SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
ETW doesn't allow me to build cool stuff like the Statue of Liberty, Three Gorges Dam, and the Space Elevator.
Civ V Ideas & Suggestions Summary
- Thread starter Camikaze
- Start date
What is the focus of the game? I thought it was a global civilization simulator.
I don't understand how you can have that without also simulating certain aspects of war and economy.
If I am wrong and Civ 2-4+ are just simulating Civ 1 then perhaps niklas is correct.
I don't want Civ 5 as much as I want CtP 3.
But I don't care about the difference between CtP and Civ X. Its like arguing between command and conquer and total annihilation/supreme commander. They both have their place in the RTS world.
It is completely ridiculous that the Civ genre is entirely dependent upon a single game.
Empire building turn based strategy. So, sure, war is a crucial part of that, but my point is that the focus should not be on individual battles and the tactical (as opposed to strategic) minutiae of them. IMHO, diverging from a simplistic combat system would create that focus.
Combined arms is hardly minutiae, and single battles are certainly nothing less than strategic in a genre like Civilization. Most especially when every serious battle in CtP takes place with no less than 9 units on each side of the field. If anything it makes it quite a bit more strategic.
You might as well say buildings are minutiae. You don't need them for an empire, they just make your cities more complicated.
There is nothing complicated about stacks.
You should really play CtP. It is obvious you don't really understand how it works at all. Easy as can be. Just pump out stack after stack of units and move them at your enemies. All you have to do is combine them into proportionate stacks of 9 as they close in on their destination.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
I really want borders by the time Nationalism is discovered to start being based more on political boundaries negotiated by sovereign political powers. Great Artist bombs rub me the wrong way in terms of realistic gameplay.
Perhaps a fixed borders improvement? Regions do revolt if they are culturally different to their owner, so I think that fixed borders, the ability to gift land and influence driven war is a good way to go in the modern era
Silv Something
Pi(e) Loving Maniac
An improvement, like a worker would make, or something else?
The major problem with fixed borders, or borders negotiated through diplomacy, is that is it rather unbalancing, heavily favouring militaristic nations over culture based one. It gives the most powerful civs even more power.
However, it does seem unrealistic to have borders solely determined on the basis of culture. The solution to this dilemma that I support is having the same culture determined borders, but creating a limited annexation system, whereby you can take individual tiles without necessarily going into a full scale war. It would mean that you could have a degree of control over borders, whilst not creating a situation in which the leading civs can just negotiate for all the land in the world, giving them further advantage.
However, it does seem unrealistic to have borders solely determined on the basis of culture. The solution to this dilemma that I support is having the same culture determined borders, but creating a limited annexation system, whereby you can take individual tiles without necessarily going into a full scale war. It would mean that you could have a degree of control over borders, whilst not creating a situation in which the leading civs can just negotiate for all the land in the world, giving them further advantage.
ZooMan2
Warlord
Absolutely agree ... in fact I would go further and say that culture by itself never creates borders in real life - certainly not in modern times and in truth not in historical times either ... culture is a part of political power that establishes borders ... and lack of cultural support leads to wars when the borders are not in line with the culture of the governed. But the idea that a city is going to switch from one country to another based on culture ... or that key resources are going to go from being one countries to another based on a shift of local attitude - both are ludicrous and reflect a failed root concept in Civ4 that culture is more important than power.
Ahovking
Cyber Nations
i want to be able to get into a debt and then get interest and if you cant pay of the debt you can become a failed state.
Silv Something
Pi(e) Loving Maniac
You can access the civopedia in-game. It the farthest-right button in the top-right corner.
Has happened a lot in history, including modern times. "Culture" in the game represents an empire's influence and economic sway, not just oil paintings and fine cuisine.
What is "political power"? And if culture is a part of it as you say, and it establishes borders, then... what's your argument against culture establishing borders?
This could be semantics. You may be misunderstanding what "culture" represents in the game.
(IMO, the culture bomb is overpowered.)
ZooMan2
Warlord
In real life national borders never move without military (or sometimes economic) power to back it up and or agreement between the nations involved. If you think it has happened a lot - cite some real life examples and prove it - if you do your research I think you'll find out that culture by itself never changes borders - it is always combined with military and economic power factors (historically religion, which is often cited as another power factor has actually just been another way of acquiring and applying military and economic power)
In the game I can lose a productive mine, farm or critical resouce simply because my neighbor builds a new wonder - that shouldn't happen and that is what should be taken out of the game.
Culture by itself does not change borders - see the argument above ... and that is the argument against culture defining borders in the game.
Well there may be some semantics involved here ("political power" vs "culture") but reality is that national "borders" do not change in the modern world without armed force or economic powere to back up the change ... but they do in the game - that is what I object to. In fact borders are frequently defined by landscape (rivers, lakes and mountains) and they are agreed by the political entities involved ... and they don't change arbitrarily because some local artist created a great work! Check out the US/Candian border which has not changed since it was established despite the fact that the US has become a much stronger cultural entity than Canada ... ditto for Mexico, South America and the Caribean.
Not only is the culture bomb overpowered, culture in general is overpowered.
And I do understand the concept of culture and why Soren and company added it to Civ4 ... but what they were attempting to do and what they achieved are two different things ... culture is not a bad concept it just needs to be refined and have different influences - in particular it should not define or move national borders - that should happen in negotiation or through some other process that includes factoring in military and economic strength (the "power" factors).
At least that is my $0.02.
Culture isn't "by itself" in the game. That's the fundamental point you're missing. For instance, you mention religion as a "power factor" that translates into military and economic power. Well stated. So why aren't you seeing the obvious in-game analog? Religious buildings generate culture points that can move borders. It's not the nice Gregorian chants and the stained glass that's doing it, its the religious power.
You can convert
into 
with the culture slider - an in-game means of literally and directly translating economic power into cultural power. You've said that economic power is a factor in border movements, and right there is the in-game analog.
Then there's what goes into building a wonder: lots and lots of
. The wonder is much more than just a nice thing to look at. All those hammers get converted into economic, political, or military influence, depending on the nature of the wonder.
"Borders" in the game aren't as literal as you are making them out to be. The "border" in game represents the limits of political and economic influence, not where the line on a map is drawn. If you're seeing the border in the game as where the border is drawn on a map, then that's where you're going wrong. It's only a game, so there isn't a perfect correspondence to reality, but it's not that far off if you aren't understanding the border in-game as a line on a map. Granted it can break down on details like when you lose 100% of a mine's output just because your pop is now 49% instead of 51%.
Take 'em one at a time:
Canada's border hasn't changed on the map, but culturally and economically it's increasingly difficult to draw a line between US/Canada. Citizens cross freely, they share a power grid, their economies and language are interlocked - the cultural boundary is more relevant in relation to game mechanics than a literal map boundary.
Mexico? Dude, all of Texas used to be part of Mexico. Mexico lost Texas to flipping. Texas' cities became increasingly American with immigration (cultural influence changing the % population), then they revolted (1:1 correspondence to in-game), then Texas joined the U.S. There's hardly a better example of culture-flipping to be found in the history books. As for the present, the physical boundary is the Rio Grande, but the cultural and economic boundary is very blurry.
South America: Canal Zone, for one. Taken by the U.S., flipped (or gifted, depending on how you want to argue it) back.
Caribbean: visit Miami. It's being called "the capital of the Caribbean". American influence is all over the Caribbean, but Caribbean influence is heavy in Miami. Then there's Puerto Rico, where plebiscites run 40-something% to 50-something% in favor of independence. In this region, too, the economic and political boundaries are much blurrier than the lines on the map.
Other examples: Russia's annexation of Bessarabia in 1939 (1940?) (border push). Germany's annexation of the Sudentenland (another border push, and I know what you're thinking, but Germany was still militarily weaker than the other powers that let it happen - it was perception of Germany's power and dominance - "culture" - more than Germany's actual threat that moved the border). Look up the history of Alsace-Lorraine - flip-flop, flip-flop. And let's not forget E. Germany culture-flipping back to Germany. Then there's E. Europe - is the EU culture-pushing Russia's borders? Could make a case for it.
You can convert
into with the culture slider - an in-game means of literally and directly translating economic power into cultural power. You've said that economic power is a factor in border movements, and right there is the in-game analog.Then there's what goes into building a wonder: lots and lots of
. The wonder is much more than just a nice thing to look at. All those hammers get converted into economic, political, or military influence, depending on the nature of the wonder."Borders" in the game aren't as literal as you are making them out to be. The "border" in game represents the limits of political and economic influence, not where the line on a map is drawn. If you're seeing the border in the game as where the border is drawn on a map, then that's where you're going wrong. It's only a game, so there isn't a perfect correspondence to reality, but it's not that far off if you aren't understanding the border in-game as a line on a map. Granted it can break down on details like when you lose 100% of a mine's output just because your pop is now 49% instead of 51%.
Take 'em one at a time:
Canada's border hasn't changed on the map, but culturally and economically it's increasingly difficult to draw a line between US/Canada. Citizens cross freely, they share a power grid, their economies and language are interlocked - the cultural boundary is more relevant in relation to game mechanics than a literal map boundary.
Mexico? Dude, all of Texas used to be part of Mexico. Mexico lost Texas to flipping. Texas' cities became increasingly American with immigration (cultural influence changing the % population), then they revolted (1:1 correspondence to in-game), then Texas joined the U.S. There's hardly a better example of culture-flipping to be found in the history books. As for the present, the physical boundary is the Rio Grande, but the cultural and economic boundary is very blurry.
South America: Canal Zone, for one. Taken by the U.S., flipped (or gifted, depending on how you want to argue it) back.
Caribbean: visit Miami. It's being called "the capital of the Caribbean". American influence is all over the Caribbean, but Caribbean influence is heavy in Miami. Then there's Puerto Rico, where plebiscites run 40-something% to 50-something% in favor of independence. In this region, too, the economic and political boundaries are much blurrier than the lines on the map.
Other examples: Russia's annexation of Bessarabia in 1939 (1940?) (border push). Germany's annexation of the Sudentenland (another border push, and I know what you're thinking, but Germany was still militarily weaker than the other powers that let it happen - it was perception of Germany's power and dominance - "culture" - more than Germany's actual threat that moved the border). Look up the history of Alsace-Lorraine - flip-flop, flip-flop. And let's not forget E. Germany culture-flipping back to Germany. Then there's E. Europe - is the EU culture-pushing Russia's borders? Could make a case for it.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
That's a great example.
Great Artists are pretty underpowered as is. I see no need to reduce the benefit that they give. Sure, it might be annoying, and it might seem to be unrealistic, but it does work well as a mechanism through which the very realistic idea of individual geniuses contributing greatly to culture, solidifying influence for that culture, can be represented.
Silv Something
Pi(e) Loving Maniac
There is too much GA hate on this forum. They are extremely useful in wars and also in the early era. Who doesn't like to culture flip those nearby cities? Sure, they aren't like the other GPs, but you get what you get.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
I'd just like them to be justified, is all.
Similar threads
