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

[sir_schwick]

I have not seen this paradigm proposed, so the shameless self-promoter will step up to the plate. One common complaint is that once you expand and consolidate, the game is mostly over. One big phase of warfare and then mop up. This is a fundamental tenant of how civ plays and should not be changed.

However the real problem is that there is only one real market your competing for shares in: territory. Expanding and establishing then consolidating the territory is fun, but is over by the end of the MIddle Ages.

What if as technology and interdependence increase, new markets open for you to attempt to explore and conquer. Here is a sample progression of different 'battlefields' so to speak.

Territory -> Influence -> Trade -> Ideas

Territory - This is the race everyone is familiar with. It starts from turn one and really settles itself by the end of the MIddle Ages. Having a strong presence in this field will set you up to have a better chance at winning in the influence stage.

Influence - This refers to how much of the world is influenced by both your culture and your government. If you are winning here, nations will rally to your causes and people's will adore you. It is not just culture, but that is an important part of having global influence. Also, if you have great influence, than winning on the commercial battlefield will be easier. This battlefield starts to emerge whenever large government is possible, or the end of the Ancient Era.

Trade - This is how successful and widespread is trade. Of course trade would be different than now. Here comes the idea of tariffs, trade wars, boycotts, and economic alliances. This starts to emerge in the late Middle Ages. Having control of the trade world will allow your ideas to travel around mroe easily.

Ideas - This is your ideology and sophisticated culture. It includes religion, political ideology, etc. Having people under your ideology would allow all kinds of sway/support in actions, etc. Also, controlling ideas would gain you lots of ideas in return(read research). The point at which discourse can really be expanded upon is the beginning ot the middle of the INdustrial Era.

Of course hoiw this expansion and warfare on these various battlefields would need to be explored. Also, the ones I suggested were just to explain the concept. I am jsut introducing the idea that expansion is always a factor, just what arena is constantly evolving. Also, that means by the time the territorial borders are secure, trade borders are a frontier that must be fought over.

Any ideas or a suggestion to start a seperate thread would be appreciated.

 

[dh_epic]

Wow. A LOT of great ideas out here.

How to Make Things Worse

I have to say, though, besides how much I think the idea of making a future age will make things worse... I also think adding more "detail" to the modern age would make things worse. Suggestions like making air combat more intricate, or making more iterations of units, they would only extend the boredom. I wouldn't make air combat as intricate as ground combat. Nah, I'd almost make ground combat as simple as air combat -- but that's a contraversial one, and I don't really think that's the solution.

The problem is you're basically competing over numbers at that point. You build a unit with 18 offense, but I build one with 24 offense. Adding a 21 offense unit makes things worse. You need a completely new battlefield altogether.

History

I love some of these topics, particularly from Good Game and Gingerbread Man. I'd like to look at some of these.

BLOCS (COLD WAR, WW2): Amazing. Imagine two sides forming and the world completely polarized.

PROXY WAR (COLD WAR, LATIN AMERICAN CONTRA WARS, KOREAN WAR): I love this idea, especially when you tie it into the BLOCs. Then you can get into helping a nation on the other side of the earth wage war for a cause you believe in. Then you can get into the secret wars of the Cold War, where you fund rebels in hopes of becoming more influential in that region.

DECOLONIZATION AND INDEPENDANCE: I love the idea of rebellion. Dealing with this challenge in your empire, or siding with rebels in your enemy's empire could offer great new gameplay. Especially when you tie this into cold war and blocs, you really get something going on here.

ECONOMIC FORCES: I really enjoy the idea of achieving success through wealth, instead of conquest. It's a whole other ballgame when you add the idea of a market, where your job is to create fertile ground for business, while business automatically grows.

How to Make It Happen

I think a theme for all of these things to be possible isn't just implementing the features... but giving people a reason to explore these features. If conquest and land are the most important things in Civ, these will never be possible. It's BECAUSE conquest and land are the most important things in Civ that the Modern age is so boring.

I leave that thought out there as people give suggestions that history can draw on. This definitely ties into Sir Schwick's vision: where competing explicitly over land becomes passé. Competing to have the most influence around the world, or competing to have the most powerful economy, that's what the above suggestions feed into.

Change it or Kill it

Otherwise I practically agree with Rhalto. If they can't make the modern age interesting, they may as well stretch out the early game. It might not be "realistic", but if the last piece of unclaimed land is settled by 1950 AD instead of 950 AD, the game would be interesting for much longer.

Still, I think Rhalto is pretty apt when he points to the victory conditions. If there are many alternative victories that are independent of conquest, the modern age gives you something to fight for instead of "more of the same". I don't think you have to look much further than history for ideas on new victory conditions. There are way more motivations for a country than "more land".

But also, "more land" isn't the solution to every other problem. (Economy, science, culture, etc.)

