European Civs too powerful????

[John Wayne USA]

It seems to me that three civs win every single game: Germany England or France. They always dominate. Even the great USA never expands as it should and rarely have I seen it win it's always the same thing Germany England or France. Historically though their power started to wane in the middle of the 20th century while America Russia and later on China started to climb. This does not seem to be represented in the game. Any chance to improve it?

 

[Ace of Gold]

i do not know about germany but england and france dominate alot

 

[John Wayne USA]

Yea I'm not saying that they shouldn't win just not all the time. Russia, USA and even China should have decent shots at it. Maybe now and then a powerful Rome, Persia, or Arabia makes it through with their big empire and steals the show. I'm just asking for more diversity in who wins cause right now without even doing anything I know that 3 civs win 90% of the games and that's no fun when it's this predictable.

 

[sdLeo]

yes... if you look at the map, europe is oversized for better gameplay - it's meant to be that way, as europe - and the mediterranean - is at the heart of history, no?

late civs do get tech bonuses to compensate, though, and the us get population boosts from other poorer/unhappy civs migrating to the us...

 

[The Q-Meister]

Well the "Heart of History" depends on where your point of view is; Asians might say that China is the heart considering its long history and enormous cultural contributions.

But back to the topic: I too wouldn't mind seeing a little more variety in who wins the game, although the way it is now is not inaccurate. True, the Western European civs do decline; but that's largely because of two massive world wars, and the emerging independence of the colonial nations. Here is where the problem lies: for much of the world there simply cannot be an independent uprising e.g. Australia, Indonesia, most of Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Carribbean, Venezuela, Canada, Western United States, etc.

There are no civs whose core area consists of these locations in Rhye's so as long as the occupying power is stable enough they can hold it for as long as they like so that's one dilemna right there. Though I'm not sure what the answer is, making tons of new civs isn't the one....perhaps a possibility of independent cities or nations rising up and taking power out of nationalistic feelings? With some coding over where exactly this is most likely to take place?

With regards to America, yes it should be more powerful and should expand more...much like Russia. I find that AI America never seems to have enough time to do all the things it wants to do and is largely very, very peaceful. Perhaps too peaceful. I don't think I've ever seen it attempt to complete its UHV and instill Manifest Destiny.

 

[onedreamer]

The prevailing culture in the world is the european one. There is little doubt about it, even China is slowing moving toward the western way of life.
Also I do not share your opinions with the USA in the game. In the 19th century the USA were far from being a world power. In the 20th century America is always among the first 5 in my games. And... Germany England or France are always the winners ? Man, are you seriously saying that you play your games until the end even when it's clear you won't win ? Plus what you say is highly inaccurate. Most of my games it is Rome, Persia or China who rule the score. You're maybe playing too many 600 AD starts.

 

[Panopticon]

The decolonisation point is interesting, and it's one I'd like to address. I feel it is already handled well in RFC. The Q-Meister explained it well; here's a list of now-independent states or regions contained in the post two above this one.

Australia: granted independence by Britain
Indonesia: independence largely due to collapse first of Dutch government, then of Japanese government
Africa: much of decolonisation due to instability and poverty of Europe after WWII (either directly, or indirectly from the influence of America and its anti-imperial ideology)
Brazil: government moved from Brazil to Portugal, leading to instability
Argentina: Spain was occupied by France
Caribbean: Various reasons (e.g. Cuba occupied by United States, then granted independence; Haitian independence coincided with Napoleonic Wars in France)
Venezuela: Spain was occupied by France
Canada: granted independence by Britain
Western United States: largely purchased (or taken from Mexico) by United States

So while the argument for coded decolonisation sounds attractive, in reality, there was nothing inevitable about it. Had a few things in history gone differently, and particularly if World War II had not happened, we could still be living in a largely colonial world.

 

[SadoMacho]

How about some modern natives:
this guy could be a native "freedom fighter" (a marine unit for the natives) and could spawn in Africa in the 1950's and try to conquer the european colonies

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=4784

And maybe this one for a native cavalry to free south america in the 1800's

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=6100

If the armies of the European colonial powers are strong enough to fight back, they could keep there cities, if there weak, there will be a native city, an idependence movement won the battle.

As many of your examples show, this is just what happened. A nation weakens and loses it's colony to the natives.

 

[jessiecat]

Yea I'm not saying that they shouldn't win just not all the time. Russia, USA and even China should have decent shots at it. Maybe now and then a powerful Rome, Persia, or Arabia makes it through with their big empire and steals the show. I'm just asking for more diversity in who wins cause right now without even doing anything I know that 3 civs win 90% of the games and that's no fun when it's this predictable.

Know what you mean about America. I'm playing a 600AD start as the English.
Founded Quebec City and Toronto, Dutch founded New Amsterdam but it
flipped to me. French founded Louisburg. It flips to me.
1733 America starts. New Amsterdam flips to them. I build Fort Severn,
Milwaukee, Winnipeg and Churchill. They build Savannah and Nashville.
1788 America wants to be my vassal. Happens all the time.
Talk about historical irony? Kinda makes you feel warm inside.

 

[The Q-Meister]

The prevailing culture in the world is the european one. There is little doubt about it, even China is slowing moving toward the western way of life.

But this is not what was stated in the post I was replying to: he stated "the heart of history" I replied that the heart of history could be dependent on your own point of view: do not forget that Chinese and Middle Eastern civs also held vast empires for centuries and had massive contributions to culture; including to Europeans. If all you're basing this is on right now in the modern era, then yes you are correct, however, if you are looking at it from the entire span of history, 4 to 6000 years in the past, then "the heart" of history could be different to that of Europe and that might depend on your own particular point of view.

Note that I never said that Europe could not be considered "the heart of history" I was merely trying to be respectful and cognizant of the different cultures and civilizations that have also made important historical contributions as well.

Also I do not share your opinions with the USA in the game. In the 19th century the USA were far from being a world power.

Never said it was.

In the 20th century America is always among the first 5 in my games.

Good to know, since it's certainly not always in mine.

And... Germany England or France are always the winners ? Man, are you seriously saying that you play your games until the end even when it's clear you won't win ?

When did I ever say that I wasn't France, Germany, or England in those games? Also I was referring to AI-controlled civs. And finally, yes I do play games where I'm not always out on top every single turn; games would get pretty boring if that were true. Furthermore, the intelligent player has multiple ways of winning and making comebacks. And no, it's not all about "winning" either, I play for the fun of it and the experience; often I win sometimes I have "moral" victories when I play the challenging civs.

Lastly, while I am far from perfect on this, I don't like "giving up" or quitting on my civ the second it appears I may not win like so many players do and prefer to use every tactic available before I throw in the towel.

Plus what you say is highly inaccurate. Most of my games it is Rome, Persia or China who rule the score. You're maybe playing too many 600 AD starts.

Wow. You're saying that Persia is out on top in the 20th century in your game? and most of the time? Very strange. China is always collapsing for me and can never maintain stability; this I know is quite common among other RFCers. Rome is a wild card; either they collapse when the Euro civs spawn or can withstand them and dominate.

Still though, in the many games I've played, the Europeans civs being on top have been the most common result. perhaps you're giving up on games too early to notice.

Oh, and I rarely play 600 starts.

 

[Virdrago]

I just had Persia as a top 3 civ, and doing well, when it suddenly blew up in 1972. just like that, with no warning (it went unstable for about two turns). Otherwise, it's always England, France, Portugal (really), and Spain. Germany is up there, sometimes. Rome will rule for a while, but will normally collapse by 1750 at the latest.
China in RL could have been a superpower in the 16th century, if they didn't become isolationist. I haven't seen China ever even close to that powerful, even when they control Mongolia. America is always someone's vassal; only when I was Germany did they vassalize the Mayans (willingly), but they were still sixth (fifth after Persia collapsed) in score and way behind in techs in 1980. Russia is a non-factor in all my games, same with Turkey and Arabia.

 

[yakami]

I think the problem with eastern civs is their stability is terrible.
In every of my games China collapse around 1600, and so did Japan, so they never had a chance to dominate. Why unstable?
Although in history China is not as advanced as European civs after 1700 or so, its economy stays no.1 until Industry Revolution. And basicly there's no big stability problem from 1600 to 1900.

 

[onedreamer]

But this is not what was stated in the post I was replying to: he stated "the heart of history" I replied that the heart of history could be dependent on your own point of view: do not forget that Chinese and Middle Eastern civs also held vast empires for centuries and had massive contributions to culture; including to Europeans. If all you're basing this is on right now in the modern era, then yes you are correct, however, if you are looking at it from the entire span of history, 4 to 6000 years in the past, then "the heart" of history could be different to that of Europe and that might depend on your own particular point of view.

6000 years in the past you can't speak of History for the whole humanity. China was at the center of chinese hitory and Europe at the center of European history. And they were hardly connected. When all the civilizations in the world started to have connected historic events, it was Europe to be at the heart of it, especially since european countries created these links.

Note that I never said that Europe could not be considered "the heart of history" I was merely trying to be respectful and cognizant of the different cultures and civilizations that have also made important historical contributions as well.

