Announcement

**Jon Shafer** · May 12, 2002, 18:30

(Trip`) URBAN AND ....
(Trip`) uhhhh I forgot the word
(Trip`) different populations
(chrispie) geographical features too
(Kroeze) Trip, did you ever play Risk or Diplomacy?
(chrispie) so, basically where two different things meet, usually groups of people
(Trip`) I've played Risk
(Trip`) not Diplomacy though
(Trip`) Hmmmm
(Trip`) how about this idea... let me type it up
(Kroeze) Imagine creating a game on the RISK map, with MORE provinces
(notLeland) S.Kroeze: I've always thought the idea of dynamic provinces is one of the key features of the game, and not findign a way to make them work reasonably has really turned me off the whole project
(chrispie) it was always my idea to say, the world starts split into lots of little pop group, some of which players control. These grow and -somehow- divide or are divided
(Trip`) new provinces could be created from a new settlement from a capital city. As that province grows in population, new cities will be created automatically by the province itself. As more small suburbs developin the province, then borders subsequently expand
(Kroeze) That's the only reason, Leland?
(notLeland) well, that and lazyness

(chrispie) lol lazyness rules doesn't it leland ;-)
(Trip`) I think things should be a little more controlled than that chrispie
(Kroeze) Yes, Trip; this is a way I was thinking in
(Trip`) after all, 20 ethnic groups were combined into the Austro-Hungarian empire
(Trip`) as well as Yugoslavia
(Trip`) etc.
(chrispie) my use of the word grow was a bit under-descriptive I think, they can grow in many ways, including artificially
(Trip`) I think there should be some way to alter those provinces though
(Trip`) what land they're composed of
(Trip`) which cities, etc.
(Kroeze) We could start with Austria-Hungary with ONLY Germans and Hungarians. It could still be interesting
(notLeland) ok, trip, your idea of province borders, do you think it works if the city radius changes during the game?
(Trip`) I think we're all thinking along the same page though
(Trip`) I don't think the city radius SHOULD change in the game
(Trip`) that's too civ-like
(Trip`) simply the more people in a city, the more productive the city/province becomes
(notLeland) hmm, so to have a larger province you always need more cities?
(Trip`) not necassarily
(Kroeze) Please do not become angry, but I am very sure that cities should NOT be the centre of our structure
(Trip`) you could denote the borders specifically if you wanted
(Trip`) there would be say, an option to select particular hexes to be included in each province
(Trip`) that way the game will be more province-oriented, and less city-oriented
(Kroeze) Borders are also a most new invention. Before ~1800 most borders were only something on the map, not in real life
(notLeland) i agree S. Kroeze... but cities/towns/nodes of population seems to me to be a necessary underlying structure for the simulationist elements of the game
(Trip`) the Austro-Hugarian Empire was basically as the Austrians and Hugarians captured more land and acquired more territory, they decided to combine
(Trip`) so basically there were many smaller conquered civs present
(Trip`) right leland
(Trip`) we could have things based off of the province's capital though
(Trip`) but resources and taxes are generated through the cities present in that province
(Trip`) that way it's a good mix of both
(Kroeze) Yes Trip, I agree, but we really should try to start with something simple. Our megolomania has not helped us
(chrispie) what about rural pops though trip?
(Trip`) policy regarding production and taxation would be done through the province level
(Trip`) LoL right Kroeze
(Trip`) hmmmmm, that's something I haven't thought too much about chrispie
(Trip`) it would HAVE to be implimented though...
(chrispie) yes
(Trip`) until the 20th century, up to 80% of a population was rural
(Trip`) NOT in the cities
(Trip`) how do you guys think we should represent that?
(chrispie) that's why provinces IMO are a way to encompase people under one tax system, and basically saying, I own the people in these tiles
(Kroeze) Leland -though you do not seem to like the present game- do you think Diplomacy is a great game? Is it reletively simple?
(Trip`) perhaps the production, etc. from rural areas could be considered "provincial", while larger cities could be somewhat more indpenedant
(Trip`) how do you like that idea?
(chrispie) hmm can't see a reason for that though trip
(Kroeze) Too complicated for now, I am sorry to say.
(Trip`) larger cities could be a little more independant... say, you set taxation and production differently in those than you would the "Province" which would encompass the capital city and all the rural settlements
(Trip`) you'd have to include rural areas though somehow
(Trip`) otherwise it wouldn't be accurate
(chrispie) why not just say everything in a province is taxed at x, but you can still look at cities, and set city production, maybe
(Trip`) that's just a suggestion on how to impliment rural population though
(Kroeze) I suggest a province with or without a large city. When it has a city only its location and its population matter
(Trip`) I like that chrispie
(Trip`) how would the population/location affect the city's productivity though?
(Kroeze) You're still there, Leland?
(Trip`) should everything the player sees just be lumped into the "Province", but everything is worked on the local city level?
(chrispie) I did think that maybe we could layer the population systems, we have groups of populations, affected by geography and such, and we have political provinces, which players define
(Kroeze) For the moment I cannot decide.
(Trip`) I don't think I catch you there chrispie
(notLeland) (sorry, i was away for a moment and am now catching up)
(Kroeze) I asked you , whether a simple game -like Diplomacy- can be a good game?
(chrispie) well, the world is full of population groups, like ethnicities, who interact with each other etc. But players define political borders, independant of those groups for their provinces
(Trip`) I like the idea of the player specifically setting provincial borders
(Trip`) I still like my idea for addressing cities VS provinces...
(Trip`) in each province you would have, say 3 large cities
(Trip`) the rest of the province would be rural
(Kroeze) With fixed problems -for the time being- a lot of problems would disappear
(chrispie) lol everyone likes their own ideas trip :P
(Trip`) I know I know

(Trip`) I'm trying to keep an open mind here
(Trip`) there is production specified directly in cities, as well as other things like taxation
(Trip`) and that, once completed, would be lumped into the "Provincial funds" or something
(Trip`) which consists of the rural production and taxation
(Trip`) I feel that's the easiest way to represent how things were
(Trip`) Cities were not completely autonomous, but they had more influence than the rural population
(chrispie) right, that's fair enough, seems okay to me
(Trip`) but as we've decided, provinces MUST play a more important role
(notLeland) Kroeze: My opinion on Diplomacy is that it's rules are rather simple, but the whole social aspect of planning and such is something to be strived for. As for simplicity, i think that it's diametrically opposed to realism.
(Trip`) and I think that's the best way to do it
(chrispie) lol what happened to your open mind trip?? :P
(Trip`) LoL
(Trip`) it's still open
(Trip`) just nothing else is coming in

(chrispie) lol
(Trip`) what do you guys think of my idea?
(chrispie) on the other subject here; DIP is a simple, but great idea for a game
(Kroeze) The role of cities was different in different cultures. In the Roman world the countryside was ruled by cities; in the middle ages countryside and cities became politically seperated
(Trip`) and that could be determined by the player, or by other factors
(Trip`) in some times, policy and public opinion could make cities very powerful
(Trip`) in others, they could be important only as defensive locations
(Trip`) and population centers
(Trip`) things could change over time... it's not a static game ya know

(Kroeze) I agree with you about the lack of realism in Diplomacy. Can you imagine addign features to make it more realistic. Macchivelli is an example
(chrispie) hmm, that seems complicated trip
(Trip`) hmmm, maybe you're right
(Trip`) scratch that
(Trip`) I think some balance must be struck between realism and gameplay
(chrispie) I agree 100% there trip
(Trip`) and if you're going to take into account seperate cultures and how cities were important to them, that's a bit too much on the realism side
(chrispie) no-point in making it super realistic if it's too hard to play or just too boring
(Trip`) which takes away from the gameplay
(Kroeze) We should try to design soemthing that CAN be played. When it becomes an overwhelming succes we can add new features
(Trip`) so do you guys think we should go with my idea? or is it just that wretched

(notLeland) my philosophy is that you get realism by building a simulation, and game play by building, well, a game. trying to create realism through game design is not what i think is a fruitful route to go
(Trip`) 2 or 3 independant cities that pop up eventually, and rural popualation represented through the province
(chrispie) I'm not exactly sure what your idea is trip?

(Trip`) but an emphasis still placed on the province as opposed to the cities
(Trip`) that's my idea in a nutshell
(notLeland) trip: your idea went over my head at the moment...
(Trip`) okay
(Trip`) let me try to explain it a different way
(Kroeze) Please write your idea in a thread on the Forum. We can react to it. Nevertheless i do not think it is the centre of our problems
(Trip`) Okay
(Trip`) I'll finish with my idea, then we can move on to something different if you guys want to
(Kroeze) Could you please explain a bit more, Leland?
(Trip`) EXERPT FROM MODEL: "Provinces are the main aspect of GGS. They are represented by the rural population of an area, and policy and taxation are collected for these areas through the province. In addition to provinces, there may be 2 or 3 large cities which you can set independant taxation or production orders for, and their treasuries and warehouses would be seperate from the province. The player may set the borders for the province as he wishes as well."
(Trip`) any problems or things to add?
(Kroeze) Is this a quote?
(Trip`) nah, just something I came up with
(Trip`) outlining the basic premises of my idea
(Kroeze) There will be many provinces WITHOUT cities
(Trip`) exactly
(Trip`) that's true
(notLeland) well, i guess i tend to think of all games as abstract, i dont' really care if a game is realistic or not if it is internally consistent... on the other hand *computer* games in specific also have lots of aspects of a simulation, and that kind of realism builds the atmosphere of the game and gives it depth in ways that a board game does not (at least for me)
(Kroeze) Neither do I like the 'build' structure of Civ
(Trip`) and even when there ARE cities present, their population would be very tiny in comparison to the provincial rural popualation until far into the modern times
(chrispie) having too many resource storage places, ala warehouses will massivelly overcomplicated
(chrispie) overcomplicate
(Trip`) only very populated provinces will have cities
(Trip`) you could designate certain cities to have their own warehouses and treasuries as well
(Trip`) or you could say that all production and taxation from cities will also go the the provincial treasury and warehouse
(Trip`) that way the player could play as he chooses
(Kroeze) Most of production (i.e.food) will immediately be consumed
(Trip`) right
(Trip`) but some things will be stockpiled
(Trip`) hmmm
(Trip`) I'm trying to think here about something...
(Kroeze) For the moment I can live with one provincial warehouse
(Trip`) I was thinking the same thing
(Trip`) but then what emphasis will be placed on cities?
(Trip`) perhaps cities will produce goods, etc. faster than the province
(Trip`) because industry is concentrated, making it easier to get things done
(Kroeze) Should emphasis be placed on cities?
(Trip`) a LITTLE bit should
(Trip`) large cities still had some power in compared with the entire province
(Trip`) in comparison^
(Kroeze) Cities were primarily governmental centres
(Trip`) true
(notLeland) i'd say cities are the places through which everything flows, an unorganized rural population only produces goods for their own use but it takes a city of some sort to distribute stuff farther
(Trip`) but they were concentrations of commerce and industry as well
(Trip`) how do you suggest that be represented leland?
(Kroeze) Do you agree with me that the 'build' structure of Civ -converting shields (what ARE shields) into buildings or armies doesn't make sense?
(Trip`) I think the best way to help out cities would be to make them MUCH more productive than the rest of the province
(Trip`) however, the only warehouses will be in the province
(Trip`) yes Kroeze
(notLeland) well, all the resources would really have to be pooled in cities, before making any se of them (through trade, or production, or anything)
(Trip`) I've disliked that idea for a long time :P
(notLeland) se =) use
(Kroeze) When you pool resources in cities. provinces without cities wouldn't be able to produce anything!
(Trip`) in that case you would end up with warehouses and stockpiles for each city though... and with a lot of differen kinds of goods that can get tedious
(Trip`) exactly
(Trip`) unless
(Kroeze) What do you mean, Leland?
(Trip`) the "Province" is mainly based off of a provincial capital
(Trip`) (every province had a seat of government SOMEWHERE)
(notLeland) that's why i think there should be a mindnumbing number of cities, which the player has no control over
(Trip`) true, but if you have a large empire, ala Russia
(Trip`) things can still get pretty difficult
(Trip`) keeping track of where stuff is for EACH city
(Kroeze) Please: NO warehouses in every cities. The less emphasis on cities the better!
(Trip`) this is where I believe more emphasis hsould be placed on provinces in that respect
(Trip`) should^
(Trip`) sure, at the beginning of the game when you have 3 provinces and 2 cities each, it's easy
(Trip`) but if you're the Russian empire, with 60 provinces and 4 cities each
(Kroeze) Leland, I have shown Most convincingly several times that before ~1900, large cities were the exception , not the rule!
(Trip`) that could get... painful
(Trip`) you still alive over there chrispie?
(notLeland) that is why i am not talking about large cities
(chrispie) yes, just letting others argue for a bit

