RADICAL IDEAS (ver1.1): Hosted by Rong

[Darkstar]

Flavor Dave - I like the idea of multiple victory conditions. But yours sounds like a Conquest victory would meet its conditions. Especially in the Civ tradition of capturing a tech whenever you take a city.

Possibility - You are correct again. I originally was against your people per tile idea... until I really thought about how neat it could be. We both agree that its micromanagement that would be the problem. I think that the people would NATURALLY send things to the population or commerce center. You could have those mountain tiles trading with their neighbors for food. Those nearby hill tiles would then trade with their farm heavy grassland neighbors for food. That would handle how things get around without using a "city" as your center. But if those same farmers sent all but what they needed to sustain them to the Commerce center, and that food went to those miners in the hills and mountains (by what is closest gets few first) it still takes care of itself automatically. The only problem would be when a new MARKET crops up! Then, the farmers might be closer to the new Market (commerce center) and so send their food to their instead. That may be futher from those hill and mountains changing who gets feed automatically... You, being the Eternal Emporer, could direct New Market to send its excess food to Old Market, where its once again available to those Miners. Only, now you have another layer that gold changes hands, creating a higher economy.

I don't see a problem with having goods (whether food, minerals, energy, whatever) sent to the nearest commerce centers. When a tile is equally distant between two centers, it can get what it needs from either. You settler/outpost makers/whatever then set up a commerce center. you can move your people to work the important tiles around it, and let things happen organically after that, until a major problem arises.

-Darkstar

[BigBopper]

About the spy discusion.

I think spying should be based on tech level and how aggresive the spy try's to get a new tech. Obviously if you try to grab a brand spanking new tech in one turn the chances are your spy will be caught and killed. However if you chose to infiltrate a city (your spy would disapear for several turns) and go for a tech that the enemy civ has had for a long time chances would be very good that you would get the tech. This would represent the fact that the longer a civ has a tech the more wide spread its use and the looser it is with it's control's. Look at China, it got a lot of our military tech by buying de-milled military hardware that was sold as scrap. (funny all those broken up airplane parts that were auctioned off as scrap metal sold for far higher than their scrap value)

[Icedan]

I had an idea, but hadnt posted it in a proper topic to be sent to Firaxis.

The idea of having an affair, just as Ceasar and Cleopatra did seems to bring up a fair bit of emotions, which I think is quite an interactive feature.

Heres where Its talked about:

http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000101.html


Thanks...

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Icedan (edited June 07, 1999).]</font>

[Daniel Bistman]

I wanna talk about a leaders sistem that manages many aspects of the empire.

meowser and BigBopper posted about this on May,24 and May,25.

I think that leaders must be absolutely customizable on their personality(as in Space Empires3), but not with bonuses(as in MOO). If leaders have bonuses, you will want to change them of place some times (from one city to another if one riots etc.) instead of that, there must be a Military minister (for example), with a personality customized that take care of ALL the armies you want to let him manage. The same with cities (a city minister), fleets, etc.

[Flavor Dave]

Darkstar--yeah, but what I'm suggesting would give you an incentive to try to get a "preemptive" win, win early before another civ got cranking. You'd be overextending yourself.

Of course, that factor is theoretical unless the AI gets alot better. The way it is now, the longer the game goes on, the bigger your edge over it, both in military planning and in city management.

2nd, having this 3rd victory condition would force perfectionist/isolationists to get more involved in the world. Wouldn't it be awful in 1720 to get the message: "Romans achieve world domination. Game over."

On 2nd thought, the science condition shouldn't apply.

[EnochF]

Oddly enough, I agree. Sometimes I'd rather just build up my civilization without dealing with the malformed juggernauts the computer calls "civilizations."

I wouldn't have brought it up myself. I mean, this is the "radical ideas" thread and all, but this is simply too radical.

