Devil's Advocate: is this the end of creativity in Civ?

[Mxzs]

Why do you think so?

Partially, because I'm taking a cue from the direction Civ has been drifting in, which is away from purely negative consequences. The civics do not come with negatives; the cost of adopting one is that you forego the advantages of adopting another. Unhappiness no longer leads to a city shutdown, only to greater inefficiencies. Civil wars are obviously a bad thing. If you're going to put them in, there has to be some big positive to counteract it. As dh_edit says it has to be a "I knew that would happen, but it was worth it."

Mostly, though, I was reacting because it sounded like "civil war" would be a semi-random occurrence. But if it were implemented as a game balancer--as another reason not to over-expand your empire early on, for instance--then I'd be much less skeptical.

If it were used in as a check on over-expansion, perhaps it could be keyed to the government civics. Each civic might come with a pre-determined chance that cities will secede, and that chance grows as the number of cities increases. However, each successively advanced civic would decrease the probability. In this way civs early in the game would be naturally checked, while those late in the game could grow much larger.

 

[Wodan]

Chr: yes, I know. By it's very nature, starting midgame will probably never be a default setting. I don't get your point there.

Partially, because I'm taking a cue from the direction Civ has been drifting in, which is away from purely negative consequences.

Hmm. I see it more as going away from micromanagement. e.g., Did they remove pollution because it was a negative, or because it was management to little end? Regardless, there are plenty of negatives still in the game, and they added as many if not more than were taken out.

The civics do not come with negatives

You mean, except for upkeep cost, Slavery, Emancipation, Mercantilism, Theocracy, and Pacifism? Except for all that, I agree.

Civil wars are obviously a bad thing. If you're going to put them in, there has to be some big positive to counteract it.

I ask again, Why?

Mostly, though, I was reacting because it sounded like "civil war" would be a semi-random occurrence.

Yes, I agree, that would not improve the game.

If it were used in as a check on over-expansion, perhaps it could be keyed to the government civics. Each civic might come with a pre-determined chance that cities will secede, and that chance grows as the number of cities increases. However, each successively advanced civic would decrease the probability. In this way civs early in the game would be naturally checked, while those late in the game could grow much larger.

Good ideas!

Wodan

 

[alms66]

If you're going to have a discussion on civil war (and I suggest moving it to a new thread btw), you have to redefine what you mean by the term. Civil war, as used by most when describing it for civ, actually encompasses different types of wars. There are Wars of Independence (for some reason or another, a group of people - the rebels - want out of your state and want to create their own - basic reason include ethnic nationalism religious nationalism, freedom of oppression), Revolutions (the rebels think the government structure needs changing - they don't want a new state, merely to change the existing one), and Coups (the rebels want to replace the ruler with their own ruler).

Now, in civ terms, a war for independence is easy to see when it might occur. A city (or group of) with a religion different than your state religion might declare independence. A city (or group of) with a different ethnic majority might do the same. Cities that are far flung would also fall under this category.

Revolutions are more difficult. Basically, the population of your civ would have to have a desire to see certain civics, and if that desire is not met, some city or cities might fight you for control of your civ. The simple way to handle it is if these rebels capture your capital, your civics are switched and locked out of your control for x number of turns.

Coups are even more difficult. There are no real "leaders" in civ, so...? I don't know what to do here.

As for creating civs in game (on the fly), that's somewhat simple to solve. Introduce migrants to the game - people that, if they are not happy where they are living, get up and go found their own cities, maybe to join an existing civ, but much more likely to create their own.

 

[ChrTh]

Chr: yes, I know. By it's very nature, starting midgame will probably never be a default setting. I don't get your point there.
Wodan

Just suggesting it could possibly be done in Civ 4, don't need to wait until Civ 5. And to put on my dh_epic hat for a second: you'll never be able to sell Civ 5 on the basis of a scenario.

 

[Mxzs]

Hmm. I see it more as going away from micromanagement. e.g., Did they remove pollution because it was a negative, or because it was management to little end? Regardless, there are plenty of negatives still in the game, and they added as many if not more than were taken out.

You mean, except for upkeep cost, Slavery, Emancipation, Mercantilism, Theocracy, and Pacifism? Except for all that, I agree.

That's why I said "drifting." You won't be begrudge me my little weasal words, will you?

Yeah, a lot of the changes were mostly to get rid of micromanagement, but they also ameliorated some of the more vicious "spikes." Civil disorder doesn't shut down your city, so you can let it stagger along unhappily if you like.

Similarly, on the civics they've finally gotten rid of the last of the worst "spikes," like multi-turn anarchy, the "You can't declare war if you're a democracy" or the huge science drops that non-democratic governments suffered. Yes, there are still some overt negatives built into the civics, but those strike me as dangly bits that should have been snipped off. (I mean, really: Does anyone ever adopt Mercantilism? Can someone please tell me what game strategy or tactic it's an integral part of?)

I ask again, Why?

Because negatives don't give you choices. They goad you into avoiding maladaptive behavior. As such they have their place as game balancers, which is why your suggestion about using them to curb over-expansion is a great idea.

But I take your overall point. So I'll modify what I said:

Civil wars should only be introduced as game balancers. If they're not used as balancers, then they need to have strong, positive, and foreseeable side effects or consequences, so that the player will not regret their occurrence or will be able to leverage them so as to secure a better overall strategic position.