(Trip`) LoL
(Trip`) I always have to be heard

(Kroeze) The Mongols did have ONE city before they conquered China
(Trip`) I don't always have to be right, but I have to be heard
(Trip`)

(chrispie) lol
(notLeland) the first cities in the world had about 10,000 or so citizens, by moderns standards that would have been a small village
(chrispie) good, the first step of wisdom is knowing when you're wrong

(Trip`) I never said I WAS wrong :P
(Trip`) the existance of cities would be based upon the total population of the province though
(chrispie) haha
(Trip`) like leland said, cities of 10,000 were huge in ancient times
(Trip`) now you have that many people within 5 miles of my school
(Kroeze) I produced lists with ALL cities in America before ~1800 with 20,000 or more inhabitants. In North and South America COMBINED there were soem twenty cities
(notLeland) hmm, really?
(Kroeze) I begin to hate cities!
(Trip`) Like I said, the best way to represent the power of cities is to give them more production (pooling of resources and labor)
(Trip`) the rural areas weren't good at producing things on the scale of cities
(Trip`) as stated earlier, most of rural production was geared mainly towards keeping themselves aliev
(Trip`) alive
(Kroeze) Yes, really leland! You should read: the return of the city. I will 'bump' it
(Trip`) as opposed to increasing the industrial might of the country :P
(Trip`) what do you think of that idea Kroeze?
(Trip`) you're the biggest critic of cities, do you think that would be appropriate?
(Kroeze) Which idea, Trip?
(notLeland) ok, but the notion that you have some sort of fixed radius for each city, and they can't access resources outside that radius, seems to indicate that eventually you will have hundreds of little cities, right?
(Trip`) that the benefit of cities is that they can produce goods much faster and efficiently than the rural parts of the province
(chrispie) trip, you're basically saying that rural pop produces nothing, so is useless, making cities the center of everything, ala civ1/2/3
(Trip`) nooooo
(Kroeze) In modern times, cities will be more important, of course. But I would suggest we try to create a game before the Industrial revolution first!
(Trip`) not NOTHING, just not as much
(chrispie) yessss lol
(Trip`) cities will produce, say, 2x as fast as the province can
(Trip`) right Kroeze
(Trip`) we can adapt the game as it moves from time period to time period
(chrispie) no, the don't gain any magic increases, just have more people in a smaller area, so have a bigger workforce, nothing more
(notLeland) hmm, i know i'm probably going in loops, but how do you define the extents of the province outside cities?
(Trip`) well yes
(Trip`) I'm not advocating that JUST because it's a city it can produce more/faster
(Kroeze) I really do not believe that -before Industrialisation- cities produced better. Trade was concentrated there, NOT industry
(Trip`) it's a politically defined border created by the player leland
(Trip`) then how do you suggest we give pre-industrial revolution cities ANY influence?
(Trip`) people gathered in cities for a reason, after all
(Kroeze) Do you all agree about fixed provinces to start with?
(Trip`) fixed?
(notLeland) oaky, then how can anything inside "politically defined" borders produce anything, it's like drawing a circle on a map and saying "these people produce stuff to me now"...
(Trip`) we would have some way of keeping track of the population of an area
(Trip`) if you draw a big circle around a mountain chain, that might very well be a province
(notLeland) hmm, i certainly disagree about fixed provinces
(Trip`) doesn't mean any people live there
(Kroeze) They gathered because of politics. As soon as the political centre moved the polutation moved. An example (actual numbers may be wrong)
(Trip`) how do you propose that we make cities imporant then?
(Kroeze) Rome in 300AD: 600,000 inhabitants. After Constantine has move to Byzantion: ~400: only 300,000 inhabitants in Rome

**Jon Shafer** · May 12, 2002, 18:31

(Trip`) hey, there's a show about the great wonders of the world on the History channel :P
(notLeland) hmm, but if you just say to folks "now, i am taxing you this and this much grain each year", the people in that province have to have some place where they send the grain, i.e. the province capital (or another city). In effect, it is the city that gets the surplus of the province, and for all intents and purposes the province belongs to the city...
(Kroeze) I am sorry Leland. fixed provinces would make things so much easier
(notLeland) i guess i just find the notion of dynamic provinces very appealing

(Kroeze) Why is ti important ot know where the grain actually is? I would say it is sufficient to know it is IN the province
(Trip`) that's right leland, but we're representing the rural parts of the province through the provincial capital
(Trip`) I agree with Kroeze
(Trip`) specifying specific warehouses and treasuries for each city would be great
(notLeland) fixed provinces don't scale very well from ancient Mesopotamia to Soviet Union
(Trip`) but it's just too complicated in my opinion
(Trip`) I don't think provincial borders should be fixed
(Trip`) the player should be able to define them
(Kroeze) I am not against changing borders in principle. But GGS has suffered greatly because it became MORe and MORE complicated. Then one by oen everyone abandoend the projct
* chrispie pops head up, agrees with Kroeze, and pops it back down again

(notLeland) well, since i am officially now out of the project don't make the mistake of listening to me

... but the dynamic provinces have been one of the main features of ggs in my mind since the beginning
(Kroeze) I have always advocated realism and depth, but the result has not been game that can be played . NOTHING has been accomplished, though we have produced some excelent ideas
(Trip`) that's only because people aren't producing :P
(chrispie) no, that's because people don't know what to produce largely
* Trip` shakes his head
(Trip`) that's quite a pity though
(Kroeze) When you have many SMALL provinces with fixed borders you can still change borders: by conquering an entire province!
(Trip`) starting the game is always the hardest part, I must admit
(notLeland) kroeze: if the idea is to reduce micromanagement, you'd have to have some notion of "super province" that you can use if you have hundreds of little provinces under your control... and we're back in square one
(Kroeze) Yet I believe it is not impossible to create a game. I guess that when Amjayee ever returns to the project, some thing will grow out of it
(Trip`) it's not
(Trip`) I've made about 5 or so on my own
(Trip`) designed, programmed, graphics
(Trip`) you just need to get people working on something, and working together
*** uberkrux has joined #GGS
(chrispie) hey uber
(Trip`) amjayee will be here sometime later
(uberkrux) hey
(Trip`) in about 40 minutes I believe
(Trip`) hey uberkrux
(notLeland) hello
(Kroeze) Hello, Uberkrux! We are discussing provinces, borders and cities at the moment
(uberkrux) sorry i'm a little late, and i cant stay for long, Physics test tomorrow

(uberkrux) alright
(Trip`) that's when the physics test is?
(Trip`) good luck
(chrispie) our big problem as been a lack of a good deciscion making process, we rarely seem to come to conclusions, and when we do, they usually get changed afterwards
(Trip`) I got my chem test on thursday
(uberkrux) the AP test is tuesday
(uberkrux) but i have a practice one tomorrow
(uberkrux)

(Trip`) oohhhh
(Trip`) okay
(Trip`) well that's why we're here chrispie
(Trip`) we're trying to decide on stuff so it can be implimented later on
(Kroeze) You can reduce micromanagement in many different ways. Why would governing a province be extremely complicated?
(Kroeze) In Diplo or RISK provinces are completely content!
(notLeland) if it's simple, then the beginning of game when you have one province it is going to be rather boring
(Trip`) but that's because they're board games
(notLeland) if it's complex, then the endgame becomes tedious due to large number of provinces
(Trip`) like I said
(notLeland) as in civ clones
(Trip`) there should be an option
(Kroeze) I agree with Chrispie about decision making. In my view that was our true problem
(uberkrux) Kroeze: what do you mean by managing provinces though, do you mean a Public Works system ala CTP?
(Trip`) that you can run things through cities or through the province
(Trip`) depending on how far into the game you want to get
(uberkrux) or the city build orders themselves
(Kroeze) Why are you sure about being boring? The game doesn't exist yet!
(uberkrux) because i advocated provinces / city classes in civ3 for "build types"
(Trip`) look at civ 3
(notLeland) hmm, there's the problem that if micromanaging cities has advantage over managing provinces, then the masochist players who micromanage everything will have an advantage
(Trip`) what do you do for 1000 besides hit enter :P
(uberkrux) whereas you could specify a city as a "science city", "war city" etc
(uberkrux) and they would build thigns accordign to a template
(Trip`) in this game things are more "province-oriented" than city oriented though uber
(Trip`) though we're arguing over what the extend of cities' influence should be in the game
(uberkrux) you could turn it into a province on your own
(uberkrux) example
(uberkrux) take continental usa
(notLeland) kroeze: little to do =) boredom. Especially if your neighbour happens to be a multi-continental empire that uses ages to go through his turn
(uberkrux) say ure going to war with canada, take all your north cities and set them to "war"
(Kroeze) The masochist will probably not have the time to micromanage. I also hope that GGS have will not be a GOD-game. I hope you understand what i mean?
(uberkrux) essentially making the north a "war" province
(uberkrux) you could take "city types" and apply them each to one area
(uberkrux) effectievyl makign provinces.
(Trip`) what would that do though uberkrux?
(Trip`) what effect would that have?
(uberkrux) Trip`: it would cut down on giving each city distinct orders
(uberkrux) Trip`: explain what you are trying to do with your provinces
(Kroeze) I have always advocated time that would continuously flow on. Sometimes the game could be boring, but you can do other things
(Trip`) provinces are the basic centers for setting of policies for everything in that province
(notLeland) i'm more of a turn-based advocate myself

