City Needs System - formerly known as "Satisfaction" [OBSOLETE]

[raystuttgart]

Base Concept Idea:

The bigger a city gets, the more needs and desires its population will develop. (They will depend on City Population mainly)
This concept will reflect how well your Colonial Nation does take care of those city needs and desires.

The whole system will be fully configurable (in terms of each single city need) in a new XML CityNeeds.xml containing CityNeedTypes.
Thus it will become easily configurable without further programming - once it is fully implemented.

The concept mainly intends to balance the huge cities that are currently overpowered (especially in 2Plot-City-Radius).
But it also intends to introduce a bit more micromanagement and challenge to the game.

There is no new Yield, Building, Profession or Specialist involved in the current System, since it is all based on the "Needs" which are basically like mini-quests for Cities.
(That was different in my old concept of "Satisfaction".)

City Needs are not to be fulfilled only once.
They are constant needs and desired that need to be fulfilled as long as the City Population is beyond the configured number.

Feature Concept:

A) Needs being activated / deactivated by Population Size

The specific needs / desires will become active depending on their XML setting for Popluation Size.
Once active a need will be added to a list of current needs of the City.

If population increases new valid needs will be added to the list of current needs.
If population decreases invalid needs will be removed again from the list of current needs.

Technical Remark:
The list of needs should probably be stored as CityNeedTypes in the City (and thus in Savegames).
That list will be updated whenever population changes.

Once they are active they of course need to be displayed.
(see Visualization Concept)

And the "list of current needs" of the City will not need to be satisfied only once.
They are modelling constant needs a City with a specific Population Size has.

Like Schools, Protection, Supply of Goods, Health Care, ...
You cannot simply give your Cities food once and let them starve afterwards.

B) Possible Needs

• specific Buildings (e.g. a Corn Chamber, Church, School, Pallisades, ...)
• specific Experts working in City (e.g. Fire Brand Preachers, Experienced Doctors, ...)
• specific Yield Production per Turn in City (e.g. Food, Crosses, Education, Health, ...)
• specific Amounts of stored Yields being higher than Domestic Demand (e.g. Salt, Sugar, ...)
• number of stationed Military Units
• being at peace with your close by neigbours (e.g. Natives or AI Colonies)
• not having active "Boycotts" in Europe on Yields produced in the City
• not having more than x% of population being Slaves / Petty Criminals
• ...

Of course they would not be active all at once directly when founding a new city.
They will become gradually more by growth of the City's Population.

You will have very few needs for small villages and many needs for really huge cities.

C) Limit of Needs to be fulfilled and Chance based Algorithm

Not all Needs always need to be fulfilled. There will be border values (or precentages) for triggering positive or negative effects.

Fulfilling e.g. 7 of 10 current needs might be ok and might not trigger any negative or positive effects.
Fulfilling e.g. only 5 of 10 (or less) current needs might however trigger negative effects.
Fulfilling e.g. already 8 of 10 (or more) current needs might even trigger positive effects.

If you fulfill too few current City Needs over some time, you risk negative effects being triggered in the City.
The longer and the more Needs you don't fulfill the higher the chances that a negative effect is triggered.

If you fulfill most current City Needs over some time, there is a chance that some positive effect is triggered in the city.
The longer you fulfill most current needs the higher the chances that a positive effect is triggered.

So yes, there will be chance based algorithms.
I simply do not like deterministic and 100% predictable outcomes.

GameDifficulty selection could be implemented to affect the chances to trigger negative effects by the algorithm.
(The XML for GameDifficulty would then need to get a new XML-tag for that.)

D) Possible Negative Effects of too many Needs not being fulfilled

The possible negative effects would always be limited to the specific City.
(None of them would be game breaking - but they would still hurt.)

• Short Revolt (e.g. 2 Turns)
• Colonists leaving the City
• Colonist being transformed to a "Petty Criminal"
• Yields being stolen (from City Storage)
• Buildings being destroyed
• Unhappiness being triggered (adding a short term Production Malus)
• ...

Of course only one of these will happen at a time.

E) Possible Positive Effects of most Needs of the City being fulfilled

The possible positive effects would also always be limited to the specific City.
(None of them would be game breaking either - but still nice.)

• Growth in City
• Production of a Building being spontaneously finished
• Spontaneously triggering "Learning by Doing" of a Colonist to be finished
• Boom / Festivities being triggered (adding a short term Production Bonus)
• ...

Of course only one of these will happen at a time.

