When does Civ become not-Civ?

[okblacke]

Originally posted by Fosse
I have to agree with Hexogonian. Civ is a game that explores the whole of human history. To say that taking the next Civ in a new direction is NotCiv seems overly cautious.

I think the greater disservice to Civ would be to keep things that are "classic" when something better exists today. Many of Civ's models were designed because computers of the day couldn't handle anything more complex. To say that they must remain as-is (or as-was) to remain Civ is to stagnate the series.

I'm not suggesting they remain as-is by any means. But there are things that are civ-like and things that are not. In particular, I think Civ is a "large scale" game. Strategic, rather than tactical. It is un-civ-like to be able to tell each individual citizen (not pop point, but citizen, like any one of the hundred thousand people living in that town) what to do.

When I read some of these detailed messages, I can see where the poster has a good point, but also how the suggestion would end up "shrinking" Civ's size and scope.

And that's just in the broad sense. If Civ becomes just about kicking ass with our shuffling little units, that's another un-Civ thing.

So, by all means, bring on the funk. Just don't let's lose sight o' things.

[ok]

[VetLegion]

think the greater disservice to Civ would be to keep things that are "classic" when something better exists today. Many of Civ's models were designed because computers of the day couldn't handle anything more complex. To say that they must remain as-is (or as-was) to remain Civ is to stagnate the series.

I agree in the sense that I also wish for Civ IV to be bigger, and more radical upgrade to Civ III than Civ III was to Civ II.

But I can name you at last one thing that is not likely to be changed, ever - the tile based map.

[VetLegion]

When I read some of these detailed messages, I can see where the poster has a good point, but also how the suggestion would end up "shrinking" Civ's size and scope.

This is the inherent problem of discussion about a game that is based on the real world.

It is inevitable that many of us will many times lose focus of the big picture while trying to articulate a particular feature we would like very much. I'll quote Sid Meier :

So I call it the Covert Action Rule. Don't try to do too many games in one package. And that's actually done me a lot of good. You can look at the games I've done since Civilization, and there's always opportunities to throw in more stuff. When two units get together in Civilization and have a battle, why don't we drop out to a wargame and spend ten minutes or so in duking out this battle? Well, the Covert Action Rule. Focus on what the game is.

Amen.

The problem however is that it takes one man's vision to decide the right balance. Did ever exist a committee with a vision?

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: When does Civ become not-Civ?

Originally posted by MrFun
It's Atari now -- not Firaxis.

Wrong, Infogrames changed its name to Atari. Infogrames is the publisher. Firaxis actually made C3, and is still Firaxis.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Since the idea about 'civilization' is about evolving AND the creation of new concepts (Does the ancient Egyptian society reflect the modern Egyptian society? - NO), I would say that any new concepts that add to the depth and flow of the game, even if they were never part of the original concepts of civ1/civ2 are valid for consideration.

I never said that they had to be in C1 or C2, just that they had to be a natural extension of something in C1 or C2, otherwise it isn't civ. It could be a great game, but it wouldn't be civ.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by skywalker
At the expense of being (probably) unhelpful, I'll say this: Civ stops becoming civ when an addition is not a natural extension of the game.

Here's what I mean by this: culture is civ because culture is a natural extension of the primitive territory system in C2 and the more powerful one in SMAC. A tactical minigame is not civ because it is a feature added completely out of the blue - it isn't a refinement and extension of another feature.

There are probably just a few thing that everyone could agree on concerning a 'civ' experience. TBS, isometric tiles, city/building construction, tech research, combat, a reflection of the history of man...however, the opinion of what constitutes a refinement and extension and what is not, ends up being a subjective, rather than an objective matter for each individual making the whole question impossible to nail down.

Your opinion of civ is different than mine - does that make either more or less valid?

I would argue that a tactical minigame could be considered an extension and a progression of the combat model, and as such should be looked at - (though I will say that this feature is not one of those issues that would make or break civ4 for me - if anything, a tactical minigame feature should be kept to a minimum - certainly not at the level as a game like Shogun...).

