Cities as magic centers?

Regarding specializing cities, it usually depends on the area around it and the game mechanics. In MoM for example, although you didn't have a simple specialization for cities, you could do it menually: all of the lizardfolk cities' will produce food only, all of the humen cities that benefit from mithril or adamantite will produce paladins etc. I personally do not see a need for such a system to be implented, though I didn't play a game with such a system.

one more thing: "I see magic-centered cities (maybe for the specialization of just one type of magic) as having a problem with population.  If you find a spot on the map that would be great for a "magic city" (like a holy mountain, or a site with a crystal, or some other source of power from the first age (or whatever))-it is probably not a spot most of your population wants to live.  I would imagine that most non-magical folks would treat magic sites like some radioactive dump-with a high degree of suspicion.  Therefore I suggest that in a normal city-higher level magical buildings will cause unrest or have some other detrimental effect."

I'm just wondering, why the hell so many people think that the general population in a world filled with magic will necesserly fear it? People fear things they do not understand and things that are dangerous to them in general. In a world filled with magic, such an area as you described might actually be flooded with people since the area is easier for them to perform the magic they use in their everyday life (I know this might be a bit far from the lore, but still might happen if magic is quite strong, some of the magic in the world was not captured in the crystals.)

So how exactly would this specilization work into the UI?   By that I mean, how would I as a player know that I could specilize.  Would there just be a list of specialized buildings, and when I picked one it removed the other specilized buildings, forcing the city-building-tree down this specilized path?  (that I think would be pretty cool)

or do you just pick its specilization when the city reaches a certain size?  (that would not be as cool to me as the 1st method)

Or do you just have a 'specilization' spot where you can switch out what the city is specilizing in at almost any time you want, and its stats adgust to growth over time (that could work I guess)

What if specialization happens dynamically based on what you build in a city? If your city is largely filled with economy-based buildings the city will be superior at trade; or if it's filled with military structures units will be produced faster, or training will be more effective.

Actually this reminds me of a discussion we had a while ago in another thread... let's see if I can find it. Nope, I failed. Anyways, the idea was that building multiple buildings from the same sector (like economy, military, production, etc) is more than just the sum of the parts. Basically, that there could be synergy between different types of buildings from the same sector. The result is that specializing cities (in a completely dynamic way) is more efficient than making them rounded, and you get to choose exactly how specialized to make them. 

I'd like this idea even more if the details of the map also played a role. And I'm trying to keep the re-thinking economics thread in mind here. A population center that has significant caravan traffic should be more inclined to a mercantile specialization. A center with only a few routes passing through might also be inclined to specialize somehow if the caravans all carried related goods, e.g. foodstuffs, building materials, or metals.

Found it! https://forums.elementalgame.com/330349/page/1/#1944404

Aaaand back to this thread:

:p

Edit: I LOATHE quoting on these forums! Why won't it EVER work properly?! Nyyyaaarrrrrrgh!

Yeah, having map features play a role would only make it better in my opinion. It provides yet another factor to consider when founding new settlements.

Ok, you either have a much better memory than I do or much more patience, or both. I never would've thought to look in that thread, the title is totally unrelated

To take this point even further, it gives you even more versatility than that. You could choose to build a wide array of different types of structures, resulting in a completely unspecialized city. Or you could choose to build almost entirely buildings of one type, resulting in a very specialized city. But it also gives you the ability to do things like to build roughly half production oriented buildings and half military structures, resulting in a city that is very capable of both production and military training. It gives you much more control over the feature than picking a specialization from a list, and it makes deciding which structures to build much more meaningful.

Yeah the broken quoting and the broken search both. The broken quoting is worse, though; at least the search function doesn't pretend to work.

To answer Raladon's question (why should non-magical folk fear magic) I think its basic human nature.  Even if magic was very prevelant in a city (say half the people could use magic of some sort), for those who did not understand magic (it would seem like magic to them) even if everyone lived in haromy.  If some non-magical family had a bit of bad luck it would be human nature to blame it on curse by some wizard (heck, a lot of people in this world blame events on the supernatural even with very little evidence it exists).  Suspicion between the two groups is almost innevitable.

