Openciv3 - Realism, Scope, Abstraction and Adjusting them

[amjayee]

Realism, scope, abstraction and adjusting them

Created: May 23rd 2000
Updated: -

Our intention in making the openciv3 is to allow the player to adjust the game rules, realism, scope and abstraction, not freely, but in certain framework. Restriction is needed to make ai more competitive. To achieve this, we need discussion about what needs to be adjustable.

I will try to keep this list updated according to the discussion. From the beginning of this message, you can see when this was updated.

Here are some things for starters. There's more to come when I have had more time to think about it, and some discussion has been taking place.

Scope&Turn amount etc.

This is one of the more easy things. The player can set freely the starting and ending year, and the amount of turns. The turn amount could be set f.ex. like this: from 4000BC to 1000BC in 20 year turns, then in 10 year turns etc.

The game system has to be able to adapt to the different turn amounts. This is the case mainly in the technological advancement and population growth things.

Or, there could be some pre-set options to change from. This would be easier.

Population handling

There should be various realism levels in the behavior of the population. The most simple system would be much like in civ2.

The more realistic systems would take into account more variables, and give the player less possibilities to control the people, as in the proposed population system.

These realism options should be pre-set, and the player could only choose between them.

More to come...

[pris]

I'd rather play a good game rather than a poor game that's customizable. SMAC was the most customizable Civ game but it isn't the best.

Population handling.
Having two systems is pointless. Pick a single system and stick with it. Realism isn't fun.

[amjayee]

Pris:

Thanks for your comment.

How about a good, customizable game? I'm sure it is possible. But don't worry. My vision is, that we will first design one simple complete system, and create it. But, we will need to design the system so, that it is easy to add more realism. If you don't like realism, that's ok, you are free to think so. Speaking about myself, unrealistic strategy games have always bugged me.

Also I think it will not be very tough to have several realism settings, that the player could choose from. Remember, there were a possibility in civ2 to choose the civ1 style combat, for example.

I understand the concern of the people about adding too much realism. But, there has to be a chance for those who want realism, to get it. But as I have said many times, we will start out simple, and add things gradually. The reason why this discussion is needed, is to figure out what kinds of properties people want, so we can take that into account when designing the game framework.

As said earlier, don't ask to remove some property you don't personally like. If it is good, leave it be. You will have a possibility to disable it - when the game is actually ready. That will take a long time, though.
[This message has been edited by amjayee (edited May 26, 2000).]

[amjayee]

Ok, I had some talk with another member of our team. We came to this conclusion: We have to create a complete game system. There should be some things the player could customize: 2d/3d map, the scope possibly (starting/ending year, turn amount), perhaps 1-3 combat models to choose from, religions or not, things like that. The customizable things have to be decided, and no free editing of game components would be allowed, to make the creating the game system easier.

In short: some possibilities to adjust the game, clearly designed and decided.

What things you would like to be choose-able?

Also, the game system design needs to emphasized in that case. We need to find out, what properties are needed, and design the final game system based on those properties. So, send your comments and ideas to the other sections.

[Krusty]

If we are going to be able to shorten the timescale but retain the same number of turns (which is a Good Thing(tm)) i think there would be more sciences/units, whatever that fit in that timescale.

That's my £0.02.

[amjayee]

Krusty:

I think there will be several possibilities for the timescale and turn amount, if not even freely adjustable... well, perhaps it would be too complicated if those would be freely adjustable.

Everyone:

What kinds of timescales you would like?

[The Joker]

I would like the timeframe to go from 4000BC to 2100 or 2200AD. This will make it possible for a realistic launch to AC, and will give us the possibility to add a few sci fi techs. But again it should be custimizable. Ideally we could have a system where people can add their own techs and make units with them without any programming skill. The AI should simply know what each unit can do and thus being able to work with any enviroment you give it.

[markusf]

Why should it follow history so closely? If the darkages had never happened we could have had space flight at 1000 AD. I think limiting gameplay to much play trying to follow OUR history will just limit the game to much. After all we aren't building a simulator.

[amjayee]

markusf and Joker:

I agree with markus that the basic game shouldn't try to follow our history. There could be an "Earth scenario" that tries to follow it though. It could also be possible that there are "dark ages" in the game too, f.ex. when a large empire falls, as in our world, but not necessarily at the same time.

But I agree with Joker that some things need to be simulated. It has to remain a strategy game, but simulation and strategy _can_ exist in the same game. Religion, population, combat and economy are things that need to be simulated. Our intention is though to give some options to choose the combat model, for example, if someone likes a more civ2 like game.

About timeframe, the game should start at some certain time - 4000 BC is ok - but the end date shouldnt' be set. In some world, development could be slower or faster than in our world. The end date should depend on some factors, it shouldn't always be 2100 or 2300 AD. But, it could be possible that in some games there could be the maximum amount of turns specified. Also player could choose to jump in also later, like 1000 BC. The progress in the world would be calculated until that moment. It is relatively easy to create several timeframe options.

