Connection and Distance to Capitol (or Regional Government) [ACCEPTED]

[raystuttgart]

Ok guys,

one of my other old concepts is about "Connection and Distance to Capitol".
It would impact "Culture", "Happiness" and "Liberty Bells".

To simplify:
The concept wants you to connect all your Cities (in most cases by Roads) to your "Captiol".
(Later also Regional Capitols.)

Alternatively to Roads you are also allowed to connect by Sea Route.
(But you will get a lower Connection Bonus compared to Road if you do.)

-----

Capitol and Regional Governments:

First, you will have a "Captiol". (Flagged by a Golden Star.)

Later you will also be able to acquire "Regional Government Cities". (Flagged by a Silver Star.)
(e.g. all 10 Cities - but the value will be configurable in XML.)

You can only declare Cities to become "Regional Government Cities" if they are connected to the "Captiol" themselves.
(But again, both "Road Connection" and "Sea Route" are allowed.)

Also to declare a City a "Regional Government City" it will at least need a "City Hall".
(That will be configurable in XML - do not worry.)

You will also be able to set / change both "Captiol" and "Regional Government Cities" to another City.
(For both above unitl see below: rules for changing, specific Buildings build)

-----

Changing Capitol and Regional Governments:

Changing the "Capitol" however comes at the cost of e.g. 5 turns unrest in the former Capitol before that change actually happens.
Changing the "Regional Government Cities" however comes at the cost of e.g. 2 turns unrest in the former "Regional Government Cities" before that change actually happens.

Having a "Capitol" or "Regional Government Cities" captured by the enemy with at temporary "Happiness" malus in all other Cities.

-----

Capitol / Regional Government Buildings:

Only in "Capitols" you will be able to build "Continental Congress".
Only in "Regional Government Cities" you will be able to build "Government Palaces".

Once you have built these, you can not remove / change the status "Capitols" / "Regional Government Cities" anymore.

-----

Bonus / Malus:

If you do succeed to connect your Cities, you get a small bonus on "Culture", "Happiness" and "Liberty Bells" in the connected Cities.
If you do not, you get malus on "Culture", "Happiness" and "Liberty Bells" in Cities not connected.

The "Capitol" / "Regional Government Cities" itself will also get a small bonus on "Culture", "Happiness" and "Liberty Bells".

Additionally the Domestic Demand will increase or decrease depending on being connected or not connected.

-----

Distance Modifier:

The Bonus / Malus depends on the Distance to the next connected "Capitol" / "Regional Government Cities".

• The higher the distance, the lower the bonus if connected.
• The higher the distance, the higher the malus if not connected.

-----

Comment to Origin:

It is by the way another one of my old "Path to the Throne" concepts and it was connected to "City Swapping".
Since "City Swappigng" however is already cancelled due to community feedback, we do not need to discuss it anymore ...

-----

Comment to Game Design:

The feature in itself may at first sound boring, but it has a lot of potential to be expanded or interact by other concepts I have ...
It is not the "single feature" that matters, it is the way you can combine mutliple features to a real game design.)

Thus I am normally not really happy if a game concept is cancelled,
because it starts shaking the "game desigmn" / game architecture I would like to build with mutliple features.

-----

Considering gameplay:
Basically this just wants you to consider where you put "Governments" and how you can connect your Cities.

Considering AI:
It is actually easier to implement for AI than it may sound.
This problem is just "complicated". It is not "complex".

Considering Effort:
The game logic is basically already there in my old technical design.
The effort simply depends on the algorithm to find "connected Cities".

Considering Balancing:
It will be possible to balance the complete feature in XML.
(Distances, Cities needed to be allowed another Government, bonusses, malusses, ...)

-----

@Nightinggale:
I dug out this concept due to our discussions about "regions" yesterday.
Before the discussion about regions, I was not sure if we could implement something like that performantly ...

As I said:
Do not worry, I still have many more of these concepts ...
Tell me what you are technically creating and I will find a game concept for it in my archive ...

