 |
|
Dida
|
|
this article is dumb, i doube if this person knows anything about history
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kenobi
|
|
It's not a dumb question, and the examples given are valid. One of the things the Civ games do not do well is the fall of civilizations, which has happened in every instance throughout history.
Overstretch has plagued every major empire in world history, and is not tackled at all in Civ: there are no penalties for having cities on the other side of the world, when clearly these should be most at risk of rebellion.
Likewise, the conquest of different ethnic groups created huge empires, but the forces of nationalism fragmented these empires in the 20th century. The new concept of "culture" will go a long way to reflecting the power of nationalism, but doesn't address the overstretch issue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rasputin
|
 |
Brisbane
May 1999
time: 15:14
|
|
exactly kenobi, the stongest and longest lasting empires were those all connected via roads not sea... as soon as you cross the sea , especially in olden times, you were looking for trouble if you wanted to maintain control of the citizens over there... would USA be independant today if it was physically connected to GreatBritian, probalby not, as any uprisng would have felt the combined wieght of the British redcoats, not just the ones in USA whixh was long time to ship replacements to constantly. And US was a classic example of a nation splitting and becoming a formidable adversary.. this could be main reason US has never wanted overseas colonies, hawaii being only exception, but the natives there seem too friendly to start wars agaisnt major players...
This is defiantly part of what civ 3 should include, some form of loss of control based on distance and time to repsond based on era. eg much more likely to get revolt in ancient times, in modern times not so much revolts but UN sponsored separate states happeneing...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mech Assassin
|
 |
and a Finnish Assassin in Time.
Aug 2000
time: 07:14
|
|
I think, in the early and middle (and maybe even late) game, the splitting should be more like, when your military strenght weakens in a conquered area, the area could try to return to its former owner (or entirely independent, if the former owner taxed them too much or just caused too much unhappiness or has fallen). The other possibility for splitting would be, when you run out of money (or food), your areas would try to become independent, because they're not satisfied with your lead (of course you could try to stop rebellions with military forces, but where to get the money (or food. I think, all units should consume food, like Settlers do. Maybe 1/4 food/turn for normal unit and for unit with larger crew, the cost would be larger also) to pay maintainance, when you're running low on cash/food?).
Behind-the-sea colonies should also try to become independent, if you cause them even slight unhappiness. The troops in that area could also join the rebellion.
With UN built, the UN forces could also try to force you to release conquered colonies and use its combined forces to release it with pure force, if you don't else release it.
Also, I think, high taxes should rise the unhappiness like the low luxury does (how many people would want to live in a country with 100% taxes?).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Father Beast
|
 |
My head stuck permanently in my civ
Feb 2000
time: 22:14
|
|
Nice article. exemplifies many of the feelings expressed in the EC3 subjects "Rise and fall of empires", and "Make it harder for civs to last".
The idea of unhappy cities of your defecting to an enemy has been tossed around these boards more than once, and I think would be not hard to implement, since a form of it was already operative back in civ1!
having a group of cities break off and form their own civ is another idea, but may yet be on the horizon. Firaxis has already told us that each citizen born in a city will be of a certain nationality (german, egyptian, etc.) and will stay that nationality no matter who holds the city. may make for some interesting times. If settlers and workers are to be used as "mobile population points", then each of those would have its own nationality. a conquerer would be encouraged to mix the new popluation with his own, so that the former german cities, say, would be less likely to break off and reform as part or whole of another civ. only a matter of high culture and loyalty to the greater empire (and a good dose of martial law and luxuries) would keep entirely foreign cities from up and leaving you.
Bottom line. a set of good ideas, and I hope some form of this eventually makes it into civ3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RGE
|
 |
Karlstad
Jul 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
Seems to me as if it's not only a matter of unhappiness and geography. Unless I'm mistaken, didn't all these fallen empireas rely heavily upon military forces, if not for defense then for controlling the population? And a society that relies upon the threat of force to stay alive isn't a very stable one, is it?
