TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
i think this is an important piece of information for the mod, seeing as how many civs there will be.
World History Mod development thread
- Thread starter kevinman4404
- Start date
i think this is an important piece of information for the mod, seeing as how many civs there will be.
moopoo
King
Or you could just have the top 5 or 10 on screen, plus you.
Grishnash
Mad Scientist
Here are a few ideas I came up with a while ago, I was going to post as a mod idea when I was done, but never got around to it.
Soooo .
New City system.
Cities in a way are the same. However, now your landscape around the city really matters. Towns can build improvements and farms provide food for more then just that one city.
New Buildings and Improvements also come into play. Like a conurbation is a upgraded town.
A new boarder system to lead your nation to glory.. or war.
But you already have this one, so . Just forget it
War. War has been reworked and made to be more... Deadly.
Three new ways to become victor
Use Espionage to destroy your enemies without dropping a pint of blood.
Barbarians don't just up and leave. Now you must face them in a new era, a new way.
[/QUOTE]
Forts, I think, should not need to be within cultural boarders to connect resources, this would make territorial wars battle. And if your going to make growth slower then it would lead to territorial battle between small empires trying to grab vital resources needed to fuel their empires. Also the forts would be able to hold lands that their empires wouldnt be able to settle for sometime, by preventing settlers from settling on the fort or the adjoining tiles, giving more cause for war. There also can be turned into cities, by going into your domestic adviser, you could turn one of your forts into cities, when this happens the name is whatever it would be with Fort before it. Thats if the fort has been around for more then five or ten turns, and have at less three units in it, when turned into a city, two of those units will join the city, making it size one, the city will also start with walls, barracks and maybe even a castle. If a settler was to settle on the fort (After it has been around for five-ten turns) the city well start out with walls, barrack and maybe a castle as well.
Globalization.
Improvements give 20% of whatever they produce into a treasury, which you can then ship to anyone of your cities, no matter where they are, (As long as its connected) i.e. you have four mines, three of them are being worked on by your cityA, one of them is outside of that citys work range, only covered by your culture, however, its still being worked, anyways, CityB is surrounded by floodplains and tundra, so it needs production, and CityA needs food, so CityA sends CityB 20% of the production from each of its mines to CityB and CityB sends 20% of its food from each of its farms to CityA, that outside mine also sends 20% of its production to CityB.
CityA and CityB are also making lots of gold from there towns and windmills, CityC has WallStreet and is the only city with a bank, so CityA and CityB send 20% of its gold from each of there towns and windmills to CityC to increase their nations gold.
The amount of percentage allowed to be shipped around changes with techs, like, the wheel increases the percentage to 25% and so on, and so on.
That way, an empire like Russia, with cities in the cold with no production, could still build a navy in the Pacific.
It would also lessen the chance of vest empty lands in modern nations; they would be used for towns (make money) or mines, farms, etc.
All these ideas are very sketchy and all, but I didnt put much thought behind them, and I didn't review it, my bad
but Im sure youll get the picture
I hope
Oh well, thats just my two cents. Oh, and when are you going to get a real team? With one, Im sure the mod will come along faster.
Anyways. Good luck!
Soooo .
New City system.
Cities in a way are the same. However, now your landscape around the city really matters. Towns can build improvements and farms provide food for more then just that one city.
Spoiler :
]New Buildings and Improvements also come into play. Like a conurbation is a upgraded town.
Spoiler :
A new boarder system to lead your nation to glory.. or war.
Spoiler :
But you already have this one, so . Just forget it
War. War has been reworked and made to be more... Deadly.
Spoiler :
.Three new ways to become victor
Spoiler :
Use Espionage to destroy your enemies without dropping a pint of blood.
Spoiler :
Barbarians don't just up and leave. Now you must face them in a new era, a new way.
