Tweet
Reworking the CIV "Philosophy"
In this thread I am going to try to put my finger on just what it is about CIV that, to me, keeps it from being a truly enjoyable game.
Don't get me wrong, every Civ game in the series ranks as one of my top-3 favorite games. However, it is only the first part of the game I enjoy. After about the industrial age the game gets too tedious for words (I have yet to play a game of CIV 3 past "Modern Armor", and I rarely finished a game of Civs I or II.)
The early game is enjoyable because it truly feels like I am running a primitive civilization. My civ is small and weak, all around me is hostile unexplored untamed wilderness.
It is the sense of imminent danger, and constantly having to "fight back the chaos" that make this stage fun.
Once my civ is established (and all the land is claimed), it becomes a game of management and racing for tech rather than of creation. The unpredictability and sense of danger of the early game are gone. The world has become domesticated. If I did a good job of planning initially (and had the divine gift of many cows near my starting city), even rival civs are potentially no more than a minor nuisance.
I can now make long-term strategic plans to conquer my neighbors if I like, but why should I do this? With every successful campaign, I eliminate one more threat to myself and make the planet that much more boring to live in.
The problem, as I see it, is with the entire philosophy behind the workings of the game. I know many many folks are going to vehemently disagree with me, but these are the philisophical points I disagree with.
1. "Progress".
Civ 3 is based on the Darwinian notion that, as time passes, everything gets bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, and bigger. New units are stronger than old units. Cities get bigger (and more productive) over time. Technology always moves forward. Culture increases but never decreases. New governments are always better than old governments (and are necessary for larger empires.)
Aside from being boring, this concept is highly inaccurate. Strength of culture fluctuates over time. Citizens become decadent and unproductive. Technology is often forgotten. Empires collapse under the weight of their own excessive foreign obligations.
2. "Materialism".
Like the first point, in Civ 3 more is always better than less. More food == more citizens == more production == bigger empire == more tech. Despite many historical examples to the contrary, the large nation is always more powerful in every way to a smaller nation.
In Civ 3, tiny England would never be able to dominate massive India. Backward Afghanistan would never be able stand up to the USSR.
Those are my only main points. What I would like to see is a massive reworking of not only the rules, but the ideas behind the rules. Here are my suggestions:
1. Introduce the idea of "regression".
As civilizations move forward, so also should they be able to move backward. Specifically:
a. Empires that are too large too long should experience a "Dark Age". Like the golden age. Government switches to anarchy automatically and stays there for 20 turns or more. Vast majority of culturally weak cities join other civs during this time. Dark ages can also be triggered by the capture of a wonder, death of a great leader, or loss of the capitol or large city.
b. Civs should be able to "forget" techs. Either as a result of cultural decline, or some other civ burning all their libraries. A dark age could help a great deal here.
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.
2. Small civs should be more efficient than large civs.
a. Negative culture. Conquered cities and cities with high corruption should create a drag effect on culture, possibly even making the entire civ go negative. Building cultural wonders in cities of other races should generate no culture (unless culture is the reason they converted), and generate no happiness.
b. So also, a high culture rating should create an effect similar to a golden age. This way small, culturally strong civs can keep up with large empires.
3. Balance the ages.
a. The benefits of technology are zero-sum. Modern science should create as many problems as it solves. Factories should raise production, but cause unhappiness as well as polution. Cathedrals should have no more effect (on culture or happiness), as people turn away from religion. Increased materialism should cause increased corruption as well as production.
b. Is a knight that much tougher than a barbarian? Even a veteran barbarian? Would infantry do that well against Longbowmen? Samurai would cut riflemen to ribbons if they got close enough. Drop the idea of "progress" from the unit progression and make the fights more fair to the unmodernized.
c. Modern technology does not need to be so detailed. We do not need 5 types of aircraft, 3 types of battleship, and 2 kinds of submarines all at the same time. Modern armor and radar artillery are overkill as well.
d. Add terrorists. Terrorists (or call them partisans if you like) are how tiny technologically backward civs hit back against large advanced civs. It should be an effective tactic, but the AI should only use it if it has no other options. This could save the existence of civs that are left behind in the late game. The terrorist unit looks like a worker unit but works like a cruise missile. The nationality of the unit is, of course, hidden.
