Colonial Civilizations

[Kurlemushe]

I liked the Colonies idea of Civ IV and would like it to return with some improvements.
1) Colonies might not only be released but also declare an independence themselves, given long separation/distance from motherland and/or other criteria; You may then grant it and get them as allies or fight Independence War with them. If successful, colony is back as part of motherland.
2) Special Colony Civs and/or Colony Leaders for existing Civs.

For example,
Gandhi would be a colonial leader for India (if India was not in game at the start)
Washington for America (if America was not at the start)
Mándela for South Africa
Bolivar for (Gran) Columbia
Hannibal for Carthage
Other Colonies could be Canada, Australia (other leader), Philippines, Indonesia (other leader), Argentina, Mexico, Finland (why not? ), etc, etc.

Colonial leaders would have their own agendas and some serious boosts to catch up with rest of world.
(Maybe give an option for player to switch over to manage former colony?).

Colonies might appear based on Era.
I.e. if first split happens early, then those would be Carthage, maybe some important Roman or Chinese colonies. Maybe even England (lead by Arthur) or Byzantium as Roman “colony”.
If later then more known America, Mexico, etc would appear.

Hope was not too chaotic in my post. This is very raw idea.

 

[Kurlemushe]

So, this is how it may look like.

1) I play with Peter’s Russia. I establish cities on another continent. As soon as I do this, Great Liberator (GL) points start to accrue (based on city number, size, distance from capital, etc).
Other Civs might use spies to boost GL points.
I might use some cards, techs or wonders or happiness in those cities to decrease GL points generation.

2) When GL points reach threshold a new Civ is created from <Colonial Civs> list. For example, Nelson Mandela’s South Africans.
And I got 3 choices:
- let them be (they become ally and independent)
- fight Independence War against them (goes like normal war but maybe with lower war weariness modifiers, etc)
- become them (if you got Playable Colonial Civs expansion )

3) new Civ got some boosts, so it can actually have a chance to fight for victory

<Colonial Civs List>
... lots of options..
Washington America
Gandhi India
Mándela South Africa
Hannibal Carthage
Bolivar Gran Colombia
Sukarno Indonesia
Jose Rizal Philippines
Ho Chi Minh Vietnam
Garibaldi Italy
Pedro I Brasil
...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I liked the Colonies idea of Civ IV and would like it to return with some improvements.
1) Colonies might not only be released but also declare an independence themselves, given long separation/distance from motherland and/or other criteria; You may then grant it and get them as allies or fight Independence War with them. If successful, colony is back as part of motherland.
2) Special Colony Civs and/or Colony Leaders for existing Civs.

For example,
Gandhi would be a colonial leader for India (if India was not in game at the start)
Washington for America (if America was not at the start)
Mándela for South Africa
Bolivar for (Gran) Columbia
Hannibal for Carthage
Other Colonies could be Canada, Australia (other leader), Philippines, Indonesia (other leader), Argentina, Mexico, Finland (why not? ), etc, etc.

Colonial leaders would have their own agendas and some serious boosts to catch up with rest of world.
(Maybe give an option for player to switch over to manage former colony?).

Colonies might appear based on Era.
I.e. if first split happens early, then those would be Carthage, maybe some important Roman or Chinese colonies. Maybe even England (lead by Arthur) or Byzantium as Roman “colony”.
If later then more known America, Mexico, etc would appear.

Hope was not too chaotic in my post. This is very raw idea.

Biggest Colonizer I know of in the earlier periods was Greece. At the very end of the 'Greek Dark Age' after the Bronze Age Mycenean Kingdoms fell apart, about the 8th to the 6th Centuries BCE, the Greeks established city-state colonies all over the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Some of these became very important cities later on, like Massala (modern Marseilles) that may have spread alphabetic writing to the Gauls, and a bunch of cities along the coast of the Black Sea that served as major trading entrepôts wth the Scythians and were the source of large amounts of grain imported to Athens that made her brief Delian League Empire possible.

Point being, earlier colonies might start Civs, but more likely they will spawn new City States.

A mechanism based on 'revolting colonies' that results in new City States would add quite a bit of dynamic possibility to the game without 'relegating' some Civilizations to Later In The Game Colonial Status.

