META: Civ Game Concepts And Discussion Of Civ Mechanisms

[VetLegion]

It is inevitable that everyone has different ideas on how the perfect civ game should look like.

Still, there are many similarities between various proposals on how to enhance current civ games (large scale god games).

If we could agree that:

- civ is a fun game
- civ is not a simulation game
- civ is a historical game, drawing inspiration from the past

and thus:

- the optimal civ game has to satisfy all these criteria in a balanced mix

would it be possible to design mechanisms once and for all that, once implemented, would materialise the most perfect civ game of all time?


And the answer ofcourse is: Yes.


What we can not agree on however, is the balance of those three important criteria.

Game slanted towards history comes out as Europa Universalis, fun is our Civ of Sid and one slanted towards simulation would be a tycoon game of immense proportions (this is something new projects, and especially online projects and even more specifficaly, unfinished projects seem to strive for ).


So, how to decide the balance?


In my opinion, it is impossible to visualise the many complex concepts that a civ game consists of (terrain, units, economy..), and thus, abstract balancing of models that haven't seen action is also impossible. Therefore optimal balance should be achieved by simply taking one game that is slanted towards one side and improving its other, weaker, features.

Consequentialy, does it make sense to produce 'baseless' models, which do not have anchor in any current civ game?


I think am begining to think not.


Example of such non-anchored models and discussions is Civ3 (is it 4 now?) wishlist, another would be independant social, economic and other models that appear every now and then in this and other forums.

Neither of which has so far brought imrovements in the genre. Feel free to correct me on this, I might be wrong, but despite Civ 3 supposedly being inspired by the wishlist, I was not able to find direct relation between proposals in the list and what was implemented in the game.

And surely, developing an elaborate model just to inspire someone to do something completely different does not make much sense, does it?


If what I wrote above sounds like stating the obvious to you, don't worry, it very likely is just that. The night is long and Mars is near.. I got philosophical


But I mean this thread as a sort of META discussion. Let's discuss ways how we should discuss civ games.


Some things that may (or may not!) improve discussion of civ games and improvement of their mechanisms:


- realising the difference between three various aspects of all civ games (especially, acknowledging that all three have value and none should be discarded completely, that the equation is zero-sum and thus tradeoffs have to exist. Instead, balance. Important case in point is that many people do not differentiate between History and Fun - while history can be fun, it is not necessarily so)


- realising personal preference towards one of those aspects (this is difficult because one can not easily measure oneself. Best method may be thinking which of the existing titles suits you most. Put in practice, this would mean that you should take a top down approach, realise what the top concepts are and what you want, and then approach discissions of parts with a better vision of the whole)


- stating that preference in discussions, asking others to state theirs too (discussion is more streamlined if you know the direction your collegue is pushing to, and why, before you get bogged down in details which expirience shows, you will )


- avoiding the discussion of the mechanics of history in the same space as mechanics of game (this usually starts like this: poster number one: so we will make population growth dependant on food ... poster number two: wait! in fact disease was always more important ... poster number three: no, in cities it was disease but not in villages .. blah blah you know the rest )


- disbanding independant models completely, instead, taking one existing civ game as basis and going from there (name new threads as '[Civ 3] New Cultural Model', or '[CtP II] City Radius Solution' instead of 'My Cultural Model', 'ICS solution')


- branching discussion. Threads that discuss these things are usually high volume, they consist of many usually very big posts by many people. Branching threads, ala USENET newsgroups, provide better overview and streamline the discussion. Okay, if the discussion is on Apolyton, this is not feasible, but still, a thougt.

etc, etc, I could go on and on. Feel free to correct & comment

[Spiffor]

There is not much to add to your Post Vetty, you pretty much corner it. To establish the differences between the three sides of the game (I'd even add a forth: action) is a good start. And to acknowledge one's own preferences is always a must to discuss any issue.

For me:

- I prefer the fun side of the game. This is also why, contrary to many people here, I give some importance to good graphics.

- I enjoy the simulation aspect, since I believe to be a ruler. However, sometimes the simulation aspect can make the game look like work when it gets out of hand.

