posted June 09, 1999 12:09            

Sections:
1. Social Engineering Choices
2. Social Engineering Effects
3. Related Concepts
4. Issues for Discussion

Social Engineering Choices
The general consensus seems to be to move Civ to the SMAC model of social engineering. Within that broad statement . . .
Categories for social engineering: Government, Society, Economic Structure, Values, Religion, Regional Government, Army.
Government Types:
Despotism, Monarchy, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Republic, Democracy, Tribal, Dictatorship, Feudalism, Darwinistic/’Pure’ Aristocracy, Virtual (Technological True Democracy)
(Note: Choice of government type restricts your choices in other areas.)
Society Types:
Police State, Open, Corporate, IngSoc, Welfare
Economic Structures:
Barter, Currency, Manoralism, Banking, Mercantilism, Corporate, Labor Union, Communism
Values:
Knowledge, Power, Mores, Wealth, Environment, Hedonism
Regional Governments:
National, Confederacy, City-State, Independent, Regional.
Army:
Militia, Volunteer, Selective Draft, Reserve, Mandatory Service, Brainwashed, Professional, People’s Army
Individual Liberty:
Individual liberty would be an indicator of all your other settings combined. If it gets too low, your people would revolt, but if it’s too high, you would have problems enforcing your will when you take an unpopular action (like go to war or raise taxes.) This isn’t really a setting, but a gauge of your other settings.
Special Events:
These are special events that you can order which have effects on the different classes in your society. Upsetting a certain class could make it harder for you to take action in the areas they control (for instance, unhappy merchants inhibit trade.)
Crusade: increases military strength, reduces population pressure, but angers target (a foreign power).
Purge: reduces military strength and science, but pacifies masses through terror.
Enclosures: angers masses, pacifies elites.
Grant Fairs: increase taxes, pacify merchants, grows cities (but thus angers nobles)
Grant city charters: enhance city growth, anger nobles
Increase Feudal Levy: increase taxes, anger nobles
Grant Serfdom: anger populace, pacify nobles
Sell Offices: increase corruption, pacify nobles
Conscription: increase military, anger masses

Social Engineering Effects:
SE choices can have effects on the following areas:
Growth, Happiness, Economy, Gregariousness, Environment, Pride, Control, Fanaticism, Ego, Materialism, Vengeance, Curiosity, Industry, Distribution of Wealth, Corruption, Conservatism
Game Effects:
SE Effect -- Game Effect
Growth -- Rate of population growth
Happiness -- Happiness of the populace
Economy -- Tax and trade income
Gregariousness -- Maximum size of cities
Environment -- Pollution rate
Pride -- Resistance to subversion
Control -- Police
Fanaticism -- Resistance to SE change
Ego -- Modifier to foreign relations
Materialism -- Duplicate of Economy?
Vengeance -- Holding a diplomatic grudge
Curiosity -- Research rates
Conservatism -- Combination of Fanaticism and Pride?
Distribution of Wealth -- Duplicate of Happiness?
Corruption -- As in CivII
Industry -- Production rates
Morale -- Um, ah, morale
Military -- How much your military costs, as a % of normal
Supply -- Upkeep costs on your military, as a % of normal

Concepts:

• SE settings should have an effect on gameplay. For instance, a setting of Laisse-Faire Capitalism should prevent you from micromanaging your economy, while Communism would force you to do more tweaking to be efficient.
  
• National and ethnic character: Should each Civ start with inherent pluses and minuses like in SMAC? How to assign them without starting a race war?
  
• Discovery of some techs should have an immediate impact on your SE effects, i.e. plastics gives you a minus on environment.
  
• Culture Points: This system separates the discovery of a society tech from its implementation. Instead, after you discover a tech you have to spend a certain number of "culture points" to actually make the change in the social engineering window. Culture points are gained automatically as time passes, through (positive) diplomatic relations, Philosophers (which are like entertainers) and Wonders. Some culture settings are available at game start. This system would require eliminating many of the Wonder effects and replacing them with a large number of culture points.
  
• Depending on your regional government structure, you should be able to make a few SE choices for regions as well as the entire empire. Tax/Lux/Sci rates may also be set down to the city level, but the interface must allow you to set levels in multiple cities at once.
  
• Revolutions should cause large splits in the empire. Also, if different regions have very different SE settings, this should increase the chances of a revolution. Revolutions create new civ that you are immediately at war with, but they can be reintegrated with the original civ if they surrender or ally within a given amount of time.
  
• Dynasties. Every once in a while, your government destabilizes as the line of succession is debated/argued/murdered over.
  
• Generals, like the officers of MoO2.
  
• Civ-specific units and buildings, but instead of assigning the units to a specific civ, the first civ to discover a given tech gets them, and that tech is no longer available to other civs.
  
• Preset government "templates" that set all the SE choices for you, and which you can then modify from there.
  
• Laws: Laws are like SE settings, only with less effect and not mutually exclusive. They're sort of like city ordinances from SimCity. Possible laws include mandatory military service, child labor/education, legalized drugs, etc. that all have small effects on your empire. We'd need a lot of these to get it to work. Suggestions: Legalize birth control, legalize drugs, crime crackdown, institute welfare, nationalize health care, legal human testing, ban child labor, freedom of information, ethnic cleansing, free university, environmental action.
  
• Economies should go through boom/bust cycles, the strength of which depends on your SE settings.
  
• Contradictory SE settings should be possible, but be very difficult to play or have contradictory game effects. For example, while you could play a democratic, communist, religious state, the various pluses and minuses would average out to about zero.
  
• Inertia bonuses: A civilization that consistently maintains a certain attitude (peaceful, warlike, diplomatic, etc.) would get bonuses in those categories. For instance, if you’ve spent the last 400 years at peace, you could get a science or happiness bonus.
  
• Certain SE choices allow other (AI) entities to take limited control over parts of your empire. If your SE settings give the church or corporations a great deal of power, they can automatically build structures, set up trade routes, etc. These actions are not controlled by you. There are advantages to this though, like lower costs or extra happiness. These AI entities would have their own agendas, mainly building things that enhance their own power (the church builds temples, etc.) If popular opinion gets strong enough, you may be forced to change a SE setting or face revolution.
  
• More government-specific units, like fanatics.
  
• Ethnicity, implemented like capturing a base in SMAC, where the populace (passively) resists you until they assimilate.
  
• City structures would have their effects by modifying the SE values for the city in which they’re built, instead of as % of output changes. For instance, building a library increases your research value by 1 in that city only.
  
• Gradual changes: You can hit the button anytime you want to make yourself a democracy, but your people won’t necessarily listen. Game effects are delayed after you change a SE setting.
  

Issues for Discussion:

• Slavery is something nobody can seem to agree on . . . in or out, and if in, how?
  
• Instead of making SE choices directly, we make them by supporting certain structures or groups, which then create pluses and minuses on their own. So, instead of picking "Police State: +2Police, -1Economy" you beef up your police and military and they eventually give you +2 Police and -1 Economy.
  
• There should be more choices under each SE category . . . but we don’t know what they are!
  
• Slavery, as implemented in C:CTP. Good or bad?
  