BTW, if people here aren't already long familiar with it, they really do need to read Project Genesis Internal Corporate Correspondence

 

[ChrTh]

(I mean, really: Does anyone ever adopt Mercantilism? Can someone please tell me what game strategy or tactic it's an integral part of?)

Just used Mercantilism to get me a Free Priest (to work towards getting a Shrine) and to use Free Artists for culture border wars. Granted, it's a temporary solution, but it helped when I needed it.

Then again, I'm the guy who just switched to Free Religion the same turn I finished University of Sankore, so what do I know? (The fact that I realized I did something stupid is good, right?)

 

[Vael]

Well, if it is implemented as I suggested, expert players will be able to avoid them. Simple: #1 Don't expand uncontrollably. And, #2 pay attention to multiple key factors of your civ, rather than focus on just one or two.

There are many things that aren't fun, but are in Civ to provide balanced gameplay.

Then what's the point? What does it actually add to the game? You can balance things in other ways. Is it just to add a bullet point to the box saying "Civ 5: Now with Civil Wars!"?

Besides, games are supposed to be fun. Game mechanics which are not fun are flaws, especially if a major system is designed around them. There are better ways to balance a game than to add some humongous ridiculous penalties to (potential) exploits. Adding more unfun things just for the sake of balance won't make the game any better. That goes for things which are already part of Civ just like new ideas. Pollution and city revolts were removed from Civ 3 for a reason, and replaced with the new Health and Happiness system, which invites players to find interesting ways of increasing their caps... rather than forcing them into the unfun tasks of hunting down pollution tiles with their Workers and meticulously manage the balance of Happy-Content-Unhappy citizens. I don't want to see Civ go back in that direction of unfun balance.

Look at it this way: what is the negative to beelining BW, doing nothing but build axes, whip the crap out of all your cities, and conquer all your neighbors, keeping tasty cities and razing the rest? Currently, there's absolutely no negative at all. In fact, most players would say that's the easiest way to win on Emperor+ levels. Is that fun? It's an exploit. Might as well load worldbuilder.

Then that's a game balance issue, not an invitation to include civil wars as a new mechanic. Why not make other paths to success more rewarding and fun? Why do players have to be limited in one way, rather than given other opportunities to achieve victory?

Note that I'm not having a particular issue with you or your suggestions. I simply think that trying to improve a game by adding more unfun things for balance (whatever the idea) is the wrong way to approach the task of making Civ 5 more fun and interesting to play. Civ is a strategy game, not a simulation. The game should focus more on rewarding players for good decisions rather than penalizing them for bad ones.

If civil wars are to be included it should be for the sake of adding something fun to the game, not for any other reason, especially realism. Any mechanic which implements civil wars in a "correct" way require something be taken away from a player - something big. For that reason I'm convinced that there's nothing they can add to the game. Civilization is a game of growth and reward. That's why we have golden ages and not dark ages. A civil war would be a dark age x10.

 

[Mxzs]

(One of these days, after get it all sorted out in my mind, I'm going to make a post arguing that the problems with implementing civil wars and the problems with implementing culture have a common vector: The game as currently structured conflates the distinct notions of a civilization and an empire. Until I ever get that post written ... )

Then that's a game balance issue, not an invitation to include civil wars as a new mechanic. Why not make other paths to success more rewarding and fun? Why do players have to be limited in one way, rather than given other opportunities to achieve victory?

I very much agree with this. That's why I've said that civil wars--if not introduced as a game balancer--need a positive aspect.

But Wodan's right that there are already important negatives built into the game; and some of them are not going to go away.

The game designers keep trying to find a way to "fix" the basic "infinite city sprawl" strategy. Huge corruption was a turn off; huge initial maintenance costs is a frustration (at least to me). These are negatives meant to check the players' tendency to keep pushing the size of their empires. And as long as players keep pushing the "get big" strategy, there will be some kind of negative to check that strategy.

Why can't the designers find a "positive" way to encourage smaller empires? I'd love it if they could. But the presence of competitive civs almost inevitably rules it out. Even if you put in all kinds of point-enhancers connected to "perfectionist building" strategies (as opposed to "expansive conqueror") strategies, the most perfectionist builders will still try to expand their empires, especially early in the game. That's because anyone stuck with a small empire runs the unacceptable risk of getting a "Now it's time to die" message from one of the AI civs, and the much worse risk of getting marshmallowed by a civ that has 2x or 4x or 7x the cities (and hence manufacturing and military capacity).

I'm a perfectionist builder by nature, and I still grab all the land I can when I can, just so I don't get caught with my pants around my ankles late in the game.

So: As long as you can lose by being conquered, and as long military power correlates with the size of your patch of ground, players will keep pushing their boundaries outward and/or packing as many cities inside their borders as they can. That's why negative conditions attaching to over-expansion will probably always be with us.

Can "civil wars" be made to work as a balancer on over-expansion? I'm not certain, but it seems like a good idea, and one that's not hard to implement. And I'm not sure they would be worse than huge corruption or city maintenance penalties. They might even be more fun, on the other hand, by introducing more competitors to a game. What's a bigger "Dammit!" moment: "Oops, I've just run my research down to 30% with those two new cities"? Or "Oops, two of my new cities just peeled away; well, I can conquer 'em and keep 'em once I've got Hereditary Monarchy as a civic"?

Okay, yes, the latter is probably the bigger "Dammit!" moment. But it seems like a more interesting one.

