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?
I do believe there's something right in this. History is filled with small civilizations in land area that were stronger than vast Empires spreading over millions of square km. I do believe that instead in emphasizing on having the most cities as possible, the game should better sponsor the idea of devellopping the most its cities as possible.
Civ4 has already partly solved the issue. Untill Civ3, it was really only about the more you had cities the better you were, since civ 4, it's a bit more balanced, but it should go even further this way. Florence was only one city, but it has given birth to Renaissance. The Netherlands is a small country, but it has dominated a vast Empire spread over all continents.
I've never liked the idea that city growth was based on the food your cities are able to grow. Cities have always grown more due to economic prosperity than because of the fertility of surrounding fields. Of course food is important, but it is to sustain growth, not to provoke it. In the early stage, cities could indeed be sustained by neighbouring fields, but later, it should become national wide, and export/import should be available not only to improve health but also to directly sustain population.
Another thing that should be thought about is the difference between urban and rural population. To go fast, maybe instead of simply generic, citizens should be divided into farmers, miners, industrial workers, and employees. Anyway, I do believe that the city development system could be changed to something more realistic, without necessarily being more complicated to the player.
First I must say I believe this is off topic. But, anyhow.
I take offense. As an American I do not question any of the "foriegn" wonders that I never heard of. In fact I know of most of them so it is hardly a difficulty but still the ones I don't know about I get to learn about and find out how important they were. There are some things I never heard of but then decided to research and I thank the Civilization series for introducing them to me.
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.
Cure for Cancer and Theory of Evolution were not momuments but we had those as wonders in CivIII. In fact as a non-American you should be happy that the wonder IS Rock N Roll and not Graceland or Nashville or some American concert hall. It at least recognizes the fact that Rock N Roll exist in other nations.
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).
The United States is the largest exporter of movies and I think Broadway was chosen because it is very well known worldwide. You can't tell me that isn't true because I live in NYC and I always meet tourist from other countries who talk about how for so long they wanted to come and see a Broadway musical. Which will lead me back to movies and Hollywood. Hollywood is so well known that I don't see why someone will object.
How ever I will agree that it is a flaw that only civs with those wonders can export movies, singles and musicals. There should be other ways. Maybe more wonders from different cultures?
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.
Sounds interesting. Maybe the new corporation feature could somehow come into play?
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.
I agree. There definitely needs to be greater representation of other cultures. But I don't object to the spacial program being called Apollo Program.
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 ?
Well there are lots of potential UK wonders I could think of. I am not sure if the House of Parliament is the best one.
I also agree about more Asian and African wonders. Maybe not the same ones, but definetly needs better representation.
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.
No it's not about reading History through "US chauvinist eyes". If that was the case The Zulus would not be a civilization, Americans don't learn anything about Zulus in school other then that they got crushed by the British during the age of imperialism so it doesn't make sense to Americans that they would be in, but their history before that proves that they were dominant in their region. Also, all American wonders would be overpowered, Stalin would not have made it as a leader for Russia, there would be no wonders that most Americans haven't heard of and the Americans would have a UU that is actually good. And I am sure there are other arguments I can point to.
Now I think there is a stronger case that Civilization is about a western view. Because for the most part it is very western-centric.
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.
First I must say I believe this is off topic. But, anyhow.
I take offense. As an American I do not question any of the "foriegn" wonders that I never heard of. In fact I know of most of them so it is hardly a difficulty but still the ones I don't know about I get to learn about and find out how important they were. There are some things I never heard of but then decided to research and I thank the Civilization series for introducing them to me.
Cure for Cancer and Theory of Evolution were not momuments but we had those as wonders in CivIII. In fact as a non-American you should be happy that the wonder IS Rock N Roll and not Graceland or Nashville or some American concert hall. It at least recognizes the fact that Rock N Roll exist in other nations.
The problem isn't the fact the US have wonders, it is that everything is read through US eyes. Shakespeare Theatre, Darwin's voyage, Isaac Newton's college... the "Middle age" wonders were mainly British in past Civilization games. And the modern wonders were indeed either American or unaffiliated (women suffrage and cure for cancer). I'm sorry but that perception of History of civilization is distorted, chauvinist and short-sighted. If you disagree with this, then that means you're unable to think outside of your own model.
