Realistic Approach Institute

Well, recent archaeological evidence suggests city-building started quite early in the stone age - when we were still in an Ice Age. Some of the earliest homes may have been built of mammoth bones and hide. Trade thrived, even more so when the ice started melting.

If it were possible to program, I would move the start date of Civ back into the Ice age. Focus on stone-age techs and buildings for awhile, let the planet thaw, mammoths hunted to extinction but new resources appear (or not? stone age conservation, anyone? wonder how that would've changed history) and then offer the player to convert all their cities into settlers and relocate, taking the modified terrain into consideration.

More realistic starting of the bronze and iron ages would also be good. They should be started by random events. However, the random events should be separate from the less essential random events. You get a chance of entering the bronze/iron age specifically, in addition to getting a chance of a random event occurring, and if one does, than the computer goes on to decide which one.

In order to enter the early bronze age, you must have access to copper and either tin or arsenic. You must also be able to produce hot enough fires for some creative metalsmith to chance upon the combination. More metalsmiths - possibly just creating jewelry with copper - increase your chances of entering the bronze age. If you have copper / arsenic, you are likely to enter the bronze age sooner than those with tin but not arsenic.(Some copper naturally contains some amount of arsenic, and metalsmiths are likely to notice that copper is stronger, make the connection, and start adding arsenic on purpose.) However, there is an unhealthiness penalty for using arsenic. Copper / tin is thus a more advance bronze-age technology that obsoletes copper / arsenic in civilization that have enough tin. Also, the game should differentiate between surface copper (most likely with more copper down below) and copper that cannot be accessed without substantial digging. Civilizations with surface copper are more likely to beat their neighbors to the bronze age.

Having neighbors / trading partners increases your chances of entering the bronze age. It is possible to skip copper / arsenic and proceed directly to copper / tin, especially if you have neighbors / trading partners / other known civilization who have already entered the bronze age. If a bronze age civilization attacks you, that should dramatically increase your chances of stealing the idea from them sooner rather than later.

In order to enter the Iron age you should have iron ore and the ability create even hotter fires. It's more common than copper. It should be possible to skip the bronze age and enter directly into the iron age. In fact, civilization lacking copper should have a much higher probability of entering the iron age before their bronze age neighbors, since they are looking for a way to compete with said neighbors. Again, if your neighbors / trading partners / enemies have entered the iron age, you are more likely to discover it too.

Don't get either? Well, at least you get to research some advanced stone age techs instead. Aside from their use of Obsidian rather than metals, the Aztecs were quite advanced. You can actually do a fair bit with Obsidian - it can be very hard and sharp. Having a lot of Obsidian, and not knowing any bronze or iron age civilizations, may reduce your chances of making it to the bronze age. Still, Native Americans in the Amazon basin managed to create terra pretta - a sort of manmade, superrich soil - which we still can't do today.

I get rather tired of building the same thing city after city. Buildings should be customizable. For example, building options should be based on what materials you have available - e.g. wood, various stones, concrete, metals, adobe, etc. If you have stone, you get to build stone walls. If not, you can build wooden walls, but for a much lower defensive bonus, subject to replacement if you ever find a source of stone. Building material should impact random events. Wooden buildings are more susceptible to fires, hurricanes, and tornadoes, but more resistant to earthquakes. Stone buildings are more resistant to fires, hurricanes, and tornadoes, but unless they have steel supports, more vulnerable to earthquakes. The size / grandeur of the building should be customizable as well. And why not let cities have patron gods / patron saints for whatever religion / religions are present? Rather than have wonders, being the first to build a really, super grand temple to a particular patron god or saint should be a prerequisite for certain positive random events caused by the awe your people and others feel toward the temple (or whatever). Over time, the grandness required to compete with other civilizations increases.

Rather than giving civilizations leaders with traits, civilizations should acquire traits through their actions. For example, if you focus heavily on culture and your cities, on average, produce a certain amount of culture per turn, you get the creative trait. Neglect culture, and you can lose the trait.

