Villages

[Naokaukodem]

I suggested earlier in a topic about "expansion" and "beliefs", the existence of numerous villages throught out the map.

The problem with that type of suggestion, is that those villages, which would work as actual cities, would obviously lack of tiles to work.

A solution would be to subdivise each hex into 6 smaller one, whereas units would still move one big hex to the other, and have a choice box popping up when pillaging. Core cities could as well take only 1/6 of an hex, to keep the system coherent.

The problem with this type of solution is that it comes back basically to enlarge the map dramatically, which is maybe not optimal technically, except that units would move on a greater layer, which may (may, may, may) solve this problem more or less.

Another solution is to make villages separated entities from actual cities, but I think it would be still cooler to have names on them, in a discreet way to not overcharge the map.

Those villages would be a different type : commercial relays, agricultural villages, etc...

Not sure if they would pop according to other factors or if you would have to build them from scratch, in the city or with workers though... suggestions ? Considering that :

You could build "traders", who would basically be tax collectors in fact, that would make a round between nearby villages. Commercial villages would make you earn gold, agricultural villages would make you earn food (for possible instant growth of your city), etc... basically each village would be a permanent goody hut, and considering the bonuses of those last become more or less trivial late game, this wouldn't be overpowered.

You could also try to tax villages you didn't build, be them hunter-gatherers, independent agricultors, or even villages created by the enemy. In some cases the enemy would not react to your pillaging (if he fears you for example, or simply doesn't want to enter in a war), in other times that would be a casus belli. Some other times, the village would be on his own, trying to raise a barbarian army in order to defend itself, and maybe carry over other villages in a global revolution. (risk of bursting of your civ in city states)

The first civ to tax a neutral village would be the one possessing it officially. (borders)

Your economy could totally lie on those villages early. They could be city-placement changers. You could enlarge your borders pretty quickly with them. You could even turn them in actual core cities.

What do you think ? What kind of villages could we have ?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This is going to be a long post, because I've been thinking about this same thing quite a bit lately.
First, I am definitely in favor of 'filling up the map with people' a Lot more than the game does now. Historically, people were living in various sized groups everywhere before and after there were cities, and they were not by any means uniformly hostile the way the in-game 'barbarians' are now.

How about a generic term: Settlements, covering all Non-City Tile Exploitation Groups.
All Settlements would start as single-tile. Some may take in more tiles later.
Settlements are of two basic types:
Those founded by a Civilization (or maybe even by a City State)
Those founded by the game: that is, Both the Barbarian Camps and the 'Goodie Huts' would fall under this category - And they would be the same.

Yep, no more automatically-forever-hostile 'barbarians' and no more Vanish-if-you-contact-them huts. Instead, the game would keep generating Camps that, depending on a host of in-game circumstances, may be Hostile, Neutral, or Friendly.
Hostile - just like the current Barbarians, except that you can bribe them or pay them off to attack somebody else, not you, or by trading or 'gifting' them turn them neutral or friendly eventually.
Neutral - same as the above except that they don't attack, don't trade, don't talk - but may be convinced to be Friendly by bribes, gifts, or even special Civics or Policies
Friendly - like the current Goodie Huts, they may give you something, join you as units, builders or settlers or Population Points, AND they may also trade with you for resources they have that you don't. They may also become Neutral or Hostile if you mistreat them. Also, of course, what anybody gets from them is going to go down fast the more Civilizations come a'calling with their hands out...
Since these Settlements keep spawning throughout the game, they alone would provide a continuing supply of Non-City population on the map that you would have to interact with for trade, defense, diplomacy, etc.

But in addition, taking up your idea, Civilizations should be able to 'send out' settlements as well. Historically, these could be:
Military Outposts (Forts, Frontier Guards)
Commercial Outposts (Trading Posts, Mines, Ranches, Plantations)
Religious Outposts (Monasteries, Holy Sites)

I see two ways to establish these: Restrictive would be to require a Great Person (respectively, a Great General, Great Merchant or Engineer, Great Prophet) which is going to keep the number of them pretty low. More Expansive would be to make it easy to establish them, say, with a Builder using all of its Charges at once, but require a Maintenance Cost (because 'colonies' were always expensive at first) and, of course, make them vulnerable to raiding. pillaging, or destruction. They could even 'tie in' to the 'Native Settlements' idea in that having too many of these nearby would automatically turn a Friendly or Neutral Settlement into Hostile without lots of bribes and diplomatic gifting.

