dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I've basically adapted the domination game to make it move faster with more tactical concepts to let you rule the world by proxy. The other side of this, of course, is that empires crumble. The cracks in your empire open across cultural boundaries -- so culture points are your enemy and your friend when it comes to a civil war / nation split.
Naturally I've adapted the ideas into Civ terms, so it might be less than realistic. But I hope the game is, most of all, fun.
NOTE: these eras will not replace the current era system, but run parallel to them. these are just convenient terms to refer to three different stages in the game.
THE CLASSICAL ERA
Rome takes out Greece. They don't take it out by dominating every city, but by instigating a surrender. A surrender could be voluntary by a fed up leader/player, or a surrender could be forced based on a few measurable conditions (e.g.: "the people want you to give in" after you lost half your cities in but a few turns)
Of course, the catch with Greece is that its wonders and city improvements are culturally valuable. Rome may have nailed Greece with military might, but Greece has thousands more culture points than Rome. Assimilation should be harder for cultural epicenters. You can't assimilate greeks into romans until you pump out enough culture to "overtake" the greek culture.
So a greek city with 1000 culture points will stay all greek until the romans accumulate more culture. At 1500 culture points, the city will be 2/3 greek and 1/3 roman. By 2000 culture points, half and half. Smaller, less developed greek cities will more easily become roman. And if Rome occupies greece's cities, and produces enough culture to eclipse the greek cultural value, greece will be considered extinct. There will be no greeks, only romans.
Of course, it is very hard for an empire to keep things together... a peaceful or violent split for greece could happen, assuming that Rome hasn't held them under their thumb for long enough to make them into Romans.
Rome wins the game very early, of course, if they manage to dominate most of the surface... but there's a hidden time limit, since the bigger their empire becomes, the harder it is to keep it together. The game becomes a tricky balancing act, racing against the volatility of your own empire.
THE COLONIAL ERA
Once a nation has discovered the printing press, they should be basically immune to oldschool domination. Not because they are invincible, but because culture is generated so fast that there will always be an ethnic contingent living under someone else's rule. They will always see themselves as different from those who have colonized them (not dominated them).
The object of the game for the colonizer becomes less trying to control and assimilate the weaker culture... but to understand that time will run out on this arrangement, and try to maximize its benefit. New concepts of population migration will mean that British (colonizer) people will move to India (the colonized), and the British population will be the wealthy and powerful ones. In civ terms, Britain benefits from cheap labor and new resources / luxuries. India isn't supposed to benefit, since they would rather be free, but their consolation is not having to defend their own borders, and benefitting from Britain's tech tree (in some way shape or form). ... when they finally emerge from colonial rule, if the game is not already over, they might have a second shot at prosperity.
Britain attempts to rule the world not by wiping out india or killing its people, but by colonizing india, australia, north america ... and holding onto them at all the same time. If Britain moves TOO fast, they risk being sloppy, and watching the colonies they accumulated slip into rebellion, with a civilization "re-emerging" (like India). But if they move too slow, the rebellion will come anyway, even if it takes 400 years. So the idea is to control enough of the world in any way shape or form, including colonies, to secure domination. This is possible even at 1700 AD, even knowing that India will eventually rebel in the 1900s, since one can secure a victory well before the time runs out.
Moving settlers to a colonized city is a good strategy to prolong your rule, if emmigration isn't working fast enough.
And even if domination doesn't work out, an intelligent colonizer could still make sure that the uprising is not violent and messy. Britain voluntarily relinquishes a colony before things get really bad. (And they should, if domination looks impossible. Because in Civ 4, if one of your colonies uprises, it's going to cost you enough to make you wish you hadn't colonized them at all.)
NEO-COLONIALISM
After the united nations are built as a great wonder, for example. Or some other similarly timed political development (think WW2), the stakes change one more time. No longer can you even POPULATE a nation that you have defeated, let alone dominate them. (and with less than 200 years to go in the game, assimilating them would be a pain anyway). The world essentially prohibits you from invading another nation. (I dunno if it would be a gameplay impossibility, or if something would happen where the world puts together a vote and you'd have to withdraw from the nation you invaded if they agree).
However, you don't want to or need to make someone else's city into an American colony (let alone an American state) to dominate.
American marines show up on the shores of Cuba and they force an agreement with the civ-leader. Cuba agrees to become a puppet regime for America. America doesn't have to treat them well or give them luxuries (although they can if they really want to... but why use luxuries when you can use more marines). The best part, of course, is that NO OTHER NATION knows about it. As far as they know, it's business as usual in cuba... yet somehow, America's control of the world has gone up a few percentage points, putting them closer to a domination victory.
The intelligence agency becomes much more useful, as well.
Trading weapons to a civ leader is a great way to set up a puppet regime ... if you think they'll accept. (We will give you 12 marines, but you have to siphon off much of your wealth and resources to us, and you have to declare war on Iran.) Pretty damn awesome, in my opinion.
Instigating a civil war or a coup, through your intelligence agency? In one vision I have, the victim doesn't even have to know WHO interfered, but just know they've lost control. 50% of their wealth goes to whoever instigated the coup, but they don't know who that is! They fight wars with their neighbours and are in locked alliances, and have to play through without control over key decisions. On the other hand, I also envision a civil war with one side as a puppet regime for the Americans by default. And the Americans aid them with weapons and wealth, hopefully altering the course of the war, and thus ruling more of the world by proxy. In either case, the control over the puppet nation is indirect.
CONCLUSION FOR SPLITTING / BUILDING AN EMPIRE
I combine this aspect of domination with the aspect of creating new provinces / states / territories ... with governors and princes... the geographic aspect could still be enough to watch your empire fall apart (Americans and British, for example). I'm a huge fan of the commonwealth idea, and to me it is very compatible with my idea for domination and various forms of colonization.
I hope that I've made the domination victory more interesting. I've made it easier, yet harder. You can control the world by proxy (easier), but empires don't last forever (harder). This fills the game with more strategy, and also makes the game end potentially faster, with less tedium (since it's easier to rule by proxy than to actually micromanage two continents).
Seriously, imagine a game where you watched 5 different empires take a stab at domination, all in different time periods of the game, only to watch their empires collapse (and maybe even help that along) ... only to be the 6th empire to take a stab at domination and MAKE it.
COMPARING THE VISION TO CIV 3
I liken the vision of the game to crossing a rickety bridge that's falling apart. You can run across, but you're more likely to slip. You can crawl across, but the bridge is likely to fall apart before you make it. You could walk across, but will your opponent walk faster? Do you let them run faster than you and hope they slip, or do you run, and risk slipping?
Compare this to the current game, which is more like a bunch of people trying to build a house of cards from one deck. Try to snatch as many cards from the deck as possible, and then it's inevitable that you'll build the bigger house, and it's only a matter of time. Gets pretty repetitive, if you ask me. The loser is bored because he can't catch up. The winner is bored because nobody else can win, time can only stop him from winning.
Naturally I've adapted the ideas into Civ terms, so it might be less than realistic. But I hope the game is, most of all, fun.
NOTE: these eras will not replace the current era system, but run parallel to them. these are just convenient terms to refer to three different stages in the game.
THE CLASSICAL ERA
Rome takes out Greece. They don't take it out by dominating every city, but by instigating a surrender. A surrender could be voluntary by a fed up leader/player, or a surrender could be forced based on a few measurable conditions (e.g.: "the people want you to give in" after you lost half your cities in but a few turns)
Of course, the catch with Greece is that its wonders and city improvements are culturally valuable. Rome may have nailed Greece with military might, but Greece has thousands more culture points than Rome. Assimilation should be harder for cultural epicenters. You can't assimilate greeks into romans until you pump out enough culture to "overtake" the greek culture.
So a greek city with 1000 culture points will stay all greek until the romans accumulate more culture. At 1500 culture points, the city will be 2/3 greek and 1/3 roman. By 2000 culture points, half and half. Smaller, less developed greek cities will more easily become roman. And if Rome occupies greece's cities, and produces enough culture to eclipse the greek cultural value, greece will be considered extinct. There will be no greeks, only romans.
Of course, it is very hard for an empire to keep things together... a peaceful or violent split for greece could happen, assuming that Rome hasn't held them under their thumb for long enough to make them into Romans.
Rome wins the game very early, of course, if they manage to dominate most of the surface... but there's a hidden time limit, since the bigger their empire becomes, the harder it is to keep it together. The game becomes a tricky balancing act, racing against the volatility of your own empire.
THE COLONIAL ERA
Once a nation has discovered the printing press, they should be basically immune to oldschool domination. Not because they are invincible, but because culture is generated so fast that there will always be an ethnic contingent living under someone else's rule. They will always see themselves as different from those who have colonized them (not dominated them).
The object of the game for the colonizer becomes less trying to control and assimilate the weaker culture... but to understand that time will run out on this arrangement, and try to maximize its benefit. New concepts of population migration will mean that British (colonizer) people will move to India (the colonized), and the British population will be the wealthy and powerful ones. In civ terms, Britain benefits from cheap labor and new resources / luxuries. India isn't supposed to benefit, since they would rather be free, but their consolation is not having to defend their own borders, and benefitting from Britain's tech tree (in some way shape or form). ... when they finally emerge from colonial rule, if the game is not already over, they might have a second shot at prosperity.
Britain attempts to rule the world not by wiping out india or killing its people, but by colonizing india, australia, north america ... and holding onto them at all the same time. If Britain moves TOO fast, they risk being sloppy, and watching the colonies they accumulated slip into rebellion, with a civilization "re-emerging" (like India). But if they move too slow, the rebellion will come anyway, even if it takes 400 years. So the idea is to control enough of the world in any way shape or form, including colonies, to secure domination. This is possible even at 1700 AD, even knowing that India will eventually rebel in the 1900s, since one can secure a victory well before the time runs out.
Moving settlers to a colonized city is a good strategy to prolong your rule, if emmigration isn't working fast enough.
And even if domination doesn't work out, an intelligent colonizer could still make sure that the uprising is not violent and messy. Britain voluntarily relinquishes a colony before things get really bad. (And they should, if domination looks impossible. Because in Civ 4, if one of your colonies uprises, it's going to cost you enough to make you wish you hadn't colonized them at all.)
NEO-COLONIALISM
After the united nations are built as a great wonder, for example. Or some other similarly timed political development (think WW2), the stakes change one more time. No longer can you even POPULATE a nation that you have defeated, let alone dominate them. (and with less than 200 years to go in the game, assimilating them would be a pain anyway). The world essentially prohibits you from invading another nation. (I dunno if it would be a gameplay impossibility, or if something would happen where the world puts together a vote and you'd have to withdraw from the nation you invaded if they agree).
However, you don't want to or need to make someone else's city into an American colony (let alone an American state) to dominate.
American marines show up on the shores of Cuba and they force an agreement with the civ-leader. Cuba agrees to become a puppet regime for America. America doesn't have to treat them well or give them luxuries (although they can if they really want to... but why use luxuries when you can use more marines). The best part, of course, is that NO OTHER NATION knows about it. As far as they know, it's business as usual in cuba... yet somehow, America's control of the world has gone up a few percentage points, putting them closer to a domination victory.
The intelligence agency becomes much more useful, as well.
Trading weapons to a civ leader is a great way to set up a puppet regime ... if you think they'll accept. (We will give you 12 marines, but you have to siphon off much of your wealth and resources to us, and you have to declare war on Iran.) Pretty damn awesome, in my opinion.
Instigating a civil war or a coup, through your intelligence agency? In one vision I have, the victim doesn't even have to know WHO interfered, but just know they've lost control. 50% of their wealth goes to whoever instigated the coup, but they don't know who that is! They fight wars with their neighbours and are in locked alliances, and have to play through without control over key decisions. On the other hand, I also envision a civil war with one side as a puppet regime for the Americans by default. And the Americans aid them with weapons and wealth, hopefully altering the course of the war, and thus ruling more of the world by proxy. In either case, the control over the puppet nation is indirect.
CONCLUSION FOR SPLITTING / BUILDING AN EMPIRE
I combine this aspect of domination with the aspect of creating new provinces / states / territories ... with governors and princes... the geographic aspect could still be enough to watch your empire fall apart (Americans and British, for example). I'm a huge fan of the commonwealth idea, and to me it is very compatible with my idea for domination and various forms of colonization.
I hope that I've made the domination victory more interesting. I've made it easier, yet harder. You can control the world by proxy (easier), but empires don't last forever (harder). This fills the game with more strategy, and also makes the game end potentially faster, with less tedium (since it's easier to rule by proxy than to actually micromanage two continents).
Seriously, imagine a game where you watched 5 different empires take a stab at domination, all in different time periods of the game, only to watch their empires collapse (and maybe even help that along) ... only to be the 6th empire to take a stab at domination and MAKE it.
COMPARING THE VISION TO CIV 3
I liken the vision of the game to crossing a rickety bridge that's falling apart. You can run across, but you're more likely to slip. You can crawl across, but the bridge is likely to fall apart before you make it. You could walk across, but will your opponent walk faster? Do you let them run faster than you and hope they slip, or do you run, and risk slipping?
Compare this to the current game, which is more like a bunch of people trying to build a house of cards from one deck. Try to snatch as many cards from the deck as possible, and then it's inevitable that you'll build the bigger house, and it's only a matter of time. Gets pretty repetitive, if you ask me. The loser is bored because he can't catch up. The winner is bored because nobody else can win, time can only stop him from winning.
