Reworking the CIV "Philosophy"

[squeeze truck]

In this thread I am going to try to put my finger on just what it is about CIV that, to me, keeps it from being a truly enjoyable game.

Don't get me wrong, every Civ game in the series ranks as one of my top-3 favorite games. However, it is only the first part of the game I enjoy. After about the industrial age the game gets too tedious for words (I have yet to play a game of CIV 3 past "Modern Armor", and I rarely finished a game of Civs I or II.)

The early game is enjoyable because it truly feels like I am running a primitive civilization. My civ is small and weak, all around me is hostile unexplored untamed wilderness.
It is the sense of imminent danger, and constantly having to "fight back the chaos" that make this stage fun.

Once my civ is established (and all the land is claimed), it becomes a game of management and racing for tech rather than of creation. The unpredictability and sense of danger of the early game are gone. The world has become domesticated. If I did a good job of planning initially (and had the divine gift of many cows near my starting city), even rival civs are potentially no more than a minor nuisance.

I can now make long-term strategic plans to conquer my neighbors if I like, but why should I do this? With every successful campaign, I eliminate one more threat to myself and make the planet that much more boring to live in.


The problem, as I see it, is with the entire philosophy behind the workings of the game. I know many many folks are going to vehemently disagree with me, but these are the philisophical points I disagree with.

1. "Progress".
Civ 3 is based on the Darwinian notion that, as time passes, everything gets bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, and bigger. New units are stronger than old units. Cities get bigger (and more productive) over time. Technology always moves forward. Culture increases but never decreases. New governments are always better than old governments (and are necessary for larger empires.)

Aside from being boring, this concept is highly inaccurate. Strength of culture fluctuates over time. Citizens become decadent and unproductive. Technology is often forgotten. Empires collapse under the weight of their own excessive foreign obligations.

2. "Materialism".
Like the first point, in Civ 3 more is always better than less. More food == more citizens == more production == bigger empire == more tech. Despite many historical examples to the contrary, the large nation is always more powerful in every way to a smaller nation.
In Civ 3, tiny England would never be able to dominate massive India. Backward Afghanistan would never be able stand up to the USSR.


Those are my only main points. What I would like to see is a massive reworking of not only the rules, but the ideas behind the rules. Here are my suggestions:

1. Introduce the idea of "regression".
As civilizations move forward, so also should they be able to move backward. Specifically:
a. Empires that are too large too long should experience a "Dark Age". Like the golden age. Government switches to anarchy automatically and stays there for 20 turns or more. Vast majority of culturally weak cities join other civs during this time. Dark ages can also be triggered by the capture of a wonder, death of a great leader, or loss of the capitol or large city.
b. Civs should be able to "forget" techs. Either as a result of cultural decline, or some other civ burning all their libraries. A dark age could help a great deal here.
c. Bring back civil wars! Make the empire split not into 2 equal parts, but into many states of around 5 cities each, up to the maximum allowed on the map. All breakaway civs should have their dark ages together. Every civ, even the smallest and happiest, should face challenges to it's soveirgnty on occasion.

2. Small civs should be more efficient than large civs.
a. Negative culture. Conquered cities and cities with high corruption should create a drag effect on culture, possibly even making the entire civ go negative. Building cultural wonders in cities of other races should generate no culture (unless culture is the reason they converted), and generate no happiness.
b. So also, a high culture rating should create an effect similar to a golden age. This way small, culturally strong civs can keep up with large empires.

3. Balance the ages.
a. The benefits of technology are zero-sum. Modern science should create as many problems as it solves. Factories should raise production, but cause unhappiness as well as polution. Cathedrals should have no more effect (on culture or happiness), as people turn away from religion. Increased materialism should cause increased corruption as well as production.
b. Is a knight that much tougher than a barbarian? Even a veteran barbarian? Would infantry do that well against Longbowmen? Samurai would cut riflemen to ribbons if they got close enough. Drop the idea of "progress" from the unit progression and make the fights more fair to the unmodernized.
c. Modern technology does not need to be so detailed. We do not need 5 types of aircraft, 3 types of battleship, and 2 kinds of submarines all at the same time. Modern armor and radar artillery are overkill as well.
d. Add terrorists. Terrorists (or call them partisans if you like) are how tiny technologically backward civs hit back against large advanced civs. It should be an effective tactic, but the AI should only use it if it has no other options. This could save the existence of civs that are left behind in the late game. The terrorist unit looks like a worker unit but works like a cruise missile. The nationality of the unit is, of course, hidden.


