random effects, use constant negative effects instead. Increased pollution or corruption in the host city, slight happiness reduction for the civ, high maintenance cost in gold, or something along those lines.

WONDERS OFF OPTION: kmj
An option in the game menu to disallow all wonder effects (and even the ability to build wonders). Alternatively, an option to "tone down" wonders, maybe decrease effects by half wherever possible.
Ufa: A "modifier" for wonders, like Civ II's modifier for barbarians
Mark_Everson: Disallow wonders that count as an improvement in every city.
Ecce Homo: Suggests Pyramid be city improvement, thus Great Pyramid = world's greatest

DISALLOWING "RACES TO BUILD": meowser
No two cities in one civilization can build the same wonder at the same time.
CyberShy: No races allowed at all.
kmj: Races between two civilizations should be discouraged but not disallowed by the game. A message appears, such as, "Sir, the Egyptians are believed to be working on a similar project. Shall we continue?"

EVOLVING WONDERS THROUGH THE AGES: Eggman
Wonder effects which change as the ages progress. Pyramids act as granary early on, then change to gold bonus. Olympic Games provide extra gold, cease to function in Renaissance, then increase happiness in later ages, etc. Aging wonders may incur higher and higher maintenance costs.
EnochF: All obsolete wonders generate tourism gold.

LAND ENGINEERING WONDERS: Diodorus
The Great Canal, for example, requiring explosives, modern engineers, allows trade routes. The Polders may reclaim land from the sea. A Great Wall which actually acts as a physical wall along the civ's borders.
Ecce Homo: Canals, bridges, walls could be city improvements. The World's Greatest Canal could have effects resembling Great Canal.
kmj: Land engineering Wonders are limited by the surrounding terrain, no Great Canal by water

RE-BUILDABLE WONDERS: meowser
Only if two rival civs are building the same wonder, the second civ to complete the wonder receives a "compensation" bonus of happiness or gold. The first civ receives the standard wonder effect.
Fugi the Great: Civs can build the same Wonder and call it something different.

NATURAL WONDERS: CyberShy
Effects are conferred upon a civilization simply by having the wonder in its territory.
Taedott: Natural wonders are a resource, no benefits unless "improved."
meowser: Natural wonders appear on Earth map, or randomized on map like SMAC geographical features. Size: 1 tile, offer resource bonus, can be "improved" to provide tourism.

VISIBLE WONDERS: EnochF
Certain Wonders would appear in the city radius as impressive graphics. They would not confer any bonus to the worker on that square.
meowser: Visible wonders should be vulnerable to pillage (without direct assault on the city).
Ecce Homo: All Wonders should be visible. If it's not visible, it's not a Wonder (Women's Suffrage, Internet, Emancipation Act are thus disallowed)

"CULTURE" PARTLY DEFINED BY WONDERS: Trachmyr
Part of a larger system suggested in other forums. The Wonders a player builds help define a new game element called "culture," which may affect a civilization's war readiness, science, economy, government, even graphical representation on screen. A fairly radical reordering of traditional Civ. Bears resemblance to "social engineering" as found in SMAC.

CULTURAL WONDERS: meowser
Certain Wonders are only constructible by certain civs. Which civ can build which Wonder may be randomized at the beginning of the game.
kmj: Disagrees with cultural wonders, warns against "factions" rather than civilizations.
(Many disagreements)

UNCERTAINTY OF WONDER EFFECTS: CyberShy
Effects of wonders should not be predefined. Effects of the Wonder should only become clear to the builder X number of years after it is built.

GRADUAL WONDER OBSOLESCENCE: Zorloc
Wonders should not cease all effects on obsolescence, but gradually "phase out" over a few turns.
Zakalwe: Suggests something similar for captured wonders. Effects do not take effect immediately.

COOPERATIVE WONDER BUILDING: meowser
Certain limited Wonders could be jointly built by a conglomeration of nations. United Nations is an obvious choice.

