Reworking the CIV "Philosophy"

[fezick31]

Re: Reworking the CIV "Philosophy"

[SIZE=1] c. Bring back civil wars! Make the empire split not into 2 equal parts, but into many states of around 5 cities each, up to the maximum allowed on the map. All breakaway civs should have their dark ages together. Every civ, even the smallest and happiest, should face challenges to it's soveirgnty on occasion.

Amen brother! Even in Civ1 & 2 this rarely happened. I think this should be a common occurance, and should be as unpredicatable as possible. There are no great nations around that never experienced internal warfare. The American Civil War, the english war of the roses, Russia's Red October, Spain, and the existance of any independent nations in Northa America are all examples.

It could take into account several factors, but I see 2 big ones:
1) The size of your empire
2) How long it has been since you changed government form.

some other ideas:
3) Corruption & Unhappiness
(it was the exploitation of peasents by royalty that caused the russion revolution of 1917)
4) Low Cultural assimilation
(like Texas and Mexico)
5) Recent Government change
(This was the root cause of the american civil war (although slavery was a big deal, it didn't start it) - The south wanted decentralized, weak federal governement, the north wanted string, localized federal government. It started with compromise in the constitution, and ended in a war. Multiple claims to a throne are another example).
6) Keeping a large Standing Army
(nothing like your favorite general decideing he wants your job)

[awesomedude]

I hate to be an ******* , but I can't help myself to correct you (I hope) on the historical matters here. No offense .

Originally posted by macaskil
For instance the Roman Empire was replaced by a Western European Civilisation based on the Catholic Church, whilst much of the old Greek culture was kept alive in the Byzantine and Arab worlds from where (ironically mainly due to the Crusades) it spread back to the West and sparked off the Renaissance.

The Greek culture was not spread back to the West via crusades, it was aldready part of the western society, and even more importantly, it did not trigger the Renaissance. It was rather the Renaissance that replaced the Greek culture, which mathematical, fysical, astronomical and social (and more) thoughts and systems were still, until the scientific revolution or the Renassiance, being employed.

Originally posted by macaskil
The Muslim civilization has endured through invasions by the Mongols and Turks and domination by the Western and Communist powers in the last century.

Forgive me , but wouldn't you agree that the Turks are/were muslims?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I probably mentioned this before but, hopefully if Firaxis do come up with some sort of scripting ot events language (mostly for scenarios), then maybe it will be possible to incorporate tech losses and civil wars into the standard game using this language!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[macaskil]

To awesomedude

Renaissance means "rebirth". Much of the renaissance was "rediscoveries" of things the Greeks and Romans knew 2,000 years before - for instance, how to build domes, and the fact that the earth is round. The Byzantine and Islamic worlds were where this knowledge was kept alive.

The Turks started off in Central Asia, around modern Turkmenistan. I understood they had not yet converted to Islam at the time they invaded the Middle East, if this is wrong I stand corrected.

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by macaskil
To awesomedude

Renaissance means "rebirth". Much of the renaissance was "rediscoveries" of things the Greeks and Romans knew 2,000 years before - for instance, how to build domes, and the fact that the earth is round. The Byzantine and Islamic worlds were where this knowledge was kept alive.

The Turks started off in Central Asia, around modern Turkmenistan. I understood they had not yet converted to Islam at the time they invaded the Middle East, if this is wrong I stand corrected.

I hope you didn't 'learn' this in school because then you better sue your teacher . The Renaissance is little about rediscoveries of "things that Romans and Greek knew before". It is actually the opposite. Throughout the darkages to the ignition of the Renaissance, the Greek philosophy and thoughts we're what scholars based all their education and thoughts on, ie those theories where accepted as universal truths and therefore never challenged in any way. Many of these theories were developed by Aristotle, that for example believed the universe was geocentric and that the earth was 1/4 the size it really is. Another great greek philosopher, Ptolemaios, belived the earth to be flat, which was also considered a universal truth.

