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

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is much more plausible that conservative or reactionary forces won in 1848, Napoleon III won than progressive forces

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
Again, the mistake, that is the point in question. You are still expecting, and believing it likely, that a game of Civ should, and logically would, mirror a historical timeline that closely. I have no idea, at al, how you rig that to happen in YOUR games, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't happen in other players' games, and certainly not in mind, nor is such rigid scripting at all desired.
 
The emergence and spread of Ideologies could be abstracted easily under a population (Denizen) based core system. One example:
1- The Steam Engine technology is researched, this allows you to build the Industrial Zone district with all kind of Factories. These factories produce both synthetic versions of regular resources (Dye, Nitrate, Rubber,..) plus new unique luxuries like Cars, Electronics, Plastics, etc.
2- These produce a boom of industrialization that provide a lot of avaible slots for Laborers. When these Laborers working in Industrial Zones represent at least 35%*(happines and others ideologies could affect this) of your Laborers it trigger an event about "Laboral Rights" with a setting about a strike in an Industrial Zone. This have some decision options:
A- Suppress the strike by the use of police forces.​
B- Support unionist movement.​
C- Intermediate in the negotiations.​
Say you pick A, gaining favor with the Merchants and Warrior classes, but also the discontent of the Laborers.
3-This could produce that if others negative factors push Laborer's anger to the limit to start an uprising this would turn to be a "Revolution" that creates the ideology Communism. Whatever the rebelion is it succesful or not, the Communism ideology would start to spread.
4- There are multiple factors that influence in the rate of propagation of Ideologies, for example some social classes have affinity (in this example Laborers have a high positive bonus), population happines, open trade routes, immigration, tourism, cultural products, diplomatic relations, same religion, great people, other ideologies already embraced, etc.

Of course this is a simple example, the factors that trigger these events could also include others previously embraced ideologies. The key element is that the population itself is the motor of social changes and the way you manage them with decisions with pros and cons would provide a narrative, specialized and sometimes unexpected outcome.

Is kind of ironic to expect CIV to be a simulator like game with "unexpected" scenarios but at the same time keep bringing over specific historical events.
There is not need to ask "how can we simulate this X historical event" and then "how can we simulate this other Y historical event" as isolated happenings with unrelated mechanism (also must highlight ask because asking is not suggesting).
A core element should link all the mechanics in the system, and "the people" itself is the obvious main element in social change.
 
Last edited:
Mine is a historical logic, if a revolution or a war breaks out there will be consequences over time, and it is possible that an event happens that emancipates a people not in 1848 or the revolution. French in 1789 but it can happen it's all in the mechanics and the ai
 
Mine is a historical logic, if a revolution or a war breaks out there will be consequences over time, and it is possible that an event happens that emancipates a people not in 1848 or the revolution. French in 1789 but it can happen it's all in the mechanics and the ai
A play of a game of Civ is NOT a historical logic. That often repeated point, by me and several others, seems not be being grasped.
 
A play of a game of Civ is NOT a historical logic. That often repeated point, by me and several others, seems not be being grasped.
If a revolution breaks out in one country this will have consequences in history for all peoples over time
 
Patine and luca 83, please be aware that I don't understand anything about your quarrel.
I maintain that a historical consequence such as the French Revolution has consequences over the centuries in the constitutions of 1848, in the commune of 1871, up to the revolution of 1917, Patine does not think there should be historicized events such as revolutions, secessions, collapses. I think they should be simulated even if they don't have to happen in the same era
 
I maintain that a historical consequence such as the French Revolution has consequences over the centuries in the constitutions of 1848, in the commune of 1871, up to the revolution of 1917, Patine does not think there should be historicized events such as revolutions, secessions, collapses. I think they should be simulated even if they don't have to happen in the same era
I believe @Patine's argument is that the game cannot model precisely the historical events as they happened, with all their historical consequences, and that to attempt that is to place the game in a historical strait jacket that results in zero replay value.

I agree with both of you.

The game cannot be designed or set up to reproduce precise historical events. Both because this makes for a really lousy game, and also because historians argue constantly over what exactly the historical events really were, how they came about, and what their consequences really were.
On the other hand, many historical events of an apparently negative nature in the short term have major consequences in the long term, and it is a shame to leave them out completely.

The answer, I think, is to concentrate on the Conditions that cause such events. Revolutions, civil wars, decapitation, defenestration or deposing of kings take place for Reasons which can occur under various forms of government and cultural/social system and so can happen in 'game terms' to anyone. The French Revolution does not necessarily have to happen to France, or at any exact date in the early Industrial Era (especially given that their revolution was preceded by the whole Enlightenment intellectual movement of the preceding century and specifically by American events, and succeeded by at least 2 other 'revolutions' in France in 1830 and 1871).