SHARED WONDERS EFFECTS IN ALLIANCE: meowser
Also suggested in the Diplomacy list. All civs allied with each other receive the effects of each other's Wonders.

WONDER CATEGORIES: Ecce Homo
Certain Wonders are not dependent upon shields (resources) to be built. Scientific Wonders built by beakers, Economic Wonders built by gold.

WONDERS WITH UNIVERSAL BENEFITS: Ecce Homo
Growing out of Sieve Too's Internet Wonder. Many wonders provide benefits to all civs, i.e. the Olympic Games open to all who choose to participate, Wormhole Sensor, Apollo, Manhattan, etc.
willko: Disagrees. Wonders should have localizable benefits to the city they are built in (e.g., Lighthouse only functions at X distance maximum). Any wonder with a "universal" benefit should have a separate "non-universal" benefit, i.e. Manhattan Project also grants +25% science.

WONDERS AS A CIVILIZATION-WIDE PROJECT: meowser
Wonders are not built on the level of the city at all. Instead of being a city project, they are built by the entire civilization, using X% of total production or some such thing. Wonders thus do not appear in cities but in a special "wonder screen."
Fugi the Great: Wonders built by engineers or terraformers rather than X% of production. Increase costs of Wonders.

NAME YOUR OWN WONDER: kmj
Hoover Dam may be called Aswan or Three Gorges or London Dam. Forbidden City may be called Imperial Palace, Throne Hall of Persepolis, Palace of Versailles or Atlanta Palace. The Agency may be called FBI, CIA, KGB, KLA or KMJ Killer Squad.
Trachmyr: The game should suggest a few key names.

LANDSCAPE LIMITED WONDERS: kmj
Lighthouse only in coastal city, Hoover Dam requires a river. Only applies to certain Wonders.

MINOR WONDERS: willko
Suggests a huge number of wonders (rather than Wonders) with small effects, usually increased trade. Examples: Space Needle, Leaning Tower, etc. Rather than huge Wonders with sweeping effects like Pyramids, have countless small wonders with tiny, localized effects.

INTERNET WONDER: Sieve Too
A suggestion that provoked a huge response of support. The Internet wonder would provide benefits to not only the host civilization, but all civilizations with the Computers advance. Sparked the discussion about "universal" wonders.
anachron: Internet should be a technological advance, not a Wonder.

HUMAN GENOME PROJECT: anachron
Should have military ramifications, such as the ability to infect an enemy city with genetically engineered virus and start an epidemic.

SEVEN WONDERS PER AGE: mrtemba
Every age should have exactly seven Wonders.

**Jeje2** · May 22, 1999, 15:08

Hi, just opened my second thread, so here is the report for DIPLOMACY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Levels of meetings
In several postings it has been suggested that we need a three-level meeting system for discussions between players.

1.1 Meeting between A and B
This is the normal meeting were things can bee discussed freely. Here should exist most freedom. Something like SMAC, but more options. (I will come to options later)

1.2 A pact meeting
Something likes NATO and EU meetings. Discussion is still quite free.

1.2.1 Forms of pacts

I like Midlance's idea of three types of pacts, military, economic and research. (Have I forgotten something?)
Can there be combinations of these?

1.2.2 How to form a pact?
This is still a little open. So I give one solution now. Players A and B meet and decide to form a pact. This can then grow later. (Like it?)

1.2.2.1 How can a pact grow?
- C summons the pact and requests membership
- C asks A to join the pact and A summons the pact for approval of C
- The pact decides to ask C to join

1.2.2.2 How can one leave a pact?
Should it just as simple as leaving?
Or should there be somethig?

1.2.2.3 Can a member of a pact be expelled?
This has happened in real life, ex. South Africa was expelled from British Commonwealth. For what reasons can one be expelled from a pact? Can it be temporarily?

1.2.3 Who can form a pact?
Can a pact exist between different political/economic/religious systems?

1.2.3.1 What happens if a player changes his system?
- Automatically rejected
- A voting is conducted
- Nothing happens until someone summons a meeting about it. (I like this one. Less micromanagment)

1.2.4 Can players form pacts from the beginning?

1.3 UN-meeting
A summoning of all players to vote for an agenda, like in SMAC. Here only one thing can be suggested and voted for.

