Civilization 4 - Making New Game

brianshapiro · January 15, 2003, 23:57

If I make a detailed list of suggestions here for civ 4, do you think Firaxis designers will take them seriously
Since civ1 was out, and I was in high school Ive been thinking of ways to improve the game, make it more realistic, etc., and I think I have some good solutions. I dont want to detail them here if firaxis doesnt take them seriously or unless i work with firaxis , since this has been somewhat personal to me.
If there are other people like me, maybe we can join and work to make a game ourselves..
The suggestions I would give include things that would add an element to the game where the people and economy and constructions operate somewhat independently of your decisions, there would be a resource/commodity transformation system and the culture (inmcluding tech advance) would be closely linked to the starting l ocation and resources (yes! quasi-marxist), the game would be organized in provincial areas that join and exit confederations , war would be more manageable, etc. all without making it feel un-civ or complicated.
but if anybody is interested in making it with me, and including their ideas, or has some suggestion about how i can present them to firaxis please post

brian

Master Zen · January 16, 2003, 00:01

I have constantly stated that my dream game would be one with the empire-building characteristics of the Civilization series with the wargaming elements of Panzer General. Being such a simple but addictive wargame (PG), I would not find it hard to implement a combat sistem like that to the Civilization series.

Skanky Burns · January 16, 2003, 00:15

Much before Civ 3 was released, the people of Apolyton put together a massive list of ideas that they thought would be a good idea for future civilization games. Firaxis printed out that list, and all their designers read through it. Some of the ideas made it into Civ3, most didn't - but they were at least viewed by the developers.

There is a future civilization games forum here on Apolyton for discussion of future civ games.

For those interested, there is also an archive of the Civ 3 list for Firaxis, also on Apolyton.
(both forums can be reached from the forum jump menu down the bottom of the page, too)

Willem · January 16, 2003, 00:36

It never hurts to post ideas. Firaxis does prowl this forum so there's always a possibility they might see some merit in an idea. Just don't expect anything.

Oh yeah, and be polite about. Ranters will be ignored very quickly.

ktaek · January 16, 2003, 04:30

My humble suggestions:

- New Combat System
This is one area where Civ3 still feels like an old boardgame. Basically you move tiles around the world on a grid, and you resolve things one at a time.

A simple update of the system to something like HOMM or MOO would add a lot to the game.

- Unit Evolution
Civ has military units simple spawn out of nowhere upon getting a tech. This isn't how things really happened, and it's also not as much fun. A tank is created from many different inventions/technologies working together.

AC and MOO had systems where individual technologies let you improve aspects of a unit. This is far closer to reality, and lets you customize your units.

- More Open/Randomized Tech Tree
This could be an option, and it's something that would add much to the replayability, as much as having the random world generator vs. playing the real continents.

- Military = People
This is something that always bugged me. Military units are made form shields instead of food? Food production was is indeed a huge factor in early societal development, and making military units out of shields instead of food lets early warmongers essentially ignore that limitation.

While shields (materials) do play a part in military creation, it is still negligible even in modern times compared to the time required to create a mature, adult human. 20 years to create an adult. How long to chop down a tree to give him a bow? How long to mine some ore and give him a spear or sword? Weeks at the very most, and more likely days.

Shields have their place in building Wonders, Libraries, Temples, the Hoover Dam, etc.. But shields for soldiers?

If military was limited primarily by food, this would automatically solve the early UU rushes which is (unfortunately) the most effective way to play Civ3.

Tattila the Hun · January 16, 2003, 06:16

Simple solution, basic infantry unit would reguire 1 pop, and a battleship or similar some more.

In the game Settlers, the soldiers were recruited from the growing populace, then suplied with shield and sword, some gold and beer

, then sent to occupy huts.

Shields to make the weapons, food to make the men.

