Openciv3

[heardie]

See http://civ3.sourceforge.net/index.htm

No game yet but does have
* A 3d isometric map up and running!!!!
[This message has been edited by heardie (edited May 12, 2000).]

[onepaul]

DirectX or OpenGL?

[heardie]

Dirct X

[korn469]

how close you you guys getting at the basic foundations of the programming end of the game?

a few ideas are starting to form in my head that might be of use to you guys

korn469

[heardie]

quote: Originally posted by korn469 on 05-13-2000 01:08 PM how close you you guys getting at the basic foundations of the programming end of the game? a few ideas are starting to form in my head that might be of use to you guys korn469

hey korn have u signed up for the new sourceforge mailing list yet



------------------
-Chiron Creators-
"http://members.xoom.com/acchiron"

[Thue]

quote: Originally posted by heardie on 05-13-2000 01:57 AM Dirct X

[VetLegion]

korn,

maybe the mailinglist wont be of much use (mostly technical). I will try to summarize:

In attempt to make a good design, we havent written any significant amount of code yet.
( I hope I dont offend anyone, there is some code, but it is not.. uh, "crucial" )

However, we are not that far away from that either.

Thue,

Thumb down for directx? Why is that?
It can be converted to openGL relatively easily later, if needed.

[amjayee]

quote: Originally posted by Thue, Thumb down for directx? Why is that? It can be converted to openGL relatively easily later, if needed.

Yes. Directx allows a very easy way of making the basic win game system. It will be an important part of the game anyway, so using direct3d was quite natural. If someone wants an opengl map, he is free to make one... Using directx allows us to concentrate on making the game itself work properly, without needing to use too much time on the interface to different kinds of hardware.

Don't worry though, we intend to make the code as platform-independent as possible. I think it will require very little extra work to make other interfaces using different APIs or technologies later.

[korn469]

here are two ideas...

i am unsure about how exactly you wanted to do population, maybe somebody could enlighten me on that...

but i assume that we are still having cities right? and cities will each have a facility right?

well if that is the case then i present this idea...that each facility has an agenda and an aversion in the SE chart...if a civ is using the agenda SE setting then the building has a special effect...same for the aversion...if it is using any other SE setting then it gets the default setting here is an example

quote: the forum: agenda - democratic: in a democracy the forum changes one unhappy citizen (drone) in the city into a content citizen (worker). It also increases the commerce rate by one in that city so that trade routes are more valuable. it decreases the chance that the city can be bought by a spy, and for every ten forums your civ has, one random content citizen in your civ turns into a happy citizen (talent). aversion - dictatorship: in a dictatorship, the forum turns one content citizen into a unhappy citizen per city. it increases the trade (energy) collected from the base square and all squares adjacent to the city by one (but not all squares in the city radius just the ones touching the base square). it also increases the chance that the city will create partizans, or spontaneously declare it's independence. forums increases the chance that the city can be bought by a spy. for every ten forums a dictatorship has, a random happy citizen is turned into a content citizen. others: in any other form of government, the forum increases commerce by +3 for that city.

i feel that all buildings should have an agenda and an aversion...using the agenda settings the facility becomes a must have building, under its aversion settings the building becomes more like a punishment sphere from SMAC...it has its ups and it has its downs, then the neutral setting is where we should try to balance the facility at...though it is my opion that we must have a wide range of INTERESTING facilities

my other thoughts is about wonders...i feel that we should try to totally change wonders from a single city superbuilding to a facility that has civ wide effects and civ wide prerequisits

for example the tech you need to build the World Wide Web wonder is advanced computing...however you couldn't begin construction on the WWW wonder until 50% of your cities had sufficent access to computers (computers which for this example counts as a trade commodity)...this would mean that the commodity price of computers would have to be at an aceptable low level...before that you couldn't build the wonder...and once you did builf the World Wide Web wonder then not only would it have an agenda and a aversion but it should have civ wide effects like under its agenda (free market) it multiples the amount of commerce you generate in every city by 1.5 and every citizens generates a point of research...under its aversion (dictatorship...authoritarian...moral supreamacy...whatever) it increase corruption in every city and for every ten citizens in your civ creates a random unhappy citizen, however it doubles the science output of your scientist...for every other SE choice it increases your total science output by +5 science for every university and it increases your commerce rate

