Discussion of The World Remade

[Steph]

The problem with that is tediousness. I'm guessing you could tell your explorer, starting from your city, "go there", then he does, and a few turns later, comes back. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

It depends of the scale, scenario or epic game.

It also avoids the problem of the galley going to make a trip around the world during 150 turns.

I think it can be interesting, as if you are to reckless and the explorer is killed, then you lose your discovery

And how could you, the player, send out explorers to a specific area if you're not supposed to see the land there?

Same as in CivIII... Except if the explorer is killed before it comes back in your border, then the land he discovered revert to "black".

 

[check1two]

This game sounds aewsome.

1) I think settles migrate base on needs. Like they might migrate by the river because of water.

2) Worker groups probably represent work done in time. So if worker groups are working on an irrigation system, eventually that block will be done, but if more workers are told to work on the castle wall, then that will eventually be buit.

3) The knight is definitely stronger than the musket fighter.

PS. I'm still waiting for your tracks

 

[Phlegmak]

PS. I'm still waiting for your tracks

I forgot all about that.

 

[Phlegmak]

I'm considering using these "produceables" (my term for stuff gotten from map tiles) rather than just food, resources, and trade (or coins).

radioactives, minerals, wood, food, coin, stone

So, I would have something like this:
* A crossbow unit component would require 2 minerals and 8 wood.
* A bow unit component would require 10 wood.
* A nuclear submarine chassis would require 20 radioactives, 200 minerals.
* A library would require 20 wood and 40 stone.

With this sort of complexity, it also seems reasonable that resources such as these are simply pooled globally. So, Athens digs up stone, and that's available to any cities within the same nation that are connected via a trade route.

So how does this sound? Too tedious? Too annoying? Fun? Boring?

 

[Steph]

I'm considering using these "produceables" (my term for stuff gotten from map tiles) rather than just food, resources, and trade (or coins).

radioactives, minerals, wood, food, coin, stone

So, I would have something like this:
* A crossbow unit component would require 2 minerals and 8 wood.
* A bow unit component would require 10 wood.
* A nuclear submarine chassis would require 20 radioactives, 200 minerals.
* A library would require 20 wood and 40 stone.

With this sort of complexity, it also seems reasonable that resources such as these are simply pooled globally. So, Athens digs up stone, and that's available to any cities within the same nation that are connected via a trade route.

So how does this sound? Too tedious? Too annoying? Fun? Boring?

That's basically what I wanted to do.

 

[Phlegmak]

I would really like some better names for some of these things.

We have:
1. Resources dug from the ground, such as 2 resources produced by a forest tile
2. In Civ 1 and Civ 2, there are special resources which are stuff like horses on plains
3. In Civ 3, there are 2 new kinds of special resources, which are luxury and strategic resources

So that's a total of 4 different meanings of the word resources. And that's only the ones that I know of.

I'd like a better name for resource type #1. And "shields" is stupid. Freeciv came up with a reasonable symbol for it, which was a hammer, and I guess they called it a hammer too. I was wondering if "construction material" might be reasonable.

So what's a good name for it?

 

[Steph]

For type 1, I think it correspond to what you kind mine (ie stone) or get from a forest (i.e. wood).

So either use different resource "stone" and "wood", or just use a generic name like "material", I don't think adding "construction" is required.

 

[Phlegmak]

Morality/reputation

It seems like a good idea to put in some kind of measurement for the morality or reputation for a nation. For example, these could cause negative reputation/morality modifiers:

1. Attacking a neutral opponent that isn't aggressive. (Neutral opponents in The World Remade are units or cities of the Neutral nation which represent no particular nation, sort of like Civ's barbarians.)
2. Initiating a war
3. Using nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons
4. Razing enemy cities
5. Razing your own cities
6. Killing one's own citizens
7. Allowing starvation (maybe this one shouldn't be considered)

These would each cause a negative modifier. Reputation would slowly improve by let's say, 1 point per turn. So 0 is a normal reputation, and -1000 is the worst reputation.

