What is the MAIN thing missing from Civ3? The decline & fall of empires

[Kryten]

We all know that NO empire lasts forever, they ALL decline and fall in the end. Some empires were defeated by other nations before they could decline, such as when Alexander conquered Persia or the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs, but the vast majority simply fell apart. Look at the collapse of the Communist empire in Russia, the British Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire of the Habsburgs, the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and of course, the Western Empire of Rome.

THE PROBLEM:
In Civ3 and all the other civ versions and spin-offs, empires are 'eternal'. Apart from direct conquest, there is NO way of representing the decline and breakup of empires. For example: suppose you wished to play a 'World History' game on a real world map with England, France, Spain, Greece, Egypt and Rome all in their correct staring locations. But if Rome conquers all these nations, as she did in reality, then thats it, they are out of the game for good, their history ceases, and Rome becomes a typical 'eternal' empire that still exists in the 21st century! Look at an atlas, why is the world today covered by by a patchwork of independant nations and NOT just 2 or 3 vast empires, which is what happens in EVERY game of civ?

A SOLUTION:
I would like to see dead nations FLIPPING BACK INTO EXISTANCE! (not hundreds nations, just the ones the game started with. So if you started a game with say 10 nations, only these will be able the 'rebel' and come back. Civ3 can be slow with just 16 nations, let alone hundreds!).
A nation is a bunch of people all living under one government, with a common culture and usually a common language (call this 'cultural-identity' if you will). When one nation conqueres several other nations it becomes an empire. Well, I would like to see these conquered people remember their 'cultural-identies' and eventually rebel and come back so that their history can continue while the empire that they belong to breaks apart. I would like to see Mongol horse arches conquer Asia/Russia/China, then centuries later these nations reappear and Russia conquers Asia and the Mongol lands, only to have their own communist empire breaking-up in the 1990's. Imagine the 'fun' of trying to hold the Roman Empire together when subject cities keep rebelling and have to be re-conquered (this might explain why Rome had a civil war about every 20 to 30 years!). This is the REAL skill in 'building an empire to stand the test of time', the abiliy to hold one TOGETHER!

Let's look at Greece for example:-
*Hellenistic empire under Alexander, which breaks-up after his death.
*Conquered by Rome, and so (temporarily) out of the game.
*Comes back into the game as the Greek speaking Byzantine Empire.
*Conquered in 1453 AD by the Ottoman Empire, so (temporarily) out of the game for a 2nd time.
*1821 AD, Greek war for independance, and she's back in the game.
*1941 AD, conquered by Nazi Germany, out of the game again.
*1945 AD, she's back for a 3rd time.
*1980 AD, a part of NATO and allied to the EEC.

So, the Greeks final score is --- 2 empires (Alexander & Byzantium), conquered 3 times (by Rome, Persia, Germany), but still in the game in the 21st century. Now I know that modern Greeks are not the same people as those who built Athens or Sparta, just as modern Egyptians are not the same as the people who built the Pyramids, but if we had nations rebelling we could at least give the illusion and simulate the history of the REGION, if not the PEOPLE.
This would also be a more realistic and historical use for 'culture-flipping' as well.

Some of you may not like these ideas. To these people I say this: why is it that after some 6,000 years of human history, countires such as England, France, China, Italy, Greece, India, Spain and so on, ALL of whom have been conquered at one time or another, some of them several times, are still independant nations in the 21st century? Ask yourself 'why'?

[dexters]

I think it is a gameplay decision to make empires enternal. The dates attached to each turn is for the more historically minded persons to measure their progress and from tradition. Firaxis could well have used a different time measurement, or even measure the game only in the number of turns you've played.

[Radiation Zero]

Originally posted by Kryten


Some of you may not like these ideas. To these people I say this: why is it that after some 6,000 years of human history, countires such as England, France, China, Italy, Greece, India, Spain and so on, ALL of whom have been conquered at one time or another, some of them several times, are still independant nations in the 21st century? Ask yourself 'why'?

That might be a somewhat good idea, but the point of Civ is it is a game of empire building, not of culture building

(that is, it's not so much about where your people are at at the end of the game, but where your empire is at)

Nations that reach out and conquer other nations or even portions of other nations, need to build the infrastructure to keep things in place; temples to bring up happiness, aqueducts to make them grow, marketplaces for economy, etc.
Otherwise, they risk losing their newfound cities as wel as loads of gold from their treasury and precious time.

Also, if a nations conquers part of a very culturally advanced Civ, there is a chance that what you were describing might happen, in as close as Civ can get to it, a bunch of cities revolting and tryihng to return to their original nation.


All in all, your ideas are sound, but already implemented, in an abstract way. Adding more might simply make the game too difficult for some to play.

