civ2.proposal FAQ

[J Buckel Artist Account]

Okay, folks, here is the second edition of the CIV2 FUTURE PROPOSAL.
It's still fairly rough at this point, but since I only started work on this
not so long ago, not that I was railroaded into it or anything (cheers Bryce
:-)) but I hope you'll bear with me.
I know there are inconsistancies in here, but I wanted to get all the
posts together and release a version sooner rather than later.
The next posting, probably in a month or so will hopefully be a little
better organised
Anyway, if you want to reply to this, please don't quote
significant portions of this text [you knew this, didn't you?]. You
might want to consider making seperate replies for each section or
subject (one post for new ideas for advances, another post about some
new rule or idea you have, etc.) You can post to the net or you can mail
me as follows:

buck...@oldham.gpsemi.com

CIVILIZATION II

Microprose published Sid Meier's Civilization several years ago,
yet it continues to rate in the top five in a list of the most
discussed PC computer games on the internet. It also rates in the top
ten on a list of the top 100 currently played PC games. The game is
designed well enough that it could remain on these lists for a long
time to come.
Because of this strong following, it is almost assured that a
part two to this game would be very well received. The gaming
community would appreciate a fresh new version of their favourite game,
and Microprose would make a great deal of money. This is Microprose's
chance to make a really innovative, high tech addition to the gaming
industry. If they have not already begun work on a version 2 of
Civilization then they are missing a huge potential profit. This
document is a list of ideas presented on the internet by Civilization
players. It is hoped that this list might provide some sort of
stimulus to the creation of a Civilization II.

GAME SYSTEM CHANGES AND NEW CONCEPTS
------------------------------------

1) GAME STARTUP CHANGES

- For the screen display, beyond VGA for PCs would be ultimately
preferable. CIV II on the old PCs/Commodores, etc, would be much too
slow/large for them.

- Variable Sized Worlds: In the customization menu at the beginning
of the game there should be an option for world size ( Tiny, Small,
Medium, Large, Huge ). A medium sized world would be about the size
of the Earth. The area of a square would remain constant, however
there would be either more or less of them.

- Random options would be nice for *ALL* the settings, so you don't
know anything about the world, how many civilizations, how large
continents are, etc.

- Multiplayer: Should at least be able to play two player games.
Would be nice to be able to play over a network or modem, as well.
The big question is whether each player would have to wait
for his or her turn, or if they would all move simultaneously. I
think the former is the more practical, but the amount of waiting
could be terrible if more than a few people are playing. Would you
want to wait an hour for your turn?

- More Space: Increasing the number of squares in the world would
give more land to explore, settle, and fight over. This would
increase the resolution of the game. If in version I a square was,
say 100 miles across, in version II it would be 50 or 25 miles across.
Thus the size of the world would not change, but there would be many
more squares on the map. This would mean starting the Earth in England
would give a viable city. Units would still move at so many squares
per turn, the distance not being taken into account.

- Variable Complexity Levels: If all the additions and rule
modifications addressed in this document were implemented, the game
might become too complex for a novice user. Therefore, it would be
wise to allow the user to select a complexity level. Level 1 would be
for people who have never played Civilization or for those who would
like to play an entire game in one afternoon. Level 1 would cut down
on the number of units available (no caravans, diplomats, etc.), make
Wonders of the World unavailable, and so forth. Level 2 would be the
same Civilization we all know, though perhaps with a few new advances
and units. Level 3 would incorporate many of the additions listed in
this document. Level 4 would add the space travel advances, units,
wonders, and city improvements, as well as new rules to deal with
multiple planets, spaceship combat, and so on. [See the civ2.future.proposal.
( I am working on two proposals one for civ2 and one for civ2.future )]

- Variable Start: Allow the player the option of starting at a more
developed level. Each civilization starts with a few cities, some
random advances, city improvements, and units.

- Variable civilization founding times: All chosen civilizations don't
start at 4,000 BC, some are introduced later with appropriate advances
to allow them to be on some sort of par with resident civilizations.

- Scenarios: Rather than randomly generated worlds, geared scenarios
would be challenging and fun. Save the Roman Empire from destruction
at the hands of the barbarians, or Europe from the Hun and Viking
invasion, or found USA while defending it from England and the Indians
and try to turn it from a small collection of colonies into a
superpower.

- Experimental Mode: Some people enjoy a game more when they can get
inside it and fiddle with it without playing by the rules. For these
people, an experimental mode would be useful. The player could give
himself huge amounts of money at the beginning of the game to make it
easier, or could give his enemies better pieces to make it more
difficult. Entire armies could be picked up and moved to the other
side of the world. In other words the player would be more like a god
then a world leader.

- Programmable Strategy: Allows player to design a strategy for an
enemy civilization's leader or for a governor of his own civilization,
or for a particular unit (see meta-commands, below). This would allow
people to design an enemy strategy, and then share it with other
people. Perhaps even have an inbuilt language which handles all the
possible actions available within civilization.

- Multiple Game Systems: Civilisation can prepare "scenarios" for use
with separate "game modules" which would allow the player to act out
the action in more detail. For example, a battle could be carried out
in more detail using a wargame simulator. A SimCity-type interface
would make customization of the cities interesting. Of course, these
modules would be entirely optional - the player need never use them;
however, by acting out the battle (or whatever) in this detail the
player has a better chance of doing really well if he or she is good
at tactical games like this (of course, if the player isn't very good,
the battle could turn out much worse). By making several different
modules, a really skilled player can take the game to new levels.
This is similar to what MindCraft is doing with games like Rules of
Engagement, an Interlocking Game System.

- Increase the number of opponent civilizations from 7 to 12+. Have an
option that will allow new civilizations to replace civilizations
already defeated. Add the Persians (Cyrus), Norse (Eric the Red?),
Arabs (Saladin), Polynesians (?), Japanese (Tokagawa?), Spanish
(Phillip II), Carthaginians (Hannibal), Incas (Atahualpa). Delete the
Mongols (they were a horde), unless you are adding nomad units in
which case also have North American Indians, etc.

- Multimedia: Digital audio, video, and other special effects. Maybe
have advisors actually talk. Sound effects on disasters. Music that
changes according to the technology level. Have specific graphics for
units for every different culture!! (In so far as possible.) The
uniforms could be varied, for example. This would only be possible in
high-res versions, like on the Mac. Also specific graphics for the
city views of different cultures (e.g., Greco city vs Chinese city).
Have the computer actually memorize what the city looks like from time
to time. Each time a city is viewed when it has a new addition the
buildings have all been shuffled about. This reduces the sense of
having truly unique individual cities. What fun it would be if "Paris"
would continue to look like early Paris as time went on. Cities are
after all historical artifacts. Also militia and other primitive units
should change their appearance to something different as the technology
levels increase. Phalanxes could eventually look like foot Police;
Legions could look like a SWAT policeman; Cavalry could look like a
police car. Units might be able to improve, too (e.g. WW1 tank->Panzer
->Lepoard Tank).

- Player Cheating: There are several 'bugs' or 'undocumented
features', called 'cheats' by the gamers, which allow the player to
take advantage of the game system. Two of these 'cheats' are a little
too obvious: the 'Settler Cheat', where a player can make a settler
build an improvement in a single turn, and the 'Sentry Cheat', where a
player can regain all movement points for a piece by placing it on
sentry in a city and then unsentrying it. These should be either
eliminated or modified so they do not unbalance things.

- Computer Cheating: The computer should not be allowed advantages
that are not available to the player. Resource costs should not be
reduced for items purchased by the computer civilizations. Also,
combat odds should not be weighted in favor of the computer just to
make the game harder unless the odds are similarly weighted in favor
of the player at easier levels. Still, the Emperor level should be
very difficult, maybe even more difficult than it is currently.
However it is noted that perfect AI is exceedingly difficult, and if
the computer must cheat (which it is acknowledged among gamers that it
must do to be good) then the cheats be a little less extreme, e.g. no
randomly building Wonders of the World at no cost !
There are people on the net working on making advanced AI systems
for strategy games which will be able to actually learn as they play.
Perhaps this could be implemented in some fasion or other. [Contact
bhar...@usc.edu for more info on this topic]

2) MAP CHANGES

- Better Map Design: A spherical model for the world would be too
difficult to implement, but some work should be done to allow crossing
the icecaps. Circumnavigation at the poles should be shorter than
circumnavigation at the equator. Perhaps only airborne units would be
allowed to cross, simply disappearing at the top of the map and
reappearing at the bottom and visa versa. The cylindrical Earth is
acceptable and OK if this is not feasable.

- New Terrain: Add some new terrain types and modify existing ones;
for example, some coal squares could put out extra production beyond
normal (these should be very rare, like 0-3 per planet). So you could
fight for resources. In certain cases a Civ may be able to monopolize
all the coal reserves. Then the fun begins...

- The symbol for an iradiated square could be a skull & crossbones.
This polution requires twice as much cleaning up than normal polution.
Also because of the extreme measures involved in the cleaning up
process, any improvements in the square are destroyed. Also any square
that is nuked could have a chance of altering the terrain, if a mountain
was nuked several times surely it would become a bit flatter! or a swamp
or jungle might become plains if nuked, a little on the excessive side
as a way to terraform your planet perhaps but it might be interesting.

- When a planet is generated, the placement of special resources
should be more random and have possible clumping of resources, so that
several coal resource squares could end up in the same vicinity. This
would be a major benefit to a city placed in this region. It would
also promote trade between civilizations, as one civilization could
have an excess of production units, but lack in food, and could trade
with another civilization with the opposite problem. Special effort
was made in version I to prevent this clumping, but it is still a little
too strict.

- Coal and oil reserves should be invisible until you develop
industrialisation. This is so players don't take advantage of
information a ruler of their period would not realise was important.
Perhaps the first civilization to develop industrialisation allows the
coal and oil reserves to be visible.

- Zooming: Would allow different views of the game world. Level 1 is
a map of the entire planet, like the world map currently available.
Level 2 looks like the display of squares used for the main screen in
the current game. Level 2 is a detailed close-up of four or nine
squares showing additional things like cities, groups of units, this
level of detail would become available with the use of satelite units.

- Rivers: Split rivers into rivers and streams. Rivers can be
navigable by most ships (not battleships or carriers), but streams
are too shallow for navigation. Rivers cannot be crossed by land units
except at fords, cities, or bridges. Have canals too which act like
rivers, built by settlers/engineers. Travel by ships in river or canal
squares would be reduced by 2.

- Underwater Explorations: The submarine would be more useful and it
would make way for different technologies and military units.
Civilisations at higher tech levels could build underwater cities.
Resources could include mining, fishing and even cultivation of the
ocean floor.

- Pollution in ocean/lake squares should be possible. It could be fixed
in one turn with an engineer unit based on a transport type unit. Water
pollution should be able to occur in a city before industrialisation if
it is over size 10.

- Get rid of the limit on the number of units possible, currently 127.

- Major Barbarian Hordes

- Barbarians can gain 1 military tech from each city they invade/spy on.

- A barbarian unit has a 10% chance of starting a civ if it takes
over a city, these could be the Mongols perhaps ?

3) CITY CHANGES

- City Growth: Depending on the size of a city, it is classified in
one of five categories. Different actions are required to change a
city from one classification to another:

Villages - Population 1-4;
When settler builds for the first time a village is produced. The
city display is limited to only five squares. Can only build simple
city improvements (barracks, temple, granary, palace, city walls,
MarketPlace, Library), can make units (settler, militia, phalanx,
cavalry, Knight, Chariot, Legion, Catapult, Musketeer, Rifleman,
Cannon, Diplomat, Trireme, Sail). Cannot make taxmen or scientists.
Symbol is a little brown hut. Cannot build WoW. A village can become a
town of size 3 or 4 but must have built 2 non-barrack improvements.

Town - Population 3-8;
When a village reaches size 5 it automatically creates a town with a
population of 5. City display is limited to nine squares. Can make
taxmen and scientists. Symbol is a small cottage. A town can only
make some of the major improvements, as well as the improvements that
a village can make (Cathedral, University, Bank, Courthouse,
Colosseum, Factory) and can only make the Ancient Wonders of the
World. There are no restriction as to the units that can be created.
If a town with greater than 4 population only has one improvement then
it is effectively a village and all content citizens will become
unhappy. Specialists will still count as content.

City - Population 9-20;
City is the same as in current game:
City display is twenty-one squares, symbol is one city square. Is
created automatically when a town reaches a size of 9. Allows creation
of almost any unit, improvement, or wonder. To increase to size 11
requires an aqueduct and subsequent loss of an aqueduct results in
the city being unable to grow further and food will be lost from the
food store at a rate of 1 per citizen, if the food store empties, the
city reduces in size and the process continues.

Metropolis - Population 21-40;
Created from a City of size 20 which must have a courthouse and
hospital. To become a Metropolis, a settler must move into the city
and 'B'uild. A new city square will blink into being. It can be set
either to the north, south, east or west of the original square. The
city symbol is 2 city squares side by side. In the City display there
are five more squares available (for a total of 26). The Architecture
advance is required to build a metropolis.

Megopolis - Population 41+;
Created from a Metropolis of size 40 that must have a power source,
and the Mass Transit improvement. The Corporation Advanced is required
before a Megopolis can be built. To become a Megopolis, a settler
must move into the Metropolis and 'B'uild. Two new city squares
will appear and are placed alongside the original two city squares
forming a four square centre to the city. The city display now shows
32 squares available for use.

Here is a pictorial representation of city display sizes:

Village Town City Metropolis Megopolis

### #### ### ####
# ### ##### ###### ##### ######
#v# #t# ##c## ##mm## or ##m## ##MM##
# ### ##### ###### ##m## ##MM##
### #### ##### ######
5 9 ### ####
21 26
26 32

{Might want to eliminate restriction on regular shapes, so that a city
can be spread out in an irregular pattern, so that as a city discovers
its available resources, it spreads towards them to make use of them}

- City Display: When in city display, might allow a SimCity type of
interaction, where you can build multiple buildings (police station,
houses, etc.).

4) EXTRA MENU OPTIONS

- Should have option to *not* jump to the next unit when in the map
display.

- Barbarian Turn Off Option

5) RULE MODIFICATIONS

- Communication: The game should somehow consider the speed of
communication, perhaps basing it on the number of cities and units of
a civilization. Speed of Communication would alter according to the
technologies gained: road, horseback-riding, ships, railroad,
automobile, flight, satellite, etc. These will be important
throughout the game, especially when communication forms a bottleneck,
such as in the early stages of the game until the development of
railroad.

- Republics/Democracies should be able to declare war if other civs
go beyond borders/into a city zone of influence, etc.
We do it all the time, being careful to concoct the appropiate
justification!

6) SCIENTISTS

- Scientists: Somehow there should be a way to work on multiple
advances simultaneously (maybe one per city?) Every once and a
while there should be a genius somewhere who makes a breakthrough,
delivering an advance earlier than predicted, this should be dependent
on whether a scientist is in employment in the city.

How about you can work on X advances at a time (depending on your
science%). When an advance occurs, a tech from the research list is
picked at random as the advance. If something isn't picked for N
advances, it will be picked. When an advance occurs, you can pick
from the list of techs possible at the current time (if any). This
might be frustrating for the player, but more interesting & realistic.

7) ARTIFICIAL PLAYERS

- The player of the game is not the ruler but a secret society which
has infiltrated the government of the civilization he influences.
Instead of being the decider, you are the adviser, it just so happens
that the current King trusts you and always does what you advise!
Sort of like an Illuminati-type secret government behind the
civilization's development
[Illuminati. The word comes from 'Illuminate' and is supposed to be
a secret society founded in the 18th century with the goals of
infiltrating and gaining control of all of the world's governments.]

- Leaders: Allow leaders to change over time The new leader will be
chosen from the advisors available, thus a military adviser when
appointed ruler, would cause a civilization to have a greater chance
of going to war and building units, whereas a domestic advisor would
build city improvements and be more diplomatic in his rule. Each ruler
should rule for 50 game turns or so [yes I know this means whoever
starts will live for a 1000 years !!] What has gone on in that rulers
time will decide what kind of leader they elect, if a civilization has
been attacked several times by another civilization then the people
might be more likely to elect a military ruler, also this could lead
to rulers being ousted if they are unpopular. Might be a bit
confusing, but also might make the game more interesting as your
opponent changes to meet the needs of an ever changing world. Military
rulers may give units a +1 bonus to their attacking and defense
values, domestic rulers would give a +2 trade to each city.

- Artificial Intelligence: The computer players in the current game
are very well done. They each act in a way that fits their
'personality': they form alliances and they conduct trade and war with
each other. For Civ. II, we would expect this artificial intelligence
to be brought to new levels. Different civilizations could team up on
a player (one civilization attacks you east front; once you have moved
all your pieces from the west to the eastern battlelines, the other
civilization attacks you from the west).
To increase the artificial intelligence would require the
computer to do more in-depth analysis of potential moves. This would
result in more lag time between turns at the higher (King, Emperor)
levels, but this would be acceptable, especially since most computers
these days are more powerful and faster than before.

- Economics: A must! Trade agreements, embargoes, and other bits of
economic warfare are badly needed. Split trade into several different
resources (for example: energy, minerals, organics, and spices). A
more complicated economic system instead of the 'arrows' will make the
game more interesting. Different kinds of food should be produced in
different cities so trading between cities through the new economic
system will be enhanced.

- Trade: Caravans should be for helping your own cities build WoWs
or improvements and trade routes could be established immediately
with any city visible on the map but will not be very effective over
long range until good transport develops (people have mentioned airports).
Trade routes should be better between cities producing different goods.
Food production would be different in a tropic and a temperate city,
or between a coastal and a highland city, but not sure about shields.
Maybe the computer during initializing could assign different ores to
each production capable square using some random method, hidden
from the player, so that one city would probably turn out only one or
two different types, but a city some distance away are likely to produce
other sorts. The cost of trade routes should be a constant drain of
either food (yielding shields or arrows) or shields (yielding food or
arrows). This way there would also be some infrastructure in your civ,
with a city in a barren but coal/oil rich location being supplied with
food so it could reach efficient size faster. Another possibility is
a 'clerk' specialist like the scientist/taxmen/elvises each responsible
for one route. This would probably be the better idea for routes with
foreign cities, which would then give arrows only.

- Trade agreements: Would increase value of trade with the other
civilization. Maybe modify AI so that loss of this trade would have
some effect on computer civilization's propensity to conduct sneak
attacks. Wars should reduce trade between warring nations by about 90%.

- Alliances: When making peace with another nation, there should be
ways of increasing the bonds between the civilizations. Allies should
be allowed to carry each other's forces, or use railroads passing
through each other's territories and this should not stop production
from any square that an allies unit stays on.

- Diplomatic Relations: It would be nice to add more options, e.g.
"clear off this continent", "get out of my city's production area",
"Give me London back and we'll call it quits", "let me railroad
through your country to murder some Greeks", "kill Greeks instead of
me and I'll stop trying to kill you". Best way to implement this is a
big dialogue box with check boxes on the left for things you are
offering and check boxes on the right for things you are demanding.
Another aspect of diplomacy could be being able to create improvements
for another Civ. For example, there is a rather small and poor Civ
between you and your worst enemy. You could talk to that small Civ,
and agree to create for it a network of railroads. Then you can send
Settlers to any part of the Civ without worrying about starting a war,
and that Civ's units will not block movement. You could do this for
city improvments as well. Send a Settler to another Civ's city, and you
get to control the production of that city for one production. The
improvment you build will be based upon your tech, even if the other
Civ doesn't have it yet. After producing the unit, the other Civ might
have a chance of automatically gaining that tech.