Swissy · January 16, 2003, 07:50

Quote:

Originally posted by brianshapiro
If I make a detailed list of suggestions here for civ 4, do you think Firaxis designers will take them seriously

What makes you think that Firaxis will be given a chance to develope Civ4? Infogrammes had to use Firaxis for Civ3; Firaxis was signed by Hasbro Interactive and Infogrammes bought Hasbro Interactive. Since Infogrammes owns the "Civilization" name for compter/console games, they can choose any developer they want. Considering the bugginess of the initial releases of both Civ3 and PTW; Infogrammes may want to go with a house that has a better track record. Whether they can get Sid Meier to go along with not using Firaxis for Civ4 is problematic; they do not have to put Sid's name on the game, if Sid wants to get paid anything, he'll go along with whatever Infogrammes desires.

Willem · January 16, 2003, 10:25

Quote:

Originally posted by ktaek

- Military = People
This is something that always bugged me. Military units are made form shields instead of food? Food production was is indeed a huge factor in early societal development, and making military units out of shields instead of food lets early warmongers essentially ignore that limitation.

You can do that now if you want to, just go into the editor.

Willem · January 16, 2003, 10:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Swissy
Considering the bugginess of the initial releases of both Civ3 and PTW; Infogrammes may want to go with a house that has a better track record.

It was probably Infogrames that told Firaxis to release the game before it was ready. Both times (Civ3, PTW), they wanted to cash in on the Christmas rush.

alva · January 16, 2003, 11:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

You can do that now if you want to, just go into the editor.

Doesn't this kill of the AI, IIRC I read somewhere people tried this, and basically the AI would starve itself to death.

IE; the AI can't handle this modification.

Willem · January 16, 2003, 11:31

Quote:

Originally posted by alva

Doesn't this kill of the AI, IIRC I read somewhere people tried this, and basically the AI would starve itself to death.

IE; the AI can't handle this modification.

I tried this as well and discovered that I was being left in the dust by the AI. I'd have a tiny empire in comparison to theirs. It seemed to me that if there was a population cost, the AI would default to Settlers or Workers, though that's only speculation on my part.

alva · January 16, 2003, 12:30

So they hardly build any units...? That's more or less what I meant, what happens after the AI stops rexing?

Master Zen · January 16, 2003, 12:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

It was probably Infogrames that told Firaxis to release the game before it was ready. Both times (Civ3, PTW), they wanted to cash in on the Christmas rush.

Yep, I think most of the time it's the publisher, not the developer to blame for buggy games, ESPECIALLY if they come out during the last few months of the year.

brianshapiro · January 16, 2003, 13:21

ok ill start a website for this i dont want to start at the new civilizations forum because its probably overflowing with good/bad suggestions. i want to be discriminate and filter things that arent thought out.k i remember reading the civ2 suggestion list and there were many things that were silly. one requiirement would be , dont just add more units / buildings unless there is a thought out reason why . its not a wishlist for santa claus

ruby_maser · January 16, 2003, 13:32

What I hope more than anything that Firaxis doesn't do is over-emphasize the graphics or the interface too much.

Obviously, both could be improved, expanded, and tweaked, but I would much prefer that the basics of any possible Civ 4 not be completely overhauled. That would just be redundant and detract from what is most important: more options, more depth, more realism in gameplay. The look of the game is secondary to that, for me.

WarpStorm · January 16, 2003, 19:45

Quote:

Originally posted by brianshapiro
If I make a detailed list of suggestions here for civ 4, do you think Firaxis designers will take them seriously

Like Brian Reynolds at BHG told me "Ideas are cheap, implementation is expensive. I've enough good ideas for a few dozen more great games. Bring me an implementation and I'll look at it".

Seriously, the guys at Firaxis are very approachable and listen to suggestions, but believe it or not they like the way Civ3's system worked out.

Ironikinit · January 17, 2003, 05:21

I don't expect any of these to be taken seriously but here's my wishlist:

1. Get rid of the old city model. It was fine for Civ 1, but it's dumb IMO for a city to take up so much space. Even on a large map an island the size of Britain can only have a couple cities.

