Huge differencies between the civs

[Loppan Torkel]

Should there be an option where you could let the civs be a lot more diverse than now? Some with huge benefits in the early era but then big disadvantages later on. This coupled with a system that prevents snowballing could lead to a game where say Zulu grows big and powerful fast, causing a big German migration, 'people wandering'(or whatever it's called). Zulu would get a big lead in victorypoints, but since they lose their benefits and other gain theirs, they would have to fight to keep the lead, with politics foremost since they would be struggle in other areas...

I only want this to be an option since it would become a pretty different experience, but I think it would be fun to adopt ones gameplay during the game to your situation. The game wouldn't lead to one or two civs growing larger and larger but instead a game that flows in different directions and where a superpower in the end necessarely wouldn't win, because of a big lead for France in the middle ages, for example.
Sounds fun, doesn't it?!

 

[Loppan Torkel]

The whole point with this idea is to let you play the game in a different way.
At the moment all civs are pretty balanced and there aren't too much differencies between them. Some have a bit of advantage in the beginning, like expansionist civs, while others have theirs closer to the end, like commercial civs. This is all balanced and fine, it doesn't steer the players too much, but at the same time it gives the players some diversity in playing different civs.

However if you would be able to play the game with these big differencies, which could be seen as ridiculous related to civ3 differencies and don't even have to be perfectly balanced, you would have to plan for the future in another way since the bonuses and maluses(?) in both your own and the other civs would impact the game more. Flee from the Irouque in the beginning to drive them back when they lose their benefits and save up for the end to withstand the Americans, as the Scandinavians, for example.

The whole 'not to different civs or no traits and UU at all' makes it balanced, which is good, but it also has a tendency of steering the game towards a linear history, where in each game the winning civ's power is ever growing.
It would be fun with an option where the power among the civs shift through history like it's been doing in the real.

Any supporters?

 

[JanSobieski]

Yeah sounds like a great idea. I don't like how vanilla and bland the histograms look in the game for power or score or whatever. I'd like to see some civs fluctuate like if they get too big too fast, they are more vulnerable internally so they can lose power again or something like that. Like the Huns got really power really fast but then shrank back. Maybe certain civs could have major unit production and military advantages but have a severe government handicap like only being able to have despotism. Others could have bad sheild production lose due to coruption but have a great economic and scientific advantage, like a really physically lazy civ. These are just ideas I'm throwing out.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Yea, that would be one way to do it, giving advantages but cutting of governmenttypes or cutting in the techtree. Another way would be to tie it to the time of the game.
I haven't really given it too much thought how to do it, it's more the idea I like... If someone has ideas how to implement it - be my guest.

Edit: Another thing that probably would be good would be to let some civs have a head start in the techtree and let all civs start with a number of settlers and warriors.
There should also be a way to quickly turn your cities to settlers to start in a new place if necessary.

 

[mhIdA]

If I understand, the idea is to have more differences between the strongs of a civs during the game, with ones more strongs in begining, others at midlle and anothers in the end. So a way to balanced civs and prevents snowballing:
- Migration, wich come to the large civs due their culture and health. By time this multi-ethnical and multicultural cities develop a strong feeling of autonomy or independence allow rebelions and civil wars.
- Alliances between several civs to contain a large civ and eventually a war inn 2 or more fronts.
- The type of government (USSR) and the treatiness of the ethnias by a civ (Aztecs and their blood cults).
- More conflicts between civs in early fase of the game, specially in that who belong to same cultural group or by civs in nearby.
- Some trigger events tied to civ traits (islam in Arabia, naval/air power, a big defeat/victory in a bataille, natural disaster, a great leader).
- Wars that exhausted civs (WWI, WW2).
The idea is contained the strongest civs, not eliminate them, and allow several cycles of the strongest civs, each mean that not a 1 or 2 large during whole game, but 1 or 2 strongest civs in each era and differents from era to era.
This is more realistic and for me more fun since in history there cycles of main empires wich have a birth/increase, apogeous and a decline during history and in the game this is not happen.

 

[Elysium Dreams]

I agree wholeheartedly as far as making the game more dynamic and building more variance in as the game progresses, but I think what you describe may not be a very good way of accomplishing this. The whole idea here is an emphasis on adaptability, but giving each civilization pre-defined peaks and dark ages would only make the game more predictable.

Personally, one of the reasons I like the Civ games so much is that they don't bother enforcing big differences between civilizations: each civ potentially can do just about anything that any other civ can do. What needs to be done isn't to limit the civs with more distinctions made, but to increase the potential: each civ should have the potential to develop on widely different lines, lines that vary from game to game instead of just from civ to civ.