1.3.1 Veto

It has been suggested that UN is to be a wonder of the world (WoW), with builder having the veto-right. So no meetings with all players are to exist before UN is built.

(I personally don't like the idea of builder being only with veto. Currently there are five countries with veto right in UN, so why should there be only one in the game? I suggest that builder is a permanent member and then there is an election for another player to have veto for XX turns. Election every XX turn or sooner if player dies. This way we get closer to real life.)

1.3.2 Agendas

At least same as in SMAC, any more?
Suggested so far:
- Peacekeeping forces
- Ultimatums for peace
- Penalizing a player for something he did

1.3.3 Shall the membership cost?
There has been this idea, but I am confused about this. This requires more discussion.

2. War
There has been discussion about what happens if a democratic land attacks another player who is democratic. OK this is good, but what about the rest? We need more discussion here.

2.1 Declaring war
We seem to believe that the regime must influence on a player's ability to declare war.

2.1.1 Demanding for patience
And computer always knows how much money I've got. Gimme a shotgun, I hate it.
More modifiers here are needed.
- If the demander is poor, he should satisfy with less.
- There should be an uncertainty in his knowing about my fundings.
- The ability to demand for multiple things would also be good. (Goes for response too)

2.1.2 Giving an reason for war
One could try to settle the own people and/or other countries by giving a reason for declaring war. (Ex. Religious war, Defending own race)

2.1.3 Earlier happenings
Should this influence the reaction of people?
I say yea. Ex. In late 1939 Russia attacked Finland. War ended next spring in peace, but many Finns were angry. Finland lost a lot of its land. So Finland joined Germany and attacked Russia. Rest is history. But there weren't too much complaints about joining the second war in Finland at that time.

2.2 Wartime
One thing is clear, in war there shall be no co-operation between countries.

2.2.1 Asking for help
It happens to often in Civ II and SMAC that when you join a war, the asking side makes peace and leaves you with an unwanted war.
Some ideas have been suggested:
- When A and B make a peace treaty, it affects you too.
- You can become a supporter of some form. (Money, units etc.)
- If you join A, he agrees to wage war for a certain time.

2.3 Peace negations
Classical A and B make peace.
UN or a third can negotiate

2.3.1 Surrender
- Definite surrendering, ending the game for loosing side
- Making peace by giving one or more cities/tech's or buying peace
- Making peace by giving shield and/or research points

We need more discussion on war, so please help me.

3. Interaction
There shall be several possible interactions between players. They can be working together on military, commercial and/or research. The possibilities depends on the relations between countries. Please read the posting by midlace.

3.1 Military interaction
3.1.1 Lending units

Player A can loan some units to B for some time.
Questions for discussion:
a) If A lends a unit with technology that B doesn't own, what happens?
b) How many units can be loaned and for how long?
c) If B uses units against C, is it considered as a declaration of war between A and C?
d) If B uses units against C, can C declare war on A with no penalties. (Penalties discussed later)

3.1.2 Using others ground
Players A and B can allow units to move in others territory.
Questions for discussion:
a) Will A:s units defend B:s cities automatically when C attacks? If yes, does it lead to war between A and C. Will C suffer from penalties by doing this?

3.1.3 Combining forces
Players can combine forces for a common goal

3.2 Commercial
There are to be several layers of commercial between countries.

- Embargo
No trade between players. (War means always embargo.)

- Protectionism
Limited trade

- Normal trade
Some limits exist

- Free trade
No limits between players

I like this idea. Embargo is embargo, but the rest I wonder?
So how shall this be?
- One needs a certain tech for normal trade and another for free.
- Between different economic systems there can only be some forms

3.3 Research
Same as previous, but I have one more idea.

3.3.1 A common goal
How about the possibility to combine forces for a common goal.
Ex. Player A has nuclear technology. Players B, who can begin the research on nuclear technology, asks C and D, who may or may not have the possibility to research nuclear tech now, to join him. Then B, C and D research is summoned together (maybe a small penalty is subtracted or there is a gain [< 1] for summoned research points) making research much faster and they all get that tech.
Questions for discussion:
- Shall this be possible?
- If player C is missing a tech in between, does he get it for free?
- Do C and D join at once or after they have finished there previous one?