2. While we're at it, get rid of the telescoping time idea. Again, it sort of made sense with Civ 1, but 100 year turns aren't in any way realistic. Columbus didn't take from 1450 to 1500 to cross the Atlantic, and Alexander the Great's conquests were over too soon for it even to register in the old model.

3. Collapse and decay have to be in the model. States simply don't exist from 4000 BC to 2000 AD. My current idea is that the end of an epoch signals the end of that phase of the game, there's a winner and there are losers, and barbarian states rise in power or minor states wax while old powers wane. At the very least, the names of the states should change.

4. Less emphasis on graphics. Won't happen, but as long as my eyes don't bleed, I'm happy. I'd rather the game ran fast than looked real pretty.

5. Continue the progress with the AI. Civ 3's AI is quite good.

6. Manufactured goods for export and the domestic market! I can't believe this has been left out. Yes, the luxuries are a nice touch, but the idea of industrialized countries only exporting unrefined natural resources is ... hm, I don't want to call it ridiculous... let's say unrealistic. I always thought that capitalization was meant to cover this, but it fails IMO because it works with with unlimited (and therefore unreasonable) demand.

7. A realistic disease model. When cultures come into contact, they trade more than ideas and goods, they trade germs. It could serve as a break on expansion and a penalty for isolation.

8. Speaking of expansion, the current corruption model is less than ideal IMO. Distant colonies did indeed produce considerable revenue for imperialist states.

9. Expansion via conquest is much too easy and always has been. The attempt to fix it via culture flipping is probably one of the most unpopular innovations of Civ 3. History shows that while conquest is indeed a common method of expansion, it isn't permanent by any means.

10. I can't think of a 10 offhand, but wanted to include it because I like lists with ten items. It makes it look like you have heaps of other ideas and only wrote down the top ones. Please pretend you really like idea number 10.

Hey, hear that? That's me whistling in the dark.

FrostyBoy · January 17, 2003, 05:31

FORGET IT

Or rather, don't go round thinking/hoping Firaxis will do it. For them to redeem themselves, would take an enourmous effort - one I don't think they'd dare do.

Instead, there are enough people here, with enough skill, to produce a quality game so good that only idiots wouldn't buy it.

All these ideas are great, but that gets you no where without the work, and Firaxis ain't gonna do it, you can stop dreaming.

Gather a large group of artists, programmers, 3d animators, sound editors, musians, historians, etc, etc, everything! and don't just grab one of each, find 10! of each, all put in the work, it would be the largest collaboration of people, put together over the internet to produce an industry standard game - something worth venturing. And if you're scared to do that, then join Firaxis.

The first step is finding out who is interested, is anyone? and find out what their skills are and how good it is.

Ironikinit · January 17, 2003, 05:37

My only notable skills are making spreadsheets, playing hacky sack, playing games, and ****ing. How hard is it really to make a game? Over at Home of the Underdogs they have this thing called the scratchware manifesto that makes it sound real easy, but I have my doubts.

On the other hand, I could use a new hobby.

Adagio · January 17, 2003, 05:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
9. Expansion via conquest is much too easy and always has been. The attempt to fix it via culture flipping is probably one of the most unpopular innovations of Civ 3. History shows that while conquest is indeed a common method of expansion, it isn't permanent by any means.

I really like the culture flip, my only wish about that one, is to make it much weaker (It's too unrealistic to need 10+ units, to keep a small town)
One other thing I'd like to see:
Make it a much more tough question , if you should keep a newly gained city or not. At the moment, it just doesn't seem worth it, to take over a large (cultural) city (city flip way too strong). So why not make your own population get mad at you, when you demolish a city (The larger the city, the culture of the city and the wonders of the city, makes the population more mad at your (And also other countries gets mad at you)...

