How do they solve "big becomes bigger" without corruption?

[Commander Bello]

Aussie, the examples you've given above don't make it.
Just to pick only one: a bigger empire will have more chances to have "specialized" cities besides the ones which are "producing" units(I hope, units can't be produced anymore, but just to use well-known terms...).
As far as I see it, the solution lies in units consuming population AND resources... but I doubt that they will have this concept in.
Anyway, being "bigger" nearly almost means to have an advantage.
I could imagine, though, that having cities of different religions would work against this, as a city population being of a different religion could just become VERY unhappy with your wars...
But, we still lack viable information, so the only thing we have is our hope that they have put some thoughts in this.

 

[GoodGame]

I think the culture models and happiness models will be tweaked to stress large empires. They said that there will be no free culture expansion now. Culture war by religion will probably complicate things too.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I guess the point I was trying to make, Commander Bello, is that in previous games it really did come down to how much land do you control, wheras I think that now it will be more about the KINDS of land you control-which will also effect your specialization choices and opportunities. Also, I see this as not just how large large empires can become, but is there a way for small nations to be COMPETITIVE with smaller ones-and I think that the things I have mentioned may help to achieve this goal.
I also hope that units, and cities, 'consume' resources-in that they make your resources more likely to become DEPLETED (as I have suggested in these forums SO many times), and I am also hoping that frequent building of units will place a negative pressure on your population-either directly, or by reducing a city's health (thus SLOWING the rate of population growth). In fact, if health is connected to population growth-as I believe it is-then this may solve the problem modders have faced for so long in civ3: i.e. how to represent the population costs of military units when you are left with population points, and costs, in whole numbers. Hope that makes sense?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Naokaukodem]

But it's not fun to play a game that was decided in 500 BC for another 300 turns.

In Civ3, there is a too high corruption for this being true. Big empires in Civ3 mainly increase ressources disponibility, and luxury what increase your hapiness and your science indirectly.
So the game may not be decided as early as in 500 BC. Well, I never experienced it anyway.
The fact is you will dominate in Civ3 as soon as you are advanced in TECHS. This is a tweak of the game that either you dominate or not in techs, you will dominate or not the whole game. This may be a thing to change in next Civs...

 

[MamboJoel]

I could not agree more with Aussie_Lurker's first post.
Both gameplay and realism suffer from the linear destiny of the civilizations from Civ1 to Civ3. And that's exactly what is frustrating in those games to me.
Oh, by the way about civics :
Now governing means wee choose our policy regarding different social economic (etc...) issues (slavery? Women's right to vote?) . I really hope they add a question about laicity in modern civilization (since religion is going to be a big part in the game). In fact it's a very important question in the world today (if not the most important one in regard to what's happening in some religious countries).

 

[Vael]

In Civ3, there is a too high corruption for this being true. Big empires in Civ3 mainly increase ressources disponibility, and luxury what increase your hapiness and your science indirectly.
So the game may not be decided as early as in 500 BC. Well, I never experienced it anyway.

The fact is you will dominate in Civ3 as soon as you are advanced in TECHS. This is a tweak of the game that either you dominate or not in techs, you will dominate or not the whole game. This may be a thing to change in next Civs...

Corruption doesn't even really stop the snowball effect, it only slightly slows it down. Having more cities is ALWAYS better than fewer cities even with corruption. I and other people agree that the obvious choice shouldn't always be to attack your neighbors and take their land, becoming twice (or whatever) as strong as someone who doesn't.

 

[mudblood]

As far as I see it, the solution lies in units consuming population AND resources... but I doubt that they will have this concept in.

You could do something similar by requiring food as well as 'hammers' to produce a unit.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Corruption doesn't even really stop the snowball effect, it only slightly slows it down. Having more cities is ALWAYS better than fewer cities even with corruption. I and other people agree that the obvious choice shouldn't always be to attack your neighbors and take their land, becoming twice (or whatever) as strong as someone who doesn't.

