Civilization: The Expansion Project
https://dev.civproject.net/forum/

Diaspora
https://dev.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=474		 Page 1 of 6
Author:  Jonno [ 2008-03-26 11:56:48 ]
Post subject:  Diaspora
At this years GothCon playtest an interesting question came up.

The question concerned Diaspora, and whether it really was a diaspora if you moved into an adjacent area. Basically, the question was if Diaspora should only affect non-adjacent areas to which you could trace a path. I think it sort of makes sense, what do the rest of you think?
Author:  Johannes [ 2008-03-26 14:10:58 ]
Post subject: 
I think of letting it to be as it is. Diaspora lets me think of what happened to the Israeli "civilization", described in the bible, where the (Jewish) people went everywhere around the world seeking for rest, including "adjacent empty areas."
Author:  Flo de Haan [ 2008-03-26 18:25:23 ]
Post subject: 
I kinda agree with Johannes.

'adjacent' in the game may not mean 'adjacent' in real life.

Besides that, it'd limit the card this much, that it could be doubted to keep the card in anyway.

point three: sometimes you gotta change the rules a bit to differ from real life to get a good game.

Ever played "monopoly"?
It would be a bad game if all quantities would fit reality.
Ever played Settlers of Catan?
building a city with grain and ore only.

Civilization has these things anyway.
example: You collect tax. then you purchase a fleet, sacrificing citizens and using the tax collected to prevent your citizens from revolting next 100 years.
Author:  wege [ 2008-03-27 20:42:40 ]
Post subject: 
As I recall the main objection was leaving an area within ones borders free of population and with diaspora building a wilderness city without any tokens. That is not how it is intended to be used.
Author:  Flo de Haan [ 2008-03-27 20:50:33 ]
Post subject: 
aha,

That's not how I interpreted it.

(I have never used the card in a game)

It could be suggested that there should be a limit to the card.
Something like 'Only if there's a city site in this area, a city may be placed this way.

In my opninion only beacuse of the gaming-ability. Not beacuse of the card being more or less realistic.

Though it sounds a bit strange to me, that you could colonize a desert, building a city without any options of trade routes, water sources and strategic reason. Even large cities like 'Ur' were abandoned when those reasons fell away.
(wikipedia:However the city started to decline from around 550 BC and was no longer inhabited after about 500 BC, perhaps owing to drought, changing river patterns, and the silting of the outlet to the Persian Gulf.)
Nevertheless, You can build wilderness cities in the first place, though it costs you a lot.

Let's put the Flavour text here, to make sure we all talk about the same definition and interpretation of 'Diaspora' and 'Urbanism.

Diaspora

Initially the term diaspora meant
‘the scattered’ and was used by the ancient
Greeks to refer to citizens of a dominant
city-state. or polis, who emigrated to a
conquered land with the purpose of
colonization, to assimilate the territory into
the empire.
The current meaning started to develop
from this original sense when the Old
Testament was translated into Greek.
The word ‘diaspora’ there being used to
refer to the population of Jews exiled from
Judea in 586 BC by the Babylonians, and
now is used to refer to any people or ethnic
population who are forced or induced to
leave their traditional homelands.
Urbanism

The word Urbanism is led from the city of
Ur, an ancient city in southern Mesopotamia
(modern Iraq), located near the mouth (at
the time) of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers
on the Persian Gulf and close to Eridu.
The Sumerian name for this city was ‘Urim’.
Around 3000 BC the small farming villages
of the Ubaid culture consolidated into
larger settlements, arising from the need for
large-scale, centralized irrigation works to
survive the dry spell. Ur became one such
center by around 2600 BC.
The location of Ur was favourable for trade,
by both sea and land routes, into Arabia. It
became the largest city in the world from
2030 to 1980 BC. Its population was
approximately 65,000.
Author:  Jonno [ 2008-03-28 8:27:32 ]
Post subject: 
While the wilderness city constriction case was the worst case scenario, my impression was that the complaint was more general, to be able to move out of an area in the middle of your civilization, and then populate it, whether with an ordinary city, wilderness city, or just free tokens.
Author:  Flo de Haan [ 2008-03-28 9:08:43 ]
Post subject: 
Well, when looking at reality. That HAS been done before.

Abandoned cities, repopulated by the same or other cultures in a later time.
That simple fact does not seem so strange to me.
Many cities are built on top of former cities of the same or different culture.

Besides. It does not only need to be interpreted as running away from an area to later populate it again.
You could aslo see it like this:

As a culture develops, it moves around. And I'm talking about the center of the civilization. (For example, the center of the Roman Empire has not always stayed in Rome.. Constantinpole became the new center (44 BC – AD 286))
This leaves gaps in population in a certain area when all in focussed on another place.
Whenever a population grows, it is looking for new places to colonize or discover. This way it can move to places that are empty at THAT time. Regardless of what happened in that area before, whether their own folk lived there, whether a foreign folk lived there, whether no folk ever lived there.

What I want to say is. In the game, you might use the card like on purpose move out of an area to repopulate it with even more tokens. Though it should not only be translated to reality this way.

This way there are several more situation that are only GAME-like, not reality-like.

What about a starting civilization sacrificing all to build a fleet that cannot be maintained, only to return during a civil war hundreds of years later.
Author:  Jonno [ 2008-03-28 9:27:52 ]
Post subject: 
Flo de Haan wrote:
Well, when looking at reality. That HAS been done before.

