hammerquill
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5
New patch looks exciting. I wish I had time this weekend to play with it!
Beeblbrox has great ideas, which I would like to second and expand upon:
So glad to see I'm not the only one. All the (wholly justified) complaining about out-of-control corruption, and I never saw anyone get to the root of it: if you're going to have an optimum city number at all (and some means of reflecting size of civ in corruption level may be justified) it should be affected by tech level, by transportation ability (to a civ with railways and airports you're always close to the capital, for what that's worth), and much more radically than now by government type. I know government type does affect corruption, but a large civ, even a democracy, on one of the gigantic maps like Marla's is simply ungovernable at the moment.
The slider for corruption will be a very useful band-aid, but it's not getting at the root of the problem or fixing things in a realistic way.
I had a problem with this before and complained to Firaxis, but isn't it supposedly fixed in 1.17?
But the warning certainly should be there: actually, they should start rioting in the streets, doing damage, and (if you ask them) say they're rebelling against foreign oppressors, then next turn, if you don't do enough about it, they can throw you out.
Personally, I would make the cultural reversion thing a lot more interesting and complex: Cities can riot even in the face of pretty fearsome garrisons, but on the other hand it's hard for civilians to destroy or capture military units. Elite units especially would almost always be able to escape from a city in good order, even when it was rioting against them. So I'd say, when a city actually rises up to revert to its old owner, give the new owner an option for what to do with the garrison: have them fight to suppress the uprising, which may diminish the population, destroy improvements, damage or destroy the garrison itself, and cause ill will among other subjects of the civ involved in the rising (but will probably keep the city); or have them withdraw, in which case they may take some damage from the populace, but not much (especially if they're elite units), may if they wish destroy improvements as they go, but in any case will almost certainly save themselves. This strikes me as far more realistic.
--A couple of my own separate ideas then I'll shut up: My biggest wishes for the next patch were a built-in way to set up real-world or other predefined starting locations (a la Gramphos' great program - HEY FIRAXIS, have you offered Gramphos a job yet??), and linked to that, a better way to add lots of extra civs, so there are twenty or thirty to choose from at the start. Also, a separation in the start screen between maps and scenarios. A restoration of Civ2 ability to choose your name and sex. A change in resources so that the Sahara isn't always as full of cities as the NYC-DC corridor - and linked to that (partially offsetting it) a restoration of the Civ2 ability to *transport food* (but abstractly, like Civ3 resource trading): Rome in real life couldn't survive without Egyptian grain, and machange with king some cities food suppliers can control their size without resorting to more drastic and player-labor-intensive means.
Okay, okay. I'll go lurk again now.
Beeblbrox has great ideas, which I would like to second and expand upon:
So glad to see I'm not the only one. All the (wholly justified) complaining about out-of-control corruption, and I never saw anyone get to the root of it: if you're going to have an optimum city number at all (and some means of reflecting size of civ in corruption level may be justified) it should be affected by tech level, by transportation ability (to a civ with railways and airports you're always close to the capital, for what that's worth), and much more radically than now by government type. I know government type does affect corruption, but a large civ, even a democracy, on one of the gigantic maps like Marla's is simply ungovernable at the moment.
The slider for corruption will be a very useful band-aid, but it's not getting at the root of the problem or fixing things in a realistic way.
I had a problem with this before and complained to Firaxis, but isn't it supposedly fixed in 1.17?
But the warning certainly should be there: actually, they should start rioting in the streets, doing damage, and (if you ask them) say they're rebelling against foreign oppressors, then next turn, if you don't do enough about it, they can throw you out.
Personally, I would make the cultural reversion thing a lot more interesting and complex: Cities can riot even in the face of pretty fearsome garrisons, but on the other hand it's hard for civilians to destroy or capture military units. Elite units especially would almost always be able to escape from a city in good order, even when it was rioting against them. So I'd say, when a city actually rises up to revert to its old owner, give the new owner an option for what to do with the garrison: have them fight to suppress the uprising, which may diminish the population, destroy improvements, damage or destroy the garrison itself, and cause ill will among other subjects of the civ involved in the rising (but will probably keep the city); or have them withdraw, in which case they may take some damage from the populace, but not much (especially if they're elite units), may if they wish destroy improvements as they go, but in any case will almost certainly save themselves. This strikes me as far more realistic.
--A couple of my own separate ideas then I'll shut up: My biggest wishes for the next patch were a built-in way to set up real-world or other predefined starting locations (a la Gramphos' great program - HEY FIRAXIS, have you offered Gramphos a job yet??), and linked to that, a better way to add lots of extra civs, so there are twenty or thirty to choose from at the start. Also, a separation in the start screen between maps and scenarios. A restoration of Civ2 ability to choose your name and sex. A change in resources so that the Sahara isn't always as full of cities as the NYC-DC corridor - and linked to that (partially offsetting it) a restoration of the Civ2 ability to *transport food* (but abstractly, like Civ3 resource trading): Rome in real life couldn't survive without Egyptian grain, and machange with king some cities food suppliers can control their size without resorting to more drastic and player-labor-intensive means.
Okay, okay. I'll go lurk again now.
