Rebels, pirates and other social problems...

[The Diamond]

Okay, time to get involved in the Revolution argument again...

Stuff2, I strongly disagree with your proposal. To clarify, here is how I see the player in Clash:

The guiding spirit of the Civilisation, in the form of the current ruler of the Civilisation.

The player is a guiding spirit because he/she outlives the lifespan of a monarchy or even an entire governmental system. However, I just hate the idea that a player can totally foul up their Civ and, when the people rise against them, magically become leader of the rebel forces, regain control of the Civ and most likely start all over again. In fact, I hate the idea that the player can "possess", if you like, whatever influential character he/she pleases. Although I see nothing wrong with seeing through their eyes (in micromanagement) or in receiving information reliably available to them (their personal spies report rebel activity near the city, maybe an attack will occur soon...).

I expect you're wondering how I define the "current ruler" of the Civ, especially when, for example, rebels occupy 75% of the territories, but a strong Royalist army holds the remainder and is unlikely to be broken. Since the rebels hold the main area of the Civ, they could be called "rulers", yet the monarchy is still the official "ruler" of the Civ as it was known before the revolution...

Quite simply, I define the "current ruler" as being the leader of whatever administration currently commands the capital. In the above example, if the Royalists still hold the capital city then the player is "stuck" with them, although if he/she wanted the rebels to win through, it would be possible to "throw" the defences and allow the rebels to capture the capital. The penalty being that on their way they would cause havoc, destruction, death, etc. and leave the place in a sorry state for whatever takes control of the Civ. Pretty much Mark's point.

This also solves the problem of what happens in the event of a split in the civilisation, causing two separate nations to evolve...the player commands the one which still holds the capital and retains the original name of the Civ.

---------------------------------------------

Stuff2, your idea about the guerilla leader is possible. If the Civ capital gets captured by a foreign power, then the player could be eliminated or forced to rule the remainder of states in anarchy until a new Civ was formed. However, most likely the Civ would surrender, etc. or be conquered, resulting in the player being "eliminated".

I would say no...this should not be the case. As Stuff2 suggested, the player could become a guerilla leader, but I see a different way out. I talked earlier of colonialism, where the player could rule under command from a foreign power as a "colony" or "empire province" or whatever. The new Mother Country would place restrictions on what could and could not be done, such as no private armies, must give 40% of all tax revenue to Mother Country, etc. but the player could still "rule".

This would give the opportunity for the player then to initiate covert strategies against their oppressors to construct a rebel force capable of taking back at least part of the Civilisation. It might take a good few turns and any mistake or detection could result in starting all over again, but nevertheless, the struggle to reclaim the Civ could continue. Exactly when the player would cease being the colonial magistrate and start being the "rebel leader" or whatever, I'm not sure. But it's just an idea at the moment.

---------------------------------------------

I still don't like TK's idea of point penalising. Although yes, I accept it is possible to have only partial, non-civil war type revolutions, such as the signing of the Magna Carta. However, it's equally possible to have vicious bloody revolutions that actually achieve very little.

I see where you're coming from. A civil war would happen when the people were very angry at a ruler's actions...but wouldn't it happen if they felt "oppressed" anyway? Even in a monarchy system where the player makes sure everyone is either happy or content or whatever you choose to say, some people will still be unhappy at the idea of one person having total control of anything that happens. The "hidden" unhappiness factor, if you like. Bear in mind that something as simple as a player imposing a quota on fishing limits might cause every fisherman in the kingdom to have this "hidden" unhappiness. That might lead to anti-govt. actions, which in turn will spark off any bad feeling elsewhere and cause visible unhappiness. This is merely the beginning of the spiral which gradually leads to the player sending in the military to control the situation and the local people making the decision as to whether they want the situation to be "controlled" or not. If the army is strong enough, or the ruler popular enough or the people content enough not to take up arms, the revolution might be quashed. Alternatively, such an action might be the spark that ignites the people against the crown, causing a Civil War. An influential rebel leader, good at winning people to his cause, would also have an effect here.

In this case, the player has made one or two decisions that didn't go down well with everybody and this has led to the starting of a revolution. I see that as how the revolutions occur, which isn't necessarily a direct fault of the player and why they shouldn't be penalised for it.

The second chance rule...hate it, always will hate it. The player has no "chances". They continue until either time ends on them or until a foreign power literally wipes them off the map. Or whatever other "ending" situations occur.

As for on-line help, I agree. I also think that there should be perhaps some kind of toggle for on-line help that informs specifically of revolutionary events, but only AFTER the trigger event has occured, citing the possibility that rebel action may happen. I don't want the help to tell the player "don't do this, you might cause a rebellion"...let them learn by their own mistakes.

Mark/Stuff2 - I'm all in favour of the player changing character, but I don't believe they should have a direct say in who/what they become. They should change character as a result of events in the game, not from their own choice.

LGJ - Your last point I disagree with. I peronally prefer the idea that the rebels are the unknown enemy. The AI controls them, maybe it makes dealings with foreign powers, ceding them territory if they are successful, etc. That way, even if the player sympathises with them and makes it as easy as possible for them to win, when he/she takes over their administration, they may find foreign powers are demanding that promises be fulfilled, etc.

Actually, I'm going to start a topic on revolutions specifically. Maybe you'll all curse me for that, but it's getting hard talking about piracy and revolutions intermittently in the same thread. It's also making my posts very very long, which isn't helping anybody.

---------------------------------------------

BACK TO PIRACY

Why should the first shipment necessarily make it through? A whopping great merchant unit taking 100K of goods across a long perilous land route and having little or no guard will automatically make it? I disagree. To set up a large caravan such as that, news will spread of your route, destination and cargo. Pirates would be waiting for you...that I could guarantee. That's why the frequency idea would come in. Pirates would attack it as soon as it went out of local territory (I don't like the idea of pirates being generated in villages themselves, etc).

I agree. A military base won't necessarily eliminate piracy, but it will reduce it if pirate morale is low (ie, the area has slim picking or pirates are new and inexperienced). This is already accounted for in the 2sq. radius of military units concept I mentioned earlier.

Norsemen were pro-pirate, but not usually against each other! Yes, there were village and clan feuds, which could be taken into account in the game, but piracy was limited to other nations. Although I like the idea that Viking cultures, for example, generate more pirate units. However, I would suggest that Norse cultures, etc. rather than generating pirates should be blessed with the ability to either be able to negotiate with all pirates, or to be able to physically command them as units, or to be able to send them around the world at reduced or even at no cost. Alternatively, piratical activity conducted by commissioned Viking pirates could add to the revenue of the Civ. Maybe their culture could build pirates the same way cultures build merchants? I don't know.

