Some ideas for the expansion

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by arcady
I'd like to see more civilizations.


And for an -expansion- I would like to see some optional styles of play. I for one would love to see built in fantasy elements as was begun but not well explored in CIV II.

Having the ability to play a game that used magical elements as well would be very entertaining.

Reference "fantasy," are you referring to the "dinosaur- barbarians?" in one of the mods in Civ III?

There are some other threads here where players are complaining Civ4 gave up too much to imitate "role-playing" games and attract enthusiasts of such games, over what was done in Civ3. I think if you are designing over heavily for fantasy elements, you are moving too far away from the essential nature of the game, which is quasi-historical, if not totally realistic. That being said, I did one time game with Civ3, a "Dune"-type simulation on an "arid" Pangea, with Bismarck subbing for the Atriedes; the Ottomans for the Harkonnens and the Arabs for the Fremen. I did not mod any giant sand worms. The results, which I only played through the medieval period, were not very satisfactory.

Regarding the list of proposed civilizations; it is very good if we could depend on Firaxis to go with that kind of complexity in this area. It is ironic that more than several of the civs mentioned were in fact included in Civ3 and then dropped for this variant. I think this thread is good, especially if Firaxis does eavesdrop for ideas and feedback, which I've been led to believe they sometimes do in the forums; but it may not be helpful to let expectations get so high that they're pie-in-the-sky. (Excuse unsubtle attempt at poetry. )

There is a reason somewhere why Firaxis pruned so many units and civs for this new concept and I don't think it was just to sell big expansion packs later. I'm thinking its unlikely that even after the inevitable expansions, they are going to let this baby get as diversified as Civ3; or what CTP was (with virtually no diffrentiation in the latter between its numerous civs.) They want the emphasis here, from all appearances, to be on the new civics, religion and the 3-D graphics. They are expecting people interested in something more to use the mod editor, though I personally am a little afraid to use the thing and maybe mess up the whole program.

[MightyTiny]

Originally posted by arcady
...Modern DNA is showing Europeans seem to mostly be descended from what you might call 'proto-Turks', but that any two given Europeans are more likey to have DNA in common with an African or Asian ancestor than each other. That Europeans generally don't share any common ancestors with each other....

Had to comment on this - of course all Europeans have common ancestors if you go back far enough, just as the family trees of all currently living humans merge with each other when you follow them far enough back. (And just as all currently living humans have common ancestors with all the living representatives of all other species when you follow everybody's/thing's family trees even further back.)

In addition, I would question the conclusion that just because you can find pairs of European-European individuals that are genetically further apart than some pairs of, say European-African individuals, that this would mean that some Europeans would share closer common ancestors with those more similar African individuals than with other Europeans.

The gene-pool of humans is very poor when compared to, for example, the gene-pool of the African chimpanzee; two African chimpanzees can be genetically more divergent than any two humans are from each other.

Only very small part of differences within the human genome contribute to racial differences (like skin colour, or other superficial features), with variation between individuals in traits common to all humans accounting for a larger part of the genetic differences. This is why a randomly selected European may have more similar DNA with a randomly selected African than with another randomly selected European.

If you want to trace common ancestry, you have to look at molecular features that are highly perserved through families; like mitochondrial DNA or, in male-lines, Y-kromosome DNA (and in the case of going back further to trace relations between species, structural similarities in the DNA, gene errors, and pseudogenes).

I don't actually know for sure that you aren't correct in that some Europeans might be closer related to, say, Africans than other Europeans, my point is only that you can't base such a conclusion on the fact that individuals across races and geographical areas may be more genetically similar to each other than to some of the members of their own race/geographical area. The only way to make such conclusions with validity is by looking at what specifically those shared similarities are.

For excellent and thought provoking discussion on the meaning of ancestry, including some surpricing facts about it that most people probably haven't thought about (such as the fact that having an ancestors doesn't mean that you necessarily carry a single gene from that ancestor), I heartily recommend "Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins.

[MightyTiny]

Originally posted by Jabutron
I would like to have the ability to build bridges/tunnels from one land mass to another. I get annoyed by having to ferry workers/troops across a one square ocean gap on transports, especially if I'm waging war. With the introduction of work boats, this presents a great opportunity to create something to cross a one- or two-gap expanse. It can be pillaged just like every other improvement, so it would need to be garrisoned. Additionally, maybe a national wonder could be built, like the Chunnel, to connect two cities within set parameters.

Excellent idea

Bridge building across sea/lake squares would be awesome. Maybe you could also have improvements to bridge-building technology with technology advances, so that the gap distance that you could build a bridge to cross would increase, say, from initially 1 (when "Bridge building" is discovered?), to maybe up to 3 with modern day techs.

I think it would add an interesting element to warfare too, especially on archipelago maps; bombing/sabotasing your opponent's bridges would probably be a high priority thing, as would protecting your own.

