. . . Ideas from the Ultraworld . . .

[Ultraworld]

This is my private thread (responses to ideas are welcome of course ) where i post my ideas.

The most important ideas:

I putted a lot of work in these 2 sites. Please read them
(1) re-trade:

(2) new unit movement model:

(3) Think about TFT users who have to play at a fixed resolution (interpolation gives bad results). Extra zoom level would be good

 

[Ultraworld]

some other ideas

- More fousssed on people instead of buildings.
eg: In the current game scientists are useless (even if you mod the game)
If you want to come up with something revolutionary then you should totally abendon the city-builds-building concept.
Pop up with something else (don't know what) instead.

- Food trade, so cities at bad food locations but at good trade locations can be big too.

- Make it more dynamical. Would the number 1 civ suddenly fell into decay? Is it possible for a civ which start in 140 AD to become #1 after 1500 years? No. It is just an annoying flaw in Civ3.
Currently the strong civs become stronger and the weak civs weaker. (Except at the end of course). Do something about it.

colonies

colonies are great. But they need:
- harbor function, so they can also act as an oversea trade-post. Very cool
- They got absorbed when the borders of a rival civ gots them. That is not fun. They need their own cultural border of radius 0.
However I think that they can, just like cities, flip to the other civ by cultural influence
- If colonies would have a harbor function by default than you can build colonies on seas and ocean squares to collect lux+strat-resources (eg oysters, oil) there the harbor connects them to the trade-network.

- I am surprised to see that combat units do not have ethnicity there workers DO have ethnicity.

- A real taxbar. Not the fake distribution bar of money to science-treasury-hapiness.

 

[Ultraworld]

(*) The science tree/model really needs a huge overhaul.

I also think it is ridiculous to trade science. Science can't be traded. It is better if you would gradually acquire the sciences of other civs if you have diplomatic/trade/war contact with them.

eg: after trading luxery goods over 20 turns you would get a random science from the other civ

A more indepth post from me:

You should be left in the dark about how you could walk through the science tree.

It could work this way. You got scientists/priests working on something. You cant decide what and they just come up with something.
For other sciences you could get them by
(1) having intensive trading contact with other civs
(2) from your neighbours (only if the borders are adjacent)
(3) Stealing. Sending some MarcoPolo guy out.

Example:
Every science has its own science-beakers. So you got science-beakers for gunpowder, for bronze-working etc.
The chinese got gunpowder so by having intensive trading contact with them you should get science-beakers for gunpowder.
If your border is adjacent to the chinese you should also get beakers for it.
Universities and libraries and temples could multiply the beakers.
So you can get gunpowder without doing research

Notice that when YOUR scientist are doing research the beaker story dont hold. They just pop up with something. Again: unies and libraries could help them.



It should be possible to LOSE sciences.
eg by not havong enough people in cities, lack of libraries, lack of scientists (so they are there for keeping current sciences alive and researching new sciences) in the cities.
So your civ can become in decay

(*) A less western centric view on the game.
eg: Those 4 eras are ridiculous



(*) plagues like the pest (disease which killed 1/3 of the european population) got to make it to the game.

 

[Ultraworld]

Originally posted by Headline

Usually in history, a civilization does not build cities on its own. The growth of an empire is usually through the conquest of neighboring city states.

EXACTLY

check this quote of mine:

We need to get rid of the "build city" order. It is just a bit ridiculous.
I mean: let assume you play with a large real world map. How much cities would england (1200 ad) have. Just 2 where there is hardly any place for the scots who have just 1 city (at a bad location).

Instead of that we need only the "build colony" order. Colonies can turn into cities by:
- if a trade flow goes trough it
- lies at a river
- Some good resources are in its location
this are just ideas. not the holy grail

Colonies also need a harbor function by default. Useful for starting oversea trading posts.

How would a new game look:
You start with
- 1 worker *
- 2 colonization settlers *
- 3 warriors
You build 2 colonies at a good location. After that you gonna look for a friendly tribe and you build a road to that. Now your "civ" is connected to the tribe AND trade is abstract => you can trade with them.
As mentioned before due to the trade, good location and probably a river your colony (or maybe the other too) will turn into a city (just a city as in civ1+2+3) and you can just play.

Of course you want to trade expand conquer etc.
But the restriction is that you can't just rush cities and become big. You have to do it by settling colonies and hope that they will flip into a city.



This is alll very realisitc.
Look at Carthage (a phoenician colony) which builded colonies too (in Spain).
The greeks did it.
The romans did it
The english did it.
etc
etc.

Lots of those colonies turned into prosperous cities.


Remark:
There colonies generate a little bit of science => you can start research from the start.
They almost act the same as in Civ3 except that harbor function + they need a cultural radius of radius=0.



* Workers can't build colonies anymore. Settlers act the same as in Civ3 but now they build a colony and their population cost is 1 instead of 2.




<important edit:>
new idea: Rivers should act as a connection for the trade-network too.
eg: If a city or colony lies at a riverbank then it is connected with another city or colony which also lies at a riverbank (of the same river of course).
</important edit:>

 

[Ultraworld]

(1) One of the reasons I play this game is that a little cultivated landscape (especially at the beginnig of a game) looks great. However all those ugly roads spoil my view. Please do something about it.
An solution might be: Roads don't give commerce anymore. This will make roads only usefull for trade and transport of your army => (implicates) less landscape-ruining roads.

(2) Put the tabs in the editor on the left side if necessary. 2 rows of tabs on top of a window is awkward.

 

[Stratofortress]

Originally posted by Ultraworld
(1) One of the reasons I play this game is that a little cultivated landscape (especially at the beginnig of a game) looks great. However all those ugly roads spoil my view. Please do something about it.
An solution might be: Roads don't give commerce anymore. This will make roads only usefull for trade and transport of your army => (implicates) less landscape-ruining roads.

Exactly, something needs to be done about the road system. When you would not have all the map filled with roads, it would make the strategic bombing more interesting because you would need to take out only one road leading somewhere, not like now when there is map filled with roads.

 

[Terrinix]

Originally posted by Ultraworld

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Headline

Usually in history, a civilization does not build cities on its own. The growth of an empire is usually through the conquest of neighboring city states.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




EXACTLY

check this quote of mine:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We need to get rid of the "build city" order. It is just a bit ridiculous.
I mean: let assume you play with a large real world map. How much cities would england (1200 ad) have. Just 2 where there is hardly any place for the scots who have just 1 city (at a bad location).

Instead of that we need only the "build colony" order. Colonies can turn into cities by:
- if a trade flow goes trough it
- lies at a river
- Some good resources are in its location
this are just ideas. not the holy grail

Colonies also need a harbor function by default. Useful for starting oversea trading posts.

How would a new game look:
You start with
- 1 worker *
- 2 colonization settlers *
- 3 warriors
You build 2 colonies at a good location. After that you gonna look for a friendly tribe and you build a road to that. Now your "civ" is connected to the tribe AND trade is abstract => you can trade with them.
As mentioned before due to the trade, good location and probably a river your colony (or maybe the other too) will turn into a city (just a city as in civ1+2+3) and you can just play.

Of course you want to trade expand conquer etc.
But the restriction is that you can't just rush cities and become big. You have to do it by settling colonies and hope that they will flip into a city.



This is alll very realisitc.
Look at Carthage (a phoenician colony) which builded colonies too (in Spain).
The greeks did it.
The romans did it
The english did it.
etc
etc.

Lots of those colonies turned into prosperous cities.


Remark:
There colonies generate a little bit of science => you can start research from the start.
They almost act the same as in Civ3 except that harbor function + they need a cultural radius of radius=0.



* Workers can't build colonies anymore. Settlers act the same as in Civ3 but now they build a colony and their population cost is 1 instead of 2.

No offence, but I hate the idea of getting rid of cities. Sure cities were conquered, but they were also founded.

 

[Ultraworld]

No offence, but I hate the idea of getting rid of cities. Sure cities were conquered, but they were also founded.

We don't get rid of cities. We get rid of city-building.
Cities are rarely founded. The story about Rome is a fable.
Most cities evolved out of
- colonies,
- army camps,
- very small settlements which grew cause of a good trade location

 

[Evie]

A small city (size 1-2) *is* essentialy a colony or very small settlement. Larger cities grow out of them if they are in proper location (ie, access to good terrain, etc)

Therefore there's no change needed - the system you advocate is already in the game, and has always been. It's just the addition of the "colony" terrain improvement in C3 (which was never in C2 and C1) that throw the confusion spin in. I think the "Gathering camp" term would be more appropriate to represent what those improvements do, while colonies generally were anything BUT simple ressource gathering camps - they were often trade ports on foreign coasts, somethign the present colonies patentedly fail to be on all count.

Thus, no need for your idea.

Either rename the colonies (as I suggest, Ressource GAthering camp) or else cut them out entirely. Rename "town" to "colony" if you really want to, and voila. You have your system where you build colonies that evolves in cities eventually, the game still work the same as it always has, and everyone is happy (because the players still keep a sane amount of control over their game ; ie they don't have to try to guess which location will be best for a colony terrain improvement to become a city).

 

[Ultraworld]

@Oda Nobunaga: I know but I got sick of the predictible city management of those small cities:
- dealing with unhappy citizens
- managing the worers on the land
- building the same stuff everytime: "Building a wall! What is next? A marketplace. What else do we need? A temple!! "
- etc

but . . . why did they introduced colonies after all? You just told me that we actually don't need them.

 

[Evie]

To grab strategic and luxury ressources outside your border without building a city.

Problem is, with the civ engine city-building is probably always the most efficent answer anyway as colonies blow up the second cultural borders of either side get close to them and so forth. (I've had some luck by forbidding city-building in tundra and desert thus forcing on large earth map colonies to be used in the sahara and such, but meh).

 

[Ultraworld]

To grab strategic and luxury ressources outside your border without building a city.

but you could do that by building a city.

 

[Evie]

Exactly my point when I said colonies are useless in Civ III.

 

[FrenchElvisl]

I pretty much agree. Even in around 3000 BC or so when the first civilization ever, Sumer, was being formed, there were small villages everywhere. In the beginning every villiage was governed on its own, but was later taken over by the more powerful cities and that is how civilizations evolved. It's not like the world started with 12 cities and then from those 12 cities new lands were settled.

Here is my idea for a more realistic approach. At the beginning of the game, the world is covered with villiages, each belonging to a different tribe. Once they get to size 3 or more they can be called cities or whatever. Some will be in the middle of deserts and Tundra and wont ammount to much, others will grow faster and be able to conquer surrounding cities more easily. Once you get around 6 or so cities, you become a full-fledged "civilization." That would be more realistic.

 

[Evie]

Except not. Many regions of the world were settled by foreigners coming in and building their own cities there. America (although the people there had to be wiped out first) is the foremost example, but the Greeks and Phoenicians both had numerous colonies across the mediteranean which weren't "conquered natives villages" as well.

 

[FrenchElvisl]

Obviously some cities would have to be colonies. I'm saying there needs to be a middle-ground. The way it is now is so unrealistic that almost any other way would be better.

Current Scenario (12 civ game):
12 civs start spread fairly evenly across the globe, all found their cities on the same date. They grow outward until their borders meet and then war ensues

In The Real World:
By the dawn of "civilization" there are already villages scattered all over the world. Most are remote in that they don't have many dependancies on other villages. Growth in some villages leads to power, and expansion happens from conquering neighboring villages. Colonizations also happen, but not to a comparable extent, and usually among existing people.

 

[Evie]

And I'm saying you exxagerate.

Is it unrealistic to have civilizations sending their settlers to create new cities across the world?

No, in absolutely no way. The Greeks did it (Massilia, Syracuse, Alexandria), the French did it (Montréal, Québec, etc), the English did it (Boston, etc), the Dutch did it (New Amsterdam/York anyone?), the Americans did it (Just about ever city west of the coast) and so forth.

Is it unrealistic to have every civilization start the game (and thus get their first city) at the same time?

Yes, but game balance *requires* it that way. Otherwise the civ starting first would have way too much of an advantage - a ten-turn led in science et al is *not* a good thing to give anyone right at the start of the game.

Overall, for a GAME (and not an history book, which civilization is not), the village system is far too luck-dependant, far too much based on taking power away from the players (ie, you cannot decide where to put your cities much anymore), etc.

The settlers system, while it can be improved, is much better for a game (and balance within the game) than your proposed villages system.

Now if you want to argue for a system where, say, a barbarian camp which has one of its units (ie, the unit it built) succesfully ransack a city become a barbarian city (that can be captured, but which has access to better units based on the tech level of the civ it razed), that I can go with - it represents the fact that not all cities were built by major powers, as do the "we have found a city" in goody huts.

 

[FrenchElvisl]

Good Points. I really actually like the way the game is now, it's just not very realistic. But games can hardly be realistic in favor of playability and balance. I think of the game as it is a a "what if" scenario. What if we took a handful of countries from different eras and had them all start together at the same time?

Wouldn't it be cool if the Barbs could found cities?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think part of the problem is that certain terrain improvements (like colonies, outposts and forts) should actually impose a cultural border if they are protected by your military. This way, the only way for a neighbour to destroy your claim to that piece of land would be to conquer it-or purchase it from you. As an added effect, perhaps these improvements should have a max. no. of troops that you can station there. So a colony might have 2, an outpost 3 and a fort 4. For each unit you station, you expand the border out by 1 hex, in each direction (note HEX, not square !). This way, you have a temporary way of holding on to territory near an enemy border, which doesn't cost you 2 population points! Of course, you would still be better off eventually building a town there, 'cause your borders won't grow any greater than 4!
This brings me to another point. Though I like the connection between culture and borders, this should NOT be the whole story. THe system I mentioned above opens the possibility of 'Annexation', but it should also be possible to sell, trade or demand land within diplomacy. A simple click and point system, on a minimap of your controlled territories, would allow you to highlight the areas you want to claim and, once you've done that, you can go to the table and tell them WHAT you want for it!
Another way to claim land, that I have considered, is explorers. Perhaps an explorer can actually have a 'Claim Land' or 'Plant Flag' mission. This will create a 2x2 (or 3x3) culture border centered on the explorer. As long as the explorer, or a military unit, remains within that border, then it cannot be subsumed by another party (of course, killing the explorer or a defending unit will make it revert to neutral). Such claims will be recognised by allies, however, and you would be able to sell it as THOUGH it was yours (though other civs might dispute your right to do so )!

EDIT: Another, more simple possibility, is to give the explorer the Build 'Colony', 'Outpost' and 'Fortress' terraforming missions.

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rcoutme]

I like Aussie_Lurker's suggestions of holding land by military and other means. I definately believe that forts should set borders in stone (so to speak) unless nearby cities culture flip. I hate it when I create a fortress and then the neighboring civ gets to have it due to his border expanding into what was once my territory.

I think that forts, outposts, etc. should have a high resistance to culture creep unless totally unguarded. Ditto with colonies.

At this point, the only reason I ever establish a colony is if I want the resource early and it is near one of my cities which is not producing any culture yet.