Tweet
*real* suggestions
Although in my last post, 'Typical Civ3 Argument' I lightly mocked those who have been suggesting the addition of features to Civ, my criticism was aimed at those who have poor judgment about game design and whose suggestions result in a laundry list of elements which would result in making the game clumsy and unaesthetic in play (like I feel Call to Power is---for ex., Civ3 handles culture in a more sophisticated and smooth manner than 'televangelist units' and 'lawyer units'). However, there are some suggestions I have come to which I think would smooth out some of the unrefinedness in the current design: 
* Borders shouldn't be visible on the map until the city they extend from becomes discovered itself. I somewhat smirk as I approach a coastline and see colored dashes along the water without having actually contacted any civilization. Cultural borders in some way help deal with the fact that in life there would be presence of settlements and activity elsewhere besides the major established cities. For example, if the game were played on map of Earth, only a few cities would be able to be founded in Europe, while in actuality there are thousands. Cultural borders reflect the situation of smaller settlements, commerce, and industry extending from these few major population centers. In that way, cities in Civilization 3 are more like 'provincial capitals'. Given this, someone may argue that its realistic that the border is there before the center of pop is discovered. However, its also intuitive that contact with a civilization should be made to know of the extent of the territorial coverage. To implement this in the game would be somewhat simple: just that borders only appear once contact with the cities are established. In turn, because currently you're unable to found a settlement within another civilization's borders without forcing war, there must be some mechanism to deal with misunderstandings that would arise from lack of knowledge of borders. Either say, the civilization would demand you abandon the settlement upon contact, or you would essentially be given a 'free pass' on within border settlement if the borders arent fully known.
* A few minor changes to cement the importance of culture in the game. Although culture obviously does play an enormous role in Civilization 3, with regard to the documentation and the in game implementation it seems to have been integrated in as an afterthought. That is, there is sparse mention of culture in the manual, and within the game the only sign of culture is a meter that increases with improvements. Culture is certainly present, but the dynamics of the game still appear to be weighted to the original design of military conquest. Without dramatically altering the game's design there are a few things that can be modified to cement this new importance of culture.
1. Cities should retain the architecture of the civilization they were founded in, like in Alpha Centauri, unless the older population is swamped by a population of your citizens. This, I feel, is just intuitive with the new game dynamics. Its also silly to have the architecture constantly reverting between takeovers
2. 'Museums' which become available as an improvement with Nationalism, and which are most powerful in that they both improve happiness, add greatly to cultural influence, and increase the rate of science and commercial output (ie, they are beneficial in every respect, though perhaps in regard to each category less so individually than other improvements). In actual history, museums only started to be built in large cities during the late 19th century, coinciding with the height of Nationalistic ideologies. While previously, most art and antiquities were hoarded by the aristocrats and elite, it was the sense of the Victorians to democratize culture by making it available in public museums and institutions, which in turn, led to great cultural expansion and intellectual debate in the following eras. Art showings in the Victorian era, for example, were as popular and attended by citizens as movies are today. In addition this wide democratization of art led intellectuals to contend that conservative artists were pandering to the masses, leading to a vigorous and expanded cultural debate and increase in artistic diversity. This would account for an increase in cultural influence and in happiness. Museums today also serve as educational and research institutions, like the Getty Center, which could account for a scientific benefit, and are also tourist attractions, which could account for a commercial benefit. Yes, having all of these features would make Museums powerful, but then they represent the penultimate of a cultural building.
