Civilization VII, later or other project.

[Phrozen]

Beer should be a required tech before founding your first permanent settlement. There is much supposition that people settled down to farming not for food but to grow crops to turn into alcohol to get drunk.

 

[AsH2]

What is interesting about an 'early' Era in Civ is that there is evidence for incipient agriculture as far back as 10,000 BCE, the beginning of the Neolithic, but no evidence of 'city building' until at least 5000 years later. On the other hand, in that long interval, there are numerous 'smaller than city' settlements in really lucrative locations. so there is a set of legitimate alternative strategies to pursue, not just a Wander the Map Interminably Era.
There is also considerable evidence that these settlements could develop some very different 'technologies' - like the ones along the Mediterranean coast of modern Israel, who were building stone walls to protect against a rising sea before anybody else was building anything in stone, or the settlements in Egypt and Palestine that were trading all the way to Anatolia for Obsidian for early tools. Things like that give us enough reason to have some 'settlements' on the map not represented as Civs/Barbarians/City States but as Sources for 'Goodies' - a mechanism which has been part of Civ since at least Civ II and shouldn't be abandoned without making every effort to justify keeping it.

I fully agree with this and to your ideas about settlements and city growth..
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/september-update-thread.649352/page-15#post-15537938

Neither modern studies of 'stone age' cultures in South America and New Guinea nor archeological evidence points to wide spread 'warfare' among humans. Violence, yes, and even use of archery against other people, but no wide-spread settlement-sacking and battlefields. On the other hand, there is increasing evidence of abandonment of settlements and even some of the earliest cities, and outright depopulation of large areas for centuries. The mechanism seems to be climactic variations. When agriculture was primitive, even a slight variation in growing season or rainfall (droughts or floods or both) could cause agriculture to be abandoned and people return to nomadic hunter-gathering, or move to a place with a better climate. Some of these 'climate shifts' could be Huge: between about 12,500 BCE and 3900 BCE the Sahara was not a desert, but a savannah-grassland, and at least 4 culture groups were exploiting it to herd cattle or sheep/goats, plant crops, and develop permanent settlements along lakes and rivers. After 3900 BCE the 'African Humid Period' ended and the Sahara became desert, and every group that had been exploiting the area disappeared - some may have moved into the Nile valley or Ethiopian highlands, others apparently died out.

Indeed. I mentioned combat mostly as an example of what "some fundamental game mechanics changes" would mean to current gameplay.
Just a sidenote here about my view of the current start at 4000 BCE: Several civs are making a new start after a global climate crisis - though much greater and perhaps not historically accurate but still plausable (in an earthlike world) if compared to what happened during the Bronze_Age_collapse.

That means, the first 'Era' of the game (largely) Before Cities could be a conflict not with other cultures as much as combating the Planet - climate variations causing you to have to shift back and forth between Food Strategies, chasing herds when the local climate was unfavorable, settling down when it became possible to maintain crops.
There is also a lot of scope for Technological development in this period: Archery, Animal Husbandry/Domestication, Agriculture, Pottery, Boating, Weaving, and the most primitive metal-working in annealing or cold working Copper, Silver, Gold, and Lead, as well as Wine Making and Net Fishing.
A lot of those technologies are related to the surroundings, like being in a place where the (potential) Wine grapes grew wild or along a major river or seacoast where the fish were abundant enough to provoke development of boats and nets to go after them in bulk.

Finally, there is a lot of Monument (Wonder?) building in this period. Aside from places like Gobekli Tepe from 9000 BCE+, there are megalithic monuments of various kinds all over Europe and the Middle East (and probably other places if we could find them under all the subsequent human construction), including Henges of earth, wood or stone that predate Stonehenge by several 1000s of years, Earthworks, stone-lined Mega-Tombs complete with grave goods, Barrows, Kurgans, Tumuli, Dolmens, Rondels, Menhirs - you can keep very busy before ever building a city trying to find other ays of 'making your mark' on the map.

Exactly. That's why I think there must be seasonal challenges.
I could try to evolve my ideas about it here, but don't want to hijack this thread any more..

 

[Lazy sweeper]

All of which means that if someone wants to play something (Civ, Faction, Tribe) that will turn into Great Britain complete with Tower Bridge, the British Museum and HMS Victory, the path is going to have to Pre-Ordained or the chance of getting from Start of Game circa 10,000 or 4000 BCE to the Royal Shakespeare Company in 2001 CE is only slightly better than your chance of getting hit by lightening in a submarine.

