It’s my belief that the Civilization series has always been unable to represent the modern age in any way realistically. This is not meant as negative criticism on the creators of Civilization: it is simply impossible to represent all the different societies in the millennia of human history well.

Let’s have a look at some basic characteristics of the Civilization series:

It’s a tile based game. Production is derived from the land (and seas).
Population growth is related directly to food production.
Raw materials are immediately converted into finished products, with no steps in between.
The player is a god, omnipotent and omniscient about his civilization, and can guide his civilization independently from what’s happening in other civs.
This is a pretty decent system to represent pre-industrial societies, After all, roughly speaking those are agricultural and the size of the population is closely related to the food production in the area. The economic value added to raw materials to get to finished products is fairly limited, so abstracting that to shields + resources = finished good isn’t too far-fetched. On top of that, most production is for local use, and trade is mostly limited to luxury goods, as anything else is too hard and too expensive to transport over long distances. (Though it would be nice to have a trade route system to represent in-between traders such as Venice, the Dutch and Portugal, who didn’t always control the production – ie in civ terms, the tile the resource is on - but did control the trading of the good to their great advantage.)

This model can still function to some degree during the Industrial Revolution, as – at least in the colonial period – the focus of governments lay not in promoting free and international trade but in building up their own national and cohesive economy and obtaining effective control of the necessary raw resources. (Though of course here too the period is much better represented by games that focus specifically on this time period, eg Victoria with its factory system.)

However the system completely fails for the modern (post)industrial societies. To give a few examples:
There’s overproduction of food, and population size or growth is no longer related to it, as the economic value of a child has declined, and there’s wide access to contraceptives.
Most of the economic value is added in the production process. To say it simple, economic power lies where the factories, banks and research labs lie, not where the raw resources lie, as would be the case in Civ.
There’s a very large mobility of capital, and the biggest corporations are multinationals unbound to any country, investing where it suits them best. So the idea of a player-god in control of the entire economy, without any money flows to foreign countries, doesn’t work anymore.
That’s why I say: Limit Civilization to what it can represent well: pre-modern societies, the age of states and kingdoms! Limit the technology tree to 1945, so that we can still play in the end with tanks, bombers and nukes, but no further. If there still needs to be a space race, make it the Apollo Program and the journey to the moon, instead of a journey to Alpha Centauri, which would require many more techs. Cutting off a piece at the end would allow the game to mold more around the earlier periods, and focus more features on the early areas. After all, that’s the part of the game we play most, as many rarely finish a game because by the end they’ve become so powerful there’s no decent competition left.

So while on most aspects of the game I’d disagree that “less is more”, here I think limiting Civilization’s timespan to pre-modern times would add to the game. :)

u make some strong points about comparing the real modern to the replicated modern, but as it is, no matter what goverment u think u have, the ultimate one is the monarch system. since the player assumes total control over his land, its monarch/dictatorship all the time. almost like fidel castros cuba.
so when a player gets to the modern age, it is a modern kingdom.
finish a game because by the end they’ve become so powerful there’s no decent competition left
i dunno if u have ever heard of the illuminiaes(sp) they have been rumored to secretly control the world. they have been noted to playing ww1 and ww2 in the late 1800's. they probaly seen the world with no decent competition,
so they created it. maybe instead of wiping out every civilization, empower one so greatly, that in the end u will have a little fight on your hands...or play a harder level...

Ok point 1: In China, people pay large taxes if they have more that one baby. America is not the whole world.
2. If you have resources, you don't get enough for everything. You still need banks&factories.
3. Most of the multinationals' money still goes where they can have profit. So where the economy is best, lots of population, banks,... You don't establish companies in civ, you only see money coming.

And the game isn't ment to be completely historicly correct. How could America be in 4k BC? It's first goal is good gameplay. And they did it.

anyways maniac welcome to the club,!

brinko

u make some strong points about comparing the real modern to the replicated modern, but as it is, no matter what goverment u think u have, the ultimate one is the monarch system. since the player assumes total control over his land, its monarch/dictatorship all the time. almost like fidel castros cuba.
so when a player gets to the modern age, it is a modern kingdom.

Does this not prove my point that the game badly represents the modern age, as in reality today's big powers aren't ruled by Fidel Castro's?

Ok point 1: In China, people pay large taxes if they have more that one baby.

Does this too not prove my point that population growth is little related anymore to food production?

America is not the whole world.

I know that: I don't live in the USA. :D However the USA is an example of a (post)industrial society, which form the big powers today. Of course the third world and especially Sub-Saharan Africa could perhaps still be represented decently by the civ model, but in those civ terms one could say those countries aren't yet in the modern era, so my point isn't about them. It's about the US, Europe, Japan, China, NICs...

2. If you have resources, you don't get enough for everything. You still need banks&factories.

In the real world, you only need banks and factories to be a big power. Your "shields" and resources you can extract from the poor and exploited developing countries.

3. Most of the multinationals' money still goes where they can have profit. So where the economy is best, lots of population, banks,...

Not completely true. Multinationals can have profit and therefore these days are investing & moving a lot of their production to low wage countries. How can you represent foreign capital flowing into China and NICs? Or to give 19th century examples, how can you represent British capitalists investing in the USA, or Belgian and French capitalists investing in Russia? It's impossible, as the player is in complete control of the economy, so giving cash to another civilization would be nuts.

And the game isn't ment to be completely historicly correct.

I know that. But personally I'd like to have at least a bit the feeling that the game represents the subjects it's about well. At present playing the modern era in Civ is like playing Chess without chess pieces, or playing a space game without space ships.

As to model the modern era well, one would have to invent a completely new game system, the second best option seems to me to just limit Civilization to the pre-modern era.

anyways maniac welcome to the club,!

Thanks! :)

I don't want to see the modern age go. Improve things a bit, by getting rid of worker micromanagement in the mid-industrial age thru PW, and add new things like global alliances vs the player and their allies, (WWI, WW2), more sophisticated trade concepts later on to allow for difficulty in achieving economic and production supremacy, and the introduction of a REAL nuclear holocaust (i.e. a game-ending nuke exchange, too much damage) to make war in the modern age a real nail biter, and the end game will be far more interesting.

Population growth is related directly to food production.
Raw materials are immediately converted into finished products, with no steps in between.

I agree that the city-only world is a disturbing one for any period. That is why I have proposed a system that fills in some of the gaps. Look at the bottom most link in my signature.

It's first goal is good gameplay. And they did it.

This is the statement that I have the audacity to agree with. And I will also praise the audacity of this thread to call for the outright elimination of something that has never worked in the history of the franchise -- if only to force people to do some really hard thinking. I'd sooner praise someone who begs for Civ to make progress than to stay the same.

There's a lot of problems in the modern age due to lack of competition and what not... but one of the most interesting observations that M@ni@c makes is actually about population.

All the way through the middle ages, you can judge a society's well-being by how much their population was growing. This represented innovations in health, a strong agricultural sector, a fair government, and intelligent, careful war.

But in the modern age, countries that produce more kids are generally "backwards". They experience serious economic problems. The cause and effect are blurred here, with countries who undergo serious amounts of economic progress actually finding their population growth stabilizing. In other words, too much population growth is a sign of weakness.

This ties into one of my biggest beefs with the modern age: when land and population are the two biggest determiners of success in the game, the modern age has ZERO suspense.

If they can't find other factors for success, the modern age is pointless.

(Either that, or they have to slow down the land grab so it unrealistically lasts until 1950 and beyond.)

For the current, this suggestion is the best I have seen. HOwever someone will eventually have to make a Civ-ish modern age game. Of course that game will play different in terms of interface, meaning of player, etc.

