The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
+exp bonus, Kolpo? Do you mean a bonus to unit experience? If so then, as you said, there would need to be a major counterbalance to the vassalage bonus, to encourage people away from merely settling on that system.
Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
+exp bonus, Kolpo? Do you mean a bonus to unit experience? If so then, as you said, there would need to be a major counterbalance to the vassalage bonus, to encourage people away from merely settling on that system.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yes, I think it is an exp bonus when you create a unit. So when you create a new unit under vassalage shall it not start with 0 exp but instead with a little exp. But after a unit is created shall it no longer give any bonus. Historical where those castle lords/nobles not very loyal to their king and vassalage isn't the best system when it comes to health or science(poor farmers who can barely feed themself aren't very healthy nor have they time for education), so one of those things could balance it or firaxis might have thought of some other balance factors.
The family of castle lords often participated in knight games and spend a lot of time training their combat and horse skills. I think that the exp bonus represents this.
That sucks. It'll have to be modded in something more balanced right away.
I disagree. Many modern civics options should be better than ones from previous eras, to simulate the changes in government & society over the ages. Otherwise barbaric vassal despotisms might cover the globe in 2005. I do think there should be multiple viable balanced civics options in every time period, to create interesting strategic choices, but some should be phased out over time as newer more recent civics options are discovered. Having industrial democracies crush feudal kingdoms is no different than having tanks crush spearmen.
Actually though, RJC, I think the point is that by balancing civics options, its more about 'this civic is better at boosting A, but may reduce Y). For instance, theocracies may be a great way to keep your people in line, but are kinda crap when it comes to science-depends on what you think is best for you at any given time. Same with Vassalage, sure it gives you a bonus to your unit XPs, but if it gives you a production and/or commerce penalty, then you are probably going to try and stay away from it unless you are currently engaged in a war. Again, though, its about a balance of effects. What also needs to be remembered in all of this, though, is that the various leaders will have one or more civics options which they prefer, and 1 or 2 which they hate-something which will very likely effect both the civics decisions they make-and their diplomatic relations with their neighbours.
Having industrial democracies crush feudal kingdoms is no different than having tanks crush spearmen.
Highly subjective
This game is not about definates such as "Democracy V. [insert government]", but rather, is about individual political and social practices that contribute to a unique governmental institution. This pedantic observation aside, the idea that a 'fuedal kingdom' with the likings to that of Europe or China during the middle ages existing in the modern age would be false in Civ IV because a wise player may have kept the "Vassalage" trait while having picked more modern or economical productive traits in other areas that will contribute towards the modern nation as a whole either as well or more effectively then the broad "industrial democracy".
Indeed, in Civ IV, declaring government forms will be far more abstract and it will be difficult for some people to raised and bred using the pedantic notions acquired from Civ 3 and 2 that their governments are either Republics, Democracies, Communisms, or despotisms.
Actually though, RJC, I think the point is that by balancing civics options, its more about 'this civic is better at boosting A, but may reduce Y).
And that's something I think we should have, but I think we should also have cases where a newer civic is better than an older civic. To take your example of vassalage being better at war but worse at something else, if this were true throughout the whole game vassalage would suddenly become very popular when the world war breaks out. This is extremely unrealistic and totally breaks immersion for me - vassalage didn't suddenly become all the rage when WW1 broke out. The solution is to have a new civics option (perhaps 'nationhood' or 'bureaucracy') researchable later in the tech tree that serves a similar function as vassalage - good at war, bad at something else - but is superior to vassalage in some way (perhaps it gives an even larger exp bonus or something) and thereby renders it obsolete. This preserves the strategic balance between multiple civics choices while simultaniously portraying the evolution of society over the ages.
the idea that a 'fuedal kingdom' with the likings to that of Europe or China during the middle ages existing in the modern age would be false in Civ IV because a wise player may have kept the "Vassalage" trait while having picked more modern or economical productive traits in other areas that will contribute towards the modern nation as a whole either as well or more effectively then the broad "industrial democracy".
Not necessarily. If all civics options are perfectly balanced so that none of the newer ones are superior to the older ones then choosing all ancient options in 2005 would be a viable strategy. In order to prevent that at least a few civics have to be made obsolete by newer civics.
