 |
|
Janes
|
|
I am new to this forum and I don't know if this has been discussed before but has anyone though of simulating the influence of domesticating various plants and animals? They have had a tremendous influence in the real world. For example the Americas "developed" less then the Old World in part because they lacked large animals to domesticate and turn into pack animals and plow pullers. This also led to them having less diseases in which to kill Europeans. So if anyone has already talked about this please tell me, if not I have some ideas.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
I actually disagree partly. Although the classic mesoamerican civilizations did lack beasts of burden (To plow fields, etc.) there was never a shortage of potential. Bison could have been domesticated by central plains tribes, Lamas were in fact used both as work animals and as transportation animals in South America, albeit not nearly as extensively as in Eurasia.
Even at the time of Aztec mexico, Maze was far superior to wheat in terms of yield to acre ratio and also overal crop yield ratio. However, it didn't provide complete nutrition, a problem remedied by the Mayans use of Lime in the preparation process.
There are a number of theories surrounding why the Americas didn't develop as thoroughly as the Eurasians. In the case of the Mayans whom were in fact far more advanced at AD800 than the rest of the world was at AD1400 in all fields but metallurgy, it's a matter of climate and terrain. You see, the soil is very poor in that region, it's mostly tropical forest. In order to have agriculture there, they practiced slash&burn, in which you cut down a certain area of growth and burn it. The ash enriches the soil enabling you to plant there. This is an excellent technique, except that you can't grow enough food to feed too many people or else the ground can't sustain it. When the Mayan cities grew too populous and the technique was expanded, people starved and etc etc.
The Europeans developped very rapidly more out of necessity than anything else.
So why then, did the Mesoamericans never develop metalworking? They had copper tools, they did have. But they never discovered the use of Iron, whereas Eurasians first started using it around 3000BC.
I think this is a diffusion issue. If you look at a map, and point out where the most advanced ancient civilizations were, you find the first ones popping up in the Fertile Crescent and in Egypt around 10,000 years ago. From there you see them develop in India, China, and in Mesoamerica with the Olmec and Zapotec peoples along with a few others. Well what are these areas? They are all "bottlenecks."
Diffusion occurs when people get together and exchange ideas. That's when technology spreads and ideas form. You converse with one person, you take their idea and add your own to it. Soon enough, problems are solved, inventions invented, etc. It is most logical to say therefore that the most advanced of early civilizations are places where the most number of people meet each other. Now picture a primitive world where there is no civilization, and people are all wandering around nomadic. Key word here is NOMADIC. Now with everyone moving around the most likely place for people (two or more tribes) to encounter each other at the same place at the same time is a place where movement is restricted. For example, look at Mesoamerica, you have a small strip of land in Panama that is barely 50 miles across. You basically have only two directions to go if you're travelling through here. Compare that to the Great Plains where you have a vast field that stretches for thousands of miles in all directions. Now you have two tribes moving around, which place are they most likely to meet each other?
They meet, and exchange ideas, etc. You see the same thing happen where Africa connects to Asia, the same thing happens around the Indus river where you have the Himalayas on one side and the Ocean on the other, and again in China movement is restricted by desert and mountains. In Peru movement was restricted by the Andes and you see countless small civs scattered in the valleys and such.
------------------
How will you make it if you never even try?
-Macy Gray
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
Hmm...
I disagree with you, Guildmaster.
The main reason (the only reason) why the non Euroasiatic civs never got anywhere was because of geografic things.
Euroasia had far more domesticable animals than the other continents. The only domesticable animal in the americas was the lama. The bison was not domesticable (this is why it has never been - not even in modern times) like most African animals are not domesticable. And since the main axis of the Americas is north south, and not east west like Euroasia, it was really hard to exchange technologies with other people living there. It was possible to move technologies about food production and animal domestication over 10,000 kms in Euroasia, from the fertile crescent to China in just a few 1000 years, since the climate all the way over there was pretty much identic. But on the other hand the changing climates made it impossible to transport lamas from Peru to Mesoamerica. The same with plants.
So basically the importance of animals and plants can not be underestimated, although you are obviously right about the bottleneck situations - that that is where civs emerge.
Janes:
The reason why I have some opposition towards implementing plants and animals are, that GGS should remain a game. And if we have animals and plants the abundance of these would be what decided who succeeded, and who never got anywhere. It would take the game out of the player's hands. Imagine playing a game on an earth map, and starting your civ in Australia! You would never be able to get anywhere. No domesticable animals, no plants. You would be stuck in the stone age forever. And that isn't much fun.
On the other hand I can see that implementing plants and animals in some way could increase realism, and maybe add new aspects to the game. So at this moment no decision is final. Therefore: Please, tell us about your ideas!
