Discuss Big Gameplay Issues Now. . .Small Issues Later

[TechWins]

There are a lot of people out there who have a lot of ideas for the game. However, there has to be a contigency within the game. Throwing around ideas without a backbone to them renders them useless. In order for an idea to become a reality within the game it needs to be more detailed and carefully examined. This is not to say that small ideas shouldn't be suggested, because they can only lead to ideas with a foundation beneath them. My proposal is that there should be sort of two different lists from one another. A list that contains ideas that have been well examined, and another list that has ideas waiting to be meshed into the other list.

As for coming up with the ideas it should be based on what Civ games already have done and what you would like them to do. It's better to start off discussing large gameplay issues. With the main idea of what those gameplay issues should be it's easier to stem off ideas that are feasible within the larger state of the gameplay. So for now I would say try working out the larger issues of gameplay, because they are the most important. Tons of people have small little ideas, so it's not necessary to have everyone of those being discussed right now. I would say aim for coming up with a general, popular consenus on how the larger aspects of gameplay should be, then when there is a basis for the gameplay ideas try to follow up with smaller ideas to improve upon the whole idea chain.

Off the top of my head here would be the main gameplay ideas I can think of:

How should cities be dealt with?

Will you use a city works system, the current implementation, or another way altogether? How will producing units, improvements, and wonders work? What will be the costs (gold ala Civ3 or production/food ala Civ2) for producing units?

How will the trading system work?

Will you use caravans/freights to initiate trade deals, a basic diplomatic setting such as Civ3, or again a new idea altogether? How will the resource system work with the trading system? What are the ramifications of going to war on the trading system? How does diplomacy play along with the trading system?

How will diplomacy work?

Will there be a setup that is more along the lines of peace or war like Civ3, but with the leaders having different moods impacting deals, a more distinct, formal diplomatic agreement that effects deals like Civ2, or another way altogether? Will diplomacy have a larger effect on the trading system like it does with Civ3? How will the AI and Human interact with each other? How could the Human and Human interact with each other? What sort of extended role could it play in war?

How will war work?

What will be the effects of war? A war weariness system like Civ3, a by unit system like Civ2, or a new way altogether? How can the AI and Human interact with each other? How can the Human and Human interact with each other? How will the actual battles themselves take place? For land, air, and naval?

How will governments work?

Will it be a straight up system like Civ2/Civ3, a traits system like SMAC, combination between the two, or a new way altogether? What sort of impacts will a government play in trading, war, diplomacy, etc? How will revolutions take place?

There are of course several more larger issues, but I think it is far more constructive to work out ideas on the larger issues rather than small ideas right now. The small ideas will come in time. As of now I would say that without getting an idea of what you would like for the main gameplay it's hard to say what minor details you would like to have in the game.

[Asmodean]

I like your thoughts, TechWins. The way I see it, it will be up to the category managers, and the project lead to sort the bigger ideas from the smaller ones.

And speaking of that...how about picking up the torch, and managing a category of the list?? You were fairly active during the last list, but I know that you haven't been posting too much lately. How about it??

Asmodean

[TechWins]

Ok, you talked me into it; quite easily I would like to add. I'll decide on a category to manage over. :)

[Brent]

How should cities be dealt with? Somewhat like in Colonization.

Trading System: Tough choice, but I'd say like Civ3.

War: Personally I want no War Wearyness.

Governments: Mostly like SMAC.

[Jon Miller]

we need details, yes

but also, I think that everything should be up to firaxis to decide

we are not making the game for them

we are giving them ideas

brainstorming if you will

Jon Miller

[Fosse]

TechWins, I think it's wise to have us paint some things in broad strokes... and since you've given a good thread for it, I'll comment on the issues you raised.

Cities
I'd like a Public Works system, and I'd like fewer tile improvments built directly by the player. Heresy, I know. :) What I mean is, governments don't build mines on every hill in the kingdom... the people build them where it suits them. Big projects should be left to the player... irrigating land with low fertility... canals, bridges, a military road system (which should NOT generate trade... perhaps facilitate it, but no trade from road). Building a mine or farm on every tile is micromanagement.

Unit production should require both a phsyical and human cost. Physical represented by shields and required resources, human by subtracting population from the cities. City population should be measured in numbers, not "pop points," and growth should be independant of available food. Starvation on the other hand, would be very dependent on food. :D

Trade System
Resources are a good idea... let's expand that. Each source of a resource will provide X number of usable instances of that resource per turn. Units can cost resources to build (oil and iron for tanks), and resources to keep in operable condition (oil for ships and tanks). The "upkeep" resources must be paid every turn for every unit that needs them. If not they will fight at decreasing power for several turns until they are effectivly mothballed after several turns. So cutting off an enemy's resources is much more important, realistic, and fun.

You can build up reserves for trade or a rainy day that you don't use.

I would also like to see SMAC city by city trade to represent taxes from the private sector trading, which can be manipulated via tariffs, trade pacts, and embargoes.