Spoiler :
Forts, I think, should not need to be within cultural boarders to connect resources, this would make territorial wars battle. And if your going to make growth slower then it would lead to territorial battle between small empires trying to grab vital resources needed to fuel their empires. Also the forts would be able to hold lands that their empires wouldnt be able to settle for sometime, by preventing settlers from settling on the fort or the adjoining tiles, giving more cause for war. There also can be turned into cities, by going into your domestic adviser, you could turn one of your forts into cities, when this happens the name is whatever it would be with Fort before it. Thats if the fort has been around for more then five or ten turns, and have at less three units in it, when turned into a city, two of those units will join the city, making it size one, the city will also start with walls, barracks and maybe even a castle. If a settler was to settle on the fort (After it has been around for five-ten turns) the city well start out with walls, barrack and maybe a castle as well.
Globalization.
Improvements give 20% of whatever they produce into a treasury, which you can then ship to anyone of your cities, no matter where they are, (As long as its connected) i.e. you have four mines, three of them are being worked on by your cityA, one of them is outside of that citys work range, only covered by your culture, however, its still being worked, anyways, CityB is surrounded by floodplains and tundra, so it needs production, and CityA needs food, so CityA sends CityB 20% of the production from each of its mines to CityB and CityB sends 20% of its food from each of its farms to CityA, that outside mine also sends 20% of its production to CityB.
CityA and CityB are also making lots of gold from there towns and windmills, CityC has WallStreet and is the only city with a bank, so CityA and CityB send 20% of its gold from each of there towns and windmills to CityC to increase their nations gold.
The amount of percentage allowed to be shipped around changes with techs, like, the wheel increases the percentage to 25% and so on, and so on.
That way, an empire like Russia, with cities in the cold with no production, could still build a navy in the Pacific.
It would also lessen the chance of vest empty lands in modern nations; they would be used for towns (make money) or mines, farms, etc.
All these ideas are very sketchy and all, but I didnt put much thought behind them, and I didn't review it, my bad
but Im sure youll get the picture
I hope Oh well, thats just my two cents. Oh, and when are you going to get a real team? With one, Im sure the mod will come along faster.
Anyways. Good luck!
moopoo
King
hahaha I've thought of that city system. I like 
The Border system would work as a replacement for city maintenance. I like that too.
I don't like the war Idea. I think that, rather than give more options, as you suggest it would, it would take them away, as players would only attack certain civs because of the unhappiness. It wouldn't make breaking relationships with allies (which is a penalty in itself) worth it.
an Expanded espionage system is always a good idea, i NEVER use spies.
I hate the barbarian idea
The Idea that a random event could destroy a wonder, then turn your soldier into a barbarian when you try to stop it, is horrifying.
The Border system would work as a replacement for city maintenance. I like that too.
I don't like the war Idea. I think that, rather than give more options, as you suggest it would, it would take them away, as players would only attack certain civs because of the unhappiness. It wouldn't make breaking relationships with allies (which is a penalty in itself) worth it.
an Expanded espionage system is always a good idea, i NEVER use spies.
I hate the barbarian idea
The Idea that a random event could destroy a wonder, then turn your soldier into a barbarian when you try to stop it, is horrifying.
Gooblah
Heh...
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,282
Cool ideas..
My new thoughts have been on the idea of Gold.
Gold has been and is one of the most valuable resources in human history; Firaxis has simulated this through the high commerce yields of Gold. However, I think they need to go a step further. Gold Rushes have lead to population booms and the end of Empires.
Gold should produce +2, as well as a higher yield in terms of GPT when traded. Forts that are near Gold should be programmed to attract more enemy units, Barbarian or not. Cities near gold should experience more immigration than other cities. Finally, Empires with Gold in heavy quantities should recieve a negative modifier, like "We wish your resources for our own" or something, increasing the chances of a war over a resource.
My new thoughts have been on the idea of Gold.
Gold has been and is one of the most valuable resources in human history; Firaxis has simulated this through the high commerce yields of Gold. However, I think they need to go a step further. Gold Rushes have lead to population booms and the end of Empires.
