DanQ
December 22, 2007, 16:33
With Civilization: Revolution’s <a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=172164">background</a>, <a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=172235">victories, multiplayer and diplomacy</a> and <a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=172627">units</a> covered already it’s time to examine the game’s culture system and government model in my multi-part preview of the game.
<strong>THE OTHER CULTURE CLUB</strong>
<table width="20%" align="right"><tr><td align="right"><font size="1"><img src="http://boa.apolyton.net/civrev/screenies/riu_part5-1ccb.jpg"><br /> Washington’s cultural border outlined in blue</td></tr></table> It starts with your shiny Palace, the first entity that generates this in <em>CivRev</em>: culture. It generates one culture point per population point per city. That’s no shiny to sneeze at. But just what is the concept effecting? Veterans of <em>Civilization III</em> and <em>IV</em> know that first and foremost culture determines the size of your border – no politicians cowering over pieces of paper or soldiers yelling threw gritted teeth here. If and when one's culture reaches a sufficient level, their civilization’s border will expand; if it is <font color="#123381">lame</font>, as <strong>Firaxis Games</strong> Director of Creative Development and <em>CivRev</em> designer Sid Meier puts it, their border will shrink instead. The case then of cities in close proximity to one another and what affect that has on cultural borders is also found here. If the culture of one city’s civilization is being dwarfed by a next door neighbour, particularly where that disparity is reflected in those two cities themselves, the culturally dominated city may ‘flip’ to the dominator’s side.
Sid finds city flipping to be a <font color="#123381">fun mechanic</font> found in modern-day <em>Civ</em> series titles and so do I. Of course, just how much ‘fun’ it is can depend on which side of the culture domination you’re on… :cute: But there seems to be even more to this now. I cannot recall a time in <em>CivIV</em>, for instance, where my cultural border shrank without the external factor of another encroaching civilization: in <em>CivRev</em> it seemingly can. In my opinion this will encourage players even more to not think they can play “catch up” on culture so easily in the late(r) game, especially where isolated starts are not going to be so isolated with generally smaller maps to play on. Another reason why culture may be shining brighter still here: the ability to convert city trade into happiness. Happiness is understandably a primary factor in determining the strength of your civilization’s culture. Sid continues:
<font color="#123381">We really wanted the borders to be dynamic, really represent your culture graphically. As we get later in the game, it [becomes] a non-military way to expand using culture and city-flipping.</font>
<strong>WILL THE REAL GOVERNMENT PLEASE STAND UP?</strong>
You will not find <em>CivIV</em>’s five-tier Civics system in <em>CivRev</em> but rather a government model. If you don't build (or capture :evilgrin:<em></em>) the Pyramids Wonder which opens up all government types to you as it did Government Civics in <em>CivIV</em>, they will as you advance through the technology tree. Governments have been in all <em>Civ</em> games to date save <em>CivIV</em> and <em>CivRev</em>’s seem a sort of middle-ground between the past government and the one Civics implementation. Like the first three <em>Civ</em>s, you start off your games under Despotism. There are even more reasons to move away from your despotic ways as soon as possible than before. Your other government choices can become Monarchy, Communism, Democracy, Republic and Fundamentalism as your scientists make the necessary discoveries. Fundamentalism was first seen in <em>Civilization II</em> and not again until now. It took to the second <em>CivIII</em> expansion <em>Conquests</em> to see Fascism included in the series in an official capacity. It seems then that if one “F”-government is in a <em>Civ</em> title the other is not. [Enter conspiracy theorists quietly but feverously murmuring in the background here]. Similarly but not so severely to previous series incarnations, it takes just a turn of anarchy to change government types where production in all cities is halted.