Any resource trades with other countries would have a CtP/GalCiv trade route established, which can be pirated by enemies.

How Will War Work?
Stacked combat and Simultaneous movements. :D

Governments
SMAC style. Set your "government," democracy, theocracy, monarchy, military, etc..
Set your "economy," free, planned, mercantile, etc.
And set various official "attitudes." Attitude toward religion (will your state have an official government, recognize none, be atheistic?), military (are you hawks or doves? Big spenders or neutrals?), and various other things that could appear as the game goes on. So a medieval kingdom has no stance regarding pollution, but a modern economy could choose to give a hoot.

Each choice would have modifiers like SMAC, and the BIG choices would actually change the way your Civ funtions. So having a free market would mean that you no longer have direct control over your civs resources, and have to "purchase" them from the free market, in return for greater taxes. And in a democracy, you had better keep your people happy, or they might elect a senate that chagnes some of your Civ's "attitude" settings. You want to invade end pollution in your civ? Well, you shouldn't have pissed off the Corporate Party, because they just enacted a "Clean Air Act" and you can't change that setting until the next election! :D


Okay... thanks for reading this, if you bothered to wade through it.

[Jon Miller]

be atheistic?

that ha been real successful for countries like the USSR, China, and Cuba

I think that there can be no better thing a country can do to support it's citizens being religious

also somethings don't fit

like being a democracy and atheistic would be impossible

Jon Miller

[TechWins]

Jon Miller, giving Firaxis a bunch of random ideas/details for the game without any basis on how they could be implemented is not going to help them out one bit. The more organized and formalized the set of ideas given to Firaxis is the more likely they are to be used. That's why I believe that the more important gameplay issues be covered first, then delve into the smaller details later on The smaller details could still be discussed early on, but I think more emphasis should be put on the main gameplay issues.

Also, it's obvious that Firaxis is creating the game, and that they will be the ones making the decisions.:rolleyes:

[Fosse]

Well... communism itself wasn't overly successful either, but it's in Civ. And a democracy COULD have a constitution to be atheistic, just as they could elect to have an official religion. Besides, in SMAC you CAN have a police state with a free market... it's just a bad idea most of the time.

Regardless, that was my example to show how I want goverment to work. What do you think of the idea?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by TechWins
Jon Miller, giving Firaxis a bunch of random ideas/details for the game without any basis on how they could be implemented is not going to help them out one bit. The more organized and formalized the set of ideas given to Firaxis is the more likely they are to be used. That's why I believe that the more important gameplay issues be covered first, then delve into the smaller details later on The smaller details could still be discussed early on, but I think more emphasis should be put on the main gameplay issues.

Also, it's obvious that Firaxis is creating the game, and that they will be the ones making the decisions.:rolleyes:

we are not trying to make a game here

Firaxis is doing that

we are just giving out ideas

firaxis can choose wether to use them or not in their game

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Fosse
Well... communism itself wasn't overly successful either, but it's in Civ. And a democracy COULD have a constitution to be atheistic, just as they could elect to have an official religion. Besides, in SMAC you CAN have a police state with a free market... it's just a bad idea most of the time.

Regardless, that was my example to show how I want goverment to work. What do you think of the idea?

no they couldn't

because to be atheistic, you would have to have the squashing of ideas

and the free flow of ideas is fundamental to democracy

so it would be impossible

religious liberty is as fundamental to democracy as freedom of press

Jon Miller

[TechWins]

If you were presented a bunch of ideas randomly without any organization or a bunch of ideas well organized and with basis behind the ideas, which group of ideas do you feel is more likely to be chosen? The answer is clearly the latter, which is why it's necessary to make a formal organized list of the ideas.

[Jon Miller]

they aren't choosing ideas

they are (hopefully) looking at ideas, and maybe seeing something in one that they can use

Jon miller

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


no they couldn't

because to be atheistic, you would have to have the squashing of ideas

and the free flow of ideas is fundamental to democracy

so it would be impossible

religious liberty is as fundamental to democracy as freedom of press

Jon Miller

Democracy=People vote.

It doesn't mean free press, it doesn't mean free religion, it doesn't even mean no slaves and votes for women.

My idea is to get rid of the current Civ model in which a "government" choice means chosing an economy style and military positions. If a player wants to establish a democratic politcal system that values religion, then I want them to be able to do it, no matter how foolish you or I or their simulated populace thinks it is.

Now, once again... that was my example, please focus on my idea: Do you like it? Why or why not? What would you change?

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


no they couldn't

because to be atheistic, you would have to have the squashing of ideas

and the free flow of ideas is fundamental to democracy

so it would be impossible

religious liberty is as fundamental to democracy as freedom of press

Jon Miller

Democracy=People vote.

It doesn't mean free press, it doesn't mean free religion, it doesn't even mean no slaves and votes for women.

My idea is to get rid of the current Civ model in which a "government" choice means chosing an economy style and military positions. If a player wants to establish a democratic politcal system that values religion, then I want them to be able to do it, no matter how foolish you or I or their simulated populace thinks it is.