Sometimes I'd rather just create a history, create a geography, create a culture. Sometimes competition is nice; I wouldn't want to cut it out of the game or anything. Playing against AI civs or via the internet with other players will always be important. Sometimes, though, I'd much rather play as if I was the entire human species rather than just a single tribe. I'd rather try to achieve space travel as fast as possible without destroying the ecosystem. I'd rather colonize the world while optimizing for resources, rather than having to conquer ill-placed enemy cities. Just sometimes.

[Flavor Dave]

You know, it should be pretty easy to program the following scenario:

1. You're the only Civ.
2. The ONLY wonder is the Apollo Program.
3. Barb level is superduper hordes. There are barb cities scattered around the world.
4. If you have even ONE bit of pollution, you lose the game. Alternatively, make global warming a much much bigger problem.
5. Make it to AC by X.

This would also be a good tutorial for warmongers who want to change to perfectionists.

At the same time, you could somewhat less easily build the reverse scenario, incorporating alot of the other ideas of how to make minor improvements to the ancient units. It's 500 BC. You start with like 10 techs. You can "improve" your archers and legions, etc. in workshops, with the achievement of certain techs. Each turn would be 1 year, and you have until 1 AD to create the Roman Empire. You'll know what I'm talking about if you've read the other threads.

[wheathin]

Why have a "win" at all? There are goals, to be sure, but as far as many players are concerned, they are of the take-it-or-leave-it variety. How many players actually play the game to the bitter end, even though they have had it in the bag since the Rennaissance? If your roughest rival has only discovered invention when you are industrializing, will you still wait until you can get to space and build your starship before you start a new game?

Sure, when I played SMAC, I tried to get each of the victory conditions at least once, but after that I just wanted to build. It is the playing that makes Civ great, not the winning. All of the various win scenarios are just icing on the cake.

Note that in one of the best game franchises ever, one which bears a strong resemblance to Civ, there is no victory at all: SimCity.

wheathin

[NotLikeTea]

I agree entirely, and I posted a similar comment under Game Atmosphere, I believe.

Having a thriving civilization should be a victory in itself. Points should not be everything. SimCiv, if you like.

At the msot extreme, it should be possible to play a satisfying game without any competition. Just you and the world (with babarians, internal strife, etc..)

[Darkstar]

Hey, you can always keep playing after you are scored. I did that in Civ and sometimes Civ2.

The option you want (and I do too) is to be able to select the number of competing Civs, from 0 to 6 (or greater). And that is something I would like to have as well. Sometimes, only SimCiv will do.

-Darkstar

[yin26]

-=*MOVING THREAD UP*=-

[mingko]

I would like to suggest an additional combat option. This one may not be popular and would greatly change the game. So I put it in this thread.
The idea is to use deterministic combat instead of random combat result. A strong attacker will always win but will always suffer a certain amount of damage determined by combat odds. This has the effect of turning Civ to more chess-like. Personally I am satisfied with random combat but this may appeal to some TRUE strategists.

[Picker]

How's that, good strategy can defeat a stronger opponent, unless we're talking tanks against pikemen sort of thing.

------------------
The Notorious P.I.K.
"Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits are objects of scorn to smart Americans who blow horns to break up traffic jams."

[Bigcivfan]