In civ2 perhaps military units and city improvements could themselves
become commodities. For example:

Mongols are in the middle of a long war with the Chinese. Unable to
overcome the formidable Chinese knight units because they have put all
of their resources into tax, the rich but primative Mongols ask if they
can buy a tank. You agree so the following happens...

1. You lose 1 tank unit...
2. 1 Mongol cavalry unit becomes a Tank..
3. You get a few hundred dollars...
4. The Chinese get their butts kicked.

Because the Mongols have not developed their sciences they cannot build
tanks of their own so you have a monopoly on the units.

The same could apply for other things.....

"The God-like Ghengis Khan humbly requests that you build the
Mighty Mongol hordes a brand spanking new Nuclear Power Plant, for which
he will pay you 3000 gold pieces ..."

Of course on the more difficult levels it could be possible for this
money making scheme to back-fire... The newly purchased unit could be
used to attack the supplier, or every now and again selling a unit to
another civilization may result in a science boost for that civ.

Another possibility would be to LOAN or GIVE money and military hardware
to a down-trodden ally. Giving a couple of bombers to the Aztecs so they
could counter a Mongolian offensive! However Ghengis might buy a Nuke
from the Babylonians to use.

You should be allowed to talk to other civilizations at any time by
clicking on a box in the advisors menu like the INFO box, if you have
an embassy, there should be more freedom in your dialogue.

If they are demanding money you should be allowed to offer them less
than what they are demanding. If they offer a technology swap, you
should be able to offer them technologies that you are willing to swap
for technologies that they are willing to swap. Obviously some
technologies will be more in demand than others. The civilization INFO
button would be able to tell you what the other civilization knows (or
an approximation) so that you can ask for something they aren't
initially offering.

Advances should be given a value which is the sum of that advances
prerequisites +1. eg. Alphabet=1, Astronomy=6,( Mysticsm=2
(Ceremonial Burial), Mathematics=3 (Masionry and Alphabet)). This
gives the basis for trade of knowledge, a civilization could offer
Mathematics(3) in return for Ceremonial Burial(1) and Mysticsm(2).

Players could initiate technology swaps instead of waiting for the
computer player.

- Deficit Spending: You can increase luxuries and lower taxes by borrowing
from other civilizations, *temporarily* increasing happiness. If borrowing
from republic or democrary might have to write off debts, like third world
countries.

- Subvert government: Similar to Subvert City, but would affect all
opposing civilization, but would cost an absolute fortune.

8) PLAYER INTERFACE AND PLAYER FUNCTIONS

- Goto Command: MUST be made to work better so that a piece takes the
optimum route between two points and uses railroads whenever possible.
Should be able to set up link so that a city produces armor units and
automatically moves them to a port city. You would get a message that
the unit had been completed, and the unit would start life with a goto
command. Should also be possible to set several points for the unit
to pass through, so you can control the path taken somewhat, so that
if the optimum route is through enemy territory you can give an
alternate route.

- Meta-Commands: Let player give a general command to a unit, such as
"Repair pollution anywhere in this area," or "Build a railroad from
here to here." Some government types (Federalism, Feudalism,
Cyberocracy) would allow player to give limited instructions, such as
"Maximize production of ____," or "Defend these cities against ____."

- An option to specify an order of priority of building within a city
could potentially be a very great time saver, with many cities to work
with, with a further option to go or not to go to the city window each
time something is built, until the list is exhausted.

- When choosing next unit for the player to move, should do it in a
more organized method, such as choosing the closest piece to the
current one. Also, should have option to *not* jump to the next
piece.

9) UNITS

9.1) NEW RULES

- When diplomats (or spies) steal technology, they must get the information
back to a city owned by you before you are able to receive the advance stolen.
If a diplomat(spy) attacks another diplomat(spy) and the defending diplomat(spy)
had a secret with him then if the attacker wins the secret is passed to
the attacker and can then be brought to that civilisations city. When the
dipomat(spy) first steals the technology, you receive a message stating the
success or failure of that mission. thus informing you whether you need to get
that diplomat home or not. Or whether he was caught and eliminated. You do not
need to be at war to steal secrets. However getting caught could cause one.

- Chariots and Cavalry should have reduced strength when attacking
fortified positions.

- Militia and other primitive units should change their appearance to
something different as the technology levels increase. For example,
militia should start as half-clad warriors with sticks, change to
indians with bows, then to Viet Cong with rifles.

- Chariots and Armor should not be allowed into forests, mountains, or
swamps, or at least should have the current movement penalty doubled.

- Supported Attacks: Some units could act together to produce an
attack of higher attack strength than either are capable alone. For
example, cavalry, phalanx and legion, or musketeers and artillery.
Engineers perhaps.

- Supported Defense: Some units' attack strength should give a bonus
to defense in certain situations. For example, Cannon, Fighters, or
Archers in a city or fort, or Engineers in a forest.

- Non-City Disasters: Floods, Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Epidemics,
Forest Fires, Famines, Hurricanes/tornadoes/tropical storms, these
should affect units, terrain, and cities. Things along the lines of if
a city has an epidemic you don't want to attack it in case your unit
catches the bug and carries it elsewhere. These things should
damage/destroy units and improvements.

- Unit Design: Can design a unit based from sets of abilities. Able
to set the attack/defense/movement points, as well as special
abilities; also can draw own icons. This could be set up as part of
an external game editor, as an integral part of the game that can be
used during play, or both. If it is made part of the game, then
certain restrictions must be made: cannot make pieces that are better
than the units currently available, can only design units after a
certain technology(s) (Repair Yard?) has been achieved. New advances
could be created to allow additional abilities to be used with
designed units. The computer uses these specifications to figure out
the cost of the unit.

- Grouping Of Units: This allows units to be placed into a group, which
means that they move as one unit. This allows for example caravans and
diplomats to be moved along railway lines much more easily.

- Allowing the use of more than one settler unit, in order to speed up
building roads etc also makes sense. If a square is 25 miles on a side,
then only allowing one settler unit to do each thing makes little sense. Especially as by 2000AD the unit with 10000 people should be either 100x
as fast as it was in 2000BC at building roads, or else only have about
100 people in it.

- Forced Work: The ability to make a settler construct something in a
single turn is useful sometimes. Maybe this could be done as 'forced
work' where the unit can continue building or moving, but suffer some
penalty, such as reduced attack/defense strengths, take damage, lose
next turns that should have been required to construct the improvement,
cause unhappiness in home city, next improvement takes double time, and
have a chance that the unit will be disbanded.

- Reserve: In a republic or democracy, units can be placed in reserve.
The units stop requiring support, but cannot move, attack, or even
defend. To bring a reserve unit to active status requires 2 resources
for the time it is active and 1-3 turns to become active. (Might want
to make it possible to use reserve units to quell unrest in a city -
it worked in L.A.!) Only one unit per city can be placed in reserve.
This is a unit action like fortify or sentry.

- Airstrip, Built by engineers, takes three times as long to build as a
mine. Allows planes to land and take off, as if they had returned to a
city. Must be supplied with production and food resources via lorry and
cargo ships or airplanes. One production and one food resource is used
up each time a plane leaves the airfield. This represents the fuel and
spare parts for the planes and the food is eaten by the complement of
staff at the airport. If no food is available then the airport starves
and must be rebuilt, if no production resources are available then
planes cannot refuel and thus cannot leave the airport.

9.2) UNIT DESCRIPTIONS

Explanation, units described as in CIVILISATION, the black book.

-Unit ATTACK-DEFENSE-MOVE(Advance)[cost]:Description.

- Nomad 0-1-1(Available from start)[0]:This means that
"civilizations" can operate without any cities. Nomads don't need
suport of any kind and act like 0-point (use their square only) cities
that move around. Nomads can build and maintain military units, they
use the food from their square to breed. Everyone starts the game with
nomads, and have to make the "cities" advance to be allowed to make
settlers with them. Nomads can't irrigate, build roads, etc. and they
aren't very efficient, so once the player has developed cities the
need for nomads will diminish. Nomads can generate one food from any
square, but can only generate two food points at grasslands or rivers
(or resource squares). Ten food points or ten resource points are
needed to create another nomad. If a qnomad cannot feed itself (1 food
point per turn) it will die.

-Engineer 0-2-1(Engineering)[40]: Can make roads, fortifications,
bridges, mines, border stations, freeways, fences, railroads, mines
and irrigation as settlers, but completes the building process in two
thirds of the time. Cannot build cities. Can build an Airfield. Can
pillage land improvements. Also might have better combat values or
some special combat ability (units stacked with engineers increase
attack strength by 50% (?) ). Requires one food and two shield points.

-Prospector 0-1-1(Prospecting)[60]: This unit can move about the terrain
hunting for new special resource sites, any square has a possibility
of revealing a special resource, it takes 2 turns for the prospector to
find any resource if it is there. A nominal 5% chance per square,
modified by the terrain type and surrounding terrain types, and the
closeness of any other special resources and of course a random value
to make it difficult to predict. Any square can be prospected by any
prospector once only.

-Refugee 0-0-1(Available from start)[0]: These are created
involuntarily when a city either goes into disorder, when a city is
attacked, when a city is taken over or when the player chooses. There
is a 5% chance each turn a city is in disorder or each turn a city is
attacked, after the first turn, that for each city dweller, one of
these units will be produced and leave the city heading for the
nearest better city, whether happier, larger, more excess food, more
city improvements, etc. The refugees will have no home civilization.
Once at the new city they join that city increasing its size by one.
Each turn they move there is a 5% chance that they will decide to
settle, creating a city of their own and belonging to the parent
civilization. Also can be voluntarily created by player so cities can
be moved if they are in danger or are in a bad position on the map
board. To create one refugee unit requires 2 population points in this
case. Refugees will be disbanded after a few (5-10) turns if they are
not used. The player has control over refugees he creates. Attacking
a refugee unit would convert them to your civ or destroy them (your
choice).

-Explorer 0-1-3(Map Making)[30]: Can meet with king of another
civilization. With the high movement rate and early availability in
the game this piece is very useful for exploring the land mass.
Should require mapmaking (and writing for meet with king function).

-Spy 1-1-2(Writing)[50]: Can steal technologies, can sabotage city
production or a city improvement. Can Spy on city. Can sabotage the
food storage area. The spy only has a 1 in 3 chance of being
eliminated in his work, and only a 1 in 3 chance of causing the other
civilization to go to war. In the players city a message is produced
which states something has been sabotaged by a spy and has a 1 in 3
chance of reporting the home civilization of the spy and the option to
go to war with that civilization.

-Fishing Fleet 0-0-3(Navigation)[60]: Harvests food from the ocean
outside the city periphery. When instructed gathers one food per turn
from a sea square, 2 food from an ocean square with the fish special
resource. Can hold up to 10 food. These can be taken to any city and
unloaded increasing that cities food store by the amount of fish
caught. The piece can be programmed to travel between two points, an
ocean square and a city and then left to continue on its own. Only one
Fishing Fleet can gather from a sea square at any one time.

-Oil Rig 0-1-1(Refining)[180]: This unit can be moved to station itself
over an oil special resource in the ocean and then instructed to drill for
oil, it will then give the 4 resources to that square, oil in ocean squares
cannot be utilized until an oil rig is activated on that square.

-Headquarters 0-2-2(3)(Gunpowder)[60]: Allows 2 units to be assigned to
it which then do not count towards unhappiness in a city if in republic
or democracy. HQ cannot lie within a city else the units assigned to the
HQ are assigned to that city instead. Units are homed to the HQ like
cities. HQ units are lost with the development of Combustion, but any HQ
units built after this advance move at the rate of 3 squares per turn. If
a HQ unit is destroyed then attached units either disband 60%, attach to
nearest city friendly 30%, go over to the civilization that defeated the
HQ 10%. This unit does not cause unhappiness in cities when it is outside
a city.

-Cargo Ship 0-0-4(Industrialization)[50]: Will carry 10 food or/and
production city resources across the seas. When this ship lies in a city
empty, you are prompted with the city display to fill it with food or/and
production resources from the food store and production boxes of the city
view. Any resources on a ship arriving at a city are immediately
transferred to the food store or the production box of that city.

-Lorry 0-0-3(Automobile)[30]: Will carry 10 food or/and production city
resources across land. Acts like the Cargo Ship described above.

-Cargo Plane 0-0-8(16)(Flight)[90]: Will carry 10 food or/and
production city resources through the air, moves like a bomber over 2
turns. Acts like the Cargo Ship described above.

-Troop Carrier 4-4-3(Labor Union)[50]: Carries one footsoldier unit,
militia, phalanx, musketeer, rifleman, paratroop, marine etc. If the
carrier is destroyed then any unit within is also destroyed, any unit
within does not count towards the defense or attack of the carrier.

-Transport Plane 0-1-8(16)(Advanced Flight)[100]Can carry any two land
based unit. If the plane is destroyed then any unit within is also
destroyed, any unit within does not count towards the defense or attack
of the plane. The unit within can be dropped at any point provided land
lies beneath the plane.

-Attack Helicopter 10-3-6(Helicopters)[80]: This is the tank busting
helicopter, however it can just as easily be used against any other
opponent in the air or sea as well as on land.

-Transport Helicopter 1-2-6(Helicopters)[80]: Can carry any one land
based unit. If the helicopter is destroyed then any unit within is also
destroyed, any unit within does not count towards the defense or attack
of the helicopter.

-Radar Station 0-1-2(Electronics)[120]: Detects any airborne units within
4 map squares of the station. May be stationed within a city on Sentry
duty.

-Stealth Bomber 16-3-8(Stealth)(16)[240]: This bomber is essentially
invisible when in the air, Only if it passes next to another airborne
unit is it visible and it becomes invisible once again when it moves past.
It is also visible when it attacks but again becomes invisible as soon as
it moves away. When Photonics developed, stealth bombers are no longer
invisible.

-Paratrooper 4-3-1(Conscription)[40]: These units can be dropped by plane
and can automatically make an action, whereas any normal unit must wait
until the next turn.

-Marine 4-3-1(Conscription)[40]: These units can disembark from a ship
and can automatically make an action, whereas any normal unit must wait
until the next turn.

-Cruise Missile 30-0-6(Rocketry)[120]: This unit is deadly if your
opponent is within range, can be fired from a city or carrier unit. SDI
protects a city from the attack of this unit. Unit explodes on hitting an
opponents unit or at the end of its available moves.

-ICBM 99-0-50(Rocketry)[240]: Will utterly destroy anything it hits
and may destroy other units if within one square causes all nine
squares to be iradiated and to destroy any roads, railroads, mines and
irrigation. Any city hit ceases to exist. For each city dweller there
is a 10% chance they will become refugees, otherwise are dead. This
replaces the current Nuclear unit. For Metropolises/Megopolises: Only
the targeted city square is destroyed. Other squares lose X % of its
population points.

-Patrol 0-2-2(3)(Gunpowder)[60]: Allows 2 units to be assigned to it
which then do not count towards unhappiness in a city if in republic
or democracy. Patrol cannot lie within a city else the units assigned
to the Patrol are assigned to that city instead. Units are homed to
the Patrol like cities. Patrol units are lost with the development of
Combustion, but any Patrol units built after this advance move at the
rate of 3 squares per turn. If a Patrol unit is destroyed then
attached units either disband 60%, attach to nearest friendly city
30%, go over to the civilization that defeated the Patrol 10%. Any
unit within the Patrol activates if a unit of another civilization
comes within 3 squares of the Patrol and tries to intercept that unit.
If the other civilizations unit goes away then the unit would return
to the Patrol. This unit does not cause unhappiness in cities.

-Air-to-air Refueling Plane 0-1-4(8)(Advanced Flight)[120] If any
other airborne unit lands on this unit or this unit lands on any other
airborne unit, then that unit is refueled (if the player chooses) and
does not need to return to base by the end of this turn. It is in
effect a temporary base. The refuelled plane may continue on its
journey next turn as if it had only just taken off. Any spare moves
are lost when the plane to be refueled meets the refueling plane. Only
one plane may be refuelled in this manner but a single plane may be
refuelled many times.

-Supply Line 0-2-2(3)(Gunpowder)[60]: Gives any adjacent unit a resource
instead of it coming from the home city, up to a maximum 3 units. After
30 resources of output the Supply Line unit is empty and is removed from
play. Until you develop "Flight".

- Spy Satellite: Allows a player to zoom in on 9 squares of the planet
under the satelites global position. Shows information about enemy units
and cities. Should find out about some of the improvements that are in a
city that the satelite passes over. Can find out what type of units are
grouped on a single square. Satelite can go once round the world each
turn, but can only make one shift in direction each turn and then only
through 45 degrees. Can only investigate 5 squares per turn.

- TV Satellites: Provides more entertainment to people, increases the
effect of TV stations in cities that it passes over by 1.

- Weather Satelite: Allows prediction of weather disasters, improves
food production in home city by 1 for each city size ( village=+1,
town=+2, city=+3 metropolis=+4, megapolis=+5 ), these units must be
stationed above the home city and they will see any adverse weather
systems up to 10 squares away.

- Space Shuttle: A reusable space ship for carrying satellites into
space. Costs more than a lot.

9.3) ALTERNATIVE UNIT VALUES

Thi is a more realistic Unit-Value table for civilization.

Unit Name Att Def Cost

Militia 2 2 10
Phalanx 3 4 20
Legion 6 3 20
Calvary 4 3 20
Chariot 8 3 40
Catapult 12 4 40
Knight 10 6 40
Musketeer 6 10 30
Canon 20 6 40
Riflemen 12 18 30
Armor 40 20 80
Artillery 50 12 60
Mech Inf. 24 24 50
Trireme 2 1 30
Sail 4 2 40
Fregate 6 4 50
Ironclad 12 10 60
Transport 2 8 50
Cruiser 24 18 80
Battleship 70 50 180
Carrier 12 50 160
Submarine 50 10 80
Nuke 99 4 160
Fighter 24 20 60
Bomber 70 10 120
Settler 0 2 40
Caravan 0 4 50
Diplomat 0 1 30

Rule of Thumb:
Attacks and defenses have been altered according to the following rules:
Any unit which can be built prior to the development of Gunpowder then att/def value * 2.
If Gunpowder required for the advance which enables this unit to be built then
att/def value * 3.
If Combustion required for the advance which enables this unit to be built then
att/def value * 4.
An upgrade in the factors are Mass production/ Flight
With this values you will loose less artilleries on a fortified phalanx

10) CITY IMPROVEMENTS

Once you have mass transit in your town and your scientists have learned
the secret of Urban Planning you can add to a roaded/irrigated/RR'ed
square either:
1) highrise (more population)
2) industry (if you've already got man. plant in center square)
3) trade (bank in center)
This could be limited to the 8 nearest squares, or requirement that all
other squares are also fully developed.

