Yep. I miss the ability from the earlier Civ games to build settlers (which ate a pop point back then) and use that settler to transfer population to smaller cities because you could tell the settler to settle in a city square, adding 1 pop point to the new city.
General discussions
- Thread starter Houman
- Start date
WarKirby
Arty person
Yeah. That's another good point. You should be able to manually redistribute population.
What do you think, Houman?
WarKirby
What do you think, Houman?
WarKirby
WarKirby said:
I think that is violating the spirit of "Total Realism", if it is just giving the player the ability to distribute population where he sees fit.
Maybe if this was tied to State Property civic(or Police State?), and also caused unhappiness in the town your population is leaving and the town in which they settle.
In real life governments have little control over where people end up living, and in the states that do have that kind of control, they don't usually make people very happy when they force them to leave their homes.
I'm thinking, Three Gorges Dam or forced reloactions under Soviet rule are some of the few examples of large scale population relocation at the order of a government (not because of disease or war...), it's not a common thing, and in most free countries, the government can do things to encourage people to settle in some places (land grants, tax credits), but they can't just pick them up and move them very easily.
MindProphetX
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 61
JahtheIII said:
I agree with you to an extend but, remember you have to ellaborate on concepts... the government has more control over the populace than you think, they control influence, popular thought and expression etc. ever most subtly... its a simple enough ideal and worth a thought anyway... besides here is a historical account to counter your thought, it became quite popular in ancient Rome for the generals ie Caesar amongst others to promise land and where do you think most of this land came from? from conquered lands of course so the soldiers would persuade their families to move to new lands for whatever reasons...
to enact this ideal could be ellaborated by saying the settler (citizen populas) was manipulated to move here for whatever reason lower taxes, gold rush, free plots of land to promote culture and dominance etc...
I agree I think this is a useful and simple enough concept to advocate.
WarKirby
Arty person
If you had a mining town badly in need of workers, getting people to move there would be easy, because of all the jobs.
Gainful employment is an incredible tool to redistribute population.
WarKirby
Gainful employment is an incredible tool to redistribute population.
WarKirby
how bout introducing some new "buildings/wonders" like ie "Gold Rush" (can only be built by city that has gold in its radius). Building it, would resault in a % chance (dependent on the distance) that each turn your cities will loose population and the city that has bulit the "wonder" will gain pop.. imigrants from rival cities migh also want to join your city, but the % should be smaller then from your own..
WarKirby said:
I agree with you, but sometimes, most of the time, the government has little control over where this gainful employment shows up.
I don't argue that you shouldn't have any way to induce population to move, like the "gold rush" wonder mentioned above, but in some way it needs to have a cost that would insure you can't just relocate 10 pop points from your biggest city to some other city you would like to be your biggest.
That is what isn't realistic. Being able to induce a relatively small amount of population to move isn't a big deal, and is more in line with what we see in reality. Tax credits, Land grants and Jobs, certianly can move population, but cost something. Also, no one is going to move from say, Chicago, to some mining town in the middle of nowhere just because you created a job there, they probably already have a job in Chicago, and like living there for other reasons.
Maybe only cities with more population than workable tiles could see population leave to try and find work somewhere else, I don't know the answer really, I just don't like the idea of easily moving population around with little cost.
WarKirby
Arty person
There's no great people thread. So I'll post here.
EDIT: I moved this post to the great people thread.
WarKirby
EDIT: I moved this post to the great people thread.
WarKirby
Introduction
First of all: English isn't my native language ... plz, don't search to eager for mistakes.
I have played three games of TR until now (the Civ4 Version, not the Warlord Version). With the difficult settings noble and prince on the TotalRealism World Map.
In normal Civ 4 I try sometimes to stay peacefull a long time. In Total Realism i dont see any way to do it. Because the research is kind of slow, i cant build enough buildings in my cities. And the "production to research points"-option in a city is available later in game.
Therefore Total Realism force me to build a mass of military units. And because of the upkeep costs i have four options:
Of course the best option i see is option no. 1. If i start in europe, i wipe some civics out and got some nice cities.
If i start in Asia i get some babarian towns to wipe out and burn them down.
