Civ 4 Idea

[Ad Hominem]

I find this "dynamic" system of changing governments/civs/traits a very interesting one, but it's awfully hard to implement into a pretty linear game like Civilization.

There coule be introduced such a system, but I think its flaws would be so many, that it could bring the whining Civ-community (ie. us ) to the verge of self-disposal

Anyway, to point out a couple obvious (as should be) points:

There is not a single European nation today that could be considered "ethnicly pure". That's nazi rubish. Some examples:

French: Franks (Germanic) mixed with Gauls (celtic) Roman and Greek elements, with a Roman (latin) influenced language.

Spanish: Celts, Iberes, Romans, mixed with Germanic (Gothic) elements and with a Latin language and strong influences by the Arabs.

British (English, actually): Angles, Saxons, Celts, Piktes, Normans (Vikings) are in the mix here, with a grain of Roman influence and a Germanic language.

...and the list goes on. So, how would you define the turn your civ would be taking? Because that "mixture" doesn't work in game terms.

 

[macaskil]

In CTP2 if a city revolts (either due to unhappiness or incited by a spy) it forms a new civ.

 

[Ad Hominem]

Originally posted by macaskil
In CTP2 if a city revolts (either due to unhappiness or incited by a spy) it forms a new civ.

Err... you are not suggesting CTP2 is a stellar example for Civ3 (4... whatever) to follow?

The idea is nice and neat. The implementation sucks from head to toes.

 

[vulture]

Originally posted by Ad Hominem
I find this "dynamic" system of changing governments/civs/traits a very interesting one, but it's awfully hard to implement into a pretty linear game like Civilization.

.......
There is not a single European nation today that could be considered "ethnicly pure". That's nazi rubish. Some examples:

This is exactly how it can work. There is no ethnic "Purtiy" So we could have a ethnic tree. There is no Roman Civilization today, but look at how many Western civilizations claim Rome as part of their culture heritage. In The middle east every nation there claims some kinship the the mighty persians. No one nation can claim to be the one true inheritor to Roman culture even though Rome tried to claim itself the one true inheritor of Greek culture.

I would like to try to devise a "cradle of civilization" concept. Take several cradle civilizations and have them fragment and change. At each government change you could elect to have a civil-war and have to fight instead of a piriod of anarchy.

I'm not saying re-play history but I would like to bring a more epic feel to the game.

 

[Quafel Asmar]

I think that if they move forward with this idea it needs a lot of work. I would not mind the concept of doing some social engineering with my civilization, but I certainly don't want to be forced to change names and characteristics.

If you allowed some sort of social engineering based on the techs you had researched then a window could pop up when you have come out of anarchy with the social options that you are eleigible for. In the same way a civ tree could determine the possible civilizations you could change into. This would allow the starting civs to be truly ancient cultures and still allow those who want to eventually end up as the Americans or English to avoid those nasty anachronisms.

 

[Dervish]

Originally posted by vulture


This is exactly how it can work. There is no ethnic "Purtiy" So we could have a ethnic tree.

I agree, ethnic tree is needed, it will add more diversity, more complexity and more closeness to History.

 

[macaskil]

No need to be rude about CTP2. I'm aware of its faults, but it does have some good ideas.

I think the problem here is that a civilization is not the same as an empire. This is especially the case today when there are no empires as such; the world is organised into nation states, some of which are part of a larger group such as OPEC, NAFTA, NATO, the EU and so on, which are not really empires though sometimes behaving as such.

The dominant civilization today is "Western" but it is difficult to say what this actually consists of. In some senses the USA and Europe are both part of this civilization; however Afghanistan has shown that they are not united in the political or military sense - each has its own agenda, so the West could not in gaming terms be represented as a single entity. Most countries in the world today have adopted some elements of the dominant civilization - democracy, capitalism, free trade, welfare state, and so on. However each country also asserts its independence to a greater or lesser extent, and may have its own culture or religion.

At a sub-national level, different languages, religions and ethnic groups co-exist within the same countries. Often people may identify more with people of the same culture, race or religion in another country than with fellow countrymen. Often a part of a country expresses a desire for independence (Quebec, Chechnya, Ezkadi); or there may be a desire to unite with another country (Cyprus and Greece)

How all this could be modelled in a $50 computer game is difficult to imagine. It would have to model

- race
- religion
- language
- ethnic group (not always defined by the above)
- national feeling
- nation states
- supra-national bodies
- United Nations

How long would a turn take?

The problem with having civs change throughout the game is that you as the human player need to maintain a consistent identity throughout the game. If your civ has a revolution it cannot actually depose you and elect the AI in your place!

 

[Ad Hominem]

This task is far beyond anything that could be simulated by a computer game right now. Yes, probably such a game would be the Everest of the games, and it would probably be so complex that only geniouses could fare through it succesfuly.

Keep in mind that we are indeed talking about a 50$ game, not a simulation of 6000 years of human history. Not possible to implement the factors you mentioned and also a couple of dozen more you left out - not to mention that at the same time you should make it appealing to the mass audience.

And actually the mass audience - given that for instance the most popular game in USA was... "The Sims" - wouldn't be able to dive into such a complex thing as real history. Most people have less than a dimm vision of history and know even less of sociology, economics etc. - how do you expect such an audience to like such a complex game as the one you are suggesting?

And... to your other point, I am not "rude" towards CTP2 (no, I won't ask you how one can be rude towards a piece of software... ) I think Activision (they published the game, right?) was the one being "rude" towards it... VERY rude.

 

[vulture]

Originally posted by macaskil
How all this could be modelled in a $50 computer game is difficult to imagine. It would have to model

- race
- religion
- language
- ethnic group (not always defined by the above)
- national feeling
- nation states
- supra-national bodies
- United Nations

There is no reason that everything has to be included. Like all things in life you need to pick what is "easy" and what is important to you. Other wise you will will end up sending an encyplopedia set for a manual.

The ethnic tree idea is complex as it is lets not bring religion into it! *shudder!*

 

[siredgar]

Why don't you just say that they should allow civ name changes during the game? It would open more options such as changing other civ names and if they allow colonies to declare independence or breakaway, you can name them.

 

[RobertBaratheon]

<<The problem with having civs change throughout the game is that you as the human player need to maintain a consistent identity throughout the game. If your civ has a revolution it cannot actually depose you and elect the AI in your place!>>

ive had this thought before. perhaps, a different civ might elect you to lead them, and you could continue in control of that civ.

 

[Rich]

Originally posted by RobertBaratheon
<<The problem with having civs change throughout the game is that you as the human player need to maintain a consistent identity throughout the game. If your civ has a revolution it cannot actually depose you and elect the AI in your place!>>

ive had this thought before. perhaps, a different civ might elect you to lead them, and you could continue in control of that civ.

Nah...
To much like Championship Manager or anyother Sports Management game.


However assassinating other leaders would be cool. They could be replaced by another AI or say a puppet government you control.

 

[Dervish]

Vulture,
In addition to the ethnic tree I would add some other trees like religious tree, starting from very primitive beliefs of prehistoric people to going from paganism to witchcraft, idolatry, fetishism (meaning not sniffing at women's underwear or not admiring lacy stockinged female legs, though, they are not bad either!!!!) and getting it complex up to polytheism, ditheism, pantheism (oh!, there are so many isms there!) and eventually to monotheism, of course, atheism and agnostics should be taken into account too, their impact on the course of History can be meausured. Plus, Communists' rage and negation of any religion!!

And social management tree meaning Government types, starting from Nomadic chieftains, despots, tyrans ruling tribes of only among your kins people, and getting diverse ruling over several tribes, cities to Monarchy and so on, including Theocracy, Republic, Oligarchy, and so many archies, I think we will leave it to Sid team to figure out how and what.

The ethnic tree can be introduced to this game in the following manner, for example you choose to play Indo-European tribe (you choose it from starting menu, among Afro-Asian, Asian, American tribes (American here doesn't mean US only)) - the leader's face and name would reflect mostly Indo-European hairy arse people features, blonde hair, blue eyes and etc. Same goes for Afro-Asian, Asian and American tribes, they were all too hairy and raggy and crude at that time with their own specific pecularities.

And then upon accumulating certain amount of wealth, knowledge, science, culture, religion, technology and social development, people get more versatile, to the extent that they don't want to be in one tribe only they start splitting into further tribes, (in your case, if you chose Indo-Euros, your tribe splits further into Germanic, Romance, Slavic, Celtic and etc. tribes).

And these get split further in the same manner - Slavic into Russian, Polish, Checz, Serbian, Croatian!!! Hey, you know all of that!!!

So at the beginning you start with very few players, one, two, three, and primitive trees running smoothly, to the end you end up playing with so many trees and nations and your off-spring, that get too complex - that you hooked on this only one game forever!!!!

 

[elfstorm]

Most people here are talking rubbish!

Civ3 is a game not a history simulation. (And there are many other historical inaccuraces which could be corrected).

How about an option to change your Civ's name? (In game obviously) Would that keep you all happy?

As I said Earlier changing from, say, Frank to French or Angle to English is stupid.

The French ARE not Franks. They are a people who emerged after centuries of inbreeding between Romans, Celts, Franks, Goths and numerous other peoples.

Same with the English, Scottish, everyone infact.

The game is Civilisation, not tribal chieften sim.