Why I am still here (10 years+) New ideas to share?

[Patine]

Now you're talking. I have a similar idea: having a two-scale map instead of a single-scale one. At the primary scale (small-scale) tiles represent provinces, while at the secondary scale (large-scale) tiles are smaller divisions of a province. So at the secondary scale, the city center takes up one tile. (Some buildings), districts and wonders take up a tile each. Other buildings can slot into the city centre and other districts. You can have multiple cities/towns/hamlets in the same province, you can only directly control cities, and towns and hamlets function on their own. You can convert towns and hamlets into cities, but doing so will cost you administrative resources.

Battles will be initiated at the primary scale level, when two enemy armies are on the same province. Battles are fought on the secondary scale. Time moves more slowly at the secondary scale, that is to say, a battle at the secondary scale will have multiple turns equivalent to a single turn at the primary scale (a la Humankind's mini-turn battles).

Units will traverse the map at the primary scale. So will take less turns to move from one end of the continent to the other. This will better reflect the time scale of the game, meaning that units don't take half a century to move from Gibraltar to Andorra, to give a True Earth map example.

If we want to go even crazier, there could be a tertiary level for cities. So it goes like this: world map -> province map -> city map. Each province can have multiple cities, and each city will have its own mini-map, perfect for players who love city-building at a more micro scale.

I think this makes the map too static and pre-determined for the needs of a Civ game.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I think this makes the map too static and pre-determined for the needs of a Civ game.

How so?

 

[Core Imposter]

Why am I back here after a nearly 10-year hiatus? Paroled early? Going undercover to ID all the left-wing extremists native to the site? Broke? It's a mystery.

 

[luca 83]

How to simulate a realistic revolution not made by the players but faced by the player and potentially can be lost? Where can there be linked separatist movements?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

How to simulate a realistic revolution not made by the players but faced by the player and potentially can be lost? Where can there be linked separatist movements?

I usually do that by playing Europa Universalis IV

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

I usually do that by playing Europa Universalis IV

euiv is limited to one world in one period of time. what he wants is a massive in-depth 'human history simulator' that explores all possible situations arising from different geography. what if there was a Afroeurasia supercontinent centered on the equator and all other land was no bigger than France? taking into account how tropical agriculture and animals are different from temperate agriculture, how disease spreads, how technology would be different, etc.

 

[Patine]

euiv is limited to one world in one period of time. what he wants is a massive in-depth 'human history simulator' that explores all possible situations arising from different geography. what if there was a Afroeurasia supercontinent centered on the equator and all other land was no bigger than France? taking into account how tropical agriculture and animals are different from temperate agriculture, how disease spreads, how technology would be different, etc.

That kind of game would truly be something - something ambitous and difficult, something that COULD be awe-inspiring and novel. But it would not be Civ.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

That kind of game would truly be something - something ambitous and difficult, something that COULD be awe-inspiring and novel. But it would not be Civ.

of course. a spinoff at most. another closely related game series.

 

[Patine]

of course. a spinoff at most. another closely related game series.

One not, at all, likely to come out of Firaxis.

 

[luca 83]

One must keep in mind the revolutions not organized by the player, the Sicilian vespers and its aftermath by the Angi or Aragonese, or the French revolution its aftermath how to simulate this? Ai can do a lot but specifically the dynamics? Of governments, revolutions and counter-revolutions?

 

[BuchiTaton]

Wonder why ask one after other specific historical events that pretty much could work under some of the systems already suggested.
In the case of my suggestion of a Denizen based core system cover this kind of events:
- A vassal state can be asked to pay tribute, the most you exploit it without appease the local denizens that by the way would have a heritage (ethno-culture) different from yours could likely provoke a revolt.
- Not to forget that others civs could also use their emissaries/spies to agitate the uprising. If the revolt is successful this could pull into the conflict the suporter civ and when winning they pass to the new suzerain (maybe blocking the use of tribute for some turn to simulate a positive deal for the minor partner).