------------------
"In America, first we take the sugar, then we take the power, then we take the women."
- Homer J. Simpson
GGS Website
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Janes
|
|
Joker, I agree that the game could certainly lose a lot of its enjoyment if you could start in a position with no domesticatable species and little way to advance. What I was thinking is that instead of or in addition to a difficulty level you could have the option of chosing how many easy to use or already domesticated species you start out with. This would combine nicely with the idea of controlling your relative tech level that I saw elsewhere on this forum.
These next ideas on how to simulate it would require a lot of memory but I'm just brainstorming and I'll let the programers think about making it work. Possibly this simulation could be usely based on the disease model.
Each square would have a list of the major species inhabiting it. Each species could have a couple of major variables such has food yeild, other resource yeild(sheep wool, silk, ivory, etc.), disease carring, density, dependence on environment, ease of use by humans and breeding rate. Maybe there'd be another variable such as rideable so you could simulate horses.
This is sort of a side idea that would take more memory but it might be useful. You could have a small food chain that would allow for more realism, show the problems extinction causes, and to show the disruption of transporting species to forieng environments. Humans fishing or hunting would deplete populations and this could affect other species.
Back to the main idea. If you had a certain tech advance such as agriculture and a species in your territory you could domesticate it by reaserching it. Once domesticated the species density and ease of use by humans would be increased. You could then trade them and move them around your territory. Later you could breed them to change other traits and get more useful species.
So what do you think, is it useful or too complex? What could be changed? Any feedback is welcome.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Almost all plants and animals can be domesticated over time.
One thing you have to remember is that cattle as we know and love them have been part of our lives for the past 10,000+ years. That's a very long time when compared to the half a century we've been trying to domesticate Bison. Even arctic foxes you would think cannot be domesticated, but in a matter of two generations trappers in Russia learned that not only can they be so, but they would have been better off not trying since the foxes ended up with bizarre hair colors instead of the usual snowy white.
A lot of animals in Africa could have easily been domesticated but for whatever reason we went with cows. Don't know why, don't really care.
I do agree, however, that it's not necessary to add it to the game although it could present some interesting scenarios from an environmentalist point of view.
Llamas could have been transported north to the great plains and it is possible to suggest they could have adapted to the heavy work humans put them through by growing bigger and stronger, and then we would have seen something odd: Try to imagine an Arapaho hunting buffalo riding on a Llama! heheh
Well I agree that climatic differences made that exceedingly difficult, same reason why horses never reached the southern tip of Africa.
What I think is this:
if it's not too hard to do (I don't think this one is worth it if it's not easy) we could add it as an option at the beginning of the game. Otherwise the technology equivalent of Civ2's "Horseback Riding" can be interpreted to mean you have sucessfully domesticated a local animal for use as riding transportation.
------------------
How will you make it if you never even try?
-Macy Gray
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
Hmm...
Yes, Janes, I can see that using animals and plants as an extra dificulty level could be a cool adition to the game - although it should remain an option.
But I don't think the huge amount of properties that you suggested would be required. I don't really care much about whether some square has deer in it, since deer are not domesticable. So if we should do this all we need to know is whether a hex has an animal on it or not. And then keep track of the 15 (?) important domesticable animals, and have the possibility to add new ones. Of cause the spread of animals would depend on their enviroment preferences and such. But I don't think we need to know whether some animal provides more food than others.
------------------
"In America, first we take the sugar, then we take the power, then we take the women."
- Homer J. Simpson
GGS Website
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
PErhaps instead, draw a region on the map based on climate and terrain. We can assume that it won't take very long for the animal to spread itself across all suitable terrain then all hexes in that area we can assume have that animal.
When a civ trades the animal to another region not previously reachable by that animal then it woudl respread itself to cover the new terrain.
eg.
Horses are assumed to cover most of eurasia, being bordered by the Sahara desert for the most part. They would thrive in the open plains of North America, but for whatever reason they don't exist there. Once introduced, a few escaped and began to proliferate in the wide open plains. All of a sudden horses are a part of North American native culture.
------------------
How will you make it if you never even try?
-Macy Gray
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:14
|
|
Guildmaster:
quote:
I actually disagree partly. Although the classic mesoamerican civilizations did lack beasts of burden (To plow fields, etc.) there was never a shortage of potential. Bison could have been domesticated by central plains tribes, Lamas were in fact used both as work animals and as transportation animals in South America, albeit not nearly as extensively as in Eurasia.