I have a new idea that everyone can help expand on (or kill). From reading posts from various threads I could see that many players desire more to cultural identity then just what civ the city belongs to. My idea is that there be a whole new menu called the "Culture" menu. In the culture menu the are various sub-menu's that deal with things important to culture.
1. Race- Perhaps we should give are civs a definable race. Not "European" or "Chinese" but just "Green" or "Purple".(Just to eliminate any hassles.) Now each "race" is, at first, native to a certain area of the map. Your civ will have, at first, only one race, but "races" move, and over time and empire expansion you will have an empire composed of "Greens" and "Purples" and "Blues" all interacting. Different effects of the game and the Culture menu will affect these "races" and they will affect the game. (eg. A democratic government will not be able to persecute "Blues", a Facist or Fundamentalist government will have trouble controlling the minority "Blues" who they dislike.) Any ideas to expand on this....
2. Religion- Another important section of the "Culture" Menu is religion. Again, all religions are ficticious to avoid hassle(maybe a naming option is desired.) Religions will start in areas or cities and will grow from there. Religion is seperate from race, as you can have "Blue Zoobites" and "Purple Zoobites". Different religions make up a percentage of your empires population and you have to deal with this. (For example, "Zoobitism" might be intolerant of "Pontyism", which is also popular in your empire.) The religion will affect social engineering. (A civ that decides to become a "Pontyist" fundamentalism will have a tough time controlling the unrest from the shunned "Zoobists") Different religions might give you certain penalties and benifits. ("Pontism" is firm in donating a day to the city, givng you production bonuses, while "Zoobists" are paranoid, giving a military bonus.) Any ideas to expand on this....
The "Culture" menu could be used for manipulating these aspects of your empire, such as persecuting "Zoobists" or putting more "Purples" in the city to work so there is less unrest in the country. It is possible that the Governement/Social Engineering menu can be placed in the "Culture" menu.
These are just two of the ideas for a "Culture" menu that were on my mind. I think that adding this element of multiculturalism, we can have new quirks to the game that make it more enjoyable. (or perhaps more tedious???) I would like to hear any suggestions/comments on this idea.

[Francis]

Not sure if this is the right place or if it mimics ideas put forth by others, but here goes.

There seems to be a tension on all threads between those who want levels of complexity added and those who think complexity will overwhelm the fun. Why not program those levels, but make them turn-offable? For the beginning player, or someone looking for a quick game, a streamilined game is possible. For a more experienced gamer, or someone with particular interests, the more complex levels can be switched on. The following are not to suggest exactly how to do it, but to show that a multilayered game is possible and fun.

Examples:

Military. Basic combat takes place in a modified Civ II sort of way; Advanced combat involves, perhaps, a separate "tactical" micro-map on which soldiers/units can be more precisely deployed and employed.

Units. Basic game involves the pre-made units. Advanced involves use of a robust units workshop to create custom units.

Civil/Government/Happines and unhappiness. Basic game involves the same type of population control as currently. Advanced makes you deal with, in Demo/Repub for example, individuals in the Senate. (Maybe these would be priests under fundamentalism, nobles under monarchy, etc.) Without getting into too much detail, there would always be say 5 minimum Senators (or whatever), +1 for each city under 12, +2 for each city over 12. And you must masssage your Senate to get your way. The moderate Senator Jones from a high-trade interior city wants a river widened into a navigable canal in return for his support of your war. Or, Senator Smith from a plains city warns that his people are unhappy and may revolt--how about a Grain Elevator to help them endure seasonal fluctuations in wheat prices? Whereas Senator Thompson always supports you, Senator Wainwright is always a hawk and against science except for military research, and Senator Gallo is always a dove. Perhaps in fundy war would always be okay, science would always make most of them restive, and building science improvements would cause unhappiness, to be ameliorated by more religion improvements. Maybe you can tell that I like this idea a lot.

Trade. Basic works as in Civ II; more advanced may involve Merchant units that can actually enter other cities (perhaps only allies) and increase trade in their home city. You can use them as spies, but risk discovery and problems in the alliance. Also, if they're in a city when it's attacked they might be lost and drag you into war. How about repeated trade? I think the AI will only send what you demand, but wouldn't it be more profitable to turn your hides surplus from a size 3 foreign city into a hides freight bound for a mighty city? What about tariff levels--you can set them high for current income off each arriving unit, but they make caravan/freights less likely to come to your cities, and reduce the long-term arrow bonus.

Production: Basic as in Civ II, advanced means that, perhaps, different cities produce different things, and a shortage of steel from Buffalo can slow tank production in Detroit.

Science: Basic as in Civ II. Advanced--you can divide efforts among more than one advance. Finer branches of the tech tree--many/most dicoveries would have "blind alleys" that don't lead to other advances, but enable you to more effectively utilize what you've already got. For example, after mobile warfare you can also research, I don't know, panzer grenadier or something, giving your tanks more attack strength.

I welcome some reaction to this and other ideas for adding optional levels of complexity. Thanks for your attention.

Francis