Natives (aka. Minor Civs, Barbarians, etc.)

[alms66]

In my effort to bring Clash back to the “populated” world that was seen in demo 4 (and previous versions), I’m proposing this “model” for barbarians, minor civs or whatever label has been applied to them in the past. In order to fully explain this idea, I’ll give a bit of background on where it comes from (since it was originally developed for Empires In Time (EIT) – which was a previous project I was involved with).

A Note on EIT in General
As can be seen in the attachment below, EIT was developed with 500 civs in the beginning (actually what Clash refers to as Ethnic Groups – each was its own unique empire in the early stages of the game, though in practice after 1000 years or so into the game, the average was 200 civs and it remained around that number for the rest of the game). It was also developed on a 250*250 map of the world (an approximation of the Earth’s diameter). This was referred to as the full-scale game and, was developed as and considered the “standard” game. It was (obviously) being developed for high-end systems, though there were three-quarter, half and one-quarter scales of the game as well (in addition to scenarios, random maps and the editors to create more scenarios) for lower-end systems.

A Note on Population
In my original research into ancient populations, I came across an estimate that some 100 billion humans had been born since 10,000 BC, world-wide. I don’t recall the source, only that I felt it was trustworthy enough to assume the estimate to be true. All further details of the “model” were developed on the assumption that this estimate is true. See the attached image for the population details, at an average breakdown through time.

I must note here that the only truly useful dates listed below were the first and last. The ones in the center are basically useless because they don’t take into account the effects of deaths, technology, infrastructure, etc.

Thus, as you can see from the attachment, on the first turn in 10,000 BC, the total world population is 12,250,000, averaging 700 per tile, with 1,400 (700 being of the Native Ethnic Group and 700 being of the civ’s Ethnic Group) in the lands owned by the 500 civs, and 2,100 (700 being of the Native Ethnic Group and 1,400 being of the civ’s Ethnic Group) in the capitol city of those civs. Note that with the doubled population in civ territory and tripled population in the capitol, the total world population actually exceeds 12,250,000 in 10,000 BC. Note also, that these numbers are the theoretical basis that I used to develop the following “model”, and therefore they are not a practical application.

[alms66]

Natives
-Edit- Text was a bit too large on that first go...
I support Mark’s (and I’m sure others) view that most tiles in the world should be inhabited from the start of the game. There were small bands of people in nearly every corner of the Earth after all, so it is realistic and logical. With that said, I also support Laurent’s comment (somewhere fairly recently) that settling is fun (at least a little bit of settling is). Therefore, we should have some “state-sponsored” settling and auto-settling as well. In previous Clash Demos (demo 4 and earlier), you had to conquer any land that you didn’t start with to expand, and there was little to no virgin land, which was not entirely realistic*, but playable. It was from these early demos of Clash, plus the population research I did for EIT, that gave me the ideas described here, so in a way this idea is basically just finding its way home.

*I say not entirely realistic because places like New Zealand and Iceland were totally virgin land (even though these early Clash demos didn’t include them anyway), and the population of many civilizations simply settled anywhere they chose, displacing the native peoples or absorbing them, thus it hasn’t always been necessary to conquer these lands.

The basis for including Natives is adding a property to each terrain type that indicates the starting population for that type of terrain. The map is then seeded, tile by tile, with Natives (a special EG**) in the appropriate places (which for now could simply be every land tile in the scenario) with the indicated starting population of the terrain type in the map cell. There is some detail that I’ll skip regarding setting up civilizations that pertains to random map placement. When the time comes to do proper random maps (with civ placement), I’ll fill in those details, but for now, if Natives are included in the scenario (ideally as a sub-tag of the scenario tag [i.e. <natives/> - in a similar manner to the civilization tag’s sub-tag <selectable/>]), then Natives exist on every tile on the map. If Natives aren’t included in the scenario, then the land is virgin land, just as currently done.

**Natives are a special EG because they have the following characteristics (always, until assimilated, of course):
<culture>
<nationality>Native</nationality>
<culturalPrototype>
<traditionalism>1.00</traditionalism>
<nationalism>1.00</nationalism>
<landConnection>1.00</landConnection>
<importanceOfReligion>1.00</importanceOfReligion>
<corruption>0.00</corruption>
<aggressiveness>1.00</aggressiveness>
<ethnicTolerance>0.00</ethnicTolerance>
<religiousTolerance>0.00</religiousTolerance>
<asceticism>0.00</asceticism> (not sure about this one)
<individualism>0.50</individualism> (not sure about this one)
</culturalPrototype>
</culture>
Also, (once cultural assimilation is a part of the game) they assimilate much faster/easier than other EGs do.