<table width="20%" align="right"><tr><td align="right"><font size="1"><img src="http://boa.apolyton.net/civrev/screenies/riu_part5-2gte.jpg"><br />Did you ever have to make up your mind…</td></tr></table> Monarchy is the culture-based government in <em>CivRev</em>, doubling the bonus of the Palace found in the adopting civilization’s capital. Unless you’re fortunate enough to be in possession of the Pyramids early enough on, this is the first government type you can adopt to move away from Despotism. This is as it was in previous <em>Civ</em> games with this governance model. Conversely in a sense, Communism is production-oriented: an extra 50% production in all cities is applied but any Temples and Cathedrals you may have are shut down. There’s no point then in wasting turns in building any of these improvements either if and when you adopt this government type. As Sid puts it, you’re <font color="#123381">trading culture for production</font> by going Commie. To me this suggests Communism is better suited to adopting in short intervals when you’re looking to build-up your military, add city improvements or rush some Wonders (though probably not the Pyramids at this point ;)). If the building of Temples and Cathedrals is not yet disabled under Communism, I recommend to Firaxis to do so – at least on the lower difficulty levels where new(er) players are apt to empire-build at.
Like Communism, Democracy has a defining advantage and disadvantage to it. Its plus is that it gives you 50% more commerce wherever trade is already being generated. This could mean the difference from incrementing your treasury marginally to considerably or even from deficit to balance turn-to-turn. This government’s potential drawback is a throwback to its <em>CivII</em> counterpart: you are not allowed to declare war on anyone – period. Further, if you are already at war with someone and they now offer you peace you must accept that offer. In <em>CivII</em> the peaceful Dove party was always in control of your Senate under Democracy and it seems they’re back with avengeance. When Sid describes this is a <font color="#123381">very interesting game situation</font>, he must be purposefully making an understatement. :)
<strong>TAKING THIS, LEAVING THAT</strong>
To be clear, by throwback I do not mean setback when it comes to Democracy’s drawback. (Yes, I fit three words with the word “back” in them into one sentence – match that. :p) There is balance here for this government’s commerce benefit is as extreme as is its consequence. The extremeness of its negative is quite obvious and so is the positive when you recall that a tile can only provide the benefit of food <u>or</u> commerce <u>or</u> hammers in <em>CivRev</em>. It could hold considerable value for landlocked civilizations as much commerce is generated by water terrain. Communism’s pro and con balance the gameplay scale too, particularly when you take into account how much more crucial culture has become to <em>Civ</em> since the concept was first introduced to the series in <em>CivIII</em>. However, I believe Monarchy needs a specific con applied to it: it seems considerably unbalanced as is. The importance and strength culture can command in a civilization’s internal and external affairs is considerable. Combined with the continued possibility of a Culture victory and the smaller maps with less room and opportunity for city founding, that Monarchy’s benefit is centered around a culturally-oriented building that must always be present in the game is quite powerful. Though I didn’t think it before possible, this makes its benefit as a government civic in <em>CivIV</em> even paler by comparison. :cute:
Fundamentalism is a military-oriented government type, giving your units +1 attack value but your Libraries and Universities are shut down. Sid describes the benefit here as a <font color="#123381">pretty powerful addition</font>. Though it didn’t strike me at first, after some consideration I’m wondering if it is going to be quite that powerful throughout the entire game. As the game progresses, attack value boosts that are measured in absolute terms are more relative to base values than those that are percentage-based. The +1 is shaping up to give players a bigger bang for their attack buck in the earlier game. Using an example, +1 to a unit that has a base of 2 or 3 is a notable increase but only slightly so when their base is a 10 or 11. But it is also in the earlier game when keeping up if not exceeding your neighbours’ scientific progress is critical: it will greatly determine your ability to catch-up should you fall behind and just how far you have to catch-up… should you manage to avoid being mortally wounded or defeated before then. I presume that Fundamentalism will become a government option at around the middle of the game as it was in <em>CivII</em>; this is when percentage-based value boosts become start to come more into their own. For instance a 25% attack boost for a unit with a base value of 1 becomes 1.25 but with a base of 4 it becomes 5. Damage possibilities aside, that’s a substantive different. A change in the attack value bonus under Fundamentalism from an absolute to a percentage-based value would address this. Given comparable government and other <em>CivRev</em> bonuses towards the faster pace this gaming experience is to provide, I suggest that specific value be 25%: powerful without being overpowering. As is, Fundamentalism comes across as moderately unbalanced to me.
