Civ5 = Civ-Minesweeper ?

Naokaukodem

Naokaukodem

Millenary King
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
3,951
What I'm deeply annoyed by with Civ and especially with 5, is that the situations are way too globalized, even in early times.

This is majorely due to the way diplomacy works. (denounciation)

It shouldn't occur until media era. Because as of now, there's not a feeling of epicness in early stages.

Wars should be declared more often, between a vast number of factions. At the point that I think war shouldn't be managed with units. You should have advisors that make you aware of your warS, telling you how they go, you should put invests into them but there rarely would be too shiny victories, unless the apparition of a great general that would end up to die. (or something like a military golden age)

In reality, at early eras, wars were seen as a positive thing, as to earn glory from them. (some of the characters of the Holy Bible think so) The denounciation mechanic seems to be out of time, making the game frozen and silly.

It is due majorely to the victory system, and the will of the developers to make a round up game with straight mechanics. This, is greatly detrimental to the fun. I prefer much more a so-called "imperfect" game (which is in fact nearer of perfection), but with a lot more fun.
 
Naokaukodem said:
What I'm deeply annoyed by with Civ and especially with 5, is that the situations are way too globalized, even in early times.

This is majorely due to the way diplomacy works. (denounciation)

It shouldn't occur until media era. Because as of now, there's not a feeling of epicness in early stages.

Wars should be declared more often, between a vast number of factions. At the point that I think war shouldn't be managed with units. You should have advisors that make you aware of your warS, telling you how they go, you should put invests into them but there rarely would be too shiny victories, unless the apparition of a great general that would end up to die. (or something like a military golden age)

In reality, at early eras, wars were seen as a positive thing, as to earn glory from them. (some of the characters of the Holy Bible think so) The denounciation mechanic seems to be out of time, making the game frozen and silly.

It is due majorely to the victory system, and the will of the developers to make a round up game with straight mechanics. This, is greatly detrimental to the fun. I prefer much more a so-called "imperfect" game (which is in fact nearer of perfection), but with a lot more fun.
Click to expand...

There was contact between Rome and China pre-AD and your telling me civ is too globalized?

I think the system works well and i think even the AI and diplomacy functions effectively. The only aspect of the game i dislike at the moment is espionage, but that's a story for another thread.
 
True_Candyman said:
There was contact between Rome and China pre-AD and your telling me civ is too globalized?

I think the system works well and i think even the AI and diplomacy functions effectively. The only aspect of the game i dislike at the moment is espionage, but that's a story for another thread.
Click to expand...

I pretty well agree with all of this, though religion disappoints me a bit more than espionage.

Not only did Rome know about (and trade with, indirectly) the far east, those lions we think of in the Colosseum certainly weren't from Europe, and some evidence exists that suggests that Romans made it to the Americas, though if they did, lots of evidence suggests that they never made it back to Rome.

Nevermind that outside of Europe, which was already quite "globalized," there are similarities in some Zuni words and....Japanese! That contact is thought to come much later than the sweet potato going to the Pacific islands.

Those are just ideas, though there is plenty of proof that the vikings made it to the Americas.

If you want to go way way back, some mummies from Egypt have shown traces of chemicals that would only have come from the Americas.

I don't think anything is too globalized in civ. Even sticking just to what we know, just in Europe, there were several groups that helped and hated each other, that set up trade and went to war. When, by 400 BC you have 5 civs that made it into the game interacting on a grand scale, and several other civilizations that were certainly important in the mix as well...I'm not sure it's ever too early to think in terms of global politics.
 
And you have traces of Incan Mummies that have herbs/plants that only grow in the Pacific Islands and some specific Asian plants. The world was probably more connected with trade than people realize.

Look at the Sumerians - they had extensive trade networks well into Europe and Africa at least. Obsidian from southern Russia, minerals from Greece, etc. and traces of material that suggest even wider trade (ie specific shells to specific regions)
 
After loooooong time...decided to join your discussions and hof games....

Oooooo....like Oda would say....greets to everyone:)

Must say that denounciation sistem has nothing to do with reality!
U den. someone and there is no any direct consequence...worse you can get is hostile behavior..
For example lets say that my country ( Croatia ) denounce USA....my nation would vanish in next 100 days...or because of hunger,or because of military invasions,or because of civil war,or because of that USA would kick our ass,or because of fire...
There has to be some kind of special list of possible denounciations.....u should accumulate power for denounce someone,like culture or science....In real world,Croatia or Slovakia could never ever denounce USA or China...though Germany could or UK could or Russia etc...

So for me...most annoying thing is denounciation,never know should I give a crap or shouldnt...
For all other bad things ( Like faith in G/K or espionage) this I cant solve in my head...
 
Naokaukodem said:
Hmmm k, shouldn't have done this topic in the general discussion. :lol:

There's a big difference between having contacts and being GLOBALIZED (without the "")
Click to expand...

Yes, but they didn't just say hi and leave it at that. There was constant trading occurring. This is why the Silk Road exists between the far east and Europe, trading spices and dyes and furs back and forth throughout the old world.

Additionally the Mongols conquered much of Siberia, China and into South East Asia, through Persia into Arabia and right towards the east end of Europe. Hell the Bulgars were a group of migrants from the steps of Asia were just as the Huns were.

Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and much of the early Mediterranean religions (Greek, Roman etc) shared a great deal of similarities (Zeus = Jupiter = Indra etc)

Humanity is a migrant race and has been global since its conception. How do you think humans inhabited the ends of the world without migration? And do really think that once they reached these places they just stopped?

The view you're displaying is highly Eurocentric. Western histories take off point in the 19th century was highly influenced by imperial mindsets that thought of the rest of the world as inferior, unchanging and without history. In fact, we are all the same and time goes through swings and roundabouts with who is ahead and when. Globalization is much more visible these days because there is such a greater quantity of it, but given that there were less people in the world in ancient times i think less global traders are a natural consequence.

History tangent over. Basically i think it's fair to say that trade most certainly occurred between nations. The fact that they minded their own business with one another doesn't forgo the option to denounce, it only takes away the incentive. Why would China denounce rome when its receiving these luxuries from it and unthreatened by it? However war didn't often spring up from nowhere. I know it's a movie but look at 300, emissaries were sent from Persia to Sparta, and i think you can count kicking an emissary into a bottomless pit as a denouncement of sorts...
 
[q]For example lets say that my country ( Croatia ) denounce USA....my nation would vanish in next 100 days...or because of hunger,or because of military invasions,or because of civil war,or because of that USA would kick our ass,or because of fire...
There has to be some kind of special list of possible denounciations.....u should accumulate power for denounce someone,like culture or science....In real world,Croatia or Slovakia could never ever denounce USA or China...though Germany could or UK could or Russia etc...[/q]

If you denounced USA, Serbia would protect you, so you'd have nothing to fear ;).
 
True_Candyman said:
Yes, but they didn't just say hi and leave it at that. There was constant trading occurring. This is why the Silk Road exists between the far east and Europe, trading spices and dyes and furs back and forth throughout the old world.

Additionally the Mongols conquered much of Siberia, China and into South East Asia, through Persia into Arabia and right towards the east end of Europe. Hell the Bulgars were a group of migrants from the steps of Asia were just as the Huns were.

Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and much of the early Mediterranean religions (Greek, Roman etc) shared a great deal of similarities (Zeus = Jupiter = Indra etc)

Humanity is a migrant race and has been global since its conception. How do you think humans inhabited the ends of the world without migration? And do really think that once they reached these places they just stopped?

The view you're displaying is highly Eurocentric. Western histories take off point in the 19th century was highly influenced by imperial mindsets that thought of the rest of the world as inferior, unchanging and without history. In fact, we are all the same and time goes through swings and roundabouts with who is ahead and when. Globalization is much more visible these days because there is such a greater quantity of it, but given that there were less people in the world in ancient times i think less global traders are a natural consequence.

History tangent over. Basically i think it's fair to say that trade most certainly occurred between nations. The fact that they minded their own business with one another doesn't forgo the option to denounce, it only takes away the incentive. Why would China denounce rome when its receiving these luxuries from it and unthreatened by it? However war didn't often spring up from nowhere. I know it's a movie but look at 300, emissaries were sent from Persia to Sparta, and i think you can count kicking an emissary into a bottomless pit as a denouncement of sorts...
Click to expand...

They were trading, but they were not globalized. Globalization is possible with high speed communications such like planes, phones, radio and TV. Not only the information is uniformely dispatched and arrive in every spot in the same time, but it is accessible to everyone. It is sure the cause of the thinking way that war is bad.