The problem with that RJC, is that you risk the horrible situation you had in previous civ games where every civ has an identical set of civics according to whether you are at war or peace (the old Republic/monarchy democracy/communism dichotomy)-that is to say that everyone simply rushes to the 'best' civic in each category, and never shifts again.
Instead, what we will probably see is that what you choose in one category may be largely dictated by the traits of your leader, the size of your nation, and the other choices you have made in other civics.
For instance, Vassalage is great for unit experience if you are under hereditary rule, but suddenly becomes a bad choice if you are a Police State. However, this may not be the case if your leader is militaristic. I just think a simple Civic Choice B (later) is automatically better than Civic Choice A (earlier) simply unfairly restricts the total number of choices a player can have access to.
And that's something I think we should have, but I think we should also have cases where a newer civic is better than an older civic.
Never fear, some civic choices are undoubtedly going to be better than others.
[QUOTE]
To take your example of vassalage being better at war but worse at something else, if this were true throughout the whole game vassalage would suddenly become very popular when the world war breaks out. [\QUOTE]
I don't have a problem with this. The alternative is that there is a linear braindead progression of civic choices with no variation between games or situation.
This is extremely unrealistic and totally breaks immersion for me - vassalage didn't suddenly become all the rage when WW1 broke out.
I have no need or want of your immersion or realism. Besides, wasn't WW2 accompanied by several sometimes quite liberal democracies turning into fascisms?
The solution is to have a new civics option (perhaps 'nationhood' or 'bureaucracy') researchable later in the tech tree that serves a similar function as vassalage - good at war, bad at something else - but is superior to vassalage in some way (perhaps it gives an even larger exp bonus or something) and thereby renders it obsolete. This preserves the strategic balance between multiple civics choices while simultaniously portraying the evolution of society over the ages.
1. I wouldn't have a problem with civic choices being upgraded with new tech advances but having obsolete civic options lying around is wasteful.
2. I dispute the "evolution" of society.
Not necessarily. If all civics options are perfectly balanced so that none of the newer ones are superior to the older ones then choosing all ancient options in 2005 would be a viable strategy. In order to prevent that at least a few civics have to be made obsolete by newer civics.
I would have no problem with all ancients in the modern world. I can even think of one situation where it would help, that of post-nuclear apocalypse. You may not have the support infrastructure to allow you to use high tech civics.
Less facetiously though, what is the problem with several equal alternatives with their own costs and benefits? Surely thats better for the game?
(oh, go play R:TW if you want realism or something!)
Originally posted by RJC
I disagree. Many modern civics options should be better than ones from previous eras, to simulate the changes in government & society over the ages.
Better for whom? You could argue that democracy is better for the average person and the nation as a whole, but if you're a former king, it's worse.
I think it's a mistake to think of these civics in their historical context only, especially in a game like Civilization.
For example Vassalage, while to most people associated with feudal Europe, could be seen as the type of civics used in a modern militarist state, such as WWII Japan. Similarly, Despotism is not that different from modern Dictatorship. Perhaps, like in SMAC, there will be an option to build wonders reducing negative effects of some civics, to represent their "refinement" in certain cultures.
The problem with leadership is inevitably: Who will play God?
- Frank Herbert
Actually, Martinus, I had thought the very same thing. Obviously Feudalism is-specifically-a government based on Hereditary rule, with a Legal System based on Vassalage and a Labour system based on Serfdom. However, if you changed the government and labour civics to Police State and Slavery, respectively, then you might indeed have the government which we see in modern Burma (with organised religion (Bhuddist) and state property as the remaining civics).
Oh, and another former 'Dictatorship', Iraq, would probably have been either a Despotism or a Police State (probably the former, because a Police State-to me-suggests more of a Junta than an individual person), with the Nationhood Legal Civic (as Pan-Arab nationalism was one of Saddam's catchcries) Organised religion (Islam), emancipated labour and probably Free market economics (pre-1991), and then State Property.
North Korea is a Despotism with a beurocratic legal civic, state property, serfdom and is Theocratic (Atheist).