That is all. What do you think, sirs?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi There,

First of all, I'd like to say that most of your points have some merit, and I'd like to suggest the following:

1) Your ideas on regression are very good, and a view I've often held! In order to implement them we'd really need some kind of events language, like the one used for scenarios in Civ2, that allows you to simulate dark ages, civil wars, revolutions etc.
For example you might have an event: When [# of Cities]>16 {Std Map} check for city break-away. Then you have a formula for the chance of a ciy breaking away from the main civ and, if the city breaks away, it becomes a new civ (like America breaking away from Britain)

2) If you are going to have infantrymen have the same AS/DS as a Samurai (for example) then you'd have to give all ranged units a bombardment value (and a range of at least 1) to simulate the need for melee units to close in for an attack.

3) The hacked Civ3 Editor would easily allow you to make factories cause unhappiness or lose culture. In fact, many mods doing the rounds here already have industrial age production buildings (like factories) giving a negative culture value. Some luxuries have also been given negative production values to simulate their corrupting effect on the population!!
Anyway, I hope what I've told you is of use.

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker

[squeeze truck]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker


3) The hacked Civ3 Editor would easily allow you to make factories cause unhappiness or lose culture. In fact, many mods doing the rounds here already have industrial age production buildings (like factories) giving a negative culture value. Some luxuries have also been given negative production values to simulate their corrupting effect on the population!!
Anyway, I hope what I've told you is of use.

The "bad luxury" idea is brilliant! Opium? "Loco weed"? Pokemon cards?

In one mod I'm experimenting with, I have the power plant flags set on the cathedral and factory. (The power plant flag causes any improvement with the flag set to replace any other improvement with the flag set. So when you build a factory, it destroys the cathedral, and vice-versa.)

I think what I'll end up doing is having the factory generate negative culture (enough to set the city back to zero), and add a "shopping mall" wonder that generates as much trade as a bank, but replaces the cathedral as the new center of worship (the mall, of course, creates no happiness)

Gimme an M!

"M!!"

Gimme an A!

"A!!"

Gimme a U!

"U!!"

Gimme an L!

"L!!"

Gimme your money!

"Sure!!"

What's that spell?!

"Maul!!"

What's that spell?!

"Shopping maul!!"

[BlueO]

I have to agree, Civ3 gets kinda dull, after the empire is all set up. The rest is just boring clean-up. Usually, my empire get set up by the Industrial Age. And every game tends to be the same, I mean, there's really no difference between the civs. The fun is in the beginning, where the challenge lies in setting up the empire to withstand the other civs.

I would like to add a couple suggestions too.

1. "Fatal Wonders"
Fatal Wonders are just like other wonders, except only the AI can bulid them. Imagine Nazism, the holocaust, Osama Bin Laden and the Al-kaida network. AIs that build them have the potential to defeat the human player, unless the human player is suave enough to counter it. It sure would be interesting to have a tremedous tech-lead, large invicible empire, and on my way to game victory when BOOM! Suicide terroists everywhere. Or fighting my way to the top when a rival AI goes Nazi and start churning out destructive war machines.

Of course, I would love it to have more sci-fi version of fatal wonders, like an AI developing a zombie virus and accidently turning its whole civ into zombies bent on consuming the world. Or have an AI be take over by aliens after building its fatal wonder, putting the world in danger.

2. "Unit Refit"
Its a very simple concept, easily implemented I would think. Whenever a new tech is researched, it should allow the civ to refit its existing units. So a Tank can become Tank Mk2, Tank Mk3, etc as the civ advances in the tech tree. No new graphic or abilites are added, just stats are improved. Thus, if I'm in a slight tech lead, I should have units that are slightly more powerful. I'm kinda sick of having my Knights the same as an enemy whom I have a tech-lead. Sometimes, it takes several techs to advance the unit, which kinda blows.

3. "Minor Civilizations"
This idea came from Birth Of Federation. Its such a good idea, I wish other strategy game would implement it. Basically, a minor civ behaves like a normal civ, except it doesn't expand its empire and doesn't do any research. Each minor civ might have unique super units, and unique bonuses. An empire that has control of the minor civ (thru conquest of diplomacy) gains its unique super units and empire bonuses. It'll add a little more variety to an otherwise kinda boring gaming world, if nothing else.

[Optimizer]

Interesting. Reminds me of the discussion of the Eternal China Syndrome - the unrealistic fact that most civs in the game survive and grow for 6000 years. I miss factors of decay in Civ 3. Civ 1 & 2 had civil wars, which could make new nations appear from old ones, but they were far too occasional.