And, I have yet to hear an argument that says that stacked combat IS NOT part of a progression and refinement of what it means to be a 'civ' experience. The same argument can also be made for the inclusion of asymmetrical warfare units - in fact, taking your argument to its logical conclusion (since the basic civ1-civ2 game is very unit intensive with workers/military/city workers that all have to be manually moved into position for greatest effect), the current setup with spies in civ3 could be called a move away from the 'civ' experience because those spy units have been removed from the board - a removal for the sake of streamlined gameplay...

Next thing you know, you'll be calling for the elimination of workers and suggest going to Public Works...

[okblacke]

Originally posted by hexagonian
There are probably just a few thing that everyone could agree on concerning a 'civ' experience. TBS, isometric tiles, city/building construction, tech research, combat, a reflection of the history of man...however,

I've never liked the move to isometric.

But tiles, sure.

the opinion of what constitutes a refinement and extension and what is not, ends up being a subjective, rather than an objective matter for each individual making the whole question impossible to nail down.

Fortunately, we don't have to nail anything down.

Your opinion of civ is different than mine - does that make either more or less valid?

Depends. Do you think Civ is lacking a firt-person perspective and a double-barrelled shotgun?

I would argue that a tactical minigame could be considered an extension and a progression of the combat model, and as such should be looked at -

I don't think so. "Minigame" is a good sign that you're on the wrong track, at least for Civ. When a short game takes eight hours, streamlining play is best. IMO, of course.

And, I have yet to hear an argument that says that stacked combat IS NOT part of a progression and refinement of what it means to be a 'civ' experience.

If by stacked combat, you mean a group attacks as a unit and combat is resolved that way, I'd say that's not "unCiv". As long as it resolves quickly and is easy to comprehend.

If you're talking changing screens, going into a tactical view, then I say, "unCiv".

the current setup with spies in civ3 could be called a move away from the 'civ' experience because those spy units have been removed from the board - a removal for the sake of streamlined gameplay...

I would say "the Civ experience" includes ICS, tedious micromanagement, crappy graphics and stupid exploits, because Civ games have always had such things.

But I also think of "Civ" as being a concept as well as a game, and the implementations never have been (and never will be ideal). You can't just look back and say "Well, Civ games have always had tedious micromanagement. You can't get rid of that, it wouldn't be Civ!"

Adventure games have always had tedious inventory management puzzles, but they're generally best served without them, people have found.

Next thing you know, you'll be calling for the elimination of workers and suggest going to Public Works...

I realize that's a hot button around here, but I don't know that I'm opposed to it. I haven't done CTP so I don't know how it worked. You'd still need some workers, though, for building roads between cities.

I see Civ as being about large scale decisions. But there are gray areas. Moving your individual worker around and deciding where city pop should work is large scale when you have one city, and micromanagement when you have 30.

[ok]

[okblacke]

Originally posted by VetLegion

So I call it the Covert Action Rule. Don't try to do too many games in one package. And that's actually done me a lot of good. You can look at the games I've done since Civilization, and there's always opportunities to throw in more stuff. When two units get together in Civilization and have a battle, why don't we drop out to a wargame and spend ten minutes or so in duking out this battle? Well, the Covert Action Rule. Focus on what the game is.

Amen.

The problem however is that it takes one man's vision to decide the right balance. Did ever exist a committee with a vision?

That Sid guy knows a thing or two.

As for committees, I was heavily into "Seven Kingdoms" for a while, and had my fingers in the beta for 7K2. I think Trevor Chan is a great designer, but he made a fatal mistake with 7K2: he listened TOO MUCH to his testers and fans.

As a result, 7K2 is too much. It's hard (perhaps impossible) to absorbe everything in real-time. Also, the AI is a killer, even at the easiest levels, because the beta group consisted of the best players.

[ok]

[Fosse]

Originally posted by okblacke


I'm not suggesting they remain as-is by any means. But there are things that are civ-like and things that are not.

I didn't think you were. I have to admit that I took certain things for granted as being a part of any Civ. Turns, cities, units. I'd argue that tiles are a needed componant, but will conceed that they are likely here to stay for the time being.

Really, my opinion is that whatever game seeks to represent the kind of history progression that Civ does, keeping the game focused on building and expansion, is Civ, no matter the details. CtP was Civ (legal battles aside). So was CtP 2. Because Civ 2 was their starting point, and they represented the same thing. SMAC was Civ(ish). Just the location was changed.

