In RFC even player can't conquer territories conquered by i.e. Rome. Adding power to them would affect balance... So maybe we should add UHC- civs like Rome and Arabia at the beginning could became overpowered but during UHC they would lose their colonies.
Unique historical crash
- Thread starter LuKo
- Start date
Hitti-Litti
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 3,767
Or if certain conditions would happen, a nation would collapse. For Rome it could be a very low stability, revolt which separates east and west, and maybe barbs taking over 50% of cities outside Alps.
McA123
Prince
I doubt making either of those civs stronger would cause them to achieve their empires in a timely manner. They might do a bit better, but no matter what you do, Rome will never control all of its historical areas.
Talkie_Toaster
I toast, therefore I am
I like this idea, it would increase accuracy loads. Well done LuKo, I'm kicking myself not what I never thought of it 
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
I personally hate too much determinism in my games. If I know I am going to crash, what's the point of going to all the trouble to expand there in the first place?
The idea is the freedom to change history, not the requirement to emulate it.
The idea is the freedom to change history, not the requirement to emulate it.
SkippyT
Who?
You could probably find crashes for all the civs..I'm thinking mostly of how France and England would collapse.
England collapsing and losing cities to Australia? We already have America..and France? All the colonies? I don't really see France separating into south/north or east/west..
England collapsing and losing cities to Australia? We already have America..and France? All the colonies? I don't really see France separating into south/north or east/west..
Talkie_Toaster
I toast, therefore I am
I totally agree, but it could be avoided with careful planning yes? So only the largest and richest empires have it and that tips the balance in favour of other, weaker civs? That is after all what happened to Rome, and all large empires fall in time.
Talkie_Toaster
I toast, therefore I am
Ah, but gold never really helped the Romans now did it?
Romans hadn't cash to pay for army. Emperors started to add other metals to coins. Romans had lost their army and economy. They hired Germans to protect their empire for the place to life. When Germans started to come into empire defenders joined them. Rome had fallen.
Talkie_Toaster
I toast, therefore I am
Ack, well, I stand corrected on that example 
. I really hope Rhye adds this to the game. It would improve it dramatically.
. I really hope Rhye adds this to the game. It would improve it dramatically.
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
The Fall of Rome is a little more complicated than that. I'd say there were more reasons than can be counted that contributed to its fall.... but the simple fact is that all empires are ultimately doomed to fall - it's inherent in the system.
Was it Xenephon who said that Empires only remain while they expand and collapse when they stagnate?
Adding base metals to coins was an effect of the Empire's collapse, not a cause of it. Slavery and the lack of incoming slaves had a more decisive role on economical problems.
It's pretty complex and convoluted and in truth, I got bored studying it.... but that's partly the professor's fault for making everything so tedious.
Was it Xenephon who said that Empires only remain while they expand and collapse when they stagnate?
Adding base metals to coins was an effect of the Empire's collapse, not a cause of it. Slavery and the lack of incoming slaves had a more decisive role on economical problems.
It's pretty complex and convoluted and in truth, I got bored studying it.... but that's partly the professor's fault for making everything so tedious.
Spearthrower
Thrower of spears
Debasement of all the coins the Romans used happened throughout the history of their Empire. If you look at every single type of coin they used, it followed a systematic debasement from inception. When a coin debased too much, they tended to bring in a new purer one of higher value. Inflation was undoubtedly part of the reason for that.
In many ways the purity of Roman coins actually reflects the state of the Empire at any given time.
However, these are all effects - not causes.
It's the instability of the time that means that either the metals cant be mined or cant be delivered. This naturally had a knock on effect further destabilising and causing debasement and inflation.
As Rome had an ongoing habit of debasing its coinage, I wouldnt ascribe too much import to it - it didnt cause the fall of Rome, they'd survived many periods of hyper inflation before.
From a game perspective, modifying the commerce potential of a tile is not the same as removing wealth from a treasury. Yes, over time an event that diminished the commerce value of all your tiles would deplete your investments, but you could maintain a healthy balance throughout.
In many ways the purity of Roman coins actually reflects the state of the Empire at any given time.
However, these are all effects - not causes.
It's the instability of the time that means that either the metals cant be mined or cant be delivered. This naturally had a knock on effect further destabilising and causing debasement and inflation.
As Rome had an ongoing habit of debasing its coinage, I wouldnt ascribe too much import to it - it didnt cause the fall of Rome, they'd survived many periods of hyper inflation before.
From a game perspective, modifying the commerce potential of a tile is not the same as removing wealth from a treasury. Yes, over time an event that diminished the commerce value of all your tiles would deplete your investments, but you could maintain a healthy balance throughout.
fearuin
Born to be Warlord
I agree with Spearthrower. Even if you got no commerce at all, you can put some hammer cities to make "wealth", remember? However, I consider your idea valuable, LuKo. I think that increasing the mantaining cost of cities would be more realistic. It will reflect the increasing economic inefficiency of any civ about to collapse. This happened always in history, since Babylon to the USSR, and your example of Rome's debasing coinage its a good example of the effect of this inneficiency. Making mantaining cost flow would also encourage civs to expand or stagnate in a more realistic way.
fearuin
Born to be Warlord
OK, understood. UHCs are a nice idea, in any case. I have one idea for the American UHC: every other civ in the world has State Property as civic. It will sink American economy completely!