 

[Zaarin]

The Phoenicians were pretty prolific early colonizers as well, with colonies on many of the islands in the Mediterranean (including Cyprus, Sicily, and the Balearics), throughout North Africa (including Daphne in Egypt), Anatolia, and Spain. Many of the western colonies ultimately fell under the sway of Qart Ḥadast (Carthage). Another Qart Ḥadast (it literally means "new city," because humans are so creative at naming Cf. Novgorod, Newton, etc.) became Cartagena in Spain. Also Cadiz (from Punic Gadir, cf. Hebrew geder, "wall").

 

[Kurlemushe]

Perhaps until Industrial era they may turn into City States, but after that into Civilizations on their own?

But I got the point about being “relegated to ...”. To avoid this some Civs might simply be added Liberator leader where appropriate who would lead such a revolting colony/Civilization in case original leader/Civ was not in game.

From current ones
America - Washington
Indonesia - Sukarno
India - Gandhi
Australia - ?
Rome? - Garibaldi
France - Charles De Gaulle

 

[acluewithout]

I like the idea of colonial cities potentially rebelling and becoming their own thing. But I think it should work together with the existing loyalty system rather than through some new mechanic.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Perhaps until Industrial era they may turn into City States, but after that into Civilizations on their own?

But I got the point about being “relegated to ...”. To avoid this some Civs might simply be added Liberator leader where appropriate who would lead such a revolting colony/Civilization in case original leader/Civ was not in game.

From current ones
America - Washington
Indonesia - Sukarno
India - Gandhi
Australia - ?
Rome? - Garibaldi
France - Charles De Gaulle

It appears to me that you are discussing here is the Post Colonial Revolutionary movements of the 20th century, primarily. I think acluewithout
is on the right track, then, by tying the 'revolutions' to the Loyalty mechanism.
Right now, there are so many possible additions to Loyalty for cities on 'foreign' continents that I, at least, have never seen a 'colony' have any Loyalty issues. Change that, and perhaps give a Negative Boost to Loyalty for cities on foreign continents when, say, the majority of Civs in the game have the Civic Nationalism (Industrial Era). Presto! Colonies Revolting due to low Loyalty. Might even introduce a mechanism where in some cases having a Garrison causes lower Loyalty ('Colonial Occupiers') instead of higher.

Then, to tie back to your original post and the one I quoted here, some cities that revolt, instead of becoming 'Free Cities' might get a Revolutionary Leader (Sukarno, Gandhi, Lenin, Garibaldi, etc - NOT De Gaulle, who was reactionary rather than revolutionary) and become a new City State - renamed, and possibly with brand new characteristics, potential Resources and uniques.

Allowing such City States to 'expand' into new Civs is, I think, another new can of worms, because while I would love a dynamic game in which the Civs and City States that start the game can change, grow, disappear, split and 'morph' into new Civs and City States, it introduces new mechanics that no Civ game has ever had. Come to think of it (hope, hope!) maybe thats what Firaxis was hinting at for the next expansion?

 

[acluewithout]

It appears to me that you are discussing here is the Post Colonial Revolutionary movements of the 20th century, primarily. I think acluewithout
is on the right track, then, by tying the 'revolutions' to the Loyalty mechanism.
Right now, there are so many possible additions to Loyalty for cities on 'foreign' continents that I, at least, have never seen a 'colony' have any Loyalty issues. Change that, and perhaps give a Negative Boost to Loyalty for cities on foreign continents when, say, the majority of Civs in the game have the Civic Nationalism (Industrial Era). Presto! Colonies Revolting due to low Loyalty. Might even introduce a mechanism where in some cases having a Garrison causes lower Loyalty ('Colonial Occupiers') instead of higher.

Then, to tie back to your original post and the one I quoted here, some cities that revolt, instead of becoming 'Free Cities' might get a Revolutionary Leader (Sukarno, Gandhi, Lenin, Garibaldi, etc - NOT De Gaulle, who was reactionary rather than revolutionary) and become a new City State - renamed, and possibly with brand new characteristics, potential Resources and uniques.

Allowing such City States to 'expand' into new Civs is, I think, another new can of worms, because while I would love a dynamic game in which the Civs and City States that start the game can change, grow, disappear, split and 'morph' into new Civs and City States, it introduces new mechanics that no Civ game has ever had. Come to think of it (hope, hope!) maybe thats what Firaxis was hinting at for the next expansion?

Good points.

Two more things. First, gameplay-wise, colonial cities already don’t quite provide enough benefit for the cost involved. If colonial cities are now going to have loyalty problems too, then colonies need to be buffed. That doesn’t necessarily require any massive new mechanics. It could be as simple as lighthouses and markets give an additional +1 gold on foreign continents (which would synergise with the existing colonial cards).

Second, as I’ve posted before, the game could use another layer of antagonist between city states and other civs. One way to do that would be to have free cities from industrial onwards behave more like civs. They could expand with settlers and you could send trade routes, but they wouldn’t have Civ abilities etc and diplomatically be a lot like CS. They would hopefully then play into any new vassal or world congress etc mechanics. Ideally, there would also be a chance barbs might flip into free cities to help fill up the map, and that city states could also expand out into little 2-3 city empires.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Good points.

Two more things. First, gameplay-wise, colonial cities already don’t quite provide enough benefit for the cost involved. If colonial cities are now going to have loyalty problems too, then colonies need to be buffed. That doesn’t necessarily require any massive new mechanics. It could be as simple as lighthouses and markets give an additional +1 gold on foreign continents (which would synergise with the existing colonial cards)..

Historically, classical to renaissance Colonies were to drain off excess population, exploit 'rare' or exotic Resources and trade with the locals, including what in Civ terms are 'Barbarian Camps'. I've suggested elsewhere that some 'Camps' should be sources for Resources and Trade Route destinations. Civ also needs a better algorithm for distributing Resources, in that some resources should be unique only to certain continents/areas of the map so that there is a really good Economic Reason to settle colonies there. If 1/3 of the Amenity resources are across the ocean, settling a colony to access them will frequently be Mandatory by the Renaissance or Industrial Era. Couple that with the possibility of getting 'exotic' resources or units from 'Barbarians' far away, and colonies start making the same sense that they did for the Europeans in the 15th century.

Second, as I’ve posted before, the game could use another layer of antagonist between city states and other civs. One way to do that would be to have free cities from industrial onwards behave more like civs. They could expand with settlers and you could send trade routes, but they wouldn’t have Civ abilities etc and diplomatically be a lot like CS. They would hopefully then play into any new vassal or world congress etc mechanics. Ideally, there would also be a chance barbs might flip into free cities to help fill up the map, and that city states could also expand out into little 2-3 city empires.

As said, I've proposed a 'new concept' for Barbarians that would make some of them, at least, potential sources for Resources, Trade, and even Mercenary Units. IF we add in Revolutionary Leaders to some of the 'Free Cities' then those kinds of leaders might also appear in an ordinary City State, perhaps under very specific conditions: City was conquered by one civ and then liberated in an Emergency, for instance. That would give us a specific mechanism for some City States/Free Cities to start turning into 'Minor' (or Regular) Civs in the middle-late game, but it wouldn't be a majority of City States in any given game or even in most of them. The possibility alone, though, would make the late game more dynamic and interesting...

 

[acluewithout]

Historically, classical to renaissance Colonies were to drain off excess population, exploit 'rare' or exotic Resources and trade with the locals, including what in Civ terms are 'Barbarian Camps'. I've suggested elsewhere that some 'Camps' should be sources for Resources and Trade Route destinations. Civ also needs a better algorithm for distributing Resources, in that some resources should be unique only to certain continents/areas of the map so that there is a really good Economic Reason to settle colonies there. If 1/3 of the Amenity resources are across the ocean, settling a colony to access them will frequently be Mandatory by the Renaissance or Industrial Era. Couple that with the possibility of getting 'exotic' resources or units from 'Barbarians' far away, and colonies start making the same sense that they did for the Europeans in the 15th century.



As said, I've proposed a 'new concept' for Barbarians that would make some of them, at least, potential sources for Resources, Trade, and even Mercenary Units. IF we add in Revolutionary Leaders to some of the 'Free Cities' then those kinds of leaders might also appear in an ordinary City State, perhaps under very specific conditions: City was conquered by one civ and then liberated in an Emergency, for instance. That would give us a specific mechanism for some City States/Free Cities to start turning into 'Minor' (or Regular) Civs in the middle-late game, but it wouldn't be a majority of City States in any given game or even in most of them. The possibility alone, though, would make the late game more dynamic and interesting...

I could see having more leaders as quite confusing, and it would maybe take away the importance of / focus on existing Civ leaders. But perhaps rebellious free cities or city states could have unique great generals? - that would be mechanically simpler and might capture most of the idea of revolutionary leaders.

I think the utility of free cities having more independence and expanding, city states expanding (perhaps being more like “minor” or “tribute”civs) and barbs becoming free cities all depends on where the next expansion takes diplomacy. If we get a World Congress, vassal states, and things like that, then I think these ideas around free cities etc. would really work well with that.

I think resources are fine early game, but late game needs work. Better distribution would help (and by that I mean making late game resources more scarce), but late game resources also need to be more important; eg coal, oil and uranium should boost production or provide amenities etc.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I could see having more leaders as quite confusing, and it would maybe take away the importance of / focus on existing Civ leaders. But perhaps rebellious free cities or city states could have unique great generals? - that would be mechanically simpler and might capture most of the idea of revolutionary leaders.

Excellent idea! IF the game also incorporates the Real Great People Mod so that the Great Generals, etc. show real portraits of the Great instead of generic cameos. Also, Revolutionary Great Persons might not necessarily all be Great Generals: of the list the OP posted, Gandhi might better be portrayed as a Great Prophet, for example.

I think the utility of free cities having more independence and expanding, city states expanding (perhaps being more like “minor” or “tribute”civs) and barbs becoming free cities all depends on where the next expansion takes diplomacy. If we get a World Congress, vassal states, and things like that, then I think these ideas around free cities etc. would really work well with that.

The game needs a lot more dynamics in the middle and late game, in Diplomacy, Resources, potential terrain changing, and anyplace else we can get it. Right now, Diplomacy shares with Religion the 'title' of Single Worst Aspect of the game, in that Diplomatic actions between Civs are either random or semi-permanent - one war in 2000 BC and you are a Warmonger until the Renaissance, while Declared Friends can turn around and declare war on you with no Diplomatic warning at all and no change in diplomatic posture on your part. It is so bad that in many games I simply ignore Diplomacy as a Random Natural Disaster, build a large enough military that I can ignore the other states and go for whatever victory I choose. That's a pretty bad indictment of the failure of the system, except that I tend to treat Religion the same way - as a sheer nuisance instead of an engaging aspect of the game.

I think resources are fine early game, but late game needs work. Better distribution would help (and by that I mean making late game resources more scarce), but late game resources also need to be more important; eg coal, oil and uranium should boost production or provide amenities etc.

Late game resources are not necessarily more scarce, but they should require more effort to get at: in addition to sea platforms for oil, we should be digging massive open pit mines to extract enough coal/iron/aluminum/Diamonds, etc.. Also, many of the earlier 'natural' resources should be replaced in the late game with manufactured resources which are the primary drivers of lucrative trade since the Industrial Era and the substitutes for earlier 'luxuries'. Right now, Resources are much, much too static: they appear magically all at once, you get access to them with a city, build an Improvement over them, and ignore them for the rest of the game. Dull.

By the Atomic Era, to be even slightly realistic, most of your Amenities should be 'manufactured luxuries/necessities' : automobiles, cheap mass-produced clothing, personal electronics and appliances - heck, in the 1950s the home refrigerator and TV set were the symbols of Modern Luxury to much of the world! It is utterly unrealistic to believe as the game would have us believe, that Furs, Ivory, and Spices are amenities that will keep the Modern/Atomic/Information Era populations 'happy'...

 

[acluewithout]

Lots of good ideas. You’ve obviously given this some thought.

In no particular order:

I actually think Great People are better without specific pictures. A little abstraction allows for more imagination. My main gripe with Governors is actually that they are so specific.

I don’t think we’re on the same page with great people, but that’s okay. Separately, one thing I’d really like to see is Great Prophets being recruited all game. I still think the number of religions should be limited and dished out on a first come first served basis, but you should be able to keep getting GPs all game even after all the religions are gone and even if you didnt found a religion. GPs should let you evangelise or start inquisition rather than apostles (as was the case with Civ V), but should also have their own more generic bonus available to anyone without a religion too - eg relic, or boosting loyalty or era score or something.