This is why many people that share in beliefs and practices that are different from the local majority, often seek smaller, secluded communities.

Anyway, that's the rational i used.

I had a few basic facts at the back of my skull. I knew it was large. I knew that it diverged from it's original point. And I knew that I had written a fairly major post in it. Skimming through the Elemental Ideas forum, ignoring those that were two small (post count) or those that I knew it wasn't (The armor or weapon discussion, etc, and a lot more) it was less than 5 thread candidates on the first two-three pages. Skim through those threads in turn and look for a Bearomancer, and presto, there it was!

:D

This is a long process that can be counteracted to an extent, but that's somewhat beside the point.

I'm not a sociologist, but I think it is a gross oversimplification to say that an ability to use magic would necessarily segregate a population and lead to hostility between those can and those who can't. In rough outlines, the argument makes some sense, but that's mainly because we live in a world conditioned to break stories down into Us vs. Them. Any 'inevitable hostility' really would depend on more than the mere presence of a minority with magical abilities.

Let's consider the ability to produce and use metal weapons as an analog. When such things first arrive in a society, they are disruptive. Old resource allocations are questioned and new authority structures might arise. But the potential end results span the range from a military dictatorship to a society where all capable adults serve in the community militia at some level, even if they can't do more than work in a support role like KP or the healers' tents.

Whether or not a people allow a difference like talent for magic or weapons to create hostility across groups is a matter of how their story unfolds, not the difference itself.

Thanks Luckman!

To reply to some of the other ideas in this thread.  I really like some of the options/ideas of placing building next to each other for additional, special effects--I think that nearly anything in a turn-based game that can allow for more stratigic decisions will really enhance the depth and replayability of this game.  I also the like the idea of picking a magical option to specialize in (for a particular city) early on at the exclusion of others.  My initial thought was that a scout would stumble on some unique land feature (hot springs, volcano, old ruins, old burial ground, very old part of the forest, natural caves (high defence!!), special mineral deposit, or maybe the crystals themselves).  The exact nature of these unique features would determine (or at least narrow down the options) the type of magic that could be developed there.  Then the choice for the player would be: does the development of this site fit into my overall plan (you may not want to invest in dark magic (or whatever)), do a guard the site (or destroy the site) to prevent others from developing it, or do I leave it alone.  I don't think this is better than the other ideas but it does make use of the larger map and you can use these unique sites to give the land more of a sence of place or history.

Otherwise, it's of course a potential non-issue.

I don't know how much I like the idea of cities themselves contributing to magic research or whatnot. I guess for me it depends on how magic is going to be handled. The big question is, are channelers going to be the only people with the natural ability to wield magic? Or can certain other individuals access whatever magic is left in the world that isn't bound into the shards? If the former, it would feel weird if cities that don't currently house my channeler can really accomplish much in the way of magic. If it's the latter, though, then I'm all for it.

Now that I think about it, it could be pretty cool for magic research (and maybe even efficiency/effectiveness) is intrinsic to the channeler, and modified by the channeler's current location and other things like number of shards under your control. So your channeler would have his (or her) intrinsic magic abilities, which are augmented by the number of shards under your control, equipped items, etc. This can then be augmented or altered further based on current location. If your channeler is sitting in the middle of a field with an army, that's that. But if he's sitting in his main wizard tower, he would receive an overall boost. Or if he's standing next to one of his Fire shards, he'd get a powerful boost to his fire magic. Likewise if he's in a city with a large magic archive, your channeler would research new magic quicker. But if your channeler is in City X, he's not going to benefit at all from the renowned Magic Archives over in City Y.

So if channelers are going to effectively be the only natural magic users, I think I'd like a system like the one I just outlined. But if there are other natural magic users then no.

