Gradual Transitions

[Khan Quest]

Gradual Transitions

A while back, I suggested an idea about a gradual recovery from anarchy when changing governments, which I thought was pretty good. <Khan pats self on back>. I also submitted an idea to have gradual change in City Improvement benefits, depending on how much you spent, which I thought was lame even as I wrote it. There are other features in Civ that could benefit from gradual changes.

Anarchy recovery revisited
Repost:
I'd like to see a change in the anarchy that follows a government change. Rather than several turns of complete anarchy, then your civ is abruptly up and running at full speed, make the transition gradual. There would be a couple of turns of anarchy, followed by a couple of turns where a maximum of 1 sield & 1 trade could be gleaned from a worked tile, then a couple of turns with a 2 & 2 maximum, etc. The capital city and Forbidden Palace city would recover first then core cities, then outlying cities and finally remote cities.The furthest cities may not go into full anarchy at all, especially those on another continent, but would take longer to recover.

An alternative to this could be X number of citizens/City/Turn can work tiles as the government recovers. For example, it could be 3 for a standard civ, 4 if some percentage of the citizens are happy, and 6 for religious civs.

City Improvements (Again, and hopefully better)
When a city improvement is ½ way or more paid for, you get half the benefit. A half built library will give you 25% science and 2 culture. Changing projects mid-course would remove the benefit, of course, but would also anger citizens who were benefiting from the improvement (adds to a city’s unhappiness as “cruel oppression” would.) This could also be divided into thirds or quarters.

Resource discovery
This has been suggested before, but I think not in this way.
When researching a technology that would reveal a strategic resource, locations of the resource could appear as the research progresses. With 25% of the tech researched, the resource would be revealed only on worked tile within your cultural boundaries. At 50%, all locations of the resource would appear within your cultural boundaries, and those on explored, roaded tiles in unclaimed territory. At 75% of the tech researched, all locations in explored, unclaimed land. At 100%, all locations are revealed, as in civ III.

Prototype units
As a new technology is being researched that would permit a new military unit, prototypes of that unit could be built. The proto-unit would be weaker, but cost the same.

Example: As Military Tradition is being researched proto-Cavalry could be produced, at the standard cost of 80 shields. 1/3 through the research 5/3/2 proto-I-Cavalry could be built. At 2/3, proto-II-Cavalry are 5/3/3. The upgrade cost for a proto-I-Cavalry to a standard Calvary should be the same as a knight upgrade, and half that for upgrading proto-II-Cavalry.

Some units don’t lend themselves to proto-units, such as medieval infantry and pike men. Other examples: Swordsman 2.1.1, 2.2.1; Long bowman 3.1(1).1, 3.1(2).1.

Proto UUs should not be allowed.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Mostly good ideas Khan. I think that whether you have anarchy at all in your nation, and how quickly said nation recovers, would depend on a number of city-specific and nation-wide factors-such as presence of foreign citizens, the happiness and wealth of your cities, presence of troops and the government you change from and into (same with religion). The most certain cause of anarchy, however, would be to refuse to change to a government the people demand of you. Anarchy could also result from your adjustment of the social engineering settings.
As for resources, I think that techs should not determine resource discovery (though it should help). Discovery of a resource should depend on its size, scarcity, presence of nearby cities, presence of terrain improvements and active prospecting attempts. Knowing the tech for the use of that resource would, of course, give a MASSIVE boost to chance of discovery of said resource, but it should be possible to discover uraniam, for instance, LONG before you know about atomic fission (though it should be hard). Not only that, but the size of the uranium deposit you find would give a bonus to obtaining techs like atomic theory and atomic fission!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

I had a crazy idea a while back that I never mentioned... because it was crazy.

But the idea was for a revolution to be much more of a fresh start. If I make a switch from monarchy to democracy, suddenly I'd take a small portion of France and be launched into a 7 turn mini-game of civil war to conquer the remainder of France. The more you can occupy by the end of that period, the more will be considered part of your France, while the remainder would become a new civilization -- even if that was only one or two cities (which you could conquer shortly after).

If anyone tried to interfere in the midst of this civil war, they might be able to steal away a city or two in this moment of vulnerability. But I'd also envision a model of Civ where domestic issues were more important: that the authenticity and quality of the regime would be just as important as the speed and strength at which it dominates. Thus, having a foreign actor interfering in a civil war would only serve to authenticate your revolution, making people more supportive of it. "Yes, absolutely, we need to rally behind the strength of the revolution or else be crushed by the Germans!"

Anyway, just my small contribution.

I also like the idea of gradual benefits from gradually building an improvement, instead of the "accumulate shields until you reach the requirement" model. At the very least, it's an interesting proposition. It has a lot of merits.

 

[Trade-peror]

What an interesting direction this thread is going in! The idea of a revolution in which the new government must start from scratch in terms of territories actually under that form of government is novel and really has some of my thoughts going...

As far as the UET II goes, however, requiring a military reconquest with the establishment of each new government would be far too chaotic and damaging to the civ. I am thinking of somehow linking culture to this concept of non-automatic jurisdiction of the new government over the entire civ. Perhaps the Palace should be the center of the revolution, and the culture of the capital city (or core centers around the Palace) should somehow make a difference...?

 

[Jon Shafer]

DH, I actually like that idea... though it does force people into war every game - whether or not that might be a problem is not for me to judge.