4 Trade
Multiple trades.
I give tech A and 150 gold for tech B, etc.

5. Way of talking
Personnel responses according to nation and used government.

6 Domestic politics
Ok, this is important too.
One should be able to affect own people. (I have to ask for more suggestions here. You can give more money to luxury already, what more?)

7 Reputation
One is to have a reputation with all players. This could be used as the modifier for people's response when declaring war on somebody.

8 Size does matter don't it?
Well not in earlier games. A one-city nation declares war on you, when I have tens of cities. Argh!

9 Others
- Possibility to use a third party to make connection
- Possibility to buy a country. (In SMAC one can only buy all at once.)

----------------------------------------
Thread master for DIPLOMACY:
Jeje2

[This message has been edited by Jeje2 (edited May 22, 1999).]

**Rong** · May 22, 1999, 19:23

Summary of the "Radical Ideas":

<u>The "Simple" List</u>

Some of the easy to explain ideas:
<ul>[*]OSxAI. Open Source Extensible AI. This discussion has moved to the AI thread.</li>[*]Public Alpha/Beta. For more details, see <a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000056.html">yin's letter to BR</a>, but feel free to continue the discussion here.</li>[*]Spherical maps, a la <a href="http://www.populous.net">Populous</a>. Maybe the Graphics thread can pick this up?</li>[*]Historical leaders appear from time to time that would give you certain bonuses.</li>[*]Cede cities. Give newly conquered areas independence. Perhaps only under certain government types.</li>[*]Nation state. More realistically model the modern nation state. Possibly reducing micro management.</li>[/list]
Other ideas are interrelated and have received lots of attention with mega long posts. Now I am going to attempt the impossible: summarize these ideas, make them coherent and easily digestible. Let me know if I have succeeded.

<u>Population Grid</u>

The basic idea is, population should be based on tile (be it square, hex, or whatever), not city. Each tile would have its inherent population/food/production/science/trade and whatnot, and the population can expand into neighboring tiles. A city then simply becomes a tile, or a few tiles, with high concentration of population, perhaps fortified, along with other facilities (temple, granary, etc.).

If you have a hard time picturing this, it's kinda like SimCity on a grander scale.

Benefits:
<ul>[*]Easy to model the rise and fall of civilizations. A new civilization can pop up in populated, neutral tiles.</li>[*]Easy to model nation state since now you have continuous population, not discreet cities.</li>[*]Easy to model borders. Now your frontier doesn't have to have a city.</li>[*]Giving away or selling land to another country would now be possible (Louisiana Purchase).</li>[/list]
Issues:
<ul>[*]Too much micro management? (May be solved through Regions. See the CITY INTERFACE thread. Or take a hands-off self evolution approach, a la SimCity.)</li>[*]Performance. Would it be too slow?</li>[*]How to handle other aspects of the game (building units etc.)?</li>[/list]

<u>Real Time vs. Turn Based</u>

Similar to Railroad Tycoon. You have the option to pause the game at any time to give orders, view status screens, and conduct diplomacy. Also you can specify in the game option when you want to be interrupted by events such as buildings completed, armies commissioned, civ advances achieved etc. Once you release the game, your units (or armies) will carry out your orders.

Issues:
<ul>[*]Too difficult for multi-player to work?</li>[/list]

<u>The Rise and Fall of Civilizations</u>

The question is how to model the rise and fall of civilizations. The original Civ is probably only appropriate for the Chinese. All the other civilizations didn't last that long at all.

One solution is through the "Population Grid" method (see above).