For example, if you see the Zulu and automatically know that they're going to be focused heavily on military strength, with powerful ancient-era expansion followed by stagnation and decline, that takes a lot out of the game. Contrast that to a game where you might see the Zulu and watch as they develop into a mighty naval power, collapse, then reemerge as a sophisticated cultural center of enlightenment, only to turn into a brutal imperial dictatorship in the industrial era fueled by its well-built-up factories and extensive, highly developed railroads--but in the end is stripped of its empire and reduced to a third-rate power following its loss at the hands of the small but powerful Mongol-Babylonian alliance, with Babylon's cutting-edge jet fighters grounding the Zulu air force and thereby allowing Mongolia's elite marines to conduct an island-hopping campaign. Much more interesting, no?

 

[mhIdA]

Elysium Dreams
The example you gave is very nice and surely is fun.
But maybe I miss understood, cause I don't want pre-defined peaks and dark ages too, regards my ideas could brought to that.
The idea is, besizes some features from the differents civs they become a great power mainly when a great leader appears to and take their people in such a golden age, and also some circunstances around (Israel appears when Egypt, Hitites, Babylons were in down).
Trought out history we see Persia, Rome, Arabia, Mongols, Spain, England, USA been the major power in their time and after a while fall (not the case of USA yet)
and China with highs and downs during history.
What I mean on contain the strongest civs is relly to the game and not one in particular, this mean that in your example the strongest civ is Zulus and Mongolia and Babylonia forge an alliance to contain it.
Every civ could be potentially and had the possibility of been the strongest civ in game, that is out of question. But I just wander a way of having during a game 1 or 2 strongest civs, and of course not allways the same and a containment policy by other civs until they stop be expansionist or fall and remain a black hole in their region, until the some civ or another rise again.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I'd rather not see too much of the containment policy. It doesn't seem very fun or realistic to have those around you bullying up each time you reach a certain strength.
I am generally against these sorts of 'catch-up' features. To some realistic extent to save one's own civ - sure, but not as a gamefeature.

I agree wholeheartedly as far as making the game more dynamic and building more variance in as the game progresses, but I think what you describe may not be a very good way of accomplishing this. The whole idea here is an emphasis on adaptability, but giving each civilization pre-defined peaks and dark ages would only make the game more predictable.

Personally, one of the reasons I like the Civ games so much is that they don't bother enforcing big differences between civilizations: each civ potentially can do just about anything that any other civ can do. What needs to be done isn't to limit the civs with more distinctions made, but to increase the potential: each civ should have the potential to develop on widely different lines, lines that vary from game to game instead of just from civ to civ.

For example, if you see the Zulu and automatically know that they're going to be focused heavily on military strength, with powerful ancient-era expansion followed by stagnation and decline, that takes a lot out of the game. Contrast that to a game where you might see the Zulu and watch as they develop into a mighty naval power, collapse, then reemerge as a sophisticated cultural center of enlightenment, only to turn into a brutal imperial dictatorship in the industrial era fueled by its well-built-up factories and extensive, highly developed railroads--but in the end is stripped of its empire and reduced to a third-rate power following its loss at the hands of the small but powerful Mongol-Babylonian alliance, with Babylon's cutting-edge jet fighters grounding the Zulu air force and thereby allowing Mongolia's elite marines to conduct an island-hopping campaign. Much more interesting, no?

I am fully aware that this idea would make the game predictable to some degree, because of the predefined peaks and darkages. I wouldn't like this to be the only way to play civ, but an option. The thing that this idea brings is an easy way to steer civ to a more dynamic experience with the emphazise on adaptability, like you said. This could probably be accomplished in some other ways, but probably not as easy, and thats why I'd like to see this idea as an option in the game.
If Firaxis can make the game dynamic, like in your Zulu example(which isn't happening in civ3) - without the winning power evergrowing, there's no need for this idea. If not, this idea could change the gameplay dramatically without that much effort, some new mechanics and playtesting. As an option of course.

As it is now, I'd have to say it's equally predictable, not from the start but it often becomes clear pretty quickly which civs that will perish and which civ/s that will win/have any chance of winning.
This idea would draw out the winnning process, either by victorypoints throughout history or through victorygoals, which would make it much more unpredictable who's winning. This since most civs will have some really strong parts throughout history, perhaps several. The one who can adopt, take advantage of it's peak/s and rely on diplomacy (during darkages in particular) best would win, like in civ3 perhaps but to a greater extent and in a more dynamic gameplay.