[Common Sensei]

Originally posted by arcady
The cultural revolution is a wierd one. We've seen it many times in history but it might not be an event as I've described them but more as aspect of a civics change. The cultural revolution is when a society's leaders force a change in the social, political, and economic values of its people through harsh means. Dissidents are rounded up, intellectuals are pruged, witches and heretics are burned, reeducation camps are formed, and so on.

An abstraction of a Cultural Revolution as it happened in history could be that it sort of works like a Golden Age, perhaps triggerable with a wonder or under certain civics like Police State or State Property, during which one can rush build at the cost of accumulated Culture, at a balanced note to hammer ratio. The obvious drawback would be that too much use of Cultural Revolution would decrease a city's influence as its culture rating downgrades. Also, perhaps no research is possible during it (purging of dissidents, etc.).

Alternatively, a Cultural Revolution might be something that allows a non-Spiritual civ to make a civics change without Anarchy at the cost of an amount of its cities' culture.

[jmp]

What about allowing for the repression of religions? It's not a pleasant idea by some of our modern ideas, but it certainly has happened. Likewise, under certain civics, certain religions might be banned in certain cities.

A prime example would be the Babylonian exile of the Jews after the Babelonians conquered Jerusalem and destoryed the Temple of Solomon. Jews dispersed throughout the Babylonian empire, only to later return to Jerusalem and build the Second Temple.

The current situation with Buddhist exiles from Tibet under the rule of the officially athiest Chinese is not dissimilar, the major difference being that Buddhists have dispersed to everywhere other than the power that caused the exhile.

Isabella worked to oust the Jews and Muslims from Spain in 1492, while the Ottomans accepted Jewish refugees and allowed them to continue practicing Judaism.

The pitfall would be that attempting to remove a religious group is not always successful, and can have unintended consequences. How important was Roman persecution of early Christians in the eventual spread of Christianity?

There seems to be something overly simplistic in the idea that once a religion is in a city, it's there for good, and that all religions in that city are represented equally. Detroit may have one of the largest Muslim populations in the US right now, but that doesn't mean there aren't cities with very small Muslim populations. New York and Atlanta both have Jewish communities, but New York's represents a much larger percentage of the population...
-JMP

[Willem]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor


Reference "fantasy," are you referring to the "dinosaur- barbarians?" in one of the mods in Civ III?

No, he means the fantasy secnario in Civ 2: Test of Time. It was Civ based on magic with wizards and gnomes and the whole nine yards. All the techs were based on magic or gave some medieval type abilties/improvements. I never played it myself.

There is a reason somewhere why Firaxis pruned so many units and civs for this new concept and I don't think it was just to sell big expansion packs later. I'm thinking its unlikely that even after the inevitable expansions, they are going to let this baby get as diversified as Civ3; or what CTP was (with virtually no diffrentiation in the latter between its numerous civs.)

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. I believe that Civ 3 had even less civs in the game when it first came out. Why shouldn't they have just as many as Civ 3 by the time they're done with this version? What else would they expect people to spend their money on for the expansions? We can probably expect another trait or two as well. I notice that Agricultural and Seafaring didn'y make it in, at least not yet.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by jmp
What about allowing for the repression of religions? It's not a pleasant idea by some of our modern ideas, but it certainly has happened. Likewise, under certain civics, certain religions might be banned in certain cities.

There seems to be something overly simplistic in the idea that once a religion is in a city, it's there for good, and that all religions in that city are represented equally. ..-JMP

You're bumping up again the concept Firaxis appears (justifiably, see my comment above about Salman Rushdie,) to have about keeping religion simple and inoffensive. The term "ethnic cleansing" was coined in the Nineties by the attempt by Serbians and their allies in Bosnia to eradicate white Muslim religion/culture there; the pendulum sort of swung briefly the other way in Kosovo, I recall; it is still a sore point in that part of the world and would not be well-received as a concept in a piece of mass-marketed entertainment. The Holocaust is today still the outstanding piece of religious oppression and nobody is making light of that either.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Willem


No, he means the fantasy secnario in Civ 2: Test of Time.

Sorry; tired eyes; he did say Civ2. I have that in the garage somewhere, but didn't start playing seriously until Civ3, which I liked immeasurably irrespective of all criticisms.

[SIZE=1]
I don't see how you come to that conclusion. I believe that Civ 3 had even less civs in the game when it first came out. Why shouldn't they have just as many as Civ 3 by the time they're done with this version?

Well, I remember some were added in PTW and more, yeah, in "Conquests." I still thought that version had more initially, but I'm speaking from memory too, will have to break the thing out and look. I know Iroquois was in initially and I thought Celts were, too. Hey, if we can get all those, I think it would be wonderful, just have my doubts.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
The term "ethnic cleansing" was coined in the Nineties by the attempt by Serbians and their allies in Bosnia to eradicate white Muslim religion/culture there; the pendulum sort of swung briefly the other way in Kosovo, I recall;

The term "ethnic cleansing" was not coined by Serbs. It was actually coined by Kosovo Albanians long before the nineties conflicts, and refers to the now-nearly-realised goal of creating an ethnically pure Albanian statelet in Kosovo.