What a magnificent piece of circular architecture... ops, sorry... HELL OR WATER!
Last famous words of the last inhabitant of Doggerland...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

What a magnificent piece of circular architecture... ops, sorry... HELL OR WATER!
Last famous words of the last inhabitant of Doggerland...

My point exactly. "Circular architecture/reasoning/preordination" is Inevitable in any supposedly-historical game in which we (or at least, Some of Us) already know the history. We should have a pretty good idea of what it takes to 'become' Britain in the 19th century, so once we know how the game models the factors, short of taking a memory-dehancing drug we know exactly what we have to do, even if that seems ridiculous in game terms earlier in the game. We simply don't have the 'luxury' of playing the game blind, so our actions will, again inevitably, be 'warped' by what we know should be happening.

The only way I've ever seen to get around this is, in miniature wargaming, known as the Disquised Scenario: the gamer thinks he's playing a game of Romans in Germany in 15 CE when in fact the battlefield and situation are Greasy Grass valley in Montana in 1876 CE and he's not playing Odius Asparagus the Roman, but Custer. - And before you ask, I did that to a bunch of players once, and it took months before they would trust one of my scenarios again.

Point is, the only way to keep a gamer from 'playing to become Britain' is to keep him from knowing that he is playing Britain. That is, label the Civs at random so that the Leader/architecture/attributes do not match the appearance: you think you are playing Asterix the Gaul to become, eventually, France when in fact you are playing the attributes and characteristics of the ancient state of Qin in China. This, of course, has a host of problems connected with it, not the least of which is people wanting to identify with their Civ and Leader in the game and no longer being able to do so.

Another possibility would be (with an Immense amount of Research) to give multiple paths of potentially-historical progress for each Civ so that it becomes near-impossible for a player to tell what the exact path is. Aside from the sheer amount of work involved in this, every semi-historian amongst the gaming public would be filling Threads with critiques of the 'paths' allowed in the game and disagreeing with them. That might or might not be an interesting learning experience, but it would indicate the potential for a great deal of dissatisfaction in how the game plays.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

My point exactly. "Circular architecture/reasoning/preordination" is Inevitable in any supposedly-historical game in which we (or at least, Some of Us) already know the history. We should have a pretty good idea of what it takes to 'become' Britain in the 19th century, so once we know how the game models the factors, short of taking a memory-dehancing drug we know exactly what we have to do, even if that seems ridiculous in game terms earlier in the game. We simply don't have the 'luxury' of playing the game blind, so our actions will, again inevitably, be 'warped' by what we know should be happening.

The only way I've ever seen to get around this is, in miniature wargaming, known as the Disquised Scenario: the gamer thinks he's playing a game of Romans in Germany in 15 CE when in fact the battlefield and situation are Greasy Grass valley in Montana in 1876 CE and he's not playing Odius Asparagus the Roman, but Custer. - And before you ask, I did that to a bunch of players once, and it took months before they would trust one of my scenarios again.

Who the hell is Odius Asparagus????? Now you uncovered the Pandora's box.....

Point is, the only way to keep a gamer from 'playing to become Britain' is to keep him from knowing that he is playing Britain. That is, label the Civs at random so that the Leader/architecture/attributes do not match the appearance: you think you are playing Asterix the Gaul to become, eventually, France when in fact you are playing the attributes and characteristics of the ancient state of Qin in China. This, of course, has a host of problems connected with it, not the least of which is people wanting to identify with their Civ and Leader in the game and no longer being able to do so.

Another possibility would be (with an Immense amount of Research) to give multiple paths of potentially-historical progress for each Civ so that it becomes near-impossible for a player to tell what the exact path is. Aside from the sheer amount of work involved in this, every semi-historian amongst the gaming public would be filling Threads with critiques of the 'paths' allowed in the game and disagreeing with them. That might or might not be an interesting learning experience, but it would indicate the potential for a great deal of dissatisfaction in how the game plays.

Ya, I thinked about. I have made a thread about Humankind vs Sid Meier. What goes down the line is somewhat a blend of the two worlds, but mostly oriented towards the old civ-pick your civ- mechanic.
With added randomness, as basically you could not choose which part of the world you ends up in after all the Pre-historic era are done.
But in 4.000 b.c you are not yet done entirely, you are given some Civs, dating back to that period, or tribes, which later on will be allowed to turn into your desired civ... (U.S.A.?)
Nomad mechanic should be a very dynamic approach in this context but hystorically is a garbled mess... at least some serious research effort should be done on that point but anything
de-constructing the myths of ancient tribes is gonna be ludicrous at some point, sooner or later, filled with critiques.