-----

Best regards
ray

 

[ConjurerDragon]

The Continental Congress historically convened in Philadelphia - but when that city was occupied by the british it just met somewhere else. IMO it does not make sense to have the CC as an immovable building.

Having a capitol would mean that the colony is a centralized state - however if we look at e.g. the thirteen colonies, then every colony had it´s own "capitol" and only after the declaration of Independance New York became the first capitol of the USA. Formally London would be the only capitol needed until the colonies unite to declare independance.

It makese sense to have a requirement to somehow connect your cities so that it becomes a bit harder to spread colonies over the whole of a continent.
However a limitation of 1 capital and regional governing cities would be dependent on map size - on a tiny map perhaps the whole colony might have only 3 cities close to each other making it overly simple to connect them by roads, but on gigantic 30 cities over a wide area.

Only have palaces in regional governing cities - that depends what a city is. Using a gigantic map and 1plot-cityradius a city could be seen as just as a city that is part of a larger colony. However with 2plot-radius and/or tiny maps those "cities" control an area so large that every single city can be considered one of the 13 colonies instead of just 1 city - and if every city is a colony itself that limitation makese no sense as each colony would need their gubernator/palace.

 

[raystuttgart]

IMO it does not make sense to have the CC as an immovable building.

That is the only way Buildings work in this game.
And the "Continental Congress" is already in the game.

... every colony had it´s own "capitol" and only after the declaration of Independance New York became the first capitol of the USA

Also correct, but let us just assume that one of them was "the most important".
I am not really trying to create a 100% history sim.

However a limitation of 1 capital and regional governing cities would be dependent on map size

No, not really. On a large maps you would simply need more, on a smaller map you would need less. But you can do that, there is no limit that needs to be set anywhere.
Since the amount of "Regional Goverments" depends on Cities you build it will still match. Because the amount of Cities you build depends on MapSize as well.

However with 2plot-radius and/or tiny maps those "cities" ...

There is also no real difference between 1 plot and 2 plot, because you can still connect and the distance on the map between e.g. to islands will generally still be the same.
You would of course be able to build more "Regional Governments" if you have more Cities (in 1-Plot City Radius) but I see no problem there.
It will simply play a bit different.

----

Summary

We have to simplify somewhere.
100% immersion and realism is not possible in gameplay.

Considering MapSize, you will simply have less Cities on smaller Maps, thus you will also need less "Regional Governments".
It may feel and play a bit different in 1-Plot City Radius and 2-Plot City Radius, but that is not a bad thing.
(1 Plot will be a bit easier. But I will balance for 2 Plot to be just right in challenge.)

Just let me know if you want it or not.
Personalyl I see no big issues in balancing, gameplay or immersion that would break this concept.

The interesting question for me is the "regional algorithm" (for performance), where I will need the help of @Nightinggale.
We will try to create all XML balancing attributes needed.

 

[Nightinggale]

BTS is plotgroups, which is essentially areas, which spread on plots where the route isn't NO_ROUTE. I copied the implementation to Medieval Conquest and modified it somewhat to make it not rely on help from the exe to spread (one of the few exe differences is at play here). Adding it to WTP should be doable with a reasonable effort, though it needs to be altered to support river ferries.

Once implemented, CvPlot will have getInt() and if two plots return the same int, then they are connected by road. It's calculated per team meaning an enemy unit entering a plot will make it act like there is no route on the plot in question, which will possibly split the plotgroup.

 

[raystuttgart]

Once implemented, CvPlot will have getInt() and if two plots return the same int, then they are connected by road.

Sounds great.

But what about "Water Connections"?
Would your regions work there? Or is already some code that checks that as well ?

Once I can check if 2 Cities are connected, the rest of the concept is easy to implement ...
Will take a bit of time for all the small details but it should generally not be difficult.

altered to support river ferries.

Correct. We should not forget those.
(But technically it should be possible because it uses your "fake / invisible road" concept.)

It's calculated per team meaning an enemy unit entering a plot will make it act like there is no route on the plot in question, which will possibly split the plotgroup.

Interesting.

But how would we visualize that in the City?
Suddenly the "Connection Bonus" would be gone and the "Connection Malus" would trigger ...

