Realistic Approach Institute
- Thread starter Kriku
- Start date
I'd join, but I can't find how to. Perhaps I'm an idiot, but every way that I can reach that group page has no link by which I can actually join the group.
Since I couldn't join, I started jotting down some notes I had. Since I can't post them in the group, I'm just gonna toss some down here. First, about modeling freedom fighters in the game:
----
I think that the game needs to have an addition of partisans (freedom fighters, insurrectionists, whatever) that fight against usurpers. Instances like the IRA show very clearly that, even long after a country has been conquered, it can continue to have partisans spawn.
In reality, partisans come about for extremely complex reasons, but this is a game and thus demands reliable, simple rules for insurgencies. To make this practical, I'd say that each city should have an insurgency rating, a value which can be used by a completely separate formula to determine how partisans spawn.
So, these are my initial ideas for how insurgency is caused, along with some very rough ideas of how they would affect the insurgency rating:
1) Culture: A nation with a more vibrant culture has an easier time reducing insurrections. A nation with a more vibrant culture is more likely to cause insurrections once it is conquered. The insurgency rating from this is equal to the conqueror's culture minus the conqueree's culture.
2) Social Differences: When a nation with a drastically different form of governance invades and sets up its own regime, the result is that more people are angry. My initial idea is something along the lines of +1 insurgency rating for each social policy that the invaders have that the victims did not have, +2 insurgency rating for each social policy that the victims had that the invaders do not have, and all these values are tripled if they involve one civ going down a tree that the other civ's social policies are diametrically opposed to (liberty/autocracy).
3) Puppet Regimes: If the locals are given some power, as in a puppet regime, they are a little less violent in their revolt. So, if a puppet regime is set up, the total insurgency rating is reduced by half. On the other hand, as the puppet regime stays in power the people are constantly reminded that they're not even really a part of the nation that rules over them. As such, the rate of decay of insurgency scores are reduced by half.
4) Reputation of the Invaders: If the invaders make a habit of conquering nations, they are more reviled. So, each nation, as it expands, generates a bad reputation. Say, +1 bad reputation for each size of each city conquered, an additional +1 per size if that city is annexed, an additional +5 if a city-state is conquered, and an additional +10 if an entire nation is conquered. Then, each turn the bad reputation decays by 1 point, so a warmonger will have more problems with partisans than a relatively peaceful nation that only rarely invades someone. The "bad reputation" score is just flat-out added to the insurgency rating of each city.
5) Other Cities with Insurgency: A lone city is less likely to have a rebellion than a network of cities that all want to fight back. Each additional city adds +2 insurgency rating, or +5 if they are connected by a road (mayhaps always +5 after radio?). If those other rebellious cities are of the same original nation, this effect is doubled.
6) The Motherland: This is a more complex issue. If the city's original empire is still at war with the conquerors, the insurgency feeds on that for strength, so that gives +5 insurgency rating. On the other hand, if they're now at peace, malcontents and emmigrate, so that gives -10 insurgency. In some ways worst of all is if the motherland no longer exists at all. The people aren't more likely to rise up at any given time, but they are more likely to stay angry, so that reduces the rate of insurgency-rating decay by half.
7) Time Since Conquest: The longer it's been, the less likely a rebellion is to occur.
8) Foreign Trade: Nations that traditionally had good trade relations are less likely to have issues after conquest, but there's no foreign trade system, so this can't be considered yet.
9) Past Uprisings: For an insurgency to reach the scale that produces an active army is difficult. Once an army forms, there aren't likely to be enough people to form another very soon. When there's an uprising, there's a sudden -15 to the insurgency rating that decays by 3 per turn.
10) Initial Uprisings: Immediately following conquest, the odds of insurgents in the hills are much, much higher. To start with, there's a +30 insurgency rating, decreasing by 6 per turn over the first five turns after conquest.
Or, in short form:
---- Checking If an Insurrection Happens ----
Each turn, a check is made for every city that still has an insurrection chance. The insurrection rating is multiplied by a roll between 1 and 10 and divided by 5000. If the resulting portion of the city's population is greater than 1, enough malcontents came together to form an insurrectionist army.
So, if the roll was a 7 for a city of size 10 with an insurrection chance of 105, the result would be 14.7% of the city, or 1.5 population. That's greater than 1, so an army of some sort does spawn.
When an insurrectionist army spawns, it's a somewhat rag-tag group. Whatever the resulting total of the insurrectionists is, it is that portion of total health of the insurrectionists. So, with the previous 1.5 pop, that's 15 hit points of a unit. No unit spawns above 8 hit points, and if more than one unit spawns, they're complimentary, while if only one spawns, they're an infantry force. So, that 1.5 would spawn an infantry unit at 8 hp and a ranged unit at 7 hp.
---- How Insurrections are Conveyed in the Game ----
When an uprising happens, an army of insurgents will begin working towards the reclamation of their home city. The army will spawn at a random location around the city and immediately flee to rough terrain to form a camp from which to raid the city. The insurgents go to an optimal base location and form an insurgeny base that functions a lot like a barbarian camp.
The insurgent base will then begin spawning insurgents, which are like barbarian units that only try to fight one specific enemy. They won't attack the city unless they have a decent chance of winning, but they will pillage the countryside and try to improve their power. They will, as possible, take strategic resources.
For the sake of game balance, insurgents won't be worth much if killed swiftly. Otherwise, it might be economical to just let them spawn, and that would be a bad system. So, on turn 1, insurgents are worth 0% of regular experience. That increases by 33% each turn, so on turn 4 they're worth normal XP.
Since I couldn't join, I started jotting down some notes I had. Since I can't post them in the group, I'm just gonna toss some down here. First, about modeling freedom fighters in the game:
----
I think that the game needs to have an addition of partisans (freedom fighters, insurrectionists, whatever) that fight against usurpers. Instances like the IRA show very clearly that, even long after a country has been conquered, it can continue to have partisans spawn.
In reality, partisans come about for extremely complex reasons, but this is a game and thus demands reliable, simple rules for insurgencies. To make this practical, I'd say that each city should have an insurgency rating, a value which can be used by a completely separate formula to determine how partisans spawn.
So, these are my initial ideas for how insurgency is caused, along with some very rough ideas of how they would affect the insurgency rating:
1) Culture: A nation with a more vibrant culture has an easier time reducing insurrections. A nation with a more vibrant culture is more likely to cause insurrections once it is conquered. The insurgency rating from this is equal to the conqueror's culture minus the conqueree's culture.
2) Social Differences: When a nation with a drastically different form of governance invades and sets up its own regime, the result is that more people are angry. My initial idea is something along the lines of +1 insurgency rating for each social policy that the invaders have that the victims did not have, +2 insurgency rating for each social policy that the victims had that the invaders do not have, and all these values are tripled if they involve one civ going down a tree that the other civ's social policies are diametrically opposed to (liberty/autocracy).
3) Puppet Regimes: If the locals are given some power, as in a puppet regime, they are a little less violent in their revolt. So, if a puppet regime is set up, the total insurgency rating is reduced by half. On the other hand, as the puppet regime stays in power the people are constantly reminded that they're not even really a part of the nation that rules over them. As such, the rate of decay of insurgency scores are reduced by half.
4) Reputation of the Invaders: If the invaders make a habit of conquering nations, they are more reviled. So, each nation, as it expands, generates a bad reputation. Say, +1 bad reputation for each size of each city conquered, an additional +1 per size if that city is annexed, an additional +5 if a city-state is conquered, and an additional +10 if an entire nation is conquered. Then, each turn the bad reputation decays by 1 point, so a warmonger will have more problems with partisans than a relatively peaceful nation that only rarely invades someone. The "bad reputation" score is just flat-out added to the insurgency rating of each city.
5) Other Cities with Insurgency: A lone city is less likely to have a rebellion than a network of cities that all want to fight back. Each additional city adds +2 insurgency rating, or +5 if they are connected by a road (mayhaps always +5 after radio?). If those other rebellious cities are of the same original nation, this effect is doubled.
6) The Motherland: This is a more complex issue. If the city's original empire is still at war with the conquerors, the insurgency feeds on that for strength, so that gives +5 insurgency rating. On the other hand, if they're now at peace, malcontents and emmigrate, so that gives -10 insurgency. In some ways worst of all is if the motherland no longer exists at all. The people aren't more likely to rise up at any given time, but they are more likely to stay angry, so that reduces the rate of insurgency-rating decay by half.
7) Time Since Conquest: The longer it's been, the less likely a rebellion is to occur.
8) Foreign Trade: Nations that traditionally had good trade relations are less likely to have issues after conquest, but there's no foreign trade system, so this can't be considered yet.
9) Past Uprisings: For an insurgency to reach the scale that produces an active army is difficult. Once an army forms, there aren't likely to be enough people to form another very soon. When there's an uprising, there's a sudden -15 to the insurgency rating that decays by 3 per turn.
10) Initial Uprisings: Immediately following conquest, the odds of insurgents in the hills are much, much higher. To start with, there's a +30 insurgency rating, decreasing by 6 per turn over the first five turns after conquest.
Or, in short form:
Code:
[B]Factor Effect on Insurgency Rating[/B]
Invading culture Subtract from total
Native culture Add to total
Per social policy the invader has that the natives didn't +1 (+3 if from opposed trees)
Per social policy the natives had that the invaders don't +2 (+6 if from opposed trees)
Puppet regime Divide by 2, Reduce insurgency decay*
Bad reputation of conqueror (calculated elsewhere) Add to total
Other conquered cities with insurgency +2 (+5 with roads/radio)
Other conquered cities from same nation with insurgency +4 (+10 with roads/radio)
Motherland still at war +5
Motherland now at peace -5
Motherland no longer exists Reduce insurgency decay*
Turns Since Conquest (insurgency decay)* -1 insurgency rating
Insurgency within five turns -15/-12/-9/-6/-3
Within five turns of conquest +30/+24/+18/+12/+6
* Effects that reduce the effect of insurgency decay double the number of turns required per point of decay. With neither, it's per turn, with either a puppet regime or an eradicated nation, it's per 2 turns, with both it's per 4 turns.---- Checking If an Insurrection Happens ----
Each turn, a check is made for every city that still has an insurrection chance. The insurrection rating is multiplied by a roll between 1 and 10 and divided by 5000. If the resulting portion of the city's population is greater than 1, enough malcontents came together to form an insurrectionist army.
So, if the roll was a 7 for a city of size 10 with an insurrection chance of 105, the result would be 14.7% of the city, or 1.5 population. That's greater than 1, so an army of some sort does spawn.
When an insurrectionist army spawns, it's a somewhat rag-tag group. Whatever the resulting total of the insurrectionists is, it is that portion of total health of the insurrectionists. So, with the previous 1.5 pop, that's 15 hit points of a unit. No unit spawns above 8 hit points, and if more than one unit spawns, they're complimentary, while if only one spawns, they're an infantry force. So, that 1.5 would spawn an infantry unit at 8 hp and a ranged unit at 7 hp.
---- How Insurrections are Conveyed in the Game ----
When an uprising happens, an army of insurgents will begin working towards the reclamation of their home city. The army will spawn at a random location around the city and immediately flee to rough terrain to form a camp from which to raid the city. The insurgents go to an optimal base location and form an insurgeny base that functions a lot like a barbarian camp.
The insurgent base will then begin spawning insurgents, which are like barbarian units that only try to fight one specific enemy. They won't attack the city unless they have a decent chance of winning, but they will pillage the countryside and try to improve their power. They will, as possible, take strategic resources.
For the sake of game balance, insurgents won't be worth much if killed swiftly. Otherwise, it might be economical to just let them spawn, and that would be a bad system. So, on turn 1, insurgents are worth 0% of regular experience. That increases by 33% each turn, so on turn 4 they're worth normal XP.
Technology isn't just invented, it drifts from place-to-place. Cultures that are in contact with each other benefit from this, more swiftly developing ideas that their neighbors have already invented, in large part simple because they know what's possible. This is a large portion of what caused Eurasia to be so vastly more advanced than the Americas, and the Americas more advanced than Australia.
My proposal would be that, if you're in contact with a civ that has already invented something you're researching, you gain +20% research rate towards that goal. As there are ever more civs with a tech, this benefit increases at a decreasing rate. The bonus for each extra civ is half of the previous, so 20/30/35/37.5/etcetera.
In gameplay, this gives a positive balance to nations that are stuck next to a lot of neighbors that are threatening them with warfare. They get techs faster than island nations, but they also have to spend more resources prepping for war.
I don't know how this would work with city-states.
My proposal would be that, if you're in contact with a civ that has already invented something you're researching, you gain +20% research rate towards that goal. As there are ever more civs with a tech, this benefit increases at a decreasing rate. The bonus for each extra civ is half of the previous, so 20/30/35/37.5/etcetera.
In gameplay, this gives a positive balance to nations that are stuck next to a lot of neighbors that are threatening them with warfare. They get techs faster than island nations, but they also have to spend more resources prepping for war.
I don't know how this would work with city-states.
Ramesses
Ruler. Visionary. Pimp.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,176
Proposal for making tech research more realistic:
I always felt like the way technology costs ramped up exponentially was a rather cheap way of keeping the cost of researching techs relevant. It also annoys me that techs, once researched, are permanent. So I'll kill two birds with one stone.
Technology costs do not ramp up at all, and all technologies cost somewhere within the range of 50-300. However, on top of the beaker cost to research new technologies, you also pay beakers to protect and circulate all the knowledge your empire has acquired. For every tech you've researched, 5 beakers are deducted from your research rate.
If your research rate goes negative, you will begin losing techs. First, whatever tech you are currently researching loses progress. If you decline to zero progress with your current research, the tech that you have most recently discovered is lost and progress declines. When all progress empties from that tech, the second most recent tech is lost and starts losing progress, and so on so forth. This effectively simulates a Dark Age for your empire, a time when your empire, for one reason or another (huge maintenance costs crippling your research, declining population, pillaged tiles), you simply cannot hold onto all the knowledge you've collected.
I always felt like the way technology costs ramped up exponentially was a rather cheap way of keeping the cost of researching techs relevant. It also annoys me that techs, once researched, are permanent. So I'll kill two birds with one stone.
Technology costs do not ramp up at all, and all technologies cost somewhere within the range of 50-300. However, on top of the beaker cost to research new technologies, you also pay beakers to protect and circulate all the knowledge your empire has acquired. For every tech you've researched, 5 beakers are deducted from your research rate.
If your research rate goes negative, you will begin losing techs. First, whatever tech you are currently researching loses progress. If you decline to zero progress with your current research, the tech that you have most recently discovered is lost and progress declines. When all progress empties from that tech, the second most recent tech is lost and starts losing progress, and so on so forth. This effectively simulates a Dark Age for your empire, a time when your empire, for one reason or another (huge maintenance costs crippling your research, declining population, pillaged tiles), you simply cannot hold onto all the knowledge you've collected.
PeterWimsey
Warlord
Yeah, but this has never happened. Medieval Europe had more "tech" than the roman empire, notwithstanding the term "dark ages." (As a giant slave powered agricultural empire, it's not like the Romans had a lot of tech in the first place.)
A civilization might collapse, or it might be no longer able to afford to maintain roads or large public buildings, but it won't forget how to make cement.
Ramesses
Ruler. Visionary. Pimp.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,176
What about when the Mongols sacked Baghdad? Actual knowledge, unique technologies that could have changed the world, and philosophical discoveries that could have revolutionized society, all without backup, was lost forever when everything was dumped in the Tigris. That was not a mere loss of a research bonus; they practically went back to the stone ages because of it.
There are three realism mods I want to see for Civ V:
1) A Revolution mod like jdog's where the most unhappy cities in an unhappy period build up a revolution meter and have a chance to become enemy city-states, or in a more widespread extreme case, enemy civilizations (localized rebellion vs full civil war).
2) A Barbarian mod where barbarian camps have a chance to become city states and in turn city-states that are extremely successful in one respect (built a wonder, or captured a city) can become full civs. A "start as minor-civs" option where the default diplomatic state is war before Writing is discovered I think would also be cool.
3) A more dynamic resource model whereby resources are spread from a starting region along trade routes, depleted, and re-spread. It would also be nice if strategic resources would be critical for certain important buildings, not just military units. I liked the electricity feature in Civ IV because it encouraged players to maintain an energy source to power factories (hospitals, food production centers, airports?)
What I want out of these mods is to make civ more dynamic, to allow powerful civilizations, normally immortal in the late-game, that are mis-managed, over-spread, or over-dependent on a single resource to implode like so many in history. This is of course totally-contrary to the spirit of Civilization in a sense, but it's the reality of civilizations, and I think in game terms it makes things far more interesting.
1) A Revolution mod like jdog's where the most unhappy cities in an unhappy period build up a revolution meter and have a chance to become enemy city-states, or in a more widespread extreme case, enemy civilizations (localized rebellion vs full civil war).
2) A Barbarian mod where barbarian camps have a chance to become city states and in turn city-states that are extremely successful in one respect (built a wonder, or captured a city) can become full civs. A "start as minor-civs" option where the default diplomatic state is war before Writing is discovered I think would also be cool.
3) A more dynamic resource model whereby resources are spread from a starting region along trade routes, depleted, and re-spread. It would also be nice if strategic resources would be critical for certain important buildings, not just military units. I liked the electricity feature in Civ IV because it encouraged players to maintain an energy source to power factories (hospitals, food production centers, airports?)
What I want out of these mods is to make civ more dynamic, to allow powerful civilizations, normally immortal in the late-game, that are mis-managed, over-spread, or over-dependent on a single resource to implode like so many in history. This is of course totally-contrary to the spirit of Civilization in a sense, but it's the reality of civilizations, and I think in game terms it makes things far more interesting.
M
Me,myself,and,I
Guest
I'm in.
I really like abresch's idea.
I really like abresch's idea.
SalmonSoil
Prince
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 358
I don't see how resources being delpeted is realistic, except for certain resources like oil or coal.
jkp1187
Unindicted Co-Conspirator
While I actually agree with almost everything else you said in that post concerning the effects of habitability of a city after it was hit by a single nuclear warhead, I have to call this one out. I am unaware of anything that shows that Carl Sagan "famously screwed up" about nuclear winter (I assume you mean in the TTAPS studies,) or that the TTAPS studies were shown to be completely wrong." In fact, a quick search on Google led me to a 2007 study that argued that the long-term climactic effects of a nuclear exchange would be worse than what was presented in the TTAPS study. See: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006JD008235.shtml. If you have a solid source establishing otherwise, please provide it. (Note that criticism =/= proof positive that someone screwed up.)
Sagan did err in his argument that the Kuwaiti oil well fires set off by Saddam Hussein after the 1991 Gulf War could create a sort of 'mini' nuclear winter -- but corrected himself repeatedly in print in a number of places (including his book, The Demon-Haunted World.)
I've joined. I think this is a worthwhile project. 
PeterWimsey
Warlord
The art of making concrete (high quality concrete, anyway) was lost before the Roman empire fell (some say 180 AD, some say between 200-300 AD). The best theory for this (IMO) is that the Romans didn't quite understand how their cement worked - specifically, that they needed volcanic ash for the higher quality cement.
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
Hey Guys, ever heard of the NESing forum? I am a neser and I am also interested in CiV. There are many cool ideas for rules that I think can be Juxapositioned to CiV mod and will enhance gameplay among the piles of NESes. Look under the Other Games section.
Anyways, I think that nukes won't kill earth: even a maximum nuke will not split the planet and kill ALL life. However, nukes can make life unpleasent for humans. So the planet survives, and the humans have to retreat to formerly unworthy of nukage areas.
Anyways, I think that nukes won't kill earth: even a maximum nuke will not split the planet and kill ALL life. However, nukes can make life unpleasent for humans. So the planet survives, and the humans have to retreat to formerly unworthy of nukage areas.
OMG!!!
EVIL mastermind
Simply make a version of Rhye's and Fall of Civilizations and Rise of Mankind for CiV5.
snapple232
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 101
If you're being serious, that would mean for most of the game leaders would have a lifespan of 1-2 turns.
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
You can have earlier ages ran by mythical leaders, like the Five Entitlties and the Three Soveriegns of China.
Zechnophobe
Strategy Lich
Well, I think it's more that real things are not fun by default. And so in order to incorporate them, you need to mold them, craft them, into gameplay elements that are actually good.
If real was fun, we wouldn't need games. That said, intuition is also important. Or rather, non-intuitive things can be very frustrating. Building libraries increases trade yeild? Kinda weird. Spearmen being ranged units, but archers not? Very odd. These types of stumbling blocks can hurt someone's ability to flow with the game.
As I always say, Reality should INFORM gameplay. It should help you come to decisions on how to resolve gameplay concerns.