The idea would only work if it was just as possible for history to repeat itself, as for the Hellenic Greeks to resist frangmentation and conquer, and prehaps exist for many centuries past their historical counterparts, maybe even conquering the world.

It is a game, and while it's always, ALWAYS good to look for ways to make the game more fun, it's also important to keep in mind that people like to be able to win, too.

[Kryten]

Originally posted by dexters
I think it is a gameplay decision to make empires enternal. The dates attached to each turn is for the more historically minded persons to measure their progress and from tradition. Firaxis could well have used a different time measurement, or even measure the game only in the number of turns you've played.

You are quite right Dexters, I only put those dates with the Greek example as a reference (it wouldn't be much fun to play if everything in the game HAD to happen by a certain date! Uncertainty is what makes the game interesting after all).

POSSIBLE SUGGESTIONS TO MAKE THIS IDEA WORK:

*Remove 'assimilation' from the game; if you conquer a city, then the native population STAYS native and remembers their 'cultural-identity' (French speaking people of Quebec and the Scots and Welsh will know what I mean ). And if the city population increases, another NATIVE is added to the city. Think of the British in India. The British ruling class were a small minority. The vast bulk of new citizens born during the long years of British occupation were ethnically native Indians (I hope I don't get into trouble for using the word 'ethnic'!).

*Razing of cities; in all my history books I can find NO record of any Democracy EVER razing a city (Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were close, but even these cities still exist and were not 'wiped from the face of the earth'). Likewise, although Communist governments tend to kill a lot of their own people, I can find NO record of them EVER razing an entire city. The same with Monarchy (at least in europe)....many cities saked yes, but none razed and totaly wiped out so that the city no longer exists.
I therefore suggest that only Despotic governments (such as the Nazis and Mongols) can raze cities (I know that the Roman Republic razed Carthage and Corinth, but when you consider their harsh taxes and inhumane treatment of slaves....well, they may have called themselves a Republic, but to the people they conquered they were Despots!). So if you want to destroy a city, change your government!

*Democracies don't conquer cities, they 'liberate' them. So if you as a democray conquer a city with an ALL German population, you can keep it (but remember, one day it WILL want it's freedom and rebel). But if the city has ANY French citizens, then it is 'liberated' and given to France. And if France is not in the game, then this becomes the new French capital (think of WW2).

*When a city wants to rebel, but the military garrison is too strong, then lots of 'guerrilla' type units appear. This happens EVERY turn, so eventually the city WILL gain it's freedom and that nation return to the game. So military might is only a temporary solution, and NOT the answer to every political problem.

*Certain governments increase the chance of a rebellion, while Democracy reduces it (but never reduces it to zero). Likewise, starving the population and rushing them INCREASES the chance of rebellion (let's have a little bit of moral responsibility in the game....if you treat your people like dirt then expect them to bite back!).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do have other ideas and suggestions, but this post is becoming far to long as it is!

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Radiation Zero
It is a game, and while it's always, ALWAYS good to look for ways to make the game more fun, it's also important to keep in mind that people like to be able to win, too.

I do see your point Radiation Zero, and I do agree, but remember that 'culture-flipping' was added to the game by Firaxis as a way of giving the 'builder' type player an alternative to total military conquest. Both types of victory would still be possible, but the military victory would be harder. Just conquering would not be enough; if you want to KEEP your conquests, then you'd better keep the conquered people happy with city improvements.

After all, many people complained that aircraft not being able to sink ships was 'unrealistic', so Firaxis added leathal bombardment. And many people didn't think that spearmen defeating tanks was 'realistic', so they made hit points adjustable. I just don't think that it is 'realistic' to have 'eternal empires' that cover the whole globe in the 21st century when, in the real world, they clearly do not.

(BTW, for the last 6 months I have been a stern supporter of 'culture-flipping' and have argued tooth 'n nail trying to defend it. But I have finaly realised that it is flawed, unhistorical, unrealistic, needs to be impoved, and is a TOTALLY ARTIFICAL addition added to the game for play balance purposes only that has no equivalent in the real world, at least not in its present form. I realised that I was only defending it beause it's in the game! If some other mechanism had been included instead then I would probably be defending that instead. The basic idea was good, but the execution of vanishing garrisons, instant 'flips', no warning, and joining the nearest superpower does not fit what happens in the reality. Changing it slightly to my 'cultural-identity' suggestion does look more realistic, and would allow dead civs to reappear thus simulating the break-up of empires.
In short, I don't want less 'flips', I want MORE! But I'd like them to be more representative of the events that happen in the real world and less 'artificially created for game balance purposes'.
You could say that I have been "seduced by the dark side"! )

[Ijuin]

Something that could be implemented within the current game parameters is that whenever a city of any empire riots, there is a chance of it rebelling and becoming a separate civ (all cities that subsequently rebel from that empire would join this new civ). The new civ would be a civ of the same culture group that had been eliminated earlier in the game. For example, if Greece was eliminated, and some Roman cities rebelled, then they would become the new Greece, and any later cities from Rome or other civs in that culture group would join this new Greek state.

