I want a more realistic CIV

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Did you read the post at all? Yes, any concept at all (including real-world concepts) can theoretically be turned implemented well in the game. However, the point is that just because something is realistic it doesn't mean it will necessarily work well in civ.

From the list above I'd highlight the country splits as being very hard, perhaps impossible, to implement in a way that improves gameplay. There are many other examples from across the games and from threads such as this one.

So, in conclusion, I was right.

Hey, I'm not allowed to agree with you. Change your argument RIGHT NOW!

[DrSpike]

[alms66]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Edit: to Alms

Did you read the post at all? Yes, any concept at all (including real-world concepts) can theoretically be turned implemented well in the game. However, the point is that just because something is realistic it doesn't mean it will necessarily work well in civ.

From the list above I'd highlight the country splits as being very hard, perhaps impossible, to implement in a way that improves gameplay. There are many other examples from across the games and from threads such as this one.

So, in conclusion, I was right.

Of course I read the post...

I see your point and I raise you mine :
Just because you think something is realistic doesn't mean that I will think it's realistic, nor will I think something doesn't work well, just because you don't think it works well.

So, in conclusion, I was right.

[DrSpike]

Granted you are probably right I have higher standards than you.

However even abstracting from that since you believe "any real-world concept can be turned into a realistic and fun gameplay element", I will ask you to explain how country splitting for instance can work well.

[DeeMG]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by snoopy369


Indeed, there is a lot of trade games in real world, but I think it is oversimplified in Civ

[DeeMG]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by snoopy369


Snoopy, You mention people telling Civ is too much about world building and not war enough, i.e. not enough war. That's true, but it doesn't contradict with what I mentioned before: sometimes you can build units and they become useless before you can use them. This means that unless you make war all the time, war doesn't make sense in Civ as it is now, geit it ?

So the idea would be to make turns a little longer so that these units can be used without waging war all the time.

Look at history: 2 years war, 10 years peace, 5 years war, 3 years peace etc...

In Civ: 50 years war, 300 years peace, 200 years war...

[DeeMG]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by snoopy369


Quote:
That said, some of what you suggest could quite possibly be modded in. It wouldn't be hard to mod in loans, for example, though making the AI understand them and deal with them properly is a whole different ballgame ...


If someone could mod loans, that would make quite a different in the game, I think. People could invest unused cash balances in booming economies or warring partners.

However, I understand from what Snoopy says that it could be quite difficult for the AI to understand.

I remember vaguely, wasn't the concept of loans in Civ I or II ?

[alms66]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Granted you are probably right I have higher standards than you.

However even abstracting from that since you believe "any real-world concept can be turned into a realistic and fun gameplay element", I will ask you to explain how country splitting for instance can work well.

I accept your challenge.
However, as I'm sure you know, that will take me some time to formulate and write, so I'll get back to you.

Edit-
and btw, I didn't mean that your standards were higher, just that everyone's opinions on what "fun and realistic models" are, differ greatly.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by alms66

and btw, I didn't mean that your standards were higher

[alms66]

Well, I'm about 99.9% sure that anything I post is not going to meet with your approval, but here it goes anyway...
My proposal for how to model empire splits using the existing Civ4 framework with the fewest number of alterations possible:

There are basically two ways an empire can split:
1.Independence – people within a civ seeking an independent state from the parent civ (reference the American Revolution)
2.Civil War – two internal factions divide the empire, each seeking dominance over the empire (reference the Korean War)

The first is relatively easy. Any city which has a level of negative conditions (unhealth, unhappiness, etc.) should have a level of discontent, which should be visible to the player. This level is the chance that the city will declare independence on a turn-by-turn basis. In the case of multiple cities declaring independence in the same turn, if the negative condition that caused the declaration was the same in both (or all) cities, there should be a chance that they declare independence together as a single state, which would be even higher if they actually border one another. In times of war, the chances should be lowered.

Now, you may say who would want the potential of a 1 or 2 city civ to exist on the map? Well, I for one, would love it. I say the more civs the merrier. However, that's not the best reason to have wars of independence. The best reason to have such wars is that in history they have occurred all the time and they penalize players who don't take care of the needs of their cities ASAP. The Romans and Persians, for example, cite numerous examples of revolts being quelled by their armies – in civ terms, a city declares independence and they went take it back. Even if it's only a minor inconvenience, it's a fun one IMHO, and most importantly, it's avoidable, without any additional micromanagement since you're watching those conditions anyway, so you only have yourself to blame. Add to that the fact that a foreign power may decide to ally with this newly created civ, and you have the potential for a whole new level of political action. In addition to that, the new espionage option of “Sow Independence�, which increases the chance of a declaration of independence, could allow you the ability to conduct a little unconventional warfare against your neighbors.


The second, assuming the first is in, also becomes relatively easy. We've already got a measure of discontent, and civil war is really nothing more than discontent run amok. Therefore, if discontent within approximately half of the empire exists, there becomes a chance of civil war. If triggered, the empire and it's units are divided amongst the two sides in appropriate ways (no units or cities behind enemy lines if possible), each is it's own separate civ which other civs can side with or not. Reconquering all your cities or loosing all your cities to the other half reunites the civs, while a peace deal signed effectively recognizes the new civ.

Civil wars should be much more devastating than wars of independence and much less common. They should also have lowered chances during times of war. Another new espionage option to add would be “Sow Discontent� which would increase discontent within a city.


It's vague, but I didn't want to waste time fleshing out something that was going to be discounted by you and many others and will likely never see actual implementation.

[DeeMG]

On Alms66 civ split proposal: it is nice !

Dr.Spike, I hope you like... I like !!

Indeed the more Civs the merrier. And 1 to 2 city civs are common in real world (small countries).

[Thedrin]

2.Civil War – two internal factions divide the empire, each seeking dominance over the empire (reference the Korean War)

I assumed that this is what anarchy when changing civics represents.

[Nubclear]

I always pictured anarchy as the new government simply being ineffective. If, every time I switch governments, a Korean-war style fight takes place....

[Harovan]

I for one would like more realism. It is severely lacking in modern games.

I mean, why are there so many games with elves, dwarves and gnomes? Those are fairy tales, I demand realistic RPGs!

And in MMOGs, dead is dead, goddamn. What's with all that resurrection cheese? Hello? Give us MMOGs with permadeath!

As for Civ 4, I demand, that the damn game should be over 3950 BC at the latest! No leader can possibly live that long!

Realism FTW!

[DrSpike]

Now now Ralphie there is no need to be mean.

Alms: At present having just got in I am too tired and too inebriated to respond properly, so I will delay it until tomorrow.