What is the MAIN thing missing from Civ3? The decline & fall of empires

[Kryten]

We all know that NO empire lasts forever, they ALL decline and fall in the end. Some empires were defeated by other nations before they could decline, such as when Alexander conquered Persia or the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs, but the vast majority simply fell apart. Look at the collapse of the Communist empire in Russia, the British Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire of the Habsburgs, the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and of course, the Western Empire of Rome.

THE PROBLEM:
In Civ3 and all the other civ versions and spin-offs, empires are 'eternal'. Apart from direct conquest, there is NO way of representing the decline and breakup of empires. For example: suppose you wished to play a 'World History' game on a real world map with England, France, Spain, Greece, Egypt and Rome all in their correct staring locations. But if Rome conquers all these nations, as she did in reality, then thats it, they are out of the game for good, their history ceases, and Rome becomes a typical 'eternal' empire that still exists in the 21st century! Look at an atlas, why is the world today covered by by a patchwork of independant nations and NOT just 2 or 3 vast empires, which is what happens in EVERY game of civ?

A SOLUTION:
I would like to see dead nations FLIPPING BACK INTO EXISTANCE! (not hundreds nations, just the ones the game started with. So if you started a game with say 10 nations, only these will be able the 'rebel' and come back. Civ3 can be slow with just 16 nations, let alone hundreds!).
A nation is a bunch of people all living under one government, with a common culture and usually a common language (call this 'cultural-identity' if you will). When one nation conqueres several other nations it becomes an empire. Well, I would like to see these conquered people remember their 'cultural-identies' and eventually rebel and come back so that their history can continue while the empire that they belong to breaks apart. I would like to see Mongol horse arches conquer Asia/Russia/China, then centuries later these nations reappear and Russia conquers Asia and the Mongol lands, only to have their own communist empire breaking-up in the 1990's. Imagine the 'fun' of trying to hold the Roman Empire together when subject cities keep rebelling and have to be re-conquered (this might explain why Rome had a civil war about every 20 to 30 years!). This is the REAL skill in 'building an empire to stand the test of time', the abiliy to hold one TOGETHER!

Let's look at Greece for example:-
*Hellenistic empire under Alexander, which breaks-up after his death.
*Conquered by Rome, and so (temporarily) out of the game.
*Comes back into the game as the Greek speaking Byzantine Empire.
*Conquered in 1453 AD by the Ottoman Empire, so (temporarily) out of the game for a 2nd time.
*1821 AD, Greek war for independance, and she's back in the game.
*1941 AD, conquered by Nazi Germany, out of the game again.
*1945 AD, she's back for a 3rd time.
*1980 AD, a part of NATO and allied to the EEC.

So, the Greeks final score is --- 2 empires (Alexander & Byzantium), conquered 3 times (by Rome, Persia, Germany), but still in the game in the 21st century. Now I know that modern Greeks are not the same people as those who built Athens or Sparta, just as modern Egyptians are not the same as the people who built the Pyramids, but if we had nations rebelling we could at least give the illusion and simulate the history of the REGION, if not the PEOPLE.
This would also be a more realistic and historical use for 'culture-flipping' as well.

Some of you may not like these ideas. To these people I say this: why is it that after some 6,000 years of human history, countires such as England, France, China, Italy, Greece, India, Spain and so on, ALL of whom have been conquered at one time or another, some of them several times, are still independant nations in the 21st century? Ask yourself 'why'?

[dexters]

I think it is a gameplay decision to make empires enternal. The dates attached to each turn is for the more historically minded persons to measure their progress and from tradition. Firaxis could well have used a different time measurement, or even measure the game only in the number of turns you've played.

[Radiation Zero]

Re: What is the MAIN thing missing from Civ3? The decline & fall of empires

Originally posted by Kryten


Some of you may not like these ideas. To these people I say this: why is it that after some 6,000 years of human history, countires such as England, France, China, Italy, Greece, India, Spain and so on, ALL of whom have been conquered at one time or another, some of them several times, are still independant nations in the 21st century? Ask yourself 'why'?

That might be a somewhat good idea, but the point of Civ is it is a game of empire building, not of culture building

(that is, it's not so much about where your people are at at the end of the game, but where your empire is at)

Nations that reach out and conquer other nations or even portions of other nations, need to build the infrastructure to keep things in place; temples to bring up happiness, aqueducts to make them grow, marketplaces for economy, etc.
Otherwise, they risk losing their newfound cities as wel as loads of gold from their treasury and precious time.

Also, if a nations conquers part of a very culturally advanced Civ, there is a chance that what you were describing might happen, in as close as Civ can get to it, a bunch of cities revolting and tryihng to return to their original nation.