3. 'Intellectual' civilizations rather than 'scientific' ones. There are no individual civilizations that have a characteristic strategy of development through improvement of culture, and intellectual debate. To have a 'cultural' characteristic would be somewhat silly, because each other characteristic (expansionism, industrialism, etc) adds up to the culture. However, there is the intellectual element of the culture which adds focus on the arts, philosophy, science, and theology. Currently, there is a 'scientific' characteristic, but the denotement of it as 'scientific' seems to be a holdover from previous Civilization games in which no culture was involved and just technological advances--it would perhaps be more proper to call this 'intellectual', as to at least in name include concepts other than technological improvement. Greece, China, Germany, and Persia, were more intellectually-oriented than technologically-oriented. (I would personally add France as another intellectually oriented civ)
* Fascism finally added to the game. Before commenting on why, I should note to those on the board that fascism historically was more than Hitler's Nazi movement and also more than just totalitarianism. A major component of fascism was the corporate council, by which industrial corporations and labor unions would vote together on major governmental decisions. This was implemented in line with the theory of fascism--as Mussolini roughly states in his 'Doctrine of Fascism', while liberal democracies only represent the majority and communism only represented the proletariat class, it was the theoretical aim of fascism to represent the *whole* of society, through abstracting it in terms of group identity (nationality, but also corporate bodies and electoral 'colleges'). Fascist theorists critiqued the idea of utilitarianism, claiming that it didnt serve the people in the culture, but rather divided them into classes. In turn, fascists promoted the arts and academia as a cultural currency, and thus knew the importance they played in maintaining the state and progress of the culture. In fact, fascism was very much in vogue among American and European intellectuals, and if it were not for Hitler and Naziism, it might today be treated just as seriously as Marxism is--that is, being flawed as a governmental type--in its totalitarian aspect--but containing worthy intellectual contribution in its theory. Adding fascism as a government type would not only once again cement the importance of culture in the game, but would also I think make it more diverse. It would also encompass other government types that exist in the world or which have been proposed which are based on a 'syndicalist' model in which corporations and unions cooperate in running the government--Japan for example, and in a way, China. One could argue that it could also stand in for 'fundamentalist' government types, and military dictatorships in Africa and Asia. (Despotism could be argued to currently stand in for 'feudalism'). A fascist government would have very high efficiency (production rates), but very high corruption--- this balance would account for both the positive and negative aspects of its totalitarianism for its government, and would also make Fascism the perfect governmental type to "catch up" to other civilizations scientifically, militarily, and infrastructurally, when behind, but poor for maintaining a large expansive empire. Fascism should probably be available with an advance like Industrialization (this choice for a variety of reasons).
* 'Partisan' type units. In Civilization 2, there was the Partisan unit which like the 'Privateer' unit in Civilization 3, would not have its nationality revealed. I'm reintroducing this type for a very specific reason. Terrorists in the contemporary world, like those in Afghanistan, can be seen in many ways as the modern equivalent of pirates--in that they claim lack of affiliation but are most often supported and hired by governments. The 'partisan' could also stand in for the mercenary type unit which is a military-for-hire. My suggestion for its reintroduction is just to fill in this missing element of real history. Of course, if reintroduced, the designers may not want to have it so partisans appear after a city is captured, like in Civilization 2--because of the addition of resistance through cultural affiliation. Rather, it would just be another standard gun-toting unit, but without its nationality apparent. (This would also remove some the element of partisans which was so dislikeable in Civilization 2). Partisan units would probably be frequently employed by a Fascist governmental type (as described above), a stand in for the storm-trooper like units, or terrorists supported by military dictatorships.
* Perhaps a return of Farms. Highly developed farming techniques, as many on this board probably know, were a major development that led to the English agricultural revolution, and later, helped promote the industrial revolution. In play, this would also improve the aesthetics (as farms look better with railroads than irrigation, at least in Civilization 2--also seeing farms on the map rather than irrigation would just appear realistic), and would give civilizations that advanced to a new technological era a substantial benefit, removing some of the lack of balance between a competition in the game between an industrialized society and a relatively backwards one. It would also allow quicker paced infrastructural and cultural development in later stages of the game than in the former, by adding more population. Farms were probably originally removed in addition to other Civilization 2 features to simplify the gaming structure. But perhaps in some ways it feels too simplified and imbalanced, and *certain* key features should be returned. If any should be, I would suggest Farms, a nonintrusive element which just adds irrigation's equivalent to railroads.
