Disenchanted

[Willem]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


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.

That's virtually impossible these days. Unless of course that person is an expert programmer, a highly skilled graphic artist, an animation expert, a marketing genius, etc, etc, and is prepared to spend a good portion of the rest of his/her life completing it. Pick up any game in your collection and look at the credits. You'll see that there were quite a number of people that made a contribution to it. Computer gaming is becoming a very sophisticated business, and for the most part one person just can't have all the skills necessary to produce it and market it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


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.

Teamwork.

[Comrade Tribune]

Willem, I said designed. I said nothing about programming, artwork, marketing and all the other stuff.

Iow: The rules and formulas should be created by just 1 person, to keep things logical and coherent.

Edit: And teamwork doesn´t really explain why the HoMM series has great artwork, and CivIII doesn´t.

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: Re: Part V

Originally posted by Mark_Everson
Da Comrade, come the revolution the Marketing people must be the first up against the wall!

It is good to see the people finally rise up; the working classes are the Spearmen, I mean spearheads, of the revolution.

But seriously, I do agree that that is much of what's wrong with the games in the genre put out by the commercial houses. But worse than the fluff is the Evil Christmas Deadline. I realize games must be shipped sometime, but one of the major reasons for crappy games is the timing issue. And unfortunately given the $$$ involved giving games enough time to be concieved and gestate properly will be tough. That's why my best hope is for the amateurs. Of course it helps a Lot that I don't care much about graphics

Yes; and no one is depending upon the game to pay his bills; so you can take your time to really get things right.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Willem, I said designed. I said nothing about programming, artwork, marketing and all the other stuff.

What's the difference? All of these are elements that have to work together in order to have a successful game. You might be able to come up with the best game rules ever created, but if it can't be programmed, you don't have a game. And the same goes for the rest of those things. You have to look at it as a whole, not just the sum of it's parts. And if any one of those areas doesn't gel with the rest, then you've just wasted your time.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Ghengis-Sean
Contrary to popular belief the pyramids were not built by slave labor, instead the populace was required to provide a certain amount of their time for public projects.

Hard to tell; most of what we know about that period is based on somewhat questionable evidence.

However: Regardless of our assumption how Egyptian society worked, I was safe to assume many people died building the Pyramids: Undertaking such a vast project, there must have been lots of accidents etc...

Negative aspects of wonders is all well in good, but the benefits should outweigh the negatives otherwise only the computer will build them, and smart players will let them.

That is a given. But I want to get rid of the 'Wonder races'. The formulas will be twisted until the Pyramids can be beneficial, but they are certainly not for everybody. You will have to build your entire strategy around them, if you want to make them work; otherwise they will be more of a disadvantage. This game will be all about specialized strategies that must be very well thought out, or you will die.

Remember: Most Civs that have ever existed are now gone. I don´t see a reason why players should necessarily do better.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Remember: Most Civs that have ever existed are now gone. I don´t see a reason why players should necessarily do better.

Because if they don't feel they have a chance of winning , they won't play it.

[Comrade Tribune]

Did I say they will have no chance?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Did I say they will have no chance?

Well no, but it if you make it feel that way it will have the same result. You'll have to tred a very fine line between rewards and setbacks otherwise they'll just become frustrated and quit. Look at the reactions of people with this culture flipping, and losing a bunch of troops. People start fuming and sometimes give up on the game altogether. And that's just one small aspect of Civ III. By the sounds of it, you want to make it a major premise.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of "two steps forward, one back" but a lot of people might not have the patience for it.

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: Jumping back in

Originally posted by GePap
Well, why not get back into this doozy of a thread?

It seems quite lively; I have a hard time catching up.

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.

I am not sure there are examples of history actually moving backwards technologically. Of course, infrastructure gets destroyed in war and such, but we do have that even in CivIII. As to Empires falling and reviving again, this has happened very scarcely, and even in those few cases, I am not entirely sure they should be treated as the same Civ.

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.

There is something to what you say; however, I believe it would make a bad game feature: Things would become too random. In this case I must admit I am inclined to put gameplay over realism.

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.

You are playing the backers. And yes, you are given the advantage of hindsight. In so far, you will do better than your historic equivalents. (Even if it won´t satisfy Willem.) As to revolutions, unlike Civ, a successful revolution against you will certainly be possible. In that case, Guess what?, you lose.

[Willem]

Re: Re: Jumping back in

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

I am not sure there are examples of history actually moving backwards technologically. Of course, infrastructure gets destroyed in war and such, but we do have that even in CivIII. As to Empires falling and reviving again, this has happened very scarcely, and even in those few cases, I am not entirely sure they should be treated as the same Civ.

So what, you've never heard of the Fall of the Roman Empire? Catching a few zzz's during history class were you?

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: Jumping back in

Originally posted by GePap
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.

My personal preference are leaders that are essentially benevolent, but not without a Macchiavellian streak, such as the historic Elisabeth Tudor. But back to topic:

I would like to use a comparison with Chess here: There are a number of openings that are equally viable. They can all succeed, if you execute them well, and they can all fail, if you don´t.

I am definitely committed to make 'Good Guy' strategies and 'Bad Guy' strategies about equally powerful; it will all depend upon the quality of execution. So I think I am going to satisfy you on that count.

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: Re: Re: Jumping back in

Originally posted by Willem
So what, you've never heard of the Fall of the Roman Empire? Catching a few zzz's during history class were you?

Huh? When did they come back?

To quote myself: As to Empires falling and reviving again, this has happened very scarcely, and even in those few cases, I am not entirely sure they should be treated as the same Civ. In the Roman case, I go much farther: Ancient Romans and modern Italians are certainly not the same Civ.

[Comrade Tribune]

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.

I see no reason why the manual appendix should not include all of the formulas, like was custom in the good old days.

Otherwise its just dumb luck, which should not play that important of a role in a strategy game.

Totally with you. Luck will rarely determine the outcome of anything major.

[Chronus]

4) So all you are doing 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

Ugh!

Indeed, this does sound a bit too much like EU. If managing your empire and home province is seriously reduced to high level functions, then what you have left, for the most part, is moving your armies. This seems to describe a war game, not an empire building game.

However, I am genuinely curious about your model. Would you mind elaborating on points 4a and 4b? Perhaps you're willing to give some specific examples?