- I give little importance to the history aspect, but I enjoy playing games which look like history. A good historical polish is as important as good graphics, but no more. However, I LOVE big Civilopedias and their educational content. The more the better, because the Civilopedia doesn't impede on gameplay.

- Action is quite good, but I don't think a Civ game should be centred on it. War is an element of Civilization, but the greatness of the series come from the fact that you're not forced to wage war permanently (this was the great News when Civ1 came out).

[LDiCesare]

To me fun = challenge. The fun part means the game needs good ai, and the player has to make choices and can opt for vastly different strategies and still win.
Simulation is somewhat important. If I want a game without simulation, I play chess. So the game has to simulate the world.
History is not important to me. F.e. Galciv is great IMHO, and there is no history in it.

You say the game should be important based on history but not be a simulation, yet you want a history simulator.

would it be possible to design mechanisms once and for all that, once implemented, would materialise the most perfect civ game of all time?

Of course, not. Different people have different expectations. Civ3 appeals to a slightly different public from civ2, because the games are different, not because one is inherently better than another.

[Inverse Icarus]

to me, fun is customizibility. not so much for modding (although that adds to it signifigantly), but in game specialization.

this entails detailed unit workshops (even more detailed than SMAC), social systems, etc.

i'd like to make the social/economic/political/etc system so complex that you could theoretically create a unique society that no one has ever thought up before, and make it so that every culture you could dream up would be equal to any other. for a simplistic example,a builder's bonuses would be good enough to offset a warmonger's, so that you dont have to dive for one path because thats the one that wins.

replayibility. thats the stuff right there. i can't play civ3 single player anymore, i get too bored too fast. the AI is predictable, it's the same game every damn time.

[VetLegion]

Spiffor,

I agree with what you said, my preferences are also along those lines. Fun above realism (simulation), and lots of history wherever it's not in the way.

Action is quite good, but I don't think a Civ game should be centred on it. War is an element of Civilization, but the greatness of the series come from the fact that you're not forced to wage war permanently (this was the great News when Civ1 came out).

Yes. My playing style always was warmongering though Civ 3 made me load the game sometimes, to get different combat result, could be problem is with me, or the game.

LDiCesare

To me fun = challenge. The fun part means the game needs good ai, and the player has to make choices and can opt for vastly different strategies and still win.

I agree. Trend seems to be reducing number of decisions player can take though (Civ3, Moo3).

You say the game should be important based on history but not be a simulation, yet you want a history simulator.

Well, we use word simulator differently. I think there is a complexity treshold for calling something a simulator, and civ game mechanisms (rightfully) simply do not reach that treshold. Their output resembles real world somewhat, enough for game purposes, but not enough to claim they simulate real world.

Take the arrow trade model, it is not even remotely a simulator. Neither is the city growth model. They are just silly abstracts which do the job. For simulators of sometimes stunning complexity, one would have to go read Clash or GGS forums.

So, what I want from history is not a simulation. Yes, I want it to inspire abstract models, but if sometimes those models resemble real world in nothing but the name, imagination can do the rest . And when possible (i.e. not a space/future game) I want historical sciences (very important to me), units, tools.. etc.

Of course, not. Different people have different expectations. Civ3 appeals to a slightly different public from civ2, because the games are different, not because one is inherently better than another.

I agree. But there are only so many titles out there, and only so many others being worked on. It is impossible for everyone to get a civ game tailored to personal preferences. We have to converge our expectations towards common ground. I am for one quite interested as to what that ground is.

[VetLegion]

Uber

i'd like to make the social/economic/political/etc system so complex that you could theoretically create a unique society that no one has ever thought up before

Yes, this would be excellent. I can imagine spending play-time one day just loading old games to see how my civ came out in them, spotting all the little differences. Nowadays, every game with Egyptians looks alike

Specialization to a new level is something they tried in MOO3, but I was so annoyed with that game I could barely play 300 turns. So I don't really know how it came out.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Yes. My playing style always was warmongering though Civ 3 made me load the game sometimes, to get different combat result, could be problem is with me, or the game.