I would give say, a twenty percent chance of rebellion on the second turn that a city riots, and have the chance increase by twenty percent each subsequent turn of rioting. This would make it more important to keep your cities out of disorder, since now they will almost certainly rebel and form a new, hostile civ if they riot for long enough, instead of merely joining one of your neighbors if your culture is weak as is currently done.

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Ijuin
Something that could be implemented within the current game parameters is that whenever a city of any empire riots, there is a chance of it rebelling and becoming a separate civ (all cities that subsequently rebel from that empire would join this new civ). The new civ would be a civ of the same culture group that had been eliminated earlier in the game. For example, if Greece was eliminated, and some Roman cities rebelled, then they would become the new Greece, and any later cities from Rome or other civs in that culture group would join this new Greek state.

I TOTALLY agree with you Ijuin! I would also like the rebellions to happen randomly in cities with any native population, with variables depending apon the type of government, how happy these native citizens are, whether they have been drafted/starved/rushed or not, and how many natives are in the city (and I'd like to see their population INCREASE instead of being assimulated, to represent parents passing their 'cultural-indentity' onto their children). And by making the growing number of native citizens in the city such an important factor also helps keep the that new rebelling civilization in their ancestrial region (I wouldn't want the Greeks to bounce back into the game in England for example).

Now it would be possible for the Roman Empire, exhausted after centuries of civil war and barbarian invasions, to be too weak to reconquer the new revolts in Spain/England/France/Greece/Egypt, so these nations appear representing the fall of Rome (I know that the invading barbarian Germans had a lot to do with the fall of Rome, but at least this 'simulates' the break-up of the empire, and is better than having the Empire still around in the 21st century!)

The same thing could happen in India. Early in the Industrial Age India could revolt, only to have this 'Indian Mutiny' crushed by the British. Later in the Industrial Age India rebels again, but this time Britain is too exhausted from two world wars to try and reconquer, so they withdraw and India gains it's independance.

The possiblities are endless......

[The diplomat]

I think that an empire's strength an size should oscillate a lot more. In civ3, a civ always get bigger. You never really see a civ get bigger, then smaller then come back again.

1) larger empires can have more corruption, but more importantly, they need to have higher unhappiness. SMAC had "bureaucracy drones". Civ3 should have something similar. The larger the empire, the more unhappiness, so that the risk of revolt increases. This means that in an extreme case, a large empire could lose cities to revolt and become much smaller and decline.

2) smaller civs need a boost to help them overcome a larger civ. I have a somewhat radical idea to do this. If a civ is really struggling in a certain area, there would be a certain percentage chance that a great leader type unit would appear and give that civ a bonus in the area where it is lagging. The bonus would be temporary becaus the special leader could be killed or in any case, would die of natural causes after certain number of turns. So the Special Leader would only exist for a certain number of turns.

An economic leader might give the city that it is in, a boost in gold. A scientist leader could give the city that it is in, a boost in science output. A military leader could come with 3 elite free units. etc...

The idea would be to give a small struggling civ, a chance to come back into the game. A temporary Special Leaders means that it would be up to the skill of the player to take advantage of the chance.

idea 1 would make it harder for larger civs to hold on to their territory. Idea 2 would help a small struggling civ come back into the game. Therefore, both ideas would favor empires oscillating in strenght a bit more than they do.

[Pythagoras]

I agree that its a gameplay decision. I think they tried to address this somewhat with golden ages.

I believe the difference between civ and history is that in history there is a lot of conquer/counterconquer/counterconquer. Some places on the planet have been dominated probably by more than 10 or 15 different 'civilizations' Perhaps the factors behind what makes a civ crumble could be better modeled.

[notyoueither]

People complain about losing one city to a flip. What would they think about losing a whole continent?

[Kryten]

To The Diplomat:-

You're right, smaller civs do need a bit of a boost. I was thinking of a system similar to the old Civ2 'Civil War'; i.e if the rebellious units do capture their own city, then the natives in that city would cause their 'dead' civilization to return, along with a sizeable modern army, and automatically have the same technologies as the empire that they broke away from. But your ideas would certainly help

As for size (and size IS everything ), I was thinking of something very roughly along these lines:-
Suppose that there was always a 1% chance of a city rebelling, no matter how happy the natives were. Then a small nation that had conquered say 3 cities would only have a 3% chance per turn of a revolution. It may never happen. But a huge empire like Rome, which had conquered England/France/Spain/North Africa/Greece/Egypt and Anatolia + Syria (assuming about 8 cities in each region on average), would have about 56 native cities and so 56% chance of one of them rebelling. So it would need to spend about 20 times more on military, just to keep control! On some turns it would be lucky and have no revolts. But then again, it could have two or three in a single turn. Add to this any revolts from the previous turn not yet crushed, throw in a barbarian invasion from the German civ....and you can see why Rome fell!
(BTW, if these figures are approximately correct, then the Byzantine Empire, which was only half the size, should have half the revolts, and so last about twice as long....which they did!)