The Republican government type remains a question mark for the time being. Sid admits upfront that they are <font color="#123381">not actually sure what [it] does yet</font>. :D While no government trait is yet finalized, as can be seen not all governments have traits just yet! For <em>Civ</em>, the approach to mix and match assessed best of previous <em>Civ</em> titles – for streamlined but not simplifying gameplay – has already been demonstrated to be working consistently well. :b: In my view, one of the better differentiations between Republic and Democracy was in <em>CivII</em> and also seems appropriate for <em>CivRev</em>. The Republican Senate would only impose peace half of the time: the other half saw the Hawk party vetoing the Doves’ effort and approving any war declaration you made. For balance and continued consistency with Democracy’s offering, I propose Republic’s benefit be 25% more commerce wherever trade is already being generated.
<strong>GOVERNMENTS VS. CIVICS</strong>
When <em>CivIV</em> moved away from the government model and put Civics in its place, I was apprehensive. So much so that I tried to convince myself that at the time <em>CivIV</em> came out, the fact that my computer couldn’t support its graphics requirements was a good thing. :scared: Though a <em>Civ</em> player for more than 10 years already by that point, I saw the Civics model an unnecessarily complicated juggling act – that governments as seen in <em>CivIII</em> had matured to the point that movement to-and-from its different types served any number of short and long-term strategies well enough. Instead I found that better informing myself of my Civics choices, and then getting a feel for <em>CivIV</em> by actually playing several games, increased my comfort level with and appreciation for these choices greatly. (The graphics card upgrade I needed was very affordable.) Given this, an understandable knee-jerk reaction is that going back to a government model in <em>CivRev</em> is a mistake. Like having an object too close in your line of sight, such examinations can loose focus.
<em>CivIV</em> introduced a new integral concept to gameplay: Religion. Religion was also one of that game’s five Civics categories. In <em>CivRev</em>, religion is but an advance on the technology tree. This is but one case in point. <em>CivIV</em>’s Civics model would not lend itself so well to <em>CivRev</em> nor would governments have served as well in <em>CivIV</em>. Fortunately, <em>CivRev</em>’s government system is not a clone of any previous model. I hope I have conveyed how the uniqueness that <em>CivIV</em>’s Civics mixing-and-matching provided is being adapted into the make-up of government types in <em>CivRev</em>. These types should be a comfortable fit for many long or even short-term strategies on the part of the civilization that adopts them. Further, that governments can return to the <em>Civ</em> series without corruption (<em>CivIV</em> first discarded) or waste (<em>CivRev</em> is dumping) to tackle is minimizing a number of past headaches and improving their usefulness in the process. Sid himself said that they as developers have <font color="#123381">backed off a little bit</font> from <em>CivIV</em>’s Civics in <em>CivRev</em> that though <font color="#123381">cool [were] more complex than this game would support</font>. I concur.
<strong>TREAT YOU RIGHT</strong>
This installment of my <em>CivRev</em> preview has been a little longer in coming than previous ones to date. It’s also not as long as a number of them and that is because I have a video to share with you. :cool: Some screenshots from this game’s introductory movie have been previously published, including in an earlier part of this preview, and even the odd clip or two in passing. <strong>Apolyton Civilization Site</strong> is proud to bring footage of this <a href="http://boa.apolyton.net/civrev/video/riu_civrev-intro.wmv" title="Click to Download (14.1MB)">entire movie</a> to you for the first time. Encoded in <em>Windows Media</em> format, it runs just under 2½ minutes.
<center>
<a href="http://boa.apolyton.net/civrev/video/riu_civrev-intro.wmv" title="Click to Download (14.1MB)"><img src="http://boa.apolyton.net/civrev/screenies/riu_civrev-intro.jpg" border="0"></a>
</center>
<strong>NEXT TIME IS STORYTIME</strong>
The sixth part of my <em>Civilization: Revolution</em> preview will be told in a narrative format as I focus in on how <u>the</u> game Sid and <strong>Firaxis</strong> Executive Producer and <em>CivRev</em> Lead Producer Barry Caudill played to demonstrate the game went.
