Disenchanted

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Willem
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.

Don´t worry. I am not planning to do anything that couldn´t have been programmed in 1995, already. The complexity will be in the formulas, and computers are good at that.

***Any comments HERE, please: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=40675 ***

[Willem]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Don´t worry. I am not planning to do anything that couldn´t have been programmed in 1995, already. The complexity will be in the formulas, and computers are good at that.

***Any comments HERE, please: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=40675 ***

Well I certainly wish both you and Vel luck. I'm looking forward to doing some beta testing in the future.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Willem
You'll have to tred a very fine line between rewards and setbacks...

Agreed.

...otherwise they'll just become frustrated and quit.

Don´t forget that I am not intending to create a game for the mass market. Hardcore Strategy Gamers won´t quit, as long as the rules make sense, which brings me to...

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.

Agreed. The difference is this:

1) Nowhere has Culture Flipping been precisely explained. And my definition of 'precise' is: You get the exact numbers and formulas.

2) Culture Flipping in CivIII isn´t always logical. An Army Group in real life could prevent Culture Flipping. I am intending to ***always*** go for irl results. Some people ***will*** find that uncool, especially if they lose; I can live with that.

[Libertarian]

Nowhere has Culture Flipping been precisely explained. And my definition of 'precise' is: You get the exact numbers and formulas.

Amen.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Willem
Well I certainly wish both you and Vel luck. I'm looking forward to doing some beta testing in the future.

Thanks. And yes: Beta-testing before release is something that should be required by law, imo.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Chronus
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.

I agree that EU is a bit too military-focused. If you want to be peaceful all the time, you will run out of things to do. But...

Unlike EU, managing your Empire and Home Province will not be easy. Rest assured, there will be no complaints about a lack of complexity/difficulty in the economic subgame. If anything, the complaints will be the oppposite.

Generally speaking, Empire Building in history was mostly about a) Managing the Economy, and b) Going to War. The game will focus about equally on those two.

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?

More elaborating soon in the Alternative Civs section. Please post any questions and comments here: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=40675

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by OneInTen
There are certainly people who would contend that if your civ falls into permanent anarchy there is a lot right with it and it should be a winning condition!

Heh, heh! That is a good one!

Anarchy should be a proper "government" type if you're going to do a simulation style game ... government from a grass roots level by the people for the people, and with no private ownership. - as anarchist theory describes.

Seriously: I see what you mean. My answer to this pretty complicated question is twofold:

1) Semantically, I would call what you are proposing 'Utopian Socialism'. I use the term 'Anarchy' in the sense it is commonly used, to describe a state of chaos and dissolution.

2) As to Utopian Socialism: IF and HOW to include this concept is still under review, and will not be decided in the immediate future. As this does, however, sound a bit too much like a typical Firaxis statement , I am going to add an explanation WHY this is difficult to resolve, and therefore postponed:

The difficulty is that Utopian Socialism -unlike Soviet-style Communism- has nowhere been empirically tested. The assumptions how Utopian Socialism would work will predictably differ a lot between champions and opponents of the concept. It will be hard work to find an approach that *both* sides do consider even-handed. And I very much want to avoid the CivIII method of imposing the designers` political philosophy with a sledge hammer.

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: Re: Re: hmm

Originally posted by pg
in a simulation you really don't have win or lose situations.

You think. Have you ever tried out what happens in SimCity2000, if you run your debt into the millions?

especially if you are simulating history there is no such thing as permanent anarchy or a hopeless position.

I beg to differ. When the Roman Empire finally fell, its situation had already been hopeless for a few generations.

there are periods of time where certain conditions persist but it eventually changes for better or worse.

Exactly. Worse meaning leaving the scene.

if you are going for chess ideals mixed with simulation you will fail imo.

Depends. A Sim should not be as abstract as Chess, but it should be as impeccably logical. Especially it should be as unforgiving as Chess.

chess is pure strategy, while a simulation is something that is fun to play with because of all the possibilities and interesting results.

If you value your life, don´t say that to a Chess enthusiast.

you can't really win a simulation

...but you can lose it.

victory points to me sound about as fun as culture points in civ3. wow, if i get 20,000 culture in one city i win! talk about artificial, and breaking the feeling of playing in a real working alternate history simulation.

OUCH! Being compared to CivIII is as bad as it gets. Spare my feelings, man!

Seriously, I think there is a difference: Victory Points compare to the Score rather than to Culture Points. I think a good scoring system is important. In CivIII, your score is absolutely meaningless: You don´t even get points for building a Wonder. But you DO get points for having a large population which, in and by itself, means nothing: After all, there are some third world countries with a pretty large population!

It would certainly be artificial to quantify Culture, but I won´t do that. CivIII Culture is replaced by Social Engineering, which is not at all one-dimensional, but will make your Civ distinct.

On the other hand, VPs are about something that is quantifiable: Quite simply, they quantify how good, overall, you are at playing the game.

[lockstep]

Re: Re: Re: Re: hmm

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
In CivIII, your score is absolutely meaningless: You don´t even get points for building a Wonder. But you DO get points for having a large population which, in and by itself, means nothing: After all, there are some third world countries with a pretty large population!

I agree with you insofar as a more meaningfull score should include culture (and hereby wonders, as they all yield culture). However, Civ3's scoring system at least does away with Civ2's cheat to boost happiness in the late game, trigger 'We-love-the-president-days' throughout your empire and watch your population go through the roof. That resulted in a meaningless score ...

[gaikokujin]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

b) There is a Cultural Habit (Social Engineering) setting called 'Nomadic'. Being a Mongol-like mostly Nomadic civilization has LARGE benefits in offensive warfare: Not only do you get some units others haven´t, you also don´t have to pay for your offensives. (You can´t build or research much, however.) At some point, like it or not, you will become civilized enough Nomadic is no longer an option. But when you settle down, you will lose your offensive edge, and have a very difficult transition period. A good time for your empire to fall apart again.

(More extremely nasty ideas tomorrow.)

Yep, an old, obscure boardgame called "Barbarian, Kingdom & Empire" did this, and more, with a simple set of game rules and components. But enough said - if you knew this game, you'll know what I am talking about.

[Ironikinit]

Less talk and more results would be nice. If you think you can do better than Civ III, please do, I'd really like to see it.

Talk is cheap.

[Libertarian]

And opinions are worthless.

[Ironikinit]

Yours certainly are, IMO.

[OneInTen]

2) Culture Flipping in CivIII isn´t always logical. An Army Group in real life could prevent Culture Flipping. I am intending to ***always*** go for irl results. Some people ***will*** find that uncool, especially if they lose; I can live with that.

If you want reality, step away from your computer and walk out the front door. Games are supposed to be fun, and when the choice between reality and fun has to be made, the later should be chosen.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by OneInTen

If you want reality, step away from your computer and walk out the front door. Games are supposed to be fun, and when the choice between reality and fun has to be made, the later should be chosen.

So is it fun or real when your Army is turned against you by the population of a recently captured city? IMO it's neither, and that's what Civ 3 offers.