[heardie]

^Bump^

[Ramo]

quote: If the darkages had never happened we could have had space flight at 1000 AD.

Umm... actually, I'd go as far as saying that if the "Dark Ages" never happened, we would still be a couple centuries away from space flight. The decentralized, feudalistic nature of the "Dark Ages" caused intense competition between European states, from without, and from within. Technological advances, therefore, were fiercly pursued at any and all opportunities. In fact, this is the main reason, IMO, why the West eclipsed the great empires of the East (China, the Mogul Empire, Persia, and the Ottoman Empire). The Europeans couldn't afford to be too decadent, else they would be destroyed, while the empires of Asia faced no real threats from outside the state, or internal threats. Just my two cents !

Remember, making this game too complex might be too much for the AI...

[amjayee]

You are correct about the dark ages. One of the greatest challenges for us would be to model history accurately; if this happens, it results in this, which results in something else, etc. That's why we should try to avoid following too tightly the history of our world.

About complexity affecting AI, that is also our concern. We earlier agreed to add only the necessary amount of complexity. That's why this thread was made; we want to find out, how much adjustability people want.

[The Joker]

About the scope of the game, we all agree that we should have 1 year turns throughout the game (I think). But I think we should make the starting dates for each game very customizable. Some people might like to start 10,000 BC with the first agriculture, but others, and I think I mostly belong to this last group, really wants to have some action, and would therefore want a later starting date, something like 2000 BC. This is not entirely correct historically, but it offers a gameplay where you don't play for 4000 turns without anything happening. I am not saying we should lock on to one type, but that we should have the system be as flexible as possible.

------------------
Vote Gore. For the sake of people, not god.

GGS Website

[Guildmaster]

I agree with Joker about the 1 tear per turn, but if we are going to make that happen it can't be as he pointed out- 4000 turns with nothing happening.

Between 10000 BC and 6000 BC even the smallest most localized plague can wipe out your delicate civ. Just one really bad harvest could take the most powerful city/empire (about the size of a modern-day city block that's huge!) and take it down to nothing.
We need to make that phase of the game extremely volatile. Most likely, a player will go for no more than 50 or 60 turns before something fatal happens to his poor civ. That would be historically accurate, too since that's about how long most early civs lasted- the lifetime of one great leader.
To play 4000 turns as the same civ through such a period as before people begin to understand that there are things out there like germs that kill people, before they begin to understand that when you have something everyone else wants usually someone will try to take it from you.
Perhaps you play the very first civ in the whole game. This is before the concept of diseases. So you are wiped out in a matter of about 20 years. You start again on the same timeline, at 9980 BC with a different civ. Maybe some word got to you about the last civ that was wiped out by disease, maybe you didn't. Doesn't matter because you still haven't discovered the concept of Organized Military, and you are quickly overrun by a rival tribe. So, flustrated, you start again at 9974 BC as yet another tribe. This one is even more backwards than the other two you haven't even discovered agriculture yet. Maybe yu do really well. Maybe you get really lucky and your new civ lasts a whopping 36 years until your chief dies of old age. Too bad his sons can't agree on anything so they split up what little civ you have and fight over the remains thus destroying everything you built (a few bone houses and grass huts)
Around 6000 or 5000 BC we should see some definate evidence of more advanced farming like what we see in the Fertile Crescent, Egypt, and Mesoamerica. By 4000 some definate empires will have developped.

Actually there's another thing I wanted to mention:
Until your civ figures out ways of calculating and tabulating stuff, you won't know what date it is. I don't think you should have a thingy telling you how many turns have pased since the beginning, nor do I think a BC/AD calendar should be arbitrary. I think that when a civ dcides to make their own calendar, they get to count the number of turns.
My reasoning is this:
In Civ2 it's easy to play on one single continent isolated form the rest of the world and all you need to gauge the technology level of other civs is the date. You knew by what the date was how advanced the other civs were, even though you never encountered them. You use that in your strategy, where if you get a quick jump start with some units then you attack because you know by 0 they still won't have pikemen. Well if you don't have the year so arbitrary as that you can't use that. Maybe they already have musketeers and you're attacking with an elephant because you don't know what year they are on.

------------------
How will you make it if you never even try?
-Macy Gray

[amjayee]

I agree about the starting year. Also I think it would be entirely possible to start at 1000 AD or 1500 AD; we just need some kinf of system to create "progress" in the world so it's realistic-looking whe the player starts.

Wow, now when Guildmaster depicted the game starting at 10000 BC, I think that would be cool!

About keeping track of time, that is also true, and would bring some nice touch to the game. When the only way of calculating time is "yesterday" and "day before that" there are no years counted. When numbers are invented, the count would start from zero. And then I think it would be nice if you could declare a new "age" has started when something important happens. Then the count would go back to zero, and it might be called "year x of the Second Age".

There is also the point in this that this way we cut all connections to our history; it is very likely, that the development would go quite differently in a different world. So, this would play a part in making this game "simulation of history".