How does the modern age need to be improved? (Read below first)

[dh_epic]

This topic has come up here and there, so I figure we should formalize it and make this thread about all things modern in Civ 3.

The modern age takes place generally after 1950.

Take the poll now, or hold off until after the discussion.

How does the modern age need to be improved?

(1) It doesn't, leave it!: Tweaks some techs, some units, and it should be great.

Suggestions could include:

• Add new units and tweak their attack/defence
• Add more detail to the modern tech tree
• Add new modern wonders and buildings
• Improve the rest of the game, the modern age doesn't need special attention
• Or some other small tweak, or nothing at all

(2) It doesn't, make it longer!: I'd love to see the modern age expanded into a future age!

Suggestions could include:

• Add robot wars and hovertanks
• Add techs like clones, robots, and laser guns
• Add improvements like fusion reactors and clone labs
• Take civ into space or underwater
• Or some other futuristic idea

(3) Cut micromanagement: We just need the turns to be shorter.

Suggestions could include:

• Find a way to cut out worker micromanagement
• Find a way to simplify pollution
• Find a way to cut out the need to check the diplomacy screen every turn
• Find a way to group together multiple repetitive actions
• Or some other idea that reduces micromanagement, especially in modern times

(4) Cut MM, Increase competition: -- and you basically win by 1950. Stretch it into modern times.

Assume micromanagement is resolved. Suggestions could also include:

• Find a way to make the ancient age expansion last longer
• Find a way to make the middle age wars last longer
• Find a way to keep continents seperate until 1492 (or thereabouts)
• Find a way to make movement take longer, even on railroads
• Or some other idea that keeps the game competitve for longer

(5) Cut MM, Increase competition, Draw on history: -- and the last 50 years are full of ideas!

Assume micromanagement is resolved and competition in the earlier ages is more fierce. Suggestions could also include:

• My favorite gameplay idea from the Cold War, such as espionage, blocs, and vassals
• My favorite gameplay idea from Israel-Arab conflict, such as refugees without a nation, terrorism, and the creation of canals
• My favorite gameplay idea from other "peacekeeping" missions, such as genocide, the united nations, regime change, and human rights
• Other historical challenges like Nationalism, "Balkanization", and civil war
• Some other post World War 2 event that offers a new gameplay idea

Hold off on your vote if you'd like to see how the discussion goes! Discussion below!

 

[dh_epic]

As sort of a side poll, I'm posing this question to everyone:

Do you think the past 50 years of real history have been interesting enough to make for a good part of Civ? If so, which parts are your favorite? If not, what does this do for your expectations of Civ?

I personally think there are lots of great ideas that Civ can draw on from the past 50 years. Some of you might agree. Some of you might disagree.

I hope we get some good discussions going, for those who are undecided about Civ's modern era.

 

[mitsho]

I'd like to vote on this, but honestly - the only time where I reached the modern age was in a sg. In my normal games, I stop playing at latest in the late industrial age..

but cutting mm sounds always good.

mfG mitsho

 

[Civrules]

A few things regarding the modern age.
First off, it is more boring than the other three ages. In the modern age, everything is pretty much set up for you, and if you are in the lead when entering it, chances are pretty good that you will remain in the lead in the modern age. That being said, you don't have to worry about anything, which is exactly the problem (no competition).
The modern age needs to be presented in a different way so that there are more exciting things to do, and so that you can compete in some way (like you compete for territory in the ancient age).

