>No, fuck that. It should be 3d50 and 4d50.

>>5656095
>No, fuck that. It should be 3d50 and 4d50.

>>5656095
>No, fuck that. It should be 3d50 and 4d50.

>>5656095
>>No, fuck that. It should be 3d50 and 4d50
Yeah

>>5656095
>No, fuck that. It should be 3d50 and 4d50.

File: MATH! Math Math Math! MATH!.png (144 KB, 1539x623)

144 KB PNG

>>5656177
>>5656213
>>5656217
>>5656418
>>5656560
You got it, its so simple, why didn't someone figure this out like ten years ago?!? 2d100 is a HUGE improvement over 1d100, AND its likely that if one dice is high, the other will be low. The average climbs from 50.5, to 101 as well.

If you change it to 3d50, the averages become 50.5 and 76.5, respectfully. Its a 50% bonus, which is still good, rather than a 100% bonus like before. In fact, you pull up the anydice software and it seems that 2d100 had an easier time getting to at least 101 or higher, but a harder time getting to at least any number less than average. Do players really want a higher chance of really bad and really good rolls? Sure it sounds exciting, but wouldn't that mean that a whole civilization could be wiped out on one roll despite having a stat maxed out?

Now you know that the lowest stat should be 1d25, and the next should be 1d50. https://anydice.com/program/2f4f1

You passions and sufferings and rage ARE NOT SOOTHED! BURN! BURN MORE! ANGY! The traditional D&D feeling, stock fantasy setting makes you so mad. YOU MUST DO SOMETHING ESLE!!

Choices, FIRST TO 3:

>Clearly, the choices and setting should reflect a more Iron Age / Classical or earlier time period. Maybe you'll keep the fantasy races, but the tone should be like AoE1 or the early part of Civilization games

>No, you want to stick to the Middle Ages, to encourage rapid adoption of your revolutionary ideas. Wouldn't it be great to start things off like a AoE2 game, or like a Dark Ages setting? You could have people building in or around ruins, you could be literal barbarians, and its better than just having it a freshly settled tribe magically making plate armor way too fast.

>Fuck, no. No No No. Sci-Fi. You want Sci-Fi. Not Post Apocalypse. You heard there are like three guys that perfected that. You want like a space colonization, Stellaris, Galactic Civilizations, Alpha Centari like feel. Yes. Something with a setting like Traveller or SWN

>>5656656
>Clearly, the choices and setting should reflect a more Iron Age / Classical or earlier time period. Maybe you'll keep the fantasy races, but the tone should be like AoE1 or the early part of Civilization games

>>5656656
>Clearly, the choices and setting should reflect a more Iron Age / Classical or earlier time period. Maybe you'll keep the fantasy races, but the tone should be like AoE1 or the early part of Civilization games.

>>5656656
>No, you want to stick to the Middle Ages, to encourage rapid adoption of your revolutionary ideas. Wouldn't it be great to start things off like a AoE2 game, or like a Dark Ages setting? You could have people building in or around ruins, you could be literal barbarians, and its better than just having it a freshly settled tribe magically making plate armor way too fast.

>>5656656
>Clearly, the choices and setting should reflect a more Iron Age / Classical or earlier time period. Maybe you'll keep the fantasy races, but the tone should be like AoE1 or the early part of Civilization games

File: NOT AS SHIT CIV SHEET.jpg (3.13 MB, 1500x6400)

3.13 MB JPG

>>5656935
>>5656688
>>5656668
Of course! It all makes sense now! You've had two scoops of G-fuel and pulled out some of your hair, but the answer is so clear now. A /civ/ game or whatever should start at like a Stone Age or tribal level or like after the Bronze Age Collapse. That way they don't have to fight a bunch of other civilizations, there are some barbarians and raiders, and also some ruins and space to grow.

You look over the stats in the most recent fantasy civilization quest or whatever the fuck it was.

Breeding
Ranged
Melee
Magic
Tech
Diplomacy

Already, you think "Breeding" is a perverted, degenerate name. Why not call it "Growth" or something? Also, "Ranged" really? So retarded. You start digging through so many civilization quests using this same shit sheet, till you see it, the light. A better sheet.

Growth
Military
Culture
Industry
Education
Magic

>>5657077
Sadly, a bout of madness consumes you and you are heavily heavily tempted to use Civilization Call to Power 2 or Civ 3 Mechanics. But at the same time you want to be true to some aspect of the old Civilization Quest Tradition.

You could stick to:
Growth
Military
Magic
Industry
Technology
Diplomacy

or do:
Growth
Military
Culture
Industry
Education
Magic

There is also a terrible whisper in your mind that speaks, coming from your 60+ hours playing Call to Power 2 and also Civilization 3. "You should have an Economy or Commerce stat, and then have the ability to funnel that into Science, Industry, Culture, or Military

You stare at your wordpad. What to do?