Abandoned cities, repopulated by the same or other cultures in a later time.
That simple fact does not seem so strange to me.
Many cities are built on top of former cities of the same or different culture.

Yes that has happened in reality, and does happen in the game without the Diaspora advancement by simply moving in to the area / rebuilding the city the next turn.

The question is whether it is consistent with a "Diaspora", which is supposed to be a scattering of people, not repopulating the homeland.

And while I have no problems with a Diaspora going to an area previously occupied by the same nation, I just don't think it's a "Diaspora" if it is the centre of an area currently occupied by that civilization.

Flo de Haan wrote:
This way there are several more situation that are only GAME-like, not reality-like.

What about a starting civilization sacrificing all to build a fleet that cannot be maintained, only to return during a civil war hundreds of years later.

Yes, there are always those ;)
But even though some unrealistic moves are possible in the game doesn't mean that we have to encurege other unrealistic moves.
Author:  Gerart de Haan [ 2008-03-29 10:00:07 ]
Post subject: 
I think we can have two different discussions:

1) Is it realistic to leave an area within your civilization deliberately empty, and to 'fill' it again under the name of Diaspora?

2) Is it desirable that Diaspora can be used in this way during the game?

Since I never saw Diaspora being played in a game, I never thought of 'misusing' the card in this way. However, I think I would answer 'no' to both questions I stated. I would like to think of a good additional restriction in order to prevent either expansion 'within' an empire with Diaspora or the building of wilderness cities for free.

Possible restrictions:

a) A city can only be built in areas containing a city site (which suggested Flo already). It reduces the power of the card, but does not change the discussion about the realistic aspect of Diaspora.

b) Jonno's idea of 'non-adjacent areas to which you could trace a path' seems a little bit limited to me. What about areas may only be 'filled' if they share at least one (land-)border with another civilization (or something like that). In this way, it can usually be used at the outer borders of an empire only.
Author:  Flo de Haan [ 2008-03-29 11:39:23 ]
Post subject: 
I thought about this yesterday, and came to somehow the same options as Gerart does. I don't have much problems with the card being 'unrealistic' though. I don't see the use as being unrealistic at all.

The city-site thing is a good option to me.
The non-adjacent area is too limited to me
The area neighbouring another player seems good to me, because this way, you might not want to leave the area unpopulated at all.
Except when you move later than your neighbour.

An additional addition could be. 'the area my not be populated by your token this turn.' , though I'm not sure about that.

anyone?
Author:  wege [ 2008-03-29 11:58:18 ]
Post subject: 
Using Diaspora to build a city in a city site is ok but I think we should remove the possibility to build wilderness cities. However you should be able to transfer/add tokens in a non-city site. Thus still using the diaspora.

I think you should be able to Diaspora (used as a verb) to areas struck by calamaties. Thus the last suggestion by Flo won't work.
Author:  Flo de Haan [ 2008-03-29 12:13:11 ]
Post subject: 
You got a point.

SO:

- You should be abled to put tokens in an area without a city site.
- You should not be abled to build a city in an area withou a city site.
- You should be abled to put tokens or a city in an area being depopulated by a calamity this turn.
- You should not be abled to put tokens or a city in an area being depopulated by any other means this turn

Optional:
You should be abled to only put tokens or a city in an area adjacent to any of your neighbours' area's


This is hard to put in a reasonable line or rule.

This way I kinda tend to only opting the non-wildenss city addition and leave the card as it is, accepting the way it can be used. It IS 270 after all, and you could get other cards too, giving you cities.

Another discussion was the limit of using special abilities, that's still to be playtested. I also tend to that thing too.
Author:  Gerart de Haan [ 2008-03-29 14:32:05 ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
This is hard to put in a reasonable line or rule.



I agree on that, and also on the idea of only avoiding the possibility of building wilderness-cities.

In that way, the attribute text could be something like:

During the Special Abilities Phase, you may place a city or tokens up to the population limit from stock in an empty area, provided that an unblocked path can be traced to target area. You may only place a city in an empty area, if that area contains a city site.
Your hand limit of trade cards is reduced by one.
Author:  Flo de Haan [ 2008-03-31 9:52:00 ]
Post subject: 
I've started a new topic. This topic is about what is to be playtested.
We're playing a game with 8-9 players in may.

http://www.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=476


Gerart's last option seems best to me now.
Author:  Jonno [ 2008-03-31 11:30:10 ]
Post subject: 
Flo de Haan wrote:
- You should be abled to put tokens or a city in an area being depopulated by a calamity this turn.
- You should not be abled to put tokens or a city in an area being depopulated by any other means this turn

I really don't agree with this, as I don't like the idea of having to keep track of how a particular state came to be. Just keeping track of the current state in itself is work enough without adding that....

Flo de Haan wrote:
Optional:
You should be abled to only put tokens or a city in an area adjacent to any of your neighbours' area's

This is a much better idea (as a replacement for the lines cited above), except it shouldn't have to be your neighbour, any other player should do. And if an area isn't adjacent to any civilization, it should be fair game for everyone.
Thus it should be like something like this instead:
Code:
You should not be able to put tokens in an area adjacent to an area containing only your units, unless it is also adjacent to an area containing another players units.
Page 1 of 6 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/