Yeah, it is fun to fight from the start. And most time i enjoy fighting with limited ressources.
But at all I miss a peaceful and senseful solution. It is realistic that the civis do a lot of war in history - yes. But NOT because they have to build a mega-sized army.
They started war, because they want power, ressources or just dislike each other.
To be realistic in a long war every involved nations get economical down. But in TR i need the war to get my research (... and in the long run my economic) running.
The other part i have some ideas is the promotion system.
In some parts i dislike the promotion sytem of TR. I like the change from Civ3 to Civ4 that units have only one combat value instead of an attack and defence value. I don't see the big difference between an attacking swordsman on open field and the defending one. While should the attacking (or defending) swordsman get any bonus?
Ok, now we have one combat value and the tactical deepness we get mainly trough special boni vs unit types. Spearman is strong vs mounted units, weak against other infantry ... and so on.
The current TR promotion system give boni that doesnt make sence. Again my example with swordsman. How can a swordsman getting better with defending plains but dont get any abilty to attack an other swordsman on plains.
That a unit hidden in a forest get a defensive bonus is already part of the game. But if your archer learns to lure in forest, the archer dont recieve any bonus on attacking in forest?
I think u have to know both sides - attacking and defending - to get realy stronger. Maybe you will specialize in one way, but the other exists.
I post my current suggestions about a promotion system in the "Promotion" Thread.
Ok, enough introduction. Let's get to the real part.
Early Game: Peace?
I give thought to this "problem".
The main problem is, that a city can only build military units. Therefore we need other options for the city.
The ways i see:
Increased production time for buildings
If we increase the building time we got a way for a peaceful TR. But now the war-based way got trouble. If the barracks, granary, libary, ... takes 200-300% more time, you just cant train any military units without getting backward with your cities.
The advantage of the war must be worth to risk this. But in the current TR Version u just cant control over around 8-10 cities without proper technologies.
The way to get money with burning cities isnt working. Mostly u will get around 100-200 gold pieces. If u need 20 units to get the city down (4 defensive units with wall) only the upkeep from this units will consume this money in 5-10 turns. You need more time to get the army to the enemy town ...
To finance an army with pillage cities, u need more money. And it is realism, that an army just consume every city on it's way because supply reason. I think this pillage city should give you around 100 + 50 * city-size gold pieces (additional to the normal amount of gold).
But increasing this amount of gold will only get u money for research (or for your army and let your money from towns for research), it will not build up your cities. I think in the long run you will be backward.
Therefore to simply increase the production time will crumble the whole gameplay and getting the game even more one-sided. Now i see only the way to get around 7 cities near the capital - maybe rush one civic - and then start to defend and buil up your economic.
In the current version of TR this doesnt work. There are times you dont manage to overrun your enemy and there are times you did, but even after you have the cap of 8 cities you have to build military.
Conclusion: Increased production time will most probably only destroy the game-feeling.
More available buildings
If i talk about more available buildings i dont talk about 100 new buildings. This would be cool, but i have only two legs, can only do little steps and i know that this cant be done in a proper amount of time.
I just talk about some buildings with high construction times. The time should be relative to the effect high. It should be possible to build up your civi without these buildings, but it shouldn't be just waste of time build them.
Naturally i have some buildings in my mind:
Because these buildings are not as important as normal buildings are, an offensive player can live without them. He can attack other civics. If one of these try to get all buildings very soon, this civic will certainly have a bad defence...
Conclusion: Some work to do, but a nice way for more peaceful nations.
Non-productive city mode
The most simple mode will be just "doing nothing". But then i can build units and kill them afterward ... i got nothing.
Giving the research or money mode earlier in game will take away parts of the techtree. I don't like this either.
My idea is to add a little bit worser research and money mode for the cities. I think about instead of 50% of production for research or money only 25%. In this periode of development it will be around 1 to 4 gold pieces / research points. In my opinion this is an alternative option to build military, but it isn't too strong. Maybe the Mysticism can be the requirement for this two modes. You can call the money version "Ware Offering" - i hope the native speaker will find a better word
Also thinkable to but the money mode in Mining.