Choices, FIRST TO 3:

Do you call the stat Technology, Education, or Science?
>Technology
>Education
>Science

Do you call the stat Culture or Diplomacy
>Culture
>Diplomacy

Do you add Commerce as a 7th stat? Or do you replace Growth or Magic with it?
>Add it as a 7th stat!
>Replace Growth with it
Growth should be decided by how much food, what government they have, technology, health, or something.
>Replace Magic with it
Fuck Magic, all my homies hate Magic. This Civilization format should be more realistic, or magic should be part of Technology.
>Don't add Commerce
No, that should be either not a mechanic or something handed by stockpile organizing or government type.

>>5657092
>Technology
>Diplomacy
>Add it as a 7th stat!

>>5657092
>Science
>Diplomacy
>Don't add Commerce

He's starting to think it should be called Diplomacy, but if it's called that, then it can't be used for immigration rules or whatever. People move into prosperous empires all the time, but maybe that should not be caused by other factors?

>>5657092
>Technology
>Diplomacy
>Add it as a 7th stat!

>>5657092
>Technology
>Culture
>Replace Industry with Economy
whats the point of Industry if theres already Technology and Military stat

>>5657092
>Technology
>Diplomacy
and
>Keep Breeding
this stat name was the only entertaining thing about those quests

>>5657092
>>Technology
>>Influence instead of culture or diplomacy
>> Dont add Commerce

>>5657167
>>5657123
>>5657782
>>5657698
You've reached a dilemma. Sure, you know you want to have it called Technology and have the other thing called Diplomacy (maybe Influence some day). But you're torn between adding commerce or not adding it. Also, you got kinda horny and masturbated at some point, but then got bored with it and felt disgusted. The voices that say to add commerce are older, but your doubts are more specific about why things are so.

You decide to make commerce a government or society thing, not a Race or Heritage or Species or whatever thing.

Next is the hard part. You want people to pick a state or government so badly. However, you aren't sure if the government should just be a single type like in Civ 3 or Call to Power 2, or if it should be a collection of three or so different aspects. You load up the Social Engineering page for that space game you heard of. You also pull up the article for Fascism in Call to Power 2.
https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Social_Engineering_(SMAC)
https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Fascism_(government)_(CTP2)

Choices, FIRST TO 3:

>Have people pick a democracy, oligarchy, despotism, or something like that.
That single choice will decide change stats up and down. Clearly the democracy one will be good at money, growth, and talking to people: but the other one will be better at fighting people and maybe industry. Maybe this is too basic?

>Have them make a series of minor or major choices, that combined form their "government"?
Like maybe they have an economics policy, a military policy, and then a government one. Right? Maybe this is too complicated?

>>5658036
>Have them make a series of minor or major choices, that combined form their "government"?

Gov stereotypes have been done long enough. Let policy bring some flavor.

>>5658036
>Have them make a series of minor or major choices, that combined form their "government"?

>>5658036
>Have people pick a democracy, oligarchy, despotism, or something like that
>Have them make a series of minor or major choices, that combined form their "government"?
No no no no God no. The moment you type in "democracy", or "fascism", or similar your quest becomes a pol quest. It will get overtaken by polshitters. Your original intentions will have 0 relevance on this development.

>>5658036
>Have them make a series of minor or major choices, that combined form their "government"?
what >>5658163 said

File: Some Civ 4 Mod Who FUCKIN(...).png (648 KB, 1012x536)

648 KB PNG

>>5658211
>>5658163
>>5658098
>>5658082
Yeah, having it be a specific government type limits options and also it means that you'll attract those cursed /pol/tards. You slap your forehead, it's so obvious. Your options were going to be Republic and Monarchy, for the older games, and Oligarchy, Classical Republic, and Autocracy for that new fangled Civ 6 that came out.

But how to have people picking options how to rule without using any of these words? Hmm? Well the only games you know that let you build a state like legos and that were turn based, and in the distant past: were those Civ 4 and Alpha Centauri games. Perhaps you should look there.

No Dice. They also use the word Democracy. You check some ancient mod for Civ 4, a Chinese history mod for Civ 4, and Alpha Centaruri.

File: CHINESE MOD HHHHHHHHHHHHH(...).png (920 KB, 1176x803)

920 KB PNG

>>5658221

>>5658222
Urgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg, and you have like textbooks and you took courses online because you have social anxiety. You breathe in and out of the paper bag, no wait, it's plastic, what if it gives you micro-plastics? You look around for a paper bad, you don't have one. You give up and begin breathing in and out into a canvas bag bunched up around your mouth. Too much G-fuel, you're so insane but you're also so tired?!!?!?

