 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
'k....it's not yet complete, by any means, but here is how I see the sliders system/Government policies page shaping up:
What I'm visualizing is a series of EU style sliders that operate between poles (well, and one triangle that I'll get to momentarily).
These would be things like:
Innovative <----> Dogmatic
The essence of this slider would be that the more heavily slanted toward innovation you are, the cheaper your tech rate, and the more slanted toward the other end (Pious?) the more influence your temples generate.
*****
The triangle would be between
Feudal
Theocratic Republican
Everybody but Castillar would begin squarely on the Feudal aspect (Castillar would begin slightly toward theocratic). The benefits are:
Feudal - Baseline (standard game effects)
Theocratic - Cheaper dealings with the Church (cheaper intercessions, cheaper spells), but less productivity and less happiness in non-religous majority provinces
Republican - More individual freedom means more productivity, but it also leads to more social discontent (or more precisely, more openly expressed discontent), including a lack of fondness for an offensive military and a state of war with other factions.
*****
Tax Rate:
Oppressive <----> Light
Leaning toward the oppressive end would enable you to generate more cash, but you'd have to also deal with more unhappiness, including the risk of population flight.
Toward the light end, would see less total money coming in, but another boost to productivity and happiness
*****
Religious Tolerance Slider:
At game start, select a state religion based on the demographics information available to you on your starting provinces.
If your state religion is the only active slider, your society is zealoutous, and you'll see dramatically unhappier people if you control provinces with a religion different from your state religion.
The more religious tolerance sliders you activate, the more you can juggle (you could easily keep two different religions happy, but adding the 3rd or 4th slider would cause the general unhappiness level for all religions to drop, and it would increase the (as yet to be defined) war weariness effect, which, among other things, would increase the chances of rebellion a la EU.
*****
Religious outlook slider
Fundamentalism----->Pluralism
A possible "single slider" approach to the religious tolerance approach that may be easier to implement.
*****
Economic outlook
Entreprenureal ----> Collectivism
One increases productivity and taxes, the other increases population stratification percentages (ie - the chances that your people will express their unhappiness with the way provinces are set up will by moving to provinces that are more to their liking). Collectivism also reduces taxes and productivity somewhat.
*****
Inter-Kingdom Relations (needs name change)
Nationalist ----> Pluralistic (needs word change if we go with the alt. rel. slider)
Nationalists see higher troop morale rates, Pluralists get more of a trade bonus.
*****
Others????
During the course of the game, when certain (as yet to be defined) conditions are met, you are awarded with governance points. These points can be used to set the overall policies in all your provinces (that is to say, these set policy globally for your holdings). I like the EU notion of only allowing one "step" change every so often, so that it would take a good deal of time and consistently meeting the (as yet to be defined) goals in order to slowly meld your society into the one you're after and that best suits whatever strategy you're pursuing.
Thoughts?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
I don't understand the feudal/theocratic/republican slider. Is it a triangular slider. Seems complicated. Maybe just make it 2 sliders
1. republican <----> feudal
2. theocratism is probably already implied by the religious slider that you've got. Don't overcomplicate things. Or if you do...than you need to make it clearer what the differences are. but I voet for not overcomlicateing things.
Just out of curiosity: Is this type of social control meant to be a big factor in the game? I would think that "fantasy lovers" tend to enjoy this type of thing (all the sliders and all that) less than "science fiction" types. Fantasy lovers being more right brain. And sci fi types being more left brain. Just an intuition.
Last edited by TCO on 31-05-2002 at 23:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Thanks Cyclo... Chalk it up to Vel bein' hard at work inventing his own language (spodabe, snackages, scragged, a plethora of others... )
And to GP - Good idea on making two governmental sliders....for those choosing the more theocratic route, the religion slider/form of government is meant to magnify its effect (as one of theocracy's advantages), so I'd rather keep the two separate, if at all possible.
In terms of importance....I consider the governmental policies screen to be rather like the fine tuning on a stereo. If you just switch it to the station you want, you hear music. But if you fiddle with the settings a bit, you get a crisper sound.
Important yes, but more important for the micro management hounds, who are looking to squeeze maximum possible advantage out of everything. That said, I think it'll be pivotal in the MP environment.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cyclotron7
|
 |
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001
time: 21:19
|
|
I agree partially, gp. The first triangular slider I came up against was the one in SimAnt, and since it's not incremental it's pretty hard to deal with it in a non-arbitrary way.
As for the appeal of sliders, I think that as long as they are incrememtal (5%, 10%, 15%...) it's not too hard for somebody to use. I understand you're talking about interest, not ease of use, but keep in mind that in Civ2 the sliders were very much short term. If you needed a tech fast, you jacked up the science for a few turns, and if you needed quick cash you hit the tax slider. Sliders in CB will be long term settings that can't be turned so easily. As I see CB, you find your "good fit" and stay there, moving away gradually if another society would fit your game strategy better. So, you use the sliders a lot less, and that will probably balance out the fact that there are quite a few of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Another excellent idea (and yep...that was one of the articles that made me smile....the part about listening to the team....I'm thinking that we're gonna get some pretty high marks where that's concerned!) 