• Use sliders for SE settings instead of set choices?
  

Contributers: Zorloc, JT, anachron, Trachmyr, Ecce Homo, mhistbuff, the Octopus, Fuji the Great, Shining1, Freddz, Mark_Everson, Frank Moore, kmj, 23 Skidoo, Depp, Singularity, NotLikeTea, Armageddon, LordStone1, HolyWarrior, Lancer, primetime000, JamesJKirk, RINCEWIND_HAS_RETURNED, darkgrendel, Spartan187, wheathin, Harel, Kropotkin, Diodorus Sicilius, CormacMacArt, Stefu, Isle, Galen, Flavor Dave, Cartagia the Great, korn469, Black Dragon, SnowFire, Daniel Bistman, Bell.

posted June 11, 1999 11:04            

1. Police stations double the effect of courthouses. This way, courthouses + Women's Suffrage would mean that republic rocks. I might even build Women's Suffrage.

posted June 17, 1999 20:06            

Well, apparently there's some political sh1t going on between the forums, and I quite frankly don't want to get involved in it. So, here's what I'm going to be doing. First, I'm going to continue the thread as is on the Apolyton site, since that's where it was started and that's where the structure exists to support it. However, I'm also going to keep this thread going here, as long as people are willing to support it by posting their ideas and criticisms and suggestions. If you don't want me here, just don't post in the thread. I think there's a lot of advantages to this system, but if you don't want to use it, that's up to you.

The discussions themselves will remain separate. However, if I see an idea posted to one forum that is a real deviation in the direction the thread is moving, and introduces new thoughts and concepts to the dicussion, I'm going to cross-post it to the other forum. Yes, this will be based on my judgement, but there's nothing stopping the original poster from cross-posting their idea themselves. I think it would be counter-productive to cross-post everything and basically have a mirror of the discussion on both sites, but if that's what you want to do, go for it. I can't, and wouldn't, stop you anyways. However, both threads will be integrated into summaries, and the summaries will be cross-posted to both forums.

OK, now then. Soapbox mode on. That means, if you don't want to hear it, don't read it.

I've seen a lot of talk about the list's structure and leaders and politics, almost as much talk as has been involved in the gathering of ideas. I've run business and corporate web sites before, I know that the name of the game is traffic. That's one reason why Firaxis wants the list here, so they can get traffic. That's one reason why Apolyton volunteered it's resources in the first place. This list has generated a lot of traffic. I'm not saying that nobody is interested in the game, but that's what the whole forum fight is about. As far as the game is concerned, as long as the ideas get there, it doesn't matter where they came from. Where only matters to the people running the websites.

There's also been mention of whose property this list is. The first one belongs to Apolyton, the next ones belong to Firaxis, etc., etc. Bullsh1t! The list belongs to the people who post the ideas, not the people who run the sites. So if Firaxis wants to officially endorse Yin, or me, or any of the other thread masters from Apolyton, that's fine with me. If not, I really couldn't care less. I'm taking an organizational role only because chaos doesn't get the job done on this kind of effort. I'm willing to take the responsibility of saying that the ideas you post in this thread and the one at Apolyton will go in a list that will be sent to Brian Reynolds. Who sends it, I don't care about, as long as it gets done. If separate lists are generated, then the same summary will appear in both of them, as long as whoever generates the list is willing to accept my summary. Whether BR reads it or not, I can't say, but if you post ideas in these threads, at least he'll personally have to throw them away to ignore them.

So Stephen, if you want to say I'm official, go right for it. If you don't, that's all right too. One way or another, whatever ideas are put forth in this thread will end up in BR's mailbox from some source. I suspect that I'll still be part of the Apolyton list in any case, and I don't know what's going to happen here, but if I have to send them myself, that's how it will be done.

Soapbox Mode Off

posted June 21, 1999 05:56         

Rather then just making a country a democracu, you must install a parliament, decide who chooses the parliament (all of the population or just a part, only the aristocracy ?), you must intall freedom of speech, you must decide how much power the president (you) has.

Idem with economy, rather than saying "communism" or "capitalism", you must decide in detailed how your economy is structurised, a German welfare state type economy or a Japanese mercantilist, protectionist type economy ?

Rather than just turning your country into a federal democracy from a centralised dictature with a single click you must do it by reforming the institutions and laws etc
Rather then just turning your country into a capitalist from a communist you must do it by privatising etc
And all of this should take time as well of course.

posted June 22, 1999 21:15         

. Oligarchy (should appear after monarchy but before republic). The Spartans and others employed it (government by elders/committees, can be with or without monarchy).

posted June 29, 1999 01:02            

Political/Social:One end is Tyranny and at the other is democracy, or anarchy, with things like Monarchy and Republic in between

Economic:Laisse-faire free market at one end and communal at the other, with regulated market & planned in between

Centralization: With very decentralized at one end and very centralized at another

Religion: With fundamentalism at one end and secularism at the other (which I've described at the RELIGION thread)

Happiness: This one is affected only by the other choices but is VERY IMPORTANT, so it should be easy to see by player (unless you want to learn the hard way; someone proposed using your spy network to keep tabs on the happiness levels of your people. Perhaps a toggle before game start?).

Technological (actually social) advances would allow newer forms of the same basic VALUE type. Based on what is posted above, I think that ARMY ratings might better be served by tech advances & "special options" in a workshop? The rest of the above suggestions can fit in this system, as many of the above can simply be techs (labor union) or combinations of the above(demo+very decentral= confederacy). Value bonuses/penalties would be presented in % modifications, rather than using the current SMAC style. Certain combinations would have additional benefits/ penalties outside the value system. Also certain choices would prevent, enhance, or subdue social effects from technology.

Tyranny: % bonus to suppress population. Allows greater control of market, production, and research. % bonus to support. % penalty to happiness. Democracy is opposite.

Laisse-faire: % bonus to economy, % penalty to happiness; little control of market, production, research. Communal is opposite. Complete laisse-faire cannot benefit from Environmentalism tech.

Centralization: very decentralized is greater happiness, higher corruption. Very centralized is opposite. Monarchy+decentralized=feudalism, which may collect revenue from forts, castles, etc. in populated areas. Decentralized may alter lux/tax/science (if used) at "city" level, centralized may only at government level.

Religion: & bonus to happiness, with penalty to research, secularism is opposite. Tyranny+communal/laisse-faire+centralized= communism/fascism, which has 1/2 bonus from religion, reduced unhappiness for secular (due to 'faith' in ideology).

A point to be made. I would like to see civ3 adopt some MOO1 basics: Multiple areas of research allowed at same time, and be able to build more than one item in city, as well as multiples of the same item (units only) if sufficient production. In civ2 there are 5 areas of 'research'-military, economic, social, academic, and applied. These would be the areas you could divide by % 'research production'. In addition, the city screen would have 2 different areas to build items in. Now if you have democracy + free-market, you will have a considerable boost in your economy, however, you will probably only get to pick where approx. 25% of it goes. The rest will be applied by the AI, representing your people, who will generally pick non-military areas. Also your production will be divided, one of the menus is for your people to build what they want, the rest goes to you. Generally your people will build buildings that help them somehow, trade routes, or tile improvements. The result is that totalitarian, communal govts will have greater control of what goes where, but democratic, free-market govts will have a greater production overall. Also production, research? can be 'purchased' from your people during times of crisis (i.e. war), say, 1 or 2 coins per production/2 beakers.

