Little things from prior games that I hope are in Civ 7

[luca 83]

political treaties one could exchange cities always not as in the 4 under certain conditions , establish borders , impose changes of government , payment , in gold but not tributes barbarians demand gold payments in installments , demobilize armies or prevent creating new ones , create alliances of various kinds, for the commercial part purchase of more objects through complex commercial treaties, creation of spheres of political influence , and com

 

[aieeegrunt]

It should best simulate a very fragmented situation, as in the Middle Ages: city states, empires, medium-sized states, and small ones, or united by bonds between them like the Holy Roman Empire

I will give Civ6 props for at least *attempting* to address this with Loyalty, Dramatic Ages and Free Cities, which is an excellent concept

The Implementation is bad; it’s far too deterministic for one thing, but Civ needs more not less of this

I’d love to see Loyalty combined with Civ3’s system of citizens actually having a goddamn cultural and ethnic identity again

Repitition does not make unpopular ideas magically gain acceptance.

End Game Fatigue amd Press Next Turn Till inevitable victory are hige problems as well

 

[luca 83]

I will give Civ6 props for at least *attempting* to address this with Loyalty, Dramatic Ages and Free Cities, which is an excellent concept

The Implementation is bad; it’s far too deterministic for one thing, but Civ needs more not less of this

I’d love to see Loyalty combined with Civ3’s system of citizens actually having a goddamn cultural and ethnic identity again



End Game Fatigue amd Press Next Turn Till inevitable victory are hige problems as well

City-states are fine, but for example, the Duchy of Mantua, the Duchy of Piacenza, the Marquisate of Saluzzo, the Duchy of Ferrara were not just city-states, they were entities. Small and large , the German principalities , the same , : then maybe they were small but rich , the republic of Genoa , together with Venice monopolised the market of the Byzantine empire

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

City-states are fine, but for example, the Duchy of Mantua, the Duchy of Piacenza, the Marquisate of Saluzzo, the Duchy of Ferrara were not just city-states, they were entities. Small and large , the German principalities , the same , : then maybe they were small but rich , the republic of Genoa , together with Venice monopolised the market of the Byzantine empire

City-states are still considered entities.
The real question is should we keep them as city-states or should they expand to become "minor nations" and have more than one city? I wouldn't mind the latter if maps became bigger.

 

[aieeegrunt]

City-states are fine, but for example, the Duchy of Mantua, the Duchy of Piacenza, the Marquisate of Saluzzo, the Duchy of Ferrara were not just city-states, they were entities. Small and large , the German principalities , the same , : then maybe they were small but rich , the republic of Genoa , together with Venice monopolised the market of the Byzantine empire

City-states are still considered entities.
The real question is should we keep them as city-states or should they expand to become "minor nations" and have more than one city? I wouldn't mind the latter if maps became bigger.

Your map would need to be a ludicrous unplayable size to include entities this small and irrelevant

 

[luca 83]

City-states are still considered entities.
The real question is should we keep them as city-states or should they expand to become "minor nations" and have more than one city? I wouldn't mind the latter if maps became bigger.

city states are considered entities, medium or small territories are civilizations that have not expanded much, or cities born from secessions, or divided civilizations, Korea, or Vietnam before 1975

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Your map would need to be a ludicrous unplayable size to include entities this small and irrelevant

I wouldn't call Venice or Genoa small and irrelevant

But seriously, Luca seems like he wants to play a completely different game. Like Europa Universalis

 

[luca 83]

Your map would need to be a ludicrous unplayable size to include entities this small and irrelevant

So Luxembourg , Monte Carlo , Lichtenstein , Andorra , the Vatican , were useless? If you do not understand this you can not understand the unity of Germany , with small states like the holstein , the Baden , the wurtenberg , Saxony , the Hanseatic League , Bavaria , the Lippe ,etc , you can not understand the unity of Italy , or the rise of Muscovy in 1400 : this is one of the great failures of the paradox failing to simulate these entities satisfactorily with a decent ai

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

So Luxembourg , Monte Carlo , Lichtenstein , Andorra , the Vatican , were useless? If you do not understand this you can not understand the unity of Germany , with small states like the holstein , the Baden , the wurtenberg , Saxony , the Hanseatic League , Bavaria , the Lippe ,etc , you can not understand the unity of Italy , or the rise of Muscovy in 1400 : this is one of the great failures of the paradox failing to simulate these entities satisfactorily with a decent ai

He didn't say they were useless: you QUOTED him saying they were 'small and irrelevant', which is true in a world-wide game.
The Hanseatic League disappeared long before the unification of Germany: if you are going to quote 'historical examples' at least get them in the right century.
"One of the great failures of the paradox" - this is the crux of your problem: Paradox is an entirely different game company and set of games. You're in the wrong Forum.