Gold should produce +2
, as well as a higher yield in terms of GPT when traded. Forts that are near Gold should be programmed to attract more enemy units, Barbarian or not. Cities near gold should experience more immigration than other cities. Finally, Empires with Gold in heavy quantities should recieve a negative modifier, like "We wish your resources for our own" or something, increasing the chances of a war over a resource.
moopoo
King
My Successor?!? I'm still here!!!
Hmmm, I gotta come up with more ideas...
Hmmm, I gotta come up with more ideas...
I would like to use some of these ideas for Meteor Storm too (alien invasion mod being developed by me and delayed indefinitely).
There should be an economic victory as well. Unlike in CivRev however it should be measured according to GPT, not gold (maybe like +1500 gold per turn to win, minus sliders?). You could combine economic and corporation victories.
There should be an economic victory as well. Unlike in CivRev however it should be measured according to GPT, not gold (maybe like +1500 gold per turn to win, minus sliders?). You could combine economic and corporation victories.
Grishnash
Mad Scientist
Hey! I was here first!!!! Moopoo came after me!!! MEE!!!!!!
economic victory? Hmmm, I don't know why I didn't come up with that! Good idea. You could use any of the idea's, that would great (If you were asking?)
But I would think that EV should be something like, top production of money, food and hammer, have the most gold, have wall street and have at lease four civs giving you no less then 10 gold per turn. Or something like that.
Oh, you could rebuild your wonder, it just cost gold.
That gold idea's not bad, but maybe it should be with any resource that is either lacking in your empire, lacking in your empire and your nextdoor empires, or lacking in any empire in the world. Just my two cents
But the unhappiness mainly goes to the attacker, the defender would get like, faster unit build time, because their people really want to kill the mother******s that attacked them They would also get a more likely chance to get the Parts event.
I'm coming up with another (big?) idea, but I think I'll wait till I get home to post it (Not home atm, yay! Got the net back home ! )
I WAS BEFORE MOOPOO! BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE!
economic victory? Hmmm, I don't know why I didn't come up with that! Good idea. You could use any of the idea's, that would great (If you were asking?)
But I would think that EV should be something like, top production of money, food and hammer, have the most gold, have wall street and have at lease four civs giving you no less then 10 gold per turn. Or something like that.
That's what it's for. I that also means it's a good idea, horrifying an empire! Don't worry, if you have cops, state cops, fed cops, and swat, and homeland watching and spying on everyone in your nation, then you won't have to worry about bad guys...
Oh, you could rebuild your wonder, it just cost gold. That gold idea's not bad, but maybe it should be with any resource that is either lacking in your empire, lacking in your empire and your nextdoor empires, or lacking in any empire in the world. Just my two cents
But the unhappiness mainly goes to the attacker, the defender would get like, faster unit build time, because their people really want to kill the mother******s that attacked them
They would also get a more likely chance to get the Parts event. I'm coming up with another (big?) idea, but I think I'll wait till I get home to post it (Not home atm, yay! Got the net back home ! )
I WAS BEFORE MOOPOO! BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE!
moopoo
King
I have more posts than you
I stand by what I said about the war idea and the terrorist idea. While I appreciate their addition to realism and gameplay depth, I can't envision a situation where I would find either of those things fun - which after all is the point of a game.
I stand by what I said about the war idea and the terrorist idea. While I appreciate their addition to realism and gameplay depth, I can't envision a situation where I would find either of those things fun - which after all is the point of a game.
moopoo
King
You're right. I have
How about this: the ability to declare different types of wars. The default, the one in game now, would be a simple land grab, and war weariness takes place.
New types of war would be available:
=>A racial war. This would create far less (or no?) war weariness, but would mean that population from each of your cities is killed off or emigrates, depending on the cultural influence they have on a given city.
=>A Holy war/Crusade: again, less (no) war weariness, but a pop loss based on the influence that religion has on a given city.
