posted August 20, 1999 20:39            

1)You start with nomads instead of settlers.

2)It is not reliable to let them producing units by 2 ways (a)As population grows in cities, b)As cities produce units.

3)Probably the most reliable is to produce other units with production but they also have a (not limitless) granary for hard times (i.e to cross a desert).

4)common points with settlers: Can found cities and when produced the population of the city is reduced by 1.

5)Differences with settlers: a)Have military power, b)required shields: 20+the required number of shields for the relative non nomadic unit (i.e. 30 for nomad warrior and 60 for nomad knight), c)Can pilage but not improve.

6)Use only the square they occupy. Everything as despotism except food: 1/2 of this of monarchy (round up) but they require only 1 food unit per turn. If 2 or more nomads in the same square they take all the food of the square and 2 of them divide it between each other.

7)When produced (from city or other nomad) you can give them from the granary of the city or other nomad. Similarly exchange of food is possible when 2 nomads or nomads and city are at the same square.

8)They have no home city and they can capture other cities.

9)Barbarians are nomads and there should be many barbarian tribes.

posted August 21, 1999 16:31            

Colonization/Migration

“How to simulate the migration of the ‘barbarian’ people at the end of the Roman Empire?” I asked myself. Cause they were in Civ2 terms some kind of settlers with a big attack and defense.
There should be a unit that represents some migrating people. Good, simply 4-2-1, settlers, one could say. But that would be an expensive unit. But the fact is that migration was unorganized and didn’t require 40 shields. It was instantaneous. In fact, there was never an organized migration of 10000 people, or just 10000 people saying “let’s found another city”.
So I began thinking about something else…

In Civ3 the Terrain Improver/Former could be deleted, well, now I suggest the City Founder unit would also loose much of it’s use until late in the game when planned colonization exists.
I am against automatic city building by the AI as some people suggest. What I suggest is you can point a tile where people may found a city. It may be any square 1) on a continent where there is already a city of yours and 2) not next to another city. All the rest is automatic with a migration system. People will move to that spot gradually if conditions are good.

I think there isn’t a migration system yet, except one based on happiness. I would let it play a much larger part in the game.
The automatic migration system would try to find a balance between labor and resources in a city.
This is to represent unemployment. If there is more labor(people) than resources(work) there is unemployment. And no work means that people migrate to parts where there is more work to do.
If there are more resources(work) than labor(people) there is work available and people migrate to other already existing cities with more resources or they will move to a spot you chose as a new city.
So cities built in large grasslands tracks will not be big cities since there would be large emigration out of the agricultural area without work.
Small cities will always have more resources than labor since they always have N+1 worked squares, where N is the size of the city. But to both solve the ICS problem AND the possible problem that large cities would not be possible since ALL the people would go to new cities, I came up with this.
The city square normally produces the amount of food if the square is irrigated, the amount of minerals with a limit of at least one and one trade if a road would normally produce trade.
I would add the following. If a city reaches two population, it gets for free 20 labor and 20 trade (don’t forget I use the x10 system). If a city reaches size 3, it produces an extra 30 labor and 30 trade in the city square. And so on… The extra bonuses are because in Civ2 a city with size 1 had 10000 people, a city with size 2 30000 and 3 60000… So of course the second population ‘unit’ produces double as much as the first, the thirth triple… or otherwise told the second pop unit produces 20 labor, the thirth 30. And of course a large city means more trade for the same reason; there are more people.
This would solve the ICS problem, since large cities are MUCH bigger production and trade centers as many small ones. I hope I have persuaded guys who would want to reduce the city square production to 0 food, shields and trade. I think my solution solves the ICS problem better since 0-0-0 city square production makes small cities produce too less trade and resources in the beginning and therefore seriously reduces migration to the newly built city.
And because the extra labor is balanced with the extra trade, automatic migration out of a city because there is a large population (much labor in my system) and too less resources compared with the population is impossible. So migration would be totally dependent of the resources of the surrounding terrain, as in reality.
This will represent more accurately the flow of people and the growth of cities in history. In CivX that was represented totally wrong with excess food since most big cities now and in the old days were mostly the big trade cities and some/most of them are were in half desert like terrain.
That would mean a lot more trade, so the game economical system could need some rebalancing. But don’t forget that people have suggested much more uses for gold eg troop support, religion, and if you read on, I suggest gold I also needed for colonization/migration.
So, let me define resources. Although in the Economy/Trade thread it is usually referred to as the replacement of shields, for this case I also count trade as resources.
So the biggest cities will be as in reality the economical cities.
But if you would some trade cities on a Civ2 map, they would have a lack of food eg Palmyra, Petra, Bokhara… So there is need for a general ‘food box’ for the entire empire. I don’t know sure, but I thought it existed in CTP. After all the food is ‘collected’, it becomes distributed over the empire as needed. Perhaps the efficiency of food transport (your SE Corruption/Bureaucracy rate)would also have to do something with how well food is distributed.
For example in a Federal structure with a Bureaucracy bonus food transport would be better than in the Confederate structure. Or if the above isn’t accepted, I insist that food trade routes are automatic and unlimited, so you don’t have to build a 50 shield caravan.

