How do they solve "big becomes bigger" without corruption?
- Thread starter microbe
- Start date
Gogf
Indescribable
What is "big becomes bigger"?
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,304
Gogf said:
Big = powerfull > get bigger
Bigger = more powerfull > get even bigger
Etc...
By the way, who said it was really a problem? More, I think it is realistic. The game may just be more difficult to gain new territory in earlier eras.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
If that minor civs thing some of uis figure the gray civ controling Agade and Cherokee is pans out to be true, then that might be part of the solution, by at least proving a foil to early endless expansion.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Naokaukodem said:
Not that realistic. Cities on the frontiers of large territories have been difficult to control. They are often neglected as well.
They haven't explained what they are doing, so we'll have to wait and see.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,304
Would you say that USA, USSR and China are not that powerfull?
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Naokaukodem said:
USSR is a perfect example of my point. Throughout the history of Russia, Siberia was mostly a backwards area of Russia that was very difficult to manage. One of the reasons they lost the Ruso-Japanese war is all their resources were focused around St. Petersburg and Moscow. Even in America, the western frontier was relatively isolated from government control until better forms of communication were developed.
Look at historical examples, such as Rome, who was often weakest at its frontiers.
DBear
unbeliever
I am thinking their new "health" attribute will slow down big empires. It is much easier to keep a compact nation healthy than a huge, sprawling one.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
OK, in fact historically Bigger hasn't ALWAYS meant better or more powerful. Today, Switzerland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Japan and Great Britain are all very small nations-in size-but are very powerful in one way or another, be it economically, culturally, militarily or technologically. By the same token, lots of very large nations, such as the Roman Empire, USSR and Phoenecia-bot to mention The British, Spanish and Dutch empires-have all reached a height of power, then collapsed, either from within (internal revolts, economic failure and seccesions) or from without (invasion by other powers, individually or collectively and disease). So, from a historical AND gameplay basis, the Snowball Effect has always been a very bad thing-if only because it makes the end game eras so pointless and boring (you have either won conclusively, or are losing badly, so there is nothing left to do but quit or go through the motions 
!) Of course, it is important to point out that corruption had little or no effect on the Snowball effect anyway-and was a cure which ended up being worse than the disease 
!
Now, just based on what we know already, I can see several things that will help to alleviate the Snowball Effect-even without corruption:
1) Stacks of Doom will no longer be an effective strategy. Unit promotions and special abilities in certain terrains and against certain units seems to indicate that 'size isn't everything' when it comes to combat. The ability of large nations to pump out lots of units-thus ensuring further conquests-was a major contributor to the snowball effect.
2) Culture requires investment-no longer is it 'more cities=more cultural improvements=more territory'. Now, you need to choose to INVEST in your cities cultural strength and unity. As culture also now effects happiness, health and defense (as well, I hope, as effecting your trade and diplomatic relations). Then a warmongering nation will find it hard to both expand his nation willy-nilly AND hard to sustain what he already has. It also will force him to make difficult choices-invest heavily in science, or divert it into culture-or a balance of the two? This is why I so strongly support a Strategic (non-unit based) espionage and religion system, as it adds in even more of these spending dilemmas into the player's thinking!
3) City specialization. When every city of every nation is virtually identical, then it really does become a question of 'who has the most cities?' In this game, though, it seems that cities-and even whole nations-can specialize: maybe as commercial hubs, technological power-houses, industrial centres or breadbaskets, just to name a few. If this bears out, then it means that how many cities-and how much land-you have is less important than how that city evolves, and what kind of terrain and resources they control! Of course, if terrain improvements now come with a cost as well, then so much the better for reducing the Snowball Effect.
4) Civics. One thing which helped The Snowball Effect was the government system-IMHO. Wanted to be at peace? No problem, just be a Republic or Democracy. Want to be at war? Just become a Monarchy or Communist State. It didn't matter how many new governments got added, it really boiled down to a 'good at war, good at peace' dichotomy. Worse still, as your government choices had no impact on any other nations' relations to you, then you ultimately found every nation in the game being either communist or democracy. Civics really does seem to tip this whole idea on its head which, in turn, should help to eliminate the easy decisions that are behind the Snowball Effect.
So, you see that-if I have read things right-there are already plenty of ways that civ4 will impact on Snowballing-and thats even if no disease or civil war model is included in the game-or even if corruption and pollution are gone for good (with nothing to replace them!!)
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
!) Of course, it is important to point out that corruption had little or no effect on the Snowball effect anyway-and was a cure which ended up being worse than the disease !Now, just based on what we know already, I can see several things that will help to alleviate the Snowball Effect-even without corruption:
1) Stacks of Doom will no longer be an effective strategy. Unit promotions and special abilities in certain terrains and against certain units seems to indicate that 'size isn't everything' when it comes to combat. The ability of large nations to pump out lots of units-thus ensuring further conquests-was a major contributor to the snowball effect.
2) Culture requires investment-no longer is it 'more cities=more cultural improvements=more territory'. Now, you need to choose to INVEST in your cities cultural strength and unity. As culture also now effects happiness, health and defense (as well, I hope, as effecting your trade and diplomatic relations). Then a warmongering nation will find it hard to both expand his nation willy-nilly AND hard to sustain what he already has. It also will force him to make difficult choices-invest heavily in science, or divert it into culture-or a balance of the two? This is why I so strongly support a Strategic (non-unit based) espionage and religion system, as it adds in even more of these spending dilemmas into the player's thinking!
3) City specialization. When every city of every nation is virtually identical, then it really does become a question of 'who has the most cities?' In this game, though, it seems that cities-and even whole nations-can specialize: maybe as commercial hubs, technological power-houses, industrial centres or breadbaskets, just to name a few. If this bears out, then it means that how many cities-and how much land-you have is less important than how that city evolves, and what kind of terrain and resources they control! Of course, if terrain improvements now come with a cost as well, then so much the better for reducing the Snowball Effect.