I did so too before adapting my strategy. 3 offensive units per expected defensive unit. And of course, everybody must have barracks training.

[Sirotnikov]

- branching discussion. Threads that discuss these things are usually high volume, they consist of many usually very big posts by many people. Branching threads, ala USENET newsgroups, provide better overview and streamline the discussion. Okay, if the discussion is on Apolyton, this is not feasible, but still, a thougt.

This is the single most evil suggestion on this list

[Sirotnikov]

I think it's perfectly ok to discuss meta-civ issues.


Obviously if the issues relate too much to a single game, we would post in the "General / Suggestions" forum of that specific game.

This can and should provide food for thought for new patches, mods and even games.

Civilization IV is around the corner... always

[VetLegion]

Siro,

About branching, yes it would shake the foundations of Apolyton itself . As a Usenet regular, I know this. Newsgroups never develop the kind of community around them forums do.

I would not sacrifice Poly to efficiency, no. I do not support whoever it is pushing that all the time in the Community forum. But branching is far superior for handling high volume discussions, so it is worth considering if a project takes off.

Obviously if the issues relate too much to a single game, we would post in the "General / Suggestions" forum of that specific game.

Agreed. Depends on what did you do. If it is a small fine tuning issue take it there, if you have a radical change or a new model keep it here but at least vaguely 'anchor' it to an existing title. It is that or you have to define entire game around it since as I said I believe models do not function well in vacuum, it is hard to visualise them and even harder to discuss them in a constructive way. Describing an entire game is a gigantic task on the other hand.

Ok, a disclaimer is in place. My ideas may begin to sound constraining in a way... well, I neither have a way to enforce them, nor would I want to do so. I am of opinion that some structure and self-discipline may improve discussion. However if creativity would suffer, forget all about it.

Civilization IV is around the corner... always

Always. We are getting tougher to please, so it better be good

[LDiCesare]

Uber,

I agree that replayability is very important. That is why, IMO, modding is very important.

Customizibility is important in the sense it should allow you to choose different routes to victory. These mustn't be just different victory conditions (science/conquest/diplomacy), but also different approaches to the game from the start (for instance, OCC was possible in civ2).

I'd also like to be able to choose paths that weren't used in history, or not successful.

[Jamski]

The perfect future-Civ game for me would have to build on all the good points of the other Civ games, and pass over their weaknesses. Many people complained that Civ3 was a step back from SMAC, for example.

I'd like the combat system from MoM, with beautiful 3D graphics, and an option to calculate it automatically. In-combat spells would be replaced by "special orders" like telling your legion to form a tortoise. This would be paid for from "command points" gained from generals, barracks etc.

I'd like the unit design from SMAC, but with more options and the addition of the categories "equipment" and "skills" with skills increasing as the unit improves in experience.

I want heros. Famous generals from history, great philosohers, poets, painters, explores, statesmen. I want to hire Shakespeare and get him to increase the culture produced by each theatre by 2... as long as I keep paying him.

I want to bribe leaders to leave my opponents by paying them more.

I want city improvements that force me to make a choice : the traditional "guns or butter" of the civ series. How about a super barracks that will give your troops increadable morale boosts, but at the cost of science AND sheilds? Or a modern farming system, doubling food production, but sending everyone to work on the land means that the town is producing NO culture or trade?

I want a government choice, an economic model choice, a values choice and a cultural choice. ie. despotic, bartering, envirnmental peacelovers, or democratic, capitalist, scientific traders, or republican, socialist, expansionist perfectionists. The free choices and combinations would make every time different.

I want each civ to have a REAL personality. If you meet the Egyptians, and you're running a democracy, then they object, as the think slavery is far superior. If you're fighting a war against the Germans, then the peace-loving Zulus ask you to stop. Each civ should have various advantages and disadvantages, and of course the custom civ option.

A civ should have government, social etc choices that it CANNOT choose. The Americans wouldn't be able to choose Monarchy for example.

Culture is good. Culture should stay, but you should be able to spend gold to improve culture (funding the arts etc)

Resources are good too, but one iron mine supporting a whole empire? Each resource should have a limit... and there should always be an alternative to build that doesn't require the resource. Certain government types would help you... barter for example, or a free trade market.

