Random musing: RPG Civ

[Spiffor]

Here's an idea that struck me yesterday night: what if Civ became a RPG with Experience Points (XP), levels, specific skills, supa powers and such?
What if you got these points every time you defeat an enemy unit, discover a tech, have a deal with a partner, build an improvement, etc?
What if scenarios had plenty of objectives, the realisation of each one bringing a bundle of XP?

As your experience grows, your Civ (or your ruler, that's the same thing) could gain levels, and increase its skill in a specific field: military prowess, diplomatic prowess, construction time, research, corruption, revolution time, maritime prowess and so on...
Or maybe you could 'burn' a level-up to dicover a tech instantly or to rush-build a wonder.

More seriously, the idea of a RPG Civ is certainly absurd, but maybe there is a merit in my idea if we want dynamic traits and Unique Units. What do you think?

[Kuciwalker]

I think you're going a bit far.... rpg

/me needs sleep

/me knows he's been browsing poly too long when the OTF is too slow

[Spiffor]

Actually, when I think about it, the idea is less stupid than it sounds. Remove everything associated with "RPG", but experience levels and choosable traits.

This may be a workable idea to have dynamic traits and UUs, things that are currently completely rigid.

[Sandman]

In principle, I agree with you. Raising a civ should be as complex and rewarding as raising a character in an RPG. What we call 'RPGs' are really a kind of strategy game anyway.

I'd not bother with experience or levels. These are to some extent handled by the tech tree. I'd just let civs choose additional traits depending on how their ability to process information has advanced. Your civ would start with two traits, and as it gains information techs, such as alphabet, writing, paper, printing, movable type, print capitalism, telegraph, cinema, television, silicon chips, internet, etc, it can select additional traits.

I'd make UUs as part of a cultural trait system. For example, you'd gain a better tank if you had 'armoured warfare' as a trait, or a better submarines if you had 'submarine specialist'.

If you had a revolution, you could reset some of your traits, to represent the destruction of the old classes.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Actually, when I think about it, the idea is less stupid than it sounds. Remove everything associated with "RPG", but experience levels and choosable traits.

This may be a workable idea to have dynamic traits and UUs, things that are currently completely rigid.

The only problem here is that traits couldn't really give early-game bonuses, so the early-game would be nearly the same for every civ. Plus, you lose what made civs unique in C3.

[Jamski]

Plus, you lose what made civs unique in C3.

Maybe you could choose one "skill" to start with.

-Jam

[VetLegion]

The idea is not stupid at all. Galciv has a fairly developed system in which you can increase your abilities such as Diplomacy or Military during the game by researching tech (+10 mostly), building wonders (+5 I think), building bases (+15 or so), or researching an anomaly (equivalent of huts) which brings you a random bonus (1-5 usually).

You can also alter your alignment (Good-Neutral-Evil) by choosing how to act in random events that put you under ethical challenges (Eradicate native life on a new planet to get extra space?)

And there is also Chaotic, Pure... many RPG elements.

Their goal was to make game more "organic". I haven't played a single game very far yet, to say how well they managed to do it.

[Brent]

I'm not sure how I feel about objectives.

I would like the game to have a feature where there are several important characters in each empire. You can assign them to different advisor, military leader, science leader, and governor roles. For civs that we don't know much about, you could use famous historical figures regardless of nationality or if you can create ficticious characters with authentic names. Be able to punish characters that you don't like. Have extra characters, more characters than you need for your positions. Governors of individual cities wouldn't need Character Status, but you could use Characters with internal regions that you designate.

In multiplayer games, players could play subordinate Characters. You could start with each player playing a Character in the same empire, and be able to compete for the position of Ruler. The game could start with a computer- controlled Ruler, but let the Players have a lot of say in what the Civ does. Characters could defect to a rival Civ, and a Civ could split, with each Player gaining control of a splitoff, and Civs could merge, giving each Player a role in the combined Civ. Players playing Characters within a Civ could be in control of splitting off. There should be some advantage to not splitting.

Having these characters can be an excuse for a Prison city improvement, which can also be used to incarcerate foreign rulers and important subordinates of theirs. I suppose the prisons could also be used for nonspecific numbers of citizens. Having too manty prisons with too many empty cells could cause civil disorder. A Civ could choose which city to attack by one of their characters being imprisoned there. They'd have to expend some effort to determine which city they are imprisoned in.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by skywalker


The only problem here is that traits couldn't really give early-game bonuses, so the early-game would be nearly the same for every civ.

Well thats the point, no? every civ SHOULD start the same, its unique traits should develop through its history.

[muxec]

Your tanks armed with magic guns inflict more damage but gain less experience

[Brent]

A Special Character could be the governor of your capital and I guess you could do the same for other major cities. I guess you can have as many governors as you have Special Characters. Governors have to travel safely to the city you assign them to. Late in the game they can get there instantaneously by aircraft. You should have to worry about Special Characters dying. Maybe their lifespan could be 100 years. Bodyguards can be automatically attached to them, but are they more loyal to you or to the Character they defend? Will they cause trouble if you want to kill the SC? You can switch your persona from one SC to another, but not too easily. The Ruler can only last 1000 years, or can be exempt from the limited lifespan. Some SCs are born when the game starts, some are created as Science and Military leaders in Civ3, maybe other events create them, like when you build a new city in the beginning of the game, when you build your first city on a new landmass or new region, or when you reach a landmark population number. Possibly only human- controlled civs have Special Characters, or human- controlled civs hame significantly more of them and/ or more categories of them. A game could begin with only one civ but more than one human player, with a different role. Maybe a human player can start with a subordinate roll and there be only one civ with other Characters controlled by the computer.

[Spiffor]

I think Civ could be a tad more centered on the character of the ruler. I'd like it if you had a king unit on the map that gives actual bonuses in the area where he is.For example, a warmongering King could boost the units when located in the frontlines, a bookish king would help the corruption in cities nearby, a diplomatic king could broker better deals if he's near neighbouring cities, etc.

There could be interesting combinations if you can both develop the strengthes of your king unit, andthe strengths of your Civ as a whole. Maybe you'd get to pick the skills of your king, whereas the qbilities of your Civ would grow naturally from your policies.

[Brent]

Special Characters would have their own build preferences, which you might not know until they've been in office for a while. They might also have small bonuses and penalties to build costs. They could have abilities like the advisors in Colonization. Each Special Character would have their own screen for checking up on them. You could get a new Special Character when a goodie hut gives you wandering nomads or an advanced tribe. Maybe for other goodie results as well. There would be political parties and religions, which SCs could belong to. Some SCs would be more popular with the citizens than others. SCs could be religious leaders. When I was talking about lifespan of SCs, I meant 1000 years, not 100. You could have more than one SC assigned to give you advice on the same subject.

[Kuciwalker]

I think the traits should be part of the civ at the start - because otherwise there isn't really any difference at all based on what civ you choose, and there should be. If you develop traits yourself, you'll end up with a few "cookie cutter" sets of traits, reducing the strategy in the trait system.