rise and fall of empires

[lord of the mark]

For some time civvers have been asking for features that would model the rise and fall of empires, to counter the perptual expansion typical of civ2.

So far, IIUC, the only such feature that will be included in Civ3 is the golden age feature. However those of us playing with civ specific units turned off (for reasons made clear elsewhere ) will not get the impact of golden ages. Are there any other features announced at this point that will lead to the rise and fall of empires? Aspects of the culture system perhaps?


LOTM

[static]

I think the new resource model accomplishes this. The importance of these resources to units, buildings, wonders, will almost make sure the diplomatic, military, and cultural power of the different civs will be constantly changing.

[Guildenstern]

I think that the perpetual growth that happened in the previous civs was sort of unrealistic - not even rome ruled the whole world at the height of its golden age. The new resource model is what, I believe, firaxis has come up with to remedy this. If a civ wants to build a kick -a$$ new unit, then said civ might need a resource from, say, its main rival - no chance that the other civ is going to give its rival that power. This could keep civs in check, sort of. Just a thought.

[Olangotang]

I think you need parts of your empire to break away to form other nations when the poeple in the citys are anger with the gov. sort of what happen with the usa and england.

as for ever expanding this is what humans have done.

What i would like is a sort of rise and full of kings and prime misters.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Olangotang
I think you need parts of your empire to break away to form other nations when the poeple in the citys are anger with the gov. sort of what happen with the usa and england.

as for ever expanding this is what humans have done.

That should defently be in, the more culture your civ have, the larger your empire can be, so your cities on the other continent will have a greater chance of getting independence if your culture points is low

[General Ludd]

The problem with rebellions is what the new empire will be, what if you are playing with 16 civs (if possible) what'd the new empire be? and even with free civs, would you really want the zulus to form out of a russian revoultion?

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Osweld
The problem with rebellions is what the new empire will be, what if you are playing with 16 civs (if possible) what'd the new empire be? and even with free civs, would you really want the zulus to form out of a russian revoultion?

Or the Germans revolt into Native Americans (or are they called Siux in the game, don't remember)

[N35t0r]

BARBARIANS!

only they need to be made normal in this game...

They should function as city-states; and be Fundy...

[Marcus Agrippa]

Of course we wouldn't want the Zulus coming out of the Russian Revolution. lol

I, for one, have never been able to understand why Civ insists on keeping "Civs" and "Nation-States" one and the same. They most certainly weren't! Let's look at some examples...

1) Greece, through most of its history, consisted of dozens of nation-states.
2) Russia was only united later in history
3) In Civil War scenarios, be they Roman civil wars or the English CW or the American CW, why should one of the sides have to be represented by an entirely different civ? e.g. The CSA being represented by Spain in the Civ II Civil War scenario!

I know it's too late to change this, but I think the game should enable more than one nation with the same civ. Thus, there could be two Greek nations... the Athenian League and the Spartan Leauge, or two English Nations: York vs Lanchester. Or, USA and CSA, both which were American.

[General Ludd]

Barbarians could work on a small scale, but on a large scale it wouldn't be right, take the US revolution for example... you'd end up with half a continent full of barbarians instead of a new empire. (I know some people are going to have a hard time stoping them selves from saying that that'd be the same as americans coming out of it, but please try )

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Osweld
(I know some people are going to have a hard time stoping them selves from saying that that'd be the same as americans coming out of it, but please try )

ROTFL!

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Osweld
(I know some people are going to have a hard time stoping them selves from saying that that'd be the same as americans coming out of it, but please try )

LOL!!


Yeah, in Civ2 it was annoying when the Sioux would emerge from the Chinese after the capital was taken. Hopefully this can be sorted in Civ3 somehow.

[Lemmy]

Firaxis could solve the Zulu-from-Russia problem by creating a few mainstream civilization, like the ones they have now, but a with a lot of nations that are part of a civilization, and you would play as one of those nations.
That way you could have a Mongol civilization, and you're playing as the Chinese, obviously part of the Mongol civ, then if a new player emerges through rebelion in your nation, it could be called Korea, also part of the Mongol civ, but a totally different nation in the game. These nation have the same special unit, and could therefore make the game a lot more interesting.

[Urban Ranger]

Again, unless this "Rise and Fall" business can be made optional, my take is most players are turned off by it.

Don't forget, this is a game, not a historical simulation. The object is to rewrite history, not to follow history. If I want to follow history, I'd read a book or play Europa Universalis.

[monkspider]

If I could choose any one feature that I would want programmed in, it would definitly be the rise and fall of empires idea. It would make gameplay so much more interesting, and realistic! If you were talented enough of a civer to play through the entire game with your empire never going into decline with a system like this in place, there would be a heck of a sense of accomplishment.