And - of course - one of these Modes would be enough... i suggest to chose the one, who fits better in historical background.
Conclusion: An easy solution to get a peaceful way in TR. But it might be a little bit boring for the player.
Conclusion / Suggestions:
hope anyone will read it
First of all: English isn't my native language ... plz, don't search to eager for mistakes.
I have played three games of TR until now (the Civ4 Version, not the Warlord Version). With the difficult settings noble and prince on the TotalRealism World Map.
In normal Civ 4 I try sometimes to stay peacefull a long time. In Total Realism i dont see any way to do it. Because the research is kind of slow, i cant build enough buildings in my cities. And the "production to research points"-option in a city is available later in game.
Therefore Total Realism force me to build a mass of military units. And because of the upkeep costs i have four options:
- Use my military strength to start an offensive war. But because of the limited numbers of cities, i will capture only up to around 8 cities and burn the rest.
- Start to create a mercenary army ...
- Kill the units i just created
- Getting killed some dozend turns later, because i dont have the money to do research
Of course the best option i see is option no. 1. If i start in europe, i wipe some civics out and got some nice cities.
If i start in Asia i get some babarian towns to wipe out and burn them down.
Yeah, it is fun to fight from the start. And most time i enjoy fighting with limited ressources.
But at all I miss a peaceful and senseful solution. It is realistic that the civis do a lot of war in history - yes. But NOT because they have to build a mega-sized army.
They started war, because they want power, ressources or just dislike each other.
To be realistic in a long war every involved nations get economical down. But in TR i need the war to get my research (... and in the long run my economic) running.
The other part i have some ideas is the promotion system.
In some parts i dislike the promotion sytem of TR. I like the change from Civ3 to Civ4 that units have only one combat value instead of an attack and defence value. I don't see the big difference between an attacking swordsman on open field and the defending one. While should the attacking (or defending) swordsman get any bonus?
Ok, now we have one combat value and the tactical deepness we get mainly trough special boni vs unit types. Spearman is strong vs mounted units, weak against other infantry ... and so on.
The current TR promotion system give boni that doesnt make sence. Again my example with swordsman. How can a swordsman getting better with defending plains but dont get any abilty to attack an other swordsman on plains.
That a unit hidden in a forest get a defensive bonus is already part of the game. But if your archer learns to lure in forest, the archer dont recieve any bonus on attacking in forest?
I think u have to know both sides - attacking and defending - to get realy stronger. Maybe you will specialize in one way, but the other exists.
I post my current suggestions about a promotion system in the "Promotion" Thread.
Ok, enough introduction. Let's get to the real part.
Early Game: Peace?
I give thought to this "problem".
The main problem is, that a city can only build military units. Therefore we need other options for the city.
The ways i see:
- Increase the time for construction buildings.
- More available buildings.
- Get a non-productive option, like "research" much more earlier.
Increased production time for buildings
If we increase the building time we got a way for a peaceful TR. But now the war-based way got trouble. If the barracks, granary, libary, ... takes 200-300% more time, you just cant train any military units without getting backward with your cities.
The advantage of the war must be worth to risk this. But in the current TR Version u just cant control over around 8-10 cities without proper technologies.
The way to get money with burning cities isnt working. Mostly u will get around 100-200 gold pieces. If u need 20 units to get the city down (4 defensive units with wall) only the upkeep from this units will consume this money in 5-10 turns. You need more time to get the army to the enemy town ...
To finance an army with pillage cities, u need more money. And it is realism, that an army just consume every city on it's way because supply reason. I think this pillage city should give you around 100 + 50 * city-size gold pieces (additional to the normal amount of gold).
But increasing this amount of gold will only get u money for research (or for your army and let your money from towns for research), it will not build up your cities. I think in the long run you will be backward.
Therefore to simply increase the production time will crumble the whole gameplay and getting the game even more one-sided. Now i see only the way to get around 7 cities near the capital - maybe rush one civic - and then start to defend and buil up your economic.
In the current version of TR this doesnt work. There are times you dont manage to overrun your enemy and there are times you did, but even after you have the cap of 8 cities you have to build military.
