How do you want the "rise and fall of empires" idea implemented in Civ-3?

[Steve Clark]

Thanks for asking, you and others won't be disappointed. This was the one scenario that convinced me that new ideas and fixes are best implemented through scenarios as oppose to the main game.

Here is the thread introducing this scenario... http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum18/H...tml?date=01:43

Here is the link to Kull's site. Since it's on xoom, it is really erratic and unstable. http://members.xoom.com/Kull1/Civ2-AE.html
[This message has been edited by Steve Clark (edited July 07, 2000).]

[S. Kroeze]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 07-06-2000 04:28 AM S. Kroeze, To answer your question: No, the Qing Dynasty did not disintegrate. Outer Mogolia eventually seceded from the ROC, but otherwise the country was pretty much intact, dispite the vieing warlords. Taiwan did not become independent either. If your source shows otherwise, please let me know. [This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited July 06, 2000).]

Dear Urban Ranger,

I am very grateful that thanks to you my knowledge and understanding of Chinese history are revised. I had never realised that Li Yüan-hung, Mao, Chiang Ching-kuo and Jiang Zemen are all Manchus, scions of the Qing dynasty.
And again thanks to you now I know Yunnan didn't declare its independence on December 25 1915, nor did Kweichow on the 27, nor did Kwangsi on March 15 1916, Kwantung on April 6, Chekiang on April 12, Shensi on May 9, Szechwan on May 22, nor Hunan on May 27. I am also extremely pleased to hear there was never a civil war in China during this century.

Also your advice about using the original sources as much as possible is a true gem! Next time I have to check the exact dates of the reign of emperor Constans -just a random example- instead of consulting an encyclopaedia, the 'Pauly' or the standard work by A.H.M Jones, I'll turn to Ammianus Marcellinus, Eusebius, Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, Zosimus, Julianus, Jerom, Rufinus, Sulpicius Severus, Socrates, the Alexandrine Chronicle, Philostorgius, Athanasius and Hilarius of Poitiers. Doubtless I will never finish my article, but what quality I'll have won!
And when I desire to learn something about World War II I'll read 'Mein Kampf'.

Unfortunately I lack the ability to read the original Chinese sources, because I never mastered the language. So I am always dependent on the lying propaganda produced by European, American and Japanese imperialists.

Could you please tell me what did actually happen in China between 1895 and 1928?

According to one of those evil imperialistic publications I possess, China did recognize by the treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895 the independence of Korea and termination of tribute. Persevering in this abominable sin, it states that in 1928
1. Li Tsung-jen and Li Chi-ch'en headed the Kwangsi Clique which dominated the provinces of Kwangsi, Kwangtung, Hunan, and Hupeh.
2. Feng Yü-hsiang and his "National People's Army" occupied a preponderant position in the northern and northwestern provinces of Shantung, Honan, Shensi, Kansu, Chinghai, and Ninghsia.
3. The Young Marshal Chang Hsüeh-liang controlled the Northeast(Manchuria) and Jehol.
4. Yen Hsi-shan had established a strong base in Shansi, reaching out into Hopeh, Suiyuan, and Chahar.

And according to a still more depraved book Taiwan held until 1971 a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. How can one live in a world where one is allowed to publish such infamous libel? It is horrifying!!
Please help me!

Moving to another topic I would like to remark that my Fix received about half of 140 votes cast during the recent EC3 poll. I'll copy my final draft here:

Make the GAME a REAL CHALLENGE!!!

My severest criticism of CivII is that the game is too easily won. (And I NEVER ever cheat, not in any way!) Even on Deity level it becomes highly improbable that an experienced player will lose a CivII-game, which results in decrease of suspense. After about 1500AD when half of the turns haven't passed yet, its clear who is going to win.

I'm not interested in colonizing Alpha Centauri, and neither does world domination appeal to me. Let just plain SURVIVAL of your culture- not necessarily identical to political power- be the ultimate goal and an accomplishment in itself! It would be nice if at the end of the game the earth is still a habitable place.

