Thread Tools
Old July 25, 2001, 12:08   #1
Trifna
King
 
Trifna's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:48
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: of anchovies
Posts: 1,478
11 ideas for the list (very long)
Here are about all my ideas. It's making about 10 pages in Word and is pretty detailed so don't feel obliged to read all from top to bottom in detail. Do as you wish. If you prefer a general idea, read what is in italic and maybe the conclusion. I'll be happy if something comes out of it. I think the game is quite advanced, but better proposing than nothing if it has a tiny chance to be useful, even if for Civ IV (coming out Q4 2010 or never :-P). At least it'll have been a good mental exercise:

1- Mountains, jungles and hostile terrains could affect units and cause problems to newly established cities if your units aren't accustomed to such conditions. Combat could also be afflicted by these penalties. Adaptation to exploitation of ressources by population is also an idea.

Many armies were decimated by mother nature. Napoleon in Russia, North America was hard for Europeans, jungle and mountains surely killed lots of men, etc. Natural damage could be a nice little idea and a serious threat in some cases... Exemple: trying to pass a mountain chain with some phalanx could have some chance of beeing deadly (depending exactly which mountains maybe). Or some units passing the desert or in very cold latitudes (like some exploration boats). In such cases, maybe the first tile could have certain chance of beeing fatal, but the second could be even worst and so on (harder and harder to survive). It would simply need to define which terrains are hostile for which units and at which point for each specific case. All this is as for boats that were going too far at sea and had a chance of not coming back. Units constructed on/near a certain type of terrain would have some resistance. And if a colony is establishing somewhere, there would be a gradual adaptation if needed, depending from where the colons are coming and where they established. By this way, the colons could have serious problems establishing in an area hostile to them. But if you bring new men to that colony, the new men automatically gain the resistance (only partially?) of the rest of the city since they lurn how to adapt from the other citizens. Some warning message could be given demanding if the displacement/establishment is wanted or not in these cases. By the same way, maybe some time of adaptation to the maners to exploit a ressource could be an idea. You wont start making nice boats and fishing the day after you established... Technology would help, if not eliminate this factor, since simplifying the task.

Maybe capacity to attack/defend could be affected too. You would be more vulnerable on these terrains where you have a malus. Like Americans that went to ViętNam or Europeans that went against Amerindians in other than open fields.

But with time, it would maybe affect less and less, with technology and with habit of modern combat. For exemple, USA didn't had the ViętNam handicap in Irak since they prepared their troops and evaluated the situation better.

2- Read bellow.

Taking by seige by stopping all external exchanges and any civilian to go out of the city to the ressources would be nice. It was commonly used. If wether access to water (with a sailport) would be restricted or not would depend of if the city's wall are going to water and if enemy is also seiging by sea.

3- Stealth of units could be influenced by proximity of cities/units, nature of the unit and by terrain, clouds for planes, use of night to move (I guess they use it as they can in army), level of technology. Also, units moving in some vehicles aren't seen as easily. Only the vehicle may be seen. Finally, units normally use some transport and don't move by themselves, which influences their moves.

Movements of troops aren't always seen. For exemple, in real life, some footmen moving have a certain chance of not beeing seen (using night, etc). Of course, if they are passing near a 3 000 000 population city, they have lot less chances... Many factors could influe on the chances to be seen (terrain, proximity of opponent cities/units, etc.).

It's also the same thing about high-tech units or with some camouflage. Of course, an entire batalion of tanks isn't hard to see, but it's different for some marines hiding in the wild. Some units would be hardly seen precisely without radars (we could only get some "rumours", like people that could have heared some powerful planes bellow clouds or out of sight (most aerial attacks are nocturn I guess) in a sector, which doesn't say with exactitude how many planes there were or were they went).

In facts, many military units rarely move by themselves if not on the fields of battle. Thus, should tanks/infantry/etc. have the option "move in vehicle", which gives same speed than the vehicle? We could also use ground transport to move stuff secretly?... Put some tanks or mens in a train or something and no one sees what's in it. And maybe if it's some non-military merchandise train for exemple, it could pass without beeing noticed (only if it is used in real-life). Well, it could be remarqued since 50 men missing somewhere can be noticed but you'd still have a chance... But of course, if you pass some customs, the concerned country will see it. So the option to avoid customs (thus passing the borders unseen) or not could exist?... Becomes pernickety... Something like that could be think of in Civ III about transporting military units.

4- Different ways to gain information and what affects the chances of success of spying/counterspying. High-tech units could be useful. Introduction of observators would be realist, observators beeing some kind of officially accepted observators in annother country.

Spying could be developped. In Civ I-II, we only had spies of limited uses.

In modern reality, with some heavy (and surely very costly) technology, you can even observe the enemy by using satellites. Of course, you wont see every movement of unit. But you can put your radar on some specific place. As I remember, It's what USA made with Irak I think, after the Gulf War. They saw some major dispacements of tanks. You can also spy with planes that look at what is going on in the other country. Like that American plane catched on the limits of China's frontiers I guess. Aircrafts are also used alot in war to see what's going on on the other side. Like the to take pictures of infrastructures (and maybe enemy's movement) in Kosovo.

Secondly, observators, which is a sort of officially permitted variant of spying, is also something used in reality and major way to get informations. Sometimes it has purely pacific reasons (like ambassies, official informational visits or else). Sometimes also a way to keep peace after war, by puting observators that are checking what's going on in the other country's territory. It can be used in other ways than to keep peace of course... Some exemple would be USA that gave this condition to Irak for stopping attacks. Germany also had that kind of consequence after WWI and WWII I think. And it's presently the case in Kosovo. And I'm sure it was also used in more ancient times. Observators are also used in hot spots of our own countries, like some freshly gained territory. Like some city that could suffer civil war, bad influences, spying (with officially permitted observers, you still have a better chance to detect it) or else. Of course, observators can fail totally or partially into their mission that is to get all the demanded information, whattever are their mission or missions. The goal of observators? Officially legitim information. And this information may have many uses. Exemple: to discover that an opponent wasn't doing what he stipulated he would in a treaty: researching on chemical war, constructing nuclear missiles, trying to get stronger than you militarily, not giving you the sixth of the revenus of a city (surely used by some kings on their vassals). Having observers can also facilitate the job of spies by their officially legitim contacts, rights of passage, etc.

In which case observator would be in action? Well in some exchanges... A condition to a treaty, or to peace, or a reciproque exchange of observators (like with some friendly allies), etc. Observators are commonly an exchange value.

Annother thing is counterspying. To go against hiden foes, nothing better than hidden friends. I have nothing more to say here... Counterspy helps detect and counter spies...

Now, a great detail changing lots of things in spying/counter-spying: if citizens in other's territory are on your side. So your political regime and your opponent's political regime does influence. Also, it's more easy to find spies in a city that was yours before. Same if they are closure to your culture/ religion/nationality. Think of Berlin west and east for exemple, which was a melting pot of influencing factors.

5- When we exchange maps with some civilisation, can we give him false/not exact maps? (hehe)

When we exchange maps with some civilisation, can we give him false/not exact maps? (hehe) I'm sure multiplayer would espescially benefit from it. For that, some way to change the map a little would be necessary. Like to errase some cities from the map, put some roads were there aren't any, change the field a little, etc. I'm sure that it arrived a many times in history that some ressources, cities and else weren't given on maps given to some other civilisation. But would some player say "Yes" to exchange map and give a map with nothing on it, which would normally have been refused at sight? Or with some other change that would normally have been refused at sight? (Like the evidence of an omission). Maybe letting 15 seconds (or some time depending the width of the map) for both partys to look at maps and definitely accept? This would be closer to reality. Or something could automatically indicate the differences with our map so we decide.

6- Possibility of not having all exact information of what's on the map at first sight. Like not seeing some ressources, misestimate ressources, etc.

Could our discoverers not see all on first sight? A mountain is easy to see, but it's not allways evident for a soldier to see there's gold under its crust. Larger quantities of natural ressources, in most cases, are also easier to spot. Sometimes it could SEEM that there's a good gold spot and not beeing that good. Like in America where they thought that yellow metal and quartz were gold and diamonds. Not easy either to see that there's fish if you don't know how to fish or if or a away from the coast. Doesn't arrive each time that a troop pass near some goldy river that some gold is seen. Some units would see more easily. And what's in the sector of a city or road between two big cities would of course have more chances of beeing seen. Technology and science would help.

7- Some way to put railroad or what will replace them in a more realistic fashion. Maybe use trains/trucks to shoot some missiles and transport some boats/planes (not too big or heavy). The "railroad" system could get better with time.

I have an idea to put the railroad (or what will replace them) more realistic. A train is moving faster than a footman, we know that. Faster than a tank, we know that too. But it's the same speed in any case: the speed of the train. And believe it or not, it's not infinite speed as in Civilisation II where you could move all year long in the same turn with a unit on a railroad :-) So I guess units using train should all have the same number of tiles to move bonus. And it should be a bonus that would consider if you're using steam engine or Japan's high-speed trains. We could also move missiles (they can't move themselves except to attack!!!) and some boats or planes by train, but don't hope to use your plane or boat in the middle of nowhere. You'll need to get to a seaport/airport. For boats and planes, not all will be transportable by train because of their weight or size (except maybe, for some, by some more advanced transport (better trains/trucks/others). For planes, it could be useful in many ways: diplomatic reasons, stealth, get to some very far airport, etc. For missiles, I guess some missiles could be shot from a stoped train/truck, but don't hope to throw Ariane V or a Soyouz from your wagon: not all missiles can be shot from a train or truck.

Also, I though we could transport trains by boat and cargo plane. Just joking.

8- Read bellow.

If people get better transport (horses, then cars, better roads, etc), they're able to go work further. Thus, the exploitation of resources around a city grows larger. Will it be considered? In real life, we effectively see that some cities that were totally separated a hundred years or more ago are now sharing some ressources or separating it between themselves. So, would it be a good idea to consider it?

9- Read bellow.

In diplomacy, could there be a difference between the right of passage of all units and the right of passage of non-military units only? Could there be a right of passage of all except spies (except if... escorted? (You would have no control on the unit til not escorted) Some other units could also pass at the condition to be escorted by the other nation. They could try to pass without beeing noticed also?) and/or other units such as nuclear missiles? Could there also be, in diplomacy, such alliances/treaties that tries to stop a rising of armament (the rising of military power) or the use of nuclear for exemple? (A little like it was the case for USA/Russia, or conditions given to Germany after WWI/II for some period) This kind of treaty would be a "you don't go more than X militarily and I don't go more than Y militarily" (X and Y may be different in some cases). These treaties are normally on schedule. These treaties can demand the discartment of units. Some other form can also only be "you shall discart these given units".

10- Include the possibility to let a certain aleatory factor in the settings (don't remember if it was the case in Civ II).

When we make some exploration, it's restraining to know in advance what it's gonna be. So I'd like that a function would give the possibility to let aleatory (but staying realistic) how land will be, how many civilations there will be, if there will be lots of ressources, etc, etc. Or to let some marge like choosing "From little ressources to lots", "From 3 to 14 civilisations". It would be like it has been for explorators: they go and make some maps and after they see how it was in reality. I don't have Civ II anymore, and I don't remember if it was already a possibility... Sorry if it was.

11- The option to not having ANY statistical information about other civilisation that we wouldn't have in real-world could be nice.

In my idea, to simulate, all what we wouldn't know in real world shouldn't be known in the game. Even how great other civilisations are if you don't know that civilisation yet (could be an option). Like in reality. Because it's a lack of realism for those who use this undue information, like when deciding who to attack for exemple.

No not-supposed-to-be-known statistics. You would of course probably know more if you get rumours of it because the civilisation isn't too far and is famous, by spying, if the civilisation is your near neighbour or if your units are all everywhere on it's territory or maybe if you have a treaty with him. If your citizens are likely to go in other civilisations cities, you would know more. Other factors could be distance, political regim, religion, culture, technology, diplomatical/economical contacts... There would then be a certain degree of precision on available information, beeing your degree of knowledge about the other civilisation. Like in reality, some wonders would be more easily known than some others, some maybe even kept secret. Of course, at the end of a game, you would get all the information you want. Not having all this information in-game would give more of its value to gaining information thus exploration, diplomacy and spying/counterspying (mmmm... fuuuun :-).


*----------------*
CONCLUSION
Now, my last little thing is... how do we implement such things without making Civ III a full-time occupation? How to keep it from beeing overcomplicated? One way of taking an idea without making it too complex is to put the information at hand when needed. So by clicking on an opponent's city, we could get a little menu letting us choice between information useful for spying, ressources, known production, etc., which would give us the information we demanded. The content and precision of the information would depend on your sources (which are spies, observators (yup), diplomacy, technological devices, etc.). Some advisor from the secret services could also exist. At demand, he could inform you of his interpretation of the available information (as each advisor in his respective sector). Maybe we could get that advisor by right clicking on the spying information menu. Same for stealth of units: we could get the useful information by clicking on the right title: stealth, ressources, statistics (percentage of each nationality of population, poor/average/good biodiversity, whattever you want), etc.). All these advisors can serve the way we wish: if needed, they're not restrained to be cool graphical tutorials :-) Also, if really needed, some implements could be totally optional, maybe making a normal and advanced mode (but I don't like that option). One thing is sure, it's complicated for the producers! Well the right middle of complexity has to be found and I'm sure Sid Meier's team and fans will get a good approximation of it. So I'm waiting for critic.

Trifna

PS: Can't wait to play Civ III in multiplayer... :-)
Trifna is offline  
Old July 25, 2001, 12:36   #2
Rasputin
lifer
DiploGamesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Deity
 
Rasputin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:48
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Between Coast and Mountains
Posts: 14,475
wow a big one !!
well i actually read it all!!

The only real point you got my 100% agreement on is the last one
Quote:
Can't wait to play Civ III in multiplayer
__________________
GM of MAFIA #40 ,#41, #43, #45,#47,#49-#51,#53-#58,#61,#68,#70, #71
Rasputin is offline  
Old July 25, 2001, 13:08   #3
SerapisIV
King
 
SerapisIV's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:48
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hartford, CT, USA
Posts: 1,501
Save the ideas for a Civ4 bulletin board or Civ3 expansion pack ideas thread. The game concepts of Civ3 are almost guaranteed to be to far into coding to be changed in any significant manner more then balancing.

I like some of the ideas, though I worry that some of the details you want to include (cloud cover and such) are too detailed for the abstract combat of Civ. It's not a war simulation, never could be with 6000 years of technology.

I especially like the idea of false-maps, though I think it would only really be useful in MP, doubt such tactics would do much to an AI
SerapisIV is offline  
Old July 25, 2001, 14:21   #4
Trifna
King
 
Trifna's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:48
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: of anchovies
Posts: 1,478
Clouds are meant to simply be considered in the percentage of chances of beeing stealth. You wouldn't see the word cloud anywhere in statistics. As same as some details that needs to be considered to evaluate well, but not letting player directly deal with it. Gotta limit micromanagement.

Thanks,
Trifna
Trifna is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:48.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team