I can't think of any more of these at the moment, so i'll move on to my next idea, blatantly stolen from Rome: Total war
When a city is taken at the moment, we are given two options: Keep it or Raze it.
We could have more options. Like taking half the population and dispersing throughout the empire (possible as slaves, given the right civic), or killing three quarters of the population for a massive gold increase (if your losing money badly, or don't wanna deal with initial unhappiness from the war there), or taking a portion of the population and putting them in the army (Alexander, in his conquest, relied on troops from cities he took rather than support from home).
Yeah. Chew on that
How about this: the ability to declare different types of wars. The default, the one in game now, would be a simple land grab, and war weariness takes place.
New types of war would be available:
=>A racial war. This would create far less (or no?) war weariness, but would mean that population from each of your cities is killed off or emigrates, depending on the cultural influence they have on a given city.
=>A Holy war/Crusade: again, less (no) war weariness, but a pop loss based on the influence that religion has on a given city.
I can't think of any more of these at the moment, so i'll move on to my next idea, blatantly stolen from Rome: Total war
When a city is taken at the moment, we are given two options: Keep it or Raze it.
We could have more options. Like taking half the population and dispersing throughout the empire (possible as slaves, given the right civic), or killing three quarters of the population for a massive gold increase (if your losing money badly, or don't wanna deal with initial unhappiness from the war there), or taking a portion of the population and putting them in the army (Alexander, in his conquest, relied on troops from cities he took rather than support from home).
Yeah. Chew on that
Grishnash
Mad Scientist
Hello again! Let's see what I can come up with!
@moopoo:
Those are not bad ideas, I can't think of anything to add on to them atm
However, I said I was going to post another idea, and I am, sure I should have put more thinking into the last one, but for some reason, I just don't feel like working my mind...
Here's one that I came up with while playing RevolutionDCM.
Abandoned: I was going to post this in the Revolution thread but decided I’ll post it here, and maybe there too. When marching through friendly lands, your troops are at risk of deflecting from your army and joining the locals. Also, when at war, your troops are at risk of flipping to the enemy side.
The first one would happen if, the friendly lands your troops are going through are not at war with your enemy or the enemy or your enemy, also, only if your empire as at unrest due to the war. So, if your troops are walking through an empire that has never gone to war and is not at war at the moment, then your troops are at risk, and even more so if there is any unrest in your empire due to the war. However, when this happens, it effects the local empire as well, your culture spreads in their land, also, local cities and towns(Improvements) get small pop booms after two turns. The local empire however, can get rid of that foreign culture, and the pop boom that comes with it, by sending troops to the area where the passing army men have deflected and ordering them to get rid of deserters.
The second one would happen if, your troops are overwhelmed by enemy troops, or you are the attacker and your empire is at unrest due to the war, and the enemy is within your lands. National loyalty reduces the chance of this happening, happiness, good culture, and religion. When overwhelmed, your troops are likely to flip to the enemy to avoid death, when this happens those units that flip are weak at 25% or less of their unit health.
When flipping because of unrest and invaders, your units near any enemy unit are at risk of flipping to the invaders, when this happens, the unit is never at more then 25% of it’s health, this can also cause cities to riot or town improvements to give defense to the invaders.
Here's one that just came to me, now this may have it's cons but I'm sure it's not that bad...
(Should have thought it through more.)
Now, Economy:
Gold trade is the same until economy (Tech)
Once you get economy, your money changes and is backed up by your resources.
The more gold, oil, gems, diamonds and other resources you have, the more your gold is worth. All resources up your gold worth but resources like gold and oil gives it the most worth. I.e. if you have 10 gold resources, and your trading with a nation with 3 gold resources, (were saying they have no other resources) then 1 gold (Money) from you is worth 3.5 gold of theirs. This makes the economy system a little more realistic and also increases the need for resource wars, like the war in Iraq. There would also be resource depletion were used resources run out over time, like units and cities use out oil, bigger cities more oil used. Gold is used out by your spending. Working and trading use cows out. However, if you don’t use a resource, it runs out ten times slower. This would be great in the modern age, when everything uses oil, you have to find another fuel or attack smaller weaker nations for their oil, and since your economy depends on the amount of oil you have, you will need to gain more fields as your nation grows.