(Trip`) before 1900 80% of the population was NOT in cities
(Trip`) real-time games are too tedius
(uberkrux) Trip`: yes, but explain "everything"
(Trip`) tedious
(uberkrux) do you mean build orders? science rates?
(Trip`) which is why I don't like EU
(Trip`) taxation
(uberkrux) publid works?
(Trip`) production of certain goods or equipment
(Kroeze) In Diplomacy winning is more enjoyable than losing. Having ten units is more fun that just two. It is impossible to make everyone happy all the time
(Trip`) concentrations of these goods (warehouse or treasury)
(uberkrux) yes, so my idea is concurrent with yours
(uberkrux) what do you mean concentration of goods
(uberkrux) you mean, like you build wheels for chariots? and store them?
(Trip`) yes
(Trip`) and they're concentrated in a province's capital
(chrispie) well, I gotta go now, can someone post the rest of the log plz?
(Kroeze) We agreed -more or less- on a recruitment system
(uberkrux) Trip`: you seem to be makign more micromanagement
(Trip`) okay
(Trip`) see you chrispie
(Trip`) glad you came by
(Kroeze) By Chrispie!
(notLeland) having a hundred units in diplomacy variant (provided there's enough provinces...) is not such a joy, i would suspect
(notLeland) bye
(chrispie) good to speak to y/all, lets do it again soon
(Trip`) sure thing
(Trip`) as long as people show up
(Trip`)

(chrispie)

bye then
*** chrispie has left #GGS
(Trip`) what do you mean making more micromanagement uberkrux?
(Kroeze) You wouldn't be forced to use all units
(uberkrux) Trip`: well if you have to build components of the units
(uberkrux) Trip`: it's like a space race for each unit
(Trip`) well, not that specific
(Trip`) you can build "chariot equipment, food, clothing, etc."
(Trip`) that kind of stuff
(uberkrux) Trip`: say you want to build 1 tank
(uberkrux) Trip`: in province "a"
(uberkrux) what would province "a" have to do
(Trip`) I meant that things are concentrated in a province capital, not that you have to produce each component seperately
(Kroeze) The idea of recruitment: most weapons are already there. One only needs to recruit soldiers and pay and feed them.
(notLeland) why would you want to build just one tank?
(Trip`) province "a" would build a tank
(uberkrux) just to be simple
(uberkrux) so i can understand
(Trip`) then you would recruit 4 people from your city to run it
(Trip`) and there you go
(Trip`) you have a tank
(Trip`) right Kroeze
(uberkrux) so you would assign province "a" orders to build a tank
(Trip`) you wouldn't leland
(uberkrux) with 4 people on that job?
(Trip`) but that would be the basic premise
(Trip`) nooo
(Trip`) to make a useable TANK unit
(uberkrux) yes
(Trip`) you'd have to take 4 people from your province
(Trip`) and use them to drive around your tank
(Trip`) otherwise, you can't use it
(uberkrux) alright
(uberkrux) that makes sense i suppose
(uberkrux) so each unit has several prerequsites
(uberkrux) people, components, etc
(Kroeze) You can even make it simpler: MOBOLISE in province Q!
(Trip`) and production of the "tank equipment" would be handled however it was handled within the province production
(Trip`) yes
(uberkrux) so theres no inter-province building?
(uberkrux) like if i wanted one province to only build equipment
(uberkrux) and the other to supply pop
(Kroeze) You still there, leland?
(Trip`) well yes
(Trip`) you'd just have a "tank equipment"
(Trip`) you could move that wherever you want
(notLeland) after a fashion
(Trip`) then you could recruit 4 guys to drive it where ever you put the thing
(Kroeze) Is it necessary for a game to be very exciting all the time?
(Trip`) you could build, say 10 tanks in Province "A", then move it to Province "B", then recruit 40 guys from Province "B" and then you have 10 tanks in Province "B"
(uberkrux) Trip`: so you dont ASSIGN a province to build "tank equipment", you tell the entire empire you want a tank, and tell what provinces to do what part?
(Trip`) no no
(Kroeze) I always hoped one of the important features would be that there are several different problems for every player
(Trip`) you're correct with the former idea
(Trip`) you tell a province to build "tank equipment"
(uberkrux) ok then.
(Trip`) and then once it's made, you do what you want with it
(uberkrux) how do you move it
(uberkrux) from "a" to "b"
* Trip` shrugs
(Kroeze) War is just one aspect of GGS
(Trip`) you just tell a province to transport it from one to another
(Trip`) that's beyond the scope of what we're doing right now though
(notLeland) i'd say that the problem with increasing number of provinces is that the tedium of managing all of them is not a temporary condition, but rather inevitable when the game progresses
(uberkrux) Kroeze: understood. but as a war monger i like to think in terms of wat
(uberkrux) Trip`: what does a province consist of
(uberkrux) Trip`: because i am assuming it is varioous cities, and i'm probably wrong
(Kroeze) But everyone is free to decide whether he wants to micromanage or not....
(Trip`) a province represents the rural population of a certain defined area, and a capital to govern that area
(Trip`) it has a treasury to hold money, and a warehouse to hold goods
(Trip`) within that province may be a few cities
(notLeland) actually, those who decide not to micromanage like crazy will be at a disadvantage
(Trip`) whose purpose we haven't exactly determined yet :P
(Kroeze) I played Colonial Diplomacy on an other map. It is not equal to the original game, but still interesting
(uberkrux) Trip`: i'm trying to relate this to civ terms, so i may be confused on several ideas
(Trip`) okay
(Trip`) well, we're trying to improve a lot upon civ
(Trip`) the ideas that cities were all that mattered is very incorrect
(uberkrux) say i have 6 cities, names 1,2,3,4,5,6
(uberkrux) and want 1 and 2 to be in one province
(Trip`) as I stated earlier, until 1900, up to 80% of the population of a province would be rural
(Trip`) and NOT in cities
(uberkrux) and the rest to be in another
(Kroeze) How can you be sure, leland, when we have NO game to play at all!
(Trip`) well, the player actually sets each hex to be part of a certain province
(uberkrux) oh, alright
(notLeland) it's a potential pitfall... and it is a known problem in civ
(uberkrux) are there limits on them?
(Trip`) and if you determine a certain city hex to be in 1 province, then its in that 1 province
(Trip`) limits on what?
(uberkrux) like, a certan distance from a city
(Kroeze) Here we disagree! I prefer fixed provinces, because that is far more simple
(Trip`) we haven't determined that quite yet
(uberkrux) Kroeze: how would you determine a fixed province
(Trip`) but there obviously must be some limit
(notLeland) yes, fixed provinces are more simple, but i feel that they cannot be adequately used for a game that spans the whole human history
(uberkrux) so, in short, Provinces are groups of cities and thr rural areas between them
(Kroeze) You can make the game itself decide about provinces. It makes sense to follow geography. Borders generally follow mountain chains
(Trip`) basically
(uberkrux) alright
(Trip`) but there is much more emphasis upon the actual province itself, than the cities within it
(Trip`) representing the majority of the population being rural
(notLeland) what is once a geographical obstacle may not be such if technology advances
(uberkrux) and is the net production of a province dependent on the sum of the cities?
(uberkrux) or what?
(Trip`) we're not sure
(Trip`) but I don't believe that much empahsis is on cities though
(uberkrux) so theres no longer a civ-esque "tile working" system?
(Trip`) right now, the way things are, cities have no purpose but defensive locations
(Trip`) we're going to discuss that again in a bit I believe
(Kroeze) Leland, I am really surprised. You are so certain about things that do NOT exits yet
(Trip`) no no, no tiles and all that crap
(uberkrux) Trip`: dont believe it should be? or dont believe it is right now?
(Kroeze) I like hexes, most agreed about this
(Trip`) yes
(Trip`) hexes are good
(Trip`) what's that uberkrux?
(Kroeze) Why no tiles?
(Trip`) I mean that production of each tile being related to the city and what it can produce and all taht
(Trip`) that
(notLeland) the micromanagement problem _does_ exists, in civ clones... i've been playing a lot of Alpha Centauri recently, and i'm terribly frustrated that near the end of the game i have a million cities and units to control
(uberkrux) notLeland: how would you solve the units
(Trip`) armies
(Trip`) all units are either armies or garrisons
(Trip`) garrisons can't move
(Kroeze) hexes are also tiles, isn't it? But the city structure of Civ -moving workers, which is complete nonsense- should be abandoned
(uberkrux) notLeland: because as a warmonger i demand total control of them.
(Trip`) armies are composed of individual tanks, soldiers, etc.
(Trip`) correct Kroeze
(uberkrux) Kroeze: so each province would have a public works system?
(uberkrux) ala CTP?
(Trip`) armies are much more historically accurate
(Kroeze) Uberkrux: then we two we NEVER agree. I hate GOD-games
(notLeland) my idealized goal for units, provinces and pretty much everything is that their number doesn't grow exponentially
(uberkrux) define GOD games please

(notLeland) when your civilization progresses, your units should become more powerful instead of just becoming more numerous
(Trip`) god games = you control EVERYTHING
(notLeland) yup
(Kroeze) Where the player is GOD and where the population has no will of its own
(Trip`) you should read my politics model
(Trip`) I think that solves that problem quite nicely
(Trip`) you simply factor in things that would make the people happy, or make them angry
(Trip`) and once you get to a certain point, they revolt and you're screwed
(Trip`) after all, as the leader you CAN do whatever you want
(Trip`) but the people may get upset
(uberkrux) Kroeze: but in many times, the leader WAS god-like
(Trip`) it should also depend on the government type
(Kroeze) Leland, is a Civ game on a large map necessarily more boring than on a small map?
(notLeland) (just for the record, when i say unit i mean an army, for all intents and purposes... unless talking about some other game)
(uberkrux) ie: ancient egypt
(uberkrux) after the APs (wednesday is my last one) i'll have much mroe time to read up on this
(notLeland) civ game on a large map is more boring in the end, but the expansion phase is a bit more interesting than in a cramped map
(Trip`) mine is on thursday :P
(Kroeze) Uberkrux, i am sorry to correct you but ancient rulers actually didnt have much power. Roosevelt was far MORE powerful than Louis XIV
(uberkrux) notLeland: i concur
(uberkrux) Kroeze: FDR or Teddy?
(Trip`) Kroeze that is due to the fact that the aristocrats held much power
(Trip`) that will be represented in the game
(Trip`) based upon government type
(uberkrux) gl
(notLeland) anyway, about fixed provinces, if they are used then are tiles needed at all?
(Kroeze) I meant FDR, but even Teddy had MORE power that Louis. Technology and communication has enlarged the power of rulers enormously. It took a month to travel from the north of France to the south!
(uberkrux) Kroeze: understood
(Kroeze) Louis claimed to be Absolute monarch. He couldn't (in practice) rule without the support of most aristocrats
(Trip`) which will be represented through the monarchy-type gov.
(Trip`) you can do what you want
(Trip`) but you may instantly make the aristocrats very angry
(Trip`) and then you're in trouble
(Kroeze) I think tiles will be needed because of terrain
(Trip`) either that, or they may just not obey your orders
(Kroeze) Precisely Trip!
(Trip`) glad we agree

(Trip`) that's how the game will work
(Kroeze) You could issue orders that are not obeyed
(Trip`) or you could get around that
(Trip`) go and tell the little lower class what to do
(Trip`) and ignore the aristocrats (which will make them mad)
(Kroeze) So acting like a dictator -waging war, heavy taxation- is dangerous!
(Trip`) exactly
(Trip`) that's how the game will be
(Trip`) this may be a god game
(Trip`) but the god is subject to his worshipers

(notLeland) kroeze: if tiles are needed for terrain, and terrain defines provinces, then using fixed provinces should in theory be even simpler if you just ignore the tiles altogether, and make the whole province of a single terrain type
(Kroeze) Please react to my remark about tiles because of terrain
(Trip`) what's the deal with fixed VS dynamic provinces?