About counter revolutions since the denizens have also different class (social caste) some form of government would benefit some classes but harm others so ther you will have some reactionaries to do a counter revolution. Also one more foreign CIV could intervene in support of the faction with the same kind of ideologies. Those ideologies also have a spread value from thing like trade routes, immigration, foreign cultural products, etc.

Like was said the point of have Denizens with heritage, belief and class (plus their mobility) help to simulate almost all the reasons for social changes since these would have needs and interests to manage and balance.

Also once again, historical FAILS should be used by the players against others, a decent player should play to avoid them NOT be supposed to suffer them, the whole point of CIV is to be "better" that even the most powerfull historical empires.

 

[luca 83]

Also once again, historical FAILS should be used by the players against others, a decent player should play to avoid them NOT be supposed to suffer them, the whole point of CIV is to be "better" that even the most powerfull historical empires If you had read GibbonThe Fall of the Roman Empire or read. A Chinese history book The fall and transformation of empires and inevitable, then more turbulent periods. They make the game more realistic and interesting

 

[luca 83]

1848 in 1848 in France the monarchy falls into the kingdom of the two Sicilies. The constitution was proclaimed, also in Spain, and in Austria the revolution breaks out and the first war of independence in Italy from the Savoy, this should be simulated in the modern period, the constitution , liberal movements, independence, revolution, and possibly a change of government, (so the leaders do not make sense) ideologies count, this Moderna uin a historical context but simulation of the game

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

1848 in 1848 in France the monarchy falls into the kingdom of the two Sicilies. The constitution was proclaimed, also in Spain, and in Austria the revolution breaks out and the first war of independence in Italy from the Savoy, this should be simulated in the modern period, the constitution , liberal movements, independence, revolution, and possibly a change of government, (so the leaders do not make sense) ideologies count, this Moderna uin a historical context but simulation of the game

The Liberal Revolutions of 1848 and 1830 in Europe (and the Decembrist Movement/Revolt in Russia, which was related) are all part of the circumstances started by the French Revolution and the ideas of the Enlightenment of the previous century.

Therefore, to recreate the conditions for them requires that long-term trends be modeled, not just Immediate Triggers. In addition, the consequences of even failed revolutions can be quite long-lasting even in game terms. As a result of the crushing of the 1848 revolution in Germany, there was a surge of German Emigration to the United States (which, among other things, resulted in the great Brewing Industries among the German populations in Saint Louis and Milwaukee) and a conservative 'backlash' in Austro-Hungarian politics that lasted for most of the rest of the century.

I suggest that to 'get revolutions right' the game would need to model both long many-turn actions incrementally building up to a need/desire for political/social/religious/cultural change, and then Immediate Triggers like Louis XVI's attempt to dissolve the French Estates General (National Assembly) which signaled the start of armed revolt (the French Revolution) against the monarchy when just three months before the entire Estates had not even considered any reform of the absolute monarchial government in their petitions.

And I propose that the cultural/social/political result of any revolution/civil war should have a large component of Chance. Even the most radical of the 'revolutionaries' of 1789 never thought they were fighting for a French Empire led by an obscure Corsican French Army artillery officer, or (most of them) for a 'republican' government of any sort. The basically chaotic nature of revolutions, among other things, results in prime grounds for the actions of Great People (in this specific instance, people like Napoleon, Robbespierre, Davout, Tallyrand, etc) which can 'skew' the revolution in unpredictable directions.

 

[Patine]

The Liberal Revolutions of 1848 and 1830 in Europe (and the Decembrist Movement/Revolt in Russia, which was related) are all part of the circumstances started by the French Revolution and the ideas of the Enlightenment of the previous century.

Therefore, to recreate the conditions for them requires that long-term trends be modeled, not just Immediate Triggers. In addition, the consequences of even failed revolutions can be quite long-lasting even in game terms. As a result of the crushing of the 1848 revolution in Germany, there was a surge of German Emigration to the United States (which, among other things, resulted in the great Brewing Industries among the German populations in Saint Louis and Milwaukee) and a conservative 'backlash' in Austro-Hungarian politics that lasted for most of the rest of the century.