The United States is the largest exporter of movies and I think Broadway was chosen because it is very well known worldwide. You can't tell me that isn't true because I live in NYC and I always meet tourist from other countries who talk about how for so long they wanted to come and see a Broadway musical. Which will lead me back to movies and Hollywood. Hollywood is so well known that I don't see why someone will object.
How ever I will agree that it is a flaw that only civs with those wonders can export movies, singles and musicals. There should be other ways. Maybe more wonders from different cultures?
Indeed, being the largest exporter doesn't make of you the only exporter. Building Hollywood makes you the exclusive movie producer. I do believe movie studios should be a small wonders, they exist in all countries. However, an idea could be to determine the number of movies to export according to the culture developped at each turn by the civilization.
No it's not about reading History through "US chauvinist eyes". If that was the case The Zulus would not be a civilization, Americans don't learn anything about Zulus in school other then that they got crushed by the British during the age of imperialism so it doesn't make sense to Americans that they would be in, but their history before that proves that they were dominant in their region. Also, all American wonders would be overpowered, Stalin would not have made it as a leader for Russia, there would be no wonders that most Americans haven't heard of and the Americans would have a UU that is actually good. And I am sure there are other arguments I can point to.
Now I think there is a stronger case that Civilization is about a western view. Because for the most part it is very western-centric.
I live in the Western world. I've played Civilization since the first game, and I can tell you that Civilization has always been deeply US-centric. This has been improved in some fields, but that idea that US owns the whole worldwide cultural industry today is utterly flawed, and it ruins all the other improvements in that field.
I agree, and that's why I ignore the current score system. Nevertheless, I believe that is a fault in the scoring system, not any inherent bigotry that we should have toward non-military early-conquest victories.
Agreed. Civil wars would be the way to make those early conquests not stand the test, and not be a true victory. Certainly, without modern communications, history has proved that it's pretty impossible to administer a large empire, and revolts/rebellions/civil wars are much more likely.
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.
Great summary. I especially like the tie-in to civil wars.
Here's what I'm thinking. The player controls the civ. Within the civ there may be 1 or more political units and 1 or more centers of religion.
So, we have:
civilization boundaries
political boundaries
religious boundaries
All features of the game (possibly with some cool new additions) would be apportioned into one of these three categories. So, I would propose that the player has under his control certain features as inherent to the civilization.
How to determine which political units are controlled by which player, and which religions are controlled by which player? I can think of several possible methods, which I'll leave for another day. The simplest would be political units (nations) which have their capitol fall within the geographical borders of the civ, and religions which have their founding site within the geographical borders of the civ. This concept could be revised and/or discussed in more detail.
What benefits to having multiple nations within your civ? Well, obviously, you could have different trade agreements. One nation you control could trade with one group of AIs, while a second nation you control could trade with another group. In the current game, that isn't really possible because you get negative modifiers. Basically, what this does is allow you the control of having two sets of AI relations modifiers.
In addition, currently with the game you have a limited number of really lucrative trade routes. Once you use those up in your best cities, the rest of your cities get lower-income internal routes. With two nations under your control, you get two sets of the lucrative routes... for a huge difference in commerce income.
There are many other benefits. I'll leave it to the imagination, but here's one more. You could run SE in one nation and CE in the other nation, and you could split it based on what type of land you have in each.
So, while there would be a management burder to dealing with the governance of both nations, there are obvious and real benefits to have there.
On the other hand, there are some negatives. An AI could declare war on one of your nations, and you only have half of the cities and resources to deal with the war. OTOH, your 2nd nation could gift units (the only cost would be a "you traded with our enemy" modifier), etc. Meanwhile, your 2nd nation does not suffer war weariness.
Back to civil wars... what would happen? Well, this would be an enforced split of your civ into two nations. Perhaps not enforced... perhaps it is totally optional. Maybe you're suffering unhappiness because half of your cities are one religion and want to be monotheistic. You could either build a bunch of mercenaries to spread other religions to those cities, or you could voluntarily create a 2nd nation which is a theocratic state.