i'm sure it would be that hard to code in an agenda/aversion feature or maybe instead of something as simple as that there could be something like the manifold harmonics where your actual SE number holds the key to the effect...in my opinion the two most inovative wonder ideas were the longjevity vaccine and the manifold harmonics and that most wonders and buildings should opperate in a similar way...i ABSOLUTELY HATE boring wonders such as the SETI(civ2)/Theory of Everything(SMAC) wonder which gives your city a boring +whater% to science and is basically a super building that you put into a superbase

korn469

korn469

[The Joker]

Hail Korn!

I really like those ideas! I am not sure if all buildings should have such agendas and aversions (Barracks? Factories?), but with most of them it would work well. It would also give you more to think about when making SE swichtes.

I also like the idea of having some wonders be other than just buildings in one city.

BTW I am also looking forward to some prototype being ready so I can post my ideas for this game.

[amjayee]

Korn:

These are good ideas basically. You were wondering, if they are hard to code. The answer is, not necessarily. We just have to include a possibility for it right in the beginning. About the question what the system will be like - we will be following the path paved by civ2 and SMAC, but still keep in mind this will be a unique game. It will work much in the same way as the games mentioned above. Which brings me to...

Everyone:

I have been working on a document explaining the basic game system. My intention was to discuss it on our programming mailing list, but now I have come to another decision. Expect to see some basic game system ideas on this forum tomorrow, or in a few days. From the discussion based upon those ideas, I will make the game system description document.

There are a few reasons for this:
1. These things are more design issues than programming stuff, but they are essential for us in coding the basic game framework.
2. I want we can all agree on the system. So, I want to make sure those are not only my ideas.
3. I have been encountering some problems in my work, and I hope we can solve those things together.

Don't worry, I will not be using any programming stuff, but I try to explain how the game system works so, that everyone can understand it. Understanding the overall system will be essential in designing the basic game. There are many things in the system that can be discussed and decided without any knowledge of programming. I try to keep the discussion here design-only.

Also, our intention is, that the same system can be used to create game systems of varying complexity. We will start out simple, but keep adding functionality gradually. This means, the system will have many features, that are not needed in the simplest forms of the game. If you think something isn't needed, don't suggest it to be removed - ask, and I try to explain how those features can be used to make a simpler game. It can also be possible to eventually create many games from the same framework - a simple, civ1-like game, a complex, Age of Empires like game in global scale, or something in between.

One last bit of advice - let's try to concentrate on the big picture, the system itself. Once that is done, we can go to details, discussing the actual units, improvements etc. I hope I can send my ideas here in a day or two.

amjayee

[amjayee]

Here are my ideas for the game system. They are far from final, but I hope they rise some discussion. I mentioned I have had some problems with the game system description I have been working on, and the greatest of them is, that it is difficult for me to see the whole picture, and combine everything in one package, where the parts of the system work together properly. Also it is hard to think of everything alone. I hope together we will notice things no one of us would notice alone.

We programmers have been giving most of our free time for this project. Now I hope there would be a bunch of as devoted designers. When saying this, I'm looking at Joker and Korn, but all others are welcome, too. I will personally act as the link between the programmers and designers, making sure the ideas are implementable.

My ideas take very much space, since the game is so complicated. I divided the ideas under some sections. I made a separate message for each section, and gave each section a heading. When you comment some of the sections, start the message with the heading name. You can also quote the text, but preferably don't make very long quotes.

I thought of making an own thread for some major game areas in this forum. What do you think? What should the threads be? There is an awful lot of topics to discuss, it would be tough to handle it in one thread.

Here are the ideas. Some of them I have got from others, from various places, some are my own. I cannot give credit to all of those individuals. So, I thank all civ fans of the world. Ler's join all to make the best civ game ever.