As in civ2, the extremes of these slider bars will not be available until higher "techs" are available, and higher "techs" will add to the bonuses and possibly reduce penalties.

A final note is happiness. Happiness affects everything. It will give a bonus/penalty to food, shield, science production, growth, taxes, you name it, it affects it. Low unhappiness can result in population decrease &/or revolt. Since it is so powerful it's % bonus/penalty will be much less than the other areas.

IMHO this is very simple and should reduce micromanagement, while retaining a great deal of realism.

Whew! Comments, criticisms welcome.

posted June 29, 1999 10:43            

Tyranny also gets MORALE bonus (military only) and bonus to defensive espionage. democracy opposite. Democractic societies will have effect on non-democratic ones. If happiness of democratic society is equal or higher than non-demo AND they are adjacent to each other with open borders, allied, &/or established trade routes then the non-demo people will start to move the tyranny bar towards democracy. If the player/AI resists (by moving back) there will be greater unhappiness as a result. The tyrannic player/AI may shut down trade & borders, this will stop democratic discontent. Later techs (internet?) will make demo discontent unstoppable (unless there are other techs invented to stop it).

Fundamentalism will grant additional MORALE to troops. Secularism does not suffer morale penalty.

Since people generally hate change, slider bars cannot quickly be swung back & forth (small amounts of change would be exempt). Sudden democracy will upset your generals (if tyranny, it would be interesting to see some of your units rebel against you!), communal to free-market will upset your people, religious to secular would cause heavy problems. When moving slider bars the happiness bar will note how much the people are reacting to these changes. The resulting unhappiness will last for x# of turns. If the new society would be 'happier' than the old, then the overall unhappiness is reduced. This should probably be an option before game start.

posted July 02, 1999 02:00            

First of all, what would ethniticity be? It would be differant ethnic groups living in the cities of your Empire, that are not of your people. They would be Celts, Egyptians and Carthegians living under Roman rule in differant cities.

These citizens would arrive in those cities in many differant ways. The first of these ways, and the most ovious, would be through conquest. When taking a city, your governers would take power, but the citizens would not magically become part of your people. They could retain their cutural identity inside your boarders.

This would not have to be forever true, ethniticities could disappear over time, after all, how many Babylonians do we see walking the streets of Ney York these days? Over time these populations would assimulate into your Empire. How quickly? well that would defend upon certian factors in the cities. If, in the city, let us call it Rome, there are 6 Roman citizens when your American army marches in, it would take much longer to assimualte them into your culture than it would be there were only 2 Roman citizens. Also your tolerance of these minorities woudl affect assilumation. More toerance means happier relations, but slower assimualtion, lower tolerance might mean expelling them, with a medium setting showing that you tolerate, but also try to assimualte. You could also build structures to quicken the time it takes for this to happen, but they might have negative facotrs in other areas, depending.

Another way to pick up an ethniticity in a city is through migration. If other governments are percuting a sertian group, some may flee from that Empire. By accepting them, you would get certian bonuses, as well as disadvantages.

What would be the big deal of ethniticiy? how would it affect this game? For one thing, you would need to keep relations with these ethniticities. A city that is rebelling, that has a alrge ethnic population, muight just decide to rebell and take other cities with it, to rejoin it's old nation, or to reform it. On the other hand, these minorities would be able to offer you several bennifits for keeping them happy. Such as increased production, science and money

Now lets say that the Romans in the American Empire are not doing quiet so well. They were unhappy, causing the Americans to try to percecute them slightly, but this only increased the anger. What can the Americans do to get rid of the problem once and for all?

Well it should have tried to absorb the population sooner. If you flood a city with your own settlers, and tip the ethnic scale of that city in your favor, assimulation goes quicker. Or, they could have expelled the citizens of that city into settlers and sent them to other cities, scattering the ethnic group, and making assimulation easier.

The Americans didn't do any of that, however. they allowed the Romans to remain largly holed in many of their former cities. They also neglected relations, and, when the Romans showed the first signs of disobediance, over reacted. They lowered their tolerance scale to the Romans(there woudl be an Ethniticity screen which would allow you to set your tolerance to these differant groups as well as set special programs for a cost) hoping that it would shut them up. It idn't, and so a downward spiral began between the Americans and the Romans, each one getting angrier and angrier at the other.

The final stray came when the Celts, the American's arch-enemies, attempted to set the Romans off into a rebellion. Four cities broke away, which the Amerians had to retake and crush the new nation. By this time, the Americans have grown sick of the Romans and feel they msut be taken care of. How can they do this? Well it would be possible to put an entire ethnic group into slavery in your Empire. With would decrease happiness in your cities as well as, later in the game, cause a major diplomatic incidnet, but production would sky rocket. The Americans could also evict the Romans, setting them fleeing to theh ills as refugees. This would take away large parts of those cities populations, as well as give other nations which brought them in a few bonuses. Finally, that idea would, like the previous one, be a diplomatic incident in late game. Or, finally, they could begin to attempt to kill the Romans off in those cities, perhapse with a concentration camp building. If kept secret there woudl be no diplomatic event, but if it's found out......it might nto be pretty.

As I said, it would be possible for a new nation to spring up from an ethniticty. If things got bad enough, the Romans in this American Empire might try to rebell and recreate their old nation. This might be hlped by funneling arms to dissidents by other civilizations. Or, an invading army toliberate these ethnic cities and recreate the nation. this would add a whole new side to diplomacy

posted July 19, 1999 14:46            

Government: Despotism, Monarchy, Totalitarianism, Theocracy, Republic, Democracy

Economic: Barter, Currency, Banking, Feudalism, Mercantilism, Protectionism, Communism, Corporate, Transnational

Values: Survival, Power, Knowledge, Wealth, Environment

Structure: City State, Federal, Confederate

Army: Militia, Reserve, Professional

Religion: Animism, Loose Polytheism, Strict Polytheism, Loose Monotheism, Strict Monotheism, Multitheism, Atheism

------------------
M@ni@c-SMAniaC
depends on what site I am.

posted July 19, 1999 15:18            

The first thing I wrote are the SE choices in the beginning= Despotism, Barter, Survival, City State, Militia, Animism. They are always available, whatever your SE Government may be.
Here a list which government should have which SE choices
I'm sorry if you don't get my abbrevations.

Army SE Choices should be available to everyone, so I won't type them.

