dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Especially when you look at the modern world, you see wars being waged on the economic level. Trade embargos were a great introduction to Civ 3, but because the benefits of trade between nations was limited, the penalty offered by trade embargos became more symbolic than real.
With that, I think the benefits of trade and a greater economy ought to become more and more linked to the international stage as time goes on... if you don't trade with anyone internationally, how can your nation get rich?
But I more wanted to elude to the complex affairs in the modern world:
PUPPET REGIMES and AID
I want that oil in that Nation over there. I also don't want to have to put up with the nuisances of managing that Nation and full-out invading it... nor do I want to stir up the wrath of the international community, who might see my expanding borders as an expanding problem. The other nation will deal with me because they need the aid, or because they're that afraid of me doing something nasty to them.
Hence, I perform an under-the-table trade agreement.
I trade you: military aid (12 riflemen)
You trade me: free access to your oil, a government change (to something more autocratic, like monarchy, so they can order their people around)
Draw backs for them: they obviously resign themselves to never being the #1 nation in the world, instead giving away much of their wealth to another nation.
Draw backs for us: we are more vulnerable to the theft of technology by such a puppet nation. They could unlock the secrets of riflemen much faster, and perhaps unleash that on their neighbours, or even us. Also, anyone who spies and finds out about our agreement would surely look down on it.
INTELLIGENCE TRADING
Maps are just the start of it. But later in the game, understanding who is dealing with who in what way is an important part of world affairs. Especially since it won't be directly obvious that me and my puppets are in cahoots, to discover this information through spying and to trade it to another nation could be enough to get some kind of action against me.
EMBARGO
In order to prevent a nation from getting particularly rich. Since wealth will become more tied to international relations (instead of mystically being produced from thin air within your borders), the wealthiest nations will be those with many allies, and the poorest nations will be those who are isolated (see Iraq, Cuba). In poor and democratic nations, the civil unrest would be greater, demanding you take actions to get the embargo lifted.
MORE ELABORATE ALLIANCES
Rather than alliances being a one to one thing... later in the game, creating an alliance that people join (or get kicked out from) might be very interesting. Think NATO -- all kinds of nations agreeing to defend one another, with more nations lining up to join in. ... and others becoming threatened should they not live up to their contributions.
ESTABLISHING COLONIES
In Civ 3, settling in a nation is considered an act of war. Rightfully so, but the past few centuries have not been this explicit. Africa became heavily colonized by Belgium, France, Britain ... without necessarily enjoying all the freedoms and wonders of their European rulers.
Rather than conquering a nation and having your borders expand, there ought to be a way to rule a nation indirectly and benefit from its resources ... spreading your culture, without spreading your need to manage.
For this reason, you should be able to "clean out" a foreign city, but rather than invading it, you populate it with a settler. These people become the foreign rulers, the influence that lets you get their diamonds or oil or whatever it is you want, without having to actually control them.
This beats the hell out of the (useless) colony system in Civ 3.
CULTURE TRADE
While it's wonderful to see ancient culture being celebrated in Civ 3 (even an old aqueduct becomes a cultural landmark if it's around long enough) ... the reality is culture, in the post modern world, has become a commodity.
American television is sold and watched all over the world, much to the profit of America, and to the benefit of foreign peoples who are more entertained.
If your nation admires another nation's culture, you COULD trade cash or goods for the latest season of "The Simpsons". Of course, you're fueling that nations culture production and increasing their likelihood of victory through culture. Also, if you're neighbours, you may even see your nation get gradually absorbed.
If your nation admires another nation's culture, you COULD choose to prevent ANY kind of culture trade with them. This prevents their cultural victory and limits their profits... However, especially in a democratic nation, your people may grow more and more upset as their nation becomes more and more admirable. You may have to give in, or face revolts, which are more vulnerable to swapping allegiances. Also, that nation might repay the negativity with an embargo against you. This is how wars get started.
REDEFINING BORDERS
Paris gets invaded by Germany. Britain invades Paris. Britain, out of good faith, decides not to keep Paris, but to give it back to France. The winner defines the borders of their nation, and other nations.
But what is the benefit to Britain (in Civilization's constrained ideas)?
- increased trade?
- a debt to pay off?
- "points" -- a score?
- a guaranteed vote when the UN gets built?
- cultural admiration from their people?
- a desire for culture trade from their people?
This is strictly a brainstorm and not well-thought through... but obviously Civ 3 is lacking in the complexities of modern life. You could NEVER reinact the cold war in Civ. It would be too boring! In actuality, it was very exciting (to people like me, at least), especially when you consider how close we were to nuclear war many times.
With that, I think the benefits of trade and a greater economy ought to become more and more linked to the international stage as time goes on... if you don't trade with anyone internationally, how can your nation get rich?
But I more wanted to elude to the complex affairs in the modern world:
PUPPET REGIMES and AID
I want that oil in that Nation over there. I also don't want to have to put up with the nuisances of managing that Nation and full-out invading it... nor do I want to stir up the wrath of the international community, who might see my expanding borders as an expanding problem. The other nation will deal with me because they need the aid, or because they're that afraid of me doing something nasty to them.
Hence, I perform an under-the-table trade agreement.
I trade you: military aid (12 riflemen)
You trade me: free access to your oil, a government change (to something more autocratic, like monarchy, so they can order their people around)
Draw backs for them: they obviously resign themselves to never being the #1 nation in the world, instead giving away much of their wealth to another nation.
Draw backs for us: we are more vulnerable to the theft of technology by such a puppet nation. They could unlock the secrets of riflemen much faster, and perhaps unleash that on their neighbours, or even us. Also, anyone who spies and finds out about our agreement would surely look down on it.
INTELLIGENCE TRADING
Maps are just the start of it. But later in the game, understanding who is dealing with who in what way is an important part of world affairs. Especially since it won't be directly obvious that me and my puppets are in cahoots, to discover this information through spying and to trade it to another nation could be enough to get some kind of action against me.
EMBARGO
In order to prevent a nation from getting particularly rich. Since wealth will become more tied to international relations (instead of mystically being produced from thin air within your borders), the wealthiest nations will be those with many allies, and the poorest nations will be those who are isolated (see Iraq, Cuba). In poor and democratic nations, the civil unrest would be greater, demanding you take actions to get the embargo lifted.
MORE ELABORATE ALLIANCES
Rather than alliances being a one to one thing... later in the game, creating an alliance that people join (or get kicked out from) might be very interesting. Think NATO -- all kinds of nations agreeing to defend one another, with more nations lining up to join in. ... and others becoming threatened should they not live up to their contributions.
ESTABLISHING COLONIES
In Civ 3, settling in a nation is considered an act of war. Rightfully so, but the past few centuries have not been this explicit. Africa became heavily colonized by Belgium, France, Britain ... without necessarily enjoying all the freedoms and wonders of their European rulers.
Rather than conquering a nation and having your borders expand, there ought to be a way to rule a nation indirectly and benefit from its resources ... spreading your culture, without spreading your need to manage.
For this reason, you should be able to "clean out" a foreign city, but rather than invading it, you populate it with a settler. These people become the foreign rulers, the influence that lets you get their diamonds or oil or whatever it is you want, without having to actually control them.
This beats the hell out of the (useless) colony system in Civ 3.
CULTURE TRADE
While it's wonderful to see ancient culture being celebrated in Civ 3 (even an old aqueduct becomes a cultural landmark if it's around long enough) ... the reality is culture, in the post modern world, has become a commodity.
American television is sold and watched all over the world, much to the profit of America, and to the benefit of foreign peoples who are more entertained.
If your nation admires another nation's culture, you COULD trade cash or goods for the latest season of "The Simpsons". Of course, you're fueling that nations culture production and increasing their likelihood of victory through culture. Also, if you're neighbours, you may even see your nation get gradually absorbed.
If your nation admires another nation's culture, you COULD choose to prevent ANY kind of culture trade with them. This prevents their cultural victory and limits their profits... However, especially in a democratic nation, your people may grow more and more upset as their nation becomes more and more admirable. You may have to give in, or face revolts, which are more vulnerable to swapping allegiances. Also, that nation might repay the negativity with an embargo against you. This is how wars get started.
REDEFINING BORDERS
Paris gets invaded by Germany. Britain invades Paris. Britain, out of good faith, decides not to keep Paris, but to give it back to France. The winner defines the borders of their nation, and other nations.
But what is the benefit to Britain (in Civilization's constrained ideas)?
- increased trade?
- a debt to pay off?
- "points" -- a score?
- a guaranteed vote when the UN gets built?
- cultural admiration from their people?
- a desire for culture trade from their people?
This is strictly a brainstorm and not well-thought through... but obviously Civ 3 is lacking in the complexities of modern life. You could NEVER reinact the cold war in Civ. It would be too boring! In actuality, it was very exciting (to people like me, at least), especially when you consider how close we were to nuclear war many times.