Even so, the pirates generated by merchant trade, even if Norse, would be different. I don't see the frequency equation being changed due to religion/culture, although the Civ's ability to deal with or react to pirates should be changed. If you want a culture to suffer from piracy, then make their pirate hunters worse or reduce the effect of their military to a 1sq. radius.

Success doesn't look at casualties. Success looks at whether or not the pirates plundered any value from the caravan and if so, how much. No success = no value, partial success = some value, total success = all value. To account for them recruiting, every turn they don't attack, their "strength" would return closer to its natural level (recruiting). It won't add to the game to add the element of merchant crews joining pirate bands.

Ousting the captain could occur. Actually, I like it. If the unit/group has an assigned character and morale falls, then the character could be executed in mutiny and replaced. Morale would then return to neutral. However, in independent units, I still think they should disband.

Pirate "strength"...yes, I have avoided that term. The reason being that I see pirates operating more on morale than strength. Chances are, they're not going to be that differently armed to the forces they're attacking. Certainly not after a couple of victories and weapons being stolen, etc.

Assuming for a moment that "strength" is determined in the old Civ-type style of 3-attack, 2-defence, then all pirate units should start the same. Independent pirates are unlikely to change. However, groups might. A large group of pirates might attack as one rather than several small groups. In this case, their strength could be related to the number of pirate units in the group. E.g. for every 6th unit added, rather than a new unit being generated, an existing one is upgraded into a higher "strength" rating. Also, a unit carrying a character might be intitled to a strength increase as well as a morale increase.

Now, I also referred to "strength" as being, if you like, health or numbers of the unit. In this case, casualties may be replaced, etc, although I still think they should just regenerate their health/numbers over a short period of time.

Yes, I refer to the military unit in a Civ style manner. That's because I'm more familiar with that style and because I'm not entirely sure how a "unit" in the other proposed style would work. As and when I work that idea through, I'll put modifications up here.

Pirates hiding on 25-50% chance. Yes, I like that. Then they'd naturally move away if they weren't going to attack, (...live to fight another day) or ambush the military unit.

Right - I'm not making a distinction between pirates as in Carribean pirates and bandits. I call all such unit types "pirates". Simply because their motives are the same, only their terrain of operation is different.

In an island chain, after crippling a ship, you can sail away and lose pursuers. The same applies in mountains and woods. These pirates will know their terrain well...probably better than a patrolling unit. They will know about the almost invisible goat-track that takes off 2hours from the mountain ascent, allowing them to quickly escape. A patrol chasing them will go the only way it knows - the long way, and thus lose them.

Also, it's a lot easier to hide a bandit camp in a dense forest than it would be on a wide-open plain where you can see for miles.

Hmm, I'm still undecided about pirates and forts. It just wouldn't happen unless they started acting as a Mafia in the local area. If they became strong enough to build forts, they'd probably be strong enough to start a village. That village would then "build" further pirate units and add to strength of existing ones. Although I don't know if that's something good to add to the model or not.

I see your point about swamp movement, etc. However, pirates would only be restricted when moving in areas they didn't know so well. How do you define what areas they don't know? I think they should be given a fixed movement rate over all terrain. They can still be outrun by military in the open, but in the forests, they're in their element...

No. Pirates would not be positive to the village's happiness. They will always be negative. The positive effects you talk about are positive for the rebellious members of the Civ, the anti-govt. groups. Since happiness is looked at purely from the govt. perspective, people happy about pirates will be unhappy about the govt. I'm not including Norse cultures, who would perhaps be unaffected by pirates at any distance.

Ah...now a distinction is made between pirate and privateer. I agree. A pirate who becomes affiliated to a Civ (the Civ gives them two or more contracts) should be able to be bribed into becoming a Privateer unit. This is how I see this working:

A pirate unit is bribed to move locations and attack foreign merchants. It will do so and will generally avoid merchants of the nationality of its employer. However, if the employer's merchants are unguarded, etc. it will attack them and have its contracts reset to "0" as a result (their respect for the Civ is lost).
After a pirate unit has been given 2 or more contracts (depending on how much they "like" the Civ) and has made no atrocities to that Civ, it may be bribed into becoming a Privateer. Privateers are employed exactly like bounty hunters. The pirate "unit" becomes a pirate-hunter "unit" that searches for and attempts to destroy merchants of any nationality that is on poor terms with the host Civ. For every success/partial success, some of the spoils return to the Civ (when the pirate theoretically returns to sell its cargo).
NB - Privateer units cost to run and their contract has a 10-turn notice clause. Once the contract is finished, they either return to being pirates, or they "retire" and cease to exist. Also, while privateer units only attack merchants of Civs that are on poor terms with the host Civ, pirate units are not so discretionary. If news that they are under contract reaches a friendly Civ that has lost a few merchants to them, they may cease being so friendly after all...
Also, privateers work on knowledge given to them from governers, etc. of towns. If they are far from the borders of the Civ, they may not hear about changes in international relations immediately and could cause a newly-formed treaty to be swiftly broken.

[Mark_Everson]

LGJ:

On the revolution thing, I don't see anything in Stuff2's post saying the revolt automatically succeeds... I would have disagreed with the approach if I thought so. The AI will always play the other side to the best of its ability on such occasions. I think we agree that when you change horses (who the spirit works through) you need to Fight for control as usual. If you lose, you are stuck with the same old government with depleted resources from the revolution itself. If you attempt to overthrow the government without a very solid base, you will just be hurting your civ.

There are also timing issues we'd need if we do such switches. Otherwise players can do things like:
1. ensure powerful societal elements are pissed off enough to revolt
2. intentionally move all 'royalist' military units off to some other country to basically guarantee the revolt's success
3. start the revolt.

Or even more bizarre things can happen by the player switching back and forth on a per-turn basis... Take government, do something really stupid, take rebels do something smart, repeat as needed...
So if we go this way, we would probably need a time lag of some sort for the 'transfer' to occur. Its a sticky problem...

The Diamond:

Your 'who holds the capital' proposal is IMO too limiting. FE then in an American revolutionary war context, the player could Never become the Americans, but be forced to remain with the British. Or rather the only way you allow this is if the capital gets overrun by some other power. IMO the player Must be allowed to make the choice of which segment to play themselves. I agree there are lots of potential pitfalls to doing it the way I'm pushing (I don't recall if the current Govt model makes a definitive stand on this either way). But I think if the design traps can be overcome it will result in a better experience for the player.