These Natives are not a civilization. They have no province, no owner, nothing. They do adhere to the population growth and migration rules as all other populations do (even migrating into civilization territory). When military units of civilizations move across these tiles, they may spawn militia to fight off invaders. Other than these few characteristics, the tiles inhabited by Natives behave just like current (as of demo 8) un-owned tiles do. That is, any civ’s units may freely walk across them without changing ownership. To change the ownership of a tile, a Civ must have a settled population there (via auto-settling or state-sponsored settling). Tiles inhabited by Natives behave just like current un-owned tiles do, so auto-settling occurs the same as it currently does, with the minor exception that some people of the Native EG come with the tile (for free, though they also bring lower education and the problems of a multi-ethnic empire). State-sponsored settling (loading up a unit with settlers) occurs just as it does currently as well, with the same minor exception.

One major exception to the rule that “tiles owned by Natives behave like current un-owned tiles” is that they may spawn new civilizations. Every civilization maintains a tally of the number of Native tiles it has “absorbed” through settling. This tally gives the percentage chance (tally/10 actually) of a great leader uniting the Natives against their conquerors. This chance is checked each time that a new tile is absorbed, and if there are enough Native tiles available in the immediate area, a new civilization is created in the area. This new civilization is immediately at war with the civ that spawned it. Note that spawning of new civilizations need not make it in the first incarnation of Natives, to make Natives a useful component of the game.

The second major exception to the rule that “tiles owned by Natives behave like current un-owned tiles” is that mass migrations can occur from large swaths of Native land. Mass migrations are triggered by Native tiles being beyond the critical population threshold, which is 3 times the starting population of the terrain type. Each time a tile reaches this threshold, it checks with its neighbors, and if enough tiles in the area are also beyond the threshold, then mass migration occurs. This is basically a grid of tiles, picking up all population except a number equal to the starting population for the particular terrain in the given cell, and migrating to another location of the world (they just pick a direction, not a destination), in formation, then settling, in formation, once they have traveled for at least 20 moves. Note that mass migrations need not make it in the first incarnation of Natives, to make Natives a useful component of the game.

That’s the general idea. If I’ve been unclear on any points, feel free to ask for more clarification. Also, any comments are welcome, as always.

[Max Sinister]

I remember having read that there were about 5 million people in the world in 10000 BC (or even later) and that the number of humans born since then is around 65-70 billion.

[alms66]

I never could find a reliable estimate of the world's population in 10,000 BC, what's your source?

Since I never found an estimate, I worked backwards from 100,000,000,000 to 10,000 BC, rounded up the average per tile to 700, and then reworked the numbers back up to its current 100,339,750,000. BTW, the "actual" world population in 10,000 BC would be 15,750,000 using the theoretical averages and accounting for double population in civ territory and triple in the civ's capitols.

[Max Sinister]

Guiness Book of Records

[alms66]

Well that's certainly one place I never thought to look. What kind of record is that holding exactly?

[LDiCesare]

I think the population of the world grew very fast in the 3 or 4 last centuries. I'm not sure an exponential progression is correct, in particular the figures you had for 1000 AD seem big.
I don't like exceptions. All the Native things you are proposing are basically exceptions to a rule, which means in terms of coding you must code a particular case, and do more work. So that's not going to be coded soon as it's a lot of work.
I'd rather have a rule that says something like " If you want to migrate to a tile and are 10 times as numerous as the current inhabitants, you automatically take control". That lets one expand into areas of low population with minimum coding effort.

[alms66]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
I think the population of the world grew very fast in the 3 or 4 last centuries. I'm not sure an exponential progression is correct, in particular the figures you had for 1000 AD seem big.

I said the numbers in between were theoretical and not practical for use. They are not meant to imply an exponential growth progression or any such silliness.

One last time for good measure...

Originally posted by LDiCesare
I don't like exceptions. All the Native things you are proposing are basically exceptions to a rule, which means in terms of coding you must code a particular case, and do more work. So that's not going to be coded soon as it's a lot of work.

Any way you handle "Minor Civs" is going to be an exception to the rule. I don't see how you can think this any worse than coding a "limited AI" as has been proposed by others.

Originally posted by LDiCesare
I'd rather have a rule that says something like " If you want to migrate to a tile and are 10 times as numerous as the current inhabitants, you automatically take control". That lets one expand into areas of low population with minimum coding effort.

