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

[luca 83]

It's not my opinion, but an observable fact that you've mostly been tuned out by this thread in general. And that's 4 iterations, but that'a a complete irrelevancy, and downright bizarre to bring up.

i on the other hand have played all 6 including the expansions , so i know the game better than you , i propose ideas , you obtusely , you just say no . you talk about useless things , you are just 2 you help each other , so please stop writing on this thread

Moderator Action: That's enough - talk about the game not other posters --NZ
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Patine]

i on the other hand have played all 6 including the expansions , so i know the game better than you , i propose ideas , you obtusely , you just say no . you talk about useless things , you are just 2 you help each other , so please stop writing on this thread

Regardless of taking potshots at me, that does not change the empyrical lack of demonstrated interest in your suggestions, which you constantly call out are, "necessary," but to deaf ears. Are you oblivious to this? And, someone with no support or audience, being given the time day, commanding someone who gets taken seriously much of the time and regularly responded to to, "please stop writing on this thread," is the height of out-of-touch with reality chutzpah.

 

[luca 83]

The Mongol empire for example the division of the empire as historical mechanics, political for such mechanics? Similar example for the Macedonian empire! 1 1 the presence of one or more heirs 2 military anarchy, 2 different peoples, mixed, internal nationalism

 

[luca 83]

A simple civil war is not enough taking the capital as in the 1 which was better than the other civ, the dynamics of civil wars must be more complex, even the status of a colony and possible revolution such as the United States must be taken into account , as well as the protectorates that are not like the colonies

 

[Arcaian]

Luca, you're simply not talking about civilization as a game - there are several aspects of the core game design that I personally don't think are the most interesting ways to represent things, that don't lead to the best gameplay, or that don't reflect history the most accurately. But the reality is that civ is a game defined by several core pillars of game design, and they're not going to change. For your suggestions here, they're clashing up against just about every pillar of civ's game design. Civ runs from the beginning of centralized power beyond small villages (hopefully a little earlier than that in the next game ) to the modern/future age. Civ games vary in time taken, but they're normally meant to take ~200-500 turns to complete. Civ has iconic leaders that influence the civ they're leading, giving both name recognition and a personality to interact with. Civ is a moderate-complexity strategy game that is designed to be relatively accessible to new audiences, while having depth of choice enough to give those of us still hanging around on the civfanatics forums decades later something to grab onto as well (at least ideally). Regardless of one's opinion on these, I do not think any civ game is going to meaningfully differ from these (barring something like Beyond Earth not technically being on the same tech scale). The level of detail that you are looking for is simply incompatible with these fundamental elements of the civ game design. Civ cannot model something like Alexander's conquest of most of the known world, because that would be 1-2 turns at that point in the game. If one could model the Mongol conquests and subsequent collapse in such a short period, you'd have to:

• Having a couple of turns per year to be able to represent a vaguely accurate timescale
• Having an absolutely huge map to allow them to conquer that much territory, not win the game, and collapse
• Accurately model the internal conflict caused by the method of governance, the tribal structures playing a major role in the empire, the way different areas were conquered, and so on
• Have a good enough representation of the details of conflict that the Mongols are almost unopposable on areas in/adjacent to the steppes, but able to be stopped when terrain changes to become more difficult to conquer (but not completely countered by it, just more able to be defended)

That sounds like you could make a really interesting game out of it! A game focused on this time period, where you either play the Mongols trying to hold an empire together as you get bigger and bigger, or as their enemies where you're trying to hold on for long enough that the mongols collapse under their own tensions. But it's absolutely not a civ game - if you wanted that level of detail for all possible governmental structures, across all of recorded history, and then on top of that get into the level of detail with the economic aspects you've been advocating for, the game would never come out. If it somehow did, it'd be far too complex for almost any people to actually want to play. Not only is it impossible to make the game you're requesting, it's fundamentally changing the game away from civ, so why are you advocating for civ to do that? There are new, interesting takes on the 4x genre coming out at the moment - Humankind did some of what you were interested in by removing leaders and trying to focus more on the masses of history instead of the self-acclaimed Great Men. The Old World did the only reasonable way to move the 4x genre in the direection you're talking here - they cut out a period of time and space that is well-defined, and focused on being able to model that relatively realistically. The genre is moving away from the dominance of Civ as basically the only 4x, so your insistence that civ needs to completely reinvent itself in a way that will make for either an impossible game or an incredibly overly complicated game is baffling to me.