Even at the time of Aztec mexico, Maze was far superior to wheat in terms of yield to acre ratio and also overal crop yield ratio. However, it didn't provide complete nutrition, a problem remedied by the Mayans use of Lime in the preparation process.
|
Although corn yielded more food in a given land area than Eurasian crops, such as rice or wheat, the lack of domesticatable animals was the primary reason why American civs were not as advanced as Eurasian ones. Yes, llamas were domesticatable, but llamas were far weaker than large Eurasian mammals, such as horses or cattle. It was not practical to use them for working in fields for purposes such as plowing, meaning the requirement of significantly more manpower than in Eurasia. That meant that Americans farming maize reaped a much smaller crop than Eurasians farming wheat.
quote:
Almost all plants and animals can be domesticated over time.
|
Not really... Only select few animals are domesticatable... After all, Africans, in several select areas, have lived with agriculture for several milennia. They've had plenty of chances to domesticate the plethora of large animals in sub-Saharan Africa. If an animal is domesticatable, it would've already been domesticated. Since so few animals are domesticatable in Africa, it seems unlikely that the bison will be domesticatable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
XWaste
|
|
of passionpop
Aug 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Maybe the situtaion can be simplified a bit by not focusing on the specific animals and plants but rather the terrain itself. Instead of having just one farm and thats it, you can have terrain specific improvements ie farm grassland, farm tundra etc. This way a civ that has had it good in plush grasslands for a while have to research new ways of agriculture etc when they want to expand into the neighbouring plains because they just don't know how to exploit the native conditions/animals. A civ on tropical islands may never learn about desert ecology etc.
Additional complexity - specific ecology farms, eg Australian grassland, African grassland etc to represent contintal differences.
Other notes - applies when moving into empty territory, when conquering then unless the native population is wiped out they would know how to work the land.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
S. Kroeze
|
 |
the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Dec 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Why Animal domestication was one of the most important developments of human history
'They provided meat, milk products, fertilizers, land transport, leather, military assault vehicles, plow traction, and wool, as well as germs that killed previously unexposed peoples.'
'In human societies possessing domestic animals, livestock fed more people in four distinct ways: by furnishing meat, milk, and fertilizer and by pulling plows. First and most directly, domestic animals became the societies' major source of animal protein, replacing wild game. Today, for instance, Americans tend to get most of their animal protein from cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens, with game such as venison just a rare delicacy. In addition, some big domestic mammals served as sources of milk and of milk products such as butter, cheese, and yogurt. Milked mammals include the cow, sheep, goat, horse, reindeer, water buffalo, yak, and Arabian and Bactrian camels. Those mammals thereby yield several times more calories over their lifetime than if they were just slaughtered and consumed as meat.
Big domestic mammals also interacted with domestic plants in two ways to increase crop production. First, as any modern gardener or farmer still knows by experience, crop yields can be greatly increased by manure applied as fertilizer. Even with the modern availability of synthetic fertilizers produced by chemical factories, the major source of crop fertilizer today in most societies is still animal manure -especially of cows, but also of yaks and sheep. Manure has been valuable, too, as a source of fuel for fires in traditional societies.
In addition, the largest domestic mammals interacted with domestic plants to increase food production by pulling plows and thereby making it possible for people to till land that had previously been uneconomical for farming. Those plow animals were the cow, horse, water buffalo, Bali cattle, and yak/cow hybrids. Here is one example of their value: the first prehistoric farmers of central Europe, the so-called Linearbandkeramik culture that arose slightly before 5000BC, were initially confined to soils light enough to be tilled by means of hand-held digging sticks. Only over a thousand years later, with the introduction of the ox-drawn plow, were those farmers able to extend cultivation to a much wider range of heavy soils and tough sods. Similarly, Native American farmers of the North American Great Plains grew crops in the river valleys, but farming of the tough sods on the extensive uplands had to await 19th-century Europeans and their animal-drawn plows.'
'Several domestic animals yielded animal fibers -especially wool from sheep, gaots, llamas, and alpacas, and silk from silkworms. Bones of domestic animals were important raw materials for artifacts of Neolithic peoples before the development of metallurgy. Cow hides were used to make leather.
Big domestic mammals further revolutionized human society by becoming our main means of land transport until the development of railroads in the 19th century. Before animal domestication, the sole means of transporting goods and people by land was on the backs of humans. Large mammals changed that: for the first time in human history, it became possible to move heavy goods in large quantities, as well as people, rapidly overland for long distances. The domestic animals that were ridden were the horse, donkey, yak, reindeer, and Arabian and Bactrian camels. Animals of those same five species, as well as the llama, were used to bear packs. Cows and horses were hitched to wagons, while reindeer and dogs pulled sleds in the Arctic. The horse became the chief means of long-distance transport over most of Eurasia. The three domestic camel species (Arabian camel, Bactrian camel, and llama) played a similar role in areas of North Africa and Arabia, Central Asia, and the Andes, respectively.'
