Tins

[Koyaanisqatsi]

As I've been reading over the messages lately, it seems like there's been more and more of a call for complexity that won't so much add fun to the game as add realism. While I'm not sure I agree with KISS (since I do like micromanaging things) I don't think that complexity should be added just for realism's sake.

Thus, the introduction of a new priciple to the forums...TINS. This Is NOT Simhistory!

Do we need to model a free market economy? Will it be fun? Will it add to the game in some meaningful way, or will it just be one more variable to track? Do we need our citizens to emigrate? We already have incentive to keep our empires happy...if we don't they riot. Is it just another factor that's going to take up time every turn? Refugees? I'm one of the people who support this idea, although not in the form that has been suggested most recently. But are they just going to be AI controlled random factors, or are you going to be able to use them in some productive fashion? Are they white noise, or music?

The Civ series is about fun. Micromanagement is fun...to a point. Sometimes it's fun when a single turn takes a half hour to finish. When you're planning an invasion or revamping your infrastructure, you probably don't even realize that it took half an hour. That's because you're thinking, and being creative. Personally, I don't find plugging the right numbers into the right algorithms to get the best results fun.

So...TINS. When you're suggesting something, or replying to somebody else's suggestion, please keep a few questions in mind: Is this going to be fun? Is there a simpler way I could do this that would be just as fun? Am I suggesting this because it happened this way in history, or because it will add some new facet to the game that will force me to be creative in its use?

TINS--It's not just a cheesy acronym, it's a way of life.

[yin26]

Good point. I think this is especially relevant to the topic of unique civ bonuses. Some people are already crying "Racism!" for goodness sakes! Listen, if it's fun, put it in. If it detracts, take it out.

Of course, since the great illusion of civ is that you are leading world history, nothing should be too off-mark. While in another title such crazy and barely historical stuff could be fun, people DO expect some faithful adherence to history in Civ. That's part of its appeal, and I understand that.

But overall, I'd rather play an historically "inaccurate" Civ that's fun than plod through a faithful reproduction of the world's tedium.

[thor015]

quote: Originally posted by Bell on 01-14-2001 09:52 PM Thus, the introduction of a new priciple to the forums...TINS. This Is NOT Simhistory!

I agree 100%, and like yin said, history makes the game fun but what makes this game so exciting is that you create a new timeline. I admit I like being different civs to see all thier cities names and leaders but if things like social reforms, or controlling economic systems (I am talking in depth control) I think turns will take way too long and the game will become boring. I lose interest in games I am close to finishing, because I have soo much stuff going on that it takes alot of time each turn.
Historical is cool to an extent, but lets watch how much we really need or want to control in our civ.

[young newbie forever]

finally someone who thinks the way i do about this topic.

Thou i am just a settler ive been watching this forum since it started and only recently have the suggestions become so.. well "not good" that ive started posting.

i support your idea completly and i am really p.o.ed about people whining about things like three cornered hats on riflemen. I actually like the rifleman better that way. not that im against micromanagement but do we really need like parties that are formed just couse your troops moved left and not right.

FINNALY someone realizes that firaxis wont fail us (hey if they do thell never do as bad as activision.)

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Ok then. As a starting point: What makes a Civ game fun? What goals should we be working toward?

Personally, I think it's that you have to be creative in your actions. You're given a (relatively, given the scope) simple set of rules, and told 'Ok, apply these rules as best you can. I'll do the same, and we'll see what we can see.' Complexity that adds more opportunity for creativity is good.
You say you want a unit that not only can pillage tile improvements, but kill off one unit of population while they're at it? Yeah, I can see several strategies where that could be useful, if applied correctly. You realize, of course, there will be certain drawbacks, but, you'll have to weigh those in your decisions, won't you?
Complexity that adds formulas with few variables is bad.
You say you want a system where, if you put a caravan on a mountain with a mine, it increases the production from that mine by fifty percent? Well...why not just assume that you already have caravans at every mine? I mean, strategically, your caravan is no more protected than the mine itself, so you already have to protect that square anyways.