The merging of civs basic traits, ancient tribes, cultural assimilation, slavery, killing of kings or religious leaders.... prophets.... is a daunting opportunity....
Better be prepared in a cozy caracoles when the storm hit.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Who the hell is Odius Asparagus????? Now you uncovered the Pandora's box.....

Asterix the Gaul, the second-greatest comic ever written or drawn, is full of puns on 'historical' Gaulic, German, Egyptian, and, especially, Roman names. Odius Asparagus happens to be one of my favorites among them, but they include Nefarius Purpus and Maximus Gluteus the Romans, Cacofonix (the Bard) and Fulliautomatix (the blacksmith) the Gauls, and numerous others.

 

[Naokaukodem]

OK, i somewhat solved my problem of allocating production. Let's say we have different "pools" of production, like cities in Civ are production pools. Production pools can vary their reachable size dramatically, going from 1 tile range to infinite range, even in antiquity.

- Very local production pools (1 tile range, changed from 0 tile range) : if you have a production unit (shield, hammer, cog...) whereever, it counts as a production pool. So, at the beginning of the game, if you are producing at least 1 production unit with one of your population points, you are prompted to produce something, anything, with that hammer, with a range of 1 tile around your population point. If you want to build houses 1 tile away for example, you could, if you have another production pool nearby (right close or two tiles away in the same direction) allocate this production to the same tile of house building. But you would have to specify it separately in another production prompt.

- Local production pools (3 tiles range ?) : With roads, the Wheel and some strong animals (cows, horses, camels, donkeys etc.), Very Local production pools merge to one Local. (how to fix the limit ? Houses* built being the center ?)

- "Global" production pools. Those use water, railroads and air transport. Early on, with the first seafaring tech, you can add up every production unit along the same river or coast. Indeed, if you have production units along one of them or both, and they are all connected, you have only one production prompt to build anything anywhere on that territory. Yes, you could build the Pyramids on the Nile delta with production units located at the source of the Nile. (but as population is everywhere, barbarians, hunter-gatherers, etc. under a same and unique form (population points), it could show itself tricky to accomplish, but if so, tremendously powerful, representing the importance of water early.)

* You may have several types of houses :

- Movable houses that need no time to redeploy, basically moving cities : Animal skins and hair, Needles tech.
Permanent and located houses (unmovable) :
- Some kind of earth (like clays) and large tree leaves.
- Wood and Construction tech.
- Stone and Construction tech.

--- Any suggestion ?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

OK, i somewhat solved my problem of allocating production. Let's say we have different "pools" of production, like cities in Civ are production pools. Production pools can vary their reachable size dramatically, going from 1 tile range to infinite range, even in antiquity.

- Very local production pools (1 tile range, changed from 0 tile range) : if you have a production unit (shield, hammer, cog...) whereever, it counts as a production pool. So, at the beginning of the game, if you are producing at least 1 production unit with one of your population points, you are prompted to produce something, anything, with that hammer, with a range of 1 tile around your population point. If you want to build houses 1 tile away for example, you could, if you have another production pool nearby (right close or two tiles away in the same direction) allocate this production to the same tile of house building. But you would have to specify it separately in another production prompt.

- Local production pools (3 tiles range ?) : With roads, the Wheel and some strong animals (cows, horses, camels, donkeys etc.), Very Local production pools merge to one Local. (how to fix the limit ? Houses* built being the center ?)

- "Global" production pools. Those use water, railroads and air transport. Early on, with the first seafaring tech, you can add up every production unit along the same river or coast. Indeed, if you have production units along one of them or both, and they are all connected, you have only one production prompt to build anything anywhere on that territory. Yes, you could build the Pyramids on the Nile delta with production units located at the source of the Nile. (but as population is everywhere, barbarians, hunter-gatherers, etc. under a same and unique form (population points), it could show itself tricky to accomplish, but if so, tremendously powerful, representing the importance of water early.)

