LESS IS MORE: scrap the modern age!

[dexters]

I quite enjoy the modern age. I think the solution to Civ3's slightly gimped Modern age is not to cut it, but to expand on it.

Some of the late game technologies aren't all that useful and if they can improve the UN for example by making it an integral diplomatic tool and pushing it a few techs into the modern age, it would liven up the era.

Basically, the modern age needs a bit more meat. That means more techs generally and less news units, with the remaining units being more useful.

 

[dh_epic]

Fundamentally, the modern age needs new gameplay. Units only give you more of the same -- a war between the size and strength of your army. That isn't working in the current modern age.

That, or you stretch out the gameplay of the prior ages so you don't "win" so early.

 

[sir_schwick]

I propose the stretching idea slightly by insisting growth is tampered until medicine cathces up with pathogens.

Mostly though I agree that the modern, even industrial age days, are not well simulated in the current Civ paradigms. I would rather they seperate Civilization into two direcitons, pre-industrial revolution game and post-industrial revolution game. This would allwo you to concentrate on what makes each set of eras important.

 

[Kayak]

Fundamentally, the modern age needs new gameplay. Units only give you more of the same -- a war between the size and strength of your army. That isn't working in the current modern age.

That, or you stretch out the gameplay of the prior ages so you don't "win" so early.

I think both would be good.

 

[Commander Bello]

Fundamentally, the modern age needs new gameplay. Units only give you more of the same -- a war between the size and strength of your army. That isn't working in the current modern age.

That, or you stretch out the gameplay of the prior ages so you don't "win" so early.

I don't completely agree.
Currently, you have some 'uber'-units in the modern ages which almost finally decide the game.
From a historical point of view I think almost any advantage in the modern ages should offer a new unit - that is, ONE new unit, not 3 or 4.
Additionally, there shouldn't be the 'uber'-units, but a slow evolution in combat stats.
Let's have Riflemen for instance:
It would start with Riflemen(1) - 6/8/1 (?) don't recall the exact original stats, currently.
The next tech (which could reside in a completely different path!) would allow Riflemen(2) - 7/9/1, then the next tech (again in a different path) Riflemen(3) - 8/9/1 and so on.
Obvioiusly, it would be almost impossible to upgrade your entire military with each tech. On the other hand, a nation could skip one upgrade sequence and spare it's money for the second step.

Unfortunately, starting with Cavalry, there are too less but decisive units available. And there is almost just one path which leads to this decisive units, so there is not much choice which way you may go.

 

[Princeps]

It’s my belief that the Civilization series has always been unable to represent the modern age in any way realistically.

Civilization is unalbe to represent eny era realistically:

The ancient ages contain waaay to little techs, and it should be shared in to two. Its just stupid age of expansion.

The middle ages were age of backwardness not an age like its in civ.

Napoleonic ages would be nice age to have between the Industrial ages and the middle age.

The Industrial ages are uhh... are kind of a mess...

The Modern ages are aas you say they are, I guess

 

[sir_schwick]

Unfortunately most games are decided by the end of the Middle Ages. After that the richest just keeps getting richer until he can outproduce his neighbors by enough to win. An improvement in the nature of war would help, but fundamentally either the power base needs to move away from terrain and into other arenas, or the modern era needs to be scrapped.

 

[Princeps]

Unfortunately most games are decided by the end of the Middle Ages. After that the richest just keeps getting richer until he can outproduce his neighbors by enough to win. An improvement in the nature of war would help, but fundamentally either the power base needs to move away from terrain and into other arenas, or the modern era needs to be scrapped.

What about civilization declainings.

Corruption would even worse than under despotism, well slowly...
Cities breaking away from the empire, small and large civil wars, scandals in the government, unhappiness... Migrations... enything, but nothing unpreventable. And the civ could always rise again to its former might.

I think this would make the game better, much better.

 

[sir_schwick]

Corruption would even worse than under despotism, well slowly...
Cities breaking away from the empire, small and large civil wars, scandals in the government, unhappiness... Migrations... enything, but nothing unpreventable. And the civ could always rise again to its former might.

I think this would make the game better, much better.

I agree that this would be the ideal solution. However over the many months I was a strong proponent for 'rise and fall' cycles and paradigms, I realized that most players would not like the lose of control. Just believe me when I say that we who want this are in the minority.

 

[Princeps]

As I said nothing unpreventable, I mean these would be great challenges that you could overcome, but you could also fail overcoming them and fall somehow.