4) Civics. One thing which helped The Snowball Effect was the government system-IMHO. Wanted to be at peace? No problem, just be a Republic or Democracy. Want to be at war? Just become a Monarchy or Communist State. It didn't matter how many new governments got added, it really boiled down to a 'good at war, good at peace' dichotomy. Worse still, as your government choices had no impact on any other nations' relations to you, then you ultimately found every nation in the game being either communist or democracy. Civics really does seem to tip this whole idea on its head which, in turn, should help to eliminate the easy decisions that are behind the Snowball Effect.
So, you see that-if I have read things right-there are already plenty of ways that civ4 will impact on Snowballing-and thats even if no disease or civil war model is included in the game-or even if corruption and pollution are gone for good (with nothing to replace them!!)
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Sandman2003
Prince
I agree with DBear here. It has been stated by Firaxians in the past that a system of health will replace the corruption/pollution model. A hint of how this becomes harder to manage for a large empire was given in the live demo - ie you can trade food resources and multiple food resources improve health. As per Civ III trading, I would presume that the cost of acquiring resources rises with the relative size of one civ versus another, and perhaps there would be other modifiers as well (like how much health you already have etc). That has the makings of a pretty neat system if you ask me.DBear said:
OTOH, I could be reading too much into that demo.
Stilgar08
Emperor
I completely agree with you, AussieLurker andSandman. It is a pretty neat system. But wouldn't they have to change that old "one resource fits all"-concept?
And if it is the case, taht they mainly use health for stopping the big gets bigger thing: Wouldn't it be sort of the same as corruption? Didn't they just give the child a different name? I hope I'm wrong and someone can open my eyes...
And if it is the case, taht they mainly use health for stopping the big gets bigger thing: Wouldn't it be sort of the same as corruption? Didn't they just give the child a different name? I hope I'm wrong and someone can open my eyes...
No more corruption anyways in cIV, Own, so it doesn't matter...Own said:
Sandman2003
Prince
I am not privy to nearly enough information to answer you (Stilgar08) properly, but I assume that the advantage of the new system lies in the mechanics. eg rather than fight corruption in a city by city basis, it is more at a strategic level.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
If you want MY take on what I think might happen with the new health system:
City populations and growth rates will no longer be restricted by the presence-or absence-of food, aqueducts, sewerage plants and hospitals. However, as your population grows, its health will probably begin to decline-especially if your population outstrips the size of your food stores. This health drop will probably reflect a host of city factors: such as pollution, disease, famine and overcrowding. As health declines, both your city happiness and even your city's growth rate will ALSO decline (and I reckon happiness will feed into Health-and vice versa) At the most extreme, your population will actually go into decline, and your people will 'down-tools' or even rebel against you.
So, within this system, Aqueducts, Sewerage Treatment Plants, Hospitals, Mass Transit, Police Stations, Court Houses etc etc, will probably boost your health levels (and maybe even happiness as well) thus increasing both the growth rate of your cities AND the maximum population that your city can comfortably support. Certain terrains (like rivers-as we already know) will obviously increase health too, whilst others (like jungles and possibly tundra) will probably lower it. Low health and happiness may also impact the wealth and productivity of your cities, much as corruption did, but not in a way dependant on either distance or optimal city numbers (though it will be interesting to see if distance and OCN effect health in any way
).
If I am right in this matter, then it definitely retains the CHALLENGES of combatting corruption, crime, waste and pollution-but without the annoying micromanagement involved in the old models.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
City populations and growth rates will no longer be restricted by the presence-or absence-of food, aqueducts, sewerage plants and hospitals. However, as your population grows, its health will probably begin to decline-especially if your population outstrips the size of your food stores. This health drop will probably reflect a host of city factors: such as pollution, disease, famine and overcrowding. As health declines, both your city happiness and even your city's growth rate will ALSO decline (and I reckon happiness will feed into Health-and vice versa) At the most extreme, your population will actually go into decline, and your people will 'down-tools' or even rebel against you.
So, within this system, Aqueducts, Sewerage Treatment Plants, Hospitals, Mass Transit, Police Stations, Court Houses etc etc, will probably boost your health levels (and maybe even happiness as well) thus increasing both the growth rate of your cities AND the maximum population that your city can comfortably support. Certain terrains (like rivers-as we already know) will obviously increase health too, whilst others (like jungles and possibly tundra) will probably lower it. Low health and happiness may also impact the wealth and productivity of your cities, much as corruption did, but not in a way dependant on either distance or optimal city numbers (though it will be interesting to see if distance and OCN effect health in any way
).If I am right in this matter, then it definitely retains the CHALLENGES of combatting corruption, crime, waste and pollution-but without the annoying micromanagement involved in the old models.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
? It's part of the game, annoying or not.Global Nexus
Terran Confederate
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,109
Sure, it's part of the game. ^_^ Part of the game I'm glad to see gone! Corruption is the bane of the builder...
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,304
Yes, it is harder to maintain a bigger empire united. But if you do so, you will be more powerfull... so the "snowball effect" is pure realism and logic...
Corruption makes the game more complex, and something that depending on how you handle it can make a difference between win and loss (palace jumps). Some may think "Less complex is good." Not really, if that was the case we'd be at age of empires fanatics forums.
I am annoyed at pollution, but pollution doesn't make a difference between win and loss, or skill at handling it define a good player from a great one. It's just annoying, so I want that out.
I am annoyed at pollution, but pollution doesn't make a difference between win and loss, or skill at handling it define a good player from a great one. It's just annoying, so I want that out.