The editor can change the way slightly into that direction:

Increase the maintenance cost of city improvements. That can make a civ's economy to crash and force it to sell off its improvements.

Add (small amounts of) pollution to some pre-industrial buildings. Yes, polllution was a problem long before industrialization, though mostly locally.

[Rasputin]

oops wrong thread !

[s3d]

Originally posted by BlueO

1. "Fatal Wonders"
Fatal Wonders are just like other wonders, except only the AI can bulid them. Imagine Nazism, the holocaust, Osama Bin Laden and the Al-kaida network.

We can not do it with current editor (i think), but we can do kinde of the "macrogame" - Make some "killer" unit (later in industrial age) and before the game turn off this unit in editor for your race. It would be great if someone would write utility for it, to do it in one bat file

Originally posted by BlueO
Of course, I would love it to have more sci-fi version of fatal wonders, like an AI developing a zombie virus and accidently turning its whole civ into zombies bent on consuming the world. Or have an AI be take over by aliens after building its fatal wonder, putting the world in danger.

Hmm, I'm doing Alien legacy mod now... Is it coincidence ?

Originally posted by BlueO
2. "Unit Refit"
Its a very simple concept, easily implemented I would think. Whenever a new tech is researched, it should allow the civ to refit its existing units. So a Tank can become Tank Mk2, Tank Mk3, etc as the civ advances in the tech tree. No new graphic or abilites are added, just stats are improved. Thus, if I'm in a slight tech lead, I should have units that are slightly more powerful. I'm kinda sick of having my Knights the same as an enemy whom I have a tech-lead. Sometimes, it takes several techs to advance the unit, which kinda blows.

Wouldn't it disbalance game even more ? The problem now is that if I have even slight lead I already won...

BTW your units absolutely best

[Random Passerby]

Sure, samurai would cut Riflemen to ribbons if they got close enough. One question: How exactly does that happen? Do the riflemen sit down and decide to have a coffee break while the samurai happily prance and skip over the hundreds of yards to the defenders' line?

In the Civil War, defending riflemen enjoyed massive advantages over attacking... other riflemen. If you take staggering casualties when making an advance when you're armed with weapons that can match the defenders' for range, power, and accuracy, what makes you think you're going to be not just equal but BETTER when you're armed with a weapon like a sword trying to close the distance against a fortified rifle position? Granted, in all fairness samurai did not just rely on their swords when it came to open warfare, and like their Western counterparts employed polearms and bows. Still, even the best of bows are small consolation against the speed and range of the sorts of rifles I take the Rifleman to represent. Against earlier muskets, yes, samurai might have a fighting chance, and if you look at the game, this is represented. On a level fighting ground, however, technologically superior weapons can and should dominate.

Of course, there is that small qualifier--level fighting ground. Having a rifle with an effective range of several hundred yards doesn't do any good in a jungle with a visibility range of several yards. The game has a very high random factor in combat, so already there's some representation for this sort of effect, but I think it would be a good idea to sort things out by terrain--heavy terrain should not just favor the defender, but should level out the odds in general.

One additional suggestion to keeping things from getting stale in later ages--costs for building and maintaining just about everything should be higher and scale up to very high levels in the modern era. That is, I think it's quite well and good that as you progress you get more money and more production... but everything should cost even more money and even more production still. One thing that would really help is if you could make improvements go obsolete... I remember in Civ1, at certain key advances in warfare technology, you'd lose all your barracks and have to rebuild new barracks which would then have higher maintanence cost--I think this sort of thing should happen with most city improvements, only with higher build costs too. Why does building a modern church cost no more than building a crude shrine?

[squeeze truck]

Yesterday I made the following modifications to Marla's World Map scenario:

- Changed the max size of a small city to 3.
- Deleted the aqueduct and hospitals.
- Changed the pop cost of settlers to 3.
- Made sure that every civ started on a river.
- Changed default barbarian to archer, and advanced barbarian to Mounted Warrior.

The effect of this is that all cities not built on rivers only ever get to size 3, and can never build settlers. This severely limits growth, and forces all civs to favor improvements and military units over expansion. Because cities on the fringe of all empires never got bigger than 3, the center of each empire remained around the capitol. The barbarians were much more of a check on expansion as well.

The net result is smaller, scattered empires and a lot more empty space. I (playing the Persians) found this a great deal more fun to play into the Industrial age.
There was a large war fought between China and Germany/Russia where the battlefield (central asia) was not occupied by anyone. I don't think I had ever seen a war in Civ 3 that was not an invasion.