Choices, FIRST TO 3:

>Um, what if instead of democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. What if. We could just call it Rule of The Many, Rule of the Few, and Rule of the One.
Would that be smart enough to bypass some of the /pol/tards, that and looking at IDs?

>No wait, that's not smart enough, or it's too smart. You have such a headache. Perhaps you could just have voters pick between having being being shepherds, being coastal traders, and being farmers.
Obviously, that one class you took, told you that coastal trading people wanted an oligarchy, pastoralists wanted the community to rule, and a warrior class would take over farming areas.
Granted, you could weasel in the option for a farmer's militia or citizen hoplites or something. Typically that's partnered with people voting.

>Or maybe they would vote for what their people were good at.
Yeah. That's like the last option, but if the people are naturally good at fighting, there will be voting. Right?

>>5658224
>Or maybe they would vote for what their people were good at.

>>5658224
OP you are thinking about all of this through pol lenses. First of all, why apply modern concepts to bronze age, or anything before modern age? Describing your entire bronze age society as "Oligarchy" or "Tribal" or whatever just does not make any fucking sense because there was no overaching government in the first place. Read http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2006/06/jurisdiction-as-property-and-peer-to.html then leave the academia out of game design.

Giving out a vote where players decide your civ is now [descriptor] is retarded and bad game design anyways. What you do instead is describe external or internal pressures (seems this other tribe is about to start raiding you) (a group of traders united behind this guy give you a petition to allow them to establish this thing called joint stock company but this will also diminish your power in this way), give options to deal with these pressures and just by these options being voted in a faction within your civ will be created/gain/lose power relative to other factions. This also allows you to handle population growth/expansion in a natural way where a faction may be exiled/decides to go away.

Let's just rewind to >>5657092 and try again

>>5658244
Akkually~, a lot of the concepts you're saying are modern are literally written down by people like Plato. I actually took a whole course on the Classical and Ancient period. The Egyptians, Sumerians, Indus River Valley, and Yellow River civilizations all very clearly had centralized states. After the Bronze Age Collapse, among the Israelites, Phoenicians, and Greek Cities, we see more centralized states, some oligarchies, and one or two democracies.
The blog post, without sources, that you list, is stupid. It's stupid because it pretends that mall cops existing somehow means that the United States Federal Government doesn't have a monopoly on force (It does. It has machine guns, tanks, and nuclear weapons.)
The rest of the post speaks like it's trying to use the thickest corporate jargon possible, to just go on and on about how states or governments delegate out authority. Be aware that all the examples it names are during Feudalism or Federalism, both systems almost entirely about delegating out authority.
Before the Middle Ages, people were far less likely to delegate out authority. The Pharaoh literally decided EVERY. SINGLE. THING. The Chinese Emperor had the same control.
>Giving out a vote where players decide your civ is now [descriptor] is retarded and bad game design anyways. What you do instead is describe external or internal pressures (seems this other tribe is about to start raiding you) (a group of traders united behind this guy give you a petition to allow them to establish this thing called joint stock company but this will also diminish your power in this way), give options to deal with these pressures and just by these options being voted in a faction within your civ will be created/gain/lose power relative to other factions. This also allows you to handle population growth/expansion in a natural way where a faction may be exiled/decides to go away.
That's not going to happen. Societies either had whatever state type that had, purely based on location, or purely based on what systems they've previously rejected. Groups that were in power, were entirely in power due to geographical circumstances. For example, Sparta almost always had a Duoarchy, why? Because it was on the flattest land possible, it was nowhere near the coast, and it had few or no shepherds.
Even today, elections are almost entirely decided by demographics and demographics are almost entirely decided by geography.
At the same time,
>give options to deal with these pressures and just by these options being voted in a faction within your civ will be created/gain/lose power relative to other factions.
That's not going to happen buster, because if you've played any serious games related or understood politics, you would understand that suppressing a faction often just makes it stronger. Sure it can't act publicly, but it makes it far better at overthrowing you or using violence.

it is no use someone will start a civ thread using the shitty template again and again

unless you make a better template, and the criteria for "better" is merely visual

>>5658879
I was thinking on making one but with waifus as races but the amount of unbridled coomer power it would have had scares me.

>>5658560
The type of government is just flavor text anyway, the true decisional power is in the hands of the anons, be they called oligarcs, senators or the inner voices inside the head of the dictator/king/emperor.
You should put a centralization of power stat which governs how much resistance there is to new policies vs the chance of spontaneous positive initiatives.

>>5659239
That's in the next vote, Buster. We need to finish this current one. I've seen that as a stat and I've been thinking it should be included, so thanks for the encouragement.

>>5659241
>Um, what if instead of democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy. What if. We could just call it Rule of The Many, Rule of the Few, and Rule of the One.