Assumign that second goal comes to pass, here is my suggestion. Technologies only real impact in Civilization is the products of it. IN history the impact of many of the important technologies was changing the way people interact with the world and ideas. The game result would be changing what the player controls, adding \things while taking away others that just are not practical. The result would be by circa modern age the game you were playing would be compeltely different in terms of control versus the game you played in the ancient era.

The result would be by circa modern age the game you were playing would be compeltely different in terms of control versus the game you played in the ancient era.

I don't know if this would be such a bad thing. I agree that if no one can figure out how to make the modern age playable, scrapping it should seriously be considered, but I would prefer to see it playable (ie. meaningfull to the outcome)

I agree with your points abous the modern age, but I think that calls for revamping not destruction of.

i too was intrigued by the assertions made...the modern era is a bit of a dissapointment compared to say the ancient- uu's are few and ur either too far ahead or behind to stir the imagination- however, the solution proposed-scrap it- does not really answer the question -"is nothing better than a flawed something" - it makes the assertion that less may be better -
and this i am not sure is true- i suggest that the end of the line dissapointment of say getting mech infantry (knowing that this it is as far as it goes-the end of looking forward to advanced units) would be simply replaced by getting infantry as the "as far as it goes" . Likewise the obvious winner may still remain-one will just get there faster.....
In-so-far as solutions i think the observation that food and economics make a shift in the modern era (real world) may look obvious on the surface- and yet - what is the ecclasiastes (sp) quote-- "nothing new under the sun"-
population worldwide continues to expand due mainly to increased food production/distribution and in spite of contraception/education. Small standing armies instead of large - body armor- ect. ..these "new" aspects have been around before....
I think that the actual problem is any generation's ability to see itself clearly/accurately without the benefit of time passing- (which reminds me of one historians line that i liked "history is a joke the present plays on the past" - the lament that the modern era does not mimic actuality as well as the other eras may be grossly innaccurate- what may in fact be at play is that our reading and interpretation and the presentaion of what we believe to be the past - is a better formed lie than the current one.....

The reason I suggested scrapping first is b/c of the complexity of radically evolving gameplay. Even a basic system could take dozens of reworks, something better left for Civ 6 or Civ 7.

Does this not prove my point that the game badly represents the modern age, as in reality today's big powers aren't ruled by Fidel Castro's?All this means is that Governments need to be revamped to better reflect a transfer of power from the state to the people. If you take a look, you'll clearly see that despotism already recieves a penalty in the Civ world to show its relative inneficiency.Does this too not prove my point that population growth is little related anymore to food production? The reason that China has imposed the child-Tax is to combat overcrowding, which is a problem due to lack of food to support the population. In Civ terms, population control is already represented by the fact that all your major cities will be leveling off in population by the modern Era (as they hit the food limit, and the Gov has to intervene to prevent starvation.)I know that: I don't live in the USA. :D However the USA is an example of a (post)industrial society, which form the big powers today. Of course the third world and especially Sub-Saharan Africa could perhaps still be represented decently by the civ model, but in those civ terms one could say those countries aren't yet in the modern era, so my point isn't about them. It's about the US, Europe, Japan, China, NICs...Not in the modern Era? Aside from the horrible insult to 3rd World Countries, you forget to take into account that these people have aquired 'modern' technologies through charity (tech Gift), commerce (Tech trading), and conquest. (Stealing)In the real world, you only need banks and factories to be a big power. Your "shields" and resources you can extract from the poor and exploited developing countries. ...which would be represented by allowing international trade of food/shields. I don't want all that poluting industry in my homeland? I'll just call up my good friend Ghandi and offer to buy a few surplus shields...Not completely true. Multinationals can have profit and therefore these days are investing & moving a lot of their production to low wage countries. How can you represent foreign capital flowing into China and NICs? Or to give 19th century examples, how can you represent British capitalists investing in the USA, or Belgian and French capitalists investing in Russia? It's impossible, as the player is in complete control of the economy, so giving cash to another civilization would be nuts. SMAC already covered this one: Create an ammount of "commerce" which occrus automaticaly between all peacefull nations behind the scenes. The ammount of commerce could be increased by improved connections, and the discovery of various trade-related techs.I know that. But personally I'd like to have at least a bit the feeling that the game represents the subjects it's about well. At present playing the modern era in Civ is like playing Chess without chess pieces, or playing a space game without space ships. What? :confused: As to model the modern era well, one would have to invent a completely new game system, the second best option seems to me to just limit Civilization to the pre-modern era. ...Or we could impliment a system of gradual change, (a Schwick suggested) or better yet, just accept the system as it is!

I know that: I don't live in the USA. However the USA is an example of a (post)industrial society, which form the big powers today. Of course the third world and especially Sub-Saharan Africa could perhaps still be represented decently by the civ model, but in those civ terms one could say those countries aren't yet in the modern era, so my point isn't about them. It's about the US, Europe, Japan, China, NICs...

'Those countries', as you refer to them, are in an even worse place than the industrial era. They are considered 'under-developed'. This means they have most if not all the woes of an industrialized society but without any of the benefits.

For example, there is no infrastructure for an kind of economy. The only real business that occurs in most of Africa is the arms trade, and various black market operations. Governments earn barely enough money to buy guns to combat the rebels who are buying guns. They have absurd growth rates without the ability to provide proper medical, educational, water, or nutritional support. Now lets add in ethnic conflict caused by European map-makers who liked right angles in the last five hundred years.

The only nations that have escaped this burden of under-developement are those that have stable economies and decent wealth. Examples include South Africa, Egypt, and um....someone help me out.

I am not sure how to simulate this legacy, a practical sin of the European continent, when Civ does not even simulate an trade based governments. Mercantilism would only be the base of such a simulation.

Not to put too much stock in negativity, but I *do* think that nothing is better than a flawed something. Have you ever watched a movie that you were enjoying and that was absolutely perfect, and then started to drag in the last half hour? If they can't find a way to make that least half hour good, why not make it short, punchy, and sweet?

But I think the modern era should stick -- if gameplay can evolve, as Sir Schwick said.

More of the same -- playing with units and techs, land being the main factor for success -- is a waste of time. If they refuse to make significant changes to gameplay, I think it might be better to make the land grab phase longer and modern techs come sooner -- make the game shorter.

I am not sure how to simulate this legacy, a practical sin of the European continent, when Civ does not even simulate an trade based governments. Mercantilism would only be the base of such a simulation.

I would use corruption. Thats why many countries are in the situation that you describe now.

Lets see..who are the super powers China America ..Russia hmmm all have alot of land , fairly stable infrastructure...in otherwords land and happiness DO equal points (the game abstraction) - britain and japan are still doing fairly well but not as well as when they owned more land........which increased trade and resources..(happiness). Now of course this does not answer ol dh epic's nice line about a bad last half hour of a good movie-(the assertion being that better to shorten the movie-
the analogy given for the game- ) this one i find hard to refute-
The anti-climax after hours and hours of play is indeed dissapointing-Space ship perhaps is suppossed to be the surprise at the bottom of the box but i for one don't even use that as a winning option (space ship? maybe if it was a death cruiser or super sattelite that can reign horror atop everyone there would be somekind of perverse pleasure) The ending of something , at least in story telling- is either a summary, aftermath or climax. Perhaps the Nuke or aformentioned space ship were suppossed to provide that last bit of exicitement, but the problem is if ur behind u can't win any space race and u can't nuke larger opponents into oblivion. What would promote a fun modern era- something along the lines of hope or surprise i would think.
Hell, a cool movie might even work.

I read about half of this topic so sorry if I missed anything. If you cut out the modern age you could introduce a few new victory conditions!

Democratic victory: The goal here would be to become a pure democratic nation where you are no longer needed. This development of Democracy would start in the enightenment age when you research the tech "Democratic Theory". After you research this you would need to build up an acceptance to the Theory and then start a revolution. The revolution will fail if you havn't influenced the citizens enough (You could influence the citizens with great leaders, wonders, and maybe even techs?). Of course if you have never went to war you would have a better chance at this type of victory.

