Dreaming a History for a World yet to hit shelves

[OzzyKP]

Well the thought of continuing the History of the World saga has hit some of us. So i've created this thread to shoot around ideas and dream up Diplogaming possibilities for Civilization 3.

I liked the colonization aspects of HOTW2. I think we should keep that in the new game, especially with all of the new features. We start everyone off in the Old World and then everyone has to compeate for resources overseas.

It'll be cramped, but less so since the map will be bigger. But cramped is good, that is how it should be.

In the current game the goal of going to the New World is for more territory. In the new game the goals will be more in-line with Earth-History reasons. People initially colonized the new world for resources not found back in europe. This would be great to see role-played out. A real age of discovery.

I hear that a premade World Map will be packaged with Civ3, which will be good. But seeing the one that came with Civ2 Capo and I may have to do some tweaking.

As long as we are dreaming about a game months off anyone think we can bring back some of the Diplo-game originators like John B for another go at it with a new game? We can hope.

[The Capo]

Well as I've said before its a damn good thing the HOTW Series is going to live on, I thought after the first fiasco that the second was wishful thinking, months (and plenty of arguments) later its still alive and kickin. Therefore, I hope 3 winds up being the best out of the series as far as problems are concerned.

And yes, its quite fitting that it occurs with Civ3.

I was thinking about whether or not we want a "Colonial" aspect in this game since we had it in 2, and so far Ozzy has shown his interest (this could be because he wasn't in 2), I personally see no problem with a Colonial aspect of the game, so I think that's something we should talk about, namely: Should there be a tribe/tribes in the Americas?

Another thing that, depending on how Civ3 is packaged, could be an issue is the nations allowed. I tend to enjoy having each player pick his or her own nation and play it like that. I assume since this game will begin around the time Civ3 comes out that not much segway would have been made in the field of modification. Which means HOTW3 may be just a straight up Civ3 game. So we'd also have to discuss whether we would do heavy editing of the game like we did in HOTW2 or whether we are going to play it straight up Civ3?

Finally the number of players will have to be an issue. From what I've heared the number of players is going to be 8 rather than 7, and this could be edited to accomodate up to 16 players. The only issue that I have with using the entire 16 is attendence issues, which means for this game we're GOING TO NEED to have a reserve of subs. If we are going to try to push the envelope I suggest 10 players at the most. Thoughts?

Finally, we should think of something new to do with this game (like the first diplogame on Civ3 isn't new, Capo you're a spaz), in HOTW1 we had Colonization including weaker AI tribes in the Americas, in HOTW2 we had that and no SDI, what are we going to do this time, if anything?

So those are the first questions that come to mind, and its only my initial response. This game is going to make History....

of the World.

Lame I know, shaddup. Peace.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by The Capo
I was thinking about whether or not we want a "Colonial" aspect in this game since we had it in 2, and so far Ozzy has shown his interest (this could be because he wasn't in 2),

Thats part of it. I'm still bitter. But i think with the new features it will work out great in Civ3.

I personally see no problem with a Colonial aspect of the game, so I think that's something we should talk about, namely: Should there be a tribe/tribes in the Americas?

There shouldn't be a human. Maybe an AI or two, but if so they should be handicapped if we can do it. They shouldn't be equal to us when we come over.

Another thing that, depending on how Civ3 is packaged, could be an issue is the nations allowed. I tend to enjoy having each player pick his or her own nation and play it like that. I assume since this game will begin around the time Civ3 comes out that not much segway would have been made in the field of modification. Which means HOTW3 may be just a straight up Civ3 game. So we'd also have to discuss whether we would do heavy editing of the game like we did in HOTW2 or whether we are going to play it straight up Civ3?

From what i've read of the new game it is apparently easier to edit things. And they are going to make it editable when it is first released. I deffinatly think we need to edit it to make custom civs and customize where we start and whatnot. Better yet! We can probably make our own custom units for each civ.