I don't know...what does everybody think makes Civ fun?
[This message has been edited by Bell (edited January 15, 2001).]

[JosefGiven]

I must say, I oppose this TINS movement...My troops are on their way to crush it mercilessly.

While there is a lot of truth concerning over-complexity in your argument, I would say one of the great strengths of the two original Civs is the feeling you get that you are re-writing the history books. In this sense, Civ is a Sim-History game. Or a 'What if?...' scenario generator at the very least.

I think there is place for slightly more in-game complexity in Civ III than there is in the previous two incarnations and their wayward ToT, CTP, SMAC off-shoots.

Of course, too much complexity and Sid and his comrades will spoil the broth...It is just another factor to balance: Realism vs. Gameplay.

Oh, and let's have no more of this extremist TINS movement, if you please

------------------
Josef Given
josefgiven@hotmail.com

[Koyaanisqatsi]

quote: Originally posted by JosefGiven on 01-15-2001 06:42 PM I must say, I oppose this TINS movement...My troops are on their way to crush it mercilessly.

They will be met, and returned to you supporters of the Cause...

quote: While there is a lot of truth concerning over-complexity in your argument, I would say one of the great strengths of the two original Civs is the feeling you get that you are re-writing the history books.

Yes, but why do you get that feelings? Because your troops just swept through Rome? Because you just manipulated a foreign leader into signing a treaty that makes them nothing more than your puppet state? Because you built the first factory in the world, ushering in the industrial revolution? Or because you rezoned the old downtown business district to allow people to live over the bookstore?

The question is, what is good complexity? What feels bigger when you deal with the details, and what just gets dull? The dull stuff needs to stay abstracted as much as possible, or it drags down the rest of the game.

quote: Oh, and let's have no more of this extremist TINS movement, if you please

You can not stop the revolution...the dialectic dictates what will come next. Soon, the proletariat will rise, shaking off the chains of their oppressive masters, and what good will your bourgeois sensibilities be to yo--

Oh. Sorry. Wrong movement.

[loinburger]

You sound just like Flavor Dave. "If you want realism, play two turns and die of old age."

[Koyaanisqatsi]

quote: Originally posted by technophile on 01-15-2001 09:13 PM You sound just like Flavor Dave. "If you want realism, play two turns and die of old age."

See, yet another example of a game point where history should be set aside in the name of fun...

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by JosefGiven on 01-15-2001 06:42 PM While there is a lot of truth concerning over-complexity in your argument, I would say one of the great strengths of the two original Civs is the feeling you get that you are re-writing the history books.

It was? Well, in that case im with you, because i DONT think Civ-3 should be more attached to historical details then Civ-2 was. I think Civ-2 got the right mix, in this respect.

If nevertheless "push comes to shove" in this debate; What is the final and most important priority? Check out my Strategic Diplomacy topic. I really think the "gameplay vs reality" debate came to something of a principal crossroad, in that particular thread.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 16, 2001).]

[Brent]

if This Is Not Sim History, it probably ought to change its name. I like the concept, but the acronym doesn't do it justice. I would like the game to take less time, at least not a lot more time. I don't want to be working on the same game every night for more than a week. If possible, I want more hisorically realistic elements, but streamlined gameplay. I certainly think it could stand to be more hitorical than Civ2. I do think that fun is more important than realism, and the concept of being a historical game is what makes it sound fun for most people who see it in the stores, I think. I guess governors, mayors, advisors, and automated units can allow for the realism and the fun. I do not want to have to calculate equations in order to play the game. How many people would've picked up the original if you had to? The game should appeal to as wide a variety of gamers as possible without selling out. So add all the realism that doesn't require complexity. More variables do provide more challenge. If emigration would mean similarities to Colonization, then good. A for Abe Lincoln or Caesar living 6000 years, how about if the default name for the player is the name of the Civ's primary god? of course, for America this would be "Money". And what is so wayward about SMAC?

