Gold, Guns and Glory: Poll I

[Comrade Tribune]

Yes, I actually did some reading, thinking and reckoning concerning this project over the past 5 months, believe it or not.

One truly original feature of this project is that I am going to delegate a few design decisions to the Community (only where I feel advantages/disadvantages of 2 possible paths are about equal). Of course, this works only if enough people participate, so we will see.

Now to the first such poll:

One of my major priorities for this game is coherence. One example of what I mean is: If we have civ-specific units/abilities, then we must also have civ-specific starting positions and civ-specific starting dates, and the game setting must be Earth as we know it, or coherence will be lost. Something that is never going to happen in my game is Vikings with special seafaring abilities and nifty longboats starting in the desert.

So there are two possible roads to take:

1) Maximum Historicity

You might call this the 'Europa Universalis Road': There is one map -Earth-, all civs start in their historic positions, at their historic starting date.

Advantage: Maximum Historicity, of course. Each Civ will have unique units, unique leaders, unique advantages and, perhaps, a unique rule or two (that is: it will be able to break a rule/limit of the game all others must adhere to -similar to having a Wonder without needing to build it. Say if there was a spending limit on research in the Ancient Era, this limit would not apply to Greeks)

Disadvantage: Historical Hindsight. You know what to expect from the future, of course; this can´t be helped in a sim-style historical game.

2) Unpredictability

This, of course, is the 'Classical Civ Road': Random map, mix-and-match everything.

Advantage: Maximum Diversity. Everything can, and will, happen. However, this means all civs will be generic. They will all start on an equal footing, no special advantages for anybody. There will be fewer unique units and leaders, and those that do exist must be 'earned': The first who accomplishes a large, well-organized empire will get Praetorians, the first to invent conscription will get Napoleon etc.

Disadvantage: Only Moderate Historicity. Compulsive History Buffs will be less happy (though not near as unhappy as they were with civIII.)

[Straybow]

I go for the unpredictability option. If I'm gonna replay history I'll play a "traditional" wargame. With EU2 as soon as you do something unhistorical it makes everything that follows dumb and dumber. I hated that movie.

[Comrade Tribune]

GG&G will be a bit more like a Wargame than Civ.

One game that has influenced my design is History of the World: http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/hotw_main.asp

Of course, GG&G will be *much* more detailed, as befits a computer game.

One thing, however, will be similar to HotW, but dissimilar to any other civgame: You get to play *more than one* civilization.

Very rarely, if ever, will civs survive for longer than a millenium or so. I intend them to 'get decadent' and die a natural death over time. (Yes, it will be a dark, pessimistic kind of game. In the long run, whatever you do is futile.)

However, you, the player, will not die. Like in the Buddhist religion, you will be recycled. If 1) your civ is 'near death', and 2) a new civ is scheduled to 'being born', you will get the opportunity to 'jump civ' and take over the new one -at a hefty price in victory points, of course. If the God of Christianity hadn´t 'jumped ship' from the Roman to the Germanic Civilization, he wouldn´t have survived, if you think about it, so this is ultimate realism here.

[notyoueither]

OK, I'll chip in.

Unpredictability. It lends to more replayability.

BTW, you could give everyone land based UUs and have unpredictable maps. Couldn't you?

[Thomas Paine]

Will your game include "future" history? Will civilizations advance into amazing and as-yet undiscovered technologies beyond the twentieth century? And, regardless, what would be the objective of a stringently historical game where all cultures are destined to utter extinction?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by notyoueither
BTW, you could give everyone land based UUs and have unpredictable maps. Couldn't you?

Yeah, I could; yet it might still lead to a mountain people getting special chariots.

My take is, special units should be directly related to a nation´s circumstances/situation. So I need to either go all the way with Historicity, or go all the way with Flexibility -no real middle ground here.

Flexibility means all special units are accomplishment-driven. For example, only one player will get Legions, but with the 'Unpredictability' system, it will not necessarily be the Romans. If the Assyrians happen to be the first Republic with a Militarist value system, then the Assyrians, and only the Assyrians will have Legions.

On the other hand, with the 'Historicity' system, it will always be the Romans who get Legions. And they will always start in Italy, in the 8th century BC, and they will always be Romans (stubborn, ignorant SOBs with an oligarchic government, bent on world domination. )

Their neighbours might still be different, though, because events before the 8th century could have been different. And Alexander might still decide to go West, and wipe the Romans out; 'Historicity' does not guarantee everything *must* follow a historical course; there would still be a lot of leeway for alternative histories.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Thomas Paine
Will your game include "future" history? Will civilizations advance into amazing and as-yet undiscovered technologies beyond the twentieth century? And, regardless, what would be the objective of a stringently historical game where all cultures are destined to utter extinction?

It will not even include the 20th century. Only pre-modern civs. Mass Communication, Mass Transportation and Mass Destruction do not really fit with my system.

The objective of the game is the same as the objective of real life: to make the best out of a bad job.

You try to do as well as you can, earning as many VPs as possible with each of your successive civilizations (about 3-4 in one game, I´d say.)