Cold War Victory: Basicly you need to win a race in nuclear arms with an enemy civ. 1,000 nukes is the limit for the entire world. If you are 500 nukes ahead of your rivals or have 50% of all the nukes in the world you win.

There could also be losing conditions such as.

Socialist Revolution: When you research Communism or Democratic Theory you pave a path for socialist revolutionarys. If these socialists gain massive support (That means if you neglect to use propaganda and promote nationalism or Democracy) they will overthrow your government and form a nation without a leader.

Nuclear holocaust: If the world reaches nuke limit then an age of Nuclear War could begin. If a war is started by any nation then there is a 75% chance that one of those nations will use nukes which would cause nuclear holocaust.

To use corruption to describe the situation in the third world now is really just begging the question. You need to ask questions like why there are more corrupt tyrranies in charge of those nations. You can trace that back to colonialism.

Civ should let you colonize other people, instead of outright conquering them. Of course, this would mean that colonizing them would have to be more profitable than outright conquering them (otherwise, what's the point of giving the user a choice that is always second best?) Also, if colonization were more useful than conquering, then domination would be more complicated by the industrial age.

But a little more complexity in this department could be a very good thing.

@MCHunter

I really like those ideas. It would carry the game into the early to mid twentieth century, ending things right as they developed in a modern world. Instead of pure victory condition, what about changing those to stop conditions.

Full Cold War:
There are enough nukes in enough nations to hit every town/city once and every metro twice in all late-industrial to modern era civ. Bonus points are awarded based on your nuclear advantage.

Advanced Democracy:
Once this, or the socialist version, emerges the game is effectively over for you. Now you get bonus points for having lead your people to greatness.

Well, I have put forward the idea-previously-of having a slider for adjusting 'Private Sector Influence' (PSI). Increasing it will improve your nations overall wealth and overall trade (both intranational and international), but also reduces your level of direct control on the economy! This, along with religion, would represent the kinds of 'Transnational actors' who can influence not only YOUR nation, but also effect your neighbours as well!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[list] There’s overproduction of food, and population size or growth is no longer related to it, as the economic value of a child has declined, and there’s wide access to contraceptives.


The developers have indicated that they will introduce a new "health" consept in Civ IV. Such a consept, if properly modelled, may address this.

I strongly agree on your points on economics. Modern age economics is somewhat poorly modelled in Civ, so it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

Ever since the launch of the first version of Civ in 1991, the modern ages have been the least enjoyable stage of the game, in my opinion. Improve this, and the game is close to perfect.

There could also be losing conditions such as.

Socialist Revolution: When you research Communism or Democratic Theory you pave a path for socialist revolutionarys. If these socialists gain massive support (That means if you neglect to use propaganda and promote nationalism or Democracy) they will overthrow your government and form a nation without a leader. How is a socialist revolution a loosing condition? You do realize that this is a game where you can produce Communist/Socialist regimes at will, don't you?

To me, what makes for a great cold war is secret vassals.

It's one thing to invade a country and actively tear existing people and buildings down. (Basic Imperialism, a la Civ.)

It's another thing to march up to someone's palace and make their leader serve you, so they exploit their own people on your behalf. (Vassalage, almost like Feudalism.)

But it's something else to invade without destroying the people, and sending in a few governers to keep the people down while sucking up the economic benefits. (Colonialism)

And the "holy grail" of conquest is to secretly fund rebels who will overthrow their leader and exploit their people, all without anybody else knowing that they're doing it to help you. (Neo-Colonialism)

To me, I'd love to play a Cold War scenario where you're constantly overthrowing governments around the world. Or where they're battling an overthrow -- which you suspect one your enemies is meddling in -- and ask for your help. But why make it a scenario? Make it the essence of the Modern Age!

I'd love to see conquest EVOLVE (vassalage, colonialism, neo-colonialism) as the game goes on. To me that would make the game ten times more fun.

How is a socialist revolution a loosing condition? You do realize that this is a game where you can produce Communist/Socialist regimes at will, don't you?

Communism as we know it today isn't bad in the game, but Marxist communism where the entire nation throws the leader out and runs the nation without a leader is bad. Which is why it should be a losing condition for the game.

The modern age needs reworking, and the best idea presented (IMO) is the "evolving" game. That sounds like it would keep the faith with the franchise, but add such an improvement as the game progresses.

Oh, and while we're at it, bring in SMAC-type governments/societies

No one seems to be playing Devil's advocate on my evolving gameplay idea, so I will take the role.

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

As to model the modern era well, one would have to invent a completely new game system, the second best option seems to me to just limit Civilization to the pre-modern era.

How will gameplay evolve and how will you keep it balanced? Seriously, this would be uber-complicated. Even if gameplay balance was maintained, what about the learning curve? One of Civ's great strengths was how easy it was to learn to play. A game with changing interface, mechanics, etc. would be confusing to even the staunchest veteran.

Communism as we know it today isn't bad in the game, but Marxist communism where the entire nation throws the leader out and runs the nation without a leader is bad. Which is why it should be a losing condition for the game. But wouldn't a Marxist Utopia be just as noble a goal as a full democracy? It could be some form of general "Domestic victory" in which your current government enters its ideal form. If wouldn't even need to be an endgame scenario, just a way to provide some amazing bonus to your government. It would be more difficult for larger nations to make the transition, (favoring the little guy) and would operate on the premise that once you have this new uber-gov, you're stuck with it.

Hmm, a powerful government (in certain ways) form that you cannot revolt out of? Sounds like an interesting late game premise.

One of teh big issues with civ governments to me is that the system only allows you to mod them on teh war/peace axis. CTP had many more axes on which you could optimise a modded government.

I agree... no disagree... no agree with Sir Schwick.

There IS a danger in having a game that constantly evolves. If the game undergoes 3 shifts -- where some gameplay lick becomes obsolete and off limits, while a new gameplay lick opens up -- you might essentially end up with two games! One game at the beginning, and a totally different game at the end.

But I liken this to a game where you pick up a new tool or a new technique every once in a while. As quickly as a dialog box can tell you "press A to use your new tool. this tool can be used in this context to solve that problem", you can pick it up.

They key is that for every new tool that appears, an old tool has to disappear. It's not so much the learning curve as the overall complexity and tedium in the game.

The thing about a Marxist Utopia is that it would be near damn impossible to make a major decision without causing a civil war. There is no leader so there is no final decision! Who is going to represent the nation ? You can't fit 400 million some odd people into a room to discuss peace or war. What if 300,000 people want a war while 400,000 don't ? Do you think those 300,000 are going to sit back and say "oh well". No if those people believe strongly enough in a war they will ethier go to war alone or try to take the nation from the other 400,000 people.

But I liken this to a game where you pick up a new tool or a new technique every once in a while. As quickly as a dialog box can tell you "press A to use your new tool. this tool can be used in this context to solve that problem", you can pick it up.

That expresses what I have been meaning to say better than anything I have said.

In a game with the scope of civ this kind of thing should happen, but at a huge scale. Really their should be enough switches that each era plays with elements of an earlier era, but lots of unique to that era elements. Ultimately the pre-antiquity and modern eras would have little in common besides the map.

"Oh I remember how inefficient doing 'x' was before 'advance Y'."

And vice versa, I remember how simple doing X was until the world got more complex. Oh how I long for simpler times.

