"Cultural Pressure" / Cities swapping sides [ACCEPTED]

[raystuttgart]

Hi guys,

it is not difficult to e.g. implement that a "Spanish City" would swap sides if Cultural Pressure of another much bigger "English City" would be high enough.

• But would it be fun?
• Or would it be an exploit?

Things that we would definitely consider:

• Swapping of course can only happen between 2 Coloinal Cities (no Natives, no Kings) --> It triggers a DLL Diplomacy Dialogue (see below).
• Swapping sides of a City can not happen if it is the last City of a Player. (A Colonial Nation would not give up its last City in the New World.)
• Swapping sides of a City can also not happen to the Capital (once the Capital concept is implemented)
• The number of previous Unrests / Revolts will increase the chances of Spwapping (# of unrests will be stored)
• Cities originally found by another player will have a higher chance to swap back.
• The swapping can of course only happen if Cities have direct borders. (The amount of common / disputed plots - most importantly City Plot will matter.)
• To protect from abuse / expoit: the swapping can not happen if the City is was founded less than 20 turns ago * GameSpeed (protect small newly founded cities)
• The swapping algorithm would consider lots of factors e.g. "Population Size", "Happiness", "Law", "Revolutionary Sentiment", "Defenders guarding it", "Diplomatic Relations" between the Players (e.g. previous Wars), ...
• The algorithm will not be deterministic, it would be using "random" with "increasing chances" and thresholds" (similar to LbD algorithm)
• Your Cities can of course swap to AI as well - just like AI cities could swap to you
• Only about 50% of the City Population Swaps but with a bit of randomness in there as well (and the rest is popped out and leaves)
• Military Units guarding or other Units on the City Plot would of course not swap (they could still leave normally)
• It of course only happens if both Players are at Peace (never happens if any of them is at War - neither with each other nor with 3rd parties)
• AI here gets some protection according to Game Difficulty.
• AI could also easily be taught to use this feature (e.g. to prioritize Culture a bit when close to other Europeans)
• Gamespeed will of course be considered by default
• ...

DLL Diplomacy Dialogue "City Swapping":

• When Swapping is triggered a DLL-Diplomacy Dialogue with the current City Owner will allow the Human playerto make decisions. *
  • Refuse the City Swapping: Will improve the relations to the Owner player and restore the inner City Plots to the culture of the Owner
  • Pay for the City Swapping: City will swap sides but the Player pays an amount of money relative to City size. No change in relations.
  • Just let City Swap Sides: City will swap sides but the Player does not to pay for it. Relations to the Owner Player are worsened.
  • Let City Swap Sides and also Declare War: City wil swap sides. War is started. Relations to the Owner Player worsen dramatically.

AI behaviour:

If swapping happens in favour of an AI, there will be no dialogue. AI would always go for Option "Just let City Swap Sides".
So in case the Human Player would lose a City like this (which is extremely unlikely, he would also not get a dialogue.

Future potential:

• Certain "Social Progresses" could influence swapping (make it easier for you to swap another City or protect yourself against it)
• Certain "Civis" could give could influence swapping (make it easier for you to swap another City or protect yourself against it)
• ...

----

Comment:

I found this in my concepts archive and I also have a technical concept for implementation already.
(The original concept is for Path to the Throne - and there it would have been essential - gameplay would have been a lot more about politics).

----

Summary:

The effort to implement this is medium. (It is not small - but we did bigger stuff already.)
It would allow to take over enemy Cities without War - using Culture instead.
Just do not know if players would like that or consider it boring ...


----

Looking forward to feedback.

 

[raystuttgart]

Unrelated to this concept:
(Might however be interestig for a future "related concept".)

By the way in Path to the Throne this was a "sub-feature" of a much bigger concept that also included Spies and Sabotage.
(PttT gameplay was heavily based on Diplomacy, Treachery, Political Power, Intrigue, Secret Alliances ...)