That is all. What do you think, sirs?
Don't get me wrong, every Civ game in the series ranks as one of my top-3 favorite games. However, it is only the first part of the game I enjoy. After about the industrial age the game gets too tedious for words (I have yet to play a game of CIV 3 past "Modern Armor", and I rarely finished a game of Civs I or II.)
The early game is enjoyable because it truly feels like I am running a primitive civilization. My civ is small and weak, all around me is hostile unexplored untamed wilderness.
It is the sense of imminent danger, and constantly having to "fight back the chaos" that make this stage fun.
Once my civ is established (and all the land is claimed), it becomes a game of management and racing for tech rather than of creation. The unpredictability and sense of danger of the early game are gone. The world has become domesticated. If I did a good job of planning initially (and had the divine gift of many cows near my starting city), even rival civs are potentially no more than a minor nuisance.
I can now make long-term strategic plans to conquer my neighbors if I like, but why should I do this? With every successful campaign, I eliminate one more threat to myself and make the planet that much more boring to live in.
The problem, as I see it, is with the entire philosophy behind the workings of the game. I know many many folks are going to vehemently disagree with me, but these are the philisophical points I disagree with.
1. "Progress".
Civ 3 is based on the Darwinian notion that, as time passes, everything gets bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, and bigger. New units are stronger than old units. Cities get bigger (and more productive) over time. Technology always moves forward. Culture increases but never decreases. New governments are always better than old governments (and are necessary for larger empires.)
Aside from being boring, this concept is highly inaccurate. Strength of culture fluctuates over time. Citizens become decadent and unproductive. Technology is often forgotten. Empires collapse under the weight of their own excessive foreign obligations.
2. "Materialism".
Like the first point, in Civ 3 more is always better than less. More food == more citizens == more production == bigger empire == more tech. Despite many historical examples to the contrary, the large nation is always more powerful in every way to a smaller nation.
In Civ 3, tiny England would never be able to dominate massive India. Backward Afghanistan would never be able stand up to the USSR.
Those are my only main points. What I would like to see is a massive reworking of not only the rules, but the ideas behind the rules. Here are my suggestions:
1. Introduce the idea of "regression".
As civilizations move forward, so also should they be able to move backward. Specifically:
a. Empires that are too large too long should experience a "Dark Age". Like the golden age. Government switches to anarchy automatically and stays there for 20 turns or more. Vast majority of culturally weak cities join other civs during this time. Dark ages can also be triggered by the capture of a wonder, death of a great leader, or loss of the capitol or large city.
b. Civs should be able to "forget" techs. Either as a result of cultural decline, or some other civ burning all their libraries. A dark age could help a great deal here.
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.
2. Small civs should be more efficient than large civs.
a. Negative culture. Conquered cities and cities with high corruption should create a drag effect on culture, possibly even making the entire civ go negative. Building cultural wonders in cities of other races should generate no culture (unless culture is the reason they converted), and generate no happiness.
b. So also, a high culture rating should create an effect similar to a golden age. This way small, culturally strong civs can keep up with large empires.
3. Balance the ages.
a. The benefits of technology are zero-sum. Modern science should create as many problems as it solves. Factories should raise production, but cause unhappiness as well as polution. Cathedrals should have no more effect (on culture or happiness), as people turn away from religion. Increased materialism should cause increased corruption as well as production.
b. Is a knight that much tougher than a barbarian? Even a veteran barbarian? Would infantry do that well against Longbowmen? Samurai would cut riflemen to ribbons if they got close enough. Drop the idea of "progress" from the unit progression and make the fights more fair to the unmodernized.
c. Modern technology does not need to be so detailed. We do not need 5 types of aircraft, 3 types of battleship, and 2 kinds of submarines all at the same time. Modern armor and radar artillery are overkill as well.
d. Add terrorists. Terrorists (or call them partisans if you like) are how tiny technologically backward civs hit back against large advanced civs. It should be an effective tactic, but the AI should only use it if it has no other options. This could save the existence of civs that are left behind in the late game. The terrorist unit looks like a worker unit but works like a cruise missile. The nationality of the unit is, of course, hidden.
That is all. What do you think, sirs?
(the mall, of course, creates no happiness)
Comment