Now, once again, so that we might remain on-topic... that was my example, please focus on my idea: Do you like it? Why or why not? What would you change?

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


no they couldn't

because to be atheistic, you would have to have the squashing of ideas

and the free flow of ideas is fundamental to democracy

so it would be impossible

religious liberty is as fundamental to democracy as freedom of press

Jon Miller

Democracy=People vote.

It doesn't mean free press, it doesn't mean free religion, it doesn't even mean no slaves and votes for women.

My idea is to get rid of the current Civ model in which a "government" choice means chosing an economy style and military positions. If a player wants to establish a democratic politcal system that values religion, then I want them to be able to do it, no matter how foolish you or I or their simulated populace thinks it is.

Now, once again, so that we might remain on-topic... that was my example, please focus on my idea: Do you like it? Why or why not? What would you change?

[Jon Miller]

yes

the people vote

but they aren't really voting if there are no ideas circulated

if no ideas are circulated, than all they can vote for is who they are told to

so in reality it is no democracy

it is like, you can vote, but you can only vote for the president

it is just a dictatorship with a covering of democracy (Which is easily seen through)

democracies can easily survive(and even thrive) when not everyone was free

Athens most certainly did, as did Rome, and the early US

but without the exchange of ideas, which are a fundamental part of freedom of religion and of press, there is nothing to vote on, and so the ability to vote is meaningless

the reason I don't like it is that most of the different set ups are stupid (This was true in smac), there are really only like 6 choices which anyone would make, and we might as well get rid of SE and just offer up those 6 governments

Jon Miller

[TechWins]

they are (hopefully) looking at ideas, and maybe seeing something in one that they can use

Well, it's a lot easier to find an idea that is worthwhile when it is organized and there is more depth and explanation behind the idea. An organized list of ideas is likely to be more effective, simple as that. I'm done arguing this, because it's irrelevant me having to back up the thought that an organized list of ideas is better than a random group of ideas.

[Jon Miller]

well

you don't make a lot of sense

Jon Miller

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
the reason I don't like it is that most of the different set ups are stupid (This was true in smac), there are really only like 6 choices which anyone would make, and we might as well get rid of SE and just offer up those 6 governments

Jon Miller

This is where we'll disagree then. I will concede that many ideas are not great in the SMAC social engineering, just like it isn't smart to defend all of your cities with longbowmen and assault your neighbor with pikes.

A monarchy with a laissez faire economic policy would be a be able to play and feel different than a democracy with a planned market. Both of these are theoretically possible... and a lot more so than interstellar ships in the 1600s.

And my idea of having additional value options that become available as the game progresses is to have increased control as the game goes on, letting people and AIs optimize their Civ to be the builder, the warmonger, or the hybrid that they want to be.



Another big game play issue I'd like to address:

Make a Signifigant portion of research passive

Governments in history have really "researched" so little of what we know, and "traded" even less. 90% of the Civ techs are things that people figrued out. How many states "researched" philosophy, after all?

I suggest having two tech trees... one that just sort of happens, and one that is player directed.

In the first, "natural" tech tree, the player is informed of what great new developments have sprung up that he can now take advantage of. In the second, he directs the research and funds it out of the treasury.

Techs in both trees could have prerequisites in the other, to keep things running in a sensible way. The player can only indirectly increase the rate at which "natural" techs are discovered, and cannot trade these techs.
Things that would impact the rate of "natural" discovery...
*Other Civs with contact knowing it. If the Greeks have come up with a great new way to rotate crops, then the Romans will take notice.
*Health of citizenry. People who are well fed and have a roof over their heads don't spend all day worrying about dying, so they can devote some time to figuring out how to build better buildings.
*Various government attitudes. If the player's government supports one religion (since we're on that debate already), then maybe some "natural" tech's discoveries are retarded. Gallileo, anyone? If the player's government supports universal free speech, ideas in general will develop faster.
*Other... um.. help me out here. :)

"Directed" tech research can be traded to other civs, since it would represent applicable things such as weapons and tactics that the average person wouldn't be able to spread. "Natural" techs would trigger the potential. So instead of saying: "You guys, invent gunpowder and apply it to something!" You would learn one day that some people have discovered an interesting explosive, then you'd say, "Try to make a weapon out of it, here' some gold to keep you going." Then a few years later you have powder weapons.


What do you think, gang?

[Brent]

I always automate my workers, so I wouldn't mind not needing units to do worker jobs. I'd like to be able to build more than one thing in the same city at the same time. I'd like to be able to build a transport with automatic land units onboard.

[TechWins]

Why would you ever want to build two (or more) things at the sametime? Say you have 2 production shields to use in your city. You want to build 2 improvements that both cost 100 shields. Building them simultaneiously it will take you 100 turns to have both improvements done. Building them seperately will still take you 100 turn to have both improvements, however, at 50 turns you will have one of the improvements done. It's more efficient receiving the benefit of one of the improvements for 50 turns rather than not.