Reg. b.02-15-99

posted November 30, 1999 20:38                

Here is an idea to limit the number of cities you can build:

a) At the beginning of the game you have certain amount of governing points, and that is the maximum number of cities you can govern. Beyond that number, any city will be in disorder, which will eventually cause civil war inside your civ, reduce your population and take away some of your technology ("I'm sorry to report that the technology writing is lost in the civil war).

b) With technology growing your governing points grow as well. But it has an upper limit. Beyond that the only way to gain more points is by conquering.

c) Optional: You must spare a certain percentage of your points for resting/fitness. Or you'll have a certain chance to get ill and reduce your governing points for several turns. This percentage can be reduced when medical techs are discovered.

d) When you occupy a rival's city, you also get one governing point from him (his governing point will be reduced).

e) Optional: Only cities beyond your governing point limit can be converted by foreign diplomats.

f) Optional: You can set aside some governing points to stay with your family so that you can have children. After several turns you can delegate certain number of cities to each child. In higher forms of government type the point can go to 'party affairs' so your party members can govern the cities for you, or to 'religious affairs' so your archbishops can manage the cities for you. Each delegated city only requires a proportion of your governing point (depend on government type) to manage, and even you leave them ungoverned they will not go to disorder.

g) Optional: you can set aside some governing points for a hobby like chess, poetry, hunting, etc. This can boost your research rate of certain techs.

Reg. 11-18-1999

Reg. b.02-15-99

Reg. b.02-15-99

Reg. b.02-15-99

Reg. 03-02-99

Reg. 05-24-99

Reg. b.02-15-99

posted December 21, 1999 18:05                

England and France fought for centuries over territories much closer to home. While it meant a great deal to the Royal Egos and Exchequers it meant nothing to the local barons and lower classes. The English have always held their pride, despite the loss of continental possessions. More recent blows to the English pride resulted from internal politics more than from loss of colonial possessions.

The French have always held their pride… well let's not get into that here.

Reg. 08-31-1999

posted December 22, 1999 07:56                

On the SE Models thread I have posted some ideas for this:

-Huge corruption and waste for cities far away from the capital.

-Less control over cities far away (do any of you have any ideas to how this could be done?)

-I like the concept of some sort of bureaucracy/government points. These would be a global expence on your national budget. The more bureaucracy points you have the lower the chance is for revolt, and the more control can you have over cities far away. But the more cities you have the more of these points would be required. So a large empire wouldn't just mean that the periphery cities were more or less useless, but it would be a very large expence on your national budget, forcing you to raise taxes, which could create even more unhappyness plus it could reduce your research rate. This concept is far from perfect, but an advanced version of it could be implemented in Civ3, making the game more exciting.

-The chance of splitup raised if you were a large civ.

-Being a large civ would require more units around the world. If the cost of units would be both raw materials, food, money and perhabs labour a large army could be really expensive, also on your national budget. This could cause unhappyness and less research due to raised taxes.

-CTP's State of Alert could be implemented (this is among the things I like about CTP), but better. There should be 3 levels - low, medium and high. If set on low your units would get their attack/defence rates divided by 3. This would make them practically useless. If set on medium their rates would be 2/3 of usual, and on high they would be normal. However, on high an average amount of units could cost perhabs 40-50% of your country's income, raw materials and labour! This would make that REALLY expensive, and therefor only workable in a serious war. The major downside for large civs should be, that these would be significantly slower at moving between these states of alert. If you have 100 cities the time to go from low to high could be 20-30 turns! For a small civ with 10 cities this could be reduced to 2-3 turns. This way large civs could be not only unstabile, but unflexible. Advances could reduce the time it took to move between different states of alert.

-Better AI. Small civs should make alliances with each other if they were attacked by a large one.

-Cities should grow faster in modern times. This way cities made in 1800 wouldn't be useless.

I think the government points concept here is too focused on persons. Civ3 shouldn't at all have you spending time on your family or playing chess. As no ruler can live for over 6000 years you shouldn't be the ruler of your civ as a person, but just whoever is in charge. I also think these gov/bur points should effect your core cities. Not just the periphery ones. This way it would hurt your entire empire to be too large. I also think that you should be able to have a huge empire, if you were willing to pay the cost.

I agree that advances and also SE settings (your Bureaucracy rating) should effect the number of gov points you have.

However I strongly disagree that conquest should raise your number of gov points. Not only is it historically incorrect, it would ruin the game balance. First of all, empires built on conquest is if not more unstabile then at least as unstabile as empires based on expansion. The Mongol Empire conquored half of Asia in less than 50 years, but broke down to nothing in less than 50 years after.

Reg. b.02-15-99