[vondrack]

Voted for unpredictability. In my Civ3 games, it seldom happens that I start in the mountains, having War Chariots as my UU... And if I do, I simply restart the game to get something more acceptable. Maximum historicity would IMHO mean a lower replayability and serious game balance issues.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by vondrack
Maximum historicity would IMHO mean a lower replayability and serious game balance issues.

It would certainly be more difficult for me; so much for sure. With 'Historicity', the Grogs will take me to account for the slightest inaccuracies; with 'Unpredictability', I can simply let randomization take its course.

Apart from that: No, I don´t think there would be a replayability/balance problem with 'Historicity'. Chess is infinitely replayable, even though the setup is always exactly the same. Sure, some Empires would be inherently stronger than others, but the Victory Point system would be taking care of that: An Empire with a weaker starting position would get more points for the same accomplishments. In fact, over just one game, the 'Historicity' setting would probably be more 'fair' than the 'Unpredictability' setting (where randomization can lead to unequal games, like in Civ).

[TechWins]

My take is, special units should be directly related to a nation´s circumstances/situation.

I love this right here. Not pre-setting circumstances for each nation. Having each nation acquire special traits by their actions. In all reality it's not that difficult; in fact it would kind of be like an RPG. You could have flag checks for each special trait. Such as if you had quite a few coastal cities and you were the first to research map making you could gain a special navigation bonus. Basically something along those lines would be good. Where if flag 0, flag 1, flag 2, flag 5 were all checked by a nation they would gain a certain bonus. Then again if done wrong the special bonuses could become too frequent. So I guess there is a certain balancing act that will have to be done, as well.

[Comrade Tribune]

Hi, Tech!

Glad you like the general idea.

National traits are definitely in; they will not be an all-or-nothing, rather a sliding scale, from, say 100% militant to 100% pacifist, and, yes, it´s your game decisions, especially with 'Unpredictability', that move your nation one direction or other on the diverse scales.

This means that everything you do may have some hidden advantages/disadvantages 'down the river'. Like they planned for MOO3, but then axed the feature.

[Comrade Tribune]

As usual, your role is the 'Guiding Spirit behind the Ruling Elite'. Instead of a 'Score', in GG&G you get your DIQ (Divine Intelligence Quotient). Each player starts with a DIQ of 100, which will then move up or down in relation to the fate of your Empire(s). Final Rank will be based on DIQ, from Troglodyte to Emperor to 'The One And Only Real Deity'.

A competently-led Empire should last some 70-80 turns, but Empires are born and die all the time, so, when your Empire is falling -and they all will!-, you simply start a new one at that point in time. Your final DIQ will be the average of the 5 or so Empires you have played over the course of a given game, so if you get really unlucky or do something stupid with one of your Empires -we are all just Gods, after all!-, it will not tremendously hurt your score, as long as you do well with the others.

At long last, you will be able to play the role of the real historical Deities, building numerous Empires that do not stand the test of time.

[YC4B4U]

Love the idea of unpredictable outcomes.

Your UU could be based on local resources, climate conditions, landscape and government choices.

The techonologies you develop could be dependent on local conditions as well - you can't discover uses for oil if it is on the other side of the map! Island nations develop better boats etc.

Perhaps even the name of the civilization changes depending on the game. (need to think a bit more about that though)

Good luck.

[TechWins]

A competently-led Empire should last some 70-80 turns, but Empires are born and die all the time, so, when your Empire is falling -and they all will!-, you simply start a new one at that point in time. Your final DIQ will be the average of the 5 or so Empires you have played over the course of a given game, so if you get really unlucky or do something stupid with one of your Empires -we are all just Gods, after all!-, it will not tremendously hurt your score, as long as you do well with the others.

This coule, either, be a really great idea or a terrible idea, depending on it's implementation. I like the idea of being able to go rule another nation, but it needs to be done in such a way that is innovative. Instead of a whole new nation being created after the downfall of your nation you could have it be an offset of your fallen country. Such as, lets you are the emperor of Rome and you know your empire is about to fall. But you have word that a group of militia has spawned off into a new area and are calling themselves the Byzantines. They are offering you the crown, but they have set some guidelines (certain ordances that must be place) for the nations, though. You should have the option of going over and taking control of the Byzantines. The Byzantines should have similar technology to the Romans, but they are just not as powerful. So basically it would kind of be like a few people from the Roman empire saw the collapse and wanted to retain the traditions of the Romans, so they decided to create a new nation. Because there has to be meaning to joining a new nation, instead of always aimlessly joining a new nation. Also, such offsets should be able to occur even if your nation isn't in a downfall (i.e. civil wars). Btw, sorry for the terrible historical example lol.

Each player starts with a DIQ of 100, which will then move up or down in relation to the fate of your Empire(

So the score is only going to be determined from FATES of empires and not multiple variables? Also, the DIQ is going to be an average and not a number that is constantly changing with no regard to it's prior value, right? If any of that makes sense.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by TechWins
Instead of a whole new nation being created after the downfall of your nation you could have it be an offset of your fallen country.