But of course the state has to say something too in migration. However before people are willing to move, they have to be paid a lot. So if you would want to speed up the growth of new cities or if you would want to move people to a food producing area with no other resources (eg a large Grassland track) you would have to pay them. I suggest per population unit 400 (x10!) gold (the price of a settlers in shields).

Population also x10?

I have a suggestion. It isn’t necessary for my migration model to work, but it would make it more precise since migration per 10000 is kinda rude and sudden. If population is also multiplied by 10, the migration model could be more precise. Migration could be more slowly, which is better.
Then you would have to pay only 40 gold for one pop unit.
Popx10 would make it impossible to have a population box as in all civlike games.
I suggest a simple box with the following information.
Happy : 20
Content : 70 + -
Unhappy : 10
Taxmen : 0 + -
Scientists : 0 +-
Entertainers : 0 + -
Rest : 0
So you would have a simple box showing the amount of people that have which happiness level or job.
The +’s and –’s are to switch eg a normal content citizen to an entertainer. For example if you would want to switch a content citizen (you can only make content citizens a special citizen (= taxmen, scientists, entertainers) and only happy citizens special if there aren’t any content ones. Unhappy people you could never makes special) to an entertainer, you click the minus of content. Then there appears automatically 1 (or perhaps 10?) in the Rest. Then click the +.of entertainer.

Recuitment

Doing pop x10 would also make a recruitment system possible, since if you keep the normal pop system, the mobilization of even one pop unit would mean a lot of Riflemen units = unbalancing and unrealistic. If it’s used, then you should not build Musketeers or Riflemen, but Muskets, Spears, Bows or Rifles. They could be stored and don’t require support. Then, in times of war, people could be mobilized, = one population unit disappears from the cities. You could mobilize people as far as you have guns, spears or any weapon in stock. Of course, if the units are killed, they can’t return to the normal city population after the war. This would simulate the loss of population in wars. However conscripted units would have the worst possible morale/experience. If you have Draft or Civil Duty as your SE Army choice, the experience could be a bit higher.

Settlers/Unit Workshop

Settlers should still exist, but they shouldn’t have the same use. First of all, you shouldn’t able to build them for reasons I have already explained. You could only get them if you click the “Migrate” button. Then your city would disband and in that process all buildings in the city would of course also be disbanded. Per 10 population units in the popx10 system, you should get one settlers. You should also be able to give the settlers any weapons you have in stock, eg spears, guns… basically creating something like armed nomads, as Diodorus wants to represents with his Tribe/Nomad ideas he presented several times in the Civilizations thread I think. That Settlers units would follow the same rules as Diodorus presented in his Nomad posts.
So the German population migration can be represented. If horses can also be built on the same way as spears and guns, you could even simulate people like the Huns or Mongols.
What I am suggesting is that in a city every item can be built: shields, chain mail, swords, guns, horses, or in later areas tanks. Then in the unit workshop you could create your army with the available weapons. So in a city you only built equipment, but to form a real army, you have to mobilize a population unit.
That means in peace time you can maintain a small army and in war recruit more units in a short time.
As I said before, mobilized units would have a bad experience/morale level.
To give them better experience, they should stay 3 turns in a city with a Barracks and then they would get 2 experience upgrades. Later in the game there could be a similar building, called Military Academy.

Oversea Colonization

Colonization oversea should require a unit I think. Some Sea Unit looking like a boat of Colombus. It should have a large movement range. And it should be able to move on land. If it moves on land it founds a coastal city. That way you expand oversea. More realistic.

Upgrading units

Upgrading units would be simplier. Just move them in a city, go to the unit workshop and change the item, you would want to change. Upgrading reduces the experience level with one.