Would it not impact performance too much?
Because we would also constantly have to check for "enemy Units" on the Plot as well.

 

[Nightinggale]

But what about "Water Connections"?
Would your regions work there? Or is already some code that checks that as well ?

I recently added the ability for plots to get the area of the closest water. It will look at the 8 plots next to it and pick the first ocean area it detects and if none, pick a lake. Two colonies with the same water area will be connected by water. It's in the commit, which prevents AI ships from hiding in cities waiting for hostile land units to vanish.

Eventually I want plots to be able to have two areas, one for land and one for water. This will make large rivers use cleaner code, which also performs better. This ability can then be used to make colony plots have a water area too, in which case it will be like plotgroups in the sense that it becomes an int in CvPlot and if two plots have the same int, then they are connected.

Alternatively we can hijack the BTS plotgroups, which spreads across water. That's also an option. That too will look into enemy units and plot ownership.

 

[raystuttgart]

I recently added the ability for plots to get the area of the closest water. ... Two colonies with the same water area will be connected by water.

Right, did not think about that one.

The only additional check I need to do is for SPECIALBUILDING_DOCK.
(So at least a Pier will be needed.)

Well, sounds like the technical concept is getting in shape.

 

[Nightinggale]

The only additional check I need to do is for SPECIALBUILDING_DOCK.
(So at least a Pier will be needed.)

I would prefer to add a bool to CvBuildingInfo to tell if the building can connect on water and then cache in CvCity how many buildings provide that ability. The city then has the ability if the count is higher than 0. This performs better and there is no DLL hardcoding. It's all set in clear xml.

 

[raystuttgart]

I would prefer to add a bool to CvBuildingInfo to tell if the building can connect on water ... This performs better and there is no DLL hardcoding. It's all set in clear xml.

Sounds perfectly fine for me.

... and then cache in CvCity how many buildings provide that ability. The city then has the ability if the count is higher than 0.

Why not simply cache a boolean instead?
We will have only 1 SPECIALBUILDING_DOCK that will do that.

 

[orlanth]

I think this sounds like a nice development, some realistic administrative difficulties from a large widely separated empire could be a good strategic offset to massive land grabs and create interesting choices re wide vs tall colony development. Allowing some straightforward administrative upkeep like Civ4 (a slight overall Civic upkeep cost per turn from total number of cities and from distance from Capitol) could also be worth considering. I wonder if some of these Civ4 tags and behavior might still even be in the Civ4 DLL used for Civ4Col.

It would be especially neat if techs/SP/Civics could unlock ways to decrease/eliminate distance problems, and allow construction of additional local Administrative buildings similar to Forbidden Palace wonder in Civ4 like ConjurerDragon suggested (so you could still be free to build an absolutely massive empire if you want, but would have to make some investment in progressing your administrative capacity to do so).

 

[raystuttgart]

... upkeep like Civ4 ...

"Upkeep" is another concept already on the todo-list as well.
If we implement "Connection and Distance to Captiol" and "Upkeep" I will also connect both features.

Upkeep System (game design ready, technical concept almost done)

(Not 100% sure yet though, if Buildings will also get Upkeep - but with this concept it would make indeed more sense.)

 

[Nightinggale]

Why not simply cache a boolean instead?
We will have only 1 SPECIALBUILDING_DOCK that will do that.

processBuilding will add and remove buildings. If it's an int, then that can be done in any order while if it's a bool, then order will matter. It makes the code more fragile. Besides a bool is technically an int meaning it won't impact performance. It will compile to the same code (more or less).

Also an int will work if somebody adds this to a different special building in the future. Bool will not.

 

[historix69]

Some thoughts :

A road connection concept was used e.g. in Civ5 to allow the player to get (more) taxes from his cities while the road tiles cost upkeep per turn.
For connections via searoute you just had to build a harbor (also with upkeep per turn) (which could be blocked by enemy navy during war).
So you were fine by connecting all your cities to harbors in Civ5.