Anything else? Events, both random and scripted. AI that TELLS you when it likes you or hates you and tells you WHY. More choices generaly. The problem with Civ3 is you just research in the same order, and build everything in every city, every game. WIth custom governments, custom units (including unit size) custom armies, custom heros, famous guys, and even custom civs, you won't be bored with this lot. Not to mention the practical impossiblity of building all the building in one city - some won't be available to your civ, some you can't have both at once (i.e. Hippy Commune and Super Barracks or Tabernacle and Space telecope)

I'm sure I forgot something...

Oh yeah, the basic game should be simple, un-automated, and with all the numbers in small round numbers and easy to see. I don't wasnt "swords have a moderate attack but not so good against horses" I want "swords have a basic attack of 4, but only 3 against mounted units"

Got it?

-Jam

[Spiffor]

I'd like to see every quality that I outlined in my 4 part column (see sig. Many people think I have written a good piece).

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I'd like to see every quality that I outlined in my 4 part column (see sig. Many people think I have written a good piece).

and he's modest too!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Uber KruX
and he's modest too!

I put quite some work into it to reach a good quality. I won't be a false modest and tell "check the atrocious crap to which I link in my sig."

[Jamski]

Witness the awesome over-towering statue I have constructed as a massive monument to my incredable humility

-Jam

[VetLegion]

I have read your column back when you wrote it, o humblest of omnivores

Good piece.

[Urban Ranger]

The thing about fun is it is hard to define, that's the reason why it is so hard to design a fun game. Now, if we decide to lessen the requirement a bit and go for the "one more turn" addiction instead, that would be more concrete.

[lord of the mark]

re Civ as a history game, may i immodestly suggest this column?:



Civ2's Hegelian Tech tree


this explains my viewpoint - Civ2 was NOT a history sim a la EU or grognard wargames - but it was also far more than a strategy game with historic atmospherics, a la Age of Empires. It illustrated grand themes of history - the tech- money - production tradeoffs that are common to almost all empire building games - but are still an important historical thing to learn- the govt type-happiness issues that are particularly relevant to a historical game - and it did so in ways that represented a particular viewpoint on actual world history - (particularly involving notions of war as a driver of technological and social progress, the notion that social systems evolve out of their opposites and are driven by the contradictions in earlier systems, and the notion that late capitalist democracy represents the "end of history")

I have played SMAC, which is great TBS, and a very intellectually serious game, but is clearly different due to its sci fi concerns. I doubt very much that less serious sci fi empire builder games do what civ did, though i havent played them. Ditto for fantasy games.

I have not played Civ3, and so dont know it it carried this forward, by impression is that it did not - to the extent that these "lessons" are still present in Civ3, its essentially a carryover from Civ2.


Im not sure if there is more to be done on these lines then Civ2 did, at least within this type of game. Id love to see the issues of end of history versus fundamentalism addressed, (Jihad vs McWorld) but i think that would require a more focused modern period game, not a 6000 year view of human history.

I do think there is a general tendency to overlook this aspect of Civ, and to get caught up in the historical accuracy (or lack thereof) of the details. IMO a 6000 year game can NEVER be historically accurate in the details and be playable. What Civ did so well was capture the broad themes and feel of Macro history, DESPITE the inaccuracy on details.

[LDiCesare]

The important thing in history/simulation is it is where you draw ideas for new things. I mean that civ can be seen as a wargame but it adds a historical feel to it since you can upgrade units (or build better ones) if you use research. Of course, it is more than that, it is also empire building, has diplomacy... but all these are inspired by the real world. In order for a new game to add something to the genre, it has to draw from reality or fiction, and history/reality is the safest bid since people can relate to it more easily than to sci-fi for instance. When doing sci-fi stuff, editors prefer to use 'known' or familiar worlds like Star Wars' or Start Trek.
So I think that all games that would continue the civ genre will draw upon history and reality, by opening either new domains (culture in civ 3 wrt civ 2) or more depth in a given domain (hitpoints for firearms in civ 2 wrt civ 1).