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by young newbie forever on 01-15-2001 03:21 PM i support your idea completly and i am really p.o.ed about people whining about things like three cornered hats on riflemen.

Since i started that thread let me reply

I was not "whining", merely pointing out some facts. I stated in that thread that I expected Civ3 to be a good game either way. Evidently some people have such strong chips on their shoulders about historical accuracy that even a gentle nudge in that direction looks to them like grognard screaming.

AS far as the game as a whole - I agree that Civ cannot be Sim history. The time scale is too long, which makes it impossible to have both "fun" and realistic movement - any movement factors slow enough to give us a sense of exploring and gathering forces will be too slow to be realistic. Historical realism must be reserved to games dealing on a shorter time scale (I have high hopes for Europa Universalis, for example)

That does NOT mean that we cant move at least a little closer to historical accuracy in Civ3. While the game should not be overburdened with complexity and late game micromanagement significant accuracy improvements need not detract from fun. Indeed that seems to be the direction Firaxis is going with the combat model.

[JosefGiven]

Bell, in a very well-put and amusing response to a reply I posted in this thread, said:

quote: why do you get that feelings? Because your troops just swept through Rome? Because you just manipulated a foreign leader into signing a treaty that makes them nothing more than your puppet state? Because you built the first factory in the world, ushering in the industrial revolution? Or because you rezoned the old downtown business district to allow people to live over the bookstore?

This is the debate about how far, and to what level should micromanagement go in Civ III.

One area where I agree with TINS sentiment is that at all costs Civ III should avoid being over-complex. In fact, I have said this before. I think the original reason Bell posted this thread was because he had a fear that our beloved game would become little more than a spreadsheet...a game totally inaccessable to all but the most hardened number-juggler and stat-jockey.

I could not agree more. I don't want this, you don't want this, no-one wants this.

But, and this is where I start to make my point, folks; the reason we all still write threads and posts on this forum, using a game five/six years old (Civ 2, of course) as a reference point, is that game had a magic that appeals to everyone. The way I look at it, Civ 2 has the most complex gameplay seen in any game EVER. (It's various offshoots not included).
The reason the almost frightening level of complexity in Civ 2 does not overwhelm us, is that these intricate, pioneering gaming concepts were put into practice in a very user friendly way.

"Civ 2 isn't complex!!" I can almost hear, as Civers the world over below in unison. Stick it next to the likes of Half-Life, Settlers, Command and Conquer. In terms of gamplay, it's positively cerebral!

There is room for increased complexity in Civ III, it just has to be handled well, and in a user friendly fashion.

Like the 'bloodlust' option, or the ability to choose opposing Civs in Civ 2, the option should be added to add/remove complexities to suit the needs of each gamer...

------------------
Josef Given
josefgiven@hotmail.com

[JosefGiven]

Right, I felt I said rather a lot in my last post, so I'm starting a fresh one before I make my next point...

quote: Personally, I think it's that you have to be creative in your actions. You're given a (relatively, given the scope) simple set of rules, and told 'Ok, apply these rules as best you can. I'll do the same, and we'll see what we can see.' Complexity that adds more opportunity for creativity is good.... ...Complexity that adds formulas with few variables is bad.

Another few words of wisdom from Bell
This is where I agree again...But, you do (Bell, this is) concour here that there is room for more complexity.

Right, what I would like to do in this thread, is continue the pro-realism debate.
I have already established in a previous post that I think the key to the original old school civ atmosphere is it's link with history as we know it. Of course there are inherant weaknesses in this argument...

quote: "If you want realism, play two turns and die of old age."

How can we resolve this? ...I don't think we can...it's just going to remain one of the quirks of civ.

