SOCIAL ENGINEERING/GOVERNMENT (ver 2.0): Hosted by Bell

[Maniac]

Colon, in one of my threads I said it was necessary to have a free market for a small country to be succesful.
I don't think we need to 'help' making Civ3. If we don't make Brian Reynolds clear we want some serious changes, he's just gonna make Civ2 with some tweaks.

[Harel]

To maniac:

1. No, it was the Pheonican. The minoun pre-decess the modern ( northen ) egypt empire.

2. Great idea about trade Maniac but I allready have that covered in my economics thread. BTW, I seen your post there and:
A. I am the thread master for quite some time.
B. You can post everything you want, everywhere you want, anytime.

To colon:

2. Even a single city in civ is very large in land and in populace. I belive we can determine that a nation that managed build such a city is either:
A. has specific advantages.
B. is backed up by great resources.

3. I mention only Israel and Belgium and neglect Gorgia because ( and to all Grozians, don't take this the wrong way ) while Israel might be considered a civ ( even if small ) thier is no way Georgia can. It's too weak. A civ that can be truelly called a civ is either very good at something or very big. We can't incluce every group of people along history, cant we? Just the most notified.
And if someone is going to say now that the hebrew people are not notifed along history I am going to smack him silly .
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited July 22, 1999).]</font>

[Flavor Dave]

"Flavor Dave, do you really think your country's army can beat and rule the entire world."

Perhaps your reading ability isn't up to snuff, but I explicity wrote that no nation is capable of conquering the entire planet. Perhaps English isn't your first language, so I understand. I await your apology.

Harel, fine, OK, howzabout I concede it's unrealistic. I don't think so, but OK, for the sake of argument, I'll give. So what??

You want to make small civs stronger. To make the game more realistic. What is the worst part of the game? It's when you're going for world conquest, and you're trying to finish off the inevitable triumph. Your suggestion wouldn't change the outcome, just the amount of time (and pain) it would take to do it. Your suggestion is akin to saying that going to the dentist would be better if you didn't use novacaine.

I don't have a problem with realism at all. I'm all for realism. But in most of your suggestions for Civ, and especially for this one, I don't get the sense that you're someone who has played alot of Civ, loves the game, but wants to make it better.

Instead, I get the sense that you're someone that played Civ a few times, and got frustrated that it doesn't more accurately reflect reality. That is a bassackwards way of looking at things. More realism+same playability=better game. But what you're doing is more realism+worse playabitity=worse game.

Look at it this way--forget realism for a second. How would your change affect the game? As I see it, if the bonus is minor, it still won't help small civs enough. If it's large, it just means trading one "surefire" strategy (rampant expansion) for another (perfectionism.)

But, I'd like to here your take on how your ideas would play out in the game.

If you want realism, why don't you play two turns and die of old age. I mean, your freakin' obsessed with the idea, why not take it to its logical conclusion.

Besides, you still haven't touched on one of my main points, which is that what you want is ALREADY IN THE GAME, indirectly. That's cuz civs with few cities will have really great cities. And your lack of understanding of the advantage of having a small civ is what leads me to believe you really haven't played alot of Civ. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you've just played one strategy every single game.

[Harel]

Well, Flavor Dave, your right and wrong.
Yes, I did get frustred with civ do to it's un-accuracy.
But still, I spend long-long nights on civ. Just like master of orion, those are games that you start playing and notice that 10 hours have passed.
What makes the game finish painful as the game, not how hard it is to kill the other opponents. Units produce way to slow and move about the map in such a slow and ridiculs speed that indeed finding and killing all enemies is an awful drag.
If a turn is several years, that a horse unit can move quite a big portion of the world in such a time, even after you balance it out for "playability".
That term, however, is very flexive. While realism is obivious, it's not always very clear is the game is easy or hard to play.
I am now playing a new space game called Malkari. People say it's playability is low. I find that due to an easy interface, the game is more easy to understand then that awful CtP.

A revoke of the game interface and engine can easily allow us to implamnt realistic features by not hampering the subjective "playability". Besides, civ doesn't need a better interface: the current one is fine. No, it's need a new set of more realistic rules.