Suspense till the end is essential to enjoyment of the game; its improbabe that I am the only player who without cheating has a winning position before the game is halfway. Often I handicap myself, building no wonders etc. All humans enjoy experiencing dangerous situations, especially in a game! The higher levels of this game should give us a continuous uncertainty about the future. Human history was no pleasant picnic in the park! The more CivIII will portray the harsh reality of the 'condition humaine' the more I'll like it. In the current CivII the computer keeps up a semblance of resistance only by massive cheating and plotting together.

Most readers will realize that some well-known problems are the cause of the easy wins: the Infinite City Sleaze and the Eternal China Syndrome, both related to the 21-square city structure and the fact that 'heads' are counted instead of people. These structures ensure that the largest civilization with the greatest number of cities will almost inevitably win. So all these problems are the result of one essential flaw in the basic structure of the game.

Apart from demolishing the 21-square city structure I would suggest the following to ensure suspense till the end: better AI, the possibility of secessions and civil wars, peasant revolts and feudal risings, more random elements like crop failures and epidemics, more influence of religion and economics making it possible to win in different ways, dangerous barbarians able to conquer large empires and to create a new civilization, the possibility to start at a later starting date for the advanced player, the introduction of 'decay' factors affecting older and conservative civilizations.

Civilizations lasting for more than two millenia are the exception, not the standard. CivIII should try to depict the rise and fall of civilizations/great powers. When a culture is succesfull it will almost inevitably grow conservative and convinced of its own superiority, causing other cultures to surpass the once dominant civilization. In this way its decline becomes inevitable!

The very linear, predictable structures of CivII should be broken,
CHANCE EXISTS!

The idea of Matthevv did receive even more votes. Of course one may doubt the representativeness of such a relatively small poll.
Moreover I know a lot of people who really like CivII. No one of them ever plays below Prince level. And I have never met anyone, in real life or on this Forum, complaining the game is too hard. I don't object to a very easy Chieftain level, but that is no reason not to make the current Deity level much harder than it is now. Why not introducing more levels or making the difference in difficulty between them larger? It is imperative to create a game at least better than Call to Power. I played it only once at Prince level, but was just bored, so I never bought it.

[Steve Clark]

A very good write-up. I believe that the ones here at Apolyton are truly hard-core about Civ games and thus only represent a very small portion of those who have bought and played Civ. Most of us would agree that, with experience, you can win at Deity (even though there have been some in Civ2-Strategy that can only win at the lower levels), I would suspect that a good many play at the lowest levels but don't show up here.

The game should be fun and exciting for those as well as for us deity players. But be careful what you wish for, strategy games that are too hard even for the best players tend not to last long because it's not fun to constantly lose.

[Sirotnikov]

quote: Originally posted by S. Kroeze on 07-07-2000 04:14 PM Make the GAME a REAL CHALLENGE!!! My severest criticism of CivII is that the game is too easily won. (And I NEVER ever cheat, not in any way!) Even on Deity level it becomes highly improbable that an experienced player will lose a CivII-game, which results in decrease of suspense. After about 1500AD when half of the turns haven't passed yet, its clear who is going to win. I'm not interested in colonizing Alpha Centauri, and neither does world domination appeal to me. Let just plain SURVIVAL of your culture- not necessarily identical to political power- be the ultimate goal and an accomplishment in itself! It would be nice if at the end of the game the earth is still a habitable place. Suspense till the end is essential to enjoyment of the game; its improbabe that I am the only player who without cheating has a winning position before the game is halfway. Often I handicap myself, building no wonders etc. All humans enjoy experiencing dangerous situations, especially in a game! The higher levels of this game should give us a continuous uncertainty about the future. Human history was no pleasant picnic in the park! The more CivIII will portray the harsh reality of the 'condition humaine' the more I'll like it. In the current CivII the computer keeps up a semblance of resistance only by massive cheating and plotting together.

