LESS IS MORE: scrap the modern age!

[dh_epic]

CurtSibling, I think this thread is somewhat facetious. To draw attention to a disease by threatening to kill the patient. Nobody really wants them to scrap the modern age -- they want them to make it better.

Unfortunately, of all the ages, religion has the least impact in the modern ages. And nobody knows what civics is. And with all the demand for a new trade model, there's no sense that the developers are focusing on "peaceful" concepts.

But we can wait and see.

 

[Helmling]

The point that Civ does not model the economics of modernity well is indisputable, but I for one would be beyond disappointed if they cut the era all together.

Rather, have some insight-techs that change the way a Civ functions. Allow it to pool resources and have population grow nationally based on available food, but have it become concentrated in cities with the most robust economies.

They could bring back the ability to move food around (like in Civ 2) except make it an automatic function. I think there needs to be a whole new economy layer to the game, one that the player would not have *direct* control over, but which would affect gameplay.

Now...how would that work...hmmm

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well you could make food only move between cities connected by Railroad, Commercial Docks or Airports (Industrial Era Connecters)
Excess food would go to
1. starving cities
2. cities without all tiles used and growth possible
3. Well Developed cities (Infrastructure)

 

[AndrewH]

I think that there should be no ages, just one large tech tree. Your cities will look different by the terrain around you, and your cities will start to change after you get different techs, no ages.

 

[Commander Bello]

I think that there should be no ages, just one large tech tree. Your cities will look different by the terrain around you, and your cities will start to change after you get different techs, no ages.

I completely agree. As far as the infamous barbarian uprisings are concerned, those would be linked to a set of certain advances as well.

 

[CurtSibling]

CurtSibling, I think this thread is somewhat facetious. To draw attention to a disease by threatening to kill the patient. Nobody really wants them to scrap the modern age -- they want them to make it better.

Unfortunately, of all the ages, religion has the least impact in the modern ages. And nobody knows what civics is. And with all the demand for a new trade model, there's no sense that the developers are focusing on "peaceful" concepts.

But we can wait and see.

I know this, as the the developers are not going to change the traditional layout of the game.

I reckon they will copy the CIVIII model, just more mech units and more outrageous killing power.

I want to see something innovative too, but we all know the developers like to play it safe.

.

 

[sir_schwick]

I know this, as the the developers are not going to change the traditional layout of the game.

I reckon they will copy the CIVIII model, just more mech units and more outrageous killing power.

I want to see something innovative too, but we all know the developers like to play it safe.

.

Firaxis is building a new game engine and code from scratch. I highly doubt that they would spend the money to do so if it was an upgrade of Civ III. Warpstorm, Sirian, or Soren should be able to answer better for this.

I think that there should be no ages, just one large tech tree. Your cities will look different by the terrain around you, and your cities will start to change after you get different techs, no ages.

I would like it if techs gradually changed the way you interacted with the game(interface, how you affect change, abilities, etc.) from tech one to the last one. Then you would notice a gradual change when you were 3/4 done with the game vs. 1/4 done.

 

[CurtSibling]

Firaxis is building a new game engine and code from scratch. I highly doubt that they would spend the money to do so if it was an upgrade of Civ III. Warpstorm, Sirian, or Soren should be able to answer better for this.

We all know this.

But like the 'Grand Theft Auto', 'Total War' or 'Elder Scrolls' series,
the developers will defintely keep the essential components in place.

It does not take a lot of imagination to realise this.

.

 

[Princeps]

Well you could make food only move between cities connected by Railroad, Commercial Docks or Airports (Industrial Era Connecters)
Excess food would go to
1. starving cities
2. cities without all tiles used and growth possible
3. Well Developed cities (Infrastructure)

Still not realistic.

Why only in the industrial ages? In the roman empire, for example, The city of rome was so huge ( over million inhabitants, more that in the whole of italy, during that time of course) that it could not feed it self, and most of the grain was supplied form africa.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Perhaps a special exception for cities that Can't grow to the next level, their excess food is given to another city that isn't at the pop limit...perhaps at a deficit... with the capital getting first dibs.

of course if realism is the only argument....population units need to move around, and tiles should be worked by citizens that live in the tiles... cities should only have specialists.

 

[dh_epic]

realism is not the issue. realism can offer inspiration and so forth, but making the modern age more interesting is the issue.

some micromanagement changes, like food importation or even worker abstraction, might remove some tedium from the modern age.

But to some extent, you need new concepts, new kinds of warfare and battlegrounds. Not new units. Not even necessarily new unit types (although tweaking air combat might be interesting). But all in all new ways to wage war, through espionage, diplomacy, and even economics.

