A Religious Review

[Nikomakkos]

The 'if you're small you're unsuccessful' thing simply comes from thinking about what the hardest thing is to do in a high difficulty level game? What's the challenge? The answer is: Getting and holding territory. Territory gives you everything: More resources and land to work. I only ask, how could it be any otherwise? I mean, how could it be otherwise than territory and land that gets you things? Realistically?

And that's what everyone competes for, naturally. So if you do well in the thing that everyone's competing for, you do well period.

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by Nikomakkos
The 'if you're small you're unsuccessful' thing simply comes from thinking about what the hardest thing is to do in a high difficulty level game? What's the challenge? The answer is: Getting and holding territory. Territory gives you everything: More resources and land to work. I only ask, how could it be any otherwise? I mean, how could it be otherwise than territory and land that gets you things? Realistically?

And that's what everyone competes for, naturally. So if you do well in the thing that everyone's competing for, you do well period.

I think war is the easiest thing to be successful at in Civ actually, especially once big.

I think a more even trade system would help smaller civs get things more cheaply (they need less) or large civs should need multiple sources (they need more).

[The Priest]

I don't buy the 'if you're small you're unsuccessful'. It's a very one dimensional view of civilisation that seems to confuse it with empire.

Quite agree. Which countries have the highest GDP/capita now? Which countries are hte most succesful? By no means the largest. Which civilisations have had the broadest impact across world history? Are any of them large or even still in existance now?

Territory gives you everything: More resources and land to work. I only ask, how could it be any otherwise? I mean, how could it be otherwise than territory and land that gets you things? Realistically?

Well, yes but in the real world, if you are bigger you need more land and resources to stand still. It would be as reaslistic if not more so to divide most things in civ by population size - science divide by total population (there are far more schools and universities in India than in Switzerland but that doesn't mean India is more technologically advanced or its population better education); resources in some way divide by population (so if you build a large empire you become hugely resource hungry because while little old Norway only needs one oil for its five cities, you need five oil, which drives yet another middle eastern war). It really wouldn't be hard.

There needs to be a way to access resources outside your territory. Civ3 had a good idea with colonies, but implemented them badly by costing you a worker (of course, workers were cheap).

Yes. Though the main problem was that if someone else built a city nearby its borders destroyed the colony. So they could only ever be temporary. Allow them to exist despite of borders (or at least to have a fixed culture contribution per turn, just for its own tile, and let it have danger of revolt as for any city). This woudl allow a civ to stay small but have some overseas resources.

I think that the diplomacy/attitude part of the game should bring more ballance to the warmongering side of the game.

Yes, teh AI is pretty stupid in leting you pick off one civ after another.

Despite all this, though, it is still going to be hard without some other victory conditions which don't rely on size (currently only culture really does this).

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Nikomakkos
I mean, how could it be otherwise than territory and land that gets you things? Realistically?

Terrain improvements and buildings.

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by Maniac


Terrain improvements and buildings.

Some political systems could only be available in small empires.
Civic effects could thin with scale, huge empires could struggle to get away from the rawest effects.
Religious and climatic difference could have a greater and greater impact on health and happiness as one size fits all policies stop wholly being appropriate.

[Nikomakkos]

Yeah, but for terrain improvements, you need terrain... And for buildings you need cities. What could I have meant anyway by territory? I wasn't talking about unimproved land.

Bigger countries like USA divide their country up into smaller units of government. That's how you can tackle the 'one size fits all' problem. I guess you can imagine that that's what's happening in your civ empire. I find it hard to see the game as anything else than a strategy game with lots of cool and interesting features. But I will admit that sometimes, if you get enough cities to begin with, you don't need to start wars to win. You're still gonna need an army for defense of course. Wasn't it Kennedy who had the idea of peace by means of a big military? Something like that. Maybe that was only propaganda, and he secretly just wanted to annex things... :P

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Nikomakkos
Yeah, but for terrain improvements, you need terrain... And for buildings you need cities. What could I have meant anyway by territory? I wasn't talking about unimproved land.

Terrain improvements could be made more profitable, but also made much longer to build, so that you'd always have a shortage of workers, and that your entire land being improved isn't a certainty. That way a small empire with advanced terrain improvements could be more powerful than a large empire with lots of unimproved land.

[Krill]

It's a good idea, increasingly powerful levels of terrain improvements tied to different worker type units that have to be built from scratch that beciome available at different parts of the tech tree; that way cheaper workers that mine, road and irrigate are cheap and available early/at the start, then workers that make plantations, fortifications, windmills come later and cost more, like the current settler cost model for late era starts.

Just not with costs as ****ed up as the current settler model please

[Krill]

That was a CiV idea, not for CIV.

[sowings]

Originally posted by johnmcd
Some political systems could only be available in small empires.
Civic effects could thin with scale, huge empires could struggle to get away from the rawest effects.
appropriate.

Sounds a bit like what CTP had. The government civics had a city (count) cap, and if you went over that, whether through expansion to space or the seafloor, or through conquest, each city suffered unhappiness equal to the number of total cities over the government's limit.

Makes you a lot more likely to raze in endgame conquest.

