Why not abstract missioning?

[dguichar]

Well, there are a couple (or more) threads about missionaries...

After reading the missionary description, it just came up to my mind that if they are like civ2 spies...

Why don't have a missioning screen alike the espionage screen?

Keep civilized

David

 

[Superkrest]

valid point..i havent really seen a deep detail of how exactly it is to be handled

 

[troytheface]

i like the idea of units that are non war units u can move around when ur building or whatever- abstracting the Spy was a bold move and it worked fine
only problem is u have old birds such as meself that kinda like having a "spy" unit i can name "Dr X" and move around spying on everyone-

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, you will be disappointed to hear that they have also 'de-abstracted' espionage for civ4, returning to the old spy unit once more . Amongst all the great things I am hearing about the game, this huge backward step is very disappointing indeed. I admit that there were serious problems with the implementation of Civ3 espionage-but the underlying principle was very sound. Spies (and now missionaries) OTOH, just seem like they will add vast amounts of MM for very little benefit.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[fishlore]

I like the idea of abstact missionaries. I guess part of that is the fact that I don't fully understand how religion and missionaries are going to work.

For example if someone surrounds your city with 9 missionaries, does that prevent the land from being worked by citizens in the city detail screen? Would production and food stop? Can missionaries be used to block access to certain tiles like workers can in Civ 3? Since missionaries can freely roam your land if you're trading, this could be grief inducing. At least with workers in Civ 3, you can ask them to leave although I guess you'd still run the risk of war. Can you do that in Civ 4 without stopping your trade?

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

I must say, I find this idea of abstracting religious functions an intriguing solution to some of my problems regarding religion.

My main problem with using RL religions is, from what information we have so far and without having played it, it sounds like they've created an espionage system, slapped some religious names on it, and placed it totally in control of the player with nothing to differentiate one religion from another.

I think this could potentially solve the problem of the player completely controlling the religion without creating the opposite problem of taking the player out of the driver seat. By creating a "religion" screen, similar to the espionage screen, you could create the illusion that the player isn't so much controlling the religion as much as interacting with that religions head of state. Most of the interesting ways that religion interacted with politics was as a powerful extranational force. Sometimes their aims coincide with the rulers, but not always.

Hear me out on this.

You can contact the heads of all the religions that you currently have in your empire. You can induce them to conduct various religious missions, such as sending missionaries to a certain city(leading to more conversion - financed by gold), causing their believers in a certain city to agitate (increasing maintenance costs - financed by favor), etc. Everything would be paid for by favor and/or gold. You build up favor with a religion by building temples/shrines/cathedrals/etc. Some things could only be paid for with favor, some with gold, some favor supplemented by gold. The price would depend on how that religion feels towards you (depending on its traits, using Aussie's system).

Granted, some obstacles remain to make it seemlessly mesh with Aussie's system of play-defined traits or within a generic religion system, but I think this has a lot of merit.

 

[troytheface]

in Call to Power they had Lawyers and spies and slavers and clerics (missionarys) - they were stealth units- visible only to others of their kind-
and ...some people hated them!- some people liked em- i was one of those that liked them- but- I did not view them as micromanaged units- i considered them attack units - in so far as to what incarnation (movement, powers, ect) missionarys and spies will take in Civ4 - that is a different matter - maybe the designers/idea guys will come up with new methods for these units -where controling them is..... fun! ergo fullfilling thier stated goal of cutting back on tedium-...(i mean not be be bloodthirsty or anything ...but when a war breaks out can u slaughter missionarys and catch spies ....?...) i suspect there will be a limit to the amount one can realistically build-

 

[Level]

I like spies, caravans, and other nonmilitary units, when they got rid of them I thought why not just abstract military also?
The game is Civilization not Militarization.

 

[dguichar]

I like spies, caravans, and other nonmilitary units, when they got rid of them I thought why not just abstract military also?
The game is Civilization not Militarization.

I'm not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic...

If you're sarcastic...

If you're serious... ¿how would you implement abstract military? i'll love to read about that (i'm not being sarcastic)

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The way I think most of the noncombat portion should be handled is in two ways
1. Units for carrying out operations
2. Civ 3 style screen for operations once a 'level of contact' was established

So once you had 'regular contact' with someone, units would not be needed (spies might work on setting up a spy ring, and then you would just use the espionage screen)

Perhaps the 'level of contact' would determine how much money could be spent on operations to a certain civ through the screen, with a unit able to channel any amount of money.

This would model the role of movement and terrain factors in early civilization contact, but allow the modern 'smaller world' to be handled well

 

[J-S]

Really? Spying has also been de-abstractizeddmm that?

I have to admit tho, I love the special units concept, but only for really big deal missions (like planting a nuclear device).

 

[dguichar]

I'm thinking...

Wouldn't the spy unit will only be for locating enemy military units without being detected, except for another spy?

 

[Ghafhi]

You not would be kind of cool. If I find Islam and convert 6 people to muslim in an enemy city of 11. The city falls into civil war. The rebels will ask for my help because I found the religion but I can choose to decline. If I decline the rebels will fight that civ for independence. If I accept depdending on my strength and relationship with the other leader he might declare war. Or like in civ 2 I can just give my units to that mini-civ/city to support my cause and declare war on that civ later and take more cities.

 

[evirus]

cause then wouldnt people say things like "OUR RELIGION ISNT JUST SOME SORT OF SPY LIKE THING TO DEAL WITH OTHER COUNTRIES!!!1!!111"

 

[apatheist]

A reason that religion is different from espionage is that espionage often acts on the nation as a whole. You don't steal a tech from Delhi; you steal it from India. You don't learn the location's of Osaka's troops; you learn the locations of Japan's troops. You don't steal Cairo's map of the world; you steal Egypt's map of the world. Some espionage is city-based, but, as I understand it, all missionary actions are city-based. That tips the balance toward a unit rather than a cabinet department or ministry or directorate or whatever.

That perhaps also suggests that espionage be separated into two things, one for actions on a civ as a whole, and one for actions on individual cities or units. Having two ways of doing related things might be bad, though.

 

[Leuf]

¿how would you implement abstract military? i'll love to read about that (i'm not being sarcastic)

"Sir, Persia has declared war on us!"

[RNG churns for a bit]

"Bad news Sir, Persia has captured Dover."

No but seriously, I'm actually working on my own Civ-like game and it will have a more abstract military. In fact I've ditched having any sort of individual units at all. If you can picture how they depicted battles in old wwII and civil war documentaries, they would show lines of troops with bars in formations and then put arrows showing where they went. That is my inspiration. You will lay out your armies in formations and give them an objective, the AI will lay out its own, and actual combat will occur between the last AI's and your next turn. How exactly that will all be implemented I am a long way off from, I'm concentrating on getting my cities working right now. I'm doing it this way mostly because that's how I think it ought to be, but also because I have zero ability to make decent unit graphics Drawing lines and arrows, that I can do...


-Leuf

 

[minger]

They should have both (which I think they do) -- missionaries should be inidividual units, but religion should also spread "naturally" based on certain factors.

I am glad that they are putting spy units back into the game, but only because espionage in civ3 was a total joke -- but I am definitely open to other abstracting ideas, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater

 

[apatheist]

Culture, religion, espionage, and trade seem like good candidates for dual treatment. There's a natural progression and propagation, perhaps controlled through budget expenditures. There are also explicit things the player can do with units in specific, targeted ways.