More action

[beyowulf]

Maybe we could redefine 'world domination' Remember, even with the Babylonians, Assyrians, and Persians, Greeks, etc, they never actually conquered the whole world, but what they did do was be able to grab a large chunk of land and hold it against all comers for a period of time. So maybe, as a benefit to doing similar, you get a flat 'world empire' bonus, so that when the game ends, this would added to your score. Say, you civ becomes a 'world empire'(200 pts.), with maybe a 5 pt bonus per turn. Maybe to a maximum of 30 turns. But if you 'world empire' lasts into another era, you start collecting points again for duration.

So..for example(arbitrary numbers here)
'World Empire' 200 pts

Flat bonus, once your civ attains this level, you get 200 pts.

For different eras, you get different amount of points for holding onto your civ.

Ancient Era
1 pt per turn

Iron Age
5 pts per turn

Industrial
15 pts per turn

Or something like that..

AT

[wernazuma]

A major problem in Civ is that you’re actually playing something in between a nation and a culture. In history cultures tended to be much more stable than political powers.
The Arabic nation for example began to fall to pieces some 200 years after Mohammed, but their culture still persists from Morocco to Mesopotamia, their religion even further. China was ruled by foreign powers quite a time (Mongols, Manchu), but Chinese culture survived.

In Civilization however we have to live with a compromise.
I agree that the game should be less steady. If you don’t lose cities through war (what rarely happens to me ), your economy always remains stable, unhappiness rises only as much as your cities do, considering you don’t change your government.
In order to get more action to the game I had a few thought, some surely already expressed by someone else, some maybe not realizable, but I hope there are some useful.

1) Happiness: In civilization, happiness is based mainly on the City Size. Sure, size is a factor, but what’s with unemployment in bad economic situations? Is there no opposition if you use nukes, or if you keep polluting the environment? Is there no religious unrest, no nationalist movements in conquered cities? I could keep going on without end. Of course a game can’t cover all factors, but a little bit more depth I think would be good. Here some suggestions:

a) Conquered cities could get an ”assimilation degree” and more unhappiness, when the degree is low. If those cities are rioting, enemy units should pop up near the city. Buildings like i.e. a theatre could alleviate, the advance Nationalism aggravate and Television maybe alleviate again that effect.
b) Allowing different religions: Buildings should have the same effects (whether a church, a synagogue, a mosque) in the game. Conquering cities with another religion should cause unhappiness there, if your government is not Republic or Democracy. After the discovery of Communism the effect could be lowered.
c) Unhappiness could be bigger in cities with low trade and high production or cities far away

2) Economy: Although we cannot make the economic model of Civ much more complex as we don’t want an economic simulation game, but economy in Civ is too stable. A sea square will always produce 2 trade, 3 with a harbor. There’s no fluctuation, no “good times” or “bad times”. I could imagine something like trade cycles, trade routes could be blocked by intermediary powers, but different from CtP I would give up caravans, automatically allowing trade routes between cities of civs who know each other. The profit from trade routes would then depend on the attitude of eventual intermediaries, the good, city size and the trade cycle.

I’ve some more points but it’s late and I’ll send them tomorrow…

[wernazuma]

Here's more:

3) Civil Wars: Civil Wars could be introduced easily to Civ. A few ideas?
The discovery of Monotheism could make the city with the oracle and its “daughter cities” declare independence with a 50% chance.
Changing government could cause some cities to split from your civ (I don’t know how this could be done easily though)
In Democracies people could force you to abandon rioting conquered cities.

4) Plagues and other disasters
I know there are people who don’t like random events but disasters had so much influence on history, we just can’t totally neglect them. Crop failures surely played its part in the decline of the Maya. Pestilence stopped the population boom in Europe in the 14th century.
I’m sure that has been discussed but for me, it’s inevitable in Civ3.

5) New Civs: If the world was covered with more barbarian “cities”, there could be a mode that triggers a tribe to become a civilization after an existing civ seized to exist. New civs later in the game should not begin with nothing, their technical level should be adjusted to those civs nearby and they should get something like an expansive force and some settlers to expand.

For now, that’s all I can think of.


------------------
Wernazuma

Comrade of the aztec peoples republic

[OrangeSfwr]

quote: Originally posted by CornMaster on 08-01-2000 02:28 PM He wants a game with more action not less. Orangesfwr: While your idea is good I'm not going to enjoy a game where I get a penality for being aggressive. The rise and falls idea is good but not the way you are proposing.

I'm not proposing a direct penalty for what kind of Civ you run, but rather a system that encourages democracy and peace towards the later half of the game and expansion and war in the first half of the game. In real life there is a trend...

Time---------------------------->
Tyranny---------------Democracy
War-------------------Peace
Expansionist----------Perfectionist

Does that make sense? That's all I was trying to say.

Theben - Yes militaristic expansionist civs were great in the times of the Roman and English empires...but what are they now? They're nations that get declared war against...examples: WW2 - Italy, Germany, Japan; Ottoman Empire

If the US declared war on some nation in Europe or Asia tomorrow, everyone would be against us. No one likes expansionists this day in age.

Notice we haven't been fighting many major wars recently

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - well who am I?~~~
- "When man first discovered that milk comes from a cow, what did he THINK he was doing?"
- "Women's breasts are like toys: They're meant for kids, but usually it's the fathers who wind up playin' with them."
- "Practice makes perfect, but if nobody's perfect...why practice?"
~~~Oh well oh well so here we stand, but we stand for nothing~~~
- Apolyton Picture Contest IV

[Adm.Naismith]

OrangeSwfr

quote: Notice we haven't been fighting many major wars recently

Liar! Liar!


------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 08-10-2000 01:17 AM Notice we haven't been fighting many major wars recently

Actually, this isn't strictly true. There are hundreds of armed conflicts going on every year. We tend not hear of these as they usually going on in 3rd World Nations.

In actuality, the 20th Century has been the bloodiest century yet.

[Shadowstrike]

Ironically, this is because of improved global communication. (in the past, information would not disperse as quickly as it does now. For example, I could make a post here at Apolyton and posters from halfway around the globe can read it)

[Evil Capitalist]

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 08-10-2000 11:25 AM In actuality, the 20th Century has been the bloodiest century yet.

In body count perhaps, but the 18th century wins on time spent at war. There was even a war called 'the war of Jenkin's ear'.