- Switching Production: There should be a penalty-factor (5-10% or 5
resources wichever is the greater) each time you switch from one
production to another one halfway. This is to discourage the
"caravan-build-wonder-then-change-to-city-wall" type of abuse. Also,
should be able to purchase part of a unit's or an improvement's development
(like increasing barracks from 10 resources done to 30 resources done).

- After Industrialisation the ability to build more than one thing at a
time, say a unit and an improvement, or once you get a factory in the city.
Need to be able to allocate resources to each as wanted.

- Walls: Like barracks they should require occasional updating. Also,
it should be more difficult to attack walled cities without some sort
of combined arms style attack. After development of gunpowder and
explosives, city walls became a little redundant, so the defensive
bonus of city walls should be reduced after these advances, to 2.5
times, then 2 times only.

- Repair Yards: The idea of repair should be added to the game. Give
things the same offense and defense power they have now, with the
offense number also representing the number of points of damage the
unit does. The defense number could also represent the number of
points of damage a piece of equipment could take. Thus, tanks can
still kill tanks in one shot, but a lucky shot by a phalanx would no
longer terminate your battleship. Units could be brought to this city
and repaired.
Note that each unit represents a number of vehicles. So losses may be
more appropriate than damage. An option should appear automatically if
you have a damaged unit in the city.

- Retraining Area: You should be able to take certain units, those units
that could be considered infantry that is, such as militia, musketeers etc,
bring them back to a city, and spend 'x' resources on them to upgrade them
to another unit, rather than disband and start from scratch. (Planes and
such would obviously have to be totally rebuilt, as most of this expense is
equipment).
There should be training for non-veteran units, and more unit attributes
than just veteran or non-veteran. And when automobile is developed,
movement rates for older pieces should be increased. An option should appear
automatically if you have a unit in the city which could be retrained.

- Stadium: Like Colosseum. Stadiums are the modern names for Colleseums,
you should be able to improve: Park, Sportsground, Arena, Stadium,
Colleseum, SuperBowl. Each improved stadium increases the number of
unhappy to content and also costs more to build and each replaces the
prior stadium which should be automatically deleted. The old stadium
is in effect being given a facelift, you are not building a new one from
scratch. However if it is destroyed then the city improvements should not
go back to the beginning but continue where it left off.

- Barrage balloon: gives units within a city a defense bonus of 200%
against airborne attacks. Acts like city walls.

- Theatre: Makes two unhappy people content.

- Restaurant: makes one content person happy.

- SOSUS: Undersea sonar array for detecting ships and submarines in
the oceans. Must be built in two cities across an area of sea, after
which any undersea vessel will be shown in the square that the submarine
crossed the line. Multiple lines between several cities can be set up.
A layer of at least one sea square must exist between the two cities.

- Port: ships can move in and out without losing any movement points.

- City council: Reduces corruption and increases production.

- Civic chambers: Increases trade by increasing value of trade routes.

- Hospital: Needed to increase city size above 20, greater birth rate
and longer average life span in population.

- Trade centre: Allows up to three extra trade routes, each trade route
can now be managed by a 'tradesman' giving extra trade like scientist/
taxman/entertainer.

- Research Center: Increases lightbulbs.

- Polytech: Increases production as well as allowing the `businessmen'
giving extra production like scientists/taxmen/entertainers.

- TV Station: Makes one unhappy person content.

- De-salination Plant: Requires refining and electricity, adds one
more food production on each ocean square.

- Horticultural centre: Doubles food production in city squares,
and in immediately adjacent squares.

- Fish farm: 2 extra food units in each sea square.

- Airport Allows city to build airborne units and allows airborne units
to land in the city. Airport includes a radar allowing the city to have
a visual range of 4 squares in the air.

- Space Lab: Increases light bulbs.

- Fusion Reactors: As power station, no chance of meltdown, low
pollution like hydro plant.

- Space launch Centre: Allows a city to launch Space Rockets.

- Space Rocket: A single use rocket used to propel a Satellite unit into
space.

- Prospecting: Allows for creation of new resource squares. The
obvious oilfields, gold mines, and coal sources get used up earlier in
the game; by prospecting new places for resources could be found.
Allows Prospector Unit.

- Automated City Functions: Selling the barracks just before they
become obsolete is tedious. They should automatically be sold;
Similarly for the factory when you build manufacturing plant; if you
hit F5 and click on Universities you should go to a city that has one
instead of being forced to look at every city to find it. Finding the
city where the earthquake just destroyed the cathedral is tedious.
Disasters should bring up the city screen.

- Railroads: It looks really ugly to have the web of black lines when
a bunch of railroads have been created. How about separating the
movement effect from the economic effect of railroads. Then rail
lines would be made only for movement and something else could be done
to improve production of a square. Also, railroads should require a
small cost per turn per square of rail for maintenance. Should be able
to build railroads in city squares.

- Freeways: A settler function, they add a layer between road and
railroad. It would be quicker to build freeways than railroads. The
negative would be that it would generate pollution along the route and
be slower to travel on. Cheaper to build than rail but not as good. More
expensive than roads but better. Allows 5x movement. Should be able to
build freeways in city squares.

- Tunnels: Underwater tunnels to connect nearby land masses. Like
the Chunnel Tunnel. An Engineer function. Can only build beneath
one sea square, must have 2 engineers, one on each side of the sea square,
takes an excessively long time to build and is only available after the
development of robotics. Perhaps a tunneling unit, costs 300 to build,
takes 5 turns to tunnel from one land square under the sea square,
requires two opposing tunneling units acting on the same sea square. The
units automatically disband after finishing the tunnel. Square can then be
roaded, freewayed and railroaded(no increased food or trade however), but
not mined or irrigated.

- National Treasury: Must be built in capital. Prevents units from
being disbanded because of lack of support in home city. Units that
cannot be supported by one unit are automatically reassigned to a
different city. Only if no other cities can support them are they
disbanded.

- Shipping: Ability to automatically send excess goods (food,
production) to another city. This would reduce the time spent moving
caravans from one city to another. Perhaps this could be available
after a suitable advance, or maybe it is only possible after a caravan
has linked the two cities with a trade route. A city receiving food
or production in this way would have to spend, say, one coin per good
(or maybe more, depending on the distance between the two cities).

- Suburbs: In addition to mines and farms, suburbs would increase
happiness, research, or trade directly. Other types of improvements
should be possible, as well, such as vineyards, orchards, commercial
zones, etc.

11) ADVANCES

- Advances should be given a value which is the sum of that advances
prerequisites +1. eg. Alphabet=1, Astronomy=6,( Mysticsm=2
(Ceremonial Burial), Mathematics=3 (Masonry and Alphabet)). This
gives the basis for trade of knowledge, a civilization could offer
Mathematics(3) in return for Ceremonial Burial(1) and Mysticsm(2).
This could also be used to decide how many light bulbs are required to
gain an advance, making early advances easier to collect at a later date.
(for those people like myself who have been known to leave Horse Riding and
Chivalry until after Nuclear Fusion!)

- Misc discoveries and events; (occuring after various advances,
e.g. alchemy after medicine) These things would be minor interesting
happenings, but not important in the scheme of things. Serving
merely to enlarge the advances chart so that it takes longer to
complete the technical advances side of the game.

- The advances chart should not exist in the manual, the computer
should know which advances lead where and the players must choose
what looks to be the most useful advance at that time, thus players
wouldn't be able to say right to get Womens Suffrage as soon as
possible you need to go for this, this and this first. The ancients
didn't know where science would lead them, and perhaps there should
be some randomising of where certain sciences lead just so players
can't eventually write all the advances down and make their own
charts. Also not all advancements may be necessary, perhaps acquiring
one may preclude the requirement for the other.

- False advancements (e.g. Flat Earth). Cause higher science cost for
the equivalent real advancement. This could easily tie in with the
paragraph above for example.

- Roads, irrigation and mining should be real advances, to allow
more flexibility to early paths.

- The seas only produce food once you get boats (a new advance),
then more production once you get submarine technology. Submarine
technology also lets settlers move onto water, where they can mine,
irrigate, etc.

- Physics should depend on philosophy or one of its ancestors, such as
"reason". Note that currently Physics requires mathematics, but this is
redundant, as astronomy already requires math. Making Physics require
theory of gravity would slow down the deelopment of steam engine, flight,
and magnetism.

- Irrigation(Crafting & Construction): allows Settlers/Engineers to Irrigate
a square.

- Mining(Engineering & Iron-Working): allows Settlers/Engineers to mine a
square.

- Roadbuilding(Mathematics & Crafting): allows Settlers/Engineers to build
simple roads

- Shamanism(Ceremonial Burial): Needed for Mysticism.

- Crafting (Pottery & Bronze): Needed for Music, Construction ...

- Weaving (Crafting & Construction): Increases Move of sail units.

- Music (Crafting & Alphabet): Help makes people happy (?)

- Drama & Poetry (Music & Writing): Needed for Mysticism

- Monotheism (Religion & Feudalism): Allows Cathedrals and Theocracy.

- Manufacturing (Physics & Engineering): Needed for Industrialization.

- Architecture (Masonry & Crafting): Needed for ???

- Microtech (Robotics & The Corporation):

- Satellites (Microtech & Rocketry): Allows the Shift 5-6 cheat.

- Advanced Roadbuilding(Industrials. & Chemistry): allows freeways

- Mass Media(Electronics & Invention (or wireless communication):

- Wireless communication(elecricity & Invention): increases communication
factor by 2 or 3. Allows building of TV Station and Radar Station.

- Free Press(Mass media & The Corp): decreases Corruption, adds one unhappy
Citizen

- Television(Mass media & Free press): (*discussed before*)

- Propaganda(Mass media): Neutralizes the effect of the absence of one
military unit. (No unhappy in Rep/Dem, Martial law given else)

- Satelitte Communication(Wireless & Satellites) Increases comm worldwide
Gives the CNN-WOW

- Stealth Technology(Advanced Flight & Computers): Allows building
of stealth units.

- Artificial Intelligence():

- Weather Control(): Allows a civilization to build the weather satelite
improvement.

- Solar Power Satellites():

- Calendar(Astronomy): Increases the yield of food once developed.

- Paper(Writing): Allows construction of library.

- Printing(Invention and Paper): Allows building of Bookstore. Increases
effect of library.

- Telegraph(Magnetism and Printing): Increases speed of communication.

- Laser Communications(Satelite Communications and Photonics):

- Biology(): Allows biological weapons, better farming techniques, etc.

- Photonics():

- Theocracy: No corruption, low science development, but prices for
temples, cathedrals, and religious WoWs are lower.

- Charismatic Dictatorship: ala Saddam Hussein, Hitler, et al. Units
do not require support. Trade is the same as in monarchy. Units can
quell unhappy people, but there are more unhappy people than usual.
(This is an improved Despotic Government.) Maybe Despotism becomes
this after development of invention?

- Constitutional Monarchy: Grasslands, Rivers, and Hills are as
productive as they are under a Monarchy. Also, an additional trade
unit is generated wherever at least one trade unit already exists.
Military units each require one resource for industrial support.
Settlers require two food. Corruption is higher than under a Monarchy
or Republic. Military units cannot be used to quell dissent in
cities.
In addition, the Parliament of your government accepts any peace
offer made by another civilization.

- Feudalism: Turns over control of several cities to a local lord.
Allows monarchy-style government, but over a larger number of cities.
Also, decreases corruption in cities far away from the capitol.
Further, it makes the computer take control of those cities and units
associated with those cities, thus freeing up the player to
concentrate in other areas. The player issues a list of general
orders for the lord to carry out. Drawbacks would be increased
likelihood of civil war in some circumstances, need for a palace in
another city, need for giving gifts to local lord. Governors have
different capabilities and personalities, so one might be very
militaristic, and another more willing to negotiate; one might be very
efficient and able to govern his cities better than the player
himself, while another is less efficient, with production and trade
going to less useful things and increased corruption. Under
Feudalism, removing governors would be difficult and would probably
result in civil war. Portion of trade converted to production
(because you don't have the power to tax one city heavily to pay for
construction elsewhere. Not possible to change the home city of a
unit.
If a governor is likely to rebel, the player would get a message
such as: Sir, our sources indicate that Duke Charles of Normandy is
gathering military strength. We believe he may intend to rebel!
* Feudalism: How about one government type to represent European
feudalism, Mayan city-states, pre-unification Germany,
renaissance Italy, Greece, etc..
* The "governor" option should be available for any
government type, if they can write a good one it would be
such a time-saver. But it's not likely to be as efficient.

- Federalism: Similar to feudalism, but operates more like republic.
Less variation in governor personalities and capabilities, and is
easier to remove governors from office. Trade not converted to
production, so taxation is easier, but still is not possible to change
the home city of a unit.

- Alteration of Building Times: Gaining tech should allow one to
complete tasks faster; a civilization with automobile in 1000BC
shouldn't need 80 years to build a road (4 turns with no cheats). The
turn length shouldn't depend solely on the year, it should be tied
into the most advanced tech level, and the "number of turns" it takes
to do something should be delegated into actual number of years/months
or whatever and tied to tech levels.

- Alteration of Learning Times: The more contact you have with a
civilization, the easier it should be to gain the technology that they
have. When a civilization begins researching a new advance, you would
get a percentage of the advance up front, depending on if it were
already known. The rule would be something like: 10% for each ally
with the technology, 5% for each trading partner with the technology,
2% for each civilization with the technology that your civilization is
at peace with, and 1% for each civilization with the advance that you
are at war with. (The percentages are not cumulative, of course.)
Also, different types of governments should modify this bonus.
Civilisations could voluntarily restrict allowing other civilizations
from getting this benefit from their own technology by turning off a
switch. Also, it should be possible to steal another civilization's
technology without causing war (see Spy unit above).

12) WONDERS OF THE WORLD

Ancient
-------
Colossus:
Pyramids:
Hanging Gardens:
Lighthouse:
Oracle:
Stonehenge: (Calendar) Helps crops, so increases food production in
city. Expires with development of Astronomy.
DuJinagYan: A massive irrigation project that increases food
production on all irrigated squares by one. Is made obsolete
by the Republic.

Classical
---------
Great Library:
Great Wall:
Archimedes' Engineering: (Alphabet) Gives two additional advances
Plato's Republic:
Aristotle's Science: (Writing) Increases scientific production.
Voided upon development of University.
Holy Text:
Sun Tzu's The Art of War:

Renaissance
-----------
Copernicus's Observatory:
Shakespear's Theatre:
Isaac Newton's College:
J.S. Bach's Cathedral:
Magellan's Expedition:
Michelangelo's Chapel:
Constitution:

Industrial
----------
Darwin's Voyage:
Hoover Dam:
Woman's Suffrage:
United Nations: The ability of this wonder should be reduced if a civilization
is repeatedly attacked and then made peace with.
Statue of Liberty: Would attract refugees from dissatisfied cities
Nobel Society: Requires explosives (or university?)
Olympics:

Electronic
----------
Hollywood: Increases happiness throughout civilization, and attracts refugees.
Manhattan Project:
Apollo Program:
Human Genome Project:
National Park System: For each totally undeveloped square (no roads,
no irregation), one person in the nearest city is happy. If all the
land within 3 squares of a city is developed, then a city automatically
gets 2 unhappies. Effective only if your a Democracy or a Republic.
Reason: There should be a reason NOT to develop all your lands. This
would add a realistic factor balancing production to maintain a democracy
or a republic while keeping some land undeveloped.

- World Peace: Operates only for Democracies but would prevent other CIVs from
ever attacking?
- Disarmament: eliminates nuclear weapons.
- Los Angeles Transport wonder: eliminates automobile effect on pollution
- satellite navagation: sea units see twice as far, and travel an extra
two squares. Cumulative with Magellions expedition. (transports 7!)
- Michiavelli's School: allows diplomats to sabotage selected items (instead
of random), and to subvert or encourage revolts for half price, and
to buy enemy units for half price too.

Wonders should be able to be re-built if destroyed, but cost (say) 4 times
as much since it's archeological reconstruction. Perhaps only at their
original site.
Perhaps there should be secondary wonders, having to build 30 power plants,
one in each of your cities, just because a rival civ managed to build Hoovers
Dam is quite a setback.
Perhaps some of the wonders should have their abilities reduced in strength.
For example, Womens Suffrage only acts on the first 3 units out of each city.
Hoover Dam only increases by 30% rather than 50%, or increases current power
plants by an extra amount.

13) CAN YOU HELP?

Of course! Most of this FAQ was compiled from other people's ideas.
As the compiler of this list I made many decisions about areas other
people failed to address, and I fleshed out many other people's ideas,
but I've tried to avoid dictating what goes in and what goes out. I
want to get as much input and feedback as possible from as many people
as possible.

I have plenty of ideas already, now what I need is criticism.
Tear it apart. Tell me why a certain approach won't work, or that a
certain idea is silly or stupid. Tell me to forget about doing
certain things because they are too hard to program or that they would
change the nature of the game too much. Also, I want to see arguments
on some of the more controversial ideas. The more discussion I see
about a certain thing, the better I'll be able to decide whether or
not to include it. Finally, if you really like an idea or two, say
so! Many people liked the idea of aquatic cities, so I'll make sure
it stays in. Some people dislike the idea of having colonies on
multiple planets, while others love it, so maybe Space Civilisation
could be a supplement put out later, after the initial release.
[See civ2.future.proposal]

It would be very helpful to have some of the ideas (or new ideas)
presented fully detailed. For example, The wonders of the world need
describing fully, when they become available, at what cost to build.
The city improvements all need cost to build. Some of the advances
require further details.

And if you have new ideas, then post them. More than anything else,
this is a brainstorming session. I am not designing Civ II, I am just
putting together a database of ideas that someone can draw from to
make a sequel. The more ideas we have, the better!

Please Note, I came a little late for a lot of the discussions within
this proposal, I don't know what the "Human Genome Project" is, neither
have I particularly heard of "Sun Tzu's The Art of War" Please if there
is a topic in this faq that doesn't have an explanation or doesn't have
a satisfactory explanation then inform me. In particular the several
interesting paragraphs at the end of the advances section suggesting
different governments, I am a total loss on this type of subject, If
possible I would really appreciate someone helping me out and writing
that particular section and I would just include it.( Maybe I should
get off my backside and learn a bit about it . . . who knows ).

14) CONTRIBUTORS

Thanks to everyone who shared ideas. I wanted to credit everyone who
made contributions, but the list was just too big. In particular,
Thank you to Shadow for his excellent and detailed submissions, Dave
[Rubicon] for the FAQ, and Bob 'o Bob, Paul Brinkley, Toshi Tsuboi, and
Bryce Harrington, the civ2 version 1 compiler.

Thanks to the following whose responses to the first civ2 future proposal
faq are included in this version.
Bryce Harrington, David Bofinger, Toshi Tsuboi, Steve Sherwood, zool175,
Jeffrey Muday, tony ivan zbaraschuk, Capo di Capi Tutti, LHughes,
Paul Brinkley, Chris Jones, Jonathon Buckel, Del Cotter, David Heath and
Wolfgang Razen.

A special thanks to the 200 people who didn't write in to *not* request a
civ futures proposal faq ;-), and the most amazing fantastic THANK YOU to
those four people who said to carry on the proposal, you know who you are,
thanks. Without them, perhaps this would have been filed in that ultimate
of all filing cabinets, the waste paper basket !!