In Col you start with building economic colonies (usually all over the New World since different resources are spread over different map regions according to climate). The colonies just have to be connected to your motherland (Europe) via coastal colonies to be able to sell the produced goods ... wagon trains can be used to economically connect inland colonies with port colonies but they do not require roads. If you don't want to sell stuff from a colony, a connection is less important.

A road connection does not need an assigned transport unit.
How do you intend to build searoutes?

I would not force players to have to actively assign ship units to sea routes between all colonies since a lot of players play without the optional automated trade (or have trouble setting up trade routes) and it really depends on the map style and play style. Imagine playing on a Giant 1000 Islands map. On giant maps after a while you usually have way more cities than ships. Every city would need a (protected) searoute, preferentially with a Galleon. But the player usually also needs a large fleet to be able to do all the manual tasks like distributing colonists, military units, war, etc. (or for doing the tasks the automated trade routes failed to do.)

Range connection bonus/malus reminds me of Civ1 corruption which did not survive as a feature in the Civ series, simply because it was no fun and caused too much problems with distant colonies. The British Empire in general (ignoring the failed New England colonies) is a good example how to manage a world wide empire with colonies. So if the player wants to build a world wide colonial empire on his own the game rules should not restrict it and should not force the player to adept a very limited play style. (Players will still have problems to defend a spread out world wide empire during WoI.)

Instead of a malus for cities not being close to your colonial capital I would instead give a higher capital bonus to those next to the capital. Mathmatically that can be the same when rescaling the yields but for the player it is usally more fun to get a bonus (good) or no bonus (neutral) than a malus (bad).

I would not tie the number of regional governments to number of cities since this may depend on 1-2-tiles radius and map style and may force players to spam tiny cities everywhere they would not build otherwise. I would instead just tie it to an expensive new building like a Regional Gov. Palace which the player otherwise would not build.

 

[raystuttgart]

How do you intend to build searoutes?

We simply check if the 2 Ports can access each other by Water.
(And also if they have Harbour Buildings - e.g. "Docks" - baically all that is bigger than "Pier".)

I would instead just tie it to an expensive new building ...

There is a reason why I do not "tie it to a Building right away":

I want to allow the Player to change (reassing other Cities as "Regional Government Cities"
- until they build the "Government Palace" there), when his Empire grows / expands.

Also to declare a City a "Regional Government City" it will at least need a "City Hall".
(Otherwise it would be too easy.)

... should not force the player to adept ...

Every game has its "game design" and "rules".
Every new feature will change that "game design" and those "rules" a bit.

Instead of a malus...

All my features will simply balance "good" and "bad" - and not just give free goodies.
I have explained often enough why this is important for game design ...

-----

Spoiler :

Does chess allow you to have your Queen jump / beam over the board and instantly kill the King of your opponent?
No, it does not - if it would nobody would play it because it would be illogical and boring.
"Rules" in a game are necessary for game design.

So it is the purpose of a feature that the player adapts his playstlye and his strategies to it.
Otherwise the feature is utterly pointless / useless.

All those discussions that a game should not have rules and somehow
incentive or inforce them are stupid non-sense of people that have never really heard of game design.
Those are just arguments that people try to abuse for "personal taste discussions".

Sorry, but I really can not listen to this stupid non-sense anymore:
"A game should not enforce or incentive a certain playstyle ..."

Because if it would not do that:
It would simply not be a game anymore at all.
It would just be some strange "do whatever you want with any purpose and logic" ...

-----

So yes, all my features will "incentive" the player to consider them in in his strategies and playstyle.
He is not forced to do so though. He can still chose to ignore them and focus on other aspects instead.

And yes, my features will also have negative consequences if you ignore them.
They will not just give free goodies and thus totally unbalance the game.

-----

The concept above is what I offer.
Simply let me know if you want to have it: Vote "yes" or "no".
Take it or refuse it.

If I have missed something or there is a logicl or technical mistake, sure tell me.
But any other discussion will just waste our time because it ends in "personal taste discussions".

I have thought a lot about it and it is exactly the concept I would like to implement.
(I have no interest in changing it just for personal taste of others.)

