Several different types of Wars for civ4 (cold war, crusade, etc)

[sealman]

Yea, it's true, but who want to lose an entire war, or lose to the AI cause they had more culture than you, etc.

But the player can control the outcomes of a war, he can control his status in culture. He can't control getting assassinated.

Who would play civ3 currently having the AI take city after city until they finally destory you?

Many people. You learn a lot from the game when you are on the losing end. You learn what mistakes you made and try to prevent them next time around.

No matter what, no one would get to that point in the game, they would just reload to an earlier time to prevent losing.

Not everyone cheats in that manner. I think more people would concede defeat and start over than reload from an earlier point. However, t is a game. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. That is the nature of a game. If you win all the time, where is the fun or challenge?

My suggestions are for us not the AI. We should have an option that lets us do what nations in history have been doing for 1000's of years.

And that is the fundamental problem with this idea. This option would unbalance the game.
BTW: I am assuming that you are referring to attempts at taking out the leader of a rival power, not "wars designed to eliminate the leaders" since very few, wars have been fough for the simple goal of eliminating or removing another leader. The vast majority of wars have been wars of Conquests or Internal in nature (ie: civil war, revolutions, ect.)

 

[provoko]

But the player can control the outcomes of a war, he can control his status in culture. He can't control getting assassinated.

I see. Ok, I suggest you look at my topic and read what removal of leader is. Then everything from my last reply will make sense.

EDIT: Ah whatever, I'll just copy and paste:

Removal of leader
-Historical Example: As in the case of Germany and Iraq, the removal of Hitler and Hussein respectively.
-In the game you would declare removal of leader from civ instead of war.
War bonuses
-Other Civs will most likely join in the war.
*New -World opinion of you will improve if the civ has attacked anyone.
Victory Condition
-Taking over the capital of the civ.
Victory Reward
-Victory reward is the defending civ can not declare war on you for the rest of the game, *new you may take one resource that civ owns, and better deals when it comes to trading with that civ.
-World opinion increases if the civ has attacked anyone before, opinion decreases if the civ has never attacked anyone.
Capturing Cities
-You capture cities normally, but after a victory or peace treaty is signed all cities go back to the civ and your units return home.

So as you can see, for you to be succesful at removing the leader, you'd have to bulldoze your way to the capital and capture it, once that happens the leader is removed, all cities go back to that civ, you take a resource from that civ, and the rest of the rewards.

To defend from such a war, don't let your captial be captured.

 

[Portuguese]

I WOULD like to see the crusade type of wars, where nations with one religion get together and declare a holy war on all nations of another religion. The more i think about it the more I like it, religion could be the most common reason to start a war after all, and it has been said that religion will be a factor in civ4.

Could be controversial, though. Especially if Judaism is one of the religions implemented in Civ4, who knows how many lawsuits and so on Firaxis will receive if you can play a German Fascist/Christian civ and lead Christianity in a crusade against the Jews.

Yeah. Cool but, being made in the country taht has 70% of Earth lawyers, doesn't seem likely to me...

 

[Dachs]

At the simplest level, the US bankrupted the USSR. During the 80s the USSR could not support the level of military spending and development required to maintain parity with the US. As they ran out of money, the financial stress added pressure to the coalition of the Warsaw pact. Gorbachev managed to end the Cold War before it caused massive civil unrest from having no money.

Um, no money? Reagan gave the US a deficit in the '80s, too, and there wasn't massive civil unrest. There's one right now, and the country is split along political lines as deeply as it has been in a hundred years. These things don't happen the same way every time.

Civ isn't supposed to be an exact sim of real life, but close enough so that it's fun for everyone (and to sell a lot of copies). Who among you would not play any Civ game because it doesn't have your favorite option in it? Having said that, I think that these are great ideas. You should be able to start different kinds of wars to get different benefits, I'd rather do that than just declare war for one resource right next to my border.

 

[sir_schwick]

The US and the USSR spent about the same amount, but the US managed to maintain financial solvency. Both sides spent until one ran out of money first, which were the Soviets. We did not run out of money despite the national debt exploding during the 80s because of the arms race. Many highly militarized nations are having problems with supporting their militaries with their current economies. North Korea has had to open several free trade zones to maintain solvency. However yes, it is not the same each time, which is a further argument against a pre-determined 'Cold War' war type.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

I think civ 3 supports a cold war- it was just tension between 2 countries. I think whena city is captured you should be able to raid it, take its money or resources, but leave it to the previous owner- perhaps certain units could "raid" where they only have to defeat one defensive units and they get some gold

I think it would be really interesting if a city has a library and you capture it you get a technology from the opposing team, and if you get a city with a university you get two, or perhaps you only get one from a university.

