Simple way to make CIV more "real"

TomCB · December 29, 2002, 12:26

I would like to see areas of the map get named.
Such and such mountain range, jungle, ocean etc.
A diplomatic option could be made available to tell other powers that a given ara is claimed or not claimed, and may be defended.
I think this would add depth to the game on several levels.
How about major battle sites, such as where a great leader was created, getting a icon over it to show historical importance.

I would like the ability to make navel fleets, like armies on the high seas.

Other minor wonders could include things like military academies and massive war game training area along the lines of the several the US army maintains.

I will repeat the need for canals, that could be a Panama canal type of thing.
This would be best if it was actually shown on the map like roads are now.

I would like the ability to not allow other powers to tap into my irrigation without permission. Another diplomatic option?

And I would like the ability to refuse some squares that I have cultural control over, and insist on a neighbor surrender certain squares they control, perhaps offering a trade. This would help even out the borders.

How about a non-aggression pact, instead of only a mutual protection pact.

Maybe we can create a list of things that we all would like to see.

swagled · December 29, 2002, 13:14

Because there are multiple AIs and only one "you", I think territorial boundaries would be to the detriment of the human. The map would "fill up" much faster and you'd feel like there's nowhere to grow. I have a feeling it would be another cumbersome thing to manage, and it would make the map cluttered. (If this was done, founding a city in land that is just "claimed" should be nothing more than a reputation hit, not grounds for war.)

I might like the ability to negotiate a "permenant border" with other civs, though. This would be something you can only do after establishing a peace treaty. And crossing a permenant border is an automatic declaration of war, and a *major* reputation hit.

You also could not extend your border into that civ, using cultural improvements or by building a city on your frontier. The whole point is "peace and security", like borders today. You're "satisifed" with your borders and want to be left alone. (None of this means that a city behind a permenent border can't "flip", though. But again, accepting a city behind a permenant border is an act of war.)

Historians will say that no borders are permenant. But some are more permenant than others...

Panag · December 29, 2002, 17:59

hi ,

in oreder to make it more real we shall need several things , here are some ; a second UU or a UU for each era , canals like Panama or Bosphorus , bigger map , more buildings , a jail , fire house , etc , ...... more units , like a C-130 , a ship that can take a special type of heli , random events like fire's , flood's etc , ..... , terraforming , .....

and so on and on

but what is really needed is the option to create scenario's like in civilization II , ...... !

have a nice day

bobbo008 · December 29, 2002, 18:03

I agree with a lot of that. Rivers, in many cases, form borders, for example. Too often the borders just go back and forth in this game. I do, to some extent, agree with claiming territory. Just because you have a four square space in your territory shouldn't mean the AI instantly plants a city there.

Panag · December 29, 2002, 18:57

Quote:

Originally posted by bobbo008
I agree with a lot of that. Rivers, in many cases, form borders, for example. Too often the borders just go back and forth in this game. I do, to some extent, agree with claiming territory. Just because you have a four square space in your territory shouldn't mean the AI instantly plants a city there.

hi ,

it would be great for scenario's if you can draw some borders on the map , borders that would stay the same except if war would break out , .....

thats an option that would be worth it to be included , .....

have a nice day

bobbo008 · December 29, 2002, 20:41

Stupid cultural borders. They don't go back and forth based on culture. Would a small area of French want to join Germany? Not very likely.

About claiming territory, though. You should be able to claim some, and maybe some way for the AI to look at that... For example, if you claim an entire continent, the AI would think that that isn't a very legit claim, and ignores it basically. If you claim a small area outside your cultural borders based on maybe a river, or up to a range of mountains, it may be more willing to respect that claim.

edit:

Civs never really "bond". You can go from "gracious" to "annoyed" in several turns. There is no way to have relationships like in the real world, for example the U.S. and Canada/Mexico.

Darkknight · December 29, 2002, 21:56

Most of what you say I agree with however some may be too cumbersome for the average player who doesn't want to get into the micromanagement of the game. This would be a benefit for those that are willing to micromanage which of course most people wont like :\

I really would like to see canals in the game. This was an early promise but along with many other early promises they were cut.