By making both unit movement and production faster ( maybe making turns shorter also ), all the problems of "finish" would be solved. Once you muster your forces, you could wipe out everyone in a matter of a few turns.
The only point is, that the smaller nations would put up more of a fight.

But, the great importance of the idea is to encourge trade and diplomacy which are very weak in civ II. You have more motivation to conquesr the enemy then to trade with them. But if he was harder by military and stronger in economy, that might stop the game from being a "blood fest".

But, I conculded from your post that YOU don't play enough civ. Building all the required structres in time is often futile: you need to buy them. A small civ can hardly obtain the cash for a new libary fast enough.
Also, because of the greater income larger civ would always win the race for a wonder as they can just buy out the wonder. With multiple wonders the bigger civ would sky-rocket. The small civ has no chance.

Perfectionism won't be the "new-and-only" way to win civ. The military ways need to be easier and more realistic also. It doesn't take 10 years to produce one knight.
However, they are enough civ gamers who wants to build and maximze thier own little piece of haven.
Let the expansionist and the militaritic ones duel it out in the heavens of the empires.
We are content with our 5 cities, properly farmed and mended. It's not the only way, but it IS a way. In civ II, if you didn't expand fast enough you lost in the end. everytime.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited July 22, 1999).]</font>

[Flavor Dave]

Harel--

I think we may be talking about different things, or different times of the game. Because you talked about a small civ buying a library, which comes very early in the game. I thought you were talking about the 19th c. and later, for the perfectionist (Germans, me;-) civs.

Or, perhaps you are talking about the concept of minor civs. In this concept, Civ would still have up to 7 civs, but there would be a bunch of minor civs, of, say, 1 to 4 cities, to trade with, use in diplomacy, etc. Minor civs wouldn't build wonders, and wouldn't attack unless attacked. They would add greatly to diplomacy.

To use the analogy of Israel, go back 20 years, and Israel would be a minor civ (one city) allied with the US, while the Arab states would be a "large minor" (4 cities) civ allied with the Russians. The US and Russia wouldn't directly fight, they'd use their allied civs.

Actually, if you go to the strategy thread, alot of oldtimers are hooked on winning the one city challenge. One player actually got to AC in like 1861, with one city!!!! So, I disagree that you are forced to expand. I've found that the best single strategy is to build approx. 8 great cities, and I mean great. The other civs leave you alone. Then, once you have Hoover Dam and factories in all of your cities, you're set. Normally the other civs will attack.

Unfortunately, this is where it kinda breaks down. Due to the advantage the offense has late in the game, it is difficult to defend your little piece of heaven. You are almost forced to "punish" those attacking you. I've suggested that in Civ3, the balance between attack and defend stay more constant throughout the game. That would directly address your concern, IMO. In any event, it is completely untrue that you must expand to win.

What I meant about perfectionism being the one and only way to win was ONLY IF the bonuses you suggest for small civs are fairly large. If they are small, then they're really rather pointless.

Another way to reward perfectionism would be to add a victory condition kinda like the following: in the year 2020, all civs are set at 50% luxury. The civ with the highest "approval rating" wins. Or the most happy citizens.

As far as the "wonder race" goes, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Only the human player can buy wonders.

Also, you talked about the big civ skyrocketing ahead of the small civ. I don't understand. I mean, it's you against ALL of the AI civs, not just one of them. If you're strong enough in 1750, or 1850, they all ally against you anyway. Please explain.

As far as the issue of it doesn't take 10 years to produce a knight, that's true. But the only way around your issue would be to completely change the scale of the game. The map should be 10 times as large, there should be 10 times as many turns. Don't know if I like that. I never really worried about the year stuff, I think in terms of game turns. You can call the year anything you want to, really.

[Harel]

Civ III, unlike civ II would also include multi-player. Therefor, we also must think about the human vs human race.
8 cities, while not being big, is by no measure a "minor" civ.
And no, I don't mean the concept of "minor" civ that was suggsted in LordStone thread, and Idea i support greatly.
That suggestion said that "minor" civ have limited diplomacy and other options.
"Small" civs are just like thier bigger contarpart it options, they are just on a much reduced scale.

The bonuses won't be too big or too small. I will give an example:
a 1 city civ, with all the require upgrades, wealth SE, all trade she can have, and the suggested upgrade.
10 city civ, no trade, no buildings, no nothing.