Radical changes to the game can be made (more so than in the series I've mentioned) before it becomes Not Civ in my eyes.

[Brent]

Not Civ

Sim City. Disasters frustrating, no disasters boring.

Animated Units.

Realtime.

Could be Civ

limited city planning.

limited tactical minigame. Taking place on actual maps of city streets?

Public Works.

Hexgrid.

Irregular Tiles.

Unit Workshop.

Stacks regardless of tactical minigame.

Spherical Map.

Legitimate Civ and Fun Regardless

Culture

Very Civvy

Elvis.
Isometric Grid.
Workers.
Wonder Movies.
Palace View.
Caravans.
Editor.
Scenarios.
Turn- based.
Citystates.
Borders.
Asymmetrical Warfare.
Largescale Decisions.
Micromanagement.
Simple Graphics.
Exploration.
Rewriting History.

[okblacke]

Originally posted by Fosse
I didn't think you were. I have to admit that I took certain things for granted as being a part of any Civ. Turns, cities, units. I'd argue that tiles are a needed componant, but will conceed that they are likely here to stay for the time being.

MOO doesn't have tiles. It's very Civ-ish.

Radical changes to the game can be made (more so than in the series I've mentioned) before it becomes Not Civ in my eyes.

I agree, I just wonder if a lot of suggestions are losing sight of the Big Picture.

[ok]

[Fosse]

Originally posted by okblacke


MOO doesn't have tiles. It's very Civ-ish.

Right. I reread my post and saw that it may sound like I'm supporting tiles. I'm not, just saying that they'll probably be with us for a while. I hope I'm wrong.

I agree, I just wonder if a lot of suggestions are losing sight of the Big Picture.

Almost certainly. Lots of those ideas get pounced on right away by the community. Some by being torn apart, and some with heaps of praise. Firaxis should watch those ideas carefully. Even if they don't implement them, they might spark an idea or two.

[Kuciwalker]

And, I have yet to hear an argument that says that stacked combat IS NOT part of a progression and refinement of what it means to be a 'civ' experience. The same argument can also be made for the inclusion of asymmetrical warfare units - in fact, taking your argument to its logical conclusion (since the basic civ1-civ2 game is very unit intensive with workers/military/city workers that all have to be manually moved into position for greatest effect), the current setup with spies in civ3 could be called a move away from the 'civ' experience because those spy units have been removed from the board - a removal for the sake of streamlined gameplay...

Next thing you know, you'll be calling for the elimination of workers and suggest going to Public Works...

I never said stacked combat isn't civvish because it is - I just don't like it, especially as implemented in CtP(2). The abstracted Espionage is an extension of the diplomacy system

[okblacke]

Originally posted by Fosse

Right. I reread my post and saw that it may sound like I'm supporting tiles. I'm not, just saying that they'll probably be with us for a while. I hope I'm wrong.

Nah, but I wanted to point out that there are Civ games that don't have tiles.

I see only one real problem with giving up tiles, and it's more to do with giving up workers: A certain amount of unit shuffling at the beginning of the game gets the player involved. It makes the whole experience more dynamic.

MOO often feels sort of static or detached, not really a living empire you're involved with. (I haven't done MOO3 yet, tho'.)

I'm coming more and more to believe that the fundamental "problem" with Civ is that it doesn't scale well. Stacked combat, worker gangs, etc., could be a way to improve that.

Anothert thing might be "forced" armies: Units that aren't joined together in batallions (or whatever) could have a higher maintenance cost. Army production would feed into these batallaions instead of producing individual units. You'd rarely shuffle individual units around in a system like this, unless maybe for recon.

[ok]

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by okblacke
I'm coming more and more to believe that the fundamental "problem" with Civ is that it doesn't scale well. Stacked combat, worker gangs, etc., could be a way to improve that.
[ok]

The problem of civ scaling is, I think, one of balance. Right now, your economy expands faster than the cost of units, which means that over time the number of units grows drastically. If the costs were rebalanced to be more in line with the growth of the economy, you could keep down unit numbers.

BUT in order to do this, you need to implement some form of combined arms bonus, otherwise a tech lead translates into an overwhelming military lead.

Additionally, a gradual increase in the upkeep cost of units would lower the amount of units in a standing army.