 

[luca 83]

Luca, you're simply not talking about civilization as a game - there are several aspects of the core game design that I personally don't think are the most interesting ways to represent things, that don't lead to the best gameplay, or that don't reflect history the most accurately. But the reality is that civ is a game defined by several core pillars of game design, and they're not going to change. For your suggestions here, they're clashing up against just about every pillar of civ's game design. Civ runs from the beginning of centralized power beyond small villages (hopefully a little earlier than that in the next game ) to the modern/future age. Civ games vary in time taken, but they're normally meant to take ~200-500 turns to complete. Civ has iconic leaders that influence the civ they're leading, giving both name recognition and a personality to interact with. Civ is a moderate-complexity strategy game that is designed to be relatively accessible to new audiences, while having depth of choice enough to give those of us still hanging around on the civfanatics forums decades later something to grab onto as well (at least ideally). Regardless of one's opinion on these, I do not think any civ game is going to meaningfully differ from these (barring something like Beyond Earth not technically being on the same tech scale). The level of detail that you are looking for is simply incompatible with these fundamental elements of the civ game design. Civ cannot model something like Alexander's conquest of most of the known world, because that would be 1-2 turns at that point in the game. If one could model the Mongol conquests and subsequent collapse in such a short period, you'd have to:

• Having a couple of turns per year to be able to represent a vaguely accurate timescale
• Having an absolutely huge map to allow them to conquer that much territory, not win the game, and collapse
• Accurately model the internal conflict caused by the method of governance, the tribal structures playing a major role in the empire, the way different areas were conquered, and so on
• Have a good enough representation of the details of conflict that the Mongols are almost unopposable on areas in/adjacent to the steppes, but able to be stopped when terrain changes to become more difficult to conquer (but not completely countered by it, just more able to be defended)

That sounds like you could make a really interesting game out of it! A game focused on this time period, where you either play the Mongols trying to hold an empire together as you get bigger and bigger, or as their enemies where you're trying to hold on for long enough that the mongols collapse under their own tensions. But it's absolutely not a civ game - if you wanted that level of detail for all possible governmental structures, across all of recorded history, and then on top of that get into the level of detail with the economic aspects you've been advocating for, the game would never come out. If it somehow did, it'd be far too complex for almost any people to actually want to play. Not only is it impossible to make the game you're requesting, it's fundamentally changing the game away from civ, so why are you advocating for civ to do that? There are new, interesting takes on the 4x genre coming out at the moment - Humankind did some of what you were interested in by removing leaders and trying to focus more on the masses of history instead of the self-acclaimed Great Men. The Old World did the only reasonable way to move the 4x genre in the direection you're talking here - they cut out a period of time and space that is well-defined, and focused on being able to model that relatively realistically. The genre is moving away from the dominance of Civ as basically the only 4x, so your insistence that civ needs to completely reinvent itself in a way that will make for either an impossible game or an incredibly overly complicated game is baffling to me.

Without leaders you can simulate civil wars , and wars of succession , as far as complexity just becomes more complex, consider it a test for. The new ai ,.people will adapt the new never like anyone more political diplomacy , domestic , and foreign, can replace the leaders, history and made of rise and fall,: no sense Napoleon in 1836

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Without leaders you can simulate civil wars , and wars of succession , as far as complexity just becomes more complex, consider it a test for. The new ai ,.people will adapt the new never like anyone more political diplomacy , domestic , and foreign, can replace the leaders, history and made of rise and fall,: no sense Napoleon in 1836

You can still have revolutions and civil wars while having leaders in the game, though.
If we go by Civ 6 as a template, there's no reason why a group of free cities could not form together to make a new civilization. The new leader/civ can randomly be chosen from the ones not presently in the current game.

 

[luca 83]

You can still have revolutions and civil wars while having leaders in the game, though.
If we go by Civ 6 as a template, there's no reason why a group of free cities could not form together to make a new civilization. The new leader/civ can randomly be chosen from the ones not presently in the current game.