<strong>THE OTHER CULTURE CLUB</strong>
<table width="20%" align="right"><tr><td align="right"><font size="1"><img src="http://boa.apolyton.net/civrev/screenies/riu_part5-1ccb.jpg"><br /> Washington’s cultural border outlined in blue</td></tr></table> It starts with your shiny Palace, the first entity that generates this in <em>CivRev</em>: culture. It generates one culture point per population point per city. That’s no shiny to sneeze at. But just what is the concept effecting? Veterans of <em>Civilization III</em> and <em>IV</em> know that first and foremost culture determines the size of your border – no politicians cowering over pieces of paper or soldiers yelling threw gritted teeth here. If and when one's culture reaches a sufficient level, their civilization’s border will expand; if it is <font color="#123381">lame</font>, as <strong>Firaxis Games</strong> Director of Creative Development and <em>CivRev</em> designer Sid Meier puts it, their border will shrink instead. The case then of cities in close proximity to one another and what affect that has on cultural borders is also found here. If the culture of one city’s civilization is being dwarfed by a next door neighbour, particularly where that disparity is reflected in those two cities themselves, the culturally dominated city may ‘flip’ to the dominator’s side.
Sid finds city flipping to be a <font color="#123381">fun mechanic</font> found in modern-day <em>Civ</em> series titles and so do I. Of course, just how much ‘fun’ it is can depend on which side of the culture domination you’re on… :cute: But there seems to be even more to this now. I cannot recall a time in <em>CivIV</em>, for instance, where my cultural border shrank without the external factor of another encroaching civilization: in <em>CivRev</em> it seemingly can. In my opinion this will encourage players even more to not think they can play “catch up” on culture so easily in the late(r) game, especially where isolated starts are not going to be so isolated with generally smaller maps to play on. Another reason why culture may be shining brighter still here: the ability to convert city trade into happiness. Happiness is understandably a primary factor in determining the strength of your civilization’s culture. Sid continues:
<font color="#123381">We really wanted the borders to be dynamic, really represent your culture graphically. As we get later in the game, it [becomes] a non-military way to expand using culture and city-flipping.</font>
<strong>WILL THE REAL GOVERNMENT PLEASE STAND UP?</strong>
You will not find <em>CivIV</em>’s five-tier Civics system in <em>CivRev</em> but rather a government model. If you don't build (or capture :evilgrin:<em></em>) the Pyramids Wonder which opens up all government types to you as it did Government Civics in <em>CivIV</em>, they will as you advance through the technology tree. Governments have been in all <em>Civ</em> games to date save <em>CivIV</em> and <em>CivRev</em>’s seem a sort of middle-ground between the past government and the one Civics implementation. Like the first three <em>Civ</em>s, you start off your games under Despotism. There are even more reasons to move away from your despotic ways as soon as possible than before. Your other government choices can become Monarchy, Communism, Democracy, Republic and Fundamentalism as your scientists make the necessary discoveries. Fundamentalism was first seen in <em>Civilization II</em> and not again until now. It took to the second <em>CivIII</em> expansion <em>Conquests</em> to see Fascism included in the series in an official capacity. It seems then that if one “F”-government is in a <em>Civ</em> title the other is not. [Enter conspiracy theorists quietly but feverously murmuring in the background here]. Similarly but not so severely to previous series incarnations, it takes just a turn of anarchy to change government types where production in all cities is halted.