 

[aieeegrunt]

So Luxembourg , Monte Carlo , Lichtenstein , Andorra , the Vatican , were useless? If you do not understand this you can not understand the unity of Germany , with small states like the holstein , the Baden , the wurtenberg , Saxony , the Hanseatic League , Bavaria , the Lippe ,etc , you can not understand the unity of Italy , or the rise of Muscovy in 1400 : this is one of the great failures of the paradox failing to simulate these entities satisfactorily with a decent ai

How many divisions has the Andorra?

Yes, on any reasonable scale for a game like civ, most of these entities are irrelevant.

At the end of the day, a game has to be playable. This requires things like deciding what the game will focus on, and what will be abstracted.

Taking your example of pre unification Getmany, the vast majority of those little statelets were irrelevant. The major players were always Austria, Prussia, and to a lesser extent Bavaria

The German “Imperial” Reichsarmee; the amalgamated armed forces of all those little statelets, was a meme of useless and irrelevent as one good example.

 

[Patine]

Taking your example of pre unification Getmany, the vast majority of those little statelets were irrelevant. The major players were always Austria, Prussia, and to a lesser extent Bavaria

The German “Imperial” Reichsarmee; the amalgamated armed forces of all those little statelets, was a meme of useless and irrelevent as one good example.

And, if one had a historical scenario around the Age and Ambitions of Bismarck, they'd also be quite significant, but not in a base game.

 

[luca 83]

Hamburg, Bremen, and Lübeck remained as the only members until the League's formal end in 1862, on the eve of the 1867 founding of the North German Confederation and the 1871 founding of the German Empire under Kaiser Wilhelm I. Despite its collapse, they still cherished the link to the Hanseatic League. Until German reunification, these three cities were the only ones that retained the words "Hanseatic City" in their official German names. Hamburg and Bremen continue to style themselves officially as "free Hanseatic cities", with Lübeck named "Hanseatic City". For Lübeck in particular, this anachronistic tie to a glorious past remained important in the 20th century. In 1937, the Nazi Party revoked its imperial immediacy through the Greater Hamburg Act.[63] Since 1990, 24 other German cities have adopted this title.[64]

Organizationedit​

Hanseatic Seal of Stralsund
The Hanseatic League was a complex and loose-jointed. I never make mistakes when I talk about history! Civ 7 should be a non-linear simulation being random maps , but take into account for example the economy : a state of can stand above all on the economy : the Swiss for example , first as a supplier of mercenaries then , with banks , and especially weapons industries , idem Singapore , there should be a minimum price simulator a simulator of banks , loans financial default bonds , Switzerland is not irrelevant at least financially : The states are not big states as in North America even the small states count , Piedmont was not the largest Italian state , the kingdom of the two Sicilies for a time was richer and more powerful militarily but Piedmont made Italy good and bad , the republic of luke and insignificant in the modern age but very important in the Middle Ages

 

[Patine]

Hamburg, Bremen, and Lübeck remained as the only members until the League's formal end in 1862, on the eve of the 1867 founding of the North German Confederation and the 1871 founding of the German Empire under Kaiser Wilhelm I. Despite its collapse, they still cherished the link to the Hanseatic League. Until German reunification, these three cities were the only ones that retained the words "Hanseatic City" in their official German names. Hamburg and Bremen continue to style themselves officially as "free Hanseatic cities", with Lübeck named "Hanseatic City". For Lübeck in particular, this anachronistic tie to a glorious past remained important in the 20th century. In 1937, the Nazi Party revoked its imperial immediacy through the Greater Hamburg Act.[63] Since 1990, 24 other German cities have adopted this title.[64]