 

[dh_epic]

Haha, man, I'm sometimes pegged as one of the biggest advocates of more peaceful, "builder" options for victory, always complaining that Civ is too warlike. And yet here I am advocating a mandatory war in revolution. Why would I be advocating that?

Because history is that much fun and that interesting. I'm no historian -- I studied computer science at University and specialized in HCI, and had no elective courses and took an extra year to get a second degree in AI. I struggled to get a B- in high school history. And yet I loved it, found it really interesting, and I read 5 books on history in the past year (my New Years Resolution for 2004).

History isn't just full of "Greece faught Persia" and "Germany faught France" and "China faught Japan". Many of the struggles and triumphs are internal. "Nationalism was born in France and spread throughout Europe." Or "Nationalism reached some members of the Ottoman empire on the shores of the Medditerranean, prompting them to declare 'we're not Ottomans... we're GREEKS.'" Or "The Rennaissance was a cultural boom for Europe, with a rediscovery of classical scientific principals and a rapid generation of religious-inspired culture."

I remember playing the original Civilization more than 10 years ago when a friend introduced it to me. It captured my imagination from the get go, and in some ways my imagination made it a better and more interesting game than it actually was. But the game, to me, was about those internal triumphs of a Nation even though very few of them were implemented.

The French Revolution, the American Revolution, even Revolutions all over Latin America and South-East Asia -- they're huge historical moments, and each was either successful or a failure depending on their execution. To trivialize these events is to actually miss a huge opportunity to provide a fun challenge to the player. To say that these events need to stay trivial otherwise the game would be too complex, and then argue that lowering your science slider down on the last turn of every discovery is an important strategy -- that's baffling.

 

[Khan Quest]

dh, excellent idea! Perhaps how happy the populace is, the percentage of foreign citizens and the amount of "french" culture would determine the number and type of defenders in the lost cities.

Like you, I didn't like history in grade school, except I was more toward C-. In college (after 6 years in tne Navy) I took Ancient Civilizations and Ancient Literature and loved it. I enjoy all sorts of history now, but married with children (and playing too much civ), I don't have enough time to read all these posts, let alone books. I do get a lot of books on tape for the long silicon valley comute. I got my BSEE, but mostly write code.

Keep up the good ideas.

 

[dh_epic]

To me, you're not doing much during your 7 turns of anarchy anyway. It's an opportunity to give the player something fun to do, and the game can actually be quite easy (on most difficulty levels).

Nor does it have to take the form of a standard war: for example, it could be like a game of tic tac toe othello for all I really care.

You start with a few rebel tokens, and there are a few status quo tokens. At the end of the 7 turn period, you end up with 50% of your empire even if you're a moron. And 99-100% if you're brilliant (not to mention that last 1% could be taken in the very next turn).

Revolution can be fun!

 

[Khan Quest]

IBut the idea was for a revolution to be much more of a fresh start. If I make a switch from monarchy to democracy, suddenly I'd take a small portion of France and be launched into a 7 turn mini-game of civil war to conquer the remainder of France. The more you can occupy by the end of that period, the more will be considered part of your France, while the remainder would become a new civilization -- even if that was only one or two cities (which you could conquer shortly after).

What happens with religious civs?

Cities re-gained with this method should not lose their cultural improvements, nor should the new civ be devoid of any. When the dust has settled, all the cultural improvements should be retained by each civ (except those lost incidentally through battle damage) with the original build dates.

This got me thinking of the exportable culture suggestion (I hope this idea wasn’t posted in it).
Cultural improvements should not be automatically destroyed when a city is captured. These buildings in a captured city would have color markings of the foreign civ.

They would still function producing science, happiness and foreign culture, though maybe not all full strength. Certainly the rate of culture production ought to be decreased. The culture aspect of the improvements may be suppressed with a combination of money and military presence. The ratio and amount necessary would vary with government types, as well as how much is to be suppressed.

Purposefully destroying these would cause the same type of rep hit as razing a city, as well as local unhappiness. Even so, some foreign culture should remain.

New “replacement” improvements may be built, in effect destroying the original improvements, but without the rep hit.

One more side note. I think policing a city (or suppressing culture) should be counted as an “attack”. You shouldn’t be able to attack with a unit and police with the same unit in the same turn. Quelling resisters should still be ok due to the typically violent nature of the act.

 

[North King]

Maybe a revolution can be more easily done if there is more happiness within the various instiutions, and there can be ways of gradually reforming, like the change between a and a Constitutional Monarchy should only start a revolution if there is great happiness within the current government. A republic and a Democracy shouldn't have that much negative effect, either. But extreme government changes SHOULD have a rebellion, and even cooler is if the number and placement of rebelling cities depends on the happiness of the city.

Of course, happiness needs to be reformed as well...

 

[dh_epic]

I absolutely think that religion should play a strong role in making revolution more of a shift in moral focus than a destroy/rebuild type thing. In other words, avoiding many turns of anarchy seems very reasonable to me.

I also agree that there should be more complexity when you capture a city altogether. I wouldn't see a revolution as a war proper -- more of a light version of war compressed into a 7 turn mini-game. But still, the idea that you can decide how harshly or how graciously to treat your new subjects seems like a very important decision. Esepcially when you factor in some of the stuff about cultural difference -- that sometimes you really need to whip those people into shape to embrace your way of life.