How hard will it be to merge Civs?

[Boli]

There are many oversized maps; and many ways to have 30 or even 50 civs on each map.

Now, don't get me wrong Civ4 is a fantastic game, but what has always bugged me is you have say 7 civs randomly spaced on a map who grow from expansion or conquest and shrink from being conquored.

Now whilst this may be a great way to code and play the game as pure "equals" it doesn't reflect what happens in history.. far from it - in fact countries grew up generlaly from people banding together in unions and empire. Capituation/vassel is a great concept but it doesn't showcase how the world works... or even man of the underlieing cause of conflict and strife.

What if there was a way to merge civs together into unions or indeed in times of great chaos case them to break apart - woudl that be hard to code...or has it been done already and I missed it?.

So instead of playing a Europe map with only 12 civs... you play with 80 civs except over the course of times the empires of England, france, germany, italy arise... and possibly fall.

 

[Baldyr]

I think you need to look into Rhye's and Fall of Civilization. Seriously, make a point of taking a good look at it and give it a chance. Because I basically feel exactly like you about the game and the said mod was nothing short of a revelation to me personally. I don't think I will ever play another game of Civilization that isn't based on this mod, ever. I only regret not getting into it earlier.

Now, the mod only includes 30 some Civilizations, but you should realize that dead Civilizations will resurface during the curse of history, and that smaller nations and fragmented empires are represented by "independent" cities. Also there are two "barbarian" type Civilizations representing tribal and native peoples. As with anything, its not perfect but its still awesome in its own right.

 

[Boli]

Played that to death ; that failed for me in if you diviated from the path of history you were punished. Deciding to conquor or unite northern europe (UK, Scandivia, iceland, france germany under UK rule often caused your empire to collaspe.

I was thinking more of a mod say you and another civ are close allys and generally pals why not create an option to form a union (austrian hungarian empire anyone?) where the player took over all the other cities and the other civs capital became "the hungaian assemby" which reduced corruption in nearby cities.

Both civs will benefit from it - but forming such a union may in periods of strife or anarchy or invasion the union may fracture so one side can sue for a separate peace. The longer a union exsists the less likely they wil fracture.

Kalmar Union (Sweden, Denmark, Norway)
United Kingdom (Wales, Scotland, England, Ireland - then northern ireland as unrest caused rebellion)

I could go on for hours listing examples but its a shame civ4 never had the ability to for unions either forcefully or mutual consent. Vassals are all well and good but at the end of the day they are not controlled by you.

 

[Baldyr]

What you describe is a basically a brand new feature in Civilization. I'm not saying that the idea is bad, and if you learn enough programming you would actually be able to create anything you like along these lines. The question is how much time and effort you're willing to invest in the game of Civilization you wanna have.

I believe that the question was "how hard will it be?" and the question is probably: "pretty hard but nothing is basically impossible". Or did you want something to make this happen for you? In that case you need to hire a programmer who's experienced with CivIV modding. Or build a project around your idea and try to get programmers involved in it.

 

[Thunderbrd]

So basically, this sounds like the 'full surrender' option I've considered a time or two, with a diplomatic element as well.

It could probably be modded on the basis of changing 'team' designations... possibly even changing 'human/AI' designations though such might require the game be played as a hotseat game even if playing with only one player. I've often thought this could be fairly easily done and quite rewarding.

BUT... I personally play with vassals OFF because the AI tends to cheat the system with it. It's already geared so that basically EVERY AI is pretty much an enemy (I don't feel that I've found any diplomacy methods in CIV to be a level playing field between AI and Human players and every ai certainly recognizes you differently from the other leaders... YOU are their biggest concern, even if they do go to war with each other now and again.) And with Vassalization, all that really happens, as a result, is you're about to win a war and your opponent decides to bring in another opponent who may not have been willing to enter a war with you but will gladly now jump at the chance to have a new vassal, even if it means going to war with you immediately. This means you can't wage war unless you're ready to take on everyone at once. So yeah... do NOT prefer vassalage in the game (plus... I feel only the AI thinks HAVING a vassal is a good idea. When the costs vs the benefit are measured, there is no comparison... the costs far outweigh!)

Anyhow, I would fear the same result from this sort of thing. So if it were to be done successfully, it should not be allowed during the middle of a war.