[Blaupanzer]

Applying all resources at the state level and dividing them by the population would go far in reflecting real world food distribution (at least since the mid-seventeenth century), as well as for luxury distribution. The specialists might get one level of resources and the general population another (creating a class system of sorts) with increased unhappiness for lesser distributions and lower field productivity (mine, farms, plantations, etc.). Maintenance costs (gold, hammers, food, and some abstract luxury unit) could be adjusted to reflect these changes in productivity due to overall citizen happiness which would then figure into distributions for the next turn. Happiness and productivity would also be affected by war -- even going up if we are the one attacked then going down over time due to weariness.

I have not been a big fan of the "I won't work" solution to unhappiness. That game abstraction just encourages the "slave him to death" solution for red citizens, an action that should reduce long-term productivity of the remaining citizens, but actually increases productivity in the current game.

Some Government/labor/economic civics would free up more resources and money for commercial operations with a concomitant increase in happiness and production but reduced Government control. These commercial operations, including corporations, would be tracked separately, then applied to each city on a per capita basis. (In the game, the player would probably have to have more control over this than most Governments do in actuality.)

Perhaps some per capita happiness victory condition could be introduced that would permit the player to win, independent of size if that magic number is reached. (Switzerland or Sweden wins!) The process would be simplest if this percentage is tracked turn-by-turn throughout the game in some cumulative manner. I do not know how difficult this would be to code, but we are talking Civ V at the earliest for something like new victory conditions and accounting methods.

[Supr49er]

I have to say I'm disappointed.
I thought this thread was about a new "Religious Revival" event to boost your state religion - or undermine the AI's religion.

[iapetus556]

Going of at slightly more of a tangent (but still related to this issue), I think one of the problems of the game really being "Imperialism" rather than "Civilization" is that regardless of what civics you use, you are really just a unitary state run by a dictator with absolute power.

Civ 2 (I don't know about Civ 1, as I haven't played it) had a mechanism where if you were a republic or a democracy, there was a 50%/100% chance that the senet would overrule a declaration of war, or force you to accept an offer of peace.

Nothing like that has been implemented since then. (Fortunately, IMO, as it was too restricting and arbitrary).

However, I would like to see civics choices making a bit more of an influence on what you can and cannot do.

Possible examples:

Each city could have multiple build slots, allowing you to build more than one unit/building simultaneously. (This would be good on its own, as you could now make several cheap units per turn if production was high enough. There could also be efficiency penalties for putting all resources into just one unit/building, so unless you needed it right now, you would be better off building several things at the same time).

The total number of build slots in a city could depend on city size and improvements (e.g. 3 + 1 per factory-type building).

If you were running some sort of communist (State Property) dictatorship (not Representation or representation/universal sufferage), you could control all your build slots.

However, under more liberal/free-market civics, some or more will be automated, producing what the population of that city want, e.g. "bread and circuses", wealth enhancing structures (especially if you a Mercantile/Free Market), etc.

You could also pay another civilization's city to make something for you (with what they would build, how much they charge, and how much of that goes to the other civ's treasury depending on the attitude to you and their civics choices).



Also, I think it should be impossible in a democracy (representation/universal sufferage) to deliberately starve a city. Under such civics, if a city is losing food, then the worked tiles should automatically be reassigned to eliminate (or reduce as much as possible) the deficit.

(In fact, this should apply under dictatorships as well, unless you have sufficient police/military units/buildings in that city to stop them).

[VonSharma]

This is an excellent thread and along with properly allocating resource distribution (ie an Iron deposit is limited and can be used for a certain amount of units/buildings), the changes aforementioned would make CiV awesome. I would also add a few more things, some related to the religious nature of civ.

- Make the non-aggression victories much harder (except diplomacy). I play on Emperor and have to turn off space race and cultural because I feel its basically cheating.

- The Apostolic Palace was an awesome idea but it doesn't go far enough. It shouldn't be limited to one religion. Alliances IMHP can be the funnest part and I can't imagine anything more fun than all out holy war. The diplomacy in civ is much much improved but there needs to be found a way to make real blocks of civs that stick together through thick and thin, not the flaky ones that collapse so easily.

- And/Or, make permanent alliances easier to obtain but don't share beakers... it makes it way too easy. Some middle ground needs to be found. It's along the lines of religious alliances, make fighting wars a real team effort.

- I really like the idea of changing science advancement to include cultural bits as well. Singapore, Korea, etc churn out scientific advancements and aren't terribly huge.


I don't really enjoy having huge empires as they are unwieldy and you just get too powerful. Even if you think about the US, its really not that large. It's basically a Japan, Germany, GB and France in one country - West Coast, North East and the industrial midwest + Texas... okay maybe that is large.

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by VonSharma
- And/Or, make permanent alliances easier to obtain but don't share beakers... it makes it way too easy. Some middle ground needs to be found. It's along the lines of religious alliances, make fighting wars a real team effort.

In what way does the permanent alliances feature in the custom game menu not meet your expressed needs in SP? Haven't used it myself, but am not aware of it triggering automatic sharing of beakers. I do know that is how it works in MP.