Visualization Concept:

A) Need Status Overview in City Screen

There would be a new "Satisfaction" Icon in the City Screen. Behind the Icon there would be a counter displaying (Fullfilled Needs vs. Total Needs).
Looking e.g. like this: (7/8) or (5/8) or (4/8)

B) List of Needs in City Screen

The list of current needs will be visible / displayed by mouse over the "Satisfaction" Icon in the City Screen.
It will display the "short text" configured in the XML CityNeeds.xml (fullfilled Needs will have green text, not fulfilled Needs will have red text).

C) Warning Message if too few Needs fulfilled

For every City that has low % of Needs being fulfilled a warning message will be generated every turn.
For people that are annoyed with that, we might have an XML setting to turn those messages of.

D) Explanation of this new Game Concept in Colopedia

In Colopedia Game Concepts this new feature / game mechanic is explained.

AI concept:

I know that community does not like that, but there is no way, that this could reasonably be taught too AI currently.
It simply cannot manage or plan its Building Production, Yield Production or Yield Storage as needed for this concept.

Thus if implemented, all negative Effects would need to be "Human only".
I am sorry but I cannot offer anything better than that.

The feature would not be applied for Native Players at all.
(Almost none of the "Needs" would work for them anyways.)

Technical Remarks:

Technically this is definitely doable and all design patterns are known and proven in practice.
(Basically current "Health" feature is a mini-version of this concept - and by the way might be enhanced as well.)

It is a lot of effort however for setting up the new XML System (CityNeeds.xml) and to implement all the calculations, effects and visualizations. It would also need a lot of balancing and testing.
I will definitely need help with this from team and community to handle all of these efforts.

Save Games would become a tiny bit bigger but it really does not matter that much.
(Because we would need to store the list of NeedTypes.)

Performance will be affected a tiny bit as well. Because every turn in every Colonial City the logic for this "City Need System" would need to run.
But it is also not that much because it would mainly access data already computed (Population Size, Yield Storage, Yield Production, List of Buildings, ...) and the list of Needs will also be stored already per City and not constantly recalculated.

Gameplay Remarks

Well, this definitely affects gameplay.
Huge Cities will simply need more attention and micromanagement.

It is thus not really the most "beginner friendly" feature.
It should however be possible to explain this quite well in Colopedia.

-------------

Personal Remark:

This is based on one of my oldest concepts for RaR that I ever made. It has recently been improved a bit however.
(I got some new ideas from posts of our internal issue list and in discussions with other team members.)

I am really interested to hear what team and community think about this.
Maybe we can even make this concept better.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

...
The bigger a city gets, the more needs and desires its population will develop. (They will depend on City Population mainly)
This concept will reflect how well your Colonial Nation does take care of those city needs and desires.

Needs sounds similar to the local/domestic markets that are already implemented in WtP where once market buildings are built and upgraded local demand from the population allows to sell goods at home.

...
If population increases all new valid needs will be added to the list of current needs.
If population decreases all invalid needs will be removed again from the list of current needs.

Technical Remark:
The list of needs should probably be stored as CityNeedTypes in the City (and thus in Savegames).
That list will be updated whenever population changes.

So if I am unable to fulfill a or several needs, and would risk negative consequences over time, could I simply take some colonists and march them out of the city and the needs would vanish because the city suddenly is smaller?

B) Possible Needs

- specific Buildings (e.g. a Corn Chamber, Church, School, Pallisades, ...)

Some of the buildings are certain to be built - would building them immediately before the need arises allow for the same positive consequences? Or would building before "need" negate a reward as the need never had appeared?

Some of the buildings are given by founding Fathers (e.g. Palisades by La Salle I think). Should the player who gets La Salle be rewarded for fulfilling the need for Palisades in all his settlements in addition to the gifted Palisades?

- specific Experts working in City (e.g. Fire Brand Preachers, Experienced Doctors, ...)
- specific Yield Production per Turn in City (e.g. Food, Crosses, Education, Health, ...)

Is the AI able to notice the surrounding plots that belong to the city before demanding a new need?
e.g. when half of the plots still belong to indians would the need arise to have enough food that could only be produced if all plots would be farmed, forcing the player to quickly, perhaps in a hostile way, take over the the land instead of patiently waiting until culture claims the plots
Would the need for producing food arise in a settlement that has no way to produce much food? e.g. a small village in the desert or surrounded by mountains that takes advantage of gold/silver/iron veins and would normally be supplied by transporting food from another city

- specific Amounts of stored Yields being higher than Domestic Demand (e.g. Salt, Sugar, ...)
- number of stationed Military Units
- being at peace with your close by neigbours (e.g. Natives or AI Colonies)
- not having active "Boycotts" in Europe on Yields produced in the City
- not having more than x% of population being Slaves / Petty Criminals

Would that count all Petty Criminals or only those that have not taken up arms?