The Renaissance sparked off in the 1400s mainly due to astronomers such as Copernicus, who started to scratch on the surface to the true universe that had been hidden for a long time by the obsolete theories of Aristotle. The expanding sea-travelling also uncovered facts about the earth, such as its size and the natural life, that weren't supported by the Greek theories. This gradually encouraged people to get empiric knowledge, ie see past the old theories and start basing their knowledge on their own discoveries.

I could go on for hours about this and go much deeper, but I hope this is sufficient for you. This history lesson is free of charge by the way .

As for the Turks, I'm not sure from what date they're considered a people at all, but I'm sure they where muslims when they started to invade other muslim territories such as North Africa and Persia, which, I suppose, is essential here.

[Duddha]

awesomedude:

I don't post much on this forum, actually basicly not at all, but after reading your post I felt obligated to correct you.

I don't know what history classes you've taken but your wrong and macaskil is right.


"I hope you didn't 'learn' this in school because then you better sue your teacher . The Renaissance is little about rediscoveries of "things that Romans and Greek knew before". It is actually the opposite. Throughout the darkages to the ignition of the Renaissance, the Greek philosophy and thoughts we're what scholars based all their education and thoughts on, ie those theories where accepted as universal truths and therefore never challenged in any way. Many of these theories were developed by Aristotle, that for example believed the universe was geocentric and that the earth was 1/4 the size it really is. Another great greek philosopher, Ptolemaios, belived the earth to be flat, which was also considered a universal truth. "

You are right that medieval philosophers based their ideas on the ideas of a few ancient guys like Aristotal and Pylomye...(whatever his name is), but the Renaissance was figuing out that there were more ancient dudes to learn from and that knowlege is not absolute.

"The Renaissance sparked off in the 1400s mainly due to astronomers such as Copernicus, who started to scratch on the surface to the true universe that had been hidden for a long time by the obsolete theories of Aristotle. The expanding sea-travelling also uncovered facts about the earth, such as its size and the natural life, that weren't supported by the Greek theories. This gradually encouraged people to get empiric knowledge, ie see past the old theories and start basing their knowledge on their own discoveries."

Wow, you really need to take a real history class. The Renaissance was started in northern Italy (Copernicus->Poland) with the Humanist movement, which was basicly the idea that you need to go back a read the actual text of what people said. They hence found that there were more ideas than one. They were relearning the ancient ideas and coming up with new ways to look at their medieval world.

"I could go on for hours about this and go much deeper, but I hope this is sufficient for you"

I doubte you could.

I personaly got a 5 on the European History AP test and an 800 on the World History SAT II, so don't mess.

[player1]

Originally posted by BlueO
Of course, I would love it to have more sci-fi version of fatal wonders, like an AI developing a zombie virus and accidently turning its whole civ into zombies bent on consuming the world. Or have an AI be take over by aliens after building its fatal wonder, putting the world in danger.

Zombie virus?
Alien take over?

You mean the same ideas you used for your Alt-Sci MOD for CTP2?

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by Duddha
Wow, you really need to take a real history class. The Renaissance was started in northern Italy (Copernicus->Poland) with the Humanist movement, which was basicly the idea that you need to go back a read the actual text of what people said. <--- (My Note: Whatever this is supposed to mean is above me.) They hence found that there were more ideas than one. They were relearning the ancient ideas and coming up with new ways to look at their medieval world.

I stand by what I stated earlier and such poor posting as yours hasn't made me any less determined to do so. I hope that you put a little more thought into your next post (if there'll be one), rather than trying to poorly copy your history textbook.

My postings have not been very clear on the following; I agree that the Renaissance was sparked off with the humanist movement, but keep in mind that what I was discussing above was the rather the scientific achievements of this period rather than the mood and minds off the people. The ancient ideas you are referring to are poetry, theatrical plays, art, sculpturing and other non-scientific culture and literature, rather than science. These works were 'rediscovered', and in a sense that they changed the way that people were thinking, and the way that people looked at life (from which science owed some of its coming progress).

