Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paradigm Shifts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paradigm Shifts

    This probably belongs under the "General" thread, or the "More emphasis on age" poll, but -- at the risk of invoking the dreaded businesspeak cliche -- I'm interested in people's opinion on Civ4 gameplay undergoing paradigm shifts through the ages.

    That is to say, the rules of the game should fundamentally change as new technologies change the very nature of civilization itself. Some of the proposals in various topics touch on this on a more surface level - for example, that luxuries could be era-specific, that cultural points last only for so long, or, as is the case in Civ3, resources may only have limited use (saltpeter is the best example). I'm interested in more fundamental changes.

    For example, Civ cities depend on food found within the city's radius. This isn't realistic in the modern era -- how much food is in the "radius" of New York City, London, or Tokyo? Thanks to modern transportation systems, the very rules of how to feed a city have changed, and the rules of the game should reflect that. For example, maybe after a certain set of tech's have been discovered, food is simply pooled across an entire civ, or traded across civ's.

    The idea I'm trying to capture here is that over the centuries, civilizations have risen and fallen in part because the rules changed and the civ either failed to keep up or simply lacked the resources necessary to do so. Few of the games I've played have really captured that element of history. (For some reason, the Great Wonders conquest gets some of that flavor for me, because so many game actions depend on tech discoveries, e.g. the very ability to cut down forests, or to mine, etc.)

    OTOH, changing the rules of a game is very disconcerting for the player and may be too much of a sacrifice for the sake of realism. After all, Civ is (mostly) a conquest game, not Sim-Civ. Maybe the rule I proposed above for food and cities is too radical and unbalancing -- maybe instead the city radius simply expands, like the cutural border, but maybe due to some technological advance. But I'd like to see history and technology have more effect on the rules themselves. (Besides the Mesopotamia scenario, another example I'd give is the ability to cash-rush rather than pop-rush due to gv't type).
    Planet Roanoke -- a Civ4/SMAC Remix

  • #2
    Sim-civ would be better. Die Firaxis!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cmonkey
      Sim-civ would be better. Die Firaxis!
      I sure hope you're kidding?
      Do not fear, for I am with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God.-Isaiah 41:10
      I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made - Psalms 139.14a
      Also active on WePlayCiv.

      Comment


      • #4
        Firaxis should not die. Firaxis should produce SimCiv as a separate game.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Nikolai

          I sure hope you're kidding?
          Of course not.

          Originally posted by Brent
          Firaxis should not die. Firaxis should produce SimCiv as a separate game.
          I hope they get bought out. Then maybe someone who can make a quality product will finally make a quality civ game.

          Comment


          • #6
            You mean you really want a SimCiv?
            Do not fear, for I am with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God.-Isaiah 41:10
            I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made - Psalms 139.14a
            Also active on WePlayCiv.

            Comment


            • #7
              Yes. I will take the fairly realistic gameplay models of a Simulation-esque Civilization game over the boardgame-like gameplay models of the current (and next) version of Civilization any day of the week. In other words, I'd rather play a game more like Clash of Civs or Guns, Germs & Steel than what I know out-of-the-box Civ 4 will be like. If they make Civ 4 as mod-able as I'm hoping for (and I'm certain they won't), it won't matter what out-of-the-box civ 4 is like because I'll be able to rebuild it practically from the ground up.

              Comment


              • #8
                Cmonkey, I understand that (and I guess many others do). But look at Alpha Centauri. It was bringing all its government system in a very simple way for the player, but this system potentially everything, you could really MANAGE your social system.

                It doesn't need to be un-userfriendly and complicate to be complete. Because of this, I do not believe Civ needs to be Sim-Civ to be complete but could rather approach Alpha-Civ.


                "The king of turn-based strategy is dead; acclaim the king!" -> "Civ3 is dead, acclaim Alpha-Civ!!"
                Go GalCiv, go! Go Society, go!

                Comment


                • #9
                  I never said it had to be less user friendly. I never said it had to be complicated.

                  Just because something is realistic & detailed does not make it complex.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    "Complicated" and "complex" aren't the same thing either...

                    Comment


                    • #11

                      So I mistyped...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        To a certain extend, being detailed does make it more complicated.

                        So you have models controlling the economy, industry, labor unions, the stock market and international trade... either:

                        A) You have to watch and micromanage all of these things, thus making the game more complicated, or

                        B) You add these things but they don't really require any attention so you basically spent 6 months designing and implimenting an economic engine that has no relevance other than to watch pretty numbers fly across the screen, and now the rest of the game suffers because you wasted 6 months of development time.

                        Now I personally don't really mind having to deal with A, but it will make the AI weaker and make more players frustrated, so obviously it won't be implimented in CIV.

                        If you hate Firaxis and Civ so much why do you bother posting here?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Trip
                          If you hate Firaxis and Civ so much why do you bother posting here?
                          I can't help it. I love the concept of the game, I hate the implementation, but that doesn't change the fact that I've been an addict since day 1 of Civ 1. I even find myself playing civ3 every once in a while. I don't think I've ever made it past the middle ages since C3C came out though. I'm usually way too pissed off with it by then to be healthy, so I quit the game.

                          As for detailed models having to be complicated, take a look at Superpower 2's demo. They have a highly complex supply-demand model, designed with the help of economists, that is very simple to use and learn. They even model the effects of inflation...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think it would be cool if cities that were at least pop 19 could work a slightly larger city radius and if abandoning a city that was close enough to other cities in your empire relocated the population into them.
                            1st C3DG Term 7 Science Advisor 1st C3DG Term 8 Domestic Minister
                            Templar Science Minister
                            AI: I sure wish Jon would hurry up and complete his turn, he's been at it for over 1,200,000 milliseconds now.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Paradigm Shifts

                              Originally posted by Padmewan
                              For example, Civ cities depend on food found within the city's radius. This isn't realistic in the modern era -- how much food is in the "radius" of New York City, London, or Tokyo? Thanks to modern transportation systems, the very rules of how to feed a city have changed, and the rules of the game should reflect that. For example, maybe after a certain set of tech's have been discovered, food is simply pooled across an entire civ, or traded across civ's.
                              Having food as a tradable resource, akin to gold, would be good.

                              Transfering food between cities should be possible at all times, with greater spoilage occuring the further apart two cities are. Various technologies then reduce the rate of spoilage.
                              One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X