Rhye's Catapult

[Blasphemous]

There should be a period of migration away from the city before it flips, as I suggested. And the cities that attack should be within n distance from your capital and bordering you and/or the new civ. n should just be some reasonable number of tiles to count as neighbor. I haven't played the mod yet so I don't know the scale in tiles. It should be so in the Egypt<Jerusalem>Arabia example we were using, civs in Africa, Persia, and Asia minor would be in range.
Other than that, I think the model you suggest Rhye is not optimal but definately sufficient for now. Perhaps later we can refine it (in Trebuchet?).

 

[skallben]

Sounds really nice. Not meant to insult your great work here, but will you make it possible to add only the features you want or is it total conversion mod only?

 

[Fintilgin]

I think Surtur's idea is the best. It's simple, it's clean, and it's easy to understand. Furthermore, keeping your city will take effort, but not be insanely impossible. It will also make it hard to purposefully screw over distant spawns, as it's much harder to project your power really far from your home base. The further from your core the city is, the harder it will be to support it and the more likely it will fall to the barbarians and then flip in a few turns.

Some of these ideas strike me as insanely heavy. It's like saying "Oh, sure, you can try to keep the city YOU founded, but every bordering civilization will declare war on you, three nukes will drop on your most populous cities, half your units will defect, and you'll get a -7 malus to your diplomacy for the rest of the game!"

Let's say, I'm playing Rome and I build up a strong presence in France. I know the barbarians are coming so I prepare my cities well. I build strong garrisons, decent walls, and do my best to prepare myself for the horde. I defeat the barbarians and France dosen't spawn. Is that the end of the world? Maybe that's the way it should be. There's no WAY I'm going to be able to have the resources to prevent all my neighbors from spawning. That's a huge amount of production and time I could have spent on building up other things, so it's not like I'm getting off scott free.

Gameplay shouldn't be a strait-jacket. History was not foreordained. If I want to pour lots of my blood and treasure into holding onto Arabia, or France, or whatever, that should be a viable strategy and not a hopeless cause. It should be tough but far from suicidal. Otherwise I can see city founding and conquest becoming very formuliac for a lot of civilizations.

I mean if you're going to be too hard on the player, you might as well just make it so there are 'barbarian zones' where you can't found cities and all barbarian cities have a 25-defense 0-move defender that dosen't disapear until the city is handed over to its spawning owner. If you don't want the player to take something just keep them from taking it in the first place, don't let them have it and then use massive overwhelming force to take it back. That's not fun.

 

[SilverKnight]

Ok, to recap:

Fintilgin has made some very good points about city-flipping; I agree completely about how frustrating it would be to automatically lose cities simply to replay history. Rhye's mods (at least my old favorites, RoC and RoCX) nor the Civilization game as a series have never been about simply re-creating history. The most important things are fun and feasibilty. It's also good that the mechanics of the game are easily explained; Blasphemous' first suggestion seems near-impossible to decipher in-game, compared to culture. On the other hand, I agree completely that it was not always attacking barbarian hordes that formed a new civilization; RATHER...

*dramatic pause*

It was a NUMBER of DISTRACTIONS that kept the original empire busy when a new civilization was forming!!! Think about it; Rome was founded when Greece was over-extending itself in trade and colonization of the Mediterranean. America was formed in revolt, but because it was far away from Britain, under its cultural influence less, and there was a lot of unhappiness due to taxes. Spain and France have direct roots in Roman conquests, and started becoming a civilization after Rome was trying desperately to fend off the Huns, Visigoths, etc. So what does all this mean in Civ terms?

Rome: Greece had too many cities, too high maintenance, so even a close colony split off.

America: Far-flung colony, little English culture built up, too much dedicated to taxe slider rather than culture.

Spain, France: Barbarian horse archers pummeling Roman cities (several were taken and razed, IRL), people of even nearby European colonies on the frontier became fearful, demanded greater military presence; none came, cause of unhappiness maybe? Eventually cities fell to barbarians, taken (if in capital location) or razed, then new civ springs up in their wake. Thus the decline of Rome!

And our classic example, Arabia:

Arabia: Jerusalem was fighting ground against barbarians for many turns, continuous un-repelled attacks (from barbs ONLY) means discontent. Arabia springs up with new religion, but LITTLE STARTING CULTURE, to match history. Instead, they get one city, MANY starting attacking units, and missionaries. The way is open for them to make peace with their neighbors and try to spread their religion, or use force and attack neighboring civs with their starting Camel Archers as happened IRL. They can even, say, make peace with Egypt and attack India, or vice versa. They don't need to start with many cities; historically they didn't, anyway.

