The Mongolian Empire

[Rhye]

I like your idea, but it is too complex.

I would program it this way:
for every city razed, every other enemy city in a 2x2 area suffers a % of units deserting.
This is a simpler way and more different from Persian.

I will post a poll soon.
But in any case, even if it wins others' approval, it won't be in next version.

 

[Watiggi]

Is the military buildup checking the problem? If not, here is a much, much, much simpler way of achieving the same thing and the effect will be distinctly different from the Persian's power:

*each city with a Mongol military buildup has a chance to flip (surrender). The more cities that have been razed, the greater the chance. The more cities that have surrendered, the less the chance. Simple. All it would need is for the Mongols to keep a simple tally that keeps track of the net cities razed versus cities surrendered and use that to modify the city that has the military buildup's chance of flipping.

The gameplay focus here is no longer on razing which affects nearby cities, but instead it is on the military buildup flipping the city before conquest. Razing cities will give the city that has a military buildup more 'encouragement' in surrendering. This is functionally different to Persia, it factors in razed cities but it is based on military buildup near the city as opposed to nearby cities flipping. This would be a much, much simpler version of the one from my previous post (all it needs is to keep a running tally and to make the cities capable of detecting a military buildup). It will also operate differently from Persia's power. The idea you suggested (and the other idea I suggest below) will actually operate and feel more like Perisia's than this one because those ideas are based on distance from cities whereby this would be based on military buildup (and razing only influencing the odds of it flipping). It would ultimately feel and play out differently.

Another idea for the Mongols (that isn't as appropriate):

*nearby cities go into revolt when a city is razed. Personally, I think the implementation of this will look and feel similar to the Persian implementation, even though it gives two different results.

I personally think the Mongols should have a power that keeps them close to the aggressive militaristic expansionists/imperialists ideal. Genghis in particular wanted submission rather than war and gave orders of submission when approaching each city whereby they either surrendered or didn't. Those that didn't were punished with a mass slaughtering which in turn affected the next city's decision to surrender.

edit: The idea in more detail:

*Have a running tally that adds 1 to it when the Mongols raze a city, and subtracts 1 from it when a city surrenders to the Mongols. Tally starts at 0.
*Make it so that cities can detect a military build up. There must be code like that that already exists in the game.
*Implement it so that when a city has a Mongol military buildup, the current tally modifies the base chance of it flipping and a test is done to test whether it surrenders or not right there and then.
*If it surrenders, the city then changes hands and the tally is subtracted by one, making it less likely for the next city to surrender.
*If it doesn't surrender, nothing happens. The Mongol player can then capture and keep the city if they want, but it might actually be preferably in the long run to raze it. Razing it increases the tally by one making it more probable that the next city will surrender. Keeping it does nothing.
*A positive tally will increase the chance of surrender and a negative tally will decrease the chance of surrender for every city that has a Mongol military buildup.
*There would probably also need to be multipliers or something in there to get the gameplay balance right.

I think that is much more simpler than my idea I presented in my previous post. What are your thoughts? Basically this should create a gameplay experience whereby if you raze and destroy everything, cities may, out of fear, start to spontaniously surrender to you the moment you rock up to their city with your army. THAT'S the Mongols

 

[Elhoim]

Blas, I think you´ve got a contender for complex ideas!

Good idea, Watiggi!

 

[Watiggi]

Blas, I think you´ve got a contender for complex ideas!

ohhww, is it still too complicated?

Good idea, Watiggi!

Thanks

 

[Elhoim]

ohhww, is it still too complicated?

Try to make it in one line, and it effect inmediate, like Rhye did. Keeping a tally, or things that build up over time that the program have to keep track of is very cpu resource consuming, and in result you would have a slower game.

for every city razed, every other enemy city in a 2x2 area suffers a % of units deserting.

Would the AI know that it has to raze cities? Or know which one to raze to get a higher number of units? Perhaps I would do it on capture or raze, with a lower %

 

[Watiggi]

Try to make it in one line, and it effect inmediate, like Rhye did.

A one line description: "Approached cities can surrender out of fear."

A one line description of the process:
For all cities approached by the Mongols, give them a chance to flip based on the number of cities razed and surrendered.

Keeping a tally, or things that build up over time that the program have to keep track of is very cpu resource consuming, and in result you would have a slower game.

It would require one value (a signed integer) and everything else could be computed or retrieved at the time it is needed. The value is only updated when a Mongol razes a city or when a city surrenders. Checks for razing will only need to occur when a city is razed. That will not slow anything down. When a city is deemed to be approached by the Mongols, the city will then do the test to determine surrender or not and update that value.

The issue I see is how intensive the check to see if a city is being approached by Mongol units might be. Is this the case? If it is, I have some ideas about reducing computational time (if it's needed).

I guess, if a tally (even one this simple) is totally out of the question, then it could just be a chance the city will surrender when it's approached and nothing more.

Would the AI know that it has to raze cities? Or know which one to raze to get a higher number of units? Perhaps I would do it on capture or raze, with a lower %

I know that this isn't aimed at me, but Genghis has a 75% chance of razing a city, so my idea would (should) work with his AI rather well. In fact, it kinda complements it

 

[Watiggi]

Try to make it in one line, and it effect inmediate, like Rhye did. Keeping a tally, or things that build up over time that the program have to keep track of is very cpu resource consuming, and in result you would have a slower game.

I have given it some more thought. This model:

*only uses information retrieved in the present. So it doesn't require any tallies.
*has a very simple approach detection code that takes up no extra overhead and makes sense.
*performs the same function as before: For every city besieged by the Mongols, give them a % chance of surrendering, based on the number of cities razed.

How? Here's a sort of algorithm that would be put into the bombard function.

Unit bombarding code:
{
      If unit is Mongol
      {
            // At this point, we know that this unit is Mongol, 
            // is either a seige unit or a ship and is bombarding
            // the city defenses of a city the Mongols are at war with.

            get the total number of cities in the Mongol empire#
            get the total number of cities razed by the Mongol empire##
            calculate a chance that the city will surrender###
            
            if city is to surrender
            {
                   switch city to the Mongols
            }
      }                
}

And that's it

# I don't know how intensive it would be to calculate the number of cities during every Mongol bombard, but I wouldn't be surprised to find this value stored somewhere in the game at run time (correct me if I am wrong).

## How does the Info Statistics Screen know how many cities you've razed? The value should be available somewhere in the game so this shouldn't take up much processing time to retrieve (again, correct me if I am wrong).

### This chance would have to be gamplay tested no doubt. I am toying with a few formulaes and ideas for now, but it will be influenced by city razings.

This idea lets the normal bombarding code figure out whether the units are close to the rival city and whether the Mongols are at war with them all automatically without having to add any extra overhead D). If the total number of cities and the total razed cities are indeed values stored, then this too shouldn't take up any overhead and it is simple The only real extra code that attaches to the normal run of the game is in the bombarding code for when a unit bombards and it's a test to see whether the bombarding unit is Mongol. As such, it shouldn't take up any important processing time.

Basically it would (should) result in a gameplay experience whereby if you have razed cities prior, when you start hammering down the defenses of the next city with seige units, it might surrender. If the city doesn't surrender and you raze it, then the next city should be more inclined to surrender when you beseige it. The chance of surrendering should be heavily influenced by city razings. It should make for total destruction or surrender kind of conquest. Very Mongol

The name could be "Horde", "Fear", "Submission" or "Surrender".
The description could be "Beseiged cities can surrender out of fear."
The process is: For every city besieged by the Mongols, give them a % chance of surrendering, based on the number of cities razed.
It's one line, simple and the effect is immediate.

What do you think?

 

[Watiggi]

I would program it this way:
for every city razed, every other enemy city in a 2x2 area suffers a % of units deserting.
This is a simpler way and more different from Persian.

It would be better off if it were 'every other enemy city in a 2x2 area goes into revolt' instead of units deserting.

I like your idea, but it is too complex.

What is your opinion on the 'surrender or extermination' idea as a power. Am I wasting my time with researching the idea? I have found several simple ways in which it could be made to work, but I am interested in whether you are considering it at all (the simplified version that is - that seige units would trigger the check and the total cities vs razed cities would be retrieved in real time without any tallies). I think it would be worth the Mongols having something like that as it represents their methods rather well.

 

[McA123]

I don't think the current Mongol power is very good. I don't usually bother with pillaging, since all it does is create more work for my workers once I've taken the city.

 

[Rhye]

yes I'm considering it. But before defining the final shape I have to try to program it and see what fits best.

 

[Watiggi]

Ok cool. Please keep me posted If you need any help or something, let me know.

Do you happen to know how that info screen statistics keeps track of the total number of cities razed? I for the life of me cannot find it in the SDK, nor can I even find the info statistics screen code in Python or anything else. The only thing that seems to happen is that when a city is razed, it reports it (for the logs and I guess the replay too). Maybe it gets the number from going through the log looking for it. If so, that seems to be a rather complicated thing to do. I would have thought that the number of razed cities would be there somewhere as either a stored number or a simple algorithm that calulates it.

 

[JMaltman]

Great thoughts on the matter Watiggi.

I just finished reading John Man's "Ghengis Khan" last night - very good read if you like the subject.

The Mongols initial goal was to continuously find enough plunder to keep rewarding their army - to reward loyalty - and to punish double-crossers, of which Ghengis came across many. It wasn't until the particulars of how they dealt with the Xi Xia (Hsi Hsia), becoming a sort of weak vassal, and then taking Chinese cities that they actually thought about ruling and maintaining cities at all. And even then it was as a constant source of tribute in the initial phase. There's the theoretical discussion of how the advisor Yelu Chu Tsai was able to convince the Mongol leaders in China NOT to slaughter all the farmers and destroy the cities and use northern China as pasture with that very argument. But that's an aside.

In general though, they were more likely to punish (not necessarily raze) cities to punish double-crossing or obnoxious leaders/generals, or cities that caused them particular pains in the ass while they fought. They would give the surrender or die order to each city as they came along, and few actually chose to surrender.

You could go in a completely different direction.

I think a special power where when the Mongols take a city, that instead of having resistance for a few turns, instead you just burn those population points right now, and get rid of the resistance entirely. In some of the cities in Khwarezm, they basically lined the people up and slaughtered them over the course of a few days - so much for any resistance on the timescale of Civ IV. Then they could quickly move on to the next attack - which is what happened historically.

I'd still like to see some chance of surrender... maybe looking at it from a completely different mechanic? Maybe Mongol Keshiks have an effect on the culture in the adjacent tiles? So if you have enough of a buildup next to a city, it might have resistance or flip using the existing game mechanic?

But the existing pillaging and moving doesn't capture the Mongol specialty at all.

 

[Watiggi]

Nice idea Yeah, it wasn't until the cities started refusing to give tribute that the then took things further. I guess after conquering a city, they got a lot more than just demanding tribute, and so the conquests began...

The Mongols got a lot from their conquests though: Genghis would routinely relocate the 'specialist' population back to Mongolia so that they could teach others. They also hauled off a lot of valuables in 'supply trains' from conquered cities.

I like your idea with mowing down population inorder to quelch revolts. One could take that further and make it into something that effectively removes the burdon of having to manage/support cities yet, at the cost of being able to develop the cities - a temporary but effective city management solution that frees the military or city development. Basic city management at the cost of population would do.

I also like the idea of Keshiks (could extend it to all units) having an effect on culture. It would work better than my seige idea, but I dare say it would be difficult to implement. The seige idea was just for a simple trigger that wouldn't take much processing power. I ultimately would prefer that it would just trigger the 'order of submission' when Mongol military build up occurs in general.

Other interesting ideas (this is fun):

*get research from pillaging the ruins.
*free supply costs for units away from own territory.
*cities give tribute instead of costing maintanence (hmmm, bit unbalancing but is actually right. I have a better balanced and more realistic one later though)
*cities cost no maintanence, but revolt more often (requring supression).
*captured cities require no garrison (I don't know, it frees up the military)
*'motherland' unhappiness are killed off when captured; No revolt period.
*no 'we demand military protection' unhappiness occurs.
*population decreases upon city revolt; ends revolt. (pretty much your idea)
*unhappy citizens who refuse to work are killed off.
*conquered cities can pop rush gold D This would work really nicely)
*newly conquered cities create free specialists in Mongol capital.
*population can be reduced in conquered cities which result in specialisits in Mongol capital.
*a generalised: City order is restored at the cost of population. Fixes the city if something is wrong with it like unhappiness, revolt, maintanence too high, etc.

I like the 'conquered cities can pop rush gold' idea! If no tribute is given, kill off some population and the tribute resumes. Gameplay wise, it takes away the burdon from managing cities - specifically having to build them up so that they pay for their maintanence costs - while not making it too unbalancing. It allows the cities to be able to pay for themselves (and maybe a bit more) but it also prevents the cities from developing into something competitive. I like it! That would allow for a big empire that pays for it's maintanence but without it becoming over developed and overpowerful.

Damn this is fun coming up with different ideas.

 

[JMaltman]

I definitely like your line of thinking on this -

*conquered cities can pop rush gold ( This would work really nicely)
*newly conquered cities create free specialists in Mongol capital.
*population can be reduced in conquered cities which result in specialisits in Mongol capital.

These are all good ideas too. Like you said, they took $ and specialists (artisans, engineers, and people to teach them siege warfare) from the cities they conquered, while slaughtering many of those who opposed them.

I'm not sure if its possible in the game dynamics, but to tweak the existing game mechanics to make it:

* Conquered cities have a population point relocated to the Mongol capital, who becomes a specialist
* Mongols get a multiplier to increase the gold yielded from conquering a city
* When Mongols conquer a city, the population is reduced a point or two further, and resistance is either drastically reduced (which happens when the population is smaller anyway), or eliminated.

 

[Watiggi]

I like the 'pop rushing gold' idea as it represents so many different aspects all at once: Basically it would symbolise them wanting tribute and compliance from the conquered cities and when they don't get it, they do a mass punishment and take it for themselves, resulting in gold and a reduced population. It's also a means of allowing the city to pay for itself which in turn doesn't bring down the empire as a whole and allows for fast expansion but also prevents cities from being able to develop. It frees up the need to manage cities whilest not becoming too much of a bonus that can be exploited to create a massive economy.

*conquered cities can pop rush gold.
*conquered cities loose a population point; Mongol capital gains a free specialist.
*resistance or unhappiness can be 'removed' by killing the population point.

With this, you could then maintain the city by:

a) pop rushing gold to pay for the city maintanence and.

b) pop the unhappy population when they either refuse to work (due to war wariness for instance) or to reduce the revolt time for newly conquered cities.

Which would allow for:

a) fast conquest expansion because the cities - all though they wont develop because they'll keep loosing population points - they will be able to pay for themselves (and maybe a bit more).

b) a simple aggressive 'city management style' of killing people when the city becomes a burden.

c) a very, very large empire (that expanded quickly) while not allowing it to become over powered in terms of generating a lot of commerce and research because the population will be killed regularly to pay tribute, otherwise the economy would crash.

Essentially it would allow you to expand fast, stay afloat and end up with a lot of cities that aren't developed (and thus a lot of territory), but whose cities also don't need to be developed inorder to maintain such an empire. I guess from a gameplay point of view, playing as the Mongols, the game should be very militaristically focused with little attention paid to city management. Any needed city management (like paying for maintanence or dealing with unhappiness) should be solved by killing the population, hence pop rushing for gold and poping unhappy people who refuse to work or cities that resist.