Historical Mechanics

[kryat]

Not so sure about the loyalty part but one thing I would add would be a percentage boost in envoy acquisition rate to represent their greater diplomatic influence.

The loyalty penalty is meant to reflect the difficulty in governing a massive and influential empire. Historically, superpowers like the Romans, the Mongols, the British, and the USSR struggled under their weight of diverse populations, eventually fracturing into much smaller components. This should be on top of the normal loyalty mechanics as a counterweight to the other bonuses. It could be immersively argued that this reflects internal strife, which the normal loyalty mechanics don’t seem to account for. The US may be heading this way now.

 

[Kyro]

The loyalty penalty is meant to reflect the difficulty in governing a massive and influential empire. Historically, superpowers like the Romans, the Mongols, the British, and the USSR struggled under their weight of diverse populations, eventually fracturing into much smaller components. This should be on top of the normal loyalty mechanics as a counterweight to the other bonuses. It could be immersively argued that this reflects internal strife, which the normal loyalty mechanics don’t seem to account for. The US may be heading this way now.

That is very true for large empires suffering underdevelopment in many places or have a population made up of conquered nations but US seems pretty United (Pun totally intended) the way they are now...save maybe California which also happens to be the world's 5th largest economy.

 

[Karpius]

The fact that there is no historical precedence of War-free country does nothing to discredit the historical evidence proving that mutual cooperation and peace leads to the most progress. You are using the lack of a historical precedent to justify the lack of reward for peaceful play and that's not in line with the facts.

Without historical precedent, what are the facts? As I said, I am not opposed to such a reward in game, but I see no historical precedent for it. Put it in the game, thats fine! Civ6, by its very nature, does not lend itself to historical accuracy. But you cannot claim something that has never happened to be a history mechanic.

Must I qualify every single word I use so you cannot exploit its loopholes to misrepresent what I said? Having to add parentheses for every time I use the word "Profit" is not very fun to do you know? I am sure you understood what I meant by profit and
especially in context of Civ 6. It is definitely not referring to profit in the sense of staying safe and secure. It is profit in terms of taking what is not yours.

Profit is simply ending up with more than you began with. Certainly, many wars have been fought by those simply trying to keep what they believed was theirs. But that also means someone else was trying to take it away. We can come up with all sorts of reasons for war. We can justify this war and condemn that war based on our varying world views. But we cannot change the historical record. Warfare is a constant, profound and prevalent activity in the human experience.

Is it the only possible way? Of course not! But every timeline of history I examine shows me war after war. Of course there were many other human activities as well. Many had profound effects on humanity. But no other human activity has changed the political landscape from year to year, region to region, more than war.

 

[Wingednosering]

This has gotten pretty off-topic. I would be interested in pacifism giving tourism and culture bonuses, while times of war gain production and science bonuses. That would be interesting.

Anybody have any more historical mechanics?

 

[Kyro]

Without historical precedent, what are the facts? As I said, I am not opposed to such a reward in game, but I see no historical precedent for it. Put it in the game, thats fine! Civ6, by its very nature, does not lend itself to historical accuracy. But you cannot claim something that has never happened to be a history mechanic.

Profit is simply ending up with more than you began with. Certainly, many wars have been fought by those simply trying to keep what they believed was theirs. But that also means someone else was trying to take it away. We can come up with all sorts of reasons for war. We can justify this war and condemn that war based on our varying world views. But we cannot change the historical record. Warfare is a constant, profound and prevalent activity in the human experience.

Is it the only possible way? Of course not! But every timeline of history I examine shows me war after war. Of course there were many other human activities as well. Many had profound effects on humanity. But no other human activity has changed the political landscape from year to year, region to region, than war.

Well now, you are trying to posit that warfare is the most defining part of human history and trying to claim you're not biased in saying so. That doesn't really add up does it? Don't try to say you're not trying to downplay other aspects that do make up history then. What you're actually saying is that the other parts of history are less prominent to begin with and therefore you did nothing to downplay them.That has the exact same effect of what you are denying.