Population Growth

As you might have guessed, I totally disagree food production has anything to do with pop growth. Food only is needed to feed the people.
Came up with the following. Not worked out in details, since I am no social historian.
But everybody can guess that population growth is dependent of two factors : the # children a family has and how long people live.
The # of children would be dependent on how many food there are produced since in earlier times children were assumed as working forces(child labor). So the more children a farmer has, the easier for him, the more free working forces he has and the less people he has to employ and pay.
So pop growth still has to do something with food, but indirectly. It should also be affected by your SE Growth or Urbanization factor. The eg Socialism Value would increase the number of children.

With the techology advance of Industrialization also the # of shields/resources would affect your pop growth. Means that suddenly two factors affect pop growth. That could simulate the fast pop growth around the same time of the Industrial Revolution.

The second thing affecting pop growth is how long people live. That should be affected by some techs like Medicine. In general the life expectancy would increase over time if medicine betters. It should also be determined by your SE Environment factor. Living in a polluted country should decrease your life expectancy.

Wow, are you still reading this? As you have read, what I am suggesting solves some problems like ICS plus it also includes some ideas of others like recruitment, nomads, migration…
It could be a real improvement for Civ3.

posted August 23, 1999 10:58            

Glad you liked it. You are the only until now that responded to this post (is it just me or are there less people around here the last few days?). Refugees are OK. In 1000 BC they could walk around with some spears and now with some rifles (or totally nothing if they're real refugees, then they have an attack of 0).
Do you just like the nomads or also the other ideas?

posted August 23, 1999 11:20            

I liked most of your post, not just the nomads... demographic factors (i.e. population inflows/outflows due to migration, and the net effect of birth and death rates) should control population growth. Food is an element of this, but so is happiness, pollution, disease, sanitation, eductaion, contraception, wealth - you name it. We would need a simple model, but just using food is oversimplifying IMHO.

posted August 23, 1999 11:54            

You write:
If there are more resources(work) than labor(people) there is work available and people migrate to other already existing cities with more resources or they will move to a spot you chose as a new city.

I don't like this part, because I don't think people move because they are unemployed, they move because they are unhappy. So I think that unemployement should cause unhapiness, and unhapiness cause emigration. This way people would still move away, when unemployed. But also when their religion was persecuted, or they lived in an overcrowded city, or they were othervise unhappy with their conditions. Good idea about unemployement tough. Should be most relevant in industrial and modern times.

My only objection against the unemployement idea is that I see resources/labour a bit different. In my opinion, resources should be very easy to transport between cities inside your empire (ie you wouldn't need a unit, you'd just "start" a route between two cities, and it'll instantly appear). Something like the food-distribution that you proposed. This way a mining city with a lot of mines, miners and minerals, but few workers would be possible. It could ship minerals to the bigger cities where there was plenty of workers and factories to process the minerals, but not enough mines to keep up with the demand. I'm not sure if unemployement could be shown in this model.

I think that the automatic migration is good, but I see a problem in it. Migration would only happen when people were unhappy or unemployed or whatever. And while this is very realistic, it's not very good for the gameplay. Players would try to create situations which left the people poor, which is not a very good idea for a leader to do on purpose, an btw very unrealistic in reality. I have no idea how this could be solved, but it is a problem that needs to be considered, othervise Firaxis might just keep the old system, because of this flaw.

posted August 23, 1999 15:11            

Holidays

In Europe most people leave on vacation the July or August the first, creating massive traffic-jams. Perhaps in the USA most people go on holidays on the end of August.

Wonders thread in exile

I agree about that American bias. Some could be solved by just renaming, like Hoover to Aswan Dam. Or another possible solution could be a different name for each style.
One for classical, one for monolith style...
BTW, has anyone checked if you can still post on Wonders? Will have to try that...

Unfortunately I don't know that much about African civilizations. Had Benin or Ghana also buildings that can be called wonders?

Population Growth

I agree pollution should increase the death rate. This can also be affected by the SE Environment factor.
Same with disease and sanitation. I think cities should continue to grow even if they haven't an eg aquaduct. The bad side should of course be more diseases and chances on a plague. Also very unhappy citizens.
How to implement education and contraception I don't see...
Perhaps wealth can just be represented that a high amount of trade in a city increases wealth, decreasing deaths?