And at the last, a big thanks to Bryce, who put this together originally
and handed it to me, who would have thought so much work goes into these
things, I must have done about 2-3 hours, 5 days a week for over 5 weeks
on this thing and it is still no where near organised. Thanks ;-)

Jonathon Buckel, Email jon...@oldham.gpsemi.com
or buck...@oldham.gpsemi.com

--
My real address is
buck...@oldham.gpsemi.com

[Dr T R Judge]

The obvious arab civilisation is the
Caliphate (Mohamed or Umar the 1st). The realm of
Saladin was quite a minor power and he is only
well known because he was the one that faced
off Richard of romantic legend
Other alternatives:
> Ghana/Sudan A much more significant African
civilisation than the Zulus
> Ottoman turks (should have stayed in the origional
game anyway)
If I had my way I'd drop the English- Boring!!!
but Americans seem to find England cute so I guess
it will have to stay.
Also an option for customising your own civilisation
You provide the list of cities, it's charecter (friendly/agresive
etc) and select a standard ruler pic for the ruler.
As it stands each civilisation can only appear once
yet historicaly the Greeks have been wiped out twice yet
they are still around while the Chinese made surviving
conquest as a basic priciple of their civilisation.
If civilisations could make comebacks then civil
wars or barbarians founding civilisations could be made
easier without the risk of running out of civilisations.
I have only seen a civilisation split once in
civil war. It's a pity it doesn't happen more often.

[T Judge]

Diplomacy
Meet the King

The extra options in the Civ2 proposal
for meet the king are a must
especially the get out of my cities production area.
How about 'get off this island' when new forces have just landed.

Defensive aliances.

If your ally is attacked you will
automatically go into meet the king mode with the
attacker and you either
1) Leave you ally in the lurch
2) Threaten the attacker with war unless they make
peace with your ally
3) Go to war regardles.
If you are attacked you will automatically have a chance to
request help from your ally

If the attacker later on offers peace you will have
the option of insisting on making a joint peace.
If your ally refuses to sign a joint peace you
should then be able to make a seperate peace without
your ally treating it as a broken treaty.

Friendship Factor

The algorithm for deciding how friendly/agresive
civs are towards you/each other seems very rudimentary.
As far as I can make out they become more
agresivness if you do a sneak attack, if they are
stronger than you and become more agresive as the years
pass and of course if you are the biggest everyone hates
you. They don't seem bothered if you attack but use
a diplomat to declair war first. If the algorithm is more
sophisticated than it might as well not be because there is
not enough feedback to work out what is going on.

Sugestion: Every civilisation should have a frienship factor
of a word sized integer for all other civilisations.

Every turn you are at war should reduce this.
Breaking treatys should reduce this a lot.
Sneak attacks should make you mega unpopular.
Giving to demands for cash should reduce. (they will despise you as weak)
Breaking treaties with one civ should reduce your factor with all others
a little

But these should icrease friendship
Freely given gifts should increase friendship
Refusing to break a treaty when demanded to do so by another civ

It should be posible to monitor quite closely what your
friendship rating is so you can adapt your stratagy acordingly.
Sometimes you will be attacked because you are weak and too
big and dagerous, sometimes because they hate your guts. It ought
to be posible to distinguish which.

Ballene of Power

The AI's understanding of the ballence of power
goes no further than making everyone attack you if are the biggest.
The also ought to be reluctant to attack you are small and you are
at war with the bigest Civ. This would be more realistic and
help playability by allowing players to make come backs from a weak
position.

Time

Currently Civs are absurdly friendly early and ultra
agresive latter on. I don't feel this adds much to the game
and think it could be scrapped.

David Barnsdale

[Kalev Kask]

A couple of thoughts on civ 1.

Diplomacy is very primitive. civ2.proposal FAQ contains several
good suggestions - the idea of alliances and extra options for the
'meet the king' thing.
civ2.proposal.FAQ describes mostly economic alliances.
I would add military alliances (defensive was proposed by T Judge actually)
both defensive (helping the other side in case of a war; I would make
this help both military and economic - giving money and resources,
helping to build fortifications, city walls, etc.) and offensive.
Offensive alliance could have two forms -
coordinated offensive military actions against the same enemy (a close
alliance) or 'a division of spheres of influence' (a loose alliance).
The latter would mean that if the other side is interested in some
territory somewhere (which he wants to conquer) and I am interested
in some other piece of land, then we can agree that I won't stick my
nose in there where he is fighting, in return for his promise
to stay away and not to interfere with my actions somewhere else.
In fact, we could divide the whole world.

There is a small technical problem here - continents and oceans
should have names, otherwise it is hard to refer to them
(say, the first one to discover them can name them).

This leads to another suggestion. In civ 1 territory is considered
to belong to somebody if he has improved it and is actually using it.
He might have a piece of land somewhere deep in the middle of his
territory, but it is considered nobody's as long as he is not using it.
In the real world we have countries and borders.
The fact that some piece of land somewhere in the Rocky Mountains is
not used does not mean that it is not US territory.
Civ 2 should also have a concept of a country with borders and territorial
waters. An attempt of trying to move military units across the border into the
other country should be considered as a hostile act (unless agreed
upon by both sides).
[If anybody tried to move his battleships-carriers into the San Francisco
bay area, US would certainly not allow that and would consider it as a
hostile act because it is a part of US territory(water).]

And the last thing about diplomacy is that peace treaties (or just
negotiations) should be concluded as 'packages' involving a number of
things (demand of money, resources, declaring a war on somebody else,
moving borders (ie. surrendering territory), putting a ban on the
location of his military units (say, he is not allowed to have a navy
in ocean X next to me)) in both ways.
In the current civ I don't have any control over technologies when we
exchange them.
As a result, when I am ahead and develop, for instance, gunpowder
everybody else wants to get it. But I am not very likely to enter
any exchanges because if I give it to one, everybody will have
gunpowder shortly because he will exchange it to everybody else.
It would be good if I could set conditions - I will agree to give
something valuable given that he keeps it only to himself and is not
going to trade it.

Warfare.
AI is not very good as well known.
One very annoying thing is that the computer does not have a plan or
any idea what he is doing, just 'flounders around'.
[I guess he uses some sort of a heuristic search (A*, whatever) to
evaluate his position and figure out his best move when it's his turn.
Next time around, he repeats the same thing, but has totally forgotten
what he started/planned last time.
When I do something, I follow a plan - I have a goal to achieve, I design
a strategy and carry it out (with modifications along the way) which
might take many-many turns.
The point is, each of my steps is strongly influenced by my previous steps.]

An example is this.
I have an island just for myself with cities, roads, etc.
He lands 2-3 units near my city, does this 'meet the king' thing,
bluffs perhaps, and we make peace. My reaction is of course to quickly
build city walls and bring in some reinforcements (which will take a couple
of turns at least). But he just sits there, his sail/transport
is gone, transporting units somewhere else (because usually he is
already fighting 2-3 wars). Seems like he has forgotten his forces here.
May-be in the future he comes back - this time he lands another
2-3 units in some other part of the island and the same thing repeats.
Now he just has his troops rottening here, plus he has to feed and
support them. Which is irritating because I cannot use those squares for
production. Since he has absolutely nothing to do with his units here, he just
disbands them after a while, first one, then after 5-10 turns the next one,
and after a while the rest.
I wouldn't understand any human doing this.
If his goal is to make peace, then there is no need for 2-3 units,
a diplomat would be enough. If he wants to fight, 2-3 units is not
enough and he should have brought more in the first place.
If he just wants to wonder around then he should do it, but probably he
cannot because we have a treaty and all the land around him is in use.
Anyway, he just completely wastes his resources and throws away a lot of money.

Ok, having a real good AI is a problem and takes a lot of memory and
time. But I think he could improve a lot by just learning a few tricks.
In todays military world many things are pretty standard and are taught
as simple typical problem solving tasks. (mostly local combat situations
though):
they give you a situation and a well-defined goal (ie. get these
forces over there, take this city, hold this line, etc.) and then
they teach you a bunch of tricks how to accomplish the goal.
In other words, they teach it as an engineering problem.
(the problem with this is that the computer could become predictable,
but if he knows quite a few tricks and is flexible, this won't be
a big problem.)
Say, if you have an aircraft-carrier battle group with 2 transports,
how to conduct a landing operation:
how the ships should move, which ones go first, how to provide air cover,
how to choose the landing spot, etc.
[BTW, I got civ almost two years ago and have been playing occasionally
since then, but I have never seen the computer using aircraft carriers!
Neither have I ever seen the computer conducting a coordinated
navy-marines operations.]

Too much emphasis on war. At some point, roughly when gunpowder in invented,
the whole thing is just a vicious total world war - everybody is
fighting everybody else.
Economics should be made more sophisticated to create alternatives to fighting
wars as the only way to strenghten your civilization.
A typical situation.
I have an island (or a continent) and there is another civ too.
Sometimes I decide not to fight him, but to keep him as a partner
so that we could exchange stuff and trade (which is good since he is right
next door and I don't have to build ships and sent expeditions to find
others which is a waste of time) and this way we both
can move very fast and later go out and quickly conquer the rest of the world.
In the current civ this is very difficult since sooner or later a war
is going to brake out (probably sooner) and he will attack.
Once he starts a war (most often a sneak attack), we will be fighting
many-many wars because neither of us trusts the other side any more.
Which is not good since we could do other useful things
like discovering new technologies and conquering other civ-s.
To solve this problem, I circle him quickly to stop his expansion
and grab most of the island. Usually we end up him having 1/3 and me 2/3.
This way I am roughly twice as strong as him and can intimidate him
and he is afraid of starting a war.
But in this case the whole thing becomes useless -
he is too weak to actually be a useful partner - pretty quickly he slows
down (not enough money because he's small) and doesn't produce
new discoveries fast enough and there is nothing he can offer me.
So I always end up having to take him over because otherwise
my competitors would do it instead.
He just does not understand that we both will be better off if we
live and trade in peace (at least for a while).
And since the dimplomacy is primitive there is no way of telling him that.

A technical problem.
Air units (bombers, fighters) are out of proportion.
For example, a cruiser with appropriate WoWs can make 6 moves,
whereas a bomber can make 8 moves and a fighter can make 10 moves.
There is no way a cruiser can move 75% as fast as a bobmer.
To fix this I would suggest to increase the range of bombers and
fighters, perhaps with a limit on how many times a fighter can attack during
one turn. This would probably make air units too powerful.
I would compensate this with two changes: 1) cruisers and battleships
should be able to shoot down the aircraft (which is natural), and 2) create
a new unit - SAM, with a range, say 3 (they should be built with radars
which can see 4 squares. planes should be able to detect when they are in the
range of radars).

I think that the idea of resources (goal, oil, gold, ...) getting exhausted
and new resources being discovered and developed is very good.
This way civilizations who did not get the best resources in the beginning
will have a chance too.

And last. The computer is totally helpless in defending his transports.
I can't believe he doesn't understand that he cannot let his
transports wonder around alone without any escort.
The only way he can fight wars then is by cheating and producing things
10 times as fast as I can (to compensate for huge losses at sea).

-- Kalev

[T Judge]

In article <2C6450...@ics.uci.edu>,

kk...@ics.uci.edu (Kalev Kask) writes:
>For example, a cruiser with appropriate WoWs can make 6 moves,
>whereas a bomber can make 8 moves and a fighter can make 10 moves.
>There is no way a cruiser can move 75% as fast as a bobmer.

If you see the 8mve pnts of a bomber as its range rather than
speed it starts to make more sense. I find the problem of placing
cities so you can get your bombers in range a nice challenge.
However there is no reason why bombers shouldn't have
a much longer move if they are hoping city to city and not
attacking.

SAMs would be a good idea.

David Barnsdale (whatever the header might say)

[T Judge]

I don't think you should be too worried about
contradictions within the proposal.
Rather than a coherent proposal I think you should
think in terms of cook book of sugestions
that may be useful if (Whada I mean if!!- when)
Sid Meier does a Civ2. Everyone will have
differing idea of the direction the game should
go and the proposal should reflect this.
The secret of good game design is not
good ideas but the will power to cut an
idea which is brilliant on it's own but doesn't
fit in with the rest of the game
A case in point is the Wonders. A lot
of really good ideas there and I'd hate to be
the one to say which should be cut. But I don't
think the soultion is to cram everything in.
Does the game really need 14 extra wonders?

David Barnsdale
PS In case I forget to say it again it's brill
all the work you've put in.

[T Judge]

Problem:
Civil Wars are feature which adds real colour
to the game. Unfortunately they are rare
(I've seen one once).
It is unrealistic that once cities are
conquered they imediately become loyal to you.

Sugestion:
Discontent
Each city has a discontent level.
This can only be reduced by 'we love the president days'.
It is increased by riots and high numbers of unhapies.

If a city is captured it will start with a
high discontent level. Its old rulers will be recorded
and the discontent will be interpreted as loyalty to
that civilisation until the disloyalty is reduced to
zero.

If the old civilisation attempts to retake
a city and the discontent level is high then there
will be a chance that the city will surender without
a fight.

Civil War
Rioting in any city may triger civil war
(Probab=[No of cities with high discontent]*[Riots])
If Civil War High discontent cities rebel and a
new civilisation is born (or reborn).
If a player empire splits and the rebels would be stronger
than the old empire, then a 3 way split is the result.

Advantages: Makes the game more chalenging
as players have something else to worry about.
Makes Despotic conquest more dificult so ecouraging
more complex stratagys. (Imagine: You are one city
short of conquering the world and rioting in Paris
triggers civil war Ahhhh!!!!).

David Barnsdale

[T Judge]

Civilisation Advances
There are a lot of good ideas in here, some of which
are really tempting (especially Feudalism/Fedralism)
but there is a danger that this number
of advances will make the game unweildly and
less playable. I also feel adding advances is just more
of the same and adds little extra to the game. These
changes may have the opposite efect to the one intended
as gaining important advances becomes so laborious
that the incentive is to go for conquest and forget
about advances altogether.
There is a very important reason for giving
you mining and irigation straight off. It gives you
something interesting to do other than beat up your
neighbour.

Luck and advances
Yes it is unrealistic that each advance has
a set cost and that you know the route to your next
advance. BUT there is a big gain in playability.
It allows you to plan ahead and try out different
strategys. Fumbling around in the dark is
more realistic but not much fun.

David Barnsdale

[Bryce Harrington]

In article <2433dt$a...@skippy.eng.warwick.ac.uk> es2...@eng.warwick.ac.uk (T Judge) writes:
>
>...there is a danger that this number

>of advances will make the game unweildly and
>less playable. I also feel adding advances is just more
>of the same and adds little extra to the game. These

I quote:

- Variable Complexity Levels: If all the additions and rule
modifications addressed in this document were implemented, the game
might become too complex for a novice user. Therefore, it would be
wise to allow the user to select a complexity level. Level 1 would be
for people who have never played Civilization or for those who would
like to play an entire game in one afternoon. Level 1 would cut down
on the number of units available (no caravans, diplomats, etc.), make
Wonders of the World unavailable, and so forth. Level 2 would be the
same Civilization we all know, though perhaps with a few new advances
and units. Level 3 would incorporate many of the additions listed in
this document. Level 4 would add the space travel advances, units,
wonders, and city improvements, as well as new rules to deal with
multiple planets, spaceship combat, and so on. [See the civ2.future.proposal.

So if you are concerned about having too much stuff, just use a lower
complexity level. It wouldn't be _easier_ or _harder_, just less
complex. BTW, I don't think that the number of advances makes the
game any more complex than it already is. Maybe it requires you to
do more planning, but is this bad? I like having a lot of choices
and lots of paths for technology.

> There is a very important reason for giving
>you mining and irigation straight off. It gives you
>something interesting to do other than beat up your
>neighbour.

I do disagree that construction is required for road building and
irrigation. I could understand masonry for roadbuilding, but not
construction. Irrigation should have no prerequisites, or only one
such as farming. I think that when you start, you should have the
following advances open to you:

Alphabet
Pottery
Crafting
Farming
Ceremonial Burial
Weaving

I think Bronze working should only be available after Crafting
And weaving should be avaliable from the start and should be
somewhere in the prerequisite path to making sails.

How about canoes? Mv 2 in river or other water, 1/2 over land,
available after crafting, cost 20, must stay adjacent to land at all
times. Useful for moving on rivers, especially for exploration at
the beginning of the game.

I don't know about the rest of you, but the early stages of the
game are the most fun to me. Exploration and founding new cities
is the most fun, IMHO. Also being able to fight wars with only
half a dozen units. The bigger scale stuff is fun, too, but takes
too long and takes much more planning and thought. Plus it is too
dependant on who has the better tech. I think the stuff mentioned
in the proposal would correct a lot of this, but I'd still prefer the
early stages of the game the best. Drawing out this stage as much
as possible would make it more enjoyable to me. Others might prefer
the latter stages better. However, the prop did mention variable
starting times, so that I could start with nothing but a single nomad
unit, and you could start the game with 1 city already built, 3 settlers,
10 advances, 400 coins, a trade route, and 3 military units. Thus you'd
have a lot to do right from the start.

Bryce Harrington

[C.J. Ham]

es...@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Dr T R Judge) writes:

> If I had my way I'd drop the English- Boring!!!
>but Americans seem to find England cute so I guess
>it will have to stay.

If anything should go, then it should be the Americans.
The English did at least have a civilisation from which the Americans came.

Or have we already forgotten our history?

[Joseph Manuel Finete]

In article <rda834x....@mdw014.cc.monash.edu.au> rda...@mdw014.cc.monash.edu.au (C.J. Ham) writes:
>es...@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Dr T R Judge) writes:
>
>
>> If I had my way I'd drop the English- Boring!!!
>>but Americans seem to find England cute so I guess
>>it will have to stay.
>
>If anything should go, then it should be the Americans.
>The English did at least have a civilisation from which the Americans came.

Well, from a historical standpoint, both the English and the Americans
are pretty significant. But either the French or the Germans should
disappear. There are already too many European civilizations.
Plus, the Incas (there's only two civs for the "new world") and
the Japanese should be added. This would spread out the civs instead of
bunching them up around the Middle East (no wonder the Babalonyions never
survive)
--
Joe Finete
jfi...@cats.ucsc.edu

[BURNT]

In article <2463ib...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, jfi...@cats.ucsc.edu (Joseph Manuel Finete) writes...

>
>In article <rda834x....@mdw014.cc.monash.edu.au> rda...@mdw014.cc.monash.edu.au (C.J. Ham) writes:
>>es...@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Dr T R Judge) writes:
>>
>>
>>If anything should go, then it should be the Americans.
>>The English did at least have a civilisation from which the Americans came.

wrong! the americans are not represented in the present civilization. true
native americans should replace the european americans.

>
>Well, from a historical standpoint, both the English and the Americans
>are pretty significant. But either the French or the Germans should
>disappear. There are already too many European civilizations.

>Plus, the Inca (there's only two civs for the "new world") and

>the Japanese should be added. This would spread out the civs instead of
>bunching them up around the Middle East (no wonder the Babalonyions never
>survive)

i think the inca and the mayans should be added. lose the french and add
more asian civs.

burnt

[Mark Skaff]

In a previous article, rda...@mdw014.cc.monash.edu.au (C.J. Ham) says:

>If anything should go, then it should be the Americans.
>The English did at least have a civilisation from which the Americans came.
>

>Or have we already forgotten our history?