I can prove the bias just by rephrasing you:
Every timeline of history I examine shows me farming after farming and building after building. Of course there were many other human activities as well. Many had profound effects on humanity. But no other human activity has changed the political landscape from year to year, region to region, than farming and building.

No I am not trying to downplay other parts of history. It's just that farming and building are more important.

Let's be clear about what is lacking historical precedence shall we? You've already begun to change what I was saying. "A Country without a History of War" That's without precedence.

The facts are: Cooperation and peace are far more progressive for Civilizations than war. Look at Germany, Japan, Israel, China. Look at the World Wars.
That's a historically verifiable fact and has historical precedence. You're telling me those never happened?

 

[DWilson]

What about Rome? It thrived primarily when at war and expanding.

 

[Kyro]

What about Rome? It thrived primarily when at war and expanding.

I wonder what would have happened if the Ottomans and the Byzantiums chose to work together. Carthage and Rome too. If only they pooled their resources together for a greater purpose rather than kill each other. No, kings wanted their glory so sharing was a no no. Too bad none of them exist today.

 

[evanaurora]

It is, I believe, accepted social science that cooperation is the only way to yield maximal results. Collective action problems-- including war-- stand in the way of this hypothetical best solution.

I don't believe even realists (in the IR sense of the word) dispute this-- they just argue that conflict is inevitable anyway.

The argument that because flourishing human societies have engaged in wars, wars must have been the cause of their affluence is a little logically flawed as well. post hoc etc.

 

[Kyro]

It is, I believe, accepted social science that cooperation is the only way to yield maximal results. Collective action problems-- including war-- stand in the way of this hypothetical best solution.

I don't believe even realists (in the IR sense of the word) dispute this-- they just argue that conflict is inevitable anyway.

The argument that because flourishing human societies have engaged in wars, wars must have been the cause of their affluence is a little logically flawed as well. post hoc etc.

Well that's precisely it a game is probably the best place where one can utilize this hypothetical best solution yet we do not see the slightest trace of that route being remotely viable even here. In fact the very opposite has been designed to be true for maximal results and that is what I was hopping to address in my suggestions. The path to cooperation should not be a simple one or easy to achieve and should come with its own sets of challenges but all that hangs on the viability of the option to begin with.

 

[Karpius]

The facts are: Cooperation and peace are far more progressive for Civilizations than war. Look at Germany, Japan, Israel, China. Look at the World Wars.
That's a historically verifiable fact and has historical precedence. You're telling me those never happened?

I think you lost me there. Are you asking me to look at Germany, Japan, Israel and China solely in the context of the last seventy-odd years? Well, as conquered nations, Germany and Japan benefited greatly from peaceful co-operation with the United States and other west-leaning nations. They became integral in the eventual downfall of the Soviet system. The U.S. did right by them, and they did right by the U.S. But the post-war period is but a blip in the history of those two nations. Nor can we ignore that it was indeed war that eventually brought about the co-operation that has so benefited the involved parties. I refuse to speculate how things might have been different had the outcome of the war been different, or if the war had never happened. Thats for science-fiction writers. All I can do is trace the current situation between these three countries back to that horrible war. In turn, it was previous wars that set the stage for that war. And so on back into history.

Israel? Are you speaking solely about its relationship with the U.S? Do you feel that none of the several wars it has fought for survival (not to mention a little territorial expansion) shaped what it is today? I'm sorry, but I just don't know which part of Israeli history you want me to look at.

China, well, how far back am I allowed to go? Just the last twenty years or so since they decided to open their economy a bit more?

And in a discussion where I have taken the position that warfare has done more to drive history than anything else, how do you bring in the World Wars?

War is ugly. It costs blood and treasure. I would never say it 'progressed' humanity, but that can be a subjective term. I personally believe peace and co-operation is far more beneficial, and Germany and Japan of the last several decades are fine examples of that! But it doesn't change the sheer prominence of warfare in human history.

