Wish list for CTP2(future Mods)

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann
Yeah that is a really interesting thing, another idea: If you don't have montians or hills in your empire than sorry for you no stone working. That would be terrain dependent techs. It is true that this would require a new tech tree. As it would need a lot of auxilery techs that you get for having a good in your borders that can be checked over the CityCollectingGood function if the good is not traded otherwise I can check all the terrain tiles around the city, maybe the city[0] array can be used as loaction (city radius), that would make things easier, forts surroundings could be checked if the fort is finished.

Probably the only place its difficult to find stone is sand-dune desert, but if we were to be specific - use hill/mountains as holding stone, then maybe stoneworking shouldn't be such a big thing? The ancient Iraqi civ(someone help me), built mostly with mud-brick and they built one of the ancient wonders(Ziggurt thing), any stone or wood they used needed to be imported from afar. In fact without stone/wood they had one of the most advanced civs at that time(the most advanced?). But maybe a small change to the tech-tree would be needed to impliment this kind of thing. So instead of just stoneworking to be able to build structures like pyramids/greatwalls you could research Mud-Brick as well? Or maybe allow Stone to be findable on all tiles(bar sea)?
And for city area's for these goods to be available, could it be extended to your civs borders and work in the same way, that way you won't be too restricted in choseing your city site(but maybe this would be a good thing?). The fort thing sounds good too, if there was a specific thing you wanted outside of your borders you could use the forts Zone of control to gain control of that good/tile(sounds alot like Civ3's colony thing)? The thing that is nice about all this(if it can be worked out) is that balanced well it will add a big slice of strategy to the game, not to mention a bit more realism(and less of the one oil deposit on the whole map like in Civ3 ,maybe this is fixed, i haven't checked in a week or so?).

[Harovan]

What sense makes adding strategic resources, if everybody has everything? Resources like oil and uranium are scarce as a matter of fact, and very unevenly spread over the surface. Why else the gulf states are swimming in oil while other countries have none? I have yet to see a Civ3 game (and I've seen a lot of them) where I can't acquire all 8 resources in one or the other way.

It's a lot a matter of map settings too. Of course, who choses "warm/wet" as map setting to have maximum grassland, shouldn't wonder why desert resources like oil are especially scarce.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
What sense makes adding strategic resources, if everybody has everything? Resources like oil and uranium are scarce as a matter of fact, and very unevenly spread over the surface. Why else the gulf states are swimming in oil while other countries have none?

Well certain resources are very common; wood/stone for example and others aren't like oil(although quite a few countries do have oil, even us(U.K)!)/Uranium. In terms of using CTP2's current trade good placement IMHO this is a well representitive system of resource placement. At the momment it's a bit speculative cause i haven't done a complete resource to techtree list, although a few of the early ones like requireing advance 'metalworking' + an ore deposit(either tile improvement or trade good) + advance 'mining' (and maybe a mine placed on the ore resource?) ,would be a prerequisite for building a Hoplite/Phalanx type of unit.
It could be a very complex system(i'd like it to be), but the hardist part i'm sure will be getting the AI to use it properly and trying to get it in the Diplomacy system, so it might have to be simple. The idea is not to penalise a developing civ, just add a stategic angle that the player and AI can take advantage of. So for example, you want to stop the agressive mongolian empire building more mounted archers that he keeps sending to pillage in your lands, so you invade his city with the Horse(?) resource. He may well expand to another location with horses(or trade for them?), so you only stop him in the short term, but the resources are not so rare that you will only ever have a few items of one kind on the map(the U.S. produces it's own oil right, as does russia etc,etc)
So on that track when i hear stories of 1 oil resource on a Civ3 map - and nobody can get hold of it(bar 1civ), so nobody can build tanks - that IMO is the wrong way to impliment it, it just makes people restart the game.Your experience may be different, but alot of people were(and still are last time i looked)not very happy when put in this situation.
There is a good thread on Strategic resources and adding culture here

[Aqtaca]

Guys, i am astonished by the precision you wish to achieve, and i want to help you in this project.
I'm not a programmer, so i'll just be giving the ideas.