[sgrig]

I would also I like to add that the cost of unit maintenance should increase with time.

I think it is very silly that a band of warriors costs the same to support as a battleship or an aircraft carrier.

The unit support cost should be different for the AI depending on the difficulty level. For example a rifleman costs 3 gold/turn for the human player on all levels, but 5 gold/turn for the AI on Chieftain, and free for the AI on deity.

Also obsolete units should at some point be automatically either disbanded or upgraded, as it makes no sense keeping Longbowmen in Modern Age.

These changes would make upkeep of a large industrial/modern army very expensive and would force civs to have smaller armies, making harder for large empires to survive in the modern age (as they just might not have enough gold to support a defensive unit for each one of their cities), while smaller, more productive civs can effectively defend their territory, and maybe even field a small but effective offensive force.

[Optimizer]

Shall we concentrate on things that can be done with the editor, or ideas for Civ 4?

One could increase the unit support cost for advanced governments, at least the "free" ones. It is, by now, impossible to differentiate the costs of different units (which I expected Civ 3 to do).

[sgrig]

I think these should be ideas not for Civ4, but for an upgrade pack for Civ3. (Like they had different upgrades of Civ2 - ie CiC, FW, MGE or even a completely revamped version such as ToT)

I reckon things like different support costs for units could easily introduced by Firaxis in an expansion pack. It does not mean that a standard game would would have to use new features, but such features could be used in mods/scenarios.

[Ozymandias]

I'm hoping to find time -- and the capacity in the Tech Tree! -- for a mod which would force significant choices which would ramify throughout the rest of the game.

For example, at the "Monarchy" stage or thereabouts, have a distinct set of options between Monotheistic, Polytheistic, and Confucian monarchies -- obviously the latter wouldn't build cathedrals and civ-specific units and wonders would come into play depending upon the path chosen. A Confucian monarchy might never be able to wind up at Democracy but might wind up at a Buddhist-tinged Communism. (In the "real" world of course, the Confucian monarchy not winding up at democracy -- as opposed to capitalism! -- seems to be the case; and a Polytheistic Monarchy has grown into the world's most populous democracy).

Another simpler one (which I AM working on now) is simply constant choices between Guns & Butter -- you won't have time to research every possible tech because, e.g., having gotten to the point you have armor, you must research a dead-end sideline tech called "Blitzkrieg" to get blitz armor and dive bombers. Ditto Stealth etc. You'd only research these if you were in conqueror mode or forced into them due to a rival's researching them.

Ideally, these two would work together so that individualistic force structures could be arrived at, as has historically been the case -- the Crusaders never developed light cavalry armed with the recurved composite bow, and Saladin never bothered with armored cavalry -- and that's without even getting into the Byzantine "Cataphract" cavalry, which combined both!

Also, I think the entire starship endgame is a mistake -- VERY boring building all those things in the sky which do nothing for your cities or your armies, AND very unrealistic -- I'm amused to occasional read in these forums where contributors bemoan introducing "futuristic" units likes mechs when the basic game lets you start building starship components with Apollo program, not to mention an SDI program!

I think a far better approach from a gaming POV would be to have some tech advance reveal "Alien Monolith" resources in various godforsaken parts of the globe: whatever can be accomplished in the way of new units, wonders, and/or victory would be dependent upon control of various numbers of these artifacts.

... Yours planning 3 different mods with absolutely no time to actually get around to them at the present --

Oz.

[macaskil]

I think the premise of the original post is wrong.

Get this, progress IS a good thing. We now live longer, are healthier, our cities are bigger. We have luxuries coming out of our ears.

You might ask "are we happier". I'm sure I'm happier than my 18th Century Scottish ancestor who shared a windowless hut with his livestock, ate nothing but porridge and dried fish and was subject to smallpox epidemics every few years.

Life Expectancy

1AD - 35
2000AD - 75

Largest city

1AD - Rome - 500,000
1000AD - Baghdad 1 million
2000AD - Tokyo - 23 million

Not to say there are no problems

- pollution
- crime
- finite supplies of raw materials
- poverty
- war
- terrorism

however we had most of these problems even worse 2,000 years ago.

Also, the 3rd World has not shared equally in these advances; but surely no-one can say that people in the 3rd world are actually worse off than 200 years ago.