All in all, your ideas are sound, but already implemented, in an abstract way. Adding more might simply make the game too difficult for some to play.

The idea would only work if it was just as possible for history to repeat itself, as for the Hellenic Greeks to resist frangmentation and conquer, and prehaps exist for many centuries past their historical counterparts, maybe even conquering the world.

It is a game, and while it's always, ALWAYS good to look for ways to make the game more fun, it's also important to keep in mind that people like to be able to win, too.

[Kryten]

Originally posted by dexters
I think it is a gameplay decision to make empires enternal. The dates attached to each turn is for the more historically minded persons to measure their progress and from tradition. Firaxis could well have used a different time measurement, or even measure the game only in the number of turns you've played.

You are quite right Dexters, I only put those dates with the Greek example as a reference (it wouldn't be much fun to play if everything in the game HAD to happen by a certain date! Uncertainty is what makes the game interesting after all).

POSSIBLE SUGGESTIONS TO MAKE THIS IDEA WORK:

*Remove 'assimilation' from the game; if you conquer a city, then the native population STAYS native and remembers their 'cultural-identity' (French speaking people of Quebec and the Scots and Welsh will know what I mean ). And if the city population increases, another NATIVE is added to the city. Think of the British in India. The British ruling class were a small minority. The vast bulk of new citizens born during the long years of British occupation were ethnically native Indians (I hope I don't get into trouble for using the word 'ethnic'!).

*Razing of cities; in all my history books I can find NO record of any Democracy EVER razing a city (Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were close, but even these cities still exist and were not 'wiped from the face of the earth'). Likewise, although Communist governments tend to kill a lot of their own people, I can find NO record of them EVER razing an entire city. The same with Monarchy (at least in europe)....many cities saked yes, but none razed and totaly wiped out so that the city no longer exists.
I therefore suggest that only Despotic governments (such as the Nazis and Mongols) can raze cities (I know that the Roman Republic razed Carthage and Corinth, but when you consider their harsh taxes and inhumane treatment of slaves....well, they may have called themselves a Republic, but to the people they conquered they were Despots!). So if you want to destroy a city, change your government!

*Democracies don't conquer cities, they 'liberate' them. So if you as a democray conquer a city with an ALL German population, you can keep it (but remember, one day it WILL want it's freedom and rebel). But if the city has ANY French citizens, then it is 'liberated' and given to France. And if France is not in the game, then this becomes the new French capital (think of WW2).

*When a city wants to rebel, but the military garrison is too strong, then lots of 'guerrilla' type units appear. This happens EVERY turn, so eventually the city WILL gain it's freedom and that nation return to the game. So military might is only a temporary solution, and NOT the answer to every political problem.

*Certain governments increase the chance of a rebellion, while Democracy reduces it (but never reduces it to zero). Likewise, starving the population and rushing them INCREASES the chance of rebellion (let's have a little bit of moral responsibility in the game....if you treat your people like dirt then expect them to bite back!).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do have other ideas and suggestions, but this post is becoming far to long as it is!

[Kryten]

Re: Re: What is the MAIN thing missing from Civ3? The decline & fall of empires

Originally posted by Radiation Zero
It is a game, and while it's always, ALWAYS good to look for ways to make the game more fun, it's also important to keep in mind that people like to be able to win, too.

I do see your point Radiation Zero, and I do agree, but remember that 'culture-flipping' was added to the game by Firaxis as a way of giving the 'builder' type player an alternative to total military conquest. Both types of victory would still be possible, but the military victory would be harder. Just conquering would not be enough; if you want to KEEP your conquests, then you'd better keep the conquered people happy with city improvements.

After all, many people complained that aircraft not being able to sink ships was 'unrealistic', so Firaxis added leathal bombardment. And many people didn't think that spearmen defeating tanks was 'realistic', so they made hit points adjustable. I just don't think that it is 'realistic' to have 'eternal empires' that cover the whole globe in the 21st century when, in the real world, they clearly do not.

(BTW, for the last 6 months I have been a stern supporter of 'culture-flipping' and have argued tooth 'n nail trying to defend it. But I have finaly realised that it is flawed, unhistorical, unrealistic, needs to be impoved, and is a TOTALLY ARTIFICAL addition added to the game for play balance purposes only that has no equivalent in the real world, at least not in its present form. I realised that I was only defending it beause it's in the game! If some other mechanism had been included instead then I would probably be defending that instead. The basic idea was good, but the execution of vanishing garrisons, instant 'flips', no warning, and joining the nearest superpower does not fit what happens in the reality. Changing it slightly to my 'cultural-identity' suggestion does look more realistic, and would allow dead civs to reappear thus simulating the break-up of empires.
In short, I don't want less 'flips', I want MORE! But I'd like them to be more representative of the events that happen in the real world and less 'artificially created for game balance purposes'.
You could say that I have been "seduced by the dark side"! )

[Ijuin]

Something that could be implemented within the current game parameters is that whenever a city of any empire riots, there is a chance of it rebelling and becoming a separate civ (all cities that subsequently rebel from that empire would join this new civ). The new civ would be a civ of the same culture group that had been eliminated earlier in the game. For example, if Greece was eliminated, and some Roman cities rebelled, then they would become the new Greece, and any later cities from Rome or other civs in that culture group would join this new Greek state.