I think “manufactured” luxuries are better represented by Great Merchants giving some random luxes (as they do currently) and perhaps Factories and Powerplants giving regional amenity and housing bonuses, not just production.

Lastly, I think you should take another look at Religion and Diplomacy. There is more there than appears at first. You can ignore both because neither has that much impact on winning the game, but if you play around with them regardless there is a lot of fun to be had. Just my opinion of course.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Lots of good ideas. You’ve obviously given this some thought.

In no particular order:

I actually think Great People are better without specific pictures. A little abstraction allows for more imagination. My main gripe with Governors is actually that they are so specific.

Ah, but the Governors are not specific in one way: they are caricatures and don't represent any real, historical personage. The Great People, on the other hand, each have a specific name related to an actual person, so if we can couple that to a portrait of that person I think we should.

I don’t think we’re on the same page with great people, but that’s okay. Separately, one thing I’d really like to see is Great Prophets being recruited all game. I still think the number of religions should be limited and dished out on a first come first served basis, but you should be able to keep getting GPs all game even after all the religions are gone and even if you didnt found a religion. GPs should let you evangelise or start inquisition rather than apostles (as was the case with Civ V), but should also have their own more generic bonus available to anyone without a religion too - eg relic, or boosting loyalty or era score or something.

Check out JFD's Rule With Faith Mod, which includes Great Theologians - Great Prophets you get After you've founded a religion. That Mod, I think, may be on the same track as you are, just not as far along in considering the possibilities and potentialities.

I think “manufactured” luxuries are better represented by Great Merchants giving some random luxes (as they do currently) and perhaps Factories and Powerplants giving regional amenity and housing bonuses, not just production.

Please check out my Posts in The Next Expansion: a Few Suggestions, especially Post Number 3, where I think I've considered what you are suggesting in the context of Great Merchants that can 'found' Enterprises/Corporations, many of which produce Manufactured Amenities.

Beyond that, I think you are on to something in having even generic Factories provide an Amenity Bonus, since the very first factories, even before power machinery was applied to them, were producing Tapestries and cloth which were, basically, 'luxuries' to most of the population at the time - and also Major Trade goods that fueled England's commercial prosperity in the late 18th century CE. Since the Industrial Era, practically every physical component of a contemporary 'middle class' lifestyle is factory-produced. Simply making all Factories Amenity Producers neatly ties the modernization of your Civ to the Industrialization of your Civ, which is historically accurate and also makes the Industrial Revolution more of an Event in the game - it would mark the transition, as it actually did, from direct 'natural' resources to manufactured 'resources'.

Lastly, I think you should take another look at Religion and Diplomacy. There is more there than appears at first. You can ignore both because neither has that much impact on winning the game, but if you play around with them regardless there is a lot of fun to be had. Just my opinion of course.

I have started playing with a lot more attention to Diplomacy, but I confess the clouds of Missionaries swarming about the map like Gnats just annoys the H**l out of me - almost as much as the complete Barf Civ VI makes out of the Tech Tree, Units, Eurekas, Promotions, - Okay, there is a lot that annoys me about the game. Music's pretty good, though...

 

[Yavid]

I love your idea but then why would I settle on different continents if I'm going to loss those cities. Just my thought

 

[Kurlemushe]

That is a valid concern.
For that you would need a good reason to have them until say Nationalism, perhaps access to some resources that you still keep even after you let them free..

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I love your idea but then why would I settle on different continents if I'm going to loss those cities. Just my thought

You settle there because there are resources you cannot get anywhere else, or to satisfy Image and Prestige issues - a lot of the early European colonization in the Americas was as much about that as it was about getting access to Tobacco, Cod, Ship Timber, Gold, Silver, or any other Resource. - And, yes, historically it was immensely expensive to establish and maintain those settlements, and in the long run most of them 'broke away' and formed independent states: in Game Terms, Free Cities, City States or separate Civilizations.
You should have to work very hard to have 'colonies'/cities on other continents an ocean away: on the other hand, the result can be immensely rewarding to the Civ that does so - see historical Portugal, Spain, and England for examples, and also note that over the entire span of the game and contemporary History, the rewards turned out to be Temporary!