To Notyoueither:-

Originally posted by notyoueither
People complain about losing one city to a flip. What would they think about losing a whole continent?

Well....there was a thing called "the American Revolution"......
(Actually, I was more thinking along the lines of each city with a native population making it's own revolt check....but on the other hand.....
What does everyone else think?)

[Radiation Zero]

Originally posted by Kryten
Now it would be possible for the Roman Empire, exhausted after centuries of civil war and barbarian invasions, to be too weak to reconquer the new revolts in Spain/England/France/Greece/Egypt, so these nations appear representing the fall of Rome (I know that the invading barbarian Germans had a lot to do with the fall of Rome, but at least this 'simulates' the break-up of the empire, and is better than having the Empire still around in the 21st century!)

The same thing could happen in India. Early in the Industrial Age India could revolt, only to have this 'Indian Mutiny' crushed by the British. Later in the Industrial Age India rebels again, but this time Britain is too exhausted from two world wars to try and reconquer, so they withdraw and India gains it's independance.

The possiblities are endless......

I agree that cities should produce native population, retain cultural identity, etc.

This would give more credibility to the idea of dispersement. When Rome conquers France, they don't want the Guals to unite and oust their rule, so they spread them throughout the empire while giving loayl citezens French land.

This makes for a few unhappy French in each city, but a mostly peaceful, less likely to cecede France.

I think my point is that I would like to see some changes along these lines brought about, but I don't want it to be nearly impossible just to manage a large empire, let alone managing it's armies and dealing with the AI, etc.

The AI needs a lot more work too, IMO.
It's much, much improved, but negotating is still a vacation from rationality at times.

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Radiation Zero
It's much, much improved, but negotating is still a vacation from rationality at times.

You are dead right! But I thought I'd give it a try.

[dexters]

The problem with making it a mandatory event that empires rise and fall is that it is completely counterintuitive for the players.

People what to keep what they build and making their cities less productive, city improvements failing, or their empires decline through time will no doubt raise the ire of many players.

Again, this is an argument for tying in with realism that just wont work in a game.

[Kryten]

Originally posted by dexters
The problem with making it a mandatory event that empires rise and fall is that it is completely counterintuitive for the players.

People what to keep what they build and making their cities less productive, city improvements failing, or their empires decline through time will no doubt raise the ire of many players.

Again, this is an argument for tying in with realism that just wont work in a game.

Forgive me, but you seem to be implying that civ players can't handle simple historical facts. I do hope that is not the case. There are still people creating some excellent historical scenarios for Civ2. Imagine all the scenarios and historical situations that could be created with declining empires in Civ3!

Over the years each new version of civ has added more and more 'realism' to the game. Why can't the English build elephants in Civ3? (after all, they could in Civ1 & Civ2)....because they never did in reality. Likewise, why can't the French build samurai....again, it's not 'realstic'. And why can the Germans build panzers and are militaristic/scientific....because for part of their history they were, and Civ3 is trying to portray them in a 'realistic' manner.

Everybody wants the game to be more 'realistic'. That's why they complained about aircraft not being able to sink ships, or spearmen defeating tanks, or railways having unlimited movement, or about naval warfare, or a hundred and one other things. All I'm asking for is another piece of obvious, true, historical and fundamental fact of life be added to the game....boats float and aircraft fly and ALL empires decline and fall.

I'd like to think that players will see this as another challange, as another layer of 'reality' to be mastered and planned for. However, you may be right. Maybe players do only want to pick and choose the bits of the real world that fits their dreams of meglomania while discarding the other true facts as being 'inconvenient'. If so, then the civ series has reach its end with Civ3. There would be no point in a Civ4 with even more realistic features, because 'realism' just gets in the way of the game's one and only purpose, the military conquest of the world.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi All:

Here's what we're planning on doing in Clash of Civs. Now the same thing wouldn't work directly in civ because of the different ways the world is handled. But I think something like this could be made to work. It would certainly spice up the game more than culture flipping...

Below is the basic idea. Its written in terms of real historical events, but please don't read into it the desire to straight-jacket the play in that way.


FE a player might first control Norsemen, who thru conquest become Normans (in France). Since the Norsemen civ isn't powerful enough to impose its will on the Normans, the player then needs to pick one side and run them from then on. (The alternative is to try to remain in control of both, and lose to the inevitable revolt farily soon). Similarly, as I see it, the Normans can conquer Britain. Our former Normans (and the player as their guiding spirit) would then rule what becomes the short-lived Angevin Empire. At some point they lose their French holdings to what will become the French king.

