Flavor Dave
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2001
- Messages
- 146
I hope this is the right place for this.
I want to talk a little about diplomacy and a trilateral Civ. Right now, there's you, and there's the computer civs. They're trying to win, and you're trying to win. But there aren't any independent entities. It's a world of (to make an analogy to Europe in 1914, thinking of the game Diplomacy) Germanys and Englands and Italys, and no Belgiums or Norways.
And I think that's a big problem as far as people's complaints about culture and flipping and diplomacy.
1. My opinion is that alot of the complaints about Civ 3 come from people raising the "reality" argument, without stopping to consider that the number of Civs is tiny compared to the number of nations in the world. This change would make the Civ world better resemble the Real World, and IMO in a simple way.
2. Further, part of the problem is that the number of "nations" has been growing dramatically IRL, with the rise of nationalism.
3. And, this trend reversed an earlier trend of consolidation.
Again, an "independent" status would make Civ and the Real World more closely resemble each other.
4. Culture flipping...man, do I think a new status of "independence" could be huge in making this better. The combination of its randomness AND it's "feast or famine" nature has got to be infuriating for its victims. Adding an "independent" status would allow the following, more realistic, better pathway. A) City conquered B) Garrison is too small and/or cultural improvements aren't built quickly enough C) city goes independent; 75% of units are ejected. D) You can "win back" the city, if you're willing to work for it (buildup culture in neighboring city, OR promise to rush build a temple, etc.) Or reconquer, but that's going to be a pain, with 2 of your 8 units in the city. Otherwise, it's lost. That's for conquered cities.
Obviously, it would make it work better for "founded" cities that flip as well. "Texas" is founded as Mexico's 3rd city, but flips to independence, and then to America. Canada moves from England to independence to America (NAFTA, for example.)
5. I've been playing the original version until last weekend, so I realize corruption is less of a problem. Still, independence would make this even better. Come 1950, England's 10th city, Nairobi, has gotten enough culture to desire independence. England can forestall this with enough troops. Alternatively, England can grant independence, in exchange for X percent (would it be smarter if X was a set number, or depended on how happy Nairobi's citizens are with your rule of the colony?) of Nairobi's science and tax, PLUS an MPP. Suddenly, Nairobi is its own capital, with zero corruption. The human no longer controls Nairobi production, but can "see" the city anytime, for free.
The upshot would be that you "lose" in that you only get a percentage of the science and tax, but you "win" because corruption becomes zero, *AND* you have an outpost in Africa without having to pay the upkeep of the soldiers. AND, if this city is attacked, it's much more of an atrocity than if it's wholly yours.
This would better model the Real World, without taking away the importance of expansion and culture, etc.
6. More diplomatic options. Early in the game, Caesar comes across the independent Gauls. In those pre-nationalism days, there's no diplomatic penalty to conquering the Gauls and adding it to the empire. If Caesar has the soldiers, he'll conquer Gaul. If not, he can "ally" with Gaul. X percent of science and tax goes to Rome. This assumes that Rome's culture is strong enough to "awe" Gaul. Maybe it isn't and Gaul retains its independence.
If Gaul can't retain that independence, I'll bet Germania can!! Also, if Gaul stays independent, it might flip to Rome if Rome and its other city Hispania build up enough culture. But Rome needs to work on building up that culture, since Gaul is meanwhile building *its* culture, making it progressively more resistant to assimilation/flipping.
Late in the game, the Russians decide that Afghanistan is a little unstable, and make the same decision Caesar made toward Gaul...conquer the independent city-state. But it's a little more difficult to pull off post-nationalism.
If for some reason Russia wanted to invade Britain's ally Nairobi, that would be seen as an atrocity...likely not worth the diplomatic hit, given that the "Nairobians" would be very unruly, much of the world would put a trade embargo on Russia, England and its ally the US might go to war, etc.
Think of it this way...Iraq invading Kuwait isn't the same thing as if Iraq had invaded the British colony of Kuwait.
7. Sometimes an independent city state is going to be lucky and have iron (early game) or oil (late game). Oh, the intrigue!!