Here is an image of my old prototype - the "Spy" I wanted to use.
(PttT Protoype was built on RaR. They were "brother and sister" mods.)

Currently I have no "Espionage or Sabotage Concept" for WTP yet.
(The old concept or PttT simply does not work because gameplay is too different.)

Spoiler :

 

[raystuttgart]

Comment:

Cultural Pressure would definitely need different balancing settings in XML for 1-Plot-City-Radius and 2-Plot-City-Radius.
The max. Population / City Radius / Culture are extremely closely related in balancing - and with this feature "Culture" would get much more important for gameplay.
(This feature could simply never work with only 1 set of XML balancing modifiers for both.)

 

[Mr. ZorG]

I think a mechanic will be needed to warn the human player that the city may come under the control of another European.
but the idea is interesting.

 

[nci]

I think that's too much. Had enough of this in Civilization.

 

[Elirector]

I definitely like the idea. I adore this feature in each Civ part and other 4X games.
May be it should be switchable for those who doesn't like it

 

[Mr. ZorG]

May be it should be switchable for those who doesn't like it

this can be a non-trivial task ... I suppose

 

[raystuttgart]

this can be a non-trivial task ... I suppose

Generally it is like this:

Implementing a Game Option to completely deactivate a feature without dependencies is easy.
It just gets difficult it there are massive other dependencies to other features, other Units, other Buildings ...

In this case:

• We (still) have a feature that is nicely encapsulated (by its own algorithm and new methods / variables) it adds.
  
• We (still) have almost no dependencies and there are no other features (yet) that need it and no other Objects were (yet) added (like e.g. Units, Buildings, ...)

Thus:

Having a Game Option would currently not be difficult - it is basically just 15 minutes more in effort.

However:

Making this a "Game Option" also implies that there will never ever be another feature that itself would use "City Swapping - because it would add dependencies.
It is basically not possible in proper game design have "Optional Features" and still build dependencies with other features on top.

Meaning:

• We will never ever have "Social Progress" affecting "City Swapping".
• We will never ever have "Civics" affecting "City Swapping".
• We will never ever have "Buildings" affecting "City Swapping".
• We will never ever ...

Summary:

I absolutely hate making things a "Game Option" because by doing so they become impossible to use for further game design of other features.
See guys, I think as a game designer that sees and considers potential of features and not just "this is what they do now" ...

"Game Options" are the devil of every creative game designer ...

They basically force you to consider really annoying variants in all your game design and feature implementations and thus create overhead effort otherwise not needed ...
And if you do not you will have balancing issues or even bugs.

Thus:

Consider very carefully every single Game Option you might to add.
Only do it if absolutely necessary. Such decisions are hard to revert ...

---

To put it in other words:

This feature would lose all its potential for future additions if it becomes a Game Option.
Thus as a Game Option I would simply not interested anymore to implement it ...

 

[Mr. ZorG]

they become impossible to use for further game design of other features

that's about what I thought ... you can use it, but it will cost a lot of effort and time. hardly anyone will do this. therefore the problem is not trivial.

 

[Nightinggale]

Making this a "Game Option" also implies that there will never ever be another feature that itself would use "City Swapping - because it would add dependencies.
It is basically not possible in proper game design have "Optional Features" and still build dependencies with other features on top.

Meaning:

• We will never ever have "Social Progress" affecting "City Swapping".
• We will never ever have "Civics" affecting "City Swapping".
• We will never ever have "Building" affecting "City Swapping".

I disagree. We create the game to be played with the default values. We still do that. Ignore the game options while designing.

We then add a CivEffect to game options. Here we can disable buildings or whatever, which doesn't make sense for the option in question. If we add allow city swapping to CivEffects, it will even be something we can enable/disable with civics and the same code can disable it with a game option.

Nobody asks for "perfectly balanced gameplay" after modders test it for ages prior to release. My prediction is that people will be perfectly happy with just the fact that city swapping is disabled. If a building is less valuable, then so be it. It's not like the 1/2 plot radius option ruins the game even though it alters gameplay noteworthy. The altered gameplay is in fact most likely the goal when people pick one or the other.

