The Modern Era . . .

[winddbourne]

Five hundred years ago Islam looked like it would dominate the globe, two hundred years ago it's england, sixty years ago Hitler almost took out europe, and ten years ago the US became the lone super-power, today China may overtake us.

In civ IV this isn't the case. By the modern era the game is mostly decided. The "Islam" that got the lead on europe and asia at the heigh of the ottoman empire would have likely continued to dominate for the rest of the game.

Reading many other posts I've come to the conclusion that the developers treated the modern era with kiddie gloves. While we explore the concepts of slavery, caste systems, theocracies, and other controversial topics of the ancient era we never even touch the eugenics movement, modern espionage, or terrorism . . . and internal genocide doesn't even exist, let alone play a part as one of the most vital causes for many UN sanctions and "peace keeping" actions of the modern era.

I think most players will agree with me when I say that we need an expansion to make the modern era less certain and more dynamic. Something to emphasize the increasing significance of terrorism, espionage, and vassal states in the modern world, and to shake up the gameplay a LOT.

So lets hear everyones suggestions, if we get enough posts maybe firaxis will start work on CIV IV: The modern world, after they finish with warlords.

 

[BlackMage]

IMO, it even extends to the Industrial Age. The game is mostly decided by the Rennaissance, if it hasn't been won already.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

I would say it's because Civ is more of an 'arcade' civ-simulator, rather than an authentic one.

Don't get me wrong, Civilization is among my favourite (if not the favourite) series. But what you say is true, all Civs that are around at the start of the game will probably be there at the end, assuming they haven't been destroyed by other civs - note that, destroyed by other civs, not of internal struggles or rebellion. There is the rise of great empires, but never a fall. There's never an urge to keep a balance of powers. Civs simply grow, and as you say the game is pretty much decided by the Renaissance-Industrial era.

If you want something more along the historical route, I'd suggest a peek at games like Europa Universalis. You'll see nations become great then collapse completely, and a more historical simulator.

 

[JavierLQ]

I think the problem is how Civ itself is handled. You can't have everything that is/was important to the world for a couple of reasons (in my opinion).

First, Civ IV is a STRATEGY game...not a simulation. This is one of the distinct differences in my opinion. The fact that it is a game period means that there is an end, and as such, there is a victor and a looser.

That is not something we can say of real life. While yes, there are wars that include victors and loosers (or as some would say...everyone looses), there is no "end" to life (unless you want to destroy the world...). There is no "I will have won life in 20 more years!!", and as such, life goes on forever (or we hope).

In my eyes, the suggestions that you offer would seem good, however, as you said, nothing like that ever happens (or seldom does in a Civ IV game), and one of the reasons of that in my opinion would be that each age is simply not long enough. If an age (such as medievil etc) would last as long as an epic game lasted, there would be a lot more time for changes to occur. A new religion spreading over the world and becoming a dominant, or such things like that. However, I believe the reason why they do not last longer is because the problem of the game being decided or over before even modern era would get worse. There would need to be A LOT more content in EACH era so that the player would not get bored and decide to kill off each of the other civs. Players would have to FORCE themselves to get to modern era.

This is the reason why I prefer marathon mode over normal or even Epic. It makes the world last longer, which in turn makes each unit have a great impact. However, it does not extend it so much that it becomes boring being in one era. Not only that, but the choices in techs become more important.

I understand the problem of the game being decided early, but as you said it does not always happen. For example, playing a Terra map on prince difficulty, I have recently started to make airplanes and what not. With plenty of wars in the past (and many started by the other civs), the game is far from being decided, as I am not in the lead (granted, I am 2nd place with aztecs, my best friend, being number 1). While I understand that because I am not the best player, and I am far from playing at hardest difficulty, it may have an effect on why it is still not decided (me being a not so good player), and this may change once you actually can beat the hardest difficulty with ease.

To summize, I believe the main reason why the things that you mention are not implemented is because, simply, this is a strategy game...not a simulation.