And then the question comes, what could this be used for? In Galactic Civilizations, morality was used to determine the likelihood of one nation going to war with another (good nations were less likely to go to war with other good nations, and evil nations could expect war from all sides). In The World Remade, it could be used as a measurement of how easy it is to persuade another nation to do one's bidding during diplomacy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Multilateral negotiations

In all the civs, diplomacy is only between two nations. How realistic is it for two nations to get involved in talks, and then other parties get themselves involved? For example, Britain talks with Germany, and France says, "Hey, don't make any agreements with those jerks!" Or perhaps that should just be after any deals are made via one on one negotiations.

Also, let's say the US wants to have a meeting with all its allies. Germany, France, UK, and Canada, for example. One nation initiates a meeting between several others, all of which are allied with the host nation. The host nation then says, "Let's attack this guy over here." The various nations then bicker and argue about what they're going to do. Does this make any sense gameplay-wise, or is it just unnecessarily complicating things?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alliances during wars

During wars in Civ 3, it's fairly easy to get one nation to attack another. But then do they actually do anything? Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Also, your two nations which you just got fighting can easily make peace, thwarting your Machiavellian schemes. How about this solution. You're the US and you ask Canada to declare war on Mexico. Canada complies. Canada then loans you some of its own troops, which carry the Canadian flag, but are under your control. Once the war ends, then Canadian troops revert back to the control of Canada. So, that means at the beginning of the war, Canada tells its ally, the US, "Ok, we'll give you 10% of our military to help you fight the war." After that point, one in every ten troops Canada owns go over to US control, and one of every ten soldiers Canada makes MUST go to the US to help with the war in Mexico. Canada chooses which troops to send. Unfortunately, that complicates things such as city ownership of conquered cities during the war.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Population growth rate

I see three different kinds of population growth rates for civ-like games.

A. I was originally thinking that cities should grow at fixed rates. For example, each city gains 50 people per turn, with 1000 people being 1 population unit, such as an individual citizen from Civ 3. So in 20 turns, a city gains 1 population point. This is skewed to favor nations with a large number of cities. More cities = more people. This is what Master of Magic and Master of Orion 2 use.

B. The Sid Meier model doesn't favor a large number of cities. It favors productivity. This is of course, the cultivation of food creating new people. This is totally unrealistic but is good for gameplay.

C. A pseudo-real model would take into account several factors.
1. Wealth of citizens (wealthier citizens reproduce less)
2. Current population size (real population growth is geometric, so a large population will produce more people than a small population in the same amount of time)

However, that makes things severely complicated. I'm currently using citizen units, like what Civ uses. A pseudo-real population growth model would seem to nullify that.

Basically, this is what I want to use:
1. Cities have population units which are like Civ-style population, which means individual heads or people which represent a certain number of people. In Civ 1, the 1st unit represented 10000 people, the 2nd represented 20000, and so on. I would have these individual population units, each representing exactly 1000 people.
2. The population units may be different species. This complicates everything, but it's a must for what I want. Master of Magic did something like this, but every citizen in a city was the same species. Master of Orion 2 did nearly exactly what I want, but I don't know their algorithm.
3. Cities produce a certain amount of food. This food is split evenly among the different species. So if a city has humans, mutated lizards, and mutated humans in it, it would split its food production in three parts.
4. It takes 40 food to make a new citizen. Some species will reproduce faster or slower than others.
5. Partial population units are necessary because making military units costs 100 people. That's an extra complication that I already have figured out that I don't feel like typing because it would take too long.

Does the whole thing sound reasonable?

 

[Steph]

Morality/reputation
1. Attacking a neutral opponent that isn't aggressive. (Neutral opponents in The World Remade are units or cities of the Neutral nation which represent no particular nation, sort of like Civ's barbarians.)
2. Initiating a war
3. Using nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons
4. Razing enemy cities
5. Razing your own cities
6. Killing one's own citizens
7. Allowing starvation (maybe this one shouldn't be considered)

Yes, it should be in. But also have good actions give a positive reputation (like giving aid, helping in war, sharing tech.

