Lifespan of civilizations
- Thread starter Gatsby
- Start date
From Sir Shwick:
The only problem is that new civs would be way too easily carved up.
As the game progressed, the likelihood of new civilizations emerging as splinter-offshoots of old civilizations would increase. Look at America for instance-it was an offshoot of English civilization. Now broadly speaking, America managed to survive because of:
*distance from England and the English governmnent
*technology on par with other western nations, superior to surrounding nations
*lack of cultural influence/popularity of England in the American colonies
Remember in Civ3 how at the beginning of new eras you would sometimes have "massive barbarian uprisings"? The incidence of new civilizations would be about as likely as that, depending on factors such as number of cities already established, cultural strength of cities and nations, size/distance of cities from their capitols, and how many of the selected number of players were already around at the start of the game and how many were yet to emerge (decided at beginning of game).
So "new" civs could emerge 2 ways:
1) Pop up in relatively unsettled regions-they would start of technologically on par with their nearest neighbour or mid-ancient age (if no neighbouring civs on landmass) eg Aztecs.
2) Splinter from pre-exisitng civs in cities with low cultural developement eg America. These civs start off technologically equal with their "parent" civ.
In both cases, the new civ would also be initially given 2 free workers, 2 settlers, an explorer, 2-4 up-to-date defensive units, a few basic city improvements, and 100-500 gold. A new unit similar to the Musketeer but slightly weaker and requiring no saltpeter could be added -call it the Patriot perhaps, and it would be the defensive unit the new civilization would begin with.There could be a counterpart to this unit for the ancient and medieval ages.
PS Remember the "Schism" effect from Civ2? Civ4 might have something like that, except it wouldn't occur just because the capital fell (eg could also occur in long periods of anarchy, loss of strategic or luxury resources, starvations, etc), and the Schism could involve multiple civs breaking away from the old civ, not just one.
The only problem is that new civs would be way too easily carved up.
As the game progressed, the likelihood of new civilizations emerging as splinter-offshoots of old civilizations would increase. Look at America for instance-it was an offshoot of English civilization. Now broadly speaking, America managed to survive because of:
*distance from England and the English governmnent
*technology on par with other western nations, superior to surrounding nations
*lack of cultural influence/popularity of England in the American colonies
Remember in Civ3 how at the beginning of new eras you would sometimes have "massive barbarian uprisings"? The incidence of new civilizations would be about as likely as that, depending on factors such as number of cities already established, cultural strength of cities and nations, size/distance of cities from their capitols, and how many of the selected number of players were already around at the start of the game and how many were yet to emerge (decided at beginning of game).
So "new" civs could emerge 2 ways:
1) Pop up in relatively unsettled regions-they would start of technologically on par with their nearest neighbour or mid-ancient age (if no neighbouring civs on landmass) eg Aztecs.
2) Splinter from pre-exisitng civs in cities with low cultural developement eg America. These civs start off technologically equal with their "parent" civ.
In both cases, the new civ would also be initially given 2 free workers, 2 settlers, an explorer, 2-4 up-to-date defensive units, a few basic city improvements, and 100-500 gold. A new unit similar to the Musketeer but slightly weaker and requiring no saltpeter could be added -call it the Patriot perhaps, and it would be the defensive unit the new civilization would begin with.There could be a counterpart to this unit for the ancient and medieval ages.
PS Remember the "Schism" effect from Civ2? Civ4 might have something like that, except it wouldn't occur just because the capital fell (eg could also occur in long periods of anarchy, loss of strategic or luxury resources, starvations, etc), and the Schism could involve multiple civs breaking away from the old civ, not just one.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I like the thought, but dislike the mechanics. America managed to survive because the French provided direct military aid and indirect military aid on the continent. England was too busy to fully devot themselves to the colonies.
There are many suggestions on these forums on how schisms could be part of gameplay. I personally suggested the idea of the 'local entity' which is the local city leadership. This would be where corruption and waste and cultural corruption would go, so the city would eventually accumulate seperatist tendencies.