But, now let's take a look at CtP, SMAC and ToT. Each, in it's own way, is guilty of straying from the history books. I don't like the CtP because of it's (I hesitate to use the word) 'silly' post-modern and futuristic units...they feel cartoony and tacky, and ultimately remind me I'm playing a computer game. SMAC was a bold move...civ in space...Some good ideas came out in the game, some of which, I think Sid said were going to make it to Civ III. But ultimately, the Sci-Fi angle crippled the game's atmosphere, for me. ToT. Don't even go there. Those graphics! Arrgh! But I digress. Taking the 'extended original' game as my grounds for criticism, did anyone really take those genetically engineered units seriously? I ask you...

To sum up, in order to survive with a place in our hearts, Civ III HAS to have a base in our human history, or at least feel like it does. With no historical basis, and with the complexity stripped from it...Sid and the Firaxis team will create a monster...

Turn based Command and Conquer, anyone?


------------------
Josef Given
josefgiven@hotmail.com

[Koyaanisqatsi]

quote: Originally posted by JosefGiven on 01-17-2001 02:04 PM I think the original reason Bell posted this thread was because he had a fear that our beloved game would become little more than a spreadsheet...a game totally inaccessable to all but the most hardened number-juggler and stat-jockey.

Well...yes and no. You're right, I don't want Firaxis to have to bundle Excel as a required component of the game. But that's not all of it. If you look at the complexity level in Civ/CivII/SMAC, it isn't really that deep, but it is very broad.

The big failing of a lot of 4x games (and what Sid always seems to get right) is that they don't correctly balance short term tasks with long term goals. (Just to get terminology out of the way: tasks, in CivII, would be things like optimizing a city for growth, building a unit, or placing a tile improvement. Goals are things like sending out your first settler, exploring a continent overseas, and preparing your military for a large offensive.)

In order for a game to be fun, two things need to happen. First, tasks need to be simple, quick, and easy. This is a UI issue, and is absolutely critical. Second, tasks need to build vertically to goals. Tasks should not require more than a couple other tasks to complete; this makes the game feel nitpicky and bogs things down. Goals, on the other hand, have to require lots of tasks, all of which must be done sequentially.

Think of the tech tree. Say there's a certain technology you need four branches up the tree. In order to get it, you have to discover seven individual techs. It's a lot more fun to discover the first two techs, which unlocks the third, then discover that one etc., than it would be to have all seven prereqs available to you immediately. Going vertically up the tree, you feel like you're making progress. If you have all seven prereqs there, it doesn't make any difference what order you grab them in, you're moving horizontally on the tree and won't feel like you're making progress until you finally reach your goal.

When you move horizontally, you lose the fun of accomplishing each individual task, and are left with only accomplishing goals. Tasks have to feel like they move you significantly closer to completing a goal for a game to be fun.

That's what I worry about losing in complexity. Look at one of the trade suggestions that was made recently. It said that, before you can build a unit, you would have to have specific resources available in your trade system. So, say, if you wanted to build a tank, maybe you'd need to have iron ore and oil. Compare the task/goal situation between this and the current CivII system.

Current CivII
Goal: Produce tank.
Task: Research appropriate tech prereq.
Task: Find city with appropriate shield production level.
Task: Switch production in that city to tank.

Supply-based system:
Goal: Produce tank.
Task: Research appropriate tech prereq.
Task: Find city with appropriate shield production level.
Task: Find city with oil resources.
Task: Create trade route from oil to tank production site.
Task: Find city with iron ore resources.
Task: Create trade route from iron ore to tank production site.
Task: Switch production in that city to tank.

See all the horizontal movement? That's going to be a boring system...and, to answer what you said, that is what I'm afraid of. Horizontal complexity is bad. Vertical complexity is good.

quote: The way I look at it, Civ 2 has the most complex gameplay seen in any game EVER. (It's various offshoots not included). The reason the almost frightening level of complexity in Civ 2 does not overwhelm us, is that these intricate, pioneering gaming concepts were put into practice in a very user friendly way.

And that the complexity is almost all vertical. You're right though, complexity is what has allowed the game to live for so long...
[This message has been edited by Bell (edited January 17, 2001).]