A true 'Test of Time'?

[Fake Boris]

Had this thought, know it probably will be trounced.

Something that seems to make Civ boring or repetitive, especially in the later stages of the game, when it's easy to guess a few centuries in advance who is going to win, is the lack of political turmoil and instability.

Why don't factions form, empire shatters, ministers coup you government? I know it has been suggested before, but not AFAIK to its absolute possible extent.

Make Civ the ultimate Test of Time. What if it didn't really matter if your civilization was wiped out? What if the game went on? What if the point of the game would be about being eradicated as seldom as possible? When you're defeated, you lose 25% or something of your points, then you use the remaining ones to bid on another nation whose destiny you will preside over.

Forget about unfair AI advantages. The ultimate Civ4 expert will be the one who truly manages to build an empire spawning 6 millenia.

This idea could have many consequences: bring much needed action to the game, don't be affraid to really pose a challenge to the player, a perpetual fight for survival where domestic stability is a success. What about a world already filled with hundreds of nation states right at the beginning?

Does that sound good, bad or ugly?

[Sir Og]

Sounds good. Unfortunately it would be a really frustrating experience. I wouldn't like to play a game where for example upon contact with a far away civilisation 4/5 of my population gets wiped out by smallpox or plague. This is realistic but it would suck to be on the loosing side. The other problem would be that it would be extremely hard to do the scoring.

[Fake Boris]

Yeah, I guess this is much more of a fantasm than a true idea.

[Nikolai]

It sounds real good, but it will never be workable I'm afraid...

[Addled Platypus]

Re: A true 'Test of Time'?

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Had this thought, know it probably will be trounced.


When you're defeated, you lose 25% or something of your points, then you use the remaining ones to bid on another nation whose destiny you will preside over.


Does that sound good, bad or ugly?

Dont see why this aspect could not work.

Maybe cross post this in paradigm shift forum.

[ihuc19]

This is infact is one of the main complaints I've heard on this forum (in one way or another). That fact that you can predict who's gonna win before the game has even reached the half-way mark. 99% of my games are over by this point.

The game needs these complexities in order to STAY fun. The best times to play Civ3 or at the very early stages after that it just seems like a never ending cycle of Civilizations going to war with me before I eventually kill them off (and I'm not even a warmonger). Mind you I'm usually like playing on HUGE maps because I like the idea of the Earth/Map being a very large object, thus games take longer.

The REXing needs to be fixed. I don't mind it but I think the programing should be different and make it more difficult to expand your civ in the early stages of the game. And then make it more easy and then make it more difficult. Which could follow the trends of colonialism.

I could seriously right about this in more depth and more detail but I don't want to bore people to death.

[The diplomat]

I definitely think that civ3 tends to be way too predictable. As ihuc19 said, most games are basically over by the midpoint.

I think a simple solution would be to have events that would occur either at random times or based on a tech or other event that would force the player to deal with those events.

For example, when you discover "industrializtion" there would be a chance that you would get labor riots for x turns.

If you declare war against an enemy that you just made peace with, there could be a chance of a city revolting and declaring independance.

A resource could dry up.

Another event could be "one of your spies was working for the enemy and has given them nuclear tech".

It seems to me that these kinds of events would make the game more interesting and less predictable.

[Brent]

I just now came to the point where I really think the designers need to take everyone seriously about the need for complexity and what is referred to as unfun. I always hoped the game would be complex in some ways like having many options for civs, but now I accept the need for what is referred to as unfun.

[Fake Boris]

Diplomat, I'm not sure that random events is the way you go. Random risks=good, but a 'responsible' system where risks are created by your own actions seems more in line with what some people have been asking for (i.e. more complexity/realism in social simulation).

On the idea I guess we agree.

[Fake Boris]

For instance, and I'm not saying that it should be in the game, it's just an example, I could say yes to the risk of worker riots, but only if your civilization is not rich or developed enough, something that could be measured with your level of infrastructure and number of trade/shields per citizen point.

[Panzeh]

Keeping a large empire together should be a major uphill fight.

[Vince278]

I've always been in favor of bringing back civil wars.

[ihuc19]

Exactly, having a large empire should be an uphill battle. Look at Rome for instance, being constantly challenged at every border, but at the time their superior road network was something no other civilization could match. But when Rome stretched too far the empire began to crumble.