Yes it will be easier if we do not have to make a game option, but if there are people who really don't like city swapping, then I don't mind disabling it for them. People can have the game experience they want and add 20 units to themselves with WB at game start if that's what they want. I won't try to stop them even though it's clearly not the game balance we aim for.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

...
Yes it will be easier if we do not have to make a game option, but if there are people who really don't like city swapping, then I don't mind disabling it for them.

Only to clarify that - I love city swapping in my games. I do it all the time already. It is called waging war and happens at the sharp end of the blades of my armies. I just find the idea strange that the guys drinking beer in my tavern extend their cultural reach over cities beyond the 2plot city radius.

So I could live with my established city absorbing a far smaller enemy settlement that he dared to build within the 2plot-radius as my city far outgrows the enemies, similar to how indians give up their villages when overcultured - but beyond that range the only culture that allows the takeover of colonies should be a cavalry charge or a siege. I mean - if whole cities could be culturally assimilated, then how are forts exempt from that? They too extend culture and thus should be overtakeable? by culture too if cities would fall to culture...

And on the other side I would like to have the option too, to not spread my culture to certain plots (or at least to certain plots outside the 2plotrange). Once my colonies start reaching for the 3rd plot with their culture the indian villages I traded with suddenly are gone - and a handful native slaves that I might receive are not really worth as much to me as a constant supplier and consumer of goods nearby.

 

[Tugboatspotter]

• Swapping of course can only happen between 2 Coloinal Cities (no Natives, no Kings)
• Swapping sides of a City can not happen if it is the last City of a Player. (A Colonial Nation would not give up its last City in the New World.)
  
• Swapping can be refused by the Human Player - not doing so causes severe Diplomacy Penalty / but actually refusing improves Diplomacy relations (a DLL Diplomacy Event Dialogue will pop-up)
• The number of previous Unrests / Revolts will increase the chances of Spwapping (# of unrests will be stored)
• Cities originally found by another player will have a higher chance to swap back.
  
• The swapping can of course only happen if Cities have direct borders. (The amount of common / disputed plots will matter.)
  
• To protect from abuse / expoit: the swapping can not happen if the City has less than 5 colonists (protect small newly founded cities)
  
• The swapping algorithm would consider lots of factors e.g. "Population Size", "Happiness", "Revolutionary Sentiment", "Defenders guarding it", "Diplomatic Relations" between the Players (e.g. previous Wars), ...
• The algorithm will not be deterministic, it would be using "random" with "increasing chances" and thresholds" (similar to LbD algorithm)
  
• Your Cities can of course swap to AI as well - just like AI cities could swap to you
  
• Only about 50% of the City Population Swaps but with a bit of randomness in there as well (and the rest is popped out and leaves)
• Military Units guarding it would of course not swap (they could still leave normally)
  
• It of course only happens if both Players are at Peace (never happens if any of them is at War - neither with each other nor with 3rd parties)
• AI here gets some protection according to Game Difficulty.
• AI could also easily be taught to use this feature (e.g. to prioritize Culture a bit when close to other Europeans)
  
• Gamespeed will of course be considered by default
  
• ...

I voted no because without 'culture' as a gameplay mechanic, the rules are complicated and potentially obtuse.

 

[raystuttgart]

I voted no because without 'culture' as a gameplay mechanic, the rules are complicated and potentially obtuse.

What, when did I ever say that "Culture" as a game mechanic would not matter.
That is self understanding actually for me and is actually the core of the system - to know which City should swap to the other.

Why should the Sytem be called "Cultural Pressure" if it would not matter
All the other factors are just modifiers !!!

Maybe I was just not clear enough because players do not really know how "Cultural Expansion" works.

But it is in here:

The amount of common / disputed plots will matter.

---> Each of those Plots has "Culture" values stored in it that determine the Owner.
---> Those "Culture" values in the Plots are are generated by the Culture you create in the City!
---> The more Culture you create the more Plots you will own.