So, if you want to add Playable mechanics for revolutions, civil wars, and other negative events, I suggest that you will need the following:

1. A system of political, social, civil and cultural events over which the gamer has only partial control, or better yet concerning which he has to make decisions. And each decision will result in an on-going event/system which has both Positive and Negative consequences.

Example: A Tax Farming system of tax collection, available since at least Classical times in Rome, China and other Civs, in which the government does not have to spend any Gold to get Gold from Taxes, but a large percentage of the total revenue disappears into the hands of the Tax Farmers and the depredations of the Tax Farmers are blamed on the government.

Example: Exempting some segment of the population (merchants, nobles, warriors, etc) makes that segment immensely loyal to the government (like the exempt French aristocracy and church administrators in 1789) but makes everybody else in the Civ immensely and (in 1789) murderously Disloyal. It also, of course, reduces the Gold income, which puts extra stress on the government and Civ in general.

2. A system of social, cultural, political, religious and military events in which EVERY event must have both Negative and Positive results. Disregard strictly historical results: if the event is going to be played there must be some benefit to the gamer or it will be gamed out of the game: someone Will find a way to avoid the French Revolution or its equivalent if all of its results are negative to the French player (leaving aside French Civ players who are also Masochists, which no game company can assume will be the majority of players and buyers)

Example: Every 'successful' revolution changes the form or specifics of the government. This might be the only 'easy' way to go from Absolute Divine Right Monarchy to Constitutional Monarchy or Republic without taking a century or more. There will be some (possibly considerable) Unpleasantness in the form of revolutionary excesses (read: massacres, deportations, decapitations, etc) but in a relatively short time you convert to a spanking new form of government with all of its (different) Positive and Negative attributes.

Example: Every momentous Political event may also include momentous Cultural, Social or Civic changes. That could include everything from fashion (look at the differences in women's dresses from pre-1789 and post-1815 throughout Europe, for instance) to social structure ('rise of the Middle Class' is not just a platitude: it was a real and transforming event, and included cultural and political consequences as well as immediate social and political ones)

3. EVERY decision made by the Gamer should have both Immediate and Long Term effects, and these may be (or should be) very, very different.

Example: Exempting the aristocracy from paying taxes gets you a very loyal bunch of aristocrats, and if they came from an original Warrior Class you get a very cheap bunch of Officers to lead your units, which may slightly lower Maintenance Costs for them (and, in game terms, possibly a better chance of getting Great Generals) - this is the immediate Effect. Long Term, it excludes everybody else from the Officer group, so the overall quality of the officers and military units goes down over time for lack of any access to the Civ's total Talent Pool. And, of course, it makes everybody who is not exempt (everybody not an aristocrat) resentful of the system and government, until they demand Changes (as in storming the Bastille and 'vertically deporting' a bunch of aristocrats by locking them in a barge and sinking it in the Seine River just outside of Paris)

Example: A successful Revolution throws open all the government jobs and military leadership to Anyone of Talent. This increases the efficiency of the government functions (like Tax Collecting, among others) and gives a bonus to military units from better leadership, BUT the first Great General generated by the new system may seize the State and convert it from a nascent Republic into a Military Monarchy (can you spell Buonaparto or Cromwell?)
 
I believe @Patine's argument is that the game cannot model precisely the historical events as they happened, with all their historical consequences, and that to attempt that is to place the game in a historical strait jacket that results in zero replay value.

I agree with both of you.

The game cannot be designed or set up to reproduce precise historical events. Both because this makes for a really lousy game, and also because historians argue constantly over what exactly the historical events really were, how they came about, and what their consequences really were.
On the other hand, many historical events of an apparently negative nature in the short term have major consequences in the long term, and it is a shame to leave them out completely.

The answer, I think, is to concentrate on the Conditions that cause such events. Revolutions, civil wars, decapitation, defenestration or deposing of kings take place for Reasons which can occur under various forms of government and cultural/social system and so can happen in 'game terms' to anyone. The French Revolution does not necessarily have to happen to France, or at any exact date in the early Industrial Era (especially given that their revolution was preceded by the whole Enlightenment intellectual movement of the preceding century and specifically by American events, and succeeded by at least 2 other 'revolutions' in France in 1830 and 1871).

So, if you want to add Playable mechanics for revolutions, civil wars, and other negative events, I suggest that you will need the following:

1. A system of political, social, civil and cultural events over which the gamer has only partial control, or better yet concerning which he has to make decisions. And each decision will result in an on-going event/system which has both Positive and Negative consequences.

Example: A Tax Farming system of tax collection, available since at least Classical times in Rome, China and other Civs, in which the government does not have to spend any Gold to get Gold from Taxes, but a large percentage of the total revenue disappears into the hands of the Tax Farmers and the depredations of the Tax Farmers are blamed on the government.