But, this system would recuiare different tech system, so that you actuacly rise again, without being so far behind in the tech-tree...

 

[Commander Bello]

I agree that this would be the ideal solution. However over the many months I was a strong proponent for 'rise and fall' cycles and paradigms, I realized that most players would not like the lose of control. Just believe me when I say that we who want this are in the minority.

This is just because the size and the power of your empire currently are still the best yardsticks to measure your success.
And it is very understandeable, that noone would like to be punished just for "having done everything all right".
If a civil war would result from something done wrongly, the players could accept this. Well, most of them
But if they have successful brought their little empire to power, it would just be unsatisfying if then "out of a sudden" a part of this empire would "break away"
You have to put your theories about secession and whatever else into a stringent game concept, then the community of players will accept it.

If it were just for an additional difficulty, than it only qualifies for a scenario.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

To solve Modern age problems:

1. More flexible Trading system between Cities and Civs (so that a city that is only Grassland can export food... to Cities that are all mountains... and so that a city that is all mountains could export shields to a developed City which would get the factory boost... (Possibly This could require a Railroad+Commercial Dock or Airport connection..ie it isn't possible till the Industrial age)... Factories could become Terribly expensive things that require 5 or 6 cities worth of production to be worthwhile (or perhaps have multiple levels of factories..small one city ones and large ones that require shield import to be worth it)

2. City Rebellions as opposed to corruption for limiting empire size. After all if our world was like Civ the Big 21st century Powers would probably be Russia (controlling 1/2 of Europe picked up in the WW) UK (controlliing Eastern N. AM ,Africa, India, Australia, and Western Europe.. why Liberate French Cities?) and Spain (Controlling All the rest of the Americas..and a chunk of Western Europe)
All three of those have lost large chunks of territory due to rebellions (and actually thats assuming current history up to the middle ages... ancient world powers lost territory through rebellion too...Greece being the first big example I can think of)

3. To fit in with the City Rebellions idea...Different "Governments" for Each of your Cities... The British Empire in 1910 was a Republic-type Government...for London, but for Lahore it was a Monarchy... This could also help model Colonialism... (and Revolutions..a city doesn't necessarily rebel against your civ just the government you have it under... if they are of your 'ethnic group' you can probably keep them by offering them a new government)

4. Vassal status, allowing a Civ to give you some control over them but allowing them to remain able to do some things

5. Civs only die when all thier culture is gone (may take centuries but Poland shouldn't be able to exist now in the Civ-world)

6. To model things like the early formattion of the US, and the formation of the EU allow for a Civs to "Unite" with another. Provide some Victory Point Bonus to those who join (so the victory points scored by the EU are split between, the French, English, German, Spanish, Greek etc. players based on some formula...probably based on how strong they were going in, so Germany gets more EU points than Greece at the end..although Greece may still win because it scored more points in the Ancient Eras)

I really believe that Victory Conditions REALLY need to be limited: I'd say only three game ending conditions (Victory goes to whoever has the highest score when the game ends... but achieving 1 or 2 gives you a nice point bonus)
1. Domination* (control the Earth)
2. Space (Leave it)
3. Time's up

The point is that Domination (Control) should be achievable Diplomatically, Culturally, or Militarily.. more likely a mixture of all three. (essentially you maintain Control of a City through a balance of Carrots, Commonality, and Sticks)

A Utopia Government might be a nice idea as a Government that the people Really want..but that is terrible for production.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Detail on the City Rebellions Idea:

Each City (including your capital) has the potential to try and rebel. That potential is based on

1. Your Civ's Culture there v. all other Cultures There (including a 'Local' Culture)

2. How much they like the Government you have them under (What government they liked would change semi-randomly but also involve a 'memory' of their happiness under that government...and some intrinsic factors of the government is self)

3. Happiness

4. Possibly a few other issue involving how much they Like being with you

5. The 'Risk' (essentially will you be able to put down the rebellion...a lot of troops nearby reduce 'rebel activity'..successful rebelions increase rebel activity in other cities..enemies they don't like nearby could decrease rebel activity..other factors possible)..ie they might figure that even if they hate you, they fear you

Those factors determine a city's level of "rebel activity" the level of rebel activity determines:
How many, if any 'Rebel' units are generated in the city to fight your units.. 'rebels' stay in the City until all your troops are gone, and they then make the city an independent one city Civ.
You may attempt to negotiate with that Civ. If the City was your Capital, you might immediately receive an offer of a new government that would keep your capital there assuming they are OK with your Civ as long as they get the government they want


a note: the production of culture, Local v. your Civ partly depends on the distance from your capital. (and a number of ther things).. so that a city that you founded away from all other civs may still not have a majority of your culture.

