Let Civilization be Civilized!

[wotan321]

Civilization should allow the player to be more… civilized. Its still predominately a war-game. And the war-game part is fun, but a few changes would make the game-play feel more like building a civilization than prepping an invasion force.

These are just a few ideas I have come up with, I am sure others can contribute valuable suggestions.

1. On the editor units tab, allow a unit to create war weariness or unhappiness if killed or captured. That can be for either or both the attacker or attacked. This way, we could have peace-keepers or non-violent protesters. Iraqi reactionaries are attacking American forces in an attempt to cause war-weariness here, and this sort of reality could be reflected in the game. A Gandhian action could be portrayed in the game too, such that if your civ killed or captured my non-violent resister, war-weariness would happen in your civ. Or if a general or army is killed, great war-weariness for that civ would occur.

2. There needs to be many more options in diplomacy, including a strong reaction against aggression especially later in the game. As it works now, if you have a strong military, you play other civs against each other and pick off your rivals one at a time. In reality, this would not happen very often. Alliances to allow military aggression should be much more costly, and AI civs should gang up on the human player after the 2nd or 3rd invasion. This would be a nice option.

3. Does planting forests do anything, other than give future clear-cutting? Let planting forests increase happiness or culture later in the game or under certain gov’ts. The Green movement is very prominent in many modern nations, and in some developing countries industrial waste makes a big impact.

4. Gigantic cities need to cause a negative impact in more than pollution. Populations of over 25 or 30 should start to decrease culture without infrastructure improvements, or cause national unhappiness. It should be costly for a gigantic metropolis to maintain order, so that most of the specialist need to be police or entertainers.

Okay, I get the hint since the newest add-on is called…. Conquests…. Atari knows the war aspect of the game is its main appeal. But just a few additions here and there to temper the war-mongering feel would be a nice balance, and prevent the game from becoming something that is ONLY about war-conquest, and therefore, a bit more civilized.

 

[dexters]

I think Civilization's main appeal is not war, it is conflict.

So far, the easiest war to represent conflict is through violence and war.

The diplomacy and politicla features in Civ is still relatively under developed. If and when Firaxis decides, in say, Civ 4, to give Civilization a viable diplomatic engine where you can essentially wage diplomatic, cultural, scientific war among other things, I think you'll see different playstyles emerging.

 

[yoshi]

So far, the easiest war to represent conflict is through violence and war.

Exactly right. The designers of Civ3 took the easiest way out and just made it war-oriented. This goes against that purpose of a game of this name. Conquests SHOULD be a deviation form a more peaceful game, but instead it is just more map-specific using scenarios. wotan321 is right, there is a clear game-balance element here. Economics, culture, unrest, ect. have to play a significantely bigger role in Civ3 --if not, then Civ3 will not be all that different from the other war-oriented civ-ish games out there.

And for those of you who say "keep with the times," I respond by saying that this is nothing more than a corperate slogan and only represents what the sellers are telling the buyers to do, not vicerversa. I should think that strategy gamers in general do not thrive on war-oriented conflict, but rather the challenge offered by the game, in any form --conflict can and should take many forms, just as it does in reality.

Even from the combat-point of view, greater difficulty in making war is realistic and gives the player more to think about than just getting the right resources to build the right units in the right amounts for the right circumstances.

I agree with each of those requests and am glad there is a post on this topic.

 

[slothman]

I personally don't like war and only go in occasionally. This game so far only against 1 tribe. There should be many advantages to staying uot of war. Including getting leaders through peaceful means.

 

[Metacomet]

I strongly agree, in the real world you don't need be in war always to be a powerful nation. It's funny play wars, sometimes, but I like to play wars with limited wars. The first thing is use war penalties, and the second one have more political, economic...possibilities.

It could mprove the game a lot.

 

[Kryten]

I think I may have misinterpreted the main theme of this thread.
Nonetheless, I'll post my thoughts anyway.

Democracies Should Not be Allowed To Raze Cities
---------------------------------------------------
Good grief....they are supposed to be LIBERATORS! (think of WW2).
Public opinion, the main force in a democracy, would never allow it.
But in the game, you never have to face re-election, never have to face opinion polls, never have votes of 'no confidence' or impeachment....so you can be more evil than Hitler and still be a democracy!
Personally, I think that only Despotic governments should be allowed to raze cities. So if you want to commit genocide, then become a Dictatorship first!