Example: Exempting some segment of the population (merchants, nobles, warriors, etc) makes that segment immensely loyal to the government (like the exempt French aristocracy and church administrators in 1789) but makes everybody else in the Civ immensely and (in 1789) murderously Disloyal. It also, of course, reduces the Gold income, which puts extra stress on the government and Civ in general.

2. A system of social, cultural, political, religious and military events in which EVERY event must have both Negative and Positive results. Disregard strictly historical results: if the event is going to be played there must be some benefit to the gamer or it will be gamed out of the game: someone Will find a way to avoid the French Revolution or its equivalent if all of its results are negative to the French player (leaving aside French Civ players who are also Masochists, which no game company can assume will be the majority of players and buyers)

Example: Every 'successful' revolution changes the form or specifics of the government. This might be the only 'easy' way to go from Absolute Divine Right Monarchy to Constitutional Monarchy or Republic without taking a century or more. There will be some (possibly considerable) Unpleasantness in the form of revolutionary excesses (read: massacres, deportations, decapitations, etc) but in a relatively short time you convert to a spanking new form of government with all of its (different) Positive and Negative attributes.

Example: Every momentous Political event may also include momentous Cultural, Social or Civic changes. That could include everything from fashion (look at the differences in women's dresses from pre-1789 and post-1815 throughout Europe, for instance) to social structure ('rise of the Middle Class' is not just a platitude: it was a real and transforming event, and included cultural and political consequences as well as immediate social and political ones)

3. EVERY decision made by the Gamer should have both Immediate and Long Term effects, and these may be (or should be) very, very different.

Example: Exempting the aristocracy from paying taxes gets you a very loyal bunch of aristocrats, and if they came from an original Warrior Class you get a very cheap bunch of Officers to lead your units, which may slightly lower Maintenance Costs for them (and, in game terms, possibly a better chance of getting Great Generals) - this is the immediate Effect. Long Term, it excludes everybody else from the Officer group, so the overall quality of the officers and military units goes down over time for lack of any access to the Civ's total Talent Pool. And, of course, it makes everybody who is not exempt (everybody not an aristocrat) resentful of the system and government, until they demand Changes (as in storming the Bastille and 'vertically deporting' a bunch of aristocrats by locking them in a barge and sinking it in the Seine River just outside of Paris)

Example: A successful Revolution throws open all the government jobs and military leadership to Anyone of Talent. This increases the efficiency of the government functions (like Tax Collecting, among others) and gives a bonus to military units from better leadership, BUT the first Great General generated by the new system may seize the State and convert it from a nascent Republic into a Military Monarchy (can you spell Buonaparto or Cromwell?)
We must also remember that states are not monolithic there are also usurpers especially in the Middle Ages . then for example if I invade a country I have two possibilities 1 annex the country with with risk of revolts or secession or free the country always with risk revolts 3 or free the country and keep some provinces 4or create vassal the country 5 divide the country into smaller states city states . For the rest I quite agree but will unaia gesture all class confessions?
 
We must also remember that states are not monolithic there are also usurpers especially in the Middle Ages . then for example if I invade a country I have two possibilities 1 annex the country with with risk of revolts or secession or free the country always with risk revolts 3 or free the country and keep some provinces 4or create vassal the country 5 divide the country into smaller states city states . For the rest I quite agree but will unaia gesture all class confessions?
Actually, if you invade another country there are two possibilities: you win or you lose. If you lose, most of the consequential decisions will be made by the enemy, including whether you survive at all. If you win, then you can move on to see what you can possibly do given the overall situation: big neighbors may severely limit your options, in addition to the feelings of your own and the enemy populations.

Those feelings can, I think, be implemented in the game by @BuchiTaton's population/denizens system. EVERY population of any group larger than a small tribe has Factions with different demands, requirements, etc. Modeling those in even the most general way - and the way they change based on in-game conditions - would go a long, long way towards keeping the gamer's decisions vis-a-vis Conquest within the bounds of at least pseudo-reality.

Nobody has ever come close to 'conquering the world' - unless they defined 'world' extremely narrowly and ignored everything else. Nobody ever even conquered all of Europe, although Napoleon and the Nazi state came close. But even those Conquerors generated enormous opposition in the form of enemy coalitions, Alliances, and internal Unrest, Rebellion, Guerrilla actions of all kinds. And Europe is the smallest of the continents: no conquerer in history has ever controlled more than a fraction of either Asia or Africa or the Americas, let alone more than one of them.