And the ideology you don't understand! Dall. Change of government, as a bonus, to political ideology, from Elizabeth I to Cromell The change of dynasty, from the purges, to the Bourbons due to the war of the Spanish succession, to the murky Russians, to the rise of the Romanovs, to the Russian revolution, is a change of era, of ideology, of different politics

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And the ideology you don't understand! Dall. Change of government, as a bonus, to political ideology, from Elizabeth I to Cromell The change of dynasty, from the purges, to the Bourbons due to the war of the Spanish succession, to the murky Russians, to the rise of the Romanovs, to the Russian revolution, is a change of era, of ideology, of different politics

I do understand. You are explaining historical fact to us, which we all already know. But all of these facts are meaningless unless you can explain to us how to implement this in game?
I am also explaining how that can be portrayed in a civilization game with immortal leaders.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Without leaders you can simulate civil wars , and wars of succession , as far as complexity just becomes more complex, consider it a test for. The new ai ,.people will adapt the new never like anyone more political diplomacy , domestic , and foreign, can replace the leaders, history and made of rise and fall,: no sense Napoleon in 1836

Are you talking about Napoleon Bounaparte dying in 1821 then making it absurd to still be around at 1836?

If that is what you mean it talks a lot about that what you want is not what most CIV (and any similar games) want.
Players do not want to just watch history repeating, from all the wacky alter history scenarios that people would like to achieve a more wise and succefull Napoleon keeping power and living at least 15 years more is a very likely scenario that players could achieve.
If you consider something like that absurd you are confirming why you only throw specific historical events as something that must me "simulated" without put some effort yourself to classify and abstract them in some actually playable mechanic.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And the ideology you don't understand! Dall. Change of government, as a bonus, to political ideology, from Elizabeth I to Cromell The change of dynasty, from the purges, to the Bourbons due to the war of the Spanish succession, to the murky Russians, to the rise of the Romanovs, to the Russian revolution, is a change of era, of ideology, of different politics

You are using 'ideology' as a blanket term to cover entirely different causations.

Elizabeth to Cromwell was caused by several things, most notably the lack of a legitimate direct successor to Elizabeth that caused a Scottish relative to take the throne who lacked any understanding of the different relationship between crown and parliament that had grown up in England versus Scotland. That lack of understanding culminated in England's second Civil War (if you rightly call the War of the Roses the first English Civil War) that resulted in the Protectorate under Cromwell.
That could be a general deficiency of Hereditary Monarchies, which has rightly been called Government By Genetic Chance - and failure to get an heir is the worst failure of all for such a government.

The Bourbons' fall was from an entirely different cause: overindulgence. Even Louis XIV is supposed to have said, on his deathbed "Perhaps I have been too fond of War". Specifically, Expensive Wars, starting with the War of the Spanish Succession, but continuing throughout the 18th century with the War of the Austrian Succession and succeeding Seven Year's War and the War of American Independence, the last of which finally broke the crown's finances completely and forced them to actually deal with the non-aristocracy in the Parlament of Paris rather than simply dictating to them.

Russians weren't murky, just like England and France they had more than one noble family that thought they had an equal 'right' to the throne: Tudors, Bourbons, Romanovs - all scrambled to the top over the bodies of their contemporary rivals. And notably, both Louis XIV and Peter Romanov made sure their entire respective aristocracies owed everything to the crown and so didn't dare revolt: the French aristocrats largely went down with the Bourbons when the time came, while Peter had created almost an entirely new set of aristocrats of Service in Russia before his death.

The Russian Revolution was Fluke. Marx never even considered the idea that a Communist movement could get any start in a non-industrialized country: he assumed any such revolution would be in Britain or Germany, marginally in France. That the Bolsheviks made it in Russia was a wild combination of a long tradition in the country of Anarchist and Socialist activity going back at least two generations, losing a major war with all the resulting illegitimizing of the monarchial government, and Individuals involved: Lenin and a suite of Old Bolsheviks, Socialists, Anarchists on one side, Nicholas II and another suite of blinkered aristocrats on the other. Replace Nicholas II with Ekaterina II or Petr I, or the hapless Imperial Russian generals and their successors like Kerensky with Suvorov or Kutuzov, and the 'inevitable' Russian Revolution does not look quite so inevitable.

I understand 'ideology' very well, thank you, but all too often it is used as a blanket excuse for a lot of very complicated individual strands that converge or unravel to make certain things happen. That in a nutshell is why your concept for the game is unworkable as a playable game: either you set the strands in stone and make most of the game an inevitable series of the same events, or you try to model all the complexities of the interactions of events, trends, individuals and sheer accidents and overwhelm both the computers and the gamers.

And in neither case do you produce a game worth playing by most people. Full Disclosure: I have taken part in historical Simulations several times, at in no case were any of them much fun. Sometimes instructive (which was, after all, their purpose) but never very entertaining except when things went wildly off course. As when the Communist Revolution took place in Britain as Marx expected, was bloodily put down by a reactionary aristocracy of nobles and businessmen, and resulted in a Cromwellian-like dictatorship under a nominal monarch with power in a Cabal behind the throne. What that proved was what I've argued on this forum before: Revolutions are Unpredictable and it is never certain what will come out of them once you start one, no matter what the motivation was for starting one in the first place.