Do you guys really think I will implement a feature that has no logic and no influence from the player ???
When have I ever implemented a feature like that?

-----

All my features are based on carefully computing algorithms that simply use more than just one variable.

-----

I am deeply dissappointed that you guys even think I implement a "Cultural Pressures System" that does not consider "Culture" itself ...

 

[Tugboatspotter]

What, when did I ever say that "Culture" as a game mechanic would not matter.
That is self understanding actually for me and is actually the core of the system - to know which City should swap to the othe

I have no idea how you inferred that from my post.

I was referring to how other civ games treat culture like gold or faith.

 

[raystuttgart]

I have no idea how you inferred that from my post.

Then sorry, I seem to have misinterpreted your post.
I read it like you said "You do not use Culture game mechanic in your concept."

I was referring to how other civ games treat culture like gold or faith.

Still have no idea what you want to explain.
I do not play other Civ games anymore since many years ...

-----

Most likely you and myself just have a different interpretation what "Culture game mechanic" is.

• I talk about "Culture game mechanic" as in Civ4Col.
• You talk about "Culture game mechanic" as in some other Civ game, that I do not play and thus not know the mechanics.

 

[raystuttgart]

Ok guys, let us simply stop this here.
We are wasting to much time.

I see this feature is for some reason highly disputed and unpopular.
It was just an offer but I still have enough other concepts I can invest my time into.

And as I said I will not implement it as a Game Option.
(It will simply create just too much hassle and too much effort to be considered in the future.)

This feature would lose all its potential for future additions if it becomes a Game Option.
Thus as a Game Option I would simply not interested anymore to implement it ...

Summary:

I heard the voice of community and accept it.
The feature is "dead". (cancelled)

 

[raystuttgart]

Ignore the game options while designing.

Sorry, I can't. That is simply not my style of modding.
I am a "perfectionist" in the things I have passion for.

Yes it will be easier if we do not have to make a game option, ...

Making a feature a "Game Option" creates hassle and effort for me to consider it for other future features ...
All of those other future features simply become more effort and potentially might have unnecessary bugs or awkward balancing issues.

I do not want to create a "collection of smashed together and all optional mod components".
I want to create a "smooth and logic gameplay, where every feature nicely blends with the other".

I simply care about that.

-----

I was once told about game design:
(And really believe in it.)

• Take your time to think but in the end make decisions and implement them concequently, completely and in quality.
  
• Never offer several alternatives if that leads to having them implemented inconsequently, incompletely or in lower quality.

 

[Tugboatspotter]

Then sorry, I seem to have misinterpreted your post.
I read it like you said "You do not use Culture game mechanic in your concept."


Still have no idea what you want to explain.
I do not play other Civ games anymore since many years ...

-----

Most likely you and myself just have a different interpretation what "Culture game mechanic" is.

• I talk about "Culture game mechanic" as in Civ4Col.
• You talk about "Culture game mechanic" as in some other Civ game, that I do not play and thus not know the mechanics.

Yes, I'm sorry it was a clear misunderstanding.

...and you are correct with your reasoning. In civ vi; gold, production, faith, culture and science can all be gathered as 'currency', in a system designed from the ground up.

 

[raystuttgart]

In civ vi; gold, ...

I do not play that.
Will never cheat on my baby with another Civ game ...

Please do not assume that I know mechanics of the "newer Civ games" (after Civ4BTS).
I am "old school" player and due to modding hardly have time to play any game at all.

You would either
1. Need to tell me the game you talk about (so I can do research myself)
2. Explain me the game mechanic in detail (so I directly understand)

 

[Tugboatspotter]

I'm old school as well. I started with civ 2 and never looked back.

Having said that, I actually really like civ vi. I'm going to put them in order of my preference:

WTP (not strictly civ but I don't care) > civ vi > civ iv > civ iii > civ ii > civ v

Never played civ 1

Feel free to disagree.