Well, this is the funiest thing to do in Civ: to take your neighbors'lands. However I agree that it should not be the obvious thing to do, it is to say you could play without doing it. Like so, you would have even more pleasure to do so. There would have to have something to do while being at peace, more than just build a library, a marketplace, an university and a bank: this is not enough. You should have many other ways to improve your cities, many more than a warring civ. In fact, you should be supposed to cannot see a end at the building construction. For example, there could be a building giving a food bonus, another one another food bonus, another one greater even science, etc... this way you could never stop building and continuously be at peace with your little civilization. Peace would have its benefits: heavy construction, huge bonuses, high growth, high commerce high science etc... and war would have its own benefits as well, but different: less construction, more cities. Of course it is already the case in Civ3, but at a very lower scale as I said, Libraries and Marketplaces are not enough.
However we have to count with units and mititary in Civ... Civ is not just about building buildings, it is also to deal with other civilizations and deal with defense and units. You have to build your military in Civ, it is a part of the game, and this is what make it interesting also, to be disturbed and threatened by others civs. But you can either be defensive or attacking in civ, while the advantages of being defensive are obvious, there is to have some advantages to be attackant. There we have it: attacking (and conquering) make us, like it is not that surprising, more powerfull. After all the goal of the game is to be the best civ ever. However I agree that conquering should not be that easy of course, and this is maybe the center of your problem here. Here, I see hope in Civ4: when in Civ3 the AI had an army of defensive units, you were building an army of offensive units exclusively, so you were able to defeat it with approximatively the same amount of units, with an army of the same size. In Civ4, the genius will be that units won't have defense and attack anymore, they will have only one strenght number. So the AI will not have to choose anymore between a weak defensive and virtually immobile unit and a hard to use attacking one, it will have an army of one block, and rivalizing with any other army of the same size and era: it will be harder for an attacker to win and it will be harder for the player civ to endure the threat of every other civs'armies.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You see, for me the funnest thing to do would be to become a Netherlands or Switzerland. A small nation of less than 2 dozen cities-but all with very high populations. These cities become culturally spectacular, with a healthy, happy and wealthy population-as I benefit from both the trade in my chocolate and gold (or tulips !), as well as benefiting from the numerous trade routes which criss-cross my open borders. Also, because of my friendly nature (and my very strong culture) I remain relatively secure from outside attack. In fact, so well liked and trusted am I, that I frequently intervene to bring peace between warring nations (because war sooo screws up trade). I am also known to earn extra money, though, by selling or loaning my best units to certain nations when they are at war. In the end, because I am so well liked, and because I have such a strong and concentrated culture, I could go on to win either a Cultural or Diplomatic victory.
The thing is, though, that at least SOME (if not almost all) of what I described above sounds like it will be possible in Civ4!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think the real solution to the snowball effect is to make a bigger empire a particular strategic path (ie conquest) to getting power, but one that is not necessarily better than other strategic paths (diplomacy, culture) to getting power. (so that more success in one area ie conquest doesn't give you more power unless you also have some strength in the other areas)... so culture might prevent runaway conquest by tying down troops in occupation.. and conquest might prevent culture through 'national humiliation'

 

[BrutalGodProjek]

You see, for me the funnest thing to do would be to become a Netherlands or Switzerland. A small nation of less than 2 dozen cities-but all with very high populations. These cities become culturally spectacular, with a healthy, happy and wealthy population-as I benefit from both the trade in my chocolate and gold (or tulips !), as well as benefiting from the numerous trade routes which criss-cross my open borders. Also, because of my friendly nature (and my very strong culture) I remain relatively secure from outside attack. In fact, so well liked and trusted am I, that I frequently intervene to bring peace between warring nations (because war sooo screws up trade). I am also known to earn extra money, though, by selling or loaning my best units to certain nations when they are at war. In the end, because I am so well liked, and because I have such a strong and concentrated culture, I could go on to win either a Cultural or Diplomatic victory.
The thing is, though, that at least SOME (if not almost all) of what I described above sounds like it will be possible in Civ4!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

If this is possible, then I will definitely LOVE the next Civ!!!!!1

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well Krikkitone, it sounds like they have done what you have suggested with culture. Given that culture 'resets' when you invade a city, it will make it harder to defend until you have built up your reputation there. Also, it does seem like the bigger you are, the more you have to invest in culture to keep the same level of culture (that IS how it worked with the luxury slider, isn't it?) Anyway, it does appear like culture will now be the 'Great Leveller' in military conquest, though I also have a feeling that Health will play a role as well (in fact, the two may work in Tandem).
Strange thing is, though, if 'culture flipping' is now gone (and good riddance too) does that now mean that you can never loose a city except by outside conquest? Man, I really HOPE NOT!!!! Bring in CIVIL WARS/Seccessions-its the only thing that makes SENSE !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

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.

