A new model

[CarnalCanaan]

When thinking about the silliness of city names in C3C (Eboracum -> Eburacum -> Jorvik -> York... among others) I thought that perhaps the time is ripe for a completely new model of game in Civ4.

Perhaps something along the lines of the old "History of the World" board game?

If you haven't played it... DO! It's an ingenius way of turning history into a simulated game. Instead of taking a static "type" you play through the "ages". Each player receives one of several great civs from the age and plays them through to their conclusion. At the end of the age, all the old civs remain, although they are "dead", meaning they don't grow any longer. The result is that the board becomes litered with the remnants of ancient cultures left unconquered by its decendants.

The strategy is based not on the civilization but on the player, with each civ being represented by one of the players. Thus, it's not about getting the Persians to grow and survive but about getting the Persians to cooperate with and compliment your preceeding and forthcoming civs.

Unfortunately, board games can never be as visually stimulating as computer games (even "computerized board games", like Civ). The old version of the game (pre-Milton Bradley) uses identical cardboard pieces to simulate military units. It requires a good chuck of imagination to see one cardboard piece as an anachronistic Greek hoplite and the one next to it as a conquering German panzer.

However, this, I believe would result in more historically feasible meetings between disparate civs (i.e. English vs. Zulu; Americans vs. Sioux; Mongols vs. Vikings). As it is now, every civ is just a vacant color and name-theme drifting through the chain of EUROPEAN historical events. Under a "History of the World"-style model, each civ would develop independently and uniquely, only to be influenced when such distant civs achieve the technology/will to discover them.

Maybe this is too much of a change... or a different game altogether. It would be nice if a designer somewhere in Walnut Creek or Santa Clara would take more interest in the good ol' classic board games.

[lajzar]

Hmm. Intersting. One cpossible implementation...

The game starts off with (7) major civs, one of which is the player, and (7) minor civs. At the end of each age, (7) new civs are spawned. The player must choose one of these to play, and all the older major civs become ai-controlled minor civs.

If there is insufficient map room to spawn all the new civs, one of the older civs (the largest) shatters (ie civ2 style revolt when teh capital is captured, only more so) into several minor civs; some of these fragments will be the respawned major civs.

Any new major civ (either as a freshly spawned one or a shard of an old major one) will be 2-4 cities strong (perhaps 1 city per "age").

Respawned civs will be taken from a civ names list appropriate to the age. Shattered civ fragments take their names from the appropriate age list, limited by names that were historically related to the shattering civ.

I like this idea. I hope teh civ4 peeps run with it.

[Urban Ranger]

It won't be Civ anymore...

And of course there is a minor problem called China

[Dauphin]

I got the History of the World board game when I was about 10. I have never played it because I have never found anyone who wanted to play it with me.

I think it would make a good basis for a computer game, but Civ shouldn't be modelled on it.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
And of course there is a minor problem called China

China is always a problem.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lajzar
Hmm. Intersting. One cpossible implementation...

The game starts off with (7) major civs, one of which is the player, and (7) minor civs. At the end of each age, (7) new civs are spawned. The player must choose one of these to play, and all the older major civs become ai-controlled minor civs.

If there is insufficient map room to spawn all the new civs, one of the older civs (the largest) shatters (ie civ2 style revolt when teh capital is captured, only more so) into several minor civs; some of these fragments will be the respawned major civs.

Any new major civ (either as a freshly spawned one or a shard of an old major one) will be 2-4 cities strong (perhaps 1 city per "age").

Respawned civs will be taken from a civ names list appropriate to the age. Shattered civ fragments take their names from the appropriate age list, limited by names that were historically related to the shattering civ.

I like this idea. I hope teh civ4 peeps run with it.

The breakdown of a civ should never be pre-ordained. This is bound to anger players, plus it is unfair- if a civ is working, why should it collapse?

No, civs should grow as long as they tackle several mayor problems, specially internal order and political stability and of course warding off enemies. If sporadic powerful and dangerous barbarian invasions are included, then what could happen is that some large empire is hit by a huge barbarian invasion at a vulnerable point-then it could, like in civ2, collapse and break down, with cities under barbarian control becomeming minor civs. Of course, if the empire is strong enough to fight them off, it should not collapse. Very likely as well is that the empire is able to beat back the hordes, but the exertion, greater taxes, the random destruction weakens the empire from within, and it is not able to recover and then collapses.