More clarity re: the Theocratic "government" vs. religiosity in general:
Governments tending toward Theocratic control (on the slider of that type) will see bonuses to influence gained via temples and other religous builds (perhaps not tied to the temples themselves, as that gain would be doubling the effect of the temples where Influence is concerned (1--->2), but we could use some ratio of total territories controlled (example: a Theocratically based government may get 1 bonus influence per four territories controlled, and this ratio would get more bountiful the further up the theocratic government slider you went)). Additionally, theocracies would see a greater happiness effect from their temples in the declared state religion (and it just occured to me that if we're going to have Theocracy as a government type, then we really need to have a declared "state religion" as that opens up some interesting bonus opportunities to theocracies), and see greater productivity when building further religious enhancements in territories. I'm also toying with giving theocracies a morale boost for their troops.
Theocracies will suffer though, where taxes are concerned (lots of tithes, and other church sponsored events to separate the faithful from their money). This will also lead to a greater unhappiness effect among non-religious archetypes, and in many more than normal cases, their unhappiness will be expressed violently (and will be put down equally violently, I would imagine).
The "other" religious slider, at the dogmatic end of the scale will make spells and intercessions cheaper than the norm, and make increasingly high powered spells available, the further down the dogmatic (fundamentalist) scale you go, while dramatically increasing the cost/decreasing the selection of spells from non-state religions. At the other end, tolerance will normalize costs among all religions, open up a wide (but not deep) range of spells available from all the religions, but it will also increase the likelihood of war weariness and open rebellion.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
|
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cyclotron7
I agree partially, gp. The first triangular slider I came up against was the one in SimAnt, and since it's not incremental it's pretty hard to deal with it in a non-arbitrary way.
As for the appeal of sliders, I think that as long as they are incrememtal (5%, 10%, 15%...) it's not too hard for somebody to use. I understand you're talking about interest, not ease of use, but keep in mind that in Civ2 the sliders were very much short term. If you needed a tech fast, you jacked up the science for a few turns, and if you needed quick cash you hit the tax slider. Sliders in CB will be long term settings that can't be turned so easily. As I see CB, you find your "good fit" and stay there, moving away gradually if another society would fit your game strategy better. So, you use the sliders a lot less, and that will probably balance out the fact that there are quite a few of them. |
Would be intersting if you can only move the sliders every 5 or 10 or 20 turns (not sure the right number). Would make it less of a micromanagment hassle and would make it more strategic (since you have to live with it.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999
time: 13:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
Would be intersting if you can only move the sliders every 5 or 10 or 20 turns (not sure the right number). Would make it less of a micromanagment hassle and would make it more strategic (since you have to live with it.) |
And more to the point maybe they can only be changed by a small percentage (<5%/10%?) or so even then - Reflects the diminishing return from a sudden "quick fix"...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
|
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Another excellent idea (and yep...that was one of the articles that made me smile....the part about listening to the team....I'm thinking that we're gonna get some pretty high marks where that's concerned!)
More clarity re: the Theocratic "government" vs. religiosity in general:
Governments tending toward Theocratic control (on the slider of that type) will see bonuses to influence gained via temples and other religous builds (perhaps not tied to the temples themselves, as that gain would be doubling the effect of the temples where Influence is concerned (1--->2), but we could use some ratio of total territories controlled (example: a Theocratically based government may get 1 bonus influence per four territories controlled, and this ratio would get more bountiful the further up the theocratic government slider you went)). Additionally, theocracies would see a greater happiness effect from their temples in the declared state religion (and it just occured to me that if we're going to have Theocracy as a government type, then we really need to have a declared "state religion" as that opens up some interesting bonus opportunities to theocracies), and see greater productivity when building further religious enhancements in territories. I'm also toying with giving theocracies a morale boost for their troops.
Theocracies will suffer though, where taxes are concerned (lots of tithes, and other church sponsored events to separate the faithful from their money). This will also lead to a greater unhappiness effect among non-religious archetypes, and in many more than normal cases, their unhappiness will be expressed violently (and will be put down equally violently, I would imagine).
The "other" religious slider, at the dogmatic end of the scale will make spells and intercessions cheaper than the norm, and make increasingly high powered spells available, the further down the dogmatic (fundamentalist) scale you go, while dramatically increasing the cost/decreasing the selection of spells from non-state religions. At the other end, tolerance will normalize costs among all religions, open up a wide (but not deep) range of spells available from all the religions, but it will also increase the likelihood of war weariness and open rebellion.
-=Vel=- |
Vel, I'm ok with this concept (in terms of the strategic choices) but we need to make the names clearer. The average Joe is gonna have a hard time wading through the explanation you gave. We can keep all the same effects but just change the names and the rationale for the effects. Also, I think it is a little counterintuitive to have a strong theocracy with multiple religions.
Maybe the 2 sliders could be renamed "strength of religious belief" and "diversity of releigious belief".* One axis is how relegious the people are at ALL. One is how much they concentrate their religion in the state religion.
-------------------------------
1. Religious strength
Ardent beleivers <----> Apathetic slugs
2. Religious diversity
Orthodoxy <-----> Herecy
-------------------------------
All the strategic effects are exactly the same as you mentioned. The game rationale for (2) is exactly the same. For (1) there is a bit of a different rationale (for the same effects). Strong religious beleifs make the temples more effective, but waste money since the citizens spend money on sacrifices. This has the benefit of not confusing things with the authoritirian slider (governmental rationale).
*We actually need single word titles. But give me some time on this.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-05-2002 19:52
Sorry guy....I have not! 
|