Despotism: Curr/Po,Kno,Wea,Env/NoStructureChoices/LP,SP,LM,SM
Monarchy: Curr,Feu,Merc(I'm not sure about this one), Prot, Corp/P,K,W,E/Fed/LP,SP,LM,SM/
Totalitarianism: Cur,Prot,Comm/P,K,E/Fed/SP,SM,Ath
Theocracy: Cur,Feu,Merc,Comm,Corp,Ban,Prot/P,K,W,E/Fed,Conf/SP,SM
Republic: Cur,Merc,Ban,Comm,Corp,Prot/P,K,W;E/Fed,Conf/AllReligiousChoices
Democracy: ALL CHOICES

posted July 20, 1999 09:57            

Effects of Culture :1) A strong culture allows you to control more cities before additional unhappy citizens appear due to empire size. In SMAC this was a part of Efficiency. I would split EFFIC in Corruption and Culture.
2) How bigger your culture rate, the less it costs you to bribe enemy cities. Note this isn't the same as Fanaticism. That makes enemies bribing your cities more expensive.
3) If your Culture is stronger than that of nearby civilization, his cities become gradually and automatically converted to your Culture. The converted cities have your city stile, so you can know which are converted. If that other civ declares war at you, the citizens of the converted cities become more unhappy.
4) If the capital of another civ is converted, you have a better diplomatic relationship.

Culture should be particularly determined by your Religion. See my previous posts.

In my next posts I shall begin to give Social Factors to the SE choices.

------------------
M@ni@c-SMAniaC
depends on what site I am.

posted July 20, 1999 19:59            

- despotism: same as in civ2 except that you would face "pro-democracy riots" escpecially in the latter part of the game.
- communism: same as despotism except that ressources would be pooled.
- democracy: Breaking treaties, committing atrocities, using weapons of mass destruction would cause major riots. There would be a senate that would have to ratify treaties, SE changes, construction of WoW. The senate would also propose things that you could pass or veto.

- free market: computer would control city production. The player could change production but it would increase unhappiness ( a free market society does not like gov intervention). There would be no maintenance costs. (this would represent private corporations supporting the maintenance of infrastructure)
- planned: player has complete control over production.
- green: pollution would increase unhappiness. "high industry" type facilities would not be allowed. A new facility, the "state park" would be allowed to be constructed which would increase happiness.

- power: 1 out of 3 citizens would automatically become a free "militia" unit, similar to the partisan but more powerful. It would be upgradable when you got new weapons technologies.
- knowledge: 1 free tech every X turns
- wealth: +50% more income. more unhappiness.

- cybernetic: a free facility is built at random every X turns. small chance that a facility would be destroyed instead of built. ( The free facility would be because industry is much more innovative and more efficient since intelligent conputers do the work and people are free to think. The random loss of a facility would be because even smart computers can crash)
- eudaemonic: spontaneous "golden ages" at random. small chance that a military unit would disband (go AWOL because the society is very pacifist)
- thought control: you could spend money to get X amount of turns "drone" free. It would cost a lot because it would be expensive to control the minds of an entire civilization.

Some of your military units would revolt and try to take your capital if as a democracy you tried to revert back to a totalitarian sytem. if they succeeded, you would stay a democracy, if they failed you would become the totalitarian system you picked. This is realistic (a democratic leader could not switch the gov to a dictatorship without a revolution), and it would make it harder to switch to communism from democracy just to fight a war ( a common civ2 strategy that is not right).

I just think that these types of effects for the SE choices would bring deeper gameplay. A free market economy would feel like one with the unhappiness everytime you tried to switch production ( when you had a riot, you would get a popup window saying "The people took to the streets today chanting "ECONOMY MUST BE GOVT FREE") and the stronger economy (no maintenance costs meens more income and more facilities can be built), a society that believes in "power" would look like one with the free "militia" units moving around etc...

posted July 21, 1999 12:22            

Big civ vs Small civ

And no, I don't mean another post on minor civs. Not at all. I am talking about the power balance in today world.

Now, the USA, for example span 250 million people and a production value of 9 trillion dollars. My own country, for relevence ( Israel ) has 6 million people and and a total GNP 110 billion dollars.
Now, is the US has a 80 times stronger political, militarical, and scientifcal power? Hardly.
Small countries are often stronger then thier size. In civ II, a civ with 30 cities was 10 times stronger then one with 3 cities ( if not more ). If both players play equally well, atleast.
This isn't true in real life, like I alborate. Taking Israel example again, it's the lead country in several technologies ( rocketery, moleculric biology and aeronotics ) and it's army is extreamly well trained.
While there is no doubt that America can win a war with Israel, a total war such as this would create much more casaulties for the US then what Israel apparant size might suggest.

Monaco produce much more money ( due to trade and tourrism ) then thier size.

Switzerland is a rather small country in popultion, but they have the highest GNP per person in the world. And so on.

Even moderete size countries, such as France, England and germany ( moderete in comparsion with russia and the us ) they posses a great political and industrial which exel thier size.

The point is, that smaller civ can compete, somewhat with thier bigger opponenets.
The way this can be addressed in civ III is having a culmative social modificator.

posted July 21, 1999 14:15            

2nd, to put it in Civ terms, Israel isn't a civ at all, it is an American colony (now, don't get riled, this is in Civ terms). If the US wasn't giving billions to Israel every year, and didn't provide certain military guarantees, the Arab states would have wiped out Israel long ago. Israel is a de facto American city. It projects our values, gets its weapons and the money for those weapons from us, etc.

3rd, you said that a US-Israeli war would entail many US casualties. No, it wouldn't, in civ terms. The US would just drop a nuke. Or, use spies to knock out the coastal fortress and then it would sit off the coast and shell Israel's one city (in civ terms) until all defenders were gone, and then offload marines. Or, the US' engineers would just offload from the transport, build an insta-fortress, and then the howies would come in and wipe out the defenders. There'd be no civ casualties, at all. Not one dead American civ soldier. So, your supposition is false. In Civ.

4th, you are forgetting that the object of real life politics is not to conquer every other nation, or be the first to colonize AC. In real life, any mission as large as going to another solar system would be a multi nation project. So in civ terms, what your saying is nonsensical. And in real life, conquering the world is utterly impractical for one nation.

5th, as far as small civs being harder to conquer, that is ALREADY THE CASE, at least when I choose to play perfectionist. I never lose a city, and almost never lose a unit. Why? Because I never have cities that aren't well protected. And I'm so rich, I'm immune to bribery, even if the AI were able to get a spy to one of my cities.

If you're talking about the AI having small civs, well, that's a whole 'nother issue. But remember, how much did Isreal actually discover itself??? Darn little, since the wheel and mapmaking and...were all discovered before Israel's founding.

6th, your small civs ALREADY get a bonus, in that a 7 city civ of mine is maxed out on improvements. When I'm expansionist, I don't have universities or stock exchanges in MOST of my cities.

posted July 21, 1999 15:37            

Your green idea has a point. You shouldn't be able to build Nuclear Plants.

About your Power idea. You said 1 on 3 citizens become Militia. That would seriously decrease population growth.