Migration and Westergaard

About resource transportation.
First of all, I agree you shouldn't need a unit to transport (I would hate building a costly caravan just for transporting one resource), a route should indeed instantly appear. But perhaps the further you want to transport, the more resources go lost. So in the ancient age, it would be difficult and limited, but as technology advances it
should become easier and easier.

posted August 24, 1999 05:10            

I am so glad you made the point about wonders having the same function and different names/styles - linked to civ city style. We have had a lot of discussion on a similar topic, i.e. using civ styles to determine unit appearance (e.g. samurai and swordsman and brave - or whatever - all have the same function and prerequisites, but a different icon - to fit with the look of a Civ). It suddenly occurred to me on the train home last night that this could work for Wonders too, so I am really pleased to see that you have posted it. I think this is a feature which must be in Civ, and has wide ranging implications. The choice of city style (currenlty between Bronze age, Medieaval, Classical and Oriental - to which I would add, at least, Middle Eastern, Aboriginal (not just Australia, but many more 'tribal' societies), Slavonic etc...) now determines just the look of the city - until the industrial era begins. I previously propsed that the Civ style should extend to governing the look and the name of units and of some city improvements - again until the industrial age begins. Adding this to what M@ni@c suggests above, we could extend it further so that some wonders would have their name and look governed by civ style choice - but again, just their style, not their game function. This is purely an aesthetic question. For wonders, the different styles could continue after industrialisation has been discovered, so that (as M@ni@c suggests) the Hoover Dam, if built by a Middle-East Civ style, would be called the Aswan Dam; if by an Aboriginal Civ, it would be the Kariba Dam etc... The appoll program could be built by a Classical or Mediaeval style Civ, but a Slavonic one would build the Sputnik Program. An Oriental Civ could build Sun Tzu's, but an Aboriginal (or whatever) Civ would build an identically functioning wonder called Shaka's Induna, and a Classical Civ would build the Campus of Mars (I have forgotten most of my Latin, but it's something like that). More suggestions on these lines from anyone??
Remember, it's all just names - the game effect is zero; but it was the atmosphere and the flavour of Civ2 which scored so highly above the dullness of CTP. IMHO, a stylistic feature like this would add immeasurably to this flavour. An additional impact: all wonders then become possibilities only, not certainties as they are now... if Shaka's Induna is built by the Zulus, then the Chinese would not be able to build Sun Tzu's. I like that - wonders become less wonderful if they get built every7 time you play.

posted August 24, 1999 07:43            

I would be very pleased to see Civs from a much wider background included in Civ3 (ie with proper graphics, leader pics etc - not just from my customisations). My own area of preference would be to see more Civs in the game from sub-Saharan Africa; and not just the Zulus. The Carthaginians and Egyptians are obviously not from sub-Saharan Africa.
I would be very keen to see some or all of the following major civilisations represented:
Shona - possible leader: Robert Mugabe - actual builders of the Great Zimbabwe wonder in the Middle ages. Eventually conquered and temporarily subdued by...
Ndebele - leader Lobengula or Mzilikazi - cousins of the Zulus; led uprisings against the British, including beginning the war which led to the foundation of zimbabwe (subsequently dominated by teh Shona).

Masai - names? - East African tribe who have possibly found transcendence already on a very different tech tree... tend to reject most aspects of modernity

Swahili - led by Tippoo Tib (not the official leader, but a prominent citizen with cool name - based around East Africa and zanzibar, and strong links with Arabs. Made wealthy on ivory and slave trading...

posted August 24, 1999 17:10            

Like a WALKING CITY a _nomad tribe_ unit gathers food&shield&trade from the tile it is currently on (occasionally preventing a local city to use this tile). It must move every turn or will get _no_ resources (e.g. fortified in emergency). The first/only population point of the _nomad tribe_ unit reaps _all_ food&shields&trade points from the occupied tile according to the current government type -- Nothing is subtracted as maintenance for the unit itself! Further pop. points reap additionally (shields+1 & trade+1) per pop. point, but _no_ food from the occupied tile. Thereafter this tile is exhausted for "further pop. points"-number of turns (yield=0), symbolized by a pollution-like icon. So the multiple _nomad tribe_ units leave temporary traces behind them, happy hunting -- this also prevents them from occupying the same (special resource or self-improved) tiles "too soon" again (for example on automated patrol routes).
Every _nomad tribe_ unit has a name (reference for the supported units), a short list of TRIBE IMPROVEMENTS and a food & production box, which are displayed, when it becomes the active unit. _nomad tribe_ units can't improve terrain with roads, irrigation, mines etc. and cannot produce wonders; they can produce units and some equivalents to city improvements:
Chieftain's Hut - equivalent to Palace
Sacred Grove - equivalent to Temple
Shaman's Hut - equivalent to Library
Bazaar - equivalent to Market Place
Wagon Burgh - equivalent to City Walls, but not as strong
When a _nomad tribe_ unit founds a city, the tribe improvements are changed into their city equivalents.