Finally the number of players will have to be an issue. From what I've heared the number of players is going to be 8 rather than 7, and this could be edited to accomodate up to 16 players. The only issue that I have with using the entire 16 is attendence issues, which means for this game we're GOING TO NEED to have a reserve of subs. If we are going to try to push the envelope I suggest 10 players at the most. Thoughts?

Yes, i deffinatly think 10 should be the absolute max. Maybe 8 or 9. But we could have some permanent AI in america. That'd be cool too.

Finally, we should think of something new to do with this game (like the first diplogame on Civ3 isn't new, Capo you're a spaz), in HOTW1 we had Colonization including weaker AI tribes in the Americas, in HOTW2 we had that and no SDI, what are we going to do this time, if anything?

Well i guess i've already suggested the colonization with weaker AI in Americas. That'd work well. And we have yet to see how no SDI works out in HOTW2. Generally I say we've got enough new stuff to work out with civ3 that we don't want to complicate things too much further.

[drake]

The most important thing is not the map, the units or anything like that, it's the cast. The cast is what will make this game great, not the bells and whistles. So.....rather than discuss whats going to go down in the game, I think we should first figure out who will be interested when the time comes. Then we need to determine who is most likely to finish the game (dedication), and who is most likely to write up a good story line (interest). This is whats important. So, even though this game is many months away (atleast), what we should do is figure WHO's going to want to play, not what the options in game are......really, we don't even know what we'll have as far as options/customizability go anyway.

[Rasputin]

Whilst agreeing with Drake that the player list is the first and main priority . I think this is a good time to discuss some options for the game too, most of us have read the Civ3 stuff released by Firaxis so have some understandingof the game.

If the game gets relesead in October I suggest a HOTW3 start time as mid to late January. This gives us all time to play the game and for Capo etal to play with the editing side. Would be nice to get our own nations and flags as such as per HOTW2.

As for numbers of players, well I guess this all depends on how many volunteer. I think if we get that much interest , perhaps 10 at max too. But I would like to see expressions of interest in being sub for the game too. Perhpas each player once announced can try and find a sub who could play whenever needed perhpas to keep the subs interest letting them play on regular intervals rather than just when main palyer not around.

As for AIs. I like the idea of America being inhabited by the Native Americans (Indians) and perhpas Incas in South america. Shouldnt make them too weak though, we dont want the first one there to dominate , we want the players who reach the Americas to have to fight or Negotiate somewhat.


Ok hope that keeps the discussion going.. So far we have CAPO, OZZY, DRAKE & RASPUTIN interested , any others ????

[OzzyKP]

I agree totally with Drake. In fact the whole History of the World project was first inspired by reading through some of the old diplogames and wanting to get an all star cast for an amazingly rich new chapter to the genre. The players make the game.

Unfortunatly it isn't always possible to get the best players for the game. Often some of those best players don't have the patience to hold out for the best players. Most of Capo and my first Diplogames went that way, we were too eager to get going and just took anyone we could. Even resorting to recruiting at the zone (bad idea).

We need to assemble a dream team list and do our best lobbying to win over those people to this game. People who are good at handling the bells and whistles are good to have on that list as well. All the extra perks enrich the game and shouldn't be discounted. Though good players who play well, post well, and stick around is certainly most important.

I'm going to see if i can bump CapTVK's diploguide thread. That gave me the Dream Team idea before and hopefully it'll refresh it once more.

[Rasputin]

I not sure if we want the BEST MP players, more like the Best Diplo players, there is a big difference. As you of course know.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Rasputin
I not sure if we want the BEST MP players, more like the Best Diplo players, there is a big difference. As you of course know.

Of course.

The Diplogame FAQ has been bumped. Everyone read and study. You've got a few months to do your homework. Look through some of the old games too. Look for inspiration. Read what they did right, read what they did poorly. Think of what we can do better.

[The Capo]

While I agree with Ozzy's idea for an "All Star Cast" I think that we should at least let two new people into the game. My only defense on this is a pretty good one, well two pretty good ones: GNGSpam (aka Chris) and Drake.

Let's be honest, if it wasn't for my ritual of allowing at least two newbies into the Diplogames Drake and Chris would probably have never gotten into it, at least not when they did, and they're both amazing Diplogamers. And Oz, the same could be said for the two of us, although we sort of played our role in reviving the Diplogame genre, which took a nose dive after getting a bad rap for being "weakling games." I think I speak for players and spectators alike when I say that HOTW2 probably destroyed any notion that Diplogames are for the "peaceloving weaklings."

Therefore if we don't add in new players we won't develop, no matter how forward thinking and innovative we are. I'm all for guys that can run with the diplo-torch, but I still think we need a couple of newbies to keep the genre fresh and interesting.

And yes, I totally agree with Rasputin when I say that time should be alloted at least to figure out how to personalize the game to HOTW3 a little more, such as national flags and tweeks to things that may need tweekin'.

I think, if possible, the AI in the Americas should have a different technology tree than those of us in the Old World, if enough space is given (as far as "test techs" go) this is more than possible. This way we can give them cultural specific units, or rather culturally different units than our own, which would also add an aspect to the game, they may even get their own wonder...

According to our timetable we probably have around four or five months to get this thing planned and set up. Which is a nice amount of time, and I hope I don't have to say this but it needs to be said so we are on the same page; HOTW3 does not start until HOTW2 ends.

So on with the discussion...

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by The Capo
While I agree with Ozzy's idea for an "All Star Cast" I think that we should at least let two new people into the game. My only defense on this is a pretty good one, well two pretty good ones: GNGSpam (aka Chris) and Drake.

Yea I know, and the standard policy of letting a few newbies in should stand. I had thought of this when I was posting, but didn't think it necessary to include.

Of course we have to be careful selecting who to introduce as well. I think Rasputin is much of a newbie to Diplogames (unless he did some before HOTW2) He only came in as a late sub for HOTW2, so I think he could possibly fill a newbie slot.

We need to carefully screen who wants in though. Let those interested now sub some in HOTW2 as an interview (not to suggest that HOTW2 is a trial run for 3, it certainly is an amazing game itself.)

I hate taking this stance but I think a tighter control of who's allowed in needs to be undertaken. I really hate this elitist way of doing it, and I really hated it when i was trying to look for people a year ago. But if we really want to push the limits of quality we should give it a try.

If we think someone has faults as a diploplayer it should be candidly pointed out. (you all sure made it clear last year why you didn't want me). No one is really in charge of selection, but there should be some method of screening i think.

I hate being the bad guy. Maybe Capo should do this job, hehe, he's real good at it, and always recovers.

But we need to all put our heads together to judge each other and those who want in.

[deity]

I'm keen on this and I reckon we should discuss EVERYTHING because it effects who actually wants to play and precipitates the final cast.

As I was saying to ozzy and drake on icq today I think Europe should be a cramped start with at least 4 'countries' vieing for space and being nudged into coloniation;
maybe a few other civs in Asia and Africa but that's it;
up to 10 civs in the 'old world' , well maybe - using a rolling cast of say 12 players;
no one in the Americas or Australia or Southern Africa.....

And don't forget, those top players in Civ2 MP may not be so good in civ3 where strategy as it was intended will become much more important than all the loopholes many use in Civ2 to generate massive growth etc etc... yeah... yeah... I do it too, but I didn't in my first Civ2 MP game which I won without WLTPD, no ICS, no Incremental rush buying, no tricks at all!! And I enjoyed it more.

[The Capo]

I don't think Europe should necessarily be cramped simply because it was in reality. The fact is most areas of the world were "cramped" but there were strong nations that took over eventually since 4000 b.c. Civ has a horrible track record of not accurately portraying how things go, in Civ the nation with the most space is going to do well, which is why my original choice for civ in HOTW2 (The Irish) never saw the light of day, it would have been impossible for me to compete.

This isn't to say that Europe should have only one or two civs, this is to say that everyone should decide who they want to be within the new world and we look at it through that perspective. I think I might be the Turks or Russians in this game. I am still undecided, but we've got a few months.

[deity]

Depending on the civ3 world map I may like the Brits.

Without sounding too egotistical maybe the more experienced players should have less land?

[Rasputin]

I think Deity is right, if the Map is going to be as big as we think it is then there should be plenty of room for 4 civs in Europe, Spain, Germany, Romans, and Russians all start in Europe, With the Turks (Ottomans might be better name)in the mid east, Egyptains and Zulus in africa (I think Africa is big wnough for 2), Chinese, Mongols, Indians in Asia.


I defiantly think I am still a newbie , got lots to learn!!

I suggest we keep the same Timeslot for the game too. Works reaosnably well. Saturday morning no good for me(Friday night US), perhpas Sunday morning may be ok???

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by deity
Depending on the civ3 world map I may like the Brits.

Without sounding too egotistical maybe the more experienced players should have less land?

Yea, that'd be an option for balancing the game a bit.

I haven't heard any concrete numbers for players either. I heard either 8 or 16 as the cap on players.

Europe should be a bit cramped, but not overly so. Perhaps 3 and a half (Turkey being a half). Maybe Britian, France, Russia, and Turkey would be good to have in Europe. Then Egyptians, Indians, Chinese and Zulu. That'd give us 8 humans, then we could have a few AI. If we want more humans we could perhaps get the Persians and a custom African civ.

That split works out well too since it mostly uses the civs that come with the game. I think that truly customizing this stuff may be a pain. If it is a pain and we all stick to the civs that came with the game I'm ok with that. Turkey could be Greece instead. But if customization is possible and not too difficult i'd like to work on creating a Metalhead empire once more. Since I'm fairly good at civ I could be in Europe somewhere, perhaps in France. Or i could be that custom African civ if we do that, I could start in Ethiopia.

Just some thoughts. Like my new pic?

[deity]

I'm against any AI, just people!

Civs with more land and nearer AI will be WAY benefited... unbalanced.

ozzy, you look great

Capo looks like Sun Tzu

[deity]

I believe 16 civs are included in civ3.

[Rasputin]

I would like Germany !!

I think Europe although crowded is a good place for me to start ...

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by deity
I believe 16 civs are included in civ3.

But only 7 are human with 1 barbarain at a time, I beleive, but apparently some customization allows 16 to be played at once but not all screens configured for this

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by deity
I'm against any AI, just people!

Civs with more land and nearer AI will be WAY benefited... unbalanced.

ozzy, you look great

Capo looks like Sun Tzu

Not traditional AI. Just some AI in the New World. Perhaps the Iriqouis and Inca. Capo suggested stunting them somewhat so they'd be like the native people from Earth history. We don't want to go overseas and find a powerful, advanced empire, but we also don't want to just see empty land, because thats not how it worked on Earth.

I think a stunted tech tree or some population limits would be good ideas to stunt them. Or perhaps just a scattered barbarian-like civ that doesn't really advance or function on its own, but is there to slow down would be colonizers.

And that's not a pic of me, thats my namesake, Ozzy Osbourne.

Also, like a bolt of lightening i've come up with another thing to look for in players-- one or two people with a stable, fast connection to avoid technical difficulties during game play. That can make a big difference in big games like this.

[Rasputin]

Yes the Cable Users should probably be the hosts, seems to work better that way. I jsut wish our Australian Telcom company would run cable my way, I guess after making $4.1 Bill profit they cant afford to yet !!!!

[belinda9]

OK so I've been following this discussion and a few things come to mind..
Been kinda lurking on here reading yr ideas.
First of all, I don't expect to get in on this one (I've been down this road before) but I might throw my hat in as one of the pool of subs -- depending, of course, on how I react to civ3 the actuality!

but there are a couple of things you might want to think about

1st of all, I wouldn't go hogwild and start off with 10 people. Actually, I think you'd do better overall limiting it to 5 or 6 just because of the mechanics of online play. Anyone who's been involved in HOTW2 lately can attest to how frustrating it is to spend an hour getting everyone successfully logged in initially only to play three or four turns and have someone kicked off, requiring yet another restart, etc., etc. Regardless of how wonderful Civ3 may turn out to be, the fact remains that you will still be having to deal with the vagaries of ISPs/phone systems worldwide. I think a smaller core and a stable pool of available subs would work better for you. So assuming you leave the Americas open for colonization at the start (too bad; I'd love to see what could be done with the Aztecs!) six people could mean 2 per each other continent (2 in Europe, 2 in Asia, 2 in Africa)

Also, concerning the Americas, I'd think you'd make it more 'even' if you had a hampered AI or 2 -- one in South America and 1 in North: or even just the one say in Mexico/Central America. Otherwise, it just becomes a race to see to can get the sailing tech first to get over there and establish a good beachhead before the others -- I mean, it's not like you don't know it's there, do you? If whoever was first had to deal in some fashion with existing peoples, it might mean someone has to "team up" in order to get rid of them, or at the very least it cuts down on the otherwise obvious advantages of being the first one over there. Of course, I don't know how possible it is to "hamper" and Ai, either

just a coupla cents worth from a semi-interested party. but y'all do what you want

[Rasputin]

Its interesting that some people ahv eposted here and stated that meeting an AI while the others dont is an advantage. That may be because they are basing their comments on their experience in Civ 2 . I am hoping that the AI in Civ 3 will be smarter and able to hold its on agaisnt a Human. If this is so then if it is possible to limit the AIs tech to certain ones and not others you can guarantee that the first one their will struggle to overcome the AI until they get the tech advantages, as per real life colonisastion of the Americas, then perhaps it could get interesting if a foriegn civ then landed and aided the AI to hold out the original invaders. Perhaps allowing tech gifting to AIs.

Just my .02c worth

[Rasputin]

If it comes down to any voting system, you get my vote Belinda, I think your role palying in the HOTW2 is brilliant. (I just dont like the fact you are so damn secretive )

[OzzyKP]

We are getting mixed comments on the idea of having American AI, I want to try and address this from my point of view.

Some see having AI as an advantage for the first person to reach there, typically AI is fairly easy to conquer which would mean a bunch of already made cities that an invader can just storm in and take over. In this case the first person to America would have a tremendous advantage to reach it and have nice sized cities with plenty of infrastructure already established. Easier yet since people are talking about stunting the tech tree for the AI. Very unbalancing.

On the other hand people think of it as a disadvantage. Those who hypothetically are stuck in Europe with little land find the only place they can expand is in America, but they have to fight tooth and nail for it. Meanwhile other players in Asia and Africa have lots of empty land they can peacefully colonize. Very unbalancing.

I hope we can find a middle ground between these two complaints to make it realistic yet not unbalancing. Lets say we pick the Iriquois and the Incas (north and south america) the Iriquois were not known for huge metropolises nor were they known for massive civic improvements like roads and farms. Perhaps we could stunt them in this respect. Lets say we scatter a bunch of Iriquois cities throughout N. America, or Eastern N. America. We limit the population of these cities to 1, 2, or 3. We deny them the ability to build anything besides military units. We stunt the quality of those military units. That way there wouldn't be any cities able to be conquered, all the population would be killed off while being attacked (slaughter of entire populations of native americans, historically acurate). Plus they would be quite a burden with lots of Indian braves attacking your first settlements. However it wouldn't be too difficult since they would lack advanced technology. I like Belinda's idea about tech gifting, thats accurate and playable. The Indians didn't start out with muskets and horses, but by the 1800's they all had them.

The Incas we give more population too and make them stronger, but still have nearly as many defenders in a city as the population, and without city walls most of the people get killed off by attacking. Accurate and playable.

Some of the things I propose seem too difficult to just tweak, the AI may have to be built by hand before the game starts to meet suitable specifications. I don't know, we still havn't gotten a look at Civ3.

Well those are my ideas on the topic. Does that sound better or still unbalanced?

[The Capo]

Hey I'm sorry about Thursday, my electricity went out right as we were re-starting, then I got booted.

After that it came back on like five minutes later and I tried to get on, but for some reason my computer wouldn't go to the Windows prompt. So finally I got it fixed yesterday (Friday) and put it together this morning. I'm so sorry about that.

Anyway, as far as Civ3 goes... Man Deity, you punk, I wanted to be the Irish! There's no way we'd both be able to play if we did it like that. So I guess I'll have to switch or you'll have to switch or something... then again this game is months away so there's no rush to get this figured out.

As far as the AI goes, there should definitely be AI in the Americas. The simple rush to get boats and set up shop is too unrealistic. The problem I have with Civ is that its players tend to focus on ONE THING AT A TIME, which leads to unrealistic play and unrealistic assumption of power. If we simply allow the person who discovers ships to get to America first that gives a huge disadvantage to the others players. For instance you have a tribe in Asia, the Chinese, and four in Europe; Russia, Britain, Rome, and Germany competing for territory. In Europe it would be necessary to develop land technology such as military units and things that would help cities grow since space and resources are so cramped. While in Asia everything is open and easily accessable, therefore the Asian would have a better chance at just getting ships and sailing over to America while the European would be fighting tooth and nail for simple squares of land just to feed its small amount of cities.

In your assumption, the "closer" tribes, in this case the Europeans would have an advantage in the Americas. Which is clearly not the case. Now if we had AI onc the Chinese, who zipped to boats since they didn't have much else to do, landed in the Americas they wouldn't completely dominate the natives as much as the Europeans, who were busy developing field technology, due to the simple fact that they didn't have neighbors to deal with. This evens the scale a bit since the Europeans would be busy squabbling, do you understand what I'm saying?

Based on this, I think we should have AI in the Americas. Since we are able to tweek this I see no reason not to have three; the Iriquois, Aztecs/Maya and Incas. But two is fine too.

[belinda9]

OR
How about this? (always assuming it can be done)
instead of AI in Americas, which would have cities to be taken over, etc.
Just pile BUNCHES of barbarians there

I know in various games past, these have been a real disadvantage to a player who goes about settling sparsely populated new lands, only to have to continually fight off those pesky barbs. And maybe this would even be more in keeping with the whiteboy, Euro-centric take you guys seem to have towards the game -- they're not _really_ a civilization, they're just pesky barbaric savages that have to be dealt with.

just a thought

[belinda9]

Originally posted by Rasputin
If it comes down to any voting system, you get my vote Belinda, I think your role palying in the HOTW2 is brilliant. (I just dont like the fact you are so damn secretive )

Hey, thanks Raz. I'm taking that as a compliment

[deity]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

And that's not a pic of me, thats my namesake, Ozzy Osbourne.

Yah

[The Capo]

Originally posted by belinda9
And maybe this would even be more in keeping with the whiteboy, Euro-centric take you guys seem to have towards the game -- they're not _really_ a civilization, they're just pesky barbaric savages that have to be dealt with.

I don't believe anyone said that the native Cultures of the Americas were not civilizations. The Incas developed a very well-run federation of states similar to the early Greek and Roman Republics. They also developed highway systems with rain ducts and fruit groves along the roads so that people could eat and drink while they traveled. The "Emperor" as the Spaniards incorrectly called him was actually elected by a Senate of the provincial chiefs, he was still at the behest of this ruling body.

The Aztecs, while a little more brutal than the Incas also set up a very complex government. Although this was more or less based on a tribute system they held over various other tribes, which contributed heavily to their downfall. Otherwise the Spanish wouldn't have found them as quickly, and would have been grossly outnumbered without native aide.

All I'm saying is, I take offense to your assumption that I hold these people as lesser than myself based simply on the fact that we would give the "Native American" AI lower stats than our own. The reason behind this wasn't that we feel (at least myself personally) that they are inferior in any way to European people, it was because we wanted this to be more a colonial thing rather than a mano y mano fight.

By the way, why was it that you found it convenient to exclude the Asian, African and Middle Easterner from your comments? They too would benefit from the weakened American AI? "Centrism" comes in many packages.

Peace.