The bigger civ would still produce more cash, but just a little more. The smaller civ could rival the bigger civ by just one topic. Her armies would suck, her technology would suck, but she would have enough money to go on.
And since she has all that money on one city, that city could bloom.
Ofcourse, the bigger civ would still be mighter and could just take over the smaller one. But her trade would have sufficent appeal to let her stay alive.

A military small civ would posses units ( if she choose the upgrade "power" SE ) this get +3 or +4 to morale. Now, this isn't enough to fight an army ten times your size, but it would balance things more in the favor of the smaller civ.

The size of the bonus is around +100% to the Value SE from SMAC. If power gave you +2 morale, +2 support -2 eco, the upgraded one would give you +4morale, +4 support, -0 eco ( the negative would also be elminated ).
This size of bonus is only to one or two cities. Bigger small civ would get a much smaller bonus. This isn't enouhg to totaly offset the game, but it would balance things more.

About the "Wonder race". A bigger, human controlled civ would just buy off the wonder first. We aren't just playing VS AI. The point is, to build a strong city you need an economical backbone which is from other cities.

About the turns: the year value does not matter. What I mean is, that unit movement and production should be twice of three times faster in compersion to the other time scales on civ: the rate in which you build buildings, your city increase it's popultion or you research tech.
Therefor, this way we can "feel" it's the middle ages because you will have enough time to build, and move a huge fleet of knights before it's allready muskets.

[Harel]

More then in multiplayer, I wanted the bonus to enable the human player, when playing against the AI not nessecry be the expanstionist one.
In civ II, when playing the comp you had to strive in order to be the biggest civ on Earth.
With this bonus, you can play "perfectionism" not as a fetish method but as a truly possible way to play the game.
You mentione one player who played with one city till the 1821 AD. Well, what if you could play the game, not not lose when you are 1 city?
You can still win. You can ally up and build the starship to AC with someone, help your allies with resources to kill all the other civs, or being so popular that you win by being elected president.
I want "perfectionism" to be effective.

Therefor, I belive the best middle-ground it to until limit the bonus to human players. Either to multiplayer or limit it to you when you play against the comp.

[Flavor Dave]

1. Harel--you misunderstood--the player didn't SURVIVE until 1861 (not 1821), he WON THE GAME!!! That's when he landed on AC.
2. "In civ II, when playing the comp you had to strive in order to be the biggest civ on Earth."

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong here. It is a very effective strategy to build a 8-10 city perfectionist civ. And even a guy like me can make this work at 5 cities. I've done it many times. It's a fun, fast game.

That's the problem I have with your whole premise. When playing a small perfectionist strategy, you DON'T NEED THE HELP!! Really, trust me, Harel, you don't. If you did have to be the biggest and baddest to have a chance to win, then you'd have a point. But you don't. You've again stated that you're just trying to give small civs a chance, but the small civs do just fine without your help.

What you are suggesting will just make the following strategy funnel mandatory for excellence:

1. Build science city.
2. Build the Oracle.
3. Stop at ~8 cities.
4. Build lots of settlers to perfect your terrain.
5. Give your cities all the key improvements.
6. Go republic once you have some trade routes and marketplaces.
7. We love to size 8.

The game at this point is over. You haven't even gotten to monotheism, but your science rate and tax revenue and production are already so awesome that you can get every key wonder you want.

Try playing this way without the bonuses you suggest, and see how powerful it is. Then you'll realize that the human doesn't need the bonuses you're talking about to make a 5 or 7 or 10 city civ viable. And with the bonuses, it's just flatout simple.

[Maniac]

Flavor dave : I want to upgrade small civs to make world conquest less desirable(I agree one nation conquering the world is unrealistic), trade more profitable and off course to make small civs more realistic, not to make it easier for human perfectionist players.
Although it is possible to win with only 8 cities ( I have too won with one city in SMAC.), the AI tends to be unfriendlier to you than when you're a large civ. This should be solved in Civ3. They should be friendlier to you if you are a big trader.