Further I don't think the Future Societies Cybernetic, Eudaimonic and Thought Control will be in Civ3

------------------
M@ni@c-SMAniaC
depends on what site I am.

posted July 21, 1999 15:42            

First off, America tribute to Israel is 1.5% of our total production. Do you truly think such a small figure can make such a big difference?
Secondly, America started funding Israel in 1978, AFTER ISRAEL HAVE WON EVERY BIG WAR WITH THE ARABS. On our own. If anything, France helped us.
Third, you are aware Israel have nukes also?
Fourth, with Israel up-coming anti-missile defence, it's a long shot the missile would hit anyway.
Not that America won't have any other nation on it's tail after it.
Fourth, we DON'T use your values, don't like them and more Israelies don't like you either. Myself Included. I belive the us to be a simple-minded fool country, we no regard for TRUE democracy or human life. You lots would have never given up hard-earned land for peace, you butched thousand of Indians. We are not a colony of america. We earned our right way before you came.
Besides, Israel air force is ( and no, I am not making this up ) the fourth in it's size in the world, and FIRST in quality ( since Israel aeronotics supress those of america by far ). So, I won't guess america "bombing ships" would survive for long.
Not that Israel navy is very weak. It's very small, true, but it does carry the world three first clock-technology ships.
Beside, Israel develop most of it's weapons. If anything, America buy weapon designs FROM US.

But, you did you "civ-terms". Well, then civ terms are false. Civ should better reflect reality. In real life, america can't take over Israel that easily. Therefor, a civ that takes "power" as goal ( like Israel ), should get a much bigger spy-defence and morale bonus to refelct the fact that it's indeed harder to take over that civ. Surely you don't belive the "insta-fortress, multi-howitzer" idea can work in real life.

And last, Israel is considered the world leader is several key technologies, such as rocketry, semi-conductors, molecularic biology and plasma physics.
( I can back that up, btw. )
I don't think that can be explained by the miger help of 2 billion a year.

But, don't consider Israel alone.
Taiwan, Singapore, Monaco...
All of those tiny nations hold great economical power as they sell ( hi-tech, tourrism, or anything else ) exceptional power. Their hold of the world market far supress thier real size, and thier politcal power ( vote's in civ terms ) are also much bigger.
Also, there is no "no-causlties" war today so civ model is un-realistic anyway.
Even in desert storm america lost troops, and that war was as "play-safe" as you can get.

posted July 21, 1999 15:57            

I believe that progress should depend more on physical/intellectual infrastructure than on population.

posted July 21, 1999 16:09            

I would like to say how great Israel was, but in 1948 we were just as primtive and "barbaric" as the egyptains. Insdustry was non-existnt. We couldn't repair any tanks. You know why? We didn't have any! Not till the last stages of the war. We fought with small cannons and molotove bottles. We won only because of civ "morale bonus". We might have the best tank in the world now, but sure as hell not then. But, indeed infra-structre is a good idea. A small civ with a good holding could out-do a big civ with bad infra-structre.

Secondly, for Maniac:

Thats true Maniac, but doesn't only apply to wealth!
For example, some countries have armies which are much stronger then thier size. Taiwan, for example have a scientifical advange that supress most of the world even due it's a very small country.

The point you made about democracy/wealth it true. However, consider this:
a one city civ with democracy/wealth vs.
10 city civ with democracy/wealth.
Big civ still will get 10 times the money, since they both get the +X percent to income.
The point is, the advange should be bigger when smaller civ choose it. The civ still won't be able to compete in everything, but it could match it rivals in THAT specific cataogry.

Trade is a good equalizer but some small civ choose not only to excel in economics but in other matters.
Sparta, that for sometime was an independt country has a legndery army. Sure, it could not have defeated the entire greek army, but it would have been one big fight! Indeed, there was such a great battle.
So, sparta has a big morale bonus. In civ term, that is "power". Even when greek was in war ( choosing "power" ), sparta soldiers were much better. They got a bigger morale bonus.

I would belive it be fun, and accurate to add this into civ. Trade with small civ would be useful as they would give almost the same trade value as bigger civ. They got get technology almost opening the route for trade swap. In civ II a small civ had no tech to suggest and so just kept dropping down and down, having no hope to get something new. Even with "knowladge".
So, when fighting the comp, even if you become the huge civ you can still lose by zealous small civ.

posted July 21, 1999 17:03            

1) If you defend your capital or your last city, you get an automatic(=without SE) HUGE defense bonus. Since on an civ earth map Taiwan and Israel are only one city they will always get that bonus. The more cities you have, the less defense bonus you get. If you have 10 cities you don't get a bonus.

2) Use the monopoly system from CTP. A monopoly gives you an ENORMOUS trade bonus. One city civs may always have a monopoly on something.

3) You are not limited to 3 trade routes as in all previous civ versions. That way monopoly cities could trade their stuff to every other civ and get SUPERENORMOUS trade.

4) Small civs are immune for negative Morale.

5) In an earlier thread I promised to think about giving Social Factors to my SE Choices.

Corporate/Free Market : +2Economy, -3Planet, -5Police

Transnational : +3Economy, +2Industry, -3Environment, -5Police, -2Morale
(= Improved Free Market, available due to some future tech, got the idea from the book Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson)

Wealth : +1Economy, +1Industry, -2Morale

6) A civ with an immunity for Morale and a Transnational/Wealth economy would get this :
+4Economy, +3Industry, -3Environment, -5Police, -0Morale.

7) In Civ3 Industry will probably be represented by increasing Shield output and not by decreasing the cost of things to avoid the Industry cheat of SMAC. Thus, with that increased Industry a small civ will be able to support a decent army, but it will not be able to get expansionistic due to the -5 Police.

8) Before you begin to type 'a large civ with 30 cities will have the same benefits'...
NO! They will have a -4 Morale hit, so you can hold them off for a while.

9) Harel, if you aren't satisfied now, you *seriously* overestimate Israel's power.

10) Bell, I would like to see some of this mentioned in The List v2.0. I wouldn't like to have the feeling I wasted all my time to please 1 person.

------------------
M@ni@c-SMAniaC
depends on what site I am.

posted July 21, 1999 17:19            

Besides, smaller civ always held a comptetive edge, even in older days. The transnational option is futuristic. What about sparta? The minoun ( while they lasted? ). Hebrew in older days?

Beside, how do you define "no-minus-morale" to small civ? One city? What if i build two? I get none? What makes you a small civ?

The point is, that smaller nation DO exel in some regions. That is a fact. Take the "TV-test". The US has 80 times more economical power then Israel. Do you hear 80 times more news on the US then Israel? Does the US has a 80 times strogner army, sell 80 times more product, has 80 times more scienctifc advance? The answer is no. Thats also true for a huge array or smaller, or weaker nations.

The defence bonus is a good idea, but just like what I suggest it depend on the number of cities. Why not have the SE bonus size depend on the amount of cities?

1 city = +50%
2,3 cities = +40%
4,5,6 cities = +30%
7,8,9,10 cities = +20%
11 and more = +10%

for every SE goal bonus. Or something in this area.

IMPORTANT! this only applies to the GOAL SE modifactor. The goverment and market bonus will stay the same. Only for the goal bonus, I say again. Only for what the civ decides to excel in.

posted July 22, 1999 10:19            

If you read my thread carefully, you would know that the Industry bonus allows them to have a good and large army. Not invincible but if you really think that the Israelians can hold off the Americans, I say: Wake up!
And if you loose a lot of units, you can still rushbuy new ones. That's why China doesn't attack Taiwan. Because Taiwan has lots of money to spend on war economy if they need to.