These Settlements would have specific bonuses for the founding Civilization, and possibly bonuses to other Civs as well.
For instance, a Trading Post would allow you to build a road to it, and from it to other (foreign) cities - a way of greatly extending the range of Trade Routes - Silk Road, anyone? Other Civs could also build a road to it, extending their Trade Routes and possibly getting enough influence to take the bulk of the benefits away from you...

Commercial outposts are to exploit Resources. Basically, you can build a Mine, Quarry, Plantation, Farm, etc and reap the benefits of the appropriate Resource on that tile, automatically producing a road from that tile X-tiles length to your nearest city (or Trading Post!) - X would vary with the size of the map, technology, and possibly with the terrain - jungles, tundra, desert, marsh would be harder to transport over, rivers reaching to the tile would greatly extend the distance, since you can float/barge a lot more than you can pack on a set of animals. Of course, X could also extend a long way across bodies of water, eventually giving us overseas Colonies without having to develop an entirely separate game for them ...

Military Outposts would provide a Fort in the 'wilderness' which could have several functions. It could provide control over a 'choke point' - a pass through the mountains, a fork in two rivers, a narrow stretch of land between to seas/oceans. It could also provide the base for a Commercial or Trading Outpost, which could be built there (one only, not both, to keep you from building a non-city city there!) using another Builder - giving you a Protected tile to exploit.

Holy Outposts I think would have to be built by a Great Prophet or Apostle instead of a secular Builder, but they would be a way to 'generate' Faith points to your nearest city, extend the influence of your religion (including to the nearby 'Native Settlements' - genuine Missionaries in the game for a change to help change them from Neutral/Hostile to Friendly) and possibly a place to 'heal' missionaries, inquisitors or apostles. I suggest a Monastic Foundation might even be a Special Religious Outpost that can provide both the benefits of a religious outpost and a Commercial Outpost - representing the monastic foundations that worked the local area extensively and provided serious commercial benefits in Medieval Europe.

Finally, any of the Outpost Settlements are going to attract people (there might even be a new Pioneer Policy or Civic that encourages this), which means they have the potential to Grow. That means, they will extend to a second tile - or more. At a certain point, they will become a Village or a Town, and possibly even a new City.

This pair of mechanisms for extending the variety of interactions with the 'Barbarian'/Goodie Hut settlements and allowing Civilization-spawned 'extraterritorial' settlements would simultaneously give us a much more dynamic 'map', a mechanism for Colonization and Intercontinental Trade much earlier than is now possible, and provide a way to get access to Resources that are (relatively) scarce in the game now.

Of course, we'd probably have to wait until Civ VIII to get it all...

 

[Manifold]

Yes, every single tile should become more important.

keyword: tile trade

Currently your borders expand with culture, by buying them with gold or with a new settlement.
If your Civ is wealthy and expansive your border expand. This is already in the game.
If another Civ/CS/Barbarian is more attractive for the people of the tile you will loose the tile again. Particularly underdeveloped areas will chance if they were not especially well guarded by an outpost.
Partially there was something like this in Civ4.
Currently only Poland and Australia can occupate tiles with their UA.

I would suggests also tile trade in the diplomatic screen: the possibility to sell/buy tiles from other Civs/CS or get them with a peace contract would be cool

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yes, every single tile should become more important.

keyword: tile trade

Currently your borders expand with culture, by buying them with gold or with a new settlement.
If your Civ is wealthy and expansive your border expand. This is already in the game.
If another Civ/CS/Barbarian is more attractive for the people of the tile you will loose the tile again. Particularly underdeveloped areas will chance if they were not especially well guarded by an outpost.
Partially there was something like this in Civ4.
Currently only Poland and Australia can occupate tiles with their UA.

