Disenchanted

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

Hitting the nail on the head! My own conception is this:

1) You have (as smallest geographical unit) 'Provinces' the size of France.

2) There is no management below Province level at all, except for battles.

3) Even so, the only Province you will be managing yourself is your Home (Capital) Province. For conquered Countries and for Colonies, you *must* appoint Governors.

4) So all you do is:
a) Managing your Empire at the highest level.
b) Managing your Home Province.
c) Moving your Armies (as a stack, of course ) and fighting battles.

5) No Workers, no Micromanagement, no Late Game Tedium, no nonsense.

Anybody like to see a game like that?

Would I? This is exactly the kind of game that I have been waiting for. If only it were real...

What you described is exactly the kind of civ game I would want to play.

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Would I? This is exactly the kind of game that I have been waiting for. If only it were real...

What you described is exactly the kind of civ game I would want to play.

Perhaps you should check out EU2. It comes closer to that description than Civ ever will.

Cheers,

[yin26]

Yes, try EU2. Civ3 is a broken child's toy.

[Venger]

Originally posted by yin26
Yes, try EU2. Civ3 is a broken child's toy.

Shouldn't that be a child's broken toy? I get so confused...

Venger

[GePap]

Jumping back in

Well, why not get back into this doozy of a thread?

A couple of ideas I didn't read anyone state:

Dark Ages: History does not always move forward- it sometimes moves backwards, when something really bad happens. Many civs don't survive, but some do, and return, and then fall again. It nice to play a game with a certain amount of forward movement, but if you want a history simulator, you must be ready to allow for backsliding.

No control of technological advancement: Unfortunitelly for gamers, politicians and generals don't get to tell folks when new techs should be ready by. Blind research ala SMAC is a must, though perhaps an even less directible course would be proper. You take care of your economy and state, and some of your citizens might come up with something new. Fine, in a time of great growth new techs would come pouring out, since new ideas are key to managing the growth. At the same time, govs. may try to stifle all tech. growth to keep the local power hierarchy in power

Power hierarchies. People get to power because of certain reasons, and certain backers. History has endless examples of civs doing not what was best for them in the long term (as we can see with 20/20 historical vision) but what was key to maintaining the power structure. Revolutions are big historical stuff precisely because they run counter to the conservative tide of states.

I must also ask, how far are we willing to go? Many have complained that civ3 awards sneaky, underhanded strategies. I would agree, I like playing the good guy- but I challenge anyone to go out there and find me more than a handful of leaders that would fit todays 'nice guy' standard. History is filled with massacres, attrocities, slavery, genocide, and all sorts of horrible inhumanities- and most of them worked. They worked because no one saw much that was wrong with them- remember that our current values are as much a product of this history we want to simulate as this history we want to simulate was shaped by our values. It might sound radical, but a trully effective history emulator would be one in which, by the end, the likes of Ghengis Khan, Stalin, or Hitler could, depending on how history was shapped, would be considered great statesment and moral leaders of mankind. That not a pretty reality, but one from which we are separated by less than we whish to accept.

[Ghengis-Sean]

Ideally tech development would not be player directed though the player, like goverments in the real, could encourage growth in a certain direction. The more trade and wealth a society has the more quickly technology should develop. The more closed off a society, the more authoritarian a goverment, the the slower tech should develop. But it should go both ways, the more opena society, the more tech but also more dissent, since after all you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Willem]

Re: Jumping back in

Originally posted by GePap

A couple of ideas I didn't read anyone state:

Dark Ages: History does not always move forward- it sometimes moves backwards, when something really bad happens. Many civs don't survive, but some do, and return, and then fall again. It nice to play a game with a certain amount of forward movement, but if you want a history simulator, you must be ready to allow for backsliding.

Yes that's been bounced around by a couple of people, myself included. Though maybe not here. It makes sense to me. It might make it interesting if your civ progressed on the "two steps forward, one back" approach, especially if there were a number of things that could happen. I think at least Civil War should be brought back, and there should be a possibility of it happening everytime you go into Anarchy to change governments. After all, not everyone in the Empire is going to be happy about the change, especially those who have some power and privilege. If there was some sort of throw that happened every turn in Anarchy, we might be sitting on the edge of our seats until it was all over.

[yin26]

I would caution, however, if they take that route, they cannot do it the same way they did with culture flipping: That is, we need to understand HOW and WHY these things happen. Otherwise its just dumb luck, which should not play that important of a role in a strategy game.

[Willem]

Originally posted by yin26
I would caution, however, if they take that route, they cannot do it the same way they did with culture flipping: That is, we need to understand HOW and WHY these things happen. Otherwise its just dumb luck, which should not play that important of a role in a strategy game.

True, there'd have to be some sort of mechanism in place to allow a certain amount of control over the situation, even if you're not always successful. At least you would have some sense that you tried your best. Maybe that's why people are getting so upset with the flipping and the corruption. They have few or no options that will help them control it, at least nothing that they can understand.

[pg]

hmm

if you are going to go into this whole game as you describe so far, i think you will have to change what you control too. if you are going to include nonlinearity what happens if your civ goes into long standing anarchy? you lose? doesn't sound too fun, why could you not retain control of your civ or regain your prominence later?

instead of being the leader of such a civ maybe you could be something like the god(or whatever) that watches over it. you could still make it work so you can retain direct or indirect control. it just seems that if you do include history going backwards that you would need a different control/focus group. maybe you will be in charge of a region or a people instead of a civ? maybe if someone conquers you or something similair, you'd become part of his empire yet still retain some control over your civ(or whatever).

populous was interesting in that you had some control, yet you could never micromanage everything. the computer ai did most of the controlling(read: micromanagement) but not macromanagement. i also liked ogre battle(for snes) where you controlled squads of units but the fighting was all automated, and you could only specify general strategy. i can't quite get a firm mental grasp on how your game would play comrade. maybe you can do a better job elaborating on more of your game ideas and the core of your gameplay? you have given some good examples of how it would differ from civ but i can't quite figure out how it'd play.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Willem
Something of a contradiction here. On one hand you talk about a rules system up to 1900 AD, but then you talk about modern units with bazookas.

Yes, I talked about two different things:

1) The persistent CivI-III problem of the occasional Spearman beating a Tank. My solution to this, in a nutshell, is: More units, and making obsolete units *really* obsolete.

2) Discussion of the eras to be included or not included in my own project.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by korn469
in civ while it isn't stated, it is certainly implied that each unit is probably somewhere in size from a company (probably more like a brigade) to a division in modern times and something from a cohort to a legion in ancient times, now while there certainly is alot of difference between each soldier how much actual difference is there between two various divisions? consider that

Civ is too vague all across the board. My (Civilopedia) description of a unit would definitely include #of men, vehicles (such as half-tracks or tanks) and equipment (such as catapults, siege towers and guns). It would also include what arms and armour the men are supposed to be carrying. I see no reason why we cannot be as precise and detailed as a wargame here.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by korn469
also the task of making a "realistic" game is monumental,
EU2 has a very limited timespan, and although it tries to be realistic it glosses over quite a bit to be playable, plus one of the flaws with EU2 is that it lack Civ's personality it's harder to identify with your nation, and that is certainly a problem (still though its a good game)

so to have a game that takes realism an order beyond EU2 and still remains playable will be quite a challenge, but hey i wish you the best of luck

Thanks, Korn, and you are making a valid point here.

But note the difference between 'realism' and 'detail'. In a nutshell again, I want a game that has more *realistic* models than both CivIII *and* EUII, but that is not necessarily as *detailed* as EUII, at least not in every respect.

But it will be more detailed than EUII in *some* respects (such as warfare), and more detailed than CivI-III in *most* respects.

Edited: As to the 'personality' argument, I don´t really agree. I could identify with Saxony in the 1617 scenario (EUII) better than with anything in CivIII, ever, but I agree that identification in the EU series is generally quite dependent on prior knowledge of the situation/period.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by korn469
Comrade, listen developing the design document before forming a team actually capable of producing the game isn't a good model...unless you have the capability to do the programming yourself

otherwise, form the team then design the game

Heh; I take the view that the best games are those designed by one (1) person, from start to finish. Btw, I have finally decided to really do it! More info coming soon.

On the other hand, I plan to stay open for suggestions from the community throughout. In fact I will soon open a few suggestion threads for your input.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Willem
Players of computer games today expect more from graphics than they used to.

I agree that stunning graphics don´t hurt. Everything else equal, that is. But everything else isn´t equal, and I still prefer content over form.

Btw, TBS gamers are more or less used to less-than-stunning graphics; CivIII graphics are not that wonderful, after all, even if they tried to improve them. The only TBS game with stunning graphics is the HoMM series; you can go directly to an HoMMIV screenshot here: http://strategyplanet.com/homm/image.../chh4shot3.jpg
Don´t ask me, how they do it, though; I wish I knew.