Some Fundamental Questions

[Janes]

Before everything gets to far in this game I believe there are some questions that need to be answered to give the game some focus. These questions include; "What is a civilization in this game?", "What does a player control in his/her civilization?" and "What is the player?"

These are difficult questions but the game play depends upon them.

For example, as there are religions and businesses in this game, do we control them and to what degree? Are players the king/president/dicator and have only control over the government? Can we control the culture of our civilization? How do we define a civilization? There is a "western civilization" yet it has no one single leader. Is the player instead a "spirit" that influences a chosen civilization? What happens when other civilizations spread off from the one we control?

These are all basic questions and so much depends upon them that we should have some idea how to approach them before to much effort is put into programing.

[VetLegion]

Hi Janes,

These questions are the kind we put into "abstraction, etc" thread, some have been discussed, some not.

I ll tell you my view and join with a question of mine. Well, lets start:

how do we define civilization?
In game tearms? I guess your people, the territory they occupy plus the interaction you can do with them.

Who are you?
This was discussed. I came to conclusion it is completely irrelevant since we are not making an RPG. Then again, we are. Because you will have a reputation at least. Perhaps even some personal money. Perhaps even a wife (???ctp2 supossedly has a feature with this???). So there may be some rpg elements, but not too much.

spirit of civ?
since you interact with your advisors, it is better to have a body This can be done two ways: mortal or immortal person. Till now in civ, it was immortal. I think mortal would add too much nothing. How can you add too much nothing? Thats (almost) the way it is done in Shogun:Total War. It is a fine game in which you get heirs at some years. Your heirs come to age and serve you as military generals. If you die (you are also a military general), you can continue to play if you have heirs, if not, game ends. This does not add much spice to shogun at least to me, but its not bad either.

I mention this because of another connected to it: the flow of years. Civ2 had turns with variable "year length". It was amazing to see historical accuracy it sometimes produced. But it had problems, and people complained the early years go to short and so in SMAC they solved it elegantly. 1 turn = 1 year. Of course, SMAC does not have historical accuracy to imitate
In ctp2, they decided to somewhat follow smac model. You can play some 500 turns and not reach AD I think. Discover and build all sorts of things that dont belong there historicaly. I dont know a good solution to this. We agreed to put gameplay before historical accuracy, but if you take history out of civ you get SMAC.

If we implement "a mortal leader" would bring a confusing element of a ruler dying quite often, perhaps each turn . It would maybe take away some feel since you change name too. So I suggest we just leave the immortal one. Sometimes, it pays off to pretend blind to the logic

[Janes]

So the player is the immortal governmental leader. To what degree can the player control religions, business and other powerful non governmental bodies? What happens when a religion or corporation become the government? Can the player influence the civs culture?

[VetLegion]

Hey, my opinions are not official oppinions of the team, it is all open to discussion I am begining to think you are dead serious. Consider a smiley here and there .

About culture, I d define it as the look and feel of your civ. Except for different graphics for city styles I dont think we should model it in more detail, like describing customs, non-work days, eating fish on fridays etc. This overlaps with religion which is in fact what shapes most of culture. I d avoid puting a culture advisor/screen in game, since I dont know a good purpose of it. There was some discussion before about pop, where you had to attend to cultural needs of your citizens, which makes no sense to me. Many things here depend on population, and there was many efforts (including my own) to complete it. By now, the most successful piece of work I saw is in Jokers government thread. When population is eventually finished, many things will be easier...

What do _you_ think about questions you ask?

[RonHiler]

quote: Originally posted by VetLegion on 12-02-2000 08:09 PM If we implement "a mortal leader" would bring a confusing element of a ruler dying quite often, perhaps each turn . It would maybe take away some feel since you change name too. So I suggest we just leave the immortal one. Sometimes, it pays off to pretend blind to the logic

We wrestled with this concept as well. In the end, we decided to leave the leader immortal. It's the least realistic aspect of the game, but it provides for continuity. It can be confusing (and in our game, frustrating (since players spend resources on their leaders)) to keep changing the leader every few turns due to death by old age, and it doesn't really gain anything. At least, in my opinion

Ron

[amjayee]

I thought that we discussed some time ago that the player would be the entire government of the civ, and would have the power that government has over the different groups mentioned.

Also I think that it is really annoying that people have to keep asking about things we have long ago discussed; they are all in the threads, but it has to be hundreds of pages by now, so no one can read it all. Perhaps someone of the older members could make an exhaustive document of all features we have discussed? Myself I'm too busy with programming things to do that.

