Is civilization an outdated concept?

[dh_epic]

I personally like the idea of "causing" a dark age. That way later on, after the dark age is over, you can have a renaisance.

But moreover, it makes a disappointing game concept VERY strategic.

The great leader idea is a good one. Or imagine your two enemies had to actually coordinate -- they had to have two great leaders meet to create a "special event" like a dark age.

This would mean that as an empire, you would want to temper your growth in order to prolong your longevity. Why was China more successful than Rome, let alone Egypt?

I think this could also be reflected in the scoring system. Even if Italy isn't the most powerful nation in the world, the fact that they had an empire for 500-700 years would give them HUGE bonus points ... and make the cultural value of their improvements higher.

... while we're at it, why not make a game faster, where if you're tearing through a nation, you can force a surrender (instead of having to invade every last capital and settlement). I don't know what conditions would make this fair, however.

 

[Verowin]

During the came you can introduce new civilizations. If a civ is eliminated, you can introduce a new power. That civ can rise to power becuase they found a new military unit, or a specific tech that gives them an advantage over the rest, or a strategy that makes them almost invisible. Think of the rise of the Huns, or Hitler with his Blitzkrieg.
This way you can open up a game where one civ is dominating.
That new civ can start in the middle of an existing one and take over the country with a civil war, or attack an neighboring country and take that one over. Like the Turks that came down from the Russian/Mongolian steps and created the Ottoman empire.

 

[warpstorm]

I like Verowin's idea. It reminds me a bit of the game Vinci, where civs rise and fall only to be replaced by more dynamic civs.