 

[ChocolateShake]

Interesting debate, but I think it'd be better to discuss it in another thread? In terms of game mechanics, I think @Kyro brought up a good point, war in civ might be too prominent at the moment. I guess most players like domination, but it would be nice to have more peaceful units and more options for cooperation. Hopefully the new alliance types in Rise and Fall will change that.

Some more suggestions:

Ambush
Infantry should be able to hide in forests, and not be visible unless units enter the tile/are adjacent to it.

Trenches
Builders should be able to build trenches, reducing the movement of enemy units to 1 when they enter that tile.

 

[Kyro]

I think you lost me there. Are you asking me to look at Germany, Japan, Israel and China solely in the context of the last seventy-odd years? Well, as conquered nations, Germany and Japan benefited greatly from peaceful co-operation with the United States and other west-leaning nations. They became integral in the eventual downfall of the Soviet system. The U.S. did right by them, and they did right by the U.S. But the post-war period is but a blip in the history of those two nations. Nor can we ignore that it was indeed war that eventually brought about the co-operation that has so benefited the involved parties.

Interesting how you managed to ignore all other aspects that made the cooperation possible and zeroed in on war itself. There was diplomacy involved, there were human rights involved, there were politics involved, there were friendships involved, there were ideologies involved. You're telling me all those didn't drive history as much as the war did?

I refuse to speculate how things might have been different had the outcome of the war been different, or if the war had never happened. Thats for science-fiction writers. All I can do is trace the current situation between these three countries back to that horrible war. In turn, it was previous wars that set the stage for that war. And so on back into history.

The truth is whether you speculate or not it is outright obvious that much more would have been achieved if the World Wars didn't happen. Just do the math on the economical ruin and loss of priceless lives.

Israel? Are you speaking solely about its relationship with the U.S? Do you feel that none of the several wars it has fought for survival (not to mention a little territorial expansion) shaped what it is today? I'm sorry, but I just don't know which part of Israeli history you want me to look at.

So the wars played the most significant part in shaping Israel's history? What about their culture? Their Religion? Their cultural heritage? Oh sure war was more significant than that in shaping who they are. I wonder what Culture has got to do with history.

China, well, how far back am I allowed to go? Just the last twenty years or so since they decided to open their economy a bit more?

It doesn't matter how far back you go nothing you cite is going to disprove the fact that their economy improved once they embraced international cooperation.

And in a discussion where I have taken the position that warfare has done more to drive history than anything else, how do you bring in the World Wars?

Oh why can't I? Citing the World Wars does nothing to prove that warfare has done more to "drive" history than anything else. I'm merely citing it for the amount "progress" it brought humanity compared with what cooperation can achieve. I could argue that Facism and Imperialism did more to drive history than the World Wars because it was the ideological reason behind them. Those are Ideologies and World Views that are part and parcel of history as well.

War is ugly. It costs blood and treasure. I would never say it 'progressed' humanity, but that can be a subjective term. I personally believe peace and co-operation is far more beneficial, and Germany and Japan of the last several decades are fine examples of that! But it doesn't change the sheer prominence of warfare in human history.

I'm sorry but there is a "sheer prominence" of Culture, Religion, Ideology, Philosophy, Science, Architecture,Arts, Music, Literature, Governance, Exploration in Human History as well, all of them equally important in shaping Civilization. War simply does not take the most prominent position.

What are you trying to prove? That war is the most prominent part of human history? That I am wrong to to use history to advocate that peaceful cooperation leads to more progress than war?

The moment anybody agrees to justify war as the most prominent part of history it becomes easy to advocate the overpowered nature of warfare in Civ 6 and it becomes wrong for anybody to suggest any other form of powerful game play. You have even used it to justify the supremacy of warfare in Civ 6 before.

 

[Kyro]

Interesting debate, but I think it'd be better to discuss it in another thread? In terms of game mechanics, I think @Kyro brought up a good point, war in civ might be too prominent at the moment. I guess most players like domination, but it would be nice to have more peaceful units and more options for cooperation. Hopefully the new alliance types in Rise and Fall will change that.