I agree, wholeheartedly.
--
---
Internet: aa...@freenet.carleton.ca Ottawa, Ontario
Fidonet: Mark Skaff, 1:163/525 Canada

[Joseph Manuel Finete]

In article <CBIC...@acsu.buffalo.edu> v094...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu (BURNT) writes:
>In article <2463ib...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, jfi...@cats.ucsc.edu (Joseph Manuel Finete) writes...
>

>wrong! the americans are not represented in the present civilization. true
>native americans should replace the european americans.
>>
>>Well, from a historical standpoint, both the English and the Americans
>>are pretty significant. But either the French or the Germans should
>>disappear. There are already too many European civilizations.
>>Plus, the Inca (there's only two civs for the "new world") and
>>the Japanese should be added. This would spread out the civs instead of
>>bunching them up around the Middle East (no wonder the Babalonyions never
>>survive)
>
>i think the inca and the mayans should be added. lose the french and add
>more asian civs.

The Mayans and the Aztecs would overlap to much. Of course, they could be
same color like the French & Germans. But with Americans (I think the
world's sole remaining superpower deserves to be included), Aztecs, Mayans,
Incas, and Iriquois (or whatever Native American tribe) then the American
continents will be more crowded. I think it's a good feature to have an
easy continent for beginners (or people who want to pad their scores). Two
civs is too few but five is too many and four is pushing it.

Maybe MicroProse/SpectrumHolobyte
could produce a more politically correct version of Civ, featuring less
of those nasty white European males and more ethnically diverse civs.
It could be called PC Civilization, and PC Civilization for Mac (that'll
confuse 'em). All kidding aside, either the French or the Germans has got
to go.
--
Joe Finete
jfi...@cats.ucsc.edu

[Andrew Klossner]

[]

"If I had my way I'd drop the English- Boring!!! but Americans
seem to find England cute so I guess it will have to stay."

Ditto -- I find the Americans boring (except that I like the music).
Abe LIncoln didn't build an empire, he only helped to keep one from
disintegrating.

"As it stands each civilisation can only appear once ..."

Unless a civil war happens. I've had two pictures of Stalin "on the wall."

"I have only seen a civilisation split once in civil war. It's
a pity it doesn't happen more often."

It should happen whenever you take the capital of a civ that's larger
than yours, when there are not already seven civs extant.

"The English did at least have a civilisation from which the
Americans came."

So where did the Norman invaders come from? (Rhetorical question)

-=- Andrew Klossner (and...@frip.wv.tek.com)

[Mills / Allan William (ISE)]

What about the Australian aborigines ? There should be one group from
each continent. What civilisation should also have is a carrier aircraft
so you can transport stuff by air, to go with it you should need to have
settlers build an airstrip within a cities range.

Allan

[Adrian Hurt]

In article <rda834x....@mdw014.cc.monash.edu.au> rda...@mdw014.cc.monash.edu.au (C.J. Ham) writes:

>es...@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Dr T R Judge) writes:
>
>> If I had my way I'd drop the English- Boring!!!

Challenging, you mean. If you use the "Earth" scenario, the English start
off on their little island, which means they have to develop Mapmaking,
build a trireme and get an army over to mainland Europe pretty quickly if
they are going to get anywhere. The computer never seems to manage this,
but it makes for an interesting starting point for the player.

>If anything should go, then it should be the Americans.
>The English did at least have a civilisation from which the Americans came.

I like using Indian (sorry, Native American, got to be PC round here :-)
names for the American leader and cities if I play as the Americans.

--
"Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott

Adrian Hurt | JANET: adr...@uk.ac.hw.cee
UUCP: ..!uknet!cee.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adr...@cee.hw.ac.uk

[Katy Mulvey]

jfi...@cats.ucsc.edu (Joseph Manuel Finete) writes:
> Maybe MicroProse/SpectrumHolobyte
> could produce a more politically correct version of Civ, featuring less
> of those nasty white European males and more ethnically diverse civs.
> It could be called PC Civilization, and PC Civilization for Mac (that'll
> confuse 'em). All kidding aside, either the French or the Germans has got
> to go.

To start off, Elizabeth should be Queen/Empress/President instead of King/
Emperor/President...

(Though I suppose that could be fixed by digging into the string tables...)

Ghengis Katy will return!

(Currently playing my first really good game as the Russians on Earth at
Prince Level... and I only wimped out with the save-game cheat twice --
once when the Zulus took one of my cities and took gunpowder, and once
when the Aztecs got the Sufferage WOW.)
--
Katy Mulvey
ka...@mulvey.com

[J Buckel Artist Account]

In article <246fo5...@gazette.wv.tek.com>, and...@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes:
"If I had my way I'd drop the English- Boring!!! but Americans
seem to find England cute so I guess it will have to stay."

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ditto -- I find the Americans boring (except that I like the music).
Abe LIncoln didn't build an empire, he only helped to keep one from
disintegrating.

-=- Andrew Klossner (and...@frip.wv.tek.com)

cute....cute!....CUTE....CUTE!....This makes my blood boil.

Makes me feel like flaming someone, but I'm far too nice for things like
that, how about just putting the guy up against a wall and shooting him
repeatedly with an armor or artilery, no battleship, no Trireme that'll
really embarass him, defeated by a trireme!

Jonathon.

p.S. Not that I'm taking this personally or anything !!
P.P.S. Not that I'm ENGLISH or anything !!
-------
P.P.P.S. Hope you all take this with the sense of humour it was intended !!

[J Buckel]

In article <1993Aug10.0...@csc.canberra.edu.au>, u91...@student.canberra.edu.au (Mills / Allan William (ISE)) writes:

What about the Australian aborigines ? There should be one group from
each continent. What civilisation should also have is a carrier aircraft
so you can transport stuff by air, to go with it you should need to have
settlers build an airstrip within a cities range.

Allan

Allan, have you read the enormous civ2.proposal I posted ? It included details
of transport aircraft and helicoptors, also cargo ships and aircraft. It also
describes how Airstrips may be built.

Please don't take this as a flame or anything. Because you had the original
idea of the Aborigines which no-one has ever mentioned before to my knowledge
which is excellent, I agree with you there should be a civ on every major
continent and the Aborigines are an excellent idea, thanks for that.

Jonathon

[911 Kevin Thomas]

Back to the discussion about who to get rid of, I think that the
French, German and English should all be replaced by the CELT's
as all these races as well as most European races are decended
from the CELT's.

[Gary Curtis]

Actually we should get rid of *ALL* races and start off as Tanzanians as the
earliest evidence of homo sapiens is found there. (Or perhaps all civs should
start as fish, or single celled life forms, or organic compounds waiting for
the spark of life....Hmmmmmm!!! :-)
:-)

Gary

[Daniel M Silevitch]

In article <1993Aug11....@stsci.edu> cur...@stsci.edu (Gary Curtis) writes:
|>
|>Actually we should get rid of *ALL* races and start off as Tanzanians as the
|>earliest evidence of homo sapiens is found there. (Or perhaps all civs should
|>start as fish, or single celled life forms, or organic compounds waiting for
|>the spark of life....Hmmmmmm!!! :-)
|>:-)
|>
|>Gary

Sounds like SimEarth to me :-)

Daniel Silevitch dms...@athena.mit.edu
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[John Meredith]

In article <1993Aug11....@stsci.edu>, cur...@stsci.edu (Gary Curtis)
says:

Been there, seen it, had it, done it. It's called SimEarth.

ObTwoCentsWorthOnCiv: seems like we're going maybe a little overboard on
this just about changes in the game -- makes me wonder if some subscribers
to this group have a *tiny* bit of problem grasping reality.....

I mean, runways? bickering about mp's of various units?

Yes, Civ is a neat game, and Sid's a great guy and all that, but there
HAVE to be some limits to how deep we all get into these games.....

No personal offense intended, and it is my hope that none is taken.

John P. Meredith Student Systems
jpm...@psuvm.psu.edu Office of the University Registrar
(814)863-1919 [o] Penn State University
(814)861-7037 [h] University Park, PA

[Scott Chisholm]

I think Canada shoulr replace the United States as they are on the "top"
of the continent!

The same goes for the Scottish replacing the English. Along these lines
a new advance should be made. Golf. It changed the world didn't it?...Well
didn't it?

[Bryan P. Walsh]

Can any of you Civ masters out there tell me how to make
trading(caravans) work properly. The highest trading rate that I've been
able to get between cities is a 5. I've conquered cities with trading
rates of 10, but the rate soons goes down. Any help is appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

Bryan

[Bruce M Carroll]

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but empires that
are at peace with me should not be able to land their armies on land
that is under one of my cities domain. Only diplomats and spy planes
(future...) should be able to do that.

Has anyone one at the emperor level? Maybe it is just my style of
play. I like to build and wage economic warfare on other empires.
Does the emperor level require a very agressive, total tax scheme
with the idea that all the advances you need you can steal?

Also, can anyone explain to me how sometimes other empires start
producing armor and battleships as soon as 1600-1650. Man, there
is no way I can compete against that. Are the other empires
swapping technologies. I mean, the Mongols produce Combustion
and the French produce Medicine and then they trade so that
there are effectively getting technology twice as fast?

I am fairly new to the network. Let me know if I have failed
in my attempt to utilize this newsgroup approraitely.

[Mills / Allan William (ISE)]

In article <930810.215725.1...@mulvey.com> ka...@mulvey.com (Katy Mulvey) writes:
>jfi...@cats.ucsc.edu (Joseph Manuel Finete) writes:
>> Maybe MicroProse/SpectrumHolobyte
>> could produce a more politically correct version of Civ, featuring less
>> of those nasty white European males and more ethnically diverse civs.
>> It could be called PC Civilization, and PC Civilization for Mac (that'll
>> confuse 'em). All kidding aside, either the French or the Germans has got
>> to go.
>
>To start off, Elizabeth should be Queen/Empress/President instead of King/
>Emperor/President...
>

The English should be the one to dissapear since historically they are
the country who have been beaten by almost everyone who has attacked them.

Allan

[Mills / Allan William (ISE)]

In article <CBLBo...@bailgate.gpsemi.com> buck...@oldham.gpsemi.com writes:
>
>In article <246fo5...@gazette.wv.tek.com>, and...@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Ditto -- I find the Americans boring (except that I like the music).
>

That leads me to an idea, music should have it's own advancements, there
should be the New Zealand based Haka advancement to make your soldiers
fight better and the rock n' roll advancement to make the people happy.

Allan

[Mills / Allan William (ISE)]

In article <Scott_Chishol...@141.211.210.249> Scott_C...@um.cc.umich.edu (Scott Chisholm) writes:
> I think Canada shoulr replace the United States as they are on the "top"
>of the continent!

The US should go to being American Indians, Canada however is mostly Poms
and Frogs.

>
> The same goes for the Scottish replacing the English. Along these lines
>a new advance should be made. Golf. It changed the world didn't it?...Well
>didn't it?

So what, motion picture isn't included and it changed the world. In fact
motion picture should be included, you could build movie theatres in towns
and have a Movie world Wonder.

Allan

[J Buckel Artist Account]

Allan

Yes we already have the ideas put forward in the proposal for a Hollywood
wonder of the world and theatres and music & drama and Television and Satelite
TV aswell. Can you not read my posts or something ?

We don't have Rock 'n' Roll yet but if you wan't it in we will see if someone
else agrees with your views, personally having one music type is not suitable,
perhaps Modern Music or something if you really insist and other people agree
with you.

I really do wish you would read the proposal, then you could make some more
*fresh* ideas like Rock 'n' Roll and the Aborigines.

[J Buckel Artist Account]

>In article <93223.131...@psuvm.psu.edu>, John Meredith ><JPM...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>ObTwoCentsWorthOnCiv: seems like we're going maybe a little overboard on
>this just about changes in the game -- makes me wonder if some subscribers
>to this group have a *tiny* bit of problem grasping reality.....
>
>I mean, runways? bickering about mp's of various units?
>
>Yes, Civ is a neat game, and Sid's a great guy and all that, but there
>HAVE to be some limits to how deep we all get into these games.....
>
>No personal offense intended, and it is my hope that none is taken.

I don't think it has got to bickering over mp's of units yet. Bickering
over some civs maybe, but it is fairly light hearted and there have been a
couple of reasonable suggestions, such as the celts to replace some of the
European civilisations available, It would be good to have a few more
civilisations which are more spread around, eg the Aborigines, perhaps the
Canadians in some aspect (is there such a thing as a native Canadian rather
than the English and French, who was there before?) or are they really the
American Indians? Playing the game with only 2 civs on the American continent
can be a pain if you choose the Babylonians or Egyptians, with 7 civs.

Bryce and myself are discussing a new start to the game, concerning Nomads
rather than Settlers which can move about and store resources and build militia
and other Nomads, and villages. If you wait a day or so I am just about to
write up all our thoughts on the subject and then I will post the ideas for
everyone to look at and discuss. We think it will be an excellent and
boudacious idea. (not that I recently watched Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure
or anything :-) )

Jonathon

[Dr T R Judge]

In article <rda834x....@mdw014.cc.monash.edu.au>,

rda...@mdw014.cc.monash.edu.au (C.J. Ham) writes:
>es...@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Dr T R Judge) writes:
>
>> If I had my way I'd drop the English- Boring!!!
>>but Americans seem to find England cute so I guess
>>it will have to stay.
>
>If anything should go, then it should be the Americans.
>The English did at least have a civilisation from which the Americans came.
>

The English state originates from the conquest of a French duke
so perhaps we should cut both America and England as they are
covered by France!
But my biggest gripe is the quaint touristy view of Britain Civ
displays. I mean Reading and Banbury are hardly places
steeped in history.

David Barnsdale

[J Buckel Artist Account]

>In article <24bt5p$i...@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bcf...@tamuts.tamu.edu (Bruce M >Carroll) writes:
>
>I don't know if this has been brought up before, but empires that
>are at peace with me should not be able to land their armies on land
>that is under one of my cities domain. Only diplomats and spy planes
>(future...) should be able to do that.
>

At the moment armies can move onto any square that you are not using within
your city map display. In the proposal we did suggest that boundaries around
cities could be employed and civs have agreements of who can move what through
your territory, of course diplomats, spies, caravans can still move anywhere.
I like the spy plane idea, hadn't thought of that one. Anyone any ideas on how
far an SR71 can fly and how much to build etc. ?

>Has anyone one at the emperor level? Maybe it is just my style of

>lay. I like to build and wage economic warfare on other empires.
>Does the emperor level require a very agressive, total tax scheme
>with the idea that all the advances you need you can steal?
>

Lots of people have won at Emperror level, I haven't yet, I am trying again
at the moment, Dave (RUBICON) has produced an excellent FAQ which details just
about everything you would ever know about civilisation. It has some superb
ideas of how to win the game, I believe someone has won on Emperor in 300BC
or something !! I also have heard of someone launching a spaceship in 1000AD.
Pretty amazing if you ask me. I however also play the game to make it as
exciting as possible, I try to be peaceful until armour and then go for other
civs, but sometimes they get there first and then you often lose :-(

>Also, can anyone explain to me how sometimes other empires start
>producing armor and battleships as soon as 1600-1650. Man, there
>is no way I can compete against that. Are the other empires
>swapping technologies. I mean, the Mongols produce Combustion
>and the French produce Medicine and then they trade so that
>there are effectively getting technology twice as fast?
>

Try establishing Embassies with all the other civs, they swap technologies
like it is going out of fashion, If one demands gunpowder from you, then every
civ has it within a few turns. You have to be lucky and quick !! You must also
try to contact every civ, usually just by moving one of your units next to one
of its. They then communicate, quite often, they will offer a trade of
technology, I usually accept, unless I have recently gained something very
useful which I think no other civ has, in which case I decline the offer. In
the higher levels of the game you really must go for technology if you want
to play the game into building spaceships or enjoy using artillery to take
out cities. (NB: There are reports that civ does cheat and doesn't have to
use as many lightbulbs as you to get its next advance, the rate of this
'cheating' changes with the level of the game, ie. it has a disadvantage at
Chieftain level and has an advantage at Emperor level, but as Emperor is
supposed to be harder, you must think up strategies to try and overcome this
difficulty.)

>I am fairly new to the network. Let me know if I have failed
>in my attempt to utilize this newsgroup approraitely.
>

Whether you have failed to utilise this newsgroup appropriately is for you to
decide, if my reply has been useless (most probably !) then you will have to
hope someone else will help you who is better than I. But no this is the
newsgroup for precisely those questions and suggestions you have made.

Good Luck, and try to get hold of Daves FAQ, it puts a whole new perspective
on the game.

[Dr T R Judge]

In article <246fo5...@gazette.wv.tek.com>,

and...@frip.wv.tek.com writes:
> "As it stands each civilisation can only appear once ..."
>
>Unless a civil war happens. I've had two pictures of Stalin "on the wall."
>
> "I have only seen a civilisation split once in civil war. It's
> a pity it doesn't happen more often."
>
>It should happen whenever you take the capital of a civ that's larger
>than yours, when there are not already seven civs extant.
>

I know this. I in any case try and take the capital first
yet this has never produced civil war even though there
are usualy free civ slots. Perhaps it is because I usualy
go conquering when I am already the most poerful civ and
under these circumstances civil war would make winning
too easy? I can't think what else I am doing wrong.
You seem to find it easier. Which version of Civ do you
have? I have been using xxx.01.

David Barnsdale

[Dr T R Judge]

> > "If I had my way I'd drop the English- Boring!!! but Americans
> > seem to find England cute so I guess it will have to stay."
>

> cute....cute!....CUTE....CUTE!....This makes my blood boil.
>

> P.P.S. Not that I'm ENGLISH or anything !!

Being a Brit myself I don't regard England as cute. All
I said was that Americans see us as cute.
The serious point in this is that I suspect that microprose
made NW Euroupe so crowded because they wanted to sell
to the Euro market. They asume that everyone wants to play
their own country. I don't think I'm alone in wanting
to encouter something more exotic and that Andrew Klossner
(who I assume is American) finds the Americans boring
confirms this.
We could always combine England, France and Germany
as the EC? Then everone's happy???
The point someone else made about England being a
challenge in the Earth senario because you start on such
a small island is good. However if we included Japan
that would be covered.

David Barnsdale

PS I know it wasn't very clear but you did realise that
Andrew was quoting me not expressing his own opinion?

[Boudewijn Wayers]

The highest I got was a 7 between two of my own cities, far apart, on
different continents. Both had an own trade of 100+.

You can get an even higher trade rate by making a trade route from one
of your own BIG cities to a BIG enemy city (preferrably on another
continent).
--
Boudewijn Wayers, wsb...@urc.tue.nl.
Keeper of the Great Net Spellbook and Prayerbook.

Please quote something so I know what you are replying to.

[Robert Michael Trotter]

I downloaded the update patch for Great Naval Battle of the North
Atlantic, it brought my version 1.00 to 1.2, but I was unable to
get the new program to run. I did notice that more EMS was needed,
and I gave it plenty, but it still would not run. Anyone else get
the new patch to work?

Mark

ps- Thanks.