It's the 'versus' that's the problem. In my little thought experiment, magic = ownership & skill w/ steel weapons. A 'universal' militia would not need every member serving directly in combat, just in uniform. In modern 'tooth-to-tail' terms, it's a question of whether the tail supports the teeth out of fear or because they're together in a unified culture.

But Luckmann is saying that the two are not analogous situations; a sword is an object that can be given to anybody to use. Magic is something you are born to. You either have it or you don't, and that situation cannot and will not ever change. Any random farmer can aspire to be a swordsman; they might fail but they have a chance. It's a subtle difference but I agree that in most circumstances it would be very divisive. It creates two disparate groups of people with no mobility between the two.

To take a somewhat related example, take race in our world. In the past race has been an extremely divisive trait (and it still is, though in most places to a lesser extent). Now, I would argue that magic would be even more divisive because the ability to use it provides a tangible advantage over those who can't. In addition, it gives non-magic users an easy escape goat for all the bad things that happen to them; a group of people with mysterious abilities that could potentially cause most any problem they might experience.

So I agree with the sentiment that in a world of magic where some people can use it and some people can't, it would most often be a divisive force in society. That said there would obviously be exceptions. One example could be in a benevolent magocracy or even dictatorship, in which the ruling magic caste actively and openly protects and helps their people.

The 'variable' I'm attempting to convey is "object+skill" not just "object." True you can give anyone a sword, but without skill, they're more likely to hurt themselves than to help someone else. I'm not talking about some militia where you pick up spells at some sort of armory. I was just trying to say that it is simplistic to assume that a magic-wielding minority in a society will always and everywhere cause fear and/or resentment of said magic. If the larger society understands their magical minority as a profound part of themselves (say the way your heart is a profound part of your total body mass), then it would be silly for them to hate or fear magic.

So, yes, as seems to be something of a pattern, I think we might agree more than either of us quite seem to get across. It was the hard binary view of the question that made me balk. I'm enough of a social scientist to acknowledge that class-based power differentials *mostly* lead to conflict. But I'm enough of a lover of fantasy literature to imagine a wide range of societies with magical minorities--even ones where the governing elites might have few to no magic-wielders among them, somewhat analagous to the U.S. tradition of civilian control of the military.

Even in a more class-based case, from rich to poor, the borders are still rather fluidous. Rich families can become poor over a generation or less, and someone poor can (potentially) work their way up to become rich. Problem only arises once this truly stagnates and are turned into a systemized oppression (wheter real or percieved).

None of this is truly analogues to an entire society of mages vs. everyone else, however. Let's assume that a mage is just a human with magic abilities. This mage can potentially fill any function in society, in addition to casting spells. No matter what you do, these people as a group will always be superior to their inferior cousins. There's no (linear) societal progression - either you are superior to everyone else, or you're not. It's a very real difference, as opposed to a difference enforced by the usage of guns (a difference that will always be decided by who wields the greater gun).

Is it really worth worrying about how magic works?     I mean, can a city be a magic center?   sure, why not.   I don't care if its because there is skill involved or the channeler focuses his essense into the city to make it awesome or if it is just a lucky draw.

Shouldn't we be worrying about the mechanics of it all before we worry about the "fluff" like how it works or how people might react to it?   (man, I sound like a programer >.< )

1) We're geeks and/or nerds.
2) We've got too much free time.
3) We're bored.

Side effects may include: Incessant whining, nonconsequential arguments, headaches, nosebleed, seizures, tics, distorted vision, nerdrage, momentary anger and/or violence, insults, trolling, sore throat(s) and/or lockdowns. By reading this you forfeit any claim of compensation and/or obligations on part of Luckmann Pharmaceuticals & Sea Rescue Inc.

luckmann, +1...  that is all I can say.  (and your formatting is messing up my browser, but I blame the computer, not you)

Yeah, you just won this thread.

again, good job Luckman.

I just WISH I had the free time to be more of a presence here!!

I like all the ideas on this thread since they all give options for specialization - yet the specialization is at some sort of cost.

-That leads to some good strategy and replayability options!