Progress has not been uniform. Empires have risen and fallen. However in most cases after a period of barbarism a new empire has arisen on the ruins of the old. For instance the Roman Empire was replaced by a Western European Civilisation based on the Catholic Church, whilst much of the old Greek culture was kept alive in the Byzantine and Arab worlds from where (ironically mainly due to the Crusades) it spread back to the West and sparked off the Renaissance. The Muslim civilization has endured through invasions by the Mongols and Turks and domination by the Western and Communist powers in the last century.

To my mind civ does not pay enough attention to the following advances

- agricultural revolution (tractors, fertilisers) - allowing huge population growth (times 3 in 100 years)
- antiobitics/vaccination (eliminated most infectious disease - smallpox)
- free trade (should allow food to be traded for luxuries and raw materials both within empires and to other civs - do people in New York really starve because not enough food is grown in the environs of the city?)
- leisure time
- media (increases happiness, but also war weariness)
- welfare/health care/free education (increase happiness/production but uses tax revenue)

[fezick31]

I agree with the original statement that the beginning of the game is much more fun. At that point it is all about exploration and development. This has been the case with all three games. Once you make first contact, things start to become predictable. By the time you reach the middle ages, most of the map is explored, and it is just a resource race.

Test of Time attempted to solve this by adding multiple maps and the colonization of Alpha Centauri. I think that this is the path that should be explored. Right now, technology only advances up to the current level (even SDI and space travel exist, they just aren't very effective yet). There is nothing to play for once you hit the top

What the Civ3 has ignored is that while technology serves to make life easier and to change cultures, it does not stifle mankind's desire to reach out for the unkown. I think that if they somehow managed to include extraterrestrial colonization in the game, you would get much of the same gaming experience late in the game as you would earlier on.

The mistake test of time made was that it only allowed one civilization to leave earth. If multiple civilizations were allowed into space, then you would have access to, borrowing from Star Trek, the final frontier. Afterall, would it not be the mark of a great civilization to leave the nest of earth and move on to the stars? Not only that, it would offer the potential for whole new group of diplomatic agreements (of which there are no new ones afer nationalism). I'm think of multinational space agencies (ESA)& cooperative projects like the ISS.

In game terms this would a 5th age (an idea discussed on other threads as well).

thoughts?

[fezick31]

[SIZE=1] c. Bring back civil wars! Make the empire split not into 2 equal parts, but into many states of around 5 cities each, up to the maximum allowed on the map. All breakaway civs should have their dark ages together. Every civ, even the smallest and happiest, should face challenges to it's soveirgnty on occasion.

Amen brother! Even in Civ1 & 2 this rarely happened. I think this should be a common occurance, and should be as unpredicatable as possible. There are no great nations around that never experienced internal warfare. The American Civil War, the english war of the roses, Russia's Red October, Spain, and the existance of any independent nations in Northa America are all examples.

It could take into account several factors, but I see 2 big ones:
1) The size of your empire
2) How long it has been since you changed government form.

some other ideas:
3) Corruption & Unhappiness
(it was the exploitation of peasents by royalty that caused the russion revolution of 1917)
4) Low Cultural assimilation
(like Texas and Mexico)
5) Recent Government change
(This was the root cause of the american civil war (although slavery was a big deal, it didn't start it) - The south wanted decentralized, weak federal governement, the north wanted string, localized federal government. It started with compromise in the constitution, and ended in a war. Multiple claims to a throne are another example).
6) Keeping a large Standing Army
(nothing like your favorite general decideing he wants your job)

[awesomedude]

I hate to be an ******* , but I can't help myself to correct you (I hope) on the historical matters here. No offense .

Originally posted by macaskil
For instance the Roman Empire was replaced by a Western European Civilisation based on the Catholic Church, whilst much of the old Greek culture was kept alive in the Byzantine and Arab worlds from where (ironically mainly due to the Crusades) it spread back to the West and sparked off the Renaissance.

The Greek culture was not spread back to the West via crusades, it was aldready part of the western society, and even more importantly, it did not trigger the Renaissance. It was rather the Renaissance that replaced the Greek culture, which mathematical, fysical, astronomical and social (and more) thoughts and systems were still, until the scientific revolution or the Renassiance, being employed.

Originally posted by macaskil
The Muslim civilization has endured through invasions by the Mongols and Turks and domination by the Western and Communist powers in the last century.

Forgive me , but wouldn't you agree that the Turks are/were muslims?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I probably mentioned this before but, hopefully if Firaxis do come up with some sort of scripting ot events language (mostly for scenarios), then maybe it will be possible to incorporate tech losses and civil wars into the standard game using this language!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[macaskil]

To awesomedude

Renaissance means "rebirth". Much of the renaissance was "rediscoveries" of things the Greeks and Romans knew 2,000 years before - for instance, how to build domes, and the fact that the earth is round. The Byzantine and Islamic worlds were where this knowledge was kept alive.