[amjayee]

=Turn system

The game has to remain turn-based, but the old system used in earlier civ games needs to be enhanced. Here are my suggestions for that. First, I think we should consider two systems. Option A is an enhanced Civ2/SMAC system, which should form a basis of the game. B is an optional system, using simultaneous turns. I hope we could be able to implement both, and the player could choose between them. Well, let’s see what you are thinking.

A:

The player should be able to do certain things during the opponent’s turn, like managing their cities for next turn. On their own turn, they could change their former plans if necessary. This is mainly for multiplayer. During the human player’s turn, the ai opponents could make the time-consuming ai calculations for their next turn.

Human player would be given options to automate certain things he doesn’t want to micromanage. The unit’s could be ordered to move to certain location (perhaps along a specified path) and to perform certain actions there, or patrol a certain area etc. This would be done by making "command chains" for that unit.

Also the units could be set to respond automatically to certain game events, like moving to certain location, if enemy is spot at certain location etc. Also the player could set triggers, that would put the opponent’s turn on hold and allow him to react. For example, if an enemy unit enters the player’s territory, the player could stop the enemy’s turn and send an ultimatum for the enemy to leave. Also, if some of the player’s units have movement points left, he could move them to more favorable location. The ai players could do the same, if human player attacks.

This must be done, because the starter of war had always huge advantage in civ2. Because enemy could do nothing (short of intercepting bombers with fighters) at least I always managed to give a paralyzing strategical first strike. The war starter has still advantage in this system - he is better prepared, that is the case in real life, too - but the unfair situation of former civs could be avoided. It would also make it less favorable to use nukes. My best nuke strategy was to use spies to find the locations of enemy nukes and targeting the first strike there... But of course nukes will be treated differently anyway.

We need to consider some things in this system though. The defender must not get too much advantage either. Perhaps it could be possible, that the attacker could move first one unit, then the defender would have an opportunity to move one of his own, etc., until there’s nothing left to move. Like chess? I don’t know, this doesn’t sound perfect either. What do you think?

B:

This is a system that uses simultaneous turns to allow more realistic game, but avoiding the disadvantages of real-time games... at least hopefully&eventually.
The main idea is, that all players plan their moves for next turn in advance, simultaneously. They manage the cities, give building orders, adjust social engineering etc. Military units are given "command chains" like in system A, that is, a chain of commands to be executed. Also the units are given some ai orders - how to react to certain situations, how careful to be etc.

When all the preparations are ready, the player hits "start turn". When all players have done this, the turn starts. First, all changes made in cities and elsewhere become "official". The building orders are given, and building starts. The changes in the world are calculated. All the game events are triggered only during the turn.

The units move last. They start moving, each unit consuming movement points one by one, simultaneously. When the unit has used enough points to enter the tile, it moves to it. If the total amounts of movement points are much larger than in civ2 - like multiplied with ten - and entering each tile consumes a varied amount of MP’s, this system would be quite realistic. As real-time as possible without the disadvantages.

There are some extra conditions that need to be handled in this situation.

Two players try to give conflicting orders, like building a city on same tile. This is determined primarily by deciding, who is first to start the building. If result isn’t got this way, the players could negotiate. The other could give up. Or, it could be decided randomly.
The players need to get a chance to react if something unexpected happens, like an enemy unit is spotted. It could be done by giving the units the orders, how to react, or the turn could be paused. There could be also a pause key, and pressing it would stop the time from running.

I prefer the system B, for its better realism, and because of the faults of former TBS games. The best way of making it work would be to give the players wide possibilities to automate things with ai control. This must be also easy to use. Even if the pause turn function is used, this would make the multiplayer games a lot faster and more interesting.

One last thing to consider: It could be possible to give the city- and empire-related orders for ten next years, for example, but move units one year (or even a shorter period during modern times) at time. Earlier in the game, this would make it possible to use turns of many years to speed up the game, but still move units in one year turns. New units and building projects would get finished, and the player could give more instructions, if building queues are empty, but basically only units are moved.