Organizationedit​

Hanseatic Seal of Stralsund
The Hanseatic League was a complex and loose-jointed. I never make mistakes when I talk about history! Civ 7 should be a non-linear simulation being random maps , but take into account for example the economy : a state of can stand above all on the economy : the Swiss for example , first as a supplier of mercenaries then , with banks , and especially weapons industries , idem Singapore , there should be a minimum price simulator a simulator of banks , loans financial default bonds , Switzerland is not irrelevant at least financially : The states are not big states as in North America even the small states count , Piedmont was not the largest Italian state , the kingdom of the two Sicilies for a time was richer and more powerful militarily but Piedmont made Italy good and bad , the republic of luke and insignificant in the modern age but very important in the Middle Ages

Make the Hanseatic League a Wonder. There, elegant solution typical of Civ games.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Bisnarck was a very pragmatic man who just wanted to get stuff done with a minimum of fuss, amd above all with as little open military conflict as possible.

As the architect of German reunification, how he constructed the second Reich was full of lip service to ceremonial structures with no actual power, and how the smaller states were treated reflects his attitude; which was letting them all pretend and play little games, so you had these pretend states like Baden et all exchanging ambassadors during the 2nd Reich like they were real grown up countries. But all the real decisions were made in Berlin.

If he wanted to, in the aftermath of Koeniggratz Bismarck could have sent Moltke the Elder on a grand tour up the Rhine and stomped all those little principalities with zero effort, but why bother when you could simply let the Wittelsbachs and the rest of the nobility play silly little dressup games and have grand balls for each other, when all the actual decisions, on the level of a player in Civ, were made in Berlin?

Hell there is a Margrave of Baden right now! Do you honestly think that makes Baden a player on the European stage?

Of course not, it’s a symbolic position.

Even if you wanted to make Civ a game as detailed and granular as some Paradox nightmare, they’d still be irrelevant in gameplay terms, because they have zero actual power, which is why they all folded like chairs after Prussia put the boots to the Hapsburgs

 

[luca 83]

Bisnarck was a very pragmatic man who just wanted to get stuff done with a minimum of fuss, amd above all with as little open military conflict as possible.

As the architect of German reunification, how he constructed the second Reich was full of lip service to ceremonial structures with no actual power, and how the smaller states were treated reflects his attitude; which was letting them all pretend and play little games, so you had these pretend states like Baden et all exchanging ambassadors during the 2nd Reich like they were real grown up countries. But all the real decisions were made in Berlin.

If he wanted to, in the aftermath of Koeniggratz Bismarck could have sent Moltke the Elder on a grand tour up the Rhine and stomped all those little principalities with zero effort, but why bother when you could simply let the Wittelsbachs and the rest of the nobility play silly little dressup games and have grand balls for each other, when all the actual decisions, on the level of a player in Civ, were made in Berlin?

Hell there is a Margrave of Baden right now! Do you honestly think that makes Baden a player on the European stage?

Of course not, it’s a symbolic position.

Even if you wanted to make Civ a game as detailed and granular as some Paradox nightmare, they’d still be irrelevant in gameplay terms, because they have zero actual power, which is why they all folded like chairs after Prussia put the boots to the Hapsburgs

It's not that simple: first a customs union was created, then the Austro-Prussian war, then the Franco-Prussian war, finally in 1871 in Versailles the proclamation of the empire, you know Lichtenstein was also supposed to be part of the empire, he had signed the Zollwein but remained independent, linked itself first to Switzerland and then to Belgium and the Netherlands, created steelworks with Swiss capital, and then banks and tax breaks for businesses. Similar Montecarlo should have been annexed first to Italy and then to France but the proceeds from the casino made it possible to abolish taxes for the people. If Ludwig of Bavaria had built fewer castles and financed less Wagner could have become an alternative. to the Prussian Confederation, what I want to say is that a small state is not only representative but can become an economic power: in the old civilization this doesn't matter you can be very rich, and be invaded only because it is stronger militarily, Hitler never invaded Switzerland even I planned it because the Nazi hierarchs had bank accounts, black financing, and the Swiss have Jewish gold. even today Nazi bank accounts, works of art, and the rights of Mein Kampf

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Hamburg, Bremen, and Lübeck remained as the only members until the League's formal end in 1862,

- And the Iroquois League still exists as the Haudenosaunee/Iroquois Confederacy, and even issues Passports and declared war on Germany separately from either Canada or the United States in both World Wars, but a German tourist probably doesn't have to worry about being scalped in upstate New York these days.