Another note: part of the idea here is that ending the game through Domination should be Very hard, essentially a Game that ends in the BC should only be possible on the Early levels. Both winning And losing should be difficult things to do maintaining a degree of suspense.

 

[dh_epic]

Multiple Branches

Commander Bello... right there you cite multiple tech tree branches. I actually think that would already be a HUGE step to making the modern age interesting again. A player would have to choose -- am I going to nab the improved riflemen, or is it more important that I discover the theory of evolution and build Darwin's Wonder?

Suddenly you have players with two different choices duking it out. What we have now are players racing each other through the exact same steps.

Empires Crumbling

The rebellion / civil war stuff is contraversial. I remember talking about an "ebb and flow". I tried to compare it to a football game, where you gain 20 yards, lose 10 yards, and then gain 40 yards. People weren't biting. It IS contraversial, but I don't think it's as bad as they think -- partially because we haven't done a good job of describing it.

The key to rebellions are the "three p's". Predictable, preventable, provokable.

The critics don't think they're predictable, so they complain about dumb luck changing the entire game.

The critics don't think they're preventable, so they complain about taking control away from the player.

The critics don't think they're provokable, so they ask why they'd want a feature that hurts them.

If rebellions are predictable, then players can use that intelligence to help themselves (prevent) and hurt their enemies (provoke). Then the key becomes balancing the conditions under which a rebellion grows and a civil war occurs.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Then the key becomes balancing the conditions under which a rebellion grows and a civil war occurs.

I think that would be a key possible idea for a Difficulty Setting. In a low difficulty all empires (yours and AIs) grow predicably with few Internal setbacks, in a high difficulty setting all empires are severely hampered by internal problems meaning that significant amounts of Diplomacy and 'Cultural advancements' have to be used instead of the "more factories to make more factories to make more guns to capture more factories to make more guns" cycle that leads to a snowball.


Also another idea for improving modern age, easier 'bleeding' of tech. So that '3rd World' Civs can afford not to spend any research and still only be several techs behind (but seriously underdeveloped)

 

[Commander Bello]

[...]The key to rebellions are the "three p's". Predictable, preventable, provokable.
[...]
If rebellions are predictable, then players can use that intelligence to help themselves (prevent) and hurt their enemies (provoke). Then the key becomes balancing the conditions under which a rebellion grows and a civil war occurs.

Please allow me to add another "p":
Practicability which would just mean that the AI has to be enabled to handle it.

Otherwise, within weeks we would learn how to provoke the AI into secession. If it were not able to deal with this, this would be just another "army" feature. Nice for the human and almost a secure path towards victory.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Multiple Branches

Commander Bello... right there you cite multiple tech tree branches. I actually think that would already be a HUGE step to making the modern age interesting again. A player would have to choose -- am I going to nab the improved riflemen, or is it more important that I discover the theory of evolution and build Darwin's Wonder?

Suddenly you have players with two different choices duking it out. What we have now are players racing each other through the exact same steps.

You have that choice now... the problem is it isn't balanced, all players go throught the same steps because those are the best steps.

 

[Commander Bello]

You have that choice now... the problem is it isn't balanced, all players go throught the same steps because those are the best steps.

Unfortunately, it is just the human players, who go this path.
The AI doesn't use it. The best and most significant exampe (although not modern times) is the shortcut to cavalry. But this leads to the fact that in modern times everything has been settled already.

 

[dh_epic]

AI is definitely key. I actually think that'll be the biggest challenge. A lot of features are good ideas and can be tweaked in order to work. But finding a way to the AI to juggle all these different concepts is incredibly challenging.

It's much easier to program an AI if there's one definite best strategy, instead of multiple good strategies.

Krikkitone, I couldn't agree more on difficulty settings. Instead of dealing with a 40% production bonus to the AI, you deal with a greater certainty of civil war. At the Sid level, it truly becomes like Football -- you know you'll have to lose some yards, but you just hope that you can gain more than you lose!

 

[CurtSibling]

Amusing - There is no way they will drop the modern age and merely end the game with the victorian times.

The classic era layout of CIV will be maintained.

The presence of civics, religion and perhaps a new trade model may make things more fun in the modern ages.

.....