What was originally a civ of Norsemen is now one (England) composed of Anglo-saxons and other ethnicities. Now to make it more exilharating the English colonize and the player again gets the chance of which horse to back when the American Revolution occurs! Anyway that's my view of how dynamic the game should be. Civs should have ups and downs, and really big ancient empires should be largely unsustainable.

Hope this is of some use in your discussion!

[dexters]

Originally posted by Kryten


Forgive me, but you seem to be implying that civ players can't handle simple historical facts. I do hope that is not the case. There are still people creating some excellent historical scenarios for Civ2. Imagine all the scenarios and historical situations that could be created with declining empires in Civ3![/b]

This has nothing to do with the rise and fall of empires. Creating scenarios is pure fun. Civ is never about simulating history. it is about creating its own version of history.

[b]Everybody wants the game to be more 'realistic'. That's why they complained about aircraft not being able to sink ships, or spearmen defeating tanks, or railways having unlimited movement, or about naval warfare, or a hundred and one other things. All I'm asking for is another piece of obvious, true, historical and fundamental fact of life be added to the game....boats float and aircraft fly and ALL empires decline and fall.

Ummm... everyone wants this game to be more realistic?

Do you want to have an election ever four turns in democracy? do you want the game to end in 100 years? do you want to have to deal with incopetent generals that refuse to do what you tell them to do?

Please, be my guest and create a realistic game. You're barking up the wrong tree complaining about Civ3 not being realistic. It was never meant to be a realistic game.

To be quite frank, I think people often confuse realism and gameplay. There is no correlation that a more realistic game means a better game. Gameplay is something about how the game is plays not how welll it emulates the world. A lot of the gameplay shorthand Firaxis and Sid employed in the first two installments and found in this one as well are VERY unrealistic, but people are not whining about changing them because it is rather obvious making them realistic will make the game unplayable.

This whole empire waxing and waning thing tends to play itself out anyways in higher difficulty levels when the AI does some serious competitng and the total score of many civs changes in proportion over time, as armies mobilize, demobilize and empires win and lose cities and build great wonders.

[Ijuin]

[

Originally posted by The diplomat
I think that an empire's strength an size should oscillate a lot more. In civ3, a civ always get bigger. You never really see a civ get bigger, then smaller then come back again.

1) larger empires can have more corruption, but more importantly, they need to have higher unhappiness. SMAC had "bureaucracy drones". Civ3 should have something similar. The larger the empire, the more unhappiness, so that the risk of revolt increases. This means that in an extreme case, a large empire could lose cities to revolt and become much smaller and decline.

2) smaller civs need a boost to help them overcome a larger civ. I have a somewhat radical idea to do this. If a civ is really struggling in a certain area, there would be a certain percentage chance that a great leader type unit would appear and give that civ a bonus in the area where it is lagging. The bonus would be temporary becaus the special leader could be killed or in any case, would die of natural causes after certain number of turns. So the Special Leader would only exist for a certain number of turns.

An economic leader might give the city that it is in, a boost in gold. A scientist leader could give the city that it is in, a boost in science output. A military leader could come with 3 elite free units. etc...

The idea would be to give a small struggling civ, a chance to come back into the game. A temporary Special Leaders means that it would be up to the skill of the player to take advantage of the chance.

idea 1 would make it harder for larger civs to hold on to their territory. Idea 2 would help a small struggling civ come back into the game. Therefore, both ideas would favor empires oscillating in strenght a bit more than they do.

Hmmm...I like the idea of happiness penalties for larger civs. How about this: Unhappiness due to war weariness is in direct proportion to your empire size--if you have twice the optimal number of cities, you get twice as much unhappiness per city, and if you have half the optimal number, you only get half as much unhappiness per city.

Also, you should get unhappy citizens automatically as you have more than the optimal number of cities (Civ 2 did this i believe). For example, you might get unhappy citizens equal to one half the portion of your cities are above the optimum number. What I mean is something like this:

C = Total # of cities
O = Optimal # of cities
U = Proportion of unhappy people generated in all cities

U = (C-O)/2C

For example, if the optimum number of cities was 10, and you had 20 cities, then (20-10)/(2 X 20), or 1/4 of your citizens would be unhappy because of your oversized empire. If you had 30 cities, then (30-10)/(2 X 30), or 1/3 of your citizens would be unhappy.

Combine this with the possibility of rioting cities going into rebellion that I suggested above, and holding a large empire together becomes expensive and difficult. More advanced government types might be a bit more lenient on empire size penalties however.

[Kryten]

Originally posted by dexters

This has nothing to do with the rise and fall of empires. Creating scenarios is pure fun. Civ is never about simulating history. it is about creating its own version of history.

Yes, Civ3 can be used to create interesting situations, both as scenarios and in random games. But a game that is based on history that can make an almost infinite number of 'what if' or 'fantasy' situations, but is NOT capable of even abstractly simulating the facts of life of the real world, is fundamentally flawed.

Please, be my guest and create a realistic game. You're barking up the wrong tree complaining about Civ3 not being realistic. It was never meant to be a realistic game.

Never ment to be realistic? Then why can't the French build elephants, or the English build samurai? Why must I have iron before I can build legionaries? Why have war weariness/forced labor/drafting? Why does artillery have a longer bombardment range? Why does cavalry move faster than infantry? Why are battleships more powerful than destroyers? Why have submarines? And why are the Romans/Greeks/Egyptians all in the mediterranean culture group, while the English/French/Germans/Russians are in the european culture group? (could it be...heaven forbid!...because this is how they are grouped together in the real world?).
The game of "Risk" doesn't have all these things, so why does Civ3?
Why....because Civ3 tries to use ABSTRACT concepts to SIMULATE real world factors! Which is something that "Risk" does not do.

I'm sorry, but I do find it a bit hypocritical of players to calmly accept all the 'simulated reality' that has already been added to Civ3 over the years, but then throwing their hands in the air and screaming "it's not ment to be realistic!" when someone suggests adding a little bit more 'simulated reality' to the game.

To be quite frank, I think people often confuse realism and gameplay. There is no correlation that a more realistic game means a better game. Gameplay is something about how the game is plays not how well it emulates the world. A lot of the gameplay shorthand Firaxis and Sid employed in the first two installments and found in this one as well are VERY unrealistic, but people are not whining about changing them because it is rather obvious making them realistic will make the game unplayable.

Ah! Now here I do totally agree with you! You are quite right; playability is the key. So let's forget reality for the moment and just concentrate on gameplay.
Have a look at the following two situations:-

Situation One:
You are playing a game of civ. The Egyptians have been eliminated from the game and you own one of their cities, which is right next door to the Persians.
Suddenly, and without warning, this old Egyptian city 'flips' to the Persians, and the large garrison that it contained vanishes into thin air.

Situation Two:
You are playing a game of civ. The Egyptians have been eliminated from the game and you own one of their cities, which is right next door to the Persians.
Suddenly, a bunch of guerrilla type units appear around the Egyptian city. It does not come as a total shock as you knew that one day they would rebel and try to regain their freedom, thats why the city had a large garrison. But these rebel units are causing casulties to the garrison, so you need to make some decisons.
Should you withdraw from the city and allow the Egyptians back in the game, OR, bring in more troops to quell the rebellion? But this is only a short term solution. They may keep on rebelling and creating new guerrilla units unless you increase the natives happiness, but that may mean more luxuries, which means less taxes, which may affect your empire's war projects. Alternatively, you could give the Egyptians their freedom, then use diplomacy to become their friends and so create a 'buffer state' between yourself and the Persians.
Decisions, decisions....

Now then, from a GAMEPLAY point of view, which of these two situations would be best in the game?
Situation One, where you have no warning, can make no decisions, and have no control over the event, as well as the garrison disappearing in a most illogical way? Or Situation Two, where you can make plans in advance, you do have to make decisions, and do have some control over events? (the fact that it is also more 'realistic' is a bonus).

[WarpStorm]

This is nearly totally off topic of where the thread has gone, but is in keeping with the title, so here goes. There is a wonderful board game called Vinci that is about the rise and fall of empires. A good description/review of it is here: http://www.io.com/~beckerdo/games/re...nciReview.html

[Kryten]

Thanks for the link WarpStorm . I have never heard of that particular game before.

Now here's one for you . Have you ever heard of an old Avalon Hill game called "History of the World"? I've never played the board game version, but I do have the computer game version. Like Vinci it's very abstract, but it is also very historically based as well. Here's one of the many reviews that can be found on the web:-

http://www.cdmag.com/strategy_vault/...w/article.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Ijuin:-

Good ideas! But we must be careful, we don't want to make it impossible to win by military conquest, but just have empires falling apart eventually. Even my suggestion earlier in this thread of giving conquered cities a miniscule 1% chance of a rebellion each turn means that a vast empire of a 100 conquered cities would suffer on average one rebellion each turn . On the other hand, this may still not be enough to cause an empire to break-up and have the conquered nations reappear. So your suggestions may be necessary as well.

[Coracle]

The main things missing from Civ 3 are scenario-building, MP, and the Multi Cheat function we had in Civ 2.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Coracle
The main things missing from Civ 3 are scenario-building, MP, and the Multi Cheat function we had in Civ 2.

And here I was thinking the Multi Cheat was unique to Civ 3 before the current patch. Or perhaps you meant the Cheat Menu from Civ 2.

But haven't you been complaining previously about the AI cheating too much? And here you are, complaining that there isn't enough cheating available?

If you are going to complain constantly, at least have a point.

[Phil_de_geezer]

I like the sound of your ideas Kryten but...

1) some citizens should be assimilated - perhaps when they are treated particularly well by the controlling civ or when they have been part of a dominant culture for a long time. This effect could be increased closer to your capital due to a feeling of actually being part of your nation.

2) There needs to be some reward for actually making the effort to conquer cities - if they are all going to flip back and in the meantime be unhappy, unproductive and corrupt, what's the point? Maybe if corruption were scaled down, then the controlling civ could receive a temporary benefit (until the cities flip) of increased tax revenue and production.

[Mikel]

The reason we don't see the decline of empires in Civ3 is because the designers are very reluctant to include any two-edged-swords. In most cities you can build every single thing without fear of any problems (maybe not the most efficient way to play the game but you could do this on the lowest 2 levels and still easily win). With the reduced corruption levels (which were necessary due to the expansion frenzied AI) there seems to be no disadvantage to controlling as many cities as possible. Where is the option to overstreach your empire to gain an advantage, but possibly to fail and fall into decline? Where are the hard decisions? Where are the tactical gambles to be made? There are none. Civ is really a glorified version of Risk, but without the cards to swap.


But it could be different.

They could have brought over a newer version of the social engineering model from SMAC. That had a pro and a con to each decision.

Instead of corruption increasing with distance to the capital they could have had a rebellion factor. Don't begin to compare this with culture flipping. This would be a % factor that would have a higher base value with each new city you build. The buildings you put in that city would change the rebellion value. You build libraries to keep up with other civ's in the technology race, but you also have a better educated population that may have their own ideas on how things should be run, and so that increases the R-value. You neglect to build improvements which decrease the R-value in favour of stretching your lead over the other civs you run the risk of rebelion in some of your cities. Maybe they form a new nation with the support of your main rival. Perhaps there is a rebellion against your main rival and you get to throw your support with the rebels.

With some of the "childless" advances they could have added interesting decisions to be made based on historical situations. OK so I can't think of one for "Steel", but how about with the discovery of Monotheism you may well be asked

"Do you wish to denounce the old Gods and proclaim yourself messenger of the one True Deity?"
Yes - All temples are destroyed. Catherdrals can be built for half cost.

No - One extra unhappy pop in each city. Templesproduce 1 extra culture each.


Or something. Think of your own.





These options don't exist, and will probably never be a part of Civ. I think we will have to enjoy Civ for what it is - a very simple and enjoyable game that won't alter much in the original design from 12 years ago, and hope that for a more in depth history model other games designers believe the genre has enough of a following that they decide to produce a product with fresh ideas.

[Austin]

The fact is that almost ALL empires go through cycles of growth and decay; the law of diminishing returns virtually guarentees it.

The great exception was Europe, where a series of unique factors resulted in the industrial revolution, allowing man to tap a whole new source of energy and thus escape (for a time) the dead hand of diminishing returns (until a fossil fuel based society starts to hit it's own limits, which it appears to be doing).

Perhaps there needs to be a "Degenerate Age" which works the same way a "Golden Age" does only backwards. During a "Degenerate Age", cities that go into civil disorder don't just be disorderly, they reverte back to the founding civ (so a decadant Rome runs the risk of seeing all those Greeks, Gauls etc. coming back to haunt them if they mismanage things).

Barbarians should be magnetically attracted to a "Degenerate" civ, and should even pop up in the midst of the civ if things are haywire enough (think the Bagaudae for Rome).

The trigger for a "Degenerate Age" could key on how far and how rapidly a society has expanded the way that corruption does now.

This could add a new challenging dimension to the game. Sure as Rome I've kicked butt across Europe from Hadrians wall to the Persian Gulf, but now the Roman people are too busy having orgies and making themselves barf to take care of business, and I have a big challenge holding the Empire together.

Austin

[Kryten]

To Phil_de_geezer:-

Assimilation. This is one of those things that sounds logical, but in reality.... (here I go again, talking about the real world! Forgive me everybody, but I do come from planet earth, and the history of this world is the only one I know!) ....as I said , in reality there are many examples where assimilation has just not happened. Look at the Basque Separatists, they don't feel that they have been assimilated by Spain, even though they have been living for centuries not far from Madrid. Then there's the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, and the Catholics of Northern Ireland, and look at the current situation in the Balkans . Some 'cultural-identities' run very, very deep!
On the other hand, and looking closer to home ( ), the Welsh people of the United Kingdom were conquered by Edward the First in 1284 AD, and have never really revolted since, even though they have a very strong sense of 'cultural-identity' and their own language. But then Britain has a relatively mild and benign form of government. So I think that your suggestion is a good one, with just one slight change: only democratic govenments with relatively nearby capitals can assimilate conquered natives.

