Holy ****, Mxzs. That's the kind of idea that I was hoping this thread would generate. Even reading the first paragraph, I'm like "hmm... two separate forms of control..." and you hit me with the "two production" queues thing that I'm not even sure who thought of it first. Those are the traits of a good writer and thinker, who knows how to pull a reader onto the same page.
All I'll say is this: the idea that military dominance gets you only partial control is a vastly interesting idea. Especially since it also means that a conquered player can still play as a spiritual or cultural guide of their people under someone else's political rule -- which might actually be a LOT of fun to try.
The key to the idea is this: it needs to be simple to understand. As you start to discuss which buildings will be controlled by who under which civics, my eyes start to glaze over. The divide needs to be simple. I'm thinking, the conqueror gets control over resources, units, and the construction of units. Everything else belongs to the people. (And maybe one or two civics could have exceptions: like a mercantilist would also be able to build markets and banks in conquered civilizations that don't already have them. But certainly not micro-rules for every civic choice.)
Anyway. Holy smokes. This is a really good idea -- but one that necessarily challenges the fundamentals of the franchise, and could easily lead down a dead end if it gets too complicated.
Lord Olleus said in three lines what took me paragraphs to point out:
1) It must not be too big a risk for firaxis/not be civ any more
2) It must have a clear positive impact on gameplay. Don't do things for the sole sake of realism.
3) Its got to be new/original/attention grabbing.
Most suggestions fall into at least one pitfall, if not two. A lot of attention grabbing features that involve too much risk -- we're not sure what the positive impact will be because it's so radically different from what we've had in the past. Or a lot of features that are reasonably small, but often focus more on realism than a positive game play benefit, and with no sizzle to sell a sequel.
That said, I like your ideas, because I think they find a sweet spot. Collateral damage was one of those "medium level" features to sell Civ 4. It wasn't religion or civics, but it offered the hope of something better for the combat system. You're the first person I've seen who has suggested a new system that is neither Civ 3 nor Civ 4 -- and that's definitely a good thing, because both of those siege systems are fundamentally broken. I think the "range" concept could work, and would be a good medium level feature for civ 5.
I'd also like to see the trade route calculations reworked a bit, so it's not just a question of pure distance. Still, this sounds pretty micro for a sequel. There's plenty of ways to improve on Civ 4 -- it's far from perfect. The problem is a lot of the imperfections are small or complex and don't facilitate cool and broad solutions the way Civ 3's gaping flaws did.
I've been one of the earliest advocates of a culture spreading model. In fact, in this little community, I'd say it's one of the few things I'd actually be known for. The idea eventually picked up enough steam that it's kind of become a common suggestion.
I only realized the problems with my own suggestion when I finally saw it implemented by a modder. Yes, the benefit is it gives you the sense of a living breathing world of ideas being transmitted around. But it totally disrupts the borders feature. And, moreover, the fact remains that culture doesn't do much else. I think you're smart to propose a new system for borders in its wake, though.
The key to the idea is this: it needs to be simple to understand. As you start to discuss which buildings will be controlled by who under which civics, my eyes start to glaze over.
Most of what I'm doing is just note-taking and musing in public. When asked what she was thinking about, the little girl replied, "I don't know until I say it." Similarly, I don't know what I'm thinking until I write it down. Eventually I will pull it all together into an easier-to-understand format, but so many strands are tangled up with each other right now that I can't untangle one part until I get a bunch more figured out.
Science is going to be both easier and harder to discuss. Easier, because I think I can reduce what I want to say to a set of bullet points. Harder, because the reflections behind those bullet points are rather complex. Anyway, as usual, the harder, more technical stuff will go in spoiler boxes.
1. Science is a culturally specific activity. By this, I don't mean that science is subjective or that different cultures can have different "truths." I only mean that science develops out of the need to solve certain kinds of problems, and the problems that need solving will vary from culture to culture. Hence, different cultures, facing different problems, will evolve sciences that look in different directions.
Spoiler:
"Science," properly, is not a set of engineering solutions, but it does seem to develop out of the need to engineer solutions. Discoveries are stimulated, explored, and developed largely to the extent that they promise to "pay" in some concrete way.