[VetLegion]

I was intent on arguing for the benefits of structured discussion versus brainstorming. Well, both are good for something and this thread has definately drifted towards latter

lotm,

I agree with you that civ has a sort of "end of history" feel to it. The game is heavily based on western philosophy of progress. A more eastern line of thought that holds that history is essentially cyclic would make for an interesting game (but not as good I think)

[Trifna]

I would only bring one correction, based on my own vision of Civ: Civ isn't a simulation, but it is a meta-simulation.

Difference: A simulation will copy every single element of reality and bring into the model. As plane simulators that will put every single switch for exemple. A meta-simulation (that's how I call it) makes a tad different: it wont take EVERY SINGLE DETAIL, but it will only bring general aspects, supposing that tiny details such as micro-management are included but just not shown the the eye, done automatically (like some plane games that wont put every switch, supposing that the pilot is by default going ok with those that aren't showed).


That's how we can get a game that doesn't include plagues and other disasters, supposing that every civilization has its share of them and that the player by default is dealing with it pretty much as well as all other civs. Thus, it is included implicitly into "population growth": it permits to stay more on a macro level with global decisions about the aspect that would otherwise include plagues and disasters.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by VetLegion
If we could agree that:

- civ is a fun game
- civ is not a simulation game
- civ is a historical game, drawing inspiration from the past

I agree with all that. First and foremost, the emphasis should be on fun and intuitive gameplay.

I also think the emphasis should be on strategy, ie tough choices. The player should have to make tough choices like which city improvements to build, peace or war etc... The player should have to make sacrifices, but all strategies should be equally valid.

When it comes to history, I don't want to relive history but I do want to feel like I am a part of it. When I play the Greeks, I want to have hoplites and Great Leaders like Alexander the Great, when I play the Romans I want legions and Leaders like Marius and Julius Ceasar etc...

I don't something generic. I want something that feels like history.

[LDiCesare]

Problem with history is:
What Romans who would survive beyond the Middle Age look like?
There shouldn't be many starting civs among those we currently have, so the civs should evolve (Goths become Wisigoths/Ostrogoths, Angles English and then Americans, etc.). Otherwise you end up with a George Washington leader in 2000 BC.
And what about Aztecs who would have had horses?
The various unique units offered by civ3 come at different ages, which means they are not very balanced (who needs a modern age unit if they can conquer the world by the middle age? better to kill those civs with modern UUs before they can get them, etc.) so the whole history stuff is better left generic IMO, that is: have mechanism which allow civs to evolve like they did in history if hteir conditions are the same, but don't force the British to have ships if you are playing on an arid planet with little or no sea.

[Trifna]

LDiCesare:
Well I agree there are some aspects we just can't do a thing about, like people knowing the tech tree... about the Romans being in the 20th century, well I guess they become what they become and this is only what we imagine them to become

Other than that, I stick to my position, and the inner workings of the game are still a historic "meta-simulation".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jamski
I want each civ to have a REAL personality. If you meet the Egyptians, and you're running a democracy, then they object, as the think slavery is far superior. If you're fighting a war against the Germans, then the peace-loving Zulus ask you to stop. Each civ should have various advantages and disadvantages, and of course the custom civ option.

A civ should have government, social etc choices that it CANNOT choose. The Americans wouldn't be able to choose Monarchy for example.


-Jam

So you would go further in the direction of Civ3, towards "history on wheels" - IE the assumption that national charecteristics for all time are determined in 4000BC?

Why shouldnt the Americans be able to choose monarchy? American lived quite happily under the briitish monarchy for a 150 years Certainly if there were Americans living in 4000BC, with despotism as their current regime, monarchy might have made sense for them.

I also note that nobody in Egypt today is particularly enthusiastic about slavery

This is the problem of the Civ series - the whole historical concept behind a 6000 year game is to show how civs evolve in different directions, based on their locations and history, despite starting the same. But the tendency is to import models from shorter time period games - AOE has unique units, and their cool, and they add to replayability. so why shouldnt civ have them - the difference between a game covering one period, and a game covering 6000 years is forgotten. And its more "historically accurate" isnt it? (well no, it isnt) The tendency is to move Civ4 even further in that direction - and, i think further from what civ is about, as a historical game.