 

[dh_epic]

Then what's the point? What does it actually add to the game? You can balance things in other ways. Is it just to add a bullet point to the box saying "Civ 5: Now with Civil Wars!"?

(...)

There are better ways to balance a game than to add some humongous ridiculous penalties to (potential) exploits. Adding more unfun things just for the sake of balance won't make the game any better. That goes for things which are already part of Civ just like new ideas. Pollution and city revolts were removed from Civ 3 for a reason (...)

If civil wars are to be included it should be for the sake of adding something fun to the game, not for any other reason, especially realism. Any mechanic which implements civil wars in a "correct" way require something be taken away from a player - something big. For that reason I'm convinced that there's nothing they can add to the game. Civilization is a game of growth and reward. That's why we have golden ages and not dark ages. A civil war would be a dark age x10.

This is the criticism that "civil war" fans have to address.

If civil wars are a penalty for overexpansion, you might as well just bump up maintenance costs. If civil wars are an instant loss for overexpansion, you might as well just have "loss conditions" instead of victory conditions.

The truth is that most players aren't looking for new ways to lose.

Do I still maintain that civil war can work in Civilization? Yes I do. I am so excited about playing a game where civilizations split and merge throughout history. But like I said, it's going to have to be a creative implementation. It can't just be an additional penalty you tack onto unhappiness, or empire size. You have to go deeper than that.

 

[Wodan]

Just suggesting it could possibly be done in Civ 4, don't need to wait until Civ 5. And to put on my dh_epic hat for a second: you'll never be able to sell Civ 5 on the basis of a scenario.

Don't look at me. It was dh_epic himself who suggested it. I was just musing, as I am wont to do.

Spoiler :

I don't share the same opinion as Vael. But I do think that his arguments are more persuasive, so far. If we'd like to see a more living-breathing version of Civilization with new countries being born midgame, and others being absorbed or reabsorbed... well, we're gonna have to get more creative.

If you're going to have a discussion on civil war (and I suggest moving it to a new thread btw), you have to redefine what you mean by the term.

It's relevant in that making civs themselves more dynamic is definitely a way to add something to the civ property, which is what this thread is about. It's been done with previous Civs, but in a haphazard and lackluster way.

Whether or not we all agree it would be good to add this, I think it's indisputable that it would definitely add creativity.

Coups are even more difficult. There are no real "leaders" in civ, so...? I don't know what to do here.

Sure there are. I'm Mao in a game I'm playing right now. So, a coup would be a way for me (the player) to switch leaderheads midgame, or else a coup would be a way for me (the player) to completely take over another civ midgame.

As for creating civs in game (on the fly), that's somewhat simple to solve. Introduce migrants to the game - people that, if they are not happy where they are living, get up and go found their own cities, maybe to join an existing civ, but much more likely to create their own.

That wouldn't really work with the current Civ model. Planets get filled up way too early. Usually by 0AD all that's left are the odd tundra and ice spots. So all that would be left would be to migrate to an existing civ. Perhaps if they begin to outnumber the indigenous populants they can take over... ?

That's why I said "drifting." You won't be begrudge me my little weasal words, will you?

Ha. As long as you don't begrudge getting called on it.

(I mean, really: Does anyone ever adopt Mercantilism? Can someone please tell me what game strategy or tactic it's an integral part of?)

rufkm? I use it all the time. Obviously if you're running Representation, and obviously when you've been such a pest to the AIs and/or you have a lot of playmates such as Tokugawa, Alexander, Monty, Isabella, such that you don't have open borders for trade routes. It's simple math: if the trade route income is < what you get from a free scientist or engineer, then Mercantilism is a good idea.

(The engineer is not to be underestimated, either, as the hammers are a big boon especially on archipelago maps.)

Because negatives don't give you choices. They goad you into avoiding maladaptive behavior. As such they have their place as game balancers, which is why your suggestion about using them to curb over-expansion is a great idea.

But I take your overall point. So I'll modify what I said:

Civil wars should only be introduced as game balancers. If they're not used as balancers, then they need to have strong, positive, and foreseeable side effects or consequences, so that the player will not regret their occurrence or will be able to leverage them so as to secure a better overall strategic position.

I agree with all that. I've been talking mostly about civil war used as a balancer. That's not to say there aren't other implementations.

I guess it is just counter-intuitive to me. I mean, a civil war pops up and the player says, "oh cool!" ??

There are obvious benefits to be had. Maybe you can leverage all the AIs that currently hate you, to get trade routes, resource trades, diplomatic benefits, but only for the 2nd half? Maybe it simply gives you the choice: your country has split, the new half has new relations with all the AIs, so which half do you want to control?

Then what's the point? What does it actually add to the game? You can balance things in other ways.

Mxzs already replied, probably better than I could:

Spoiler :

Can "civil wars" be made to work as a balancer on over-expansion? I'm not certain, but it seems like a good idea, and one that's not hard to implement. And I'm not sure they would be worse than huge corruption or city maintenance penalties. They might even be more fun, on the other hand, by introducing more competitors to a game. What's a bigger "Dammit!" moment: "Oops, I've just run my research down to 30&#37; with those two new cities"? Or "Oops, two of my new cities just peeled away; well, I can conquer 'em and keep 'em once I've got Hereditary Monarchy as a civic"?

Okay, yes, the latter is probably the bigger "Dammit!" moment. But it seems like a more interesting one.