In ancient time I'm sure there were nothing like denounce. The archers behind their fortifications, listening the emissary saying "the Huns denounced Rome", would have had a good laugh. Because the denounciation system is only valid if war is perceived as bad, which wasn't the case in ancient times, and only within... a game with a victory.

I can't believe we have this discussion, but hey, we are in the general discussions forums !
 
EL_Kondor said:
[q]For example lets say that my country ( Croatia ) denounce USA....my nation would vanish in next 100 days...or because of hunger,or because of military invasions,or because of civil war,or because of that USA would kick our ass,or because of fire...
There has to be some kind of special list of possible denounciations.....u should accumulate power for denounce someone,like culture or science....In real world,Croatia or Slovakia could never ever denounce USA or China...though Germany could or UK could or Russia etc...[/q]

If you denounced USA, Serbia would protect you, so you'd have nothing to fear ;).
Click to expand...

Minor nations talking trash to the big boys happens all the time. For the most recent example, check out all the Arabs that like to talk the big talk because even though they know the US could squash their regimes in an instant (see: Iraq) they also know that the US is starting to become as disillusioned with the whole war for democracy concept as Europe (see: Iraq).
 
Naokaukodem said:
Because the denounciation system is only valid if war is perceived as bad
Click to expand...

Denunciation has nothing to do with the perception of war, or war at all for that matter. To denounce is simply to publicly speak out against. Doing so can cause tensions that may ultimately lead to war, but the validity of the denunciation has nothing to do with war.
 
True_Candyman said:
Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and much of the early Mediterranean religions (Greek, Roman etc) shared a great deal of similarities (Zeus = Jupiter = Indra etc)
Click to expand...

And apparently, Ashoka sent Buddhist missionaries as far as Greece. :crazyeye:
________________________________
Stupid truth always resisting simplicity.
-John Green
 
Gucumatz said:
And you have traces of Incan Mummies that have herbs/plants that only grow in the Pacific Islands and some specific Asian plants. The world was probably more connected with trade than people realize.

Look at the Sumerians - they had extensive trade networks well into Europe and Africa at least. Obsidian from southern Russia, minerals from Greece, etc. and traces of material that suggest even wider trade (ie specific shells to specific regions)
Click to expand...

And a cotton trade with Pakistan (Indus River Valley Civ). ;)
________________________________
Stupid truth always resisting simplicity.
-John Green
 
It kind of sounds like you simply want a different game, one with more time/emphasis on empire building and less on warfare. I would also play that game, but I'm not sure that the lack of it is a deficiency in civ.

I'm not sure it was the OP's point, but if we're making the argument that the world in civ gets too small too fast I would definitely agree with that. One of the things that instantly hooked me on FFH was the fact that they made the world a dangerous place beyond just the 7 greatest organized powers.

Naokaukodem said:
In reality, at early eras, wars were seen as a positive thing, as to earn glory from them. (some of the characters of the Holy Bible think so) The denounciation mechanic seems to be out of time, making the game frozen and silly.
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of this. History, being written by the winners, tends to record war as a pretty glorious thing. I wouldn't assume that before the fighting happened and a winner was determined people looked on them any more favorably than they do today. I think there's even a pretty solid point to be made that it's become more glorious since nationalism came around.
 
ljofthemm said:
Denunciation has nothing to do with the perception of war, or war at all for that matter. To denounce is simply to publicly speak out against. Doing so can cause tensions that may ultimately lead to war, but the validity of the denunciation has nothing to do with war.
Click to expand...

Tadada... LOL ! Funny guys in a funny forum. :lol:

To answer seriously, why are we denounced most of the time ? Because of war. So yes, it have a great link with war.

Tadadada !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
[BNW] Byblos? Babylon?
Replies
0
Views
322
Draynul
D
ThermobaricPunch
Multiplayer desyncs (loading screen between turns) and weird bugs
Replies
1
Views
853
coolhandluke11
C
Blake00
CivBattleRoyale Season 4 (CBR X4)
Replies
6
Views
1K
Blake00
Blake00
M
AI toys with a city in order to get XP
Replies
10
Views
491
martindo
M
S
Is it Possible to Set Up Civ-V to play like Civ-III...?
Replies
5
Views
1K
aieeegrunt
aieeegrunt
Top Bottom