Conclusion: Increased production time will most probably only destroy the game-feeling.
More available buildings
If i talk about more available buildings i dont talk about 100 new buildings. This would be cool, but i have only two legs, can only do little steps and i know that this cant be done in a proper amount of time.
I just talk about some buildings with high construction times. The time should be relative to the effect high. It should be possible to build up your civi without these buildings, but it shouldn't be just waste of time build them.
Naturally i have some buildings in my mind:
- Hunters Network
(Construction time like oracle - available with hunting)
Provide +1 food on every forrest title. In early times of mankind the forrest was an important food ressource and not only important for production. Maybe civilization starts a little bit after that time ... but hey, we can also get the wheel before agricultur. (Agricultur starts some thousends year earlier)
Hunters Network will work until irrigation. - Archery Ground
(Construction time double Barracks - available with tech Archery, require Barracks)
Provide +3 exp for archer. The idea is the same as stables: Getting a bonus for specilization of cities. - Training Ground
(Construction time double barracks - require barracks)
Same as archery, but for melee units.
With a modified promotion system the archery, training ground - and later "military training area" - this can be some kind of realism military specialisation of cities. See Promotion Thread for more details. - City Center
(Construction time like oracle - available with Pottery)
+1 Happy Face. Might be too strong.
Even in the beginning there were some kind of music and culture. Build a city center to let everyone of your citizen share this.
Because these buildings are not as important as normal buildings are, an offensive player can live without them. He can attack other civics. If one of these try to get all buildings very soon, this civic will certainly have a bad defence...
Conclusion: Some work to do, but a nice way for more peaceful nations.
Non-productive city mode
The most simple mode will be just "doing nothing". But then i can build units and kill them afterward ... i got nothing.
Giving the research or money mode earlier in game will take away parts of the techtree. I don't like this either.
My idea is to add a little bit worser research and money mode for the cities. I think about instead of 50% of production for research or money only 25%. In this periode of development it will be around 1 to 4 gold pieces / research points. In my opinion this is an alternative option to build military, but it isn't too strong. Maybe the Mysticism can be the requirement for this two modes. You can call the money version "Ware Offering" - i hope the native speaker will find a better word
Also thinkable to but the money mode in Mining.
And - of course - one of these Modes would be enough... i suggest to chose the one, who fits better in historical background.
Conclusion: An easy solution to get a peaceful way in TR. But it might be a little bit boring for the player.
Conclusion / Suggestions:
- Getting a pillage from burning a city down. I tought about 100 + 50 * size.
- Add a small version of "production-to-research" and/or "production-to-money" in early game. 25% of production will do it. Available with Mysticism or Mining.
- Stable-Like-Buildings for the other units.
hope anyone will read it
Uncle Anton
Lighthorseman
Hi guys. Just posted in the Mercs area of the forum.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. It's not realistic to have mercs with anything over than Level 5, with promos that those units can actually have, (eg no tanks with Defence etc).
No merc unit ever existed that had a skillset 20 times better than the best regular unit of it's day.
Additionally, there needs to be some way to ensure that a Civ can't hire a unit if the unit requires tech that civ doesn't have.
The mercs part of TR is really letting down the rest of an otherwise excellent mod.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. It's not realistic to have mercs with anything over than Level 5, with promos that those units can actually have, (eg no tanks with Defence etc).
No merc unit ever existed that had a skillset 20 times better than the best regular unit of it's day.
Additionally, there needs to be some way to ensure that a Civ can't hire a unit if the unit requires tech that civ doesn't have.
The mercs part of TR is really letting down the rest of an otherwise excellent mod.
WarKirby
Arty person
@Exerior: I assume you're playing with lots of civs, or on the earth map in europe?
This seems to be a big problem. There is not enough land in places like europe for all the big civs that are there. I always play in asia where there is plenty of land, and usually flourish as a result.
These ideas you have really won't help much. Civs are too close together and cannot establish and economy, thus stagnation results.
