Ideas for C2C

raxo2222 said:
Well electricity also wasn't thing until recently.

Game up until renaissance would be building solid base (Natural phase), then stuff like energy, environment and equality will matter in Industrial and later eras.
Industrial - Information era would be Technological phase and Nanotech+ later would be Space phase.
I guess period between scientific revolution and space colonization could be interesting on its own way.

Game mechanics can gain and lose importance - we have 13 eras, each could be its own game.
Click to expand...

It can be argued that not even today do governments care about equality. Some may do, but only to the extent as to acquire easy points during election cycles.
 
Dancing Hoskuld said:
We have also discussed this as being part of the housing system, making housing much more visible and having it affect more things. One far fetched idea was to limit the number and type of military units that could be built and supported by a city based on the housing.
Click to expand...
Housing would definitely interact well with a wealth inequality property. We might need to make it something you have to build rather than autobuilt and possibly have to maintain enough housing for the proper population balance. It's worthy of further consideration (though limiting the number and type of military units on this or anything else sounds like it would create a horrible interaction with AI code the way it currently assumes it can always build 'enough' units to get a stack up to a randomly variable but specified point before activating that stack.)
 
BackseatTyrant said:
It can be argued that not even today do governments care about equality. Some may do, but only to the extent as to acquire easy points during election cycles.
Click to expand...
I'd say it's usually a matter of how well the government is structured to resist corruption. It's very healthy to the economy to have economic balance (and some nations do care, Australia is great example) but the more oligarchs start to pay for policy and pull strings, the more they find ways to tip the scales in their favor and the more the system suffers.
 
Thunderbrd said:
Housing would definitely interact well with a wealth inequality property. We might need to make it something you have to build rather than autobuilt and possibly have to maintain enough housing for the proper population balance. It's worthy of further consideration (though limiting the number and type of military units on this or anything else sounds like it would create a horrible interaction with AI code the way it currently assumes it can always build 'enough' units to get a stack up to a randomly variable but specified point before activating that stack.)
Click to expand...
I was thinking along the lines of the auto builds being changed to the quality of housing that you can have but it all boils down to the fact that you can only build one and the game assumes that one scales with your population.

If everyone has the same limits then the stacks they are aiming for should be much smaller anyway. As I said it was a far fetched idea. Really it is the amount of food you have that is the major limit on your army size.
 
Dancing Hoskuld said:
I was thinking along the lines of the auto builds being changed to the quality of housing that you can have but it all boils down to the fact that you can only build one and the game assumes that one scales with your population.

If everyone has the same limits then the stacks they are aiming for should be much smaller anyway. As I said it was a far fetched idea. Really it is the amount of food you have that is the major limit on your army size.
Click to expand...
I did suggest a food upkeep mod a while back that I'm still interested in doing. We might actually be able to use a housing property and O&A to do some interesting stuff with levels of housing, or design multiple layers of housing volume for each econ demographic. More to consider and as we know, we've got a LOT of projects to tackle ;)
 
The fact that the transition periods between civic changes are called "Anarchy!" breaks my heart. Is it possible to name it something else like Turbulent Transition or Anocracy?
 
It's been Anarchy since the days of Civ I and it's within the definition of the word. Why is this a matter of heartbreak? Revolution would also be a reasonable label (although it seems like a case of change for the sake of change), but "Turbulent Transition" would appear to downplay an episode which lasts for a number of turns (which translates to approximately 30 years at the time of my current game, in the early Renaissance). "Anocracy", on the other hand, is actually an incorrect usage: according to the Cambridge dictionary, anocracy is "A government type which has is an inconsistent combination of democratic and autocratic elements" (which leads to instability and disorder), while anarchy is "A society or a system where there is no organization or control since there is no effective government" - a fairly close (although not completely accurate) approximation of the in-game phenomenon under consideration.

Overall, I'd say leave it be. There are more important issues to occupy the team's time.
 
BackseatTyrant said:
The fact that the transition periods between civic changes are called "Anarchy!" breaks my heart. Is it possible to name it something else like Turbulent Transition or Anocracy?
Click to expand...
There seems to be a distinction between Anarchy and Anarchism, from what I've seen in usage of the words.

Anarchy = Failure of a governmental or social order to set up.
Anarchism = An intricate philosophy advocating a society with no state.
 
CreativeCaprine said:
There seems to be a distinction between Anarchy and Anarchism, from what I've seen in usage of the words.

Anarchy = Failure of a governmental or social order to set up.
Anarchism = An intricate philosophy advocating a society with no state.
Click to expand...

It's a little more intricate than "no state", it's more accurate to say "no coercive authorities"
 
Dancing Hoskuld said:
:lol:The majority of Anarchism "states" I have seen discussed are all about coercion and by extension authorities!
Click to expand...
No matter, building an anarchistic society should be entirely possible in C2C. Though I somewhat feels anarchism isn't properly fleshed out. It's basically a civic with only a few effects, all negative. That's not much incentive to return to it, unless for pure roleplay.
 
CreativeCaprine said:
No matter, building an anarchistic society should be entirely possible in C2C. Though I somewhat feels anarchism isn't properly fleshed out. It's basically a civic with only a few effects, all negative. That's not much incentive to return to it, unless for pure roleplay.
Click to expand...
Let's be honest. IF it ever really worked, it might be a great way for individual people in that society to live, but very little would get done, so it's not the best of selections for a competitive government to operate under. It would also be rife with people taking advantage of the lack of authoritative oversight to screw over everyone they can. It's truly amazing the massive variety of schemes that have been invented to take advantage of others. Seems to be what many people are best at.
 
Thunderbrd said:
Not sure what its saying about your point exactly but i agree with both.
Click to expand...
Well - even in early times when we were a lot like chimps it wasn't necessarily the strongest who became alpha - which should be obvious, considering that humans are a lot weaker than chimps while having several times their brain size.

Something must have produced a runaway effect to support larger and larger brains, even though they consume a lot of energy. Something that makes it worth it with respect to evolution. And since it's mostly the alpha who gets to have children ...
 
Larger brains are more capable of navigating any kind of difficulty, even rather physical ones. Also, sure a larger brain is more energy consuming but I think those with more of a physical might focus consume yet more energy. Humans have always had to diversify into differing benefits they personally bring to the community to be as strong together as possible. A smart ape or a strong ape alone is not nearly as powerful as they are together - in such a case the 1+1 = 3 because they play on their individual strengths to make the group stronger.
 
Thunderbrd said:
It's truly amazing the massive variety of schemes that have been invented to take advantage of others. Seems to be what many people are best at.
Click to expand...

That's how we got governments and capitalism in the first place, though I think it has more to do with the advent of agriculture than the nature of the human brain
 
It's impossible to simulate anarchism in any type of strategy game as it removes player agency, and it's not very fun having a game that you do nothing beyond observing like it's a simulation while it's AI does all the motions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Praetyre
Praetyre's C2C Building Suggestion & Development Thread
Replies
3
Views
1K
Praetyre
Praetyre
hokath
Enlightenment Era for VP (4.22)
2 3
Replies
59
Views
7K
hokath
hokath
H
(WIP) Hinin's France - Louis XIV for Vox Populi
2
Replies
24
Views
5K
tongfar
T
A
  • Locked
(8-02a) 4UC Arabia: Numbers Nerf and A Different UU2
Replies
16
Views
1K
Recursive
Recursive
Legen
  • Locked
(8-24c) 4UC Japan - Changes To Base Components, New Tatara UB (Dojo Replacement)
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
Recursive
Recursive
Back
Top Bottom