RADICAL IDEAS (ver1.1): Hosted by Rong

[Theben]

DarthVeda,

"IE arming a tank with a pike is kind of unrealistic."

That's exactly what the strength overlap is for. 1 hp units (ancient) cannot have guns (6 or higher STR), wooden hulled ships cannot have steel turrets, tanks can't have stone axes. I agree that this approach would require a bit of work on FIRAXIS's part, to get the names & graphics right for each combination. But that's what we buy the games for, right?

I also agree real-time isn't a civ thing. I like taking my time to plan my strategies, or just get up and do something else w/o fumbling for a pause button. Some people come home and watch TV or read the paper to relax: I play civ(or SMAC).

[Darkstar]

Urban Ranger - Loved your idea. Hope its implemented.

City Walls were classical put up around the city when needed. Often times, population would spill over, outside of those walls. Then, they had to build more walls (around the unprotected portion of the city), or let those to slow to get into the protected part of the town die in times of conflict.

Theben - I like your LASS... And how is Damage inflicted versus armor resolved? Let's look at a modified example of yours... a Dive Bomber's High Land Attack (8) versus a Recon Patrol's No Air value (0)? So 8 out of 8 chances, the Dive Bomber inflicts damage? What amount? What about Legion versus Phalanx? The Legion's land value would be high (for ancient units... say 4), but the Phalanx doesn't work, does it? It's ATTACK is pathetic, but its defense is good in the OLD system. What about yours? How do you represent that oddity? Or do you need 2 LASSes? Attack LASS and Defense LASS? Doing so would allow for the design of High Attack units that die easily (Crusader) or High Defenders that can't attack (Phalanx, and Pikemen).

Oh, and not to be picky but... tanks with pikes tended to be APC with bush-cutters... Wooden ships with Metal Turrets were known as the MONITOR! (Iron sides, actually.) Wooden hull, strengthened and reinforced with metal plates. Sporting a turning metal turret. Direct ancestor of all modern capital ships.

-Darkstar

[Theben]

Darkstarr,

Glad you like it. I haven't fleshed out the entire idea, though, and input is welcome. To answer your questions:

1) You've just asked the one question that has been driving me nuts for several months. I've 2 basic ideas. One is in the case of differing values (land vs. sea) the attack is conducted as bombardment; the units will not be able to completely destroy each other but wil be able to severely damage them. The ground patrol has no air STR so it cannot attack the air unit; the air unit attacks the ground unit as bombardment doing damage but not able to destroy it. Not as tough as SMAC or CIV, but more realistic (air units would also have different missions available in case you're worried about air power impotence). The problem is in other cases the bombardment should be able to effectively destroy the unit. Look at Midway: the entire fleet wasn't destroyed but 4 of 6 Japanese carriers were (the remaining 2 were CVL's). Perhaps severe damage done to a target would negate certain "special options" units would have (in this case the 'carry air' option would be disabled). You'd probably also need to specify under the options whether or not the unit can attack other 'terrain'.
The other idea was a hit or miss system which takes the effective ATT vs. effective DEF plus the terrain into account. FE, ATT 6 vs. DEF 3 on plains=60% defender takes a 'hit' * enemy firepower, 30% attacker is damaged, 10% neither. In mountains there'd be a 40% defender hit, 20% attacker, 40% neither. In this case all types of combat would follow a basic bombardment style of combat, and if the defender didn't have the appropriate tech to defend against the type of attack on it then the hits on the attacker are ignored.

2)In my modpack I gave the phalanx an attack of 2, so I don't have any conflict. Really, the phalanx had a better attack than stone age warriors and was used offensively on several occasions. So it would be a STR 4 unit vs. a STR 2 unit before any modifiers.

3)Yeah, well I was regarding ironclads as iron hulled wise guy. I was thinking of having 2 basic categories for ships, wooden-hulled & iron-hulled. I don't know if they should be different chassis or different "special options" but for now different chassis looks easier and players won't be able to "upgrade" a wooden Ship-of-the-Line to a WWII cruiser.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Theben (edited June 24, 1999).]</font>

[Theben]

Urban Ranger,
Some good ideas, some I disagree.

Hexes: Bad idea, for one simple reason. We all have a 1-9 number pad & use it to move our beloved units.

Regions: Probably good, but the cities in civ can be considered "regions" due to the size of each square (several hundred square miles, i.e. the Chicagoland area).
I believe happiness should indicate how quickly a city grows. Food, or a lack of it, would be an indicator of happiness, along with other things (access to water,etc.).
Taxation would also be an indicator. In Masters of Magic the higher you raised the taxes the more discontent citizens you received. A flat tax would work.