Note that I'm not having a particular issue with you or your suggestions. I simply think that trying to improve a game by adding more unfun things for balance (whatever the idea) is the wrong way to approach the task of making Civ 5 more fun and interesting to play. Civ is a strategy game, not a simulation. The game should focus more on rewarding players for good decisions rather than penalizing them for bad ones.

It's semantics, I think.

Right now, we have a game, called Civ4. Let's call that the "baseline". Within the baseline, there are different kinds of behaviors / game decisions, let's call them X, Y, Z.

I say X is too strong, and that it needs to be moved down. In other words, Baseline X needs to be adjusted. You say X is just fine and is fun; you don't disagree that it's too strong and you say that Y and Z should be moved up.

For one thing, Mxzs is correct that moving Y and Z up will be extremely difficult, if not impossible. In addition, let's look at the logical conclusion of that method: eventually all baselines (X, Y, and Z) have no negatives whatsoever and all strategies are cakewalks. What's the point of playing if there is no challenge, no adversity, no opponent to measure yourself against? The only possible answer is realism, and I agree with you that this is a game, not a simulator. (I don't know why you keep bringing that up... other threads have played the simulator/realism card but I don't recall seeing it here, certainly not by me; if I gave that impression sorry that wasn't my intent.)

Civilization is a game of growth and reward. That's why we have golden ages and not dark ages. A civil war would be a dark age x10.

Actually Civ4 does already have dark ages. They're called "overexpansion, nuts my slider is down to 10% and I'm still losing money".

(One of these days, after get it all sorted out in my mind, I'm going to make a post arguing that the problems with implementing civil wars and the problems with implementing culture have a common vector: The game as currently structured conflates the distinct notions of a civilization and an empire. Until I ever get that post written ... )

I see that mentioned now and again and it's definitely a good point. I'm not sure what could be done with it but this thread is as good as any to explore the idea.

I'm a perfectionist builder by nature, and I still grab all the land I can when I can, just so I don't get caught with my pants around my ankles late in the game.

So: As long as you can lose by being conquered, and as long military power correlates with the size of your patch of ground, players will keep pushing their boundaries outward and/or packing as many cities inside their borders as they can. That's why negative conditions attaching to over-expansion will probably always be with us.

I disagree to the extent that there is a world of difference between grabbing all the land you can, and going whole-hog-nuts with warmongering. If you don't know what I mean, just go play a MP game or two.

If civil wars are a penalty for overexpansion, you might as well just bump up maintenance costs. If civil wars are an instant loss for overexpansion, you might as well just have "loss conditions" instead of victory conditions.

Couldn't the same criticisms be said of half the features of the game? The ultimate reason for any feature is that it's cool, interesting, and fun. In any event, the difference between maintenance and civil wars is that the former slows growth whether normal growth or overexpansion growth, and the latter covers unhappiness-related revolutions for any reason (lack of attention to one or more of the various needs/desires of the populace and/or negative attention such as whipping) even if the civ is not overexpanded. Also note that there needs to be a distinction between relative size and absolute size. "Overexpansion" needs to be in relation to other civs in the same game and to world size.

The truth is that most players aren't looking for new ways to lose.

If you're searching for a new "back of the box" label, then I think no matter how implemented, civil wars both are and aren't it.

"Are" in the sense that a marketing yoink can make civil wars sound cool, even if all it amounts to is another way to lose.

"Aren't" in the sense that this thread is about creative ways to make Civ5... we're brainstorming implementations here, not working in the marketing department.

Do I still maintain that civil war can work in Civilization? Yes I do. I am so excited about playing a game where civilizations split and merge throughout history. But like I said, it's going to have to be a creative implementation. It can't just be an additional penalty you tack onto unhappiness, or empire size. You have to go deeper than that.

Well I didn't come to this with a fait accompli in hand. I'm just thinking out loud. Everyone else has some valid objections as well as some contributions. I've also modified my own thinking along the way. Like you, I still think there's something there and I'm excited about that someting.

Is the answer to make it "simply" a game balancer? No way. There's a lot more there, I think. On the other hand, this seems like a natural way to balance the game (because the game is currently unbalanced)... a much better way to balance the game than to make small empires better (as I said up above, the logical evolution of that approach is not good). So, if we can balance things and find out what the "a lot more there" is, that's what we should do.

Well, I've rambled on enough this morning. TTFN

Wodan

 

[Mxzs]

rufkm? I use it [Mercantilism] all the time.

Already, I've been called on it by two people. I capitulate. Treat me kindly.

(I'm playing on a Mac, so the game is much newer to me than it is to you guys. I've not explored all the ins and outs of it.)

I disagree to the extent that there is a world of difference between grabbing all the land you can, and going whole-hog-nuts with warmongering. If you don't know what I mean, just go play a MP game or two.

Oh yes, well, obviously that. [/graham chapman]

But Firaxis seems hell-bent on crippling even my kind of expansion, and with good reason. They just need to come up with some way of realizing it that doesn't leave the player with the urge to pistol-whip somebody.

In addition, let's look at the logical conclusion of that method: eventually all baselines (X, Y, and Z) have no negatives whatsoever and all strategies are cakewalks.

Um, no. Taking out a "negative" is not the same as taking out a difficulty. Basically, taking out a negative means restructuring the games so that you replace sticks that drive the player into certain behavior with carrots that reward him for it.

For instance: Players naturally want to over-expand. Right now the game simply punishes over-expansion. Turning this "negative" into a "positive" doesn't mean getting rid of the constraint and letting the player settle the map willy-nilly, so that it's a cakewalk. It means giving him a reward for not over-expanding. That way the player has one of Sid Meier's "interesting choices": "Do I max out on expansion, or do I forego the advantages of aggressive expansion so I can get the rich benefits that come from keeping things small?" That doesn't make the game a cakewalk, because there are natural features in the game that will punish the player for making a foolish choice. In this case, the natural feature is the pressure from the AIs.

But I don't see any real chance of getting a "positive" that would reward a "small is beautiful" strategy. Pressure from the AIs is so overwhelming that the incentive to expand is correspondingly large. I can't imagine anything that could counterbalance it that would be attractive&#8212;not without changing a fundamental feature of the game&#8212;and so I think a negative balancer would have to remain.

Oh, and speaking of "changing a fundamental feature of the game" ...

(One of these days, after get it all sorted out in my mind, I'm going to make a post arguing that the problems with implementing civil wars and the problems with implementing culture have a common vector: The game as currently structured conflates the distinct notions of a civilization and an empire. Until I ever get that post written ... )

I see that mentioned now and again and it's definitely a good point. I'm not sure what could be done with it but this thread is as good as any to explore the idea.

Okay, I'm going to make that my next project.

Well, I've rambled on enough this morning. TTFN

Good rambles!

 

[dh_epic]

I definitely think it could be a more interesting game balancer than maintenance costs. But it has to go beyond that, I think. Otherwise it really is a better use of Firaxis's resources to stick to city maintenance -- it already does the job of deterring overexpansion. That's tough to figure out.

Somehow I think vassalage in warlords might have something to do with making civil war work. It offers players a way to recover quickly from a separatist movement. Yeah, those guys broke away to form their own state in a ethno-cultural or national sense. But they can be quickly subjugated in a military sense, through vassalage. If vassalage is an option, then "losing" 50&#37; of your cities isn't such a disaster.

But does that mean regular conquest is out? Does that mean that the vassalized splinter state will always be separate from you? I'm trying to think of a way to reconcile vassalage with conquest. I think it's necessary to offer a way for the USA to eventually go from vassalizing the confederacy to fully embracing it in their nation. But at the same time, why would the confederacy agree to vassalage if it would be the first step to losing their entire civilization?

I'm thinking out loud. I've proposed an idea that only really addresses one problem, and then only really gets us half way to a solution.

 

[NYHunter]

Well, I don't know anything about the guerilla uprisings because when I had the first 2 civs I rarely played it and don't remember that well. So I was unaware that I was suggesting the return of an old feature.

I guess the return of the guerilla uprising would be a decent way to implement a civil war. But most people want more than that.

My proposal would allow rebel units to perform all functions of regular units which includes capturing cities. So new civilizations could be born if you aren't strong enough to defend your cities.

They want new civilizations to be born and enter the map. They want America to be founded in 1776. They want the Confederacy to be a sovereign entity 50 turns later. Then they want America to be able to do something clever to re-unify, allowing them to win the space race by the year 2030. Players don't just want to fight some annoying militias.

I am not too sure why a civil war is much more of a bother to a player than when a player allows himself to get his butt kicked by the AI because he fails to have a strong military and keep up with the technology. I mean in my beginner days I will remember times when the AI would invade me with a large army and I will get crushed. It was a consequence I had to to pay for not paying attention.

And if the American Civil War will stall the USA and guarantee a German or Russian victory, you might as well not implement civil war at all: just implement a "defeat condition" that can kick in if you do something wrong midgame. Vice versa, if Britain can unify its empire in the 18th century as easily as America unified in the 19th century, then you have to wonder why they rebuild the British Empire in reality.

 

[NYHunter]

So by your logic we might as well get rid of the health system, diplomatic penalties, city maintance, and invasions and everything else that just makes it more difficult for the player to do what he wants.

You see all of the above are challenges. And while civil wars are realistic, I mean they would have to be if we were suggesting it because if they never happened we wouldn't even know what they are realism is not the only reason for including them. There are people who would consider having to face to real challenges of empire building fun. This is suppose to be an alternative history game but how am I suppose to fully enter that fantasy and enjoy the game if I don't feel like I am actually facing the challenges of managing an empire?

Okay, so I guess it did come down realism. But mainly people want civil wars because want more challenges and interesting features.

Civil Wars have no place in Civ.

What would be appropriate triggers to have a civ split? And will expert players always be able to avoid them? After all, losing a bunch of cities is pretty much the worst thing that can possibly happen to a civ. Players will do anything they can to avoid them.

And plus they're not fun. Unless it's happening to someone else.

Better to focus on making the game better by adding things which add to the fun of the game, rather than for the sake of realism.

 

[NYHunter]

Of course not. But, many are looking for new challenges.

The truth is that most players aren't looking for new ways to lose.

 

[dh_epic]

There's a difference between losing to another player, versus losing because of a formula. Once you learn the magic formula, game over.

Multiplayer games are about conflicts. Players play against each other. You lose because someone outwitted you. A conflict is unpredictable, because of the agent on the other side. Even a moderately programmed AI will provide more intrigue than a flat "if X and Y, then civil war" formula.

Challenge without conflict is really just a puzzle. If there's no agent to compete against, then you're really just trying to figure out the 'trick' to the situation you've been dropped into. There's always "one best answer" to a puzzle.

So... most players are looking for new conflicts, not just any old challenge. Interaction is key.

 

[Mxzs]

This is going to be long and diffuse. To keep it from being too complicated or confusing, I'm going to put some of the details and asides inside spoiler boxes. I hope the rest will make sense by itself.

Civilization conflates two different concepts: that of a civilization (a widespread community that shares certain traditions, habits, and metaphysical presuppositions) and that of an empire (an organization for the exercise of political power).

Spoiler :

That said, it does a reasonably good job of combining them, because there is some historical justification for this kind of mix-up. The "civilizations" in Civilization are best thought of as Toynbeean "universal empires." These are unified states encompassing the lands in which a culture or civilization lives; such a state is "universal" in the sense that it includes all the lands its subject consider worth talking about—i.e., the lands with no "barbarians" or "gentiles" or "white, blonde devils" or whatever. Such states are not necessarily oppressive or exploitive, though they can be. Their special characteristic—what sets them apart from those piratical overseas enterprises the Europeans set up in the 19th century—is that their subject peoples regard them as the most fundamental and legitimate form of government possible in their world, and they regard periods of division as unnatural and abhorrent. (A divided empire is like a sky in which the sun travels west to east while dogs have sex with cats. "It makes no sense! Make it stop!")

Classic examples of universal states—states that encompassed all and to a large extent only the lands defined by their own culture—include Egypt during the Old and Middle Kingdoms and China during the Han, Tang, and Ming dynasties. But political and cultural boundaries rarely correlate so closely.

* Some universal states only partially controlled their cultural heartlands. The "Syriac" civilization (Toynbee's term for the Judeo-Persian cultural combine that emerged in the post-Assyrian collapse) realized its original universal state in the form of Achaemenid Persia; this state was revived by the Sassanids several hundred years later, but they were only able to take direct control of the Iranian plateaus and Mesopotamian valleys. The Holy Roman Empire was a ghostly kind of universal state whose principles would have justified its administering all of European Christendom, but it failed to control anything outside of Germany and northern Italy, (and didn't really control anything inside of them, either).

* Others enveloped lands outside their narrow culture sphere: The Roman Empire was the Hellenic civilization's universal state, but it also acquired the defunct Egyptian state along with Gaul, Britain, Dacia the Levant, Iberia, and Carthage (the last three of which Toynbee classified as Syriac in culture).

* Some universal empires were administered by foreign dynasties or even by foreign states. The Mughal and Qing Empires were universal states in India and China, respectively, but they were put together and run by dynasties from outside the culture: the Iranian Mughals in the former case and the Manchurian Qing in the second. India under the Raj was the Indian universal state annexed by a non-universal foreign empire (Great Britain). Mexico came close to being a Mesoamerican universal state both put together and administered by the Spanish, but too many of the natives died.

* Of course, each of these empires unified a group of predecessor statelets, and Western civilization has not (yet?) collapsed into a universal empire, so some civilizations can exist without being unified into such an empire.

Universal states, interestingly, are to a striking degree risk-averse and hence peaceful. They are, of course, expansionist during their early terms as they try to unify their cultural heartlands and secure defensible borders and buffer zones outside them. Once they have reached these, though, there is almost no indignity they won't suffer in order to avoid going to war. Here is one feature that Civilization does not and probably should not try to capture.

This conflation simplifies the game, but it also makes it hard to implement such features as civil war, culture, and religion in pleasing ways. Civil wars are almost exclusively political in nature, while culture and religion have concerns distinct from the merely political.

Spoiler :

Civil wars: A civil war is almost always an attempt to modify the political chain of command. Following Bello's example, I'd roughly classify them as Coups (like the Wars of the Roses—a faction tries to replace some element(s) in the chain of command); Revolutions (like the French and Russian Revolutions—a violent attempt to reorganize the chain of command); and Secessions (like the American Revolution and Civil War—attempts by some sections to remove themselves from under the chain of command). Intra-civilizational wars seem to be rarer, even when they can be identified. The two world wars have been called a "European civil war"; the Pelopponesian and Roman civil wars seem to have been intra-cultural civil wars. These often have a strong political element in them, though. Purer examples seem to be those family quarrels that end in mass genocide. Thankfully, I've not seen anyone suggest that we implement that in the game!

Culture and religion: Civilization basically started as an empire-building game and then had religion and culture attached. It does a pretty good job of folding those things in, but only at the cost of some violence to them. Culture is used to regulate and expand borders; religions bring in $$$ and affect foreign relations. In other words, they are modeled as adjuncts to imperial policy. This is to betray their natures. The imperial project has certain ends—the maintenance of borders, control of cities, management of supplies and happiness—but culture and religion are creators and definers of ends. It's a religion or a culture that expresses a community's priorities and what it thinks it should be or become. It's a betrayal of their natures to make religions and cultures into instrumentalities of the imperial project.

There's no getting rid of the imperial, cultural, or religious dimensions of the game, so the confusions can't be dispelled by just simplifying any of these away. But it might be possible to change the relations between the "civilization" and the "empire" in a way that makes the game more natural.

Not that I'll be making any concrete proposals—at least, not yet. In the rest of this post I'll content myself with offering a suggested framework for approaching the problem; describe what that framework in practice would "look" like; describe some of the consequences of implementing that framework; and suggest problems and issues that would have to be tackled. That will be enough, I think!

* * * * *

A civilization in Civ is like a universal state (see first spoiler box); more specifically, it's a lot like the Byzantine universal state, where religion and culture were departments of the state and subject to close imperial supervision. (That's one reason Byzantine history is simultaneously fascinating and deeply creepy: it seems like everything, including religious dogma and architectural styles, can be explained in terms of conspiracies and court intrigues.) But this is basically a perversion of the natural relation. More typically, a universal state will be a political expression of the culture. For all their surface similarities, the Roman and Chinese emperors seem to have been quite different sorts of thing, reflecting (at least in part) the difference between their culture's respective republican and Confucian attitudes toward authority.

The most obvious way to change the relation between culture and empire in the game is to reverse it. Right now the player is a god-emperor who uses culture and religion to further his imperial purposes. If you reverse the relation, then he would be more like a god-prophet trying to mold a civilization and using political and military tools (among many others) to do so. It's the difference between being a David/Solomon and being a Moses/Joshua. Their respective projects overlap to a high degree, but their fundamental concerns differ.

It's one thing to say that this should be framework. In practice, what would a game organized in this way look like?

For starters, it need not look a lot different than the current game. In fact, the trickiest part of such a redesign probably would be to make changes that don't simply look arbitrary to long-time Civ players.

The deepest way to realize the change and to make subsequent changes look non-arbitrary would be to insert user-defined goals. I noted in a spoiler box above that cultures and religions are projects that define goals; hence, if the player is going to be a cultural and not merely imperial avatar, he has to be able to define his goals. This has to be something more than just giving him the choice between going for a "Cultural" or "Diplomatic" victory, though. He has to have choices as to what defines his "cultural victory" and how to get there. Two ways this might be done: (1) The player might be given a cafeteria menu of cultural attributes and define his overall goal by picking a set of attributes that he wants his culture to realize. (2) The player might be given a choice of four to seven "cultural profiles" and then try to build a culture that best realizes one of those profiles. How (and whether!) either of these would work would depend upon how you break the idea of "culture" down into components whose realization could be objectively met.

Second, the relation between state and culture in the game would be nearly the opposite of what it is now. Currently, culture is entirely supported by the state, in the sense that buildings generate culture for whichever state controls that city, and in the sense that the disappearance of the state leads automatically to the extinction of the culture. Moreover, cultural control of the surrounding lands directly affects a city's viability and can lead to a direct change in political control. In a redesign, the state would itself be more like a cultural artifact: you could have a civilization without a state, and it would be the state that disappears when the culture dies. Control of the culture-producers would not be based on control of the city that houses them; and culture (because it is not in and of itself a political tool) would play a much smaller role in supporting or changing the political control of a city. Basically, a player or AI could get culture from his or cities whether they had political control of them or not.

Spoiler :

The previous point immediately leads to a couple of corollaries, things that would have to change in specific ways.

Political and cultural borders would have to be two separate things. Cultural borders would probably still work like they do in Civ4, but political borders would probably have to be city-centered "fat cross" constructs like they were in Civ1 and Civ2.

Production queue management would have to change. If you had only political but not cultural control of a city, or only cultural but not political control, you would only be able to build select items from the total list. In cases where cities had dual control, a way would have to be found to share or split control of the production queue (perhaps by arranging the de facto creation of two independent production queues), and to split or share control of hammer and coin resources.

Technological development and scientific research are cultural matters; funding for research as well as for the support of cultural buildings would have to be put on a different basis—in theory though possibly not in terms of game interface.

Third, changing the relation between culture and politics should also lead to a redistribution and re-characterization of the techs in the tech tree and of what they can produce. Currently the game concentrates more on differentiating and giving the player a choice of military units; cultural, scientific, and happiness generating buildings or units are much more generic. The priority would have to change so that the culture generators become more diverse and plentiful, while the military units should become more generic and interchangeable. The tech tree would be redesigned to accommodate this change: there would be more culture-specific techs and fewer industrial-military techs, and the tree would be redesigned so that it slows and regulates the appearance of the former and pays less attention to regulating the appearance of the latter.

Spoiler :

How might this be done?
Culture: Civ4 made explicit a distinction between kinds of units: Mounted, Gunpowder, Melee, etc. But culture can be made similarly distinct: Literature, Music, Drama, Architecture, Plastic Arts, etc. Culture producers could be divided along these lines, with different buildings or "cultural units" (Wandering Troubadours? Hollywood Celebrities?) having different cultural effects leading in various ways to various score-changing results.

Military: Increased complexity in the cultural sphere would necessarily lead to greater simplicity in the military side. It's already a problem managing multiple units, "stacks of doom," and promotions. I think the latter development might be the key to getting rid of the former two. Instead of building a stack of units, the player mighly simply build a basic "Army" unit; he could then invest hammers in it in order to acquire various "promotions" empowering it in different ways. The costs could be structured so that it is always cheaper to add promotions to one Army than it is to build multiple Armies, though multiple Armies could be advantageous in some situations. There would have to be other changes made to the combat system to make such a change playable: almost certainly each attack could not continue until one of the Armies was dead, as that would make battles war-makers and war-breakers. It could also make it easier to add some user-wanted features: with only a small number of units to worry about, it might be easier to model supply lines and zones of control.

Other necessary changes are left as an exercise to the reader.

How could such a change help better model civil wars and culture/religion?