When I reach the modern age (which I rarely do), I pretty much sit there, building units, and cleaning up pollution. There is basically zero strategy involved in it, unless you are at war. I don’t like that. And I hope it can be fixed.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

One thing that would alter the way both the modern and the earlier eras are played would be to change the victoryconditions to something not so focused on conquest and expansion.
There was a thread that was called something like Things to prevent the snowball-effect - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=104621 , which connects pretty well to the other suggestions about this.
Otherwise you will still be stuck in the 'expand and fight til the modern era' and the modern era still won't mean much.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Ahhh, Mitsho, you have shown exactly why the modern age DOES need to be improved. I doubt that you are alone in wanting to end in the Industrial age or, worse still, having already WON by the Industrial age. I have only just entered the Industrial age in my most recent game and, quite frankly, I am already getting kinda bored ! Why?? Too much MM and too much to assimilate on a turn by turn basis. Now, a lot of that is my fault because I chose to expand so much but, if I hadn't, another civ would have-so you see my dilemma.
The fact is that expansion in the early game should be both slower and more staggered, and there should always be the chance for nations to succumb to the 'tide of history', be it a natural disaster, a plague, a dark age or a civil war. These along with greatly reduced MM, and DH's other ideas, would go a long way towards keeping me much more interested in sticking it out until the modern age AND beyond!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Well I'm glad that most people agree there's a problem! Some of us want to cope by slowing down the snowball effect. Others simply turn the game off before you're stuck in micromanagement town.

Micromanagement should be cut down regardless. In abstract, though, what's missing from the modern age is competition. I think a lot of people would agree with that. And the answer ISN'T making the AI gang up on you.

The question then focuses on how to bring more competition into the late game. Do you prolong competition from earlier in the game? In that case, you need to delay territory expansion until much later. The map is covered way too early compared to the real world. Also, every civ has made contact pretty early in Civ, whereas it took well into the 16th century before everyone knew where everyone else was.

But to me this isn't enough. The reality is that once the map is entirely covered, there's maybe only an era of good war left before the game is over. (And everything after that is strictly a formality to see if the leader can pass the threshold to domination, since nobody can catch up to him.) If there's only one era of good war after the map is covered, then that means you'd need to prolong expansion and exploration until the end of the industrial age! I'm sure they could find a way to do it, but it would be a little bizarre...

I think the key is to offer people a new frontier in the modern age. I really hate the idea of a future age, but at least exploring space and exploring under water would be something to do. But the frontiers of the modern age should be virtual -- economic power, influence, culture and ideology, even moral progress. With territory basically decided, these could add a whole lot.

Which is why I think Civ ought to draw on some great historical scenarios to add new gameplay concepts to the later ages.

 

[Princeps]

The modern era don't need to improved.

Ancient era should be made much, much, longer!

 

[Philips beard]

More Cold War features, like espionage options, different weapon programs, star wars systems, nuke silos that can be taken out, so nuclear subs gets more important, rush for the moon landing, satelite rush, multi lateral defence pacts, not only bi lateral as to day, but more like the NATO and Warzaw pacts etc etc....

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

The last option. I'd also want to see the other eras last longer.

 

[Bluetooth]

Clearly, dh epic, you don’t like micro management in modern times as three out of five alternatives starts with “Cut micro management." What type of micro management are you occupied with in modern times? In my games I have less micro management; in fact it’s so little micro management so I get bored. Almost all tiles are developed and railroads are built, the only micro management I have in modern time is when I conquer cities with undeveloped tiles.

Cleaning up pollution can be a huge problem if your cities grow above 12 and you don’t build Mass Transit System. I always try to build Mass Transit System first and then the Hospital. If you play wise pollution or micro management is not a big problem.

A fact, though, is that game play in the modern time is not fun and thus it could be reduced in game time. I played Europa Universalis some months ago and I can’t say I’m very fond of the realistic touch of that game. What I think was fun was the race for Colonization of the New World. I think it would be possible to do something similar in Civilization. Perhaps some parts of the map could be blocked for the players until the first years of Industrial era (or a new age called Age of Colonization). The whole map could then be unlocked when one of the nations reaches a certain technology and the race for new land could begin. The New World could be populated by small tribes. I think this concept could involve quite a few new technologies and units.