This quote is confusing to me, as I don't see what the proposed "rule" has to do with what I'm talking about. Natives are not a method of allowing one to expand into areas of low population, they are an implementation of the "minor civ" idea. Admittedly, it's different from most ideas, but still, this quoted portion just makes my head hurt.

[LDiCesare]

I'm saying I don't want minor civs. They are civs, period. But if they control one square and have a population worth 1/10th of your invading settlers, they are destroyed without a battle occurring.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Guys:

I think that we do eventually need exceptions to the rules for pastoralist (non-settled, migratory) peoples. For settled, if primitive, peoples we should just have them be small normal civs. Certainly we will be without special coding for pastoralists for some time, and natives, minor civs, etc. should just be low-tech normal civs.

There are some issues though, with xml things like diplomatic status and civ definition that aren't handled gracefully in the xml now. If there are 250 civs (most small) in a game, putting in all that extra code would be Very tedious.

Maybe feudal civs with zero central power would be a good way to handle this for the intermediate future. (I think a fair amount of new code would be needed, but I could be very wrong.) The feudal civs could be based upon ethnic groups (Gauls etc.) and cover a large number of squares. Since they are feudal each province would essentially stand militarily on its own. If they had no standing army, but only militia generated as needed, they might do the job of minor civs reasonably well while not stressing out the scenario designer too much.

[edit: modify and add to last para]

[alms66]

If you want to deal with 100s of 1 tile civs, then go right ahead and do that, not that it matters what I say anyhow, right...

I'll check back from time to time to see how Clash is doing, maybe even offer up an idea or suggestion or two. Later.

[Mark_Everson]

Hey Alms. . . I can understand your frustration at coming up with good ideas that you want to discuss and then having me or Laurent dismiss them with "won't be done for ages if at all, so we don't want to talk about it". Unfortunately I don't know what to do about it given the realities of the project. We don't have the ten-ish people and 3-5 active coders that we once did. We've basically got Larent, and a little bit of me.

I hope that I can convince you to come back, perhaps after a cooling off period. I think you're doing really good and interesting stuff, especially with the tech tree and scenario and all the playtesting for D8 and suggestions both before and after it. Shoot me an email if you want to discuss further.

Best Wishes,

Mark

[alms66]

The reason for leaving isn't about the slow pace of progress. I can live with that. In fact, I have no right to complain about it since I could very well be assisting with coding, but choose not to.

You see, the reason why I really don't want to get involved in the coding side is that after about 2 1/2 years of work on EIT, the last thing I want to do is do it for another 2 1/2 years. When I was working on EIT, I'd get so involved with the project from time to time, that some months, I'd come home from work, work on the game all night, and then go to work the next day... all week long. I'd sleep on the weekends, and even then, I'd not get much sleep.

The reason I'm leaving Clash, however, is the, "If you're not coding it, you, your thoughts and your ideas, are insignificant" attitude that pervades this project. I suspect this is the same reason that Clash has never had a serious artist stick around for more than a few weeks. Anything regarding art is simply looked down upon as though it is the most disgusting and vile creation ever envisioned. Sadly, most people here don’t seem to realize that the artwork is the first thing people see, and most people don’t look beyond that. If they take one look at the artwork and don’t like it, why would they stick around to play the game? Much less playtest it?

In particular, I can point to one post that put the final nail in the coffin. Here. I’d explain why, but explanations are a pointless endeavor here, so I’ll just leave it at that.

[Mark_Everson]

Well Alms, I'm especially sorry to see you leave with a sour taste in your mouth. However, I guess it's good that we're not going to be subjecting you to sleep deprivation a la EIT .

The reason we're not much talking art is that we have no gui coder. It was different when Gary was active and might implement something we talked about in the graphics area. Laurent hates gui, and I have no skills there, and too little Clash time to learn it. It's too bad that there was such a mismatch between what you wanted to try and improve and the resources that we have available at this point.

Thanks for all the hard work that you've put into Clash!Best of luck with your future activities in game design whatever they may turn out to be.

-Mark

[demipomme]

Nomads

Given the size of squares, realistic modelling of nomadic civilisations wouldn't involve the movement of people from square to square as the movement would be within the square given the scale.

I see a linear spectrum between tribes and empires, with no logical cut off. Therefore it is only fair to treat all civs equally and not call some "minor civs" or "barbarians", which both seem awefully derogatry terms.