What can Civ learn from the Europa Universalis series?

[paradigmx]

This is pretty well a cut/paste of a thread I made on the 2K boards, but I think I might get some different responses here.

EU is a very dynamic game and the map near the end of the game usually looks nothing like the map at the beginning, I think the Civ series should take a few pages out of the EU series to make it just that much better.

- Royal marriages (so long as both states have a monarchy or similar system, I think royal marriages could really have an effect on diplomacy, I don't think bringing succession laws into play would work well for Civ though)

- Cultures (could require an interesting inter-state dynamic that requires you to control each city differently and could even effect civs separating from their parent civ)

- Exploration distance limits (I wouldn't pull the colonizing system directly out of EU, but It would be interesting if you where limited in the range you could explore and have technology increase that range over time.

- Core Cities (Would make for an interesting dynamic in terms of reasons for war or defense, if certain cities where considered to be core cities it would effect their production rates and diplomatic position towards a civ that controlled your core city)

- Casus Belli (I think it would force you to really think about the reasons for a war, if you took a stability or happiness hit for declaring war on a civ you had no casus belli on, something like a civ owning a city you had a core on, or having declared war on an ally would give you a casus belli, or it could be aquired diplomatically or "created" through spy networks.)

Anyway, those are some thoughts I had, feel free to add your own or discuss.

 

[seasnake]

I love all of these things in EU3, but I worry too much of this would make Civ not feel like a civ game. Still, some good ideas.

 

[Dale]

All I can say is, if you want to play EU, go play EU. Don't mess with my Civ.

1. Royal Marriages. Without lines of succession, what is really the point?
2. Culture. They tried this in Civ3 and it detracted from city management. All it did was provide just another negative to going to war and conquering an enemy city.
3. Exploration limits. It worked in EU as it represented the skills required to map an entire region. Civ don't have regions. Plus, how would you manage it? Strict tile limit distance? Turns outside of borders? I would personally hate something that limits me like that. One of the core foundations of Civ is to interact with other Civs. Can't do that if you can't explore to find them.
4. Core cities. No idea how you would even implement this? First 5 cities? Radius of 10 tiles for the start location? With the randomness of the map it would be impossible to be fair in either situation.
5. Casus Belli. NO.

 

[Charles Martel]

I agree with the OP. I would also add: attrition and manpower (see CivIVMonger's post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=362358&highlight=manpower)

Casus Belli. NO.

Why not?

 

[Osama Bin Davis]

Well going by my exploration thread, I think alot of people want it more difficult to explore until techs and promotions.

 

[Dale]

Why not?

Ask Ahriman.

But seriously, Casus Belli reduces strategic choice. It is reminiscent of the old Senate stopping you from declaring war. I shouldn't need a reason for declaring war.

 

[gunnergoz]

I would rather not see a new Civ game at all if Paradox had anything remotely to do with it. So the mention of EU in the same breath as Civ V makes my blood run cold. No thanks. I hope the Civ developers stay as far away as possible from anything remotely like those real-time abominations.

 

[Charles Martel]

Casus Belli reduces strategic choice. It is reminiscent of the old Senate stopping you from declaring war. I shouldn't need a reason for declaring war.

In EU, lack of casus belli doesn't prevent you from declaring war, but it does give you a severe penalty if you do so. I can see why warmongers don't like these kind of penalties. However, casus belli (other than being realistic) adds a whole new dimension to diplomacy. It may reduce your immediate choice of targets, but it enriches your long-term diplomatic goals.

In Europa Universalis:Rome, the senate may prevent you from doing various things (including declaring war on your own vassal states -- which, by the way, you can't do in Civ4 either, but at least EUR gives you a reason why). However, as consul, you can try various strategies to manipulate the senate into supporting your requests, and that's the fun of playing as a republic!

 

[paradigmx]

All I can say is, if you want to play EU, go play EU. Don't mess with my Civ.

1. Royal Marriages. Without lines of succession, what is really the point?

Diplomacy, it could work sort of like an alliance with no strings attached(ie no war requirement)

2. Culture. They tried this in Civ3 and it detracted from city management. All it did was provide just another negative to going to war and conquering an enemy city.

I think 3 did it wrong as well, but I don't think the idea should be dropped just because one way of handling didn't work out.

3. Exploration limits. It worked in EU as it represented the skills required to map an entire region. Civ don't have regions. Plus, how would you manage it? Strict tile limit distance? Turns outside of borders? I would personally hate something that limits me like that. One of the core foundations of Civ is to interact with other Civs. Can't do that if you can't explore to find them.

I see where you're coming from, but I really thing there should be something preventing me from discovering "the new world" before it's even AD

4. Core cities. No idea how you would even implement this? First 5 cities? Radius of 10 tiles for the start location? With the randomness of the map it would be impossible to be fair in either situation.

Simple, Capital starts as Core, every city after requires 30 turns(just a spitballed number, could be more or less) to become a Core city, if you have war declared on you and a core city is taken, the new owner needs 60 turns to turn it into their core city(30 to remove your core, 30 to create theirs, again spitballed number, may need adjusting). Core cities could provide production bonuses, requirements for building certain buildings increased supply lines, Casus Belli(see below) etc.

5. Casus Belli. NO.

No tells me the only reason you play Civ is for war and you don't want a hoop to jump through, so make it a setting you can disable when you start the game. Personally, the old saying that war is an extension of diplomacy by other means should be more prevalent in Civ. In history, the requirement of a Casus Belli was a huge factor in going to war, Hitler burned down the Reichstag, Terrorist attacks on the WTC, Pearl Harbor. Most nations don't go to war without some kind of reason, those that do have to control an unhappy population at home as well. If the US up and decided to attack Canada, do you think the American people would stand for it, even for a second, there would be rioting in the streets. Not saying you can't go to war without a Casus Belli, but having one would allow your people to get behind the war, instead of standing in front of it.

 

[Ben Music]

Ask Ahriman.

But seriously, Casus Belli reduces strategic choice. It is reminiscent of the old Senate stopping you from declaring war. I shouldn't need a reason for declaring war.

You could still go to war without a CB, however there would be consequences, like other civs not trusting you, stopping trade with you, closing borders to you, ect. Maybe also you people suffer increased war unhappiness, or border cities would revolt.

I think obtaining a CB would be pretty straight forward in Civ too. An example might be gaining a CB if an opposing civ refuses open borders with you, or refuses to trade with you.

I sort of like the idea.

 

[Ahriman]

Ask Ahriman.

Hey, do your own fighting! I agree with you here, but in general I'll sit this one out.

Attrition and manpower are wargame concepts. Civ is not a wargame. These elements don't appeal to most of the civ audience.

EU is great for what it does, but it has a model and structure designed around concepts that make sense in a particular period of history, a particular cultural context, and with a very very simplified military system.

Its also compeltely unsuitable for casual players.

 

[conception]

I think a cassus belli system could be great for Civ. The reason is that I play a lot of domination games, yet I always find it mildly ridiculous that the AI doesn't really recognize that I'm a conquerer and am going to be coming for them eventually. If I show up on another continent with my army and vassalize or eliminate 6 of 8 civs there, the other two guys should be able to take note of what I'm doing. In EU, you accumulate your "bad boy" points for declaring wars for no reason. This really helps the AI combat over-aggressiveness and pool their resources to stop you once you get too conquer-happy. A good AI design should be able to handle that, but as it is in Civ every AI is working independently and the only consequence of beating up all of a Civ's neighbors are the -1 "you declared war on our friend", which only matters if those civs you took were indeed friends of theirs.

Simply, there is nothing in the Ai design to make it try and collectively combat you if you moving from one civ to the next. It would be entirely awesome if after a certain point the AI's civs would enter into joint declarations of war, despite their differences. This would mirror RL events like the Napoleonic Wars.