 

[luca 83]

You are using 'ideology' as a blanket term to cover entirely different causations.

Elizabeth to Cromwell was caused by several things, most notably the lack of a legitimate direct successor to Elizabeth that caused a Scottish relative to take the throne who lacked any understanding of the different relationship between crown and parliament that had grown up in England versus Scotland. That lack of understanding culminated in England's second Civil War (if you rightly call the War of the Roses the first English Civil War) that resulted in the Protectorate under Cromwell.
That could be a general deficiency of Hereditary Monarchies, which has rightly been called Government By Genetic Chance - and failure to get an heir is the worst failure of all for such a government.

The Bourbons' fall was from an entirely different cause: overindulgence. Even Louis XIV is supposed to have said, on his deathbed "Perhaps I have been too fond of War". Specifically, Expensive Wars, starting with the War of the Spanish Succession, but continuing throughout the 18th century with the War of the Austrian Succession and succeeding Seven Year's War and the War of American Independence, the last of which finally broke the crown's finances completely and forced them to actually deal with the non-aristocracy in the Parlament of Paris rather than simply dictating to them.

Russians weren't murky, just like England and France they had more than one noble family that thought they had an equal 'right' to the throne: Tudors, Bourbons, Romanovs - all scrambled to the top over the bodies of their contemporary rivals. And notably, both Louis XIV and Peter Romanov made sure their entire respective aristocracies owed everything to the crown and so didn't dare revolt: the French aristocrats largely went down with the Bourbons when the time came, while Peter had created almost an entirely new set of aristocrats of Service in Russia before his death.

The Russian Revolution was Fluke. Marx never even considered the idea that a Communist movement could get any start in a non-industrialized country: he assumed any such revolution would be in Britain or Germany, marginally in France. That the Bolsheviks made it in Russia was a wild combination of a long tradition in the country of Anarchist and Socialist activity going back at least two generations, losing a major war with all the resulting illegitimizing of the monarchial government, and Individuals involved: Lenin and a suite of Old Bolsheviks, Socialists, Anarchists on one side, Nicholas II and another suite of blinkered aristocrats on the other. Replace Nicholas II with Ekaterina II or Petr I, or the hapless Imperial Russian generals and their successors like Kerensky with Suvorov or Kutuzov, and the 'inevitable' Russian Revolution does not look quite so inevitable.

I understand 'ideology' very well, thank you, but all too often it is used as a blanket excuse for a lot of very complicated individual strands that converge or unravel to make certain things happen. That in a nutshell is why your concept for the game is unworkable as a playable game: either you set the strands in stone and make most of the game an inevitable series of the same events, or you try to model all the complexities of the interactions of events, trends, individuals and sheer accidents and overwhelm both the computers and the gamers.

And in neither case do you produce a game worth playing by most people. Full Disclosure: I have taken part in historical Simulations several times, at in no case were any of them much fun. Sometimes instructive (which was, after all, their purpose) but never very entertaining except when things went wildly off course. As when the Communist Revolution took place in Britain as Marx expected, was bloodily put down by a reactionary aristocracy of nobles and businessmen, and resulted in a Cromwellian-like dictatorship under a nominal monarch with power in a Cabal behind the throne. What that proved was what I've argued on this forum before: Revolutions are Unpredictable and it is never certain what will come out of them once you start one, no matter what the motivation was for starting one in the first place.

The story is fun ! Then and a non-binary simulation , with elements , and causes , triggering , economy , politics , economic interest, military , for example , in the previous civ , you can be a military power , but your people die , of hunger , and this has no influence , if it is a dictatorship , can be fine. But if it is a democracy , or a , parliamentary republic , a revolt can break out , GDP counts. An old management thing to keep . By politics I mean that the Napoleonic age is different from the age of nationalism , and the rise of the bourgeoisie , that he no longer wanted absolute monarchy , and he wants the constitution. from Spain, to Sicily, to France, to the Decabrists in Russia, this should be managed by an excellent

 

[Patine]

The story is fun !

This sense and view of fun is not shared or agreed on by others here.

 

[luca 83]

This sense and view of fun is not shared or agreed on by others here.

I don’t care about your opinions

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I don’t care about your opinions

Well there's no point in having a discussion thread then, closed.