I also think you should have more fine-grained control over your capital city than other cities. In fact, early on, your cities aside from your capital should be almost like other civilizations - sharing your culture but doing their own thing, maybe even attacking you - capturing a portion of you population as slaves or forcing you to pay tribute (but not able to relate to other civilizations except through you). However, as communications improve and your capital becomes more clearly dominant, they fall more under your control - first to acting like vassals, then to allowing you to pick what they build but not assign the citizens to work different tiles / be specialists - and finally to a more fine-grained control. War with another civilization may temporarily unite separatist city-states of your civilization. Still, I think, for the capitol, it would be really great to have extra fine-grained control. Even when nearby cities / cities on your continent are under your relatively complete control, further / overseas cities should automatically be colonies. If they don't revolt and spin off before the invention of better communications technologies and faster travel, they become part of your civilization.

Also, most religions should get along with each other well, except for monotheistic religions. Each monotheistic religion competes with all other religions. Polytheistic religions, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confusionism, have a tendency to merge / coexist relatively peacefully.

I'm not sure how easy it would be to program all that, but I think it would make the game funner / more realistic, even if a bit less balanced.

Regarding horses - say having access to the "horse resource" just gives you the ability to build stables, and the stables are required by any city that does not have free-ranging horses nearby to build horse units.

Speaking of which, agricultural technology could be more detailed. Say "wheat" , rather than being restricted to one tile, is something that grants you access to technologies relating to the cultivation of wheat, and affects the sort of farms you have available - you can put "wheat" farms on any appropriate terrain. And you do get to steal it from neighbors; only need a few seeds, after all.
 
Red_Phoenix, I study archeology and like your post a lot. OTOH, it does not make sense that the first units of Civ do not know about bow and arrows at around 4000 BC.
 
I also like that idea. Especially the moving your city after civilization and customizing buildings with your resources. Like, marble buildings would cost more hammers but increase culture, while wood buildings (a road to a forest in your culture) would be more simplistic.
 
I also think you should have more fine-grained control over your capital city than other cities. In fact, early on, your cities aside from your capital should be almost like other civilizations - sharing your culture but doing their own thing, maybe even attacking you - capturing a portion of you population as slaves or forcing you to pay tribute (but not able to relate to other civilizations except through you).

Perhaps capital = the city where the King unit last was?
 
Speaking of which, it would be really great to get the idea of scarcity of resources in there, somehow. I mean, really: one single gold mine is enough to supply the whole empire, for all of history, even if you have 40 cities?

There ought to be some balance. Perhaps "hammers" as in "construction labor" could be separated from "resources" needed to build the buildings. If there was a way to get actual units of resources, rather than unlimited quantities, and even stockpile them for later use, without making things way too complicated, it would really add a bit of depth: a motivation for civilizations to use materials and research technologies related to using those materials based on what they have available in what quantities.

Wooden buildings are great in their day. As long as it stands, a wooden temple can produce culture. It is a beautiful material. However, on the whole, a stone building is far more likely to last the ages. That's why very old cultural buildings should produce more culture: because they managed to survive the potential dangers of fire, collapse, destruction by armies, decay, vandals, and what have you. But don't forget about other possible building materials, such as adobe, bricks, concrete, steel supports, etc. In some hotter parts of the world, gold-covered roofs were considered particularly desirable since the reflectivity kept the buildings cooler inside.

With regards to stone age warriors, a number of weapons available, as you mention, Kriku: the Aztecs went further with it than most, but even everywhere else, it wasn't just clubs as the Warrior graphic would suggest. With the right stones, you can make knives, spears tips, axe blades, arrows tips, etc. You can also just put smaller stones in a sling shot. The bow and arrow is believed to have been invented around 13000 BC. The development of flint technology could be covered in much more depth in the early game, if the game started sooner.

Another idea would be sub-Civics or options within a Civic. For example, in the Civics screen, you still have all your main civics to choose from, but then you can click on tabs to select options within that Civic. For example, if you have the slavery civic, which portion of the population is enslaved? Citizens (mostly women and children) from cities you have conquered or raided? Former soldiers defeated in battle? Debtors? Convicted criminals? Does the government retain direct control over most of them, or auction most of the off to the wealthier citizens? What attitude does your civilization take toward punishing and rewarding slaves?

Also, slaves aren't really something you can sacrifice to finish construction early. Mostly, they are just unpaid labor, often lesser fed, that can be forced into more undesirable positions free people would rather not do: working in mines, heavy labor, gladiator combat, prostitution, household servants, etc.
 
