DESIGN: End Game Options/General Strategy

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by centrifuge
So in civ world, this would mean that if you are researching gunpowder for example, and you ask the Chinese for the secret of gunpowder, they can either opt to give the whole tech, or just an ingredient or two and leave you to figure out the rest. So instead of getting the tech outright, you will be for example one turn closer to developing it.

An easy way to simulate this would be to give receiver of this partial tech some science points but only if the sender has the tech and the receiver reaserchs the tech.

-Martin

[MrBaggins]

OK... heres the further explanation to clarify what I meant:

At present there is a fairly lame system of good (resource) trading in CtP2. Essentially, you build a caravan unit, and then can choose to trade a good... like beaver or opium, or whatever, to another city.

That city can be foreign... that is belonging to another civ, or national, that is, within your own civ.

This trade, when complete, garners you some extra gold, which is effectively meaningless at present.

What I am suggesting, is that instead of getting just gold for the INTERNATIONAL trade route, you should gain income for that city... that is gold and/or science, based on your slider settings.

This would encourage peace, and diplomacy, rather than being an unused function as it is now. (in my experience, at least)

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann


An easy way to simulate this would be to give receiver of this partial tech some science points but only if the sender has the tech and the receiver reaserchs the tech.

-Martin

Yes, that is essentially what I had in mind.

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by MrBaggins

What I am suggesting, is that instead of getting just gold for the INTERNATIONAL trade route, you should gain income for that city... that is gold and/or science, based on your slider settings.

This would encourage peace, and diplomacy, rather than being an unused function as it is now. (in my experience, at least)

This indeed is also a good idea. I think that it is definetely something that warrants strong consideration.

At some point, after the bug fixing process I suppose, a poll should be set up to see what ideas should be implemented. Since, all of the ideas good or not cannot be implemented under the same build, and still give a good playing experience.

[Locutus]

Good to see you're back, Pedrunn and MrBaggins

Originally posted by Pedrunn
But we could consider taxation of roads TI also (the bigger than empire the more complex the road network).

I considered that too, but that could lead to some nasty micromanagement when you want to pillage your tile imps to reduce your spending.

You forgot: Completely redo the AI diplomatic .

Obviously.

How do you few about the Religion mod created by me and mapfi?

Haven't really gottenn around to it yet. I remember reading about it and having some reservations but I'll keep the comments for me until I get a chance to actually see it in action.

Originally posted by MrBaggins
make a series of city improvements which negate that city upto a certain city size.

I think that's a great idea Though you'd probably want to put either a cap on how many of those buildings you can build (or better, by how much the limit can be exceeded), or make them really expensive. Otherwise you could simply put such buildings in all your cities and thus negate the whole city limit principle.

Oh.. and the solution to keeping those interested in science victory, small, is by instituting two different government paths, one which is keyed to science bonuses (200%-300% perhaps? or maybe thats too much,) yet severely limits the empire size cap, and the other which is as currently implemented in CtP2

That's an absolutely brilliant idea

Originally posted by centrifuge
If a civ has more citizens at its disposal, it only seems logical that they will have more potential scientists, and therefore a greater technology rate.

True, more citizens means more potential scientists (keyword: potential), but more potential scientists doesn't mean more science. History shows the opposite is more likely: scientific advancement means change and if you're in a very comfortable position, change is more likely to make your position less comfortable than more so. So large and powerful empires are almost always very conservative and opposed to change (which could after all very well make the empire, or at least the people in charge of it, less powerful), and will therefore not do a lot of scientific research.

Another way to look at it -- a way that's easier to see in the context of CtP -- is that big empires have many different problems and concerns, and can only afford to spend a limited amount of resources on science. Guarding the borders of a large empire requires a huge army and feeding the masses and keeping them happy also requires an enormous amount of resources. Smaller empires have much smaller problems and can therefore afford to spend more on scientific research. You can have a million potential Einsteins living in your borders, but if they're all serving in the military or working on farms, they're not gonna contribute much to your science output...

Historic examples abound: apart from a handful of golden ages, China (which has for most of human history been one of the world's largest empires) is renown for it's extreme conservative and introvert nature. With the exception of a brief period under Alexander the Great's rule, the Greeks OTOH have never controlled an empire larger than Alabama (and the 'empire' that they did control consisted of very divided and independent city states), but are renown for their inventiveness and scientific world view. Another example: the Roman empire grew more conservative as it grew larger. E.g. although Heron invented the steam engine in ~60 AD, the Romans never used it for practical purposes (that would after all have rendered slaves obsolete and could well have seriously destabilized the empire).

[centrifuge]

You make good points Locutus , but I still have to disagree. Just for the sake of debate, why isn't Andorra, for example, a scientific powerhouse?
.
Money drives scientific achievement, my experiences and history show this. True, a large nation will have bigger problems than a smaller nation, however they also tend to have greater resources. So the ratio of problems/resources will, in general, be equal for large nations and small nations.

So as long as they don't become complacent and stagnate, a large or small nation can put more or less of their resources toward science, but since the larger one has more resources available the likelihood of achieving a significant scientific advance is increased.

The more technology that a civilization has, the quicker they can achieve more. Just think about how peoples lives have been freed up by the onset of computers/the internet. Instead of having to spend hours and hours digging through stacks of library books to find solutions to whatever queries we might have, we can now spend a mere 15 to 20 minutes and find the same and usually more information on the internet. The internet is just an example, the same can be said about automobiles, cell phones, almost any tech all the way back to fire and the sharpening of sticks.

Edit: spelling

[Locutus]

Just for the sake of debate, why isn't Andorra, for example, a scientific powerhouse?

In terms of Civ/CtP, Andorra doesn't even exist. It wouldn't even qualify as a single size-1 city, it's too damn small. When I speak of a 'small' empire vs a big one, I'm still talking about 10 or (later in the game) 20 or so cities, something comparable to your average modern European country (like France or Italy, or aforementioned Greece). In cultural terms too, Andorra is just part of Spain in spite of its independence, in the same way that Sparta was part of Greece, Brandenburg of Germany, Tyre of Phoenicia, etc.

But semantics aside, no, just because a civ is small doesn't automatically mean it's also scientifically advanced, obviously that's not the case. To achieve such a status, it requires a nation to actually invest in science, and plenty of nations in history have not done so. But at least it's possible to do so: in modern times, countries like the Netherlands, Singapore and several Scandinavian countries are considering their small size (Singapore wouldn't even exist independently in Civ terms and the Netherlands would be playing an OCC game ) disproportionately important in terms of science. It's possible for a small civ to be scientifically advanced, but it's obviously not necessarily the case. Just as it's entirely possible for a large civ to be scientifically advanced, though obviously any resources such a civ would invest in science would not be available for military power or other purposes.

So the ratio of problems/resources will, in general, be equal for large nations and small nations.

Actually, larger civs do have disproportionately larger problems compared to small civs: for most empires regardless of size, the core always has roughly the same size: for the Roman Empire, Italy was it's core, for the British empire it was England, for the Ottomans Turkey, for China it's the Huang He/Chang Jiang river valley, etc -- all are roughly equally large. For small empires, the core is the entire empire, for large empires it's just that: the core. And any territories outside the core tend to require far more resources to keep under control than the core. People there are often of a different culture and are more likely to revolt or even declare independence. And since most empires aren't perfect circles they require a large and complex road network to be connected to the core. They also tend to have irregular and artificial borders that are expensive to guard (as opposed to cores and small empires, which tend to have fairly natural and easily defendible borders: compare the Great Wall of China or the Roman border network with the (lack of) defenses of Greece or Egypt or Korea) and can include vast stretched of inhospitable terrain that are difficult to keep clean of bandits and rebels. In real history we often see small empires can more or less maintaining the same borders for centuries (think for example of European countries like France, Germany, Britain, Spain, etc -- not including their colonial possessions), whereas large empire (such as China, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman empire, Austria-Hungary, etc) are constantly changing their borders: adding territories by conquest, marriage or buying out neighbours, and loosing territory to conquests, revolts, etc. Such large empires have to invest a major portion of their available resources in keeping their empire together and/or expanding it, while small empires often don't have such worries.

Of course there are exceptions on both sides of the equation: small empires that spend all their resources keeping their empire together, and large nations that are stable for a long time and can invest their efforts in other affairs such as science. This is not something that the proposed changes to the game will rule out, they merely aim to add the (historically accurate) possibility to be successful with a much smaller civ as well, not forcing players down the path of military conquest as the game currently does.

The more technology that a civilization has, the quicker they can achieve more.

To extent that is true, but if you simulate that in Civ too well, that just means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Though that might be realistic, it is quite the opposite of what makes a fun game.

Just think about how peoples lives have been freed up by the onset of computers/the internet. Instead of having to spend hours and hours digging through stacks of library books to find solutions to whatever queries we might have, we can now spend a mere 15 to 20 minutes and find the same and usually more information on the internet.

Ah, yes, but what do we do with the extra time we safe with that? We waste it on playing games and posting on Apolyton Scientific advances may solve problems and lead to increased efficiency, but they also always create new problems. Our efficiency may be much higher than say 100 years ago, but we also work far less.

[centrifuge]

I guess I should clarify my point, I don't believe that just because a country is larger that it will have a greater science rate, however I also don't believe the same about smaller nations.

Lets Take my statement about technology spawning technology into account for a minute. The more that I think about it, the more I believe that increased ability to learn new advances is directly proportional to increased infrastructure. For example, what good is a telephone if you don't have phone lines? So if a civ has the technology of telecommunication, it really would give them no greater efficiency then they currently have.

So a solution to this, that would give a partial solution to the small vs large debate, would be to link tech rate with for example the road network, so if a civ spawns a ton of cities it really will do "the empire" no good scientifically unless their infrastructure is connected. As for cities that are on islands etc this would require a harbor but would necessarilly give a lesser boost depending upon distance.
This would certainly need to be adjusted with the discovery of techs such as the internet.

[MrBaggins]

Your point is well taken, centrifuge, but the system thats being suggested, still requires that a civ develop scientifically to be a great science power.

E.G. it still needs to grow economically, and to put funding into research, then to build appropriate improvements.

Its not that small empires automatically are better scientifically, its that if we set things up appropriately, then if a civ goes on a particular government path AND develops appropriately, then they could have a substantial alternative to expansionist empires.

It still requires development... just development in a different way.

[MrBaggins]

To further clarify...

There is a style of play in civ which, at the moment is second class... the builder.

The builder chooses to limit the number of cities they have, and put far more focus on their internal development, rather than seek headlong expansion and conquest.

This strategy is usuable, although is always inferior to the alternative, expansionism and conquest.

Hence, players making this "choice" are effectively punished, or perhaps more correctly, less rewarded.

There is no real reason why there should be equal although different reward for this popular strategy.

Having a system of linking tech rate with the road network, still wouldn't reward the builder strategy, since its still easier for a large empire to generate the PW to build a road network, than a smaller one.

The expansionist player would still be rewarded more in this case.

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by MrBaggins

Its not that small empires automatically are better scientifically, its that if we set things up appropriately, then if a civ goes on a particular government path AND develops appropriately, then they could have a substantial alternative to expansionist empires.

Well put, and indeed I do think that a change is in order, its just what methods are used to create that change that cause me concerns. It is certainly a tricky problem, imho.

[Solver]

To further clarify...

There is a style of play in civ which, at the moment is second class... the builder.

The builder chooses to limit the number of cities they have, and put far more focus on their internal development, rather than seek headlong expansion and conquest.

Not neccessarily. You can play the expansionist builder - build as many cities as you can without getting into a war - which usually means massing Settlers and expanding till you bump into other nations' borders, and after that focus entirely on developing those cities.

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by Solver

You can play the expansionist builder - build as many cities as you can without getting into a war - which usually means massing Settlers and expanding till you bump into other nations' borders, and after that focus entirely on developing those cities.

Which is the way I usually try to play when the AI isn't acting up In civ2 that's how I always played, then after I got my empire to the point that it was nicely formed, I'd switch to the offensive,

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Solver

To further clarify...

There is a style of play in civ which, at the moment is second class... the builder.

The builder chooses to limit the number of cities they have, and put far more focus on their internal development, rather than seek headlong expansion and conquest.

Not neccessarily. You can play the expansionist builder - build as many cities as you can without getting into a war - which usually means massing Settlers and expanding till you bump into other nations' borders, and after that focus entirely on developing those cities.

Exactly this is also my playing style and I must admit that I liked it that the CTP2 AI was so passive, that way I could concentrate on building up my empire, building everything available and once everything was built, well what should you build if there are no buildings and wonders available anymore, I built units to extend my empire further, so the end result is the same, but it is more difficuilt to reach if you are a builder. And of course needs more time.

And therefore we have to balance it better so that it is not to easy for warmongers maybe we could use better defence buildings that allows a light and cheap army to defend a city against heavy armies, of course the attackers shouldn't profit from that defense bonus.

-Martin

[Solver]

However, with the stacked combat system, it's hard to strike the balance. Currently, obviously, warmongers use 12-stacks, which will easily overwhelm a city with 3 or 4 defenders. If, however, we give the cities with 4 defenders an ability to defend against 12-stacks, that will put the warmongers at too big of a disadvantage - their sacrifical of infrastructure will hardly be justified.

How about adding some science bonuses based on percentage of cities with science improvements? That is, you not only get your 10% in city for an Academy, but if 75% of your cities have academies, you get a further science bonus. That's one of the things that could help smaller empires.