Liberation

[dh_epic]

It's true that altruism doesn't exist in international politics. But neither does a time limit at 2050 where there's a clear winner over everyone else in the world. I see where you're coming from Sir Schwick, but rewarding altruism isn't something I'm suggesting because it's realistic... but because it could potentially re-balance another unrealistic factor in the game and perhaps put a bit of "history" back in there.

 

[sir_schwick]

Now that you put it that way I can understand your point pretty clearly. However, the reasons 'altruistic' actions occur in real life but not civ include these:

1) Owning the most territory is always the best indicator of strength in Civilization. Often in RL owning a large area of land grants you little unless you can effectively control it. Canada is in the top five land areas in the world, but they are not pounding on a much smaller America.
2) Persistent trade is not very rewarding in Civilization. The only reasons civs trade are to get maybe a couple resources or a tech. Often both of these can be obtained through aggression. In RL trade is a major source of income and developement. However, in Civ the only way to make money a certain area of land is to own it, rather than trade with it.
3) In civlization all nations use a one-dimensional, common scale to judge other civs. This means your personal relationship with a civ does not differ much. You do not seem scarier to one civ and impotent to another, rather all civs see you as +5 or -10. In RL all nations look at other nations from a unique perspective, their own.

I believe if you could address some of these issues it would not change the Civ feel of gameplay mechanics, but would solve the issue of how unrealistically the game history plays out.

 

[dh_epic]

Agreed wholeheartedly. It gives you some of those selfish motivations for getting along. Without them, you end up in a conquest-centered game like Civ has always been. Making the game less dependent on land, and more dependant on *each other* with more sophisticated relationships would be a huge leap forward.

All the same, though, I stand by the fact that people will have no choice but to do nasty things to one another as 2050 approaches. I don't have a problem with nasty things, I have a problem with no choice. Inserting altruism as a rewarding strategy could make you say "DAMN THOSE AMERICANS, always going around liberating everyone and making them free! We need to go on a conquest and get 50% of the land before America gets enough history-points and justice-points to clinch a victory."

 

[tmarcl]

Some "modern" option (gift indipendence to the city creating a NEW Civ, split the enemy empire refounding ancient dead civs conquered by your enemy and/or creating new ones etc.) can be available after, I guess, Nationalism.

Rather than creating a 'new' civ (which, I think would get kind of crazy after awhile), create a 'puppet' civ. It's technically sovereign. It can build city improvements, infrastructure, workers, things like that, but it can't expand or build more than defensive units for military. Also, a portion of it's income would go to you every turn. It would almost be a province, but technically a sovereign nation.

The benefits to the player would be less corruption for one (since it has it's own capital, you won't have to worry about it), and an increased income. On the downside, you wouldn't have much control over what was produced.

 

[sir_schwick]

actually a combination of independant new republics and puppet civs would be nice. I knwo some players would not enjoy this, but I would like to be facing as a many nations as possible, just so long as they stream-line the diplomayc and foreign advisor screens.

As for the time limit:
Because civ only simulates into the very short term future, there has to be a time limit of some kind. I always said that it should be based on techs instead of an arbitrary limit that is based only on RL. Also, once certain techs are reached by any player, the progression of years incresaes. This would not be significant for gameplay because the new time limit will be approximiately 20 turns after all the techs are researched.

Here is another scoring strategy that might fix this phenomenon. The winner of each era gets points based on how well they ranked. So rushing right at the end would only net you win points for one era, if you neglected the other. Unforutnately this would defniitely encourage the wrong kind of strategy, whether it be more rushing or whatenot.

 

[dh_epic]

I don't see the objection to another victory type One that rewards historical behaviors. This could be as simple as rewarding someone for not being a total coward and picking on someone drastically weaker than them, but someone their equal. Reward someone for coming to someone's aid. Reward someone for changing to a lesser used government, even. Maybe it's the ultimate cop out, but if you want people to play historically, you need to reward them for it -- it might as well be with points. Certainly couldn't hurt.

And it would counteract the "do something tricky in the last ten turns" thing. Because maybe the tricky thing wouldn't be to declare nuclear war and bomb the hell out of everyone before global warming could take effect ... but the tricky thing could be liberating a banana republic. So the world would still "end" on a historic note, instead of an awkwardly timed apocalypse.

 

[Bast]

This has always bothered me since Civ 2 in the WWII scenario. The Editor should allow for certain cities to be liberated and not captured that way once you capture Paris, it would go to the Free French, instead of the British.

I was JUST thinking about this the other day. The problem is, for example, if I'm allied with the French, and a French city that has been captured by Germans, is been liberated by me, it shouldn't become my city but I should have the option to allow it to be given back to my allies - the French.

 

[MeatWad]

I was JUST thinking about this the other day. The problem is, for example, if I'm allied with the French, and a French city that has been captured by Germans, is been liberated by me, it shouldn't become my city but I should have the option to allow it to be given back to my allies - the French.

This is a good idea, and one that isn't possible with the current system. Can you say "Improve Diplomacy for Civ4!"? I knew ya could

 

[10lire]

The 'altruistic victory type' remembers me the Star Trek's United Federation of Planets!!
It's a good idea but I think this is really unrealistic.. I preferr the 2050 time limit; that has no historic mean but it's necessary to 'cut' virtually unfinishing games; it's a problem of the player to play doing something tricky in the last turns or not. I really dislike tricks and my behaviour in the last turns is to play as if the game continues over 2050..