That much should be uncontroversial. More controversial will be the thought that scientific theories make the phenomena they describe "conceptually visible." Grant that a Faraday and a caveman, when they see a lightning strike, are both confronted by an electrical discharge. But only Faraday will be able to see it as an electrical discharge: the theory, not the lightning itself, tells him what it is. (Of course, the caveman can have his own theory about it.)
In this regard, however, a scientific theory is not so much different from the "rules" that describe other activities. The "laws" of musical counterpoint may not describe an objective physical reality, but they make "visible" such musical forms as the canon and the fugue. A culture that is more interested in music than the physical manipulation of the environment may be just as "scientific" as the latterin the sense that it will explore and develop its understanding of phenomenabut it will express its scientific leanings in a different form.
2. Scientific theories integrate disparate fields into systematic wholes. Today it's a commonplace that lightning and magnets are covered by the theory of electromagnetism. But it's a bizarre thought if you're only starting with those two phenomena. Scientific theories are never keyed to specific eventsthere's no such thing as a theory of this lightning strikebut are universal generalizations. As such, they issue predictions about unobserved events, and quite often they will imply predictions that seem to fall outside their narrow range. The broadest kinds of "science" (such as physics) will touch on lots of others.
Spoiler:
It's because good theories cover so much ground that they are so fertile, and it's why a theory that begins as part of a simple engineering problem can spin off so many other applications: it's why the theory of electromagnetism, once firmly developed, could lead to such seemingly unrelated inventions as the telephone and light bulb. Of course, these further developments do not occur in a vacuum: a theory may imply unexpected solutions to problems that didn't even seem to be problems, but those solutions won't be developed and adopted unless there is a need for them. The broadest kinds of theories, then, do not lead inevitably to new and specific inventions or techniques; the broadest kinds of theories simply open up new vistas for possible exploration.
The same reflections also apply to other fields. To take up the previous example again: the laws of counterpoint, once grasped, opened up further possibilities when conjoined with other musical forms. The Well-Tempered Clavier, in a sense, was an invention of Baroque musical science, and Bach was its Edison.
The kinds of connections that good theories create can spill across much wider areas than you might think: discoveries in the arts and sciences can influence each other. In the late Middle Ages artists became interested in pictorial representations that comported with actual human optical experience; this interest led not only to the laws of perspective but stimulated the science of optics itself. It surprises many people that Leonardo and other artists had scientific discoveries to their credit. This says less about Leonardo's wide learning and interests (though it says a great deal about that, too) than it does about how closely related many sciences are in their infancy.
3. Civ models a specifically Western course of scientific development, and the tech tree is designed to ****** and balance the emergence of the powerful military units it licensed. A warmonger from the desert; a builder on the plains; a mystic in the archipelago: all will ascend the same ladder, along more or less the same path, through the same breakthroughs, and arriving at the same place. The only suspense lies in knowing whether you will survive long enough to get to the Future Tech, because, after all, all the other civs are just looking for an excuse to whack you.
If you're going to turn the relationship between politics and culture in the game upside down, you might as well turn the relationship between science and practice upside down, too. Currently, you do abstract "research" in order to get specifically desired tools that will let you change the environment (physical and social) in various ways. Instead, your actions should reward you with "discoveries" that give you new or more powerful abilities. People learn by doing, but science ensures that what they learn can be applied in new situations.
Here are some general suggestions on how to reconfigure science and technology in Civ.
1. Techs should be reconfigures as nodes connecting sets of concrete player builds to each other. This is vague; in practice it breaks into two parts. First, certain techs should become available only if the player builds certain units, buildings, or terrain improvements. Second, other techs should be configured as nodes connecting diverse techsthose researched with those that can be researched.
Right now it is theoretically possible for a player to build a city and then, without once creating a unit, building, or terrain improvement, discover everything up through Future Tech. Of course, in practice he'll run out of turns or get conquered first, but the point remains: his wise men could just sit around and via bare, abstract "research" discover all of science and its applications without getting their hands dirty. This is ridiculous.
Instead, players should be able to be forced to make certain builds before they can research certain techs. Some techs (call them "practical techs") should have only narrow benefits: the ability to build units or buildings, while others (call them "theoretical techs") would combine with each other or with certain practical techs so as to enable the research of other techs. In essence, a player would have to improve his domain in concrete ways; once he'd accumulated enough such improvements, he would be in a position to discover more "theoretical" techs that carried further possible improvements. Once he had accumulated enough of these theoretical techs, they would begin to lock together so as to open up different research paths leading to further, more specialized improvements.
