Giving the player things to do, and later taking them away

[Sirotnikov]

More organized list:


1. Civ IV needs more things to occupy us with, at different stages of the game:
solution: bring back (and create new) units like caravans and spies. to solve the micromanagement problem - streamline the process in mid game (later on that) and remove the units or reduce their use.

2. Civ IV needs more sub goals than just "conquer nation x"
existing good solution: culture (and religion), special resources.

solution: make different rankings and statistics count for something. even create mini-quests. Make wonders / technologies dependant on gameplay things (ie - the first person to explore 70% of the earth, gets BIG WHITE BLOB wonder, which increases visibility / the first person to build 3 different kinds of war units, 5 each, discovers Combined Arms)

3. Bring back the "i'm running an empire through history" feeling:
solution: make a fuss about things which aren't important for real gameplay. make wierd lists. give prizes to best cities, create silly mini-quests (exploring the planet / arms race / technology race / seeking the holy grail / whatever). have wonder movies. mark things such as first battle, or large historical battles and so on.

4. using the same method to do X throughout the game is boring and not that fun.
solution: make the age leaps and the scientifical / social revolutions mean stuff.
start with preset governments, and after technology X - change it to social engineering
start with caravans and diplomats - change to trade screen and spy screen
start with workers only - change to PW and workers
start with city based support, based on production / food - change to nationwide support based on cash.
start with regular unit structure, change to options for war readiness, stacks and armies.

This will both reduce micromanagement each time the game phase changes, and will give a true sense of "The world is avolving around me".

[Sirotnikov]

After certain discoveries, you would get free city improvements without having to build them - let's say you get a free Granary in all cities after discovering Refrigeration and so on...

good idea

[Elok]

The thing about old diplomacy and trade is, they had one unit apiece, two if you count the upgrades. And all the stats that came with "units"-attack, defense, HP, FP-were effectively irrelevant for them. There was no point in integrating them into the unit system except convenience. And while Caravans made some sense, Freight is an entirely different thing, and diplomats were odd to begin with. I never pictured James Bond schlepping through the wilderness alone, dodging squads of soldiers en route. Spying is more subtle, and meshes well with diplomacy. I'd just take care to mingle it just enough to make sense, not to turn it into a subset of diplomacy like trade was. Certainly it would make sense if, after Elizabeth refused to give you Electricity, you could turn to an aide and immediately say, "I want that tech, dang it. Send The Mole to city X, pronto, but quietly." Spies are too nonmilitary to make sense as units.

WRT trade, caravans might make sense IF they could be streamlined later. Not only to eliminate micromanagement, but because nobody today turns to a neighbor and says, "the eighteen-wheeler convoy hath pulled into Hecht's today, laden with silks from the gorgeous East! Huzzah!" We need to remember that back in the day a Caravan was a much larger and more significant thing, laden with greater promise and greater potential for loss than any ordinary shipment of goods...perhaps it should be a more rare thing, like a Wonder.

[Elias]

I never like the spies in ctp it was just to much mm trying to get them all they way across the map then having them die and then doing it all over agin. same with the diplomats. The civ3 model could use a lot of tweaking but is better. At the very least they need to add in trade routs you can pirate or alter later on to keep them more protected ie going throught allies with right of passages. But i love the Idea of little bonuses and random stats. maby they should do the country with the most parties, or who drinks the most?

[The Templar]

Civ 3 solutions were vastly superior. I love the espionage screen - just make the stuff more affordable.

I would recommend a simplified version of Victoria's world market system (less resources and commodoties) as opposed to either the worthless crap caravan system from Civ 2 or the Civ 3 diplomatic trade system. That will give people plenty of things to do.

And more terrain upgrades are just tedious. Geez, upgrading tons of irrigation systems to candy-colored farmland is not fun.

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by The Templar
And more terrain upgrades are just tedious. Geez, upgrading tons of irrigation systems to candy-colored farmland is not fun.

Not a problem if they use public works.