China is somewhat more complex-it is definitely a Police State, with Free Market economic system. However, its military seems to follow the vassalage legal civic, wheras I would instead suggest that China has the Beurocratic Legal civic (like North Korea) and Organised Religion (Bhuddism). Its labour system could be described as Emancipated.
So, there are clearly modern states which still retain some degree of vassalage as a legal system-just not within the context of a monarchy.
The problem with that RJC, is that you risk the horrible situation you had in previous civ games where every civ has an identical set of civics according to whether you are at war or peace (the old Republic/monarchy democracy/communism dichotomy)-that is to say that everyone simply rushes to the 'best' civic in each category, and never shifts again.
If it's designed properly that won't happen. Take your proposed system where there's no one best civics option or set of options and what you choose is based on a variety of factors instead of just war/peace (like leader traits, civ size, other civics choices, your overall strategy, etc.). Now, take that system and make sure enough options necessary to have it working are researchable relatively early in the game (obviously, if only one choice is available in each category for half the game then your system won't be in effect for half the game). If you don't, then civics will be boring and 'braindead' for half the game. Now, have a few civics researched later in the game serve a similar function as some of those available early in the game (ie be better/worse depending on the same variables of empire size, other civics, etc.) but do it in a way that's better than an older civic, effectively rendering that civic obsolete. This preserves the overall effect of your system (having no civic automatically best and having more to take into account than just war/peace) while still allowing society to change over time and giving players a reason to actually research mid/late game civics options. If later civics provide no advantage over previous civics then there's no real reason to research them, your'e just wasting research that could be better spend on something that will actually help you.
I just think a simple Civic Choice B (later) is automatically better than Civic Choice A (earlier) simply unfairly restricts the total number of choices a player can have access to.
That's not what I'm arguing for. What I'm proposing is in the early game you have something like choices a, b, c, or d (and maybe others) but in the late game you have choices d, e, f or g (and maybe others), with a, b & c having been rendered obsolete by e, f & g. In between would have a mix of the two, depending on your location in the tech tree. You'd still have multiple viable choices depending on more than just war/peace or which is newer, but what those choices are would change over time. Civics can have both bredth (different civics are better under many different circumstances) and depth (newer civics are better than one or more older civics). Whatever system you can imagine to give the system bredth can also be given depth, without undermining the bredth.
I don't have a problem with this. The alternative is that there is a linear braindead progression of civic choices with no variation between games or situation.
No it isn't, that's a false binary. What I'm proposing is no different from what's already done with units, and it doesn't mean a "linear braindead progression" of unit choices. In each part of the tech tree there are many units that serve different functions - some are better for defense, some are better for offense, some are better for other things, etc. Over time most of these units get replaced with units that perform the same function, but do it better than their predecessor. Thus, one has both a bredth of different viable unit choices in each time period but also a depth of unit choices, in that some units get replaced with better units while still preserving choice in each era. The same should be done for civics.
I have no need or want of your immersion or realism.
Then you also have no problem with spearmen defeating tanks? That's an immersion or realism problem. Most of us have a problem with spearmen defeating tanks. Having all modern civics options be no better than ancient civics options is like having spearmen defeat tanks. It's actually worse, at least tanks will defeat spearmen more often than not and so it's still worth researching them. If modern civics are no better than ancient civics then there's no reason to research them at all because your'e spending research on something that's not going to help you.
Besides, wasn't WW2 accompanied by several sometimes quite liberal democracies turning into fascisms?
Yes, but turning to fascism & turning to vassalage are not the samething. I don't object to world wars making fascism more common, or to medieval wars making vassalge more common (though I do hope that there's more to civics then just good at war/good at peace), but I do object to world wars making vassalage more common. World War One actually hastened the demise of feudalism in many countries; it didn't spread it.
I wouldn't have a problem with civic choices being upgraded with new tech advances but having obsolete civic options lying around is wasteful.
It's no more "wasteful" than having old units lying around. It's just a few options on one screen, so long as each civic is a viable option for a good portion of the game then nothing is "wasted."