Spoiler:
An example I developed while playing with "techs as sets": The civic Hereditary Monarchy has as its prerequisite the tech Monarchy. That tech, in turn, has no techs as prerequisites; instead, it requires the presence of a Granary, a Barracks, and either a Chariot or a Horse Archer. Granaries, in turn, can only be built after the discovery of Pottery and with the presence of a Barracks or Temple in the city. Barracks have no prerequisite; I ignore for this example the prerequisites for Temples. Pottery's prerequisite is the presence of a Farm, which requires the prior mastery of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. These, in turn, require building a road in a Freshwater, Corn, Rice, or Wheat resource (for Agriculture) and in a Cow, Sheep or Pig resources.
Horse Archers, in turn, require the prior discovery of the Horseback Riding and Archery techs, and a camp in a Horse resource. Archery can be researched only after the player puts a road in either a Forest or Jungle square, and Horseback Riding can be researched only after he puts a road in a Horse resource square.
A player could get Monarchy, then, if he had a Corn, Sheep, Horse, and Forest square within his borders. (Freshwater, rice, and wheat could substitute for corn; jungle could substitute for forest; cows and pigs could substitute for sheep.) He would then proceed more or less as follows:
1. Builds a road into the Corn resource: Gets the ability to research Agriculture.
2. Builds a road into the Sheep resource: Gets the ability to research Animal Husbandry.
3. Builds a road into the Horse resource: Gets the ability to research Horseback Riding.
4. Researches Agriculture.
5. Researches Animal Husbandry.
6. Having the above two, he gets the ability to build farms.
7. Builds a Farm: gets the ability to research Pottery.
7. Researches Pottery.
8. Builds Barracks.
9. Having the above two gives him the ability to build a Granary.
10. Builds Granary.
11. Researches Horseback Riding.
12. Build a road into Forest: Gets the ability to research Archery.
13. Researches Archery.
14. Builds a camp in the Horse resource.
15. Builds a Horse Archer.
16. With a Granary, a Horse Archer, and a Barracks, he gets the ability to research Monarchy.
17. Researches Monarchy.
18. Institutes Hereditary Monarchy.
This sounds long and complicated, but it's just the normal set of player actions: build units, build improvements, research techs. And, of course, the elements he is building and researching would have other spinoffs I've not mentioned.
Monarchy, of course, is a general concept, and it can be combined with other, similarly broad concepts so as to lead either to broad concepts or to specific effects or practical techs. In the example above, for instance, I had Monarchy combining with Polytheism as prerequisites for researching Divine Right and Monotheism (broad concepts); with Astronomy so as to enable the Civil Service civic; and with Philosophy to launch the religion Confucianism.
2. The tech tree should be "flattened out" and clusters of "alternate, elective" techs created. Once a civilization has reached a certain level of development, its options should expand so that it has a choice of developing in "culturally characteristic" ways. The key turning point would probably be the building of Libraries (or some similar, "science-oriented" building) that would signal that the culture is serious about developing a characteristic metaphysic. Combining this science-oriented building with some other type of building the culture has might open up mutually exclusive research paths that would concentrate on developing applied physical sciences; abstract, mathematical sciences; aesthetic sciences; metaphysical/religious sciences; moral/ethical/social sciences; or what-have-you. These would increase the civilization's ability to concentrate on one or more victory conditions more efficiently. Focusing on the applied physical sciences, for instance, might lead to stronger military units for creating larger empires; concentrating on the aesthetic might bring greater rewards in creating arts of various kinds.
Spoiler:
Returning to my earlier example: I played around for awhile with the idea that a civilization early on could build a National Wonder, but would have to choose a special type: a Great Temple, Great Agora, Great Obelisk, or Great Observatory. Building one would preclude the possibility of building the others. Once built, each would then enable research on a special, characteristic tech: Polytheism, Philosophy, Mathematics, and Astronomy, respectively. To examine one of these: Polytheism, when combined with the (not culturally specific tech) Monarchy would lead to Monotheism and Divine Right. These, in turn, would license more religions than the non-Polytheism-based metaphysics: Judaism, Hinduism, and Christianity would, in one way or another, fall out of these latter discoveries. State Religion would also be a civic unique to civilizations that followed this path. Adopting this metaphysic, in other words, would make the civilization stronger in the religious sphere but comparatively weaker in the others. Later techs would allow the player to further develop and refine these discoveries. Eventually, though, he would arrive at a set of techs that would allow him to exit back into the set of general techs available to all players. In other words, there would have been four different roads, leading past different rewards, that would have then reconverged on a common tech path. But choosing one path or the other would let the player systematically develop his civilization in a way not open to civs that followed other paths.
* * * * *
I haven't said anything yet about how science could be worked into a victory condition. The fact is that it's very hard to figure out a way to do that, given that scientific research is typically a means to an end and not an end in and of itself.
These days it is very hard to imagine a time when the idea of ever-expanding knowledge wasn't a commonplace. But it hasn't always been, and it might not be so. Scientific advances of the kind we're accustomed to need not continue forever, because they do require the existence of a certain kind of culture to sustain them. Such a culture need not disappear in a Canticle for Leibowitz type cataclysm; corrosive "postmodern" skepticisms might accomplish the same thing.
I can think of only one way to imagine and represent a culture that values the idea of ever-expanding knowledge for its own sake, and that would be a culture that built a kind of "knowledge producing" machine and couldn't figure out a way to turn it off. It's nonsense, of course, to think of an AI algorithm making new discoveries, just as it is nonsense to think of primitive wise men inventing the wheel without once picking up a stick of wood. Such a "machine," then, would have to be a self-sustaining "scientific monastery," a "science-industrial complex" which the government would be helpless to stop or turn aside. In fact, it would probably have to wind up supplanting the state. Think of it as the Papacy of the High Middle Ages, but devoted to scientific research rather than theological speculation.
Here's how it might be represented as a victory condition: Future Tech could not be researched until all the named techs had been researched; furthermore, it could only be researched with a special kind of "light bulb" which, in turn, could only be generated by special kinds of buildings. There would also be a negative modifier in place, so that Future Tech would remain forever out of reach unless the culture generated a sufficient number of special light bulbs to counteract the modifier. To generate that number, the civilization would have to build a meta-Wonder, a set of "science-oriented" buildings linked together by a separate, special Wonder that would multiply their outputs and convert them into the special light bulbs. Furthermore, there would have to be a special kind of civic enabled that would turn the government, basically, into the preserve of these priest-scientists.
At least, that's all I can come up with at the moment.
This sounds like you're saying that science (research) arises as a symptom / result of cultural imperatives. In many cases, I would agree. However, there are other root causes of research, as well. (Using "research" very liberally to mean the activities that result in discovery of some new technique, item, or whatever.)
serendipity
sponsored & directed research
divine inspiration
psychosis
alien influence
individual decision
Even if we leave aside divine or extraterrestrial direction, there are still some accidental means (serendipity and psychosis) as well as direction by one person or a small group of people (individual decision and sponsored & directed). The latter might be the researcher himself, a civil/religious/commercial sponsor such as commonly occurred in the Renaissance where people such as Galileo were sponsored (usually for prestige), or state-sponsored such as occurred in the Soviet Union... regardless, this could be driven by literally anything, from whim to simple greed.
The above is mostly related to possible future conclusions that might be drawn with the assumption that research arises from cultural imperatives and is never consciously directed or accidental.
Everything else sounds great. Still liking where this is going....
This sounds like you're saying that science (research) arises as a symptom / result of cultural imperatives. In many cases, I would agree. However, there are other root causes of research, as well. (Using "research" very liberally to mean the activities that result in discovery of some new technique, item, or whatever.)
I wasn't as deliberately careful with my words as I could have been, but I think "culturally specific" has wiggle room in it that, say, "culturally determined" wouldn't. At any rate, I don't think I would ever write that scientific research is "culturally determined," because I don't believe it. All the items you listed I cheerfully agree go into research. ("Cheerfully admit"? I'd bust down walls to assert they play a role!) By "culturally specific" I only mean that researchers take an awful lot of cues from the surrounding culture, and even when they don't the culture--just by ignoring them, if nothing else--can limit their impact.
But that's just quibbling. I'm not heading in a direction that would exclude research being deliberately directed. I do rather like ChrTh's ideas, but mine lean in the opposite direction. I am thinking of the player as a kind of "small god" or "national deity" that is trying to mold his people into a certain form, and isn't averse to sending prophets--political, ethical, scientific, artistic!--to prod them in directions he wants them to go.
No problem, Mxzs. Just wanted to make sure I understood what you were trying to say. I'm not, we're on the same page, and all's right with the world. Thanks for the explanation!
You know, I can almost see someone coming into this thread and saying, "Hey, I think that factories should occasionally produce toxic waste spills on random squares and then you would have to have workers go around and clean them up." It's not an unworthy idea, but, this person of course wouldn't have played previous versions of the game and so wouldn't realize that this very feature had been put under the umbrella of 'health', in order to avoid pointless micromanagement.
Reading all these suggestions, I found myself saying over and over, "But that's already in the game." It might be worth reexamining the ideas from this perspective. Here's a couple of examples:
American Civil War --> American player looks, sees "+8 We demand emancipation." in his cities. Looks around, sees no immediate threat, and goes to civic screen. Change 'slavery' to 'emancipation' and press 'revolt'. 4 years of civil war (2 turns of anarchy) later, everything is fixed up and America is back in business, minus those few turns of production which went into fighting the civil war.
Local movie industry --> Encompassed by Broadcast tower + theater + culture slider + local commerce + trade routes. The broadcast tower can give happiness with culture slider, even without 'hit movies' resources. I assume that they are transmitting something other than static, like say, a mix of locally manufactured and imported programming. If there are enough different sources for this stuff that if one were cut off, it would not radically change the content or quantity or quality of the whole. On the other hand, if there is also one very large source of movies (say Hollywood) a cutoff could drastically alter the content and cost of local programming. Instead of trading cows for movies, now we have to make our own or buy them from all over, resulting in an increase in culture slider.
Of course, if you really want to eliminate hollywood and replace with a bunch of civilization based studios, this would be a really simple mod to do. Just go into the XML files and create a bunch of unique buildings and unique movie resources, one for each civ. So, the french movie studio produces FRENCH_MOVIES and so on. The main issue here is that someone could buy all the movies and have 40 happiness or something, but whatever.
Obviously the author and the reviewer are not referring to the game Civilization. However, I think the quote is applicable, especially only a few of them even interesting
This got me thinking (and I know I'm likely recapitulating something that others have already said) that in reality the challenge isn't just to make something different so that it sells Civ 4; the challenge is to create/modify something that results in interesting decisions.
I'll use a recent game as an example. Small map, 3 Civs left: myself, having slowly but surely conquered my continent, and two guys each on their own (sizable) island. I was almost in the modern age, and had a nice tech lead on my opponents. Looked like it was going to be a space race victory.
Then I realized: I'm friendly with the smaller of the two opponents -- and only two techs from Mass Media. I'll go for a Diplo victory. Something happened along the way, though: my opponent dropped to pleased +9 (wasn't actively tracking the modifiers, so I'm not sure what happened). I need one more point.
He had adopted Islam. I had one conquered city with Islam in it -- that's it (glad I didn't raze it!). The turn of the vote (not realizing that the vote would be coming that turn), I converted to Islam. Next turn: I had won a Diplomatic Victory.
Now, my win in the game was the result of ten thousand decisions: when to attack, when to make peace, when to trade, what troops to build, etc. etc. But it was the decision to convert to Islam that was the interesting one.
What does that mean? Well, the Diplomacy system in Civ 4 was a successful addition because it allows for interesting decisions that did not previously exist. Religion is also a successful addition for the same reason. Therefore, any creativity we want to display in this thread has to allow for interesting decisions because it is interesting decisions that a player will remember when the game is over.
Now, we have to distinguish between two types of objective decisions:
Isolated: These are decisions not based specifically on prior events. For example, declaring war on your neighbor just because you want to expand. (Note: just because it's Isolated doesn't mean it's not Strategic)
Cumulative: These are decisions that are built on other decisions. From my example, going for Diplomatic Victory was a Cumulative Decision (since my prior actions had led me to be Friendly with another Civ), as was converting to Islam (built off the decision to go for the Diplomatic Victory)
I believe it is Cumulative Decisions that are most appealing to players: it is the end result of a strategy (known or unknown) of their devising. Yes, Isolated Decisions can be fun -- and thus should not be discounted -- but I think Cumulative are more satisfying (I sure feel a lot better about the decision to convert to Islam than I do my earlier decision to declare war on France -- which netted me the Islam city in the first place).