Thoughts? Additions?
I want to talk a little about diplomacy and a trilateral Civ. Right now, there's you, and there's the computer civs. They're trying to win, and you're trying to win. But there aren't any independent entities. It's a world of (to make an analogy to Europe in 1914, thinking of the game Diplomacy) Germanys and Englands and Italys, and no Belgiums or Norways.
And I think that's a big problem as far as people's complaints about culture and flipping and diplomacy.
1. My opinion is that alot of the complaints about Civ 3 come from people raising the "reality" argument, without stopping to consider that the number of Civs is tiny compared to the number of nations in the world. This change would make the Civ world better resemble the Real World, and IMO in a simple way.
2. Further, part of the problem is that the number of "nations" has been growing dramatically IRL, with the rise of nationalism.
3. And, this trend reversed an earlier trend of consolidation.
Again, an "independent" status would make Civ and the Real World more closely resemble each other.
4. Culture flipping...man, do I think a new status of "independence" could be huge in making this better. The combination of its randomness AND it's "feast or famine" nature has got to be infuriating for its victims. Adding an "independent" status would allow the following, more realistic, better pathway. A) City conquered B) Garrison is too small and/or cultural improvements aren't built quickly enough C) city goes independent; 75% of units are ejected. D) You can "win back" the city, if you're willing to work for it (buildup culture in neighboring city, OR promise to rush build a temple, etc.) Or reconquer, but that's going to be a pain, with 2 of your 8 units in the city. Otherwise, it's lost. That's for conquered cities.
Obviously, it would make it work better for "founded" cities that flip as well. "Texas" is founded as Mexico's 3rd city, but flips to independence, and then to America. Canada moves from England to independence to America (NAFTA, for example.)
5. I've been playing the original version until last weekend, so I realize corruption is less of a problem. Still, independence would make this even better. Come 1950, England's 10th city, Nairobi, has gotten enough culture to desire independence. England can forestall this with enough troops. Alternatively, England can grant independence, in exchange for X percent (would it be smarter if X was a set number, or depended on how happy Nairobi's citizens are with your rule of the colony?) of Nairobi's science and tax, PLUS an MPP. Suddenly, Nairobi is its own capital, with zero corruption. The human no longer controls Nairobi production, but can "see" the city anytime, for free.
The upshot would be that you "lose" in that you only get a percentage of the science and tax, but you "win" because corruption becomes zero, *AND* you have an outpost in Africa without having to pay the upkeep of the soldiers. AND, if this city is attacked, it's much more of an atrocity than if it's wholly yours.
This would better model the Real World, without taking away the importance of expansion and culture, etc.
6. More diplomatic options. Early in the game, Caesar comes across the independent Gauls. In those pre-nationalism days, there's no diplomatic penalty to conquering the Gauls and adding it to the empire. If Caesar has the soldiers, he'll conquer Gaul. If not, he can "ally" with Gaul. X percent of science and tax goes to Rome. This assumes that Rome's culture is strong enough to "awe" Gaul. Maybe it isn't and Gaul retains its independence.
If Gaul can't retain that independence, I'll bet Germania can!! Also, if Gaul stays independent, it might flip to Rome if Rome and its other city Hispania build up enough culture. But Rome needs to work on building up that culture, since Gaul is meanwhile building *its* culture, making it progressively more resistant to assimilation/flipping.
Late in the game, the Russians decide that Afghanistan is a little unstable, and make the same decision Caesar made toward Gaul...conquer the independent city-state. But it's a little more difficult to pull off post-nationalism.
If for some reason Russia wanted to invade Britain's ally Nairobi, that would be seen as an atrocity...likely not worth the diplomatic hit, given that the "Nairobians" would be very unruly, much of the world would put a trade embargo on Russia, England and its ally the US might go to war, etc.
Think of it this way...Iraq invading Kuwait isn't the same thing as if Iraq had invaded the British colony of Kuwait.
7. Sometimes an independent city state is going to be lucky and have iron (early game) or oil (late game). Oh, the intrigue!!
Thoughts? Additions?
I really miss that from civ3.