[Sirotnikov]

And while Caravans made some sense, Freight is an entirely different thing, and diplomats were odd to begin with. I never pictured James Bond schlepping through the wilderness alone, dodging squads of soldiers en route. Spying is more subtle, and meshes well with diplomacy. I'd just take care to mingle it just enough to make sense, not to turn it into a subset of diplomacy like trade was. Certainly it would make sense if, after Elizabeth refused to give you Electricity, you could turn to an aide and immediately say, "I want that tech, dang it. Send The Mole to city X, pronto, but quietly." Spies are too nonmilitary to make sense as units.

I disagree completely.

As I said, in modern times we don't use caravans or freights, so with the right technology, I think that caravans should disappear completely in favour of a trade screen.

But in ancient times, establishing trade routes was a major thing, and required special attention and protection. Imagine having your trade routes (caravans) attacked by a hostile nation. This is part of the reality that existed in ancient times.

Protection of actual trade routes or creation of new ones, is what drove sea exploration, expansionism and the moves of whole civilizations.

If you streamline trade too much, it is no longer a factor on the map, and this is both less fun and not correct.



Apies however are ALWAYS needed, and they are different from a spying screen.


First, you need spies to contact civilizations you don't have an embassy in, or to establish embassies / spy centers.

There are several "levels" of spying, and only half of it can be done using a screen - because it is both unfun (too streamlined) and unrealistic.


Let assume that most information about your nieghbour states (their statistics, diplomatic relations, enemy cities, science advancement list, regime culture and religion, defense units statistics) can be obtained by something like an embassy screen, in special "digests".

There are special missions, which are either strategical or tactical. Strategical missions could be done by a spy screen (though it is not fun):
- steal tech
- steal map


but some missions require agents on the ground, such as:

- view city
- cause revolt in their cities (unhappiness)
- bribe their cities
- bribe unit
- sabotage unit
- sabotage city production (unit, building or especially - wonder)
- sabotage tech research (in capitol only)
- plant bomb
- poison water supply

A whole range of things can be done with spies as you prepare for a major war:

- get the exact types and numbers of units garrisoned in their cities
- sabotage the roads bringing reinforcements and sabotage / bribe some of their defencive units
- revolt (not bribe) their cities, ruin their existing city defenses
- sabotage thier advance towards new units / new wonders.




In any case - if it is a choise between a game which is full of "sliders" and "screens" or full of units, filling it with units is more fun - it gives you more satisfaction. No doubt though, that as the game progresses, more and more units should disappear in favor of sliders.

[Elok]

But they aren't units. A unit is a military weapon or company of troops, or possibly a mob of workers. A diplomat or spy is a single person, who sneaks in and out by blending in with the normal civilian flow of cities, not by dashing around easily spotted and wrecked by any passing grunt. A spy has no business in the wilderness, only in cities, and at any rate there would be little hope of catching a single person who's skilled at hiding when he's got the range of a city-sized tile to hide in.

If a spy is caught, you don't need soldiers to snuff him/her. Nor are a spy's most valuable parameters the usual combat "stats." Movement rate is the only important thing for a diplomat. Spies are, by their very nature, ephemeral and unseen, and generally operate in large but scattered numbers rather than the "mobs" of soldiers and engineers.

We don't need to have a "spy screen" as such, there's room for a different option other than unit and bland screen. Physical location restrictions can be handled in various ways without turning spies into units like swordsmen or armor. A sort of meta-unit would be ideal, which is bound by spatial restrictions but operates outside the normal plane of military combat. If they can make floating air units they can certainly put a similar effort into a thing like espionage that forms a whole facet of gameplay by itself.

[lajzar]

You say a spy isn' a unit. But who shouldn't it be? Spies have (or can have) actions that interact with other units, they have definable movement limits, they require effort to produce. Seems quite unit-like to me.

And yes, spies do have a role in the wilderness. Its called forward observation.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Elok
A diplomat or spy is a single person, who sneaks in and out by blending in with the normal civilian flow of cities, not by dashing around easily spotted and wrecked by any passing grunt. A spy has no business in the wilderness, only in cities, and at any rate there would be little hope of catching a single person who's skilled at hiding when he's got the range of a city-sized tile to hide in.

So many things in this paragraph are wrong.

Spies can be caught, and are caught (though not often) in the real world.

Thats when you know that spies rarely work alone - but rather come in a team, and besides they have a whole network responsible for logistics and such (think of "mission impossible" plus include the secret agency personel).