<table width="20%" align="right"><tr><td align="right"><font size="1"><img src="http://boa.apolyton.net/civrev/screenies/riu_part5-2gte.jpg"><br />Did you ever have to make up your mind…</td></tr></table> Monarchy is the culture-based government in <em>CivRev</em>, doubling the bonus of the Palace found in the adopting civilization’s capital. Unless you’re fortunate enough to be in possession of the Pyramids early enough on, this is the first government type you can adopt to move away from Despotism. This is as it was in previous <em>Civ</em> games with this governance model. Conversely in a sense, Communism is production-oriented: an extra 50% production in all cities is applied but any Temples and Cathedrals you may have are shut down. There’s no point then in wasting turns in building any of these improvements either if and when you adopt this government type. As Sid puts it, you’re <font color="#123381">trading culture for production</font> by going Commie. To me this suggests Communism is better suited to adopting in short intervals when you’re looking to build-up your military, add city improvements or rush some Wonders (though probably not the Pyramids at this point ;)). If the building of Temples and Cathedrals is not yet disabled under Communism, I recommend to Firaxis to do so – at least on the lower difficulty levels where new(er) players are apt to empire-build at.
Like Communism, Democracy has a defining advantage and disadvantage to it. Its plus is that it gives you 50% more commerce wherever trade is already being generated. This could mean the difference from incrementing your treasury marginally to considerably or even from deficit to balance turn-to-turn. This government’s potential drawback is a throwback to its <em>CivII</em> counterpart: you are not allowed to declare war on anyone – period. Further, if you are already at war with someone and they now offer you peace you must accept that offer. In <em>CivII</em> the peaceful Dove party was always in control of your Senate under Democracy and it seems they’re back with avengeance. When Sid describes this is a <font color="#123381">very interesting game situation</font>, he must be purposefully making an understatement. :)
<strong>TAKING THIS, LEAVING THAT</strong>
To be clear, by throwback I do not mean setback when it comes to Democracy’s drawback. (Yes, I fit three words with the word “back” in them into one sentence – match that. :p) There is balance here for this government’s commerce benefit is as extreme as is its consequence. The extremeness of its negative is quite obvious and so is the positive when you recall that a tile can only provide the benefit of food <u>or</u> commerce <u>or</u> hammers in <em>CivRev</em>. It could hold considerable value for landlocked civilizations as much commerce is generated by water terrain. Communism’s pro and con balance the gameplay scale too, particularly when you take into account how much more crucial culture has become to <em>Civ</em> since the concept was first introduced to the series in <em>CivIII</em>. However, I believe Monarchy needs a specific con applied to it: it seems considerably unbalanced as is. The importance and strength culture can command in a civilization’s internal and external affairs is considerable. Combined with the continued possibility of a Culture victory and the smaller maps with less room and opportunity for city founding, that Monarchy’s benefit is centered around a culturally-oriented building that must always be present in the game is quite powerful. Though I didn’t think it before possible, this makes its benefit as a government civic in <em>CivIV</em> even paler by comparison. :cute:
Fundamentalism is a military-oriented government type, giving your units +1 attack value but your Libraries and Universities are shut down. Sid describes the benefit here as a <font color="#123381">pretty powerful addition</font>. Though it didn’t strike me at first, after some consideration I’m wondering if it is going to be quite that powerful throughout the entire game. As the game progresses, attack value boosts that are measured in absolute terms are more relative to base values than those that are percentage-based. The +1 is shaping up to give players a bigger bang for their attack buck in the earlier game. Using an example, +1 to a unit that has a base of 2 or 3 is a notable increase but only slightly so when their base is a 10 or 11. But it is also in the earlier game when keeping up if not exceeding your neighbours’ scientific progress is critical: it will greatly determine your ability to catch-up should you fall behind and just how far you have to catch-up… should you manage to avoid being mortally wounded or defeated before then. I presume that Fundamentalism will become a government option at around the middle of the game as it was in <em>CivII</em>; this is when percentage-based value boosts become start to come more into their own. For instance a 25% attack boost for a unit with a base value of 1 becomes 1.25 but with a base of 4 it becomes 5. Damage possibilities aside, that’s a substantive different. A change in the attack value bonus under Fundamentalism from an absolute to a percentage-based value would address this. Given comparable government and other <em>CivRev</em> bonuses towards the faster pace this gaming experience is to provide, I suggest that specific value be 25%: powerful without being overpowering. As is, Fundamentalism comes across as moderately unbalanced to me.