'Of equal importance in wars of conquest were the germs that evolved in human societies with domestic animals. Infectious diseases like smallpox, measles, and flu arose as specialized germs of humans, derived by mutations of very similar ancestral germs that had infected animals. The humans who domesticated animals were the first to fall victim to the newly evolved germs, but those humans then evolved substantial resistance to the new diseases. When such partly immune people came into contact with others who had had no previous exposure to the germs, epidemics resulted in which up to 99 percent of the previously unexposed populaton was killed. Germs thus acquired ultimately from the domestic animals played decisive roles in the European conquests of Native Americans, Australians, South Africans, and Pacific islanders.'
(source: J.Diamond;'Guns, Germs and Steel',1998)
And I found the following interesting post made by Theben in November 1999: quote:
Another thing about the book- and I don't know if it's intentional or not- is that it clearly demonstrates why Eurasians wound up as world conquerors, and not anyone from Africa, Australia, or the New World. And it does this in a highly scientific, non- racist manner. In fact, it has enough information in it that any racist willing to listen should change his/her mind and accept that the races are intellectually identical.
3 things to get you started:
-33 out of 56 of the world's best crops started in Europe and West Asia, as opposed to 11 in all of the Americas
-The continental axis as described above
-13 out 14 of the animal domesticates were in Eurasia, while only one of 14 was available in the Americas (and due to the north-South axis, the llama stayed in the Andes).
In a nutshell, the Eurasians got lucky.
As you can see, any one of these has great potential to cause widely varying tech/cultural gaps between societies. With all 3, the populations of the Americas/Africa/Australia didn't stand a chance (and these 3 weren't the only things against them!).
This whole thing has got me thinking (and I know I've strayed from Religion, but I'm good at that in real life too  ). Right now the difference in the civ game levels involves giving the AI "cheats". Why not use the above to limit players? FE,
Chieftain level: You start out in a location very similar to the Fertile Cresent (ideal location for tech diffusion, many crop plants, many domesticable animals, including horses, east-west axis)...
to Deity level: A climate and/or continent very similar to Australia. Few crop plants, NO domesticable animals, complete isolation from other nations, so little chance for tech diffusion. Try winning that!
|
I like this idea!
What do you think, Joker, Amjayee and others?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
amjayee
|
 |
Jyväskylä, Finland
Oct 1999
time: 07:14
|
|
Very good post once again, S.Kroeze! That quite clearly shows us that domestication is definitely needed, in some way or another.
About animals being domesticable or not, I'm not so sure that it is impossible to domesticate some animals. If we take the most calm and obeying bisons and use them for breeding, after several generations they should become calm enough to herd them. Well, assuming bisons still have enough "calm genes" left for that, I don't know... I think we could well assume in our game that there are domesticable animals or not.
About difficulty level, that would be good. But of course it would not be everything. I think it would be good if you could choose among a wide range of "disadvantages" to rise the difficulty level and increase your point yield. That combined with the point system discussed in another thread, and the game should become quite interesting.
But it is true that it would be tough to win if you start on a small continent like that. The only way to win might be to build ships (or boats) to contact other people, and to expand elsewhere, possibly transfer animals and plants to your own land, etc...
On civ2 I started a deity game, and I got a pitiful small desert island. Nice. Rushed for mapmaking and got far from that place as quickly as possible...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
Interesting...
Yes, I think that if we use animals and diseases to effect the dificulty level of the game then using it might actually be really cool!
So let's do it!
Should we include crops as well? I don't think so. Animals are more important than crops, and I think having to think about crops all the time as well as diseases and animals might become too much. So let's stick with animals and diseases.
This does, however, mean that we will have to figure out a way to implement animals to the econ model. We should just stick to the 14 big ones, and add the posibility to create "custom" animals, too.
------------------
"In America, first we take the sugar, then we take the power, then we take the women."
- Homer J. Simpson
GGS Website
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Let's look at each animal and how it would effect gameplay.
eg.
How would domesticating Bovine differ from domesticating North American bison? And then how would that make actual gameplay different? I am guessing that 10,000 years ago when the first cow was domesticated, it was about as easy as it is now as we try to domesticate buffalos. Interesting enough, the method of hunting prior to that event was the same: chase them off a cliff.
How would the three kinds of camels differ from place to place, especially since they were used for the same purpose?
Of course even the same animal served different purposes in different areas:
In Alaska and North Canada, dogs were used to pull sleds while reindeer were used for the same purpose in North Eurasia. Not that dogs couldn't have been used, they just weren't. Are not alaskan sled-dogs better suited for this use due to their keener sense of awareness?
Trained pigeons add an excellent means of communication, trained falcons add a luxurious trade good for nobility.
While I don't have any scientific evidence to support this theory, I believe that the ancient egyptians saw the small desert cats as perfectly suited for hunting mice and rats and therefore were a perfect solution to keeping vermin out of the temples. When people saw the cats in the holiest of holy temples and such, naturally they concluded that cats were to be worshipped as gods.
At least that's my theory, the cats were brought to the temple to get rid of the rats, cats in the temple, cats are therefore gods.
Elephants are big and powerful, and obviously more intelligent than most animals. They are also kind and gentle unless you piss them off. Kind of like the character traits on early Indian gods (?) another one of my theories.
------------------
How will you make it if you never even try?
-Macy Gray
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
I don't think we should implement dogs or cats or reindeer. They had very little importance.
And according to GGS elephants have never been domesticated (no I don't believe it either)! The author claims that elephants grow too slow to make domestication profitable. The elephants used in India and other places are actually caught wild, and then tamed.
Anyway, I don't think we should give each animal too specific gameplay effects. Horses should of cause have other and more uses than goats, but generally what would be important would be that the animals were just there, to infect the humans with diseases, which would give them immunity. And they would increase productivity, since they would take off some workload from the people.
But what animals should we have then? Propably the 14 big ones (I have a list somewhere) and then possibly add elephants, due to their importance. Are any others important?
------------------
"In America, first we take the sugar, then we take the power, then we take the women."
- Homer J. Simpson
GGS Website
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Janes
|
|
Sorry I haven't been here in awhile, I left on vacation and I'm glad to see the good suggestions here.
I agree that my earlier brain storming was probably to complex and should be simplified. As someone said having just 14 animal species would be good. It would still give more unique civilizations, economic and disease differences. It would also prevent the ridiculous situation of Aztecs learning polytheism and all of a sudden getting to ride elephants around.
I do think crops are also important though. Maybe more so then animals. Remember the influence the potato had on Europe when the Conquistidores took it back. Someone even wrote a book about it entitiled, I think, "How the humble spud saved the western world" You can look it up on Amazon.
For a good ariticle written on the influence of domestication look on this page by Dale Cozort http://hometown.aol.com/althist1/index.htm
This onlytakes you to a part of it but from here go to his homepage, then alternate history, then alt hist of the month(native american), then Ice age llamas survive in the appalachians. SOrry the directions are a bit fuzzy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
Hey!
Why hasn't anyone posted here for days????
Oh well.
The reason I think crops might become too much has nothing to do with it's influence on civilization. That can not be denyed. But I still think crops would just give the player too much to worry about.
Diseases has a very direct impact on the game. Animals are important, and the player can see why they are important, since they can be used for warfare, production etc.
But crops only has effect on food production. And I think that might give it too much effect in too narrow an area, and not provide much aditional gameplay.
I am not saying that I refuce to have crops implemented. At the moment I just don't think it is a good idea. But let's see what the other team members say to it.
------------------
"In America, first we take the sugar, then we take the power, then we take the women."
- Homer J. Simpson
GGS Website
|
|
| |
|
|
|
amjayee
|
|
Jyväskylä, Finland
Oct 1999
time: 07:14
|
|
Ok, as VetLegion said in the meeting, we will have to keep this under control. So, I propose that there would be a short list of animals we could domesticate. There needs not be specific species names, just species types. Like:
-cattle. Produce milk, meat, (hide,) and can pull the plow etc. Include cow (ox), yak, african and american large mammals like buffalo etc.
-"wool-producers"; is there better name for this? Produce wool, milk, meat. Not good as beasts of burden, perhaps limited transport capability. Sheep, goats, llamas.
-horses. Provide mounts, can pull carts etc., good for many purposes. Can also produce meat in emergency.
-camels. Mainly good for riding and carrying goods in deserts. Produce also milk and meat (though I don't know is milk used for food). Desert-version of the horse.
-elephant? It is an important animal in India, and it has been used in war, but I'm not sure is it so important we should have it. But perhaps it could be included.
-reindeer is used mainly in Lappland, and sled-dogs in Alaska and Canada. So I think their use is so restricted it might not be appropriate to include them. But; this is based on assumption that every world is quite like ours. In colder worlds, reindeers and dogs might be more important. And elephants are good in jungle; if there was more jungles, they might be more important. So I think if it turns out that having those included does not strain the resources too much, we might have them included also. But at least the first four would be there. And not more than these. I think these are the basic types of animals civilized cultures would use.
It is not really necessary to know what kind of cattle-species or what kind of wool-producing species you have; they are much the same. Here comes in the picture the domestication technology. Cows are the result of thousands of years of domestication work. So, we should have that when animals are being used, the nation's skill of domestication rises, and the animals become better and more productive.