D) Possible Negative Effects of too many Needs not being fulfilled

The possible negative effects would always be limited to the specific City.
(None of them would be game breaking - but they would still hurt.)

• Short Revolt (e.g. 2 Turns)

In a game limeted to 300 turns/years is 2 turns short? It would waste the production of 2 years for a possibly large city. Would it be possible to make the duration adapt to game length (e.g. in a game with 300 turns only 1 turn revolt, in a game with more turns longer revolt?).

• Colonists leaving the City

To where? There is a way for slaves to flee but would a colonist that drops out of a city not be able by the player to simply be added immediately back to the city?

• Colonist being transformed to a "Petty Criminal"

So from a Master Fur Trader directly to a Petty Criminal? Not better in small steps, e.g. from Specialist to free Colonist to Indentured Servant to Petty Criminal?

• Yields being stolen (from City Storage)

By whom? When natives attack and steal something we have a culprit and a place where the stolen goods went and so someone to blame, but here?
Who did take them? Where did the goods go? Can I get them back? e.g. did some renegade colonist just leave the city with an oxcart loaded with my goods to sell them to the next indian village/other colonial power/Smuggler Ship at the shore?

AI concept:

I know that community does not like that, but there is no way, that this could reasonably be taught too AI currently.
It simply cannot manage or plan its Building Production, Yield Production or Yield Storage as needed for this concept.

Thus if implemented, all negative Effects would need to be "Human only".
I am sorry but I cannot offer anything better than that.

The feature would not be applied for Native Players at all.
(Almost none of the "Needs" would work for them anyways.)

Can the needs be changed depending on difficulty level? e.g. easiest difficulty no needs, highest difficulty and more needy population?

 

[raystuttgart]

Needs sounds similar to the local/domestic markets that are already implemented in WtP where once market buildings are built and upgraded local demand from the population allows to sell goods at home.

Not really. Domestic Demands currently just create income.

City Needs are supposed to be able to use many different current game mechanics as "mini City quest" (that however are constantly active and cannot be fulfillfed once only).
But yes, one example for a City Need could be "Satisfy Domestic Market for Salt" (and thus use the Domestic Demand feature for this).

So if I am unable to fulfill a or several needs, and would risk negative consequences over time, could I simply take some colonists and march them out of the city and the needs would vanish because the city suddenly is smaller?

Theoretically yes.
But you would:

A) Not produce Yields with those colonists until they settled somewhere else.
B) You could potentially unfulfill other current City needs by reducing some Yield Production or removing a Specialist it wants. - They are not to be fulfilled once - they need to be fulfilled all the time depending on the Population of course.

Some of the buildings are certain to be built - would building them immediately before the need arises allow for the same positive consequences?

No, as long as the list of the Needs of the City does not contain a need - you cannot gain positive effects from already fulfilling it.
The city will not want it and thus the logic will not check for it being fulfilled.

Or would building before "need" negate a reward as the need never had appeared?

No, it is a simple check done every turn:
"City wants" vs. "City has". --> Calculate / Display the numbers.

If "City wants" much lower "City has" --> a negative effect can happen
If "City wants" is equal to "City has" --> a positive effect can happen

Some of the buildings are given by founding Fathers (e.g. Palisades by La Salle I think). Should the player who gets La Salle be rewarded for fulfilling the need for Palisades in all his settlements in addition to the gifted Palisades?

Yes, that would happen.
Basically all your cities would automatically have that Need "Pallisades" fulfilled once they are asking for it.

Is the AI able to notice the surrounding plots that belong to the city before demanding a new need?

That has nothing to do with specific AI logic at all. It is just simple checks that would need to be implemented on methods that all already exists.

The logic determining Needs on Population Size (by reading XML) and checking "being fullfilled" of needs will be exactly the same as for Humans.
AI would simply not be able to play strategically to achieve the Needs. (Thus it is better to deactivate negative effects of this concept for them.)

Would that count all Petty Criminals or only those that have not taken up arms?

Only those working in the City.

To where? There is a way for slaves to flee but would a colonist that drops out of a city not be able by the player to simply be added immediately back to the city?

The Colonist would be "destroyed". It is simply gone. Nothing like capturing Slaves.

Would it be possible to make the duration adapt to game length

Of course, but I had not considered that yet.
Thanks for reminding.

So from a Master Fur Trader directly to a Petty Criminal?

Yeah, pretty much that. The Colonist is angry and becomes a criminal.
However that it simply one possible negative effect that might happen.

Maybe no negative consequence will be triggered at all or something less bad.
It will be a chance based algorithm (like LbD) taking into consideration for chances how long and how much you have let the CityNeeds be unsatisfied.

