META: Civ Game Concepts And Discussion Of Civ Mechanisms

[Jamski]

Witness the awesome over-towering statue I have constructed as a massive monument to my incredable humility

-Jam

[VetLegion]

I have read your column back when you wrote it, o humblest of omnivores

Good piece.

[Urban Ranger]

The thing about fun is it is hard to define, that's the reason why it is so hard to design a fun game. Now, if we decide to lessen the requirement a bit and go for the "one more turn" addiction instead, that would be more concrete.

[lord of the mark]

re Civ as a history game, may i immodestly suggest this column?:



Civ2's Hegelian Tech tree


this explains my viewpoint - Civ2 was NOT a history sim a la EU or grognard wargames - but it was also far more than a strategy game with historic atmospherics, a la Age of Empires. It illustrated grand themes of history - the tech- money - production tradeoffs that are common to almost all empire building games - but are still an important historical thing to learn- the govt type-happiness issues that are particularly relevant to a historical game - and it did so in ways that represented a particular viewpoint on actual world history - (particularly involving notions of war as a driver of technological and social progress, the notion that social systems evolve out of their opposites and are driven by the contradictions in earlier systems, and the notion that late capitalist democracy represents the "end of history")

I have played SMAC, which is great TBS, and a very intellectually serious game, but is clearly different due to its sci fi concerns. I doubt very much that less serious sci fi empire builder games do what civ did, though i havent played them. Ditto for fantasy games.

I have not played Civ3, and so dont know it it carried this forward, by impression is that it did not - to the extent that these "lessons" are still present in Civ3, its essentially a carryover from Civ2.


Im not sure if there is more to be done on these lines then Civ2 did, at least within this type of game. Id love to see the issues of end of history versus fundamentalism addressed, (Jihad vs McWorld) but i think that would require a more focused modern period game, not a 6000 year view of human history.

I do think there is a general tendency to overlook this aspect of Civ, and to get caught up in the historical accuracy (or lack thereof) of the details. IMO a 6000 year game can NEVER be historically accurate in the details and be playable. What Civ did so well was capture the broad themes and feel of Macro history, DESPITE the inaccuracy on details.

[LDiCesare]

The important thing in history/simulation is it is where you draw ideas for new things. I mean that civ can be seen as a wargame but it adds a historical feel to it since you can upgrade units (or build better ones) if you use research. Of course, it is more than that, it is also empire building, has diplomacy... but all these are inspired by the real world. In order for a new game to add something to the genre, it has to draw from reality or fiction, and history/reality is the safest bid since people can relate to it more easily than to sci-fi for instance. When doing sci-fi stuff, editors prefer to use 'known' or familiar worlds like Star Wars' or Start Trek.
So I think that all games that would continue the civ genre will draw upon history and reality, by opening either new domains (culture in civ 3 wrt civ 2) or more depth in a given domain (hitpoints for firearms in civ 2 wrt civ 1).

[VetLegion]

I was intent on arguing for the benefits of structured discussion versus brainstorming. Well, both are good for something and this thread has definately drifted towards latter

lotm,

I agree with you that civ has a sort of "end of history" feel to it. The game is heavily based on western philosophy of progress. A more eastern line of thought that holds that history is essentially cyclic would make for an interesting game (but not as good I think)

[Trifna]

I would only bring one correction, based on my own vision of Civ: Civ isn't a simulation, but it is a meta-simulation.

Difference: A simulation will copy every single element of reality and bring into the model. As plane simulators that will put every single switch for exemple. A meta-simulation (that's how I call it) makes a tad different: it wont take EVERY SINGLE DETAIL, but it will only bring general aspects, supposing that tiny details such as micro-management are included but just not shown the the eye, done automatically (like some plane games that wont put every switch, supposing that the pilot is by default going ok with those that aren't showed).


That's how we can get a game that doesn't include plagues and other disasters, supposing that every civilization has its share of them and that the player by default is dealing with it pretty much as well as all other civs. Thus, it is included implicitly into "population growth": it permits to stay more on a macro level with global decisions about the aspect that would otherwise include plagues and disasters.

[The diplomat]

Re: META: Civ Game Concepts And Discussion Of Civ Mechanisms

Originally posted by VetLegion
If we could agree that:

- civ is a fun game
- civ is not a simulation game
- civ is a historical game, drawing inspiration from the past

I agree with all that. First and foremost, the emphasis should be on fun and intuitive gameplay.

I also think the emphasis should be on strategy, ie tough choices. The player should have to make tough choices like which city improvements to build, peace or war etc... The player should have to make sacrifices, but all strategies should be equally valid.

When it comes to history, I don't want to relive history but I do want to feel like I am a part of it. When I play the Greeks, I want to have hoplites and Great Leaders like Alexander the Great, when I play the Romans I want legions and Leaders like Marius and Julius Ceasar etc...

I don't something generic. I want something that feels like history.

[LDiCesare]

Problem with history is:
What Romans who would survive beyond the Middle Age look like?
There shouldn't be many starting civs among those we currently have, so the civs should evolve (Goths become Wisigoths/Ostrogoths, Angles English and then Americans, etc.). Otherwise you end up with a George Washington leader in 2000 BC.
And what about Aztecs who would have had horses?
The various unique units offered by civ3 come at different ages, which means they are not very balanced (who needs a modern age unit if they can conquer the world by the middle age? better to kill those civs with modern UUs before they can get them, etc.) so the whole history stuff is better left generic IMO, that is: have mechanism which allow civs to evolve like they did in history if hteir conditions are the same, but don't force the British to have ships if you are playing on an arid planet with little or no sea.