Also, resource stocking up should add a bonus for your empire, like if you have 3 wheat, it gives what it normally would, and then plus 1 food? That way empires with abundant of resources will grow larger and other smaller nations will try to take their land.
But there should also be the possibility that your empire can become to reliant on a single resource, once this happens your people won’t want to work anything but that resource, it’ll give you more money, however, they will stop working on food and other resources, forcing you to import from other nations what you could be working on yourself.
Resources will have like a stock exchange to determine their worth; resources in high demand are worth more then something everyone has. I.e. Oil, being used by everyone for everything is worth 5 gold, so if you have an oil reserve your gold is worth 6 of that of a nation without it. Coffee on the other hand, something that everyone has and isn’t in that high a demand, is worth only .5 gold, so that if you have 2, your gold is worth 2 of that of a nation without.
The price for resources is set by the amount being mined and the demand for it, so if only you have coffee and everyone wants it, the price would be 10 gold worth.
There’d be a way to have other resources in high demand from cities, I just can’t think of a way at the moment, maybe like this, malls/supermarkets increase the demand for resources like coffee, silk, cow, and others, markets increase gems and silver and forges cropper and iron, with the amount demanded going up with the city size. Or something like that? Also, if you are the only one with a resource, you can set the price at which it’s worth, however, if your not, then a outside party sets the price, (Like an oil committee, deciding on what the oil price should be, non-player controlled) This would also make resource trading a more complicated matter. You wouldn’t want to spread your unique coffee beans around for anything less then oil! And it would also make getting vassals more important, so that they can give you oil for cheap or free. This would also change the trade routes between nations, for if you have a higher dollar then the nation your trading with, you’ll be making more money then he would from the trade route.
But there are also cons to this big market of resources, economic sabotage.
If your economy is well off, you stand to loss as much as gain.
For if you have a well off economy, your paying your people a considerable amount of money. But if you were to lose something valuable and your economy dropped, then your people will be unstable, you’ll start to loss money from trade you previously made a bundle on, your units will start to cost more then you had imagined and cities will start to riot as their living conditions drop as you are no longer able to supply all your cities with basics such as light and heat! This could cause a civil war to break out, so it’s best if you balance your economy on a variety of stuff, even try to lend off resources all together, but even still, your economy is always at risk.
Now, well, that’s it for now, I can’t think right now. And I’m not the best at giving myself constructive criticism to improve on this much, so…
This was supposed to be a big idea, but it turned out to be much smaller then I had thought, oh well.
What do you think? Good ideas or what?
Progress report?
@moopoo:
Those are not bad ideas, I can't think of anything to add on to them atm
However, I said I was going to post another idea, and I am, sure I should have put more thinking into the last one, but for some reason, I just don't feel like working my mind...
Here's one that I came up with while playing RevolutionDCM.
Abandoned: I was going to post this in the Revolution thread but decided I’ll post it here, and maybe there too. When marching through friendly lands, your troops are at risk of deflecting from your army and joining the locals. Also, when at war, your troops are at risk of flipping to the enemy side.
The first one would happen if, the friendly lands your troops are going through are not at war with your enemy or the enemy or your enemy, also, only if your empire as at unrest due to the war. So, if your troops are walking through an empire that has never gone to war and is not at war at the moment, then your troops are at risk, and even more so if there is any unrest in your empire due to the war. However, when this happens, it effects the local empire as well, your culture spreads in their land, also, local cities and towns(Improvements) get small pop booms after two turns. The local empire however, can get rid of that foreign culture, and the pop boom that comes with it, by sending troops to the area where the passing army men have deflected and ordering them to get rid of deserters.