 

[Graadiapolistan]

It would be really cool if barbarian encampments became actual nations later in the game. Like poland- not a big nation- not playable but would be cool to try to recruit it to your side in a war againt a major power

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, Graadia, we have been suggesting something similar to that with 'Minor Nations'. The idea is that you replace barbarian camps and goody huts with lots of 'Minor Nations'-nations whose primary goal is survival-come what may-rather than outright victory. These minor nations can either be 'destroyed' by major powers, or harnessed as vassals, protectorates or puppet nations. This system would allow for MUCH better Cold-War scenarios, as two major powers-with two different ideologies (rather than governments)-try to woo all the minor powers (as well as some major powers) to their respective sides. This allows for proxy wars, diplomatic /espionage ploys and the like.
Anyways, just a thought.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, I think that if you wanted to have an organic cold war model (as opposed to an artificial model, which I still think might actually be a good idea, as stated in this thread...)

... it comes from jockeying for position with minor civilizations. The cold war wasn't won by weapons, but by an interesting combination of diplomacy, espionage, and economics. With economics being a total bust for Civ, I think you could still make serious leaps and bounds for diplomacy and espionage.

The key comes back, though, to the fact that it's more profitable to conquer someone than to ally with them, or let them exist as a small independent nation.

Which is why these "tiny wars" are good ideas, even if they're artificial. They're easier to achieve than conquering, and less profitable. Small effort, small profit. Conquering is still the large effort, large profit.

 

[Winston]

I like the concept but don’t really agree with the implementation.

Civs shouldn’t be able to declare a cold war – instead the diplomacy, trade, and espionage systems should be massively improved so that they have far more influence on the game. If these systems are revamped so that trade embargoes, covert dirty tricks, and diplomatic blocs have more strategic importance; the game will throw up cold war style scenarios time and time again without anyone having to declare a state of cold war.
The will of a nation’s people should also play a greater strategic part in the game. The Soviet Union didn’t simply collapse because of the economic strains of the arms race and of pressure imposed by the Western bloc (not only the U.S.) – ultimately, it collapsed because the system had fundamental weaknesses and it failed to accommodate the wishes of its people.

The regime change idea could easily be implemented by having a Civ go into anarchy if it loses its capital city/ leader and that civ offers terms for a peace treaty. When a new government comes to power – its relations with the occupying civ improve from furious to cordial (assuming that the peace treaty was agreed – if not, war continues with the new government). This way it’s simple, straight forward, and easy to implement. Leaders could also be assassinated via espionage and if they are autocratic systems this would create an anarchy type state where the regime remains stable but suffers from an internal power struggle – the lack of leadership at the top would create several turns of reduced productivity and trade and an inability to sign diplomatic agreements. Democracy & Republic would be immune from this because they can elect a new leader relatively easily and because increased freedoms mean that citizens are less reliant on the State for direction.

I like the idea of introducing crusades to Civ. Medieval Total War did a good job with this – basically the mechanism worked by declaring a target area (i.e. a province occupied by either heretics, heathens, or pagans) as the target for the crusade. This target area had to be captured by an army of crusaders that could claim right of passage and recruit volunteers from rival factions that shared the same religion - the crusading army was also self supporting (very useful in a game where money problems were constant and serious). The down-sides were that the crusading army was unable to do anything else whatsoever until it had captured the target province and the army could also suffer desertion if you took too long in grabbing the land. This was a good system and it could easily be transferred over to Civ although I think that it should be restricted to specific regimes e.g. Monarchy, Feudalism, and (if it’s included) Fundamentalism. Rewards could include victory points, improved relations with nations that share your religion, and the creation of a military Great Leader when the objective is captured (if the objective city is sufficiently challenging – not a town that’s adjacent to your borders!)

I don’t think a Commonwealth is workable in Civ – the UK does not tell its former colonies and dominions what to do – rather it is a system of amicable relationships between the various elements of the former Empire. This wouldn’t work in Civ because there is no incentive to behave in this way – it is yet another disparity between the game and the real world. Friendly diplomacy seems to have no role in Civ.

I think liberation should definitely be included in Civ 4 (there should be ways to play the good guy) – rewards could include VPs, glory, improved international relations but further rewards could be the following:

1) The liberated Civ is your new best friend – your reputation with this Civ is reset to the best possible setting (i.e. gracious) and the Civ will trade techs, resources etc with you on the fairest possible terms (although the Civ will not simply give things away – the trades have to be FAIR not exploitative) – in addition the Civ will never declare war/ ally against you and it will happily sign mutual protection pacts/right of passage agreements/military alliances with you. Of course you can ruin this happy situation if your subsequent actions include bullying/attacking/signing trade embargoes against this Civ.

2) The unit that liberates a Civ’s former capital will automatically create a military Great Leader.

3) Totally liberating another Civ will enable new construction options e.g. the creation of a small wonder called Heroic Sacrifice which would represent the numerous war memorials and graves that pay tribute to the many brave soldiers that suffered and died to save the occupied country. This wonder would generate lots of culture and would improve the solidarity of your Civ (assuming that Firaxis adopt the loyalty & regionalism concepts that appear in numerous other threads).

4) The liberating Civ would benefit from an Age of Glory e.g. double culture per turn for 20 turns.

Sorry about this post being so long – ideas just kept springing to mind and before I knew it I had wrote an essay!