 

[GoodGame]

The Modern era needs more granularity in units, tech, and even variant units. Technology increased at a much faster rate in the 20th C. than probably any other time in human history. Really I'd start with the late-Industrial, and increase granularity there. There should also be the possibility of Steam-driven versions of everything modern, and it should be broken down in steps by:

Napoleonics/Colonialism's Last Hurrah, WWI, League of Nations, WWII, ColdWar, Nuclear Detente, Information Age, Future (optional).

Future tech should be optional (radio box in the game settings), and include all the sci-fi junk (perhaps with alternative Flavors---SMAC, GalCiv/StarWars, Battletech, etc..).

These other 'Modern' eras should be optional as well since they slow down the game. But at the least, the minimum game should distinguish between WWI, WWII, ColdWar, and the Information age in all ways, and not give any understated upgrades to units or technologies.


This is pretty obvious by all the user-made mods, which usually add that and more without being scenario-specific.

 

[sengfossil]

hello,

this is IMHO one of the most importand things for Civ 4:

The late end game (in each Civ 1-3) is boring!

Why?
- no explores
- no events (like tribes with bonusses)
- you (usually) clearly dominate if you reach this stage
- last not least: (as mentioned from others too) your main tasks are manage city improvements and cleanup pollution or redo stupid actions of automated workers.

what to do:

my suggestions are:
-> give new areas for exploration (underwater, space, cave-worlds)
-> give bonusses and new ressources to these worlds,
-> MM: give city-improvement-templates, reduce pollution and corruption, give more flexible or customizable automation options for units.


Besides that: stop endless movement over railroads, stop automated cutting of all forests and different research-way-options for technologies.

b.t.w: my vote was for Nr. (5)

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I voted nr 5 since I'd like to see some major changes in the modern era, or earlier so the modern era will play differently.

The only problem I have with MM in the modern era though is connected to the game being focused on getting big. If they made it harder or not so viable to fight and expand the problem would go away, for me anyway. I always automate my workers and when I come to the modern era I change the preferences to make the cities choose more for themselves what to build, if I'm so big that I'm winning that is. But if I know I'm winning there's not much fun playing....
Sorry if I'm babbling - The point is, like questioned above - Is there really a problem with micromanagment? I think Firaxis have made enough options to cut it down to prefered level and the problem lies in the gameplay or the AI... If there're problems directly related to micromanagment that can't be solved with the ingame options already, specify them please.

One thing that I can think of is the going through the city-list clicking on the city to make them put entertainers or to harvest food after a cleaned-up pollution, that's pretty lame when you have fifty cities... Or the 'going through the competitors scientific progress to sell them techs at the right time', also boring, but not worse in the modern times.

 

[GoodGame]

Modern era also needs more culture wars than just the high-tech wonders. Mass-Media, International Trade (brand-marketing), Monopolies and International Business Conglomerates are completely ignored, but shouldn't be. The culture-war seems to stop with the Industrial age, yet it's pretty clear it has actually increased because of the Cold War.

 

[dh_epic]

Goodgame, I'm not sure if more granularity is the right answer. That would extend the age with more of the same -- techs are strictly stepping stones to buildings and units. Having three different kinds of modern infantry that have slightly different numbers don't change underlying fundamental problems with the modern age. If more units and more buildings were the solution (as more techs provide), then the modern age would already be fun.

I think naziassbandit and civphilzilla are on the right about the first step, that the other eras ought to be extended. Not the techs of the age, but the gameplay style of the age. The ancient age isn't just spears and despotism -- it's all the things that sengfossil talks about.

The ancient age is exploration, settlement, and goodie huts.
The middle age is scrambling for those last squares of territory, and regional war.
By the industrial age, the regional wars are generally over, and you're lucky if there are two world superpowers who can compete for a few turns, let alone into the modern age.

The first key is definitely dilating that. Letting exploration last into the industrial age, if possible.

But I disagree with resolving it with a future age, underwater cities, and all that. To me that's too late. The "middle" of the game would then be really boring, as everyone sits around on land for 1500-2000 years until they can resume exploration.