There are many suggestions on these forums on how schisms could be part of gameplay. I personally suggested the idea of the 'local entity' which is the local city leadership. This would be where corruption and waste and cultural corruption would go, so the city would eventually accumulate seperatist tendencies.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
You wouldn't necessarily have to make the local entity a visible or real entity. Maybe that could be the essence of the mechanics -- that corruption, waste, and culture-run-off accumulates in an abstract part of the memory. Once it breaks a threshold, a seperatist tendency kicks up a new level.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I was just suggesting they manifest as real buildings and units so you weren't suprised when 50 'patriots' appeared out of no where. It would also give you a chance to either 1) appease the local entity, 2) replace the local entity, 3) 'suppress' the local entity.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Maybe it doesn't need to be an entity so much as a growing sentiment?
A meter measures the amount of "seperatist sentiment" in your empire, or maybe just in a city, or maybe at a provincial level if that's implemented. Once you see it, it's your obligation to solve it or suffer the consequences. Improve your ability to assimilate. Improve quality of life. Or commit various atrocities and become a police state in order to crush the opposition.
A meter measures the amount of "seperatist sentiment" in your empire, or maybe just in a city, or maybe at a provincial level if that's implemented. Once you see it, it's your obligation to solve it or suffer the consequences. Improve your ability to assimilate. Improve quality of life. Or commit various atrocities and become a police state in order to crush the opposition.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I just like the idea of a local entity for future implementation of the concept.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I think having leaders at a lower level is a provocative idea... but dare I say "un-civ-like".
But if I had it my way, you probably wouldn't even *build* anything. Everything WOULD go indirectly through advisors and leaders. Allow me to spin off a tangent:
For any building you build, a random leader is created to manage it. So when you check out the temple, you notice there's this guy managing it. Usually the guy's traits reflect the building he manages, for example, the guy managing the temple would be at least highly religious. But there are other traits, too -- he might be, coincidentally, militaristic. Or coincidentally commercial. So quickly in the game, you end up with a half dozen different leaders in each city.
Your job is to appoint a governor of the city. You appoint this governor from the managers of the buildings. I decide, for example, that I'm going to push my society more towards a military edge, so I pick the general who occupies the barracks. The general is also coincidentally a very agricultural man, so he also emphasizes growth. My city reflects that for the next 50 turns.
So you're building cities and appointing leaders. You may even appoint these people to your advisory committee -- your military advisor and such. They help push the direction of your civilization automatically.
So what if you want to get a marketplace built? You make sure that you put a commercial (at least 50% commercial) leader in charge of that city, to govern it. You could also make certain "calls to action". If you declare war, for example, you could mobilize your economy for war and watch as each of your leaders take a slightly more militaristic bias. Or you could declare an a great expansionist push, like manifest destiny, that causes everyone to favor the building of settlers a bit more than other projects.
Leaders are kicked out in the case of revolt. Meaning you could lose highly qualified people. Maybe there's even a random governor change, whether you like it or not. And there could be local corrupt entities that become a lightning rod for all the corruption and waste your city experiences, and they might come into power randomly if you poorly manage that city.
Anyway, that's my crazy idea. It's pretty off topic, but curious to see somebody run with it. Or to tie it down and ground it in something more Civ 3 like, to describe how an empire might crumble or a city might fall away from your empire.
But if I had it my way, you probably wouldn't even *build* anything. Everything WOULD go indirectly through advisors and leaders. Allow me to spin off a tangent:
For any building you build, a random leader is created to manage it. So when you check out the temple, you notice there's this guy managing it. Usually the guy's traits reflect the building he manages, for example, the guy managing the temple would be at least highly religious. But there are other traits, too -- he might be, coincidentally, militaristic. Or coincidentally commercial. So quickly in the game, you end up with a half dozen different leaders in each city.
Your job is to appoint a governor of the city. You appoint this governor from the managers of the buildings. I decide, for example, that I'm going to push my society more towards a military edge, so I pick the general who occupies the barracks. The general is also coincidentally a very agricultural man, so he also emphasizes growth. My city reflects that for the next 50 turns.
So you're building cities and appointing leaders. You may even appoint these people to your advisory committee -- your military advisor and such. They help push the direction of your civilization automatically.
So what if you want to get a marketplace built? You make sure that you put a commercial (at least 50% commercial) leader in charge of that city, to govern it. You could also make certain "calls to action". If you declare war, for example, you could mobilize your economy for war and watch as each of your leaders take a slightly more militaristic bias. Or you could declare an a great expansionist push, like manifest destiny, that causes everyone to favor the building of settlers a bit more than other projects.
