Large Civilizations and Culture

[Gramphos]

In the real world all large Civilizations, as the Roman empire, has collapsed due to their size. It's hard to control a large civilization, and the chance of the civilization splitting up is large.
I think that a large civilization (civ) in Civ III should be hard to keep, and you would need large efforts on keeping your civ together. It should be easier with hige culture rating and happy citizens. Also better government types shold help to keep a large civ in one part.
If a civ starts to split up it won't be done in a turn. First civil disorder du to the large civilization (as in Civ II), then if the leader (you, the AI, or any other human) don't act to stop it a few cities will form a new AI-civ. As long as the leader doesn't act or the civ gets to an (by the citizens) acceptable size more cities will join the new civ, or if they are long from the first city to form a new civ (the capital of the new civ) they will form new civs.

[Bereta_Eder]

I agree. I suppose the level of «culture» must have a crucial role in keeping a large empire in one piece.

Putting REAL problems in large civs should help eradicate the Infinite City Sleaze, Strategy or whatever.(real problems not these ridiculous extra unhappiness citizens in Deity that can be overcome with two good wonders but seem like a last minute, sloppy decision on hindering large empires and eventually become plain frustrative)

If you want to conquer the world (boring to me) you should really sweat to do it. And if you want all the advandages of huge empires you have to pay a price. IMHO

[SerapisIV]

I believe that technology has something to do with the problem of controlling a large empire. I don't know the acreage Rome covered, but it must be smaller then the current US. As increased transportation and communications science becomes available, larger empires should be more feasible. This would would have parallels to the efficiency rating of SMAC which if somewhat limited the possible size of your empire.

Another question is, Firaxis has alluded that opposing civilization's cities if their culture is low enough, and your is high enough, would possible revolt and join your empire. Now in the endgame of many of my Civ matches, I have a huge empire and the few remaining AIs much smaller regimes. I would assume that therefore I'd have a huge culture rating then, while the AI would be much lower based on size. I think that cultural pride should also play a part, sort of like the way most of the world hates the American culture/lifestyle that is slowly spreading to the rest of the world McDonalds, Starbucks, Hollywood, that kind of stuff. This would be strong enough if I'm huge and the AI is small that even with low culutre ratings, they would find revolting and joing my civ a horrifying idea. This would eliminate the chance of endgames becoming just a wait and see for the AI to slowly be assimilated into your civ without any effort.

[Ilkuul]

My impression, vgriph, is that what you outlined is already planned for Civ3, with what has been said about major and minor civs. Culture, technology and trade are all going to be very important to keep large empires together, because the possibility of revolts will be very real - both from and to your empire.

I think Serapis's point is important, tho', that a high culture rating should not be enough on its own to persuade a smaller civ to revolt and join a larger civ: there would have to be a tactical advantage as well -- e.g. that the smaller civ is being threatened by another neighbour and feels it would be safer under your wing. In the endgame, when you have an empire that is far larger than any other, you would obviously constitute the single greatest threat to all other civs, so no amount of cultural superiority would persuade them to join you. (This might simulate your notion of national pride, Serapis.)

[Gramphos]

quote: I believe that technology has something to do with the problem of controlling a large empire. I don't know the acreage Rome covered, but it must be smaller then the current US. As increased transportation and communications science becomes available, larger empires should be more feasible. This would would have parallels to the efficiency rating of SMAC which if somewhat limited the possible size of your empire.

You are right in that better transportation should keep the empires together, but they have to be built. What use do you have of airplanes without airports, and what use do you have with trains without railways?
Better government types should also make it possible to have a larger empire.

I do neither know the size of the Roman Empire. I know it was southern Europe and northern Africa and a little bit into Asia, but it splinted up in two parts as it got to big, and later the Barbarians came and took the empire out.

[LzPrst]

i like all the ideas about culture and "admiration revolts". but it has to be done very carefully so that you dont end up with 5-6 cities turning to your empire every turn in the end or all others declaring war with you simply cause you're the biggest.
also distance from capital should be important, over bodies of water the effect should be alot stronger and if separated by another civs borders.
(make wars for independence more common and create difficult political situations such as east prussia after ww1)

i havent checked out civ3 too closely so i might be saying something thats already been decided, but i think a few things are important.

ethnic identies should be strong. it doesnt make sense that i conquer half of france (being english) and they never bother me about it after or the cities have one round of disorder and then have assimilated totally.
it could be part of the culture thing, the assimilation rate would be modified by your culture level compared to theirs. also distances should make cultural differences and assimilation time longer. example whats easiest to integrate into germany? austria or borneo?

there should be far more room for tiny civs, small nations and such. one way to do it might be to have your 2-6 (maybe more) normal competitors and a bunch of non-ambitious mini-civs that only build a certain number of cities 2-3 on a small map, 8-10 on a big one. after all theres a 160 or so nations in the world today, 7 does not do the worlds diversity justice.

alpha centauri borders!!! must have!!!

last, i DO NOT like the pictures of Mao or Abe in Civ3. they dont look NUTHIN' like the historical people theyre supposed to represent.
if you want a picture of Abe look at a 5 dollar bill! (i think thats Lincoln) and for Mao check the encyclopedia on communist dictators. none of them looked psychotically friendly. next they'll put fangs on gandhi and angel wings on stalin. sheesh!

[LzPrst]

never mind the borders thing.

also the advisors shouldnt look the same. i want black advisors for the zulus and a chinese advisors for the chinese. anything else is on the border of racial prejudice. there should be at least 4 different races, european, african, asian and arab. its only fair.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by LzPrst on 04-10-2001 05:40 PM i havent checked out civ3 too closely so i might be saying something thats already been decided, but i think a few things are important.