 

[GoodGame]

I agree with you on the Medieval era pretty much setting the territory game. The Industrial wars are usually pretty limited, and for the purposes of grabbing a few crucial resources, since war too long without victory and you just increase the chance that your opponent will have Modern war units while you don't. Modern war is usually just to set-up a one government NWO, or to due to diplomatically-ignited hostilities (basically, No I won't give you a free tech/100GP----Oh YeaH! (minor invasion repulsed) war over).

I don't think the game needs a 'buda-bling-bling' in that opening a new era leads to say "The Trade era", or the "Politics era". That'd be too cheezy. Novel ideas are best integrated in the tech tree as techs.

I agree the game needs to recognize that economics and trade change in value and influence over time---basically not just Luxuries, Taxation, Strategic Resources, and Treasuries, but also the rise of Mercantilism (creation of advanced goods, transport and marketing of trade goods leading to the mass market), Capitalism (private enterprise), Investment (stock in private)International Markets (treaties, trade deficits) and Investment.

Mainly I'd add the ability to make new types of trade goods with new technologies. And also the ability to set separate domestic and international economic policies (like governments). Already, most trade is reasonably modeled as increased money revenue which can then be re-invested into production/happiness/research---it's just a matter of encapsulating the steps--just like the units balance.

Along the "IDEAS" era---same as with the idea of "TRADE" era. They need more techs to represent progressive cultural ideals, but they also should hard-code specific ideals like "humanity" "slavery/freedom" "commonly owned (multi-civ owned) culture groups---like religions/politics". The Culture-Spreading model would probably work to represent ideological warfare.
See RAR for a tech tree full of "ideals".

sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels

sir_schwick's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,555

I have not seen this paradigm proposed, so the shameless self-promoter will step up to the plate. One common complaint is that once you expand and consolidate, the game is mostly over. One big phase of warfare and then mop up. This is a fundamental tenant of how civ plays and should not be changed.

However the real problem is that there is only one real market your competing for shares in: territory. Expanding and establishing then consolidating the territory is fun, but is over by the end of the MIddle Ages.

What if as technology and interdependence increase, new markets open for you to attempt to explore and conquer. Here is a sample progression of different 'battlefields' so to speak.

Territory -> Influence -> Trade -> Ideas

 

[dh_epic]

I'm a huge huge fan of changing how money works in Civ. Rather than your job being the businessman, squeezing out gold here and there and building new revenue generating buildings that you own, your job should be more like a gardiner. The gardiner plants the seeds and makes sure the soil is fertile, and decides how to take care of weeds and overgrowth. But otherwise, it basically grows automatically.

In other words, a private sector should emerge almost automatically as you discover it. And private wealth should generally generate luxuries for your Civilization, that is whatever you don't tax. And there ought to be an economic victory from having a really high revenue generating Civ.

That would definitely give you SOMETHING to work on in the modern era.

 

[brinko]

modern age should have peacekeeping armies such as united nations, nato, etc.
for example the united nations would become a world police controlled soley by the ai.
nato for example could be the product of individual nations paying gpt, to support it. leading this peaceforce should be the nation of which started it, which then would protect its supporting countries interests. for example... 2 warring ai's, 1 of the ai has significant trade routes between a region of the world which is yours and your allies(giving u valuable rubber for gpt)... so instead of moblizing your country for war, send in the nato like force to defend resources which are vital to trade, and kill some attackers to lessen the chance of foreign control over previous trade agreements. this way since many countries could contribute to this force, the agressive ai, will be persuaded to signing peace rather then losing precious units to a "neutral mercenary" force protecting its own interests.

this is one way i think the modern age can be approved

 

[Huxley Hobbes]

Hi there, first post here, though I've stalked the forums (Mainly for mods) for awhile. Still, I just can't resist throwing my 2cents/European cents/pence/whatevertheyuseinRussia in here, and probably a lot of other threads besides.

To expand on the idea of having Blocs, there are various problems with a realistic effect. For example, let's say there is an idealogical opposition between two superpowers, one is an Absolute Monarchy, the other a Theology (Working on C3C concepts here more than anything else.). Now, let's say there are a handful of small states as well, some of whom are Monarchies and some of whom are Theologies (And I know these aren't common govts. for the modern age, but it was the first pair that came to mind that wasn't communism or capitalism. They're overused ). Now, if the theologies are of the same religion, wouldn't it make sense for them to band together? The problem is, a predisposition towards other countries doesn't appear easy, other than in the player's mind. I can sit there and think 'Sure, the Mayans haveve traded fairly and treated me well, I like them.'. But my people, they won't do anything at all. An allience with the Mayans won't change my people's opinion of them, and neither would war. What I think would help, although a slight tangent, would be a sense of cultural unity. For example, Britain and the USA are very close, culturally speaking. There are differences, but we have essentially the same values and ideals. It's only natural, therefore, that we should drift together in world politcs. Now, this isn't always the case of course, but the point is good enough for Civ.

