Rebels, pirates and other social problems...

[The Diamond]

I'm pretty much in full agreement with what you've said. Still, the only cost-effective long-term answer to piracy is to increase defense values or garrison military units. That's all I want to be kept in mind. It's fine having pirates settle down, but I only want that to happen if the garrisons, etc. in the area prevent piracy from easily occurring. I don't want settling down to be a time-based thing so that a pacifist says "Pirates? No problem...30 turns down the line they'll settle down...no worries".

Besides, I don't advocate a search and destroy policy for pirates. This is for a number of reasons:

1) Pirates will ambush the military.
2) It could take a long time and may not adequately defend the trade route in the first place.
3) Only a handful of pirates are likely to have a strong enough morale to ignore military presence. These may need to be hunted down in the long-run, but the others just need military presence to deter them from hanging around.

[The Diamond]

bump

[The Diamond]

Okay, this thread probably should be allowed to die quietly in the corner somewhere. That said, I wouldn't mind trying to negotiate to get it incorporated into one of the main models.

Problem is, I'm not exactly sure where piracy would fit in. So I don't really know who I should be trying to talk to.

Also, are there no more ideas on the piracy debate...or could no-one be bothered to think at the last bump?

This is still as open as it gets. More input would be great...

[Richard Bruns]

You can talk to roquijad and axi about melding this with the social and riots models. I think that the model structures are compatible.

[The Diamond]

Oops! Looking at the Riots model for the first time, I see this thread is already classed as part of the discussion.

Well, thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
[This message has been edited by The Diamond (edited September 22, 2000).]

[axi]

Before you come banging any doors in the middle of the night (figuratively speaking ), you should take a minute to assess the current situation in Clash development. You've been gone for 3 months and many things have changed. We are trying to concentrate on the more central issues, in order to prepare the ground for demo5. The Pirates and Rebels subject is a secondaary one, and I sincerely feel that it should be left for after the demo. Apart from that, you have many things to do if you want:

1. Check out F_Smith's Beast (The Object Editor). Follow the test case; play with it generally. Tell him what you think about it.

2. Take a look at my recent proposal for infrastructure (the spreadsheet will be online soon).

3. Give us an opinion about demo5 and the interconnection between tech, infrastructure and ethnic groups. This is the recent discussion that takes place in the tech 5.3 thread.

If, however you are only interested in rebels and pirates, then comprehending the riots model (and contributing to it's further development too) is a must for you. It is also good to be familiar with the changes in the govt model too. Then you can make a proposal of how to incorporate your ideas to the existing structure. We will have to agree upon the detail of the modelling and then start an OOA on the subject.

I have read your ideas a long time ago, and from what I remember of it, it seems to me, that you are adressing piracy in too much detail for the scope of the game. But, while the central models remain in document form, it has no meaning to discuss about the details of piracy, since many things will change until the end.

------------------
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

[roquijad]

Hi Diamond,

I agree with Axi. Currently some other stuff is more important. Although, I took some time to check your model and here are my comments and criticisms. Just please don't get frustrated if for the time being this model is not a centre of attention. It will be at some point. Guaranteed.


1)I think there're too many detailed rules for a number of things. I like the model, but I feel it needs to become more general and abstract rather than handling low level info such as if there's or not a military unit in a near by mapsquare.

2)You speak about "zones". I'd prefer to get rid of this and simply use provinces. Why didn't you use normal provinces?

3)I believe all calculations in this model regarding pirate generation should be referred to province info rather than mapsquare info. That is, aC, aD and N should be province level info. As for pirate movements, I believe they should simply wonder around the province and when in a random movement they find themselves in a new province, only then they check if in this new province expected bounties are higher, in which case the movement will be allowed and otherwise it will be overruled.

3)I don't know if the trade model will handle trade routs on a mapsquare basis that here you seemed to assume true. Is there any base for this assumption? I'm just ignorant on the subject.

4)Combat between pirates and other military units doesn't belong here IMO. Combats should be entirely handled by the military model rules using both pirates and military units as regular task forces. Therefore your concepts "Strength", "Defensive Reduction", etc seem out of place here. Anything like ambush capability or such should IMO be re-defined as modifiers to already existent variables in the mil model. Otherwise a complete combat system is needed only to deal with pirates and that doesn't feel right.

5)Pirate attack over merchants should be treated in a continuos fashion instead of the "Failure", "Partial Success", etc categories you're using. A % of the cargo should be stolen in an encounter and a % of damage should the pirate unit receive depending on the parameters of the merchant and the pirate unit.

6)I very much like how you treat pirate techs.

7)Piracy affiliation to one civ should be IMO treated in a more abstract way. A simple contract in which pirates are no longer attacked by the civ and in exchange they attack civ's enemy military units (including non contracted pirates, which includes your "bounty hunters pirates" concept).

8)I don't understand how "P" and "f" are related.

9)I don't see any good in terms of "fun" whit the "merging" feature. I'd get rid of it.

10)I don't like the idea of forts and villages for pirates.

11)Modeling the pirates captain is IMO too detailed. This model should allow for characters (from the character model) just like any other model. In this piracy model having a character in the pirates group should just increase its normal abilities. That is, just act as a modifier instead of opening a door for several other piracy capabilities and activities.

12)Pirate units should also attack settlements. The unit could randomly attack abstract towns in the province they're wondering by. In game terms this means some small population is killed in the province and some destruction of infrastructure is made.


Ok, I know there're more criticisms than congratulations, but don't get me wrong... I do like your approach. I just feel it needs to be more abstract and less detailed, hopefully using also all what already exists in Clash and taking advantage of it.

P.S.: At first glance, I don't see your model fitting in the riots model. I think it's a model of its own. That, unless you adapt it to the structure of the riots model. I'm not saying you should adapt it to the riots model's structure. Maybe it's good to keep it as a model of its own.
[This message has been edited by roquijad (edited September 22, 2000).]

[Richard Bruns]

My input:

I like the piracy model overall. It should add a new dimension to the game. The system should work pretty well. The Diamond has made a good start on the model IMO.

I also agree with roquijad. All of his points are good. The system will need to be refined.

But we really shouldn't be working on this now. We need to be building the basic models. Piracy is one of those things that will be put onto the game framework later. Right now we need to set up that framework.

This discussion should probably be suspended. The Diamond, could you give your input to the issues we are currently dealing with? You would probably would get more done that way. We can revive this discussion at a later date, after we have the basics finished.

[Lord God Jinnai]

One thing before this discussion is suspended, i still think we need pirate villages/forts, although not as commonalities. These would be IMO the basis for pirates that can settle down and form cultures.

Well another thing on the trade routes, i believe mark said he was going to work on something for some type of trade routes in the eco model because w/o them at all it would cause too many wierd factors.

[The Diamond]

I am aware of Mark's plans to address only central issues to Clash at the moment, but I don't believe there's a problem with continuing discussion on secondary factors. I took the step of forwarding a complete model to roquijad basically because I wanted to know where I stood and to get a bit of input on the model itself.

Anyway, I'm happy to leave piracy to one side for now and enter discussion on the other game concepts. Although continued discussion on piracy as and when time is available will, of course, be greatly appreciated.

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

1) There are a lot of detailed rules. However, most of these rules will take into account features existing within the game anyway. FE, a military "unit" in Clash will have to be aware if there is an enemy unit in the adjacent square for the military model. All I'm doing is extending this to get pirate "units" to look for military units/merchants in the area around them and respond accordingly. I suppose this would come under pirate AI.

The bottom line of this is that I don't want pirates to be random units that wander aimlessly around the map. I'd rather that they were a menace to society because of their ability to seek out merchants yet avoid direct military confrontation. The fact that pirates can become groups, etc. gives them teeth and makes them a factor that the player cannot afford to ignore forever...

2) The zone concept was one of the main original criticisms of this model. Here is my reason for using it:

Pirates should be independent of Civs. The player should not be able to directly influence pirate units and behaviour by beurocratic measures, ie, changing province sizes. This would also screw the model as it would be possible to force two pirate villages into the same province by skillful border manipulation.

Also, there are other reasons for zones. What happens if merchants are making long trade routes over unoccupied lands? If provinces are used, they will be invincible to pirates, who can only be generated within provinces (and therefore amongst military units, etc. making them all but a useless concept). In short, pirates who stray from provinces are useless, random, wandering units which I drastically want to avoid.

3) See the above point. I stress again that randomly moving pirates will be only a mere nuisance as opposed to a realistic, "intelligent" threat. Trade routes don't matter so much. The value of a merchant caravan and the strength of its defence are the only things that matter for piracy with regard to merchants in the new model.

4) The pirate combat system should be governed by the military model in general (the way attacks are calculated and carried out). what I referred to as strength is already a concept in the military model, I was just illustrating how it fits in with pirates. The morale and defensive reduction ARE modifiers that fit into the existing system.

Again, the only reason for their existence is to make pirates act differently to normal military units. Bear in mind that pirates are not controlled by Civs and under your suggestions have no "aims" and therefore do not react as normal to the presence of military units - ie, they will attack military units if they accidentally stumble into their square on their random movement. Otherwise, they are apathetic.

The system I outlined makes pirates avoid military confrontation unless they're in the belief that they're invincible (morale 9-10), in which case they try to kill everything that moves. It is designed purely to make pirates act in a dynamic way so that they have some form of AI, which I believe to be a positive factor.

5) In other words, what you're saying is that every pirate attack is successful. That was argued out at the beginning of this thread. FE, even the best ambush could go horribly wrong - and sometimes the worst planned attack can pull off a stunning victory. The concept of partial success, etc. is just an idea, though. Subject to change.

6) Thanks.

7) No. You mean a Civ can automatically negotiate with pirates...I disagree. Pirates don't actually want diplomacy. Many pirates would laugh at this kind of offer. It's only if the group had already proved to itself that a nation was friendly (leader-Civ relationship) that they would consider such a deal to be in their interests.

However, assuming that you could, would this be of any use? Since you can't order pirate units around - their random movement would be unlikely to ever bring them into contact with other pirates/enemy military units not in their direct area. The privateering model allowed the player the ability to send privateers to where they would be most needed.

That said, I like the idea of a more general non-aggression. I don't think pirates would want to attack ANY military units without a very good reason, hence privateers taking a lot of work to acquire. That said, I don't see a problem with adding Buccaneers to the model. IE, the Civ pays the pirate group a small fee per turn to convert group units into buccaneers, who will not attack friendly merchants or units (this already happens if the Civ is highly regarded by pirates, so this allows a diplomatic precedent). However, buccaneers will not necessarily keep to that treaty - they'll be less likely to stick to it than privateers. It just becomes another part of the civ-group early relationship (before privateers can be hired).

That said, its a picky detail to add.

Incidentally, I never want pirates to attack each other because of the merger concept. Group vs group could occur, but does this add anything to the game? I doubt it.

8)

P is the probability of pirate generation in a specific square in a zone randomly assigned by the game after the zone has calculated that a pirate will be generated.

F is the proximity of a military unit to that designated square. F is a value given from the number of squares to the nearest military unit. F values range from 0-4, indicating that nearby military units actively discourage pirate generation nearby as well as in the overall zone.

* P=1/F *

So, FE:

A pirate might be generated in square A. There are no military units nearby, therefore f = 1. So,

P=1/1 = 1. A pirate will be generated.

A pirate might be generated in square B. There is a military unit next to square B, therefore f = 4.

P=1/4 = 0.25. There is a 1/4 chance of a pirate unit being generated.

9) Merging allows for the creation of groups. Without groups, the 'n'th pirate must be given a character leader automatically. This would be both unreal and confusing. Besides, the leader unit has no influence over any other pirates, unless you order all pirates in its zone (or whatever) to become part of the group. In that instance, there are no independent pirates, which makes pirates easier to deal with on purely diplomacy - ie, deal with the group - forget about all piracy forever.

With merging, groups can be created only in areas where there are/have been at least three pirates close enough to meet and merge. Merging allows for distinction between group and independent pirates and allows groups to grow realistically. It isn't a fun concept, but a realism one.

10) Sorry, but I think you're alone on this one. I get the impression that piracy, in your opinion, is a set of random units causing dissidence...rather like rebels without a cause. I disagree. I want to separate pirates from rebel units. Whether that is a viable option in Clash (now or ever) I don't know, but for now I'll try.

Pirate villages and forts give pirates extra leverage in diplomacy, etc. To get a village, they have to be pretty strong. The village is a testimony to that strength and encourages the pirates to become stronger and more of a threat to the player. Forts are effectively the pirates staking their claim to a zone. Once a fort exists, it's going to take a lot of military power to oust the pirates, hence they are now a serious problem...not just an irritation.

11) I see the character leader as opening a door in the sense that once he exists, there is a pirate "group" to negotiate with, rather than, FE, 15 individual pirate units. It is the group, not the leader, which opens the first door. However, the leader's relationship with other Civs opens further doors. Basically, if you curry favour with the Captain, you can forge a diplomatic temporary or even permanent solution to the pirate threat. If the Captain hates you, the only answer is war.

12) Fine by me. However, since every square is populated, there'd need to be a further equation for working out if a pirate attacked and how bad the attack was. Again, as the group liked the Civ more, there would be fewer attacks on villages, etc.

----------

The problem in this trade-off is that to make pirates more abstract is not a continuous variable. Either they are abstract, or they are detailed. There is no possible fudge as I can see it. I can't see a way to generalise them without turning them into purely random units...which I don't want.

Hmm...Piracy could be a model of its own. That depends on the overall feeling of how important it is to Clash. I'd say rebels are more important than pirates, FE. When I started this thread, I was looking at working on a model to account for both. Early on I found that was impossible and so specialised on pirates since the govt. model was dealing with rebels.

Well, it depends on general opinion. If Clash just wants pirates to be there for historical accuracy rather than game interest, then general and not specific is the answer. If Clash wants pirates to make the game "trickier" or just add something else to think about, a detailed model is more appropriate.

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