The only problem with a cassus belli system is that it wouldn't make sense for the ancient or even medieval era, as in general most everyone was fighting with other ethnic groups on their common borders without genuine reason. And when conquering took place, that was just the way of the world. But as it is now, diplomacy is stuck with ancient-era interactions and depth.

 

[Che Guava]

The only problem with a cassus belli system is that it wouldn't make sense for the ancient or even medieval era, as in general most everyone was fighting with other ethnic groups on their common borders without genuine reason. And when conquering took place, that was just the way of the world. But as it is now, diplomacy is stuck with ancient-era interactions and depth.

While I suppose this is generally true, I think it is more a product of more complex diplomatic relations and interdependencies that occur later on in in the game/history. For the most part, in the ancient world, you have an autocratic system of government with smaller cities and less complex trade relations, meaning that you probably don't care as much what other civs think of you, and are free to pursue your own agenda. By the modern era, with larger cities and more vital resources, you are likely to be more dependant on foreign partners to keep your economy and production up, and thus have more reason to keep up good relations.

 

[Disgustipated]

I don't like real time games, and have never even touched EU. But I'll keep an open mind.

I like the Casus Belli argument. I think most people who don't like that are high level players that abuse the system to win. I don't blame them, of course. The game is different things to different people. In some cases you do have to abuse the system. You do have to attack your friendly neighbor and take his land because you need resources or just raw land to compete with the ai. So I'd like a system where you can justify a war for resources, but not just you want to control the whole world. But you still have to make war possible. Otherwise how would you get a conquest or domination victory?

As mentioned, us attacking Canada would not happen under almost any circumstances. We would pay a heavy penalty at home and abroad. I feel if we do have this penalty, it should not matter under a despotic government, but become more severe in modern times and/or running senate/democracy etc.

Remember folks, civ is not a war game. It's a game about, yup, you guessed it: Civilization. So by that argument, you should pay penalties for attacking your friends for no reason other than being mean, or wanting more land.

As for the other ideas, I don't have much to say. I don't like core cities, unless the game lets me decide which cities I deem important. marriages I'm so-so on. Don't care one way or another. Same with the other ideas.

 

[Panzeh]

EU3 is a really good game for handling an insane number of different soverign nations and handling intricate diplomatic relations between them, but Civ is far less granular and 'historical' than that. The gameplay effect of cores on EU3 is that countries with cores outside their nation have 'free reign' to expand and take their cores(e.g. France on its vassals in 1399). Since in Civ, you don't have preset cores, this element would be lost. It then makes yet another disadvantage for the aggressor, favoring quick rushes before cities can become core.

 

[Dale]

No tells me the only reason you play Civ is for war and you don't want a hoop to jump through

Actually, I'm a builder style player.

 

[Che Guava]

As mentioned, us attacking Canada would not happen under almost any circumstances. We would pay a heavy penalty at home and abroad. I feel if we do have this penalty, it should not matter under a despotic government, but become more severe in modern times and/or running senate/democracy etc.

Ever see 'Canadian Bacon'?

As I mentioned in other threads, I'm not a fan of penalties at home for going to war with an ally, besides the usual war weariness factor. Other than that, the only penatly for being a warmonger would be loss of reputation with other leaders.

 

[conception]

Actually, I'm a builder style player.

Me too. I like building massive armies.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Personally I think that Cassus Belli should be about granting *positives* rather than applying negatives. i.e. if you declare war for a number of limited reasons-liberating cities, forcing government change, protecting co-religionists-you might gain a bonus to domestic happiness & your diplomatic relations amongst nations you're generally friendly with. In this way, you're not *limiting* peoples options, but instead trying to guide them down the route of real-world diplomatic actions.

Royal Marriages are best left for an event system (which I *pray* will be an option from the get-go).

I would like some limitations on early game exploration-as I've mentioned elsewhere.

Not entirely sure what you mean by cultures, but I was hoping that there would be the ability for culture to "seep" into neighbouring countries-primarily along trade routes-not simply into border cities.

Aussie.

 

[toft]

Answer: Nothing.