Perhaps allow not only AI civ's to start during the game, but also allow the player to choose where in the timeline/tech tree to start.

Issues:
<ul>[*]If I am a wise leader, why would my civilization fall?</li>[/list]

<u>Abandoning the Squares</u>

Instead you could use tiles the size of a pixel. This would allow for:
<ul>[*]Unrestricted free movement.</li>[*]More realistic cities, with circular resource zones and varying size.</li>[*]The possibility of making the world a sphere (You can't do it with squares, as it is impossible to map them onto a sphere without warping them)</li>[/list]
In any event it would be nice if the size of squares were decreased (making the cities and city-zones larger, making units move faster). That would make it possible to have far more possibilities for game development (It would require efficient automation however).

<u>War and Military vs. Civ Stress</u>

A good way to represent the stresses of war or large military build ups on a civilization would be to have military units take a population point off of a city in your Empire. Not only would you have to support the army financially, but it would also place stress on production by physically subtracting a person from the civilization.

<u>Do Away with Wonders</u>

99% of the time, the civ in the lead gets the wonder, which just continues to put them further ahead. In civ2 if I built the Pyramids first, I was invincible from that point on. etc.

Issues:
<ul>[*]Wouldn't that reduce the fun?</li>[/list]

<u>The End</u>

The other ideas, either I felt they are against the rules of thumb, or they don't fall into the group charter. However, if you feel I have misunderstood you, feel free to repost them. But please do read
the group guidelines first.

------------------
The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them.
- Mark Twain

**Pythagoras** · May 22, 1999, 21:52

These are all the posts from the CivIII main forum-
Main concepts in bold

The main ideas expoused so far have involved rehauling the caravan system, and the increasing interdependance of cities in the modern age.

dont expect other updates to be this long!!
Let me know if I forgot something!
Pythagoras(me) began suggesting auto caravaning, sorta like trains in RR Tycoon that would ferry goods back and forth, instead of caravans merely establishing trade routes. 'Caravans' would change with time and technology, increasing movement, and moveability into air and sea as tech advances were available. I also was interested in having trade being an intergral part of diplomacy More trade = better coorporation.

Isle chimed in with "The number of squares a cities uses should be equal to the city size not size + 1. This will not stop ICS as expansion always is the way to go, but it will stop it from being ridiculous.

Jeje2 liked my idea, suggesting that trade routes with alliance partners should yield bonuses, war should cancel trade between two civs

bab5tm liked my idea also, suggesting something similar to C:CTP's system, and allowing military protection for caravans through arming them.

EnochF then suggested we should have the ability to Airlift supplies/trade to besieged cities, and that affecting a Civs attitude towards you

Kerris suggested using the Public Works System ala C:CTP,

Pythagoras - I chimed back in suggesting my autocaravaning way could be flawed cause B.R. mentioned somewhere that a perfect pathfinding algorithm is mathematically impossible and I was grumpy that Not many talked about trade's relationship w/ diplomacy

Druid stated that we needed to recognize the interdependance of cities for resources in the modern world in creating trade schemes.

Prefect then made a pretty long, but good argument on why we should use MOOII type trading system, getting trade+science treaties, no caravans

Trachmyr liked the autocravan idea, but allow the creation of way points ala SMAC

don Don then suggested using commoditties, and needing certain ommodities to build certain improvements, he suggested to decrease micromanaging using 'contracts' allocating x amount of different resources be transferred between city Y and Z.

Hans2 suggested allowing the creation of groupings of cities, that all drew from the same resource zone, ie the support radii of all cities. With efficiency of transport determined w/ techs.

Hans2 the in another post stated he did not like caravans. up to a certain tech/year caravans should be used. Afterwards trade is done through diplomacy screen.

Utrecht suggested that once a trade route is established, parts of the partner's map is slowly revealed, as is some basic info on the civ, due to merchant's ability to get around/get maps.

Bulrathi stated that he also wanted a commodity system with the inclusion of a labor force which decreased when you went to war, and was dependant on population.