[The Joker]

I agree that we could do more to show people what we have discussed. But on the other hand it will take a lot of work collect all that information from various threads. So I don't really know what to do about it.

In the meantime I might as well try to answer Janes' questions:

What is a civilization:
It is a nationality. A nationality might take over and assimilate other nationalities. And your civ may get conquored by another civ. But as long as your nationality is alive the game will continue - the player would lead the liberation movement and would try to regain independance.

What is the player:
The government of his civ. This is a bit tricky question, since there will be factions (classes) within the civ that will battle for power. And it should be possible that the player should be overthrown in a revolution. For certain scenarios it should also be possible that the player would be something different. Maybe a character, that would die of old age, or a corporation or something. Endless replayability!

Do the player control the people/businesses/religions:
No. This is the essence of the whole domestic politics thing. The player only has the control that the government would have. This can vary with different governments (a dictator would have more elbowroom than a democratically elected prime minister).

I think these answers are pretty much what we decided back when we discussed the issue. But if someone has any questions or further comments, please let us know.

------------------
"It ain't broke, so BREAK it."
- Raingoon

GGS Website

[Janes]

I do apologize if I am anoying anyone by bringing up a question long answered but I didn't know. I'm new here at this forum.

I still have the question of what happens when the independent religous/business groups become the government. In CIV2 and CTP you simply became the leader of the new government but then they didn't attempt to model them as an independent organization.

Will the same thing happen here and if a religion gains control of the government you become the leader of the religion and gain control of all the religions property? Or would that be a revolution that would force you to fight back? Could you opt to play the game as a religios or business leader? What if the line between them greys?

Now what I meant about culture is that either here or on the CIV3 forum I saw discussion about having some cultures having certain benefits, such as the Spartans being good at war or the Athenians being good at philosophy. Some on these forums suggested that the player would be able to gradualy mold their civ's culture, which wouldn't really work if the player was soley the government. Has that been discussed here?

Lastly when I asked about defining a civilization I wanted clarification on what would happen, for example, if by entertianment/advertising/proximity anothers civ's culture becomes so close to yours that in the real world they would be of your civilization but would not be of your country? Would this game be better called a government simulator then a civilization simulator?

So if any of these questions have been asked previously just point me to the right threads. If not I have some ideas.

[amjayee]

Don't worry Janes, it's not your fault - asking questions is ok. It's our fault that we haven't been keeping track of the ideas discussed. No it's quite a large task to so it.

I agree with what Joker said. About your questions; government is usually "controlled" by some interest group; player will usually have to try and please that group. In revolution, different group will take power, or different system will be used. In this case, the player needs to choose his side; old or new. Either way, he will usually have to fight the other side. If he wins, he will stay in power. If he loses, he will lose the power - though it might also be possible that the player remains in power, but he will have another interest group to please, or there is a system used that he doesn't like. Also some "role-playing" might be added here; if new government is fascist, the player would try to play as a fascist government would play. Also similarly, if your civ is conquered, that player would remain in charge of his old territories - they would just be provinces of the conqueror civ, and the player might have very limited power. Later, as Joker said, he could try and regain control. Only if the civ is utterly destroyed - meaning all the people of the civ belonging to players nationality, or ethnicity, are dead, or the ethnicity slowly merges with the conqueror civ's ethnicity. But this should be rare.

Culture is a tricky thing. Basically it means how different the ethnicities are. Also it means cultural life - art, sport etc. Player cannot control this very well - it just kinda evolves. But I think we will need to have it in a form or another.

If two civ's cultures become very close to each other - or if they are close already from the beginning - the relations of the people are warm. In some cases, the civilizations might unite, or ally. But about this game being a government simulator or civilizations simulator - I think it is both. Some time ago I described this as a simulator of history. You will lead a civilization, or more accurately a nation, an ethnicity; this includes government, but it is more than government handling. Also it is possible that you will lead many civs during one game, or at least many kinds of civs; even different government types make different civs. Nazi Germany was quite different from Germany of today. So it is also not entirely simulating civilization. History simulator is more accurate. That's where the name comes; history involves guns (war), germs (diseases, involvement of the nature) and steel (economy, culture, government etc.)

[zippyg]

As this game is still early in its development and many things are being disscused I'll add my 2 cents worth.