Just a suggestion, because I like your basic concept very much.
Local Production is within a single group/tribe/City and no more than a 1-tile radius (walking distance while carrying a load)

Regional Production is within a varying number of tiles, the variation being largely due to Technology and Improvements. Good Roads will extend the radius, but only along and adjacent to the road, and for no more than 3 - 4 tiles based on how good your Wheeled Vehicles are. Along a river local rafts, canoes, boats can extend it even further, but only along the river and only as far as the river can be navigated (I've advocated for a while that Humankind-like waterfalls should be Functional as well as Decorative, showing where any bonus from river transport Stops). Until Technology improves dramatically (like, Industrial Era wheeled wagons, coaches, paved roads and heavy draft horse teams) the rest of the Regional Radius will stay Local.

Global Production Water routes with 'real' Boats and Sails (technology - but can be very early, they've found pictorial evidence of Sails back to 6000 BCE for River transport in Egypt and 5000 BCE in the Persian Gulf for coastal transport) , later railroads, modern (mid-20th century) Highways and trucking and air freight - also the Containerization technology starting in the 1950s CE which really caused 'global' transportation and handling of freight to take off among all transportation methods.

* You may have several types of houses :

- Movable houses that need no time to redeploy, basically moving cities : Animal skins and hair, Needles tech.
Permanent and located houses (unmovable) :
- Some kind of earth (like clays) and large tree leaves.
- Wood and Construction tech.
- Stone and Construction tech.

--- Any suggestion ?

Some dates for Building Materials and Techniques:

Fired Pottery dates back to 18,000 BCE in some parts of the world, along with 'wattle and daub' or 'clay/adobe' construction.
Fired, standardized bricks date back to at least the Harappan Civilization 4000 - 3000 BCE.
Mortise-and-Tenon Joints (Advanced Woodworking?) can now be dated back to 3000 - 2500 BCE, because the standing stones at Stonehenge show indications of this method being used to 'fix' the capstones in place - meaning that it was probably already in use for Wood construction. It was definitely in use by 1000 BCE in both Greek and Phoenician shipbuilding.
Massive Stonework for monuments, at least, is damn near universal wherever there were Stones available. In addition to the very early Gobekli Tepe, between 4000 and 3000 BCE all over northern Europe there were Dolmens, Carnac stones, stone Henges, Maumberry and Carrowmore stone rings, tombs, barrows, avenues - even stone roads in Crete (which were probably Processional rather than Transport)

I am fiddling with a 'construction materials' mechanism that will allow both Structures and Units to be built/equipped like Builder Charges (i.e., in one Turn) based on the materials you have already stockpiled. So far, the materials are divided into:
Ancient Era/Start:
Basic Resources - horn, bone, wood, hide/leather, sinew
Basic Metalwork - copper, lead, bronze (and silver and gold, but only for decorative/Amenity purposes)
Basic Woodwork - timber forming, joining.
Basic Ceramics/Lithics - monumental stonework, fired brick, adobe, rammed earth
Classic Era:
Advanced Metalwork - Wrought Iron, Brass
Advanced Woodwork - shaped wood, planking, fitted joints
Advanced Ceramics - glasswork, mosaics, marble carving, metal-reinforced stonework
Medieval Era:
Specialized Metalwork - wrought steel, steel alloys, cast iron, cast bronze
Specialized Woodwork - wooden truss construction, wood inlay, shipfitting
Renaissance/Early Modern Era:
Precision Craftwork - metal alloys, specialized craft steels
Precision Tools - clockwork mechanisms, precision casting and metal forming
Industrial Era:
Industrial Metalwork - power machinery, power tools
Precision Metalwork - precision power tools, interchangeable parts
Modern Era:
Plastics - hydrocarbon plastics
Alloys - aluminum, steel, trace element alloys
Atomic Era:
Advanced Alloys - specialized alloys of all kinds
Composites - ceramic, plastic, metallic compounds
Information Era:
Molecular Processing - microscopic precision in fabrication of everything

It's a work in progress, but the idea is to require constant upgrades of your 'stockpiles' of equipment for construction of everything, but especially Unit weapons and equipment - there is no excuse for taking more than a year to 'build' a land unit, or 5 - 6 years for a Naval unit in any Era, unless you have to also invent/discover the techniques required to build the weapons and equipment for it first.
Likewise, no matter how much you might want to build a Steam Powered mill (Industrial Era), you cannot do it with Ancient or Medieval Era construction materials and techniques, no matter how hard you try!

 

[Naokaukodem]

Thx for the reply Boris, it is very much appreciated.

