Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Settlements

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Settlements

    This is taken from an e-mail I sent Mark yesterday, we decided to post it on the forum so everybody could express their views.

    Settlement: How can players settle/claim other territories? First, some historic examples so you´ll know what I´m talking about. The most obvious way is a combination of conquest and diplomatic amalgation, such as when the Romans expanded throughout the Italian peninsula. This should pose no problems in gameplay. But what about the Greek city expansion throughout the Mediterrean world (Syracuse, Marseille, Odessa, Cadiz, etc)? How can players form new cities? Do they build Settler units like in Civ? One idea is to claim the territory (square) by placin a military unit there. Once the square is secure players can choose the square (by clicking on it or whatever) and have the option to Form City. They then must choose wherefrom the people should come (probably chosen on province basis), the minimum requirement should be ca. 5-10 thousand. The city building should take ca. 5 years, if the building is interrupted (by enemy presence) then no city is built (but the pop is not lost). This is a simple way to form cities, whether it is Alexandria or St.Petersburg or Los Angeles. Some further notes: apart from the pop needed the city construction should cost a considerable amount of money/material. However, players can allow the private sector to invest in the city, although this would mean that they gain some pol.power in the new city (i.e. if the player builds a city on his own he has more or less total control over the city (depending on the ruling class(es)), if the private sector pays for half the city they get ca. half the political power (the LC/UC), further modifications are possible, such as a military outpost (like the ones by the Romans along the Rhine/Danube front, which grew quickly into cities, in outposts the MC woud have some power) or even a city constructed around a shrine or some holy place, giving the RC power. The advantages for the player in these cases would be better protection (the outpost) and faster expansion (the shrine). One more, thing the players should be allowed to choose excactly which pop to form the new city with, so they could ‘ship’ a minority culture to the new city to separate them from the other cultures.
    Peaceful expansion of this kind should also be allowed over larger tracts of land without the neccessity of building a lot of cities. So I propose players can also form provinces. To form a province it´s not necessary to build a city therein, although when building a city it would be wise to form a province also with some adjacent squares so ensure enough food supply. Forming a province would usually cost considerably less than a city, the cost would be based on the size of the new province (squares) and the total population therein. In time (a generation or two) the new province can sprout a city of itself, if sufficiently populous.
    Finally, the most important, the above suggestions is only usable in areas with low population where no organized government exists. This of course puts severe limits on its usage and that’s the whole idea. This rule is intended to reflect for example the spread of Russia in Siberia and the settlement of North America by the US. Possibly this can be tied up with colonization, it would be very conveniant but I´m unsure at the moment how this would be handled, possibly there would be an option for players to Form Colony or Form Trade-Post. Anyway, that pretty much is it at the moment. What do you think?

  • #2
    Hrafnkell:

    Thanks for taking the initiative on this.

    I think your basic points are very good. I have just a coulple of ideas on implementation specifics.

    Sometimes people will just migrate to a "known good" location. (depends on how bad things are where they currently are, and how good they think it'll be in the new location) I think a lot of the Greek settlements you mention were actually trading posts first (we'll have those too, Go merchants!)

    The distinction you make between city and province formation isn't really clear to me. What you call a city is just a one-square province that may subsequently expand in size into the surrounding countryside. Provinces you talk about starting will still have an admin. center we'll Call a city, even though it may not be significantly better developed by the surrounding countryside. I do agree with you that to build a 'real' city takes much more resources than just setting up shop to rule sparsely populated territory.

    On the arbitrary 5 years to form a city idea. That may be just one turn back in ancient times. Also I would rather just have the people build what they can each turn, and just take it turn by turn. If an enemy army shows up on turn 3 I would prefer to just fight it out with the resources available. then the 'normal' rules for whether the city inhabitants are enslaved, butchered, or just ruled over would apply if they lose.

    Very good suggestions. Mine are just fine-tuning points.

    [This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited May 22, 1999).]
    Project Lead for The Clash of Civilizations
    A Unique civ-like game that will feature low micromanagement, great AI, and a Detailed Government model including internal power struggles. Demo 8 available Now! (go to D8 thread at top of forum).
    Check it out at the Clash Web Site and Forum right here at Apolyton!

    Comment


    • #3
      Be serious, the CIV concept of taking a settler and building a new city somewhere is not only abstract, it's rather ridiculous. From my point of view this action should still be possible as a "supreme act", buth otherwise settlement should be natural, i.e. following tha balance of population pressure. While population increases, a certain pressure builds up, resulting (maybe) in some of the population emigrating to a nearby region. This "emigration pressure" depends on

      - population per square as opposed to how many people that square can sustain.
      - happiness level.