Leaders are kicked out in the case of revolt. Meaning you could lose highly qualified people. Maybe there's even a random governor change, whether you like it or not. And there could be local corrupt entities that become a lightning rod for all the corruption and waste your city experiences, and they might come into power randomly if you poorly manage that city.
Anyway, that's my crazy idea. It's pretty off topic, but curious to see somebody run with it. Or to tie it down and ground it in something more Civ 3 like, to describe how an empire might crumble or a city might fall away from your empire.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Actually I suggested this system, only more autonomous, in the Leader Paradigm thread. The big difference is that the mayor used to be from one of the buildings, or the populace leader, or a unit leader. THen they are either legislators then advisors then leader. My system would allow for you to interact with sub-leaders within a civilzation, such as coups and espionage.
The local entity is not so much a civ as an explanation of where corruption and waste go. It would also allow for eventual seperatism, especially over bodies of water or non-continuous borders.
The local entity is not so much a civ as an explanation of where corruption and waste go. It would also allow for eventual seperatism, especially over bodies of water or non-continuous borders.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Yeah, I know it's not a particularly original idea, but I did go the extra mile and push the envelope towards something different from what Civ is.
The appointment of leaders is a lot of micromanagement, no? That's why I'd suggest it as a replacement for managing which buildings you build (and why it probably won't happen).
The appointment of leaders is a lot of micromanagement, no? That's why I'd suggest it as a replacement for managing which buildings you build (and why it probably won't happen).
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
It would definitely be a good concept for a seperate game. Maybe a new game-series of 'people management' in civilizations , rather than civ management.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Yeah I figure as much.
But then does that mean there's no way to make leaders work?
And if that's the case, how do you do the whole "entity" thing with corruption building a seperatist sentiment?
But then does that mean there's no way to make leaders work?
And if that's the case, how do you do the whole "entity" thing with corruption building a seperatist sentiment?
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Lets just say its like a civ without a city that uses the corruption of a city to fuel its efforts and produces its stuff in that same city. Also, what kind of things this civ builds and researches are different. This means that corruption does nto disappear, but accrues somewhere. This also means having a lot of corruption can lead to more problems than now where it just makes a failed state.
Types of Corruption:
Trade - This trade would be distributed according to your current tax rate.
Culture - This would be calculatted roughly the same way as trade and would go to the local entity.
Shields - This would go towards local entity buildings and units.
Food - This food would still contribute to the growth of the city, but over time as citizens are 'birthed' by the corrupted food, they are really just converted from Greeks to Delphians.
Purpose of (blank) to local entity:
Gold: Pays for maintenance of militia and local entity buildings.
Beakers: Contributes toward 'local' research. These techs give local buildings, militia units, and possible demands.
Happy Faces: Can only be used for local citizens.
Culture: Thresholds allow for construction of certain buildings and certain demands for greater autonomy.
Buildings: Some generate more local culture, others allow for certain demands, others allow for building of certain militia, others provide bonuses to the city(like library or bank, etc.).
Militia: These are units that stay in the city for the purpose of defence or a possible secession.
Local Citizens: Having a certain number of locals vs. nationals will lead to the ability to make certain demands. Also, they gain happiness from appeasement and are mad from the opposite.
Dealing With The Local Entity
You will be informed about any buildings being built and units that have been trained. If need be, you can order the disbandment of militia or the destruction of buildings. Disobedience can be answered with military force, although some other nation may choose to champion the upstarts.
Over time various cities will come to you with demands for greater autonomy. You basically have three options to deal with these demands. 1) Appeasement, 2) Ignore, 3) Punish. Ignoring the option will generate frustration but not hatred. Punishment will usually lower clamoring for a while, but is a dangerous road for the future. Appeasement has the disadvantage of allowing the city to become more local. Over time though, if you can keep a good city appeased and still part of your civ, you can generally gain a lot from unique local structures.
Punishment is probably a good strategy for colonies or the edges of your empire, where you little in common culturally.
Secession
At some point a city may decide you have not appesed them enough and they want to govern themselves completely. One city nearby will raise local cities desire to secede, especially if they have not been well appeased. Usually in a volatile region many cities will secede at the same time. They usually unite behind the city that seceded first. If the first couple of turns go well for the turncoats then other cities might join as well, or form their own alliances.
Civil War
A powerful city may be loyal to your civ culturally, but desire control. They will usually convince nearby cities to join them. Depending on how the civil war progresses, cities may strat abandoning the current leadershp. A viable tactic against enemies would be to find disloyal cities and encourage an uprising, maybe even funding or supplying arms.