 

[Ecclesiastes]

Modern era is actually my favorite era, with all the planes and tanks and such, there are a few thing I would like to add like say something more to do WHILE im building troops and stuff but for the most part I like it the way it is.

 

[Pantastic]

If you want something more along the historical route, I'd suggest a peek at games like Europa Universalis. You'll see nations become great then collapse completely, and a more historical simulator.

Not really, I've played EU and EU2 and the only time you see a nation become great then collapse completely is if there's a scripted event for the collapse. Barring specific 'collapse' static events, it works like Civ where you simply get bigger and more powerful constantly. War weariness can destroy you, and expanding beyong a certain badboy value can make it so that everyone wants to declare war on you, but it's not a very elegant mechanic. Most 'internal' events are driven entirely by static scripts too.

It's a fun game (I put in a lot of hours on EU and EU2), but the mechanics of the game are not good at simulating things like internal rebellion or balance of power politics (beyond the very simple badboy system). Diplomacy is disappointing despite the plethora of options; since the AI treats the human player very differently than other AIs, you always have to drive any diplomatic actions and will never have an AI try to bribe you to stay out of a war, for example.

 

[winddbourne]

Since this is a game it wouldn't make sense for a "team" to totally vanish from the game without being crushed by the opponents, unlike in real life where there are no opponents, just people.

What I'm actually getting at is more to the effect of giving nations in the modern era more of a chance to leap ahead, go a different direction, and thus surprise us. As it is, it seems like the player who gets the best economy and tech lead early has a very good chance of reaching his or her prefered victory type, and the AI in last place has an equally good chance of not surviving that long.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

Not really, I've played EU and EU2 and the only time you see a nation become great then collapse completely is if there's a scripted event for the collapse. Barring specific 'collapse' static events, it works like Civ where you simply get bigger and more powerful constantly. War weariness can destroy you, and expanding beyong a certain badboy value can make it so that everyone wants to declare war on you, but it's not a very elegant mechanic. Most 'internal' events are driven entirely by static scripts too.

It's a fun game (I put in a lot of hours on EU and EU2), but the mechanics of the game are not good at simulating things like internal rebellion or balance of power politics (beyond the very simple badboy system). Diplomacy is disappointing despite the plethora of options; since the AI treats the human player very differently than other AIs, you always have to drive any diplomatic actions and will never have an AI try to bribe you to stay out of a war, for example.

How odd. I'm not denying what you say, but in most of my games I see lots of nations fall through internal and external reasons, even without scriped events or wars. I'm talking about AI nations, btw, most human players are able to keep expanding and expanding and counter any threat.

I agree with the badboy system being a bit too simple, but at least it's a stab at reflecting the balance of power scenario of history. And I completely agree with diplomacy being weak.

 

[El Koeno]

I think the "problem" is that the designers chose to keep the game fun. And it's not really much fun to see hours of work collapse due to some silly reason.

I must say that I personally would love to see over-expanding empires totally collapse, like all empires in history have collapsed.

 

[Pantastic]

Oh, if you're talking about AI nations then it's rare to even see them build up properly; Russia often won't conquer what it needs to get to the corridor, France won't unify the country for a long time, and so on. When they fall, it's more because the AI is weak than because of game dynamics; even with all of its 'cheats' the AI can't really manage revolts well and often accumulates excessive badboy for no good reason. It's not a bad game, I just wouldn't recommend it as a game that shows 'rise and fall' well.

 

[GIO888]

JavierLQ is right, this is about strategy not simulation!

Maybe someone could mod an "internal implosion", if your Empire grows too big there's a % chance peripheral cities could revolt and become a third party, or do the same if they share a non-state religion - something to mess with you but not ruin 3-4 hours gameplay! Ai would have this too, so you could exploit it when it happened to them, etc.

 

[winddbourne]

Revolts and revolutions, on a SMALL scale are ok, assuming that you make sure that the new Civ is in a position to expand in it's own direction. It would be rather annoying if suddenly there was a new "civilization" of two or three cities in the MIDDLE of my empire.