The second one would happen if, your troops are overwhelmed by enemy troops, or you are the attacker and your empire is at unrest due to the war, and the enemy is within your lands. National loyalty reduces the chance of this happening, happiness, good culture, and religion. When overwhelmed, your troops are likely to flip to the enemy to avoid death, when this happens those units that flip are weak at 25% or less of their unit health.
When flipping because of unrest and invaders, your units near any enemy unit are at risk of flipping to the invaders, when this happens, the unit is never at more then 25% of it’s health, this can also cause cities to riot or town improvements to give defense to the invaders.
Here's one that just came to me, now this may have it's cons but I'm sure it's not that bad...
(Should have thought it through more.)Now, Economy:
Gold trade is the same until economy (Tech)
Once you get economy, your money changes and is backed up by your resources.
The more gold, oil, gems, diamonds and other resources you have, the more your gold is worth. All resources up your gold worth but resources like gold and oil gives it the most worth. I.e. if you have 10 gold resources, and your trading with a nation with 3 gold resources, (were saying they have no other resources) then 1 gold (Money) from you is worth 3.5 gold of theirs. This makes the economy system a little more realistic and also increases the need for resource wars, like the war in Iraq. There would also be resource depletion were used resources run out over time, like units and cities use out oil, bigger cities more oil used. Gold is used out by your spending. Working and trading use cows out. However, if you don’t use a resource, it runs out ten times slower. This would be great in the modern age, when everything uses oil, you have to find another fuel or attack smaller weaker nations for their oil, and since your economy depends on the amount of oil you have, you will need to gain more fields as your nation grows.
Also, resource stocking up should add a bonus for your empire, like if you have 3 wheat, it gives what it normally would, and then plus 1 food? That way empires with abundant of resources will grow larger and other smaller nations will try to take their land.
But there should also be the possibility that your empire can become to reliant on a single resource, once this happens your people won’t want to work anything but that resource, it’ll give you more money, however, they will stop working on food and other resources, forcing you to import from other nations what you could be working on yourself.
Resources will have like a stock exchange to determine their worth; resources in high demand are worth more then something everyone has. I.e. Oil, being used by everyone for everything is worth 5 gold, so if you have an oil reserve your gold is worth 6 of that of a nation without it. Coffee on the other hand, something that everyone has and isn’t in that high a demand, is worth only .5 gold, so that if you have 2, your gold is worth 2 of that of a nation without.
The price for resources is set by the amount being mined and the demand for it, so if only you have coffee and everyone wants it, the price would be 10 gold worth.
There’d be a way to have other resources in high demand from cities, I just can’t think of a way at the moment, maybe like this, malls/supermarkets increase the demand for resources like coffee, silk, cow, and others, markets increase gems and silver and forges cropper and iron, with the amount demanded going up with the city size. Or something like that? Also, if you are the only one with a resource, you can set the price at which it’s worth, however, if your not, then a outside party sets the price, (Like an oil committee, deciding on what the oil price should be, non-player controlled) This would also make resource trading a more complicated matter. You wouldn’t want to spread your unique coffee beans around for anything less then oil! And it would also make getting vassals more important, so that they can give you oil for cheap or free. This would also change the trade routes between nations, for if you have a higher dollar then the nation your trading with, you’ll be making more money then he would from the trade route.
But there are also cons to this big market of resources, economic sabotage.
If your economy is well off, you stand to loss as much as gain.
For if you have a well off economy, your paying your people a considerable amount of money. But if you were to lose something valuable and your economy dropped, then your people will be unstable, you’ll start to loss money from trade you previously made a bundle on, your units will start to cost more then you had imagined and cities will start to riot as their living conditions drop as you are no longer able to supply all your cities with basics such as light and heat! This could cause a civil war to break out, so it’s best if you balance your economy on a variety of stuff, even try to lend off resources all together, but even still, your economy is always at risk.
