Suggested EXISTING rule edits to improve realism or gameplay.

[Kal-el]

Originally posted by Kryten

Hmmm....I’ve just had another cunning plan.......

Very cunning indeed.

Rebellions, Revolts And Natural Disasters
--------------------------------------
Many people have said in the past that they wished that cities could suffer from rebellions.
Sadly, this is not possible in Civ3 (shame!)....or is it?
There MAY be a way of simulating a city revolt.

* Change all references of ‘Pollution’ to ‘Debris & Waste’….
* Change the colour from bright orange to something more brownish....
* Change the wording of the ‘Nuclear Meltdown’ message in the script text file....
* Lastly (and here is the clever bit), tick the ‘can explode or meltdown’ flag for EVERY building in the game....even the Palace!

The result is realistic, historical, and looks like this….

Frickin' Brilliant!

>>>>>

Only one thing that confuses me, these two statements do not seem to coincide.

Well, unlike Civ2, pollution tiles do NOT add to ‘Global Warming’; their only function is to make tiles unusable.

...

“But won’t these rebellions affect Global Warming” I hear you ask.
Yes, they would. But is that a bad thing?

According to the handbook the first statement is correct and pollution does not affect global warming. Other than that, this is beautiful, and with the new "pollution" graphics its perfect.

 

[Yoda Power]

Originally posted by Kal-el
Only one thing that confuses me, these two statements do not seem to coincide.

He means the buildings, they still effect the climate, but the pollution dont.

 

[mrtn]

Originally posted by Kal-el
... Other than that, this is beautiful, and with the new "pollution" graphics its perfect. [/B]

If you mean my graphics, I just want it taken to the record that they have been around since January.

About Kryten's New World Disorder, how often would you get a melt...eh, rebellion?

Also, it is fairly easy to avoid if you micro-manage each city so that it never goes into disorder.

Do you say that the risk for a meltdown is higher if the city is in civil disorder? I've never built a nuclear plant, but this seems kinda strange.

Edit: And if I'm a clever old turnip, then Kryten is a klok gammal kålrot. With a cheesy sense of humour.

 

[Kryten]

A few answers......

To Kal-el,

Although pollution/debris & waste tiles do not contribute to Global Warming, the following do:-

* total pollution points + 1 per citizen over 12 = % chance of pollution.
And Airports, Coal Plants, Factories, Iron Works, Manufacturing Plants, Offshore Platforms and Research Labs all generate between 1 and 4 pollution points each per turn (this can be altered in the editor).
Soooo....unlike Civ2, city shield production has NO effect on generating pollution, but certain buildings and high population do.

* Global Warming depends apon the total WORLD pollution output, from ALL civilisations.

* But in addition, each nuclear blast greatly increases the chance of Global Warming....and a meltdown (or rebellion ) is classed as a nuclear blast.

It may seem odd that world climate change increases the more rebellions there are in the world, but as I said, just assume it's due to un-predictable random events.

To mrtn,

Meltdowns only occur if a city with a building that has the 'can explode or meltdown' flag ticked falls into disorder.
The longer the disorder lasts, the more chance of it happening.
(And, if EVERY building has this flag ticked, then the more buildings, the more chance of it happening.
With over a dozen of these buildings in a city, it will probably be a 100% chance)

 

[RobO]

On that clever rebellion idea by Kryten:

I assume this only happens to cities in disorder. How long will it take for a city in disorder to go into rebellion?

Will setting the meltdown option with all buildings imply that the chance of rebellion increases when you have more buildings in the city?

I'm curious how it will appear in the modern era. Rebellions aren't all that common now, at least in democratic countries. Natural disasters do ofc. occur but I know of no way to change the text with the progress of the eras or with the government.

There is already a fature in the game modelling riots. If a disorder goes on for a while, the citizens start tearing down improvements. It seems that the rebellion change will disable this feature.

 

[Kryten]

To RobO,

Good point about the modern times.
Yes, 'rebellions' do seem a bit out of place after say the 19th century (although I can think of several examples....but few affecting modern democracies).

Very well, how does this sound:-
"Sire, there has been a rebellious riot in the city of XXXX!
Although the local authorities have regained control, some citizens were killed, and many more have decided to leave. There is still much debris, rubble and waste around the city, which may take several years to fully recover."
(Or something similar)
This seems to cover both the Ancient/Medieval revolts, and more modern riots (the Los Angeles riots for example).

As for the Civ3 version of 'riots' (which results in buildings being destroyed), this only comes into effect if a city is left in civil disorder for several turns....and does ANYBODY, the AI included, EVER leave a city in disorder for more than one turn?
I certainly don't!

As for the world-wide Global Warming effect caused by all these rebellious riots....
....well, even if you make sure that none of YOUR cities ever suffers from one, you have no idea what is happening to AI controlled civs on the other side of the world.
Soooo, like it or not, you will find the Global warming indicator slowly increasing through the centrires....just as if un-predictable and random climate changes beyond your control are happening.
Sounds like the real world to me.

 

[RobO]

Originally posted by Kryten
"Sire, there has been a rebellious riot in the city of XXXX!
Although the local authorities have regained control, some citizens were killed, and many more have decided to leave. There is still much debris, rubble and waste around the city, which may take several years to fully recover."
(Or something similar)
This seems to cover both the Ancient/Medieval revolts, and more modern riots (the Los Angeles riots for example).

I had forgotten about LA - good point there. That text is pretty good.

As for the Civ3 version of 'riots' (which results in buildings being destroyed), this only comes into effect if a city is left in civil disorder for several turns....and does ANYBODY, the AI included, EVER leave a city in disorder for more than one turn?
I certainly don't!

I have done that more than once. I hate spending time on micromanaging and sometimes simply forget to manage all the cities in disorder.

 

[RobO]

One more question: I assume the meltdown effect does not takes effect the first turn a city enters disorder - so you always have one turn to save your butt. Is that correct? If not, then it will require too much micromanaging for my taste. I'd rather not spend the effort to watch over all my cities to ensure that they don't go into civil disorder.

 

[pdescobar]

As an aside on the disorder/rebellion issue. There are 2 things which should mean you never get a second turn of disorder and they don't require major MMing: the disorder popup and the governor.

If you enable the disorder popup, on the turn when you fall into disorder, just choose zoom to city and correct it immediately. Unless there is extremely bad timing with the next turn resulting in even more unhappiness via a loss of luxury, increased WW, etc, they will be back on track next turn after your adjustment.

Secondly, is the governor. While you can let the governor manage moods all the time (I used to in unmodded civ; works just fine at the lower levels) even if you choose to manage citizens yourself, I think it's wise to simply turn the governor on globally during anarchy or individually for resisting cities during conquest and then turn it off when things are back to normal. If the governor is managing moods, cities almost never fall into disorder and will certainly not go more than one turn.

I myself am curious just what kind of percentages there are for meltdown/rebellion on first and subsequent turns of disorder. I'd actually like to see it be able to happen on the first turn but only if it was a fairly low (5-10% max) chance.

Edit: On the turn issue, I found the following in Catt's Power Plant Strategy Article

Meltdowns. According to the original Civ 3 manual, a nuclear plant has a 50% chance of melting down during any turn in which the host city experiences civil disorder. However, empirical testing indicates that the correct changes are about 10% - 15% (assuming the meltdown chances are a discrete variable, i.e., not influenced by unknown factors such as size of empire, number of city improvements, etc.). Furthermore, it seems as if the nuclear plant will never melt down on the turn that the host city enters into disorder – only if a city is allowed to continue through a full turn in a state of civil disorder is there a chance of meltdown. Although a meltdown graphically looks a lot like the effects of a nuclear blast, the actual effects are far less destructive. A city that experiences a meltdown will have its eight surrounding city tiles polluted and will have its population cut in half. However, neither units nor city improvements (not even the Nuclear Plant itself) will be damaged or destroyed. Furthermore, the pollution in the eight surrounding city tiles will not destroy the underlying terrain improvements such as railroad, roads, mines, etc., and will not cause the terrain itself to degrade (i.e., plains turning to desert). Once the pollution is cleaned up, the city will again grow and eventually return to the state it enjoyed before the meltdown.

 

[Ultraworld]

French favourite government should be communism.

 

[Kryten]

Good researching pdescobar!

As I said, meltdown/revolts are fairly easy to avoid.

But I wonder....
....if EVERY building had the meltdown flag activated, would it occur on the FIRST turn of disorder? (if the chance was well over 100%).

We need a volunteer to try this out in a game.

 

[Stormbringer]

ok, I just found this place, and the ideas are awesom, but I couldn't make myself read all 11 pages. I stoped at like 8th, and got an idea, what if all the tested, and agreed on ideas be put into like the first post, it would help the people a lot who are looking for this kind of stuff.

 

[Kal-el]

I don't think its really about agreeing on ideas. I see this thread as a place to post ideas and discuss their viability, will they actually work, and will they work as expected. Some of the ideas may actually be in conflict with some others.

 

[Civanator]

Originally posted by Kryten


As for the Civ3 version of 'riots' (which results in buildings being destroyed), this only comes into effect if a city is left in civil disorder for several turns....and does ANYBODY, the AI included, EVER leave a city in disorder for more than one turn?
I certainly don't!

I guess I'm guilty of that.

 

[Jaybe]

I come from the old school of board wargaming, where an "Attacker Retreat" or "Defender Retreat" result often occured, and was not restricted to cavalry/armored units.

Multiply all GROUND units' movement by THREE. Multiply all terrain costs by THREE.
In General Settings, make Road Movement (Movement Rate Along Roads) = 1.

Now all ground units are fast units, and the road movement has remained the same. BTW, I have not yet tested this, but am about to implement it for my next game.

Edit: My main concerns at this point are Blitz capable units (though I have fortified bonus at 50%, not 25), and the effect of units that ignore movement costs (to be tested). Blitzing Armies are going to be interesting when they have 3-9 movement!

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Multiply all GROUND units' movement by THREE. Multiply all terrain costs by THREE.
In General Settings, make Road Movement (Movement Rate Along Roads) = 1.

Now all ground units are fast units, and the road movement has remained the same. BTW, I have not yet tested this, but am about to implement it for my next game.

Are you sure Jaybe that this will give the retreat effect that you want?
Only it is my understanding that units can only retreat and withdraw from combat if they are faster than their opponents.
So foot troops with a speed of 3 can no more retreat from other foot troops with a speed of 3 than units with a move of one can retreat from another unit with a move of one.

In fact, I believe that increasing infantry movement to anything other than one results in them as also being classed as 'fast' units, and as one fast unit cannot retreat from another fast unit, you end up with NO units able to retreat!
(I would really like to have light Scythian & Parthian Horse Archers with a speed of 3 being able to retreat from Macedonian or Roman Heavy Cavalry with a speed of 2, or to have light Mongol Horseman able to retreat from heavy Russian or Polish Knights.
But I don't think that I have ever seen it happen....if a unit has a speed of 2, or 3, or 10, it is classed as 'fast', so they cannot withdraw from each other).

Could someone please confirm this, because I would love to be proved wrong.

 

[Kal-el]

I believe you are correct, Kryten.

And if Movement Rate Along Roads = 1, then what is the advantage of roads?

 

[Yoda Power]

Originally posted by Kal-el
And if Movement Rate Along Roads = 1, then what is the advantage of roads?

if plains have a movement cost of three, then theres the same advantage as in normal civ. Though Kryten is right, it would´nt work.

 

[Kal-el]

ah, I missed that multiply terrrain by 3

 

[Jaybe]

Oh SCRAP! You are right Kryten, fast units cannot retreat from fast units.

T'was late at night (NO it wasn't! 6PM is NOT late!) and I obviously had a bad short circuit in my brain.

Thank you guys, for alerting me to this major "OOPS!" before I went through the hair-pulling of finding out in the debug.