The only real solution, would be to make the world map bigger. Much bigger. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that it is possible to make it big enough and still have a playable speed. I doubt modern processors are fast enough, or people are patient enough to wait several minutes between turns
A while ago, someone suggested a distorted map where more populated areas (like europe) would be bigger, and less populated areas (central asia, the americas) would be smaller.
At the time I thought this sounded stupid, but as I play more, I realise that if we cannot seriously scale up the main map, this distortion is the only option to prevent europe stagnating.
In the meantime, I usually play randomly generated maps, where civs are evenly distributed.
Well, that's my $0.02
WarKirby
This seems to be a big problem. There is not enough land in places like europe for all the big civs that are there. I always play in asia where there is plenty of land, and usually flourish as a result.
These ideas you have really won't help much. Civs are too close together and cannot establish and economy, thus stagnation results.
The only real solution, would be to make the world map bigger. Much bigger. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that it is possible to make it big enough and still have a playable speed. I doubt modern processors are fast enough, or people are patient enough to wait several minutes between turns
A while ago, someone suggested a distorted map where more populated areas (like europe) would be bigger, and less populated areas (central asia, the americas) would be smaller.
At the time I thought this sounded stupid, but as I play more, I realise that if we cannot seriously scale up the main map, this distortion is the only option to prevent europe stagnating.
In the meantime, I usually play randomly generated maps, where civs are evenly distributed.
Well, that's my $0.02
WarKirby
WarKirby
Arty person
Could we please change english empire to british empire. Victoria and Churchill both presided over a unified Britain. Only Elizabeth was ruler of just England.
I've jut spent past half hour reading biography of Churchill. Did you know he authorised use of poison gas on iraqis, and machine guns on striking welsh miners. Seems he wasn't so nice in the early days. Thankfully, neither actually happened.
WarKirby
I've jut spent past half hour reading biography of Churchill. Did you know he authorised use of poison gas on iraqis, and machine guns on striking welsh miners. Seems he wasn't so nice in the early days. Thankfully, neither actually happened.
WarKirby
MindProphetX
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 61
I think the map size is just fine even for the more populated areas. Why do you think nations such as Rome went to war? to conquer? no to expand into another nations land or into barbarian lands completely realistic and those nations are never as bad off as you think albeit perhaps sometimes the French or the Spanish and even times the Romans who can't compromise that particular game and expand but they always are a force enough to compete with any of the other nations the actually have more room to expand in. IMO the map size is fine, realistic enough and the AI can be competive enough especially against the various AI civs... not all empires flourish at the same time
Hian the Frog
TR Designer and XML
WarKirby said:
Hi,
It's a scottish wish, guys !
Funny, the scotts fought for a so long time against the "barb" of the South before being "vassels", that's funny to read that...
More seriously, you are right. England is the strongest of the Kingdoms of UK but many GP of UK came from Scotland, Ireland or Wales. As Adam Smith, a Scottish , no ?
The Frog.
WarKirby
Arty person
Well, I'd really rather we get a look in as Scotland has contributed lots.Hi,
It's a scottish wish, guys !
More seriously, you are right. England is the strongest of the Kingdoms of UK but many GP of UK came from Scotland, Ireland or Wales. As Adam Smith, a Scottish , no ?
The Frog.
Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. John Logie Baird played a critical role in the invention of TV. And we gave the world Sean Connery
And Adam Smith also.
Since Scotland as a unique civ is out of the window, it makes sense that we should still have our place in civ as part of the greatest empire in the world.
At it's height under George V, the British Empire was the biggest in history. Just surpassing the Mongol empire under Kublai Khan.
WarKirby
I think the mapsize is fine this way.
I play also as Asian Nation (e.g. China) - there i got 3 good and around 1-2 bad city positions. As german i got the same amount of citys ... there isn't that much room, but the Computer Players are a little bit slower, so got Polen and Bosnien.
And to say it again:
It is realistic that Nations like Rome went to war. But not because they have to build up an army. They build an army, because they want to expand ... I just realy hate it, if a player is forced to do something ... then i can play "looking a movie" ...
I play also as Asian Nation (e.g. China) - there i got 3 good and around 1-2 bad city positions. As german i got the same amount of citys ... there isn't that much room, but the Computer Players are a little bit slower, so got Polen and Bosnien.