**Jon Shafer** · May 12, 2002, 18:32

(Trip`) what exactly are you advocating?
(notLeland) me? i am fascinated by the idea that the provinces could dynamically change during the game, kind of a like a board game where you keep drawing the board while playing
(Kroeze) Leland, I wouldn't object in principle. Try to convince the others!
(Kroeze) How to represent a mountain chain?
(Trip`) well obviously province borders can change
(uberkrux) so, early on (say feudal) you're saying the player shouldnt have absolute control of his provinces?
(Trip`) either by expansion (determined by the leader which hexes are part of which provinces), and peace treaties (where both leaders draw new borders)
(Trip`) yes, uberkrux
(Trip`) it all depends on the type of people who have power, and the governemnt
(uberkrux) that local authorities may have more influence than the player himself?
(Trip`) as well as technology making people more aware of their world
(Kroeze) Yes, uberkrux. From the beginning it was agreed upon that GGS would NEVER be a GOD-game
(notLeland) if province borders can change, then they are not "fixed provinces" by any stretch of the word...
(Trip`) your will is carried out by your subjects
(Trip`) the more loyal you can make them (by paying more)
(Trip`) the more they will be willing to help and obey you
(Trip`) clearly leland
(uberkrux) but thats pure capitialism
(uberkrux) what about communists
(Trip`) those are the 2 ways that I think borders should change
(Kroeze) Why are you so eager to have changing provinces. I am certain it has caused many problems
(Trip`) it won't be all that hard to impliment
(Trip`) what do you mean uberkrux?
(notLeland) kroeze: a mountain range could either be a (fixed) province of its own, or a restricting border between two (fixed) provinces
(uberkrux) your will is carried out by your subjects the more loyal you can make them (by paying more)the more they will be willing to help and obey you
(uberkrux) communism isnt about paying your subjects more
(Trip`) ideal communism
(Kroeze) Could we please stop discussion about borders? I really think we should create a game and that try to make ti possible to change borders
(Trip`) do you think most communists simply do what they do because people tell them?
(Trip`) "go kill your family and everyone in your village"
(Trip`) "okay"
(Kroeze) Leland: you should play Pax Britannica!
(uberkrux) communists do what they must for the betterment of society
(Trip`) ideal communism
(Trip`) not human communism
(uberkrux) they must accept the will of the society as their own will.
(uberkrux) no, its human communism
(uberkrux) you just have to kill those who dont want ot be part of the society
(Trip`) do you think what Stalin did he did for the betterment of society?
(uberkrux) anyway, i have to go for a bit more studying
(uberkrux) no
(Kroeze) Pax is another game -Colonial area- with fixed provinces, no tiles. Still a good game, though inferior to Diplomacy in my opinion
(notLeland) sorry, didn't mean to rant abotu borders, just responding to questions posed

i think that you may do whatver you want with your game, and i will be out regardless of how provinces are implemented
(uberkrux) i'm leaving this IRC thing open so i get the logs
(uberkrux) see you later people

*** uberkrux is now known as UberKruX`
(Trip`) do you think Ho Chi Min in Vietnam tried to conquer South Vietnam for the purpose of spreading ideal society?
*** UberKruX` is now known as KruX`Away
(KruX`Away) yes i do
(Kroeze) Leland, I didn't intend to offend you!
(KruX`Away) later
(Kroeze) Bye!
*** VetLegion has joined #GGS
(Trip`) hey, welcome back VetLegion
(VetLegion) thanks
(Trip`) amjayee should be around soon hopefully
(notLeland) no offense taken... i was just serachign stuff on pax britannica on google...
(VetLegion) o hi LelAND

(VetLegion) damn caps :P
(Trip`) okay
(Kroeze) I am glad. My position: I have never objected to changing borders, but I feel it is most important to create an actul game that can be played
(notLeland) hmm, how many provinces do you control in the beginning of pax britannica? (i don't know any of the rules, i'm just looking at some map graphics, so my question may be dumb...)
(VetLegion) I was disconnected by ISP dang him
(Trip`) poor Vet :P
* Trip` cries for him
(Kroeze) Hi VetLegion!
(Trip`) okay
(Trip`) I think we've determined that there should NOT be fixed borders as long as the game remains fun and playable, correct?
(Kroeze) Pax was just an example of another game with fixed provinces which is still interesting. Republic of Rome is another example
(Kroeze) IF playable, I do not object
(Trip`) okay tehn
(Trip`) then
(Trip`) I'll work on that then
(Trip`) and we can discuss at a later meeting whether it would be feasible
(Trip`) so what should be the next topic of discussion? I think we should determine the significance of cities
(Kroeze) I believe the Napoleon game HAS fixed borders
(notLeland) i have no doubts that you can make an interesting game with fixed provinces, but dynamic provinces is one way to cope with the change of scale that is inevitable in a civilization-spanning game
*** VetLegion has quit IRC (Ping timeout )
(notLeland) if you start your game from a hut in the middle of a desert and end it in a One World Gorvernment, there's going to be a *big* difference in scale
(Kroeze) When Rise and Fall would be implemented this problem would be less severe
(Kroeze) Rise and Fall has always been one of my favourite ideas. It is compatible with an independent population .During a revolt some provinces will revolt, but not necessarily ALL
(notLeland) but there's nevertheless a big difference between the beginning and the end
(Trip`) I agree with leland
(Trip`) for games based around a specific time period, fixed borders makes sense
(Trip`) however, when you're building a civ from scratch, and going through thousands of years of history, things can, did, and SHOULD change
(Kroeze) I agree. I think we should concentrate on pre-Industrial society first. That would be complicated enough
(Trip`) as long as the game remains playable, which I believe it can
*** VetLegion has joined #GGS
(Kroeze) In my opinion the map is still the first that should be created
(notLeland) that belief has crumbled from me, sadly :P
(VetLegion) dang thing
(Trip`) LoL wb Vet
(Trip`) correct Kroeze
(Kroeze) Which belief?
(VetLegion) who is Krux away? Uberkrux?
(Trip`) I'll come up with a design for how it will work over the week and we can discuss it at the next meeting
(Trip`) yes
(Kroeze) Uber Krux is new; he has left
(Trip`) I think not enough groundwork has been laid yet to discuss the map in depth
(notLeland) belief referring to trip's remark: "as long as the game remains playable, which I believe it can"
(Kroeze) I prefer when you also post on the Forum. I cannot reread this
(Trip`) LoL okay
(Trip`) I'll put it up there also
(notLeland) and i will vanish like a ghost and never to be seen again

(VetLegion) ooo Trip, there has been quite some discussion about map =)
(Trip`) yeah yeah yeah :P
(VetLegion) hey dont dissapear Leland

(Kroeze) Thank you! I will bump some threads that -in my view- are important. I hope you have read the design doc threads?
(Trip`) yes, but from what's been said already, it seems everything has gone back to step 1
(Trip`) not yet, I haven't had time lately
(notLeland) sorry, i have already disappeared
(Trip`) he's given up on us :P
(Trip`) so we're going to finish this thing and shame him
(VetLegion) really?
(notLeland) pretty much
(VetLegion) but I understand the feeling
(Trip`) okay
(Trip`) as I stated earlier, what should we discuss now
(Kroeze) The more surprising you are here. Hurray!
(Trip`) I think we should come up with a purpose for having cities besides a spot of color on the map
(Trip`) we came to the conclusion that provinces should be more important
(Trip`) but there should be SOME benefits of having cities
(Kroeze) When we have tiles
(notLeland) i still stand by my opinion, that cities (or smaller towns) should be some sort of underlying network where everything is pooled, even if all of them wouldn't be shown to the player
(Kroeze) Again: cities will be often arise spontaneously
(notLeland) agreed
(Trip`) correct
(Trip`) how do you think we could reasonably impliment that leland?
(Trip`) clearly having a warehouse for every city would be tedious later in the game
(Trip`) as you clearly stated earlier
(Kroeze) Leland, you almost seem to be a bit stubborn. This would enlarge micromanagement
(notLeland) i think that city management should be as automated as possible
(Kroeze) I agree here
(Kroeze) How would you define a city in andient times?
(notLeland) any center of trade, population or government
(Trip`) I think a city should mean a concentration of at least 10% of the population of a province in one tile
(Kroeze) Regardless of population?
(notLeland) for instance, a temporary camp of nomadic peoples would be considered a "city" in my book
(Trip`) of the province? yes
(VetLegion) btw., can someone who was here the whole time post the log on the list later?
(Trip`) I will
(Kroeze) Not in my book. These sort of things do complicate everything. Only during a war would it actually matter where people are exactly
(Trip`) that way later when the population is more concentrated in later times, then there would be more cities
(VetLegion) thanks

(Trip`) but in early times when people are more scattered, there would be fewer cities
(notLeland) hmm, "center of trade" doesn't really imply where people are actually, only where the stuff they produce ends up in
(Trip`) well how do you suggest we define cities, along with how to use them?
(Trip`) I'm interested in how you think we should deal with that issue Kroeze
(Kroeze) I would suggest a minimum of population, perhaps 10,000
(Trip`) what about later on, when provinces may have a population in the millions?
(Trip`) would ever tile have a city?
(notLeland) cities (or towns, a city can be a bit too much for the stuff i have in mind for ancient times) should, in my opinion, be the fabric of how province borders are defined and how resources are pooled exactly
(Kroeze) Could be
(Trip`) ahhhhhh
(Trip`) that's not cool
(notLeland) i am against minimum population, because what is a small population in relatively modern times could have been a huge city in ancient world
(Trip`) if we have cities in every tile, then managing cities seperately in any manner would be impossible
(notLeland) not cool?
(Kroeze) Leland, I do not object, but than we cannot have fixed borders, because sometimes cities will completely disappear
(Trip`) and thereby defeat the purpose of having cities at all
(Trip`) not cool = having a city in every tile
(notLeland) i did not say "every tile", but only because it would ramp up the complexity beyond reasonable computer hardware
(Trip`) fixed borders are uncool as well :\
(Kroeze) When we concentrate on pre-industrial times we can -for the time being-avoid this problem
(Trip`) Kroeze said every tile :\
(Trip`) (Trip`) what about later on, when provinces may have a population in the millions?
(Trip`) (Trip`) would ever tile have a city?
(Trip`) (Kroeze) Could be
(Trip`) O_O
(Trip`) ahhhh
(Trip`) okay
(Trip`) first, we have to come up with a definition for what a "city"
(Trip`) will be in this game
(Kroeze) The real population explosion did occur AFTER the Industrial Revolution
(Trip`) population concentration, or trade hub, or maybe something else?
(notLeland) trade hub sounds good
(Trip`) I think it should be: everything that is not a rural area
(Trip`) cities = centers of commerce and business, correct?
(Trip`) you don't often see many merchants out in the fields do you?
(Kroeze) We once discussed the tiles of the map and then it was suggested the individual tile would be the size of Luxemburg
(Trip`) that makes for a very small map
(Trip`) I think as the population and size of a province increases, then the proportion for the number of cities should increase as well
(notLeland) small map, or small tiles?
(Kroeze) In my view, a tile WITH city will still contain rural population, unless it becomes a Metropolis
(Trip`) but no more than 1 city for every 6 empty rural tiles in each province
(Kroeze) Why?
(Trip`) if there is to be any purpose to having cities besides the tile on the map, then it will require some micromanagement
(Trip`) and having too many cities makes micromanagement very very difficult
(Trip`) also, tiles the size of Luxembourg are waaaaay to large
(Kroeze) It is a world map
(Trip`) still
(notLeland) hmm, how large is luxembourg exactly?
(Kroeze) The memory of computers is limited
(Trip`) europe would be filled with cities and people in very few turns
(Trip`) that would make the Netherlands, or Belgium about 20 tiles
(notLeland) yes?
(Trip`) that would be, what, 1 province?
(Trip`) or 2?
(Kroeze) Luxemburg is 999 square miles
(notLeland) 20 tiles, you can divide that in quite a few provinces in the early game
(Kroeze) I would suggest provinces -on average- the size of Belgium
(Trip`) 20 tiles is only 5 rows of 4
(Trip`) that's hardly ANYTHING
(Trip`) 5x4 isn't much to make more than 1 province out of
(Kroeze) Trip: in 1800 Europe did contain only a hundred and few cities with more than 20,000 inhabitants
(Trip`) I know
(Kroeze) Belgium would be 12 tiles
(Trip`) what if you got stuck playing a country like the Netherlands?
(Trip`) it used to encompass today's netherlands as well as flanders
(notLeland) you better get some colonies

