Environmental - a new civ strength?

[JuuL]

I know this cannot be used for more than a few civs (except Iroquis and other civ, whose cultures are based on respect for nature). But try to read this:

Strength name: Environmental
Effect 1: Environmental buildings (recycling center, hydro plant, solar plant) costs 75% less.
Effect 2: Industrial buildings cost 25% more (effect 1 is quite good, so this should make it more balanced)
Effect 3: After researching Recycling or Ecology, the civ can build a very cheap unit, which is excellent at cleaning up pollution. Just like workers, these units can be sold to other nations, which can then benefit from this civ's abilities (in exchange of lots of money).
Effect 4: Workers are slightly less effecient.
Effect 5: The civ cannot clear forests and wetlands.

This strength is of course only good in the modern age and I'm not sure the game will be completely balanced. I also realise that this strength has a lot more affects than other strength (which only have two).

 

[dh_epic]

To me, this could reflect the values of the native americans like the Iroquois and Sioux. I always learned they had a great respect for nature, and didn't waste any food, any part of an animal. I can think of a couple other "early game" benefits.

- use natural resources slower (assuming they're more likely to run out and disappear for other nations)

- experience less waste (but not necessarily less corruption)

- troops gain health back in neutral areas more quickly (maybe this is a stretch)

- terrain modifications that replace wildlife (trees) happen more quickly

- increased probability of discovering a new resource source, randomly!

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

Effect 1: Environmental buildings (recycling center, hydro plant, solar plant) costs 75% less.
Effect 2: Industrial buildings cost 25% more (effect 1 is quite good, so this should make it more balanced)
Effect 3: After researching Recycling or Ecology, the civ can build a very cheap unit, which is excellent at cleaning up pollution. Just like workers, these units can be sold to other nations, which can then benefit from this civ's abilities (in exchange of lots of money).
Effect 4: Workers are slightly less effecient.
Effect 5: The civ cannot clear forests and wetlands

That means that for 3 ages this civ will only have disadvantages that will be balanced in the modern age(if it survives that long, with less efficient workers and the rest)
I think you need to give something more earlier on...

 

[Dell19]

That means that for 3 ages this civ will only have disadvantages that will be balanced in the modern age(if it survives that long, with less efficient workers and the rest)
I think you need to give something more earlier on...

I agree, all the other strengths have at least some bonuses early on.

 

[JuuL]

Look at dh_epic's suggestions. They could make the civ strength more balanced.

Environmental civs could also get an extra food from forests. This will not only add more balance, it will also make it more attractive for environmental civs not to cut down forests (if they can do it). It will even make it a very good thing to plant new forests.

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

I always learned they had a great respect for nature

***Indians possess spiritual powers and a magical connection to the natural world.

It is ironic given high rates of mortality, disease, and poverty, and the lack of educational opportunity experienced by a large number of native people that Indian culture is often romanticized by non-Indians. New-agers and spiritual hucksters, with limited understanding and no authority have tried to co-opt and exploit aspects of native spirituality for their own gains. Some of the books we have reviewed, products of misplaced ignorance and idealism, insult and demean native ceremonial spiritual values.
Not my words, the source: http://nmnhwww.si.edu/anthro/outreach/Indbibl/bibintro.html

Still a thing that balancing a trait needs more detail see also:

I'm not sure I really like this idea.

There are three types of differences between the various civs: cosmetic differences, AI differences, and actual functional differences. Cosmetic differences include different civ name, color, leaderhead, city names, great leader names, and the graphics for certain buildings. AI differences include things that only affect the AI's playing of a specific civ (like how agressive they are). In Civ 1 and Civ 2, cosmetic and AI differences were the only differences between civs. Civ 3 introduced some functional differences: unique units and civ traits.

While I admit that I do like the UUs and traits, and think they add a nice touch to the game, I also believe they opened up a dangerous can of worms, and I don't think the idea should be taken too much further. The advantage of functional differences between civs is that it makes playing one civ different from playing another, so that there can be more variety from one game to the next. The disadvantage is that they constrain you by encouraging you to play in certain ways with certain civs. For me, some of the fun of civ has always been that when I play a civ, I can make their history turn out very different from their actual, real-life history. But the more "unique" each civ is (i.e., the greater the functional differences between each civ) then the more each civ will be pressured to follow the same path of development in each game. In other words, I don't mind some minor differences between civs, because it makes it more interesting to try a new civ after you've had experience playing someone else, but I don't want to see major differences between civs, because then I'll have to pick a different civ if I want my game to turn out significantly differently. I think the characteristics of each civ should always have a smaller influence on the course of the game than other factors such as geography, resources, strategy, etc.

Having said all that, I'm not sure exactly how significant the differences Kiech is proposing are. It sounds like the proposal is for actual functional differences, not just cosmetics. Its hard to tell... the English and Japanese temples already look different (a purely cosmetic difference, to be sure). Ball courts vs. burial mounds - would these do the same thing, and just have different names/graphics (in which case the difference is cosmetic) or would they actually do different things, resulting in functional differences between civs? The suggestion that certain civs can research certain techs that others can't is certainly a suggestion for functional differences, but then I can't tell whether the proposal is that these differences be in the default game, or just the editor. Doesn't Conquests already have this sort of thing in the editor?

If the functional differences between different culture groups are minor, then I'm all for this idea, but I don't like the sound of differences in available techs (not for the default epic game, anyway... mods and scenarios are a different story). If the techs available are different, that strikes me as forcing certain civs to always be played the same way. You'd have to always follow the tech progression dictated by the rules; you wouldn't be free to pursue techs that your particular civ never pursued in real life. Civs shouldn't be forced to be too similar to their historical counterparts... Civilization is a game of alternate history.

One last thing to consider is playtesting. Currently there are 31 civs, and 7 different traits. That means the designers of Civ3/Conquests had to balance 31 different UUs and 28 different two-trait combos in order to make sure that no civ was inherently better or worse than the others (or at least, not noticeably so). Every further functional difference between civs complicates playtesting further by making it even harder to achieve balance between all the civs. If you let American civs like the Mayans and Incas research sacrificing, but the Meditteranean civs cannot, then not only do you need to make sure that sacrificing itself isn't unbalancing (i.e., that the Meditteranean civs have something else just as good) but also that it isn't unbalancing in combination with the other differences. What I mean is, perhaps sacrificing wouldn't be particularly great in general, but would be super-useful if you also happened to play an expansionist civ, or if you had a UU that could enslave, or something like that. Each time you introduce a single set of new differences between civs, you dramatically increase the number of possible permutations and combinations of differences, running the risk that some particular combo will be unbalancingly strong or weak. Only careful playtesting can uncover these imbalances, and there's only a finite amount of playtesting that can get done before a game is released.

by judgement

 

[dh_epic]

***Indians possess spiritual powers and a magical connection to the natural world.

Now don't go putting words into my mouth... I never thought it was a spiritual or magical connection at all. I'm speaking purely about a cultural value of one's natural surroundings.

These are only things I learned in grade school, and I'd be perfectly willing to bend on in light of new evidence (what can a grade 7 text book teach you anyway?):

- some groups were aware of the importance of sustainability in resource management, in particular the abundance of animals

- many groups didn't waste anything, using bones to fashion tools, or bellies and bladders to fashion containers

- these were tied to an intimate belief that they were a part of their natural environment and had to achieve balance with it...

(as opposed to the american pilgrims, who turned their venture westward into a battle versus good and evil. by believing that the harsh weather was evil, and god was on their side, they were able to settle some of the harshest terrain around.)

And, of course, said native american civilizations are essentially dead now, and remnants are not reflective of its original values.

 

[collin_stp]

The simple life in general is romanticized with fewer material posessions, etc, but I don't see the need to get into an off-topic debate.

The problem with the environmental idea, is that pollution really isn't that big of a deal in CIV3. It is pretty much just an annoyance. The only time I found it a problem is in a couple of conquests.

Maybe the environmental idea could be combined with another trait, like agricultural, or other traits, like industrious, result in more pollution. Not sure.

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

@dh epic sorry I meant no offence, I did not imply that you are what is described in the first paragraph,
still balancing traits could be difficult...In principle I think asimilar trait has its merits...

 

[dh_epic]

Hey, no problem. I would agree, I think the point about adding a new trait could really mess things up. This is why there's some complexities in implementing them and testing them.

I think we're only here to brainstorm, to see if there'd be any value to the ideas. Drawbacks are still important, but only if they seem to outweigh the benefits. This is probably one of those gray areas.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmmm, how about THIS idea.

In other threads, I have suggested the possibility of 'overexploiting' or 'underexploiting' tiles-with and without terrain improvements on them.
Perhaps if the environmental civs could NOT overexploit tiles but, by the same token, they got better results from using non-exploited tiles than the non-environmental civs get. Another possibility is that they get a bonus to tile-based shield and food production, but can't research the techs neccessary to improve these tiles-like irrigation and mining. They can recieve the techs in trade, though, but building the tile improvement will negate the bonus they recieve for the unimproved tile-if that makes any sense!
Actually, off-topic for a moment. This weekend I plan to use the Iroqouis, on a real-world map, to conquer the Europeans !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Gogf]

That's a pretty interesting idea.

 

[rcoutme]

I think that this is unfeasable. No matter what is done with this trait, the player who uses such a Civ will be greatly constrained on how the Civ develops--even if it is equivalent to other civs. Just one more comment: How about an Industrious Environmental Civilization? Probably not, yet all other traits can be combined.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

It might be possible, its just that the two would probably cancel each other out!
I agree that it COULD cause problems, but so can a lot of things if you don't have a good strategy! If it were properly balanced, and combined with the right 2nd trait, I don't see why a player couldn't make something good out of such a civ.
Of course, if you have an Environmental Trait, then you should probably have another trait to 'go with it', so to speak! (Like Seafaring and Agricultural in C3:C!)
On a final note, perhaps if we had the ability to create and modify civ traits within the editor-that would make EVERYBODY happy !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[kulgan]

***Indians possess spiritual powers and a magical connection to the natural world.

It is ironic given high rates of mortality, disease, and poverty, and the lack of educational opportunity experienced by a large number of native people that Indian culture is often romanticized by non-Indians.

The Indians had what THEY thought was and idealic lifestyle and culture, maybe that is still true, I don't care. However when they were exposed to new cultures some wanted to indulge in such.

In this game, the indians would certainly have an increased culture rating and a lower environmental effect toward the beginning of the game. As they meet more people, I would expect them to develop techology or suffer misserably on the culture chart. Mind you the Indian impact on the enviornment should not change unless they "moderize" then the bulding of factories (for example) will have a negative effect on culture rather than on the environment, because they manage the environment well but take awhile to adapt to change.