The Hanseatic League was a Dead Letter except in the nostalgic iconography of a few cities after 1669, the last formal meeting of the Hanse. A commercial and defensive organization with neither commercial nor defensive capabilities is of no importance to anyone, except as a commercial and defensive Fiction.

And your analysis is slightly incomplete: Hitler did not invade Switzerland not only because of its importance as an economic and espionage outlet, but also because the Swiss military was fully prepared to blow up and demolish every bridge and road in the country within hours after Germany moved and made it clear to the German military that a Swiss invasion would not be quick or easy. The relevant German invasion plans and Swiss communications are in the German archival records on microfilm in the US National Archives.

 

[luca 83]

the pre-unification German states are Germany just as the pre-unification Italian states are Italy therefore: 1defining Italy with the Roman people is wrong: it was a collection of different peoples including the Romans who created Italy and the same thing with Germany cannot be defined Prussia: Prussia only became powerful in 1700, under the father of Frederick the Great 2. This means that there is no true cultural hegenomy. They did not exist at the beginning, therefore even small and medium-sized civilizations must be considered above all on an economic and political level, as well as the military one, in a match it is not certain that the Bavarian or Sician culture wins

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

the pre-unification German states are Germany just as the pre-unification Italian states are Italy therefore: 1defining Italy with the Roman people is wrong: it was a collection of different peoples including the Romans who created Italy and the same thing with Germany cannot be defined Prussia: Prussia only became powerful in 1700, under the father of Frederick the Great 2. This means that there is no true cultural hegenomy. They did not exist at the beginning, therefore even small and medium-sized civilizations must be considered above all on an economic and political level, as well as the military one, in a match it is not certain that the Bavarian or Sician culture wins

More precisely, Germany cannot be defined as Prussia before 1871: the 'unified Germany' of 1871 was unified under Prussia, and the political and military structure of the German Empire was built on a Prussian model - not Bavarian, or Saxon or Austrian.

On the other hand, Prussia did not only become powerful in 1700. The Great Elector started building a small but well-trained army 30 years before that and with it soundly beat the Swedes at Fehrbellin, a victory still commemorated by a subway stop in Berlin! Read Robert Citino's book The German Way of War for a good synopsis of the origins of Prussian military excellence. Even Citino missed the most important part of that after 1700, though. It wasn't the building of a relatively large army in Prussia, but the fact that, to save money, that army was almost entirely rented out to the Netherlands and Britain during the War of the Spanish Succession 1702 - 1714. The Prince of Anhalt-Dessau was the commander of that mercenary force, and while under Dutch and British command they learned all the latest tactical methods, since the Dutch and British infantry were at the time the best in Europe and most advanced in the use of battalion guns and platoon firing techniques. Anhalt-Dessau and his officers went back to Prussia and began training the entire Prussian military in the latest techniques so that by the time Friedrich II put them to work in 1740 by attacking Austria his infantry could outshoot any force in Europe.

 

[Marla_Singer]

City-states are still considered entities.
The real question is should we keep them as city-states or should they expand to become "minor nations" and have more than one city? I wouldn't mind the latter if maps became bigger.

Yeah rather than city-states, I would like more AI players, but with asymmetrical developments. By that I mean that AI would develop at various scale from small single city to gigantic Empires. I wouldn't mind if there would be as many as 50 different AI but only a handful becoming very large. I would also like AI to appear at different times, not all players starting at 4000 BC, as well as more AIs conqueering other AIs. Some being old and slow, but others being young and fast. That would make the world more dynamic.