These would each cause a negative modifier. Reputation would slowly improve by let's say, 1 point per turn. So 0 is a normal reputation, and -1000 is the worst reputation.

and +1000 is the best reputation, and reputation slowly degrade if >0

And then the question comes, what could this be used for? In Galactic Civilizations, morality was used to determine the likelihood of one nation going to war with another (good nations were less likely to go to war with other good nations, and evil nations could expect war from all sides). In The World Remade, it could be used as a measurement of how easy it is to persuade another nation to do one's bidding during diplomacy.

I would also link it to war weariness: it's more likely that your people will support a war against an hated nation or to support a friend.

Does this make any sense gameplay-wise, or is it just unnecessarily complicating things?

Yes, multi party alliances should be in.

complies. Canada then loans you some of its own troops, which carry the Canadian flag, but are under your control.
Once the war ends, then Canadian troops revert back to the control of Canada.

And so you take the Canadians troops, send them invade Mexico, have them all killed but wearing down the ennemy defenses, so you can then capture his city with minimal losses... Oh, and when the war is finished you can then attack Canada : they just lose 10% of their army....

A - B - C.Population

I think you are missing an important point.
Population increases because :
a) Birth rate is > death rate
b) people are coming from somewhere else to settle here.

Personnally, but that's just my opinion, I think immigration is an important part of a world simulation

 

[Phlegmak]

Yes, it should be in. But also have good actions give a positive reputation (like giving aid, helping in war, sharing tech.


and +1000 is the best reputation, and reputation slowly degrade if >0


I would also link it to war weariness: it's more likely that your people will support a war against an hated nation or to support a friend.

Sounds good.

Yes, multi party alliances should be in.

Then I wonder how can I handle diplomacy between the several nations at one time.

And so you take the Canadians troops, send them invade Mexico, have them all killed but wearing down the ennemy defenses, so you can then capture his city with minimal losses... Oh, and when the war is finished you can then attack Canada : they just lose 10% of their army....

Ok, good point. It seems then that alliances between nations will simply have to be "Please attack my enemy, and I can do nothing to enforce my request."

I think you are missing an important point.
Population increases because :
a) Birth rate is > death rate
b) people are coming from somewhere else to settle here.

Personnally, but that's just my opinion, I think immigration is an important part of a world simulation

I need to keep in mind that this is more of a strategy game than a simulation. Sure, I'm using some aspects of a real world simulation, but I want the game to be fun first, and simulation second. I can certainly include immigration, but I want to consider birth rate first. How should I handle birth? What algorithm should I use?

 

[Phlegmak]

Take a look at the flags in the units below. Too large? Just right? Too covered? The flags are 2.25 times larger than the Civ 2 shields which were used to denote nationality/color.

 

[Steph]

Then I wonder how can I handle diplomacy between the several nations at one time.

The AI for that may be hard to program. Ideally, you can organize a group meeting, where you make propositions, then countries like it or not, and when enough countries like it, then it's passed. This may require counterproposal, and that's the tricky part

Ok, good point. It seems then that alliances between nations will simply have to be "Please attack my enemy, and I can do nothing to enforce my request."

I would introduce a notion of "contribution vs reward". Each member of the alliance would gain points representing his contribution to the war.
For instance, each unit sent to do actual fighting = 2 points, each unit killed during the war, 1 point, each ennemy city captured = 3 points, etc.

Then I suggest changing the peace resolution: you should be able to ask that you can territory at the end, but necessarilly to simply wipe out your ennemy (see Europa Universalis). For instance, capturing 5 cities may allow you to keep 3 at the end, the two others returning to their initial owner.

Then, you can use the contribution versus the peace resolution. Give points to each captured city (representing it's worth), to the tributes you can get...

If an ally contributes 25% of the war effort, then he should get 25% of the peace resolution. You have two options here: make it a rule where it is mandatory to give hom 25% of the spoil of war, or make it a option, where if you give less the ally becomes angry at you, and if you give more, he will get happier.

