GGS - The Book

[VetLegion]

Note: I am not trying to say trade is not beneficial. People in contact with others get trade and advance much faster then isolated ones.

(note how civ2 did that nicely )

Amjayee and Joker:

Dont be annoyed by me exchanging a word with cavebear. Some things can have an impact on the game, but I am not "worrying much" with it.
Or spending time I might spend coding or something .

[The Joker]

Hmm. I am not sure I think Civ2 did the whole trade thing good enough. I usually found it very beneficial to be alone on my own island for the first thousands of years of the game. It meant I didn't have to spend ressources on units, and that I didn't have to worry about the whole military aspect of the game. I could just develop my tech in peace.

And I'm not annoyed by you discussing with cavebear. Discussion is good. Always. So keep at it! The good stuff could very well have actual impact on the game, and the bad stuff will not, so there's no risk really.

------------------
"The future is that mountain."
- Bret Easton Ellis

GGS Website

[The Joker]

quote: I think it is important to keep wild and domesticated plants and animals separate. Domesticated plants and animals cannot spread on their own. In other words, wild cows were widespread in that form. But domesticated ones, with the changes that humans caused, were not. An effect of domestication is that those plants and animals have traits that are beneficial to humans but not beneficial in the wild.

Ah, I see. But would this mean that each domesticable animal would only be present in a very small area at the beginning of the game? This would mean that only the civ(s) that just happened to be in this small area would be able to domesticate them. Is this a good thing?

quote: As far as differing values of domesticated plants and animals go, I don't think that is a real problem. The terrain suitabilty will control where they are viable. And it shouldn't be a problem to assign cows, pigs, and chickens different food values. It would be close to 3, 2, 1 (for game purposes). Plants would work the same way.

Yes. But say each pop unit producing food on a terrain type would give, say, 20 food per turn if hunting and gathering. How would domesticated animals effect this? We need a formula that can be put into anything. And how about when technology improves. This sort of thing.

------------------
"The future is that mountain."
- Bret Easton Ellis

GGS Website

[cavebear]

The Joker -

1. "Ah, I see. But would this mean that each domesticable animal would only be present in a very small area at the beginning of the game? This would mean that only the civ(s) that just happened to be in this small area would be able to domesticate them. Is this a good thing?"

The wild animals/plants would be widely spread, so that they were available to many civs. However, domestication would take some sort of intent and effort by the player (taxes, specialists, civ-improvements, whatever you choose). Perhaps each wild animal/plant would be on 1 of each 50 or 100 tiles or something like that. If you control a tile with one, then you could choose to domesticate it (or not).

Personally, I think that would be a good thing. It sounds like a reasonable strategic decision to allow a player to make, but one that could proceed without micromanagement.

Early domestication would have value. The choice of animals/plants would have value, and the decision to *not* domesticate and hope for gains through automated diffusion would also be strategic.

2. "Yes. But say each pop unit producing food on a terrain type would give, say, 20 food per turn if hunting and gathering. How would domesticated animals effect this? We need a formula that can be put into anything. And how about when technology improves. This sort of thing."

Food = Hunting/gathering + domesticated animals + domesticated plants

Domesticated animals = (3xCows) + (2xPigs) + (1xChickens)

Domesticated plants = (3xCorn) + (3xRice) + (2xWheat) + (1xPotatoes)

The values are just examples, they can be whatever you wanted. That's just a detail. But the broad formulas are simple. And further improvements like irrigation or technology (if you wanted them for domesticated animals/plants) could improve the factors. Then you could just say NewCow = 2xOldCow, OldCow=NewCow.

Do programmers still use "If...Then" or "Next" loops (forgive me, I only know Fortran and Basic)? It would be a very simple sub-routine, in any case, I'm sure.

BTW, you might want to have advancement from "Hunter/Gatherer" to "Agricultural Revolution" depend on some domestication. I mean, you need *something* to use to decide when general social civ advancement occurs.

[VetLegion]

I have gotten better perception of the book from discussion here (thanks!) and some interesting thigs I found on web too.

This one claimes that Americans didn need to domesticate large animals.
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/l...tication6.html

[VetLegion]

IF THENs are widely used

I like the food algorithm - the simpler the better. Any more complex than that would I think be too much. I am not considering processing power - just as a gameplay value.

[The Joker]

We have a food algorithm???