As time goes on:
- Automate some of the stupid, trivial things... (e.g.: workers)
- And complicate other things with interesting challenges. (e.g.: moral obstacles to world domination)

The thing about a Marxist Utopia is that it would be near damn impossible to make a major decision without causing a civil war. There is no leader so there is no final decision!Marxist Utopias are governed by direct democracy. Each citizen would have a vote on any major, national decision. However, a Military would still need some form of Hiarchal command structure in order to operate effectively, so a player would most likley loose much control over civil issuses while remaining in power over the armed forces.Who is going to represent the nation ? You can't fit 400 million some odd people into a room to discuss peace or war.We don't have to bring them all together into one place. Theese days, we a livley litle thing called the "Internet". Before it, we had "Telephones", "Radios", "Railways", "Mail", the list goes on and on... They would only need to be there if they had an Idea which was unique from all other already proposed. You don't have to travel all the way to the capital just to say, "I'm with that guy. ->"What if 300,000 people want a war while 400,000 don't ? Do you think those 300,000 are going to sit back and say "oh well". No if those people believe strongly enough in a war they will ethier go to war alone or try to take the nation from the other 400,000 people. *Ahem* In your Total Democracy, what if 49% of the people want war, but 51% don't? If those people feel strongly enough they could overpower the government and take matters into their own hands. It's a fault in Democracy as a whole, nor Marxism (Which is more economic than political)

Besides, if people don't agree with the actions of the nation we just call them "unpatriotic". Or better yet, "Enemies of the state"! Let's see those discontented citizen try to rebel after a few years of forced labor!

Marx plainly said that his system would never work in a political setting. He specifically set the scope of Communism as an economic system. This is why we need more SE oriented views of government. Governments are a combination of political, economic, and other adminstrative systems.

I think I have a good idea for the modern age era without scraping it (this would also work well for the industrial era). I actually have two ideas, one for the economy and one for the governments. Tell me if you think this is too complicated but I was wondering if the economy and raw resources in Civilization IV could work in the same was as in Railroad Tycoon III.

The Economy in Civ IV
In RR3, there are no tiles with a resource. I didn't like how a tile could have coal and nothing else, and this coal would supply an unlimited supply of iron, yet if it was exported non of the coal remained in the country exporting it. RR3 has things such as coal mines that would produce a certain amount of coal over a period of time, for example 3 tons a year. The raw resources would then use any avaliable means to transport themselves to where they were needed, like a power plant. So the resources could go along rough terrain ground very slowly, down a river to a city a little more quickly, or along a railroad extremely quickly. Also, depending on where the resources ended up, the profit would be different. For example, a power plant can only use so much coal per year so after a certain amount of coal, it would no longer be profitable, but another power plant somewhere else may still need coal and pay more for it. The civilization could tax goods being bought and sold and earn money this way.
It would provide an incentive for civs to promote infastructure and internal improvements. Other things that could be built would be canals, roads, or highways. Passengers and Military troops could also be transported in this way.

The Governments in Civ IV
Another idea I had for improving the governments would be to have political parties as well. Different political parties could provide different benifits in addition to the governments. This could make gameplay more interesting. For example, in a Republic there could be the regular bonuses for that government plus if the player is the Socialist Party, there is less poverty so two unhappy citizens in every city are content. Or they could be the Whig party and it would cost less to build internal improvements such as railroads.

Marx wasn't a utopian. His ideals on socialism and communism were in spite of utopian theorists of his time, and that's one reason why his theories attracted such attention.

Nor is the idea of a utopian society without some kind of leadership or organization conceivably possible at this point.

Also, I'm not sure losing by random revolution would be fun.

Also, any revolution in Civ never throws you out -- this is because you're not the leader of your civilization but your civilization entirely. That's the way Civ has worked until now.

It would be neat, however, to have a utopian victory that isn't because of your political system or economic system... but to have a certain number of happy citizens, and a certain percentage of happy citizens. E.g.: if you can have at least 100 citizens and 90% are happy (and they're 95% literate, and your disease percentage is below 5%) and you maintain this for 20 turns, you should get a "utopian victory". Not because you're a true utopia, but because your nation is clearly a shining example of a society that really works.

Only when humans can have a collective counciousness would any form of massive direct democracy be possible. A good model to look at would be the USRY(Post Wars).

As for the Utopian Victory, I like your idea dh_epic. To add to it, you would need a certain tech(lets say late-middle ages) so you couldn't get this victory by having one entertainer in your two pop civ. Also, each turn any player starts building towards this victory, all the other players are notified. This way they can gang up, making this a very hard victory unless you were king anyway.

Either it would be opened up by a tech...

Or it could be opened up by having a minimum number of people. E.g.: one city wouldn't be enough.

Or it could be opened up by lowering literacy and disease rates -- things not possible until the modern age anyway.

But a tech is cool, too, if they could find one.

I quite enjoy the modern age. I think the solution to Civ3's slightly gimped Modern age is not to cut it, but to expand on it.

Some of the late game technologies aren't all that useful and if they can improve the UN for example by making it an integral diplomatic tool and pushing it a few techs into the modern age, it would liven up the era.

Basically, the modern age needs a bit more meat. That means more techs generally and less news units, with the remaining units being more useful.

Fundamentally, the modern age needs new gameplay. Units only give you more of the same -- a war between the size and strength of your army. That isn't working in the current modern age.

That, or you stretch out the gameplay of the prior ages so you don't "win" so early.

I propose the stretching idea slightly by insisting growth is tampered until medicine cathces up with pathogens.

Mostly though I agree that the modern, even industrial age days, are not well simulated in the current Civ paradigms. I would rather they seperate Civilization into two direcitons, pre-industrial revolution game and post-industrial revolution game. This would allwo you to concentrate on what makes each set of eras important.

Fundamentally, the modern age needs new gameplay. Units only give you more of the same -- a war between the size and strength of your army. That isn't working in the current modern age.

That, or you stretch out the gameplay of the prior ages so you don't "win" so early.
I think both would be good.

Fundamentally, the modern age needs new gameplay. Units only give you more of the same -- a war between the size and strength of your army. That isn't working in the current modern age.

That, or you stretch out the gameplay of the prior ages so you don't "win" so early.

I don't completely agree.
Currently, you have some 'uber'-units in the modern ages which almost finally decide the game.
From a historical point of view I think almost any advantage in the modern ages should offer a new unit - that is, ONE new unit, not 3 or 4.
Additionally, there shouldn't be the 'uber'-units, but a slow evolution in combat stats.
Let's have Riflemen for instance:
It would start with Riflemen(1) - 6/8/1 (?) don't recall the exact original stats, currently.
The next tech (which could reside in a completely different path!) would allow Riflemen(2) - 7/9/1, then the next tech (again in a different path) Riflemen(3) - 8/9/1 and so on.
Obvioiusly, it would be almost impossible to upgrade your entire military with each tech. On the other hand, a nation could skip one upgrade sequence and spare it's money for the second step.

Unfortunately, starting with Cavalry, there are too less but decisive units available. And there is almost just one path which leads to this decisive units, so there is not much choice which way you may go.

It’s my belief that the Civilization series has always been unable to represent the modern age in any way realistically.

Civilization is unalbe to represent eny era realistically:

The ancient ages contain waaay to little techs, and it should be shared in to two. Its just stupid age of expansion.

The middle ages were age of backwardness not an age like its in civ.

Napoleonic ages would be nice age to have between the Industrial ages and the middle age.

The Industrial ages are uhh... are kind of a mess...

The Modern ages are aas you say they are, I guess

Unfortunately most games are decided by the end of the Middle Ages. After that the richest just keeps getting richer until he can outproduce his neighbors by enough to win. An improvement in the nature of war would help, but fundamentally either the power base needs to move away from terrain and into other arenas, or the modern era needs to be scrapped.

Unfortunately most games are decided by the end of the Middle Ages. After that the richest just keeps getting richer until he can outproduce his neighbors by enough to win. An improvement in the nature of war would help, but fundamentally either the power base needs to move away from terrain and into other arenas, or the modern era needs to be scrapped.

What about civilization declainings.

Corruption would even worse than under despotism, well slowly...
Cities breaking away from the empire, small and large civil wars, scandals in the government, unhappiness... Migrations... enything, but nothing unpreventable. And the civ could always rise again to its former might.

I think this would make the game better, much better.

Corruption would even worse than under despotism, well slowly...
Cities breaking away from the empire, small and large civil wars, scandals in the government, unhappiness... Migrations... enything, but nothing unpreventable. And the civ could always rise again to its former might.

I think this would make the game better, much better.

I agree that this would be the ideal solution. However over the many months I was a strong proponent for 'rise and fall' cycles and paradigms, I realized that most players would not like the lose of control. Just believe me when I say that we who want this are in the minority.

As I said nothing unpreventable, I mean these would be great challenges that you could overcome, but you could also fail overcoming them and fall somehow.

But, this system would recuiare different tech system, so that you actuacly rise again, without being so far behind in the tech-tree...

I agree that this would be the ideal solution. However over the many months I was a strong proponent for 'rise and fall' cycles and paradigms, I realized that most players would not like the lose of control. Just believe me when I say that we who want this are in the minority.

This is just because the size and the power of your empire currently are still the best yardsticks to measure your success.
And it is very understandeable, that noone would like to be punished just for "having done everything all right".
If a civil war would result from something done wrongly, the players could accept this. Well, most of them :p
But if they have successful brought their little empire to power, it would just be unsatisfying if then "out of a sudden" a part of this empire would "break away" :lol:
You have to put your theories about secession and whatever else into a stringent game concept, then the community of players will accept it.

If it were just for an additional difficulty, than it only qualifies for a scenario.

To solve Modern age problems:

1. More flexible Trading system between Cities and Civs (so that a city that is only Grassland can export food... to Cities that are all mountains... and so that a city that is all mountains could export shields to a developed City which would get the factory boost... (Possibly This could require a Railroad+Commercial Dock or Airport connection..ie it isn't possible till the Industrial age)... Factories could become Terribly expensive things that require 5 or 6 cities worth of production to be worthwhile (or perhaps have multiple levels of factories..small one city ones and large ones that require shield import to be worth it)

2. City Rebellions as opposed to corruption for limiting empire size. After all if our world was like Civ the Big 21st century Powers would probably be Russia (controlling 1/2 of Europe picked up in the WW) UK (controlliing Eastern N. AM ,Africa, India, Australia, and Western Europe.. why Liberate French Cities?) and Spain (Controlling All the rest of the Americas..and a chunk of Western Europe)
All three of those have lost large chunks of territory due to rebellions (and actually thats assuming current history up to the middle ages... ancient world powers lost territory through rebellion too...Greece being the first big example I can think of)

3. To fit in with the City Rebellions idea...Different "Governments" for Each of your Cities... The British Empire in 1910 was a Republic-type Government...for London, but for Lahore it was a Monarchy... This could also help model Colonialism... (and Revolutions..a city doesn't necessarily rebel against your civ just the government you have it under... if they are of your 'ethnic group' you can probably keep them by offering them a new government)

4. Vassal status, allowing a Civ to give you some control over them but allowing them to remain able to do some things

5. Civs only die when all thier culture is gone (may take centuries but Poland shouldn't be able to exist now in the Civ-world)

6. To model things like the early formattion of the US, and the formation of the EU allow for a Civs to "Unite" with another. Provide some Victory Point Bonus to those who join (so the victory points scored by the EU are split between, the French, English, German, Spanish, Greek etc. players based on some formula...probably based on how strong they were going in, so Germany gets more EU points than Greece at the end..although Greece may still win because it scored more points in the Ancient Eras)

I really believe that Victory Conditions REALLY need to be limited: I'd say only three game ending conditions (Victory goes to whoever has the highest score when the game ends... but achieving 1 or 2 gives you a nice point bonus)
1. Domination* (control the Earth)
2. Space (Leave it)
3. Time's up

The point is that Domination (Control) should be achievable Diplomatically, Culturally, or Militarily.. more likely a mixture of all three. (essentially you maintain Control of a City through a balance of Carrots, Commonality, and Sticks)

A Utopia Government might be a nice idea as a Government that the people Really want..but that is terrible for production.

Detail on the City Rebellions Idea:

Each City (including your capital) has the potential to try and rebel. That potential is based on

1. Your Civ's Culture there v. all other Cultures There (including a 'Local' Culture)

2. How much they like the Government you have them under (What government they liked would change semi-randomly but also involve a 'memory' of their happiness under that government...and some intrinsic factors of the government is self)

3. Happiness

4. Possibly a few other issue involving how much they Like being with you

5. The 'Risk' (essentially will you be able to put down the rebellion...a lot of troops nearby reduce 'rebel activity'..successful rebelions increase rebel activity in other cities..enemies they don't like nearby could decrease rebel activity..other factors possible)..ie they might figure that even if they hate you, they fear you

Those factors determine a city's level of "rebel activity" the level of rebel activity determines:
How many, if any 'Rebel' units are generated in the city to fight your units.. 'rebels' stay in the City until all your troops are gone, and they then make the city an independent one city Civ.
You may attempt to negotiate with that Civ. If the City was your Capital, you might immediately receive an offer of a new government that would keep your capital there assuming they are OK with your Civ as long as they get the government they want


a note: the production of culture, Local v. your Civ partly depends on the distance from your capital. (and a number of ther things).. so that a city that you founded away from all other civs may still not have a majority of your culture.

Another note: part of the idea here is that ending the game through Domination should be Very hard, essentially a Game that ends in the BC should only be possible on the Early levels. Both winning And losing should be difficult things to do maintaining a degree of suspense.

Multiple Branches

Commander Bello... right there you cite multiple tech tree branches. I actually think that would already be a HUGE step to making the modern age interesting again. A player would have to choose -- am I going to nab the improved riflemen, or is it more important that I discover the theory of evolution and build Darwin's Wonder?

Suddenly you have players with two different choices duking it out. What we have now are players racing each other through the exact same steps.

Empires Crumbling

The rebellion / civil war stuff is contraversial. I remember talking about an "ebb and flow". I tried to compare it to a football game, where you gain 20 yards, lose 10 yards, and then gain 40 yards. People weren't biting. It IS contraversial, but I don't think it's as bad as they think -- partially because we haven't done a good job of describing it.

The key to rebellions are the "three p's". Predictable, preventable, provokable.

The critics don't think they're predictable, so they complain about dumb luck changing the entire game.

The critics don't think they're preventable, so they complain about taking control away from the player.

The critics don't think they're provokable, so they ask why they'd want a feature that hurts them.

If rebellions are predictable, then players can use that intelligence to help themselves (prevent) and hurt their enemies (provoke). Then the key becomes balancing the conditions under which a rebellion grows and a civil war occurs.

Then the key becomes balancing the conditions under which a rebellion grows and a civil war occurs.

I think that would be a key possible idea for a Difficulty Setting. In a low difficulty all empires (yours and AIs) grow predicably with few Internal setbacks, in a high difficulty setting all empires are severely hampered by internal problems meaning that significant amounts of Diplomacy and 'Cultural advancements' have to be used instead of the "more factories to make more factories to make more guns to capture more factories to make more guns" cycle that leads to a snowball.


Also another idea for improving modern age, easier 'bleeding' of tech. So that '3rd World' Civs can afford not to spend any research and still only be several techs behind (but seriously underdeveloped)

[...]The key to rebellions are the "three p's". Predictable, preventable, provokable.
[...]
If rebellions are predictable, then players can use that intelligence to help themselves (prevent) and hurt their enemies (provoke). Then the key becomes balancing the conditions under which a rebellion grows and a civil war occurs.

Please allow me to add another "p":
Practicability which would just mean that the AI has to be enabled to handle it.

Otherwise, within weeks we would learn how to provoke the AI into secession. If it were not able to deal with this, this would be just another "army" feature. Nice for the human and almost a secure path towards victory.

Multiple Branches

Commander Bello... right there you cite multiple tech tree branches. I actually think that would already be a HUGE step to making the modern age interesting again. A player would have to choose -- am I going to nab the improved riflemen, or is it more important that I discover the theory of evolution and build Darwin's Wonder?

Suddenly you have players with two different choices duking it out. What we have now are players racing each other through the exact same steps.


You have that choice now... the problem is it isn't balanced, all players go throught the same steps because those are the best steps.

You have that choice now... the problem is it isn't balanced, all players go throught the same steps because those are the best steps.

Unfortunately, it is just the human players, who go this path.
The AI doesn't use it. The best and most significant exampe (although not modern times) is the shortcut to cavalry. But this leads to the fact that in modern times everything has been settled already.

AI is definitely key. I actually think that'll be the biggest challenge. A lot of features are good ideas and can be tweaked in order to work. But finding a way to the AI to juggle all these different concepts is incredibly challenging.

It's much easier to program an AI if there's one definite best strategy, instead of multiple good strategies.

Krikkitone, I couldn't agree more on difficulty settings. Instead of dealing with a 40% production bonus to the AI, you deal with a greater certainty of civil war. At the Sid level, it truly becomes like Football -- you know you'll have to lose some yards, but you just hope that you can gain more than you lose!

Amusing - There is no way they will drop the modern age and merely end the game with the victorian times.

The classic era layout of CIV will be maintained.

The presence of civics, religion and perhaps a new trade model may make things more fun in the modern ages.

.....

CurtSibling, I think this thread is somewhat facetious. To draw attention to a disease by threatening to kill the patient. Nobody really wants them to scrap the modern age -- they want them to make it better.

Unfortunately, of all the ages, religion has the least impact in the modern ages. And nobody knows what civics is. And with all the demand for a new trade model, there's no sense that the developers are focusing on "peaceful" concepts.

But we can wait and see.

The point that Civ does not model the economics of modernity well is indisputable, but I for one would be beyond disappointed if they cut the era all together.

Rather, have some insight-techs that change the way a Civ functions. Allow it to pool resources and have population grow nationally based on available food, but have it become concentrated in cities with the most robust economies.

They could bring back the ability to move food around (like in Civ 2) except make it an automatic function. I think there needs to be a whole new economy layer to the game, one that the player would not have *direct* control over, but which would affect gameplay.

Now...how would that work...hmmm

Well you could make food only move between cities connected by Railroad, Commercial Docks or Airports (Industrial Era Connecters)
Excess food would go to
1. starving cities
2. cities without all tiles used and growth possible
3. Well Developed cities (Infrastructure)

I think that there should be no ages, just one large tech tree. Your cities will look different by the terrain around you, and your cities will start to change after you get different techs, no ages.

I think that there should be no ages, just one large tech tree. Your cities will look different by the terrain around you, and your cities will start to change after you get different techs, no ages.

I completely agree. As far as the infamous barbarian uprisings are concerned, those would be linked to a set of certain advances as well.

CurtSibling, I think this thread is somewhat facetious. To draw attention to a disease by threatening to kill the patient. Nobody really wants them to scrap the modern age -- they want them to make it better.

Unfortunately, of all the ages, religion has the least impact in the modern ages. And nobody knows what civics is. And with all the demand for a new trade model, there's no sense that the developers are focusing on "peaceful" concepts.

But we can wait and see.

I know this, as the the developers are not going to change the traditional layout of the game.

I reckon they will copy the CIVIII model, just more mech units and more outrageous killing power.

I want to see something innovative too, but we all know the developers like to play it safe.

.

I know this, as the the developers are not going to change the traditional layout of the game.

I reckon they will copy the CIVIII model, just more mech units and more outrageous killing power.

I want to see something innovative too, but we all know the developers like to play it safe.

.

Firaxis is building a new game engine and code from scratch. I highly doubt that they would spend the money to do so if it was an upgrade of Civ III. Warpstorm, Sirian, or Soren should be able to answer better for this.

I think that there should be no ages, just one large tech tree. Your cities will look different by the terrain around you, and your cities will start to change after you get different techs, no ages.

I would like it if techs gradually changed the way you interacted with the game(interface, how you affect change, abilities, etc.) from tech one to the last one. Then you would notice a gradual change when you were 3/4 done with the game vs. 1/4 done.

Firaxis is building a new game engine and code from scratch. I highly doubt that they would spend the money to do so if it was an upgrade of Civ III. Warpstorm, Sirian, or Soren should be able to answer better for this.

We all know this.

But like the 'Grand Theft Auto', 'Total War' or 'Elder Scrolls' series,
the developers will defintely keep the essential components in place.

It does not take a lot of imagination to realise this.

.

Well you could make food only move between cities connected by Railroad, Commercial Docks or Airports (Industrial Era Connecters)
Excess food would go to
1. starving cities
2. cities without all tiles used and growth possible
3. Well Developed cities (Infrastructure)

Still not realistic.

Why only in the industrial ages? In the roman empire, for example, The city of rome was so huge ( over million inhabitants, more that in the whole of italy, during that time of course) that it could not feed it self, and most of the grain was supplied form africa.

Perhaps a special exception for cities that Can't grow to the next level, their excess food is given to another city that isn't at the pop limit...perhaps at a deficit... with the capital getting first dibs.

of course if realism is the only argument....population units need to move around, and tiles should be worked by citizens that live in the tiles... cities should only have specialists.

realism is not the issue. realism can offer inspiration and so forth, but making the modern age more interesting is the issue.

some micromanagement changes, like food importation or even worker abstraction, might remove some tedium from the modern age.

But to some extent, you need new concepts, new kinds of warfare and battlegrounds. Not new units. Not even necessarily new unit types (although tweaking air combat might be interesting). But all in all new ways to wage war, through espionage, diplomacy, and even economics.

What makes the modern age unrealistic is Democracy. In this game Democracy is just an economically powerful dictatorship.
In real world most countries are democracies(at least the developed ones).
In a democracy it is very hard to know who's the boss.
The free elections always end up in ~30%+ peapole on the coutch and the rest vote
49.5% on one side and 49.6% on another.....
This is supposed to represent the peapole's opinion but is just a big lottery.
Democracy must have more penalties when it comes to the player's power to be realistic.

This goes back to the discussion of what the players role is in Civ. Its obviously not the leader, since you survive revolutions. It is probably not the state because you direct all research. It is not the zeitgeist(bad usage I know) since your citizens do get unhappy. Theorhetically your actions represent the will of the people, except for WW, for example.

1) If you tend to think of your role in Civ as the government, then all governments are supported by some group within. Even in a dictatorship the dictator needs the support of the military, religious, or commercial authority that runs things. This means instead of getting referendums, you have to deal with direct requests from generals, nobles, merchants, etc. Historically its been the demands of the empowered classes that lead to political evolution. Gentry in the English kingdoms of the 13th century wanted more control over taxation with the Magna Charta. American land owners in the 18th century wanted to formalize their right to autonomous rule. French nobles in the late 18th century wanted more control over taxation, which lead to the French Revolution. Now I have seen and suggested many ideas how the wants and needs of the supporting/empowered classes could be fit into civ, but that is a different thread for a topic that extends the entire game.

2) If you tend to favour the zeitgeist paradigm, then there is little reason to worry about where and how the leader gets choices made.

You have some points. In Civ the player is always a communist dictator with full power. Yes.

But as the starter of this thread said earlier it would be nice if they could keep this game at least a bit realistic....
I live in sweden. The prime minister in my country would never be able to declare war on another country.
My opinion is that they should bring back the "overruled by senate" thing from Civ2.

Be careful, Morbror! If you keep talking that way, the 'It won't be Civ anymore' brigade will be soon be on your back-demanding that you recant your heretical talk of 'realism in Civ Games' :mischief: !!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Actually my point is that if you wanted to include the idea of political and popular opposition to your ideas, you would need to redesign the entire concept and not just one government type. If there is a system put in place that fullfills those goals, I am for it.

You have some points. In Civ the player is always a communist dictator with full power. Yes.

But as the starter of this thread said earlier it would be nice if they could keep this game at least a bit realistic....
I live in sweden. The prime minister in my country would never be able to declare war on another country.
My opinion is that they should bring back the "overruled by senate" thing from Civ2.

This is why the player shouldn't be the prime minister.... However, I could easily see a significant internal penalty to declaring war (cities + troops rebel, etc.).. of course your advisors may Warn you that this may happen.. but that would represent all portions of society+government rejecting the war rather than just the Senate, or private industry, etc. rejecting it.

This goes to my idea for how "Great Persons" should work, they should actually be your king/president/prime minister/cheiftan/general secretary.. they give you some bonuses and some penalties (so if you get a Ghandi-type leader you get bonuses for peace and penalties for war..vice versa for a Ghengis-type leader)

So the player is neither the government, nor the people, nor the leader...because all of those have their own effects on society.

Getting overruled by the senate really sucks.

But having to deal with heaps of unhappiness is a much more organic way to do things. And it's much more balanceable/tweakable to get the result you want, without getting as heavy handed as an artificial barrier.

Be careful, Morbror! If you keep talking that way, the 'It won't be Civ anymore' brigade will be soon be on your back-demanding that you recant your heretical talk of 'realism in Civ Games' :mischief: !!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

In the "Civ IV" category of this forum many mad ideas frolics. No offense but do you all know that Firaxis is reading what you write here?
I want Civ to be Civ and not anything else. If there is a problem with the game that problem should be solved by looking back at the older immortal games. And if that doesn't work maybe there is time for new ideas...

"Overruled by senate" could be found in Civ 2 and was a great way to make warmongers choose their respective gov and their respective penalties.
Besides that it's much more realistic.

As it happens, Morbror, I am pretty much on YOUR side. Like DH_Epic, though, I disliked being 'overruled by the Senate' but only because the Senate acted in what could only be described as an irrational and illogical fashion.
However, if they replaced 'Senate' with factions who may or may not seek to thwart your plans-depending on how those plans might advance or harm THEIR interests. Of course, the power to override them-at a major cost to happiness-should be built into the system too.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

u really think that those that are designing the game come here and really go out of thier way to implement these ideas ...that is pure fantasy- ideas are a dime a dozen- its what u do with ideas that is important- and i am sure that the creators of this game have more ideas than they know what to do with- i think at times - ol fans can get a bit unrealistic as to their impact.....

Still not realistic.

Why only in the industrial ages? In the roman empire, for example, The city of rome was so huge ( over million inhabitants, more that in the whole of italy, during that time of course) that it could not feed it self, and most of the grain was supplied form africa.

Not only Rome. In the 400s BC, Imperial Athens was supplied through the Hellespont and the Bosporus with Ukrainian grain, making it last 27 years against Sparta in the Peloponnesian War.
u really think that those that are designing the game come here and really go out of thier way to implement these ideas ...that is pure fantasy- ideas are a dime a dozen- its what u do with ideas that is important- and i am sure that the creators of this game have more ideas than they know what to do with- i think at times - ol fans can get a bit unrealistic as to their impact.....

Even though ideas come up fairly frequently, destroying our self-esteem isn't cool, either. I'd rather be deluded into thinking that I'm important than be shown that I'm not.

Aside from the joy of discussing a game I like...

I think part of the challenge is not so much ideas but constructive criticisms of Civilization 3. A constructive criticism isn't something like "there's no robots! we want robots!" No, a constructive criticism is more like "the last half of the game is often a bore and we need new game play options by then".

Then they can look at ideas -- theirs, ours, ones that haven't been thought of yet -- in context.

(And they do read these forums, although it's probably more casual than anything. At any rate, you can see them, if you know how to look.)

Yes. Soren was here yesterday browsing.

I want Civ to be Civ and not anything else. If there is a problem with the game that problem should be solved by looking back at the older immortal games.

Ahh... the Wahhabism of the CFC. I think I'll call it Morbrorism.

People said I’d better suggest some ideas to improve the game instead of suggesting to scrap part of it, so here are some… :cute:

One of the problems I mentioned in my post that started this thread was that all production was derived from the land, the raw resources. And that this system, the further in time you go, makes less sense as most added value comes from factories, banks and research labs, to say it in civ terms, and no longer from raw materials.

The solution to this is in my opinion relatively simply, ties in well with elements already present in previous civ incarnations, and has been mentioned by many other people in several varieties in the past.

Civ3 has two elements that affect production. First: shields, which mainly represent raw materials which are then in cities converted to finished goods (units, buildings…). Second: strategic resources which are a precondition for building certain stuff. But those resources are also raw materials, so you’re still stuck in the basic paradigm that raw resources are all you need to be a great power.

My suggestion would be to scrap the concept of shields, and instead:
a) expand and quantify the concept of resources,
b) add “labour” as a new requirement for producing stuff.

Quantifying resources has been suggested a lot before. Instead of controlling one of a resource being sufficient to provide your entire civilization with that material, you’d for example need two iron to train a swordsman (besides also a amount of labour), ten iron to build a factory, or two coal as a fuel to maintain your factory. Similarly, a luxury resource would only make a fixed number of people happy.

A tile of iron could provide several iron per year, eg something between one and five, a number that could be improved by tile improvements and researching technologies. If you produce more iron than you need yourself, you could stock it to a degree or trade to other civs.

Besides resources, which are still tile-based, the second requirement for production would be “labour”. That would be mainly derived from people. Farmers, those who work the tiles in your city radius, could provide a small amount of labour. However to become a really big producer, you’d need to appoint “labourer” specialists in your city, just like we already have scientists or entertainers. Those urban citizens would provide lots more labour than the rural tile-workers.

To make such a production system possible, tiles would have to provide more food, so you can support a, as the game progresses, bigger and bigger urban population that doesn’t produce food. Also specialists should also be able to be unhappy-content-happy, unlike previous civ games where they were taken out of happiness calculation.

The basic labour production of your citizens could be increased by technology and city improvements. For example a guild in the middle ages or a factory in the industrial age. There could still be stuff on the land that would provide a labour bonus, eg a forest, a horse or cow special tile.. But the reason those would provide labour and speed up production would be because they help the people build things - wood as a fuel, or a horse to transport materials - not because they would be raw materials. So the main focus would be: people => labour. And not eg hills with mines producing shields or labour. :hmmm:.

With such a system you could simulate a Japan which has lots of citizens and factories, but no raw materials. They can still import them and be successful. This isn’t possible with the shield production system.

***

Another issue I touched was that Civilization can’t recreate trader countries such as Portugal, the Netherlands or Venice. Here I’ve also got some ideas, but unlike the idea regarding labour above, this idea has little already existing roots in Civ3, so the possibility it could ever become reality is rather slim…

In any case, just like in Civ3 inter-civ trade would happen in the diplomacy menu by selling or buying resources. The problem in Civ3 is that you only need to know each other and have a connection by road or harbour with each other to make trade possible, even if the trade partners live on the opposite sides of the world. This makes it impossible to represent in-between traders such as those mentioned above.