(Trip`) 2 provinces, surrounded by other countries
(Kroeze) governing just one province could be interesting I guess
(Trip`) not very fun to play, if you ask me
(Trip`) :\
(Kroeze) Why?
(Trip`) there's very little to do
(Trip`) you wouldn't have more than, say, 2 armies
(notLeland) i think that the player should control around 20 provinces, *maximum*... even 2-3 should be reasonably interesting
(Trip`) and with a limited population, they would be rather small, as well as what taxes you could collect, what you could produce, etc.
(Kroeze) The games is not just warfare
(Trip`) correct
(Trip`) so what would you do with 1 province when you weren't at war?
(Kroeze) It seems on this issue Leland and I agree more than on previous issues
(notLeland) hmm, i do not think there should be a correlation between the number of provinces and the number of stuff you can produce, i.e. there should be no such things as build queues for provinces
(Trip`) I see the game having to get very complicated in order to provide entertainment with only 1 or 2 provinces
(Trip`) perhaps that's just me
(Trip`) it should be the population that determines what you can produce
(Trip`) but the fewer provinces, the fewer amount of people
(notLeland) someone in the forum once warned against "IRS", infinite region sprawl
(Trip`) well, in most cases
(Kroeze) Trip, you should forget Civ. GGS will have completely different structures
(notLeland) hmm, no, the fewer provinces the *more* people you have per province...
(Trip`) yes, per province
(Trip`) but not overall
(Trip`) not every country has the same population you know :P
(Trip`) that would be like saying... China has 2 billion people spread out across 50 provinces
(notLeland) but in case of netherlands, the population would still be the same regardless of how many provinces it is divided into....
(Trip`) and Luxembourg has 2 billion people scrunched into 1 province
(Kroeze) We will have large deserts without any population and also densely populated areas like the Netherlands
(Trip`) unless you acquired new provinces
(Trip`) sure, you can split up EXISTING provinces into however many you want
(Trip`) or combine them into whatever you want
(Trip`) but if you add NEW territory, or LOSE territory, then things change
(Kroeze) Creating a large empire will not necessarily make you win the game. Large empires tend to fall apart!
(Trip`) true
(Trip`) but there has to be some goal in the game
(VetLegion) I like large empires

(Kroeze) Please read the design doc!
(Trip`) staying the size of Denmark wouldn't be much fun
(Trip`) of course, I like building empires

(VetLegion) I like crushing them :P
(Trip`) I've already read it :P
(Kroeze) Even the Netherlands did create a colonial empire
(notLeland) okay, so if you would expect to grow larger than denmark or netherlands, why is the tile size a problem? it would still be a lot more detailed than any civ clone out there...
(Trip`) well why not make the Netherlands the size of 1 tile then :P
(Trip`) you could still grow right?
(Trip`) :x
(Kroeze) When the idea of Rise and Fall is implemented the way I like it, it will be extremely difficutl to survive at all!
(notLeland) it is more fun to grow from luxemburg to worl power than from netherlands to world power, because there is more growing to do!

(Trip`) that will be played out over a series of many years though
(Kroeze) Hurray, Leland! Hear, hear!
(Trip`) if you're france, and, say you conquer Germany, it shouldn't be that2 turns later everyone revolts and you're out of the game
(notLeland) frankly, the tiles would ideally be as small as possible, but i fear that there's a limit on current computer capacity
(Kroeze) Why not? It is foolish to conquer a hostile population
(Trip`) so why include war in the game then :P
(Trip`) let's just get rid of armies then
(Trip`)

(Kroeze) We also suggested that when your empire is destroyed you could start with another civilisation
(Trip`) why must the game be based off of a map of the entire world?
(Trip`) why not start with something simpler
(Kroeze) Not necessarily, but I would prefer it
(Trip`) what if the map was already full?
(notLeland) i don't know if the rise and fall idea is very realistic after all... i feel that lots of empires crumbled due to incompetence of the rulers rather than by necessity
(Trip`) the fact remains that empires DID rise and fall
(Trip`) not why
(Trip`) and that should be included by whatever means necassary
(Kroeze) Leland, as a historian I can assure you all empires will crumble. The avarage empire lasts about 600 years
(VetLegion) cool stat
(VetLegion) where did you get it?
(Kroeze) Americans do not like this; no offense meant
(notLeland) yes, but would they have crumbled if they were lead by immortal time travellers from 21st century?

* VetLegion shivers at thought of 500 years more of USA

(Trip`) LoL
(Trip`) suckers!@
(Kroeze) I have a rather pessimistic view on human nature
(Trip`) 500 mor years is fine with me
(Trip`) I won't be around then anyways :P
(VetLegion) I think not two empires were alike in history.. so it is difficult to say that it is necessary for an empire to crumble
(Kroeze) Perhaps you might reincarnate
(Trip`) pleasant thought :P
(Kroeze) I guess the oldest kingdom on earth is Britain. It is some1000 years old
* Trip` shrugs
(Trip`) they haven't been dominant that long
(Trip`) only since about mid 1600s until about 1900
(Kroeze) When our game starts in 8000BC -my preference- or in 4000BC like in Civ, it is completely realistic that all empires will crumble
(Trip`) it's obvious that no empire can last more than 1000 years
(Trip`) no matter what
(Kroeze) Before 1600 England was an independent kingdom. It was created by William the Conqueror
(Trip`) yes, but it was not dominant like it was later on
(Kroeze) I didn't spead about being dominant. I meant exist.

**Jon Shafer** · May 12, 2002, 18:33

(Trip`) the the germanic tribes have existed for thousands of years :P
(VetLegion) chinese empire lasted
(VetLegion) still lasts

only government is changed =)
(notLeland) yup
(Trip`) African empires have lasted for... 10s of thousands of years :P
(Kroeze) The Chinese empire desintegrated and was -usually after a period of division fo some fifty years- reunited agian
(notLeland) i could argue that rome also survived, as vatican...
(notLeland) isn't there a direct connection between the roman emperors and popes?
(Trip`) I'm not quite sure
(Trip`) I think stuff was lost in the dark ages
(Trip`) but anyways
(VetLegion) lol
(Trip`) what else that's important can we discuss?
(Kroeze) There is NO political continuity between the Vatican and the roman empire. The capital was moved to Constantinople. I guess the Roman empire 500BC -1453 has been the longest lasting empire of the entire human history
(VetLegion) in our game we do not need a continuation of govt system to make empire living, just that it is still centalised to one capital
(notLeland) ok, thanks for the correction
(Trip`) grrrr
(Trip`) amjayee is online on the forum
(Trip`) but he's not in here ):\
(Kroeze) He should come here
(Trip`) I sent him a PM
(VetLegion) so russia could still be called a sucessful empire, although rulers are not very smart
(Trip`) I think the rise and fall of empires relates more to countries becoming incredibly dominant in the world
(Trip`) as Rome was from 100BC until about 300 or 400AD
(Trip`) Britain in the early industrial age
(Trip`) America now
(Trip`) etc. that kind of thing
(VetLegion) you are right
(Trip`) not just a country EXISTING
(Trip`) but it being a dominant power in the world
(Kroeze) There is a difference between revolution and conquest. Cromwell toppled the monarchy, yet the British empire remained. William the conqueror destroyed the previous Germanic monarchy and replaced it by a French state. Actual egland is a French procuct!
(VetLegion) yes
(Trip`) Germany is the product of Otto Von Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm I :P
(Kroeze) Rise and Fall relates both to dominance AND existence itself
(Trip`) at the expense of Franc
(Trip`) France
(Trip`) haha
(Trip`) I find that funny that France is the reason Germany came to exist
(VetLegion) hmm..
(Trip`) well, yes, but Kroeze it's more related to dominance
(Kroeze) To both
(Trip`) most countries still exist as they did
(Trip`) perhaps changed in many ways, but they still exist
(Kroeze) NOOOO!
(VetLegion) dominance is not easy to define
(Trip`) the people of Italy are the descendants of the people of the great Roman empire
(Kroeze) the land does exist. Try to give ONE example
(VetLegion) USA is not teritorialy dominant for example
(Trip`) nobody simply eliminated the Roman people COMPLETELY, and transplanted a new people there
(Trip`) the Romans still exist as Italy
(Trip`) the Mongols exist as Mongolia
(Kroeze) According to our Design Doc you are the government. The people are an independent actor
(Trip`) much smaller and confined, but they still exist
(Trip`) but you can change your role in the game
(notLeland) i always figured that even if there is a revolution, you are _still_ the government...
(Trip`) the way I see it, if you want a revolution to occur, then you can take on the persona of the leading revolutionary
(Trip`) because it's doubtful that any leader would EVER want to give up power willingly to support a "revolution"
(Kroeze) Not the Roman govenrment; it was moved to constantinople. The last Western Roman empire was replaced by a Germanic chief
(VetLegion) funny how somewhere romans were assimilated, but somewhere they did the assimilation
(VetLegion) I agree with leland, player is above the government
(Kroeze) Conquered people usually intermarry with the conquerors and assimilate them. This happened in china time and agian
(notLeland) hmm, my knowledge of history is a bit fuzzy, but wasn't rome divided in half sometime in the past?
(Trip`) yes
(Trip`) into the Roman Empire and the Byzantine empire
(Kroeze) Vetlegion, do you advocate a GOD-game?
(VetLegion) but it didnt happen in croatia

and did in romania for example
(Trip`) the Byzantines were eventually destroyed by the Ottomans
(notLeland) ok
(Trip`) the Roman Empire turned into the Catholic church
(VetLegion) yes pretty much a god game.. why should game end because of a revolution?
(Trip`) I think your persona should change
(Kroeze) A God-game is compatible with you being the guiding spirit of your people. when you are just the government, your empires ends when the plitiacl structure is demolished
(Trip`) for example, if you want to SUPPORT a revolution, you can take the role of the leading revolutionary
(VetLegion) damn ottomans trashed my country just look at the borders

