Poll: Strategy-game or a world-history simulator?

[Ralf]

Interesting ideas Jorrit Hansson; that about corruption, cohesion and science-leaks. You might want to check out this threadh as well about the "rise and fall of empires (my initial post is perhaps a little unbalanced, but the thread is lengthy and we discussed the idea rather thorough):
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001537.html

[Jorrit Hansson]

I got another idea here, about BAB versus science.

There is a rule for science: Necessity makes the inventor. (I put that in thread 1752 also: Think arms race. You can spend ages trying to invent the perfect way to cut grass if that is what is the most important thing in the world to you. But if you have just lost a battle or a war you might want to go and invent some new stuff (that might finally kill those annoying enemies). And only by trying them out you get results.)

To get to the point, small empires historically always found themselves in a lot of trouble (they got picked on, for instance). Some of them got better. Because they had to. In CIV (1/2) a big empire can race arms alone for eternity, because they have the light bulbs. I don't think that is realistic, and neither balancing or fun (after a few games). I propose that the relative size of an outside threath should increase the chance you come up with a relevant scientific advance (up to a certain level of overachieving the local enemy).
A small empire in war with a big one should in this way be able to stand on its own then, making bigger not better necessarily.

You could use this rule for other than militairy issues also. If you constantly have problems in terms of food gathering this should ease your path in researching advanced agricultural things (like the netherlands did; changing one big swamp into major agricultural produce).

Science is a trial and error thing, and there will be less trial if there is no real need.

[Vrank Prins]

The appeal of CIV to me always has been the fact that the game uses "real history" as its setting and not some kind of, what I usually experience as outrageous, fantasy-world. I think that's why we're all able to think along with the gameconcept and come up with the magnitude of ideas on this site.
The question of playability is a matter of practicality, things shouldn't become to complex. I've played, and once in a while still play Simcity (3000). Somehow I often get lost in that game because things very often just seem to happen at random. Rather annoying. CIV is very gently and nicely balanced but could do with just a few parameters more. In the run/progress of the game (history), the complexity, i.e. the number of parameters you'd have to handle and manage should increase. That could make the endgame, where I'm usually only trying to expand my territory and increase my population to get a higher score, less tedious.

In the two months I've been around on this site, I've allways wondered why there are so few idea's about the middle-ages. When it comes to the historical techline of the game everybody seems to know about the Romans and especially modern time, and has lots ideas about that, panzer this and panzer that (sorry rremus, no offense meant!!!, but somehow you're a good example of the point I'm trying to make). That all just puts to much emphasis on the end of the game. Not to speak of all the suggestion being made for futuretechs.
It can be fun to fantasise about the future and hardware and it's more easy to contemplate about our own time, because we know it as it comes to us. But that's just not the whole setting of CIV.
I think the question of whether CIV should be a captivating strategy-game or a worldhistory is not the whole question. The question is are we really able to come up with practical ideas for the game which are based on "historical mechanisms". The interdependency of agriculture (the grainshieves), economics (the coins), politics (luxuries, taxes), religion (no parameter up till now), technique (shields), scientific development (the erlenmeyer flasks) etc.

.... and that's why I love CIV, to think about all these things while mastering them in a game. I can tell you, it changed my way of looking at history. But I certainly like to play a good game too.

[Sir Hawkeye]

The reason small empires can be more powerful than big ones is: INFRASTRUCTURE and relatedly, resources

China had no military because it was technologically backward and entirely devoted to agriculture.
Russia had a fairly low population because 30 engineer units working for 100 turns could not create population centers in Siberia. Thusly, there was also no one there to harvest the vast resources.
Third-world countries are poor because they barely have roads and usually not enough farmland to feed anyone. Japan is so industrially powerful because it has mined everything it can, and has sophisto-ma-cated robotics up the ying-yang.

Infrastructure is fairly well-represented in Civ 2, although some sort of double-mine might be nice in modern times, plus some of SMAC's naval terrain improvements.

Obviously in Civ there are some cases where Big is just too BIG to matter what the resources are.
There are plenty of solutions available.

Beuracracy costs have been proposed in several forms, for one thing, and these seem appropriate.

Japan did not just maximize on its own resources, but processes resources imported from elsewhere. We should be able to setup tranfer routes between cities for things besides ephemeral "trade goods" and food. We should be able to transport base production (resources modified only by the receiving city's facilities), and to some extent, luxuries/science/taxes. This should probably be handled fairly easily between cities of one civ.
For example:
-
Transport Menu (in city screen)
>Transport X
>>For X turns or Every turn
>>>To city B
-
Sets up a supply route that takes a certain number of turns based on distance and roads and then arrives every turn thereafter. This route could be hindered by blockades or sieges.

I propose that between civilizations one could propose exchanges such as say: 3 resources a turn/6 gold a turn
or 4 luxuries/3 food, 3 gold/3 science etc., etc., etc.
Before perhaps, industrializatian, such exchanges would require an enhanced form of caravan unit.

That's all i can think of at the moment.
What say ye, O deity-beating Lords of CIV?

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I agree with Tim White, oh yeah, I am Tim White!

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by Sir Hawkeye on 10-27-2000 08:52 PM Japan did not just maximize on its own resources, but processes resources imported from elsewhere. We should be able to setup tranfer routes between cities for things besides ephemeral "trade goods" and food. We should be able to transport base production (resources modified only by the receiving city's facilities), and to some extent, luxuries/science/taxes. This should probably be handled fairly easily between cities of one civ. For example: - Transport Menu (in city screen) >Transport X >>For X turns or Every turn >>>To city B - Sets up a supply route that takes a certain number of turns based on distance and roads and then arrives every turn thereafter. This route could be hindered by blockades or sieges. I propose that between civilizations one could propose exchanges such as say: 3 resources a turn/6 gold a turn or 4 luxuries/3 food, 3 gold/3 science etc., etc., etc. Before perhaps, industrializatian, such exchanges would require an enhanced form of caravan unit.

Without specifically stating it, it seems you may also be referring to an improvement in the diplomatic aspects of the game. Many posts lament the limitations in helping an ally, or even how an ally hurts you (sits on a square you want to irrigate, trades a tech to your common enemy, etc). An advanced trading component, as you propose, would add a more enjoyable aspect to the game. A greater degree of sophistication here would be welcomed by many. Another post earlier complained about SimCity 3000 being less enjoyable due to the randomness of the game. Ideas like this, if implemented, would strengthen the link between your actions and outcomes. Good post.