SO! What's this mean for actually making it happen in game? What are the variables?

Chances of a city flipping go UP with:
Total discontent
Distance from city
Total maintence costs of ALL cities (and/or total number of cities)
Barbarian attacks that make it to a city (so it's beneficial to attack barbs in the field rather than have them suicide on your defenses)
Ongoing foreign wars (more troops in enemy territory than in own territory; neutral lands count for neither)

Chances go DOWN with:
Military presence
Culture in city
Higher culture rate
Good foreign relations
Tech superiority

These variables are the same for every spawning civ, and they all make sense, too. And this is a one-time deal; either the city flips or it doesn't. Obviously new Civs need a capitol, and MAYBE another city or two, but that's it. The hard part is juggling all of the factors before-hand, rather than "spawn camping" a new civ. Arabia might be an exception in that it will start with a massive military and religious presence (missionaries); America will still have some guns, and quite a lot of British or other cities nearby will flip; they can take the rest. The AI shouldn't be that defended, anyway; otherwise the barbs need more tweaking.

Did anybody actually read all that? Kudos and thanks! I'll step down from my high horse, now.

SilverKnight

 

[Winterfell]

Go Silverknight. This is a great exlpanation and I think this idea is the best. Hopefully it wouldnt be too hard to implement. You got my vote anyway.

 

[SilverKnight]

Huzzah! Seems to follow history, allows for player-choice, and is simple enough to understand. The values of the variables, etc. can be tweaked as it's tested, this is just a basic idea.

Sleep... sounding good.
SilverKnight

 

[Barak]

I seem to recall that in several games that I have played there have already been cases of AI barbs destroying civs (greece, persia, arabia, rome) and another AI civ slipping into the area and growing succesfully.

I think that very good points have been raised by both SilverKnight and Fintilgin. I feel that as a player we should be able to keep our cities, but it shouldn't be easy. Perhaps when the civ spawns they get extra units or flip barb units as mentioned above.

BUT, what happens when a civ that is set to spanw is in an area completely surrounded by existing civs?

I give the example of Arabia. If the Egyptian, Greek and Persian forces settle in the Arabia peninsula and there is no room for the new Arabian units to spawn, if three is no flipping, where will they go? Or will Arabia simply not spawn.

 

[Fintilgin]

If, for some reason, a civ dosen't spawn, I like the idea of spawning an alternate civ someplace else. So, if Arabia dosen't spawn, the Zulu do. If Germany dosen't Poland or Scandinavia do.

Alt-civs could even be slightly more powerful on spawning to offset the fact one of their neighbors will be stronger.

This ought to be possible once Warlords comes out and lifts the 18 Civ limit, correct?

 

[kwan]

Good idea Silverknight.

In my recent game with Arabia, I was "glad" to see that Greece were doing well. They completely destroyed Egypt, and was leading the entire game. Every nation did well (exept Egypt...), but nothing happened really, and often it gets too boring by the late game...

So, I thought about what could be done.

I'd just finished writing about a small chance of having a world war in the 20th century, then safari crashed. Can't remember all of what I wrote now... I just thought that it would be fun to have an alternative game-ending opportunity... but leave that... maybe it'll come back later ... I like the idea of having something, that could change the scoreboard a bit in the late game.

So instead, what are your plans/thoughts about religion in this mod Rhye?
(if you have any)

 

[Rhye]

I will soon upload 0.49B:

- Tuned barbarian strength
- Barbarian raze probability lowered
- Enlarged Egypt (starting location moved south 1 tile)
- Tuned American handicaps
- Added City naming engine
- Added Egyptian, Indian, Chinese, Greek and Roman city tables
- Added Norse (barbarian) galleys to prevent early settling of England
- Bonus colonists for England, Spain and France in the appropriate era
- Civs not spawning bug hopefully fixed

 

[Rhye]

If, for some reason, a civ dosen't spawn, I like the idea of spawning an alternate civ someplace else. So, if Arabia dosen't spawn, the Zulu do. If Germany dosen't Poland or Scandinavia do.

Alt-civs could even be slightly more powerful on spawning to offset the fact one of their neighbors will be stronger.