In the case of culture/religion, it would put those concepts at the base of the game sever their dependence on the political aspects. It would also make non-conqueror strategies more feasible; if well-balanced, a world-conqueror goal would simply be one more possible winning condition alongside the others. Right now it's the decisive one, and players (even peaceful ones) are too easily distracted from alternative ways of winning by having to "keep up with the Monties" in the game.

In the case of civil wars, such a redesign would make less than devastating and therefore not as horrible a thing to generate. They would be purely political—the loss of political, not cultural, control over a city or group of cities. In fact, the game might even open with a situation in which the player has political control over only one of this cities, and some of his game goals might include conquering the others. (Cities not under the control of either the player or another AI would be run as barbarian cities.) This could, if implemented right, give the wargamers lots of opportunities while not saddling the builders with the necessity of fighting those wars.

There's a lot more I could say, but this is enough for now.

 

[Diamondeye]

You make it sound like anything except Conquest is a second-rate game.

With the current scoresystem, it is. The current C-IV is about eradicating your enemies asap to get the most points. This should atleast be changed - instead of the potential points of your civ falling per turn, it should be increasing. It may be challenging to win a conquest victory in the BCs, but it's certainly not what I'm aiming for when I play. I may be naive, but I play to found an empire to stand the test of time - sounds familiar?

 

[Marla_Singer]

The most important thing to do for Civ5 is :
Make the game more global and less US-centered.

Since the Civ 1, the lecture of History is made through US eyes. Civ4 tried to correct this slightly but it's remains only superficial. In Civ1 I remember that all the modern wonders were American... with some such as the "Hoover dam" (what is that?) being totally unknown from the rest of the world.

In Civ5, there are still 6 American great wonders. I do believe it's fine to have the Statue of Liberty, the UN and why not the Pentagon, but I have a strong problem with the exclusivity in cultural creation which is generated by Hollywood, Broadway and "Rock n'Roll" (something which is not a monument in any way IIRC).

If Americans truely believe they are the only one in the world to produce movies, music and musicals, then they have a real problem. Isn't the Beatles the best known music band in the world ? Is it American ? Haven't they heard they were also musicals in London, in Paris, and that NYC isn't the only place for them ? I recognize Hollywood is important, but even there, I don't believe some important movie industries such as those of Bombay, Hong Kong, Paris or London are inexistant enough to consider Hollywood being a monopoly. The fact that only the civilization producing those can export movies, music and musicals is severely flawed.

I think movie studios and music majors should be small wonders. Of course, the first one building them could have an advantage (it could export more movies and songs), but I don't believe it should be a monopoly.


But anyway, even if great wonders are still an issue, I believe it's in national wonders and projects that the problem is the biggest. Half of national wonders are either American or British, and ALL projects are American (or considered so with the Internet).

Why calling the Spacial program the Apollo program ? Aren't the Soviets those who have sent the first satellite to space, the first animal to space, and the first human being to space ? Why having a US flag as a symbol of the internet ?

As being French, I don't have really to complain as my city Paris is well represented with Notre Dame, the Eiffel tower and Versailles. So don't believe I say so because I'm jealous. However, I believe it's really a HUGE problem that Germany, the cradle of modern music and modern philosophy has absolutely NO wonder to represent it. Haven't you ever heard of Bach, Beethoven, Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Marx, Luther ?

By the way, why Stonehenge to represent the UK ? Don't you believe the House of Parliament would be a better idea ? For instance it could give a bonus to the parliamentarism civic. Perhaps the Statues of Easter Island would be better than Stonehenge to represent primitive culture.... Furthermore I believe Asia and Africa should also be better represented. The obvious example coming in my mind are the Djinguereber Mosque in Timbuktu or the Potala Palace in Lhasa.

Anyway, here are just few observations which always pissed me about Civilization. Since the beggining, it's really about reading History through US chauvinist eyes. I do believe that Civ4 is more balanced than its predecessors, but there's really still room for improvement.

 

[NYHunter]

So basically you are trying to say that there is no way civil war can be implemented. Because either there is a formula and you just have to master the "trick" (which we already do with things like city maintance and the health system so I don't get what the big deal is) so it is predictable. But, if we were to make cival war unpredictable then it wouldn't be fair to the player.

You see, one thing I forgot to mention was that similar to how you can adjust the barbarian rate you would be able to adjust the rate of rebellions. Barbarians are annoying, especially to beginners, but Firaxis did not take them out because many people also enjoy the challenges of facing Barbarians. In fact, they expanded on the Barbarian feature by adding in wild animals and having actual Barbarian cities. Imagine if Barbarians were never in any of the Civilizations, and people suggested it, they would just get shut down and accused of wanting to sacriface fun for realism.

And please do not respond by saying "well, barbarians are different from civil
wars". Because clearly they are. I am only specifially asking this because it is tiring to keep on reading the argument that a is not b when it is obvious. Similar to how when I brought up how no one knew how religion was going to be implemented.

There's a difference between losing to another player, versus losing because of a formula. Once you learn the magic formula, game over.

Multiplayer games are about conflicts. Players play against each other. You lose because someone outwitted you. A conflict is unpredictable, because of the agent on the other side. Even a moderately programmed AI will provide more intrigue than a flat "if X and Y, then civil war" formula.

Challenge without conflict is really just a puzzle. If there's no agent to compete against, then you're really just trying to figure out the 'trick' to the situation you've been dropped into. There's always "one best answer" to a puzzle.

So... most players are looking for new conflicts, not just any old challenge. Interaction is key.