Regardless, if there is an involuntary civil war, the benefit would be that there is no Anarchy... it's immediate. So that would be why you would be happy it happened.
Agreed, this is off topic. You should consider starting a new topic and politely asking a moderator to move your post and replies there. I'll try to stay on topic by couching my thoughts in terms of this thread.
It's representative. While there's something to be said for picking a physical object to be a "wonder of the world", personally it doesn't bother me to have it otherwise.
Most wonders are this way. They are representative. The fact that only the civ producing the Pyramids is able to get early government choices is flawed, but you're not complaining about that. They picked the biggest one, the Pyramids of Giza, and that's what is represented by the wonder. Same thing with Hollywood, etc. They picked the biggest one.
That said, personally it wouldn't bother me to add a national wonder which produces one of these resource types. Just as it wouldn't bother me to add national wonders that allow early adoption of government civics (perhaps you only get one, rather than your choice of any of them). Or, any other implementation.
In a nutshell, what we're talking about here is that Wonders should give you free or cheaper items, not monopolies. There are only a couple of wonders which produce monopolies, so it would be easy to fix this in Civ5.
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 ?
I agree. This was not a good choice, nor was the image of Al Gore. It should be a picture of Virginia Tech, which is arguably where the Internet was born.
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 ?
Classical music makes more sense than philosophy, to have a new wonder added to Civ5, which happens to be represented by a picture of Bach or something German.
I think that's where you're under the wrong impression. Wonders are not in the game to represent real political affiliations in the world. Wonders are in the game to achieve gameplay. The choice of what to title the wonder is picked as a secondary matter.
I honestly do not believe Firaxis said, "We need a wonder to represent the UK peoples. Yes, let's use Stonehenge! Okay, what gameplay should it have...?"
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.
I personally do not mind having distinctiveness and interesting cultural history in the game. It's part of the reason I like Civ and enjoy it. If Civ was all about the U.S. history it wouldn't be nearly as interesting.
That said, I disagree with your desire to have quotas or some kind of equal opportunity, and I disagree that the way it is now is indicative of chauvanism.
Spoiler:
Criticism of the Equal Opportunity Approach, Wikipedia
Milton Friedman, in Free to Choose, states that Equal Opportunity is actually an attempt to achieve equal results. Equal opportunity has erroded the possibility for gifted individuals to serve as agents in the free market and has detrimentally affected the value of goods and services by discriminating against those whose aptitude to perform and produce is greater than others.
Adam Smith writes, in The Wealth of Nations, of an individual in a free market that "By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."
The concept of Equal Opportunity requires that legal censure be taken against those who do not give up their prejudices. Legal censure by the state is objectionable to some. However, in the absence of Equal Opportunity, legal censure would also have to be taken against social and religious activists who aim for equality in society.
Equal opportunity is often criticized on utilitarian grounds because the burden of equal opportunity regulations results in decreased productivity of the businesses, thus reducing well-being of all classes.
Another common criticism of equal opportunity is the perceived inherent bigotry existent in a legally mandated quota system. In the simplest terms, hiring someone based solely on ethnicity, gender, age, religion, political affiliation or sexual orientation is equally as wrong as refusing to hire a person for the same reasons.
No everything isn't read through US eyes. I tried to explain this before; but the fact is, that if what you are claiming is true, then there would be no Zulus or Hitties in Civilization, there would be no Forbidden Palace or Kremlin. And the US would have a very powerful UU. This is among many other things.
The problem isn't the fact the US have wonders, it is that everything is read through US eyes. Shakespeare Theatre, Darwin's voyage, Isaac Newton's college... the "Middle age" wonders were mainly British in past Civilization games. And the modern wonders were indeed either American or unaffiliated (women suffrage and cure for cancer).
I don't entirely disagree, it's just that I disagree with your exaggeration. And I find that arrogant statement to be amusing.
I'm sorry but that perception of History of civilization is distorted, chauvinist and short-sighted. If you disagree with this, then that means you're unable to think outside of your own model.