1. Slavery
-victory enslavement
first of all, drop that whole slaver/slavemaster/whatever idea-it's completely wrong in this case- all military units apart from ranged and artillerical should be able to achieve enslavement.

secondly, i must make a digression here, concerning the building of units.

to make a unit, you need more than resources for equipment- you need HUMANS. Constructing a unit would drain some of human population from the city. (Until the emancipation act is proclaimed, only men could be conscripted- meaning you have only half of the population at conscripting disposal unitil then ). After the battle, damage inflicted upon a unit could be repaired by conscripting more people either from a nearest city or from a homecity or anycity.

now, after the battle, the victorious side would take prisoners from ALL defeated units, let's say 10% from menpower which certain defeated unit had prior to entering the battle.
So, now we have a number of prisoners; instead of adding automaticaly 10000 slaves to the nearest city even if the defeated unit was a diplomat or spy.
further more, the victor would get the report of the captured enemies and would be able to decide how many of them would he kill, how many to spare and release (hey, why not show mercyful to the enemy people-propaganda) and how many would he sent as slaves to ANY city in his empire he prefers, not the nearest one (i always hated that rule in the game).

These slaves would be the ones of state, the player could liberate them if he wished to or sell them to slave market, where he would get money for selling them , but would also lose any control over them. Of course, slaves made in victoryenslavement way would have to be men. This means introducing the category of sexes into game... can you do it?

-slavery by slavers
here we need slavers. they could attack cities... harvesting men, women and children, but i suggest we create it as a merchant unit specialized in buying humans in foreign lands. This was what happened in Africa in 16th-19th century.
Also, when enemy city falls, no matter of it's size , wealth,... the player should be given option to raze it to the ground, pillage and again enslave the population. and again choose how many of the captives and which ones to spare, to kill, to enslave.

I must dissapoint you, but the ancient civilizations didn't have vast ammounts of slaves. Egypt, Persia, Sumeria, Hittetes,... in none of them did the number of slaves pass 20% of total population. Greek polises and Roman empire were the ones who introduced vast numbers of slaves.
And slavery lived even in the christian Europe, and again got it's massiveness in the form of slavery in South America.
Also, emancipation act should be proclaimed by each civilization separetely. Slavery wasn't over in Britain when it was in France or in US when it was in Britain or in South America when it was in US...

i'm going to stop now about slavery and shut up, as i am still a rookie on this forum

[Aqtaca]

a slight correction
when i first mentioned emancipation act in my post up

to make a unit, you need more than resources for equipment- you need HUMANS. Constructing a unit would drain some of human population from the city. (Until the emancipation act is proclaimed, only men could be conscripted- meaning you have only half of the population at conscripting disposal unitil then ).

here, emancipation act is the one that proclaimed equality of sexes, not the one that proclaimed freedom of slaves

[Bluevoss]

If you played one of the earlier MedMods, most of the early units were slavers. And guess what - after a quick round of combat, most cities grew to emense sizes. You had size 15 cities with before 3000bc. It so unballance the game that I took the insto-slave function back out in my version.

I rather like the idea of slavery as presented in the game. One assumes that an army that is willing to take slaves would be equipted as such (slavemasters). Not all armies too them, to the slavermaster is a good way to determine if yours will or not.

One of the better suggestions I've heard is the idea of turning the city that you destroy into a nomad, simulating the ability of conquring armies to march the crushed people into "bondage". The Egyptians and Babalonians were famous for doing this.

[Pedrunn]

Originally posted by Aqtaca
to make a unit, you need more than resources for equipment- you need HUMANS. Constructing a unit would drain some of human population from the city.

A little patient this concpt is already added in my Absolute State v2.0 mod. While building units remove pop disbading adds pop for infantry, archers and mounted units (Eg. this wont happen with ships, aircrafts, cannons or tanks).
Wich is in play test, balancing and small changes needed phase.

Originally posted by Aqtaca
now, after the battle, the victorious side would take prisoners from ALL defeated units, let's say 10% from menpower which certain defeated unit had prior to entering the battle.
So, now we have a number of prisoners; instead of adding automaticaly 10000 slaves to the nearest city even if the defeated unit was a diplomat or spy.

Although it isnt completely correct i gave all infantry and mounted units until the the industrial age the ability of victory enslavment wich gives 10000 (a pop) for battle.