It will not be deterministic or predictable.
So you might decide to take the risk to not fulfill the needs and be lucky that nothing bad happens or only slightly bad things happen for some time.
But you might also have really bad luck ...

By whom?

By the population of the City itself because it is angry that you do not fulfill their needs.
(But don't worry, there will be messages ingame that will explain what happened if negative or positive effects are triggered.)

Can the needs be changed depending on difficulty level?

Currently I would prefer to have the GameDifficulty only affect chances of negative effects for not fulfilling the CityNeeds.

Otherwise the GameDifficulty would not make the feature easier / harder but more or less deactive / activate it.
There might be players that prefer playing on low difficulty but still would like to have the feature activated.

 

[raystuttgart]

Maybe I need to explain this concept better.
I feel that I did not do this properly.

Cities have Needs constantly.
You can not simply fulfill them only once.

• They will always want a proper Education System (to fit their Population size).
• They will always want enough Protection (to fit their Population size).
• They will always want enough Medical Care (to fit their Population size).
• They will always want enough Religious Soulkeeping (to fit their Population size).
• They will always want Supply of Consumer Goods (to fit their Population size).
• ...

The bigger the Cities get, the more they will demand for.

• If you give them enough of what they demand they will be more or less satisfied.
  
• If you give them most of what they demand they will celebrate you from time to time.
  
• If you do not give them enough of what they demand they will get angry from time to time.

The logic will check every turn for the CityNeeds (based on its Population) and how much of that you fulfill.
Giving them more than what they currently have as CityNeeds will not grant you additional benefits considering this feature but it might still be a good strategical choice.

 

[Nightinggale]

But it also intends to introduce a bit more micromanagement and challenge to the game.

D) Possible Negative Effects of too many Needs not being fulfilled

So it's a feature designed to punish players who doesn't like to micro manage everything?

When designing a game (this includes mods) you need to consider who you want to target. If you try to target everybody, you end up targeting nobody. At the same time if you target a specific kind of players too narrowly, you end up without players because your target group is too small. It's a balancing act, which is one of the really hard parts about game design.

We have our target audience fairly well designed. That would be the people who play previous releases. This means we should be careful regarding making changes, which will significantly change the target audience. In most cases this isn't an issue because we are included in the target audience as well meaning if we like it, then we are on the right track.

Judging from previous debates on the forum (mainly in RaR forums), the current game target audience includes those who likes to micro manage and those who prefers some more overall gameplay without spending a long time on every single detail. Both groups seem to feel strongly about this and both are too big to declare that we will just focus on one of them and ignore the other. We have one other such issue I can think of, which is the colony catchment radius. In both cases we just have to accept that we should support both camps even if it once in a while can make planning new features a bit more complex.

In this case I say you are way into the micromanagement only camp at the cost of the non-micromanagement camp. At the same time you do have a point regarding big cities having a tendency to be overpowered. This means we should do something, but it needs to be something, which the vast majority will view as an improvement.

I think of WTP as a bit of a sandbox game. There are several victory types, which the player can enable or disable in custom games. Each victory can be reached in many different ways using various strategies. We should be careful regarding dictating how the game should be played because doing that will likely hurt some existing players who play the game in ways we haven't imagined. In fact the fact that the game can be played differently is part of the replayability because it gives much greater freedom to adapt to whatever the map and random events have in store for you, hence keeping the game fresh. This means new features should ideally avoid the "this is the way you should play" approach.

 

[lyciummusic]

I agree with Nightinggale- while I like the concept, it may add too much microing and may not worth the trouble implementing it. Especially the domestic market issue, I only use auto transport when I get large and every town may want different goods in different amounts depending on colonist types. You have to manually check them at times, adjusting it with growth of the city and assign many wagons for domestic transportation, which may become a real chore. Making all these checks for many cities also may increase turn time, making it like an AGEOD game instead.

 

[raystuttgart]

So it's a feature designed to punish players who doesn't like to micro manage everything?

Not really but yes, making good use of this feature would require some attention to the specific CityNeeds of each City.

But
A) There are not only negative effects possible but positive effects as well.
B) The CityNeeds would only become many in huge Cities.
C) Most of the CityNeeds you would most likely want to supply anyways (e.g. Domestic Market Demand or Medical Care)
D) Most of the effects from CityNeeds are not that major and are chance based (so you might be lucky)
E) It is not necessary to fulfill 100% of all CityNeeds to avoid negative effects - neglecting too many however over too long time ...

When designing a game (this includes mods) you need to consider who you want to target.