 

[aieeegrunt]

It's not that simple: first a customs union was created, then the Austro-Prussian war, then the Franco-Prussian war, finally in 1871 in Versailles the proclamation of the empire, you know Lichtenstein was also supposed to be part of the empire, he had signed the Zollwein but remained independent, linked itself first to Switzerland and then to Belgium and the Netherlands, created steelworks with Swiss capital, and then banks and tax breaks for businesses. Similar Montecarlo should have been annexed first to Italy and then to France but the proceeds from the casino made it possible to abolish taxes for the people. If Ludwig of Bavaria had built fewer castles and financed less Wagner could have become an alternative. to the Prussian Confederation, what I want to say is that a small state is not only representative but can become an economic power: in the old civilization this doesn't matter you can be very rich, and be invaded only because it is stronger militarily, Hitler never invaded Switzerland even I planned it because the Nazi hierarchs had bank accounts, black financing, and the Swiss have Jewish gold. even today Nazi bank accounts, works of art, and the rights of Mein Kampf

Lichtenstein was able to do that because it was a rounding error in the formation of the German Empire.

Switzerland was never invaded because the Swiss campaign would be an annoying distraction, and the Swiss were already doing literally everything Hitler needed and wanted of them. The Swiss Nazi Banking Meme extended to everything else from providing hydro electric power to Germany, use of the mountain tunnels to Italy, interning Allied planes that crossed their borders etc

Bavaria’s days as a serious contender for the leadership of Germany was over by the war of the Spanish succession, attempts by Maximilian II Emmanuel and his son Charles Albert to play at the big table all ended in defeat and occupation by Austria, and having to be liberated (repeatedly) by Prussian Armies.

Note the reoccurring theme here; by the 7 years war the only two German actors that mattered were Austria and Prussia.

Ludwig II ruled from 1864 to 1886. Bavaria’s days as any sort of independant power had ended over a century before that, which goes right back to my point about ceremonial games

More precisely, Germany cannot be defined as Prussia before 1871: the 'unified Germany' of 1871 was unified under Prussia, and the political and military structure of the German Empire was built on a Prussian model - not Bavarian, or Saxon or Austrian.

On the other hand, Prussia did not only become powerful in 1700. The Great Elector started building a small but well-trained army 30 years before that and with it soundly beat the Swedes at Fehrbellin, a victory still commemorated by a subway stop in Berlin! Read Robert Citino's book The German Way of War for a good synopsis of the origins of Prussian military excellence. Even Citino missed the most important part of that after 1700, though. It wasn't the building of a relatively large army in Prussia, but the fact that, to save money, that army was almost entirely rented out to the Netherlands and Britain during the War of the Spanish Succession 1702 - 1714. The Prince of Anhalt-Dessau was the commander of that mercenary force, and while under Dutch and British command they learned all the latest tactical methods, since the Dutch and British infantry were at the time the best in Europe and most advanced in the use of battalion guns and platoon firing techniques. Anhalt-Dessau and his officers went back to Prussia and began training the entire Prussian military in the latest techniques so that by the time Friedrich II put them to work in 1740 by attacking Austria his infantry could outshoot any force in Europe.

I’d say the biggest factor in Prussia’s military power was the Canton system. It allowed them to have a large well drilled extremely effective pool of soldiers without the economic crippling effect of maintaining a large standing army, and the “barracks rot” that came with it

The supreme irony is that this system is the literal antithesis of the memetic “brutal Prussian discipline”, that being largely a product of Entente anti-German propaganda, and convenient alibi making by the rest of Germany

Prussian Canton’s were extremely well treated, to the point where they were on leave 10 months of the year, free to live outside barracks, work civilian jobs, and the desertion rate was extremely low.

The proof is in the pudding; the Prussian army went through an incredible cauldron during the 7 years war and never wavered. I doubt any other army in Europe was capable of that.

Yeah rather than city-states, I would like more AI players, but with asymmetrical developments. By that I mean that AI would develop at various scale from small single city to gigantic Empires. I wouldn't mind if there would be as many as 50 different AI but only a handful becoming very large. I would also like AI to appear at different times, not all players starting at 4000 BC, as well as more AIs conqueering other AIs. Some being old and slow, but others being young and fast. That would make the world more dynamic.

Civ one million percent needs to be a LOT more dynamic than “spam settlers, ICS sprawl, feedback loop blob”