How the animals would be handled then? It might be as simple as having a list of species. Each tile would have simple flags telling what kinds of animals can be found there. Also for each animal type would be listed in what kind of environment they can survive, what they produce etc.; separately, of course not in each tile! When the animals are domesticated, they are tamed and put into stables, or some other facility, where they produce the things they produce. In this stage, the domestication skills start to increase. Also in this phase it is possible to transport those animals anywhere in your empire, or sell them for others. If the animals are transported in non-suitable environment, they would produce less, or even die.
Here in Finland we have ostrich farms; they produce meat and feathers. It is cold here, and ostrich is a desert animal, but it survives here quite well. Perhaps they have a tough skin, or the feather-coat keeps them warm. That was just an example to show that animals can be transported away from their natural environment. Instead, moving yaks to desert might prove unwise. We need to think those things out.
The system would be even simpler if we say that horses can be found on every grassland area, or camels in every desert, etc.; but then it would not be possible to have situations like in Australia, where there are no domesticable animals, or like in America, where there was no horses despite of the grasslands. But I think having one bit for each animal type, so 4-7 bits per tile, would be enough. This is of course the _original_ animal population of that tile. Moving domesticated animals into that tile doesn't change the figure.
About crops, I agree with Joker that they are not as important as animals. Every plant produces food, if used properly. Perhaps we would just have one bit telling whether there are domesticable plants or not. Then the tile properties and domestication skill would decide how much food the tile produces.
This is most unclearly said, but I hope you get the idea. I think it would be quite easy to achieve this, and it would bring some depth to the game, if made properly.
I just thought that pigs and hens are also quite important for western world; though I don't know how we should handle those.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
XWaste
|
|
of passionpop
Aug 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Plants are also important for medicines, especially in rainforests they are discovering useful compounds all the time. With diseases being so important I don't think this aspect can be neglected.
Hallucinogenic plants/fungus and fermentation(alcohol) were historically VERY important, they played significant roles in religious ceremonies the world over. The development of this use would have very high economic gains.
Perhaps each tile could contain naturally 0-2 herd animals, 0-2 wild crops. For realism each tile should probably contain 0-2 types of vermin/weeds/pests/predators - not all animals/plants are benificial, and combating plagues of locusts/rabbits/mice or protecting herds from wolves has been as important to farmers as combating the elements.
As well as having the major exploitable species there should also be a biodiversity rating. This indicates the tiles usefulness as well as environmental health. Once a tile has been used for farming the biodiversity drops, and soon the land becomes pratically useless for anything but. Also once the biodiversity drops vermin/pests become more significant (no natural balances to halt their growth).
Biodiverse tiles will become important in the late/modern stages of the game - they will be a source of the before mentioned new medicines, and will be a weapon against environmental damage (carbon sinks for forests) maybe even a source of revenue for 'eco-tourism'
Introducing the wrong type of animal into an ecology can be devistating to the biodiversity. Australia is a prime example of this. Civs can unintentionally transport their vermin with then, and domesticated animals can also turn into pests. Even the wrong type of domesticated animal can be a disaster. I can't be sure of the exact reason, this is only what I can sorta remember but ungulates (hooved animals) have been very damaging to Australia, I think mainly because our native ground cover is not as dense so that they churn up the ground more than in other areas which promotes soil erosion and a whole host of other problems. Camels, because they have soft feet have been a much less damaging introduction to Australia.
How plants and animals are used I think really depends on the research system. I have some thoughts, but I don't know how much has been done on this already.
Oh, I've just thought of something, the most important plant product besides food - timber. Biodivisity can also indicate the effects of logging, and tree plantations are pretty useful and profitable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Interesting, but it may also be used to provide other forms of bonuses for less advanced levels of play:
The strongest wood your mideval civ has access to may well be ash, which explains why your enemy is kicking your butt when all their equipment is made of oak. Pine grows fast and replenishes fast, but is weaker when compared to mahogany, oak, and maple.
Also the use and legality of narcotics could provide an unexpected tourism revenue (Amsterdam)...
I don't have a problem with providing yet another avenue for the power-gamer to lose, I actually like the prospect that a player has to pay attention to soooooo many details like ecodiversity or else face severe punishment.
EVENT: Pakistani king decides to introduce Australian Rabbits to boost military strength
RESULT: Rabbits run loose and eradicate 96% of crops one year, 42% of crops the following year before they are contained. Most powerful Pakistani empire goes broke as enemies conspire to sell grain at exorbitant prices. Empire is attacked, empire falls.
This provides another avenue for the rise & fall thing we've been trying so hard to do.
------------------
How will you make it if you never even try?