Pythagoras came back into the conversation. [b]Cities should get a financial bonus/tax for transferring basic resources. There should be an advance to increase the carrying capacity of intercity resource transports. I also suggested that the max number of trade routes should not be limited to three, but based on population. Also there was the idea that trade should not even be set up by the player, instead the AI - coorporations/merchants should.

delcuze then suggested limiting the amount of buildings a city could build, through limiting it to city tiles.

Diodorus Sicilus had a lot of good input including-
1 - did not like any attempted trade models. 2 - He liked the merchant exploration idea above
3 - He suggested using waypoints to set up trade routes. For instance in hostory there were the many routes to get to the orient.
4 - Then he commented on trade goods saying trade should be based on commodities and that commoditties are depleted through time. Also this should be refined for the modern age, become less commodity based.
5-On City Radii he liked them for early years, but wished intercity transport of resources was better as tech improved.

Zorloc agreed with Diodorus, stating also that large, modern metroplis do not provide their own food, but are solely based around trade. He preffered the Imperialism system.

EnochF wanted a complex trade system, agreeing with Diodorus, and he also suggested manufactured resources, based on commodities and improvenments needed.[b]

mindlace suggested if a route moved through another nation they should get a cut. He liked caravans in the ancient times, but a more abstract model later on.

Pythagoras I basicly said this commodity stuff sounded too complicated. And sounded like Colinization.

Trachmyr said he liked Colinization, and said commodities should be put into catagories.

Lancer asked why the King had to worrty about establishing Trade routes, saying his underlings should take care of it. He also suggested assigning military units to protect trade routes.

THE END!!

**Koyaanisqatsi** · May 23, 1999, 20:47

<font size=5>Social Engineering and Government</font>

Wherein we shall discuss various methods of keeping the people firmly under our heels. This is a summary of the posts in <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000002.html>Social Engineering ver1.0</a> and <a href=http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/000548.html>CIV3: Starting a list for social choices</a>. (Note: I haven't included any of the religious discussions in this summary, since religion has its own thread now. All future discussion on that topic should probably go there.)

<a name="se-sections"><font size=4>Sections:</font></a>
<a href="#se-choices">1. Social Engineering Choices</a>
<a href="#se-effects">2. Social Engineering Effects</a>
<a href="#se-concepts">3. Related Concepts</a>
<a href="#se-issues">4. Issues for Discussion</a>

<hr width="150" align="center">

<a name="se-choices"><font size=4>Social Engineering Choices</font></a>
The general consensus seems to be to move Civ to the SMAC model of social engineering. Within that broad statement . . .

Categories for social engineering: Government, Society, Economic Structure, Values, Religion, Regional Government

Government Types:
Despotism, Monarchy, Fascism, Totalitarianism
Republic, Democracy, Tribal, Dictatorship
Feudalism
(Note: Choice of government type restricts your choices in other areas.)

Society Types:
Police State, Open, Corporate, IngSoc

Economic Structures:
Barter, Currency, Manoralism, Banking
Mercantilism, Corporate, Labor Union, Communism

Values:
Knowledge, Power, Mores, Wealth

Regional Governments:
Federal, Confederacy, City-State
<a href="#se-sections">Back to Sections</a>

<a name=se-effects><font size=4>Social Engineering Effects:</font></a>
SE choices can have effects on the following areas:

Growth, Happiness, Economy, Gregariousness
Environment, Pride, Control, Fanaticism
Ego, Materialism, Vengeance, Curiosity
Industry, Distribution of Wealth, Corruption, Conservatism

Game Effects:
SE Effect -- Game Effect
Growth -- Rate of population growth
Happiness -- Happiness of the populace
Economy -- Tax and trade income
Gregariousness -- Maximum size of cities
Environment -- Pollution rate
Pride -- Resistance to subversion
Control -- Police
Fanaticism -- Resistance to SE change
Ego -- Modifier to foreign relations
Materialism -- Duplicate of Economy?
Vengeance -- Holding a diplomatic grudge
Curiosity -- Research rates
Conservatism -- Combination of Fanaticism and Pride?
Distribution of Wealth -- Duplicate of Happiness?
Corruption -- As in CivII
Industry -- Production rates
<a href="#se-sections">Back to Sections</a>