This leads me further to the notion that the Civ series is played out - better that Firaxis NOT make another Civ game for 10 years, and then come back and reexamine the topic.


Dont take this personal, Jamski, this is one of my obsessions regarding the Civ series.

[lord of the mark]

this gets to vetlegions original question about concepts.

What is the concept behind the Civ series? Its a game that puts fun ahead of detailed issues of historical accuracy - its not a "grognard game" we know that.

But it clearly is a historical game - and in what way? Its not a historial sim like EU - why? Just because EU has historical events that pull the game back toward history? Is it not because EU covers a shorter period - starting in 1419 you cant make the world THAT different by 1820. Civ starts in 4000 BC - the whole point is to start with a clean slate, and to explore what the driving forces of history are with a clean slate.

On the other hand that means that Egypt may become a commercial democracy, britain (esp if its not on an island) may become a landbased empire, etc. Due to the playing out of HISTORICAL forces, we will get AHISTORICAL results. As we should. Do we really want 6000 year game that guarantees us the "right" 20th and 21st century outcomes? That is a different concept, a different direction.

We're not helped by Firaxis unclarity of concept for Civ3.

[Ktulu2]

Hi!
I'm Adrian, from Romania. I already bought the Call to Power II. I reckon it's harder than the first one, even though the hardest level I tried and won was "King" (on Call to Power).
I wrote to you, because I've got an idea, concearning future Call to Powers or future Civilizations. Perhaps somebody else shared this idea with you already. But perhaps nobody has thought of it, not even a glimpse.
Let's say during the play, somewhere between 2300-2600 A.D., you cand introduce a parallel map. I guess it's the most competitive idea so far & ever. Let's say humanity/civilization/player has just sent a spaceship to explore, conquer and inhabit other planets (first, just ONE PLANET). Future game generations may include several maps at a time. Let's say that map is Mars' (or that Planet X's, they've discovered lately).
While confronting domination on Earth, the player can begin search for another planet, in order to colonize it.Then he can switch between two or more maps. Turns may remain the way they were.
Opponents may follow on discovering the same planet(s).
Please write to me!
Adrian.
Bye!

E-Mail: adrianarmas@yahoo.co.uk

[Brent]

40 % fun, 35 % history, 25 % simulation

Americans should be able to choose monarchy

I would not want to wait 10 years for the next Civ

[Arrian]

One comment re: customization/replayability:

I'm all for lots of options to customize... AT STARTUP. I absolutely HATED the unit workshop in SMAC. I don't want to spend hours designing the best possible group of units (which the AI will inevitably suck at, btw). I want to spend hours using the standard set of units everyone gets to their best effect (which the AI will most likely still suck at ).

Back to the startup thing:

1) If civ traits are in, I'd like to see a "create your own civ" screen similar to the one in MOO2. Perhaps even allow the ability to have "anti" traits that weaken your civ so you can take on more positive traits. Again, like in MOO2. The anti stuff should be harsh, though. An anti-militaristic civ would have double-cost military improvements, have zero free unit support (no matter which government they use), lowered promotion rate, and not allow drafting, ever. Something like that. I'll cut this tangent off here.

2) Along with the the settings available in the Conquests startup menu, I'd like to see a slider for tech rate, options to customize difficulty (say I wanna play at against an AI with Emperor-level bonuses, but I want my people not to be quite as cranky - and leave happiness at Monarch level?), and other options depending on what's in the game (if random events are part of the game, definitely a slider that controls their rate of appearance & how "nice" or "mean" they are). Stuff like that.

...

Regarding historical accuracy... well, I personally view Civ as the opportunity to play with History, in the sense that I get to go and do stuff that DIDN'T happen, like play as the English from 4000bc and take them Communist in the industrial age or whatever. Or win via SS with the Roman Empire. That's the whole freakin' POINT, to me. I don't want to replay History, I want to create a new one.

-Arrian