--
Minnesota Vikings 11-5 NFC Central Division Champions 1992-93!
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Minnesota Machine 10-4 2nd Place AFFL Midwest Division

[Jack Vinson]

You get higher trading between cities that are further away and larger. I
don't know what my highest trading rate has ever been, but I remember
getting around 100 coins with some trades to large cities of rich
Democratic or Republic civilizations. I also don't remember the trade
decreasing, although I'd guess it has something to do with the relative
size of the cities? Trade with cities on the same continent reduces the
income generated by 1/2, and trade with your own cities reduces by 1/2 as
well.

--
Jack Vinson vin...@unagi.cis.upenn.edu
The Purple Puddle Eater and Captain Jack
"Is life worth living? It depends on the liver." Eat from _Sell Me a God_

[Dr T R Judge]

In article <243ibq$f...@aludra.usc.edu>,
bhar...@aludra.usc.edu (Bryce Harrington) writes:
>In article <2433dt$a...@skippy.eng.warwick.ac.uk> es2...@eng.warwick.ac.uk David writes:
>>
>>...there is a danger that this number
>>of advances will make the game unweildly and
>>less playable. I also feel adding advances is just more
>>of the same and adds little extra to the game. These
>
>I quote:
>- Variable Complexity Levels: If all the additions and rule
>modifications addressed in this document were implemented, the game
>might become too complex for a novice user. Therefore, it would be
>wise to allow the user to select a complexity level. Level 1 would be

There is a difference between complex and unwieldy.
I like it complex. I like having to balence the different aspects
- diplomacy economics combat etc. It is the challenge of
keeping several balls in the air without droping anything.
It would add to the challenge to have extra balls to
play with but increasing the number of advances is not so much
increasing the number of balls as making one of them heavyer.
What is needed is not expanding the features of Civ
that are already quite complex (like advances) but giving
more deaph to the less developed aspects like diplomacy.
Already the best winning strategy is forget about all but
a few basic advances and go for all out conquest. If
you make it more laborious to get advances then you will exagerate
this tendecy.
If the extra advances were merely an option to be
switched off I'd have less of a problem. But if you have
complexity levels then if I wanted all the other extra
features that we hope Civ2 will be packed with I will have
to put up with the extra advances to use all the other
enhacements.
Having said that I like your reasons for wanting
more advances for I too like the early game. My problem
is that I am not convinced these changes will have the effect
intended.

David Barnsdale

[Joseph Manuel Finete]

Golf? Movies? This is getting silly. I want spy satellites. Either in the
form of a spy satellite wonder that let you see every troop movement and
inside every city winthin 20 squares of the city that builds the wonder, or
as a city improvement that lets you see everything with 10 squares (but you
would be allowed to build more than one). That is could be available at the
same time as Apollo.

Also a radio communication wonder that increased your knowledge
production, and let you meet with the king and establish embassies without
using a diplomat. This could be available with Electronics, or require
a new Radio advancement which would require Electronics.

How about a hospital city improvement that make two people happy and was
available after Medicine?

How about letting Cruisers and Submarines carry nukes?
--
Joe Finete
jfi...@cats.ucsc.edu

[Carlee Connet]

Aren't we headed for SimEarth here?

Carlee

[Bruce M Carroll]

I often get trading rates of 10 or 11. I am dissappointed if I dont get
at least 7. I think the biggest factors in getting this high rate are
large city sizes, democracy, marketplaces and banks. It doesn't seem
to me that distance has a lot to do with the trading rate, only the
initial amount of coinage you get for setting up the route.

[Bruce M Carroll]

Agreed. I think a game being too complicated takes away from the enjoyment.
I don't want to be consulting the manual every 10 secs of a game that takes
6 months to effectively learn. That was one reason I always liked the
original PC version of empire (Interstel?). It was simply in its rule set
but took strategy.

[Carlee Connet]

In article <93223.131...@psuvm.psu.edu>, John Meredith <JPM...@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

I have to agree here. I think that the more unrealistic the requests,
the less likely MicroProse will take it seriously. (No flame intended.)

I really like Civilization, and I would like to see it upgraded and
enhanced. But I think we need to keep reality in mind, and not
overwhelm them (meaning MP) with too much.

I think its great that people are talking this through, and that there
are people willing to take those ideas and put them down in the
form of a request. Hope its successful.

Looking forward to the results!

Carlee
A
A
A
Carlee

[Carlee Connet]

Changed the world how? Ho-hum (:o

Personally (and it is, of course, just my opinion), I find gold
less exciting that watching grass grow, cars rust, ...

Carlee

[Bryan P. Walsh]

>>If anything should go, then it should be the Americans.
>>The English did at least have a civilisation from which the Americans came.
>>
>The English state originates from the conquest of a French duke
>so perhaps we should cut both America and England as they are
>covered by France!

There is a easy way to solve this debate-Why not include the ability to
rename Civs during the game. ie. Celts could become the English, the
english could become the americans.

Bryan

[J Buckel Artist Account]

In article <24d5r2$l...@parsley.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, es...@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Dr T R Judge) writes:

The English state originates from the conquest of a French duke
so perhaps we should cut both America and England as they are
covered by France!
But my biggest gripe is the quaint touristy view of Britain Civ
displays. I mean Reading and Banbury are hardly places
steeped in history.

David Barnsdale

I most certainly agree, they don't even have Manchester either.

[J Buckel Artist Account]

David Barnsdale

David, My reply was in no way serious, it was the atypical British reply to
the typical American sentiment. Or so a lot of people think. Please do not
think that I posted such a reply other than for the sense of humour ( thats
humor to you yanks ) I hoped it would create.
My P.P.P.S hoped to make this clear.
Someone did suggest the Celts, for the German/English/French. The Japanese
would certainly be a challenge like what the English are now.

[J Buckel Artist Account]

In article <24du8o$k...@comfrey.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, es...@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Dr T R Judge) writes:
{lots of discussion cut out}

My problem is that I am not convinced these changes will have the
effect intended.

David Barnsdale

You are quite correct, the essence of the game is juggling all the balls and
doing your damndest not to drop any. Civ as it is, is a fair masterpiece of
juggling, and trying to balance a civ2 would be extremely difficult if not
close to impossible. I feel that with all the extras, it is possible, because
quite simply there could be so much more, and thus the game expands along all
its lengths, all the balls being juggled have been made heavier, the trick
is to try and make them equally so, hopefully we might even have added some
extra balls to juggle aswell, not to make it more difficult as it were but
certainly to increase its complexity, and hopefully its enjoyment.

[Russell M. Warner]

>In article <24bt5p$i...@tamsun.tamu.edu>, bcf...@tamuts.tamu.edu (Bruce M >Carroll) writes:
>
>I don't know if this has been brought up before, but empires that
>are at peace with me should not be able to land their armies on land
>that is under one of my cities domain. Only diplomats and spy planes
>(future...) should be able to do that.
>
At the moment armies can move onto any square that you are not using within
your city map display.

Only if you are at actual peace with that civ. If you haven't talked to them for
awhile, then the peace status goes away and they will place their units on your
land (the English LOVE putting units on my hills w/ coal!)

>Has anyone one at the emperor level? Maybe it is just my style of
>lay. I like to build and wage economic warfare on other empires.
>Does the emperor level require a very agressive, total tax scheme
>with the idea that all the advances you need you can steal?
>

I can win at all levels consistently if I survive my first "brush" with
another civ (I always quit games that start me on a small island).
At all levels I concentrate on advancement. Before I start my first city,
I set the tax rate to 0% and leave it that way for as long as possible. I
aviod building city improvements as long as possible (I do build a temple,
granary, and coliseum in one city with good production potential to have
a base to build Wonders), and keep tax as low as possible to support this.
I build several diplamats to explore and block-off choke points to establish
my future boundries. Always build roads ASAP on farmed land to get the
trade value (sometimes I build a settler as my first unit for this purpose,
although this can get you killed).
In lower levels, I build the Pyramids first and change to Democarcy; in
Emperor level I build the Library first (and put a little more effort into
trading technologies). Other than these two, I only build
perminate wonders (and I build ALL of them) & Darwin's. My driving goal
in picking a tech to research is RAILROADS (usually reach this point
while still in BC)--once I have railroads, production & food takes off
and units can get from anwhere in my empire to any other point in one turn,
making it easy to defend with a small number of units (which is good since
every other civ starts attacking at this point).
***** my BIGGEST complaint with civ is that the go-to function does
***** not account for railroads; it charges the unit movement as if it were
***** on a road. VERY tedious to move units accross large continents!
***** I wouldn't even care if all the other problems (like rogue bombers)
***** were fixed it this one was taken care of!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tanks are the next goal.

I consider it a good game if I launch or conquer in
the 1800s. I restore to an old save only if an enemy builds a wonder I
am currently building (doesn't happen often since I am always way ahead
in research).
I realize that there are better strageties for winning faster and getting
more points, but this one matches the way I like to play stragety games.
P.S. I don't intend this post to be a brag, just providing my stragety.

>Also, can anyone explain to me how sometimes other empires start
>producing armor and battleships as soon as 1600-1650.

I always reach the steel point in the BCs with the above stragety.

Good Luck, and try to get hold of Daves FAQ, it puts a whole new perspective
on the game.

I have not read the FAQ, so forgive me if I'm repeating something (but I finally
had to write something about civ, since it's my FAVORITE game).

Russell Warner

(flames to rwa...@afit.af.mil)

[Bruce M Carroll]

Actually, William The Conquerer (The French Duke to whom I believe
you are referring) was the descendant of Norseman who conquered
that region of France. I believe the French king granted his ancestors
the title of Duke because he was beating up the French pretty bad. If
ya can't beat them, bribe them.

The history of England went like this...
The natives were conquered by the Celts around 500 BC...
The celts were then conquered by the Romans at the
turn of the millenia.
The Romans left around 450 AD..This led the way
for invasions by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes who
conquered the island by 850 AD.
William The Conquerer then conquered England in 1066.

This is from memory....dates may be a little off.
Saxons and Jutes

[Bryce Harrington]

In article <1993Aug12.0...@csc.canberra.edu.au> u91...@student.canberra.edu.au (Mills / Allan William (ISE)) writes:
>

> The English should be the one to dissapear since historically they are
>the country who have been beaten by almost everyone who has attacked them.
>
> Allan
>

You're right. I mean look at all the times they got beaten just this
century. First it was the Germans in WWI... uh, wait, the _Germans_
lost, that's right. But then there was WWII, of course... Oh wait,
they lost _that_ one too. Hmm, well, what about the Falkland war?
No? Well, what about the 19th century? Look how many times they
were invaded and taken... oh, yeah, they owned half the world in
the 19th century (give or take a continent, of course).

Bryce

[Bryce Harrington]

In article <24e436...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> jfi...@cats.ucsc.edu (Joseph Manuel Finete) writes stuff that is already in the Civ2 Proposal:

>
>How about letting Cruisers and Submarines carry nukes?

I never use nukes. Do you think play would be improved by having more
nuclear units? I really don't. Unless of course the game was sophisticated
enough to do Cold War style AI. That would be pretty cool.

Is the latter stage of the game your favorite part? I find that I
prefer the early part when you only have to worry about a half dozen
cities and maybe a dozen units. It would be useful to know what
stage of the game various people find most interesting, as we should
try to improve those areas the most. For example, I could come up with
dozens of new modern techs for the game, but I might never get that far,
so why bother putting them in? But if 50% like the modern period,
30% like the futuristic period, and 20% like the ancient period, we
_should_ put more stuff in the modern period (I think...)

Anyway, what part of the game does everyone like?

>--
>Joe Finete
>jfi...@cats.ucsc.edu

Bryce Harrington

[Bryce Harrington]

car...@cadre.com writes:

> cur...@stsci.edu (Gary Curtis) writes:
>|> kz...@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com ( 911 Kevin Thomas) writes:
>|> |>
>|> |> Back to the discussion about who to get rid of, I think that the
>|> |> French, German and English should all be replaced by the CELT's
>|> |> as all these races as well as most European races are decended
>|> |> from the CELT's.

Why should we argue about who to get _rid_ of? Personally, I'd like to
see _more_ choice. Instead of a dozen civs, why not two dozen? Or
three dozen? As a programmer I know that this wouldn't be a really
difficult thing to do.

I'd like to see the Japanese and at least one more African nation.
We might as well keep the Americans, though I too find them boring.
I would like to see more Native Americans too, maybe the one of the
pueblo indian tribes, the Mayans, or the Incas. I dunno about the
Celts, they weren't really a nation, just a collection of tribes.

And what about civilizations that are not Earth related? I.e. invent
some new ones. No? Well, it's just a suggestion...

Bryce

[Bryce Harrington]

This has been brought up before. I think that in the Civ Proposal there
is a mention of allowing different complexity levels. Thus you could
play at King level with Low Complexity, or at Prince Level with High

[moz]

jon...@sn4711.gpsemi.com (J Buckel Artist Account) writes:
> I like the spy plane idea, hadn't thought of that one. Anyone any ideas on how
> far an SR71 can fly and how much to build etc. ?

About half way around the world, and back :-) BUT, it must be re-fuelled at
30000 feet after take-off, since it's engines don't work terribly well at
low altitude. So, I'd say that making it dependent on having in-flight
refuelling advance, and giving it movement of say 16(16) - twice a bomber,
with a defense of 20 at least on current scales, since there isn't actually
anything that can shoot it down.... (it's faster that just about every
aa missile made, and higher than any fighter can fly....). If you gave it
visibility same as spy satellites (which have replaced it), then all would
be funky. Or else give it a movement of 30, and allow inflight refuelling
without loss of turn (so it can fly anywhere in one turn if you have the
re-fuel planes in the right places).

*love* and *hugs*
moz (mose...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz)

The strawman .sig: Porn may be harmful
You can either have censorship or porn
We must therefore have censorship.
Julian Visch (j...@math.canterbury.ac.nz)

[D Barnsdale]

In article <24hd6m$d...@aludra.usc.edu>,

bhar...@aludra.usc.edu (Bryce Harrington) writes:
>Why should we argue about who to get _rid_ of? Personally, I'd like to
>see _more_ choice. Instead of a dozen civs, why not two dozen? Or
>three dozen? As a programmer I know that this wouldn't be a really
>difficult thing to do.

Yes you are right. But it is dificult the way Civ is writton at
the moment. I have hacked my version so that the English are
replaced by the arab caliphate but they seem to have made it
deliberately dificult to do. The names (cities, civilisation, leader)
are not in a data file but stuck at the end of the civ.exe file.
Just to be sneaky they've mixed in some hex code here so that if
you make some city names too long the program won't run. Added
to that it is almost imposible to change the pictures of the leaders.
Even mixing the current leaders around produces chaos.
Civ2 ought to make it easyer to add new civilisations.
That means seperate data files plus standard format/size for pictures of
the leaders. If that is done then it becomes academic which civ to
drop because I can drop the civilisation I find boring and
replace it with one which is, to me, more exotic.
There remains the problem of Western Europe when playing the
Earth senario. It is too crowded. However if there were enough
alternative civs then the program would need to run fewer of them
simultaneously.
How about a flat earth senario confined to Europe,
North Africa - then there would be room in Western Europe for
all of them?
David Barnsdale

[D Barnsdale]

In article <24hcib$c...@aludra.usc.edu>,

bhar...@aludra.usc.edu (Bryce Harrington) writes:
>cities and maybe a dozen units. It would be useful to know what
>stage of the game various people find most interesting, as we should
>try to improve those areas the most. For example, I could come up with
>dozens of new modern techs for the game, but I might never get that far,
>so why bother putting them in? But if 50% like the modern period,
>30% like the futuristic period, and 20% like the ancient period, we
>_should_ put more stuff in the modern period (I think...)

But then again maybe it's best to leave unchanged the bits that work
well and rework the bits that tend to drag at present.
David Barnsdale

[michael sanches]

Heh, heh, heh, good reply. The British seem to have the unique ability
to lose most of the battles and win most of the wars. Fortunatly, it
was just the opposite in the American Revolution. There, they won most
the major battles and lost the war. Good for us!

(msan...@unlinfo.unl.edu) Rainbow Warrior

[Mills / Allan William (ISE)]

The Germans did not lose against England in WW II they just never bothered to
claim it. The English were beaten but the Nazis had better use for their
troops then to capture England. Lets see the Romans had control of
England, they just lost it when their empire collapsed. The Celts gave
them a thrashing when they attacked. Anyway consider this - English is a
language derived from German and has been influenced by all the other
countries that have conquered it. As I recall not all of the Kings of
England were English.

Allan

[Bryce Harrington]

> The Germans did not lose against England in WW II they just never bothered to
>claim it. The English were beaten but the Nazis had better use for their
>troops then to capture England. Lets see the Romans had control of
>England, they just lost it when their empire collapsed. The Celts gave
>them a thrashing when they attacked. Anyway consider this - English is a
>language derived from German and has been influenced by all the other
>countries that have conquered it. As I recall not all of the Kings of
>England were English.

The idea that Germany could have defeated England had they bothered is
debatable. Not being _that_ big of a WWII historian, I'll leave it
alone. ;-) We may never know what would have happened if the Nazis
had refrained from opening a second front. In any case, you _are_
correct that England was ruled by foriegners. A number of viking
kings springs readily to mind. But that was really before England
_was_ England, if you know what I mean. I consider England to have
started about the time it William took it from Harold. But this
too is subject to speculation. <shrug> We could argue 'til we're
blue in the face and get nowhere. Best to just joke about it and
leave it lay. We could have the same argument about almost any
country on the globe. ;-)

Bryce

[Mills / Allan William (ISE)]

In article <CBn49...@bailgate.gpsemi.com> buck...@oldham.gpsemi.com writes:
>
>
>I really do wish you would read the proposal, then you could make some more
>*fresh* ideas like Rock 'n' Roll and the Aborigines.

>
>--
>My real address is
> buck...@oldham.gpsemi.com
>

Sorry, I tend to read the start of a thread but get bored after about 5
comments, is the proposal posted somewhere through ftp ?

Allan

[J Buckel Artist Account]

In article <CBq7I...@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>, mose...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz) writes:

jon...@sn4711.gpsemi.com (J Buckel Artist Account) writes:
> I like the spy plane idea, hadn't thought of that one. Anyone any ideas on how
> far an SR71 can fly and how much to build etc. ?

About half way around the world, and back :-) BUT, it must be re-fuelled at
30000 feet after take-off, since it's engines don't work terribly well at
low altitude. So, I'd say that making it dependent on having in-flight
refuelling advance, and giving it movement of say 16(16) - twice a bomber,
with a defense of 20 at least on current scales, since there isn't actually
anything that can shoot it down.... (it's faster that just about every
aa missile made, and higher than any fighter can fly....). If you gave it
visibility same as spy satellites (which have replaced it), then all would
be funky. Or else give it a movement of 30, and allow inflight refuelling
without loss of turn (so it can fly anywhere in one turn if you have the
re-fuel planes in the right places).

moz (mose...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz)

I think it would be easier to just presume it gets its fuel after take off
otherwise the necessary juggling act to place an appropriate fuel plane could
be a real pain, I agree with it being available after that advance though.
I think a movement of 30 would be OK, it would also have the unique ability of
satelites in that it could move onto or through an enemy unit/city without
attacking it, I think it would have to have all of its move in one turn like
the fighter, making it impregnable unless caught in an unguarded city, its
defense would be 1 most likely in this instance. its attack would be 1 (if
that). Cost would be fairly excessive, probably along the lines of a Stealth
Bomber. Have visibility of one square aswell. Perhaps should be able to
investigate fully some squares of interest. Find out what multiple units,
city improvements etc.