I wasn't claiming that it did. But why shouldn't it be the largest exporter that gets represented? Why should it be anything else? I have already stated that I agree that it is unfair that Hollywood in the game has a monopoly on movies. I think that it would be easy to use the new corporation feature to help with this problem. And your small wonder idea sounds great as well.
Indeed, being the largest exporter doesn't make of you the only exporter. Building Hollywood makes you the exclusive movie producer. I do believe movie studios should be a small wonders, they exist in all countries. However, an idea could be to determine the number of movies to export according to the culture developped at each turn by the civilization.
I can't speak for Civilization but for Civs II, III and IV I have to disagree. While the US-view may be the foundation I can't say it is deeply US centric. I mean how do you even know what the US view of the world and history is? Maybe you visited and lived here for a while, but from someone who was raised in the US I can say that Civilization opens up a whole new view of history.
I live in the Western world. I've played Civilization since the first game, and I can tell you that Civilization has always been deeply US-centric.
To tell the truth wonders are just there for the purpose of having wonders. It isn't as if it some glorious title to have your culture being represented by wonders in Sid Meiers Civilization. I don't get what you mean by "ruining" all the other improvements. It's just a bunch of wonders that they could have otherwise called Wonder A, Wonder B, Wonder C, etc... Hollywood isn't always American in the game, it could be Korean or it could be Malinese.
This has been improved in some fields, but that idea that US owns the whole worldwide cultural industry today is utterly flawed, and it ruins all the other improvements in that field.
I just wanted to add that I am not claiming that Civ doesn't need more diversity. Yes it does. And I agree that the U.S view may be involved too much, but I disagree that it is deeply U.S. centric.
I think it's actually obvious that Civ 4 is slanted towards the US. I don't think it's nearly as evil as people make it out to be though. Those who are criticizing it need to understand the circumstances that led to this. And apologists need to stop getting defensive, like this is part of the culture wars . To my American friends, I'd ask them to be less paranoid. This is simply a request to share the glory -- not an attack on the successes of the good old US of A.
The overabundance of US wonders a consequence of a few things: America dominates the last 1/3 of the tech tree. (Only a few civilizations, like the British, French, and USSR, really compare. And Japan and Germany compare, but get crap on a stick for all their accomplishments.) Compare 1/3 of the tech tree -- from the late renaissance onward -- to the glory days of other civilizations. Greece only really has half an age -- that's maybe 10 technologies! ... and they WROTE the original list of seven wonders!
Most of all, Sid Meier described Civilization 1 this way. It's not a graduate level study of history, with critical looks at politics, religion, and ethics. It's not even something you would find in your average high school textbook. It's the kind of history you'll find in a children's history book, with pretty pictures. That is a STATED goal of the Civilization franchise. It's not due to mere ignorance or laziness. It's strictly business and marketing.
Unfortunately, that's why the first 3 civilizations featured the distinctly tribal Zulu people. Sid Meier probably saw a movie in the early 80s where the Zulu overwhelmed British riflemen with their Impi. Otherwise, what did the "backwards" continent of Africa do? That Civilization 4 moved to the Malinese people who had castles like their European contemporaries, who had mosques like their Arab contemporaries, and had a university before Europe did -- that's HUGE. Mali was a great choice in my opinion! In the future, I'd like to see the Ethiopians/Abyssinians instead of the Zulu!
But how many 10 year olds have even heard of Mali? They've certainly heard of Greece, Rome, China. They probably heard of Carthage and Perisa, but only because they fought Europeans. They've certainly heard of India, but only because of Gandhi. Could Mussolini be lumped in with Rome the same way that Gandhi is supposed to represent one of the world's oldest Civilizations? For a 10 year old, don't count on it. But a 10 year old may have never heard of the Maurya Empire, yet finally Civilization 4 features Ashoka, the world's first humanitarian. That's a huge change too, even if he's lumped in with India (which is accurate, BTW. Just that you don't see the upcoming Byzantines lumped in with the Greeks, as I feel they should.)
Moreover, which group of 10 year olds is Sid Meier talking about? The obvious answer is American 10 year olds. Civilization 4 is predominantly bought by Americans. The designers and writers are predominantly American. That's going to affect everything: wonders, leaders, civilizations.
Let's get back on topic. "A More Diverse Range of Wonders and Leaders" would be a big selling point for Civilization 5. I think this is a necessarily bigger idea than simply saying "we added the Scimitar to the middle ages" or "we added the Terracotta Army". Most people genuinely like seeing stuff from all over the world. And instead of reacting with hostility saying "who the heck is that", they actually learn a lot more. (*most* people.)
Let's cool our tempers, and focus on what this would mean for the game. Either you'd like to see a different set of wonders, or you prefer the current set. No need to get political.
That said, Marla Singer... what Wonders stand out as representative of German culture? (As far as I can tell, it's mostly cathedrals and castles, which are already sort of represented in the game. JS Bach's Cathedral used to be in the game as a special wonder, but even that sort of bends history.) What would you like to see?
Re: Civil War... AKA, if you can only read one post about civil war...
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've just described the trap. Either civil wars are trivial, civil wars are annoying, or we don't have them at all. Either way, a large group of Civilization 5 players will be disappointed.
The only way to get out of that is creativity.
For example, (1) if civil war happens due to a somewhat predictable formula, why can't a civil war be both good and bad? Why can't it be something you'd want in some ways, instead of strictly a penalty? Or, on the other side... (2) If civil wars involve some unpredictable qualities, why can't that be the consequence of an unpredictable opponent (especially a human one), rather than dice rolls?
Those two assertions go against our intuitions of a civil war. What good is associated with a civil war? And isn't it always the fault of the people in charge of that country? What do other cultures have to do with your country's politics? But I'm not talking about distorting history here. I'm talking about game play. Games are just a series of choices, some of which are rewarded. The creativity I'm asking for doesn't come from distorting history, but conceiving of a system of rewards that encourages historical choices. We don't need to challenge political assumptions about what causes a civil war. We need to challenge game play assumptions of how the Civilization franchise has worked until now. Mxzs is trying to do that, and I think it's the kind of deep thought that's necessary to make this feature work.
Otherwise, we're going to be back in the trap, where large numbers of Civ fans are disappointed either way.
One possible positive caused by Civil war could be an economy boost. In the American Civil war at least, the Union's economy boomed and the unemployment rates dropped drasticly. Maybe soom exta production or money?
Unfortuately that's the only Civil War that I have studdied in detail. Does anybody know any other civil wars?
If I seemed fierce in my comments I am sorry. But I was just trying to explain that even though it may be "slanted" towards the US view that it isn't "entirely" US centric.
Also- I had a civil war response but it accidently went back to the previous page. I will post it sometime but not right now. It's not very long I am just not the type of person who likes to rewrite things after just writing it. Might make a new thread for it. But in general it was a proposal that gives choice to the player and makes civil war fun and rewarding. The only problem I had is that the people who want civil war in general don't want it too be that way. They want it to be an actual problem that the players have to deal with. So you have to ask the question: Is it worth implementing a feature if it won't do what the people who are demanding it wants it to do?
In any case I plan to post it eventually and look foward to future discussion.
Take your time. Keep in mind -- religion probably wasn't implemented the way a lot of people wanted it. But it's at least marginally fun the way they implemented it. If you end up with a spin on civil war that hasn't been requested before, it can only be a good thing.
Thanks dh epic for your post. Indeed, my intention was certainly not to bash US achievements, especially in the modern era.
Actually, once thinking about it, it's interesting since we realise that the world has significantly changed since the first Civilization game released in 1991. Then, the Berlin wall had just fallen, and the USSR was in the middle of its downfall process. The US was the sole unrivaled superpower. Nowadays, the world is getting a lot more global. The Asia-Pacific region is raising fast, China is becoming powerful, and even if there's still time before China become as powerful as the US or even the EU, it's true that this is still foreseeable. In 1991, we couldn't see anyone who could compete with the power of the US in the 21st century. What's interesting is that the different sequels of the Civilization seems to follow this perception change.... as indeed, the more it goes and the more Civilization gets global.
Anyway, the great idea of Civilization about wonders is exactly to associate a world fantastic building with a specific bonus for the Civ building it. As such, I believe the idea has always been more to find wonders first and try to associate a bonus to it rather than finding a bonus first and try to associate it with a building later. Spontaneously, the American wonders that directly comes in mind are the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building. And I think both should be in the game more than Broadway or Rock n'Roll, though people are of course free to disagree.
Anyway, instead of musicals, I think it would be a better idea to go a bit earlier in History and think about operas. The Magic flute, Carmen or Rigoletto are probably better known than Cats and Hair (though these musicals are great that's not really the point). Furthermore, it would be interesting to export cultural product as soon as in the 19th century, rather than adding musicals to movies and songs in the 20th century.
Most wonders are this way. They are representative. The fact that only the civ producing the Pyramids is able to get early government choices is flawed, but you're not complaining about that. They picked the biggest one, the Pyramids of Giza, and that's what is represented by the wonder. Same thing with Hollywood, etc. They picked the biggest one.
No, you're wrong, that's not the same thing. Having the exclusivity in a cultural export product is not the same as being the first one to use a civic. It would actually be similar to consider that only one civilization has the exclusivity about a specific civic during the whole game.
Believing that only one civilization can make movies or songs is utterly flawed as it goes at the exact opposite of what is the deep cultural nature of Artistic expression. Everyone in the world expresses itself through Arts, and anyone in the world can see its Art being exported. That's actually at the core of the very expression of a Civilization.
I think the best idea would really be to be able to produce that kind of Arts only through national wonders, and to determine the volume each civ is able to export according to the culture it produces at each turn. These national wonders would be as such:
- Academy of Music (being able to export one Opera for each ## of culture produced at each turn)
- Music Major (being able to export one hit song for each ## of culture produced at each turn which is not already "used" to produce operas).
- Movie Studio (being able to export one Movie for each ## of culture produced at each turn which is not already "used" to produce operas and hit songs.)
Luxury Resources in the Vanilla game were clustered. As a result, it was relatively easy to control a local monopoly on Sugar or Spice or Everything Nice.
Hit Singles, etc., were a late-game addition to the Luxury Resources. Similarly, they were clustered: the Civ that built the Wonder had a monopoly.
Now, with the introduction of the Balanced resource game option to remove clustering, the Wonder Luxuries are still clustered. Hence the gameplay disconnect: the base game is moving in one direction while the Wonders are standing still.
The other problem is this: the Wonder Luxuries benefit the wrong people, i.e., it's usually the Civs that are winning that can afford the time and the hammers to build them.
The solution: Get rid of them. Yes, you can still build Broadway for the +50% , but the whole Hit Musicals thing doesn't really work.
Heck, throw in the fact that you got corporations now...
...hey, wait a second. Marla: your problem is solved.
Record Company: Converts Silver or Gold into Hit Singles.
Broadway Producer: Converts Silk or Fur into Hit Musicals.
Tinseltown SKG: Converts Oil into Hit Movies.
Tada. Problem is solved. Now everyone has access to them.
Substantively, I've got nothing, except the sour suggestion that the game take a lesson from the euro (whose "monuments" the currency depicts are wholly fictional) and make all the Wonders totally imaginary. That would also solve the problem.
I'm going to continue outlining the idea I proposed earlier, but I'm not going to say much concrete. This seems to me a big idea, and it's better to go slowly and carefully, and to start by making sure it's clear where and how the game would have to change before thinking of concrete changes. As usual, more technical or historical asides are in spoiler boxes.
That idea, you may recall, is to change the relationship between politics and culture as it is structured in the Civ games. Right now culture is a department of the player's "empire" and an adjunct to his imperial projects. Changing it so that culture is at the base and the empire is an "expression" of the culture could open up more possibilities in the game.