About Sparta, compared to other Greek polei, they had a large territory.
And the Minoans were a trade nation!
The Hebrews in older days meant nothing. Ok, you could defeat the Filistines, but against the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians... your pathetic army couldn't do anything.
It's thanks to the Americans and English you have a good nation. Otherwise you would be worthless.

About your "TV-test". Yes I hear 80 times more about USA than Israel. It's only because you are Israelian you think the opposite.
The only reason you come in the news is because your aggresive people keep staying in Libanon and the Golan Hights.

Oh yes, for a change yesterday I heart some Israelian scientist discovered that flowers stay longer fresh with Viagra in their water. You may really be proud on this magnificent 'scientific' breakthrough!

My own country, Belgium, would also be represented by one city, Brussels. And we don't 'excel' in something.

Yesterday I have too given some further thought about my first point about Defense bonus(the one you agreed with). The Belgian army sucks, so I think you should only get a slight defense bonus.

posted July 22, 1999 10:55            

If YOU had read my post carefully, you would have seen I only ment to SLIGHTLY augment the Goal SE.
What is the Goal SE? In SMAC, you had a goverment section, a market section, a future society section and a goal section ( power, wealth, knowladge ).

Choosing free market has nothing to do with a country choosing the "power" SE to be a militaritisc country.
In your system, they must select free market AND wealth since that it the only way to they can have some real advantge.

However, a country like Israel or Sparta should be able to select the attribute "power" to get a morale bonus since those countries hardly can be said to have a +0 morale bonus ( in your system ). They posses a smaller, yet more qualified army.
And no, never I ment to any country to get a crazy bonus like +10 morale. All I said, the finite bonus gotting from the goal SE ( power, wealth, knowladge ) should be slightly offest in the favourtism of smaller countries.
This doesn't have to regard to one-city civ, btw. It can easily reflect a small civ of 2-3 cities in comparsion to an empire of 30 cities.

While I said that Israel has no chance in winning a war with the US, or even scoring a good hit we can delay them. And btw, this is backed up in stratigic simultion.

Also, a few things: pentium II, MMX pentium, Avocado ( what you eat is a gentic alter fruit. Originaly a jungle fruit ), many combat missiles, ICQ, optic fibers ( yes, really ), Air ballon to open blood cells ( like in heart surgery ), Nielon fabric (!), Acamol, and much much more. The relation? All developed in Israel. Not only Viegara

About our aggression. Well, your right about that. Try it on Singapore. Taiwan. Any other country. Try to measure the amount of product first developed in every country ( the patent insititute of every country can show that ), the items which the country posses an agreed "monopoly", etc. The point is, while the US is great in it powers, those powers are not equal to other countries when reduced to a fixed scale.
A single, round 5 million city in the US cant match to Israel or Singapore.
Nor can New-York match to Taiwan in the grand total of things.

posted July 22, 1999 11:17            

Taiwan = Free Market/Wealth
+3Eco,+1Ind, -3Env, -5Pol, and +50% makes +4 Eco and 1.5 Industry. +Immunity from Wealth's negative factor.

My suggestion : Small civcountries (=less than 5 or 10 cities?) get +50% to their Value(not Goal) modifiers and get an immunity for their value choice.

Good enough for me. Together with what I said on the other post, that would do. Do you agree now?

About the Belgian harbors. Yes, Belgium has a big harbor = Antwerpen. But about that "always good in trade". I think you confuse with my northern neighbours The Netherlands. After the Netherlands separated from Flanders because of protestantism, the trade in Flanders lowered because the Dutch closed the 'Schelde' and ships couldn't pass to Antwerpen.
Done with the history lesson.

posted July 22, 1999 13:33            

1. Since we might play on a small map, or have lots of civ, a FIXED number for being a small civ is wrong. Therefor, the level of the bonus gotten for the Value ( not goal, sorry ) SE will be defined by either:
A. the number of cities, in a comultive effect: 1 = +50%, 2 = 45%, etc..
B. your position in the world scale ( 8th civ ( last ) = +50%, 7th civ = +45%, etc... )

But, how will that co-exist with the "no-minus" idea? You might say we have to set a rigid number, below it you will gain no minus and increased values bonus , above it it will act as the norm.
Thier are problems with a rigid number. What if some civ will choose not to expand from 5 to 6 cities cause that will render thier bonus non-existant? In order to encourge growth, thier must be no number which you might not want to raise above.
Therefor, the bonus from the value should slowly deminish over time.
However, how can the "no-minus" lower along the way? Simple. Let's consider this:

1 city = +50% to Value bonus, no minus.
2 cities = +45% to value
3 cities = +40% to value, no more then -1
4 cities = +35% to value, no more then -1
5 cities = +30% to value, no more then -2
...
11 cities = normal value, minus as normal
etc, etc, etc.
Remember the +value is to augmant the value bonus after is current size. The value selection would still be effective to empires 11 and up.
For example, wealth would still give +2 to economy. It would just give +3 to a 1 city. However, i belive the SE bonus should be pin-point to fractions, so that +1.8 eco would still give a bonus highter then +1 eco.
So, for example: if +1 eco gave you +1 in every city ( let's stay 10 cities for +10 bonus )and +2 eco gave you +1 in every square
( let's say 30 square for +30 bonus ), then a +1.8 would give you +26 ( 80% of the difference between the +10 and +30, plus the original +10 ).

2. Thanks of the history lesson. Indeed, I was reffering to the netherland of yore. However, belgium still posses some expretee ( but, not being off a belgium origin, I just don't know what it is ).

3. Indeed, the pentium was made by Intel, but the MMX principle was developed by Israeli scientitist working in Intel ( in Haifa hi-tech complex, near my base by the way ) which developed the MMX, and then the pentium II series ( which includes MMX ) and the Katami 3d orders for the new pentium III.

In civ, it's was too easy for a big civ to take over it's puny opponents. If that AI, or player, due to a poor starting location to some selection, is behind in size, it would have less troops and poorer technology. By storming in, you could just take it over with out one hit.
In this system, while not wieling that much power, smaller civ might be useful when alive to the big empires. A small country with knowldge value might gain scientific advance easier and cheaper then it's big opponenets. So, the big empire might just give that country tribute to put in Science taxtion and show an abdunce of technology.
Also, the minor civ might wield enough economical power to allow it to be useful in trade.
And last but not list, the smaller one can have enough qualified armies to make the big empire think twice before attacking.

posted July 22, 1999 14:35         

Sparta was another example, this time militarily, but it wasn't because they were small that they automatically recieve a "bonus". The reason they had a great army is because they were trained from childhood to be a good soldier, it was a part of being a Spartan, of their culture. And why did this culture rose in the first place ? Because once they had serious slave rebellions which could be only surpressed with serious difficulty. To prevent such a thing from happening again they militarised themselves and became very vigiliant. The constant fear of their slaves rebelling if they would show signs of weakness kept them that way, and after a while it became their culture.

