Disenchanted

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Willem
You might be able to come up with the best game rules ever created, but if it can't be programmed, you don't have a game.

Don´t worry. I am not planning to do anything that couldn´t have been programmed in 1995, already. The complexity will be in the formulas, and computers are good at that.

***Any comments HERE, please: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=40675 ***

[Willem]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Don´t worry. I am not planning to do anything that couldn´t have been programmed in 1995, already. The complexity will be in the formulas, and computers are good at that.

***Any comments HERE, please: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=40675 ***

Well I certainly wish both you and Vel luck. I'm looking forward to doing some beta testing in the future.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Willem
You'll have to tred a very fine line between rewards and setbacks...

Agreed.

...otherwise they'll just become frustrated and quit.

Don´t forget that I am not intending to create a game for the mass market. Hardcore Strategy Gamers won´t quit, as long as the rules make sense, which brings me to...

Look at the reactions of people with this culture flipping, and losing a bunch of troops. People start fuming and sometimes give up on the game altogether.

Agreed. The difference is this:

1) Nowhere has Culture Flipping been precisely explained. And my definition of 'precise' is: You get the exact numbers and formulas.

2) Culture Flipping in CivIII isn´t always logical. An Army Group in real life could prevent Culture Flipping. I am intending to ***always*** go for irl results. Some people ***will*** find that uncool, especially if they lose; I can live with that.

[Libertarian]

Nowhere has Culture Flipping been precisely explained. And my definition of 'precise' is: You get the exact numbers and formulas.

Amen.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Willem
Well I certainly wish both you and Vel luck. I'm looking forward to doing some beta testing in the future.

Thanks. And yes: Beta-testing before release is something that should be required by law, imo.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Chronus
Indeed, this does sound a bit too much like EU. If managing your empire and home province is seriously reduced to high level functions, then what you have left, for the most part, is moving your armies. This seems to describe a war game, not an empire building game.

I agree that EU is a bit too military-focused. If you want to be peaceful all the time, you will run out of things to do. But...

Unlike EU, managing your Empire and Home Province will not be easy. Rest assured, there will be no complaints about a lack of complexity/difficulty in the economic subgame. If anything, the complaints will be the oppposite.

Generally speaking, Empire Building in history was mostly about a) Managing the Economy, and b) Going to War. The game will focus about equally on those two.

However, I am genuinely curious about your model. Would you mind elaborating on points 4a and 4b? Perhaps you're willing to give some specific examples?

More elaborating soon in the Alternative Civs section. Please post any questions and comments here: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=40675

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by OneInTen
There are certainly people who would contend that if your civ falls into permanent anarchy there is a lot right with it and it should be a winning condition!

Heh, heh! That is a good one!

Anarchy should be a proper "government" type if you're going to do a simulation style game ... government from a grass roots level by the people for the people, and with no private ownership. - as anarchist theory describes.

Seriously: I see what you mean. My answer to this pretty complicated question is twofold:

1) Semantically, I would call what you are proposing 'Utopian Socialism'. I use the term 'Anarchy' in the sense it is commonly used, to describe a state of chaos and dissolution.

2) As to Utopian Socialism: IF and HOW to include this concept is still under review, and will not be decided in the immediate future. As this does, however, sound a bit too much like a typical Firaxis statement , I am going to add an explanation WHY this is difficult to resolve, and therefore postponed:

The difficulty is that Utopian Socialism -unlike Soviet-style Communism- has nowhere been empirically tested. The assumptions how Utopian Socialism would work will predictably differ a lot between champions and opponents of the concept. It will be hard work to find an approach that *both* sides do consider even-handed. And I very much want to avoid the CivIII method of imposing the designers` political philosophy with a sledge hammer.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by pg
in a simulation you really don't have win or lose situations.

You think. Have you ever tried out what happens in SimCity2000, if you run your debt into the millions?

especially if you are simulating history there is no such thing as permanent anarchy or a hopeless position.

I beg to differ. When the Roman Empire finally fell, its situation had already been hopeless for a few generations.

there are periods of time where certain conditions persist but it eventually changes for better or worse.

Exactly. Worse meaning leaving the scene.

if you are going for chess ideals mixed with simulation you will fail imo.

Depends. A Sim should not be as abstract as Chess, but it should be as impeccably logical. Especially it should be as unforgiving as Chess.

chess is pure strategy, while a simulation is something that is fun to play with because of all the possibilities and interesting results.

If you value your life, don´t say that to a Chess enthusiast.

you can't really win a simulation

...but you can lose it.

victory points to me sound about as fun as culture points in civ3. wow, if i get 20,000 culture in one city i win! talk about artificial, and breaking the feeling of playing in a real working alternate history simulation.

OUCH! Being compared to CivIII is as bad as it gets. Spare my feelings, man!

Seriously, I think there is a difference: Victory Points compare to the Score rather than to Culture Points. I think a good scoring system is important. In CivIII, your score is absolutely meaningless: You don´t even get points for building a Wonder. But you DO get points for having a large population which, in and by itself, means nothing: After all, there are some third world countries with a pretty large population!

It would certainly be artificial to quantify Culture, but I won´t do that. CivIII Culture is replaced by Social Engineering, which is not at all one-dimensional, but will make your Civ distinct.

On the other hand, VPs are about something that is quantifiable: Quite simply, they quantify how good, overall, you are at playing the game.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
In CivIII, your score is absolutely meaningless: You don´t even get points for building a Wonder. But you DO get points for having a large population which, in and by itself, means nothing: After all, there are some third world countries with a pretty large population!

I agree with you insofar as a more meaningfull score should include culture (and hereby wonders, as they all yield culture). However, Civ3's scoring system at least does away with Civ2's cheat to boost happiness in the late game, trigger 'We-love-the-president-days' throughout your empire and watch your population go through the roof. That resulted in a meaningless score ...

[gaikokujin]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

b) There is a Cultural Habit (Social Engineering) setting called 'Nomadic'. Being a Mongol-like mostly Nomadic civilization has LARGE benefits in offensive warfare: Not only do you get some units others haven´t, you also don´t have to pay for your offensives. (You can´t build or research much, however.) At some point, like it or not, you will become civilized enough Nomadic is no longer an option. But when you settle down, you will lose your offensive edge, and have a very difficult transition period. A good time for your empire to fall apart again.

(More extremely nasty ideas tomorrow.)

Yep, an old, obscure boardgame called "Barbarian, Kingdom & Empire" did this, and more, with a simple set of game rules and components. But enough said - if you knew this game, you'll know what I am talking about.

[Ironikinit]

Less talk and more results would be nice. If you think you can do better than Civ III, please do, I'd really like to see it.

Talk is cheap.

[Libertarian]

And opinions are worthless.

[Ironikinit]

Yours certainly are, IMO.

[OneInTen]

2) Culture Flipping in CivIII isn´t always logical. An Army Group in real life could prevent Culture Flipping. I am intending to ***always*** go for irl results. Some people ***will*** find that uncool, especially if they lose; I can live with that.

If you want reality, step away from your computer and walk out the front door. Games are supposed to be fun, and when the choice between reality and fun has to be made, the later should be chosen.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by OneInTen

If you want reality, step away from your computer and walk out the front door. Games are supposed to be fun, and when the choice between reality and fun has to be made, the later should be chosen.

So is it fun or real when your Army is turned against you by the population of a recently captured city? IMO it's neither, and that's what Civ 3 offers.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

How did I miss this thread this long?

I am absolutely in agreement with the vast majority of sentiments posted here. Something is definitely amiss in the CIVIII world. I just can't force myself to finish another game of CIVIII try as I might.

OTOH, I dug out my SMAX CD and the whole immersive game sucked me back in. This morning I sit bleary eyed in front of my computer screen again victimized by 'just one more turn syndrome'.

I think Comrade T suggested it best in his analysis of TBS game players being of two flavors Sandbox and Powergamers. I always considered myself a sandbox player looking for new and different gambits, toys, strategems etc. (I loved the unit workshop approach to SMAC). Taking these toys aways makes CIVIII only fun until the all too few nuances are discovered. I'm currently finding these said nuances to be drying up. Feel like I'm that famous physicist (who I can't remember Niels Bohr perhaps??) at the beginning of the 20th century who said something to the effect "In the next twenty years we will have discovered all there is to know inthe universe." Perhaps there will be an Einstienian revelation to re-energize this game but for now I'm not gambling on any quantum game mechanics being discovered.

Starting up another game of SMAC,

Og

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I just can't force myself to finish another game of CIVIII try as I might.

I rarely finish Civ3, but love every game. Often I just play "ancient conquest," or "rush for J.S. Bach." Sometimes I do "D-Day Invasion," but often quit before that time.

The game is Civ3, not Conquer-the-World3, so building a happy Civ and defending against foreign invasion is often enough for me.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Zach,

Exactly. I'll start a game get mid-way into the middle ages or at best into the industrial ages just to play with some tanks and then .......

Sure it's fun early on in ancient and middle age era using despotic whip and crushing your enemies but after you've secured your continent .....

Ho hum..

Og

[OneInTen]

So is it fun or real when your Army is turned against you by the population of a recently captured city? IMO it's neither, and that's what Civ 3 offers.

I can't speak from experience as to whether it's fun when it happens, since I've never had a wartime city flip ... but I do know it's fun to have a city the AI has captured flip back to you!

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Less talk and more results would be nice. If you think you can do better than Civ III, please do, I'd really like to see it.

Talk is cheap.

'Fast Results and No Talk' is what got us CivIII. I prefer to discuss my ideas thouroughly BEFORE my game goes Gold.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by OneInTen
If you want reality, step away from your computer and walk out the front door. Games are supposed to be fun, and when the choice between reality and fun has to be made, the later should be chosen.

Fun is intangible; for me, a Sim is the more fun the more realistic it is. Btw, didn´t you complain about a lack of REALISM, if I don´t include the possibility of creating a grass-roots style government? Could you sort out your priorities?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Sure it's fun early on in ancient and middle age era using despotic whip and crushing your enemies but after you've secured your continent .....

Start a new game and have more fun?

[Zachriel]

If you think you can do better than Civ III, please do, I'd really like to see it.

If anyone makes a playable strategy game, let me know. But if they are just starting , then that is bound to be months or years away. Meanwhile, I'll play Civ3.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ok,

In an effort to tone down what has become on these forums as yet another dart throwing fest. Let me say first off I normally abhor whining and complaining. And in fact I do enjoy the early part of the CIV 3 game as it now stands. Unlike someothers, I think some of the innovations were great. I love the strategic resource approach (but think it could have been tweaked), culture and borders etc.

But....

Let me compare and contrast why the late game holds no joy. (I use SMAC but could just as easily use CIV2 as an example.) Being a sandbox kind of player, I like to see the late game offer significant builder and/or warring options. In SMAC the ability in the late game to aquire an almost exponential means to create units a plethora of late game facility build options and SP's(read wonders) was an allure unto itself. (I don't care that I'm crushing the AI at this point, I want to see what a quantum reactor dis wave, blink, best weapon psi armored grav tank can do) To a lesser extent this holds true for CIV2 as well. OTOH what this means is the AI is incapable of masterfully dealing with these options and gets completely outclassed by a human opponent. The point really tho' is as you go up the technology pyramid in CIV3 your options become less and less thus allowing the AI some ability to deal with the complexity of the game. It also means tho' that we players who play the late game simply to find new and different nuances don't have that option available to us. So the option is as Zach says start over and play another primitive era game.

Now the real question comes into play. Which game will hold my attention longer and provide me more enjoyable play time? The one that is challenging yet limits my options as the game progresses or something like SMAC. For me its the game where I continually learn something new and that means the longer the game goes on the more options I have available to me. If this means I have to sacrifice some improved AI game management, I'll sacrifice it. The way I see it I'm currently using only about half the game b/c of late game tedium and lack of late game options and as a consequence I'll get tired of the game twice as fast as I did of SMAC. At this point I can't say I'm totally sick of either one, but CIV3 feels incomplete vs. what I consider a more fully featured SMAC(x).

Anyhoo,

Jus my two cents added to the over full bank of dissent.

Og

[Comrade Tribune]

***Renamed working title of my project to 'Gold, Guns and Glory'.***

Because the game will focus on Economy ('Gold'), Warfare ('Guns') and Intangibles, such as Culture and Prestige ('Glory').

+++Official Thread started in the 'Alternative Civs' forum. Check it out. I will continue to add info there, as much as my time allows.+++

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=40827

[Comrade Tribune]

Now is the time to tell me what you want to see in Gold, Guns & Glory! I am going to post a Weekly Wishlist in the Alternative Civilizations Forum: http://apolyton.net/forums/forumdisp...d=115&x=11&y=8

This week: Innovations. What Technologies, Inventions and Discoveries do you want to see in the game?

[Nideca]

risk of rebellion

Now That is a great Idea to Counter ICS instead of current Corruption model.

[Encomium]

Originally posted by Zachriel


I rarely finish Civ3, but love every game. Often I just play "ancient conquest," or "rush for J.S. Bach." Sometimes I do "D-Day Invasion," but often quit before that time.

The game is Civ3, not Conquer-the-World3, so building a happy Civ and defending against foreign invasion is often enough for me.

With Civ II, if a game seemed to be going nowhere and getting tedious I'd go to Cheat Mode and play as the barbarians with their map. I could quickly run through a whole lot of turns and see where that scenario was going - if anywhere. And then maybe resume it, or quit.

With Civ III, I don't even have a Cheat Mode!!