I'd be surprised if we saw any more major improvements such as what you're talking about in official patches tho. Even if there are any more patches for Civ3 original I'd be surprised if they contained any more then bug fixes.

brianshapiro · December 30, 2002, 00:23

why didnt firaxis have it so sometimes if theres a large amount of cities in disorder they revolt to a new civ , instead of just joining another culture.

bobo , yes a small area of france would have flipped to germany ,etc in the 10th century maybe when cultural borders were looser. cultural flips to nonnative cultures are a lot harder later in the game anyway for built cities with large culture points ie after nationalism. still today one can imagine regions of some nations revolting most wouldnt join an existing nation though , except maybe cases like british columbia and other conservative regions of canada where some want to join the US. but in the game , a size 20 city with many monuments has a low chance of switching from the original culture then a high chance of switching back from an invading force.

but cultural flipping isnt unrealistic for reasons above. its very messy as a historical model but its a stupid abstraction for godsakes . there arent ever 7 set monolithic civilizations start from there

Panag · December 30, 2002, 00:29

Quote:

Originally posted by brianshapiro
why didnt firaxis have it so sometimes if theres a large amount of cities in disorder they revolt to a new civ , instead of just joining another culture.

bobo , yes a small area of france would have flipped to germany ,etc in the 10th century maybe when cultural borders were looser. cultural flips to nonnative cultures are a lot harder later in the game anyway for built cities with large culture points ie after nationalism. still today one can imagine regions of some nations revolting most wouldnt join an existing nation though , except maybe cases like british columbia and other conservative regions of canada where some want to join the US. but in the game , a size 20 city with many monuments has a low chance of switching from the original culture then a high chance of switching back from an invading force.

but cultural flipping isnt unrealistic for reasons above. its very messy as a historical model but its a stupid abstraction for godsakes . there arent ever 7 set monolithic civilizations start from there

hi ,

and then to say that in civII its possible to have revolutions with even new civ's emerging , ......

, this should have been included in civIII , .....

have a nice day

swagled · December 30, 2002, 02:03

Culture flips have happened in the real world. "New Amsterdam" became "New York" quite willingly. But then there are counter-examples like Gibraltar where people just refuse to give in.

I'd say what culture flipping is really trying to emulate is immigration. People don't usually revolt in their own city to join another country. They usually just leave. It would probably be less obtrusive and "realistic" to have a game option for cities to simply "leak population" rather than flip.

bobbo008 · December 30, 2002, 02:23

"yes a small area of france would have flipped to germany ,etc in the 10th century maybe when cultural borders were looser"

...umm... how about NO? Let's look at an example favorable to you: During the Napoleonic era, France was arguably the most powerful nation on Earth. Any nation under French control, including parts of Germany, weren't exactly happy about it, even with French cultural/military superiority

TomCB · December 30, 2002, 03:52

If memory serves, Napoleon was around in the 18th century, when nations were more "concrete" or established than they were in the 10th century.

Think more of Rome, where conqurered peoples soon welcomed the benefits of being Roman, at least for a time.

Even the various nations which were "graced" with British rule have benefited in one way or another from it, at least from a western point of view.

I guess I can buy culteral conversions until say around 1500 AD Earth standard.

After that, I think it would take the form of either natural alliance or hatred.
Form of government should take a far greater role in the whole affair as well.

Another thing.
Religion, if properly implimented, could play a dynamic role in CIV IV.
Afterall, religion has had some "small" role in Earth history.

elcapjtk · December 30, 2002, 04:22

Yes, new Civilizations sprouting up from a civil war was always entertaining.

Haha I took your capitol... and half of your cities just declared independance!

Mark_Everson · December 30, 2002, 09:51

Evolving cultural/civ characteristics would add another dimension to the game.