This ought to be possible once Warlords comes out and lifts the 18 Civ limit, correct?

Now with this limit it's impossible. Without the limit it will be possible but it doesn't mean that it will be done.
Probably a variant of this (featuring minor civs) will be more likely

 

[Rhye]

So instead, what are your plans/thoughts about religion in this mod Rhye?
(if you have any)

In this moment the mod features a mixed way: religions can be born by a script in their correct city, but if any civ anticipates the date, it founds it. Nothing else for now.

In the expanded mod, we'll see.

 

[Rhye]

BUT, what happens when a civ that is set to spanw is in an area completely surrounded by existing civs?

they'll all flip, except in the case that they're all capitals

 

[V. Soma]

Whohow, new version a-coming!

 

[V. Soma]

While waiting...
...let me have a few words about WAR

Today I spent a bit of time thinking about how units should fight.
I tried to think it over from the ground up...
So, not considering how Civ4 handles things now.
Well, it means there may be things in my outline that are the same as in the game now

So:

I.

The main point is that when two units start a fight,
then they both want to use all means to eliminate the enemy,
so only one value is needed to show power. No different base value for attack and defense.
Civ4 has it this way,

But

I imagine that it is different to attack
from a hill to a plain (advancing downhill) and
from a plain to a hill (advancing uphill)!

Plus

Im my mind the attacker is moving, trying to capture the place of the defender,
who is trying to set foot and hold place!
(The result shows this: if the attacker wins and no other enemy unit is on the tile,
the attacker takes the tile where the defender was...)

Thus:

I would give each unit an attacking and defending MODIFIER for each type of tile.
The attacker gets attacking modifier based on the tile the unit attacks from
the defender gets a defending modifier based on the tile the unit defends at.

Example:

Attacking from a hill means plus attacking modifier maybe
(which would show when attacking from hill to lower land).
Defending on a hill means the same plus value in defense...
(So, from hill to hill neither has additional bonus)

Well, based on the above theory, a set of modifier values should be worked out.

Maybe there wouldn't be many, and only hill would mean an advance for the attacker,
and only hill, forest, jungle for defense,
but there may be special cases of desert, for instance...?

I will try to come up with suggested table of such modifier values.

II.

There are unit classes. Yes, and yes, they surely have a relation to each other in fight.
Civ4 has it, but it should be given a re-done system, I think.

A few points for example:

archery, gunpowder units: should have NO first strike against mounted or armor (fast units)
archery, gunpowder units: should have extra defense in woods against non-archery or gun
siege: should have penalty against all other type (siege is siege, not to be used in close combat)
helicopter: should have bonus against all non firing units

etc - it should be worked out more detailed...

*

uhh, I was long... sorry...

 

[V. Soma]

How soon is soon, Rhye?

 

[The Great Apple]

You are assuming with that combat model that the fight is occuring on the boundry between, for example, the hills and the grassland. Surely the defenders would place themselves where the enemy could not rush down hill at them. Similarily when attacking they may not neccessarily be going up a hill. The could be fighting in the hills, and the defenders could be unprepared in a vally.

Sounds like what you are describing might get a bit confusing/micromanagey.

 

[Rhye]

http://rhye.civfanatics.net/civ4/files/RhyesCatapult049B.zip

 

[V. Soma]

You are assuming with that combat model that the fight is occuring on the boundry between, for example, the hills and the grassland. Surely the defenders would place themselves where the enemy could not rush down hill at them. Similarily when attacking they may not neccessarily be going up a hill. The could be fighting in the hills, and the defenders could be unprepared in a vally.

Sounds like what you are describing might get a bit confusing/micromanagey.

If I understand you well, in your picture the fight is only to be happening on the tile that is attacked...
The attecker goes to the tile where the defender is and a fight comes...
Is this what you say?

If so, what do you say about modifiers?

 

[The Great Apple]

If I understand you well, in your picture the fight is only to be happening on the tile that is attacked...
The attecker goes to the tile where the defender is and a fight comes...
Is this what you say?

Yeah.

If so, what do you say about modifiers?

Well the defender will have the advantage that they have been in the area for a while so know the terrain, and how best to get an advantage from it. This advantage is enhanced in the case of units such as archers & hills, because the sort of advantage you would get is a good advantage for the terrain type.

To be honest, the justification for some of the modifiers is perhaps a little sketchy... however I don't see the justification for what you are suggesting is any better - it seems to me it just makes the game more fiddly.