The Turks started off in Central Asia, around modern Turkmenistan. I understood they had not yet converted to Islam at the time they invaded the Middle East, if this is wrong I stand corrected.

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by macaskil
To awesomedude

Renaissance means "rebirth". Much of the renaissance was "rediscoveries" of things the Greeks and Romans knew 2,000 years before - for instance, how to build domes, and the fact that the earth is round. The Byzantine and Islamic worlds were where this knowledge was kept alive.

The Turks started off in Central Asia, around modern Turkmenistan. I understood they had not yet converted to Islam at the time they invaded the Middle East, if this is wrong I stand corrected.

I hope you didn't 'learn' this in school because then you better sue your teacher . The Renaissance is little about rediscoveries of "things that Romans and Greek knew before". It is actually the opposite. Throughout the darkages to the ignition of the Renaissance, the Greek philosophy and thoughts we're what scholars based all their education and thoughts on, ie those theories where accepted as universal truths and therefore never challenged in any way. Many of these theories were developed by Aristotle, that for example believed the universe was geocentric and that the earth was 1/4 the size it really is. Another great greek philosopher, Ptolemaios, belived the earth to be flat, which was also considered a universal truth.

The Renaissance sparked off in the 1400s mainly due to astronomers such as Copernicus, who started to scratch on the surface to the true universe that had been hidden for a long time by the obsolete theories of Aristotle. The expanding sea-travelling also uncovered facts about the earth, such as its size and the natural life, that weren't supported by the Greek theories. This gradually encouraged people to get empiric knowledge, ie see past the old theories and start basing their knowledge on their own discoveries.

I could go on for hours about this and go much deeper, but I hope this is sufficient for you. This history lesson is free of charge by the way .

As for the Turks, I'm not sure from what date they're considered a people at all, but I'm sure they where muslims when they started to invade other muslim territories such as North Africa and Persia, which, I suppose, is essential here.

[Duddha]

awesomedude:

I don't post much on this forum, actually basicly not at all, but after reading your post I felt obligated to correct you.

I don't know what history classes you've taken but your wrong and macaskil is right.


"I hope you didn't 'learn' this in school because then you better sue your teacher . The Renaissance is little about rediscoveries of "things that Romans and Greek knew before". It is actually the opposite. Throughout the darkages to the ignition of the Renaissance, the Greek philosophy and thoughts we're what scholars based all their education and thoughts on, ie those theories where accepted as universal truths and therefore never challenged in any way. Many of these theories were developed by Aristotle, that for example believed the universe was geocentric and that the earth was 1/4 the size it really is. Another great greek philosopher, Ptolemaios, belived the earth to be flat, which was also considered a universal truth. "

You are right that medieval philosophers based their ideas on the ideas of a few ancient guys like Aristotal and Pylomye...(whatever his name is), but the Renaissance was figuing out that there were more ancient dudes to learn from and that knowlege is not absolute.

"The Renaissance sparked off in the 1400s mainly due to astronomers such as Copernicus, who started to scratch on the surface to the true universe that had been hidden for a long time by the obsolete theories of Aristotle. The expanding sea-travelling also uncovered facts about the earth, such as its size and the natural life, that weren't supported by the Greek theories. This gradually encouraged people to get empiric knowledge, ie see past the old theories and start basing their knowledge on their own discoveries."

Wow, you really need to take a real history class. The Renaissance was started in northern Italy (Copernicus->Poland) with the Humanist movement, which was basicly the idea that you need to go back a read the actual text of what people said. They hence found that there were more ideas than one. They were relearning the ancient ideas and coming up with new ways to look at their medieval world.

"I could go on for hours about this and go much deeper, but I hope this is sufficient for you"

I doubte you could.

I personaly got a 5 on the European History AP test and an 800 on the World History SAT II, so don't mess.

[player1]

Originally posted by BlueO
Of course, I would love it to have more sci-fi version of fatal wonders, like an AI developing a zombie virus and accidently turning its whole civ into zombies bent on consuming the world. Or have an AI be take over by aliens after building its fatal wonder, putting the world in danger.

Zombie virus?
Alien take over?

You mean the same ideas you used for your Alt-Sci MOD for CTP2?