Now, I haven't played Civ II in a long time now, but as far as I remember, there were plenty of chances to have your cities riot and whatnot. The only reason why that never split the empire (or made it act as if it were split) is because the player was always in control of the civilization. Once you knew the rules, you strived not to break them too often, because having a weak city was better than having a rioting city.
If they did it the other way, by not telling you when the citizens were angry, and thereby letting you always walk the edge of disaster, then some righteous empire-splitting would be much more likely to happen 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Starlite
|
|
Melbourne, Australia
Jun 2001
time: 15:14
|
|
I've never been very comfortable with the idea of a city's past history affecting its chance of revolt. The problem is, the closer you get to reality, the more unplayable the game.
Going back to the USSR example, I'm Lithuanian (in background) so I know something about this. Lithuanian culture survived 150 years of oppression by the Russian Czars and 50 years of communist rule (separated by only 23 years of independence). If this were to happen in Civ3, razing occuppied cities and rebuilding would become an important strategy, especially in the later game. This doesn't even consider the influence of a loyal expatriot population fighting for the occuppied country's freedom (consider the Jewish example, which is better known, though it's also more about finances than freedom).
The original column also mentioned the fall of the Roman Empire. I don't profess to be an expert on the topic, but I did see a fascinating documentary on Byzantium which claimed that the Roman Empire did not so much fall as relocate its centre of power. Rome itself certainly fell into disrepair, but this was due to a lessening of trade, a weakening of its perception as a trendy place to live, and the movement of government to Byzantium (now Istanbul). The Byzantine Empire continued the gradual decline of the Roman Empire, but it did not actually fall until the 1400s, after repeated looting by crusaders and barbarians and pressure from its neighbours. So if the Roman Empire was at its height around 400AD, that's 1000 years more that it lasted -- not exactly the sudden collapse that common knowledge would have you believe.
Oh, and how exactly would you model the previous paragraph in Civ? Especially the bit about trendy people (rich merchants and nobility) moving cities?
IMHO, leave reality for more serious wargames.
Paulius
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rommel393
|
|
We all have to remember that this is a game and is not supposed to be totally realistic because as a game its also supposed to be fun. Some of the things talked about are good ideas and should be put into the game but once you've got them all it starts to be less like a game and more like a boring piece of crap. I wont mention which ones are good and bad cuz I don't want to put anyone down but I just wanted to try and bring you down to earth a little.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grumbold
|
 |
London, UK
Mar 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Way back in my ZX Spectrum days I played a rise and fall of Rome game (not sure of the precise title, that might have been it.) It was a fascinating game and while very simple it did show how appallingly difficult it was to even achieve what the Romans did, let alone exceed their performance. I would love to play that kind of game again but I do not believe it would fit well with the Civ approach which is designed to get you through 6000 years of historical development with a minimum of fuss.
EU has far more emphasis on internal politics and religion because it introduces the concept of stability. A nation at +3 stability is tranquil, wealthy and content with itself, an ideal place to want to live and trade (for those wealthy enough to have a choice). Their troops have high morale. A nation at -3 stability is stricken with revolt, religious discontent and impoverished. Their troops are ready to run at the first sign of defeat. The whole game is about careful diplomatic management to ensure that you only fight when you are ready, get some quick victories and declare peace with some territory or money gained. Prolonged fighting will see the chance of a rebellion at home grow yearly as the greedy rich and oppressed poor alike sieze the opportunity to conspire against an absent monarch. It is also likely to ruin the treasury since troops are quick to train or hire and quick to die, just ruinously expensive.
EU is not perfect, and it would be hated by the Civvers that feel all it takes to conquer the world is a large enough army, but it does show the way. Their next project is likely to be an attempt to cover the 1000 years surrounding the rise and fall of Rome. If they manage to make that playable and enjoyable then it will be a major achievement and an indication that another step up to take it from 2000 BC to 1850 AD is a real possibility. However I do not think it will ever successfully master the dramatic transformations of the twentieth century. For that matter, its probably the part that Civ does worst at too.