Something reasonable with cultures that evolve could make a decent mini-game so long as the player only needs to nudge it every 30 turns or so. One of the biggest cultural impacts IMO is corruption (real-world, not civ type). If corruption gets too big a foothold then its almost impossible to advace reasonably well. Despotisms could evolve toward more corruption naturally. Of course despotism sucks anyway, so maybe this isn't needed.

bobbo008 · December 30, 2002, 16:01

The Celtic people or people of Scotland, to my knowledge, never wanted to join ANYBODY, including the Romans and the English through the thousand or so years of contact. Remember, most of the Roman territories were conquered, and at first, the conquered peoples were given full citizenship, which is why Rome was so successful.

TomCB · December 30, 2002, 17:18

Very true, they didn't WANT to, but ultimately they did join the British empire, at least for a considerable time and to one degree or another.

I firmly believe that populations will only "convert" if their own civilization has not become entrenched enough AND, not IF, the dominate culture, or the one being converted too, is vastly more advanced or percieved as better.

Case in point:
Millions of illegal aliens cross the Southern border of the US every year.
Yet they do not "convert" to the US culture, they work very hard at keeping their own, even at the point of entertaining the idea of returning vast sections of US territory to Mexico that were seized in a war of aggression in the early 1800's which the US started or at least encouraged and Mexico lost.
Do a google search of "Aztlan" and see for yourself.

This is going to evolve into an argument of one culture being superior to another which is INCREDIBLY un-PC, even if justified.

The game would have to define which qualities are "good" and which ones are "bad" to each civilization.
Government types, levels of freedom, economic system, religion or the tolerance level of all religions and overall prosperity would just be the beginning of things that could be used.
What one culture values another despises.
The West generally values freedom of religion, while many countries hate others for no other reason than the religion in different.
The same can be said for economic models.

I think that cultural lines on the map should have an effect for defining territory, but conversion.......no.

Parts of France were given to Germany as a result of the Fraco-Prussian war in 1870.
But the people stayed French. and became French nationals again after WWI ended and the land was returned.
Perhaps this is why native populations have been removed (or destroyed) in order to make an area more to the victors likeing.

With these and other factors added in to the diplomatic options available, natural alliances and enemies should be created.

Want to really shake things up a bit.
Add in a few secret societies that so many think really pull the strings behind the scenes.
How about organized crime, drugs and whatever assortment of banned items you wish to include.

One thing they should change as well is the idea that 4 of my advance armor can be killed by an enemy tank.

Zachriel · December 30, 2002, 19:45

Quote:

Originally posted by TomCB
Case in point:
Millions of illegal aliens cross the Southern border of the US every year. Yet they do not "convert" to the US culture. . .

Sure they do. Or more accurately, a new American culture emerges from the mixing of cultures -- just as it should.

brianshapiro · December 30, 2002, 20:25

re: immigration . a good example is texas being a part of mexico but then joining the united states because of american immigrants.

but .,.. the french revolution encouraged nationalism which made others resistant to the french; culture had already become a key concern. in feudal situations in the middle ages loose borders and less national identity led to things like 'cultural flipping'

also that the game is centered around cities makes things strange ,but if you consider a city a province or area you can consider kosovar rebellion as a force of cultural flipping to albania

brianshapiro · December 30, 2002, 20:33

tomcb, zachariel:

some conservatives get into trouble with this issue by talkinga bout preserving western culture and values which sounds supremacist. but the reason it should be taken seriously, is that many people in academia and politics are promoting immigration policies with the specific aim of destroying western culture, ie the immigration quotas are larger the more a nation is non-western, and there are policies to attract those from nonwestern cultures. stary eyed academics from ethnic studies depts, etc actually promote this with ideas of destroying the western culture that supposedly is the source of all racism and bigotry seen in things like christianity etc. so this is where the fight started. people are responding to a coercive effort going on

TomCB · December 30, 2002, 23:57

You better watch your back being in The Peoples Republic of Berkley and all.
You keep talking like that and you might get wacked.
LOL
Why isn't the French attacked for thinking their culture is so wonderful, but Americans are?

zachariel.
As far as immigration, I bet the mexican government regreted it's policies at the time.
Remember, armed Americans made Texas a independent state and then it "joined" the Union.

Sorry, but you are mistaken about a greater culture being created through modern immigration.