And thx for the suggestion for Regional Production : technology and improvements you say ? Interesting... Roads (especially if we keep them as in Civ6 [which could seem complicated]), Wheel, Animal Husbandry... Villages (basically constructed houses), districts... (a la Endless Legend ?) So now : what happens when a production pool is absorbed by another ? I think that the current project of the less important production pool should automatically queue up after the absorbing one, unless they stay as is and the player to change it up if he will next turn. Because remember : such production pools could become so big that they might produce several things in 1 turn, hence to possibility to build several things at the same time in the same production pool.

But I think that actual cities should keep a role in all that... like giving automatically a production pool of 3 tiles range. We can have 1 "actual" (still to be defined, as we can build houses without them being an "actual" city) city without a State, but need a State to become either an actual City-State (changed tech and dogma paths, unable to build wonders, allegiating to whoever the player wants except if he is forced to make a choice (gameplay), earning money, and possibly making City-States Confederacies (with limited power as to, for example, declaring war (Civ2 Democracy style))) or an Empire of several cities.

Hint : maybe the ability to stack pop points should play a role too (techs).

 

[The googles do nothing]

so let's say instead it's for Civ7/x or a new project[

A few thought on the directions Civ7 should go...

Game Philosophy
In Civ 6, you are really only required to build 2 things. Religious Victories require you build a single Holy Site, and Science Victory requires a you build single Spaceport. Everything else is optional.
Civ 7 I would like 'more' requirements. This is the tough requirement do without making artificial feeling requirements. Should you have to worry about a religious schism foiling your religious victory? Is the way to get a man on the moon first by 'acquiring' a great person from a different civ?

When should the game end? (Warning, amateur historian ahead..)
Civ 7 from the beginning plan on adding the late game as the second expansion. The base game should end at the beginning of the English Civil War. Why then? Very roughly it's the beginning of the end for monarchy, and widespread adaption of early firearms. The game ends with the you still the absolute ruler and Pike and Shot and Musketeers the Giant Death Robots of the time.

When should the game begin?
A 'Pre-dynastic' era approximately 3000 BC. Before you have a Civ picked and before you have a Leader picked. This would be a quick era where you explore your surroundings and can choose who and what you are.

To be continued...

 

[Naokaukodem]

Is the way to get a man on the moon first by 'acquiring' a great person from a different civ?

This is an interesting concept where every GP would have a permanent effect rather than punctal : if you can steal them from other civs, then culture and tourism become important for every games (aka every victory type)

When should the game end?

I'm a lot more concerned by the beginning and the middle of the game, but I always thought that Eras should have their own unlimited victory points, so that if a civ falls as soon as the middle age (Rome...), but have accumulated enough victory points to compete with new civs in modern era in their own era(s), then they should be able to win the game. (should require the game to play itself until 2050 or so, which i'm obviously not a huge fan of, that's why I always thought that we could still play the game without an actual civ)

When should the game begin?

I still think we should start around 12000 BCE, IF we want to include Agriculture and other techs to the tech tree. As to Leader picking, I never liked it, as opposed to the vast majority of Civfanatics.

 

[The googles do nothing]

To be continued...

What should the map look like?
In Civ6 there are 4 distinctions of tiles: Unit type, Impassible, technology-based passible, and always passable. Actually a really good system and just needs to be expanded on. I guess i'm including tunnels in the impassible category - maybe passible with a improvement/building would be more accurate.

I'm assuming the scale will be halved (the same map size has twice the length and height) in Civ7. That also would be doubling the base type and how 'extreme' they are. Now we can have impassable and technology-based desserts, hills, and rivers.

Unit types need a 'cultural' attribute added. Some of the technology-based passible can be accessed by units with appropriate culture attribute. Cultural attributes be for the type of improvements that builders and build. Cultivation/farming will really be possible almost everywhere with the right culture attribute.

 

[The googles do nothing]

I'm a lot more concerned by the beginning and the middle of the game

I think that's what most people think but i also think the late game could be as good. it just would require things to be done differently

 

[The googles do nothing]

To be continued... What should the map look like?

How would 'technology-based passible' terrain work? Any river that you need to build boat to cross, or a bridge. These are like the shallow water we have now - which means which means you spend a turn entering and a turn exiting. You will also have boats going up and down these river. Deserts, tundra and snow tile will be technology-passable. Some civ's will get cultural attributes that override needing the technology allowing them to traverse and make use of these terrains.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

A few thought on the directions Civ7 should go...