<a name="se-concepts"><font size=4>Concepts:</font></a>
<ul>[*]SE settings should have an effect on gameplay. For instance, a setting of Laisse-Faire Capitalism should prevent you from micromanaging your economy, while Communism would force you to do more tweaking to be efficient.[*]National and ethnic character: Should each Civ start with inherent pluses and minuses like in SMAC? How to assign them without starting a race war?[*]Discovery of some techs should have an immediate impact on your SE effects, i.e. plastics gives you a minus on environment.[*]Culture Points: (Trachmyr, this was my interpretation of what you posted, but after looking back over your post I don't think it's right. Could you clarify for me please?) This system separates the discovery of a society tech from its implementation. Instead, after you discover a tech you have to spend a certain number of "culture points" to actually make the change in the social engineering window. Culture points are gained automatically as time passes, through (positive) diplomatic relations, Philosophers (which are like entertainers) and Wonders.[*]Depending on your regional government structure, you should be able to make a few SE choices for regions as well as the entire empire. Tax/Lux/Sci rates may also be set down to the city level, but the interface must allow you to set levels in multiple cities at once.[*]Revolutions should cause large splits in the empire. Also, if different regions have very different SE settings, this should increase the chances of a revolution. Revolutions create new civ that you are immediately at war with, but they can be reintegrated with the original civ if they surrender or ally within a given amount of time.[*]Dynasties. Every once in a while, your government destabilizes as the line of succession is debated/argued/murdered over.[*]Generals, like the officers of MoO2.[*]Civ-specific units and buildings, but instead of assigning the units to a specific civ, the first civ to discover a given tech gets them, and that tech is no longer available to other civs.[*]Preset government "templates" that set all the SE choices for you, and which you can then modify from there.[*]Laws: Laws are like SE settings, only with less effect and not mutually exclusive. They're sort of like city ordinances from SimCity. Possible laws include mandatory military service, child labor/education, legalized drugs, etc. that all have small effects on your empire. We'd need a lot of these to get it to work.[*]Economies should go through boom/bust cycles, the strength of which depends on your SE settings.[/list]
<a href="#se-sections">Back to Sections</a>

<a name="se-issues"><font size=4>Issues for Discussion:</font></a>
<ul>[*]Slavery is something nobody can seem to agree on . . . in or out, and if in, how?[*]Instead of making SE choices directly, we make them by supporting certain structures or groups, which then create pluses and minuses on their own. So, instead of picking "Police State: +2Police, -1Economy" you beef up your police and military and they eventually give you +2 Police and -1 Economy.[/list]
<a href="#se-sections">Back to Sections</a>

Contributers: Zorloc, JT, anachron, Trachmyr, Ecce Homo, mhistbuff, the Octopus, Fuji the Great, Shining1, Freddz, Mark_Everson, Frank Moore, kmj, 23 Skidoo, Depp, Singularity, NotLikeTea, Armageddon, LordStone1, HolyWarrior, Lancer, primetime000, JamesJKirk, RINCEWIND_HAS_RETURNED, darkgrendel, Spartan187, Bell.

**Frank Moore** · May 28, 1999, 10:43

<font size=5> Summary list for player interface suggestions:</font>

These are not presented in any particular order. The description that follows is a summary written by myself, if I didn’t get something right, either post back or e-mail me. The usernames in parentheses following the description are the people who have contributed to the topic. Once again, if I have forgotten someone post or e-mail me.