 

[mhIdA]

Here some ideas.
Adition one more era calling near future.The main subject of that is.
- Technologies ties to solar system exploration.
- Technologies ties to new weapons in land, air sea and space.
- The eco-system, fight the pauverty, famine, imigration.
- The election of secretary general of UN every 15, 20 turns.
- Regional blocks and politics unions, also religious wars or conflits.
- Diplomatic talks with several partners to made peace between minor civilization.
- More modelling of Cold War, and having hard talks to could install factories plantations and minning in other civs.
This and others features don´t break the gameplay in modern era and speculate about the near future (XXI century).
The worst thing is the space race, cause there are several civs who can win if we don´t take their capital.

 

[GoodGame]

I actually agree with you that just adding more units to the tech tree does not enhance, but rather increases the amount of time you spend clicking on the tech tree (I dislike this about RAR in some places). Generally not fun.

My thought wasn't three different types of Modern Infantry, like 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. I'm thinking more like 1870 vs. 1910 vs. 1940 vs. 1965 vs. 1990. If I played that out in a war game, I'm pretty confident that it would make a big difference, not a minor 10% difference that a +1/+1 in CIV.

Easily 1990 is Modern, but when exactly is the Industrial Infantry? It seems like 1940 generally, but couldn't it be 1910 as well? I think it does, which is what I see as a problem.

The situation I especially hate is when I have Galleons, Trebuchets, and INFANTRY as my main units. Why not Steam Galleons (AOI has Steam Frigates for the poorer nations circa 1903)? Why not Steam-Catapults, if I can't get Iron?

A similar situation is when I've add Infantry for a long long time, but the next civ over suddenly is equal to me just for getting that tech? Of course, if my Civ were decadent, and not researching, that is possible, but what if I've been researching a long while? Just because I haven't hit on Rocketry or Aluminum, I haven't improved my basic field infantry in nth turns? If that were so, all militaries from about 1900 to just prior to modern anti-tank weapons (approximately late 1970's) were 100% equal. That makes no sense, and makes the modern era weak to me.

Another situation is motor cars. Do we assume we have them with railroads and steam power (just understated?), or do we not get them til motorized transport? If we get it all with motorized transport, then we basically get Panzer IV and Sherman tanks with one blow (approximately 20 turns, since it was about 20 years to the Sherman from the Mark IV (WWI)).

So I disagree. There are a few units that are over-generalized. The generalizations work great in ancient and medieval times, but not so well in the meteoric 20th Century.

dh_epic
Cold War Veteran

dh_epic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dayton
Posts: 1,472

Goodgame, I'm not sure if more granularity is the right answer. That would extend the age with more of the same -- techs are strictly stepping stones to buildings and units. Having three different kinds of modern infantry that have slightly different numbers don't change underlying fundamental problems with the modern age. If more units and more buildings were the solution (as more techs provide), then the modern age would already be fun.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

To be fair though, GoodGame, a lot of what you are talking about IS do-able within the limits of Civ3. I have long considered having an early form of tank and aircraft becoming available with combustion-to reflect the amazing effect that the Internal Combustion Engine had on modern combat (i.e. bi-planes and WWI tanks).
You could also, if you really wanted, have early jet fighters become available prior to modern jets, and possibly even an armoured unit between the tank and modern armour. I guess what I am saying is that it would be more productive, IMHO, to focus on areas of the modern age which are currently beyond our power-such as concepts, victory conditions and the like!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Aussie raises a good point about the things Goodgame is talking about. They're good ideas. And they certainly don't hurt the game if they're done properly.

But there are already mods of that kind in Civ 3. And they still don't quite resolve the malaise that sets in by the modern age. More units, let alone extending it into a future age as some people desire, does not resolve the fact that the game really hits a slump by 1800 or so, let alone 1950.

My question to some people:

1. Do you think the past 50 years, after world war 2, have been interesting for history in real life?

2a. If so, what are your favorite historical events from the past 50 years?

2b. If not, would Civ's latter ages be more interesting if it had as much expansion and competition as the earlier ages?