And to say it again:
It is realistic that Nations like Rome went to war. But not because they have to build up an army. They build an army, because they want to expand ... I just realy hate it, if a player is forced to do something ... then i can play "looking a movie" ...
Spartan117
Immortal
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4581814#post4581814
how about adding some of this to some units(made by the lopez)
multi-building requirements inorder to build units.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=186733 (another by the lopez)
Unit civic Prereqs
this could possibly apply to Zealots or the crusaders in the game already and the mujahadeen
And yet another mod component made by the lopez
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=186731
civics that allow certain buildings to be built.
how about adding some of this to some units(made by the lopez)
multi-building requirements inorder to build units.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=186733 (another by the lopez)
Unit civic Prereqs
this could possibly apply to Zealots or the crusaders in the game already and the mujahadeen
And yet another mod component made by the lopez
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=186731
civics that allow certain buildings to be built.
Spartan117
Immortal
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=176016
^above is Sezerth's Library
what about looking at some of these units. This is a library and some will not go well with realism mod at all(as they are meant for warhammer mod).
However some units can go with the realism mod. The units in there like the arquebus and there are some good archer units as well. They can expand the ethnic units in realism mod.
this is the thread where the arquebus that i am talking about. In the library there is a link leading here.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=175490
^above is Sezerth's Library
what about looking at some of these units. This is a library and some will not go well with realism mod at all(as they are meant for warhammer mod).
However some units can go with the realism mod. The units in there like the arquebus and there are some good archer units as well. They can expand the ethnic units in realism mod.
this is the thread where the arquebus that i am talking about. In the library there is a link leading here.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=175490
Hey guys, I know you have a million other things you are working on, or hopefully even possibly enjoying some time doing your own thing.
But, I was wondering if you could explain if there is any way to make maps/scenarios that are compatilble with TR.
Before you mentioned something about the Worldbuilder not having all the TR resources, or something, I could be completely wrong, but is there any way I would be able to make my own Maps or Scenarios with TR?
I wanted to do some detailed maps of different areas, Europe, North America, etc... And possibly some scenarios basd off those maps, but I want to be able to take full advantage of all the resources/units that TR offers, is this possible?
Thanks again, wish I could help with the programming, I never really learned anything after Basic, and that was over 20 years ago on a Commodore 64!
But, I was wondering if you could explain if there is any way to make maps/scenarios that are compatilble with TR.
Before you mentioned something about the Worldbuilder not having all the TR resources, or something, I could be completely wrong, but is there any way I would be able to make my own Maps or Scenarios with TR?
I wanted to do some detailed maps of different areas, Europe, North America, etc... And possibly some scenarios basd off those maps, but I want to be able to take full advantage of all the resources/units that TR offers, is this possible?
Thanks again, wish I could help with the programming, I never really learned anything after Basic, and that was over 20 years ago on a Commodore 64!
Spartan117
Immortal
JahtheIII said:Hey guys, I know you have a million other things you are working on, or hopefully even possibly enjoying some time doing your own thing.
But, I was wondering if you could explain if there is any way to make maps/scenarios that are compatilble with TR.
Before you mentioned something about the Worldbuilder not having all the TR resources, or something, I could be completely wrong, but is there any way I would be able to make my own Maps or Scenarios with TR?
I wanted to do some detailed maps of different areas, Europe, North America, etc... And possibly some scenarios basd off those maps, but I want to be able to take full advantage of all the resources/units that TR offers, is this possible?
Thanks again, wish I could help with the programming, I never really learned anything after Basic, and that was over 20 years ago on a Commodore 64!
yea there is way, you just add the necessary resources. Note realism mod i think made some changes with health/happiness provided with certain resources. However if you did try you could probably make a scenario.
you can make the map clean and add any particular civs you want. There is a tutorial somewhere. this you cant do in worldbuilder.
I think there is a generally easier way to make changes to the map you have with a utility, but i dont think it was warlords compatible. If it isnt warlords compatible you might have to do the old fashioned way, editing everything in worldbuilder.
Similar threads