_nomad tribe_ units may gain advances through the collection of TRADE POINTS, just like regular cities. Every civ gets 1 tradepoint per turn for free (to lessen the advantage for starting with the _nomad tribe_ unit near river tiles). Once the "settling" advance is acquired, they may build cities.

With the appropriate civilization advance a _nomad tribe_ unit can build the tribe improvements mentioned above and units (warriors, horsemen, settlers, diplomats etc.) by emptying a full PRODUCTION BOX. 1 military unit per population point of the _nomad tribe_ unit is free of support in despotism (&monarchy?). Further units are supported from the _nomad tribe_ unit's production box with 1 shield per turn (or 1 food, if the prod. box is empty (and disbanded, if the food box is empty too)). Settlers need 1 shield & 1 food support.
The MILITARY UNITS produced by a _nomad tribe_ unit are some of the regular types, except higher Morale/Experience than ordinary units and mounted types have slightly better mobility. The units it can produce should be limited to infantry and mounted, so no vehicles. Maybe they could not build units requiring beyond a certain Production cost, which would be a quick way to prohibit them from building things they never built, like Musketeers, Catapults, Cannon, etc?

When its FOOD BOX becomes full, 1 _nomad tribe_ unit _may_ split in 2 new, independend _nomad tribe_ units with their own, empty (and scaled up) food boxes, dividing the content of the old unit's production box into their own, independend production boxes as well as dividing supported units of the old unit between the 2 new units; tribe improvements remain together at 1 (the bigger) new unit.
Alternatively to the split the _nomad tribe_ unit _may_ accumulate, ie. clear & scale up its full food box and increase the pop. points by one.
To provide one mechanism towards building cities (and to escape the general "exponential growth" problem!), the food box is enlarged on every split or accumulation (e.g. 10, 10, 20, 30, 50 etc. food). This numbers should play-balance a variety of starting strategies between the following extremes:
(chinese) PERFECTIONIST, explore neighbourhood for a good city location, develop asap the advance "settling", build city, irrigation, granary, phalanx etc.
(mongolian) EXPANSIONIST, explore continent for goodie huts & weak civs, develop asap horseback riding, wheel etc., conquer cities and/or plunder their irrigated & mined tiles with swarms of simple _nomad tribe_ units.
As long as _nomad tribe_ units want to grow, they would avoid desert, glacier & mountain (0 food) and prefer grassland, special resources & irrigated tiles (2+ food), mainly mixed with forest & plains (1 food), and so gaining approx. 1.5 food per turn (net).
[With the FOODBOX-SIZES 10, 10, 20, 30, 50, 80, 130.. & approx. 1.5 food per turn gathered by a _nomad tribe_ unit, it would need 7, 7, 13, 20, 33, 53, 87.. turns to fill them. I.e. during the first 7, 13, 27, 47, 80, 133, 220.. turns there would be max. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64.. _nomad tribe_ units (of course if not accumulated or killed or used for cities).]

Another mechanism towards building cities and balance between the splitting or accumulating of _nomad tribe_ units is provided by UNHAPPINESS (riot factor): Unhappiness/Inefficiency from distance translates into rebellion after a time unless serious steps are taken to avoid it. Own rioting (redhead) _nomad tribe_ units on the circumference of the empire turn into barbarian (redflag) _nomad tribe_ units after a couple of turns (10?) and split off from the starting civ.
[Early-game BARBARIANS should have more options than just attack anything that moves: provide trading partners, info about other civs they contact, middle-men for tech transfers. Variety in Barbarians comes both from giving them a range of attitudes and mentioned interactions, but also some diplomatic exchange as well: You can buy off barbarians into not attacking you, joining you, attacking someone else, etc. Trading a lot with them would make them like you more (or, occasionally, lust after what you've got and raid you if you don't keep some military force around. And they should rely a lot on the way nomadic civs worked, by raids or hiring themselves out as mercenaries or try to join your empire but settling in the borders... There should be many barbarian tribes, but barbarians of the same tribe should land near each other. If barbarians stay too long without being attacked, then they should found thier own cities and become a small city-state. Finally the threat to civs also change over time and/or technology: barbarians to peasant rebellions to religious fanatics and terrorists.]