Deliberately Starving Citizens Should Have An Effect
------------------------------------------------------
Let's be honest, this is so mind-numbingly obvious that I'm suprised that it is allowed!
Revolts, rebellions, guerrillas, acts of terrorism, bringing down the government, emigration, increasing a culture flip....there should be SOME effect!

What I'm basically saying is.....let's have a little bit of moral responiblity in Civ3.
If you do evil things to your citizens, then you should be prepared to face the consequences.
(They are CITIZENS remember, not robots!)

 

[Xen]

but what if its an EVIL democracy... , shouldnt they be allowed to be as evil as they want within the confines of the game- sure its horrible, and i personally hope the virtuous(er) wins, but still...

 

[Greyhawk1]

Absolutely. Its always bothered me that "Civilization" was actually far from it.

The game is a war game with some micro-management tagged onto it and a small nod to diplomacy. You cant actually make your civilization thrive and be victorious without treating your enemies like subhumans and/or constantly killing people.

I see now Firaxis have given in totally to the War part of the game in the next installment. A pity.

 

[warpstorm]

That just isn't true. I've won plenty of games through culture, diplomacy, or the spaceship. I've even had games where I didn't even get sucked into a single war. In a lot of cases it is a war game because you are playing it as one (admittedly, I've been sucked into wars that I couldn't avoid).

Just yesterday I played (and won) a game where the only combat I was involved in was with barbs.

Now, having said that, I'd like to see more options for peaceful play (no matter how unrealistic that is in a real life sense).

 

[slothman]

Technically the war I'm in now was because of him. He wanted spices and I didn't give in so he declared war on me. I usually only go to war because of an MPP. In any case I'm staying in war to allow me to get leaders. If I could get them peacefully, science leaders seem possible in Conquests, I could stay at peace the whole time.

 

[wotan321]

Everyone seems to be getting the point, and I really like Krytens suggestions and all the others too. Though it is true you can win without being a war-monger, since there is so little diplomacy to be done, and so few detriments to aggression, there isn't much to do BUT wage war. It would be nice if economic and resource power had more influence on the AI nations. I know it does, in that the scarcity of resources and size of nations influences their negotiations on the value of resources, but again, these NON-war factors aren't enough to dissuade aggression.

I saw something in another thread discussing variables in governments and economics, so that the gov't types weren't static things. This would allow you to have an aggressive democracy, but you'd sacrifice in other areas of the game, such as stability or whatever.

Don't get me wrong, I like staging the wars, but often in my games, I am not interested in "Winning" as much as I am in building a civilization that will stand the test of time, so having other things to do than bomb people would be nice. It would make the game more realistic, and more entertaining in the later stages of the game.

These are all good ideas, keep them coming.

 

[yoshi]

but what if its an EVIL democracy...

Heh, heh. I can't imagine what country would fit that description....

Good grief....they are supposed to be LIBERATORS! (think of WW2).

Yeah, but keep in mind what the so-called 'liberators' are doing these days. Nevertheless Civ3 isn't that specific so I agree, Democracies should be very limited when it comes to atrocities.

Revolts, rebellions, guerrillas, acts of terrorism, bringing down the government, emigration, increasing a culture flip....there should be SOME effect!

Exaclty. I was thinking in terms of uncontrolled rebellions (Revolution; not player-controlled). That said, I was also thinking of a way to give down-side to having huge armies and unrest at the same time: coup d'etat. If you have unrest, some of your 'generals' may rebel; in civ terms, a whole bunch of your units will become barbarian and start attacking you. This idea could definitely use some work. Look at Costa Rica. It's the only country in Latin America without an Army, and its never had a dictatorship (military has never taken control because there is no military --economic domination by "foreign" corperations aside).

The first thing is use war penalties, and the second one have more political, economic...possibilities.