I know, that is why I added a poll to figure out if community and team want this.
If they do not, then the feature concept should not be implemented of course.

If you try to target everybody, you end up targeting nobody.

Exactly.

At the same time if you target a specific kind of players too narrowly, you end up without players because your target group is too small.

Also true, but at some point when trying to come up with new features you will need to make decisions.
Otherwise nobody will like the feature at all.

That would be the people who play previous releases. This means we should be careful regarding making changes, which will significantly change the target audience.

Why do you believe this would significantly change target audience?
It is not like we are completely changing everything that already existed in RaR / exists in WTP.

... the current game target audience includes those who likes to micro manage and those who prefers some more overall gameplay without spending a long time on every single detail.

Also true.
But with this feature I think it would still be possible to play both ways.

In RaR / WTP - especially in Multiplayer - you will most likely be a bit more successfull if you make good use of all the features (e.g. Health, Bargaining, Domestic Markets, all our new Yields and Production Buildings ...).
You can of course still play and win if you neglect a few of the features and concentrate only on the others that you prefer.

Both groups seem to feel strongly about this and both are too big to declare that we will just focus on one of them and ignore the other.

Whenever we make any changes some people might like it and other will not. It is never possible to satisfy everybody 100%.
But yes, it is important that all team members like it and majority of community (e.g. 2/3) likes it as well.

In both cases we just have to accept that we should support both camps even if it once in a while can make planning new features a bit more complex.

This feature will support both camps. (1Plot DLL and 2Plot DLL)
However in 2Plot DLL cities can of course become much bigger and will thus have more CityNeeds.

In this case I say you are way into the micromanagement only camp at the cost of the non-micromanagement camp.

Well ok, then we just don't do it if you, other team members or majority of the community do not like the concept.
Nothing should ever be implemented if any team member does not like it.

At the same time you do have a point regarding big cities having a tendency to be overpowered.
This means we should do something, but it needs to be something, which the vast majority will view as an improvement.

I also agree.
If you have another suggestion to solve this, I am open for it.

We should be careful regarding dictating how the game should be played because doing that will likely hurt some existing players who play the game in ways we haven't imagined.

Why dictating?
We suggest and ask for feedback.

This means new features should ideally avoid the "this is the way you should play" approach.

That was and is not my intention at all.

You will not be able to satisfy all CityNeeds anyways all the time so you will need to choose strategically.
Sometimes satisfying a CityNeed might even contradict your overall strategy and you will purposely decide not to satisfy it. (I would do that as well.)

Every game does have some rules and yes, this feature would change the rules a bit.
It is really the same with every other game concept you have in Civ4Col, TAC, RaR or WTP.

There will always be game mechanics that are positive if you use them.
There are always game mechanics that are negative if you neglect them.

Just take chess for example:
There are always moves that make more sense and others that make less sense.
But you still have the choice to decide depending on your overall strategy.

Or take "King's Tax / Gold Requests" as an example:
Not satisfying those requests will have negative consequences but sometimes it is strategically better not to do it.

---

Summary:
It is just a suggestion and the concept could still be radically changed.
If team and community do not like it will of course not be implemented.

 

[Nightinggale]

Why dictating?
We suggest and ask for feedback.

I didn't mean you dictate, but the game would do so if implemented. If the colony is like "do this or we will riot", then the player will either be really annoyed for feel forced to do something, which might not be what the player wants.

But with this feature I think it would still be possible to play both ways.

The main problem I see here is that if you ignore it, then it brings the risk that you are attacked by natives and you need to take quick action to do something, but your colonists decide to riot because the native attack destroyed the church or you didn't build one in the first place and then due to your lack of control because of the riot, the natives destroys the colony.

Is it the most likely scenario? Most likely not, but it's also not farfetched and it's something, which can make a player rage quit.

I'm sorry if I sound negative, but somebody has to be the negative one and think "what can go wrong". In this specific case I see a whole lot of stuff, which can go wrong, particularly if the player doesn't like paying attention to such micromanagement.

In RaR / WTP - especially in Multiplayer - you will most likely be a bit more successfull if you make good use of all the features (e.g. Health, Bargaining, Domestic Markets, all our new Yields and Production Buildings ...).

Thanks for reminding me. I really should look into the network desync in bargaining. It's the only known desync at this point.

 

[raystuttgart]

If the colony is like "do this or we will riot", then the player will either be really annoyed for feel forced to do something, which might not be what the player wants.

We could say that about other game mechanics as well.

• Food -> Produce Food or we will starve
• Health -> Produce Health or Production will suffer
• Military -> Have Military or other AIs will feel tempted to attack you
• Tax Request -> Accept Tax Request or a Good will be boycotted in Europe
• ...