I suggest that to 'get revolutions right' the game would need to model both long many-turn actions incrementally building up to a need/desire for political/social/religious/cultural change, and then Immediate Triggers like Louis XVI's attempt to dissolve the French Estates General (National Assembly) which signaled the start of armed revolt (the French Revolution) against the monarchy when just three months before the entire Estates had not even considered any reform of the absolute monarchial government in their petitions.

And I propose that the cultural/social/political result of any revolution/civil war should have a large component of Chance. Even the most radical of the 'revolutionaries' of 1789 never thought they were fighting for a French Empire led by an obscure Corsican French Army artillery officer, or (most of them) for a 'republican' government of any sort. The basically chaotic nature of revolutions, among other things, results in prime grounds for the actions of Great People (in this specific instance, people like Napoleon, Robbespierre, Davout, Tallyrand, etc) which can 'skew' the revolution in unpredictable directions.

And, if in your particular game of Civ, as an example, all major players are already under Democracy and/or Communist Governments by the 1848 turn, the whole thing being a trigger seems pretty cartoonish, wouldn't you agree?

 

[luca 83]

And, if in your particular game of Civ, as an example, all major players are already under Democracy and/or Communist Governments by the 1848 turn, the whole thing being a trigger seems pretty cartoonish, wouldn't you agree?

I find it unlikely that in 1848 the radical and nationalist forces the Bonapartists the Republicans the Orleanists , the Bourbons would win so easily too many centrifugal forces

 

[Patine]

I find it unlikely that in 1848 the radical and nationalist forces the Bonapartists the Republicans the Orleanists , the Bourbons would win so easily too many centrifugal forces

I was referring to a much more plausible occurance in the course of a Civ game - and trying to make a point - the same point, I, and several others here, have tried to hammer forth with you, and to no avail...

 

[luca 83]

I was referring to a much more plausible occurance in the course of a Civ game - and trying to make a point - the same point, I, and several others here, have tried to hammer forth with you, and to no avail...

It is much more plausible that conservative or reactionary forces won in 1848, Napoleon III won than progressive forces

 

[luca 83]

Practical examples example if a state a invades a state b if there is a state between the two how should ai behave ? Do not pass both but only one between the two. it either declares neutrality like Switzerland or is invaded like Belgium in 1940 economically depends on how rich and protected it is diplomatically

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And, if in your particular game of Civ, as an example, all major players are already under Democracy and/or Communist Governments by the 1848 turn, the whole thing being a trigger seems pretty cartoonish, wouldn't you agree?

Democracy and Communism, as a glance at current events for the past 75 years or so shows, both have their own internal sources for potential conflict, revolution, civil war, and other unpleasantness. In a properly designed game of Civ, a government with the financial problems the French Ancien Regime monarchy had in 1789 would be ripe for revolution/civil war. (as would almost any other form of government facing that particular financial crisis, which had been building since at least 1714!)
What the result of that conflict would be should be far, far less predictable. What kind of effect it would have on subsequent developments in that and other countries and governments would likewise be, ideally, much less predictable, being a composite of long term effects related and unrelated to the specific crisis in one specific country, no matter how influential that country was.

If I were to replay the same situation of 1789 multiple times with the same Civs, Leaders, and starting situation I would hope that, due to variations in Great People and sheer Random Factor of millions of people involved, that I would get somewhat different outcomes each time. Any game design that does not account for such 'random factors' in the works isn't worth playing as a game, only as a Simulation Scenario to study some historical event, and would be utterly lacking in the Wonder Factor inherent in a good game where, ideally, one gets different situations develop in each game.

Clausewitz, specifically in a military setting, referred to 'Friction' - the myriad factors that oppose, confuse, distract, or completely gum up the workings of any system, government, culture, or organization. With that replicated in some way, the game is open to variations and is endlessly fascinating. Without it, any game is both Fantasy and also resoundingly Dull: you does A, B follows, C results, every time. Replay Value = Zero.