Yes, aside from 'War Weariness,' there are few downsides to making war. More diplomatic options would enhance negotiation between civs. A simple way of giving civs the incentive to remain at peace is to give a 'Commerce' bonus in each of the peaceful civs' cities --SMAC did this. As a civ progresses and trade becomes more important, this effect is increased, to the point where civs' economies are so inter-dependent that going to war would be to risk economic disaster (i.e. globalization).

...I'd like to see more options for peaceful play (no matter how unrealistic that is in a real life sense).

Unreaslistic?

I've won plenty of games through culture, diplomacy, or the spaceship.

It's not really the victory conditions that are the problem, but rather the gameplay. I rarely play games to the very end (once I have the advantage, that's pretty much it as far as the AI is concerned) and could care less about score. I personally always thought that the Spaceship option was cheesy, and considering the nature of the AI, diplomatic victories are tedious at best. More involving gameplay is really what people want, not special victory conditions. Civ3 has got to include more in this area, no question about it.

Technically the war I'm in now was because of him.

Having more limitations on warfare would also limit the AI as it would not be so 'eager' to declare war over the seemingly endless trivialities it comes up with.

...so having other things to do than bomb people would be nice. It would make the game more realistic, and more entertaining in the later stages of the game.

Definitely...although these days it seems like bombing has taken the place of diplomacy...

 

[brianshapiro]

warpstorm you can win the game by other means but its essentially boring because the game isnt as complex in those areas

 

[warpstorm]

Originally posted by yoshi

Unreaslistic?

Yes, unrealistic. Look at your history lessons. How many civilizations that were totally peaceful withstood the test of time? How many years of recorded history were there no wars?

 

[Kryten]

I do agree with you Warpstorm....conflict has always been as major factor in the history of the world.
But, due to the restraints of various societies and governments, few leaders have had the freedom they are allowed in Civ3.

We all like the civ series because it forces us to make decisions.
Should I build a city here, should I irrigate there, what tech should I research, should I change my government, should I go to war or not, and so on.
But at the moment, apart from 'war weariness', it really doesn't matter what kind of government I have, as I can do exactly the same things under a Democracy as I can under a Despotic Dictatorship.

Wouldn't it be better for game play if the different governments limited your freedom of action, thus forcing you to be more selective in your choices?
Democracy is good for growth and research, but your hands are tied, and there are some things that you just cannot do.
Despotism gives you the freedom to do what you want, but growth, research and production suffer.
Now which would be best for me in the current situation? Hmmm....decisions, decisions.....

And no matter what kind of government you have, you have to take care for the needs of your citizens, or deliberately oppress them, otherwise the buggers will rise up and rebel, revolt, and overthrow your evil regime.

Now THAT sounds realistic.

 

[brianshapiro]

kryten,
also the question has to be asked whether theres a more realistic way to simulate governments than to have a listbox of government types.

 

[Kryten]

A good point brianshapiro.

I must admit that I don't really think of 'governments' when I play, but more of 'societies'....
....am I a Feudal society, or a Democratic society, or a Totalitarian society, and so on.

But I do see your point.
(Hmmm....I need to do some deep thinking about your suggestion....)

 

[wotan321]

the question has to be asked whether theres a more realistic way to simulate governments than to have a listbox of government types.

-brianshapiro

Good point. There was another thread around here that suggested governments not be static things, but have 3 or four qualities on slider-bars, that you adjust. Such polarities as democratic-centralized, religious-secular, creative-ordered, etc. Each trait would have economic, stability, cultural and technological implications.

I sure wish someone else who read that would chime in. I can't seem to find the thread.

Anyway, that would be a nice, more realistic way of implementing governments, and add a lot to the game.

 

[Pirate]

Originally posted by warpstorm


Yes, unrealistic. Look at your history lessons. How many civilizations that were totally peaceful withstood the test of time? How many years of recorded history were there no wars?

I agree with Kryten's response, but I would like to add that I love civ because I can rewrite history and strive to create a utopia. Even if the game doesn't encourage total peace, it should enable it. An analogy would be "Metal Gear Solid II: Sons of Liberty" - a first-person shooter in which you can win without ever firing a single bullet. It's more of a challenge that way, but it IS possible.

 

[casual_moose]

you can already win the game thrugh peacefull means what do you want little politicial units that run around debating instead of fighting?

my bad if that was said before i didnt bother reading the whole thing