Some more suggestions:

Ambush
Infantry should be able to hide in forests, and not be visible unless units enter the tile/are adjacent to it.

Trenches
Builders should be able to build trenches, reducing the movement of enemy units to 1 when they enter that tile.

I actually like the idea of invisible units on land as well. It could be a trait of some types of units to trap others especially given how difficult it is to catch enemy units that are running away.

Trenches are historic indeed...the problem is that they compete with forts and the like. Maybe it should provide a heavy bonus on infantry units only and can be built with infantry as well?

 

[Arent11]

This discussion about whether or not the USA should be considered a warmonger could best be represented by another possible mechanic:

Global Superpower

Each civilization is assigned a power score, which is consitituted by its number of military units; it’s number of strategic, bonus, and luxury resources within its borders; its culture, faith, and science outputs; and its gross GPT. Any civilization becomes a superpower if their power score makes up more than a particular percentage of the global power score, scaled to number of civilizations in play at the start of the game. Global superpowers are more likely to get favorable deals and are less likely to be the targets for declarations of war, but suffer -0.33 loyalty per citizen per turn.

We have already something better in form of the "fear" mechanic. If you are winning, you get a negative diplomatic modifier & the rest of the world bands together against you. Which makes more sense than assuming powerful countries would necessarily have loyalty issues(?)

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please get back to the topic of the thread. This other discussion can be taken to the History forum.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Cuneiform]

How about this...

Addicted to Tea

Starting in the Industrial Era if England gets/has access to Tea then they get +5 base Unit strength. However if any time after this point they lose access to Tea, then it turns into -5 base Unit strength.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Camels +5 CS against cavalry.

This one's obvious. Horses are typically terrified of Camels in the real world unless they're raised with them. This is something Arabian and Persian generals used to great affect against enemies to their north.

Access to Truffles provide a 10% combat bonus against Elephant units.

Slightly less well known, War Pigs were often used against elephants in battle. Elephants are terrified of both pigs and fire, so it was common to light domesticated pigs on fire and send them into a group of war elephants. They would panic and trample their allies.

Just found this Thread, and Kudos to starting an interesting Topic, but I've got to modify your first post, because I happen to have the references in front of me!
The use of the 'war pigs' or flaming pigs happened exactly once: Battle of Beneventum, 275 BCE, Romans versus Pyrrhos of Epirus, and what actually won the battle was not a Charge of the Porcine Lit Brigade but elephants that got wounded, panicked, and stampeded back through Pyrrhos' lines, trampling his own infantry - something that did, in fact, happen frequently whenever Elephants were used in battle..
On the other hand, if horses are scared of Camels, they are freaking terrified of Elephants - to the horsey mind, anything that big should not be moving, and any group of horses (like a cavalry unit) goes into Instant Disorder near elephants - unless the horses have been raised with elephants and are used to them.

So, Elephant Rules:
ALL horse-mounted units (Chariots, Light Cavalry, Cavalry, Knights, etc) have a -10 Combat Strength if next to an enemy Elephant Unit.
IF there is Ivory within the city radius where you raise a Horse Mounted Unit, that unit is Immune to this effect
Any Elephant Unit that takes Damage from Any Source, there is a 33% chance that the Elephants Panic and make an immediate attack on Any Adjacent Unit at the Elephants' Unmodified Combat Strength, minus 7 (presuming that the Elephants' crews will not attack).

And an Addition:
The Aztec Effect:
Any Civ that has no access to Horses through Resource or Trade, the first turn that any of their units are attacked by a Horse-Mounted Unit, those units have their Combat Strength Halved.

 

[dagriggstar]

Barbarians should deliberately target civs that have more gold. Camps near civs that have more gold should spawn more units and camps more likely to spawn near civs with lots of gold. I mean, that is really what the barbs should be after right ?

 

[kryat]

Barbarians should deliberately target civs that have more gold. Camps near civs that have more gold should spawn more units and camps more likely to spawn near civs with lots of gold. I mean, that is really what the barbs should be after right ?

Or food. I’m guessing many barbarians are in the “We do not sow” mentality.