It can give some interesting strategy. Imagine US is oppposed to Russia, and need UK support.
UK is engaged in a war against Argentina. They send 10 units in the war. US join the war, and sent 5 units. They capture 6 Argentinans cities. During the peace resolution, Argentina agrees to give 3 cities. US says UK can keep them all: as they ask for less than they contribute, UK is happy and like US more. And so US can gain support against Russia.

For this to work, I suggest that you cap your relation to +500 for "normal" friendlyness, and to get above it, you need an extra action.

Like you can send gift in $$$, but this cannot make you go above 500. Actively figthing in a war as ally gain make you go above 500.

I need to keep in mind that this is more of a strategy game than a simulation. Sure, I'm using some aspects of a real world simulation, but I want the game to be fun first, and simulation second. I can certainly include immigration, but I want to consider birth rate first. How should I handle birth? What algorithm should I use?

Of course, but I think immigration is a very important issue, and shouldn't ignored.
Regarding your question, I think you should have two parameters, birth rate and death rate.
The birth rate should be relatively high, and will be reduced when advancing in the tech trees, with techs such as "women labor", "universal suffrage", "contraception".
Then, death rate should start also relatively high, and will be reduced with some building such as sewer system, hospital, some techs (like imminuzation). Regarding food, if the food output of a city is > needs of population, then either the death rate is raising, or the people emigrates.
And when birth rate > death rate, population increase.
You can also include birth rate / death rate effect in a tile. Snow = increase birth rate (people have to do some exercice to fight the cold, and they are more often in home with time to waste ), jungle = increase death rate.

Ideally, you should time the techs so there is a period where death rate should diminish a lot (progress of sanitation / medicine), and birth rate stay high for a while. So you can experience a population boom. and then later, the birth rate will diminish.

It's also important that you consider the manpower as an important resources, and sending waves after waves of soldiers to be killed should have a negative impact on population.

And last, you can add events such as "plague" that could temporarily affect the death rate or "baby boom" that can increase the birth rate, for a few turns.

Regarding the flag, I think they are a bit to covered.

And last, with the vast crowed gathering here to answer your question, we could as well exchange emails

 

[Phlegmak]

And last, with the vast crowed gathering here to answer your question, we could as well exchange emails

Maybe in a year ( ), when I have more to show, interest will pick up. I'm not sure I can really blame people for not participating.

 

[Steph]

Maybe in a year ( ),

Out of personnal experience, maje that 5 or 6 years

 

[Phlegmak]

How do the flags here look? Any better?

 

[Steph]

I like them better than in the previous screenshot, but perhaps they are to "rectangular", some "waving flags" may be better.

A side question. Why is the warrior walking on water?

 

[Phlegmak]

I like them better than in the previous screenshot, but perhaps they are to "rectangular", some "waving flags" may be better.

A side question. Why is the warrior walking on water?

All terrain is randomly chosen. The starting position is currently fixed at 20,20. I didn't move the warrior from the starting position.

 

[Phlegmak]

I'm considering using these "produceables" (my term for stuff gotten from map tiles) rather than just food, resources, and trade (or coins).

radioactives, minerals, wood, food, coin, stone

So, I would have something like this:
* A crossbow unit component would require 2 minerals and 8 wood.
* A bow unit component would require 10 wood.
* A nuclear submarine chassis would require 20 radioactives, 200 minerals.
* A library would require 20 wood and 40 stone.

With this sort of complexity, it also seems reasonable that resources such as these are simply pooled globally. So, Athens digs up stone, and that's available to any cities within the same nation that are connected via a trade route.

So how does this sound? Too tedious? Too annoying? Fun? Boring?

Steph, how did you decide to do this sort of thing? I'm guessing that you have:

* No more strategic resources
* All resources are pooled either at the city or the national level

Pooling nondegradable resources allows for cities to have two rates of work, which are mining rate and building rate. But I'm not sure I want to include that sort of thing. It seems like it would create too much complexity for a good AI.

 

[Steph]

First, for simplicity one type of resource / tile.