What you say is important, and I agree with you. However you'll find that what you call "mini-civs" has already been discussed elsewhere in these forums, and in fact it has already been stated by Firaxis that such things will exist in Civ3 -- they call them 'minor civs', as opposed to the 'major civs' that are competing with one another. So, yes, there definitely will be revolts from your empire, with groups of cities breaking away to form a minor civ (or maybe to become part of another major civ).

Also the effect of culture on assimilation has been discussed, and the question of AC borders - improved versions of these will be included.

[SerapisIV]

Computer animation isn't up to full replication of human facial movements, at least not on any middle-capability computer system like Civ has always required. I'd rather see a hammed-up-cartoon leader portraits that move and show emotion fluidly like the ones they are using then going for accuracy and Abe and Mao being jery and unnatural.

[Bereta_Eder]

I concure. It's so much better to have that kind of cartoonist - funny civ leaders that existed in Civ 1 than have the exact real thing.

I still get a laugh when I remember the face of Ghenkis Ghan (mispelled) when he was pissed!

Also I think culture must be very fundamental in holding a big empire together. By culture I don't mean lifestyles that are only a surface element that can appear and dissapear through the centuries of a nation's life but things like corporate nations versus socialist nations etc. A socialist nation should have extra protection from the culture of a capitalist nation and the cities would be assimilated with greater difficulty etc. So the form of government and the similarities or differences between two civs should also play a role.

And like the real world (I think ), other civs should not hate you just because you are the biggest civ but because of what you have done against their nation throughout the years. (wars, incetiment of revolt,expansion etc). Nobody hates China for example and it's BIG!
If your civ (that is the biggest) was peaceful throught out the centuries assimilation of other cities should be a little easier.

So the culture in civ should be influenced by the history of each nation. For example if France and England continuously try to kick eachother's butt for decades then an assimilation of an english city by the french should be more difficult that the assimilation of an english city by, say, the spanish with whom through the game there have not been many conflicts.

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 on 04-10-2001 09:28 PM Nobody hates China for example and it's BIG! If your civ (that is the biggest) was peaceful throught out the centuries assimilation of other cities should be a little easier.

Nobody hates the Chinese? What about Russia and China's little border wars over the past half century? India? Vietnam? Korea? Japan? These countries all border China and none are particularly fond of her. The US isn't particularly thrilled right now either with China, and never have liked her leadership (Nixon used Mao as a wedge against the USSR) After 1975, the domino theory went to hell as China and Vietnam fought a war. Japan and China still don't get along. Korea has historically be fiercely independent of China, N. Korea is an anomaly to the past few millenia. Being big and peaceful (relatively) does not mean you are liked.

I definitely agree with the second comment though. If you're large, but didn't do it through conquest, you should be much more liked then if you did it through war.

Now should being at war be a negative culture, or actually fighting in war a negative? In CivII once a civ's ship from the other side of the map met me, eventually they'd demand something, I'd say no and we'd be at war. But it'd be another 100 turns before we ever actually made contact beyond the initial diplomacy.
[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 10, 2001).]

[Bereta_Eder]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-10-2001 09:43 PM Nobody hates the Chinese? What about Russia and China's little border wars over the past half century? India? Vietnam? Korea? Japan? These countries all border China and none are particularly fond of her. [This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 10, 2001).]

Which exactly proves my point that being BIG per se does not qualify you to be hated by everybody.
China is BIG but is not hated by the rest of the world except for those that have had to suffer one of its policies (being at war, undemining governments to expand its influence etc).


I think this should be the case with the largest civ. If for example the Zulus happen to be the most powerful and big civ but have only engaged in war with the Aztecs then the Aztecs will have problems being assimilated to the Zulus and will hate them in the extreme. (a combination of the Zulus being big and warlike towards the Aztecs).
Now, the Zulus could be perceived with suspicion but not open hostility by a nation that has never suffered any strike (including the subtler but very damaging forms as subversions, putting cities in anarchy etc) by them.

I agree that in Civ 2 you could be at war for centuries without killing a enemy cow of the oher civ. I think the level of hostility that will determine the cultural resistance of the civ should be calculated according to the losses that a civ has suffered from another civ. For example number of chariots lost, number of cities etc.

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 on 04-10-2001 09:28 PM Nobody hates China for example and it's BIG!

Your point is fine by saying that only those who haven't had reason to don't hate her, but saying nobody hates China is completely false.
[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 11, 2001).]

[Bereta_Eder]

It would be naive of you to take my «argument» as you say at face value.

It was an accentuation, an absolut, to get my point across which is that being BIG does not guarantee you the hatred of the rest of the world.

The world hates not because of some undefined «jealousy» of your size (no punt intended but because of concrete actions against it.

And, it should not be any different in Civ.

[jglidewell]

quote: Originally posted by LzPrst on 04-10-2001 05:40 PM last, i DO NOT like the pictures of Mao or Abe in Civ3. they dont look NUTHIN' like the historical people theyre supposed to represent. if you want a picture of Abe look at a 5 dollar bill! (i think thats Lincoln) and for Mao check the encyclopedia on communist dictators. none of them looked psychotically friendly. next they'll put fangs on gandhi and angel wings on stalin. sheesh!

If you want to talk about psychotic what do you think about the picture of the science advisor? And what is that yellow thinkie on the glasses?