I already talked about this in my previous post. I agree that survival is nice and all the random things that can happen also add to the fun. But they also add to the dissappointment. If a bit too much random events are introduced there is no way to win by world conquest. Every time you conquer a nation, you have a civil war and the newly conquered nation seperates together with some of your best cities.

Also, I think though some people, including me, might enjoy the survival mode, most will not. THe solution is to make it a mode. THat is you can play your usual game, or survival. Naturally survival will be harder sand much more challenging (that's why we want it in the first place) but it should exist together with normal mode. I don't want to see diety level being about survival by default or something. There should be the chieftain to diety levels for each mode.

quote: Most readers will realize that some well-known problems are the cause of the easy wins: the Infinite City Sleaze and the Eternal China Syndrome, both related to the 21-square city structure and the fact that 'heads' are counted instead of people. These structures ensure that the largest civilization with the greatest number of cities will almost inevitably win. So all these problems are the result of one essential flaw in the basic structure of the game.

I agree that heads is not accurate. I also agree that city size shouldn't make all the difference. Let's take Israel as an example. Only 6 million people. But a very high percentage of the industry is hightech and Israel is among the leading countries in hightech. But of course there is no chance that such a small nation would conquer the world or something. So in order to provide options to conquer the world, the city size should matter. To prevent the china sindrom, we should make food production lower (that is no more techs that allow you to produce 1 trillion food per turn) and we should have a model of population density. So a huge city would be tougher to manage and will take much more space on the map. Suggestions are welcome.

quote: Apart from demolishing the 21-square city structure I would suggest the following to ensure suspense till the end: better AI, the possibility of secessions and civil wars, peasant revolts and feudal risings, more random elements like crop failures and epidemics, more influence of religion and economics making it possible to win in different ways, dangerous barbarians able to conquer large empires and to create a new civilization, the possibility to start at a later starting date for the advanced player, the introduction of 'decay' factors affecting older and conservative civilizations. Civilizations lasting for more than two millenia are the exception, not the standard. CivIII should try to depict the rise and fall of civilizations/great powers. When a culture is succesfull it will almost inevitably grow conservative and convinced of its own superiority, causing other cultures to surpass the once dominant civilization. In this way its decline becomes inevitable!

I think that conservative and innovative approaches are a great idea. It should be some how implemented so very conservative and orthodox civs will have a tough time. While civs that are open-minded, innovative and adjusting will have better success since the world changes. That means that the tech developement should have a very big influence on the game. That is not just "new units with more attack and defence status" but rather new ways of attacking like: paradrop, bombarding, espionage, economic warfare. unconventional warfare is the best thing to do. And also not only warfare. Economy model should evolve and so should manufacturing methods. Shield production at first should depend mostly of population, but later in the game it should depend of technology. Becaus eof robotics and computers and stuff. And should be milestones in science like - rail, automobile, flight, space flight, computers, 3 field farming method, econnomics. These should affect much more than simply changing city icon but rather changing the way food rations, shields and economy is calculated.

WOW! I'm so excited about this kewl idea of mine. Probably just to find out some one else has already thought of that first .

quote: The very linear, predictable structures of CivII should be broken, CHANCE EXISTS! The idea of Matthevv did receive even more votes. Of course one may doubt the representativeness of such a relatively small poll.

But I would hate to see civ becoming too random and wierd. Non liner is good. However totally not knowing what's behind the corner is annoying. It's too spooky and reminds real life too much.

quote: Moreover I know a lot of people who really like CivII. No one of them ever plays below Prince level. And I have never met anyone, in real life or on this Forum, complaining the game is too hard. I don't object to a very easy Chieftain level, but that is no reason not to make the current Deity level much harder than it is now. Why not introducing more levels or making the difference in difficulty between them larger?

Right. You should also balance the difficulty better. In civ 2.42 in prince level It's really easy to win and is almost the same as in chieftain. But going up to king level is a big difference. So difficulty is like this:

Chieftain: 1
Warlord: 2 (chieftain x 2. but above lamer players don't feel the difference)
Prince: 3 (don't feel a difference)
King: 6 (x2. Then you have to actually be good)
Emperor: 8.5 (It feels ok in the begining but the AI is always about my level)
Diety: 11. (This mode is wierd. Sometimes it feels like prince and some times it feels like Diety. Then it's really tough)

quote: It is imperative to create a game at least better than Call to Power. I played it only once at Prince level, but was just bored, so I never bought it.

I agree. Call to Power was just build boring. Too much time span. Not enough turns. So 1 turn = 50 years or something. I also loaned it from a friend and played for a week. Also it was a momory hog and crashed a lot. But basically it was boring cause the tech tree was something like:

warriors -> legions ->musketeers -> rifle man
too short. And with only 4 cities and not high production I hardly built anything. Also imagine my surprise when 4 of my crusaders (or seomething) lost to a single samurai.

--------------------------------------
Hey, it's a bunch of words with a line above them.
[This message has been edited by Sirotnikov (edited July 12, 2000).]

[Grier]

I think that the last thing Rise and Fall should be is random, instead it should be enevitable if you have a massive empire (getting towards ICS size) and preventable if you have a moderate well organised empire.

Fast expansion of an empire should ultimatly lead to a colapse (though the short-term gains in trade and power should not be negligable). Whilst a slowly built up empire should be more stable (though less powerfull in the short-term).

Somthing that I liked in Shogun: Total War was the loyalty rating where newly captured locations would take a while to like you, and you had to keep a close hold on them otherwise they would revolt. I think that might also work well in civ.

[phunny pharmer]

A quick request, guys- keep the quotes short, because sometimes it takes a while to be able to read the last posts.

Grier: this certainly would make conquest a lot harder. It would also make reconquest by the AI easier, and I suppose the revolt factor could be changed between chieftain and deity.

I like it! It beats the barbarian system of Civ2.

[Urban Ranger]

S. Koeze,

My advice to you: do not use strawmen. Just because the government of a country changes hand doesn't mean the country itself falls into pieces. When the US became independent, did it disintegrate? What about the philippines or Indonesia?

Did the US "disintegrate" when the USA was fighting the CSA? Did Britain "disintegrate" during the War of the Roses?

Regarding Taiwan: No, Taiwan was not a permanent member of the Security Council. Repulic of China was. I thought you should know this by now, given that your research are always so thorough and definitive.

At any rate, is Taiwan recognized a separate country by the UN, the EU, the US, the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, etc.? If it isn't, then how can it be independent? Or maybe you know better than all these multinational organizations and countries?

I rest my case

BTW, keep up the good work!
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited July 14, 2000).]

Urban ranger. Taiwan is not, strictly speaking, independant. It still claims the Chinese mainland and because of this has never declared itself independant. Today it would like to do so, but if it does then China could lose all claim to it and would probably invade.

About international organisations: below is a quote from a demographic reference book

"Taiwan is diplomatically isolated. States wishing to do business with China cannot have relations with Taipei, which still claims to be the official government of the mainland as well as Taiwan. Taipei has to conduct its overseas relations via trade delegations rather than embassies and cannot gain representation at the UN.
"Relations with the USA have been difficult since Washington was forced to recognise China at the UN in 1972. Taiwan effectively lost its status as a US client state, and the US 6th fleet was removed from the Taiwan Strait. US security guarentees to Taiwan have been ambiguous since.
"China continues to recognise Taiwan only as a province of the Mainland"

[Tiberius]

This is not my idea, I saw it somewhere, but it could help for the "Rise and Fall".

It's a historical fact that great personalities had a huge impact in certain moment of our history, and often an empire rose or fell exactly because such a personality (politician, general, scientist, philosopher, artist) appeared or died.
Think about it: Ghingis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler (they are not necessary good people), Lenin, Einstein, Alexander the Great, Caesar, Attila the Hun, Archimedes, Leonardo da Vinci, Beethoven, Confucius, and many-many more.