The Republican government type remains a question mark for the time being. Sid admits upfront that they are <font color="#123381">not actually sure what [it] does yet</font>. :D While no government trait is yet finalized, as can be seen not all governments have traits just yet! For <em>Civ</em>, the approach to mix and match assessed best of previous <em>Civ</em> titles – for streamlined but not simplifying gameplay – has already been demonstrated to be working consistently well. :b: In my view, one of the better differentiations between Republic and Democracy was in <em>CivII</em> and also seems appropriate for <em>CivRev</em>. The Republican Senate would only impose peace half of the time: the other half saw the Hawk party vetoing the Doves’ effort and approving any war declaration you made. For balance and continued consistency with Democracy’s offering, I propose Republic’s benefit be 25% more commerce wherever trade is already being generated.
<strong>GOVERNMENTS VS. CIVICS</strong>
When <em>CivIV</em> moved away from the government model and put Civics in its place, I was apprehensive. So much so that I tried to convince myself that at the time <em>CivIV</em> came out, the fact that my computer couldn’t support its graphics requirements was a good thing. :scared: Though a <em>Civ</em> player for more than 10 years already by that point, I saw the Civics model an unnecessarily complicated juggling act – that governments as seen in <em>CivIII</em> had matured to the point that movement to-and-from its different types served any number of short and long-term strategies well enough. Instead I found that better informing myself of my Civics choices, and then getting a feel for <em>CivIV</em> by actually playing several games, increased my comfort level with and appreciation for these choices greatly. (The graphics card upgrade I needed was very affordable.) Given this, an understandable knee-jerk reaction is that going back to a government model in <em>CivRev</em> is a mistake. Like having an object too close in your line of sight, such examinations can loose focus.
<em>CivIV</em> introduced a new integral concept to gameplay: Religion. Religion was also one of that game’s five Civics categories. In <em>CivRev</em>, religion is but an advance on the technology tree. This is but one case in point. <em>CivIV</em>’s Civics model would not lend itself so well to <em>CivRev</em> nor would governments have served as well in <em>CivIV</em>. Fortunately, <em>CivRev</em>’s government system is not a clone of any previous model. I hope I have conveyed how the uniqueness that <em>CivIV</em>’s Civics mixing-and-matching provided is being adapted into the make-up of government types in <em>CivRev</em>. These types should be a comfortable fit for many long or even short-term strategies on the part of the civilization that adopts them. Further, that governments can return to the <em>Civ</em> series without corruption (<em>CivIV</em> first discarded) or waste (<em>CivRev</em> is dumping) to tackle is minimizing a number of past headaches and improving their usefulness in the process. Sid himself said that they as developers have <font color="#123381">backed off a little bit</font> from <em>CivIV</em>’s Civics in <em>CivRev</em> that though <font color="#123381">cool [were] more complex than this game would support</font>. I concur.
<strong>TREAT YOU RIGHT</strong>
This installment of my <em>CivRev</em> preview has been a little longer in coming than previous ones to date. It’s also not as long as a number of them and that is because I have a video to share with you. :cool: Some screenshots from this game’s introductory movie have been previously published, including in an earlier part of this preview, and even the odd clip or two in passing. <strong>Apolyton Civilization Site</strong> is proud to bring footage of this <a href="http://boa.apolyton.net/civrev/video/riu_civrev-intro.wmv" title="Click to Download (14.1MB)">entire movie</a> to you for the first time. Encoded in <em>Windows Media</em> format, it runs just under 2½ minutes.
<center>
<a href="http://boa.apolyton.net/civrev/video/riu_civrev-intro.wmv" title="Click to Download (14.1MB)"><img src="http://boa.apolyton.net/civrev/screenies/riu_civrev-intro.jpg" border="0"></a>
</center>
<strong>NEXT TIME IS STORYTIME</strong>
The sixth part of my <em>Civilization: Revolution</em> preview will be told in a narrative format as I focus in on how <u>the</u> game Sid and <strong>Firaxis</strong> Executive Producer and <em>CivRev</em> Lead Producer Barry Caudill played to demonstrate the game went.