But you are right, "City Needs" will add to this.

You will have an additional aspect that you will need to consider and take care of.
And it will most likely not always be possible to balance everything - thus you might be forced to make hard decisions sometimes and face the consequences.

This however mainly for big Cities and depending on what Needs (for which Population Size) and how many Needs we really configure in the XML "CityNeeds.xml".
And we could also adjust the border value for % of Needs not fulfilled / fulfilled before any effects being triggerd. GameDifficulty will also modify the chances of effects being triggerd.

e.g.:

• > 80% Needs fulfilled --> positive effects might happen (chances of really happening being affected by GameDifficulty)
  
• between 50% and 80% Needs fulfliled --> nothing will happen
  
• < 50% Needs fulfilled --> negative effects might happen (chances of really happening being affected by GameDifficulty)

So for me this is mainly a question of balancing the Needs (and general XML settings for the feature) nicely.
We could totally overexagerate or make it well balanced.

I'm sorry if I sound negative, but somebody has to be the negative one and think "what can go wrong".

Don't worry I fully understand that we need to consider carefully and discuss the pros and cons.

Edit:
I was just a bit surprised to read that community and team were afraid that something like "Cities have needs" could totally break the game.
I think I start to understand the concerns a bit better now though.

 

[Lord Chambers]

Needs sounds similar to the local/domestic markets that are already implemented in WtP where once market buildings are built and upgraded local demand from the population allows to sell goods at home.

Is this mechanic documented anywhere?

 

[Nightinggale]

Is this mechanic documented anywhere?

I'm not sure, but it's fairly simple. Each unit has a yield demand, which you can read in the pedia. Some buildings adds modifiers to this to increase the requirements. You can view domestic demands in the colony screen (somewhere in the governor buttons). Be aware that requirements are usually 20% of a yield, meaning even if a unit requires something, you might need as many as 5 to get the requirement of a single yield. The demand is rounded down. When there is a demand, the colonists will take the demand from your warehouse and pay for it. It provides a steady income and ignores the king's taxes. However it's not a replacement for exports as in you can't boost the requirements to reach your production capacity.

 

[Lord Chambers]

. Be aware that requirements are usually 20% of a yield, meaning even if a unit requires something, you might need as many as 5 to get the requirement of a single yield.

What? The sum of the demand of all my people in the colonys depends somehow on which goods are are produced there? And it's a fraction? And it's around 5, even though each unit demands 5 types of goods?

.
However it's not a replacement for exports as in you can't boost the requirements to reach your production capacity.

Boost the demand? The un requirements?

How is a market different from a village market? Which demands does it increase, and where is that increase visible to the player?

They take goods from the colony? I've never noticed the first 6 cigars I produce getting reduced to 5 or 1 from the Elder Statesmen there. I do notice getting gold at the start of every turn.

 

[Commander Bello]

The sum of the demand of all my people in the colonys depends somehow on which goods are are produced there?

No.
For each unit in the XML files there are values defined how much they demand of a certain yield (only manufactured ones, of course). In the city, the city counts and accumulates all these various demands and if the total for a given yield is >1 then it is displayed in the domestic advisor (and you can see it via mouse over the yields in the city screen as well). If you have such a yield in your warehouse, the respective quantity will be taken out of the warehouse and you will get the European sales price for it. Exception are luxury goods which will be sold at (European sales price +1)

And it's around 5, even though each unit demands 5 types of goods?

Different untis demand different types of yields in different quantities (fractions).

Which demands does it increase, and where is that increase visible to the player?

To the best of my knowledge it just multipiies the base demand by a modifier.
The domestic market demands can be best seen at the domestic advisor (F1). The symbol most to the left and then click the pages to the right. It will be the third and last page which displays the domestic market needs for all cities.

 

[Lib.Spi't]

From what I understand of it (my brain is a little fuzzy right now so maybe I am missing some finer point?), it doesn't really seem like it would increase micromanagement really, or 'force' a singular play style.Beyond the concept of, you are not managing robots who just get on with life living in squalor pumping out gold for you.

You are the leader of a group of people with needs and demands, if you ignore them they will turn round and bite you. That is pretty much how every sim/management/empire game works. It has some kind of system that says 'take care of your people or they will take care of you."

If the player completely ignores the needs of a 12 pop town for half the game and a native comes to attack and the people freak out and riot and the city falls, I don't really think that is an unfair outcome, or a rage quit scenario. That is just being a bad leader/player..