Your notion of spies comes from "James Bond" and is not similar to the truth. There are no 'single' spies, that go on to the unknown with a briefcase filled with tricks.

Think of a foreign 'source' that works with your spy. He needs to send or 'drop' material. He needs to get money and stuff. He needs hiding places. Your spy is not a single person - there's logistics involved.

We don't need to have a "spy screen" as such, there's room for a different option other than unit and bland screen. Physical location restrictions can be handled in various ways without turning spies into units like swordsmen or armor. A sort of meta-unit would be ideal, which is bound by spatial restrictions but operates outside the normal plane of military combat. If they can make floating air units they can certainly put a similar effort into a thing like espionage that forms a whole facet of gameplay by itself.

I really don't get why you think units should only represent a platoon or a mob.

First, as I explained earlier, spies don't work 'alone' - they work in teams and have networks of assistants and backup.

Second - spies do have movement restrictions and need to
a) physically get to and from places, often heavily guarded
b) can and are getting caught.

And finally - I simply don't like the idea that the only thing moving about on the map is soldiers.

Groups of engineers / builders and mobs of vagabonds are one thing that need tactical representation.

Long caravans and whole groups of commercial shoppers are another thing.

Special Forces and Spies are just as important.

Civ has always been a game which represents tactical and strategical facets.

Otherwise, you could streamline the military units as well, and get a game like "superpower" or whatever it is called. But that is a whole different gameplay.

The thing is that most of the 'gameplay' time is spent moving units. This isn't "great" fun, but it can be, if I have a purpuse to do so.

And it sure beats spending large parts of the game ("peace") only moving sliders, with your entire army fortified.

[Elok]

Forward observation is reconnaissance, not "spying" in the sense of bribery, sabotage, etc. Best left to the military.

Team, single person, whatever. I'm aware of the differences between Bond and real spies, I just didn't feel like going into them, since for the sake of discussion of this particular point the distinctions are irrelevant. Neither single agents nor teams of them spend time running about it the wilderness, nor do they break in paramilitary-style. They melt in. The presence of foreign sources is also irrelevant, as they wouldn't be moving around with them. Sources are mined or cultivated in place, aren't they? And, logistical support or no, the point is that spies are not military and, if caught, which I don't deny they are, have no military defense at all and hence no purpose as units. When they are caught, it's counterintelligence and security that nabs them, not the army.

I repeat, they should have movement and location restrictions. That's the only part of the "unit" model that makes sense. And there are certainly ways to model that in between a bland screen and a traditional unit. Please read my posts in their entirety before responding to them.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Elok
Forward observation is reconnaissance, not "spying" in the sense of bribery, sabotage, etc. Best left to the military.

Most reconnaissance is indeed left to far seeing units.

Team, single person, whatever.... Neither single agents nor teams of them spend time running about it the wilderness, nor do they break in paramilitary-style.

You have to understand the difference between 2 types of spies:

The ever present spies who exist through the "embassy" / "spy ring" which provide you with constant dossies - and the special forces groups which do run around paramilitary style.

the point is that spies are not military and, if caught, which I don't deny they are, have no military defense at all and hence no purpose as units. When they are caught, it's counterintelligence and security that nabs them, not the army.

I disagree - an army could definitly capture a foreign group by mistake.

In any case- as you can see from another thread of mine - I resist the notion that only military units should be left as units, and I am against mainstreaming everthing to a trade system and public works and what ever.

I agree such systems should exist - especially in the late game - however the basic representation, in the early game, and partially even in the llate game, has to be devided between the mainstreamed management screens and between actual units, which are needed to represent tactical things during conflicts - such as building roads on enemy territory, operating special forces and special purpose spies in enemy territory and so on.

I repeat, they should have movement and location restrictions. That's the only part of the "unit" model that makes sense. And there are certainly ways to model that in between a bland screen and a traditional unit. Please read my posts in their entirety before responding to them.

I did read it in the entirity.
I quoted relevant parts for reply.

I described what I feel should be the blend between the screen and the unit, and how each should function.

I realize that you are against my idea, but I don't really realize what is your suggestion. I'd be happy to understand how do you suggest representing all the special tasks that the suggested spy unit does in the game.