Nations are created (pop up) all the time. So, no, when 'jumping' Empire, you start the new one with an entirely clean slate, BUT you will have no real choice here: You simply get the next Empire that is 'being born', like catching the next bus, so to speak.

Added: Note that you do not represent a human persona; rather a mysterious immortal being whose aims and purposes are not quite understandable to mere mortals. Which is neat, because it keeps me from explaining the Why?s of Existence, History etc, which I do not know anyway.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by TechWins
So the score is only going to be determined from FATES of empires and not multiple variables? Also, the DIQ is going to be an average and not a number that is constantly changing with no regard to it's prior value, right? If any of that makes sense.

'Fate' meaning = The Sum of all Relevant Variables. Not to be confused with 'Freight', which may also be a feature.

Your DIQ for each Empire will be a reasonable expression of how 'well' that Empire does over the course of its history. Now the real question is: What are the criterions for 'success' of an Empire?

Suffice it to say Longevity, Size, Happiness and 'Achievements' will all play a part.

[Boris Godunov]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Comrade If the God of Christianity hadn´t 'jumped ship' from the Roman to the Germanic Civilization, he wouldn´t have survived, if you think about it, so this is ultimate realism here.

Not to nitpick, but you seem to be forgetting that Christianity also survived in the Byzantine Empire as Eastern Orthodoxy...

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Not to nitpick, but you seem to be forgetting that Christianity also survived in the Byzantine Empire as Eastern Orthodoxy...

Yep, you right on this. Byzantines are one of my all-time favourite Civs, actually.

This is beside the point though, since the Gods of all religions were actually visiting aliens who were totally misunderstood by our forefathers. When Christ said: 'My Empire is not on this world!', he meant it literally, of course.

[Comrade Tribune]

(When being crucified, He got somewhat annoyed, picked up Moses and Eliah, and they left with their spaceship. His final remark: 'Not suitable for Civilization.' was found inexpedient and deleted from the Bible by the Nicaean Council.)

[Straybow]

The problem with UUs is that they are arbitrary. "First Republic with Militaristic value system gets Legion" is really no different from "Rome gets Legion." The thing that made the Legion what it was had little to do with militaristic vs peaceful or republic vs monarchy. Rome only became militaristic (as defined in Civlike games) after the Punic Wars, 3rd cen BCE.

For example, oligarchy meant that only landowners voted, but also that only landowners qualified for service in the "corpus" (now corps). Male children of landowners who did not inherit land could serve 25 years and receive a land grant, extending the status of their birth to the next generation.

This core of the legion was a highly trained elite of highly motivated soldiers. The second key to the Legion's effectiveness was discipline. They had perhaps the first true non-commisioned officer, the centurion. Another key to the Legion was true combined arms action. The Legion had heavy cavalry, heavy and medium infantry, and engineers in the corps (can't recall if archers were included in the corps). Auxiliaries were light cav/inf skirmishers (and maybe archers).

The discipline and combined arms were integral. All except the most basic weapons training was on maneuvers and actions as a whole Legion or in large groups called "Maniples." Note that this level of training and interaction was absent in post-Roman armies including Byzantines, who had lapsed and fallen into the Germanic model of mounted knights and unmounted peasants, never the twain to meet.

In essence, Roman social structure enable choices in how to run a military as a whole system, and enabled choices in how to run a government as a whole system. But the choices could easily have gone another way, with a Legion and a monarchy or a republic without a Legion. The limits of the social structure and government eventually led to a monarchy that eclipsed the republican ideal, but the Legion endured. The Rus (pre-Mongol slavs under Nordic oligarchy) were quasi-republican. Novgorod lasted until the fifteenth century, but no Legionaire system was invented.

The Germanic chivalry system had some elements, and could have developed on similar lines given some minor changes in its early history. Instead feudalism arose, and modern military structure had to undo some of the feudal elements to recapture the "citizen soldier" aspect of the Legion. Some point to extending of land grants to noncitizen mercenaries as the beginning of the end of both Rome and the Legion… both were undermined in one stroke.

None of these things can be modeled in a game without much difficulty. What is culture? How do you include it? Attaching it to the name of the civ is no doubt easiest and the best way to make it exclusive, if exclusiveness is what you want. If flexibility is what you want, find a way to make choices that are somehow balanced with limitations. Obviously it must be possible to overcome the limitation to expand beyond a regional power.

This concludes the lesson for today.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Straybow
The problem with UUs is that they are arbitrary. "First Republic with Militaristic value system gets Legion" is really no different from "Rome gets Legion."

Ahhh, you don´t get me here. 'Rome' is just a name, at least under the Unpredictability option.

Legion has a lot to do with Republic (Citizen Army is only possible with self-government). Ancient Germans had a 'Republic' of sorts, at least much closer to that than an Oriental Despotism. They were very Democratic in many respects, however, they didn´t have the amount of 'Organization' to enable Legions.

And 'Militaristic' is not set; an Empire becomes Militaristic over time, mostly by -guess what?- going to war.