Now, well, that’s it for now, I can’t think right now. And I’m not the best at giving myself constructive criticism to improve on this much, so…
This was supposed to be a big idea, but it turned out to be much smaller then I had thought, oh well.
What do you think? Good ideas or what?
Progress report?
Gooblah
Heh...
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,282
How many of you have read the book Guns, Germs, and Steel? It basically explains why some Empires fared better than others; it boiled down to geographical luck in terms of resources. Anyways, to show how this works, I propose a revolution in research, based off the ideas I presented in the Accurate Map Thread.
No more Cottage Economy, period. In the early game, Specialists should drive the society. More food allowed for more specialists in the village to experiment with different technologies, eventually selecting the best one for trial in the next round, repeating the process over and over and over again. Based on this...
At each Size, a city should be able to assign a Specialist (one Specialist every 2 population). However, this Specialist assignment would be random. In the City Screen, one would find a box: "Assign Random Specialist". By clicking this button, as many specialists as possible without hampering growth would be assigned, each one given a chance to be a Priest, Engineer, Merchant, Scientist, Spy, or Artist. You can remove these Random Specialists, or add them, but you can't change their assignment.
Example 1:
Berlin has 6 Population. I click the button, and since it can support two specialists, 2 specialists are randomly assigned; I recieve an Engineer and an Artist. I wanted a Spy and a Scientist, so I remove both the Specialists and click the button again. The same results appear. The same results will always appear unless "Generate Random Seed on Reload" is toggled as an option, and I reload.
Buildings, now, would let you assign the Specialists you want, giving us...
Example 2:
Keeping Berlin the same as above, I build a Library, allowing me to keep 2 Scientists. However, the Engineer and Artist will stay, even if I remove them and try to reassign Citizens as Scientists. I must wait until I have sufficient food for the 2 Scientists to assign both.
To ensure that Great Person Point Pools aren't screwed up, after some turns, you can remove the Random Specialists and assign new ones.
The thing here is that if all Specialist provide beakers, then to remain competitive, one will be forced to settle high food sites that can support many Specialists, then high production sites.
After a while, the Cottage Economy should be made to be better than the Specialist Economy (Medieval Era or so).
No more Cottage Economy, period. In the early game, Specialists should drive the society. More food allowed for more specialists in the village to experiment with different technologies, eventually selecting the best one for trial in the next round, repeating the process over and over and over again. Based on this...
At each Size, a city should be able to assign a Specialist (one Specialist every 2 population). However, this Specialist assignment would be random. In the City Screen, one would find a box: "Assign Random Specialist". By clicking this button, as many specialists as possible without hampering growth would be assigned, each one given a chance to be a Priest, Engineer, Merchant, Scientist, Spy, or Artist. You can remove these Random Specialists, or add them, but you can't change their assignment.
Example 1:
Berlin has 6 Population. I click the button, and since it can support two specialists, 2 specialists are randomly assigned; I recieve an Engineer and an Artist. I wanted a Spy and a Scientist, so I remove both the Specialists and click the button again. The same results appear. The same results will always appear unless "Generate Random Seed on Reload" is toggled as an option, and I reload.
Buildings, now, would let you assign the Specialists you want, giving us...
Example 2:
Keeping Berlin the same as above, I build a Library, allowing me to keep 2 Scientists. However, the Engineer and Artist will stay, even if I remove them and try to reassign Citizens as Scientists. I must wait until I have sufficient food for the 2 Scientists to assign both.
To ensure that Great Person Point Pools aren't screwed up, after some turns, you can remove the Random Specialists and assign new ones.
The thing here is that if all Specialist provide beakers, then to remain competitive, one will be forced to settle high food sites that can support many Specialists, then high production sites.
After a while, the Cottage Economy should be made to be better than the Specialist Economy (Medieval Era or so).