------------------
"Life is a lesson. You learn it when you're through."
- Limp Bizkit

GGS Website

[korn469]

ok about the whole llama-pox small-pox debate

i don't think that the introduction of dieases was what actually caused the downfall of the new world civilizations...

i agree with guildmaster that the new world civilizations had many concepts that were far ahead of the europeans so to write off the aztecs and the mayans as a backward and undeveloped people is completely wrong

why wasn't europe conquered when the black plauge spread from india to europe? because the flow of traffic from india to europe wasn't a military invasion but an onslaught of trade especially helped by venice and other city states in italy

however when the incas met pizzaro it wasn't like he was head of the peace corps or only a trader...he was a military leader commissioned by the state and the Church to subdue the heathen people he encountered and to find gold...the conquistidors i think are a mix of religious and economic ideologies coming together...christianity and capitalism was what goaded these men on...maybe instead of germs the title of the game should be guns, gold, and steel

hehe but one ironic thing is if columbus had of been able to make an accurate guesss about the size of the world then he would have never tried to sail from europe to india by sailing west

korn469

just dropping by
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited January 19, 2001).]

[cavebear]

quote: Originally posted by korn469 on 01-19-2001 01:39 AM ok about the whole llama-pox small-pox debate i don't think that the introduction of dieases was what actually caused the downfall of the new world civilizations...

Jared Diamond only suggests that diseases were *one* of the factors involved. Even then, disease was a "proximate cause" of the European conquest, not a "primary" one. Still, Native American mortality from disease was severe. Would the Europeans have been as successful if they had faced 10 times as many Native Americans as they actually did?

quote: i agree with guildmaster that the new world civilizations had many concepts that were far ahead of the europeans so to write off the aztecs and the mayans as a backward and undeveloped people is completely wrong

A list comparing the pragmatic advances between the Europeans and Native Americans would show things very heavily weighted in favor of the Europeans. Horses, armor, metallurgy, guns, experience in deceptive diplomacy, and military tactical experience were tremendous advantages for the Europeans.

quote: why wasn't europe conquered when the black plauge spread from india to europe? because the flow of traffic from india to europe wasn't a military invasion but an onslaught of trade especially helped by venice and other city states in italy

Your answer is my answer. Because the Plague was so widespread, there were few Eurasian nations able to engage in expansionistic activities. It is worth observing that the Plague times were one of the few times when Asian nomadic tribes were able to invade Europe. Where the Native Americans lost 75% (or possibly even 90%) of their population, the Europeans lost "only" 25% of theirs. And the weapons or Europe and Asia were relatively equal (compared to those of Europe and the Americas).

quote: however when the incas met pizzaro it wasn't like he was head of the peace corps or only a trader...he was a military leader commissioned by the state and the Church to subdue the heathen people he encountered and to find gold...the conquistidors i think are a mix of religious and economic ideologies coming together...christianity and capitalism was what goaded these men on...maybe instead of germs the title of the game should be guns, gold, and steel

I understand your point. Perhaps the most accurate title would be "Gunpowder, Germs, and Metal". It doesn't have quite the same alliterative style to it though, so I grant him the title of his choice.

But the Native Americans had both Religion and Economics of their own. Rather than suggesting it was a lack of one or the other, it was more a question of the practical consequences of both. I dare anyone to claim that the Native Americans felt less religious fervor than the Europeans, for example, or that the maintainance of a large Incan or Mayan city required less trade-oriented resources than European ones.

A central point of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is that individual or even group "motivations" are not the primary explanation of the relative success of civilizations, but rather the geographical situations in which each were present at any particular time in history. The closest that Diamond comes to finding an exception to that "law" is the willful decision of the Chinese to cease naval trade and exploration. Even then, the primary causes for that decision can be seen in geographical terms.

quote: hehe but one ironic thing is if columbus had of been able to make an accurate guesss about the size of the world then he would have never tried to sail from europe to india by sailing west

Quite true. However, Columbus was not the first to explore westward of Europe, and if he vanished he would not have been the last. But he didn't perish in the vastness of a 14,000 wide ocean, he stumbled upon real land with real people.

quote: korn469 just dropping by [This message has been edited by korn469 (edited January 19, 2001).]

[The Joker]

Nice to see you here, Korn. What have you been up to lately? Hoping you are doing good.

I think Cavebear made all the comments I could think of. So all I have to say is hi!

------------------
"If I sink to the bottom I can run to the shore!"
- Homer J. Simpson

GGS Website