All:

We have discussed these issues before, a search under 'revolution' or 'change' and 'government' would let you see what people have said before on this topic.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Diamond-

On pirating-

Why should the first shipment necessarily make it through? A whopping great merchant unit taking 100K of goods across a long perilous land route and having little or no guard will automatically make it? I disagree. To set up a large caravan such as that, news will spread of your route, destination and cargo. Pirates would be waiting for you...that I could guarantee. That's why the frequency idea would come in. Pirates would attack it as soon as it went out of local territory (I don't like the idea of pirates being generated in villages themselves, etc).
------
I'm saying the very very first ship that travels through those wasters (or atleast in a long time...say 100 years). There would be no pirates as no pirates would expect any ships coming through. Not only that, but if they did realize a ship was coming through, by the time it did come through, it would be gone before they could reach it, unless it was very ssssssssllllllllllooooooooowwwwwwwwww.


Norsemen were pro-pirate, but not usually against each other! Yes, there were village and clan feuds, which could be taken into account in the game, but piracy was limited to other nations. Although I like the idea that Viking cultures, for example, generate more pirate units. However, I would suggest that Norse cultures, etc. rather than generating pirates should be blessed with the ability to either be able to negotiate with all pirates, or to be able to physically command them as units, or to be able to send them around the world at reduced or even at no cost. Alternatively, piratical activity conducted by commissioned Viking pirates could add to the revenue of the Civ. Maybe their culture could build pirates the same way cultures build merchants? I don't know.
-----
First of all you need to know that cultures are not defined the way they are in Civ2 and such. Cultures are determined by the circumstances that surround them and thus are fluid. Therefore a Norse culture could exist, but couldn't get any "inherant bonuses" for being such, just that say some things are more likely/easier than others. Check back and you'll see plenty on this. Also look at the now outdated social/cultural model for more info.


Assuming for a moment that "strength" is determined in the old Civ-type style of 3-attack, 2-defence, then all pirate units should start the same. Independent pirates are unlikely to change. However, groups might. A large group of pirates might attack as one rather than several small groups. In this case, their strength could be related to the number of pirate units in the group. E.g. for every 6th unit added, rather than a new unit being generated, an existing one is upgraded into a higher "strength" rating. Also, a unit carrying a character might be intitled to a strength increase as well as a morale increase
-----
Ok, morale should play a part it, probably more than it does with the rest of the military model (which you should check out when you have time if you want to continue on this model...its kinda a must to atleast familiarize yourself with it). Anyway other things will affect battle than just morale, like strength, strategy and tactics, technology, training etc. I'd say str and morale are the two biggies for pirates. Tactics and strategy are generally the same, hit and run, hide and move on when things get two rough. This can change somewhat if the pirates become extremely powerful in a region. technology, varies, though is never more than the region that it came from (however if it came from a highly advanced region it can sail to a lesser advanced area). Training is usually low, sometimes a little higher, though probably never more than moderate for the entire group. Captains can be whatever.


Hmm, I'm still undecided about pirates and forts. It just wouldn't happen unless they started acting as a Mafia in the local area. If they became strong enough to build forts, they'd probably be strong enough to start a village. That village would then "build" further pirate units and add to strength of existing ones. Although I don't know if that's something good to add to the model or not.
-----
Why not? There were known "pirate" forts. Such were rare, but not unheard of. In any case any "village" wouldn't operate quite on the same priciples as other civ villiages. I think it will make the game more interesting and act as a kinda deturrant from letting pirates get too out of control in an area.


No. Pirates would not be positive to the village's happiness. They will always be negative. The positive effects you talk about are positive for the rebellious members of the Civ, the anti-govt. groups. Since happiness is looked at purely from the govt. perspective, people happy about pirates will be unhappy about the govt. I'm not including Norse cultures, who would perhaps be unaffected by pirates at any distance.
-----
Fine, don't have to be positive, just that like you agreed (somewhat) that some civs shouldn't be affected by them as far as happiness goes.

[shimmin]

Regarding the issue of sandbagging the government before starting your revolution:

Historical revolutions have very rarely been two-sided affairs. Take the French Revolution, the 30 Years War, or the Congo Crisis for examples. More often, it's the central power fending off half a dozen or more (possibly allied) insurgent groups and whatever foreign powers want to get in on the fun.

Mismanagement should do more than spawn an AI-controlled insurgent to pester you. It should spawn numerous such insurgents. So if a player wishes to make the government ludicrously vulnerable to overthrow before starting their own revolution, they're welcome to try, but they will need to do more than just overthrow the government; they'll likely need to fend off a handful of computer opponents for the privelege of doing so. Moreover, since the AI revolutionaries will have been spawned during the mismanagment period and the player's revolution sometime thereafter, the computer controlled revolution will (at least initially) have a broader power base to work from). Even if they eventually win, it will have been after some period of true anarchy and they will be faced with the arduous task of rebuilding their shambled government. Better they had just started the revolution without sandbagging the old guard.

[The Diamond]

Mark - in the context of the American Revolution, I assume the player has going since the start of time. That means they've built Britain up over 2000yrs, FE. It makes logical sense to keep them with the Civ that they've traditionally owned. Besides, the war for independence was against them - if they lost, why should they be allowed to transfer to the side that beat them? Although I see your point. Continuing as the Americans would be an entirely understandable wish.

LGJ - even the very first merchant ship will have a reputation preceeding it. If no guards are hired and the cargo highly valuable then yes, expect pirates. However, I think that's unlikely. The cargo on the very first voyage will most likely be small, so the first ship probably will generate no pirates.

I was aware of how cultures were defined. I was only suggesting ideas of how such cultures could be accounted for in their stance towards piracy. The problem with me checking back about such an issue right now is that it's relatively unimportant in terms of the pirate proposition. If we ignored the Norse culture, it wouldn't be a drastic problem. Therefore I'm more interested in looking at basic concepts right now. If this projected idea goes any further, then will be the time for sorting details such as that.

I have looked over the current military model. I'm still trying to work out exactly how pirates would work under it, so I'll come back to you on that one. I have a fairly good idea of how things might have to be changed, but as I said, I'll come back to you.

I still think strategies would be largely the same no matter the size, unless the pirates actually became so powerful that they effectively ruled the area around their "village/villages".

Pirates would start with tech levels of the region that they come from, or are closest to. This is assuming that the weapons, etc. they can get hold of will be pretty much the same as everyone else's. However, the tech levels of the region will rise with time. Pirate tech levels onl rise when they make successful raids (plundering new weapons from the dead guards, etc.). When they rise, they will meet the current tech level of the region again.

I'm just going to ignore training, etc. until I can work the idea totally through.

As for pirate forts, it's very possible. Although I see a "fort" as being a replacement or "upgrade" for a pirate village. FE, in the forest, piracy is so great that a village starts up. As this village grows, the pirates become more security conscious of their lands and construct a fort there to protect their interests.

Shimmin...what you're talking about is perfectly possible, depending on your system of how rebel "units" are generated.
[This message has been edited by The Diamond (edited June 08, 2000).]

[Mark_Everson]

Hi All:

I propose that we put any further comments on Revolutions per se in the Revolutions thread to keep things a bit more compartmentalized... I'm as guilty as anyone else in the 'just one more response here' vein, but I think the time has come to separate Pirates from the more garden-variety rebels

[The Diamond]

Agreed.

Now, I've been thinking about the piracy issue and toying with a couple of possible ideas and changes to things I've said earlier and this is what I've come up with:

---------------------------------------------

Pirates, as an entity, are social undesirables. Directly, they represent opportunists on both sea and land whose primary aim is to plunder unwary merchants and whose secondary aim is to increase their control in the local region.

I'm now going to make some assumptions for this proposal which I am fully aware almost certainly don't fit into the current Clash system. Please don't gripe about this at this stage, as I will endeavour to integrate them better into the game engine as the idea develops. These assumptions only exist at this stage to allow me to give actual figures and values for piracy, which can later be adapted.

Assumptions:

Merchants can carry trade values from a minimum of 1C (where K is a unit of currency) up to a maximum of 1000C. 1C represents a very small amount of cheap cargo and 1000C could represent a galleon loaded to the brim with gold and diamonds.

Merchants have defence values of the range 1-10, where 1 is no guard and 10 is many armed guards carrying the best equipment available, etc.

The map is divided into "zones" at the beginning of the game. These are literally grid-lines forming 10x10 squares as boxes within them. Zones are generic and fixed and do not take into account any other factors. The amount of pirates belonging to a group in a zone is recorded. Zones allow creation of pirate villages in areas where provinces, etc. do not exist. They are also not subject to player/AI modification and thus allow pirates to operate as entirely separate entities.

The game remembers values of trade and defence values passing through single squares on a 3-turn basis.

Pirate units have a morale value of 0-10, with 1 being exceptionally low and 10 being exceptionally high. Pirate units with morale of 0 are special cases.

---------------------------------------------

The equation for Piracy reads as follows: this equation is applied to every map square at the beginning of a turn.

Frequency of pirate generation(P) = (average value of merchant trade in square over 3 turns(aC) / average merchant defence value in square over 3 turns(aD)) / M(f = Proximity of military unit/military garrison to square (in squares))

* P=(aC/aD)/M(f=0,1,2,n) *

If f = 0, indicating square is occupied / garrisoned, M = 0. This may cause a divide by zero error, in which case M = 30,000 or some other incredibly high figure. In other words, pirates are not generated in military bases or amongst military squads.

If f = 1, indicating adjacent square is occupied / garrisoned, M = 4.

If f = 2, indicating an adjacent-but-one square is occupied / garrisoned, M = 1.25.

If f = n, indicating there is no military unit within a 2sq radius, M = 1.

ie, military presence reduces pirate generation by 75% in adjacent squares and 20% in adjacent-but-one squares.

Generating pirates will occur in one of two ways, split between either generating physical units on the map, or by generating an invisible force that "occupies" the square. Both will be considered later.

For now, take some values:

P=(3000/3)/1
P=1000

This is an exceptionally high value of P, although understandable given that three totally unguarded galleons loaded full of gold have just passed through an area of non-existent military presence. P could be higher if multiple merchants had passed through the square.

P=(30/3)/1
P=10

A relatively low value of P. Merchants carrying quite small cargos travel unguarded. Many such journeys could be made before a band of pirates endeavours to take advantage of them.

P=(300/30)/1.25
P=8

Despite the trade values being higher than the previous example, the extent of military presence acts as a serious piracy inhibitor.

P=(3000/30)/1.25
P=80

In this instance, the galleons have returned with a full military escort and are travelling close to a military garrison. Although there are rich pickings in the area, the guards are good and thus piracy is quite low.

---------------------------------------------

P is not actually the number of pirates generated. It is the probability of a bog-standard pirate "unit" being created. From the examples above:

1000/1000 = guaranteed pirate generation
10/1000 = 1/100 chance of pirate generation
8/1000 = 1/125 chance of pirate generation
80/1000 = 1/12 chance of pirate generation

This will run fine as a general equation for initial piracy. Areas with low pickings or high military influence may never even see pirates. Areas with rich pickings and no military presence are likely to find more pirates than merchants.

There is also a 3-turn delay in this system for generating pirates "in the wake" of a merchant travelling through. This accounts for Lord God Jinnai's point about the first ever trader being unlikely to experience piracy, unless the pirates chase him...

NB - Pirates cannot be created in squares containing military units / garrisons, or in squares containing dwellings of above "village" status. Likewise, expansion into squares containing pirates is impossible.

---------------------------------------------

Pirates, as I mentioned earlier, live off merchant caravans travelling in their area. They do so by attempting to plunder any merchant that passes within their visible range (2sq). This range represents the pirates use of scouts and lookouts to forewarn the band of approaching merchants so that an ambush can be laid.

On any given turn, pirate movement may occur, representing the fact that pirates are unlikely to remain in one spot for a great length of time. Movement is a 50/50 chance event - either it occurs, or it doesn't. The pirate unit, if deciding to move, will move into the adjacent square containing a higher aC value than the one it is already in. If the square it occupies has a greater aC value than the squares around it, it will move randomly into an adjacent square. Pirate units may occupy the same square. If it occurs that pirates do occupy the same square, their forces may decide to merge.

Pirate units merging is the model's way of representing successful pirates attracting many to their cause. The unit with the highest morale will attempt to persuade the others to join them. Probability of merging is a direct function of morale:

Prob.(merging)=Morale/10 chance.

Therefore, a unit with a morale of 6 has a 6/10 chance of persuading the other unit to join it. A unit of morale 10 is so well known and respected that the other unit will unquestioningly flock to its banner.

If the units do not merge, the unit with lowest morale is "merge tagged", meaning that it will never merge with anyone. This allows there to always be some independent pirate bands who will never join others.

If the units do merge, they become one single unit which is "pre-group" tagged. If a pre-group unit merges again then the unit created will become a pirate "group", be assigned a character leader and will then act as a slightly different entity.

Pirate groups who persuade others to merge with them do not absorb the unit, but receive a small bonus possibly in the form of size, etc. The unit that has agreed to merge becomes a unit of that group and acts independently as it did before, but can no longer be merged with. If it is successful in merging, it will convert the other unit into its group, etc, etc.

The pirate group is held together by its leading unit, containing the pirate Captain. This unit can negotiate with govts and accept privateering contracts on behalf of the group, or as a personal mission. The difference is that in a contract, the member of the group nearest the intended destination will be sent, whereas in a personal mission, the leader himself travels to the destination. Only Captains with a strong liking and affiliation for a govt. will ever be bribed into conducting personal missions. These also require more expensive contracts.

---------------------------------------------

The pirate group is a unified entity capable of feats of piracy beyond that of an individual pirate band. When a new unit is added to the group, its morale is set to that of the group average. Its technology level is also set to the group average. Its "strength" level may receive a small bonus as well.

To represent the power of the group, the original assumption concept of "zones" is used. A pirate group containing at least 10 units in a "zone", including the leader unit is considered large enough to warrant a base of operations. This takes the form of the creation of a pirate "village" on one square of the map. This is a village effectively dedicated to the cause of piracy and smuggling and acts as a base for all pirates operating in the region. Villages are placed on the square that leader unit occupies at the time. There may only be one village per "zone".

If at any time the number of pirates in a group exceeds 20, then the village will have experienced so much revenue, protection, etc. from local insurgents that it will become a fort. There may only be one fort per "zone", and once a fort exists, no new villages can be made.

---------------------------------------------

The existence of villages or forts have several implications:

Recruitment: All units created in the zone containing the village or fort, or all units present at the creation of the village or fort automatically recieve a +10% strength increase (village) or +15% strength increase (fort) in terms of numbers, etc.

Diplomacy: Pirate villages/forts act as leverage for Privateering contracts. All contract values are increased by 5% (village) or 10% (fort).

Defensive: Pirate villages contain a militia of adequately armed men willing to defend their homes to the death. The militia can never leave the village (it comprises of its inhabitants), but defends the village twice as well as a normal pirate unit could/would. In forts, the militia will be supported by cannons and pirate bands waiting between expeditions. All units will have their defensive value increased by 50% while in the fort.

Attitude: Pirate villages create unhappiness. Most members of the Civilisation dislike pirates and pirate villages cause an increase in piracy. Also, dissidents will be able to trade more easily with pirates to obtain weapons and mutually beneficial deals. Forts exaggerate these symptoms further.

Morale: A pirate fort stands as testimony to pirates being strong in the region. All pirates currently in the zone recieve a +1 morale bonus. Also, units reaching zero morale have an alternative option...flee to safe haven. Whereas they would usually disband, they may now travel to the village/fort. Once there, members wishing to continue piracy will find a new band leader and the pirate unit will be recycled into a new independent unit.

Bravery: The existence of a fort encourages megalomaniac and excessively brave actions. Pirates will be more likely to attack military units in the "zone" containing the fort. The fort will also negate any effect of 2sq. military bonuses, as the military will be seen as helpless and pirates will be less wary of them.

---------------------------------------------

Although pirate units cannot be created in towns, etc. they may still wander through them on their travels. Pirates present in a population centre have an induced "terror" factor. This creates extreme unhappiness and increases the chance of dissident action. Independent pirates will generally only cause raucous drunken activity accompanied by a little damage. Group pirates, however, will react depending upon their Captain's affiliation to the Civ. If their Captain likes the Civ, they will remain well as well behaved as their unit leader can make them. However, if the Captain is on poor terms, the group may pillage and torch the place, leaving only a smoking wreck.

However, pirates don't undertake these actions out of political affiliation. Although their leader may dislike the Civ and be on friendly terms with local dissidents, pirate groups never become involved in Civil Wars or revolutions except in conflicts that would occur whether or not the war was taking place (eg, a high morale pirate will attack military "units" of both rebel and govt that intrude upon its space)

---------------------------------------------

Pirates are combat units and operate in a similar vein to existing military units. However, their strategy and tactics always remain the same - attempt rapid surprise attacks, do what you can, escape. They also have the concept of partial successes in combat.

When attacking a merchant, there is no guarantee of success. Even merchants with little defence might repel the attackers. There are, therefore, four outcomes to any battle a pirate is involved in:

Abject Failure: The pirate unit is wiped out, or recieves so high casualties it is effectively wiped out. This is only possible in conflicts involving military units.
Failure: The pirate unit fails in its attack and retreats.
Partial Success: The pirate unit manages to plunder part of the merchant's cargo. The exact amount of casualties and value stolen depend upon pirate strength, morale and the merchant's defence value.
Success: The pirate unit manages to extensively plunder the merchant's cargo. All value is removed and the merchant may or may not be destroyed.

When attacking or attacked, pirates are affected by a number of things:

Tech level: How good their tech level is in relation to the unit they are attacking.
Strength: How powerful/large the pirate unit is in relation to the unit it is attacking.
Morale: The general "feeling" of the pirates. Pirates in the belief that they are invincible and cannot lose (Morale 9/10) will tend to be extremely successful...
Defensive Reduction: Pirates are masters in the art of ambushes and surprise attacks, but not so in the art of calculated defence. A pirate unit being attacked suffers a -1 morale penalty.

I am now going to look further at how these factors are determined and how they affect the outcome of conflicts.

A pirate's tech level is initially set to that of the nearest Civ. This represents the fact that they will probably be just as well armed and equipped as the average merchant guard. For pirates joining a group, they adopt the average tech level of the group (their own included). Pirates' tech level does not increase with time, but will increase for every successful victory they have against a unit with a higher tech level. In the case of a partial success, the average of the tech levels is taken (ie, new pirate tech level = (old pirate tech level + other unit tech level) / 2 ). In the case of a total success, the pirate unit adopts the technology level of the defeated unit. This represents their tendency to salvage better technology weapons than their own.

Strength refers to the physical strength of the unit. A unit with many members, few injuries/casualties, etc. will have a high strength. Strength changes occur through unit mergers, terrain differences and external factors, such as pirate forts. Strength is initially a fixed value for all pirates.

Morale is initially set to 5 (neutral) when pirate units are generated. Morale is purely dependent upon success or failure but affected by external factors such as pirate forts or character leaders. When a pirate fails an attack, their morale decreases by 0.5. When a pirate unit is partially successful, its morale increases by 0.5. When a pirate unit is totally successful, its morale increases by 1. Morale may never exceed 10 or fall below 0. Pirates with a morale of 0 are so disgruntled with their band leader and/or piracy itself that they disband. Any pirate unit within the 2sq radius of the disbanding unit may receive a minor strength bonus due to some of its members joining new units.

Character leaders affect unit morale and strength. A unit containing a character leader will instantly receieve a permanent strength bonus and will also have a +1 morale bonus, due to the charisma of the leader. In addition, a unit with a character leader may never have a morale of 0. It is also worth noting that if a pirate leader changes, the group remains the same. However, if a pirate unit containing a character leader suffers an abject failure or is destryed, the group ceases to exist and all members turn independent. They also suffer a -2 morale penalty because of this.

---------------------------------------------

Pirates are more than capable of fending off local policing systems, but most pirates will think twice about engaging a trained military unit. Pirates with a morale of 5 or lower will actively move out of the 2sq radius around a military unit (when a military unit detected in their own 2sq radius, movement occurs towards exact opposite map square to the military unit). Pirates of morale 6-8 will continue to operate within the 2sq radius, but will not actively enter a square adjacent to a military unit. Pirates of morale 9-10 believe themselves to be more than a match for any military patrols. They will operate regardless of military action and if detecting a military unit in their 2sq radius may decide to make a pre-emptive attack.

Pirates with a morale of 9 will attack military units within 2sq every 1/5(1/3 w/fort). They will attack military units in adjacent squares every 1/3(1/2 w/fort).
Pirates with a morale of 10 will attack military units within 2sq every 1/3(1/2 w/fort). They will attack military units in adjacent squares every 1/2(2/3 w/fort).
Also, Pirates belonging to a group and having a morale of 7/8 will attack military units within their 2sq radius every 1/10(1/5 w/fort).

Pirates are also relatively good at hiding themselves and certain ecological types will lend themselves to the pirates benefit. Forestry allows pirates to remain hidden from military patrols. Any unit moving into an adjacent square on the map or remaining in the same square has a 50% chance of detecting them if the pirates are concealed in sparse forest, 25% if they are concealed in medium density forest and 10% if they are concealed in dense forest.
In addition, pirates are only detected 25% of the time in swampland and mountainous terrain (many areas not easily seen until up close). Hilly terrain also gives a comparative advantage, pirates hiding successfully 50% of the time.

Military units searching for pirates may therefore pass by their hiding places several times before the pirates "make a mistake" and are detected. However, military units blundering through dense forest searching for them are likely to fall foul of an ambush. Ambushes on military units occur when a military unit moves into a square occupied by a pirate unit that has not been detected and "seen" beforehand. This gives the pirates a boost to their strength to represent the element of surprise and the fact that they are fighting on ground familiar to them.

---------------------------------------------

However, there are three ways to reduce piracy pro-actively and reactively. These are:

a) Encourage govt. commissioned merchants to have a high defensive level.
b) Garrison military units along major trade routes.
c) Employ pirate hunters.

Pirate hunters are effectively bounty hunters. These individuals, or more likely teams can be contracted by the govt. to recude piracy. Pirate hunters are initially ordered to a map square. They will then scour the area for pirate activity and engage any pirate units they discover independently, with no player input. The search will continue indefinitely until the player cancels their contract. However, to prevent the player hiring and firing bounty hunters at will, the inclusion of a 10-turn notice period to ending their contract exists. Since pirate hunters are paid on a per-turn basis plus a bounty on any pirate unit killed (the size of the bounty reflecting the strength and morale of the unit killed), this ensures that they are far from being a cheap alternative to halting piracy. They are, in fact, likely to be prohibitively expensive except in times when the military cannot be spared for action against pirates, or for when the military needs assistance in running out pirates from a well-established "zone".

Pirate hunters benefit from the ability to always detect pirate units themselves (although this information is not passed on to the player. By the time the bounty hunter had informed the military of their location, they would have moved on...). However, pirate hunters are not picky about engaging pirates. They will engage any and all they find, regardless of their strength and other benefits locational factors might lend to the pirate force. Bounty hunters have fixed strengths and morale and operate tactically on a do-or-die policy. If a pirate hunter is defeated by pirates, future pirate hunters will demand higher contract prices. This reflects the fact that even the most daredevil hunters don't like dicing with death that much...

---------------------------------------------

Pirate groups may, under special circumstances, become privateer units/groups. Privateers act just like ordinary pirates, but will never attack merchants of the nationality of their allegiance. Privateers may only ever be hired from groups, and this depends upon the Captain's attitude towards the Civ. If the Captain strongly dislikes the Civ, then no option for privateering will ever exist. If the Captain doesn't have strong feelings one way or the other, it will be possible for the Civ to hire group members as privateers. These privateers are hired on a contract basis, where the Civ pays a fixed sum over 10 turns and gives the pirate a location to travel to. Depending on the attitude of the Captain to the Civ, trade value in the target square and the proximity of the location (close is cheaper. Also, the nearest unit to the location that is not the Captain's unit will be sent), the contract may be relatively inexpensive, or very costly. However, although the unit will carry a privateer tag, this doesn't mean its operations will be strictly privateering. There is a chance that the unit will ignore its supposed allegiance and tackle merchant units from the employing Civ anyway. This is known as contract breaking. If a privateer unit doesn't break its contract (no transgressions either en-route to the location, or in 10 turns after reaching it) then this is recorded as a contract mark for the group. After 3 contract marks have been gained, the leader's attitude to the Civ will become more positive. Any contract breaking will reset the contract marks back to zero as trust between the Civ and group will have been lost.
Once a Captain has a sufficient respect for a Civ (either through character bias or through previous privateering missions) then it will be possible to hire the Captain's unit as a privateer. This is considerably more expensive and also results in the Captain's unit getting an increase in strength and tech level (if possible) from dealing with your military. Pirate Captains will only ever undertake privateering work themselves if a pirate village exists. This is because once their contract is terminated, they will return to the village/fort before becoming pirates once more. The Captain's unit will never break its word of honour to the Civ and acts as a true Privateer should. It only attacks merchants and military units of a Civ with poor relations to its employer (in contrast to group privateers, who are not so selective). Its contract is also laid out like a Pirate Hunter's - being indefinite and requiring 10 turns notice to break. Pirate Hunters also will not attack privateer tagged units.

However, there are problems with employing privateer units other than the cost. Privateers, upon attacking a unit, disclose the nationality of their employer. This can lead to international incidents occuring and may break up even the strongest of peace treaties. Also, even though the Captain as a privateer will try to avoid this, his information is not necessarily up to date. Diplomacy changes will filter through to the Captain's unit, taking longer if it operates far from your Civ. This means that privateer units could unintentionally foul up newly-signed treaties of peace...

While employing the Captain, it is still possible to employ further units from the group. However, should a group unit break its contract, the Captain's unit will automatically start the 10-turn countdown to its contract termination. However, if the Captain's opinion of a Civ is exceptionally high, which can only be attained through personal privateering, it is possible to pay a large sum to convert the entire pirate group into privateers for your nation. These privateers will then become true privateers, just as the Captain's unit did. The amount paid reflects average unit strength, morale and also number of total units. A privateer fort or village has no negative impacts to your Civ and privateer units may pass freely through your provinces with no adverse effects. However, privateers may not recruit or merge with units and terminating the Captain's contract will cause them to become pirates once more after the 10-turn countdown. Privateer units may not be attacked by the military of the employer.

---------------------------------------------

I think that covers the main concepts in the pirate model proposition. Any comments on the model itself, its basic concepts, quibbles with my reasoning or ideas to build upon will be welcomed. However, I reiterate that I don't want negative criticisms of the assumptions made at the start. Simply stating that "this doesn't fit 100% into the current Clash model" is of no use to me at all. However, pointing out exactly where/why it doesn't fit or, even better, suggesting how I could adapt it to make it fit would be far more helpful.

I also apologise for the lack of physical figures and concrete equations in the latter half of the model. This is because I haven't spent quite so much time looking at these concepts and would like to post this up ASAP, so that I can receive criticisms before I do so.

[alms66]

The Diamond

In general the model looks very good. Here are some specific comments though:

1. I really like the idea that the pirate leader can negotiate with the civ (although I don't know how historically acurate that is).

2. The zones are a good idea to reduce calculations, however checking the piracy in each and every square is very costly. There are 64,000 map squares, which means 64,000 calculations in a single turn, just for piracy! I suggest you do these checks by the zones instead, although some may still say that is too costly. Also, you may not want to do these checks every turn, but rather every 3 turns, using the aC and aD from the previous 3 turn "cycle".

3. QUOTE "Generating pirates will occur in one of two ways, split between either generating physical units on the map, or by generating an invisible force that "occupies" the square. Both will be considered later."

I didn't see anything about the invisible force, that you mentioned, though I may have just missed it.

4. One thing I'm not sure if you know or not, is that Clash will have population in every square. Effectively a village in every square. So I would suggest pirates can only be created in "village" squares, using the following as a guideline (though I'm not sure if the others will agree with these numbers):

village= 1000 or less
town= 1001-5000
city= 5001+

5. I would suggest that a pirate's tech could increase on its own. Though they would always be 10-50% behind the area they are in when they get these increases, simply because a few pirates can walk into a town and buy guns, if they didn't have them before.

6. I don't like the idea of privateers being hired forever. The contract should always have some ending, especially if the captain dies.

[The Diamond]

TK -

1 - Not necessarily totally historically accurate, but how else do you account for pirates and their letters of marque in the Caribbean, etc. Because the Civs cannot negotiate with individual pirate bands, which did frequently occur throughout history, they must negotiate with the leader.

2 - I'm aware that there are several flaws in the zone system. Therefore perhaps if aC is recorded for each square and if it is 0 over the 3 turn period, the square can be "jumped"...I'm not sure. The problem with checking by zone is that zones incorporate 100 squares. A lot of different trade routes could happen over those squares, but pirate generation in the area would have to be randomised, which wouldn't be very realistic. Making it every 3 turns would make pirate generation very static and predictable, but might be a solution.
In short, I don't really know what to do about the zone concept. Suggestions about it will be very welcome indeed as I'm all of of ideas at the moment.

3 - Yes, I expect Lord God Jinnai will also point that out. I didn't actually separate them in the end. I think they'll work in the same way in the end, the only difference being whether they are a physical unit on the map or a tag attacthed to a map square. The term pirate "unit" refers to a pirate band, which could be of either type.

4 - I wasn't aware of that, thanks for pointing it out. That seems unusual...even the "uninhabitable" polar caps and islands deep in the ocean far from all main human existence will automatically contain population? Well...not for me to argue. Anyway, I agree with your suggestion, the figures depending on how population density is going to work in Clash...

5 - A fair view. I just didn't want pirates shadowing a Civ's tech level. Yes, they could go and buy new weapons, etc. I just thought it might add more to the model to have them improve by plundering units from high tech Civs. It doesn't matter. Including a function where pirate tech increases wouldn't be too hard.

6 - I don't have a totally justified reason for "indefinite hiring". My only current argument is that the player may not know how long they want the privateers to work for them. By setting an indefinite contract, they can terminate at any time (10 turn clause making decisions harder in that respect), without being forced to re-negotiate. Also, pirate hunters are disbanded upon their contract being terminated and privateers must return to their home village/fort. This would be irritating if a player wished to use them far away and had a fixed contract length as by the time they had got there, they may only be active for 2 turns before the contract terminates and they must return...

However, the contract is only indefinite in theory. Privateers may make transgressions or mistakes and break the contract by their own actions (either contract breaking or causing international incidents). Also, if the leader unit is killed, the contract is terminated. In addition, the player may terminate at any time. However, mainly due to the cost of hiring privateers, I doubt their contracts ever would be indefinite...

Still, nothing is concrete yet...thanks for your suggestions.

[Lord God Jinnai]

1. Historically, it has happened. Not often though. Its usually the other way around.

2. Zones are a good idea, however we may need to rethink the way they are drawn up. You say right now they are simply 10x10 squares, no other factors taken into account. I think that's wrong. There will be places where smaller zones and larger ones are nessasry. Zones should be considered either via population density or trade frequency in given squares. I'd say anything from 10-500 squares is enough. There will likely be more pirates where there are more people and more trade and thus more zone should be created to help separate them. However in some places, like artic regions, things will be virtually no population and little trade.

4. Yes, each square will have a chance of having population, however, during the begginning of the game (ie 5-7000 BCE) we should have many squares with no population (or atleast none worth calculating). As time goes on, populations should spread. Also, some areas shouldn't ever have too much population, mainly artic regions, some desert areas, etc. Populations are almost always centered around sources of rivers, orceans or trade routes throughout history, and in modern times, highways.

5. I don't ness see them as always being behind. They may not always be up to par, but they can usually catch up quickly. However, they should never be able to develope technology on their own.

6. I'm with TK, Privateers shouldn't be forever. However, privateer contracts can be renewed if they worked before with you and u treated them well for a little less perhaps, ie they know they can trust you and they've come to like your government somewhat. Also attacking merchants ships shouldn't always revoke a letter of marque. Instead the player can opt to let it slide.
Another idea if you want them to become more permenant, ie indefinate hiring, is to give them military titles. This was done often, esp when there was no other form of military around. This gave the pirate, er privateer, more socail standing within the civ so he was looked upon better. He wasn't seen then as just a pirate ness. So he may act a little better towards the government. Further promotion would strengthen these ties and make him want to do even better to get higher promotions.

7. Something I'm adding. Pirate villiages formed (or later forts) should, over a period of time, if not stopped start having checks made to see if they become more peaceful. Esp if the military is beefed up, but in a passive way, ie not seeking to destroy the pirates, but stopping their raids. The checks are maid to see whether or not the pirates begin to settle down and create a culture like the norsemen did in scotland and other areas.
Check 1 would do nothing offhand if it failed, just basically means its moving in that direction, though the player and ai will not do anything differnt. If that check failed, the second check would be made the next turn. If it failed, the pirates would slow their attacking. 3-5 turns later another check is made, if it fails the pirates would virtually all but stop attacking. Instead effort would go into improving living conditions for their village/fort and surrounding area. Passing up to this point means the pirates continue as pirates, atleast for another 20-50 turns. After say 10-20 turns another check is made. If it passes they will become a area similar to norse but more militaristic and agrresive. They cannot gain technology. Basically they just attack. Failure means they stop attacking and start trying to open up trade relations, although they will likely be much black market trade. Also farming and fishing start taking hold. Finally one last check is made in 30-50 turns. If it passes the group becomes a norse/mogol-like culture. If it passes, it becomes a more peaceful culuture. Either way it will adopt many of the ways of the surrounding civs.

[alms66]

LGJ,

Quote" Yes, each square will have a chance of having population, however, during the begginning of the game (ie 5-7000 BCE) we should have many squares with no population (or atleast none worth calculating). As time goes on, populations should spread. Also, some areas shouldn't ever have too much population, mainly artic regions, some desert areas, etc. Populations are almost always centered around sources of rivers, orceans or trade routes throughout history, and in modern times, highways."

That's better than automatic population in every square IMO, especially for arctic areas. However I disagree with your starting years for the game, (assuming a standard game) the starting year should be somewhere between 3500 and 3000 B.C. I really never understood Civ's use of 4000 B.C. since what we define as "civilization" began with the Sumerians, who sprung up somewhere around 3300 B.C. While there were definately villages and agriculture going on before this, it was during and after the Sumerians when it became widespread, along with writing (a key element of what we define as civilization).

[The Diamond]

In reference to LGJ's points:

1 - Which way round the negotiations occur has little relevance, really. The point is that Captains allow diplomacy between Civs and pirate groups.

2- I agree that zones need to be thought out again. One plan that I had was to breakdown zones further. The concept of a "zone" may have possible uses for other models, but 10x10 is too "average" for any specific or generic uses. Therefore, I propose the following:

Blocks are 3x3 squares. Trade value is calculated for blocks, not individual squares. This should speed things up. Pirates can be randomly assigned a place in the block as the pirate will be able to see into or attack any other square in the block, regardless of its exact placement. Zones are therefore now comprised of a smaller area (3x3 square of blocks, meaning 9x9 for a zone). Just a thought.

LGJ - I understand why you want zones to be variable, but this would involve recalculating them every (x) turns for population density, etc. This would probably involve more calculation time than it would free up. Also, what happens when a zone expands and engulfs a pirate village from another zone? 2 villages in the same zone...might cause a few bugs to occur.

4 - Nothing further to add.

5 - Agreed. Pirates cannot develop their own technologies. They will always be roughly up to par with tech. It's only a case of exactly how they are allowed to gain tech increases.

6 - Okay, some interesting points here. Privateer contracts can obviously be renewed, the problem is what to do with the pirate group in the meantime. Lets say, FE, that all privateer contracts are 20 turns long and that the employing Civ is on good enough terms to convert the pirate group to all privateers. In 20 turns time, they'll all become pirates again and the player will have to wait for the leader unit to return to the village/fort before they can be re-employed.

That doesn't make privateers particularly desirable if the group will turn happily against its employer after a contract is terminated. I'm aware that while employing the Captain's unit alone, the remainder of the group are still pirates and may be hostile. I'm thinking of revising that idea and giving them a reduced chance of attacking units of the employing Civ (because their Captain may be displeased if they do...).

Military titles, patents of nobility, etc. A good idea and historically accurate in some cases. However, under the current system, this would add nothing to the game. If the system was revised to include a stage between the Captain working for you and employing the group, then this could work, be historically accurate and add to the game (perhaps promoting the Privateer Captain to work in the govt. or military for you? Although who would replace him is anyone's guess).

7 - Ah. I was wondering about that. I wanted pirates to be independent and never form or detract from Civs. However, I see that they might settle down. Although my suggestion for that would be through privateering. As long as they remain pirates, they are unlikely to settle down. They may travel in search of new trade routes to plunder, but not much more. However, as privateers who cannot attack all merchants, things are different. Because of their good relations with a Civ and the increased trade for the village as a result, they may choose to retire from their ways and settle down peacefully or become traders, etc.

Still, I don't really want pirates to grow into other Civs at all. Although that's just my opinion.

TK - I agree...not having population guaranteed in every square is good.

---------------------------------------------

(kick myself for being so stupid point)

I just thought. What about pirates at sea creating a village...where exactly does that go? Chances are that the leader unit won't be on land...unless an island is automatically created (land level raised by one in square)then some other system will have to come into place.

[Lord God Jinnai]

TK
I've already discussed this with mark and the starting year is really going to be no earlier than 4000 BCE for a standard game, almost likely 5000-6000 seems to be the norm. There are reasons and you can look up why and such. If you want me to explain, email me (find my e-mail at the webpage).

Diamond
Pirates settling down: We should have some way for things to change w/o ness direct military intervention. This isn't really a military game and there are other ways of winning than just brute force. That's why i added this. Perhaps the way i did wasn't the best, but it is historically accuracte.

Also, they wouldn't form civs, but cultures...there's a differance. Mark could do a better explanation than i can.

[The Diamond]

No, that's okay. I see what you're getting at now. You're right, I hadn't really integrated an option for removing pirates from the scene in a non-military manner.

Thing is, I don't want pirates to work for the player particularly. As entities, they are detrimental to all civilised cultures. If they were to settle down, they would form a very belligerent, militaristic cultural group. I just don't want there to be an "easy way out" for Civs to ignore piracy and wait for the pirates to settle down. I want them to be outcasts that thrive on the inactions of a Civ. A pirate fort is supposedly the worst thing that pirates can obtain, as it strengthens them so much that they become a direct military threat to a Civ, such as pirates did in the Caribbean. The answer there was not waiting for them to settle down, but patrolling the islands with warships and stamping out piracy as it occurred.

If you think a non-military solution to piracy would add to the game, I'd be glad to hear your suggestions.

[Lord God Jinnai]

First of all, pirate groups settling down would be a long time in coming. And yes, if you do absolutley nothing about pirating, nothing will probably happen. On the other hand you don't have to take an agrresive campaign to go ". . . patrolling the islands with warships and stamping out piracy as it occurr[s]." Instead you can beaf up your military defenses. A non-agrressive civilizattion may only have this type of option or smaller ones for active deterents (other than pirate hunters which they may not be able to afford or privateering some pirates which doesn't ness help all that much if they can't afford but a few).

Any time to settling down would take about 100 years before the pirate group would even begin to settle down, and that would only happen if conditions weren't good for pirating, but not outright deterimental (ie seek and destroy all them). Usually such settling down occured with the local government apporval in exchange for giving up pirating ways (although this can be changed to just against that civ) and a payment of some sort. The settling down, like you said, would not result in a "civ" and the "culture" that emerges would be predomintaly agressive. In any event this would offer no advantages since it is a long term solution for places too poor to pro-actively deter pirates, but well enough off to keep them from doing to much damage to their country.

Right now this is the best "non-military option" that i can think of since even the use of privateers and pirate hunters involves the use of military force in a pro-active way, although not as direct.