Civ 3 is introducing culture as a concept. If that is a success then no doubt more can be built into it in the future. Civ 4 might even be daring enough to accept religion as a separate important factor. However I do not believe we can expect that to come from the people presently at Firaxis. Their stated aim is to not lose the Civ magic and see additional complexities as not something that the larger gaming audience find desirable. For the same reason random catastrophic disasters or unpreventable internal rebellions are unlikely to become a central part of the Civ game. We have to leave such things to the Alternate Civ community.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
November Adam
|
 |
Calgary, AB, Canada
Jul 2001
time: 22:14
|
|
A few people are mentioning that they are concerned about adding realism, as it concerns to fun. I agree with you, but with regard to Civ 3, many of these ideas or others should be implemented just to make the game different. If creating it so it would more be more realistic, makes is different (of course fun as well), then go full bore. Cause Civ 2 was fun, but I don't want more of the same.
With regards to culture, natiionalities, etc. Will there be immigration, and emmigration? Seems like good incentive to keep your citizens content. If people are ticked long enough, they would just get up and leave.
Maybe you good add a diplomacy feature alongside this, telling other nations, you will be extremely ticked if they keep taking your citizens.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Lipovrovskiy
|
|
Israel
Aug 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
By the way, Starlite, what exactly did you mean byquote:
(consider the Jewish example, which is better known, though it's also more about finances than freedom) |
?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Provost Harrison
|
 |
The farce is strong with this one.
Feb 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
I get bored of all this stuff about that your civilisation should fall.
You have to analyse this from a gameplay perspective, even if it is not 'historically' accurate. If you were to spend painstaking work building up your empire only to have it fall due to some computer generated 'randomness', you would be amazed how quickly people would get frustrated by this, take the CD ROM out of their computer and frisbee it out of the window.
The catchphrase of Civilization is Build An Empire To Stand The Test Of Time and that is one core of the game that should not be changed. Even if it is unrealistic for your civilisation to be around for 6000 years, so what? The game plays damn well. I damn well want to take my nomadic people, guide them through the Bronze and Iron Ages, take them through the Enlightenment and Renaissance, see the advent of steam power, industrialisation and onto nuclear power and the space and genetic age. It is the whole beauty of the game, you see your little people through the lot, directing and guiding, and is what the game is about.
Sometimes you people let precise 'historical detail' get in the way of producing a good game. Accuracy in this respect is totally unnecessary and would be just frustrating to the point of disbelief. The only feasible option is for your enemies to put up a better fight.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RGE
|
|
Karlstad
Jul 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
I don't have a problem with guiding a civilization through 6000 years, to "Build An Empire To Stand The Test Of Time". What I do have a problem with is that whoever is in the lead in 1 AD is also the one most likely to be in the lead in 2000 AD. That spells stagnation, or world conquest, which no civilization has managed to do in our world. And a lot of them have tried their damndest to get away with it.
I just had an idea though, about using corruption to determine when a city should rebel? Assume that every turn all the city's corruption is accumulated in the form of gold, and when the city's council have enough money to bribe the city, they do so, and becomes a free city state. Possibly a barbarian city which concentrates on building the best defensive units they (used to) have the tech for. Or maybe the city could join the weakest/closest (or a mix between those two) of the other civilizations?
With this method, cities with huge trade and little control are very likely to want some independence, while small colonies with little trade will remain faithful for a long time. And to me this is what corruption in Civ II is really about; local authorities stealing control from their rulers. Because corruption on this scale isn't just mere theft and embezzlement. If it was, there would still be some corruption in a democracy, and in Civ II there isn't.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-07-2001 04:51
Nitpicker's historical note: 
A Civ2 analogy for this in middle game would be in order, sire!
|