Major issue: territory = victory

[Trifna]

In Civ (and many other games), once you have more territory, it tends to be a matter of time to see you win. This is a problem, should it be for gameplay or make it more coherent.

Just think of the Ottoman empire. Big territory? What a mess... And I'm sure we can find lots of example of powerful and successful nations that have little territories (Europe is barely a peninsula if you did not noticed).

How can we viable find solutions? I went into it very broadly.

1- There are some disadvantages to bigger territories such as:
- People from MORE different places, thus more potential frictions among each other (espescially if they have a different past, even more if a part comes from elsewhere)
- You need good logistic when it's bigger...
- Others

2- There are some factors that have a role to play, other than territory such as:
- Trading (MAJOR: Some places are better, diplomacy plays, arrangements with bigger powers like Israel-US can serve...)
- Ressources (yes, great, it came in Civ3)
- You're bigger? It's a Risk game, so wait for others wishing to make you smaller.
- You're bigger? It may mean that you'll enter into competition, espescially with big ones (ex: Rome vs. Carthage)
- Ottomans got trouble because of a certain conservative structure. What formed their strength, later was truely an issue for them
- You can make some short term choices, or also some longer term ones. If you grew fast from short term choices, you should see the difference (fast expansions, then others around try to divide you as a pie).
- Europe-style advantages for being small and squeezed(competitivity, unrest between powers bringing problems but also pushing to go further...)


Anyway, youn see that there are many possibilities... which solutions would you have to this territory=winning asset problem?

[1889]

I don't think this is such a big problem, but some may feel it does make the game a bit too straight forward.

As a small nation I can usually get a Diplomatic Victory if I want it, and if an enemy capitol gets destroyed I have a good shot at the Space Race too. Usually my strategy is to be the biggest though.

A few things already work against the big guys, corruption from distance and from a large number of cities too.

[Max Sinister]

Simple: Count other things. Population, military strength, economic / financial power, scientific progress. Personally, I'd weight these aspects, giving science 40% and the others 20% each.

[Trifna]

Sure... but look at how Israel is a major power in this world. It's really a major POWER, not "oh it's nice it brings science" or whattever. Power in the same sense as USA is powerful. Tutorages are pretty important, and so on.

[GePap]

Israel is NOT a mayor power- it is a regional power with limited power projection.

As for the OP, I think EU had a good system of making it so large did not immidiately equal unrivalled power- the way to do so is to have costs vary on size, so the bigger you are, the more things costs.

Wealth needs to have a greater role, and diplomacy needs to be improved, to allow a rich small state to buy friends and be powerful thusly. The influence of Trade also needs to be made stronger so a small power can become very rich.

[lajzar]

Also with Israel, cut off all the foreign (mostly US, under teh "military aid" guise) aid it receives, and it would be barely 3rd world, and either have to cut back on military or starve.

As for Europe, check out the terrain. It is almost all high quality farming land. That's why the region is so successful. Food really does make the civ.

[frekk]

I think the key problem is the ability to project power.

Some system to limit the ability of a country to project military power to great distances should be implemented, and one that does not rely on building the biggest empire you can.

You should still be able to build a giant empire, and take over the world, but it should require serious strategy to do so. And, you should also be able to build a moderately-sized nation with an ability to project power out of all proportion to its size.

However, if you are very tiny your power projection should be quite limited.

I think the key here is logistics. To constrain power projection through several primary factors:

1. An infrastructure model which limits, but does not remove, infinite movement by rail.

2. A supply model which limits the number of units one can afford to have outside of one's border.

3. A trade system which requires true protection of trade routes.

4. Do away with corruption, and replace it with a system that models political challenges of large empires - insurgents and uprisings in disaffected regions.

[Vince278]

Culture points was a way to measure how well you project in a number of areas. As for challenging large empires I'm still in favor of bringing back civil wars.

[frekk]

Culture points do not limit how well you may project military power very well. You don't get to use enemy roads, well, that really doesn't cut it down too much in the game. You can still send a huge fleet all the way across the world, or maintain a massive army deep within enemy borders indefinately.

[Vince278]

I hate how long it takes for that cool fleet to get anywhere.

[Trifna]

Well look at Israel's army. Not a major power?

Of course it comes from the US! But wherever it comes, it makes it a serious power. While if we look at the Ottoman empire, we can see that their territory is huge, but their structure is sclerosed and they have trouble associating "Occidental progress" with "Islamic moral progress".


Besides, to me it is not that a minor issue since it makes a section of the game partly pre-definite. It also brings the issue of sustainable diplomatical relations/alliances/etc. And it does not permit to be a little scum

[frekk]

If Israel could go to war with China, it would be a major power. It can't and so it is not. There is one, possibly two major powers in the world today: America, and perhaps China, as it would be capable, in the abscence of an American presence, of conquering and occupying most of Asia in very rapid time. Israel could at best smash its neighbours militaries, wreck their infrastructure, and wring some territorial concessions from them. Its doubtful that Israel would be able to consider an invasion and long-term occupation of, say, Pakistan, for instance, even given the political will to do so.

[Trifna]

Ok, so now we're finished with the definition of "major" I hope. It's an adjective, and thus it is always **** COMPARED to. Go get the numbers on Israel army. It's quite an army. the country is little. It has this. This is something to notice as a good example for what I was talking about.

[frekk]

In Civ terms, it would be like having a small country with a medium sized army, but tons of air power. You could really knock a hole in your neighbours but expansion would be severely limited by the lack of ground units that would ensue from trying to hold any territory you captured.

If you want a really good study of a small country with true ability to project power and expansion potential, right now is a bad time to look. Technology in the last 20 years has made pacification really difficult, the abundance and availability of weapons like the RPG make it a real problem for most militaries.

Better to look a bit further in the past. Japan in WW2 is an incredible example of a tiny country with force projection rivalling that of the biggest nations of the world in its day.

[Max Sinister]

But Japan had quite a big population that day...

And BTW, when I mentioned the importance of science, I didn't mean "oh it's nice it brings science" but that a better technology also means better units, faster communication and higher production (ok, you could science include indirectly too)