There's a corollary to all this: Players prefer the things they do over the things that happen to them. That's why I'm wary about Civil Wars. Even if you can find a way where it would have a positive effect, it is something that happens to the player (even if he unwittingly causes it to happen due to neglect) over something that he does. That's why in my Civil War proposal (which was hastily made and frankly, just a random thought -- hence no defense on my part for it) I made sure the Civil War started with a Decision.
So, I thought I'd throw that out there. And yes, I realize that it makes me examine my own Tech Tree proposal to determine whether or not it provides Interesting Decisions; frankly, I like to think the Early Advanced Tech Discovery creates interesting decisions (isolated, at first, but as the game goes on could lead to cumulative decisions), but by the time I 'finish' it this weekend, I may have no longer believe that.
I like what I'm reading. I started reading last weekend, and when I cam back today, I'm lost .
A question I would like to ask, would be:
How easy would it be to mod BTS to the alternate theory model discussed a few pages back? Because with Rhye's mod, random events and this new civilization builder thing, I think it could be somehow possible...
"Global Warming", "United Nations", "Terrorism": In a game where there can only be one winner, nobody has explained why you'd want to prevent an international threat, or work together. So long as you're winning, who cares what happens to the planet collectively?
<Hyoga> So the colonies will never attempt to become independent themselves? They won't revolt and become a free civ? They'll only be independent if we choose to let it?
<alexman> Colonies start out as your vassals, but if you don't treat the right, they may become completely independent
Well what Firaxis descriped didn't seem like full blown civil wars. From what they said a single colony city just becomes automaticly independent when they no longer like you.
I would like a filter in the Gamespy interface to filter out the password protected, the PB games and also a choice of ping ranges. Also a way to be rated as a player that finishes games versus guitters. And possibly channels like Teamer,Ladder, and everything else
I'm glad people are enjoying the read. There's a few spots where we lose track of the main topic. Like a good run where it's mostly about the tech tree, and another run where it's mostly about civil war. And a good diversion about what kinds of wonders and leaders to include.
I think the idea of "choosing" to split off a colony is interesting and also sounds like this post:
The issue is why someone would even do that. Maintenance costs are still manageable by the late game. Is it worth it to have someone who might piss off the wrong person, and drag you into a war unintentionally? Maybe Firaxis decided to up the maintenance cost in BTS? Would that be fun? If they didn't, why would you split your empire? I'm not sure what to make of it, and I guess we won't know until we play. But it's interesting, nonetheless.
I still really like Mxzs's idea on civil war, but it risks getting very complicated. And you still have to wonder how fun it is to play in a situation where you have political control of a country but no cultural control, or vice versa.
And I haven't even started discussing economics yet!
(That's my project for this weekend and the start of the coming week. Gonna stick it off in its own thread. Oh boy. It's already 10 15 pages long in a 12-pt font, and I'm not even halfway done. Gonna need some severe editing and tight organization.)
Actually, if my civil war concept is sounding complicated, it's because it's developing off the deeper idea of a change in model to the game, from one where you're basically a political player to one where you're a cultural player. It's like picking a house up off its foundation and moving it down the road. Naturally, the teacups are going to shift.
(And yeah, I'm not understanding what's going on with civil war in BTS, either. Well, that'll be something interesting to see!)
And you still have to wonder how fun it is to play in a situation where you have political control of a country but no cultural control, or vice versa.
I think it COULD be fun. The Hebrews, to me, qualify as a great civilization, and yet they've rarely had much political control over their own fate. I'm much more likely to denigrate the Mongolians, who to me have contributed very little in the way of politics, art, philosophy, science, or much of anything -- but they've had heaps of political control just by sheer force and fear. Both could be fun, but you have to ask "what does a cultural player get to do?" and "what does a political player get to do?" (I think we need to distinguish this better than cultural/political. To me, it's more like the ruler and the spirit. I dunno how to articulate it more accurately while still being that concise, though .)
PS: speaking of conciseness... a lot of the time some of the things I write are quite long because I'm thinking as I'm going. While that's very organic, sometimes it's healthy to put together a summary of what I feel like I wrote afterwards. My summaries turn out quite long ANYWAY, but usually leave out points that weren't that important the first time. Food for thought.
And I haven't even started discussing economics yet!
(That's my project for this weekend and the start of the coming week. Gonna stick it off in its own thread. Oh boy. It's already 10 15 pages long in a 12-pt font, and I'm not even halfway done. Gonna need some severe editing and tight organization.)
I'm all for new ideas for the economic system but at 15 pages, no one is going to read it. Try to simplify it! remember KISS. Also, if you are go to present this idea on the forum, I would try proposing it in sections, where possible, so those ideas can be bounced off of other people.
Actually, if my civil war concept is sounding complicated, it's because it's developing off the deeper idea of a change in model to the game, from one where you're basically a political player to one where you're a cultural player. It's like picking a house up off its foundation and moving it down the road. Naturally, the teacups are going to shift.
(And yeah, I'm not understanding what's going on with civil war in BTS, either. Well, that'll be something interesting to see!)
I agree. But, I still think it's quite simple why you would want to do that. As an alternative to paying the maintenance cost. Money is not something to underestimate. It is arguably the most important resource you have in the game, you can't do much of anything without it. The Firaxians did say that Maintenance cost is the main reason why you would want too. I highly doubt their testers (some of who participated in the chat) would let them increase the maintenance cost with a noticeable drop in "fun level". So even it wasn't upped or it was upped but not so much that it makes the game less fun.
I guess the best of the best would never have to or want to split off their colonies but one thing I notice is that you can't abandon cities anymore. Unless this was changed since vanilla. Sometimes a city just isn't producing the potential you thought it had. Maybe trying to defend that land would not be worth it when you have other weak points in your empire. Since you can't abandon cities you are pretty much stuck with it unless you just wait for the AI to invade it. Cities sometimes don't produce as much money as they cost to maintain and that is somewhat annoying, even if your general treasury is doing just fine.
Spoiler:
One can argue that Britain chose to let the Americans go, any historian can easily point that Britain could easily have crushed them but would the money cost be worth it in the long run? Would the thinning of the military (they already had half their Navy in the American colonies) be worth it? Despite being the most powerful nation in the world, they obviously didn't think so. India was more important, possible invasion from Continental Europe, where several states declared war on Britain was more of a concern. So dump America, it's not worth it, there are more important things to worry about. Britain goes on to become even more powerful than it even was when it had America and remains the top power until the first world war, where, ironically the colony they dumped emerges as the new top power.
What I have come to make of it without actually playing BTS is that having colonies allows for more "interesting choices" and helps make each game more unique.
But my main concern is still if the AI knows how to use this. I don't want to see them constantly setting colonies free just because they had the choice, and I don't want to see large AI empires who although have more units and cities because of a lack of funds they are not promoted, lack of buildings, no gold hurry rush. I know the AI is greatly improved but I still worry.
I mentioned the testers. Firaxis said that they tried implementing an event that was so negative it wipes out a city. But the testers were about to kill them so they quickly removed it. I hope that would have been the case if colonies were not fun.
The issue is why someone would even do that. Maintenance costs are still manageable by the late game. Is it worth it to have someone who might piss off the wrong person, and drag you into a war unintentionally? Maybe Firaxis decided to up the maintenance cost in BTS? Would that be fun? If they didn't, why would you split your empire? I'm not sure what to make of it, and I guess we won't know until we play. But it's interesting, nonetheless.
You know, NYHunter, you've made an interesting for case for how a colony-by-choice might work. The maintenance cost might justify it. Hopefully whatever they did, they made it fun. Or if they couldn't, they erred on the side of player freedom. It'll be exciting see.
Maybe, if nothing else, it will give us a new starting point for our discussions. Always good to have a prototype to refer to.
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.
We demand emancipation." in his cities. Looks around, sees no immediate threat, and goes to civic screen. Change 'slavery' to 'emancipation' and press 'revolt'. 4 years of civil war (2 turns of anarchy) later, everything is fixed up and America is back in business, minus those few turns of production which went into fighting the civil war.
.