I would give say, a twenty percent chance of rebellion on the second turn that a city riots, and have the chance increase by twenty percent each subsequent turn of rioting. This would make it more important to keep your cities out of disorder, since now they will almost certainly rebel and form a new, hostile civ if they riot for long enough, instead of merely joining one of your neighbors if your culture is weak as is currently done.

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Ijuin
Something that could be implemented within the current game parameters is that whenever a city of any empire riots, there is a chance of it rebelling and becoming a separate civ (all cities that subsequently rebel from that empire would join this new civ). The new civ would be a civ of the same culture group that had been eliminated earlier in the game. For example, if Greece was eliminated, and some Roman cities rebelled, then they would become the new Greece, and any later cities from Rome or other civs in that culture group would join this new Greek state.

I TOTALLY agree with you Ijuin! I would also like the rebellions to happen randomly in cities with any native population, with variables depending apon the type of government, how happy these native citizens are, whether they have been drafted/starved/rushed or not, and how many natives are in the city (and I'd like to see their population INCREASE instead of being assimulated, to represent parents passing their 'cultural-indentity' onto their children). And by making the growing number of native citizens in the city such an important factor also helps keep the that new rebelling civilization in their ancestrial region (I wouldn't want the Greeks to bounce back into the game in England for example).

Now it would be possible for the Roman Empire, exhausted after centuries of civil war and barbarian invasions, to be too weak to reconquer the new revolts in Spain/England/France/Greece/Egypt, so these nations appear representing the fall of Rome (I know that the invading barbarian Germans had a lot to do with the fall of Rome, but at least this 'simulates' the break-up of the empire, and is better than having the Empire still around in the 21st century!)

The same thing could happen in India. Early in the Industrial Age India could revolt, only to have this 'Indian Mutiny' crushed by the British. Later in the Industrial Age India rebels again, but this time Britain is too exhausted from two world wars to try and reconquer, so they withdraw and India gains it's independance.

The possiblities are endless......

[The diplomat]

I think that an empire's strength an size should oscillate a lot more. In civ3, a civ always get bigger. You never really see a civ get bigger, then smaller then come back again.

1) larger empires can have more corruption, but more importantly, they need to have higher unhappiness. SMAC had "bureaucracy drones". Civ3 should have something similar. The larger the empire, the more unhappiness, so that the risk of revolt increases. This means that in an extreme case, a large empire could lose cities to revolt and become much smaller and decline.

2) smaller civs need a boost to help them overcome a larger civ. I have a somewhat radical idea to do this. If a civ is really struggling in a certain area, there would be a certain percentage chance that a great leader type unit would appear and give that civ a bonus in the area where it is lagging. The bonus would be temporary becaus the special leader could be killed or in any case, would die of natural causes after certain number of turns. So the Special Leader would only exist for a certain number of turns.

An economic leader might give the city that it is in, a boost in gold. A scientist leader could give the city that it is in, a boost in science output. A military leader could come with 3 elite free units. etc...

The idea would be to give a small struggling civ, a chance to come back into the game. A temporary Special Leaders means that it would be up to the skill of the player to take advantage of the chance.

idea 1 would make it harder for larger civs to hold on to their territory. Idea 2 would help a small struggling civ come back into the game. Therefore, both ideas would favor empires oscillating in strenght a bit more than they do.

[Pythagoras]

I agree that its a gameplay decision. I think they tried to address this somewhat with golden ages.

I believe the difference between civ and history is that in history there is a lot of conquer/counterconquer/counterconquer. Some places on the planet have been dominated probably by more than 10 or 15 different 'civilizations' Perhaps the factors behind what makes a civ crumble could be better modeled.

[notyoueither]

People complain about losing one city to a flip. What would they think about losing a whole continent?