Goodie huts can result in a _nomad tribe_ unit.

Questions:
_nomad tribe_ units are really weak and probably can't survive a heavy battle (they can fortify, but that would prevent them from gathering food). Should ZONES OF CONTROL apply to them?

I think cities should be able to produce _nomad tribe_ units (kind of supply crawlers). When such a unit is created in a city, the number of citizens is reduced by 1. Number of shields required to produce a _nomad tribe_ unit?20? How about the initial foodbox-size of the _nomad tribe_ unit?80?

posted August 24, 1999 18:25            

About that jobs are only a deciding factor in the modern era, you're probably right. The people couldn't migrate anyway even if they wanted, no means of transport available. So let's make resource production a depending factor from the Industrial Revolution.
You're right in the ancient era food was a deciding factor, but it was not the factor. Again, some trade cities were located on very infertile places, yet they were large.

About persecution. In the religion model persecuted citizens become very unhappy. So if a migration model is based on happiness, their migration is already included.

About food transportation. Ok, in the early game, the food production of the city would only include the city's production itself. When there are more advanced (Roman, Rail?)roads, it is dependent on the region's production and in the modern age it depends on your whole civ's production.

About that trade cities you called. They were indeed founded on good spots. I am talking about the real desert or steppe cities like Palmyra, Petra, Bokhara.
The only reason they got big is because they were built along trade routes. So if there isn't a communal food pot for all your cities (BTW, I'm not really a big supporter of the idea. Just were giving a possible solution to simulate how desert cities survived.), I insist that transporting food is made a bit easier. In Civ2 you had to build a 50 shield caravan for just one more food. I think it should be something instantaneous and diplomatic like "you give per turn 10 food to my city and I give you something else in return (trade icons? or if the ideas on the Economy/Trade thread are worked out something better, a specific item). That would make food trade with other civs possible. Something impossible in Civ2.

Ok, let's recall them to Colonizers or Refugees.
->can found cities
->can have weapons
->can't be built in a city. To 'make' one you have to disband a city.
I think my Colonizer unit is better than your Nomad unit to represent the Volkerwanderung.
Since as I recall,
1) Nomads can't reappear out of already established cities, making representing the Visi- and Ostrogoths impossible since they had some kind of a fix territory.
2) Your nomads have to conquer a city to (re)establish themself. But the Goths weren't the only one moving. They were also many people going over the Rhine. And some other people out of Central Europe migrated to the East of the Rhine. So basically the only thing those guys did was moving one spot to the west. That can't be represented if they first have to conquer a city.

BTW, if you divide pop units by 10, one pop unit is 1000 = size of Jericho.

Mzilikazi :

I have read the topic in Civ3 - General/Suggestions about different units (actually graphics and names) for each civ. I think this is easy to do. Just take a look to the numberous scenarios on the net and even in CiC and FW and I'm sure Firaxis has an abundance of different unit/building/wonder names with the same effects.

BTW, I hope you have posted that proposals on some official threads. Otherwise they won't get in the list.

About natural wonders. Are that wonders to be constructed or natural landmarks as in SMAC with some good production or SE benefit?

I agree on all you say, except I wouldn't include Rugby (nor cricket) as a wonder.

To all :

posted August 25, 1999 04:29            

regarding "The Rugby World Cup 1995 as a Wonder"... I know, I know - stupid idea, and I never really expected anyone to let me get away with it. But - from one who was there, and watched his own country take a sound thrashing - the feelings of confidence, unity and euphoria which arose from the tournament not only in South Africa but also in Botswana and Zimbabwe, across all classes and population groups, were remarkable. If that's not a happiness wonder I don't know what is. Obviously this is the wrong trhead for it, but it does bring us back to the old question of including "[Your favourite sport] as a wonder" in Civ3. I for one would like to see this...