But however, none or little of this is related to what I am discussing above, which is rather the scientific changes of the late 1400s and onward. And the term "Renaissance", would mean rebirth in the way that a scientific and cultural society rose that hadn't been seen since ancient times, however not meaning that they started basing their knowledge upon these obsolete thoughts. And the scientific changes of the 1400s cannot be credited to the humanist movement, but to the founding of universities around Europe such as in Krakow (or Cracow in English) that developed mathematical geniuses such as Copernicus (did I ever mention him as not being polish/being Italian?).

Originally posted by Duddha
You are right that medieval philosophers based their ideas on the ideas of a few ancient guys like Aristotal and Pylomye...(whatever his name is), but the Renaissance was figuing out that there were more ancient dudes to learn from and that knowlege is not absolute.

Oh there where more ancient "dudes" to learn from eh ? Would you be so kind to state the name of these great individuals please? Aristotle was the single greatest influence on the European educational systems during the dark ages and his thoughts served as a great hindrance for scientific developments in Europe. Don't get me wrong however; he was a great mind of his time.

Originally posted by Duddha
I doubte you could.

I personaly got a 5 on the European History AP test and an 800 on the World History SAT II, so don't mess.

That's very impressive , but what would I care what grades you have, when you so cunningly have proven that they are not a measurement of your knowledge?

[BlueO]

Originally posted by player1


Zombie virus?
Alien take over?

You mean the same ideas you used for your Alt-Sci MOD for CTP2?

hehe, yup. Though, I never actually gotten into the zombie/alien eras in my ctp2 games due to slic errors...along with poor AI (yes, that includes frenzy AI) subsequently forcing me to quit the game forever. I was kinda envious reading other people's stories about their zombie experiences though. Sounded like fun.

[player1]

Originally posted by BlueO



hehe, yup. Though, I never actually gotten into the zombie/alien eras in my ctp2 games due to slic errors...along with poor AI (yes, that includes frenzy AI) subsequently forcing me to quit the game forever. I was kinda envious reading other people's stories about their zombie experiences though. Sounded like fun.

Pity, that same can't be done in Civ3.







P.S.
Just to know,
CTP2 AI evolved during last 9 months (a LOT, if you ask me).

Althought, it still isn't perfect, or better then in Civ3.

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by macaskil
To my mind civ does not pay enough attention to the following advances

- agricultural revolution (tractors, fertilisers) - allowing huge population growth (times 3 in 100 years)
- antiobitics/vaccination (eliminated most infectious disease - smallpox)
- free trade (should allow food to be traded for luxuries and raw materials both within empires and to other civs - do people in New York really starve because not enough food is grown in the environs of the city?)
- leisure time
- media (increases happiness, but also war weariness)
- welfare/health care/free education (increase happiness/production but uses tax revenue)

Hi macaskil:

I especially agree with your first three points, and would add the industrial revolution also. But the problem with the agricultural or industrial revolutions in civ is that the models are based on things building very slowly. In a given area you can generally only get a few 50% bonuses throughout the whole game. Whereas in the real world Per-capita income has changed by something like a factor of 50 from the ancient world to now! That is why Great Britain could project power all over the globe with a 'civ' that had maybe 3-5% of global resources and people at the most. Being ahead even a moderate amount on a growth curve like that is a conqueror's wet dream in the making .

But I guess including these things in civ in some pale way would be better than nothing...

[Pyrodrew]

Civ Power Balance

Originally posted by BlueO
I have to agree, Civ3 gets kinda dull, after the empire is all set up. The rest is just boring clean-up. Usually, my empire get set up by the Industrial Age. And every game tends to be the same, I mean, there's really no difference between the civs. The fun is in the beginning, where the challenge lies in setting up the empire to withstand the other civs.

Agreed. The fun is the challenge in setting up an empire to withstand the other Civs, which is great in Ancient & Midevil. The problem in the Industrial Age & Modern Age is the AI Civs do not try to *team up* to stop/challenge the leading Civ(s) (usually a human player, but not necessarily always)... instead they continue to pound on tiny Civs... or have endless wars with Civs on other continents. I've seen *several centuries* of war for which AI Civs on different continents at war never even lose a single city, regardless of the AI Civs strength/size/tech.