 

[morbror_sven]

What makes the modern age unrealistic is Democracy. In this game Democracy is just an economically powerful dictatorship.
In real world most countries are democracies(at least the developed ones).
In a democracy it is very hard to know who's the boss.
The free elections always end up in ~30%+ peapole on the coutch and the rest vote
49.5% on one side and 49.6% on another.....
This is supposed to represent the peapole's opinion but is just a big lottery.
Democracy must have more penalties when it comes to the player's power to be realistic.

 

[sir_schwick]

This goes back to the discussion of what the players role is in Civ. Its obviously not the leader, since you survive revolutions. It is probably not the state because you direct all research. It is not the zeitgeist(bad usage I know) since your citizens do get unhappy. Theorhetically your actions represent the will of the people, except for WW, for example.

1) If you tend to think of your role in Civ as the government, then all governments are supported by some group within. Even in a dictatorship the dictator needs the support of the military, religious, or commercial authority that runs things. This means instead of getting referendums, you have to deal with direct requests from generals, nobles, merchants, etc. Historically its been the demands of the empowered classes that lead to political evolution. Gentry in the English kingdoms of the 13th century wanted more control over taxation with the Magna Charta. American land owners in the 18th century wanted to formalize their right to autonomous rule. French nobles in the late 18th century wanted more control over taxation, which lead to the French Revolution. Now I have seen and suggested many ideas how the wants and needs of the supporting/empowered classes could be fit into civ, but that is a different thread for a topic that extends the entire game.

2) If you tend to favour the zeitgeist paradigm, then there is little reason to worry about where and how the leader gets choices made.

 

[morbror_sven]

You have some points. In Civ the player is always a communist dictator with full power. Yes.

But as the starter of this thread said earlier it would be nice if they could keep this game at least a bit realistic....
I live in sweden. The prime minister in my country would never be able to declare war on another country.
My opinion is that they should bring back the "overruled by senate" thing from Civ2.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Be careful, Morbror! If you keep talking that way, the 'It won't be Civ anymore' brigade will be soon be on your back-demanding that you recant your heretical talk of 'realism in Civ Games' !!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

Actually my point is that if you wanted to include the idea of political and popular opposition to your ideas, you would need to redesign the entire concept and not just one government type. If there is a system put in place that fullfills those goals, I am for it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You have some points. In Civ the player is always a communist dictator with full power. Yes.

But as the starter of this thread said earlier it would be nice if they could keep this game at least a bit realistic....
I live in sweden. The prime minister in my country would never be able to declare war on another country.
My opinion is that they should bring back the "overruled by senate" thing from Civ2.

This is why the player shouldn't be the prime minister.... However, I could easily see a significant internal penalty to declaring war (cities + troops rebel, etc.).. of course your advisors may Warn you that this may happen.. but that would represent all portions of society+government rejecting the war rather than just the Senate, or private industry, etc. rejecting it.

This goes to my idea for how "Great Persons" should work, they should actually be your king/president/prime minister/cheiftan/general secretary.. they give you some bonuses and some penalties (so if you get a Ghandi-type leader you get bonuses for peace and penalties for war..vice versa for a Ghengis-type leader)

So the player is neither the government, nor the people, nor the leader...because all of those have their own effects on society.

 

[dh_epic]

Getting overruled by the senate really sucks.

But having to deal with heaps of unhappiness is a much more organic way to do things. And it's much more balanceable/tweakable to get the result you want, without getting as heavy handed as an artificial barrier.

 

[morbror_sven]

Be careful, Morbror! If you keep talking that way, the 'It won't be Civ anymore' brigade will be soon be on your back-demanding that you recant your heretical talk of 'realism in Civ Games' !!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

In the "Civ IV" category of this forum many mad ideas frolics. No offense but do you all know that Firaxis is reading what you write here?
I want Civ to be Civ and not anything else. If there is a problem with the game that problem should be solved by looking back at the older immortal games. And if that doesn't work maybe there is time for new ideas...

"Overruled by senate" could be found in Civ 2 and was a great way to make warmongers choose their respective gov and their respective penalties.
Besides that it's much more realistic.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

As it happens, Morbror, I am pretty much on YOUR side. Like DH_Epic, though, I disliked being 'overruled by the Senate' but only because the Senate acted in what could only be described as an irrational and illogical fashion.
However, if they replaced 'Senate' with factions who may or may not seek to thwart your plans-depending on how those plans might advance or harm THEIR interests. Of course, the power to override them-at a major cost to happiness-should be built into the system too.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.