Vassalage, while to most people associated with feudal Europe, could be seen as the type of civics used in a modern militarist state, such as WWII Japan.
That's really streching it. If vassalage is supposed to represent such a broad cross section of legal practices then it should be given an equally broad name (like "militarism" or something). However, grouping such diverse states together under the same civic would deny players the opportunity to have a feudal state like in medieval Europe and later in the game have modern militarist states, failing to represent the evolution of society over time. That'd be like using knight graphics to represent tanks. Some ancient/medieval civics, like organized religion or theocracy, could more plausibly be viable in the modern era under the right circumstances but others, like vassalage, should become obsolete over time.
Perhaps, like in SMAC, there will be an option to build wonders reducing negative effects of some civics, to represent their "refinement" in certain cultures.
In gameplay terms that's not really different from just having newer civics options that make older options with the same function obsolete.
Option a: research & build a "better vassalage" small wonder that makes vassalage better. If your'e in a situation in which vassalage is a good choice this gives you an advantage but you have to pay a cost in terms of researching it and then building it (if vassalage isn't a good choice for you right not it might be utterly useless, though).
Option b: research & switch to a "superior vassalage" civic that's called "nationhood" (or something else) that does the same thing as vassalage but better. Just as with option a, if your'e in a situation in which vassalage would be a good choice then this gives you an advantage at a cost (researching it + going through a revolution to switch civics), but if vassalage isn't good in this situation then its replacement probably woun't either.
The gameplay effect of both options is almost the same. In both cases if your'e using a strategy in which vassalage would be a good choice you can pay a cost for an advantage. Option a implies that all civics would be researched in the ancient or maybe medieval era, and no further civics would be researched, just wonders that improve ancient/medieval civics.
Option a and b differ greatly in terms of realism & immersion, though. The first has vassalage pertuate itself as a viable option in the modern era, while the second just replaces vassalage with a modern equivalent. The majority of changes in society are better represented with civics than with wonders, though. The French revolution wasn't like building the pyramids, it was a revolution and switching to modern civics should involve a revolution. Maybe a few modern societal changes could be represented by a wonder (a five year plan, maybe?) but most are better represented through civics. That's why it's there - to represent the evolution of society over the ages.
there are clearly modern states which still retain some degree of vassalage as a legal system-just not within the context of a monarchy.
Only if you so completely stretch the meanings of these terms so that they have no relationship with their historical counterparts. In which case, why even give them those names at all? One might as well say the spearman is really a guerilla with a machine gun & grenades when he takes out a tank, it's essentially the same arguement. China's military is a modern military, it is not organized along vassal lines at all. There are no lords or vassals pleding obediance to the lords in the military. Noth Korea doesn't have serfdom, it has a stalinist centrally planned economy with all the labor abuses that typically go along with it. Serfdom is a system in which agricultural laborers are attached to the land owned by a lord, aren't allowed to leave, and are effectively half slaves of the lord. Serfs have to perform services for the lord, give him a portion of their crops, can usually be traded (along with the land) by a lord and face other forms of exploitation. This is very different from the kind of oppression that exists in North Korea. You might be able to argue that North Korea has slavery, but countries don't really practice serfdom anymore. The industrial revolution rendered it obsolete. Your arguement essentially comes down to the claim that human social & political systems haven't changed very much since the earlier days of civilization, which is obviously absurd. The dominant forms of social & political organization 3,000 years ago are not the same as the dominant ones now, and the game should reflect that.
If it's designed properly that won't happen. Take your proposed system where there's no one best civics option or set of options and what you choose is based on a variety of factors instead of just war/peace (like leader traits, civ size, other civics choices, your overall strategy, etc.). Now, take that system and make sure enough options necessary to have it working are researchable relatively early in the game (obviously, if only one choice is available in each category for half the game then your system won't be in effect for half the game). If you don't, then civics will be boring and 'braindead' for half the game. * Now, have a few civics researched later in the game serve a similar function as some of those available early in the game (ie be better/worse depending on the same variables of empire size, other civics, etc.) but do it in a way that's better than an older civic, effectively rendering that civic obsolete.
