Tweet
You should read the work by historian John Glubb, who studied how and why empires declined and came up with a theory of specific cycle that all empires appear to follow.
Many of the 'advances' in CIV (what ever flavor) are poorly thought out and rather arbitrary. Take for example 'Nationalism' and 'Philosophy'. Neither of these really do anything for the game but are very relevant to what you discuse here. Philosophy is not some generic ticket on the way to something useful, as if your were and engineering student selecting electives, but the choices made in philosophy porfoundly affect the future direction of your civilization. If you follow the Plato-Hegal camp you end up at Fascism & Communism, and it is difficult to change to other methods. Following Aristotle, your get to the enlightenment and more limited and effective types of governments.
Nationalism means something, not just a new unit build. It means that those groups raised under a strong nationalistic ethic are very difficult to conqour. Even if you hold their territory they will try again and again to recreate anew or rejoin an existing similar group. In game terms, nationalism should effect how the empire, its cities and its units behave and add or detract some capabilities. It should also make some future choices more difficult or impossible.
Once you have expanded beyond a point where a City State model workes for your empire, the capital becomes very very important. If it is lost through war or internal strife, their should be severe consiquences. On the other hand, if you look at the US model of govetnment, where power is diffused very thoroughly, losing your capital might even improve your empire. (You know, we did lose our capital in one war, no one noticed.)
One sure sign of the impending decline of an empire is the rise of Feminism. Nothing kills a civilization faster than when the women try to take over.
------------------------------------
The collaps of the Soviet Union was both a result of the inherent flaws of communism and or the underlying strong nationalistic feeling held by many of that empires territories, including Russia. In-fact the empire could have continued almost indefinitly through the use of its terror mechanisms which very successfully kept the populance in line. Only the fact that the leaders let go of that mechanism allowed nationalism to break up the empire. You must observe that the Chinese have tried to adapt to some reforms while holding on to their power and terror machine. Several things keep outside agencies from destroying the remains of these powers at the times of their vulnerability, that being WMD technology which makes it not worth the loses to make the effort and the remains of the enlightenment ideals that discourage military aggression.
As for CIV III, an implementation of some form of world engagement would be welcome, as done in 'Apha Centuri' and 'Empire of the Fadding Suns.' But it should not dominate the game play.
SOMETHING has to be done about the game, as currently it is just a race down the tech tree and pumping out as many units as you can. Not a whole lot different then the originial early 80's 'Empire' game.
Many of the 'advances' in CIV (what ever flavor) are poorly thought out and rather arbitrary. Take for example 'Nationalism' and 'Philosophy'. Neither of these really do anything for the game but are very relevant to what you discuse here. Philosophy is not some generic ticket on the way to something useful, as if your were and engineering student selecting electives, but the choices made in philosophy porfoundly affect the future direction of your civilization. If you follow the Plato-Hegal camp you end up at Fascism & Communism, and it is difficult to change to other methods. Following Aristotle, your get to the enlightenment and more limited and effective types of governments.
Nationalism means something, not just a new unit build. It means that those groups raised under a strong nationalistic ethic are very difficult to conqour. Even if you hold their territory they will try again and again to recreate anew or rejoin an existing similar group. In game terms, nationalism should effect how the empire, its cities and its units behave and add or detract some capabilities. It should also make some future choices more difficult or impossible.
Once you have expanded beyond a point where a City State model workes for your empire, the capital becomes very very important. If it is lost through war or internal strife, their should be severe consiquences. On the other hand, if you look at the US model of govetnment, where power is diffused very thoroughly, losing your capital might even improve your empire. (You know, we did lose our capital in one war, no one noticed.)
One sure sign of the impending decline of an empire is the rise of Feminism. Nothing kills a civilization faster than when the women try to take over.
------------------------------------
The collaps of the Soviet Union was both a result of the inherent flaws of communism and or the underlying strong nationalistic feeling held by many of that empires territories, including Russia. In-fact the empire could have continued almost indefinitly through the use of its terror mechanisms which very successfully kept the populance in line. Only the fact that the leaders let go of that mechanism allowed nationalism to break up the empire. You must observe that the Chinese have tried to adapt to some reforms while holding on to their power and terror machine. Several things keep outside agencies from destroying the remains of these powers at the times of their vulnerability, that being WMD technology which makes it not worth the loses to make the effort and the remains of the enlightenment ideals that discourage military aggression.
As for CIV III, an implementation of some form of world engagement would be welcome, as done in 'Apha Centuri' and 'Empire of the Fadding Suns.' But it should not dominate the game play.
SOMETHING has to be done about the game, as currently it is just a race down the tech tree and pumping out as many units as you can. Not a whole lot different then the originial early 80's 'Empire' game.
.
Comment