I share your difficulties with including America as a Civ. It feels very odd to be attacked by American Phalanxes, as the concept is so utterly alien. Much stranger than sinking a Babylonian Aegis Cruiser, because (if things had turned out differently and Babylon still existed) the Babylonian cruiser could have been a possibility. Unlike America in antiquity... nonetheless, much though I hate to admit it, I think America probably should be included as a Civ - partly just to make sure the game sells, the faith grows, and one day we get a Civ4 to make all our dreams come true. Also, many scenarios will include America, so it is important to have the artwork on the disc. But I have to disagree with you on one point - I think the Classical pattern is probably the right Civ style for the Americans, with the Neo-Classical White House as a potent symbol of the Civilisation. I suppose we could have some rather offensive fun thinking up new Civ styles for American cities... but I don't think I quite dare start that one off.

Theben - glad to see you back; and glad you were calling for more African representation in Civ3 way back when... I would have some concerns about using the Bantu as a Civilisation, however, due to the connotations the word picked up in the old South African regime. It is a perfectly acceptable scientific word, describing a linguistic grouping, but tarnished by use in a racist context - our game designers might have to think carefully before using it. there are plenty of individual tribes/Civs which could be used.

posted August 25, 1999 09:56            

If sport is included as something wonderlike, I think it should be a Special Project (wonders that can be built be every civ, I thought).

Because there is one white house, it doesn't mean that all American cities should be classical.
I rather prefer something like the cotton manor style in the South.

posted August 25, 1999 14:16            

itokugawa:
I agree with most points of your last message, but have concerns about the topics 2/3) and 5a):

2/3) Cities are the population base of settled civs. _nomad tribe_ units are the population base of nomadic civs. Both population growths depend on the same resource: food.
_All other_ units can only be produced with shields. What is unreliable with this? It would help to have an argument backing your statements 2) and 3).
Problem:
As I understand it, would nomadic warriors (production cost: 30 shields) by running or sitting on forest tiles (2 shields) reproduce themselves every 15 turns, ie. 2 nomadic warriors after 15 turns, 256 after 120 turns (80 turns on coal). If those nomadic warriors found and join cities, this would be quicker city growth than regular possible.

5a) This super-units with topical attack value, effortless self-reproduction (in comparison with ordinary military units), ability to found a city combined with no shield support from and no "unhappiness from home" in republic for their home city ... change gameplay a lot and unbalance the whole gamesystem. They cost only 20 shields more? What a bargain!
Example:
A nomadic knight, produced in a city on the edge of riot costs 1 population point (and sets free herewith an ordinary pikeman, needed for martial law so far) and 60 shields. After 30 turns on forest tiles he reproduces himself: Together with the half nomadic knight he saved his home city for support shields we have 2.5 nomadic knights, and so on. You have to do great acts with your ordinary knight in this 30 turns, to justify the 40 shields production cost for 1 lonely unit.

In fact, your approach to implement nomadic game elements as optional _nomadic quality of ordinary (= mostly military) units_ seems to me more as an approach to a nomadic army than an approach to a nomadic civilization.

posted August 25, 1999 19:10            

If it's lineair, two problems :
1) Then cities reach size 20 too soon. What about cities with a million inhabitants?
2) Then my suggestion of labor increasing with the size 1 = 10 labor, 2 = 30 labor... doesn't work. Means that ICS isn't solved anymore.

posted August 27, 1999 20:47            

Stalin. Why is he one of the rulers in Civ? I'm not offended by this, but I am confused. I mean, Stalin was not a nice person. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most vicious and evil, and Hitler being a 7, I'd give Stalin a 9. But Russia, instead of using Peter the Great or Catharine the Great, uses Stalin. Yeeeech. You don't see them using Hitler for Germany's ruler, do you?

I think that the rulers of civilizations should not be questionable choices. This generally means that nearly all rulers should be pre-1700's, or perhaps even earlier. Ivan the Terrible would be a better choice for Russia than Stalin, for example, because even though he was a blood-thirsty lunatic also he came from a time when being blood-thirsty was not nearly so bad as it is nowadays. Same with Alexander the Great--he killed a whole slew of people and lived his life through war, but he came from a time when you either lived bloodily or died bloodily.

For some civs, this is not possible--the Americans, for example. If this is the case, find someone great but neutral--Washington or Jefferson, not Lincoln. For other civs, using a modern ruler should not present too many difficulties, such as using Ghandi for India.

posted August 28, 1999 02:50            

why should stalin (or lenin for that matter) not be in Russias leader pool

each civ would have a leader for every personality

real history has not been peaceful

neither is the civ game