The main reasons for this are both geographical - sheer size of Asia, Americas or Africa and utterly inadequate communications before the 19th century - but also the fact that every corner of the globe already had people in it, and no matter how poorly organized or 'primitive' they were, they largely objected, sometimes continuously and strenuously, to Foreign Conquest. Or, frequently, to Religious Conversion, Foreign domination of markets, foreign culture, foreign language, or just foreigners among them. All of this put a tremendous Brake or Friction into the gears of any Expansion - and so it should in a game that has Expansion as one of its 4 basic concepts.
 
Those feelings can, I think, be implemented in the game by @BuchiTaton's population/denizens system. EVERY population of any group larger than a small tribe has Factions with different demands, requirements, etc. Modeling those in even the most general way - and the way they change based on in-game conditions - would go a long, long way towards keeping the gamer's decisions vis-a-vis Conquest within the bounds of at least pseudo-reality.
I would think that it could have late game repercussions as well, not limited to just the potential of rebellion/revolution.
For example, a war occurs and part of the population of a civilization, but not completely wiped out, maybe they would be more likely to visit their home civilization as international tourists late game?
 
The history is much more complex than how the old civilization developed. After the First World War, Austria and Germany were not invaded but limited territorially. In the Second World War, Germany was invaded and divided, but two Germanys were created
 
I would think that it could have late game repercussions as well, not limited to just the potential of rebellion/revolution.
For example, a war occurs and part of the population of a civilization, but not completely wiped out, maybe they would be more likely to visit their home civilization as international tourists late game?
They could also have an effect on the population of the country/Civ they wind up in as Immigrants. Note the "Wild Geese" regiments of the French Army in the 18th century, composed of Catholic Irish who fled Ireland after the Williamite conquest in the 1690s, or the Irish in America, large numbers of whom arrived after the Famine in the 19th century and who remained a bastion of Anti-English sentiment in the USA until the late 20th century.
 
They could also have an effect on the population of the country/Civ they wind up in as Immigrants. Note the "Wild Geese" regiments of the French Army in the 18th century, composed of Catholic Irish who fled Ireland after the Williamite conquest in the 1690s, or the Irish in America, large numbers of whom arrived after the Famine in the 19th century and who remained a bastion of Anti-English sentiment in the USA until the late 20th century.
Yes. I also think which potential civilization a certain population is immigrating to would be determined by several factors: open border agreements, roads connecting cities, having a harbor and it's buildings etc.
 
The history is much more complex than how the old civilization developed. After the First World War, Austria and Germany were not invaded but limited territorially. In the Second World War, Germany was invaded and divided, but two Germanys were created
'Limited territorially' scarcely covers it. In both cases, their governments were destroyed and had to be rebuilt in entirely new form (non-Monarchial), Austria lost her entire empire and the majority of her pre-war population, while Germany was placed under military and financial restrictions that by diplomatic practice of the previous several centuries in Europe were draconian in their severity.

And after the Second World War, technically speaking ALL German polities were utterly destroyed: on 12 May 1945 there was not a square centimeter of land anywhere on earth governed by a German Government of any kind: all government functions were under the control of Allied militaries, like the Allied Komandatura in Berlin, which remained the source of all governmental authority in that divided city until the Germanies were re-united. I served in the Judge Advocate's office under the United States Commander's Office in Berlin in the 1960s, and the first thing I learned there was that in Berlin, there was no Status of Forces agreement because there was no Foreign Authority in the city other than that granted specifically by the Allied Generals at the Komandatura. That same situation had been true everywhere in Germany until 1954 when the German Democratic Republic and Federal Republic of Germany were established as new states.
 
For example, during the industrial era, trade unions and various types of strikes that could lead to revolution could be introduced.
 
For example, during the industrial era, trade unions and various types of strikes that could lead to revolution could be introduced.
And earlier. Look up Wat Tyler's Rebellion in England for an earlier example of 'Labor Unrest' which included an army of peasants marching on London.
 
And earlier. Look up Wat Tyler's Rebellion in England for an earlier example of 'Labor Unrest' which included an army of peasants marching on London.
Peterlo toowtlerler WAt was more of a peasant uprising. Like the Hussite uprisings in Hungary . Luddism was also an anti-modernist revolt . I was thinking of socialist and pre-socialist trade union movements, from Mar Bak to Bakunin, to Malatesta that simulate union demands from child labor to eight hours of work, up to the experience of the Paris commune to the international
 
Peterlo toowtlerler WAt was more of a peasant uprising. Like the Hussite uprisings in Hungary . Luddism was also an anti-modernist revolt . I was thinking of socialist and pre-socialist trade union movements, from Mar Bak to Bakunin, to Malatesta that simulate union demands from child labor to eight hours of work, up to the experience of the Paris commune to the international
Peasants are, effectively, for all intents and purposes, labourers burdened by untennable work conditions and given insuffiencient compensation. Labour unrest doesn't have to wait for Karl Marx to publish a book to meaningfully exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom