Spy Vs Spy

[tyrantpimp]

Here is a thought spies should be able to kill each other without causing a diplomatic incident.They should be able to kill other special units too, diplomats etc. Any thoughts out there on this one?

[Tamerlin]

A spy killing another spy should not create any tension between two governments, but there should be some chances of being discovered when you assassinate a diplomat for exemple.

[tyrantpimp]

I agree diplomats and we could extend that to clerics too, i cant think of any others that would have official state protection.

[Martin Gühmann]

That is the use of the lawers isn't it.

So far they can kill other special units, maybe not all of them.

-Martin

[tyrantpimp]

I have only used lawyers on corporate branches but even still they occur so late in the game. Besides spies kill spies and other people thats part of the job

[The Big Mc]

there’s the eco rangers assassination too.

[SMIFFGIG]

an idea

If there is a veteran army (hopefully they will have better advantages than in vanilla game) it would be cool if u could assasinate general (obviously with a "%" chance of it working or not working)
If successful the army is no longer veteran and possibly worse than "Green" for a few turns, due to lack of morale

[tyrantpimp]

Thats a good idea SMIFF

ON another note its been established that there are some units that can kill other special units but my main gripe is they all occur too late in the game. I thought about it and spies happen waaay down the line does anyone find that to be just a little historicaly inaccurate? How about a speical unit that just kills people? If spies occur much later thats fine but we cant deny people have been in the business of killing people since the begining?

I say we need special assasin units

[SMIFFGIG]

yes an assasination unit would be great

this gives me another whole concept of an idea (its going OT but ill post it anyway)

The vatican in europe at least, where a GIGANTIC power, they where unrivaled and what the vatican pope said usually went.
It gave europeon countries excuses to wage crusades and attempt to crush all non-christian places.

This whole concept is lost in ctp2, its non exsistant. I think after christianity is an available religion type, this should be implemented some how. Say depending on certain factors (or a vote cast by all christian civs) one civilization got to be the vatican and have the pope (so to speak) and this would give them certain powers and advanced options, it would be a greatly sort after priveledge by all civs. This vote or however it will be, could be re-cast only every 100 years or something...

anyway i wont go on, but what i have mentioned above is just an extremely rough! outline of how it could be.

I really think religion itself let alone the papal states and power of the pope is basically ignored in ctp2 (and obviously in civ3, but expect the majority of players of that game probably dont even know its a history game :P) *jk*

-SMIFFGIG

[tyrantpimp]

Your right religion is a really weak part of the game even theocracy could use some extra muscle. I think increasing the religious aspects is a great idea. What if under theocracy once you converted a certain number of cities in another civ the whole civ becomes part of your religion. That in turn would increase your income as being the center of that religion.

Perhaps it wouldnt even cause a drain on the resources of the opposing civ at that point. Lets assume that a civ thats apart of a religion would benefit from the order and discipline of religion causing them a productivity boost. Instead of realizing this gain though it is differed to the theocratic patron state as tithes etc.

Now for this to work though there has to be some other religions at play. One concept to resolve this is to have some "barbarian" or "ghost" religions these lesse organized sects would be regional. And they would constantly be trying to convert cities you gather into your fold.

A better option is for rival theocratic civs to be involved too that would best i think.

So far these are my thoughts on your idea feel free to expound

[The Big Mc]

I think if you get ½ of a civs cities and then the capitol the civ should flip. I also think every new city captured by a civ with you religion needs to be flipped by you.

[MrBaggins]

Religion has been obviously and drastically important in the history of civilization. Its a socially devisive issue, and so, I think, its been largely avoided in Civ games, for the sake of political correctness.

I see that there have been three major "foreign influences" in our history... Religion, Commercialism and Politicism.

Religion was the first major influence that could easily spread across national and ethnic borders. Its "golden age" was pre "Age of Reason", when much of the mystery that it colorfully explained was given rational explanation. It's still a powerful social force even today, however.

Commercialism was the rise of international organization of corporate entities: the concerted influence of one nations traders, merchants and corporations in another nations cities.

Politicism is the influence of political systems with common interest, across national borders... like, say, Communism, Nazism or the Democratic blocs in the western world. These are partially for military alliance, partially for commercial benefit, but also significantly for ideological reasons.

