Making Civ less "deterministic"

[Naokaukodem]

With entity jumps, you could have revolutions, cities growing independently of lenght of time, disasters, barbarian invasions, more decisive wars, etc. etc. a game with a lot of events and much more interesting, nearly a simulation.

For science, I guess we can't avoid diffusion. Open borders, trade, culture (tourism ?) strength, geography, etc. should all determine tech diffusion, or even science strength.

But I guess this doesn't solve the "bigger being always better" problem. I think we need here means to drive a country more towards science, military, commerce, etc... all being of equal interest (gameplay wise), but being quite decisive, instantaneous and significant. For example, we should be able to earn a tech by building any science building, or even better, being allowed to "build tech" in addition to traditional science, or as the only mean, or be able to build many copies of the same building so that you have the choice to build up settlers / libraries / military units / merchants / missionaries for the exact same result.

Of course, the more you have cities the more you can build those things the more you are powerful... then simply empty cities other than the capital from production. Other cities would only serve you to expand your territory if you can, and earn a free tech with each new founded city. If you cannot, then build libraries instead. Hammers for library = hammers for new city. Also, you earn a free tech for each city first time conquered. You can earn a tech for each trade route you settle. Earn a tech for each city you convert. Etc... All being the same investment.

 

[Redaxe]

I think you need to split the science from the culture techs.

Have two "tech trees" one for beakers and one for culture with some techs in both (like Philosophy).

The irony about this is that Ancient Greece had the lead in both 'science techs' and 'culture techs'. Social Policies also sortof were intended to be a culture tech system.

 

[IMACIVFAN]

I totally agree that changing the tech tree structurally. It will definitely adds randomness into the game. Adding natural disasters also produces extra randomness, a very good idea.

So far, no body has mentioned about diplomacy. I suppose that is because the each Civ leader is quite hard-coded. If the diplomacy module could be refined and more sophisticated, the whole game will definitely behave less deterministic. Imagine, that the leader is dead and another figure is newly elected changing the history of the civ entirely, like what happened before WWII in out history.

Besides, the discovery of new resources, competition of new military tech between civ are not simulated in great depth. The interaction between player and AI is very limited so far. And also, why spies cannot be created but needs to be re-spawned?

And why not adding city states into the diplomacy infrastructure?

 

[Jingo7]

But in addition to barbs you could have a next tier of revolutionaries or pirates or something, units that appear under the conditions that would cause instability in versions of civ that simulate that sort of thing. I'm itrigued just by the design of the game where as you develop along, there's a menace that grows with you - the resentment of the excluded, whoever they are. They deterministically appear and drive down rapid social development. So in pacing they are a negative feedback effect, and also they help to fill up the map and fill up time in a "hugfest". In later later eras they would go away, though. Maybe you could have revolutionaries, international fugitives, and terrorists, but the safer bet for a base game would be the quantified stability measure. .... the same system as all along (civ V happiness only without the SUCK), but in its Final Form, so to speak, much variety in appeasing it but difficult challenge for any method, and a slope of failure that's punishing but not arresting.

I like this idea that barbarians don't stay just the stupid axe wielding idiots but develop in time, and I really like the 'menace that grows with you'. They could be correlative to your (or the general) level of development. As industrialism expanded in England, so did the working class and so too did unions, strikes, protests, revolutionary organisations and so on. Imagine communards capturing one of your cities and you having to do a deal with a former enemy to crush this emerging mutual threat. Imagine your development held hostage by striking workers with whom you may deal or suppress, possibly risking revolution. I have no idea how this would work and I agree that it would be a less easy 'limiting factor' than corruption or whatever, but it certainly would be unique.