1. Use the windows environment. It would be nice to be able to make multiple windows to view troublespots (similar to Civnet). It is easier to access other programs (e.g. CD Player) w/out having to <alt><tab>. Actually this is a topic with many opinions, this will require a vote. (Shining1, Ecco Homo, Ralph, Freddz, Frank Moore)

2. A way to attach notes to a unit to be able to identify the unit and to outline a short term plan for the unit (e.g. move to cityX, make new home city, move to cityY to join assault force.) (the Octopus)

3. A notepad tool that the player could use to make notes to himself during a turn (e.g. barbarians near cityX – wipe them out, or even general things like, check all cities for unhappiness.) This notepad would then popup at the end of turn to allow the player to take action. The notepad should have the option of clearing after every turn. (the Octopus, tfs99, SnowFire)

4. The player should be able to view the stats on any square by just moving the mouse over a particular square, instead of having to “move the cursor to this square”. (Shining1)

5. A way to standardize the keys used in play (i.e. in civ2 <h> is go to home city, in SMAC it is hold.) Maybe a better way to do this is to make the entire keyboard interface configurable, such as a shooter game. (Fugi the Great, tfs99, Blade Runner, Frank Moore)

6. There should be a way to group units together so that they act as one unit (e.g. group 2 rover, one probe team, and three infantry units together. All units would move as one unit, with the slowest unit dictating movement rate. If no movement is required for the group only one spacebar would be required to bypass the group’s turn. (Shining1, Frank Moore)

7. A way to customize the right-click menus. It would be nice if the menus could be changed on the fly (e.g. early in the game the right click for former would include “plant forest”, while later in the game the “build magtube” order would be added. The menus should also be unit dependent, so that the menu for formers would be different from that of a combat unit. (tfs99, Frank Moore)

8. Incorporate the “public works” idea from CTP into the settler concept. From the city screen the player should be able to dictate which squares to be improved, what to improve, and what order to improve them in. any settlers that are assigned to this city would then follow the orders. (Cybershy)

9. When restarting a game, a popup to summarize the current game and recent developments. For example, you are currently working on two wonders, the Spanish declared war 5 turns ago, and you have just discovered gunpowder. (the Octopus)
10. Have the game check to see if a full install has been done. This would eliminate the popup dialog box. A small issue, but one that been complained about more than once. (tfs99)

11. An improved Demographics display. What I think that we really want here are as many options, graphs, lists as possible. Definitely bring back top 5 cities, I really enjoyed trying to get all 5. (Ralph, Frank Moore)

12. Fix the problems with the replay that exist in SMAC. Namely the Spartans being the same color as the ocean, and the final land geography being displayed from the beginning instead of showing the terraforming as it progresses. (Ecco Homo, Frank Moore)

13. There should be buttons available for maximizing food, resource and trade. This is really an issue for the city interface topic, but I’ll present it here also. (Freddz)

14. Use the CTP type of unit interface. I still have not played CTP yet, but it seems to me that players either like or absolutely can’t stand this interface, this will need a vote. (Bell, Onmoy, Depp)

15. Design workshop improvements. The DW should be able to display many more units at one time. The whole DW should use the entire screen, not just a popup. This would allow the player to see many more units at one time. Filtering. It would be nice to be able to filter what units are shown, for example, all air units, all naval units, etc. (Frank Moore)

16. It would be nice to be able to print out maps of the world during a game. Self-explanatory. (Ecco Homo)

17. A way to customize what “goodie huts” can yield. For example a player should be able to toggle whether a goodie hut can yield an advanced tribe. (Bird)

18. A people counter that can count higher than 320 million. I assume this is a CTP drawback. (Bird)

19. A real time clock. Possibly with an alarm snooze feature. (Frank Moore)

20. Incorporate a spreadsheet into the game. This would show all cities, what improvements the city has already built, etc. (don Don)

21. There should be a way in view 2 or more cities at one time. This would be especially useful in managing resources with overlapping cities. (don Don)

22. In general keep the SMAC interface. I think that this is a pretty good idea, certain things will need changed or added. (meowser, JT)

[This message has been edited by Frank Moore (edited May 28, 1999).]

Announcement

THE SUMMARY THREAD: All Topics Summarized Here (updated 5-21-99)

THE SUMMARY THREAD: All Topics Summarized Here (updated 5-21-99)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment