[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Alternative nation dialog

[aliaga <aliaga@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 28-02-02 23:22 -0400, you wrote:
> it may help to have them suffer few failures early on with those tactics
> thus being encouraged to follow up on them. A friend who used to design
Hummm, nice idea. Maybe not so easy to code...


> games used to argue that you cannot upgrade/improve unless you fail though
> because you will run up against "if it aint broken dont fix it"
> mentalities. Possibly such mentalities could be a tribe/civ determined
> thing though, neophobes vs neophiles or somesuch.
<warning: serious neuron collisions ahead>

Whoa, a way to tie the "national Myth" with unhappiness!

You could have some people unhappy with the "improvements", say libraries, 
while some others would be "unhappy" for not having them! Some protesters 
for having too much military, some protesting for having so many scientists 
in their ivory towers!
Say you want to go fundamentalistic, just smash enough libraries and get 
your "technophobes" happy to back you!
Then go militaristic, convert all scientists to elvises and gain huge support!

Then if you want to go back to "civilized" you would have it really hard, 
not impossible, just very difficult and costly.
The exact mix of each kind of unhappines should be decided at the start, 
leaving only small cumulative changes happen when you research certain 
things or achieve certain results. Here goes Propaganda as well, enhancing 
your ability to change the mindset of your subjects.
Literacy could enhance your scientific output, but weaken your "xenophobe 
party", thus impairing you somewhat the next time you want to go to war... 
sounds funny, heh?

> > It's not hardcoded in their genes, it's an effect of their culture.
>
> But the player determines the culture, no?
That's why the idea of somehow not allowing full freedom to the player has 
its good points.

> figuring "Culture" would probably be the tech that differentiates Settlers
> from similar units that can do the Settler things other than actually
> setting up a city so maybe it can be assumed that having Settlers assumes
> having an established "Culture" or "National Myth" or "Personality" or
> something along those lines.
Sounds interesting. Should be tested for game-balance, as it can be too 
powerful.

> Maybe have a mode in which the player is
> pretty much bound by the sequence of techs outlined in the nation
> rulesets? Maybe with some criteria for when and with what probability a
> chance exists to deviate from it slightly or seriously?
I just outlined above how it could be done to unhappiness. Maybe doable too 
to the veteran and terrain bonuses, the terrain specials, the techs 
available when you reach certain prerequisites... Civ1 had some amount of 
randomness here, forcing you out of well-defined paths.

> But *why* ? There should be mechanisms behind such things, and those
> mechanisms should be in the game so that any civ that falls afoul of the
> same mechanisms gets the same results from them. Just as some techs have
> downsides such as pollution or lowered trade route income, maybe some
> should have effects upon the national spirit, or a chance of such effects.
Yes, I would like that. Have the differences of each tribe evolve as you 
play, not forced upon the player. But forcing the player to pay for his/her 
choices.

> The emulating of an existing game whether said game makes sense or not is
> a valid point, so "in Civ3 mode" do as Civ3 does, sure. That should not
> stop us taking "better" or "alternative" routes too though.
If wishes were fishes... take the best of both worlds :-)

I've played Starcraft, were "tribes" are as different as can be, and yet 
balanced, and yet each tribe has got several paths to pursue and react to 
others... I feel the civ engine could incorporate that into its greater 
mass and be enriched by the possibilities.
My 0.02E