[Kryten]

To The Diplomat:-

You're right, smaller civs do need a bit of a boost. I was thinking of a system similar to the old Civ2 'Civil War'; i.e if the rebellious units do capture their own city, then the natives in that city would cause their 'dead' civilization to return, along with a sizeable modern army, and automatically have the same technologies as the empire that they broke away from. But your ideas would certainly help

As for size (and size IS everything ), I was thinking of something very roughly along these lines:-
Suppose that there was always a 1% chance of a city rebelling, no matter how happy the natives were. Then a small nation that had conquered say 3 cities would only have a 3% chance per turn of a revolution. It may never happen. But a huge empire like Rome, which had conquered England/France/Spain/North Africa/Greece/Egypt and Anatolia + Syria (assuming about 8 cities in each region on average), would have about 56 native cities and so 56% chance of one of them rebelling. So it would need to spend about 20 times more on military, just to keep control! On some turns it would be lucky and have no revolts. But then again, it could have two or three in a single turn. Add to this any revolts from the previous turn not yet crushed, throw in a barbarian invasion from the German civ....and you can see why Rome fell!
(BTW, if these figures are approximately correct, then the Byzantine Empire, which was only half the size, should have half the revolts, and so last about twice as long....which they did!)


To Notyoueither:-

Originally posted by notyoueither
People complain about losing one city to a flip. What would they think about losing a whole continent?

Well....there was a thing called "the American Revolution"......
(Actually, I was more thinking along the lines of each city with a native population making it's own revolt check....but on the other hand.....
What does everyone else think?)

[Radiation Zero]

Originally posted by Kryten
Now it would be possible for the Roman Empire, exhausted after centuries of civil war and barbarian invasions, to be too weak to reconquer the new revolts in Spain/England/France/Greece/Egypt, so these nations appear representing the fall of Rome (I know that the invading barbarian Germans had a lot to do with the fall of Rome, but at least this 'simulates' the break-up of the empire, and is better than having the Empire still around in the 21st century!)

The same thing could happen in India. Early in the Industrial Age India could revolt, only to have this 'Indian Mutiny' crushed by the British. Later in the Industrial Age India rebels again, but this time Britain is too exhausted from two world wars to try and reconquer, so they withdraw and India gains it's independance.

The possiblities are endless......

I agree that cities should produce native population, retain cultural identity, etc.

This would give more credibility to the idea of dispersement. When Rome conquers France, they don't want the Guals to unite and oust their rule, so they spread them throughout the empire while giving loayl citezens French land.

This makes for a few unhappy French in each city, but a mostly peaceful, less likely to cecede France.

I think my point is that I would like to see some changes along these lines brought about, but I don't want it to be nearly impossible just to manage a large empire, let alone managing it's armies and dealing with the AI, etc.

The AI needs a lot more work too, IMO.
It's much, much improved, but negotating is still a vacation from rationality at times.

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Radiation Zero
It's much, much improved, but negotating is still a vacation from rationality at times.

You are dead right! But I thought I'd give it a try.

[dexters]

The problem with making it a mandatory event that empires rise and fall is that it is completely counterintuitive for the players.

People what to keep what they build and making their cities less productive, city improvements failing, or their empires decline through time will no doubt raise the ire of many players.

Again, this is an argument for tying in with realism that just wont work in a game.

[Kryten]

Originally posted by dexters
The problem with making it a mandatory event that empires rise and fall is that it is completely counterintuitive for the players.

People what to keep what they build and making their cities less productive, city improvements failing, or their empires decline through time will no doubt raise the ire of many players.

Again, this is an argument for tying in with realism that just wont work in a game.

Forgive me, but you seem to be implying that civ players can't handle simple historical facts. I do hope that is not the case. There are still people creating some excellent historical scenarios for Civ2. Imagine all the scenarios and historical situations that could be created with declining empires in Civ3!

Over the years each new version of civ has added more and more 'realism' to the game. Why can't the English build elephants in Civ3? (after all, they could in Civ1 & Civ2)....because they never did in reality. Likewise, why can't the French build samurai....again, it's not 'realstic'. And why can the Germans build panzers and are militaristic/scientific....because for part of their history they were, and Civ3 is trying to portray them in a 'realistic' manner.

Everybody wants the game to be more 'realistic'. That's why they complained about aircraft not being able to sink ships, or spearmen defeating tanks, or railways having unlimited movement, or about naval warfare, or a hundred and one other things. All I'm asking for is another piece of obvious, true, historical and fundamental fact of life be added to the game....boats float and aircraft fly and ALL empires decline and fall.

I'd like to think that players will see this as another challange, as another layer of 'reality' to be mastered and planned for. However, you may be right. Maybe players do only want to pick and choose the bits of the real world that fits their dreams of meglomania while discarding the other true facts as being 'inconvenient'. If so, then the civ series has reach its end with Civ3. There would be no point in a Civ4 with even more realistic features, because 'realism' just gets in the way of the game's one and only purpose, the military conquest of the world.