That was harsh Plutark
Alright now that I've stated why I disliked Civ III let me tell you about the game that would really knock me off.
1) Civilizations die as Ive said, so one important element would be that each starting Civ would contain the "germs of it's own dissolution" (fully editable of course) that in time would make it collapse - or not if you're really skilled. This was the original intent of Civ I as I recall: "stand the test of time" remember ?
What I mean is a Civ, depending on its original ethno-cultural makup, would face increasing pressure towards destruction as time goes by. Let's take the good old romans as an exemple. Rome was militaristic but when its own successes started to outweight it's strenght it collapsed. However some of it's core values survived in the successor states that arose afterward. I think it was the game "History of the World" that took this idea and made it so that the player would have to select one successor Civ at the dawn of a new era.
2) Environment condition the growth and development of civilizations. This has been modeled inthe Civ series but it's very limited. Take Civ III as an exemple. You have strategic resources you need to accomplish certain actions and built certain units. Great idea - except that when you don't have petroleum you can't built tanks & planes. However in RL, when Germany was faced with a similar dilema - the germans invented synthetic oil/rubber !
3) The Civ series equates civilizations & empires - which it isnt at all. The majority of Net users are from N-A, Europe, Australia - we all participate in one civilization - what is usually known as the West. Yet we live in different societies with different values but overall there is a core set of values shared by all of us. This should be represented in the game.
Instead of the goodies huts we have, we should have minor players that wont really have all the reach of the (8-16) major players but that would still act autonomously. So that when you culture expends and they become in awe of you they become open to new types of relationships like vassalization for instance - which would give specific bonuses. Thus you could control an empire (Egypt - 8 cities) which has influence over some neighboors (Nubia - 3 cities / Judea - 2 cities). In the event of a prolonged period of social/political instability - a collapse might occur which would profit one of those clients (since they're associated with your civilization). Then you'd get a msg: "The integrity of the realm cant be maintained - you now have the option of electing one of your vassals as a new base of operations. Be aware though that some of the advances will be lost in the migration." Then you goal would likely be to re-establish your previous empire - but it might not either.
4) Expend on the concept of resources and increase the prerequisites for appearance and use -->
- natural resources (basic/strategic/luxuries) (evolving in time)
- manufactured resources (dependant on both your tech level & your cultural bias) (this means that an antique religious civilization with access to bronze tech & tin mine might decide to manufacture statues instead of swords)
In that same line of thought there would also be 2 production system running in parallel: city-specific production items (that which is needed to increase the "value" of a particular city) as well as empire-wide production.
Ex: each city would have a production index associated with it that would determine the number of projects you can launch from there (ref Galactic Civilizations). You want to built fortifications ? You can devote all of your 500 whatever a year to it of split it between that and 4 other projects.
Similarly at the strategic level you'd have a yearly budget set which would enable you to create say 10 chariots. You'd then choose the production center which would suspend all it's "internal" activities and get funneled all the empire's resources to produce 10 war chariots. Then it'd be the player's responsability to dispatch the finished product.
No more having to build a connecting road to a foreign Civ to be able to trade with it. You have official contact, you have a map - you can trade. You are limited though. You want to increase the volume ? Then you build a road.
5) There should be 2 types of knowlege: fundamental and applied. The player would have no control over the fundamental research but could decide - upon beind told about a new area of knowlege that it now has 3-4 possible tech that could be derived from it.
Ex: domestication would be a fundamental advance but out of it a militaristic civ would no doubt derive horseback riding and produce horsemen while an industrious civ might select the bull-powered wheatmill and thus increase it's food production and ultimately it's growth.
You'd have the ability to select how much resource you want to spend in that area and consequently how many applied techs you can simultaneously research.
6) All the big social phenomenon such as religion or ideology should not be advances to be researched but consequences of your decisions/ choices. They should appear if a set of circumstances has been met.
Let's take monarchy as an exemple. To be able to establish a monarchy a player would need :
- knowledge of agriculture/potery/domestication (for x number of years)
- a granary & a temple
- a set number of veteran units
- some specialist citizens
then you'd get a msg: " the people were tired of clannish rule - they aspired to more centralized authority - the clan fathers have convened and elected one of their own to rule over all. Here are the benefits of this new form of government"
Or in the case of monotheism:
- a number of temples (for x number of years)
- a number of active trade routes (for x number of years)
- a religious bias
- a certain amount of gold in treasury
then: "prophets have arisen proclaiming that there is but one deity. Here are the advantages you may get from supporting this: - will you try to suppress it (random instability) or embrace it ? If so what shall be the name of this new religion. If you are in a monarchy at the time this happens you'd get a centralized church - if you're a militaristic culture you might end up with a militant religion like Islam. Thus the advent of monotheism would put a spin on your civilization and give you specific advantages that others dont.
7) An element of RPG. Leaders would appear in your civilization that the player wouldnt have full control over. Monarchs, generals, statesmen, explorers
8) An Editor of course with entire libraries of graphics & sounds - and with which you could edit/create events/units/wonders etc
Well that's about it. Comments ?
G.