      Both values must be compared to the ones of "nearby" squared which seem possible as emigration targets.

      This would allow for a constant flux of population, while the player's task whould shift from moving his little settlers to influencing the infrastructure in a favorable way so as to indirectly steer his people (much more demandg, but much more interesting, too IMHO).

      Certain geographical and military features can heavily influnce this "population flow", too.
      Well, if we took the bones out they wouldn't be crunchy, would they?

      Comment


      • #4
        but many places were settled by settler units. People did just get in covered wagons and go west. They went in groups for safety and they were given permission to settle in specific areas. People tend to naturally settle together so the groups probably did generate villages (but I'm not sure, history isn't my specialty) For example the homestead act let people pick up 160 acres. Mass migrations like the Mormons also occurred. They just wandered around until they found a place where they weren't attacked on sight.

        I think that a variety of settlement methods should exist. Moving a military unit "Lewis and Clark" into places to claim land would work. After the unit goes through migration would increase. Some sort of merchant inspired migration should work too.

        Perhaps you could just be able to send people to a place and then claim it afterwards. Texas had a lot of Americans while still owned by Mexico. The England and America were both sending people to Oregon.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes, I think BOTH must be possible:

          - "natural" flow of population
          - "commanded" settlement

          The latter should be very expensive, since it more or less means the ruler has to organize / pay for everything otherwise the settlers do.

          The whole thing should be set up in a way that ideal way for a good ruler is the indirect management of his settlers, by e.g. supporting special movements.

          Example: I have a region which is a bit overcrowded, neighbouring a fertile valley, which is owned by an enemy tribe, but with low population and military values.

          I - as a ruler - now have 3 options:

          1) Do as in CIV, build a settler unit, maybe accompanied by some military. Should be possible, but EXPENSIVE, especially since this would result in a war.

          2) I could simply wait until my people's "population pressure" is high enough so the infiltrate that valley without any action done by me. This could take very long AND still bears the risk that, although they are MY people, they are suppressed in the end by the few local lords (i.e. enemy military) there are.

          3) I can support my people in that area by giving them some military / economic aid, thus making it easier to build a real base in that valley and giving them a chance to withstand the enemy military's attempts to suppress them. In the end, I could gain a new territory without fighting a real battle.

          This 3rd possibility should be the best option for all epochs before the "invention" of static national borders and while there are big discrepancies between neighbouring areas' scientific / economic levels, so typically in any colonization situation. Good example could be the colonization of Prussia in the 11th century.

          Hehe, this brings up another topic, namely that of semi-independent units: E.g. knigtly orders who belong to an empire but have their own goals, so they might even do a military campaign without the empie's ruler actively supporting this...
          Well, if we took the bones out they wouldn't be crunchy, would they?

          Comment


          • #6
            I think dominique's and mark's ideas are good ones here.

            The economic route should really be open here, as it will allow for expansion into colonialism. That is, a civ could subsidize merchants into area, settlers would follow the merchants, (and we would have to have a system for accounting for "shared use" of a resource) and eventually you could make your ownership official. You could do this in several ways: 1. keep expanding in an "ad hoc" way with merchants and settlers 2. annex the area into your territory with soldiers and government and all 3. Get the a defined area, shared in a certain percentage with the locals, as a colony in perpetuity (or on a 150 year lease or what have you).

            One thing about all this, we've got to be careful, it looks like we're trying to model the history of everything. This could be a bit, ah, tricky...

            Comment


            • #7
              xiane:

              I think the Results will be complicated, but the game mechanisms should be relatively simple.

              1) Ruler orders or prohibits people (or merchants, etc) to go to x place (of course place x must be known first, or at least rumored of...)

              2) Ruler subsidizes or penalizes natural migration of people to x place. This means, in game mechanics, the ruler puts a hunk of money on x and says each person that goes there gets y part of it. The y part could be used to buy goods to start the colony...

              3) People do their own thing in absence of 1-2.

              Terse, but I think that covers Most of the cases.
              Project Lead for The Clash of Civilizations
              A Unique civ-like game that will feature low micromanagement, great AI, and a Detailed Government model including internal power struggles. Demo 8 available Now! (go to D8 thread at top of forum).
              Check it out at the Clash Web Site and Forum right here at Apolyton!