I have tons f other ideas now, but clss starts now

WarpStorm · January 17, 2003, 07:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
How hard is it really to make a game? Over at Home of the Underdogs they have this thing called the scratchware manifesto that makes it sound real easy, but I have my doubts.

It is one of the hardest things in the world. It is also one of the most enjoyable. The sheer amount of work that goes into even a simple game is unbelievable.

brianshapiro · January 17, 2003, 13:22

"Like Brian Reynolds at BHG told me "Ideas are cheap, implementation is expensive. I've enough good ideas for a few dozen more great games. Bring me an implementation and I'll look at it".

Seriously, the guys at Firaxis are very approachable and listen to suggestions, but believe it or not they like the way Civ3's system worked out."

Warpstorm,
I relatively like the way Civ3 worked out also. Too many people complain that it doesnt seem that much different from Civ2, but I think they miss that the basic mechanics will always be the same; what looks like minor changes like culture actually drastically effect gameplay.

If they mean implementation descriptions of how it would be worked out , i would have that also.
If its a real working example, again maybe some people here want to work with me to create something

"It is one of the hardest things in the world. It is also one of the most enjoyable. The sheer amount of work that goes into even a simple game is unbelievable."

I dont know , ive never completed a full game but ive built many prototypes and it was easier than someone would think. First, if you take pre 1995 games like Lemmings, Civ 1 , Ultima 5, etc they are pretty easy to copy ,and many have. Newer games have some graphical and AI troubles to make them harder but I dont know how much work that would mean added to it

Mark_Everson · January 17, 2003, 23:27

BTW, like Shanky said, there's a whole new forum dedicated to discussing future civ games, and this discussion should probably migrate over to there. . .

Hi Ironikinit:

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
I don't expect any of these to be taken seriously but here's my wishlist: (summary abbreviation by Mark)

1. Get rid of the old city model.
2. While we're at it, get rid of the telescoping time idea.
3. Collapse and decay have to be in the model.
4. Less emphasis on graphics.
5. Continue the progress with the AI. Civ 3's AI is quite good.
6. Manufactured goods for export and the domestic market! 7. A realistic disease model.
8. Speaking of expansion, the current corruption model is less than ideal IMO.
9. Expansion via conquest is much too easy and always has been.

Hey, hear that? That's me whistling in the dark.

I think these are very good suggestions. I think, however #2 is basically impossible. If you want to have a short time-per-turn in a whole-history game you're going to have tens of thousands of turns or more. So unless you want to play scenarios that idea is out IMO.

The reason I can say this authoritatively is a bunch of us are working on a revolutionary civ-genre game called Clash of Civilizations, and we needed to revisit all your issues above and many more for the design. In terms of your list, we've got implemented already 1,4, and 6, and have planned 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9.

You don't have to whistle in the dark!

Come check out the web page and forum in my sig below. I'd like to hear what you think about our design choices and our pre-alpha game demos.

For those of you who would really like to put in some work to make a novel civ-type game there are Several projects already going in the Alt. Civs. forum right here at Apolyton. Please check it out and join up with an existing project if you have the energy and ambition to get things done!

LzPrst · January 20, 2003, 11:34

If CoC needs any more ideas I've got lots. And the ocean probably needs more water...

Reaaaaally like what I've seen so far on the CoC site. I'll buy it, if it is as good as you're planning it to be

btw dont forget natural disasters like volcanoes (pompeii) and earthquakes and floods and even storms (mongolian non-invasion of japan) etc

oh, and remember conquest is a great way to expand ones empire, and as long as you have troops you can hold on to it, just dont expect the locals to be happy about it. Thats what history shows us anyways.