* An ability to ask other civilizations in the Diplomacy screen, to stop aggressive movements with another civilization you're considering as your ally or wish to protect, or to come to a peace accord with them. There really is no way to prevent one civilization from attacking another you, for some reason, wish to protect, without entering war with them yourself. And this ability would be both an appreciated addition to the game, and simple to add to it.
--Brian Shapiro
* Borders shouldn't be visible on the map until the city they extend from becomes discovered itself. I somewhat smirk as I approach a coastline and see colored dashes along the water without having actually contacted any civilization. Cultural borders in some way help deal with the fact that in life there would be presence of settlements and activity elsewhere besides the major established cities. For example, if the game were played on map of Earth, only a few cities would be able to be founded in Europe, while in actuality there are thousands. Cultural borders reflect the situation of smaller settlements, commerce, and industry extending from these few major population centers. In that way, cities in Civilization 3 are more like 'provincial capitals'. Given this, someone may argue that its realistic that the border is there before the center of pop is discovered. However, its also intuitive that contact with a civilization should be made to know of the extent of the territorial coverage. To implement this in the game would be somewhat simple: just that borders only appear once contact with the cities are established. In turn, because currently you're unable to found a settlement within another civilization's borders without forcing war, there must be some mechanism to deal with misunderstandings that would arise from lack of knowledge of borders. Either say, the civilization would demand you abandon the settlement upon contact, or you would essentially be given a 'free pass' on within border settlement if the borders arent fully known.
* A few minor changes to cement the importance of culture in the game. Although culture obviously does play an enormous role in Civilization 3, with regard to the documentation and the in game implementation it seems to have been integrated in as an afterthought. That is, there is sparse mention of culture in the manual, and within the game the only sign of culture is a meter that increases with improvements. Culture is certainly present, but the dynamics of the game still appear to be weighted to the original design of military conquest. Without dramatically altering the game's design there are a few things that can be modified to cement this new importance of culture.
1. Cities should retain the architecture of the civilization they were founded in, like in Alpha Centauri, unless the older population is swamped by a population of your citizens. This, I feel, is just intuitive with the new game dynamics. Its also silly to have the architecture constantly reverting between takeovers
2. 'Museums' which become available as an improvement with Nationalism, and which are most powerful in that they both improve happiness, add greatly to cultural influence, and increase the rate of science and commercial output (ie, they are beneficial in every respect, though perhaps in regard to each category less so individually than other improvements). In actual history, museums only started to be built in large cities during the late 19th century, coinciding with the height of Nationalistic ideologies. While previously, most art and antiquities were hoarded by the aristocrats and elite, it was the sense of the Victorians to democratize culture by making it available in public museums and institutions, which in turn, led to great cultural expansion and intellectual debate in the following eras. Art showings in the Victorian era, for example, were as popular and attended by citizens as movies are today. In addition this wide democratization of art led intellectuals to contend that conservative artists were pandering to the masses, leading to a vigorous and expanded cultural debate and increase in artistic diversity. This would account for an increase in cultural influence and in happiness. Museums today also serve as educational and research institutions, like the Getty Center, which could account for a scientific benefit, and are also tourist attractions, which could account for a commercial benefit. Yes, having all of these features would make Museums powerful, but then they represent the penultimate of a cultural building.