Game Philosophy
Is the way to get a man on the moon first by 'acquiring' a great person from a different civ?

A 'Pre-dynastic' era approximately 3000 BC. Before you have a Civ picked and before you have a Leader picked. This would be a quick era where you explore your surroundings and can choose who and what you are.

To be continued...

Man on the Moon looks like more of a united Great wonder to me that just killing some false king and enslave all the population for building your own Mausoleum, Pyramid, whatever.... the single requirement to win a science victory could be the final chockepoint, before the Information era could begin. Then all science points earned throughout the ages should equally count towards final Science victory. Ideally kidnapping a scientist from a Science Lab could boost your science output and their finite existance has a much more profound impact. Get three great scientist under a single Lab? That sound interesting. Maybe one could also swap a scientist for a great work... brute force might not be ideally the best case scenario to land a feet on the Moon... ideally...

Pre-vedic era goes as far as dream can go, 9.000 BCE at least. A Dynasty requires a King, that by Manu vedic text, is both the reincarnation of the eight god-guardians, and the ultimate failure for Humankind.
I'm not saying by that Indira had Nuclear weapon by 9.000 BCE...

 

[Lazy sweeper]

What should the map look like?
In Civ6 there are 4 distinctions of tiles: Unit type, Impassible, technology-based passible, and always passable. Actually a really good system and just needs to be expanded on. I guess i'm including tunnels in the impassible category - maybe passible with a improvement/building would be more accurate.

I'm assuming the scale will be halved (the same map size has twice the length and height) in Civ7. That also would be doubling the base type and how 'extreme' they are. Now we can have impassable and technology-based desserts, hills, and rivers.

Unit types need a 'cultural' attribute added. Some of the technology-based passible can be accessed by units with appropriate culture attribute. Cultural attributes be for the type of improvements that builders and build. Cultivation/farming will really be possible almost everywhere with the right culture attribute.

Tiles should be abandoned. Free movement for everyone. Height randomizer should be, with 127 levels above zero, and 127 below zero.
Climb a mountain is not impossible were there are no so steep valleys, but too steep.... no way.... you can't do that with distinct tiles.

Just a thought. What kind of culture does desert need to advance or be stopped? I very much liked the Harmony Beyond Earth cultural path.
I think the basic idea could be expanded, but balancing out a polluter with devastation, viruses, not just climate carbon re-capture.
Late game could be much more intricated this way, with a vastly, enormously bigger science, religious, Harmonic/Ecologic and cultural paths possible than just a pre-definite path available to everyone at the same time.
Definitely Science and cultural acquisition by brute force or economic/diplomatic deal should be possible, but going with two opposite cultures... may lead to disorder... who knows...

 

[Lazy sweeper]

This is an interesting concept where every GP would have a permanent effect rather than punctal : if you can steal them from other civs, then culture and tourism become important for every games (aka every victory type)



I'm a lot more concerned by the beginning and the middle of the game, but I always thought that Eras should have their own unlimited victory points, so that if a civ falls as soon as the middle age (Rome...), but have accumulated enough victory points to compete with new civs in modern era in their own era(s), then they should be able to win the game. (should require the game to play itself until 2050 or so, which i'm obviously not a huge fan of, that's why I always thought that we could still play the game without an actual civ)



I still think we should start around 12000 BCE, IF we want to include Agriculture and other techs to the tech tree. As to Leader picking, I never liked it, as opposed to the vast majority of Civfanatics.

Permanent but close in a district... like the play the queen in civ3? I quite don't get the permanent effect other than they could be replaceable, killed by a virus.... only punctual effect is when a research is completed.
Never liked leaders too, but maybe if they could be GP also... that would change things... changing a government type could breed a new kind of leader also...?
Except I would assume Ceasar would completely disagree with me...

 

[Naokaukodem]

@Lazy sweeper : permanent like + X science points per turn, +X% in that city/all, improves eurekas/inspirations base improvments, etc... Most of great scientists now have a punctual effect which is giving you an eureka. Great Admirals for example have a lot of punctual effects.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

So if I may try to translate the OP into terms I can understand,

the proposal is to simulate populations as existing on every tile of the map. Then each "population" (which "lives on" one tile) can yield food and other rewards over time, growing in size if the food is a surplus. Each population may, with various restrictions, find these yields among tiles in some close neighbourhood of their home tile. But the home tile doesn't change?