-Macy Gray
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
lol Guildmaster.
quote:
Pakistani king decides to introduce Australian Rabbits to boost military strength
|
So his troops would ride the rabbits to tremble his enemies?
Just kidding.
Anyway, I think that to avoid turning the animals thing into a clash style discussion, where we end up discussing the variables used when finding the cat population's effect on the rat population in each hex, we should keep the whole animals thing simple.
What I had in mind is much like Amjayee explained. You would simply know whether each animal was on a hex or not, and of cause each animal would have certain ecological restrictions, so no elephants working the fields of Finland. And each animal would then have a certain modifier, with which it would increase productivity in farming, on that hex (but since we are using provinces we will need a clever system to handle this). This modifier could be increased with the tech level, up to a certain point. And the people on the hex would just use the animal present with the highest modifier. So if both horses and oxes were on a hex, then in the early game the oxes would have a higher modifier than horses, but later on with increased tech levels the horses would get a higher modifier, and then the farmers would automatically change to use horses in stead of oxes when that happens.
And certain units requiring animals would only be producable in provinces with hexes with the animal on.
I think the food producing value of the animal would be done even simpler than the production things. Basically you should be able to get food from certain animals/all animals. And to get meat (a type of food) you would have to either hunt for it, or take it from a domesticated animal. And if you hunt for it the productivity would drop fast, so you wouldn't be able to get very much meat out of each tile. If you get it from a domesticated animal the productivity would propably not drop at all. So having animals would mean you would be able to get meat from them, and if you don't have them you would have to hunt for it.
A similar thing could be done with clothes. To make clothes in a province you would need either to hunt for hides, which would be very unproductive, have the required animals for clothing production, or have cotton or silk worms in the province.
It could be done that simple.
I have also been thinking a bit about having crops in the game. And since we are having raw materials anyway, it would make sence to have some plants, and just treat them like all other raw materials (like iron and coal) only make it possible to move them to new areas. Of cause the amount of plants should be restricted. And I still see no point in having wheat, corn and yams in the game. They all produce food, so what? Modelling all of them would be a lot of trouble with very little gain.
But having silk, cotton (and maybe cocaine?) as valuable trading goods, and give them a few extra options that other raw materials doesn't have would be cool.
------------------
"It ain't broke, so BREAK it."
- Raingoon
GGS Website
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Hmm I agree that we should limit the ammount of calculations we have to do regarding animals, like tracking cat populations vs. rat population. Maybe in the future we could do something like that but if we're going to go to that level of detail with the entire game we might as well be programming for the next 20 years.
Also I would like to introduce a different kind of animal:
"Exotic$namex$"
this is basically a luxury trade good, where "Name X" would refer to a list of available names for animals: Pandas, Koalas, Spotted Owels, Anacondas, Cheetah, etc. Each one would have a habitat no greater than three tiles, maybe even one or two tiles (maybe 4 depending). No separate demand functions for each one, the trade good itself is simply referred to as "Exotic Animals" and you import/export them one at a time.
More later right now I have to leave
------------------
How will you make it if you never even try?
-Macy Gray
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Janes
|
|
Simplifing the animals down to five or so groups is a good idea, but I'm not convinced why plants should be so simplified that they are simulated entirely differently then animals.
I agree that most areas of the world have had the chance to domesticate plants and that they all produce food. But different plants have enough difference and have had enough historical impact to be included in the game. Look at the impact New World foods had on European agriculture. Potatoes and corn greatly increased crop yield, the most famous example being Ireland. Using the efficient potato that had a high yeild and was able to grow in cold rocky soils the Irish were able to massively increase their population in a few generations. Then because they relied so much on one crop the Irish Potato Famine had disasterous effects on their country. We should be able to simulate that. Other notable times plants affected history include how the Carribean was turned into sugar plantions that were so valuable at the time of the American Revolution that they were worth more than America in terms of sales. Or their was the Chinese silk monopoly and all the trade that created.
There. So why simulate plants in an entirely different way then animals? You could have a couple plant types; exotic(sugar cane, tobbaco, rubber, silk worm mulbery bush, etc.), potato, grain type 1, grain type 2, and hmmm actualy that might be all you would need.
The reason for having two grain types instead of corn, wheat, rice, barley, etc. is that 1) it simplifies it and 2) by having more then one it allows for an agricultural boost if you diversify, which would encourage people to explore
The reason I left fruits and such out is that there are so many of them and grains and potatos account for something like 90% of our plant based intake.
Well I might be taking this to far so I'll think on it for awhile.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cavebear
|
 |
of the Pleistocene
Oct 1999
time: 00:14
|
|
Hi - I realize I am new to the discussion, but I think everyone may be making the plant and animal domestication too complicated for programming success.