Second, each tile as a "current value", a "replenishment rate"., and an "extraction difficulty". For many resources, replenishment rate = 0.

For instance :
- A Forest tile, resource Wood: value: 1000, Replenish = 10%, extraction = 1.
- A desert tile, resource = oil: value: 2000, Replenish = 0%, extraction = 1.
- A ice tile, resource = oil: value: 1000, Replenish = 0%, extraction = 3.

Then, some techs allow you to build extraction facility, for instance a mine or an oil well.

The facility has two values :
- The difficulty it can extract
- The extraction rate.

For instance, you can have
- Oil level 1= extract 50, difficulty = 1
- Oil level 3 = extract 100, difficulty = 3

Level 1= can exploit oil in desert, will get 50 resources / turn (and so the tile will be depleted in 40 turns). Cannot extract oil in ice (you need better oil extraction technology for that).

Level 2 = can exploit oil in the desert, at a rate of 100/turns, depleting the tile in 20 turns, or oil in the ice, at a rate of 33/turns (the difficulty reduces the extration rate).

The resources are then pooled in a city. And you need to build storage facilty in the city to store them.

You can then organize convoys to move some resources from cities to cities. There is a risk of losing some resources in the process, depending of you tech level (like refrigeration limits the waste for tropical fruit), or from ennemy activity (piracy, blockade).

Then, units need to things:
- Resources to be build, and the resource must be in the city pool, and the city must have the proper facility (e: tank factory)
- Resources to be trained,
- Resources to be maintained.

For instance, a Armor division will require:
- 5 irons to build the tanks (the unit can then be kept as "hardware" only, and cost no maintenance)
- 5 manpower, 1 iron and 1 oil to be trained (the unit will become operational and will start to cost maintenance)
- And then 1 manpower, 1 oil and 1 iron every turn.

Note that for the building, training and maintenance, the tech level may be different, and could be donein different cities / countries.

Exemple : Russia has the tech level and resources to build a T-72 armored division. Then it sells it to India, who will add the manpower resources, and train the armored vision, even if India doesn't have the tech level to build the armored division in the first place.

 

[Phlegmak]

How about the city center NOT be automatically worked like it is in Civ 1 - 3, and all the other Civilization clones?

I thought about this while wondering why are many cities automatically better than fewer cities. The reason why is that the city center is free productivity. If it wasn't, then a single city is equally productive as many smaller cities where the population of both groups is the same. (The productivity of a size 10 city would equal 5 size 2 cities.)

Doing away with the free city center would mean that the food values of tiles would have to tweaked. Specifically, plains would probably need to produce a minimum of 3 food. Despotism would have to reduce productivity at 4 instead of 3. Other tweaks would also have to be done.

Larger cities would still need to spawn new people to move to the smaller cities because of the unhappiness factor of larger cities.

So how does this sound?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How does this worker action sound: build canal.

A canal would destroy all other improvements in the land tile its built in except roads. Ocean going ships could then traverse the canal. This would allow for the construction of the Suez or Panama canals. It would be a herculean effort which would take 3 times longer than clearing a swamp, so multiple worker units would be necessary to complete a single canal tile in a reasonable amount of time.

Each tile with a canal in it costs 1 gold to maintain per turn.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another new worker action: build bridge

A worker on land can build a bridge on an adjacent water tile. After the one bridge tile is built, he can then move onto the bridge tile and continue building the bridge until he reaches his destination island. Ocean going ships can pass under the bridge with impunity. Hostile nations can potentially destroy bridge tiles with a pillage action, so a bridge requires constant guarding.

The bridge then allows any number of land units to cross it at any time. Bridge tiles require 2 gold per turn to maintain.

Bridge tiles aren't land, but rather just something extra on top of the ocean. They produce no food, resources, or trade. They do not affect the productivity of ocean tiles beneath them.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alternative to building canals: dig to below sea level _or_ dig trench

This would basically just mean that a worker digs in a tile so deep it goes to below the sea level, and turns into an ocean/sea tile.

Then, to maintain roads, a bridge can be built over the new ocean tiles.