Flavor Dave,
I don't see the justification for happiness when an enemy city is conquered. Could you explain?
A while back I proposed 3 levels of city walls:
-Ancient: Simple stone/mud/brick wall. Cost 60, no maintenance.
-Reinassance: Stone walls reinforced with with concrete & loose gravel to resist impact of cannon shot. Cost 80, no maintenance.
-Modern: AKA the Maginot Line. Trenches, barbed/razor wire, obstacles, mines, etc. in front of steel turreted guns. Cost 120, 2 maintenance.
The deal is the walls have reduced effectiveness vs. higher caliber weaponry, while newer walls are more effective against older units. You could upgrade from one to the next for x2 difference in cost. Forts would operate similarily, and could also be upgraded.

[Scooter]

WONDERS
Perhaps one way to hinder, but not cripple, the "rich get richer" syndrome is to limit cities to one wonder at a time per city. By this I mean that if City A builds the Hanging Gardens, that city would not be able to build another wonder until the Hanging Gardens goes obsolete. This would eliminate the "super city" that is in the perfect terrain spot from just being a "wonder mill" for it's Civ.

Now there could be exceptions to this rule. For example, New York has the Statue of Liberty and the U.N. We could set population limits on how many wonders could be in one city at a time. i.e. City sizes of 25 or more can have two wonders. Perhaps wonders could have a minimum population requirement. i.e. This Wonder X requires a population of X to be built. In other words, you couldn't build the UN in B.F, Egypt.

Also, forgive me but I forget who posted this first, I agree that switching wonders in the middle is lame (buildings for that matter). If you switch wonders in the middle, you loose all production points.

Kinda harsh, but I think it would tone down the rich getting richer.



------------------
"BEEFCAKE, BEEFCAKE!!!

-E. Cartman

[Transcend]

Rong, when are you going to make the next summary? It starts getting a little painful to read over 79 posts.

[Jimmy]

How about if a civ is destroyed by a means other than by another civ (ie random event liek plague or famine or barbarians)that it stays on the map as ruins that can discovered. The player that finds them would get:
- whatever gold the lost civ had before it dissapeared.
- any techs the lost civ had that you don't.

This idea would nicely represent the concept of long lost civs like Atlantis. Furthermore, it would reward exploration. Sometimes you would get a lot if the lost civ was more advanced and rich, sometimes less if the lost civ was less advanced.

[Flavor Dave]

Flavor Dave,
I don't see the justification for happiness when an enemy city is conquered. Could you explain?

------

I like the present balance between city management and scientific advancement and wonders and military conquest. This idea seemed to really really elevate city management at the expense of military conquest. I was just coming up with a quick suggestion to regain the balance. The idea was that whenever you conquer a city, your citizens are full of pride, and extra happy.

[NotLikeTea]

I like this idea, but implemented differently.. instead of happiness, we'd have a public sentiment. People can be happy with their lives and dislike their leader.

Wars against hated enemies would increase your approval level. Wars agains well liked civs would lessen it. Commiting atrocities may make you unpopular among your people. And so forth... the level of public support would have an effect on your ability to govern.. low level, more riots, not just controlled by temples and wonders.

[Theben]

Notliketea,

Yeah, I posted something like that at the "Clash" site, lemme see if I can find it...

[Theben]

Your people all start out as a homogeneous cultural group. There are several "diplomatic"
categories: You(the ruling class) vs. other rulers, your people vs. other rulers, your
people vs. you, your people vs. other peoples, their people vs. their rulers, & their
people vs. you; also a religion vs. religion scale. Generally each category is on a sliding
scale from, say, 1-10, 1 being insanely hateful while 10 is harmonious bliss. At 1st
contact these will generally fall into the 6-7 range. Markers include daggers, bloody
daggers(to represent atrocities), doves, and doves with an olive branch(represents
generous gifts). These last few will affect relations far into the future, otherwise the
scale tips for standard actions(wars, treaties, trade, etc.) on a turn by turn basis.
Things that affect one group(their people) will not affect others(rulers) quite the same;
ex. genocide rarely affects the ruling class, so although the people will be very angry
with you, the rulers will not be as angry; a gift of food or medicine(tech?) will please the
population more while a gift of money will more likely please the ruler.

Societies cease being homogeneous over time w/o govt. intervention. Conquest & trade
are the quickest methods; warfare w/o conquest, connection by roads between peaceful
empires, types of terrain between cities, etc. also affect the rate. Conquered cities are
assumed to have their old culture. Whenever a city grows by a population point
(assuming civ3 will be using citizens like civ1&2 in that the size of the city=# of
"people") a formula will be needed to determine what the new pop's culture will be based
on the above factors, plus how well the populations get along(a pop will rarely migrate
to a land where they are not welcome!). The new pop will then assume all of the
diplomatic categories of that culture. Governments can limit the flow of people to their
lands and of their people to other lands; there should be some kind of penalty for
this(perhaps a minor trade reduction?). Mixed pops may cause additional unrest in a city
if the pops do not get along.