 

[vilemerchant]

JavierLQ is right, this is about strategy not simulation!

Maybe someone could mod an "internal implosion", if your Empire grows too big there's a % chance peripheral cities could revolt and become a third party, or do the same if they share a non-state religion - something to mess with you but not ruin 3-4 hours gameplay! Ai would have this too, so you could exploit it when it happened to them, etc.

This is exactly what is needed, along with an option to 'grant independence' to certain parts of your empire. The problem with civ is it sorta goes backwards compared to real history. By the end of the game a lot of the earlier civs have been conquered and the world consolidates into huge empires, whereas in reality the colonial outposts of large empires eventually break down into smaller countries. ie/ the British Empire, fall of the Soviet Union etc.

 

[JavierLQ]

This is exactly what is needed, along with an option to 'grant independence' to certain parts of your empire. The problem with civ is it sorta goes backwards compared to real history. By the end of the game a lot of the earlier civs have been conquered and the world consolidates into huge empires, whereas in reality the colonial outposts of large empires eventually break down into smaller countries. ie/ the British Empire, fall of the Soviet Union etc.

I think that the problem with that is, I don't think it would be very fair for me to build my empire...building up points...then loose those points (and perhaps the game) because some of my cities decided to revolt..and whether I give them independence or decide to fight htem off and reconquer them...I am still forced to loose points (whether by giving them the indepencence and loosing those cities, or by fighting and loosing production for the time on those cities, and production that could have been put to a better use on my other cities).

I still believe that this would not be very effective because:

Life =/= points =/= winner

Game NEEDS a winner which NEEDS points.

I don't see this being implemented in the Civ series..but perhaps down the line there will be a deep deep world simulator where things like this happen.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I wouldn't mind an expansion of the modern era (I have some cool ideas, but, like my spy ideas, lack enough knowledge of the game to be confident that it'll work. Ask me and I'll tell you).

The current modern age can still be fun, but its certain the nothing short of a massive overhaul could address the core problems. The biggest problem is that the game is decided by then. But the methods to counter it would piss off the people on the other side of the issue. Think of medieval total war. When you get close to victory, your territory starts to rebel to slow you down. You also need to allow small, primitive AI to counter large enemies if played right. But, if you do these things, people will think that the AI cheats. Those who have overwhelming leads will often feel that they should be able to explot it. If you do it right, it won't feel arbitrary, but it will still annoy plenty. And might be difficult to find the balance that annoys the least, as opposed to annoys the most (some thinking it went too far, others thinking it didn't go far enough).

 

[Pantastic]

Yeah, the fundamental problem is that this is a 4x game; having your empire fall apart isn't really the point. History of the World, a board game, did a good job with a rise and fall mechanic. In each era, you get a card for a particular country and go out to conquer lands, make fortresses and great works, etc. When you're done, that empire goes static and doesn't do anything else. You get a bunch of points when you finish, but also get points over time even though you have a new empire each time and might even fight over part of your old one.

Definately nothing like a 4x though.

 

[Amelas]

I like the idea of part of the possibility that part of your territory could rebel and become independent. I remember in Civ 1 even, if the capital city of a large empire fell the empire could be split in 2, and I think the new civ that appeared was one of the civs that got killed off in the past? Not the most realistic thing but at least it had the idea..

In Civ 4 I think it would be a neat if cities that you create on a separate continent than your capital city and/or are not sharing the same cultural border zone as your capital and core cities, have a greater risk of engaging in such a rebellion if you're not careful about their happiness, etc. Unhappiness might have a much greater affect on such cities than on the core cities.

I think such a feature would be pretty good at simulating break up risks that an empire may face if it gets too large. Cities that rebel could become independent and you could regain them through force if you chose too. Of course, building such wonders as Versailles or Forbidden Palace in these new territories could also help in greatly lowering the risks of such things occuring.

I think it would fit well if it were implemented and it wouldn't ruin game play or hours of work since there are ways that it could very well be avoided or corrected if it occured.