Of course Harel has a very good point that such a thing is unlikely to happen with big nations because it's far harder to form or direct a big one then a smaller one.

posted July 22, 1999 16:50            

On a tiny map 1 city should get the 50% bonus.
Small = 1.5
Normal = 2
Large = 2.5
On a huge map 3 cities would still get that 50% bonus.
Or perhaps it should be based on the squares of the map(to please players playing on a customized map), but I don't know the actual size of the predetermined maps and the squares they have, so I certainly can't say anything about customized maps.

I don't like your idea to depend the bonus on how strong your civ is compared to the others (8th civ gets that bonus, 7th that one ...). Because if I for example am the biggest civ and the computer civs are approximately of the same size, it wouldn't be honest to give the 8th civ, that has one city less than number 7, a larger bonus than number 7.
So let it depend on # of cities.

About slowly diminishing the bonus dependent on # of cities. Although basically it's a good idea, I think it's hard to apply in Civ3.
It's kind a hard to give a 20% bonus to +2Industry.
+22% Industry is kinda hard to give to a city producing 5 Minerals.

My radical solution : multiply ALL things in Civ3 by 10.
Food, Unit, Building, Wonder cost, trade, building maintainance, technology cost, 20 Luxuries to make one citizen happy and off course Mineral production.
That way a 22% bonus to 50 Minerals should be 61 Minerals. That doesn't sound odd.

So a +1.5 Economy bonus should be 5 extra trade per square and +2 Economy = +10 trade/square.

2) Belgian beer, chocolats and pork should be famous. Belgium has also high graduated people and a very good scholar system.

3) Do you live in a base? Are you a soldier? That would explain your Israelian chauvinism.

4) You said that big empires must posses more diversity. I agree. There is a thread where regions are discussed. A good idea : every region production should be counted together to get a super production. Every region should be able to have a different SE setting, but very different SE setting would increase the chance of a revolution.

Colon :
Trade is indeed dependent on a country's position. Therefore I should use CTP's trade system. Trade routes should be showed on the map. A city on a trade route would have a trade bonus. Antwerp, Palmyra, Petra, Bokhara(on Silk Trade Route). So a trade route from Rome to China would also effect some cities between them.

posted July 22, 1999 16:55            

Sure, the rest of the world would hate the US in real life if it conquered Israel. But please, get your head into the game. If this was civ, Israel would be a teeny pathetic city, probably about size 3. The US would squash it like a bug. And with impunity, since the Israeli navy could never get its nukes or air force or one damn Israeli soldier to America. OTOH, the US would dominate the Med. Sea, and could conquer Israel whenever we felt like it.

In Civ terms, Israel is the little teeny speck you leave alive so you can go for a score maximizing game.

posted July 22, 1999 17:22            

Hmmm.
Hrmm.
Strangest thing, I thought we were here to make civ III a better game.
Hrmmm.

Let's see. Can the US indeed take over Israel, Taiwan, Singapore, or any other small country with out politcal, militaral and economical damange? NO.

Then, is it good for a game which tries to be realistic like civ to be so un-realistic in the showing of modern combat and poltical tension and balance?
NO.
So what do we do? WE CHANGE IT.

What did I do? Suggested a way to make such a change work. To make small civ stronger, thus showing that it is not that easy IN REAL LIFE TERM to squash a civ, any civ, regardless of size.
I used Israel, for the most simple reason that I know off it. It's my country, in the end. I tried to bring a way to make the game more realistic.
Americans tend to thing they can do anything. Well, I can tell you one thing: israel citizen or not, israel miltary officer or not, you can't destory the IDF with ease. Nor can you defeat Tawian. Singapore. Borney. Monaco ( well, might not Monaco ).

Civ II allowed you to do what ever you want. If you had the cash and power, you could just storm in. Can you really do that in the modern world? Where is the delicate power balance? The zeal in which soldiers defend thier homeland?

By giving small countries a bonus, they might be useful, like in real life. Singapore is used by world powers are a source of free commerce. Most "empires" gain by her great economical power.
In the last 10 years, Israel has been a research house for the American army and many hi-tech companies, including Intel, IBM and microsoft.
Most of the cash donation american loves to mention they give to Israel is returned when America buys off new Israeli technology much cheaper then most nations. As an Israeli officer, I can tell you that it's very possible that the American excatly end up with profit after the entire darn thing. For example, the Pythoan, Popai, and Harpon missiles are all Israelies. Israel develop for America and herself the world leading targeting systems and aeronotics.

The point is, Israel ( and Taiwan also ) research much better ( per cost ), and therefor are a source of profit for both sizes. The "empires" gives cash in which the tiny nation advanced in research which is shared. By giving small countires, if they select the "knowladge" value a big bonus, we can show the way things really work in the modern world.

BTW, Israel has 5 million people. In civ term, thats might be one city: but big city and well developed. Not "size 3" like you said.
Also, the Vietnam war proved that you don't need to destory the enemy cities to win the war. Just it's forces. And Israel can destory all american forces in her immdiate area, just like Taiwan could wipe out all american in the japan-sea area. If ( like it should ) public support would drop after losing so many troops, then the US would probaly pronunce a cease fire.

To colon:

If a tiny nation means to survive, it must adapt. If not, it would perish in a matter of few months. Belgium is a trade country due to her location. If she would have been in Sybria she would have been a country which excel in mining, for example.
Israel must excel in combat due to her constant struggle and friction. If the jewish nation would have been in Rowanda, it would have probaly excel in farming, or deserting terraforming.
The point is, if they don't excel in something they would die. Quickly. Small civ adapt quickly to thier surrounding. They would always posses an edge over a bigger nation.

Why? A smaller nation is better controled, more effiecent. You can better know your people and better control them. You can adapt to the surrounding better.
America is huge, covering a wide array of climates. It's people consist of many types of belief and styles. It's hard to control such a nation. You must have a huge, and bulky beucarcty system.
Because smaller nation are by far more agile and better controled, a directed effort is much more useful.
Singapore can allow herself to divluge entirely in trade, forgaring research and military. Can the US do the same? If the US won't posses an army, she would have been over-runned. Singapore is a smaller fish, and can allow herself to direct herself.
Israel can allow herself to spend 35% of her budget on defence. It has constant struggle. It's hard to imgine any other big democracy managing to draw such a huge sum to the military would revolts for the public.

To Maniac:

About doubling everything by 10. Yes. Perfect ( mainly because I also said such a thing about 3 months ago in the city thread ). Setting everything by map size is a small solution but still not accurate. I agree that the "civ-scale" is also wrong. The only way, indeed, is to increase the values and allow for a "deminshing" algoritem which uses the number of cities.

BTW, the minoun werent a trader nation. For the most plain reason that they were alone. The minoun date back to 2,400 BC: in that time hardly any other empire arose and was aware to the minoun. The pheonican only rouse to power in the dying dies of the minoun.
The minoun were a peaceful researching nation, almost un-aware to the concept of war. They have almost met no nation beyong thier borders. When they were invaded by a primtive tribe from the area of modern Turkey they lost even due they possesed a HUGE technological edge. They lost because they had no army. They didn't know they had to have one.
A trader country would have been far more aware to the danger of the outside.