Mind you this is in early history, where most large empires arose from (Persia, Mongolia, Rome, etc.) but all of these empire are nothing but fart I forgot about. It seemed easy enough to build large empires in the old days, but harder to keep it. In the game it easy enough (for the AI) to build and not get penalized later (especially in the large maps).

What I really want in my game is an AI that doesn't cheat to get ahead but is still smart enough not to build in the freakin desert just for land area. Nothing bothers me more than having to spend hours apon hours taking over these WORTHLESS cities.

Still I play on HUGE maps, because as I said before I like them, they are more realistic. Right now I'm building a 360x360 map of the Old World and it is going to awesome. If only I could find a way to stop the computer from having 30+ cities, under Emperor, by the 10 AD mark, then I think we could have something.

Under my ideal game, you should be able to build your empire in a given space, 10-15 cities tops, make it harder to build cities outside a given perimeter from Capital, especially early in the game.

I mean really give a bonus to cities connected to a capital, and make it incrediably difficult for cities not connected to the capital to build settlers. Infact cities not connected to a capital, outside of Seafaring nations (who should have Harbors instead), shouldn't be able to build settlers....I like that rule, because otherwise the AI is just rediculous (spell check).

The most superior empires where infact the Merchant class empires (England, Netherlands, Venice) and only England was able to continue to growth with colonization at it's helm, until it eventually stopped.

As I said before I can talk about my qualms with the game for hours. But I love the game, because some day I hope it will be everything I think it should be.

I'm all for getting rid of the UNFUN stuff (like Corruption, whatever), but I'm all for little things that can make the game a challenge without you having the feeling like someone is holding you down. Like my road thing it should work. Or the perimeter thing. Slow movement rates outside a given capital perimter, increase them within.

I mean it makes since right, if the Mongols are invading my early China empire I should be able to dispatch my troops faster than invading northern hordes along my Gobi steppes. I like that! That's fun. Increase +3 movement to somewhere between (4-6). I don't know which one would be better since I haven't tested it yet.

More complaints and praises to come.

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by ihuc19

Mind you this is in early history, where most large empires arose from (Persia, Mongolia, Rome, etc.) but all of these empire are nothing but fart I forgot about. It seemed easy enough to build large empires in the old days, but harder to keep it. In the game it easy enough (for the AI) to build and not get penalized later (especially in the large maps).

AMEN BROTHER

What I really want in my game is an AI that doesn't cheat to get ahead but is still smart enough not to build in the freakin desert just for land area. Nothing bothers me more than having to spend hours apon hours taking over these WORTHLESS cities.

MY SECOND AMEN BROTHER

Under my ideal game, you should be able to build your empire in a given space, 10-15 cities tops, make it harder to build cities outside a given perimeter from Capital, especially early in the game.

I mean really give a bonus to cities connected to a capital, and make it incrediably difficult for cities not connected to the capital to build settlers. Infact cities not connected to a capital, outside of Seafaring nations (who should have Harbors instead), shouldn't be able to build settlers....I like that rule, because otherwise the AI is just rediculous (spell check).

The most superior empires where infact the Merchant class empires (England, Netherlands, Venice) and only England was able to continue to growth with colonization at it's helm, until it eventually stopped.


I'm all for getting rid of the UNFUN stuff (like Corruption, whatever), but I'm all for little things that can make the game a challenge without you having the feeling like someone is holding you down. Like my road thing it should work. Or the perimeter thing. Slow movement rates outside a given capital perimter, increase them within.

I mean it makes since right, if the Mongols are invading my early China empire I should be able to dispatch my troops faster than invading northern hordes along my Gobi steppes. I like that! That's fun. Increase +3 movement to somewhere between (4-6). I don't know which one would be better since I haven't tested it yet.

More complaints and praises to come.

AMEN BROTHER , WHEN IS THE NEXT SERMON

[ihuc19]

I've just recently tried a new simulation with my Civ3 game and editor. And I have been able to stop (maintain within reasonable levels) the REXing. #1- can't build in the desert, tundra, jungles, and obviously mountains. #2- I plant a Wine luxury in every civs starting location, and no where else on the map. Then I made Settlers only available through a Wine source. Thus I was able to make it so only the capital can make settlers in the beginning, unless a city had a connection to the capital, works pretty well.

This also emphasizes worker production, protecting your capital, and since the Wine luxury only boosts food by 1 and trade 1, you aren't hurting yourself by settling there nor really gaining an advantage, plus everyone likes one Happier citizens in the beginning of the game.