MoonWolf · January 21, 2003, 09:29

If you aim to create a new game, "civ 4", do not let me out of it! There are several things to think of and to change/add:

1) Movement. The system should depend on the size of the map. Play a 256x256 map, an a battleship (with not even twice the move rate as a galley) use 10-20 years to cross the Atlantic! Also, the Vikings actually reached Constantinople (now Istanbul). I'm not sure if it was by ships or across Europe, but I doubt they used some 100s of years for it. Also, ancient ships shouldn't be able to cross the ocean/sea simply because the seafarers are too afraid.

2) Capturing cities. If we translate WW2 to a Civ3, Germany should today have been a puzzle of cities between England, Russia, France and USA. Including half France, BeNeLux, Norway and Denmark. It should be possible to free those cities instead. Meaning if you're allied with some one and you capture one their newly lost cities, it returns to it's previous onwer.

3) Give us civil war back! A civil war triggered by the capital being taken, is somehow strange, but fun! Maybe if you have a lot's of foreigners or unrest?

4) ... bringing us to number 4. If your empire strechtes, there should be a risk that your remote cities revolt and make their own civ. Like USA did. It's already mentioned earlier in this thread that great empires don't last. This could be a solution for it.

5) The trade unit from civ2 back. Allthough not instant move; the unit should somehow be transported to your friend.

6) Even many people want it to be more realistic, there is a fine balance here between how people think the world should be and how it is. Some places have had success with less democracy than others. The political balance is quite ok as it is, I think. It should have been some more governments available and maybe some other factors than pressing the revolution button should be included.

7) War weariness among other civs than your own. If you play a warmonger, other civ's populations should dislike you. Simular to what we see across the world now as a reaction to USA's and partly Britain's agression against Iraq and when USSR invaded Czechoslovakia

8) Some people have already mention diseases and natural disasters. Should really have more of this.

9) A sort of moral among your combat units. Use propaganda to increase it, and loosing a lot should change the moral too both ways. If a unit know it's a good chance it'll loose, it might fight like hell. Your worst enemy is the one who has nothing more to loose.

10) Different upkeep of units. E.g. nuclear units should be expensive to keep. The units that uses fuel should actually use fuel, meaning one source of oil isn't enough to maintain your 250 Panzers. And repairing a unit require the resource to build it.

My 10 cents...

This is just some basic changes and maybe the most drastic I'm thinking of.

Adagio · January 21, 2003, 09:49

I agree with all, but number 5: The trade unit should defently NOT get back...

MoonWolf · January 21, 2003, 10:56

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG
I agree with all, but number 5: The trade unit should defently NOT get back...

We can discuss that one over a Carlsberg... Maybe it's better to be able to have units inside the cities and together with your allies... Anyway, let's make the game!

LionQ · January 23, 2003, 15:47

1) Good point. Indeed it look long before the Vikings succeeded in getting from Scandinavia to Constantinopolis. They did half over land, half over river/sea: the took further into Rusland, and because the very flat bottoms of their (Long)boats, they could sail the rivers in that vast country.
I agree ancient ships can't go to sea/ocean. Even the Portuguese (spelling=?) stayed nearby the coast in the beginning of the Colonial Era and that was already around 1500.
2) Also a good point.
3) I guess Firaxis tryed to replace CivilWar by ForeignNationals.
4) Well, I don't agree that the factor should be a large distance, but a sea between colonie and motherland is a good alternative too imo.
5) Well, I prefer trading with negotiations in stead of caravan/freight or what.
6) Agree.
7) Yes, but this is already in Civ.
8) Indeed.
9) Very good point. Not those absolute UnitStats.
10) Also very good point.

MoonWolf · January 24, 2003, 04:10

Nice to hear my suggestions are agreed on! Thanks!

Looks like I need to clearify 5)... I don't mean a trade unit like the old caravan, but an option to buy/sell/give a unit from/to an other civ.

MoonWolf · January 24, 2003, 04:15

11) Trade of food and shields, at least within your empire. Maybe not available from the very beginning, but after discovery of railroads or something. A city that produces a lot of food or shields shoud be able to export this to an other city.