Tweet
Some suggestion for Civ-type games.....
Hey all!
Here's some suggestions I've thought of for Civ-type games. BTW, I've played Civ, CivII, SMAC, CTP, CTP2 and a host of other strategy games.
1 - Diplomacy. While good in CTP2, it does need work done to it. I actually like the way sometimes in CTP2 the AI doesn't act on its diplomatic agreements (like the "get out of my country" order). It gives a feel of that 'renegade nation'. But I'd like to be able to ask other nations to do things such as interact with a third nation. EG. In World war 2 US, UK and USSR did high-level strategic planning together.
2 - Zone of control. If you have units in the 'wilderness' there should be the ability to civilise the area without the need for building forts (which are time-consuming and expensive). EG. In frontier US, the area was still 'wilderness' but railroad builders went through and put down the trans-continental rails. This opened the frontier to settlement effectively. Basic theory that if you have a presance there you have some control over the land.
3 - AI. This is an area where we've seen different types of AI either be decent, mediocre and downright crap. The AI MUST be able to do high-level strategic thinking. It MUST be able to attack and defend. It MUST be able to use diplomacy. One good thing in CTP2 is that it will actually trade with other nations now. Don't ask me how to program the AI to do this, I only did "Intro to Computer AI" at uni.
4 - Free enterprise. After the industrial revolution, free enterprise started up and corporations started making local, national and international impacts. Is it possible for a special unit called a Entreprenour (sp?) to appear in certain economic conditions that, though independant, can be influenced by the player? This unit can go between cities and setup commerce thus boosting trade, and going to other nations and setting up commerce there too? Maybe instead of the corporate unit now (which I hardly ever use, I find it easier to take over the city militarily) this entreprenour can be influenced by tariffs and taxes?
5 - Religion. Religion played a much greater part in world development than we accredate in Civ-type games. In the middle ages the Catholic Church brought many European nations into the crusades against the Turks. Religions could be started by a player and act independantly like the nations do, but can influence and be influenced by their home nation. Then they could "spread the word of God" to other nations and influence them. EG. If a nation is influenced by your home religion and declares war on you, they suffer a happiness penalty. If all nations of a religion go to war with a nation of a different religion then a happiness bonus. The cleric and televangilist could be created by the religion not the nation, and act like they do now to spread their influence.
6 - Cities. I liked in Civ how you could "view" your city. This was one thing that sucked me into building power-base cities. I played to have that one city with millions of citizens, every improvement, and every wonder to view what it looked like.
7 - Wonders. After playing all the Civ-type games, I've come to decide that wonders are detrimental to the balance of the game. In CTP, building London Exchange meant you hardly paid any maintenance. This off-flow enabled you to rush-buy heaps. Edison's Lab was another 'must-have' as it gave a massively unfair advantage to science. In CTP2 Pyramids give a critical anchient-time money boost. And others. I just don't believe wonders are beneficial to the game anymore, also since companys are now using wonders that any nation could build (satellites, agency, penicillan) which are more feats than wonders. Maybe just use feats in a game to provide bonuses (thus fairer since any nation has the ability to reach it) and use wonders as a happiness/regard boost only.
8 - Combat. I wouldn't mind seeing tactical combat implemented. Two systems in other games I've enjoyed (which would be easy to put in a civ-type game without taking away from it) was the combat in Conquest of the New World (like a 4 X 3 chess board you could put various units in each square) and Imperialism (a more truer tactical simulator). I'm bored watching little animations of war and not being able to influence them directly.
9 - World Map. When is someone going to come up with a decent world map that is actually scaled to allow some buildup of your nation? Europe and the Americas are just too conjested to allow more than a couple of cities in an area that traditionally held millions.
10 - Units. Things to me move too fast in Civ-type games. They need to be slowed down. In CTP, the mid-game went so fast that if you started building a tank in a mid-size city when you discovered tanks, that when it was finished it was a couple of turns off redundant. I don't build many unit types in a game because they are just simply "not needed". In CTP2 I don't build any navy except troop ships, long boats in anchient, SOL's in renaisance and battleships in modern. I've never needed anything else. Some games I've build a couple of subs to sink pesky pirates, but that's it! How bout we go back to basics and simplify! For each era only use the most common units. Anchient would include archers, legions and phalanxes, renaissance would include knights, longbowmen, pikes, swords, modern would include infantry, tanks, artillery and so on. Instead of bringing new units into a game when advances are made, why not just increase/add abilities to existing units? Also, why on earth don't units upgrade (at a cost) when a new unit is available of that type? EG. Still having hoplites when marines are running around the map.
11 - Advances. Remember looking at the tech-tree and wondering "what the hell is that advance?". I do. Why are there so many advances? CTP2 has done a good thing shrinking the tech-tree, and has almost got it right. But to me it still goes too fast. I hate having gunpowder in 1000BC and the AI still has hoplites running around.
By slowing down the speed of tech advances, and limiting the number of units available I believe will make this type of game excellent. Also, by eliminating the massively unfair advantage that wonders give and making these bonuses feats buildable by all will elliminate the unrecouverable jump nations get from these wonders. And giving the game an AI that will look at "the large picture", interact with other nations and attack/defend, will make whoever implements these a MUST-HAVE game for years!
I'm thinking of programming my own game of this type and wouldn't mind sharing my ideas for comment. Anyone care to respond?
------------------
Rommell to a sub-commander outside Tobruk: "Those Australians are in there somewhere. But where? Let's advance and wait till they shoot, then shoot back."