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by Duddha
Wow, you really need to take a real history class. The Renaissance was started in northern Italy (Copernicus->Poland) with the Humanist movement, which was basicly the idea that you need to go back a read the actual text of what people said. <--- (My Note: Whatever this is supposed to mean is above me.) They hence found that there were more ideas than one. They were relearning the ancient ideas and coming up with new ways to look at their medieval world.

I stand by what I stated earlier and such poor posting as yours hasn't made me any less determined to do so. I hope that you put a little more thought into your next post (if there'll be one), rather than trying to poorly copy your history textbook.

My postings have not been very clear on the following; I agree that the Renaissance was sparked off with the humanist movement, but keep in mind that what I was discussing above was the rather the scientific achievements of this period rather than the mood and minds off the people. The ancient ideas you are referring to are poetry, theatrical plays, art, sculpturing and other non-scientific culture and literature, rather than science. These works were 'rediscovered', and in a sense that they changed the way that people were thinking, and the way that people looked at life (from which science owed some of its coming progress).

But however, none or little of this is related to what I am discussing above, which is rather the scientific changes of the late 1400s and onward. And the term "Renaissance", would mean rebirth in the way that a scientific and cultural society rose that hadn't been seen since ancient times, however not meaning that they started basing their knowledge upon these obsolete thoughts. And the scientific changes of the 1400s cannot be credited to the humanist movement, but to the founding of universities around Europe such as in Krakow (or Cracow in English) that developed mathematical geniuses such as Copernicus (did I ever mention him as not being polish/being Italian?).

Originally posted by Duddha
You are right that medieval philosophers based their ideas on the ideas of a few ancient guys like Aristotal and Pylomye...(whatever his name is), but the Renaissance was figuing out that there were more ancient dudes to learn from and that knowlege is not absolute.

Oh there where more ancient "dudes" to learn from eh ? Would you be so kind to state the name of these great individuals please? Aristotle was the single greatest influence on the European educational systems during the dark ages and his thoughts served as a great hindrance for scientific developments in Europe. Don't get me wrong however; he was a great mind of his time.

Originally posted by Duddha
I doubte you could.

I personaly got a 5 on the European History AP test and an 800 on the World History SAT II, so don't mess.

That's very impressive , but what would I care what grades you have, when you so cunningly have proven that they are not a measurement of your knowledge?

[BlueO]

Originally posted by player1


Zombie virus?
Alien take over?

You mean the same ideas you used for your Alt-Sci MOD for CTP2?

hehe, yup. Though, I never actually gotten into the zombie/alien eras in my ctp2 games due to slic errors...along with poor AI (yes, that includes frenzy AI) subsequently forcing me to quit the game forever. I was kinda envious reading other people's stories about their zombie experiences though. Sounded like fun.

[player1]

Originally posted by BlueO



hehe, yup. Though, I never actually gotten into the zombie/alien eras in my ctp2 games due to slic errors...along with poor AI (yes, that includes frenzy AI) subsequently forcing me to quit the game forever. I was kinda envious reading other people's stories about their zombie experiences though. Sounded like fun.

Pity, that same can't be done in Civ3.







P.S.
Just to know,
CTP2 AI evolved during last 9 months (a LOT, if you ask me).

Althought, it still isn't perfect, or better then in Civ3.

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by macaskil
To my mind civ does not pay enough attention to the following advances

- agricultural revolution (tractors, fertilisers) - allowing huge population growth (times 3 in 100 years)
- antiobitics/vaccination (eliminated most infectious disease - smallpox)
- free trade (should allow food to be traded for luxuries and raw materials both within empires and to other civs - do people in New York really starve because not enough food is grown in the environs of the city?)
- leisure time
- media (increases happiness, but also war weariness)
- welfare/health care/free education (increase happiness/production but uses tax revenue)

Hi macaskil:

I especially agree with your first three points, and would add the industrial revolution also. But the problem with the agricultural or industrial revolutions in civ is that the models are based on things building very slowly. In a given area you can generally only get a few 50% bonuses throughout the whole game. Whereas in the real world Per-capita income has changed by something like a factor of 50 from the ancient world to now! That is why Great Britain could project power all over the globe with a 'civ' that had maybe 3-5% of global resources and people at the most. Being ahead even a moderate amount on a growth curve like that is a conqueror's wet dream in the making .

But I guess including these things in civ in some pale way would be better than nothing...

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by BlueO
I have to agree, Civ3 gets kinda dull, after the empire is all set up. The rest is just boring clean-up. Usually, my empire get set up by the Industrial Age. And every game tends to be the same, I mean, there's really no difference between the civs. The fun is in the beginning, where the challenge lies in setting up the empire to withstand the other civs.