What do you think

[Jacker]

In article <24hcib$c...@aludra.usc.edu>, bhar...@aludra.usc.edu (Bryce Harrington) writes:

Is the latter stage of the game your favorite part? I find that I
prefer the early part when you only have to worry about a half dozen
cities and maybe a dozen units. It would be useful to know what
stage of the game various people find most interesting, as we should
try to improve those areas the most. For example, I could come up with
dozens of new modern techs for the game, but I might never get that far,
so why bother putting them in? But if 50% like the modern period,
30% like the futuristic period, and 20% like the ancient period, we
_should_ put more stuff in the modern period (I think...)

Good discussion topic, Bryce.

I like various parts of the game. I like the battle to reach the Railroad
advance simply because that gets me to a point where I should be able to
really take off on my production capabilities (Railroad -->
Industrialization).

I also like the initial (first 2000 years) of empire building because there
is always a compromise between growing cities, founding new cities, and
improving the lands around cities. My strategy hasn't been working well of
late, and I find my cities growing slower than I would like...

Getting to the United Nations advance is also interesting. Sometimes it is
quite frustrating before getting there because the other civs will simply
NOT leave me alone. I don't know what the deal is with the computer's AI,
but I find that they are always out after me in attempts to expand their
empires or simply overtake my cities.

The modern period (space race) isn't as interesting to me, though. The
situation is either that I have outpaced all the other civilizations or we
are racing neck and neck and they cheat when building their ships.

--
Jack Vinson vin...@unagi.cis.upenn.edu
The Purple Puddle Eater and Captain Jack
"Is life worth living? It depends on the liver." Eat from _Sell Me a God_

[Mills / Allan William (ISE)]

In article <CBuyo...@bailgate.gpsemi.com> buck...@oldham.gpsemi.com writes:
>
>In article <CBq7I...@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>, mose...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz) writes:
>
>jon...@sn4711.gpsemi.com (J Buckel Artist Account) writes:
>> I like the spy plane idea, hadn't thought of that one. Anyone any ideas on how
>> far an SR71 can fly and how much to build etc. ?
>

Don't yell at me if this has been mentioned before - I haven't been
reading every suggestion but on this same point how about spy sattelites
that can watch any troop movement withing a certain area or steal
technologies. On the idea of sattelites how about a cable tv wonder to
improve happyness. Finally settlers should be able to extend a river since
they could do that back in the middle ages with gunpowder.

Allan

[Space Case Jase]

>technologies. On the idea of sattelites how about a cable tv wonder to
>improve happyness. Finally settlers should be able to extend a river since
>they could do that back in the middle ages with gunpowder.

T.V. should increase happiness, at the expense of productivity. I think media
should act to allow wonders to affect, in a diluted form, cities in which they
were not built. Maybe we can, for example have a olympics wonder, which
increases happiness in any city with a television station( perhaps crossing
international boundaries) say the olympics increase the chance of other civs
being peaceful by producing extra trade with any peaceful civ. Maybe have
comm sattelites which increase the effect of t.v.

The settlers could theoretically extend a river ( how about canals, and a
Panama or Suez Wonder to increase trade) but I think to increase by the
amount I assume you envisage, an entire square would be a monumental feat
of engineering - truly a wonder, so shouldn't be classed as a standard settler
function. Even if they did - where would the extra water come from to fill it??
The whole river level would lower to a trickle.

Jase
____ ____
/ \____/ \
| __/
| / #_#
| I=====#============================/+-+\
| I====#=============================\+-+/
| \_ # #
| ____ \
\___/ \___/

[J Buckel Artist Account]

In article <24hcib$c...@aludra.usc.edu>, bhar...@aludra.usc.edu (Bryce Harrington) writes:

Is the latter stage of the game your favorite part? I find that I
prefer the early part when you only have to worry about a half dozen
cities and maybe a dozen units. It would be useful to know what
stage of the game various people find most interesting, as we should
try to improve those areas the most. For example, I could come up with
dozens of new modern techs for the game, but I might never get that far,
so why bother putting them in? But if 50% like the modern period,
30% like the futuristic period, and 20% like the ancient period, we
_should_ put more stuff in the modern period (I think...)

Good discussion topic, Bryce, I agree Jack, it's a good question.

I think my favourite part is the first 2000 years I must admit, everything is
so utterly uncertain, you alomost get a kick out of moving onto new territory
because you just don't know what will be there, will it be a hut, will it be
the zulus, will it be a special resource, will a hut be barbarians or
something useful ?
When you see the first Catapult 2 squares from your city and its Russian and
you are at war with them and you think "oh no, why didn't I put 2 phalanxes
in that city, should I throw away 45 resources that I was using to build a
library and build a phalanx instead, can I afford to buy City Walls, have I
a Chariot near enough to get there in time" Its pure adrenalin pumping stuff
I can tell you !!

I do like having a good all out war at the end of the game with several
surviving civs, all with armour etc.
I don't like the space race too much because the enemy civ builds it so fast
its unreal, once they start building spaceships, it becomes a race to see if
you can get their capital before it lands !! (which can be fairly interesting
in its own right)(anyone who has had to get the Aztec capital without actually
having any cities on the American continent and has had to restore the game a couple of times because you missed taking the capital by a turn or a few move
points will know what I mean)(I spent hours getting it right once, failing one
time because my unit ran out of move points one square away from an empty
nuked capital city heartbreaking I can tell you!!!) But I digress . . . . .

The first part is best, but I can't decide at what point the game stops being
my favourite part, is it musketeers, at which point you can defend your cities
better or armour when you know you attack much better or is it when your cities
start getting above size 4 and temples aren't enough to keep the populace
happy because it gets damned hard work after that time. I think perhaps the
latter, what about everyone else, thats 3 people who really enjoy the first
part of the game, but when really does it start to become less enjoyable ? I
think it starts to become less enjoyable when you start to be able to predict
the outcome of events, when you aren't on the edge of your seat praying that
last Phalanx can successfully defend against its aggressors, bcause next turn
you have reinforcements on the way.

Enough of my twaddle, time for someone else to have a go.

Jonathon

[moz]

jon...@sn4711.gpsemi.com (J Buckel Artist Account) writes:

> mose...@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz) writes:
> [the SR71 spy plane]

> About half way around the world, and back :-)

> with a defense of 20 at least on current scales, since there isn't actually
> anything that can shoot it down.... (it's faster that just about every
> aa missile made, and higher than any fighter can fly....). If you gave it
> visibility same as spy satellites (which have replaced it), then all would
> be funky. Or else give it a movement of 30, and allow inflight refuelling
> without loss of turn (so it can fly anywhere in one turn if you have the

jon...@sn4711.gpsemi.com (J Buckel Artist Account) writes:
> I think it would be easier to just presume it gets its fuel after take off
> otherwise the necessary juggling act to place an appropriate fuel plane could
> be a real pain, I agree with it being available after that advance though.
> I think a movement of 30 would be OK, it would also have the unique ability of
> satelites in that it could move onto or through an enemy unit/city without
> attacking it, I think it would have to have all of its move in one turn like
> the fighter, making it impregnable unless caught in an unguarded city, its
> defense would be 1 most likely in this instance. its attack would be 1 (if
> that). Cost would be fairly excessive, probably along the lines of a Stealth
> Bomber.

Id say make the thing cost half what a spy sat does, available earlier,
and have 30 movement in one turn, able to inflight re-fuel once per turn
maybe, and have the same observation powers as a spy sat. Zero attack
and defense of 1 when landed. This would mean that it would have a theoretical
max range of 60, move only during a single turn (so you couldn't shoot it down)
and it would be pretty much made redundant by satellites.

[Wedge]

>
>The strawman .sig: Porn may be harmful
> You can either have censorship or porn
> We must therefore have censorship.
> Julian Visch (j...@math.canterbury.ac.nz)

I have only one comment on this:
Porn may be harmful, but censorship *IS* harmful. Period.

Sorry about the digression, but that little saying was really getting on my
nerves.

[Christopher Poe]

jon...@sn4711.gpsemi.com (J Buckel Artist Account) writes:

>In article <24hcib$c...@aludra.usc.edu>, bhar...@aludra.usc.edu (Bryce Harrington) writes:
>
> Is the latter stage of the game your favorite part? I find that I
> prefer the early part when you only have to worry about a half dozen
> cities and maybe a dozen units. It would be useful to know what
> stage of the game various people find most interesting, as we should
> try to improve those areas the most. For example, I could come up with
> dozens of new modern techs for the game, but I might never get that far,
> so why bother putting them in? But if 50% like the modern period,
> 30% like the futuristic period, and 20% like the ancient period, we
> _should_ put more stuff in the modern period (I think...)
>
>Good discussion topic, Bryce, I agree Jack, it's a good question.

>I think my favourite part is the first 2000 years I must admit, everything is
>so utterly uncertain, you alomost get a kick out of moving onto new territory
>because you just don't know what will be there, will it be a hut, will it be
>the zulus, will it be a special resource, will a hut be barbarians or
>something useful ?

Stuff Deleted

>I do like having a good all out war at the end of the game with several
>surviving civs, all with armour etc.
>I don't like the space race too much because the enemy civ builds it so fast
>its unreal, once they start building spaceships, it becomes a race to see if
>you can get their capital before it lands !! (which can be fairly interesting

More Stuff Deleted.

>The first part is best, but I can't decide at what point the game stops being
>my favourite part, is it musketeers, at which point you can defend your cities
>better or armour when you know you attack much better or is it when your cities
>start getting above size 4 and temples aren't enough to keep the populace
>happy because it gets damned hard work after that time. I think perhaps the
>latter, what about everyone else, thats 3 people who really enjoy the first
>part of the game, but when really does it start to become less enjoyable ? I
>think it starts to become less enjoyable when you start to be able to predict
>the outcome of events, when you aren't on the edge of your seat praying that
>last Phalanx can successfully defend against its aggressors, bcause next turn
>you have reinforcements on the way.

>Enough of my twaddle, time for someone else to have a go.

>Jonathon
>--
>My real address is
> buck...@oldham.gpsemi.com

Well, here are my two cents:
I like the first part. I don't care for the uncertainty, especially when
three phalanxes die vs. ONE militia and you lose a city.

My vote for best part of the game has to go to the final endgame except for
the above mentioned randomness. I figure if I have outpaced the computer,
especially on emporer when it cheats its butt off I should have a good
chance of winning. I like the idea of sitting back and enjoying your
effortless victory after working your tail off early with micro management,
government changes, warring, etc. I think the endgame should be the part
where you laugh knowingly, "heh heh heh, GOTCHA." The computer robs this
and detracts from said fun-value. I think this should be adressed once
Sid writes v2.

This is fun in the easy levels (except the game itself ain't too hard).

I figure the payoff should be even more gratifying in the hard levels, but
the computer cheats. Rats.

p...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu

[Tony Shepps]

vin...@shiva.seas.upenn.edu (Jacker) writes:
> In article <24hcib$c...@aludra.usc.edu>, bhar...@aludra.usc.edu (Bryce Harrin
>

> Is the latter stage of the game your favorite part? I find that I
> prefer the early part when you only have to worry about a half dozen
> cities and maybe a dozen units.
>

> Good discussion topic, Bryce.
>
> I like various parts of the game.
>

> I also like the initial (first 2000 years) of empire building because there
> is always a compromise between growing cities, founding new cities, and
> improving the lands around cities. My strategy hasn't been working well of
> late, and I find my cities growing slower than I would like...

I really like the initial stages. I love wandering around trying to figure
out what the lay of the land is. The more I learn about the game, the more
I like this part, because the way I play, having a good layout seems to be
the biggest factor in whether the game is successful. (I never customize;
it seems too much like cheating.)

> The modern period (space race) isn't as interesting to me, though. The
> situation is either that I have outpaced all the other civilizations or we
> are racing neck and neck and they cheat when building their ships.

Once all the usual scientific discoveries are worked out, there's a point
where the game becomes complete drudgery, espeically when cities get to the
point where they can't produce anything other than spaceship parts or items
for sale. I don't really like the pattern of making peace with neighbors
and then having them break the peace for no good reason. Once another
civilization attacks for no good reason, I want to bomb the living shit out
of them, especially if they haven't even developed flight. It oughta be
that a non-flight civ will avoid provoking an advanced flight civ.

Better diplomacy would resolve all this. More complex economies -- like RR
Tycoon! -- would be delightful. You could have economic wars with friendly
civs. Imagine the Germans getting upset because the Americans sold
technologies to the French but not to them!

But ach, the real reason why Civ2 suggestions are endless is because Civ is
really the Game of Life. The suggestions go well beyond the barriers of any
possible game.

--
Tony Shepps to...@cellar.org
The Cellar: Public access and thoughtful conversation +1 215 539 3043

[J Buckel Artist Account]

In article <1993Aug17.0...@csc.canberra.edu.au>, u91...@student.canberra.edu.au (Mills / Allan William (ISE)) writes:

Don't yell at me if this has been mentioned before - I haven't been
reading every suggestion but on this same point how about spy sattelites
that can watch any troop movement withing a certain area or steal
technologies. On the idea of sattelites how about a cable tv wonder to
improve happyness. Finally settlers should be able to extend a river since
they could do that back in the middle ages with gunpowder.

Allan

OK,
spy satelites are in the proposal, I had envisaged them as moving once
around the globe each turn and being able to investigate 2 or 3 squares fully,
ie get some city information, find out what multiple units are on a square.
But having it stationary is no problem I think, my only limit was that it
couldn't move all over the place and could only make one diagonal turn each
revolution of the planet. Does that sound OK ?
Cable and Satelite TV are city advances at this time, they merely improve
on a normal TV station, increasing the number of happy or decreasing the number
of unhappy.
Canals are also included, they allow ships to move along their length,
however I think the size of ship allowed was limited, should canals increase
trade by one like roads ? and if so if both roads and canals exist are they
mutually exclusive, ie roads let vehicles cross, canals let ships cross, but
only one extra trade not two.

Jonathon

P.S. See I didn't yell at all, I can be a nice person sometimes !!

[Hammond Eggs]

In article <24di4l...@uwm.edu>, cae...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Robert Michael
Trotter) wrote:
>
> I downloaded the update patch for Great Naval Battle of the North
> Atlantic, it brought my version 1.00 to 1.2, but I was unable to
> get the new program to run. I did notice that more EMS was needed,
> and I gave it plenty, but it still would not run. Anyone else get
> the new patch to work?
>
> Mark

I upgraded to v. 1.1 before going to v. 1.2. I had no problems. Try
using the exact amount of expanded memory the manual reccomends.

Hammond

Post follow-ups to this group. Wormhole cannot recieve EMail
Wormhole.lerc.nasa.gov an Apple Macintosh IIci at
LeRC TMIS Support Help Desk (216) 433-5365
NASA LeRC / Tal-Cut Co.
Opinions expressed are the posters' and do not represent NASA or Tel-Cut
Co.

[Wedge]

I kind of enjoy from the beginning of the industrial age towards the endgame.
This has the most tactical challenges (i.e., world war). Does that make
me a war-monger? Perhaps, but it's still fun.
All of this only applies, of course, if the computer is close to me in tech
and power. I once had an all-out nuclear slug-fest with the English (not
on an Earth campaign) and finally managed to win -- the war, that is. My
score was zero, and it would have been in the negative hundreds from
pollution if the game could give negative scores :-).
But seriously, I do enjoy the more technologically advanced periods, simply
because there's so much more going on, and it really has an epic scale to it.

Russell Stewart dia...@triton.unm.edu

[Clive Higginson - Sun UK - Snr Systems Engineer]

In article 92...@csc.canberra.edu.au, u91...@student.canberra.edu.au (Mills / Allan William (ISE)) writes:

> The Germans did not lose against England in WW II they just never bothered to
>claim it. The English were beaten but the Nazis had better use for their

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>troops then to capture England. Lets see the Romans had control of

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

A better use? hmmmm I don't think history is on your side here as the eventual outcome is that the Germans lost the war to the Allies.

Clive

[Lou Sanchez-Chopitea]

In article <1993Aug17.0...@csc.canberra.edu.au> u91...@student.canberra.edu.au (Mills / Allan William (ISE)) writes:
>improve happyness. Finally settlers should be able to extend a river since
>they could do that back in the middle ages with gunpowder.
>
> Allan
>

Sounds like canals to me. Makes sense.

Cheers

Lou

--
Lou Sanchez-Chopitea EMail: l...@xilinx.com
Senior Software Engineer SnailMail: 2100 Logic Drive
SpeakMail: (408) 879-5059 San Jose, CA 95124
FaxMail: (408) 559-7114

[Lou Sanchez-Chopitea]

Don't get your dander up. It seems to me that the point was to ridicule
that line of logic.

Cheers

Lou

P.S. I could be wrong though.

[Wolverine]

u91...@student.canberra.edu.au (Mills / Allan William (ISE)) writes:

> Don't yell at me if this has been mentioned before - I haven't been
>reading every suggestion but on this same point how about spy sattelites
>that can watch any troop movement withing a certain area or steal
>technologies. On the idea of sattelites how about a cable tv wonder to
>improve happyness. Finally settlers should be able to extend a river since
>they could do that back in the middle ages with gunpowder.

Well, IMHO, if you added a cable-tv wonder, wouldn't it increase corruption
by 50% to 100% instead? :}

In other ref's, I think we should put saddahm husein as leader of the iraqi's
to replace the barbarians... it would be nice to see him wandering with no
home .......

And as to a post earlier about the production squares, whenever you gain
a population from normal reasons (i.e. growing), it resets the production
squares to it's own liking. It only annoyed me while I was trying to build
50+ pop'd cities (using my editor [available everywhere:)]) and was still small
and trying to just do food production to build up the cities, everytime there
is a pop. explosion, I have to go to each city and change it's config.
That's why I included the hex mask of how you are using the city's prod.
squares into my editor originally, but found it a waste of time to
implement it....

Btw, to all you civ'ers out there, I have been delaying like crazy, but there
are a few things I added to the editor, so (like I'm always saying), it'll
be here.... eventually, I predict it will take as much time as clinton will,
to solve our deficit problem... ----- NOT!