[amjayee]

=Ethnicities

An ethnicity is some thing connecting a large group of people. In former civs, it was called "civilization". There could be a maximum amount of ethnicites allowed in the game. The player could set it, depending on his hardware (more ethnicities - more memory and cpu power is needed). Also, there could be set the amount of ethnicities, that are created in the beginning of the game. The remaining ones would be reserved for "splinter ethnicities". Each ethnicity starts as a small civilization. For each ethnicity, is given a "homeland", certain area of land inherited from the ancestors. The members of the ethnicity will consider that land as their own, and act according to that. The size of the land depends on some factors.

In some games, it could be possible that all the land is already taken by the starting civilizations. That would be quite realistic. In that case, all new land has to be acquired by conquest.

It could be possible, that some ethnicities are closely related to each other. That is, they speak similar kinds of languages, have common ancestors etc. They would start close to each other, their relations would be warm, and it could be possible that they would be easily convinced to form one great civilization with each other.

Each ethnicity could have some properties, that would decide how it works. For example, each ethnicity could have a population growth penalty/bonus, that decide the growth rate of that E. Also, the starting environment of the ethnicity could be set; phoenicians would always start near an ocean, and incas in mountain regions. The ethnicity names are pre-set before the game. Human players can change the name of their E. It could be possible, that the properties for "splinter ethnicities" could be decided based upon the situation at the moment of their creation.

Each ethnicity has a national identity. It acts as a happiness penalty, if the E (or part of it) is conquered. The NI decreases by time if conquered, depending on the situation.

Is there any better word for this? Ethnicity is quite long and difficult. People? Tribe?

[amjayee]

=Population

The head system used in civ2 is unrealistic, since the first head represents 10000 people, but second one 20000, third 30000 and so on. So, my first suggestion is not to consider using the same system as in civ2.

There are two alternatives. If you can think of more, let me know.

1. It could be possible to change the system so, that each head means FE 10000 people, but this would mean the handling of the population would be more difficult. The heads couldn't be shown in the city screen, since there will eventually be very much of them - 50 for a 500000 people city.

2. Scrap the heads, and instead show the real amount of people. In this system, the handling of the population would be much the same as in system 1, and there would be some advances. I prefer the system 2. Below is explained, how that would work:

The key idea is to use "population units". Each city could have several PU's. Each population has a certain amount of individuals. All the individuals in the pop have some things in common:
-ethnicity (this means to what tribe they originally belonged to)
-religion (regardless of how the religions are handled)
-culture (regardless of how the cultures are handled)
They also have to be in same location (same tile) and they are owned by same civ (their original "home civ" or some another).

There could also be another type of population unit to keep track of the statistics of city, region and civilization populations.

Each population can be controlled by some city. If they haven't got a controller, they are independent, but still produce stuff to the region they belong to.

It could be possible to separate city and countryside, by giving each tile populations. That means, for each tile there would be at least one population. The tile could be controlled by a city, but officially they don't live in the city. Only the populations residing in the same tile with the city count to the city population. Other populations count to the region population they are in.

When a city is conquered, the original citizens preserve their ethnical identity. At certain point, some citizens may "change" their identity (when new generations start to born) and their original ethnical group loses members to the conquerer group. Some kind of "immigration" between ethnicities. This is affected by how the host population treats the conqured one.

Finally, in certain situations it might be possible that two populations merge forming an entirely new ethnicity. This could happen for example when the two populations have same rights, and the other pop isn't very much smaller. This would be especially likely, if the populations belong to a region that declares independency from some other nation - like in America. It will take some time (dozens of turns) for the new ethnicity to create its unique culture.

The population properties decide how it works and interacts with other populations or civilizations. In addition to ones mentioned earlier, there could be these properties:

-amount: the total amount of individuals
-reproduction: the net amount of new individuals produced per turn (the net amount means the amount of new-born members reaching adult age, excluding the members dying naturally)
-happiness: this is the average value describing how content the people are to their living conditions.
-ethnicity: the original home tribe of the population
-controller: the civ that currently owns that population
-age structure/workforce %: either a simple percentage of people at working age, or the amount of children, women, men, and seniors.
-workhours: the amount of hours spent working per day/year whatever
-creative energy: the amount of hours used for creating new ideas, for religious actions etc.
-efficiency: the percentage of workhours used for actual work