In the same way, when a certain personality appear in Civ3, his nation should have for 100 years, (or maybe 200, because a great man's ideas and work last longer than his life) increased military power/science output/happiness/trade. I don't know, however, how can we (or more exactly the game designers) model the birth of such a personality: should they appear randomly, or as a result of certain social conditions?

Oops, I forgot Xena

[polypheus]

I already talked about this in my previous post. I agree that survival is nice and all the random things that can happen also add to the fun. But they also add to the dissappointment. If a bit too much random events are introduced there is no way to win by world conquest. Every time you conquer a nation, you have a civil war and the newly conquered nation seperates together with some of your best cities.

Also, I think though some people, including me, might enjoy the survival mode, most will not. THe solution is to make it a mode. THat is you can play your usual game, or survival. Naturally survival will be harder sand much more challenging (that's why we want it in the first place) but it should exist together with normal mode. I don't want to see diety level being about survival by default or something. There should be the chieftain to diety levels for each mode.

I must disagree. On the highest level, survival should be hard to achieve and "victory" should be rare and only achievable when everything just happens to fall into place.

I think that this whole "victory" thing is simply misplaced because to me it is the whole experience of the Civ game that matters not whether I won or lost. If I played a Civ game where I started up in a huge land by myself and build a huge empire and outdistanced all the rest of Civs combined that is a very boring game.

But if I play an exciting game where I must make all the right moves just to survive and there is a lot of exciting developments/events along the way, then I will want to play the game again and again because of wanting to recreate that excitement!

A good "Rise & Fall of Civilizations" model will help maintain that excitment and increase replayability for all the veterans who inevitably will master all the loopholes and will figure out how to win the game everytime. But if you have "Rise & Fall of Civilizations" implemented right, that everything is not deterministic and entirely under you control so there is still reason to continue playing.

And for those who don't want to just "survive" but "have to" win, they can play at lower levels where "Rise & Fall" features are absent.

[TechWins]

If 16 Civs are available to play in a single game. Than how would you be able to have rise and fall of empires? I realize you could have them with less Civs being played, but how many people would here would actually play without all 16 Civs just so they could have the rise and fall of empires?

I just don't think that there is going to be a good model intorduced that fits everybody's (lower level players and the experienced player) needs. I would be willing to bet many people wouldn't play the game much if it is inevitable that you'll get a civil war with your civ in every game. The complexity of it needs to be minimal for everybody. Needs to fit the number of Civs available to play. Most of all, though, it has to be (not needs to be but has to be) FUN and REALISTIC.

If anybody can come up with a good model than bravo to him/her.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by polypheus
And for those who don't want to just "survive" but "have to" win, they can play at lower levels where "Rise & Fall" features are absent.

SMAC (and others game) featured a "Iron Man" option, where a game cannot be saved mid turn, hence making very inconvenient the abuse of save&reload when things goes nasty.

A Raise and Fall working and playable model is not a walk in the park, so I'm not sure it can be tried and tested for balancing only as an option (i.e. it can be complex to make the AI able to manage two different set or rules and game effects). If Firaxis had implemented something like that, may be it can add it into the "Iron Man" set: it seems silly to me to introduce a model based on distruptive events if the frustated player can reload and try a different trick

[KrazyHorse]

Polypheus, congratulations on winning the "I can revive the most ancient thread". Eleven and a half months.

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith

it seems silly to me to introduce a model based on distruptive events if the frustated player can reload and try a different trick

Some of us don't cheat, even when we can. What were the huts in Civ II if not disruptive events?

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Some of us don't cheat, even when we can. What were the huts in Civ II if not disruptive events?

True! But some of you aren't frustrated players once or twice...

Seriusly, Hut discover risk isn't bad, if not very early at game. A Rise and Fall model who can crush your empire is more tempting...

I had similar hate for SMAC money crisis (forgot the right name), where you lost most of your cash overnight, for no particular reason
Reload was the most common "automated reply"...