Theory on Strategic Gameplay - KISS? or KIRS?

[Pythagoras]

When developing Civ 3 I think its important to mention what makes a great strategy game. Well there are 2 sides to the argument.
The first side contends that the goal of a game is not to model reality. Reality is merely a tool by witch familiarizes the player with the gameworld. If we keep this in mind, then there are 2 factors that make a great strategic game:
1. Simplicity in design. (IE rules are as simple as posible, and only as complicated as need be) (KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID)
2. Complexity in results. (Very complex scenarios can arise that requires complex decision making)

Good examples of this is go, othello, chess, the same game, tetris, etc.

The other side of the argument is that part of the fun in a strategy game like civ is its ability to allow players to engage in real world things otherwise imposible to them. In these games adherance to reality is important, and there is a nescesitty to better model reality. The games that follow this argument adhere to these points:

1. Complexity in design, great attention to detail in modeling real world situations, and of course micromanagement. (KEEP IT REAL STUPID)
2. Much more complexity in results -> Hopefully mroe than the first catagory.

The downside to this side of the argument is that many players dont want to get bogged down in mundane details, and they can have cumbersome rules. However these games can be fulfilling to those who patients who like to deal with it.

Examples of this type of game are: Imperialism 2, Rainbow 6...

These are 2 extremes of theory on gaming, I was curious where do you lie? I have always found that Civ did a good job of somewhat pleasing both parties involved. Also on a purely conceptual level, what do you expect of any game/strategy game? What is more important to you?

[Dienstag]

I vote for a happy medium, probably closer to KIRS. Chess, Go, and Othello are wonderful games, Civilization is naturally much more complicated. Since this is the case, I say we embrace it's complexity.

And in the spirit of "keeping it real," I hope that all the features and rules of CivIII are carefully considered for play balance and realism. CivIII will have many rules and I want all of them there for a reason.

All I expect from a game is a challenge and a good time (or an I repeating myself?).

[Steve Clark]

But Civ2 is a simple game that offers complex results. That is the genius of this title. IMO, Civ is far less complex than most of those messy RTS games and those simulations games.

Because of the scale of Civ2 and Civ3, it cannot come even close to modeling reality - nobody had such god-like control over vast terrain and units. Think about it. You can mention Alexander, Caesar, Napolean, etc. Even though their armies conqured much, they didn't come close to having the micro-management control that you and I have in being the leader of a Civ. I mean, we can actually control units and resources in every single spot on the map as if we were there! That is not reality or even close to it.
Therefore, as I have said many times before, the genius of Civ is in its simplicity in execution and complexity in results. Let's keep the main game that way. If you want to model a realistic, complex historical event - build a scenario like Red Front or Second Front.

[Dienstag]

Nice alternative, Ralf.

Steve, I have to propose that Civ II is indeed a complicated game (much more so than chess, or even those "messy RTS games" ). You decide on research, city founding and improvement, military production and deployoment, diplomacy, trade, form of government, and unless you use the automate settler option you have to build every road, irregation, and mine. That's a lot of stuff, and all of it takes place on a huge world, which makes Civ II, in a word, complex. Sorry if I'm way out of line here, I'm just trying stay with the main idea of this thread. Perhaps I should ask, should Civ III be more or less complicated than Civ II?

[Sirotnikov]

Please note that KISS games (chess, tetris, diplomacy, risk) tend to survive for very long periods of time and still keep interest, as the game results are not up to the game, but up to the players. The players make it interesting.

Such a game was Civ (2). This is why it still lives on for about 6 years now, and will still live on 6 years in to the future. Can you name another game from 6 years ago that you played on and off since then, and you still keep it and think it's better than current releases? Maybe C&C. and that's only because of nostalgy.

Games that followed civ 2: civ expansions, Alpha Centauri, Call to Power and such, were all not as successfull. Why? Because the game limited possible consequences. Because it wasn't as close to reality, and still not to compicated. Because you could make any scenario you wanted (with a little compromise) in it.

I think Civ should be (stay) mainly KISS. Or at least at the surface level.

The painfull truth: I am afraid. I am afraid civ 3 will be just as CTP or other games. We wated for years. We were promised lots of features. It was supposed to be better then ever.... And somehow, it all collapsed.

I would be happy with civ 2.9, if it was done preperly. Good MP options. better scenario designing (and editor). Fixing bugs and adding a couple of new techs and units or better support for costumizing (user techs you rediscover 100xtimes) Allowing game to be interrupted while it's the AI's turn (I hate that!). Making messages appearing, not halting the whole game so I must sit there and click on them.

That would make civ 2 perfect for me. I really fear that I am now developing un-realistic hopes. Too much of them. I fear of the biggest disappointment of my life.

Do you share my fear?

[Ralf]

Heres another Civ-developing acronym:

LIPJIW = LET INCREASED PLAYVALUE JUSTIFY INCREASED WORKLOAD

Explanation:

If an upgrade-suggestion demands rather drastic design overhauls, but in the end gives no, or only insignificantly increased play-value in return; then its probably better to skip the suggestion all together.

Interesting thread anyway. I be back!

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited October 10, 2000).]

[Pythagoras]

Personally, I think I would prefer a more balanced aproach. That is what initially atracted to Civ I. The creators tried to KIRS, but as simple as posible. The results yielded sometimes required imagination. Like when building a "ferry" with transports/settlers in civ 1, I always immagined this ferry of transports going back and forth. The thing that made this game fun was the fact that only the true concurrent themes of civilization were modeled, and not nescesarilly every little detail. It lead to a game that was just as classic as tetris/chess/whatever that let you feel like you were controlling this abstraction of a society, that built in basic historical patterns of human society.