The concept of the Settlement is something that, once achieved by the player (perhaps precariously and through stops and starts of risk), will allow for a greater coefficient of co-operation of these populations? And enable new kinds of yields/rewards from their productivity over time?

I think this is what is covered by the first post. My next question of designs is always then "So what is the game about? what becomes the fun element?" which is helpfully answered by Nau's section I've quoted here:

5. Further developments.

* Like this, you can control population but out of a state, it is to say barbarians or tribes. Indeed, first you have no state, you have to discover Agriculture AND find some cereals.
* You can sell (rent ?) pop points (military units ?) for a good lump of gold to other civizations, tribes or barbarians, although the two last might not do / be able to do it. (lack of gold/need)
* States formed little by little even before Antiquity, and by jolts, meaning they formed & collapsed for many reasons. Those reasons were apparently hard to identify, understand and prevent, but occasionnally people ruling learned to play with them. That's why I propose the introduction of a new currency : Coercion points.
Coercion points will represent a challenge, or more precisely an "effort", for or from the player in order to maintain his state, or a collapse will happen. Because this way, the player would have the choice to make this effort (like allocating pop point(s) to them, losing other opportunities early), in order to play a state, or give it up in order to play a tribe, barbarians, hunters-gatherers or pastoralists. It's kind of an encouragement to play differently, or an incentive more exactly, because not all players are attracted by easyness, which by the way would be all relative as it may not be that obvious how to play barbarians first for example. Not sure as of now if you need Coercion points in order to create a state on top of agriculture and cereals, but you need it for sure to maintain one. As I see it, it would work like era points in civ6 GS, with maybe "eras" way shorter. (the first "era" would occur on turn 10 after you create a state for example) We could make so a certain number of Coercion points are needed each turns and that's all, but it would be very tricky especially if this number changes from a turn to another. Could be interresting though. Please keep in mind that a collapse is not the end of times, and may even be wanted by the player in some circumstances.
* Collapses are represented by the loss of solidness of your frontiers, the burst of your population in many directions, some loss of population, your cities abandonned (that can be re-inhabited later, depending on your plans and the environment or possible new opportunities), etc. and many much more. Here is the basic idea to make the duality barbarians/states work : as a state, you can make a lot of gold and buy slaves to barbarians, hunter-gatherers, tribes and other pastoralists. You can also generate a lot of science. As a barbarians, you are more flexible but can still steal technologies by pillaging science districts, steal dogmas by pillaging theater squares, gold with market places on top of selling population out of your slaves farms for a very good price (states have plenty gold) or hire your soldiers for gold too. Meanwhile, you can explore more efficiently, more rapidly, secure territory of all kinds, until the times all Earth is filled with states and there is no room for barbarians left.
* Etc. etc.

At the very least, I think the matter of bringing the formation of the state into the game mechanics is hugely interesting. From the basic setup of "people live on the land" and "people are able to work to ends in excess of feeding themselves (i.e. yields)", the lego blocks are there to permute and recombine into complex game elements like city founding and empire formation. Iterate on this. What else do player actions change? What is the goal or direction of ascent? What is present to frustrate that goal?

I will be crunching this thought for a while.

OK, i somewhat solved my problem of allocating production. Let's say we have different "pools" of production, like cities in Civ are production pools. Production pools can vary their reachable size dramatically, going from 1 tile range to infinite range, even in antiquity.

- Very local production pools (1 tile range, changed from 0 tile range) : if you have a production unit (shield, hammer, cog...) whereever, it counts as a production pool. So, at the beginning of the game, if you are producing at least 1 production unit with one of your population points, you are prompted to produce something, anything, with that hammer, with a range of 1 tile around your population point. If you want to build houses 1 tile away for example, you could, if you have another production pool nearby (right close or two tiles away in the same direction) allocate this production to the same tile of house building. But you would have to specify it separately in another production prompt.

- Local production pools (3 tiles range ?) : With roads, the Wheel and some strong animals (cows, horses, camels, donkeys etc.), Very Local production pools merge to one Local. (how to fix the limit ? Houses* built being the center ?)

- "Global" production pools. Those use water, railroads and air transport. Early on, with the first seafaring tech, you can add up every production unit along the same river or coast. Indeed, if you have production units along one of them or both, and they are all connected, you have only one production prompt to build anything anywhere on that territory. Yes, you could build the Pyramids on the Nile delta with production units located at the source of the Nile. (but as population is everywhere, barbarians, hunter-gatherers, etc. under a same and unique form (population points), it could show itself tricky to accomplish, but if so, tremendously powerful, representing the importance of water early.)