Types of Corruption:
Trade - This trade would be distributed according to your current tax rate.
Culture - This would be calculatted roughly the same way as trade and would go to the local entity.
Shields - This would go towards local entity buildings and units.
Food - This food would still contribute to the growth of the city, but over time as citizens are 'birthed' by the corrupted food, they are really just converted from Greeks to Delphians.
Purpose of (blank) to local entity:
Gold: Pays for maintenance of militia and local entity buildings.
Beakers: Contributes toward 'local' research. These techs give local buildings, militia units, and possible demands.
Happy Faces: Can only be used for local citizens.
Culture: Thresholds allow for construction of certain buildings and certain demands for greater autonomy.
Buildings: Some generate more local culture, others allow for certain demands, others allow for building of certain militia, others provide bonuses to the city(like library or bank, etc.).
Militia: These are units that stay in the city for the purpose of defence or a possible secession.
Local Citizens: Having a certain number of locals vs. nationals will lead to the ability to make certain demands. Also, they gain happiness from appeasement and are mad from the opposite.
Dealing With The Local Entity
You will be informed about any buildings being built and units that have been trained. If need be, you can order the disbandment of militia or the destruction of buildings. Disobedience can be answered with military force, although some other nation may choose to champion the upstarts.
Over time various cities will come to you with demands for greater autonomy. You basically have three options to deal with these demands. 1) Appeasement, 2) Ignore, 3) Punish. Ignoring the option will generate frustration but not hatred. Punishment will usually lower clamoring for a while, but is a dangerous road for the future. Appeasement has the disadvantage of allowing the city to become more local. Over time though, if you can keep a good city appeased and still part of your civ, you can generally gain a lot from unique local structures.
Punishment is probably a good strategy for colonies or the edges of your empire, where you little in common culturally.
Secession
At some point a city may decide you have not appesed them enough and they want to govern themselves completely. One city nearby will raise local cities desire to secede, especially if they have not been well appeased. Usually in a volatile region many cities will secede at the same time. They usually unite behind the city that seceded first. If the first couple of turns go well for the turncoats then other cities might join as well, or form their own alliances.
Civil War
A powerful city may be loyal to your civ culturally, but desire control. They will usually convince nearby cities to join them. Depending on how the civil war progresses, cities may strat abandoning the current leadershp. A viable tactic against enemies would be to find disloyal cities and encourage an uprising, maybe even funding or supplying arms.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
So in other words the city has improvements you authorize, and then the growing local entity that grows based on the ammount of corruption and waste builds its own improvements?
Almost like a black market, or underground economy?
Almost like a black market, or underground economy?
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Pretty much yes. Also, while this sounds negative, appeasment and autonomy actually have many benefits if managed correctly.
1) Corruption - Instead of losing all those shields, trade, etc., they are producing things that may turn out to be very useful. Now failed states would just be autonomous states. It might be possible for you to have entire far-off regions that pretty much govern themselves but give you culture/population/and territory.
2) Militia - They have a few negatives; don't add to offensive strength, only defend home city, could be used against you in uprising/seccession. The positives are that they are free and decent units that add freely to the defence of many cities. Imagine that your border with Germany has already built 3-4 miltia units per city. This means before they even think about your regular army, they have to deal with many many local units and defences. They are a cheap defence, especially for powerful border cities.
3) Buildings - Many local improvements mirror their govenrment cousins, such as libraries and banks. This means that really powerful and old cities might be producing up to 33% more than they could before.
1) Corruption - Instead of losing all those shields, trade, etc., they are producing things that may turn out to be very useful. Now failed states would just be autonomous states. It might be possible for you to have entire far-off regions that pretty much govern themselves but give you culture/population/and territory.
2) Militia - They have a few negatives; don't add to offensive strength, only defend home city, could be used against you in uprising/seccession. The positives are that they are free and decent units that add freely to the defence of many cities. Imagine that your border with Germany has already built 3-4 miltia units per city. This means before they even think about your regular army, they have to deal with many many local units and defences. They are a cheap defence, especially for powerful border cities.
3) Buildings - Many local improvements mirror their govenrment cousins, such as libraries and banks. This means that really powerful and old cities might be producing up to 33% more than they could before.
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
riadsala said:
But it is a game and in a game I try to win.
Similar threads