Then i feel like this could be the choice (of choices?) More in line with what i'm thinking since it kind of ties into what level of narrative distance players might want from the text.

Rule of one as first person with hereditary traits.

Rule of few as different points of view for each "hero" unit

Rule of many as an impartial will of the city third person.

>>5658224
>Or maybe they would vote for what their people were good at.

>>5658560
>That's not going to happen buster, because if you've played any serious games related or understood politics, you would understand that suppressing a faction often just makes it stronger. Sure it can't act publicly, but it makes it far better at overthrowing you or using violence.
Dumbest shit I’ve ever heard. Wow, I didn't know that the Cathars got stronger after they were annihilated, that the far-left movement in Japan actually surged in popularity after the assassination of Inejiro Asanuma or that the Sicilian Mafia was incredibly successful in overthrowing Fascist Italy all without the help of the Allies.

>>5660273
You didn't notice that people often say things like "We need to make sure he doesn't die, because then he'll become a martyr". Many religious denominations, whole religions even, spread faster the more they were persecuted.

The Sicilian Mafia was literally propped up by the Fascists, there was widespread accusations that the Fascists actually just bribed the Mafia or were openly working with them.

The American "Patriots" were seen as violent extremists who poured molten hot rock onto people over petty issues, and they were proven in a fair trail to be attempting to provoke persecution upon themselves. It was only after the UK State overreacted and punished everyone, that support for the Revolution began to grow.

The Nazi's bombing London, only increased support for the war.

Rap music literally tried to get itself targeted by busy bodies and conservatives, as a marketing tool, for decades.

In fact, most of the time, suppressing an attempt at Revolution or Political outrage, just makes the protests bigger and bigger and bigger. This has happened half a dozen times in just the last four years. Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, each of these states failed, some failed twice, to put down protests and uprising.

In fact, most of the time, when a large political movement that is protesting is defeated, the most successful method appears to be ignoring them or not taking them seriously. Using violence works maybe 40% of the time, at most, inside "ideal" balls to the wall dictatorship conditions.

>>5658230
>>5658244
>>5658879
>>5659239
>>5659287
>>5659506
You are torn between two different options. Your mind is weary and tired from this affair, leaving you unable to decide between the options. You have even decided to ask a few people here or there, but they have only mocked you for being insane enough to consider doing anything with the civilization format. Even worse, you realize that you can't encourage any reform as you don't want to risk putting in so much time to make a new sheet and you know that you are unlikely to make one that looks good enough. You know that the art coomers of the board need their art to coom too. Even if it's just a "good looking" starting sheet.

Perhaps you could compromise and have part of the decision on how things are run in the civilization decided by how the bonuses or tradeoffs the players desire, but also have them decided by what location the players pick to originate in or what they wish to specialize in.

Final vote. Choices, FIRST TO 3:

>Try making like a manual like Genie, that post-apocalyptic civ guy.
Just a few pages, and you will present your options the same way he does. Perhaps if you pick good starting images, even if they don't have a bunch of stats, that will be enough for the art coomers.

>Prepare part of a starting image, and beg or pander people to finish it or help you.
Because trying to do a grassroots movement isn't cringe. Right?

>>5661805
>>Prepare part of a starting image, and beg or pander people to finish it or help you.
>Because trying to do a grassroots movement isn't cringe. Right?

funny of you to say it, but the original civ image was pure garbage looking until some anon remade it to look good

the cyoa community digs this sort of thing, so if you make a new ruleset for the images you can find someone to do the actual design for you with as little effort as spamming your shitty prototype everyday

>>5661819
https://archived.moe/files/qst/image/1463/54/1463542795892.png
Like this?

>>5661805
>Prepare part of a starting image, and beg or pander people to finish it or help you.

>>5661805
>Prepare part of a starting image, and beg or pander people to finish it or help you.

OP, breaking character, you should take a look at this civ. It only lasted one thread, but it's unironically one of the best classic-style civs I've ever seen. (It also includes a modified OP image.) https://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/qstarchive/2019/3143003/

This one is more of a civ-ish quest, but it's also really good. https://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/qstarchive.html?searchall=tide+of+ages

In general, I think focusing your civ around a central viewpoint character is the way to go for longevity, at least based on what I've seen. Food for thought.

>>5661910
Scrap the first to 3 votes, that's a relic from /tg/.

Also more inspiration: Ogre Civ Quest is a wacky comedy, but it has some good ideas about actual civ progression, too. https://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/qstarchive.html?searchall=ogre+civ

>>5661910
>https://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/qstarchive/2019/3143003/
Gnomes. Swamp.

https://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/qstarchive.html?tags=when+will+they+learn
Vote it up

>>5664915

A prototype thread is up. Great way to test mechanics.