Spoiler:
Why make this change? First, for historical reasons; the game misrepresents social facts when it represents culture, religion, science, and art as depending upon government institutions, especially when it represents the political extinction of a nation leading to its cultural extinction. (I'd expect Polish players to make this point especially loudly. )
In terms of game play, it would de-emphasize the focus on warmongering and preparedness. There is nothing wrong with a game that lets such elements in, but by making all the other game conditions depend upon the political independence of your empire, it subordinates all those other activities to the military necessity of staying alive. In a game that tries to introduce culture and non-military winning conditions, this is a severe imbalancer.
This sounds like an enormous change, but if implemented in the right way it would be more of an evolutionary change rather than a revolutionary one. To see this, consider that only one basic change would have to be made to the game; all the other changes would follow as consequences of that one change.
The change is this: There must be a way for the player to survive the conquest of his cities; and not just to survive in the game, but to thrive and even win.
Spoiler:
Cities are places where people live together, but culture arises from the overall community. Once you see this, you see that control of the metropolitan government shouldn't by itself change the cultural orientation of the people who live in it. And since many cultural expressions arise without or against government sanction, it should be possible to model to model cultural developments and contributions in a way that doesn't make them rely upon the governmentupon controlling the city, in other words.
The easiest way to think of this in game terms: The cities in the game represent the people (your people) and not metropolitan political machines. Thus, when you lose a city you only lose control of certain aspects of the city (the political ones). Really, the city remains yours; it's just that you can no longer build certain buildings or units, and you cannot prevent the conquering AI from using your city to build them. Moreover, certain resources that would have gone to your government (taxes, or control of nearby resources) will instead go to another player. So think of conquest as diminished control of a city, not the loss of control of it.
From this one change three corollaries follow. First, there would have to be a new set of rules to connect culture and politics, ranging from the broadly philosophical (how are government types to be connected to cultural development) to the narrowly technical (how do cultural and national borders interact). Second, the idea of cultural victory would have to be expanded and developed. Goals would have to be defined; elements introduced or reformed; and methods of waging fiercer cultural conflict would have to be invented. Finally, because the cultural aspects would have to be made more complicated, the military aspects of the game ought to be made more simple.
I won't have much to say about the last change, which can probably be considered independently of the other changes. For right now, I want to explore the second set of changes. What would a "cultural" victory look like?
For starters, it needs to be something more than the cultural victory as realized currently in the game, which is just a matter of racking up "culture" points. In my earlier post I argued that a cultural victory needs, to some extent, to be a user-defined condition. But he needs to have choices. What are some of the elements that can be crafted into choices?
All of the key elements in Civilizationnot just culture and religioncan play a part in defining various "cultural" victories. Economics, science, and government are also cultural expressions, and so to make "culture" the central notion in the game is neither to lose nor denigrate these other features. Instead, it is to integrate them in a way that sees them as cultural expressions, where currently they are integrated as elements in an industrial-military machine.
There are various ways to conceive of the good life, but following the categories in Civ, we can identify six different families of elements that can go into them:
1. Religious: This is represented in such buildings as temples, cathedrals, monasteries and in the "religions" that have been introduced in Civ4. I put the word "religions" in scare quotes because in that game they seem to function more like corporations. This side of the game is very undeveloped.
2. Artistic: This seems to be the game's conception of "cultural," and it can be developed in various ways, perhaps by developing the different kinds of arts they purportedly represent: music, literature, drama, architecture, and the visual arts.
3. Economics: Culture also expresses itself in the way that communities organize their economic activities; in game terms, "economics" covers food, hammer, and coin production and the effects on other activities from tax rates and the creation of specialists. This is one area that is ripe for reconstruction, perhaps by finding some way to "monetize" the various activities so that such incommensurables as hammer and food production can be related to each other and to non-material goods.
4. Scientific: The pursuit of knowledge is culturally specific; it ought to be possible for players to do well without advancing very far along the tech tree; conversely, advancing far along it could by itself play a part in defining victory conditions.
5. Political: Not only government types but international success have their part here. To put it bluntly, not only do some cultures tend to evolve toward certain government types, but some even have a strong imperial streak. Making "cultural" victories primary, then, is not necessarily to de-emphasize the military; world conquest can itself be a kind of cultural victory, if world conquest is the kind of thing that helps fulfill the culture's self-image.
Without committing myself to a specific proposal, let me sketch an example of how some of these elements could all work together.
1. Either as an individual component or as part of a group setting, the player could choose "universal state" as one of his victory conditions. This doesn't mean that he wins once he has achieved a universal state, or that a universal state must be in effect at the end of the game. It would mean that he would lose points so long as his universal state went unrealized.
Spoiler:
Why lose points? Don't ask me. I've no clear ideasonly hunchesabout how scoring could be built. But my hunch is that the player should start with a large number of points and lose a bunch of them per turn. He would not begin to gain points until he had met some minimal number of victory conditions. He would not win until he had recovered all the points that he initially lost (or some percentage over his starting point), and he would likely not lose unless he lost all points. In other words, he would have to get a roughly functioning version of his civilization in working order by some point, and then get back to his starting point before any of the competitor civs did. But that's just off the top of my headan idea to shove in so I can construct an example.
2. To meet that condition he would only have to do one thing: construct the "Forbidden Palace" national wonder. That, however, would take a good deal of time and effort, as described below:
3. At the start of the game he would build one city, and from it send out settlers to found other cities. But although these other cities would be part of his culture (and he could control their cultural output) they would not be under his political control. Instead, they would be "barbarian" style cities building military units that would fight his units or those of anyone else unlucky enough to meet up with them.
3. He could, of course, conquer these cities. However, his initial government civic (Tribalism) would mean that conquered cities would be unhappy, and they would only get unhappier as they got bigger. When they go into unhappiness, they slip back out of his control and he has to conquer them again.
4. Once he has researched a certain background of techs, however, he would be able to change his government civic to the Universal State civic. This would do three things. First, cities belonging to his culture and under his control would no longer suffer an unhappiness penalty. Second, those cities belonging to his culture but not under his control would suffer an unhappiness penalty. Third, once he had conquered all of his cultural cities and had Courthouses in all of them, he would be able to build the Forbidden Palace national wonder, which would make the city he built it in into his capital. Besides its corruption-reducing abilities, it might also contribute modestly to scientific research and to artistic creation.
This sounds complicated, but it is mostly a way of re-integrating various components that already exist in the game. I've constructed mostly as a thought-experiment, however, to show how features that we already have in the game can be reconfigured as contributing to a "cultural" victory. The "cultural condition" the player chose in the example was that his cities exist within a unified state: this is the kind of thing that defines his people as a people. However, it would be a condition that could only be met through warfare; and if some of the cities he needed to acquire were held by other, AI-managed players, then he would have find himself fighting these other civs just as he might in a regular game. But it would be a fight in order to secure a cultural goal and not only so he could get more money or resources or in order to advance his security.
No, you're wrong, that's not the same thing. Having the exclusivity in a cultural export product is not the same as being the first one to use a civic. It would actually be similar to consider that only one civilization has the exclusivity about a specific civic during the whole game.
Believing that only one civilization can make movies or songs is utterly flawed as it goes at the exact opposite of what is the deep cultural nature of Artistic expression. Everyone in the world expresses itself through Arts, and anyone in the world can see its Art being exported. That's actually at the core of the very expression of a Civilization.
I think the best idea would really be to be able to produce that kind of Arts only through national wonders, and to determine the volume each civ is able to export according to the culture it produces at each turn. These national wonders would be as such:
- Academy of Music (being able to export one Opera for each ## of culture produced at each turn)
- Music Major (being able to export one hit song for each ## of culture produced at each turn which is not already "used" to produce operas).
- Movie Studio (being able to export one Movie for each ## of culture produced at each turn which is not already "used" to produce operas and hit songs.)
I think I did not clearly state my thoughts, because I agreed with you on this topic. A monopoly doesn't make sense.
Spoiler:
Wodan said:
In a nutshell, what we're talking about here is that Wonders should give you free or cheaper items, not monopolies. There are only a couple of wonders which produce monopolies, so it would be easy to fix this in Civ5.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
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?
, but the whole Hit Musicals thing doesn't really work.
)