I'm curious, with this framework of thinking about gaming, how would you compare/contrast the current civ games (ie SMAC, CTP, Civs 1,2 and others that attempt the same thing)?

[Ralf]

I think i am one of those who wishes for a KISS version of Civ-3. Now, dont missunderstand - i really like to see lots of changes. Heres some of them:

Suggestions that *dont* break the KISS rule, but *do* change the gameplay:

- Adding more exciting techs, units, city-improvements and wonders. Lots of interesting rearrangements.

- Adding some refreshingly new concept-changes in how the economy or diplomatics should affect the overall gameplay.

- Combate some fundamental "under the hood" Civ-2/SMAC design-flaws once and for all: ICS = Infinite City Sprawl, BAB = Bigger Always Better, for example.

- The implementation of ideas that can strengthening the overall AI strategical logistics.
By This i mean that about halfway through an Emperor- or Diety-level game; the number of AI city-improvements, the quality of AI City-areas and the quality of AI-units thats been produced should be equal (or almost equal) to any hardcore civ-veteran out there.

(I can fully understand the difficulties of inferior AI pathfinding and navigation-abilties, compared to the human player. But better logistics on an overall strategical level CAN actually be achieved).

- Better and more effective AI city-location strategies. Not by "tweaking the AI", however.

Let the map-generator/human map-creator designate where potentional AI-cities should be placed *before* any new game starts, instead of the AI doing it under the actual game-session.

(Sorry, if im being bias towards the latter ones).


Suggestions that *do* break the KISS-rule (and should be avoided):

- Basically any suggestion that more or less *demands* 3-7 multi-linked computers with hardcore civ-veterans sitting behind them, in order to be fully understood and successfully implemented in the game.

- Rotate-able 3D planet-map (For God sake, dont!!!).

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited October 13, 2000).]

[Az]

I second Siro in his post


but I think that growth is important

[Adm.Naismith]

The concept of divide KISS game from KIRS game is very interesting, but IMHO who said Civ 2 is a KISS game is plain kidding!

Civ 2 a simple game? Naaaaaah! Nothing more far from true. Tetris was simple, Breakout was simple, Marble Madness was simple, Doom was simple (speaking of rules, of course, not about ability required to win).

Civ 2 is difficult enough to keep away most of my collegues at work or any occasional player.
Surely is not intricate as some flight simulator, mostly because Civ isn't real time, so we have plenty of time to find right command, ponder strategy and so on.

Veteran players (a bit addicted, too ) as you are (maybe me too) can foul themselves speaking of KISS game. IMHO, to attract novice users Firaxis should try the old boardgame concept of rules accorded to game level. Who cares of five-six game level, when the only difference is the frequence of nasty random events and the number of help the poor AI needs to raise difficult to win?

Hint: When a simulation go too far for newbies, they reduce complexity: look at indestructable cars in GP3, or auto gear, auto break, etc. etc.

We can cut this level down to three, using the full rules (i.e. max KIRS) at the higher level, simplifying rules a lot on novice (i.e. max KISS). We can smooth the learning curve and keep the game fresh for longer: after few games we are mastering the basic rules, then we are ready to jump on the next level, learning a bit more.

Just some example of difference we can have from the two extreme levels, referring to the novice one:
- less different units (less production problems)
- simpler tech tree
- easy and quick movements (less terrain mov. difference)
- easy battle (instant kill, as in CIV 1)
- auto upgrade of units and buildings (kind of Leonardo Workshop)

The most difficult level must add aa many of the improvement we ask for (and Firaxis can put in) in a playable, balanced game.

I know we already have game options, but they are less organized, so more difficult to manage for a novice, maybe for AI too. I hope that, with less detail to cope with, AI can do a better job at least at novice level, while at max level we can count on other nice game details to enjoy the game neverthless (short to mention we will be already addicted anyway ).

Ok, just my 0.02$

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[zyxpsilon]

Simplicity or realism?

Don't forget it is turn-based, it must be fun, it must sustain interest.

Knowing, for a fact, that any "interesting" product adapts to its consumer base... we should expect an increase in realism while remaining obviously straight towards a "variable complexity".

I'd crack anytime on simple stuff; a little of this, a little of that... being teased by the "learning curve" of a society tied to it's discoveries (good or bad), being surprised by the "pouring downfalls" of invading forces and all.

But, most of all... being strategically apt at ruling the unknown; that's the KEY!

Highly modifiable interface would be the icing on the cake; customization? that's the GIFT!

[Steve Clark]

Let me clarify. Civ2 is a simple game that offers complex results. Of all of the games of this type, imo Civ2 had the simplist learning curve. Think about it, all units have the same attributes (albeit different values). All cities have the same three resources attributes. All improvements/wonders affect a few of those resources or units attributes. This applies to all difficulty levels, to all civs and to the AI as well. That is a very simple design that offers infinite replayability, customizability and complex results. With Civ2, there is no difference in these factors at Chieftain and at Deity, just the values are harder and there are more coming at you. How can you not call this a simple design? What you do with this simplicity can be very, very complex.

As far as Civ3, I agree with the Adm. KISS at the lower levels (Civ2-like) but add more variables at the higher levels. But more than anything else, make the scenario editor robust and fully customizable so we can play Civ3 for a long, long time after the enthusiasm for the main game wears out.