---

The way I see this working in game terms is by having "influence" in each city. Cities start out with 100% national influence... that is, uneffected by outside influences.

Initially the first foreign (or local) influence, would be religious in nature... when you build a temple or shrine, then religious influence is increased in the city, although before Theocratic governments, the religious influence is neutral in nature.

When Theocracies hit the scene, then the spread of religion is politicized... different Theocracies, and indeed different groupings (I.E. religious alliances of Theocratic civs) fight for control of this religious influence.

In game terms this is how I'd achieve this:

You have abstract unconventional religious units. I'm not decided if there should be two types, one for spreading influence internationally, the other for controlling religion within their own cities, or if one type of unit that dealt with both issues, depending on how he was assigned.

These units wouldn't "move" per se... you'd deal with them on an unconventional action screen, for the empire, rather than for each individual city.

You'd build these units (and only Theocratic type governments should be able to build or use the "religion influencing" or offensive religious units,) and their numbers would be shown on this top level screen...

Something like

"Missionaries 0/20 - Clergy 10"

This means that you have 20 Missionaries... that is units that spread your religious influence to foreign lands. The 0 means that they've not been allocated to a particular job... yet. The 10 Clergy would be units that spread the word about the national religion amongst the home nations cities... they prevent incursion of foreign religion.

The missionaries are currently unassigned. Clicking on the number would bring you to another sub screen.

You'd see a list of civs with icons for your relationship, relative power. You'd also see a temple icon, if they had any religious buildings (and therefore there was a possibility of their being influenced,) the average percentage of religious influence in their cities (of any type,) the number of missionaries you'd assigned to converting that civs religion and finally their clergy... their defense against this.

You might choose to allocate all of your 20 unallocated missionaries to one particular civ. That civ has temples in 4 of its 8 cities, and currently no one else is trying to convert their religion. It has 10 clergy.

When you allocate the 20 missionaries to that civ, since that value is higher than the 10 clergy that it has, then at the start of next turn, your civ-religion will have 10 points of religious influence in each of the cities with temples... this would be displayed in game terms as 1% influence.

If another civ had also allocated 10 missionaries to influencing that target civs religion, they would not have any effect, since their 10 missionaries isn't a higher influencing factor than the 10 clergy the target civ has.

In other words, your clergy give an equal value of defence versus any individual influence attack.

Religious alliances would convey mutual advantages: Individual civs within the religious alliance would still allocate missionaries independantly, but the sum of all of the missionaries allocated by the members count in combination versus the clergy of the target civ(s).

Thus a religious alliance can influence a more powerful foe, even if individually they couldn't, if together, they can...

In similar terms if a member of the alliance is under religious influence attack... that is he doesn't have sufficient clergy to deal with foreign missionaries, then if other members of the religious alliance have "spare" clergy, that is clergy over and above the highest number of missionaries that are influencing them, then shared among those members who don't have enough clergy.

Complicated? To explain? Yes. In game terms, its really quite simple, and pretty automatic.

The degree of religious influence wouldn't be in terms of tithes... it would count towards (a) game victory, through religious influence of x% of the worlds population, with a minimum pop requirement, or (b) unrest AND unhappiness in a city where your nation is attacking a civ that has religious influence in your city.

There are a few ways that you or the AI can deal with religious effects...

• build more clergy and/or missionaries (if appropriate)
• form or join a religious alliance to gain combined power and defence
• as a last resort destroy all the religious buildings in your cities

Obviously destroying all the religious buildings you have will cause you social issues, but will at the same time, remove potentially serious negative influences in your cities, and is the quickest way of doing so.

Knocking down all the religious buildings and rebuilding them would simulate "religious reform"... you'd start from a neutral (or national religion in the case of Theocracies) point again.

---

Any interest in this idea?

Should I explain the Commercialism/Politicism ideas too?

[The Big Mc]

please do.

i think that the buildings should help to protect you civ rather then help a enemy civ lets say for every ten clerics you have you get two from the temple.

[tyrantpimp]

Sounds like a good system to me, im only concerned with the weakness of the theocratic gov type. Somehow success in the world religious arena should help beef it up so that its a decent alt to the other govs. Or perhaps we should invent some beefier futuristic type of theocracy?

[The Big Mc]

Redeeming theocracy

Put simple they use brain washing and mind control to gain complete control over people.