rebellions and culture assimilation system

[Naokaukodem]

i think that the religion/nationality pair will suffice in describing city population and in providing gameplay variation. adding ethnicity is an overkill.

Religion would have to be slightly changed, because nowadays religions are city by cities, not citizen per citizen. As to nationality, it's pretty the same as ethnicity no?

 

[Hail]

Religion would have to be slightly changed, because nowadays religions are city by cities, not citizen per citizen.

agree

As to nationality, it's pretty the same as ethnicity no?

no

 

[Naokaukodem]

no

Why? I mean in the game...

 

[Naokaukodem]

One such counterpart could be expansion through assimilation of minor civs/tribes in the neighbourhood. Basically, I envision the early map being littered with many minor civs. Probably, at about the current density of goody huts/ barbarians. Some of these will be aggresive and unfriendly (taking the place of barbarians). Others, will be more peaceful and friendly possibly offering gifts (taking the place of goody huts), and form opportunities for friendly assimilation.

Exactly.

Adding a migration mechanic to game, another option would not be to not use the minor civs as a means of geographical expansion, but as a source of population.

Sounds good. Possibly an early civics that allows that. (and maybe a choice of civics that doesn't need any tech

 

[Hail]

Why? I mean in the game...

they are not the same especially, if you wish to separate them gamewise.

 

[Naokaukodem]

they are not the same especially, if you wish to separate them gamewise.

Well no, i wish not to separate them in the game. And I would pick ethnicity over nationality. Nationality does not last enough in the time. However, as soon as you conquer a city, all the citizens become of your nationality.

 

[Hail]

Nationality does not last enough in the time. However, as soon as you conquer a city, all the citizens become of your nationality.

all of that may change in civ5

 

[Argetnyx]

I haven't read the whole thread, but this sounds like a good idea to me. It will keep any empire on its toes, and prevent it from gaining too much power. It will also help with any mods that I might make...

 

[Naokaukodem]

all of that may change in civ5

Yes, I know, but nationality, if treated realistically, would not remain for years... it's pretty rare that nowadays in the real world some guy lives in another country than his nationality, or maybe he gets a double-nationality.

I haven't read the whole thread, but this sounds like a good idea to me. It will keep any empire on its toes, and prevent it from gaining too much power. It will also help with any mods that I might make...

And you shouldn't have read the whole thread, that is a complain from the same persons as always (rysmiel, etc.)

 

[Hail]

Yes, I know, but nationality, if treated realistically, would not remain for years... it's pretty rare that nowadays in the real world some guy lives in another country than his nationality, or maybe he gets a double-nationality.

by nationality i mean "original nationality". the nationality citizen received from his/her parents when he/she was "born". ordinarily it does not change with time.
it may change for some citizens if the city was captured, etc.

 

[Trias]

by nationality i mean "original nationality". the nationality citizen received from his/her parents when he/she was "born". ordinarily it does not change with time.
it may change for some citizens if the city was captured, etc.

But that is basically ethnicity. Especially, if you want "childern" to generally inherit it from their parents.

Ethnicity, is a much more persistent property in populations over longer timescales (as appear in civ.) Moreover, nationality as a concept only makes sense in modern times and not further back in history. As such, ethnicity is a much better property to base civ game mechanics off than nationality is/would be.

Note that it would only make sense for the game to keep track of one of these properties, since they do have a significant overlap.

Moreover keeping track of ethicity in this way is link with actually keeping track of the population size as a number (which determines the city size, not the other way around as is currently done in civ.) This is something that you'll want to do anyway if you want to include a migration mechanic in the game. (any mechanic based on the current city size=population scheme is too coarse forcing it to become very random in order to not unbalance the game.)

 

[Hail]

But that is basically ethnicity. Especially, if you want "children" to generally inherit it from their parents.

i was referring to "children", when i explained, what i ment by "original nationality". i do not think inheritance is a viable game mechanic.

Ethnicity, is a much more persistent property in populations over longer timescales (as appear in civ.) Moreover, nationality as a concept only makes sense in modern times and not further back in history. As such, ethnicity is a much better property to base civ game mechanics off than nationality is/would be.

maybe so. but there must be a balance between realism and gameplay. and secondly, how will city captures work ethnic-wise? would it be illogical for citizens' ethnicity to change after conquest?

Moreover keeping track of ethicity in this way is link with actually keeping track of the population size as a number (which determines the city size, not the other way around as is currently done in civ.) This is something that you'll want to do anyway if you want to include a migration mechanic in the game. (any mechanic based on the current city size=population scheme is too coarse forcing it to become very random in order to not unbalance the game.)

maybe by "very random" you mean "very discrete"?

 

[Trias]

i was referring to "children", when i explained, what i meant by "original nationality". i do not think inheritance is a viable game mechanic.

Since population in civ can abstractly represent multiple generations over a single turn. A property possessed by the population must automatically be something that is somehow "inherited". (Either socially or biologically.)

maybe so. but there must be a balance between realism and gameplay. and secondly, how will city captures work ethnic-wise? would it be illogical for citizens' ethnicity to change after conquest?

Citizens in conquered cities will retain their ethnicity. (Just like in civ4 they retain their "nationality" and yearn for their motherland.) Overtime, foreign ethnicities should be assimilated into the owning civilizations ethnicity. (The rate should depend on various game factors.)

(I also miss to see how this upsets either gameplay or realism. If anything, I'm arguing that both are improved by introducing ethnicity over nationality.)

maybe by "very random" you mean "very discrete"?

Well, because the effect is very discrete it cannot happen very often. In fact, if left to purely deterministic factors it would take a long time for it to happen and then it would happen many times at once in many cities. In order to smooth that out you would be forced to introduce a random factor (based on the chance that a pop will migrate each turn.) As a consequence the whole thing becomes very random.

 

[rysmiel]

Civ simulates real things with arbitrary concepts that are very far from reality.

I don't agree there.

Angry citizens can't build anything. In Civ, when i think about it, I always prevent the city from growing with unhappiness. That was easier with Civ4: you had a no growth button.

Yet another thing I dislike about Civ 4 - allowing you to avoid happiness management by pushing a button.

If you choose to prevent your cities from growing, you're making a choice that has costs and benefits.

I usually build first and grow after; most player would do this with unhappiness based rebellions.

Why would this be a problem ?

Actually I play CivRev and it is the best Civ game out there. New things happen nearly every turn. It is fun and immediate.

You say "fun and immeidate", I say "shallow and rushed". If you can't get a sixty-hour game out of it, it's not fun.

That said, "being good" at Civ is not a question of smartness, it is only a question of affinity with the game, the number of games you play. And in Civ4, they are way too numerous, granted that infinite game can't help with some people.

I think you're making my point here. "Affinity for the game" is just a matter of being smart at taking in information and deducing patterns from it, which is one kind of being smart.. If that's not what you like, fine, but don't ruin Civ for people for whom that's the whole point.

Yes there is. History affinity, numerous wars, civ mergings, that makes the game more fun.

No, they don;t. Not to me.

Don't play on words, and rather try to get the essense of what I am saying, with good faith.

I'm sorry, but the essence of what you are saying is sometimes quite opaque; I am responding to what seems to me to be what you are saying, and please believe I am answering with my best interpretation of what you mean, in good faith.

the unobviousness of the mechanics tend to make people giong on the internet.

Dude, this is very simple. Unobvious to you is not unobvious to anyone else. Please stop talking as if what were obvious to you was the only reasonable measure of the game.

Second, it is not really competition when you play an AI. It is only a matter to learn its mechanics.

This is exactly the same with people.

I don't say this should be avoided, it can't, but what I am saying is that it shouldn't take a whole lot bunch of games to figure out.

I'm saying, the better the game is, the longer it will take to figure out how to beat it.

 

[rysmiel]

Again, you are playing on words, which I perceive as very annoying. who cares if intuition is different with each people?
I'm talking about intuition in nature, not quantity. A game which mechanics are close to reality is more intuitive than a game with fairy mechanics. For example, a game with pop growth based on fertility and death rate is more intuitive than a game based on food accumulation like it is in Civ.

Please listen to me, because I am entirely serious when I say this:

That is not more intuitive to me.

Intuitive to me is a system that is internally consistent and makes sense on its own terms. It has nothing to do with realism, because it's a game.

If you want to talk about a game that anyone other than you is interested in playing, please stop assuming that everybody will automatically agree with you on what is obvious.

 

[Hail]

Citizens in conquered cities will retain their ethnicity. (Just like in civ4 they retain their "nationality" and yearn for their motherland.) Overtime, foreign ethnicities should be assimilated into the owning civilizations ethnicity. (The rate should depend on various game factors.)

by your logic, Iraq and Afghanistan will soon be (or already are ) populated by Anglo-Saxons.

growth of any biological species is exponential [until it hits the resource ceiling], therefore any dominating ethnicity will remain dominating unless something happens to them.

Well, because the effect is very discrete it cannot happen very often. In fact, if left to purely deterministic factors it would take a long time for it to happen and then it would happen many times at once in many cities. In order to smooth that out you would be forced to introduce a random factor (based on the chance that a pop will migrate each turn.) As a consequence the whole thing becomes very random.

fascinating logic. so lets say there is a predicate: migrate(some arguments). every time it returns true for a city, a "migration action" will occur. why should it always take a long time and/or happen many times at once in many cities?

 

[rysmiel]

by your logic, Iraq and Afghanistan will soon be (or already are ) populated by Anglo-Saxons.

But Afghanistan hasn't been conquered since Alexander's day, so it should actually be full of Greeks by now.

fascinating logic. so lets say there is a predicate: migrate(some arguments). every time it returns true for a city, a "migration action" will occur. why should it always take a long time and/or happen many times at once in many cities?

Are we thinking of this process as being assessed city-by-city or for a whole empire ?

 

[Trias]

by your logic, Iraq and Afghanistan will soon be (or already are ) populated by Anglo-Saxons.

How said anything about soon?

growth of any biological species is exponential [until it hits the resource ceiling], therefore any dominating ethnicity will remain dominating unless something happens to them.

So different ethinic groups are different biological species? I thought that kind of thinking died with the nazi's

You seem to forget that typically ethnic groups actually intermingle. A good example here would be the US where more than a dozen different ethnic groups have mingled over the centuries and have come to adopt a new common ethnic identity.

Also ethnic identity is not as much a biological property as it is a cultural one. An historical example here would be the Huns, which although biological from diverse backgrounds started to identify themselves as one ethnic group.

fascinating logic. so lets say there is a predicate: migrate(some arguments). every time it returns true for a city, a "migration action" will occur. why should it always take a long time and/or happen many times at once in many cities?

It will have to take a long time because otherwise migrations become to frequent.

It typically will take a long time before migrate to return true for each individual city, but since many of your cities will be in a kind of parallel development it is likely that many of your cities will return migrate()=true around the same time, especial since there are also empire wide effects that will effect the result of migrate(). This leads long periods of almost no migration with waves of mass migration.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I don't agree there.

How can this be?

So you are saying that the game mechanics are realist?

Yet another thing I dislike about Civ 4 - allowing you to avoid happiness management by pushing a button.

It's the same than managing it citizen-per-citizen, it just takes less micromanaging. It really do not involve any gameplay part, it's just another practical way to manage it.

If you choose to prevent your cities from growing, you're making a choice that has costs and benefits.

It has nearly no cost. Preventing cities to grow unhappy, as the unhappy people do not do anything, is nearly a non-brainer. of coures you could always argue that there are some advantages, like the ability to slave better, but that has not enough weight.

Why would this be a problem ?

Because unhappiness would disappear and rebellions also. I thought you would have get that.

You say "fun and immeidate", I say "shallow and rushed". If you can't get a sixty-hour game out of it, it's not fun.

Lol, you didn't even play to it. So what you affirm is ridiculous. By the way, your definition of fun is kinda, huh, weird.

I think you're making my point here. "Affinity for the game" is just a matter of being smart at taking in information and deducing patterns from it, which is one kind of being smart.. If that's not what you like, fine, but don't ruin Civ for people for whom that's the whole point.

It may be a kind of smartness, yes, but first: if we could eradicate smartness need to complete the game, that would be helpfull. Indeed, it cuts many players to reach the highest levels of the game. Second: it takes unavoidably time to be there, while another form of smartness would be imediate. Replayability yes, but not mechanics learning.

No, they don;t. Not to me.

Not to you, but for many players, including myself, yes. That's it. Because you don't have the sufficient imagination to make it work for you does not mean you should prevent other players to profit from such features.

Dude, this is very simple. Unobvious to you is not unobvious to anyone else. Please stop talking as if what were obvious to you was the only reasonable measure of the game.

I'm talking in front of my own door. I won't talk for you, especially if you didn't play Civ4 or not enough. Because if you talk about Civ3, sure nothing is unobvious in this game. This game is a non brainer.

This is exactly the same with people.

Say the guy who doesn't play multiplayer...

I'm saying, the better the game is, the longer it will take to figure out how to beat it.

No. To figure how to beat it in Civ4 is only a matter of knowing its fairy based mechanics. That's a wrong replay-value, as you spend all the time to increase your affinity with the game, to understand it, not really strategize with the big "S", only strategize from a mechanics point of view.

"i will cottage spam because otherwise expansion would put my science rate at 0 and make my civ too much backwarded". You have to know about the expansion cost of Civ4, it is to say to have experienced many wasted games before that.

Instead of:

"I will raise the taxes in order to have more money for my science, but not too much, because people may be unhappy". Now that's common sense. You don't have to play wasted games in order to figure that out.

What I'm saying, is that you should more or less have all the data in order to be able to beat it, since the first game. The outcome of the game would depend on your bravery, strategy or whatnot.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Please listen to me, because I am entirely serious when I say this:

That is not more intuitive to me.

Of course it is.

Intuitive to me is a system that is internally consistent and makes sense on its own terms.

Like a good gameplay? But do you want to spend 20 hours on deciding if you should take or not a flower in Mario? I'm sorry, but good gameplays are the ones who are fastly assimilated.

It has nothing to do with realism, because it's a game.

Kinda backwarded way to consider video games.

Realism is a way to make games like Civ more intuitive.

If you want to talk about a game that anyone other than you is interested in playing, please stop assuming that everybody will automatically agree with you on what is obvious.

I send you back the lift.