              Comment


              • #8
                I have an interesting RTS game which called 7 Kingdoms. It has a very intersting and IMO realistic idea how to improve an imperium. If somebody don't know the game here is a short description. There is two way to get new city (village or county).

                1. You can send your onw people to a place where they can find job. They automatically settle there a new village.

                2. In the beginning there is a few "free" village. You need to send there soldiers and an officier (who is a kind of governor) to make contact with the people. You can place there improvements, you can pay them gold so the people slowly become a part of the imperium.

                I don't like very much the game. There is only a few improvements and the game mostly a war game, but IMHO the settling system is a good idea. We can use something similar in our game.

                Blade Runner
                Blade

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'd like to see some way for a typical despot [i.e., player of this game!] to "send" citizens from city A to city B. Maybe as cargo in a transport, or as pilgrims, or whatever. Not necessarily something you'd have to "build" at city A.. just give the order: "move x citizens to B from A"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Reality v. Civ2

                    Civ2 - You start with an empty world and through the use of settler units you colonize it. Eventually, you bump into other civs and can expand further by conquering their cities. That's it.

                    Reality - Assuming "Clash" starts off in the 4000 BC period, the world is already full of people! Population densities would fluctuate from place to place, but that's how it was. The only thing remotely comparable to the Civ2 model was the settlement of the Americas. But even that began @12,000 BC (and possibly much earlier), and by 4000 or so both continents were fully peopled.

                    Clash - Mirror reality. As many of you have discussed, various nations HAVE sent off settlers or created colonies in various parts of the world, but in most cases they built upon an existing native base. The Greek cities which grew up around the rim of the Mediterranean certainly had a number of "native greeks", but much of the population consisted of locals. Further, the prosperity of the city depended upon trade and interaction with natives in the hinterlands. This was true pretty much everywhere in the world. "So where are the Native Americans in New York?", you ask. Well, they were there (or nearby) originally, but the effects of disease and a burgeoning influx of European colonists slowly killed them off or pushed them west.

                    So, what does this mean to the settlement model? The concept of "loyal" cities forming around trading posts and military forts is good, because it's very reality based. The settler unit still has a limited role to play, possibly by "jump starting" the size of a new city and/or increasing it's political reliability.
                    But if "reality-based" is the key driver, then the settlement model must operate within the constraints of a fully populated world.

                    To La Fayette, as fine a gentleman as ever trod the Halls of Apolyton

                    From what I understand of that Civ game of yours, it's all about launching one's own spaceship before the others do. So this is no big news after all: my father just beat you all to the stars once more. - Philippe Baise

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ooops:

                      "The world is full of people" Mark Everson

                      Hmmmm. Do I have to read absolutely everything you guys have written or is it OK if I occasionally (frequently?) look like an idiot?

                      If the former, is there some path I (and others) should follow in order to gain the proper degree of enlightenment?


                      To La Fayette, as fine a gentleman as ever trod the Halls of Apolyton

                      From what I understand of that Civ game of yours, it's all about launching one's own spaceship before the others do. So this is no big news after all: my father just beat you all to the stars once more. - Philippe Baise

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Kull:

                        Feel free to occasionally look like an idiot . I certainly don't let that fear stop me too often . I'm in waaay over my head in a lot of areas on this project.

                        I think you've already figured part of it out. My recommendation is to start with the OVERVIEW OF THE CLASH PROJECT announcement at the upper left in the main forum screen, and the links therein. After that, you're on your own.

                        Good Luck,

                        Mark
                        Project Lead for The Clash of Civilizations
                        A Unique civ-like game that will feature low micromanagement, great AI, and a Detailed Government model including internal power struggles. Demo 8 available Now! (go to D8 thread at top of forum).
                        Check it out at the Clash Web Site and Forum right here at Apolyton!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hrafknell is mostly right, but there were notable exceptions with the Greeks and Romans. By the time Alexander died there were over 400 new Greek cities in conquered territories named Alexandria (plus who knows how many others). These really were little islands of Hellenic people/culture, set up to connect the empire through trade. It was very effective. I have no idea how big they were on average.

                          There's a book called City: A Story of Roman Planning and Construction by David Macauley. (It was also made into an animated feature some years ago; I saw it on PBS). The Romans built hundreds of new cities everywhere on the same plan, designed for a population of 36k. I don't recall how many Romans they typically started out with, but there was usually little mixing with the locals (marrying a non-Roman required legal approval; children of concubines weren't Roman citizens). The idea was to found new cities after outgrowing the original infrastructure and walls, but this rarely happened.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X