Differences in religion will be handled separately. Religion will function mainly as to how
you will handle certain situations, and will be chosen by you when the pre-requisite tech
is discovered(polytheism, monotheism in civII). For instance, you're a christian leader of
the christian Franks. Burning a christian city of the Germans to the ground will not only
upset the Germans, but every other christian leader and population, including yours. Now
if you burn another city down that is pagan, muslim, etc., your people will not be as
upset and if it is considered a 'hateful' culture by ANYone then it may even grant a
bonus in relations to that group(with exception of a modern democratic society). In the
case of a mixed city you could leave certain pops alive. Depending on how this is set up,
I envision either (a) button(s) to push in the city screen or a command given to army
groups to cause actions like SMAC. Some possible actions:

Forced conversions/cultural- Removes possible unrest due to differing cultures.
Diplomatic penalties with other civs people, possibly minor penalty with rulers.

Forced conversion/religious- Removes possible unrest due to differing religions.
Diplomatic penalty with all civs with that religion & their rulers.

genocide- Kills off citizens of the city. Can be tailored to only kill certain religious/cultural
groups. Severe penalties with that civ & it's rulers, penalties/bonuses with other
civs/rulers depending on their diplomatic status with the genocided civ and religion,
possible penalties/bonuses with your own pop.

Suppress population following conquest- Unrest in city decreases considerably.
Suppressed people of conquered cities do not begin to assimilate into your civ until
suppression ends. Penalties to any similar cultural/religious group. City will probably lose
1-2 pop points as refugees flee from your armies.

Treat new population well after conquest- No extra penalties vs. their people, but
penalties vs. their rulers. If you treat your people better than the newly conquered
people's are used to, and treat them as well, less unrest will result and assimilation will
be quicker, and your penalty vs. the other ruler would be greater. If your pop hates their
pop and you treat them well after conquest, you may suffer a penalty with your own
people.

Gifts- Depending on type of gift. Food to starving population will increase diplomatic
bonuses between yourself/your people and their people considerably, and to their rulers
somewhat. If you want to make it even more complicated allow the ruler to not tell
where the food came from; then the bonus is between the ruler and subjects while
you/your people have minor penalty vs. the other ruler.

Forced conversion/genocide after modern era AND civ is democratic causes additional
penalties from demo population vs. the ruler committing the action.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Theben (edited June 25, 1999).]</font>

[Flavor Dave]

yeah, the implementation might get complicated, but there should be some difference between fighting someone who has sneak attacked you 5 times, and someone you demanded tribute from until they fought back. It bothers me that, at deity anyway, there is a limit to how peaceful you can be unless you limit your civ to <10 cities.

[Eggman]

Concept: City sizes should limit what they can build and what units they can build and support.

BUILDINGS: Cities have to be a certain size before they can build certain buildings. Some improvements, like Temples, would be available to all cities (even villages could support temples). However, buildings like Universities would require a city of size X (say 8, for example).

Plus (and this is the best part IMHO), if the population were to dip below the minimum size, the building would remain but it would stop working until the population grew again. If they don't have the population to man it, they can't use it.

As a compromise, the city could build any improvement at any time but it wouldn't work until they reached the minimum pop.

This would simulate nicely the true disaster large losses in population can be (from war or an errant nuke or large scale immigration, for example). Suddenly, preventing immigration becomes important. This also shows how important large cities are compared to small ones.

MILITARY: The number of military units that can be put in the field is limited by the total population of the civilization. I'm not sure how exactly to set the ratio for army size to city population but it should be in such a way that a civ with a pop of 100 should be able to recruit a larger force than one with 50. (NOTE: This is without removing pop units with each recruited unit. Unless they change the way population works in Civ3, the recruiting concept would make building military difficult and too costly IMHO. Conquest becomes near impossible).

If the size of the military goes over the limit, they have to take a penalty in either cash or production until either the military is shrunk or the population grows.

In addition, cities should have to be of a minimum size before they can produce some military units. Size one cities simply do not have the resources to build airplanes, large ships or armor. It would be questionable if a size one city could build a legion. Make it that only cities of useful size can recruit units.

RESULT: Larger cities become much more valuable. Little wimp cities become backwater boondocks until they grow. This makes sense.

Expansion is still powerful in the long-term but weak in the short-term. City development becomes much more useful as having 10 really good cities is better than 30 small ones (something that never happened in Civ2).

Plus ICS becomes near useless as those puny cities cannot produce enough warriors to stop those chariots they can't build.

[Flavor Dave]

Theben--please explain. If a building is unused, would the civ still have to pay the maintenance cost? I would argue no, since that would be a double penalty. In fact, I don't get the value of this idea, since if you put a stock exchange in a size 3 city, you're going to lose money on the deal.

Late in the game, you can find yourself taking AI cities that are size 3, but have like 12 city improvements. Unless I'm a democracy going "We love", I sell em. There's no way you won't be better off selling the factory, bank, university, and stock exchange. I always rename those cities something like Sell, to remind myself to sell off the improvements.

[Theben]

Is Rong still around? Could someone else do a summary & then give it back to Rong if he shows up and still wants to be a threadmaster?