So each population (by which I mean total living bodies on one tile) is either at production 0, or is a producing pool. A producing pool has options to build "stuff" in a neighbourhood of the home tile, again. The options are tiered by infrastructural development and available technology. Infrastructure, roughly, allows for increased range and for pool combination.

Keep iterating. I like it, I think it's going somewhere. What yields are there overall, and how does the course of the game introduce them? What demographic factors affect the populations and how they "work" (how they yield their yields)?
Can we simulate everything that the populations/people do, as "yielding" the currencies every turn? Is there another kind of thing that populations do? edit: And is there something else the player is doing, than directing populations?

 

[Naokaukodem]

So many questions lol. Will try to answer them the best I can.

@HorseshoeHermit Well populations would live not on EVERY tile, each pop point would be kind of a 'unit' that can move, harvest and produce, AND can stack, just like in a city. Thing is it could only stack up to 3 or 5 in Antiquity. (more with adequate buildings, that would be, that time, fixed on the map, creating de facto a city)

What is the goal or direction of ascent?

The goal would be to allow different play styles (much more different than with mere Leaders), but more importantly, to make the Civ world more accurate, rather than just "build this city here, another one here, etc. and basta", and therefore more thrilling to play. Some players once asked for more interactions with barbarians. Here they are ! Heck, you can can even PLAY a barbarian tribe. All this can simulate, unlike the expansion of the same name, a true Rise & Fall of civilizations, a thing that i pursued for long... just for the sake of it... imagine that, that would simply make the showcase of Civilization come true, at last and once and for all ! And also, that would simply be a "cool feature" that players may like to have. Not to mention historians and teachers. Ultimately, that would be a way to play differently, a never-seen way to play in the franchise before, that would simply make the gameplay more accurate and more satisfying : building one's civilization is one of the more thrilling part of the game, and what about being able to build it multiple times in one single game, without falling behind too much ? And there would be a closer feeling with your people, as you would rule them first instead of a pack of cities right away. Finally I think a simulation of states formation and falling would be quite satisfying by itself, make the game more organical, the stories more exciting, etc. It would unlock a whole range of new opportunities for the gameplay and the player. Why do you play video games ?

What is present to frustrate that goal?

Nothing ! Or some details maybe.

If you talk about the ingame goal a people should aspire, that's the same as in Sid Meier's Civilization : win the game. Screw everyone else. But I don't think victory should end the game, I think the game should continue after the player has lost, to see if its score, era or fame points are greater than the other civs when the number of turns is over, so that every game would end up at this maximum number of turns regardless.

Keep iterating. I like it, I think it's going somewhere. What yields are there overall, and how does the course of the game introduce them? What demographic factors affect the populations and how they "work" (how they yield their yields)?
Can we simulate everything that the populations/people do, as "yielding" the currencies every turn? Is there another kind of thing that populations do? edit: And is there something else the player is doing, than directing populations?

Sid Meier's Civilization yields. Food, production, gold, science, faith, culture, tourism and maybe also coercion. Turn-based game. Each pop point consumes 2 food per turn. Excedent is going to pop points self-insufficient in term of food first, in a range of either 1 or 3 tiles first, then "stockpile" food if those requirement are not fulfilled, into a virtual "granary" (a pool) proper to each pop point. Thing is, the pool size, and therefore the time done to fulfil it, never changes. (unless the actual food output changes) It could be 10. But there is no free yields from cities, and keep in mind that every non-food yields (aka specialized pop points) must be supported. (particularly production from mines and coercion from palace/plaza specialists) If a pop point is starving, you have a message and it loses 10 HP with 1 food per turn, 20 HP with no food per turn. (or 20/50 ?) Pop points yield production in tiles giving production like plains, forests or hills, and maybe also in districts.

Pop points can train into military units. With production, and maybe with hunting, you can train&equip a pop point, which is already a unit, except that this one could fight. You can stack up to 3 or 5 military units in Antiquity, the same as population with no buildings. Soldiers need food. 2 each. You can travel far, as long as you find enough food each turn. Surplus food can commit to growth. Deserts might be unpassable. Soldiers can hunt. (farm ? produce siege units ? Camps ? Forts ?) If an army, just like with regular population units, stays in one single tile for long, there's a chance that it creates a city. So you can wadge wars just like in old Civs.