BTW, Yes I am a soldier. We have drafts in Israel. I don't live in the base, and have quite a full life outside of it.
While I like my country ( and dislike it also for many reasons ), I don't post this because I want "israel to be stronger". Maybe because I like in a small country I can see that the power balance is not as the "Empires" would like it to be. Maybe, in some way I am not as true to the real as I like. However, I know my reasoning is sound.

Smaller countries are more agile. That just plain logic. They can better extert themself. When they choose to specilize in something, it's obivous they would do better then the bigger, bulkier conterparts.

Therefor, I am accused in un-truthfullness. But, riddle me this: is it not the "empire" citizen of america that are blind to the fact that thier nation is only good due to her size? That in small scale they are no match for any other country?

Flavor dave doesn't want me to stretch the rules in favor of small countries. Did we not stretch the rules for America? Can anyone have one good reason why America been a nation on civ II? Because it's an economical empire in the modern age, no other reason.
Well, I want some flaming of my own: you enjoyed saying that Israel "are a puny 3 pop city" and that the US can't just about nuke us with one flick of a wrist.
Well, my friend, in 4000 bc ( when civ II start ) your people lived in caves, studying the philoshopical aspect of "arragghhh!" and "ohohohoho". We allready fought, learned, written, improved. Farmed. Built.
In ALL truthfullness America shouldn't appear in civ III. It's not a real empire. Just a big colony of the british. That, mind you, still lived in caves back in the 4,000 BC. Only in 0 AC did the british island start to have some sort of a civilaztion.

posted July 22, 1999 18:24            

2) I don't want the Americans in Civ3 either!!!!!!!!
I only didn't say so because I thought noone would agree with me. USA is so short in the history of humanity it is worthless and their arrogance is bigger than the Pacific Ocean. Actually I am very anti-American. There, I said it. Now my reputation is blowed( if I had any after only 5 days of posting).

3)Now after we solved the small(but big in culture, those Americans have none) country problem, what do you think about my suggestion to have cities on a trade route also have a bonus? That way Belgium and the Netherlands should be real trade countries.

posted July 22, 1999 19:12            

1. No, it was the Pheonican. The minoun pre-decess the modern ( northen ) egypt empire.

2. Great idea about trade Maniac but I allready have that covered in my economics thread. BTW, I seen your post there and:
A. I am the thread master for quite some time.
B. You can post everything you want, everywhere you want, anytime.

To colon:

2. Even a single city in civ is very large in land and in populace. I belive we can determine that a nation that managed build such a city is either:
A. has specific advantages.
B. is backed up by great resources.

posted July 22, 1999 19:20            

Perhaps your reading ability isn't up to snuff, but I explicity wrote that no nation is capable of conquering the entire planet. Perhaps English isn't your first language, so I understand. I await your apology.

Harel, fine, OK, howzabout I concede it's unrealistic. I don't think so, but OK, for the sake of argument, I'll give. So what??

You want to make small civs stronger. To make the game more realistic. What is the worst part of the game? It's when you're going for world conquest, and you're trying to finish off the inevitable triumph. Your suggestion wouldn't change the outcome, just the amount of time (and pain) it would take to do it. Your suggestion is akin to saying that going to the dentist would be better if you didn't use novacaine.

I don't have a problem with realism at all. I'm all for realism. But in most of your suggestions for Civ, and especially for this one, I don't get the sense that you're someone who has played alot of Civ, loves the game, but wants to make it better.

Instead, I get the sense that you're someone that played Civ a few times, and got frustrated that it doesn't more accurately reflect reality. That is a bassackwards way of looking at things. More realism+same playability=better game. But what you're doing is more realism+worse playabitity=worse game.

Look at it this way--forget realism for a second. How would your change affect the game? As I see it, if the bonus is minor, it still won't help small civs enough. If it's large, it just means trading one "surefire" strategy (rampant expansion) for another (perfectionism.)

But, I'd like to here your take on how your ideas would play out in the game.

If you want realism, why don't you play two turns and die of old age. I mean, your freakin' obsessed with the idea, why not take it to its logical conclusion.

posted July 22, 1999 19:50            

A revoke of the game interface and engine can easily allow us to implamnt realistic features by not hampering the subjective "playability". Besides, civ doesn't need a better interface: the current one is fine. No, it's need a new set of more realistic rules.

By making both unit movement and production faster ( maybe making turns shorter also ), all the problems of "finish" would be solved. Once you muster your forces, you could wipe out everyone in a matter of a few turns.
The only point is, that the smaller nations would put up more of a fight.

But, the great importance of the idea is to encourge trade and diplomacy which are very weak in civ II. You have more motivation to conquesr the enemy then to trade with them. But if he was harder by military and stronger in economy, that might stop the game from being a "blood fest".

But, I conculded from your post that YOU don't play enough civ. Building all the required structres in time is often futile: you need to buy them. A small civ can hardly obtain the cash for a new libary fast enough.
Also, because of the greater income larger civ would always win the race for a wonder as they can just buy out the wonder. With multiple wonders the bigger civ would sky-rocket. The small civ has no chance.

posted July 23, 1999 12:49            

I think we may be talking about different things, or different times of the game. Because you talked about a small civ buying a library, which comes very early in the game. I thought you were talking about the 19th c. and later, for the perfectionist (Germans, me;-) civs.

Or, perhaps you are talking about the concept of minor civs. In this concept, Civ would still have up to 7 civs, but there would be a bunch of minor civs, of, say, 1 to 4 cities, to trade with, use in diplomacy, etc. Minor civs wouldn't build wonders, and wouldn't attack unless attacked. They would add greatly to diplomacy.

To use the analogy of Israel, go back 20 years, and Israel would be a minor civ (one city) allied with the US, while the Arab states would be a "large minor" (4 cities) civ allied with the Russians. The US and Russia wouldn't directly fight, they'd use their allied civs.

Actually, if you go to the strategy thread, alot of oldtimers are hooked on winning the one city challenge. One player actually got to AC in like 1861, with one city!!!! So, I disagree that you are forced to expand. I've found that the best single strategy is to build approx. 8 great cities, and I mean great. The other civs leave you alone. Then, once you have Hoover Dam and factories in all of your cities, you're set. Normally the other civs will attack.

Unfortunately, this is where it kinda breaks down. Due to the advantage the offense has late in the game, it is difficult to defend your little piece of heaven. You are almost forced to "punish" those attacking you. I've suggested that in Civ3, the balance between attack and defend stay more constant throughout the game. That would directly address your concern, IMO. In any event, it is completely untrue that you must expand to win.

What I meant about perfectionism being the one and only way to win was ONLY IF the bonuses you suggest for small civs are fairly large. If they are small, then they're really rather pointless.

Another way to reward perfectionism would be to add a victory condition kinda like the following: in the year 2020, all civs are set at 50% luxury. The civ with the highest "approval rating" wins. Or the most happy citizens.

As far as the "wonder race" goes, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Only the human player can buy wonders.

Also, you talked about the big civ skyrocketing ahead of the small civ. I don't understand. I mean, it's you against ALL of the AI civs, not just one of them. If you're strong enough in 1750, or 1850, they all ally against you anyway. Please explain.