Why not treat them as "technologies", using Civ2-type research to "domesticate"? Individual plants and animals could be improved through 3 levels each (for example, plants could be discovered in original form, improved to basic cultivation, then improved to modern standards). Animals could be discovered as food, improved to "husbandry" (raised food), then improved to labor status.
Plants and animals could be introduced for potential use in approximately the worldwide order of domestication (balanced out for competitive fairness).
Perhaps terrain and latitude would determine the timing of initial discovery. Terrain could determine which plants and animals are available for discovery. You could designate grassland to allow different plants and animals in different world regions (China grasslands would have slightly different plants and animals than South American grassland - grass1 and grass2).
I think that would keep to the GGS ideas, and reduce the computational complexity considerably.
I guess an important question is whether the game is primary and the GGS theme secondary, or vice versa... There are plenty of competitive games on themes, but only one GGS theme around which to construct a game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
XWaste
|
|
of passionpop
Aug 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
These ideas aren't fully worked out, but here are some thoughts I've been having on why I think a sophisticated model is needed for the environment, including types of plants and animals/domestication.
OK, the main problem I have with these sorts of games is that there is little motivation for war, except for the fact that it is a GAME and there an empire can somehow win.
Having a sophisticated land/animal system is needed so it can be linked to the economy/trade to provide the sort of motivations needed for realistic war with limited goals rather than the sort of huge empire building that is the only real motivation in these games.
OK, in the basic form you will have resource rich areas and resource poor, so if your neighbour has good land you are going to take it, especially if yours sucks. Also basic is the control of trading cities to bring in revenue.
But, consider these scenarios. Your big empire suddenly falls prey to a mouse plague destroying half your crops. Despite the hunger in the normal populace, you also have a large army demanding rations - you can either buy food (expensive) or put those grumbling solidiers to work.
Again, crop failure are also big causes of migration, look at the Irish potato famine. Whether you can find new land easily or have to take it by force is the choice you will have to make. I don't know if there has been any talk about having natural disasters (volcano's etc), but these are another reason for forced relocation.
Damaging agricultural practices have devasted large areas of land, producing many ghost towns.
There are cases where water resources are very scarce and have created conflict. What happens if a civ dams a river that was flowing into your land and used to irrigate your farms. Or what happens if the environmentally damaging practices of one civ on your borders starts to affect your lands? These all give reason for tension and conflict.
Also trade wars in the attempt to set up monopolies. The whole spice/drug wars of the 17/18 centuries (I think). These call for some sort of differentiation between different types of cash crops. If you are making lots of money off of say tea and start losing revenue to competition, you are going to start thinking about ways to get rid of them, either peaceful (stop trading this and I will give you this) or not.
The fact that some things can only be grown in certain areas is one of the huge motivating factors for expansion - why spread yourself out thin with all the problems of delayed command when you could just grow it at home. You need settlements/bases there to be able to collect the stuff - and ensure no one else gets it as well.
A sophisticated model will not just mean - oh I can have cattle and bison do the same thing, or grow both wheat and maize...wow. It will make the whole game environment much more dynamic, giving a lot more opportunity for both conflict and cooperation, giving each region there own real feel, giving the player much more control over the land whilst at the same time increasing their possible vulnerability (the rise fall thing you want to achieve). It will mean that rather having enemies attacking, and breaking alliances for no real reason other than you are doing too well will be less common, and what will be more common is that wars will be in response to cricumstance.
Just some thoughts anyway, I think a sophisticated model will provide much more benifit to the game than what people may think will be lost with the perceived complexity
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
Amjayee:
quote:
About producing stuff with animals; hunting would work like that, yes. For example certain amount of hunters would produce certain amount of food and/or hides per turn, depending on what kinds of animals are available.
|
Actually I think hunting would just depend on the terrain. Only when domesticating the animals they would be handled seperately.
Guildmaster:
Hmm, yeah, maybe. It might be pretty cool to have it, but I think we should try to not have too many things that in the big picture are pretty much unimportant. I mean, really, how much money is spent trading pandas per year in the world? What I am saying is, that we shouldn't have too many distinct goods, that are all really "small". Having one or a few Luxury Goods could propably be ok.
Plants:
I can see why you all believe they should be implemented. And I can see reasons why they should. But I can also see reasons why they shouldn't. I think that in order to have plants in the game they should provide some gameplay effect, other than the historical realism one.
I can't really decide this right now. I think that further discussion is required. And we don't have to decide anything at this point. Just, plants should be kept simple. We can't have too much complexity here. And they should have some gameplay effect.
Keep the discussion going!
------------------
"It ain't broke, so BREAK it."
- Raingoon
GGS Website
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-11-2000 04:51
|