Grishnash
Mad Scientist
Well, I can't see I've read that book, 'cuz I haven't. But I do say we should wait for Kevin 'fore we go on posting more and more ideas for his already pack and hard to make mod
Now, I'm hoping he's making a team up while he's away
Now, I'm hoping he's making a team up while he's away
EviltheMonkey
One Primate Think Tank
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 85
Well you can count me in on the team front.
That is if you want another ideas factory (we seem to have a lot of those already
)
My newest idea: Simplified Armies. And before you start the groans hear me out.
This is based on the earlier discussion that centered on quantified population and its impact on unit production, not sure if thats still being used, but it got me thinking what actual historical unit does a game unit represent? A division? Brigade? What? So the first part is to settle on what number of soldiers a unit will represent and I'd like to propose we set it at 5000, which is roughly equal to a Roman legion and a modern brigade. This would be for infantry units for cavalry I would suggest a figure of 1500 horse (roughly the size of the British cavalry contingent at Balaclava and half the Macedonian Cavalry force at Issus) and for tanks 250 (roughly the size of a modern armoured regiment).
The problem this brings up mainly affects the ancient period. As it is you can build many different units (spearmen, archers, swordsmen and axemen etc.) but with these unit sizes it would be more likely that an ancient unit would consist of many of these different weapons. So instead we could simplify the classical infantry into more generalised types I would say down to just two, heavy infantry and light infantry (heavy would represent spears, swords and axes, light would represent archers, peltists and skirmishers). Pre gunpowder seige engines would be removed as distinct units (infantry could be upgraded with the seige equipment promotion instead).
I'll leave the idea as bare-bones for now and see what the mood is.
That is if you want another ideas factory (we seem to have a lot of those already
)My newest idea: Simplified Armies. And before you start the groans hear me out.
This is based on the earlier discussion that centered on quantified population and its impact on unit production, not sure if thats still being used, but it got me thinking what actual historical unit does a game unit represent? A division? Brigade? What? So the first part is to settle on what number of soldiers a unit will represent and I'd like to propose we set it at 5000, which is roughly equal to a Roman legion and a modern brigade. This would be for infantry units for cavalry I would suggest a figure of 1500 horse (roughly the size of the British cavalry contingent at Balaclava and half the Macedonian Cavalry force at Issus) and for tanks 250 (roughly the size of a modern armoured regiment).
The problem this brings up mainly affects the ancient period. As it is you can build many different units (spearmen, archers, swordsmen and axemen etc.) but with these unit sizes it would be more likely that an ancient unit would consist of many of these different weapons. So instead we could simplify the classical infantry into more generalised types I would say down to just two, heavy infantry and light infantry (heavy would represent spears, swords and axes, light would represent archers, peltists and skirmishers). Pre gunpowder seige engines would be removed as distinct units (infantry could be upgraded with the seige equipment promotion instead).
I'll leave the idea as bare-bones for now and see what the mood is.
moopoo
King
I like games where I have choices, and those choices affect my outcomes. the more the merrier. So I'm afraid i'm gonna hafta disagree, ETM
I like the idea of deciding on unit sizes though. I think there should be some kind of restriction in the number of units per tile. From here we could figure out how much area each tile represents. from here we take the number of troops could stay on that amount of land IRL. We take the number of real troops allowed, divide it by our limit to troops per tile (whether arbitrary or the realistic limit imposed by some kind of loss of strength), and we have troop size.
I like the idea of deciding on unit sizes though. I think there should be some kind of restriction in the number of units per tile. From here we could figure out how much area each tile represents. from here we take the number of troops could stay on that amount of land IRL. We take the number of real troops allowed, divide it by our limit to troops per tile (whether arbitrary or the realistic limit imposed by some kind of loss of strength), and we have troop size.
CheScott
Prince
How very interesting!!
Congratulations, you have successfully achieved what has defied professional game designers doggedly for years. You made me actually wish I had a better computer, so I could play this.
Congratulations, you have successfully achieved what has defied professional game designers doggedly for years. You made me actually wish I had a better computer, so I could play this.
Similar threads