Agreed. The fun is the challenge in setting up an empire to withstand the other Civs, which is great in Ancient & Midevil. The problem in the Industrial Age & Modern Age is the AI Civs do not try to *team up* to stop/challenge the leading Civ(s) (usually a human player, but not necessarily always)... instead they continue to pound on tiny Civs... or have endless wars with Civs on other continents. I've seen *several centuries* of war for which AI Civs on different continents at war never even lose a single city, regardless of the AI Civs strength/size/tech.

As I said in another post, the AI Civs don't try to Win... they give up trying to win simply for a good trade deal. Example= Recently the Babylonians (Furious Aggressiveness4 3rd largest Superpower) let me (largest superpower) peacefully complete my spaceship for... IVORY. Getting Ivory for free was worth losing the game over!!!

Since the AI doesn't understand the importance of preventing others to win through a balance of power between existing Civs... there is little danger/challenge/excitement in the Industrial & Modern Age.

[siredgar]

I agree, the earlier part of the game is far more interesting and fun than the latter stages due to the tech race and pollution maintenance issues. It's really a chore just finishing the game.

I also think that civs share tech too much now in Civ 3. I think that tech sharing should be limited at the beginning and more widely shared at the end. It's hard to find a situation where a civ is so far behind another one like the case illustrated between Britain and India in the 18th century.

Also, perhaps there could be specialized techs for civs. For example, if the Germans were the first to discover machinery, they would have exclusive rights to it (not tradeable) and always get a bonus in manufacturing. It would be able to provide civ characteristics not by destiny but by determination. After all, the Germans weren't born "militaristic and scientific", they grew into it. If they focus on techs that focus on production, then they should get special bonuses for that.

I like the idea of opium as a negative impact resource. Indeed, the British export of opium to China helped speed up that country's decline. There should be ways to negatively affect another civ's society without causing war. The trade embargo was a great idea for Civ 3 but it too often leads to war. On the flip side, I wonder if the AI recognizes if it's getting a favorable trade deal from another civ. Sometimes, I sell a resource to an ally at a great rate or even give it away and it doesn't seem to have a significant impact. Why are they only "gracious" when you are fighting a common enemy? Shouldn't they be thankful that you are giving them cheap or even free techs and resources for hundreds of years? No, they just turn against you at the next chance they get.

Anyhow, I agree there should be some sort of "malaise" for a civ's decadent society. They need to add more city improvements that do both good and harm like in SimCity: theatres, casinos, or even massage parlors. Just kidding on that last one. By the way, what ever happened to the stock exchange???

[BlueO]

Hmm, you know what? Civ3 isn't the only game that gets boring by midgame. All other strategy games are the same. From Civ2 to Mom, Moo, Botf, Pax Imperia, and even Imperium Galaticum 2.

I wish, someone would come out a strategy game that'll throw in some lategame challenges that isn't based on 'AI players'. Take Moo2 for example, it would have been so sweet, if the Anatares came pouring out in massive fleets, and the human player needs to coornidate with other AI empires to defeat the Anatrians. Botf, the lategame challenge would naturally be the borgs...instead, botf had the borgs as a 'random event'.

Civ3, I don't know what the lategame challenge could be...except I suppose, the game could come up with a number of doomsday scenario and randomly throw in one for flavor. Actually, the 'fatal wonders' I mentioned above, probably could serve as doomsday scenarios.

Of course, lategame challenges should be a toggleable option since every once awhile, I would like to play a relaxing normal game without worrying about lategame doomsday scenarios.

Here's hoping...Moo3 will have something like that!

[s3d]

Originally posted by BlueO
Civ3, I don't know what the lategame challenge could be...except I suppose, the game could come up with a number of doomsday scenario and randomly throw in one for flavor.

We can do it in the frame of existing editor, but it is not easy. There are at least fore option :

1. (more simple) Make AI only civ, with unique cheap super unit(s) late in the game. Player shouldn't play this civ, and should include it into list of AI civs in the customization screen. The downside of this is that this civ could be destroyed before it's "golden age".

2. Make 16 mods. In each mod _all_ civ but one have super unit later in the game. Player should play remaining civ. If he want play specific civ he should choose specific mod.

3. The same as before but remove golden age from player civ.

4. Make for each civ unique unit in the industrial age. (may be with the same animation) Make only this unit triggering golden age. With all golden ages in industrial era game should be more challenge.