There was a vicious civil war and a bloody land-grab by all sides in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but not an attempt "by Serbians and their allies to eradicate white Muslim religion/culture there". That is a propaganda myth to foster hatred of Serbs. The Serbian allies were in fact a non-fundamentalist muslim faction lead by Fikret Abdic and opposed to the pro-Iranian/Saudi faction of the ex-Nazi Izetbegovic, but hardly anyone knows this. Nor do most people realise that the Bosnian war was the first post-Afghan battle ground for the western-created Al-Qaeda & bin Laden.

There was a version of 'ethnic cleansing' in Civ 3. When you took an enemy city, starving it down to get rid of the enemy ethnicity was actually the best way to stop cities flipping without razing them. No-one really complained, though.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


The term "ethnic cleansing" was not coined by Serbs. It was actually coined by Kosovo Albanians long before the nineties conflicts, and refers to the now-nearly-realised goal of creating an ethnically pure Albanian statelet in Kosovo.

There was a vicious civil war and a bloody land-grab by all sides in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but not an attempt "by Serbians and their allies to eradicate white Muslim religion/culture there". That is a propaganda myth to foster hatred of Serbs. The Serbian allies were in fact a non-fundamentalist muslim faction lead by Fikret Abdic and opposed to the pro-Iranian/Saudi faction of the ex-Nazi Izetbegovic, but hardly anyone knows this. Nor do most people realise that the Bosnian war was the first post-Afghan battle ground for the western-created Al-Qaeda & bin Laden.

There was a version of 'ethnic cleansing' in Civ 3. When you took an enemy city, starving it down to get rid of the enemy ethnicity was actually the best way to stop cities flipping without razing them. No-one really complained, though.

Whelp, there you go. Exactly why Firaxis won't broaden coverage of religion in Civ; and shouldn't.
And my apologies to Serbs, Bosnians and residents of Kosovo; I knew the conflict was pretty fierce during WWII, had roots before WWI and suspect well before that and for simplicity's sake I did fall into somebody else's propaganda line. (I am a religious agnostic of Greek Orthodox Ukranian extraction, who had family on both sides in WWII and feel heartfelt for oppressed and/or warring Slavs everywhere ) But my point was about the game.

By the way, this probably would have hurt me in multi-player, but in 200+ games I played of Civ3, including the Ancient Med variant also, I almost never starved down captured cities, preferring to look on them as "works in progress," while my birth rate and happiness improvements brought them into the fold. Sort of the ideal of the perfect American , although I usually played Vikings or Russia.

[johnmcd]

Supply concept for armies beyond cash money and a similar approach to limit early exploration. Also, exploration should be far more trade related.

[arcady]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor


Reference "fantasy," are you referring to the "dinosaur- barbarians?" in one of the mods in Civ III?

Fantasy as in being able to simulate worlds like Lord of the Rings, Oz, Conan, etc...

With magic, artillery in the form of things like Wizards, Witches, or Dragons, zombie conscript armies, clockwork automatons (like the revolutionaries seen in the end of the novel 'Wicked' set in the land of Oz) etc...

They are expecting people interested in something more to use the mod editor, though I personally am a little afraid to use the thing and maybe mess up the whole program.

A mod editor is all fine and good, but it doesn't sell supplimental product. It hopes to boost initial sales at the portential expense of future sales. Besides, most of us are not programmers (defeating the notion that it boosts initial sales - but if the few who do mod are good at it, it still reduces future sales).


Your mention of 3D brings up something else I would like to see - the ability to rotate rather than always having 'north' at the top of the screen. It doesn't really feel 3D if its always from the same perspective.

[Jaybe]

arcady, your "historical events" ideas was basically implemented in the "Random Events Mod" at CFC. Unfortunately that has temporarily been pulled due to changes in 1.52.

I hope to see it again soon.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Willem
Religions need bonuses and penalties. A politically correct way of doing this would be to have the player select which ones he/she wants. There could be a list of 10 pros and 10 cons and when a religion is founded the player would select from each list. As each attribute is selected, they become unavailable to subsequent religions.

I agree. The religion model needs some updating, since it is overly simplified.

1. Add unhappiness for non-state religions in a city under theocracy and organized religion.
2. Introduce an option (from the game customization screen) to select a number of religions in game.
3. Introduce a possibility to name your religions, or select the name of the religion from a pool of similar religions.
4. Let the founder put a "spin" on religion by choosing an attribute for it (e.g. militant giving bonus to unit xp and spread faster, communal giving bonus to pop. growth, scientific giving bonus to science and culture etc.)

[Martinus]

Also, I would like National Wonders to be renamed, depending on the civilization (i.e. not everybody getting Hermitage, for example, but England getting Buckingham Palace, France getting Louvres, etc.).