Originally posted by Aqtaca
-slavery by slavers
here we need slavers. they could attack cities... harvesting men, women and children, but i suggest we create it as a merchant unit specialized in buying humans in foreign lands. This was what happened in Africa in 16th-19th century.

Good point. Maybe someone could make the code to add this order (see "new orders" thread). And it should be used by the regular slave unit.

Originally posted by Aqtaca
Also, when enemy city falls, no matter of it's size , wealth,... the player should be given option to raze it to the ground, pillage and again enslave the population. and again choose how many of the captives and which ones to spare, to kill, to enslave.

Martin Guhman already added this option but i am a bit reluctant because the AI cant use it and even if it could we would need a new code to teach them.

Originally posted by Aqtaca
i'm going to stop now about slavery and shut up, as i am still a rookie on this forum

Please dont. We do want to hear your idea. As Montesquieu would say
"I may not agree with nothing you are saying but i will fight for death so that you have the right to say it"
(Sorry if it isnt correctly translated from Portuguese)

[Bluevoss]

One thing to consider about units and reduction of population-

Most armies are made up of young people. For example, WW1, the average was 18 or 19 (I suppose). Really, you need to find people who are fit, can carry a rifle and pack all day, but quite frankly, are optomistic about charging machine guns.

My wandering point is that the population used for units is probably NOT the same population that provides manufacting and production capabilites in a society (the craftsmen and welders, all who have learned their skills, and who tend to be about 25-40).

Two points of issue come up with this-

1) Societies are differrent. I figure that the age for a Spartan formation would be different than the age of a platoon in Vietnam. When you are trying to come up with hard-n-fast rules over history (taking into account societies, governments, situations, etc) there is little that will hold true in every case.

2) There is a limit to how many people can go under arms. Prolonged wars tend to drain societies "white". Britain and Germany, after WW1, found themselves "missing" a generation, with so many members of the youthful generation killed or maimed.

I don't know if this is simulatable or fixable beyond unit costs - about the only thing you might do is increase a unit cost as more and more men are placed into service. I.e. the first unit might take '3' turns to build, the next '4', then '5'.
Or, you could make it so that as you build more units, your production drops (as more and more craftsmen go into service).

Interesting, indeed.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Pedrunn
Martin Gu[e]hman[n] already added this option but i am a bit reluctant because the AI cant use it and even if it could we would need a new code to teach them.

Actual this would be easy to do, it is just a question wheather the go over the city limit if it adds this city to its empire. So if the AI is over the city limit slavery in acient times and resettlement in modern times. Actual I thought this code addition is not necessary, or did you ever see an AI that hit the city limit.

Originally posted by Bluevoss
Or, you could make it so that as you build more units, your production drops (as more and more craftsmen go into service).

Actual this concept is already in the game, because you pay your army maintance in global production. (In Civ2 every city sopports its units with production shield loacally, until I build enough cities to give all of my units the city owner none.)

-Martin

[Bluevoss]

It might be in the game, but you hardly feel it. I've never had so many units out that I felt like I was digging into older populations to man my legions.

Still, I guess it could be boosted. I'm fine with it, myself...

[Aqtaca]

I like the generation idea in the army.
That way, when army is out of town, industry stagnates, as only these young people can work.
But when army is back in it's city, it's not required to dispand them. They can be sentineled or smth. And when we wish to activate them, they are again reduced from city.

But this whole generation idea seems so complicated. Not just to make it happen, but in the game. I think it would require too much of player's attention.

[Aqtaca]

And how do you people insert those little images right under your username????

[Harovan]

They are called Avatars and available under control panel/Edit Options. Check the link row at top of this page. You can choose a default Avatar there, when you have up to 499 posts, and upload a custom one from 500 upward.

[The Big Mc]

just to see if anybody’s interested because I know you lot are after some changes to the map editor I found a way of changing the cheat mode button on the menu to editor makes my feel allot better as it is not like cheating at all

[child of Thor]

Big MC, just because you can fool yourself you are not cheating, doesn't mean you can fool everyone else!!!!
I like it

EDIT: OK i know its not for playing the game - it just made me laugh!