New Civs [Suggestion/Request]

[ezzlar]

Surely discussed earlier but: American native independent cities. Not just barbarian pops. The English did actually slaughter the camps.

 

[Leoreth]

Lately I've been thinking about retooling goody huts to represent native settlements.

 

[The Diocletian]

You never stop, do you?

 

[Leoreth]

Thinking? No.

 

[The Diocletian]

In the sense of development of the mod?

 

[Leoreth]

Sure. That's basically my brain running idle.

 

[DC123456789]

Lately I've been thinking about retooling goody huts to represent native settlements.

What about the camp-like feature that merijn_v1 suggested a while ago? I think that would probably be the best way to represent the Aboriginals.

 

[Leoreth]

I wanted to use them as spawn hubs for barbarian units, and as a means to create slaves if you're running slavery. They would respawn in territory that isn't culture covered. Maybe there is also still the possibility of them giving gold or something which would represent negotiation with the natives.

This would of course mean that the old random bonus mechanic has to be removed, but frankly that has never been particularly realistic.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

I wanted to use them as spawn hubs for barbarian units, and as a means to create slaves if you're running slavery. They would respawn in territory that isn't culture covered. Maybe there is also still the possibility of them giving gold or something which would represent negotiation with the natives.

This would of course mean that the old random bonus mechanic has to be removed, but frankly that has never been particularly realistic.

Farewell to free Astro from goodie huts.

 

[mrrandomplayer]

Like the barbarian encampments in civ 3?

 

[Leoreth]

Haven't played Civ3.

 

[The Diocletian]

Thought I was the only one.

 

[citis]

Spoiler :

Haven't played Civ3.

 

[The Diocletian]

Eh, from what I've seen III had it's fair share of problems.

 

[Depravo]

Eh, from what I've seen III had it's fair share of problems.

I still play Civ 4 and SMAC as well as a knockoff of the original Colonization, whereas I haven't even thought about III since the day IV was released.

 

[citis]

Civ III had two kinds of tribals. IIRC "Goody huts" and "camps". Goody huts worked the same way they work in civ4. Camps were protected by a single unit (like late unexplored goody huts in ordinary civ4) and produced barbarians that attacked your cities. If you conquered any camp, it was destroyed. However, barbarians didn't control any cities, when they conquered one city, they pillaged it, IIRC they enslaved some population, you losed some gold, production, maybe buildings in that city, but the next turn it was still yours.

Man, you remembered me many things about civ3 mechanics...

Spoiler :

Other interesting facts from civ III included posts and airports. Posts were fort-like improvements that gave you visibility but consumed the worker that built the post. However, this protected the visible area from barbarian camp appearance. On the other hand, forts weren't able to carry air-units, only airports could.
Finally, the most interesting according to me was the respawning. If you conquered a civ, it could respawn again! I don't know what kind of system Firaxis used.

Moreover, instead of open-borders there was a double "right of passage agreement". It was possible to give a civ the right of passage without be given it back. However, you were able to move in any land without declaring war. It gets even worse. When a "right of passage" agreement was cancelled your units weren't expelled, so you could open border a rival, move your troops by his cities and capture him next turn.

You couldn't move your units in already occupied tiles. That's why AI prefer to defend their cities with units. It was a system to protect AIs from player abuse in civ3

You could cancel any agreement whenever you wanted. For example, you could trade a peace treaty and continue the war .

Overlaping city radiuses wasn't a problem. A common tile could be worked by either city.

Workers and settlers were trained exclusively by hammers. But, when a worker was finished the city lose one population. When a settler was finished the city losed two populations. Moreover, workers and settlers could join cities (add one population). When you captured foerign workers or settlers (which were converted to workers), the workers kept their nationality, even when they joined cities, and could be traded as "release my people" in peace treaty negociations.

In the industrial era, polution was created by unhealthiness and some tiles converted into unworkable from polution. It worked the same way "fallout" feature works. You should send your workers to srumb poluted tiles.

Oil resources were exhausted.

There was only one category of civics.

You could convert the production, and overflaws were lost...

Expansion was never penalised. On the contrary you should expand as much as possible if you wanted to survive...

 

[apenpaap]

Well, expansion was penalised, by corruption&waste, it was just done in awkward and annoying ways. Rather than the new city costing you a certain sum of money from your treasury each turn, instead that sum was distracted from the money and production the city created. So until your city reached a certain threshold, it just didn't do anything. Especially the production loss was incredibly annoying from what I remember.

 

[mrrandomplayer]

Eh, from what I've seen III had it's fair share of problems.

Hell yeah. Corruption and maintenance was WAAAAAAAY overboard.

 

[Depravo]

Hell yeah. Corruption and maintenance was WAAAAAAAY overboard.

Waaay overboard, and yet not enough to prevent ICS. Awful decision.

On the other hand, we have III to thank for the introduction of strategic resources and culture - it's hard to imagine Civ without them now.

 

[The Diocletian]

Pretty much every sequel was a step forward.

coughciv5cough