As for your second point, if we assume that the chance of each conquered city rebelling was say 1% (which would be higher under a nasty government or if you treat your citizens in a nasty way), then it is still worth building up and improving a that city because you never know when it will rebel, if ever.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

To Mikel:-

You are dead right! Civ hasn't changed that much in 12 years, but it is getting better with new features as time goes by. And Firaxis do listen to the fans (which is why they added leathal bombardment). So there is hope....

(BTW, as a Scot, what do you think of assimilation as discussed above? I for one would be very interested in your views)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Austin:-

Originally posted by Austin
Perhaps there needs to be a "Degenerate Age" which works the same way a "Golden Age" does only backwards. During a "Degenerate Age", cities that go into civil disorder don't just be disorderly, they reverte back to the founding civ (so a decadant Rome runs the risk of seeing all those Greeks, Gauls etc. coming back to haunt them if they mismanage things).

This a VERY good idea! I like it, I like it a lot!
Thats what civ is all about....new decisons, new challenges, and new problems to overcome.

[Phil_de_geezer]

Kryten, i agree with you on assimilation but not on the second point.

then it is still worth building up and improving a that city because you never know when it will rebel, if ever

If you have a particularly large empire then the cities you capture have very little value due to the obscene amounts of corruption and waste. Improving the cities would take a long time with just one shield per turn for production and maintaining improvements would drain the treasury because the single trade icon generated. By conquering the cities you have gained nothing (except maybe some resources) and will still have to struggle to keep the cities, fight insurgents and balance the treasury. Conquering cities would be pointless!? I suppose in that respect civ is like that anyway.

Am i missing something?

[Mikel]

Kryten

I think assimilation occurs far too quickly in Civ. If you look at the home nations they all still have their own national identity after 300 years of the Union. Outwith that you find many more people that still claim to be Irish or Scottish despite the fact that they belong to a nation that has long since ceased to be part of the Brittish establishment.

I am sure that elsewhere in the world there are other examples which go against this and prove the Civ model. The real deciding element then is what makes fun gameplay. I like to feel that I have choices to make that affect the outcome of each game, rather that devising a general tactic that can be used to play every game. That becomes Civ by numbers, and I find that I quickly lose interest. I enjoy the new resources model and the occasional resource move that includes as it forces hard choices upon the player. Civ needs more of this and if that can be achieved by somehow setting a fine balance that must be struck just to keep your empire together then all the better.

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Phil_de_geezer
If you have a particularly large empire then the cities you capture have very little value due to the obscene amounts of corruption and waste. Improving the cities would take a long time with just one shield per turn for production and maintaining improvements would drain the treasury because the single trade icon generated. By conquering the cities you have gained nothing (except maybe some resources) and will still have to struggle to keep the cities, fight insurgents and balance the treasury. Conquering cities would be pointless!? I suppose in that respect civ is like that anyway.

Am i missing something?

This is a good point. You know, I've never really thought about it before. High corruption rates in captured cities is just one of those things in Civ3 that I tend to accept.
As you know, there are things that can be done to help reduce corruption, such as courthouses and police stations, or using the captured city to produce gold and beakers via taxmen and scientists (which are immune to corruption), but the city will never produce as much as a city close to the capital/forbidden palace.
But there other reasons for capturing cities....

As you mentioned, you may want the resources that are near the city, or it may have a great wonder that you desire. Or you may require a forward base as somewhere to repair your troops and ships, and to extend your air cover. And when a city is captured, you also bring the region around that city into your boundaries, so the roads (and later railways) can be used to greatly increase your 'strategic mobility', which is a very good reason to capture cities. Last of all, and perhaps the most important, although the city may be a very long way from your capital and so bring you no economic advantages, it is probably closer to your opponents capital, so you are reducing the enemy's production and economy by capturing it.

So all-in-all, what with resources, great wonders, forward bases, strategic mobility, and reducing the enemy's production, I think it's still worth capturing cities, even if they have a chance of 'culture-flipping' and the garrison vanishing (as under the current Civ3 system) or rebelling and that eliminated civilization coming back into the game (as I am suggesting).

But you're right, they will never be great production cities.....and maybe this is how it should be. The Germans captured a lot of large Russian cities in WW2, but every Wehrmacht divison still had to be built in the core cities of Germany and then transported to the front. The same thing for the allies; no matter how many cities captured (or liberated) in Europe and the Pacific, every American G.I. still had to be 'built' in the core cities of the USA and then transported across the sea.
Not the best example perhaps, but true nonetheless.