It should be more balanced. Early eras should be when you get territories. Without gaining territories early civilizations like rome wouldn't exist

I've always felt like i was cheated out of the iron and bronze ages. The game is soley about the iron age to the modern age. They have left alot out of the ancient age i think the ancient age should be MUCH longer

 

[Naokaukodem]

It should be more balanced. Early eras should be when you get territories.

The fact is that in Civ3, it is "easy" to get new territories during all the game. It would have to be simply harder in every era in fact, not only earlier, in order to counter the "snowball effect", which would not disappear though, because it is pure comon sense. So the effort to make war would have to be much greater, for the same result. I think the way how AI handle war is important for this "easy" way (or not) to practice war, and I think that the new system merging defense and attack will make AI much better at war.

War in modern era was ok also for conquests, as we can see during the WWII with the third Reich. In fact, all is depending on your level of tech and the level of tech of your enemy. The level of tech or the expertise of your troops, because just 'different' troops can have different power. While the expertise is symbolized by the presence or not of barracks in your cities, I think that the "different-ness" potential is not represented, other by just having different units and UUs. Legions are swordmen, but they are supposed to be much more powerfull, etc. ...

 

[covenant]

You see, for me the funnest thing to do would be to become a Netherlands or Switzerland. A small nation of less than 2 dozen cities-but all with very high populations. These cities become culturally spectacular, with a healthy, happy and wealthy population-as I benefit from both the trade in my chocolate and gold (or tulips !), as well as benefiting from the numerous trade routes which criss-cross my open borders. Also, because of my friendly nature (and my very strong culture) I remain relatively secure from outside attack. In fact, so well liked and trusted am I, that I frequently intervene to bring peace between warring nations (because war sooo screws up trade). I am also known to earn extra money, though, by selling or loaning my best units to certain nations when they are at war. In the end, because I am so well liked, and because I have such a strong and concentrated culture, I could go on to win either a Cultural or Diplomatic victory.
The thing is, though, that at least SOME (if not almost all) of what I described above sounds like it will be possible in Civ4!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I have a dream and Aussie stated it perfectly. That would be my ideal game of civ, of course I also secretly paid another civ to attack my comepetition.. heheh.... its good to be king

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

I guess they could have a "stability bonus" to cities that are close to the capital. Would work the same as in Civ3, except there are no negative inpact for a city far from the capital, only *positive* impact to cities that are close to it .

 

[GinandTonic]

As the inappropriately named Lurker touched upon, perhaps a realistic way to end the snowball is sucession. If there was a chance of civil war etc for large empires there would be a counterballance to the more-is-more scenario.

So America had a civil war over emancipation? Great stick it in. The Brits did emancipation easy but crumbled with war-discontent? Stick it in.

Now the Romans fell down over sucession, so poss that is gov switch but poss that could be a distinct event or a random chance over time? Come to think of it those tanks outside the Kremlin were at switch time...

Religion would be another factor that could split mighty empires - see the tai ping rebellion in china, claiming anywhere between 25-50 million and letting the Anglo-French expondition to sack the summer pallace and all that.

The bottom line being that the main threat to a vast empire is its diverse members rebelling against the party line, not the petty autocrats being on the take.

 

[oldStatesman]

The bottom line being that the main threat to a vast empire is its diverse members rebelling against the party line, not the petty autocrats being on the take.

Well, to be fair, maybe the petty autocrats rile up the ordinary masses by their corruption - for example a prime reason the American colonies split from the Crown was the atttempt by the Mega Cartel East India Tea Company to stifle local compitition in the colonies by having the crown tax the local importers in the colonies to drive them out of business. It was the unfair redistribution of the colonies wealth to line the pockets of a few rich English lords that lit the powderkeg of Revolution. Most colonists were not against the King or a monarchy per se - it was not a War over personal freedoms at first - the Radical Revolutionaries took it over though and came up with those most Radical of documents - The Declaration of Independence and later the Bill of Rights.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

The risk with civil wars, as I see it, is that people will feel the need to re-load when it appears in their civ but will leave it be when it happends to anotehr civ, much like cultural conversions in civIII.

 

[oldStatesman]

The risk with civil wars, as I see it, is that people will feel the need to re-load when it appears in their civ but will leave it be when it happends to anotehr civ, much like cultural conversions in civIII.

Nothing will stop reloading. People have 'assisted themselves' at solataire games as long as games have existed - it is human nature. As long as it is not an official compitition - the individual should be able to reload or not as they wish depending on whether it gives them pleasure or not. I don't want to see features put in a game or left out becasue the developers are acting as "reloading police".