Harel, instead of saying 1 city 50% bonus and 5 cities only 25% bonus, wouldn't it be better to make a City State SE choice. +20% Food production, +20% Industry, +20% Trade, but -4 Efficiency. Very bad for civs with even only 8 cities. That would also solve the problem of 'how many cities should a small civs be allowed to have on a huge map?' because on a huge map a city on 30 squares of the capital has much less corruption as the same city on a tiny map. In SMAC anyway.

The Minoan Kingdom lasted from 3000 to 1500 BC. They had trade with the OLD Egyptian Empire and with the Greeks. Some (I don't) think they had conquered Athens. They had a big war and trade fleet and they did get conquered by some barbarians in 1400 BC because they had no army ANYMORE. Because their civilization was destroyed by a vulcano eruption in 1500 BC. Some (me too) think that's where Plato got his idea for Atlantis.

[Theben]

Forgive me if I interrupt you two. I didn't read everything (been away for 2 days) but it seems the real problem is that small AI civs are too weak for Harel's taste. Single-city player civs are quite capable of winning civ2/SMAC &/or at least causing AI civs much grief in the process. What he wants is basically a smarter AI, yes?

There are other ways to save small civs from the expansionist's axe:

-Better alliances (Q: Why didn't Austria-Hungary attack Serbia? A: They're allied w/ Russia!)
-More realistic support needed for troops & supply routes, which would be more expensive away from home territories.
-Unhappiness at home when troops start to die. This should be ignored when defending your own territory (more likely to benefit a small civ).
-Democratic societies & troops less willing to engage in wars without moral justification.

[Maniac]

How do you think you can tell that AI to defend his ally's City instead of attacking his ally's enemy territory?
To make it worthwhile for large civs having smaller allies you should still have trade bonuses and some other benefits.

[Flavor Dave]

"Flavor dave : I want to upgrade small civs to make world conquest less desirable"

Why? If you don't like to win by world conquest, then don't do it. Essentially, you're saying that since YOU like going to AC, since YOU don't like world conquest, you want to change the game so everyone else has to play your way. Do I have that about right?

theben, actually, Harel is saying that when the Human player is small, with 5-8 cities, the Human is too weak. He's NOT talking about the AI civs, as near as I can tell.

[Theben]

Maniac,
In SMAC you can tell an AI faction to attack a certain city. In civ3 maybe you could tell an ally to defend a specific city. As far as the AI telling another AI civ what to do, I don't know. That's up to the programmers.
Also in SMAC having trade pacts with different civs is more beneficial than if you have a trade pact with 1 large civ, as each city can have but 1 trade route per faction. If something similar to this is used in civ3, the trade benefit is built in.

Flav Dave, if that's true then I disagree.

[Flavor Dave]

OK, so now it seems that you're saying smaller civs should get a bonus so that a small civ can survive in multiplayer. I have no opinion on that. But I still think that for you vs. the computer, it is either a bad idea (if the bonuses are big enough) or a pointless idea (if they aren't big enough.)

[Maniac]

Flavor Dave : In some of my Civ2 and almost all of my SMAC games I win by conquest. You're wrong I don't like conquest. For me conquest is some pleasant distraction between the serious work of city management.
What I hate is that conquest is too easy and too safe.

too easy : solution : better AI

too safe : The problem is conquest has no bad side effects. So everyone conquers and conquers (me too) as if it's the most normal thing in the world.
At the end of the game you control most of the world. Very unrealistic. I want to fix that.

1)In SMAC after 50 years your people become as happy as the ones of the cities you founded. You should have problems with 'nationalists' throughout the rest of the game. +you should have revolutions in the conquered cities. That would eliminate my tactic of leaving the middle of the empire almost undefended, because you should always have an army nearby to suppress the revolutionists. If you have to keep troops in your own territory, you could spend less time else. This is more realistic.

2) I have witnessed several times that AI Civs switch from war to alliances in a few turns. Bad.

3) Having a city is better than not having a city.
That was always true in CivX. In reality it isn't. People work harder for their own or for their country. It's better to take as much advantage as possible of a country and let it alone the rest of the time, as USA does with Israel, than to actually need to control it.
Economic alliances and trade should be upgraded so trading with a country is more beneficial than to conquer it and loose the trade.

I want to make conquest less desirable because conquering the world is unrealistic, not because I don't like conquest.
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 24, 1999).]
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited July 24, 1999).]</font>