I agree with tmarcl: very interesting a mix of independent new civs and puppet civs.


Another think is regarding the opposite to liberation: the burst of indipendence war in a city.. The indipendence wars are a costant of modern age and in Civ they simply don't exist!
It's simple to image the parameters interested in a 'casual' declaration of indipendence of one of player's (or AI's!!) city:
- distance from the capitol,
- number of cityzens,
- number of culture points,
- if the city is on another continent,
- if the city has a Wonder (that unites the people around a 'national symbol');
it's thinkable that the cities around the rebel one join the rebellion..

PS: Sorry for my english!!

 

[sir_schwick]

On the 2050 limit, just make the game end 25 turns after the last tech is researched. This way it is always at the end of the current modern age.

 

[dh_epic]

The thing about a time limit is tricky behavior is rewarded... and consistency is not.

I'm not saying they need to punish tricky behavior, but there ought to be a victory type that is hard to achieve if you're tricky (to offset the domination victory that IS rewarded with tricky behavior).

I guess that's what I'm talking about here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=100327

 

[Moonsinger]

On the 2050 limit, just make the game end 25 turns after the last tech is researched. This way it is always at the end of the current modern age.

What if someone don't want to research the last tech...does this mean they can milk the game forever.

 

[riadsala]

Hmmmm.

Surely the A.I. would eventually research the last tech though? And if they were all miles behind you in the tech tree, then your civ should probably be in a position to win by one of the various victory conditions.


I think the game does need to last a little longer, as I find if I want to win via space I'm in a race against the clock (well, year) rather than in a space race with other civ's.

It's:

Can I build the space ship before 2050

rather than

Can I build the spaceship before the Romans do.

In my last game, I was building the spaceship as fast as poss as I knew I would be cutting it fine with the time limit. The second most powerful civ were quite a bit behind me in the space race, but had developed Nukes, which I didn't have. And did declare war on me. But I ignored the threat as I knew I wouldn't win if I stopped to retaliate.

So I bought them off instead.


Actually, I generally find the modern era pretty rushed. I'm sure it used to last longer in Civ2. I remember having wars with people while building spaceships, desperatly trying to stop the other civ from winning.

 

[Dwarven Zerker]

I think the game does need to last a little longer, as I find if I want to win via space I'm in a race against the clock (well, year) rather than in a space race with other civ's.

It's:

Can I build the space ship before 2050

rather than

Can I build the spaceship before the Romans do.

Sounds like you play Chieftain or Regent. Play on Monarch and above to have the challenge you're looking for. At those levels I'll guarantee you won't have trouble finishing your spaceship before 2050. You'll have trouble keeping the AI from doing it.

 

[riadsala]

Sounds like you play Chieftain or Regent. Play on Monarch and above to have the challenge you're looking for. At those levels I'll guarantee you won't have trouble finishing your spaceship before 2050. You'll have trouble keeping the AI from doing it.

My last game was on Regent, as it was the first time I've played civ in years. (suddenly found myself with loads of free time after moving and graduating from uni (about to start a postgrad coure though)).

I used to play it on Monarch and the level after that though. Maybe I did have more time at those levels. Used to play civ2 and 3 loads. Although several years at uni have made my memory a little hazy.

 

[Dwarven Zerker]

Although several years at uni have made my memory a little hazy.

I was a pretty good disaster after graduation too.

 

[Moonsinger]

Hmmmm.

Surely the A.I. would eventually research the last tech though? And if they were all miles behind you in the tech tree, then your civ should probably be in a position to win by one of the various victory conditions.

Well, not really! There are some people (if you want to meet some of them, just check out this forum: http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=76) like to keep the AI alive with only 1 town of size 1 in the middle of no where. In this case, the AI's research rate will be at 0% which mean that it will never able to research any more tech (for the rest of it life). The last tech will never be discovered (you can trust me on this).

 

[riadsala]

Well, not really! There are some people (if you want to meet some of them, just check out this forum: http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=76) like to keep the AI alive with only 1 town of size 1 in the middle of no where. In this case, the AI's research rate will be at 0% which mean that it will never able to research any more tech (for the rest of it life). The last tech will never be discovered (you can trust me on this).

Well, I reckon in that case, the game should be intelligent to twig what's going on and count the slave race as defeated. And hence you win via world conquest.

So, people acutally put effort into carefully neary winning, but not quite, in an effort to get really high scores? Where's the fun in that?

Saying that, i don't usually finish civ's of myself. Compassion, even if it's a computer ai. But, I usually still try hard to win via another method. I'm just not a crazed would be world leader.

 

[sir_schwick]

I believe this is one of those issues that should be left to players. If they can sleep at night milking an exploit like this, then let them. Most players will appreciate the fact the game ends at the end of the Modern Age instead of an arbitrary date. Year progression could even be based on techs, since 2050 would not be the end date. What's to be lost? For GOTM and such, there could be a recording feature that keeps up with research rate and such during the last dozen or so techs, so judges could determine how badly the player tried to expoit the system.