Ok, what I'm trying to get at is that I'd like a system where the civilizations themselves regarded each other with more... well, more perception. From there, it's a smaller leap of the imagination to think that my small Muslim states might become almost a part of my large, superpowered Muslim state. What I'm gravitating towards is that these Blocs could emerge naturally, and the ratifications at the diplomatic table being only a formalisation of something everyone knows to be true as well.

I believe someone above me has cited a similar idea (Whoever it was who had the line "'What are you doing about the Turkish problem', even though you're not at war with the Turks. Yet." or something similar. Many apologies for not going through the thread and looking.) - now, as an extension of that, people would be happy if you stepped in to support another civ with very similar culture/ideals, which could again add to the idea of creating a superpower surrounded by smaller satellite states, a la The Soviet Union and Finland/Estonia/etc.

I think if this happened, the political dynamics of the modern age would be far more interesting, and you could see a half dozen small states you could easily crush on their own band together into something bigger. Of course, better AI with regards to the military would always help. But yes, I think that alone would help, but there are many other good ideas in here.

Incidentally, I'd like to see the ability to create large alliances. If nothing else, this would create the aforementioned Blocs - and create some powerful forces, hopefully leading to a bit less in the way of predictability. Example: You're the second most advanced, second largest, second richest nation in the world. Each of those titles is held by a unique civ - but they band together, meaning now you're facing an entity with the resources AND the know-how to make a bigger, better army than yours.

Still, there are better ideas than that around. Personally, I'd like to see a Future Age, because... well, because it would be cool. I think more victory conditions are needed, and more diverse ones at that. Fighting few offensive wars and building the UN isn't really challenging either, except to challenge your patience while you're waiting for it to come around after you decide not to send your massive armies to crush the enemy.

 

[GoodGame]

Great idea!

Seas/Oceans should be territorially divided not just by culture, but by military presence. By some formula, owning ships in an area and in a state of embargo/war, then intermittent interuption of their supply (strategic/luxury resources) should be possible.

The same should apply to air-based (airport) supply. And probably would even be logical applied to land/roads.

Resource boxes across ocean/sea

searcheagle
Prince

searcheagle's Avatar

Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 323

Somethings that haven't been mentioned with reguards to the modern age:

1.Naval Power[/U]- The main way to do that is to make these affected by sea power:

A. Supply of raw materials
B. The selling of finished goods by both the government and

corporations. The home governments would be expected to ensure the corporations goods are not interferred with.
C. The ruler of the seas can interfer with opponents goods (of all types) and can charge fees to those who uses the seas (as payment for "protection")

3. Air Combat: Right now, air combat is too automatic. Even with SAM missile sites, Mobile SAMs, and assigning fighters air superiority, the bombers are rarely even take damage.

I wonder about the realism, but I see them die often, especially in the WW2 Civ3C. Simulating a radar network for increased bonus---maybe giving that radar dish an extra Air Traffic Controller option to increase Air Superiority interception rate and AAA ability of land units.. An maybe an optional anti-air tech to give Air Superiority units a special stand-off ability (basically super-long range radar-guided Air-to-air missiles).

 

[sir_schwick]

Part of the issue with air combat is that it is treated as a special version of ground combat. While this kind of simulation was somewhat useful in the WWII era and very useful in the WWI era, it fails miserably in the age of jet aircraft and electronics. Air combat is a lot more than planes flying at each other.

 

[dh_epic]

Hey Huxley Hobbes,

There's actually an interesting thread going on about cultural differences.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=102134&page=1

The idea is for culture to flow naturally between nations, so those who spend a long time next to each other become more similar. And how the people decide who they like and hate, while you as the leader decide whether to bend to your peoples' will or not. (That's the quick and dirty summary.)

But the idea is to have a "social force" that pushes you into wars you wouldn't otherwise consider, or push you into peace and alliances that you wouldn't consider.

"Mr. President, the people demand that you do more to protect the Democracy and Freedom around the world. They worry that soviet aggression against Germany will erode Democracy around the world, and at home."

Or "My Lord, the people see the Moor invasion in Spain as an attack on our way of life. Christians are crying for unity against these infidels."

Or lastly, "Emperor, the people are outraged. I know there is no love lost between us and the Athenians, but if the Persians have their way, we'll be speaking Avestan in ten years!"

An attack on our political ideology. An attack on our religion. An attack on our cultural values and customs. Civilization would be amazing if they actually calculated these "public feelings" of difference and similarity, and had an impact on your foreign relations.

Because selfish "let's conquer the world starting with those guys" doesn't seem to make for interesting situations.

 

[dh_epic]

(Bump)

I think one of the most interesting events in the past 50 years was the Six Day War in 1967, around Israel. Also the aftermath (which we're still seeing today). And the build-up.

Thoughts?