3. 'Intellectual' civilizations rather than 'scientific' ones. There are no individual civilizations that have a characteristic strategy of development through improvement of culture, and intellectual debate. To have a 'cultural' characteristic would be somewhat silly, because each other characteristic (expansionism, industrialism, etc) adds up to the culture. However, there is the intellectual element of the culture which adds focus on the arts, philosophy, science, and theology. Currently, there is a 'scientific' characteristic, but the denotement of it as 'scientific' seems to be a holdover from previous Civilization games in which no culture was involved and just technological advances--it would perhaps be more proper to call this 'intellectual', as to at least in name include concepts other than technological improvement. Greece, China, Germany, and Persia, were more intellectually-oriented than technologically-oriented. (I would personally add France as another intellectually oriented civ)
* Fascism finally added to the game. Before commenting on why, I should note to those on the board that fascism historically was more than Hitler's Nazi movement and also more than just totalitarianism. A major component of fascism was the corporate council, by which industrial corporations and labor unions would vote together on major governmental decisions. This was implemented in line with the theory of fascism--as Mussolini roughly states in his 'Doctrine of Fascism', while liberal democracies only represent the majority and communism only represented the proletariat class, it was the theoretical aim of fascism to represent the *whole* of society, through abstracting it in terms of group identity (nationality, but also corporate bodies and electoral 'colleges'). Fascist theorists critiqued the idea of utilitarianism, claiming that it didnt serve the people in the culture, but rather divided them into classes. In turn, fascists promoted the arts and academia as a cultural currency, and thus knew the importance they played in maintaining the state and progress of the culture. In fact, fascism was very much in vogue among American and European intellectuals, and if it were not for Hitler and Naziism, it might today be treated just as seriously as Marxism is--that is, being flawed as a governmental type--in its totalitarian aspect--but containing worthy intellectual contribution in its theory. Adding fascism as a government type would not only once again cement the importance of culture in the game, but would also I think make it more diverse. It would also encompass other government types that exist in the world or which have been proposed which are based on a 'syndicalist' model in which corporations and unions cooperate in running the government--Japan for example, and in a way, China. One could argue that it could also stand in for 'fundamentalist' government types, and military dictatorships in Africa and Asia. (Despotism could be argued to currently stand in for 'feudalism'). A fascist government would have very high efficiency (production rates), but very high corruption--- this balance would account for both the positive and negative aspects of its totalitarianism for its government, and would also make Fascism the perfect governmental type to "catch up" to other civilizations scientifically, militarily, and infrastructurally, when behind, but poor for maintaining a large expansive empire. Fascism should probably be available with an advance like Industrialization (this choice for a variety of reasons).
* 'Partisan' type units. In Civilization 2, there was the Partisan unit which like the 'Privateer' unit in Civilization 3, would not have its nationality revealed. I'm reintroducing this type for a very specific reason. Terrorists in the contemporary world, like those in Afghanistan, can be seen in many ways as the modern equivalent of pirates--in that they claim lack of affiliation but are most often supported and hired by governments. The 'partisan' could also stand in for the mercenary type unit which is a military-for-hire. My suggestion for its reintroduction is just to fill in this missing element of real history. Of course, if reintroduced, the designers may not want to have it so partisans appear after a city is captured, like in Civilization 2--because of the addition of resistance through cultural affiliation. Rather, it would just be another standard gun-toting unit, but without its nationality apparent. (This would also remove some the element of partisans which was so dislikeable in Civilization 2). Partisan units would probably be frequently employed by a Fascist governmental type (as described above), a stand in for the storm-trooper like units, or terrorists supported by military dictatorships.
* Perhaps a return of Farms. Highly developed farming techniques, as many on this board probably know, were a major development that led to the English agricultural revolution, and later, helped promote the industrial revolution. In play, this would also improve the aesthetics (as farms look better with railroads than irrigation, at least in Civilization 2--also seeing farms on the map rather than irrigation would just appear realistic), and would give civilizations that advanced to a new technological era a substantial benefit, removing some of the lack of balance between a competition in the game between an industrialized society and a relatively backwards one. It would also allow quicker paced infrastructural and cultural development in later stages of the game than in the former, by adding more population. Farms were probably originally removed in addition to other Civilization 2 features to simplify the gaming structure. But perhaps in some ways it feels too simplified and imbalanced, and *certain* key features should be returned. If any should be, I would suggest Farms, a nonintrusive element which just adds irrigation's equivalent to railroads.
* An ability to ask other civilizations in the Diplomacy screen, to stop aggressive movements with another civilization you're considering as your ally or wish to protect, or to come to a peace accord with them. There really is no way to prevent one civilization from attacking another you, for some reason, wish to protect, without entering war with them yourself. And this ability would be both an appreciated addition to the game, and simple to add to it.
--Brian Shapiro
Comment