I want a more realistic CIV

[Virdrago]

I have to wait another day for this interesting conversation to continue? Damn...

[zeace]

I like the independence idea... Here's my take

I would like to see a lot more levels of association between countries in Civ. Right now we have alliance, vassal, defense pact, peace, war, cease fire, capitulation. I'd like another:

Colony:
If a group of cities that is far from the capital starts to feel a bit of discontent & high upkeep, it should become a quasi-separate civ as a colony. This civ could still be controlled by the master civ, all the way down to selecting build queues and moving army units. The colony would still share wonder effects with its master.

The colony would get a capital, but there would be some overhead costs for it. In general, having a colony would be good because it would reduce the maintenance costs. But the population of each city would now start converting from the master civ to the colony civ. Building cultural buildings in the cities would cause them to be more loyal to the master civ, while neglecting culture will breed rebel sentiments.

A war of independence could result if a large amount of the population in the colonies were rebels. In this case some of the units in the colony switch allegiance and the civ breaks free. The number of units switching would be related to the rebel sentiment in the city. Cities with <50% rebel would switch back to the master civ (These are the Canadian loyalist cities )

At this point the colony is a full fledged civ and can make treaties with other countries so this could turn into an ugly war.


The master could potentially keep the colony happy with culture so that it never breaks free. In this case it could eventually become re-integrated into the master (probably with a tech like democracy).

The master could also at any time voluntarily grant the colony its freedom and it would become a full civ starting as a voluntary vassal of the master. This would represent the Canadian version of a civil war . The new civ might eventually denounce its master, but might not.



Anyway, that's just an idea I'm spitting out of my head. I'll think about it some more. Let me know what you think.

[Thedrin]

It might be simpler to set the game (via an option) so that whenever a city is placed considerably far from the nearest city of the homeland it becomes a vassal (capitulation; must give resources, cannot break free unless conditions are met). All cities placed by the master or the vassal become part of the vassal state. Cities placed by the master do not contribute to the break away conditions of the vassal. Cities placed by the vassal do.

A further inclusion in this could be that the vassal's attitude towards the master affects what happens when it breaks away. Demand most of its resources and gold and the vassal will greatly dislike the master. Leave the vassal to get along by itself, regularly offering help, and the vassal will like the master. An angry vassal seizing full independence will be a blow to the economy of the former master. War may ensue (I'm not sure what the affect of capturing cities would be). A friendly vassal taking independence would give the master the opportunity of taking up a defensive pact or permanent alliance.

[Brutus66]

Originally posted by alms66
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.

I think he's onto something here. It would be nice to use spies to destabilize a foreign civ somehow.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by 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.

Thanks for taking the time to post the detail. Unfortunately, as you guessed, I am not going to agree that either proposal is a good idea, but that shouldn't be seen as detracting from the attempt.

In particular there are several guiding principles for any strategy game that your proposals violate. The first is that very bad things that happen with a small probability are neither fun nor good for gameplay. Punishment for not doing something (in this case predominantly building health and happiness infrastructure) must be proportional to the crime in a sense, and broadly predictable. Thus, the smart player can weigh up the opportunity cost of acting to build the infrastructure and act accordingly.

Sometimes a distribution of outcomes can work (as a clear example the combat model is not deterministic, and this benefits the game immensely in my view) as long as there is some proportionality and the player has planning options to combat the randomness. In the combat example this is taking more than you need to do the job, in case of bad breaks.

In contrast, if there was a 1% chance when attacking cities that your entire attacking army was wiped out by a suicide bomber, that would (whilst having some bearing on reality) suck immensely, be unfun, and turn a strategy game about making informed decisions into a luckfest.

Now, you may argue that it is a choice to take the chance (using either example) and (using your example) you should just build the infrastructure. Here we have to recognise that the game already punishes you in a sensible way for having unhappy and unhealthy people, so all that your proposal really does is limit options. Limiting options unnecessarily again violates the principles that underpin good strategy games, regardless of how realistic those limited options might be.

As a third key point, Civ4 has struck the best balance between reducing micro whilst retaining scope for skill to influence the outcome of the game (essential in any game of course, and a very hard principle to adhere to in practice) than any TBS I have ever played. Since the cost of allowing unhappiness is potentially so great players would be forced to micro to stop growth, and I would deem that unnecessary micro that doesn't really add any strategic depth.

As a final point, having lots of splinter civs doesn't sit well with the game model. Basically a splinter civ will never be able to advance much from when it split. This makes them pointless and just cannon fodder for whoever happens to be around. Again this rewards not strategic insight, but just the luck of the draw. This violates the principle of assessing potential changes through the context of the other abstractions in the model already, rather than based on some outside notion of reality.

In summation I would have to opine that the ideas expressed add no strategic depth - in actuality they violate several key principles underpinning successful strategy games.

I therefore urge the honourable member for Louisiana to drop these suggested amendments forthwith.

[alms66]

We could argue this for months on end without any resolution, as many have in the past, and I want no part of that. However, I do have a few small counters I have to make...