* lol hive ps/plnd/wlth lol
Take a look at what civics effects we know are implemented. Some of them are quite esoteric and specific. We also know there are 5 in each catagory. Under your system described here they would be likely be default/early war/early growth/late war/late money. You've just created the whole republic/monarchy easy decision based on diplomacy all over again.
We know the system to be in the style of default/able to use police/settlers are cheaper/infantry gain XP faster/bonus money in some cities. This choice of what abilities you want is more interesting than linear braindead progression.
This preserves the overall effect of your system (having no civic automatically best and having more to take into account than just war/peace) while still allowing society to change over time and giving players a reason to actually research mid/late game civics options. If later civics provide no advantage over previous civics then there's no real reason to research them, your'e just wasting research that could be better spend on something that will actually help you.
SMAC disagrees. (although is not a perfect example as people plan what SE settings they want and direct their research straight towards them.) In SMAC you can't argue the superiority of Free Market or Planned economy. A player that makes correct situational use of both will have a better empire than one that uses either choice exclusively.
If the civic choices are different then there will unavoidably be situations where one is superior to another. This needn't be war/peace. It can be a choice whether you want more production or more money. The reason to research other civics is for increased flexibility.
That's not what I'm arguing for. What I'm proposing is in the early game you have something like choices a, b, c, or d (and maybe others) but in the late game you have choices d, e, f or g (and maybe others), with a, b & c having been rendered obsolete by e, f & g. In between would have a mix of the two, depending on your location in the tech tree. You'd still have multiple viable choices depending on more than just war/peace or which is newer, but what those choices are would change over time. Civics can have both bredth (different civics are better under many different circumstances) and depth (newer civics are better than one or more older civics). Whatever system you can imagine to give the system bredth can also be given depth, without undermining the bredth.
Unconvincing. It looks to me like your suggestions decrease both bredth and depth.
No it isn't, that's a false binary. What I'm proposing is no different from what's already done with units, and it doesn't mean a "linear braindead progression" of unit choices. In each part of the tech tree there are many units that serve different functions - some are better for defense, some are better for offense, some are better for other things, etc. Over time most of these units get replaced with units that perform the same function, but do it better than their predecessor. Thus, one has both a bredth of different viable unit choices in each time period but also a depth of unit choices, in that some units get replaced with better units while still preserving choice in each era. The same should be done for civics.
Actually, the unit choices are somewhat linear and braindead. (Civ3, I'm looking at you with your fast attacker/slow defender/ vulnerable artillery trios) However, I'm looking forwards to XP whoring with Civ4 defenders to specialise them.
What you have described has neither bredth or depth as I know them.
Then you also have no problem with spearmen defeating tanks? That's an immersion or realism problem. Most of us have a problem with spearmen defeating tanks. Having all modern civics options be no better than ancient civics options is like having spearmen defeat tanks. It's actually worse, at least tanks will defeat spearmen more often than not and so it's still worth researching them. If modern civics are no better than ancient civics then there's no reason to research them at all because your'e spending research on something that's not going to help you.
If we want to play the "theory battle" of spearmen vs tanks, what happens that one time that the spearmen ambush the tanks supply lines, the tanks grind to a halt and the spearmen starve them out their metal coffins?
Its not likely, but in "theory battle" all possibliites must be considered.
I think a lot of people fail to realise that when you initiate combat between a tank and spearmen unit that there are not little electronic people who battle in your computar masheen. Its the number 2 vs the number 18 (or whatever). Its not a likely win for the plucky underdog number 2, but its a win that occurs the correct number of times statistically. (except when you play vs high difficulty CPUs, but this is an irrelevent situation. Cheating CPUs are to be ignored.)
The comparison of spearmen/tank to civics is another bad analogy.
Modern civics: What use is universal suffrage if your people are uneducated serfs? What use is free market if your cities cannot trade because of the jungle around them?
Modern civics will be situationally dependant. Have no fear, they will be useful.
(Its interesting to note that in SMAC some of the Future Societies social engineering group would be fatal to an early pioneering empire. A factions support rating is desperately important early in the game [compare: Morgan and Shen-ji Yang] but some time after supply crawlers it goes out the window. Thought Control future society with its -3 support would cripple an early empire. Cybernetic future society would also be tricky if acquired early as it would prevent Unity Pod gathering.)