I would suggests also tile trade in the diplomatic screen: the possibility to sell/buy tiles from other Civs/CS or get them with a peace contract would be cool

Trading off towns, provinces, etc was pretty much the norm during Medieval, Renaissance and early Industrial Europe, but with the rise of nationalism it got trickier: getting a province/tile or set of tiles full of an 'ethnic minority', especially one from a big, militant Neighbor, could be a load of trouble. Since the borders in Civ now seem to represent and and fast Political Borders, they should not be subject to Change on a Whim. People don't just quietly decide to start obeying a different set of laws, paying a different set of taxes, without some military conflict involved. What happens is your 'homesteaders' settle and claim some country and then find out that the Scythians, Lakotah, or some other equally-militant group also claims it. If you are very lucky, paying some tribute (as the Greek cities in the Crimea and southern Russia area did to the Royal Scyths) will get you 'off the hook. If you are not lucky, you're at war and your homesteaders are likely to wind up as Involuntary Citizens of the other group.
I think there should be a mechanism for borders/claimed tiles to change, but I don't think it should be a quiet change of border color because your 'culture' wasn't strong enough - that would make sense only if the borders in the game represented Cultural Boundaries instead of Political ones.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Very interesting ideas Boris, put in a realistic gameplay way, more than my vague ideas.

Let me then develop a little more the OP, in a more gameplay way.

At start, there would be plenty villages nearby, all over the map. (there could even be some right next to your spawning point, even in your spawning point -there could be several settlements in the same tile) Let's say you start as a city the old fashion way. You could build a tax collector the very first turn if you like. Tax collectors could collect from a maximum of 4 or 5 villages in one turn. [maybe less at the beginning] I say well in one turn. It is to say, each turn you would receive the benefits of four chosen villages by tax collector built. Thing is, your tax collectors would have no weight in their words if you have no army. So you have to build up an army also in order to facilitate the work of your tax collectors. So, building up a tax collector first is not necessarily the no brainer move you have to do each game. You also have to deal with hostile settlements early, and asking for taxes is a good way to make them behave like this, or simply the few naturally militaristic/hostile settlements from the start that would be used as barbarians, so that you need an army early.

Settlements could be of different types indeed, a little like city-states now. Keep in mind that your economy could rely exclusively on them, providing you the food, production, gold you need to grow. It could totally replace the old mine/farm/improvment system of old Civs, and possibly also the district system of Civ6.

Expansion would essentially be done with tax collectors, attracting in your gravitation the nearby settlements. Like I said, the first to tax a village is possessing it, with the tile it's in becoming your borders, and also the possible tiles those settlements are using also. That said, tax collectors would not take into account borders, and could go through enemy borders in order to tax enemy settlements. This could cause some casus belli or passive conquest in the case the enemy does not protest. (fear, war with another civ, plan of later "reconquista"... all in all, if one decides a passive conquest, it would be pretty slow and risky, in opposition to uncontested settlements that would be safer. Don't forget that a settlement taxed by two civs is more alike to form hostile alliances, new entities like civs or c-s leagues, and attract every piece of discontent throughout a large territory -your, and beyond)

You could also "convince" peacefully a settlement to give a tax to you, by allegiating it as a "protection" tax. You could even manoeuvre in order to make them feel in danger, for example by bribing barbarians to attack those settlements or declaring war to your neighnour to the other side to install a feeling of insecurity.

I'm not sure yet how tax collectors would work, if you can build more of them than there are inhabitants in your city, or even if you have to build them to begin with. Since their efficiency would rely mostly on your military power, I think they should not be limited in any way, and, that to be conform to the choice philosophy of the game, that they should be built.

Now, I have no clue how distant settlements could be linked to your territory in the way there are no blank spaces between your cities and them. Maybe they would be so numerous that you would begin by the closest, and build up your territory little by little.

And also, I don't think a way to make it realistic with modern economy. Tax collectors crossing the land to collect taxes in 2000 AD would be pretty much awkward. It's fine for antiquity, middle age and even high middle age, but since industrial revolution it doesn't fit anymore. But, relying on tax collectors doesn't mean it's the only mean to have an economy. Probably it would be the best for early expansion, but not so good when civs are touching themselves, and/or that the outputs would be better old fashion way past a time.

I have also no clue of how a settlement could become a "city" of yours. Maybe by having several of them in a single tile ? But how do you choose them then ? Settlements becoming cities would be rare or frequent ? Totally random or with an action of the player ? I think the best would be trading/religious/tactical streams would create possible city slots here and there, and that you could "activate" them to become cities. All this happening in your territory of course. Or, you have a capital, you send your tax collector to pick up tiles and resources, and then you can choose to transform any village into a new city, by clicking on it or something. Then, you have to build tax collectors for that city, or split them between your capital and your new cities. With all that, you have an army, because otherwise taxed settlements would rebel.

All this is pretty confuse to me, I think I need help on that. Keep in mind that I want an "organic" settlements mechanic, making the game play differently, not just add up things over the nowadays known Civs.

Side "ideas" :

Additionnally to my "villages" topic, I would like to talk about attraction and armies, which are two separated topics.

Attraction : this one will be pretty quick, I mean it is said that Romulus claimed all over Italy that he was looking for people for his city Rome, and all sort of guys came to grow the city. One could do the same in Civ, and as everyone would do it on turn 1, I guess it would be automatic. People of other settlements could choose to join our capital, all of them or only a percentage of each settlement. For example, if the people of a settlement want to join us, they could join us at 100% of their settlement or only at 30%, 50% or 60%.

Armies : I think we should keep the army system of Civ6, but add another layer of size : sub sizes. Indeed, in Civ5 units are formed by 12 people graphically, and in Civ6 by only 4. I think that in Civ7 units could be possibly divided into 3, and you could compose new kinds of units by merging them.

For example, natives would most of the time have only 4 people units, that would be beaten deeply by our 12 people units. But, militaristic ones could give us sub units of 4 people some times, and we could merge them into bigger units, up to 3 sub-units it is to say 12 people. Those units could be composed of cavalry, infantry and range units. Indeed, instead of having units composed of 12 same people, we could have units composed of 4 x 3 different kinds of warriors.

That would not always be better than the old way, but it could be better, according to the situation. (example : if you do not want to expose your archers too much, add them a range of close combat, or two. It would lower the range strenght of the unit though)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Very interesting ideas Boris, put in a realistic gameplay way, more than my vague ideas.

Let me then develop a little more the OP, in a more gameplay way.

At start, there would be plenty villages nearby, all over the map. (there could even be some right next to your spawning point, even in your spawning point -there could be several settlements in the same tile) Let's say you start as a city the old fashion way. You could build a tax collector the very first turn if you like. Tax collectors could collect from a maximum of 4 or 5 villages in one turn. [maybe less at the beginning] I say well in one turn. It is to say, each turn you would receive the benefits of four chosen villages by tax collector built. Thing is, your tax collectors would have no weight in their words if you have no army. So you have to build up an army also in order to facilitate the work of your tax collectors. So, building up a tax collector first is not necessarily the no brainer move you have to do each game. You also have to deal with hostile settlements early, and asking for taxes is a good way to make them behave like this, or simply the few naturally militaristic/hostile settlements from the start that would be used as barbarians, so that you need an army early.

Suggestion: Treat Tax Collectors as another form of Envoy. Generate 'em like Points, allocate them to Settlements or Groups of Settlements 'automatically - no map movement required as would be for units. I suggest you might generate very few at first, but certain Techs (Writing, Currency, Radio), Civics (Code of Laws, Feudalism, Mercantilism, Colonialism), or Policies (Colonial Taxes, Expropriation, Trade Confederation) would increase the number dramatically.

And also, I don't think a way to make it realistic with modern economy. Tax collectors crossing the land to collect taxes in 2000 AD would be pretty much awkward. It's fine for antiquity, middle age and even high middle age, but since industrial revolution it doesn't fit anymore. But, relying on tax collectors doesn't mean it's the only mean to have an economy. Probably it would be the best for early expansion, but not so good when civs are touching themselves, and/or that the outputs would be better old fashion way past a time.

I have also no clue of how a settlement could become a "city" of yours. Maybe by having several of them in a single tile ? But how do you choose them then ? Settlements becoming cities would be rare or frequent ? Totally random or with an action of the player ? I think the best would be trading/religious/tactical streams would create possible city slots here and there, and that you could "activate" them to become cities. All this happening in your territory of course. Or, you have a capital, you send your tax collector to pick up tiles and resources, and then you can choose to transform any village into a new city, by clicking on it or something. Then, you have to build tax collectors for that city, or split them between your capital and your new cities. With all that, you have an army, because otherwise taxed settlements would rebel.

Suggestion: Settlements, as I mentioned in a previous Post, would start as Hostile, Neutral or Friendly, and you could work with Bribes (Envoys?), Tax Collectors, Military Threat and other mechanisms to convert them to Friendly. That is, paying Taxes and contributing Resources to you.
So, after 'Friendly' perhaps there should be a 'ladder' of relationship leading to Full Inclusion in your civilization.
From Friendly a Settlement could become:
Allied in which they are, essentially, permanently attached to you - perhaps with the mechanism of the Puppet Cities of Civ V, in which you can't control what they are doing, but you reap numerous 'automatic' benefits from them.
Loyal in which from Allied they become a complete member of your civilization in every way. This would take more and more effort as the game goes on, because there would be more and more other influences on them from other civilizations and neighboring Settlements.

Additionnally to my "villages" topic, I would like to talk about attraction and armies, which are two separated topics.

Attraction : this one will be pretty quick, I mean it is said that Romulus claimed all over Italy that he was looking for people for his city Rome, and all sort of guys came to grow the city. One could do the same in Civ, and as everyone would do it on turn 1, I guess it would be automatic. People of other settlements could choose to join our capital, all of them or only a percentage of each settlement. For example, if the people of a settlement want to join us, they could join us at 100% of their settlement or only at 30%, 50% or 60%.

In the terms for Settlements I used above:
100% = Loyal
60% = Allied
50% = Friendly
30% = Neutral

Armies : I think we should keep the army system of Civ6, but add another layer of size : sub sizes. Indeed, in Civ5 units are formed by 12 people graphically, and in Civ6 by only 4. I think that in Civ7 units could be possibly divided into 3, and you could compose new kinds of units by merging them.

For example, natives would most of the time have only 4 people units, that would be beaten deeply by our 12 people units. But, militaristic ones could give us sub units of 4 people some times, and we could merge them into bigger units, up to 3 sub-units it is to say 12 people. Those units could be composed of cavalry, infantry and range units. Indeed, instead of having units composed of 12 same people, we could have units composed of 4 x 3 different kinds of warriors.

That would not always be better than the old way, but it could be better, according to the situation. (example : if you do not want to expose your archers too much, add them a range of close combat, or two. It would lower the range strenght of the unit though)

Basically, Unit Stacking within the Unit, keeping Near-1UPT but adding 'diversity' of Units within the individual Unit. This would take a lot of work to make it doable, and a lot of (potentially) Graphic complications to make the units distinct on the map/Interface.
I suggest that the possible Sub-Units would have to be limited just to keep it manageable. This is not unrealistic: Most armies that included 'native troops' ranging from Alexander the Great's army to the Roman Legions of the Empire to the British/French/German Colonial forces used them the same way: as light skirmishing or scouting forces, foot or mounted, covering the flanks of the Main Force. So, based on the Era, the 'natives' would be Light Cavalry or Ranged troops added to the Melee or Spear or Heavy Cavalry forces of the 'main' army. It's still going to be graphically complicated, and probably going to take some work to make it acceptable as an alternative to a really decent Brigade-Division-Corps-Army stacking system.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Suggestion: Treat Tax Collectors as another form of Envoy. Generate 'em like Points, allocate them to Settlements or Groups of Settlements 'automatically - no map movement required as would be for units. I suggest you might generate very few at first, but certain Techs (Writing, Currency, Radio), Civics (Code of Laws, Feudalism, Mercantilism, Colonialism), or Policies (Colonial Taxes, Expropriation, Trade Confederation) would increase the number dramatically.

Oh yeah, I thought this one was quite obvious, this is exactly how I intended them. The question was more how to generate them, but I answered it by thinking about the choice philosophy of the game : they should be constructed like trade routes or spies, but when triggering them you would choose which settlements they will visit, and they will do so each turn since then automatically. Of course they have limited range between one settlement to the other, because practically it's more convenient and realistic ; they could "jump" from one settlement to the other with limited range. "Choice philosophy of the game" : without armies, your tax collectors will have few powers. You first unit could even serve to escort your first tax collector, so that there is no problem of pillaged tax collector, and for better results. I thought also about giving your civ a reputation, first you have none, but with demonstration of powers like killing barbarians or simply building and showing your troops, your reputation of power will increase, and the settlements would be more alike to pay you without any complication.

I'd like to add that with a full unit (12 graphical people), you would have greater chances to tax settlements, because most of them would have only 4 people (graphically) units. Such units are no match with previously mentionned ones.

On the same topic now i'm there, let's say militaristic settlements could gift you 4 people units. But nothing prevents you to build up yourself 4 people units too. Or to directly build a bigarred full unit with different kinds. (I think 3 kinds total, hence my "3x4", I thought more about 3 kinds of 4 each, but nothing prevents to have yet more differencied units still why not) That would act as the unit editor of Alpha Centauri, but within actual existing units, not completly invented ones, therefore more simple yet.

Suggestion: Settlements, as I mentioned in a previous Post, would start as Hostile, Neutral or Friendly, and you could work with Bribes (Envoys?), Tax Collectors, Military Threat and other mechanisms to convert them to Friendly. That is, paying Taxes and contributing Resources to you.
So, after 'Friendly' perhaps there should be a 'ladder' of relationship leading to Full Inclusion in your civilization.
From Friendly a Settlement could become:
Allied in which they are, essentially, permanently attached to you - perhaps with the mechanism of the Puppet Cities of Civ V, in which you can't control what they are doing, but you reap numerous 'automatic' benefits from them.
Loyal in which from Allied they become a complete member of your civilization in every way. This would take more and more effort as the game goes on, because there would be more and more other influences on them from other civilizations and neighboring Settlements.

Actually I was more thinking of integrating settlements to your territory as soon as you succeed in taxing them. I don't know if they would have an autonomous life in the sense of having a production queue like City-States now though. I'm thinking more about developpements like barbs ones with spawning units if they are aggressive or militaristic, and other characteristics for others. Since they are now in your territory, it's hard to tell how to transform them in actual cities, be them rebellious or not.

In the terms for Settlements I used above:
100% = Loyal
60% = Allied
50% = Friendly
30% = Neutral

I took those numbers as examples, and i did intend to represent them as margins of population that would join the capital early, like the +1 pop from goody huts we have now. But anyway, I would like to make city size completely different from what it is now : I would like a city to grow at its maximum possible size instantly, considering food, diseases (health), infrastructures, surroundings populations, reputation. Taxing agricultural settlements would just help increasing the size.

Basically, Unit Stacking within the Unit, keeping Near-1UPT but adding 'diversity' of Units within the individual Unit. This would take a lot of work to make it doable, and a lot of (potentially) Graphic complications to make the units distinct on the map/Interface.
I suggest that the possible Sub-Units would have to be limited just to keep it manageable. This is not unrealistic: Most armies that included 'native troops' ranging from Alexander the Great's army to the Roman Legions of the Empire to the British/French/German Colonial forces used them the same way: as light skirmishing or scouting forces, foot or mounted, covering the flanks of the Main Force. So, based on the Era, the 'natives' would be Light Cavalry or Ranged troops added to the Melee or Spear or Heavy Cavalry forces of the 'main' army. It's still going to be graphically complicated, and probably going to take some work to make it acceptable as an alternative to a really decent Brigade-Division-Corps-Army stacking system.

Originally I thought about having maximum 3 sorts of sub units in a unit, but there could be cases where it's more complicated. I also imagine well a front and a back, with units flowing from one to the other, using their standard movement points. Units could not only switch between two tiles, they could also merge like so.