Originally posted by DrSpike
Punishment for not doing something (in this case predominantly building health and happiness infrastructure) must be proportional to the crime in a sense, and broadly predictable. Thus, the smart player can weigh up the opportunity cost of acting to build the infrastructure and act accordingly.

It's not only about building the infrastructure, but taking the risk in delaying building the infrastructure to get some other vital element completed - a wonder or unit or something other. There are many times and many situations where one might just let unhappiness or unhealthiness go for a while to get other, more important things done. There's effectlively no negative effect for it, just slightly reduced production, which while negative, isn't proportional in my opinion.

Originally posted by DrSpike
In contrast, if there was a 1% chance when attacking cities that your entire attacking army was wiped out by a suicide bomber, that would (whilst having some bearing on reality) suck immensely, be unfun, and turn a strategy game about making informed decisions into a luckfest.

First, it is completely unrealistic to have a single suicide bomber to kill off an entire army.

The argument that having chances of bad things happening vs everthing being deterministic, is also completely worthless, IMO, because yes, civ is called a strategy game, but that's just a label and it's not chess. No matter how much you argue "strategy game principles", it'll never get close to it either.

Originally posted by DrSpike
Now, you may argue that it is a choice to take the chance (using either example) and (using your example) you should just build the infrastructure. Here we have to recognise that the game already punishes you in a sensible way for having unhappy and unhealthy people, so all that your proposal really does is limit options. Limiting options unnecessarily again violates the principles that underpin good strategy games, regardless of how realistic those limited options might be.

It adds more options (unconventional warfare) than it limits - you'd eventually build the infrastructure anyway so I don't see a limit, it's just a choice of whether or not you're willing to take the risk to get other things done.

Originally posted by DrSpike
As a final point, having lots of splinter civs doesn't sit well with the game model. Basically a splinter civ will never be able to advance much from when it split. This makes them pointless and just cannon fodder for whoever happens to be around. Again this rewards not strategic insight, but just the luck of the draw. This violates the principle of assessing potential changes through the context of the other abstractions in the model already, rather than based on some outside notion of reality.

Is there not an option to play 1 city and build from there? Couldn't the AI do the same? It may be unlikely that a splinter civ comes to dominate the world, but it could theoretically happen.

[DeeMG]

I agree with Alms66 that slow production is not enough penalty for letting your civ grow unhappy.

I know the developers did that to correct for too much micro management in previous civs, but there might be some ways to that differently

So things like civs splitting apart due to unhappiness SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE NEXT CIV VERSIONS

That would make the game not only more realistic but also MORE FUN

Because NOW CIV IS JUST A WAR GAME:

Dr. Spike says: smalls civs are just cannon targets: well, that might be true in the current Civ setting, but that's not true if Civ would have a serious UN and international context. Example:
Why doesn't Russia attack Georgia right now ??


For any one who knows about geopolitics the answer is clear.

And that's the sort of game I would like in CIV.

And that doesn't need to be less fun, except maybe for DrSpike...

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by alms66
We could argue this for months on end without any resolution, as many have in the past, and I want no part of that.

Me neither - both points of view of there for posterity, and I'm leaving it at that.

[Brutus66]

I know where you're coming from, but I think you're asking too much out of an AI to grasp that kind of complexity.

I understand your frustration, though, the current AI has no sense of discretion in where it settles or who it declares war on.
There have been times I have been in a war with another civ and razed their cities so they couldn't be recaptured, and before you know it some opportunistic AI civ trots out a settler, plunks down a city and gets the land.

[Overcast32]

Originally posted by Brutus66
I know where you're coming from, but I think you're asking too much out of an AI to grasp that kind of complexity.

I understand your frustration, though, the current AI has no sense of discretion in where it settles or who it declares war on.
There have been times I have been in a war with another civ and razed their cities so they couldn't be recaptured, and before you know it some opportunistic AI civ trots out a settler, plunks down a city and gets the land.

Yeah, or another Civ plopping down a settler and building a ciy in 3 available tiles right near my oldest and most cultured cities - no problem for me, in a few turns, the city will flip to me anyway - actually, you can leave a little hole if you find a more 'undesireable' area and let another Civ waste a settler and build up the area, then pop a 'culture bomb' and the city will be yours in short order - never planned that way, but that's happened to me twice.

But I do like the idea of even slower than marathon turns, true it wouldn't work for internet multiplayer - but single player or LAN (like me and the wife playing) it would work out fine. But I don't think it would work out just right unless a bit more stuff was added to Micromanage. Of course, I love the Micromanagement - that's what draws me to Civ over games like Warcraft and such.

[_BuRjaCi_]

Originally posted by DrSpike

As a final point, having lots of splinter civs doesn't sit well with the game model. Basically a splinter civ will never be able to advance much from when it split. This makes them pointless and just cannon fodder for whoever happens to be around. Again this rewards not strategic insight, but just the luck of the draw. This violates the principle of assessing potential changes through the context of the other abstractions in the model already, rather than based on some outside notion of reality.

That is not a concept flaw bu an AI and game rule flaw.
In history tiny fragmented nations have worked and banned together (or found a big brother to protect them ).

Just throw in client states or EU-like allaiances and the problem is solved.