If community does not want it, that is pefectly fine.
Then I will simply implement it in my private version.

 

[Elirector]

I voted "yes" as it definitely sounds much more realistic. In real world towns and cities are tending to be connected to each other with roads as it makes life better. Isolated towns or villages suffer from lack of some basic things like tools, news (from newspapers and transit traders), food not produced by them and so on, and it was always that way, even before invention of wheel. And yes, to make large empires manageable, government centers are necessary evil. Also, as I see it this concept can grow to some more complicated systems in future - taxation, conscription, centralized education, name your own.
Not to mention, my play style in civ-like games is ALWAYS to connect everything with roads, even if it doesn't give lot in game bonuses.
In addition: what about giving a bonus to diplomacy if capitals are connected by road? And may be increase cultural influence on titles covered with roads, connected to capital/regional center? As I understand it, culture from buildings come from the ability for "behind the scene" civilians, living in small villages/farms/forest huts, to travel to a city to spend their time in tavern, church or market and road definitely makes this easier.

 

[Nightinggale]

Once implemented, CvPlot will have getInt() and if two plots return the same int, then they are connected by road.

I wrote about the concept of PlotGroups here.

 

[Mr. ZorG]

the concept is interesting. but it would be good to associate it with the renewal of the Trade Routes. if I remember correctly, Nightinggale wanted to upgrade an existing system.
the fact is that now all cities on one continent have to be connected by roads. even if there is a better way to transport goods on the Large Rivers and there is no road between cities, automated wagon trains still visit such cities. when this is fixed, the concept will work much better than it does now.

 

[historix69]

Only in "Regional Government Cities" you will be able to build "Government Palaces".

At the moment you can build/buy Gov Palaces everywhere in theory but it takes a long time / many turns and many colonists to develop a city to a point where it can really build its own Gov Palace. Usually the colonies founded first will also be the first to complete their Gov Palaces. Since a city with Gov Palace and 6 statesmen can do 200+ bells per turn, those cities greatly contribute to FF progress and with 100% rebel status the +50% production bonus is also very strong. (I guess that a Gov Palace ca doubles the value of a city.)

The new rule will limit the option to build a Gov Palace in well developed cities. Depending on the Regional Gov Boni for surrounding cities this may boost smaller cities but can also limit the value of better developed cities. This may reduce overall FF progress and make it harder for bigger cities to get rebel status and production boni, leaving developed cities without Gov Palace below their potential compared to current game. This may slow down game progress.

I think it will depend on the boni and how a city can qualify for "Regional Government Cities".
Players probably will have to plan ahead and optimize their Empire layout more so that they can start early developing these regional Gov cities while working on the other requirements.

 

[historix69]

... In real world towns and cities are tending to be connected to each other with roads as it makes life better. Isolated towns or villages suffer from lack of some basic things like tools, ...

The fact that most advanced buildings need tools and other special building materials and that most colonies need an army of pioneers to develop the surrounding tiles makes it already necessary in current game to connect a to be developed colony with other colonies via roads or searoutes or with europe (unless you have enough cash and just hurry all the buildings).

The new element is that colonies now should also have a connection to regional Gov cities and so to the Colonial Capital.

 

[historix69]

All my features will simply balance "good" and "bad" - and not just give free goodies.

You probably completely misunderstood me.

Example :
A non-expert colonist has a production of 3. An expert has a production of 6.
You can now either say :
- the default production is 6 and non-experts get a malus of -3 or
- the default production is 3 and experts get a bonus of +3.

Numbers in game design are arbitrary and it is up to you where you define the default values. Numbers above default are called bonus and numbers below malus, but if the numbers are fixed and you just move the default as in the small example above, the interpretation between good, neutral and bad can change. However independant of the numbers psychologically a malus has a stronger negative effect on players (stress) while a bonus has a stronger positive effect (gratification) even if the numbers mathmatically describe the same situation.

No one asked for free goodies. It's just a question which numbers you want to display in red and which in green. Games where numbers are in green (interpreted as bonus) are usually more relaxing and more fun.