Now if it was something like a pop moves from size 12 to size 13 and gets double the amount of needs which puts them right on the edge of rioting (where one size ago they were perfectly happy) and a brave shows up the same turn and the whole city explodes in a riot and the brave destroys your city, that would be a rage quit scenario as the player has no way to avoid that as it went from fine to hell in no time flat.

However that is not the system that is being proposed.

My thoughts to avoid these two outcomes would be:

Micro Management:

I am not sure if I read this or not, but did you say you wanted the list to be partially randomised? As in each city could have a different set of random needs?

If the answer to that was yes, then I am not sure I like that idea as you would have to keep track of what city has what needs and fulfilling these random needs could be at odds with what you want the city to actually do.

If the answer was no it would be the same set of needs every where, then I don't really see how this would be overly micro management (except for maybe supplying specific sets of goods, as you would need to set up a trade link perhaps, but even then I don't see that as being a massively new thing outside of the scope of what you already do.

Forced Play Styles:

I don't really see how this would force people into a specific play style except for being a colony management game, which is kind of what you sign up for.

To avoid a specific play style, you could have the needs split into say three broad categories, like Military/Economic/Social and in order to avoid the worst effects you only need to fulfil one of these areas completely, or a collection of them. Basically a third of the needs. This way if you only wanted to play a military game you are covered, or if you wanted to found a purely military city, it would also be covered without forcing you to do a bunch of disconnected things, from your desired play style or goals..

Even without this concession I still don't really see how this system would force players to play a certain way, beyond simply 'Taking care of your cities and population', you could still play a don't give a crap despot, but your people won't just lay down and take it forever.

Punishments and Rewards:

You could do something similar to civ4 with happiness, so total number of needs could be 1/3 or 1/2 total pop size, and for every unfulfilled need, one pop stops working and if you fulfil all the needs you get a 'we love the leader' type status which gives some kind of boost to the city, maybe liberty production or a reduction in how much liberty per pop is needed, something like that. If no needs are fulfilled it could cause a riot where everyone stops working for X turns. There could maybe be a discontent meter so every turn of 0 fulfilment takes you closer to riot after say 10 turns or whatever.

Now whether this is the 'best' design for a satisfaction/happiness/city-scale concept, I don't know. It does seem like a pretty good one to me though.

Especially since it is planned to be xml configurable.

It primarily stops players from making a giant factory town that has no consideration for what life in that town would be like without any infrastructure, etc..

 

[raystuttgart]

... 'force' a singular play style.

That is what confused me from the feedback as well.

You are not forced to micromanagement every single colonist all the time by this concept.
You should simply take care a bit of the Needs of your Cities - especially when these Cities get huge.

You are not forced to give up all of your strategies and are not forced to satisfy 100% of all City Needs.
City Needs is simply an addition component out of many to consider in your choices.

You are the leader of a group of people with needs and demands, if you ignore them they will turn round and bite you. That is pretty much how every sim/management/empire game works. It has some kind of system that says 'take care of your people or they will take care of you."

Exactly, this very nicely summarizes the core idea of this system.

If the player completely ignores the needs of a 12 pop town for half the game and a native comes to attack and the people freak out and riot and the city falls, I don't really think that is an unfair outcome, or a rage quit scenario. That is just being a bad leader/player..

I generally agree.

But such a scenario will not even happen with the concept - because the defense Units on Map will still be there (and not riot).
This feature will only affect stuff happening inside of the town (workers, buildings, production, goods, ...).

I am fully aware that we need to be careful with something like "rage quite".

Now if it was something like a pop moves from size 12 to size 13 and gets double the amount of needs which puts them right on the edge of rioting ...

That will also not happen unless we totally mess up the balancing.
Needs should be added gradually / step by step (by growing Population) and not in "sudden jumps".

However that is not the system that is being proposed.

Exactly.

However I feel that I have simply failed to explain my concept good enough or maybe the explanation is too detailled and long.
It felt to me that there have been a lot of misunderstandings.

I am not sure if I read this or not, but did you say you wanted the list to be partially randomised?
As in each city could have a different set of random needs?

Currently the list itself would not be randomised - only the chances per round for effects being triggered - if thresholds for effects have been reached.
I acutally do not like the idea of randomizing the list itself either.

I don't really see how this would force people into a specific play style except for being a colony management game, which is kind of what you sign up for.

I see, we really kind of share the same opinion.

Now whether this is the 'best' design for a satisfaction/happiness/city-scale concept, I don't know. It does seem like a pretty good one to me though.

I simply wanted to avoid the "same old same old" by introducing a new Yield, new Profession, new Building and new Expert.
Also I wanted to make it fully XML-configurable which you cannot simply do with Yields, Professions, Buidlings, ...

Especially since it is planned to be xml configurable.

Yes!
Acutally there are a lot of possibilities for this concept to be further expanded if other new game concepts and features are added.

It primarily stops players from making a giant factory town that has no consideration for what life in that town would be like without any infrastructure, etc..

Yes again!
I never wanted 2-Plot-City-Radius to be as overpowered as it is currently.

It had to be implemented and released first however to be able to step by step build the other concepts on top of it.
I just had never finished all my other concepts, which I now started to suggest step by step.

----------
But well, all of this simply comes down to personal taste.
There is no way to argue about different personal tastes.

Maybe however I had simply explained this concept badly.

 

[raystuttgart]

For me, one of the main problems with this is:

For 2-Plot-City-Radius this feature is quite interesting.
Simply because 2-Plot-City-Radius allows much bigger cities and more Needs will arise over time.

For 1-Plot-City-Radius this feature will of course still work. (There is no different coding needed.)
But with 1-Plot-City-Radius the cities naturally will be a lot smaller and less Needs will arise.

So the feature will work for both. (2-Plot-City-Radius and 1-Plot-City-Radius)
But only 2-Plot-City-Radius will fully profit from the implementation.

Maybe however that is even a good thing?
We would instantly have alternatives for 2 different player groups.

2-Plot-City-Radius is probably more likely to be played by "Micro-Managers" that like to manage a bit more details.
1-Plot-City-Radius is probably more likely to be played by "Makro-Managers" that prefer to play casual without managing too many details.

If however a player completely dislikes more "managing activities" and paying attention to details, this feature will be a bad thing.
(Even if the "managing activities" for this concept affect the level of "paying a bit more attention to Cities" only.)

Well, let us wait for more feedback?
And maybe this concept can still be improved to become better.

 

[Drunk-Monk]

I am in favour of this idea, as it just expands and fleshes out existing systems that have not yet been well implemented. I don't think the changes proposed will be game breaking, or too complicated to understand. At the moment, its possible to play on autopilot, you just need to build up your industries and then can cruise into the end game comfortably.

Here are some more of my thoughts and ideas on these issues:

https://github.com/We-the-People-civ4col-mod/Mod/issues/312

https://github.com/We-the-People-civ4col-mod/Mod/issues/318

https://github.com/We-the-People-civ4col-mod/Mod/issues/319

https://github.com/We-the-People-civ4col-mod/Mod/issues/317

 

[Guynemer]

Another possibility: some early colonists up and left their colonies to live with the local First Nation, at least in New England where the local nations were more egalitarian. Perhaps an unsatisfied colony could lose citizens, similar to how slaves/indentured servants now flee, but instead of becoming a "wild animal" unit they join whatever Indian settlement is closest.

Honestly, this should probably be what happens to the slave units as it is right now. If you capture them before they make it to the nearest settlement, great; if not, they join the settlement.

 

[raystuttgart]

Another possibility: some early colonists up and left their colonies to live with the local First Nation, at least in New England where the local nations were more egalitarian. Perhaps an unsatisfied colony could lose citizens, similar to how slaves/indentured servants now flee, but instead of becoming a "wild animal" unit they join whatever Indian settlement is closest.

Honestly, this should probably be what happens to the slave units as it is right now. If you capture them before they make it to the nearest settlement, great; if not, they join the settlement.

There are some problems with that:

A) If they do not become part of Player "Wild Animals" you can not attack them and thus not recapture them without declaring war to another Player.
B) Unit_AI logic (for Slaves fleeing to another Settlement) would become much more complicated and thus more prone to bugs than it currently is.

Of course it would be extremely easy to just "kill" the "Fleeing Unit" and generate a new Population Unit in another European or Native Settlement.
But I believe that many players would hate that because they cannot recapture the "Fleeing Unit" and it would just be lost ...

I am not saying that it is completely impossible, but it is much more difficult to implement than it sounds at first ...

 

[andbruu]

I like the concept of this, but then again I do not mind more micromanagement (though I expect it to be only a small addition of micro).

I have a few questions though.
As I understand it, the system attempt to challenge larger settlements. At what size do you think a settlement should receive its first need, and at what rate (increase in population) should new needs be added?
Is the list of needs individual to each settlement, or is it always the same. Unlike the other poster who asked this question, I believe it would be more interesting with individual lists (revealed as your population increase - perhaps a bit in advance), but if a new need is added at each population level, it might be a bit much to keep track of.

Some other toughs.
If the chance of positive (not/and negative) events is not based on the percentages of need fulfilled, but on the raw number - players might be able to pay to dismiss a need (at any time/when first revealed) - loosing out of a potential benefit, by avoiding risk until the settlement adapts to fulfill the need.