Welcome to CFC
jccorreu.
arty:
instead of using these labels, lets have more description of concepts and separate control to make our own perhaps never before experienced, concept combinations. i mean look at star trek, there is something like an egalitarian money-free society. it is not a far fetched fiction only concept, as any one who studies broadly knows.
I agree. Something like
this?
but how could we make that far departure actually something we can play with? how would things work differently if this modern world were pantheistic instead of vying monotheists? religious effects are not neccessarily based on time are they? maybe uncertainty about providing for oneself and safety and happiness and fear, and answers to how the world works is more important. but we do have many scientists who are also religious or something. were polytheistic cultures more tolerant of other religions than are monotheistic? is there a way to choose what is acceptable in a culture? who/what is tolerated and persecuted, legal, etc, and how does that effect the effectiveness of a society? things like religious freedom, sexuality, drugs, slavery, women in the military, patriarchy vs matriarchy, what have you. is service in the military compulsory, is there a standing army, or just militia when needed? i mean imagine how the usa would be different if we did that like some other nations have?
I agree, but have no idea how this level of complexity could be successfully integrated into the game. You could put some of these options, if used reasonably basically, into the game, whilst still maintaining playability, but you cannot have too much complexity, for the sheer reason that if one thing is complex, than everything else has to be, also.
But, yeah, some more complexity and level of choice should be added to the game.
another point is that the more the game has the longer it will remain interesting. and i do want more customization of units, buildings, etc, to reflect the nation i'm playing.
I think almost everyone would like to see more uniques, to a certain extent (such as is suggested
here). However, you don't want to end up making every civ completely different, or game balance will be put in danger. No matter how level you try and make the playing field, there will always be anomalies, and the more uniques you have, the more frequent, or inhibiting, these anomalies will become.
some of their ideas were colonization underwater, taking the game further into the space race, futuristic combat and buildings for later into the game, it takes a sci-fi like approach once you surpass current levels, and different approaches to religion and politics.
The Civ series is designed to emulate history, or at least allow a play on a historical basis. The simple fact is that the future is not part of history. So, while it might be a good idea to some extent, I wouldn't want any futuristic features to dominate the game, or diminish the rest of the game.
i'd like to see more environmental effects on cities and troops and etc... as well as natural disasters, epidemics. i mean look at the issues we face currently as our population exceeds 6 billion and we are concerned about resources. overfishing, rivers that no longer reach their destinations because we drain them off for out use, etc... whether or not the fears are true, they effect decision making and actions.
I would also. At the moment, there is global warming, but it does not do nearly enough.
If resources were limited and quantified, sustainable use could be a factor over time (think oil and fish).
It would be nice, but how would it be practical? 9 directions is enough, IMO.
i want more ways to be successful with a civ than just conquering the world by force.
You'd get along quite well with rysmiel.
I also concur.
in real life, of course it just keeps going. but we do find ways of living with different nations, etc sharing this planet. i want more extensive, complex, trading and economics. also the way government and economics and society is handled is too simplistic, instead of giving more separate flexibility over what is really different things, though complimentary.
money/gold... i know that most of our world these days runs on this model of exchange system. but it has not always been so. money was an "invention", the idea that some common material could be used as a facilitator of trade, whereas before it was barter. can anyone think of a way to not make that an integral part, i.e. a requirement, of playing a nation?
I also think that economics in the game needs some added complexity, but not to an unusable degree. One of my favourite ideas from this site is
this. However, I don't want to have to micromanage my precious free time away. I want to be having fun playing a fun game, with some level of complexity and decision making.
did any of you ever see the addition to sim city that took one of your cities and created a 3d first person version model of it that you could explore? just for fun i think it'd be neat to add that to this. of course we could take it a step further and then have sim city like management of each city. we could even make it multi-player, where instead of one nation ruler, we could have a network 0f people playing different roles in levels of government. team play within one nation, alongside team play of other nations.
One of my other favourite ideas was that of city states (I can't remember what thread it was in), whereby you were the head of a particular city, who had to shore up support to make it to the top, and then worry about internal politics in the managing of your empire, as well as external affairs. This would be used as a way of prioritising city happiness and healthiness, with rival politicians looking for any excuse to remove you. This could be expanded to suit many forms of government also, including parliamentary democracy, monarchy (you would be the head of a noble family), police state (you would be a general, with other rival generals), etc.
alot of people have talked about the timeline aspect. i have always felt that i got too little time in the ancient and medieval periods, that the game was too heavily weighted, in play time, in the modern era. i have usually played max size, max nations, etc, for long games, and the number of hours i spent as a modern technical society was a few times what it took for me to get there. true they were trying to make the point that until the past 1-2 hundred years advances were extremely slow, but with the way 1500 years go by in a few rounds it sure does not feel that way.
Part of this comes from the fact that a lot of your earlier turns merely consist of clicking 'Next turn', whereas in the modern era, each turn takes at least a few minutes.
why have one character you play for 4k years? your ruler ought to change with time/age, and government. we can look back at the histories of lots of places and get many personas to provide a line of rulers to play. and that would teach people more about the histories of those people and nations anyway. i've always found it interesting the bits of our real world evolution that we learned or were inspired to learn more about while playing civ. the advances and wonders movies and pictures and summaries, again can be turned on or off.
See two points above.
i also want more ocean going emphasis. time at sea takes awhile to move. there really are not sea battles here. there are pirates, and supply lines, and trade. ancient and modern.
See further above for link.
as for tech and inventions etc... just because you know of something does not mean you have to use it. take automobiles for instance. what if the united states were to shift away from the personal auto? it would change the ways we built our cities. public transport, trains, less reliance on transport trucks. this would alter resource usage. this might change peoples health habits and social interactions, a foot based society does act differently in ways.
There is a point, IMHO, where the game becomes too complicated. I think this is past that point. Once you are worrying about modes of metropolitan transportation, it is obvious that micromanagement would be tedious. So, I too think it sounds like a good idea, but it probably wouldn't work.
and what about global criminal syndicates? mafia, yakuza, the new-world order,
the illuminatti, i don't know
and other non-national entities. there is a little of this with the religions being able to sow dissent, or with the corporations, both of which everyone agrees need work. but take it further. it'd be fun to create an "underground nation" which has no physical boundaries, but operates all over the place. to kind of dissappear but still play. or maybe as an alternative to game over if your nation is conqeuered. make a more web-like resource management schema.
Don't read so much Dan Brown.
Perhaps this would work as a mod, or perhaps not. It would be hard to fit it into the Civ game, anyway. Perhaps as an entirely separate game.
Thanks for all the ideas.