As I said in another post, the AI Civs don't try to Win... they give up trying to win simply for a good trade deal. Example= Recently the Babylonians (Furious Aggressiveness4 3rd largest Superpower) let me (largest superpower) peacefully complete my spaceship for... IVORY. Getting Ivory for free was worth losing the game over!!!

Since the AI doesn't understand the importance of preventing others to win through a balance of power between existing Civs... there is little danger/challenge/excitement in the Industrial & Modern Age.

[siredgar]

I agree, the earlier part of the game is far more interesting and fun than the latter stages due to the tech race and pollution maintenance issues. It's really a chore just finishing the game.

I also think that civs share tech too much now in Civ 3. I think that tech sharing should be limited at the beginning and more widely shared at the end. It's hard to find a situation where a civ is so far behind another one like the case illustrated between Britain and India in the 18th century.

Also, perhaps there could be specialized techs for civs. For example, if the Germans were the first to discover machinery, they would have exclusive rights to it (not tradeable) and always get a bonus in manufacturing. It would be able to provide civ characteristics not by destiny but by determination. After all, the Germans weren't born "militaristic and scientific", they grew into it. If they focus on techs that focus on production, then they should get special bonuses for that.

I like the idea of opium as a negative impact resource. Indeed, the British export of opium to China helped speed up that country's decline. There should be ways to negatively affect another civ's society without causing war. The trade embargo was a great idea for Civ 3 but it too often leads to war. On the flip side, I wonder if the AI recognizes if it's getting a favorable trade deal from another civ. Sometimes, I sell a resource to an ally at a great rate or even give it away and it doesn't seem to have a significant impact. Why are they only "gracious" when you are fighting a common enemy? Shouldn't they be thankful that you are giving them cheap or even free techs and resources for hundreds of years? No, they just turn against you at the next chance they get.

Anyhow, I agree there should be some sort of "malaise" for a civ's decadent society. They need to add more city improvements that do both good and harm like in SimCity: theatres, casinos, or even massage parlors. Just kidding on that last one. By the way, what ever happened to the stock exchange???

[BlueO]

Hmm, you know what? Civ3 isn't the only game that gets boring by midgame. All other strategy games are the same. From Civ2 to Mom, Moo, Botf, Pax Imperia, and even Imperium Galaticum 2.

I wish, someone would come out a strategy game that'll throw in some lategame challenges that isn't based on 'AI players'. Take Moo2 for example, it would have been so sweet, if the Anatares came pouring out in massive fleets, and the human player needs to coornidate with other AI empires to defeat the Anatrians. Botf, the lategame challenge would naturally be the borgs...instead, botf had the borgs as a 'random event'.

Civ3, I don't know what the lategame challenge could be...except I suppose, the game could come up with a number of doomsday scenario and randomly throw in one for flavor. Actually, the 'fatal wonders' I mentioned above, probably could serve as doomsday scenarios.

Of course, lategame challenges should be a toggleable option since every once awhile, I would like to play a relaxing normal game without worrying about lategame doomsday scenarios.

Here's hoping...Moo3 will have something like that!

[s3d]

Originally posted by BlueO
Civ3, I don't know what the lategame challenge could be...except I suppose, the game could come up with a number of doomsday scenario and randomly throw in one for flavor.

We can do it in the frame of existing editor, but it is not easy. There are at least fore option :

1. (more simple) Make AI only civ, with unique cheap super unit(s) late in the game. Player shouldn't play this civ, and should include it into list of AI civs in the customization screen. The downside of this is that this civ could be destroyed before it's "golden age".

2. Make 16 mods. In each mod _all_ civ but one have super unit later in the game. Player should play remaining civ. If he want play specific civ he should choose specific mod.

3. The same as before but remove golden age from player civ.

4. Make for each civ unique unit in the industrial age. (may be with the same animation) Make only this unit triggering golden age. With all golden ages in industrial era game should be more challenge.