Superstition

[Pacifist]

I thought of a good way to solve the land greediness early in the game

One word ... "Superstition"

How does that help you say? Well I'm glad you asked ...

We are a superstitious lot. Well, I'm not sure if that's true today, maybe we still are We can probably all agree early civilizations have their own superstitious beliefs, so ...

Civ-game-translation? Well, here is how I see it working ...

Early in the game, certain terrain tiles and resources should have a superstitious effect, depending on the Civilization. I'm not of great authority on superstition though, 'historically speaking'. Some of you might know alot more than I do. Superstitious effects I'm talking about are the negative ones, the ones that spook you, so you go at great lengths to avoid it.

No "Settler" units can build a city on any terrain that they have a superstitious "bond" (for a lack of a better term) with. This also applies to terrain that contain resources that a Civilization "bonds" with.

All terrain and resources that have superstitious effects will have a radius effect, therefore any terrain tile that falls within this radius, "Settler" units will be too afraid to settle on.

With the discovery of some kind of religious-related tech, "Worker" units will have the new ability, "Build totem". The totem will have a superstitious radius effect against rival civilizations (This ability should probably consume the worker so it doesn't get abused too much. Either that or take a long time to build, whatever works best)

Superstitious effects will only stop "Settlers" building cities but will be free to move around. Any unit moving around terrain that have superstitious effects will have a chance of becoming "lost", removing them from the game. It would be equivalent to early ships sinking in deep water tiles.

Superstitious effects will be removed once an appropriate Tech has been researched (unsure what this Tech should be, any suggestions?)

This way, those who get annoyed (such as myself) by "Settler Swarms" as I like to call'em hehe, will hopefully find this solution a boon. NO WALLS REQUIRED - LOL

-Pacifist-
"Just out of curiosity, I added the poll"

 

[Superkrest]

like the poll makes no sense...its beautiful.lol.

as far as the game goes..i like this idea..but not really sure how it would be implemented. it seems like alot of work for something that may not do much

 

[Pacifist]

like the poll makes no sense...its beautiful.lol.

as far as the game goes..i like this idea..but not really sure how it would be implemented. it seems like alot of work for something that may not do much

LOL - The poll is just for fun. You are either superstitious, not superstitious or undecided (3 options)
I suppose the options are kind of confusing

Anyway, as far as the idea goes, I wouldn't say that it wouldn't do much. I've read the ideas about including "walls" in the game, some for strategic reasons, others just to keep those settlers in check.

I've been told (when I posted for help) that Civ3 AI Civs are greedy for land and from my games, I have noticed this. AI Settlers would even settle on areas that isn't really suitable for cities. At least early in the game, this idea could slow down the number of cities built. The "totem" idea is just an early strategy to keep rival Civs from developing near your lands.

Now that I think about it, the "superstition radius" idea for terrain and resources doesn't seem simple to implement so I guess that could be removed. However the "superstition radius effect" for "totems" shouldn't be that difficult. Look at the Civ3 "Outposts", it has a "radius" visual range. The Civ3 "Radar Tower" has a 2 tile "radius" range giving units within it a defensive bonus. My "totem" idea would just be implemented similarly.

I think I've got a solution (not necessarily a good one) for implementing the "radius" idea for terrain/resources without it actually being a radius effect.

Make a new resource that's not tile specific. It won't actually be a resource, per se that boosts terrain properties, just something recognizable on the terrain that will not allow cities to be built there. There is no implementation like this, AFAIK, in any previous Civ games so it could be a new feature. It will ONLY be shown during the early eras and will disappear when the Tech that makes superstition understood has been research.

Historically speaking, its probably not an accurate depiction of how Civilizations chose where to build cities but as far as the game goes, I think it would work quite well.

I'm still all for the "getting lost" idea. If "getting lost" is too harsh, I have an alternative proposal, but is not related to superstition though.

Alternative ideas to "getting lost":
-Foot units ending their move in "Desert" tiles have a 50% chance of die-ing due to dehydration. This is removed once a "water-related" tech has been researched
-Mounted units ending their move in "Desert" tiles have a greater chance of survival
-Any unit ending their move in "Swamp" tiles have a 50% chance of die-ing from disease. This is removed once "medicine-related" tech has been researched
-Any unit ending their move in "Jungles/Forest" tiles have a 50% chance of getting lost. Removed once "navigation-related" (maybe Mapping?) tech has been researched.
-"Plain/Grassland/Hill" tiles have no additional effects
-"Sea/Ocean" tiles are already in-game
-Any unfortified unit ending their move on "Mountain" tiles have a 10% chance of falling off cliffs No tech can remove this effect. Fortified units are immune to "falling" - LOL - I don't know how anyone could be immune to falling hehe - just treat the 'term' as a game-mechanic

-Pacifist-
"We are one, but we are many, and from all the lands of the earth, we come ...
We share our dreams, and sing with one voice, I am, you are, we are Australia"

 

[MSTK]

Wow, this could create a Bermuda-Triangle type effect.

Maybe make totems hidden units?

 

[Mewtarthio]

"Sir, horrible news! Our entire invasion army of Elite Tanks, Shock Troopers, and Heavy Artillery just fell off a cliff!"

I think you can see what I'm trying to say.

EDIT: Agh! MSTK posted right before me. That was in response to Pacifist's "Getting Lost" post.

 

[Corvex]

Or you could settle a city on 'cursed' terrain:
"Commander, frogs are raining on Neapolis"

 

[Pacifist]

"Sir, horrible news! Our entire invasion army of Elite Tanks, Shock Troopers, and Heavy Artillery just fell off a cliff!"

I think you can see what I'm trying to say.

EDIT: Agh! MSTK posted right before me. That was in response to Pacifist's "Getting Lost" post.

LOL - That's why I purposely put 10% chance effect on mountains. Very unlikely odds but still possible. Then again, the more troops that move on mountains, the higher the chances of losing more than one unit

I'd like to see that "horrible news" scenario though - LOL - I'd be *shocked* initially and could then laugh about it later


Interesting poll results so far ... keep the votes coming

-Pacifist-
"Ebony and ivory, live together forever in harmony,
Side by side on my piano keyboard, oh lord, why don't we?"