They (from every nation) keep their own culture (especially language) and refuse to accept what was here before them.
Others may accept some of what they bring, but that is hardly the same thing.

Do a search on Aztlan and you will see that there is a concerted effort to move vast numbers of mexicans into the US with the purpose to take over local government through elections.

The problem is that once there, they can create policies that encourage even further expansion and then we could very well see the end of the US, at least as we know it.
And that would be a very bad thing for the entire world, even if they don't realize it.

My question is, if mexican culture is so wonderful, why are they coming here?

We are getting WAY off topic and I think any further discussion should be made through private e-mail before the mods feel it is required to do something drastic.

I wonder what sorts of debates the designers had cultural conversion.

bobbo008 · December 30, 2002, 23:59

"Parts of France were given to Germany as a result of the Fraco-Prussian war in 1870.
But the people stayed French. and became French nationals again after WWI ended and the land was returned."

Many Germans there, as well. But yes, the French people there in the area did not consider themselves German afterwards.

"Perhaps this is why native populations have been removed (or destroyed) in order to make an area more to the victors likeing."

The territory Poland received from Germany after WWII had 10.9 million people. Of those, 9 million were German. Most of those Germans were forced to leave for the present-day borders of Germany. So much for drawing borders based on nationality.

bobbo008 · December 31, 2002, 00:04

"Sure they do. Or more accurately, a new American culture emerges from the mixing of cultures -- just as it should."

Spanglish, anyone?

"Why isn't the French attacked for thinking their culture is so wonderful, but Americans are?"

I agree, down with the French!

"armed Americans made Texas a independent state and then it "joined" the Union."

The U.S. refused to admit Texas, then it became for a short time, I believe, the so-called "Lone Star Republic".

"My question is, if mexican culture is so wonderful, why are they coming here?"

Money, not the culture.

brianshapiro · December 31, 2002, 00:22

tomcb ,
le pen is attacked by the french as if he's hitler , while really hes as harmless as pat buchanan

TomCB · December 31, 2002, 01:11

bobbo008
Hitler did have plans to make large tracts of Europe convert to German.
However, it had nothing to do with a "Hearts and Minds" approach and he cared nothing about conversion of the natives.
His had more to do with immigration, yea thats the word, immigration. Since no one else was going to be living there anymore anyways.

OK, we all agree with "Down with the French"
You know, I even take great delight in wiping them out in the game........

Did you know that the Texas Constitution has a provision that will allow it to become 5 different states should it desire to do so?

Do the mexicans really think that if they managed to take over huge chucks of the US that it would not become as screwed up as Mexico is today?
I guess they don't they understand that the culture is what brought the money, not the land itself.

As far as Germans leaving the area, remember that they were not exactly the most loved people in the region after WWII and were most likely rightly fearful for thier lives.

I don't recall the details about Texas, I thought they did not want to join but were "forced" into it when they needed the military support. Perhaps I will care enough some day to look it up.

"Spanglish, anyone?"

Are you kidding us. Americans on average can't find the US on a map and you want us to learn a new language.

Sorry, I go with the "Our house, Our rules"
Come here, speak Americanized English.

We did not learn Galic, or Polish, or Italian or any other language when massive numbers of the various people came here.
Therefore I see no reason why we should change the pattern now.

On another point, am playing PTW right now and saw two white plumes shoot out of two Russian cities as I was massing to attack them......ACK

I started trading maps and found that ALL the other powers had been tossing nukes around like it was there mission in life.
I have not launched any, nor have I been hit with any.

What starts it and why are the Russians dying rather than use them on me?
Could the 20 or so ICBM's I have laying around be the reason?

bobbo008 · December 31, 2002, 01:20

"As far as Germans leaving the area, remember that they were not exactly the most loved people in the region after WWII and were most likely rightly fearful for thier lives."

So you admit they probably didn't have much of a choice?

"Are you kidding us. Americans on average can't find the US on a map and you want us to learn a new language."

I was referring to the new culture in the border areas.

"Sorry, I go with the "Our house, Our rules"
Come here, speak Americanized English."

Unfortunately, they don't. As a matter of fact, only several states have an official language.

"We did not learn Galic, or Polish, or Italian or any other language when massive numbers of the various people came here.
Therefore I see no reason why we should change the pattern now."

Exactly, all of us Europeans learned a different language and there's no reason Mexicans or Asians can't do the same damn thing. There were as many German speakers as English speakers at the time, as well.

TomCB · December 31, 2002, 01:22

Le Pen is about as conservative as Bob Dole.

The French were so funny how they just freaked out over him.
And to think, he was hated because he wanted to stop immigration in order to save French culture.
Hmmm, maybe we should incourage immigration into France afterall.

And Pat Buchanan is not a factor in politics anymore.
But then either is the vast number of "politicians" and media whores that try to make themselves far more important than they really are.

bobbo008 · December 31, 2002, 01:54

Le Pen, to my knowledge, did want to leave the Eurozone and the E.U., but I doubt one man is going to make that happen (yeah, all of France's problems are Europe's fault). That would cost I don't know how much money and would be rejected by everyone but some old opinionated WWII vets and radicals.

If France left the E.U., though, would it still exist after that? Hmm... think of what that would lead to...

TomCB · December 31, 2002, 02:25

Why is it anyone who has a conservative or UN PC point of view is a radical?

Ever think that Vets may actually understand things better than the current population that has never had to struggle for anything?
By they way, he did get something like 35% of the vote, that is a whole lot of "radicals."

I think that France is just having the same problems that most other European countries are having.

They all have these HUGE bloated federal programs that they keep having to import more and immigrant labor to pay for, which compounds the problems even more.

Do you know why Canada's money become worth less and less?
It is because they keep printing more and more money to pay for their programs.
They are paying for them through inflation.
Some day their money won't be worth the paper it is printed on.

Personally, I am looking forward to the whole liberal dream thing falling apart, should prove to be quite entertaining.

The new MOO3 is supposed to have a currency manipulation feature in it. That should make things very interesting if it is done right.

bobbo008 · December 31, 2002, 02:36

"Ever think that Vets may actually understand things better than the current population that has never had to struggle for anything?"

Most vets here blame most of our problems on "the damn VietCong" or "Japs" or something to that mentality.

"By they way, he did get something like 35% of the vote, that is a whole lot of "radicals."

35% of the those who voted. Most of those are the most manipulated ones. As we've already discussed, the masses don't react to rationalism and reason. Most of these voters probably just like to hear how it's not their fault, and that they can blame somebody else for all of their problems. And your sentence should be "those are a whole lot of radicals".

"Personally, I am looking forward to the whole liberal dream thing falling apart, should prove to be quite entertaining."

You do that, then, waiting for the inevitable downfall of Canadian society and/or total assimilation into the United States, whichever one you have deemed to happen...

edit: noticed the American flag by your name and had to forgive you

TomCB · December 31, 2002, 03:17

Your vets are a bit different then the ones around here. Around here they generally are pretty quite, except when it comes to military lives being wasted for political gain, ie. Somalia.
Your vets should understand that our problems are caused by us, we who are too fickle to be told the truth by the would be elected officials and too spineless to do what is necessary as a nation.

So, any vote for a conservative is manipulated?
Nice logic, must keep you in that fantasy world very nicely.

I have not deemed anything regarding Canada's future.
I have just studies economics and cause and effect.
Besides, after the lefties get done with it it won't be worth owning and we will have to put up with massive immigration from the North as well.

Simply put, the more of something there is the less it is worth.
As Canada and other countries print more and more money in order to avoid raising debt levels, the currency becomes worth less and less.

That is how they will become like so much of South America with 4000% inflation and currency only good as bathroom tissue.

Damn Nixon getting us off the gold standard.

No, I had the quotation marks in the right place.

History will tell, and history has shown time and time again how states that go for the liberal dream crash and burn.
The first was Rome, which had massive public assistance programs that drained the treasury so much that the legions could not be paid.
The USSR is a mess, although it was an extreme case of leftism.
East Germany is a wreck and even California is drowning in debt.
Now it is Europes turn, how fun it will be to watch the lefties make excuses for just plain bad management.