(Trip`) LoL
(notLeland) i don't think it should... revolutions, unless something done in favour of another player, should just change some things but let the player stick in control
(Trip`) the rest of Europe did a nice job after WWI too
(Kroeze) Did anyone read my remark about Cromwell?
(Trip`) yes, what was your point?
(VetLegion) there were quite many revolutions and coups in history... if we dont allow player to play above therm, then playing time would be pretty short
(Kroeze) This shows the difference between revolution and conquest. By the way I would not object when it would be possibel to become governmnet in exile liek de Gaulle
(Trip`) I think that somehow, the player should represent the ruling power within a country
(notLeland) yes, i think that we all agree on revolutions
(Trip`) beyond the government in some cases
(Trip`) otherwise, if you wanted to actually represent the government, then you could only play for the lifetime of one man
(Kroeze) So when there is a revolution you remian in power. when your country is conquered completely the game ends -though I still like the possibility of becoming government in exile.
(VetLegion) I agree with that
(Kroeze) The government is not just the king.
(Trip`) what if your country became part of another country for beyond eternity?
(VetLegion) I think exiled government could work too.. you could act while you had the funds (And no more taxes, it would run out)
(Trip`) is there still a welsh exiled government now that Britain exists?
(notLeland) hmm, maybe you could be "in exile" just for a limited period of time (like a human lifespan), and then the game ends for good
(VetLegion) they spent the funds and dissapeared

(Trip`) once you're conquered, you're toast
(Kroeze) So when you country is conquered you can make a choice: play with another power or continue as the conquered power
(Trip`) how should we include new players?
(Kroeze) Perhaps the people revolt and restore the Roman empire
(Trip`) once a revolution breaks out will the rebel forces be controlled by the computer until a player elects to take control of them or what?
(VetLegion) forces are always controlled by computer
(Trip`) how can we bring in new players to a game?
(Kroeze) When there is still a player who could claim the govenrmnet of that country he should rule. If there is no such player the first who logs in can rule
(VetLegion) player can only be in their favour or not

(notLeland) i think the player should never control "rebel forces" as opposed to some legitimate army. He either opposes the rebels, or strikes a deal with them.
(Trip`) geeze... VetLegion and notLeland look very similar
(Trip`) LoL :P
(Trip`) what about new countries out of civil war?
(Trip`) how should be handle them?
(Kroeze) There is also the possibility of civil war. The player will be given the choice which part of his empire he will rule
(Trip`) what about the other half?
(VetLegion) yes trip we already talked about this some

(Kroeze) So after 395 -split of Roman empire- not a civil war but still a division of empire- player choose which part he desires to play
(Trip`) then what happens to the other half?
(notLeland) the other half is always "rebels"... even when the player swtiches sides. Kind of 1984esque

(Trip`) does a new player come in and take its place?
(Kroeze) The other parts will be governed by computer, until another 'new' (or old) player takes over
(Trip`) okay
(Trip`) oooo
(Trip`) the lost legions of Varus
(Trip`) I like this show
(Trip`) it's on the history channel
(Trip`) about how 3 Roman legions were brought into a trap by a germanic tribe and destroyd
(Trip`) ending Roman dominance in Germany
(Trip`) but anyways :P
(notLeland) the issue with new players is largely unsettled, i think that new players could be assigned rebellious areas that would otherwise be just controlled by the computer, but there might have to be some negotiation between the players
(Trip`) I think that's fine
(Trip`) until we can refine things later on
(Kroeze) The possiblities are indefinite. Just one exmple: you could organise it this way that players can invest diplomatic influence in non- player controled powers. So the control of such a power woul change over time. Players could form alliances etc.

(VetLegion) heard about those legions... good force, in enemy terrain
(Trip`) yep
(Trip`) 20,000 Romans were brought into a trap
(Kroeze) It seems Leland and i agree at least on thsi issue
(Trip`) perhaps we all do

(Kroeze) There do exist excellent Ciplomacy variant where major power control minor powers in this way
(VetLegion) EU has cool model of relations between minor and major powers
(Kroeze) So the Spanish ally with the clergy in France, trying to influence the central government etc.
(VetLegion) (thr game that is

(Trip`) yes
(VetLegion) agrered with kroeze, many groups will be individual subjects with agendas and alliances
(Trip`) I like the idea that minor countries can actually use diplomacy and raise armies
(Trip`) unlike nearly every other game
(Kroeze) So the Netherlands, having a lot of money, can be most active in international affairs. though they only control a relative small province!
(VetLegion) very true
(Trip`) but how would a player get to the point where having 1 province is fine, and they have a vast overseas trade empire?
(Kroeze) So playing a small power like Venice or the Dutch reopublic might still be interesting
(Trip`) Until Austria or France comes marching through :P
(Trip`) that's when you need allies
(Trip`) and depend on the exiled government aspect of the game
(Trip`) we'll say... if you're country isn't recreated in 50 years you cease to exist
(Kroeze) You have already bought your allies. your trading empire easily pays for it
(Trip`) another thing that will have a large impact on the game is religion and government type
(Trip`) when the first republic of modern times (France) emerged, other countries were worried their ideals would spread to their country and oust them from power
(Kroeze) I wouldn't make a rule about it. Every player can decide for himself. As long as he deems there is a reasonable cahance that te people will restore his rule, he can wait for it.
(Trip`) so there SHOULD be the possibility of the game ending through revolution somehow
(Kroeze) What do you mean?
(Trip`) because when revolutionary ideals spread, the leaders of other countries become VERY involved
(Trip`) For example
(Trip`) EVERY country of Europe attacked the new Republic of France in 1792
(Trip`) for fear of revolution spreading to their country and ousting them from power
(Kroeze) I would suggest having points aquired during the game decide about winning or losing. obviously ruling an empire for a thousand of years would give many points
(Trip`) and France successfully beat off Spain, Britain, Prussia, Austria and Russia
(Trip`) within the span of 2 years
(VetLegion) yeah france under napoleon is amazing
(Trip`) even before Napoleon
(Kroeze) In the case of the French revolution the player would still control France. This is like Cromwell.
(Trip`) France did the impossible up until 1800 even, before Napoleon
(Trip`) true
(Trip`) but there has to be SOME reason for other countries to try and keep things the same
(Kroeze) What does this have for consequences for our game?
(Trip`) otherwise ALL of Europe wouldn't have any reason to attack France
(notLeland) i think the point is that, in game terms, nobody would attack france if revolution does not end the game...
(notLeland) yes
(Trip`) exactly
(Trip`) that's my point
(notLeland) personally, i don't mind... things don't have to follow history to the letter
(Trip`) true, they don't have to
(Trip`) but situations like that would arise
(Trip`) and they SHOULD be accurate as to how leaders in reality would act
(Trip`) for example, in GGS if a revolution in France broke out, and there was a possibility of it spreading to other countries
(Trip`) then in the game as things stand now, no one would care
(Trip`) and they would simply change over to a new government
(Trip`) while in reality, the ruler would want to hold on to power at whatever cost
(VetLegion) not necessarily
(Trip`) so a huge war ensued
(Kroeze) You can always create ways to resemble history. For example: because the aristocracy of France is murdered the aristocracies in other countries 0-who are very influential- insist that their government declare war on revolutionary France
(notLeland) that's a good point
(Trip`) and what if they don't?
(Trip`) then what?
(Trip`) who cares?
(Trip`) what if you don't declare war, then what?
(VetLegion) simply french form of govt (republic) was superior to monarchy, smart rulers should want to switch to it
(notLeland) civil unrest, decreased productivity?
(Kroeze) Then the aristocracies become completely unruly and create a civil war. So the government has to make a choice: declare war or lose power!
(Trip`) but that didn't happen though vet
(Kroeze) Forcing decisions on players make games interesting!
(Trip`) because that would mean them LOSING power
(Trip`) it would be better for the country
(Trip`) but they aren't playing Civ III
(Trip`) they're king, and they want control
(notLeland) i still do not see this is a problem, the game history will play out very differently from real history due to different motivation of the leaders
(VetLegion) you can choose level of controll you want, different forms of govt have different levels... it is NOT the point that the player has absolute control
(Kroeze) I agree with Leland, but i am very sure it is possible to have pressure on players forcing them to make decisions AGAINST their own wishes!
(Kroeze) I detest GOD-games
(notLeland) ys, but for example reform into more advanced forms of government would be what every player would strive for, rather than avoid like the real leaders
(Kroeze) Most wars started against the will of the government!
(Trip`) as long as that can be simulted realisticly
(VetLegion) agree with leland, motivation is key here, historical rulers were usualy short-sighted idiots

(Trip`) the players could declare war, but they don't HAVE to fight
(VetLegion) Kroeze, if our game lasts more then 70 years in game time, it is a GOD game you want it or not
(Trip`) and it's a GOD game no matter what, unless revolution doesn't matter
(Kroeze) But we all agreed that a revolution should NOT be a smooth transition of power as in Civ. Even when the final result would be better, the period in between would be highly uncertain. Imagine a revolution while the British empire is waging wr on you1
(VetLegion) I agree, revolution should be expensive
(Kroeze) GOD-game = complete control, no independent population
(Trip`) as long as there's a bigger effect than in the Civ games
(VetLegion) ah, ok
(Trip`) "poof" okay, we're a republic now
(Trip`) I can do what I wish
(Trip`) even though it is a REPUBLIC
(Kroeze) Imagine the risk of a civil war. Your empires splits in two! You would not be certain which part will in the end prevail!
(notLeland) i think it would be more like "poof" i have angry aristocracy and less control over my kingdom... it's not even a kingdom anymore :O
(Trip`) what if your side doesn't prevail?
(VetLegion) if you start a revolution you better be sure it suceeds, if it isnt 'yours' you better be sure it doesnt happen at all

(Kroeze) By forcing choice on the player AND making the outcome of every choice uncertain, the game become really interesting
(notLeland) i think in a civil war your side should _always_ prevail for the simple reason that you can pick whichever side happens to win
(VetLegion)

)
(Kroeze) Here I do not agree with Leland
(Trip`) me either
(VetLegion) I do =)
(Kroeze) Trip, what do you mean?
(Trip`) I feel that SOMEHOW there must be a great risk in going through civil war
(Kroeze) Exactly!
(Trip`) a risk even that your game will end
(Trip`) you should pick a side
(Trip`) and if that side wins, you continue
(Trip`) if it doesn't...
(Trip`) you see what I mean?
(Kroeze) Some civil wars were NEVER resolved. Korea
(Trip`) You have an option to pick which side you think will win
(Trip`) but if you pick wrong
(Trip`) there should be ramifications

**Jon Shafer** · May 12, 2002, 18:34

(notLeland) I still disagree, civil war has a negative effect on almost anything, but i do not see why it should be a game-ending condition
(Kroeze) I think Trip and I agree. Let's hope the player makes an intelligent choice
(VetLegion) korea didnt start a s a vivil war
(Trip`) what is a politcal revolution?
(Trip`) why does a civil war happen?
(Kroeze) As a result of a civil war Korea was split in North and south
(notLeland) suppose you're the tsar Nikolai II (if my memory isn't failing me...), and you have a bunch of bolshevik rebels on your hand...
(Kroeze) I think both the player AND the game itself could create a revolution
(notLeland) the options are either to figth the bolsheviks, or make a deal with them
(Trip`) someone needs to read my politics model!
(Trip`) this is all already in it!
(VetLegion)

(Trip`) EXACTLY that leland
(notLeland) if you fight, then you lose men, you get lots of dissatisfied folks, and all in all things are worse, but at least there's a fighting chance of winning
(Trip`) it's even called an "Agreement Pact"
(Trip`) but if you lose, should you really be able to take over the country as the Bolsheviks?
(notLeland) if you give in to the demands, you get no civil war, but you are forced to make some changes like switching into communism
(Trip`) the very people you just fought to avoid their control?
(notLeland) yes, you would
(Kroeze) Civil wars are very interesting anyway, because it also gives other powers the possibility to intervene.
(Kroeze) I still disagree
(Trip`) I agree with Kroeze
(Trip`) your persona represents what you believe
(notLeland) if you decided to fight the bolsheviks, there is obviously some reason... for example, your old allies abandoning you
(VetLegion) two on two here as I agree with leland

(Trip`) if you think it's time for Communism to come, then you side with the Bolsheviks and fight the nationalists
(Kroeze) Let's think about it and discuss somethin else
(Trip`) if you care THAT much to keep the same power structure, there should be a penalty for losing
(notLeland) if you fight and loose, you get both the negative effects of civil war, _and_ the negative effects that you tried to avoid by fighting
(Trip`) more than just "civil unrest and lots of upset people"
(Kroeze) Players will be eliminated anyway sooner or later....
(Trip`) there was a revolution because the people were angry at how YOU WERE GOVERNING THE COUNTRY
(Trip`) you could simply run it the exact same was a before
(Trip`) and if you did, there would be another revolution
(Trip`) and you would run it the same way
(Trip`) and another
(Trip`) and another
(notLeland) hmm, no, there would always be the conservatives who are angry _after_ the revolution
(VetLegion)

that is why you should not have a body
(Trip`) if you kept ahold on how things were going, then there wouldn't BE a revolution at all
(notLeland) the key is, that the angry folks after the revolution should be less numerous or less powerful than before, so you can carry on business as usual
(Kroeze) Let's move to another subject, we will not agree today
(Kroeze) Why do you not want a round map, Trip?
(Trip`) one more thing
(Trip`) (and I do want a round map, just not a 3D one)
(Trip`) I feel that if you are always to remain in control
(notLeland) round, non-3d map? how would you do that?
(Kroeze) But you can move to the north pole?
(Trip`) then you should ALWAYS represent the controlling government
(Trip`) and NOT the rebels
(Trip`) the north pole on one side of the map connects with the north pole on the other side of the map
(Trip`) the map would be continuous on all sides
(Kroeze) During a civil war there is NOT ONE controling government. During a civil war no one knows who will win, nor how long the civil war lasts. My country is the result of a civil war. It still exists!
(notLeland) hmm, that's what i've been saying... you are never the rebels. If the rebels make a successful coup, you are just forced to do whatever they demand.
(Trip`) I mean the player should retain the former controlling government
(Kroeze) Who is the original government: Belgium or the Netherlands?
(Trip`) civil war will rip up the countryside to no recognition
(VetLegion) government=controlling body -) during a coup, revolution and civil war thay may not be a body in full controll of the entire land
(Trip`) you, as the failing leader will PAY when you regain control of your country as either the new governemnt, or the remaining government with a torn-up country
(Kroeze) IF you ever regain control.....
(Trip`) that is the only way to allow for the rise and fall of civs
(Trip`) once your country is ripped up, provinces will revolt and form new countries
(Trip`) or other countries may come in and pick off pieces of you
(notLeland) yes, you will pay: you have to give in to the rebels' demands, and you get a lot of angry coservatives
(Trip`) unless they behead you :P
(Kroeze) In 843 the empire of Charlemagne was split, which part was the TRUE government?
(Trip`) the only way to make everyone happy here is to have control of the previous government
(VetLegion) not every civil war ends in a split. if it does it is clear that there are new countries
(notLeland) you can't behead an abstract entity (which i think the player is)
(Trip`) no
(Trip`) there should be 3 outcomes to a civil war
* KruX`Away returns for a bit
(VetLegion) which one you controll, most likely the part with your capital city
*** KruX`Away is now known as UberKruX
(Trip`) 1) the old ruling power is replaced by a new ruling power
(Trip`) 2) the old ruling power remains in control (total victory)
(Kroeze) Sometimes the result would be a partition in three parts. What happens when a part is conquered by a fourth power?
(Trip`) 3) the country is split into 2 parts (no one wins)
(VetLegion) nothing

(Trip`) hey UberKruX
(notLeland) okay, obviously the most intereting scenario is number 3...
(notLeland) interesting
(Trip`) yes
(Trip`) that's how the rise and fall comes in
(Trip`) there's a stalemate
(Trip`) neither side can win
(Trip`) so they make an agreement so as to stop weakening the country
(UberKruX) Trip`: when a civil war begins can the two sides negotiate?
(Trip`) say, for example, this may occur if another country tries to attack the previous government
(Kroeze) Why not?
(Trip`) so the previous government accepts the new government as a new country, and fights of the new power
(Trip`) yes UberKruX
(Trip`) that's in my politics model (that no one reads)
(notLeland) hmm, i am not fond of this idea because then you'd basically have to create a new full-fledged country that is controlled by an AI (if no new player shows up conveniently)
(notLeland) hey, i've read it!

(Trip`) but that's how thing work leland
* Trip` laughs
(Trip`) that's good
(Trip`) at least someone has besides me ;P
(notLeland) yes, that is how things work, but it may be inconvenient in a game
(Trip`) true
(UberKruX) Trip`: how / why does a civil war emerge
(Trip`) I'll just have to design a smart AI
(Kroeze) Trip, I did not read it because most of the issues you raised have been discusse aextensively before AND because the political structure is not a priority
(UberKruX) if its above i'll read it
(Trip`) http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=49315
(Trip`) it's in there :P
(notLeland) perhaps the split could only occur if a new player shows up, and is always negotiated with the existing player as an alternative to continuous state of civil unrest?
(VetLegion) Kroeze: someone occupies a part of an empire, so what? political repercussions on government should be nothing special
(Trip`) I disagree
(Trip`) even if it is harder to code and design
(Trip`) there shouldn't be restrictions on making new countries through civil war
(Trip`) otherwise a country would remain the same size forever
(VetLegion) I agree with trip here
(notLeland) the problem is that you need to come up with a full AI for the new country
(Trip`) unless another power controlled by a human came in and beat it
(Trip`) I can do that leland
(VetLegion) new states should form ehrn cnditions are met
(Kroeze) Leland, when you would read the Design Doc, you would recognise that this consequence was never a problem before. Many consided it an advantage, because new players could always participate
(VetLegion) leland wrote large part od DD

)
(UberKruX) Trip`: but, in theory, nations could split indefinately
(Trip`) as does happen
(Trip`) except that those countries conquer other countries, or re-conquer each other
(Trip`) etc.
(notLeland) yes, i do consider it an advantage, that is why i proposed that a civil war could be ended by giving part of the land to a new player
(Kroeze) And they are conquered again also!
(Kroeze) Joker wrote the first design doc
(notLeland) but what if a new player is not available? We'll either need AI control, or disallow peaceful solution in that case.
(Trip`) AI control then
(Trip`) I can design and code it
(Trip`) I've had a lot of experience writing AIs
(Kroeze) We could always have foreign powers control new-formed countries
(Trip`) ick
(UberKruX) Trip`: wont it be quite taxing on system resources if a 8 player game jumps to 20?
(Trip`) then the other power could control the other country to its own ends
(Trip`) that will be dealt with as things actually start rolling again UberKruX
(Kroeze) And control could change. When the British pay more than the Dutch loyalties will switch
(notLeland) foreign powers controlling one party of a civil war is not very realistic... it's like, if in the american civil war they had made peace, then the Confederacy would fall to the French!
(Trip`) exactly
(Kroeze) It is quite realistic i think
(Trip`) I agree with leland
(Trip`) a newly formed country could become a tool for another country
(Kroeze) It generally is. The american civil war is one of the few good counter-examples
(Kroeze) Korea supports my idea
(Trip`) that's modern times though
(Trip`) the interests of containing communism was the ONLY reason that the countries were supported by larger countries
*** VetLegion has quit IRC (Ping timeout )
(Trip`) in 800 AD few people will care about the containment of communism
(Kroeze) Son when a new player is available he can take over. When on player is available, it sould be an independent AI or all other players compined
(UberKruX) Kroeze: i'd assume an AI
(UberKruX) Kroeze: all the players combined would be horrible
(Trip`) I agree
(UberKruX) Kroeze: PErhaps all nearby players
(Trip`) creating an AI will be much easier and more flexible IMO
(UberKruX) Kroeze: or maybe pieces can defect to nearby nations
(UberKruX) but i would think it annoying to be fighting my civil war
(Trip`) if the nationality is similar to another bordering country, then that is a possibility
(notLeland) i am a bit skeptical about "easier", but it would be a superior solution to have AI controlled civs in the mix

(UberKruX) and have half ofit turn to a friendly nation
(Kroeze) The Dutch revolt: the south supported by spain, the north supported by England and France. The more interesting because France and england didn't often agree about policy
*** VetLegion has joined #GGS
(Trip`) welcome back again Vet :P
(VetLegion) got ping timeout by server
(VetLegion) british rever hates me

(Kroeze) In my view AI is the worst solution
(Trip`) haha
(VetLegion) server grr
(Trip`) AI is the best worst solution
(UberKruX) Kroeze: so you would have it so all the players got a chunk? or only nearby ones?
(notLeland) hmm, why is it the worst solution?
(Trip`) the worst worst solution is allowing an existing country to literally CONTROL every aspect of a new country
(UberKruX) Trip`: i concur
(Trip`) is North Korea's policy controlled by China?
(Kroeze) Because AI are always dumb and because fighting to control a minor power can make every game very exciting!
(UberKruX) new / split nations should be AI controlled
(Trip`) is South Korea's policy controlled by the USA?
(Trip`) but what if that "minor country" ends up more powerful than the original country?
(VetLegion) no they are both sovereighn dictatorships

(Trip`) countries fight for INFLUENCE over a new country
(Kroeze) Perhaps we should play a Diplo variant with minor powers controled by major powers to prove my point
(Trip`) not for CONTROL of the country
(UberKruX) Trip`: that would be hillarious
(Trip`) its a very possible situation
(UberKruX) Trip`: a civil war where the AI half wins

(notLeland) I agree with the point about AI being dumb compared to humans (especially diplomatically), but it is far worse to give chunks to other players with no sensible reason whatsoever... i would rather disallow splits altogether than give the crumbs to other players
(Trip`) when playing over thousands of years
(UberKruX) notLeland: i think it would be better to make it an AI, because most logical humans would see that as a chance to expand their empires
(Kroeze) I do NOT suggest to give every other player a 'chunk'. Players can invest 'money' or political influence to control the government of the new power
(Trip`) exactly
(Trip`) yes Kroeze they can INVEST in the new country
(UberKruX) Kroeze: like european shperes of influence in china?
(Trip`) they shouldn't be allowed to CONTROL it like their own country
(Kroeze) Why not?
(UberKruX) Trip`: well what would a nation get for investing
(notLeland) because it is "GOD-like"

(Trip`) LoL Leland
(Trip`) the people of that new country would support the country that invested in it
(UberKruX) Kroeze: if a nation just declared independence from it's old one, i think it should be independent
(Trip`) and force the controlling AI/Player to suppor the investing country
(Trip`) as well as the player/AI being grateful for the help
(Kroeze) Not at all! The British manipulated many client states. you can always limit the control exercised by foreign powers
(UberKruX) Trip`: so just say american civil war
(UberKruX) I'm the french
(UberKruX) and i invest in the north
(UberKruX) what do i get]
(Trip`) You get America supporting France during the Napoleonic wars against Britain

(Kroeze) I would prefer a human player, but when no one is available....
(Trip`) but that was a bit earlier
(Trip`) the fact is that France DIDNT support the North
(Trip`) they didn't want to support either side
(UberKruX) Trip`: so all i get for givign money is respect/support
(Kroeze) I already gave an example about the dutch revolt (1568)
(Trip`) yep
(Trip`) that's why most countries DON'T just give money away

(UberKruX) personally, i'd declare war on the both of them ^_^
(notLeland) note that having a bad AI is pretty much equal to easy influence of foreign nations...
(Trip`) Kroeze, then countries can support their OWN civil wars
(Trip`) within other countries
(Kroeze) I am sure that the French tried -behind the scenes- to influence decisions!
(Trip`) of course, all countries did
(Trip`) but it didn't have any influence
(Kroeze) How can you be so sure?
(Trip`) European powers were willing to support the South in the American Civil War because they wanted to see the US weakened
(Trip`) when Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation making it a war against slavery
(Trip`) the European powers wouldn't dare get involved in a war for slavery
(Kroeze) I already admitted that the american civil war is one of the few examples that do NOT support my view
(VetLegion) you know a lot of history Trip

(Trip`) history is my favorite subject
(Trip`)

(Kroeze) By the way, it was close: the French would have liked to intervene
(VetLegion) we had some discussion earlier to what extent we need to emulate history... my attitude was that we shouldnt emulate it too much
(Trip`) I still feel that the AI should control new countries until a new human is willing to take over
(Trip`) a limited AI must be created anyways
(UberKruX) why isnt there a readme of somesort within the source code?
(notLeland) yes
(VetLegion) which sourcecode?
(notLeland) there is a source code?
(VetLegion) there is for UI
(notLeland) never seen it myself, so i can't help

(Trip`) besides
(UberKruX) www.chrispie.net/ggs
(Trip`) the game can be expanded for eternity
(Trip`) we have no budget
(Trip`) no time frame
(Trip`) no managers
(Trip`) the AI can be improved until the end of time
(Kroeze) Just one example: who do you think made decisions who should be pope in the 14th century. Quite an imporatn decision
(Trip`) ahhhhh
(Trip`) don't mention religion
(Trip`) that's a completely different topic dealt with in a completely different way
(Trip`) I'll be right back, I'm going to get something to eat
(Kroeze) The pope was also a secular ruler.
*** Trip` is now known as Trip[brb]
*** UberKruX is now known as KruX`Stud
*** KruX`Stud is now known as KruXStudy
(VetLegion) yes, important one
(Trip[brb]) but his main position was that of the leader of the religion
(Trip[brb]) and that's what GAVE him his secular power
(notLeland) if he is a secular ruler, then it would be just another player in game terms...?
(Trip[brb]) brb
(Kroeze) Or: who decided who was king of Poland in the 18th century?
(VetLegion) yep

(VetLegion) only in 1929 was papal position finally settled
(VetLegion) polish aristocracy?
(Kroeze) When a player is available, I would not object to someone controling the Papacy
(VetLegion) in EU, papal states are like any other
(notLeland) otherwise, he'd be a "puppet ruler"... in a word, a kind of AI
(Kroeze) No, the influence of russia was decisive; France had also influence. when Russia and France did not agree you had a problem
(VetLegion) poland used to be powerful, but its own aristocracy was its downfall
(Kroeze) Has any of you ever played a game where major powers compete for the control of minor powers? it seems to me you have made a decision without any experiences with the phenomenon
(notLeland) if we assume that poland is under a player control, i would say that he'd have to choose sides, and most certainly not anger both russia and france
(VetLegion) something about 'veto' of any aristocrate in the parliament, very bad system
(VetLegion) Kroeze: EU is such a game
(Kroeze) I am assuming NO such player is available. You can choose between an boring solution -Polish AI - or an interesting solution
(notLeland) major powers would still be fighting over control of minor powers, regardless of whether they are controlled by AI, humans, or some simple formula
(VetLegion) I _strongly_ recommend you get that game (EU I). I havent played the sequel so I cannot vouch for it
(Kroeze) Perhaps we will reach agreement soem day
(VetLegion) I havent agreed this much with leland since... well never

(Kroeze) I will play EU someday. For the present I do not have sufficient free memory.
(VetLegion) you or the computer? :P
(notLeland) did i mention that i now think my old ideas on population were utter lunacy? :P
(Kroeze) Proboably both.....
(Kroeze) Which old ideas, Leland?
(VetLegion) opinions evolve
(notLeland) nothing specific... just the thing that i lost faith in making it work as smoohtly as i fantasized
(notLeland) anyway, i think i need to go now

**Jon Shafer** · May 12, 2002, 18:34

(VetLegion) me too
(notLeland) trip, have you logged this meeting?
(VetLegion) Trip, be kind to send the log to the list
(notLeland) (oh yes, he'll brb...)
(Kroeze) I still think we desired results too soon. We should try to make something at least, however simple.
(Trip[brb]) okay I'm back
(VetLegion) we will.
(VetLegion) bye
*** Trip[brb] is now known as Trip`
(notLeland) do you have the log trip?
*** VetLegion has quit IRC
(Trip`) yes
(Kroeze) Bye, Leland and VetLegion! Sleep well!
(notLeland) will you post in in the mailing list then?
(notLeland) bye!
(Trip`) sure
(notLeland) okay
(Trip`) I'll post it in the forum also
(Trip`) in case people are too lazy, or not on the list
(Kroeze) I prefer the Forum
(Trip`) exactly :P
(Trip`) that's why I'll post it there
(Trip`) also
(Kroeze) Please send something to Amjayee!
(notLeland) bye then
*** notLeland has left #GGS
(Trip`) alright
(Trip`) I'll see if I can get ahold of elmo as well
(Kroeze) Bye! thanks for joining!
(Trip`) sure thing
(Trip`) see you later
(Trip`) 'Til lata
(Kroeze) Is there some thing urgent to decide now?
(Kroeze) You are still there UberKrux?
(Trip`) nothing I can think of... I just want the programmers to start doing more now
(KruXStudy) yea, sort of
*** KruXStudy is now known as UberKruX
(Trip`) to try and produce something in order to get things moving again
(Kroeze) Is there anything they CAN program?
(Trip`) LoL
(Trip`) we'll see
(Trip`) I'll email them and see if they can get something done in a week
(Kroeze) Thanks a lot for joining! Without you all would end miserably
(UberKruX) if nothing happens i may start my own damn game

(Trip`) haha, no problem

(Trip`) LoL UberKruX
(Trip`) I'm with you

(Kroeze) Joker was also most active once. Joker and I always agreed about everytihing
(Trip`) is he still around?
(Trip`) do you know if you could get ahold of him?
(Kroeze) He plays diplomacy with us
(Trip`) you should try and get him to come to the next meeting
(Kroeze) Amjayee, Leland, Korn and M@ni@c participate in a Diplomacy game
(Trip`) ahhh
(Kroeze) I will try
(Trip`) well try to get everyone together
(Trip`) if we can get everyone at once, then SOMETHING is bound to get done
(Kroeze) Especially Amjayee knows a lot about computers. I can only help with soem historical knowledge
(Trip`) he is a programmer correct?
(Kroeze) I wouldn't object to another meeting.
(Trip`) I'll make a post telling about one in a week next sunday
(Kroeze) To my knowledge Amjayee is. I am not 100% sure
(Trip`) alright, good
(Trip`) what we really need now is programmers
(Kroeze) Perhaps we should finish here. It was nice to discuss things, though we did not always agree. Actually we have always had a lot of disagreement.
(Trip`) hehe
*** UberKruX has quit IRC (later all )
(Trip`) well, a game isn't good unless more people like it than dislike it

(Trip`) I think I'll post the log of the meeting at the forum now
(Kroeze) In my view the programmers left the project first. the designers were more active in my opinion
(Trip`) well, it's always easier to come up with ideas than to put them into something useable
(Kroeze) I are right
(Kroeze) YOU are right, I meant
(Trip`) LoL yeah
(Trip`) okay
(Trip`) I'ma leave now and post the log
(Trip`) glad you showed up, we got a lot out in the open

(Kroeze) Goodbye! thank you!
(Trip`) sure thing, thanks to you as well

(Trip`) 'Til lata
(Kroeze) Bye!
*** Kroeze has quit IRC (Quit: Java Chat http://www.undernet.org/webchat.php )

**Jon Shafer** · May 13, 2002, 00:27

Most of the 1st post is just basic chat, but near the end and pretty much for the entire chat is a lot of useful information. We came to an agreement about a lot of things, and I'm currently working on a design for how the map will work, and we can discuss it next meeting (for all those that show up again

). Let's get things rolling again here.

**VetLegion** · May 14, 2002, 19:40

Trip

I wrote send it to the mailing list, no the forums: ggs-general@lists.sourceforge.net (anyone can subscribe, please do)

this is almost spam

**Jon Shafer** · May 14, 2002, 19:52

I asked some other people and they said that they'd prefer it be on the forum too/instead. So I posted it.

Besides, when I sent it to the mailing list, it sent it back to me with an error.

**chrispie** · May 15, 2002, 18:05

I think we really need a website up and running properly, for things like chatlogs. Obviously, they don't belong here, and on the email list no-one is likely to read them. What's going on with our website? Who's running it? Why am I asking this here? I don't know...

**Inverse Icarus** · May 15, 2002, 18:24

Originally posted by chrispie
I think we really need a website up and running properly, for things like chatlogs. Obviously, they don't belong here, and on the email list no-one is likely to read them. What's going on with our website? Who's running it? Why am I asking this here? I don't know...

get me hosting with PHP enabled and i'll get you a site

**Leland** · May 16, 2002, 10:58

Sourceforge has PHP support, and in fact I think our old website uses PHP. Join the project at http://sourceforge.net/projects/ggstoc.

Announcement

12.05.02 Chat Log

12.05.02 Chat Log

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment