Expanding AIs

[Superkrest]

well the issue now becomes that fraxis has stated expansion will be limited to only those that can manage there empire extremely well, i think that now the AI inteligence will be the only factor on expansion

 

[Nyvin]

Seriously, Frekk, you should read your history books too. Maybe all of Europe was a little too broad, but definitely it was the wealthiest nation in Western Europe. It had abundant resources and monetary wealth and-as I said-an excellent civil service. Also, England had few problems with the Danes again after the turn of the 11th century-except for Harold Hadrada in 1066, just prior to Hastings. In fact, the rule of Edward the Confessor is known for its almost complete lack of conflict (except for a revolt by nobles in the North, which was put down by Harold Godwinson) Seriously, this is why the nation was so attractive to the Duke of Normandy.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

England didn't have abundant resources, it has been constantly refered to as a 'have-not' country. It has small pockets of copper and some salt. It was even lacking in sturdy timber. I wouldn't even say it was the wealthiest in western europe. I'd still say the area of Belgium would outdo it as a single country (the Lombards)

And if you counted France as a 'single country' it certainly would have more wealth 'overall' it's just that England's per capita was better. If you look at the land comparisons and population comparisons at the time (4 mil in Eng. to about 19 mil in Fr.) It's easy to see who would have more wealth. Not to mention a thriving meditteranian watershed, and wine production, cloth production, and silk production.

The rest of what you said was just about the events of the war of 1066. The reason Normandy was interested in it was because it was a small duchy of France that saw an oppurtunity to expand it's holdings. It's a pretty simple concept there.

 

[frekk]

Also, England had few problems with the Danes again after the turn of the 11th century-except for Harold Hadrada in 1066, just prior to Hastings.

Lol. The turn of the 11th century was very bad. Study the origins of the song "London Bridge is Falling Down". Date: 1016. Synopsis: Danish going strong, seizing London, England forced to beg for assistance from Norway and Norse armies battle it out on the Thames with the English spectators to a battle over their own capitol. Sweyn Forkbeard's invasion was otherwise succeful apart from the loss of London; by 1016 his son Canute ruled England in Danish fashion, creating the four great earldoms (Wessex, Mercia, Northumberland, East Anglia) and codified the laws of the country. England's organized state by Edward's time was largely due to Canute's Danish-style rule.

11th century started with devastating Norse raids, saw England succumb TWICE to foreign dominance, and ended with a Norman wandering around squelching out the last Saxon rebels, and you're trying to paint it as a golden age.

In fact, the rule of Edward the Confessor is known for its almost complete lack of conflict

24 years without "too much" conflict. The fact that this was a noteworthy achievement for Edward should tell you something. And you should know who the King of England was before Edward, and why the Danes didn't attack then either. Edward, as well, levied huge land tithes to pay vast sums to the Danegeld. The richest nation in Western Europe? Surely you jest. Where was England's trade network to compare to that of the Norse at this time? Some linen over the Channel?!?!?! Could London compare with Cordoba - not a chance!!

Seriously, this is why the nation was so attractive to the Duke of Normandy.

Err ... what other kingdoms that were more attractive did this Duke have a claim to? Being a king was a huge step up in the world ... he decided to invade because it was weak enough for a Duke to take, Hadrada was simply a fortunate event (he had attempted crossing earlier).

The only time the conflict between Harold and William became religious was after William called on the Pope to give it his blessing

So? Who said it was a religious conflict?

As I also pointed out, Harold managed to fight two seperate wars in the space of only a week-hardly the sign of a weak nation.

Correction: two separate battles, which is not really all that remarkable.

Back O/T though, there is strong historical evidence to show that smaller nations can-and have-managed to become much more powerful OR wealthy than their size would suggest-often when much larger nations went the way of the Dodo. After all, where is the Holy Roman Empire these days? If it history was a game of Civ, almost the entire world would be under the influence of this Empire.

Lol. The Holy Roman Empire was a term that never really had any meaning. Why would the whole world have come under the influence of a fragmented collection of petty nobles? The "empire" barely had any influence over its own territories, let alone anybody elses. Small nations can and do become powerful and wealthy, and England is a good example - after the reign of Elizabeth I, though. The period you're talking about, well, England was far more developed and organized than most people realize, BUT, so were the other nations, and relatively speaking, England was not any sort of formidable economic power such as the Norse or Moorish Spain. Nor were they exceedingly organized - if you know how Canute took the throne of England then you know that socially and politically, the Danes for example were far better organized. The same can be said for Moorish Spain, at least during the Cordoba Caliphate, when the Andulasian cities were easily the most powerful economic and cultural powerhouses of Western Europe.

 

[joethreeblah]

Big countries that are fairly homogenous in their ethnic and national make up don't suffer from the problem of civil wars,

USA is a pretty big country

 

[Superkrest]

so is russia...and they've got a pretty big problem in checnya.

 

[brokguitar]

My problem isn't that quantity can equal quality, its just that in Civ quantity almost always equals quality. Not only does this allow a sloppy player to succeed merely by dint of having the most land (a crime I confess to being guilty of ) but it also prevents smaller nations from ever getting ahead. My point is that having fewer high quality, well managed cities ought to allow you to keep pace with a civ that has lots of piddling little cities. For me its about BALANCE , not about keeping larger civs from winning. Other issues which prevent the 'Small is Beautiful' strategy is the non-binary resource system-IMO-the lack of Civil Wars, and the absence of any genuine limitations to early game expansion (unless you are unlucky enough to start on an island).
There are good gameplay reasons for allowing such a balancing mechanism, but it is also good from a realism perspective too. Consider 10th-11th Century England-the wealthiest nation in all of Europe at the time-or even modern day Switzerland, Belgium, Luxemburg or Japan. All of them are very powerful/wealthy nations, in spite of their size, and that gameplay option should be available in civ too.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

In this case tile improvments need to better than just mine and irragate. Being able to update improvements should balance out a large nation with a smaller nation because the smaller nation could improve their tiles faster than a larger nation can, but over all you will have to have more or equal land to be strong. This is dictated by the type of land it is also, you could own half the world but if its tundra and ice, you are no more powerfull than a smaller country.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, Brokguitar, you will be happy to hear that there are, IIRC, around 21 different tile improvements in Civ4-many tied to specific tile resources (like grapes allow the vinyard improvement)-whilst others are tied to terrain type. This will help to differentiate civs on something other than size, as certain cities might specialise in winemaking, whilst others might specialise in furs and jewelry.
It would be great, though, if certain improvements-such as mines and crops-could be upgraded as you get new technologies. Even if its not in the vanilla game, I feel certain such upgrades could be 'easily' modded into the game.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[apatheist]

I don't see how that logically follows. Ok, so you build a vineyard instead of irrigating. That doesn't make a small nation more powerful.

Anyway, a civ is unlikely to own half the world if its land was mostly tundra. It wouldn't get into a position to claim all that tundra because it would be weak, or it wouldn't be able to hold on to it.

 

[Ded Moroz]

I don't think the expansion should be limited.
BUT
All big empires throughout the history tended to finally fall apart. Roman empire, empire of Alexander, British empire, USSR - whatever. What Civilization lacks is possibility of civ split with creation of a new civ. Cultural takeover of one civ's city by another is too unrealistic by several reasons. 1) Does anybody remember when such things happened in reality? When empire falls apart, people want freedom and independence, and not becoming part of another country; 2) With cultural overtake smaller civs tend to loose cities and larger to gain.
The eagerness to split should grow with the size of civilization, grow more with increase of percentage of population of other natinality or religion in civ's cities and reduce with happiness ratio and along with assimilation.
Cities should by split from mother civ only by groups of not less then, say, 3 cities (when people try to create a new country, they hope to survive against possible external threats).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Apatheist, I didn't mean it would make a civ 'more powerful', I meant that cities will be able to become more specialised than ever before, thus making sheer size-and no. of cities-less relevent than the kinds, and diversity, of resources they control. Hope that makes more sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[brokguitar]

In this case tile improvments need to better than just mine and irragate. Being able to update improvements should balance out a large nation with a smaller nation because the smaller nation could improve their tiles faster than a larger nation can.

What i meant by this was that if you choose to expand and build troops instead of spending time to improve your land, this could result in not having the gold and production benifits that come along with improvements. So size would not equal power in this cause. A well strucured land could actually produce more gold and units than a wide spread nation with lots of land and no infrastructure.

. This is dictated by the type of land it is also, you could own half the world but if its tundra and ice, you are no more powerfull than a smaller country.

Look at canada being very large nation, they are not more powerfull than smaller nations. What i meant by this in civilization is if you have more grasslands, rivers,and plains instead of mountians, tundra, jungle, marsh, and desert, i will bet you that this would make you stronger even if you had 10 cities on the later tiles to my 6 on the better tiles.