Yes, but turning to fascism & turning to vassalage are not the samething. I don't object to world wars making fascism more common, or to medieval wars making vassalge more common (though I do hope that there's more to civics then just good at war/good at peace), but I do object to world wars making vassalage more common. World War One actually hastened the demise of feudalism in many countries; it didn't spread it.
I gave a bad example here which you've taken too concretely.
Does it even matter? Its a game. Call it whatever you want, I'll still choose it for the 25% XP bonus when the time comes.
It's no more "wasteful" than having old units lying around. It's just a few options on one screen, so long as each civic is a viable option for a good portion of the game then nothing is "wasted."
Linear braindead progression rearing its ugly head again.
In gameplay terms that's not really different from just having newer civics options that make older options with the same function obsolete.
Option a: research & build a "better vassalage" small wonder that makes vassalage better. If your'e in a situation in which vassalage is a good choice this gives you an advantage but you have to pay a cost in terms of researching it and then building it (if vassalage isn't a good choice for you right not it might be utterly useless, though).
Option b: research & switch to a "superior vassalage" civic that's called "nationhood" (or something else) that does the same thing as vassalage but better. Just as with option a, if your'e in a situation in which vassalage would be a good choice then this gives you an advantage at a cost (researching it + going through a revolution to switch civics), but if vassalage isn't good in this situation then its replacement probably woun't either.
The gameplay effect of both options is almost the same. In both cases if your'e using a strategy in which vassalage would be a good choice you can pay a cost for an advantage. Option a implies that all civics would be researched in the ancient or maybe medieval era, and no further civics would be researched, just wonders that improve ancient/medieval civics.
Option a and b differ greatly in terms of realism & immersion, though. The first has vassalage pertuate itself as a viable option in the modern era, while the second just replaces vassalage with a modern equivalent. The majority of changes in society are better represented with civics than with wonders, though. The French revolution wasn't like building the pyramids, it was a revolution and switching to modern civics should involve a revolution. Maybe a few modern societal changes could be represented by a wonder (a five year plan, maybe?) but most are better represented through civics. That's why it's there - to represent the evolution of society over the ages.
I would rather tie the upgrade of a civics option to tech rather than a production. I agree that functionally they are the same except that there are only 5 civics options in each catagory. If some are not being used because theres a linear progression then they are being wasted when instead upgrading the older civics would allow for really neat specialist late game civics.
Only if you so completely stretch the meanings of these terms so that they have no relationship with their historical counterparts. In which case, why even give them those names at all? One might as well say the spearman is really a guerilla with a machine gun & grenades when he takes out a tank, it's essentially the same arguement. China's military is a modern military, it is not organized along vassal lines at all. There are no lords or vassals pleding obediance to the lords in the military. Noth Korea doesn't have serfdom, it has a stalinist centrally planned economy with all the labor abuses that typically go along with it. Serfdom is a system in which agricultural laborers are attached to the land owned by a lord, aren't allowed to leave, and are effectively half slaves of the lord. Serfs have to perform services for the lord, give him a portion of their crops, can usually be traded (along with the land) by a lord and face other forms of exploitation. This is very different from the kind of oppression that exists in North Korea. You might be able to argue that North Korea has slavery, but countries don't really practice serfdom anymore. The industrial revolution rendered it obsolete. Your arguement essentially comes down to the claim that human social & political systems haven't changed very much since the earlier days of civilization, which is obviously absurd. The dominant forms of social & political organization 3,000 years ago are not the same as the dominant ones now, and the game should reflect that.
While I hate getting involved in this kind of thing in a game forum, I'd rather discuss numbers, I'm going to cynically suggest that there are vassal lines implicit in Chinese military due to the corrupt system and patronage. Remove the government and they would become more prominant.
My own arguement rather than that of the poster you were replying to is that plenty of historical stretching is acceptable in pursuit of an interesting multiplayer game.
Would you argue for realism and immersion in chess?
Tweet
Comment