[Trifna]

LDiCesare:
Well I agree there are some aspects we just can't do a thing about, like people knowing the tech tree... about the Romans being in the 20th century, well I guess they become what they become and this is only what we imagine them to become

Other than that, I stick to my position, and the inner workings of the game are still a historic "meta-simulation".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jamski
I want each civ to have a REAL personality. If you meet the Egyptians, and you're running a democracy, then they object, as the think slavery is far superior. If you're fighting a war against the Germans, then the peace-loving Zulus ask you to stop. Each civ should have various advantages and disadvantages, and of course the custom civ option.

A civ should have government, social etc choices that it CANNOT choose. The Americans wouldn't be able to choose Monarchy for example.


-Jam

So you would go further in the direction of Civ3, towards "history on wheels" - IE the assumption that national charecteristics for all time are determined in 4000BC?

Why shouldnt the Americans be able to choose monarchy? American lived quite happily under the briitish monarchy for a 150 years Certainly if there were Americans living in 4000BC, with despotism as their current regime, monarchy might have made sense for them.

I also note that nobody in Egypt today is particularly enthusiastic about slavery

This is the problem of the Civ series - the whole historical concept behind a 6000 year game is to show how civs evolve in different directions, based on their locations and history, despite starting the same. But the tendency is to import models from shorter time period games - AOE has unique units, and their cool, and they add to replayability. so why shouldnt civ have them - the difference between a game covering one period, and a game covering 6000 years is forgotten. And its more "historically accurate" isnt it? (well no, it isnt) The tendency is to move Civ4 even further in that direction - and, i think further from what civ is about, as a historical game.


This leads me further to the notion that the Civ series is played out - better that Firaxis NOT make another Civ game for 10 years, and then come back and reexamine the topic.


Dont take this personal, Jamski, this is one of my obsessions regarding the Civ series.

[lord of the mark]

this gets to vetlegions original question about concepts.

What is the concept behind the Civ series? Its a game that puts fun ahead of detailed issues of historical accuracy - its not a "grognard game" we know that.

But it clearly is a historical game - and in what way? Its not a historial sim like EU - why? Just because EU has historical events that pull the game back toward history? Is it not because EU covers a shorter period - starting in 1419 you cant make the world THAT different by 1820. Civ starts in 4000 BC - the whole point is to start with a clean slate, and to explore what the driving forces of history are with a clean slate.

On the other hand that means that Egypt may become a commercial democracy, britain (esp if its not on an island) may become a landbased empire, etc. Due to the playing out of HISTORICAL forces, we will get AHISTORICAL results. As we should. Do we really want 6000 year game that guarantees us the "right" 20th and 21st century outcomes? That is a different concept, a different direction.

We're not helped by Firaxis unclarity of concept for Civ3.

[Ktulu2]

Hi!
I'm Adrian, from Romania. I already bought the Call to Power II. I reckon it's harder than the first one, even though the hardest level I tried and won was "King" (on Call to Power).
I wrote to you, because I've got an idea, concearning future Call to Powers or future Civilizations. Perhaps somebody else shared this idea with you already. But perhaps nobody has thought of it, not even a glimpse.
Let's say during the play, somewhere between 2300-2600 A.D., you cand introduce a parallel map. I guess it's the most competitive idea so far & ever. Let's say humanity/civilization/player has just sent a spaceship to explore, conquer and inhabit other planets (first, just ONE PLANET). Future game generations may include several maps at a time. Let's say that map is Mars' (or that Planet X's, they've discovered lately).
While confronting domination on Earth, the player can begin search for another planet, in order to colonize it.Then he can switch between two or more maps. Turns may remain the way they were.
Opponents may follow on discovering the same planet(s).
Please write to me!
Adrian.
Bye!

E-Mail: adrianarmas@yahoo.co.uk

[Brent]

40 % fun, 35 % history, 25 % simulation

Americans should be able to choose monarchy

I would not want to wait 10 years for the next Civ

[Arrian]

One comment re: customization/replayability:

I'm all for lots of options to customize... AT STARTUP. I absolutely HATED the unit workshop in SMAC. I don't want to spend hours designing the best possible group of units (which the AI will inevitably suck at, btw). I want to spend hours using the standard set of units everyone gets to their best effect (which the AI will most likely still suck at ).

Back to the startup thing:

1) If civ traits are in, I'd like to see a "create your own civ" screen similar to the one in MOO2. Perhaps even allow the ability to have "anti" traits that weaken your civ so you can take on more positive traits. Again, like in MOO2. The anti stuff should be harsh, though. An anti-militaristic civ would have double-cost military improvements, have zero free unit support (no matter which government they use), lowered promotion rate, and not allow drafting, ever. Something like that. I'll cut this tangent off here.

2) Along with the the settings available in the Conquests startup menu, I'd like to see a slider for tech rate, options to customize difficulty (say I wanna play at against an AI with Emperor-level bonuses, but I want my people not to be quite as cranky - and leave happiness at Monarch level?), and other options depending on what's in the game (if random events are part of the game, definitely a slider that controls their rate of appearance & how "nice" or "mean" they are). Stuff like that.

...

Regarding historical accuracy... well, I personally view Civ as the opportunity to play with History, in the sense that I get to go and do stuff that DIDN'T happen, like play as the English from 4000bc and take them Communist in the industrial age or whatever. Or win via SS with the Roman Empire. That's the whole freakin' POINT, to me. I don't want to replay History, I want to create a new one.

-Arrian