OH, last game I played I tried a new scenario. I started off at the beg.
of the game, used holger's map editor to give all the cities great
production and specials (i.e. whever I play a cheat game, I only change the
production of the oasis (i.e. desert w/a special) to a greater food production
and alter the hills with oil and alter the production of production(?) so
that if you put mines on em, you'll get more production than you know what
to do with [I give everyone a bunch of oasis and a few hills w/oil] and
THEN, I ever gave them all techs including the first future techs and built
the 5 wonders in my own cities first [to avoid computer confusion] then sat
back and see what happens... peacefull life? no.... long game? no......
had fun??? no...... computer AI still does what it does best... everyone
fought and killed each other instead of trying to build up their newly
founded bitchen cities.... oh well, hopefully sid will take into account
us cheater's out there and improve the AI.

one last thing, another scenario which I play alot is of the ilk of the old
marvel comics, I play the watchers. I set myself up on the america's or
create a civ on an island somewhere where I have enough room to get at least
3 or 5 spaced apart cities that will all be about size 50+ eventually.
I set the caravan's at maximum capabilities and I change the one byte that
allows them to fly but not be thought of as flying machines and thus, can
walk/fly anywhere, and at same time, if you sentry them around your coast
covering every entry point, you NEVER get approached by the enemy civ's to
discuss anything because the other units can't attack the caravan's. You
now have a civ that is just watching everything and not taking any action
as to what the hell the other civ's are doing.. what do the other civ's do?
well, some (aztecs, etc) keep on trying to meet with me but other civ's go
out and do their own thing. This gives me a chance to see if I can let the
other civ's grow completely to fruition and let me nuke every last one of them
when I don't like what they're doing. :>

oh, and even using my cheat to deter the use of spaceships in the game takes
away the fun of it.... I found that even though the ss structural is beyond
paying any money for, all the civ's end up spilling their money into an
account some may think similar to the iran-contra funds, and keep on trying
to build spaceships, whilst ignoring the other neet things they don't have yet.

Oh well, my 2 cents.... worth about 1/4 penny in this economy...

L8r all
C.k.
wo...@netcom.com

[Jason Merrill]

>>>>> p...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Christopher Poe) writes:

> I don't care for the uncertainty, especially when three phalanxes die
> vs. ONE militia and you lose a city.

This is not uncertainty. This is a poor pseudo-random number generator.
This is, in my opinion, the game's most annoying bug: Random events aren't
sufficiently random. If you've just lost one attack, chances are you'll
lose the next. If you've just won, chances are you'll win the next. If
you've just suffered a bout of pollution in one city, chances are you'll
suffer more this turn. Has anyone else noticed this? It seems
time-dependent, so that if I wait for a few seconds before continuing the
effect is diminished.

Jason

[Steve u21863@uicvm.uic.edu]

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE. right now i am in a game in 1855 where when i saved
last night and "peeked" at the power graph we were all dead even, all with the
same tech, rail plus ind. and a few more after that. I agree with the epic
scale comment. It's me the Indians and the Greeks. we are all huge with me
on a huge continent in between both of their islands. i feel if it's WW2 here.
It takes 10 minutes a turn if there are hard tactial decisions. Best part is t
he and if you get there.
steve
PS GREAT WAR because no time for space race, it's 1880. anyone have any ggod
ideas on how to win this thing. they each have about 15 sized 8 on avg cities.

[moz]

l...@xilinx.com (Lou Sanchez-Chopitea) writes:
> dia...@unm.edu (Wedge) writes:

> >>The strawman .sig: Porn may be harmful
> >> You can either have censorship or porn
> >> We must therefore have censorship.
> >> Julian Visch (j...@math.canterbury.ac.nz)

> Don't get your dander up. It seems to me that the point was to ridicule
> that line of logic.

_exactly_ (but I have changed my .sig :-)

[Wedge]

In article <CBzED...@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>,

Okay, just call me the mad flamer. Sorry guys. No hard feelings, I hope.

Russell Stewart dia...@triton.unm.edu

[Sverker Johansson]

In article <JASON.93A...@rtl.cygnus.com> ja...@cygnus.com (Jason Merrill) writes:

[stuff deleted about annoying events]

>This is, in my opinion, the game's most annoying bug: Random events aren't
>sufficiently random. If you've just lost one attack, chances are you'll
>lose the next. If you've just won, chances are you'll win the next. If
>you've just suffered a bout of pollution in one city, chances are you'll
>suffer more this turn. Has anyone else noticed this? It seems
>time-dependent, so that if I wait for a few seconds before continuing the
>effect is diminished.

Has anyone else noticed another annoying bug/feature in the pollution-
generating routine: whenever I build a city improvement that eliminates
pollution (recycling, mass transit, etc), the city almost invariably gets one
square polluted in the turn when the improvement comes on line - even if
it previously just had one or two smokestacks, making pollution in any
one turn a rare event.
Sverker Johansson

Jonkoping College, Sweden. l...@uki.hj.se l...@quark.lu.se l...@cernvm.bitnet

[J Buckel Artist Account]

In article <JASON.93A...@rtl.cygnus.com>, ja...@cygnus.com (Jason Merrill) writes:
|> >>>>> p...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Christopher Poe) writes:
|>
|> > I don't care for the uncertainty, especially when three phalanxes die
|> > vs. ONE militia and you lose a city.
|>

Errr, at this point I invoke the "Oh darn, the power must have glitched my
PC is rebooting, shucks I'll just have to continue from where I saved last,
I hope it wasn't too many turns ago !!" :-)

|> This is not uncertainty. This is a poor pseudo-random number generator.
|> This is, in my opinion, the game's most annoying bug: Random events aren't
|> sufficiently random. If you've just lost one attack, chances are you'll
|> lose the next. If you've just won, chances are you'll win the next. If
|> you've just suffered a bout of pollution in one city, chances are you'll
|> suffer more this turn. Has anyone else noticed this? It seems
|> time-dependent, so that if I wait for a few seconds before continuing the
|> effect is diminished.
|>
|> Jason

Does anyone else feel this way about the random number generator, I must admit
I do concur with the multiple successess or failures. Though I had just put
this down to the game being a bit of a bitch (I lost 3 artillery and an armour
trying to take out a single artillery unit yesterday, yet on other occasions
I seem to have a run of good luck !!) Not sure whether this is the random
generator or what.
I must admit I have never considered whether the random generator might be
time dependent aswell.
What are other peoples experiences along these lines ?

Jonathon

[Matthew Amendt]

Hmmm... Ever heard of operation sealion? That was the German plan for the
invasion of England. It was scheduled for September 15, 1940; but never
implemented because in they're campaign to gain air superiority, a German pilot
offloaded his bombs over London in frustration and started the inconclusive
Battle of Britain.

Anyway, it would have been successful (IMHO) because a large portion of the
heavy weaponry and armor was stranded at Dunkirk when the BEF bugged out.

I heard a story that some defenders were watching the coast armed with
pitchforks but I'm sure this is exaggeration. :)

Hitler didn't really want to fight England. He offered peace after the fall
of France but England said no. He was much more interested in the Russians.

Sorry about the speech. :)
Matt

[Russell M. Warner]

In article <lsj.20.7...@uki.hj.se> l...@uki.hj.se (Sverker Johansson) writes:

Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
Path: blackbird.afit.af.mil!afterlife!cs.umd.edu!haven.umd.edu!uunet!pipex!sunic!news.chalmers.se!pc_lsj.uki.hj.se!lsj
From: l...@uki.hj.se (Sverker Johansson)
Sender: ne...@news.chalmers.se
Nntp-Posting-Host: pc_lsj.uki.hj.se
Organization: H|gskolan i J|nk|ping
References: <Scott_Chishol...@141.211.210.249> <JASON.93A...@rtl.cygnus.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 08:35:38 GMT
Lines: 21

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In my experience, there is greater than a 90% chance that building a pollution elimination
improvement will cause polution!
However, I'll gladly put up with this and other bugs (like rogue-fly-away bombers..yuck!)
if someone would just fix the goto function to use railroad movement!!!!!!!!!!

[Rob Skrobola]

In article <CC066...@bailgate.gpsemi.com>, jon...@sn4711.oldham.gpsemi.com (J Buckel Artist Account) writes:

|>
|> Does anyone else feel this way about the random number generator, I must admit
|> I do concur with the multiple successess or failures. Though I had just put
|> this down to the game being a bit of a bitch (I lost 3 artillery and an armour
|> trying to take out a single artillery unit yesterday, yet on other occasions
|> I seem to have a run of good luck !!) Not sure whether this is the random
|> generator or what.
|> I must admit I have never considered whether the random generator might be
|> time dependent aswell.
|> What are other peoples experiences along these lines ?

I'm sure everyone has gotten screwed in Civ, losing a battle which
should have been won. Then another. Then another. Might be that something
is wrong with the seeding process, or the p-random function itself.

However, I've also had these same kinds of runs of luck with the non-computer
based p-random number generators...ie, dice. :) "JESUS, my fighter did
FOUR body on THREE GODDAMMED D6??? AGAIN!?>!?" :) :) Ok, so I played some
RPG's.. The concept is the same..

Rob

--
Rob Skrobola || CITI, University of Michigan
`I see nobody on the road,' said Alice.
`I only wish _I_ had such eyes,' the King remarked in a fretful
tone. `To be able to see Nobody! And at that distance, too!'

[Clive Higginson - Sun UK - Snr Systems Engineer]

The real point of my post was not to suggest that the Germans would have failed in an invasion of the UK, but that such an operation would surely have been a "better use of" their troops instead of opening a second front whilst failing to close the first which overstretched them and resulted in eventual defeat. Operation Sealion could have been a success and then maybe Russia would have fallen.... followed at some point by the USA but who knows.

[John Hall]

In article (Mills / Allan William (ISE)) writes:
| The English should be the one to dissapear since historically they are
| the country who have been beaten by almost everyone who has attacked them.

Name them. An english speaking navy hasn't lost a war in nearly
300 years, and nobody has beaten the english without beating her
navy in 900.

Remember "The Sun never sets on the English Empire"?

Give a faded empire her due.

--
-------------------------
My comments are my own. They are independent and unrelated to the
views of my company , relatives or elected representatives.

[Bryce Harrington]

In article <JASON.93A...@rtl.cygnus.com>, ja...@cygnus.com (Jason Merrill) writes:
|>
|> This is not uncertainty. This is a poor pseudo-random number generator.
|> This is, in my opinion, the game's most annoying bug: Random events aren't
|> sufficiently random. If you've just lost one attack, chances are you'll
|> lose the next. If you've just won, chances are you'll win the next. If
|> you've just suffered a bout of pollution in one city, chances are you'll
|> suffer more this turn. Has anyone else noticed this? It seems
|> time-dependent, so that if I wait for a few seconds before continuing the
|> effect is diminished.

Hmm, sounds amazingly familiar. It may not be due to the RNG, but due
to the way is is used. Doesn't this type of behavior crop up when you
seed the random number generator too often? (For you non-programmers,
"seeding the random number generator" means generating the first
random number that all further numbers are generated from). Programmers
generally use the clock to seed the RNG, and I think the C srand function
uses a kind of static algorithm to generate random numbers. Hold on...

Okay. I wrote a really quick program to demonstrate this. Here is the
output:

time rand() A B
------------------------------------------
Test with srand initialized to same time
745807017 23998 98 73.2383
745807017 23998 98 73.2383
745807017 23998 98 73.2383
745807017 23998 98 73.2383

Test with srand set each second
745807018 24001 1 73.2475
745807019 24004 4 73.2566
745807020 24007 7 73.2658
745807021 24011 11 73.278

Test with srand set once
745807021 6426 26 19.6112
24585 85 75.0298
31703 3 96.7528
1298 98 3.9613

The first column is the current time in seconds. The second column is the
output of the rand() function. The third and fourth columns are the
results of two different ways to convert the rand() number into a
number between 0 and 99.

As you can see in block#1, if you give the srand() function the same
input, well, you get the same "random" numbers. Compare this to block#3,
the "proper" way to generate rands. In block three the numbers are all
suitably random (IMHO).

Now, look at block #2. In this case, the random number generator is
reset each second, so that the numbers are not entirely random. It is
this second approach that causes effects such as the ones described
by Jason, and it is what I would think might have happened. Sid
may have called the srand() function too much.

But this is a silly programming error. I would be surprised if Sid
did this. But it does explain the post...

Bryce

[Bryce Harrington]

ATTENTION WWII WARGAMERS!! QUESTION!

(But first, some notes from the thread):

In article <25095s$b...@uk-usenet.uk.sun.com> cli...@playpen.uk.sun.com writes:

>In article j...@news.u.washington.edu, disc...@stein2.u.washington.edu writes:

>>Hmmm... Ever heard of operation sealion? That was the German plan
>>for the invasion of England. It was scheduled for September 15, 1940;
>>but never implemented because in they're campaign to gain air
>>superiority, a German pilot offloaded his bombs over London in
>>frustration and started the inconclusive Battle of Britain.

>>Hitler didn't really want to fight England. He offered peace after

>>the fall of France but England said no. He was much more interested
>>in the Russians.

>The real point of my post was not to suggest that the Germans would

>have failed in an invasion of the UK, but that such an operation would
>surely have been a "better use of" their troops instead of opening a
>second front whilst failing to close the first which overstretched
>them and resulted in eventual defeat. Operation Sealion could have
>been a success and then maybe Russia would have fallen.... followed at
>some point by the USA but who knows.

I've always wondered what the outcome of WWII would have been if the
NAZI's had concentrated on Britain and not opened up the second front
against the Russians until Britian was conquered. So I appeal to all
you military historians and wargamers:

1. Was it inevitable that Germany would open up the second front
before defeating Britain?

2. Was there any way Germany could have beated Britain, or was it
pretty much futile?

3. If Germany had defeated Britain and _then_ attacked the USSR, would
they have been more successful, or would the Soviets have still defeated
them in the harsh Russian winter?

4. Has anyone played a wargame in which things like this could be
explored? (Like say "what if the Germans had developed Nukes in
1944 and were able to use the V2 to deliver them", or "What if the
Japanese had succeeded in destroying the US Pacific fleet at
Pearl Harbor?")

Bryce

[Nick Grebe]

> Is the latter stage of the game your favorite part? I find that I
> prefer the early part when you only have to worry about a half dozen

> cities and maybe a dozen units. It would be useful to know what
> stage of the game various people find most interesting, as we should
> try to improve those areas the most. For example, I could come up with
> dozens of new modern techs for the game, but I might never get that far,
> so why bother putting them in? But if 50% like the modern period,
> 30% like the futuristic period, and 20% like the ancient period, we
> _should_ put more stuff in the modern period (I think...)

The part I enjoy the most was building up my cities and advancing in technology.
It's great to be able to try and create the ultimate capitol city. I think the user
should have more control of the placement and production of city improvements/
wonders. I've recently bought Ceaser and I LOVE the city building capabilities of
that game.

[d925...@zac.riv.csu.edu.au]

I prefer the section just before you get into the production of weapons like
the cannon and such. It is exciting enough because you are usually fighting a
battle on two or three sides, and you are using real weapons like catapults,
phalanxs and the like. Like real life, gunpowder-based weapons put life into a
downhill.

Alex the Mad.

[J Buckel Artist Account]

>> Is the latter stage of the game your favorite part? I find that I
>> prefer the early part when you only have to worry about a half dozen
>> cities and maybe a dozen units. It would be useful to know what
>> stage of the game various people find most interesting, as we should
>> try to improve those areas the most. For example, I could come up with
>> dozens of new modern techs for the game, but I might never get that far,
>> so why bother putting them in? But if 50% like the modern period,
>> 30% like the futuristic period, and 20% like the ancient period, we
>> _should_ put more stuff in the modern period (I think...)

So when does the ancient period end ? (from musketeers perhaps or/and
navigation or/and others ??
When does the futuristic period begin ? (from Superconductors and Fusion and
Genetics at the moment I think, there isn't really a futuristic element in
civ at the moment really (except the spaceship!))

[Mats Olsson]

In article <2519g0$k...@aludra.usc.edu> bhar...@aludra.usc.edu (Bryce Harrington) writes:
>ATTENTION WWII WARGAMERS!! QUESTION!
>
*snip*

>I've always wondered what the outcome of WWII would have been if the
>NAZI's had concentrated on Britain and not opened up the second front
>against the Russians until Britian was conquered. So I appeal to all
>you military historians and wargamers:
>
>1. Was it inevitable that Germany would open up the second front
>before defeating Britain?

If Germany hadn't allowed the British to evacuate from Dunquirk(sp?) but
instead taken 400k prisoners, Britain would have been hard pressed to find
enough troops to defend itself.
Do note that one reason Hitler attacked Stalin was that Stalin was
building up this HUGE army just across the border from the Rumanian
oilfields. He was a bit paranoid about that threat but there are some facts
that indicates that Stalin was thinking of attacking - probably in -42 though.

>2. Was there any way Germany could have beated Britain, or was it
>pretty much futile?

Certainly could have, but when SeaLion was delayed, he decided to go for
the Soviet Union instead.
One feasible way would have been for him to lean REAL hard on Franco and
force Franco to allow German troops to take Gibraltar. That would have allowed
Rommel to take Egypt and the Middle East in -41, and made the defence of the
convoy routes much more difficult.

>3. If Germany had defeated Britain and _then_ attacked the USSR, would
>they have been more successful, or would the Soviets have still defeated
>them in the harsh Russian winter?

Probably less successful. It was a marvel Stalin allowed himself to be
fooled in 41, if Hitler had concentrated his army in the east in 42 Stalin
would have had a hard time deluding himself as to the target.

>4. Has anyone played a wargame in which things like this could be
>explored? (Like say "what if the Germans had developed Nukes in
>1944 and were able to use the V2 to deliver them", or "What if the
>Japanese had succeeded in destroying the US Pacific fleet at
>Pearl Harbor?")

I think I can recommend WiF for things like that.

Do note though that when the US entered the war, the conclusion was
foregone, even if both Britain and the Soviet Union had been conqured. After
all, the potential military might of the US is simply staggering when compared
to the puny potential of the Axis countries. The true potential was never
realized in WW2 because the Soviets survived and the US decided that they
didn't need all that many soldiers.

/Mats
--
Chalmers | USENET: ma...@dtek.chalmers.se | "The supreme irony of life is
University | SNAIL: Mats Olsson | that hardly anyone gets out of
of | Richertsgatan2E/5023 | it alive."
Technology | 412 81 Gothenburg SWEDEN | - Job, R.A.H

[Michael P Klein]

Bryce Harrington (bhar...@aludra.usc.edu) wrote:
: ATTENTION WWII WARGAMERS!! QUESTION!

: Bryce

Well the questions asked all assume that GERMANS could have done better...
I would submit it equally plausible that the allies could have done better
and won much quicker than they did.

[Peter Y. Chen]

In article <24this$q...@uk-usenet.uk.sun.com>,

Wasn't England saved because Hitler stopped Guderian from pushing the
~180,000 British troops into the sea? If memory serves, I believe
Hitler had some crazy idea about England being a part of the "new order"
and therefore halted the German advances at the objections of his
generals, thereby making the Dunkirk retreat possible.

Either way, I tend to think that it was the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. that
defeated the axis, and that England played a minor role in the Germans'
defeat.

-- Peter

[David Michael Palsen]

Here's an idea...what about a strategic battle simulator? That way, you can
fight your own battles when either you attack a city, or are attacked. It
would probably take some practice, but when you worked at it, you could probablyget to the point where you could beat catapults with militias.
C-ya!
-Dave

[Clive Higginson - Sun UK - Snr Systems Engineer]

maybe, maybe not I was not arguing the role of the British (English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish) in the war, or trying to make nationalistic statements about who had the best tanks, who played the greatest part etc. I was simply pointing out that there was probably no better use (in my opinion) for the Nazi troops than to invade and neutralise the UK before invading the USSR - you see at this point the US would have been largely confined to their own mainland and possibly not even been willing to ente

r the war.

Clive