Here's some suggestions I've thought of for Civ-type games. BTW, I've played Civ, CivII, SMAC, CTP, CTP2 and a host of other strategy games.
1 - Diplomacy. While good in CTP2, it does need work done to it. I actually like the way sometimes in CTP2 the AI doesn't act on its diplomatic agreements (like the "get out of my country" order). It gives a feel of that 'renegade nation'. But I'd like to be able to ask other nations to do things such as interact with a third nation. EG. In World war 2 US, UK and USSR did high-level strategic planning together.
2 - Zone of control. If you have units in the 'wilderness' there should be the ability to civilise the area without the need for building forts (which are time-consuming and expensive). EG. In frontier US, the area was still 'wilderness' but railroad builders went through and put down the trans-continental rails. This opened the frontier to settlement effectively. Basic theory that if you have a presance there you have some control over the land.
3 - AI. This is an area where we've seen different types of AI either be decent, mediocre and downright crap. The AI MUST be able to do high-level strategic thinking. It MUST be able to attack and defend. It MUST be able to use diplomacy. One good thing in CTP2 is that it will actually trade with other nations now. Don't ask me how to program the AI to do this, I only did "Intro to Computer AI" at uni.
4 - Free enterprise. After the industrial revolution, free enterprise started up and corporations started making local, national and international impacts. Is it possible for a special unit called a Entreprenour (sp?) to appear in certain economic conditions that, though independant, can be influenced by the player? This unit can go between cities and setup commerce thus boosting trade, and going to other nations and setting up commerce there too? Maybe instead of the corporate unit now (which I hardly ever use, I find it easier to take over the city militarily) this entreprenour can be influenced by tariffs and taxes?
5 - Religion. Religion played a much greater part in world development than we accredate in Civ-type games. In the middle ages the Catholic Church brought many European nations into the crusades against the Turks. Religions could be started by a player and act independantly like the nations do, but can influence and be influenced by their home nation. Then they could "spread the word of God" to other nations and influence them. EG. If a nation is influenced by your home religion and declares war on you, they suffer a happiness penalty. If all nations of a religion go to war with a nation of a different religion then a happiness bonus. The cleric and televangilist could be created by the religion not the nation, and act like they do now to spread their influence.
6 - Cities. I liked in Civ how you could "view" your city. This was one thing that sucked me into building power-base cities. I played to have that one city with millions of citizens, every improvement, and every wonder to view what it looked like.
7 - Wonders. After playing all the Civ-type games, I've come to decide that wonders are detrimental to the balance of the game. In CTP, building London Exchange meant you hardly paid any maintenance. This off-flow enabled you to rush-buy heaps. Edison's Lab was another 'must-have' as it gave a massively unfair advantage to science. In CTP2 Pyramids give a critical anchient-time money boost. And others. I just don't believe wonders are beneficial to the game anymore, also since companys are now using wonders that any nation could build (satellites, agency, penicillan) which are more feats than wonders. Maybe just use feats in a game to provide bonuses (thus fairer since any nation has the ability to reach it) and use wonders as a happiness/regard boost only.
8 - Combat. I wouldn't mind seeing tactical combat implemented. Two systems in other games I've enjoyed (which would be easy to put in a civ-type game without taking away from it) was the combat in Conquest of the New World (like a 4 X 3 chess board you could put various units in each square) and Imperialism (a more truer tactical simulator). I'm bored watching little animations of war and not being able to influence them directly.
9 - World Map. When is someone going to come up with a decent world map that is actually scaled to allow some buildup of your nation? Europe and the Americas are just too conjested to allow more than a couple of cities in an area that traditionally held millions.
10 - Units. Things to me move too fast in Civ-type games. They need to be slowed down. In CTP, the mid-game went so fast that if you started building a tank in a mid-size city when you discovered tanks, that when it was finished it was a couple of turns off redundant. I don't build many unit types in a game because they are just simply "not needed". In CTP2 I don't build any navy except troop ships, long boats in anchient, SOL's in renaisance and battleships in modern. I've never needed anything else. Some games I've build a couple of subs to sink pesky pirates, but that's it! How bout we go back to basics and simplify! For each era only use the most common units. Anchient would include archers, legions and phalanxes, renaissance would include knights, longbowmen, pikes, swords, modern would include infantry, tanks, artillery and so on. Instead of bringing new units into a game when advances are made, why not just increase/add abilities to existing units? Also, why on earth don't units upgrade (at a cost) when a new unit is available of that type? EG. Still having hoplites when marines are running around the map.
11 - Advances. Remember looking at the tech-tree and wondering "what the hell is that advance?". I do. Why are there so many advances? CTP2 has done a good thing shrinking the tech-tree, and has almost got it right. But to me it still goes too fast. I hate having gunpowder in 1000BC and the AI still has hoplites running around.
By slowing down the speed of tech advances, and limiting the number of units available I believe will make this type of game excellent. Also, by eliminating the massively unfair advantage that wonders give and making these bonuses feats buildable by all will elliminate the unrecouverable jump nations get from these wonders. And giving the game an AI that will look at "the large picture", interact with other nations and attack/defend, will make whoever implements these a MUST-HAVE game for years!
I'm thinking of programming my own game of this type and wouldn't mind sharing my ideas for comment. Anyone care to respond?
------------------
Rommell to a sub-commander outside Tobruk: "Those Australians are in there somewhere. But where? Let's advance and wait till they shoot, then shoot back."
Comment