Age of Conquests

[Naokaukodem]

It's very improbable that in a planet like the Earth, two separated by waters civilizations will have the same degree of development. Fatally, one will have a greater technology advance than the other one, and conquer it.

In Civ, the time you build the units, the time you build the transports, the enemy is much stronger and often becomes capable of resisting to you.

Not to mention the AI that develops the same way weither it has or has not early enemies.

First there would be the need of several continents not just 2 on Standard maps. And make so that not all continents are fullfilled with civs.

If necessary, increase the size of the map but not the size of the continents, so that water is bigger, in order to propose a shape of continents that is realistic. (not a range of continents from west to east) Maybe also, make so that several continents can touch?

Some of the continents would be deserts (or only autochtones under the form of goody huts), some others will have developped civs into them (under the form of true civs), some others will have a mix of city states and goody huts. (if this is possible)

But the thing is that the separation of entities (autochtones with goody huts, civilizations, barbarians, city states) makes a true Age of Conquest nearly impossible in Civ. That is one reason i always wanted them to be one only entity: civilizations. Because goody huts never rebel and it's not the same feeling to crush a weak civ (which can be fun, too) than going past peaceful huts that vanish.

But with only civilizations and no goody huts, barbarians or city states, in order to reach an Age of Conquest, yet is to determine what can create such gaps between civilizations on different continents and their level of technology.

First i thought about an important tech sharing phenomenon, increasing tech rate greatly with foreign civs. But it would make things difficult if the player starts alone on one continent.

After i thought about a civic tech tree. Indeed, if the player starts alone on a continent, he can choose to improve his cities efficiency rather than going techy. That way, his technology could be low, maybe very low, but the efficiency of his cities would be high, or very high. Like for example, spend money to research "democracy" in the civic tree, that doubles gold production, rather than spend money into "gunpowder" in the tech tree.

So, the civs encountered in some continent would not reach our level of technology, so that they are pretty easy conquests, if they choose the path of civics rather than tech. This, can be seen in Civ4 multiplayer on continental maps: human players do not develop like the AI, on multiple front. If they do not see any enemy close, they neglect their army. The thing now, is to feel when you have to start to develop your army, or you will be crushed by an invisible enemy that will attack you with brutality. With a civic tech tree (or a "better" AI) , that could now be the case for the AI.

Also, more generally, in Civ4, techs are not emphasised enough, because one have to produce a certain (high) quantity of units or gold in order to attack one inferior foe. It takes time and often the aimed foe developed meanwhile, and upgraded with its ridiculous upgrade advantages. And, realistically, nations have always been ready to fight a grand scale war as soon as the weapons were discovered. That's why an automatic upgrade for all units would be a good idea. Nations could go to war immediately after having reach a certain technology threshold. That would be the equivalent of the great Sun Tzu War Academy (or maybe it's Leonardo Workshop?) of Civ2. There would not be anymore this disapointful gap of time between a new tech and an invasion. And tech would be emphasised. So the tech gaps would be more such as an easy intercontinental conquest could exist.

Finally, i would say that differences between military eras in Civ4 are not enough marked. A conquest with a next generation weapon should be easy against the previous generation.

 

[globalempire]

you say that always one civ will have less technology. that however is not true. if you use the Native Amerindians then the only reason they did not tech sa fsata s europe was for a few simple reasons.

their lifestyles was more morale than that of europeans. just based ion the way culture grew

also they did not have horses, to plow field one basic ingenius invention that basically revolutionised europe. europe would not have been so powerful if it were not for plowing

also iron. they lacked iron. either they never found any or they just never bothered to try it. either way they lacked iron. one thing they just did not do was mine.

they could still be as technologically advanced as europe except there were resource constrainsst.

if they had resources such s those then they likely would have been on an equal footing.

but that is again not the deciding factor. technology was not what allowed the americas to be conquered. it was the fact that the europeans had absoulutely no sanitation. they were disease ridden and this is what killed most of the natives.

i would like to see the spread of diseases in game when you go to an new continent. so like extra unhealthiness. or soemthing or just implement it regularly

 

[Naokaukodem]

Thanks for your feedback globalempire.

I can hardly think that there is no copper or iron in America. I can be wrong, but i believe i saw somewhere that they indeed had metal objects and even weapons. As to horses, what about the mustang? Isn't it an american horse? So i just believe that they were indeed backwarded in the sense of technology - maybe more backwarded than it seems. (because inventions in the past were much slower) Same with salpeter, i can hardly believe that there is no salpeter in America. By the way, indian technology could not achieve gunpowder weapons.

If any, what i wish for Civ is a reproduction of american conquest. Maybe that was not for technology? Then, do it so that ressources are very important for any technological domain, much more important than actually in previous Civs, and make in sort than the different continents are far to be equal in this regard. But wouldn't it imbalance the game more? May be a problem.

Anyway, I think that the lack of ressources you claim indians had, is due to the lack of knwoledge they had of them. In term of Civ, this translates into technology. It takes way longer to learn to recognize and exploit land ressources than it takes to improve them and make a better use of them. I don't know, we are in the XXIth century, we have 6000 years of History, we can send rockets on the Moon and build nuclear plants, but how many time did it took in order to tame the fire? More than 6000 years if you ask me.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

There were no horses in North America until they were introduced by Europeans. And the only way they had metal objects was through trade with the Europeans. They just didn't know how to make metal objects out of what they had. And we are talking about North America, not India.

 

[Ahriman]

Mostly I really don't understand what you're trying to say here, but:

If any, what i wish for Civ is a reproduction of american conquest

Play Terra mapscript.

 

[Naokaukodem]

They just didn't know how to make metal objects out of what they had.

Then it's technological.

And we are talking about North America, not India.

Huh?

 

[DisAstro]

... I think that the lack of ressources you claim indians had ...

And we are talking about North America, not India.

Huh?

Indians is a term mostly used in high schools. Colombus thought he was going to the Indies, so when he arrived in what later was called America, he called the native peoples Indians. Mr. Baenre apparently feels that we should all speak on a semi-academic level, which translates in to the use of terms such as "Native Americans" or "Indigenous peoples of the Americas". Apparently, mr. Baenre didn't feel the need to explain this to you - he only wanted to establish a false sense of self-superiority, thus rendering his post a rejectable .

I say, eff him. Teach (that is, repeat what more wise people told you), or stfu, n00b. We all understand what Naokaukodem means.

Moderator Action: Flaming - warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Naokaukodem]

Indians is a term mostly used in high schools. Colombus thought he was going to the Indies, so when he arrived in what later was called America, he called the native peoples Indians. Mr. Baenre apparently feels that we should all speak on a semi-academic level, which translates in to the use of terms such as "Native Americans" or "Indigenous peoples of the Americas". Apparently, mr. Baenre didn't feel the need to explain this to you - he only wanted to establish a false sense of self-superiority, thus rendering his post a rejectable .

I say, eff him. Teach (that is, repeat what more wise people told you), or stfu, n00b. We all understand what Naokaukodem means.

Yeah I know that very simple thing, but i didn't want to take the pain to seem all worried and all that... the fact is that "indians" is common use, we see perfectly what i'm saying, so why say "not india"? Anyway, i don't want to bother.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I always disliked lack of proper colonialism in Civ. Unfortunately, barring pre-made maps, I don't really see how it can be modelled. Though with these new city states in Civ5, I guess something could be done.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Mostly I really don't understand what you're trying to say here

I'm just saying that in Civ all continental civs have approximatively the same degree of development, because they all start at 4000 B.C. and can tech all they want. It wasn't the case in reality, because it would be a miracle that two continental civs find themselves with the same degree of development exactly when they meet each others. So i'm trying to invent things in order that to be reflected in Civ.

 

[Earthling]

Answer to all of this - stop playing the equivalent of quick or marathon speeds.

*does that thing of rubbing your hands with a satisfied job well done*

 

[Naokaukodem]

Answer to all of this - stop playing the equivalent of quick or marathon speeds.

*does that thing of rubbing your hands with a satisfied job well done*

I play Quick (well sometimes Normal), but i fail to see how it would create differencies of technologies between two continents civs...

 

[Ahriman]

I'm just saying that in Civ all continental civs have approximatively the same degree of development, because they all start at 4000 B.C. and can tech all they want.

I don't observe this. Many times, on continents maps, a large continent with many civs (all tech trading with each other) and lots of resoruces and good terrain will be much more advanced than a separate smaller continent with only 1-2 civs and worse resources.

I play Quick (well sometimes Normal), but i fail to see how it would create differencies of technologies between two continents civs...

Actually it does. The main impact of changing game speed is to change unit movement speed relative to tech progress.

On quick speed, the time it takes for you to ferry your army over to a new continent is much longer relative to technological and economic change than it would be on normal or epic speed.

On quick speed, say 20 turns of transport time might allow your opponent to build many units and get several new techs, whereas on epic speed they might build a coupel of units and get 1-2 new techs.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I don't observe this. Many times, on continents maps, a large continent with many civs (all tech trading with each other) and lots of resoruces and good terrain will be much more advanced than a separate smaller continent with only 1-2 civs and worse resources.

It's not the general, for balance purposes. What i describe in the first post would balance things AND allow american conquests.

Actually it does. The main impact of changing game speed is to change unit movement speed relative to tech progress.

On quick speed, the time it takes for you to ferry your army over to a new continent is much longer relative to technological and economic change than it would be on normal or epic speed.

On quick speed, say 20 turns of transport time might allow your opponent to build many units and get several new techs, whereas on epic speed they might build a coupel of units and get 1-2 new techs.

Actually that's an argument for that:

Also, more generally, in Civ4, techs are not emphasised enough, because one have to produce a certain (high) quantity of units or gold in order to attack one inferior foe. It takes time and often the aimed foe developed meanwhile, and upgraded with its ridiculous upgrade advantages. And, realistically, nations have always been ready to fight a grand scale war as soon as the weapons were discovered. That's why an automatic upgrade for all units would be a good idea. Nations could go to war immediately after having reach a certain technology threshold. That would be the equivalent of the great Sun Tzu War Academy (or maybe it's Leonardo Workshop?) of Civ2. There would not be anymore this disapointful gap of time between a new tech and an invasion. And tech would be emphasised. So the tech gaps would be more such as an easy intercontinental conquest could exist.

The fact that in Civ5 units can travel over oceans without having to specifically build boats is a plus.