The solution could be to have trade routes actually running over the map, also an old often suggested idea. The AI could auto-calculate what’s the shortest/fastest (or cheapest – see below) trade route from one capital to another. Roads, rivers, available technology would play a role to determine the best route, and of course often sea routes would be preferred, in most of history the easiest way of transporting stuff.

To make sure there’s an incentive to create a better road, harbour network etc, there should be a cost in gold to make an interciv trade possible. The longer the trade route between the two civs is, the more expensive it is to maintain. This encourages to trade with neighbouring civs instead of civs on the other side of the world, and encourages improving your infrastructure.

Another thing that could affect the cost of a trade route is how often it passes through cities, colonies or trade posts (a new tile improvement?). If the imaginary trade caravan or ship can’t resupply at one of these every x tiles, the cost of the trade routes increases. So for example Portugal knowing a sea route to China isn’t enough. To trade cheaply they would have to build a series of trade posts and supply points along the way where the trade route could pass through. Once the investment made, the Portugese could then trade the Chinese resources at a cheaper price to other European civs than if those tried to trade with China itself or with the muslims who have a land trade route with China.

A benefit for a civilization to let a trade route its no part of pass through its territory could be that each trade route provides a bit of gold to every city it passes through. That way those civs would too have an incentive to improve their infrastructure network and attract trade. This way for example cities on the Silk Route could be recreated. Or of course civs could embargo trade from certain civs and prevent some routes running over their territory.

Trade routes that run over the map open the possibility for pirates and raiders that could leech some gold off the trade route. This would in turn increase the use of navies to protect against piracy, and thereby solve the frequent complaint that navies don’t serve the important role they played in history.

In any case, I think having a trade system a little more expanded than “connect your capitals by road or harbour and you’ve got instant trade” would add a whole new dimension to the game, and solve many of the current problems.

building on your idea we could make workers (laborers) cheaper and have their tile improvements consume them. Therefore, after building the farm, the guy has to stick around and farm it, for the food to be sent back to the city. resources would be gotten thru a mine like system. if there's gold you need people to mine it. assign more miners, get more gold, until there's no more gold, at which time you have a lot of workers looking for a job. the gold could be used in the place of shields or labor in the cities. you don't need to have enough to "hurry production" all at once, but it can be contributed to the factory or university or whatever. once these factories or universities where built some of your people would work in them filling out thier assigned roles. of course this may be classified as bean counting so if the idea is discarded i will not be suprised. I merely feel that the shield system should be scrapped and some sort of economy that can be influenced, but not controlled by the state should be introduced.

I haven't read the entire thread, but I must just make this one point:

How could you call the game "Civilization" if there was no modern era?

Even the box-art of CIV4 shows the world lit up brightly at night implying a 'modern' feel to the game:

http://mrexonline.com/images/Boxart.jpg
source: http://mrexonline.com/site/viewforum.php?f=5

From what has been described, a game without the modern era would realistically just be Age of Empires less the industrial weaponry. So basically, removing the modern era just makes it another AoE game.

The game needs to be improved by far the most in the modern era, where it's unrealistic compared to the ancient era. Improve the units and provide some valid points for reaching the modern age other than to win via a space-race victory :)

StavrosMelb, I think the topic of the thread is facetious. By threatening to scrap the modern age, the hope is to have a frank discussion about how to improve the modern age. I don't think anyone really wants to cut the modern age.

As such, I agree with you. There needs to be more than the space race to give the modern age a valuable twist, late in the game when domination is already so close for someone.

StavrosMelb, I think the topic of the thread is facetious. By threatening to scrap the modern age, the hope is to have a frank discussion about how to improve the modern age. I don't think anyone really wants to cut the modern age.
Just keeping you all on your toes, that's all ;)

Anyway out of curiousity, how many of you actually get to the modern age in a typical game? Most games I do reach this era, mostly because I like large maps with 10 civs or so.

The worst thing about getting this late into the game is the amount of time it takes inter-turn while the AI moves, there's another thing that really needs to be improved on.

The worst thing about getting this late into the game is the amount of time it takes inter-turn while the AI moves, there's another thing that really needs to be improved on.

I know GalCivs had something called multi-threading, where the computer would think during your turn. However I do not know much or the feasibility for Civ. Can one of the more programming savy here help me out?

If they're building it from the ground up, anything's possible. Who knows how they're approaching the AI? But I wouldn't hold your breath for a deep blue that doesn't cheat.

But yes, that would be a key ingredient to improving the modern age. I hit the modern age half the time, but when I do so, winning is already a foregone conclusion, not to mention that it takes forever to seal the deal with those turns being so long.

I believe they should alter it or shorten it, and add the computer age or have the discovery of computers start a golden age for every civ that develops that tech. Very similar to the 1990's, with the advent of computers there was a massive jump in productivity, commerce and in industry overall because computer automation is far superior to man power. Even though it may lack originality, creativity, or imagination.

Somebody probably said this. Anyway, the main argument here is that there are too few things to do in the Modern Age. By that time you have etheir conquered or been conquered. But how about starting the game in the modern age. You could start with a few cities, ancient techs researched and stuff like that. And i have no doubt modders will fing a way around the economy=pop thing.

I think that you should start out on a standard sized map, with only your starting position.... zoomed in...[ maybe some barbarian nations ] then once you reach another tech, or a certain point in time, the map gets bigger, and if you have conquered the small map, and all the other barbarian civs, you take control of that area and a bigger map popps up, with more land, and u can start to see more civs... and this keeps going until the beginning of the modern age when the whole map is reaveled... and good for u to explore...

Just a thought... maybe someone could alter it a little..

I dont like the idea of scraping the Modern age. I realy dont want to be playing another AoK game :S.

I've said it elsewhere, but I think the Modern age's problem is that it's too generic, even in civ terms. The upgrade paths (Infantry > Mech Infantry, Tank > Modern Armor, Fighter > Jet Fighter) though following the general form of technological progress, are enormous leaps.

The game mechanic essentially fails to take into account that technology's progress increases exponentially in the Modern age - we have, over the past 100 years, advanced more than the rest of all human history combined.

The jumps, especially in units, don't really reflect that terribly well. Getting Tanks out of the blue and then suddenly going to Modern Armor is the same as going from a force composed entirely of Warriors to Horsemen, and then to Cavalry, with no intermediaries.

Where are the first, ugly, slow tanks? Where are the first main battle tanks?

Similarly, how is your first plane out of the box a sleek, monocoque prop-fighter or four-engine bomber? And how do you go from that to a modern Mig-29, yet not get a jet-bomber?

The Modern age is just very poorly done in terms of units relative to the pace of technology. I think the tech tree isn't quite right either. Instead of a few expensive techs, it should've been broken up into even more techs than Industrial, with lower costs, to represent the explosion in different scientific fields. This would enable an environment where new discoveries are being made all the time, different countries (civs) persue different paths, and military forces are in a constant state of evolution, rather than the current plodding through techs and tank-rush syndrome seen in Civ3.

Shortly: the game slows down in the Modern age when it should speed up, mainly because unit and tech advances are not handled properly at all relative to the increase in knowledge the period represents.

No one likes my idea?

My solushon is:
Make Corporatons that are privat and that do as thay like. => make money
They are the Barberians of the Modern AGE.

You just revived a thread over three years old. Congratulations on making a magnificent and frankly rather bizarre :bump: on your second post.

Methinks that BtS has done quite well with making the modern era better, tho I have to say I've always shined in modern times/the lategame in all Civ-style games be it Civ III, Civ IV, or SMAC.

Civ designers did their best in designing the modern age in BtS. There is no reason to scrap it. You will lose Marines, Supermarkets, Paratroopers,...

I love the 3 year break in between two of the posts, lol.

I think the Modern Age just needs some tech and stuff added into it, maybe like ROM. Early bombers/fighters etc....