Culture contribution, I agree. But can you say that for example China actively influenced the history of american or european civs ?

Never said it was.

I was replying to the OP...

Good to know, since it's certainly not always in mine.

Replying to the OP.

When did I ever say that I wasn't France, Germany, or England in those games?

Replying to the OP, wasn't it pretty evident ? The OP says so, did you read it ?

And finally, yes I do play games where I'm not always out on top every single turn; games would get pretty boring if that were true.

Lol, I obviously didn't mean this.

Wow. You're saying that Persia is out on top in the 20th century in your game? and most of the time? Very strange. China is always collapsing for me and can never maintain stability; this I know is quite common among other RFCers. Rome is a wild card; either they collapse when the Euro civs spawn or can withstand them and dominate.

Persia has high potential for being up in score because its spawn area is not shared by other civs. So it is easy for it to expand to decent levels without collapsing, and this means high score in Civ terms.

Still though, in the many games I've played, the Europeans civs being on top have been the most common result. perhaps you're giving up on games too early to notice.

I almost never give up a game, let alone early (except trying India UHV). For example to this day my only win with Persia has been cultural, I haven't given up when I didn't have 8% of the world controlled (I did have it later in that game though ^^). I was referring to the OP saying that those civs were the winners (IE: he played till the AI won).

 

[The Q-Meister]

6000 years in the past you can't speak of History for the whole humanity.

Exactly. That was my whole point.

I was replying to the OP...
Replying to the OP.
Replying to the OP, wasn't it pretty evident ?

Actually no. You replied to a post directly under mine and then made a response to something I said about China. Then you proceeded to go on, never stating that you were now referring to the OP, never quoting anyone you just made a post under mine and then your 1st line was commenting on something I said without ever saying you were now referring to anyone else...forgive me for assuming you were now continuing to react to what I just said.

Persia has high potential for being up in score because its spawn area is not shared by other civs. So it is easy for it to expand to decent levels without collapsing, and this means high score in Civ terms.

No one or almost no one's spawn area (if we have the same definition of 'spawn area' meaning the immediate area that civ settles its land on) is shared by another civ; if it were not so, then a civ could be destroyed simply by accepting the flip!

That being said however, Persia's historical empire is shared by many other civs and the Middle East does become very crowded with the advent of Arabia and Turkey. Persia is usually high in score during the classical and perhaps medieval era..but either collapses or declines due to the emerging civs, in all the games I've played the only times Persia has won is when I'm controlling her.

 

[ADP101]

once when i played as spain, India, China, Japn, khemer, and Persia were destablised so they were all gone, making asia completly empty. Also after i conquered Mexico and the incans, America didnt start to expand until like the early 1900's.

other weird events that occered was when i played as arabia, I didnt start to conquer Spain and they converted to Islam, so did England, causing North America to turn muslim.

One very odd game was when i was china, the european civs were conquering the Americas like mad, and i dont see that very often. England had like Savahna, Boston, New york and all that good stuff, The french had New orleands, Detroit and a few other citis and canada, The dutch had a lil collony in the Carribian, Spanish had Mexico, southern South america and had made vassals of Incas, and portugal ruled almost all of South america. The weird thing was even Germany had a city near Boston named little germany.

But i like this about RFC, no game is ever the same

 

[Panopticon]

I had a very similar experience while winning the Spanish UHV this week. Most of the collapsed countries you mentioned were my vassals though - instead it was France, England, Germany, Turkey, Russia, and France again who collapsed. (On that note - has anyone else noticed that European civs collapse much, much more since the latest patch, and Japan less?)

Another thing I've noticed, this time in relation to the second example above, is that there's usually one or two colonial civs in any game that don't use their free settlers and Galleons to colonise the New World. Instead, they hang around port, and I'm wondering if that's due to their having not yet explored the Americas or Africa.

 

[ADP101]

the only (modern) Europeon civs ive seen colapse are the French, Germans, Vikings and rome (sometimes they are alive past 1400's).

Once i did an experiment with the new world, after every major europeon colonizing country (france,england,spain etc) had a city in the new world, i opened the world builder and gave each of them a new settler on a city plot where they would most likely build a city (english: fort albany, Spanish: St. Augustine, French: Detroit,) only the spanish used their settler to build San Antonio. idk wut happened to the rest

 

[Rhye]

ADP101 have you updated to the most recent patch? It addressed the eastern civs instability

 

[onedreamer]

Actually no. You replied to a post directly under mine and then made a response to something I said about China.

When you reply to a thread, you reply to the OP. Otherwise you either quote or name whom you're replying to. Simple forum rules.