The capital idea is actually one that I like. Like your civics would determine how much actual control you have in your cities. Early on its basically just your capital while the "governors" do whatever they like in the other cities. Sure, you get to control all units produced (maybe Workers will be automated by default, like "Improve nearest city") but only as long as you keep your relationship with the city governor healthy. Any demands you make, like interfere with the build queue or citizen allocation will make the relationship deteriorate. In the end the city might turn rebellious (Barbarian) and spawn an army of its own.

This could of course be developed further with actual named governor objects with traits and preferences. So you could replace one governor with another, once you receive a new candidate in your pool. (New talent could crop up over time, but things like building wonders or achieving victory over your enemies would give new capable men the opportunity to prove themselves.) Loyalty would of course be a key trait for any governor, but a hidden one from the player...

So I envision a CvGovernor or CyGovernor class then. Every governor will be an instance of that class and can be assigned to a city. The CvCity class in the SDK probably need a new attribute also - the governor. (In a pure Python environment this could just be scriptData.) And so on.
 
Civ4 has a possibility to put an advisor in charge of a city. Should this be a forced move under some civics?
 
Rather than giving civilizations leaders with traits, civilizations should acquire traits through their actions. For example, if you focus heavily on culture and your cities, on average, produce a certain amount of culture per turn, you get the creative trait. Neglect culture, and you can lose the trait.

I was just planning my next Civ 4 mod to have something like that!

I was thinking more along the lines of a new ruler in the linage is born every 50 or so turns, whose traits are dependent on your actions in the previous 50 turns (similar to the GP mechanism, or to Spore's development from stage to stage) - and you will be able to see chances for all traits.

I like many of the suggestions, but making the game too realistic can have two negative affects: It will be less fun (too much MM), and its strategic side might become much less important, since you won't be able to plan ahead.

Other ideas I was having (but have done nothing with them), some of which are similar to things already mentioned here (all relevant for Civ 4, but might be applicable to Civ 5 as well - I don't know it well enough):

Supply lines for units. You have to send supplies to your units, which can be in the form of a special kind of logistic unit which should be sent, protected, to the front lines - after taking food from the city.

If this is not available (because your army is blocked, or too far) the units themselves can live off the land - but that depends on the amount of food produced by this land. So sometimes you'd better have some units on a farmed wheat rather than in the forest next to it. This will also render the 'Unit supply' gold cost obsolete.

Trading/transferring food. As was mentioned, the current system is highly unrealistic. So the minimum change is to enable transferring food from one city which has a surplus to another which is in a shortage. This could have the limitations of some of the food gets spoiled (depending on distance) unless you have refrigeration. You could also trade food to other civs.

BTW, Kriku - a very interesting thread. Thank you. I'd also like to join the group. It has good potential.
 
Supply lines for units. You have to send supplies to your units, which can be in the form of a special kind of logistic unit which should be sent, protected, to the front lines - after taking food from the city.

If this is not available (because your army is blocked, or too far) the units themselves can live off the land - but that depends on the amount of food produced by this land. So sometimes you'd better have some units on a farmed wheat rather than in the forest next to it. This will also render the 'Unit supply' gold cost obsolete.

Trading/transferring food. As was mentioned, the current system is highly unrealistic. So the minimum change is to enable transferring food from one city which has a surplus to another which is in a shortage. This could have the limitations of some of the food gets spoiled (depending on distance) unless you have refrigeration. You could also trade food to other civs.
Both of these are actually something that I look forward to being able to work myself in the future. So I already pretty much know what I wanna do. If you do develop any of it you could give me a holler and I'd be interested in contributing. Because chances are that the result would be something that I might be able to use myself, one way or another.
 
KOEI game Clan of the Gray Wolf has a similar system. It was rather nice.
 
Civ4 has a possibility to put an advisor in charge of a city. Should this be a forced move under some civics?
Yeah, exactly. You'd definitely wanna utilize what's already there, but rather build on it and tweak it.

I really like the idea of not being able to micro-manage everything - perhaps not until you're running State Property or something. Rather that if you're playing the Roman Empire in a historical scenario you'd only have direct control over Italy. In other regions the governors rule, and you don't necessarily wanna make any changes in the city screen of those cities, because this will harm your relationship with its ruler. And if you appoint a disloyal governor you might end up with a civil war anyway!
 
Back
Top Bottom