Reagrding how/what the player represents in the game an interesting take that may work well is being taken by the game in development of Master of Orion 3 (which is TBS).
Briefly in it the palyer takes on the role of a guiding spirit and so there are leaders that com and go. As well the player or spirit is lilmited in what they can do on any given turn by the use of Imperial focus Points. Doing things costs IFP's and when used up the turn has to end. The IFP's allow you to do anything but not everything on any given turn si that you have to think ahead and plan etc.

There has been a lot of discussion about this on MOO3 discussion boards.

If interested go to 'http://MOO3.QUICKSILVER.COM' for the games web site and from there the discussion boards, there's heaps of discussions on them about all aspects of the games including the role the player plays.

[The Joker]

Janes:

As amjayee said you will never be annoying by asking questions. It is completely our own fault that the answers are not to be found anywhere without looking closely for them. And I am on the way to change that.

But to answer the question, I think that one group would never have complete control of the civ. In stead several groups (classes) will be fighting for power, and some will have a lot while others have little. And you will be the leader who will have to, well, lead, no matter who is in charge. And if there is a revolution you will have to take sides. So if the religion starts a revolution you can choose whether to fight it or support it. If you fight it and loose your leading time will be over. At least for now. The option then would propably be like Korn's idea on switching civs. You could become the leader of a new, small civ. If you support the religion and win, you would be in charge of a religiously dominated civ, and you will have to accept that the religion has a lot of power. This means that you will have to do what they say, to a large extend. This could mean that you could be forced into a war you don't want.

Culture:
I think it should propably be possible to mold your civs culture via your actions as the government. You would not just pick values like in SMAC. In stead it would work so if you wage a lot of (succesful) wars your people would be more warlike. If you spend a lot of ressources on technology they would be philosofical etc. But it wouldn't be too simple. If there is a huge, destructive war in your civ your people would most likely become less militaristic by it.

Civilization versus government:
I think that if you manage to turn another civ into the same ethnicity as yours you would have some huge diplomatic advantages towards it. And if you are much stronger than it it might join your civ, or become a protectorate.

I think this pretty much answers your questions. But you said that you had some ideas. And please tell us as much as you can about those! Ideas are good, and questions are good, since it breeds ideas. So let's hear them!

(I see now that amjayee as well has answered your questions. But I am still posting my answers, even though they are highly similar to amjayee's)


Zippyg:

Thanks for your suggestion. I have also read a bit about MOO3, and I admit it sounds like a great game. I think the guiding spirit thing might work, although it wouldn't really change anything. What is important is, that you live "forever" and that you don't have complete control over your civ.

IFP's:
This sounds a lot like many older games. It limits the amount of actions you can make per turn. But I don't think it would be necessary in our game. A turn is 1 year. And a leader can do loads of things in 1 year. It is much how the other game aspects are designed, that will decide whether IFP's are a good idea. And most civ like games are designed in a way that doesn't require them. But hey, maybe they will show to be a fantastic concept in MOO3. And if they do, then maybe we will implement a version of them. But I don't think we should implement a concept from a game not yet released.

------------------
"It ain't broke, so BREAK it."
- Raingoon

GGS Website

[ElmoTheElk]

quote: Originally posted by The Joker on 12-05-2000 04:17 PM What is important is, that you live "forever" and that you don't have complete control over your civ.

I agree with the first thing totally, however the second is discussable. I also know that your citizens don't always do what you want, and while we are trying to create an realistic game, you have no full control over your civ. BUT, I do think we must not have some features that are totally NOT controlable. Like having an economy advisor assign and you'll have almost no control to his actions. We want to reduce micromanagment, I know and agree, but we don't want it totally banned from our game, because then every game would be very similar to the last or next game played. I definatly want control enough to give my civ my own face, not the face that it made by sdvisors assigned by me, who are doing there own things.

Hum, maybe it seems that I only disagree with all thought at all, but that not it! I just want us to stay focused on what we want, rather than saing: yeah, that's fine to me, while you have your serious doubts about it.

Altough I know we are all pretty much on the same line with most things...

[The Joker]

Obviously you are right, Elmo.

The whole political model thing will prove to be a very dificult thing to create. But what is meant by you not having full control over your civ is, that your people should have a mind of their own. There would be revolutions, riots etc. It would depend on your government type (although we wont have generic gov types). In a democracy your actions would be limited. You will have to follow a policy that the people are satisfied with, or your actions might be stopped. In a dictatorship you will have more control, but the chance of revolution would be larger. There would be pros and cons to all options.

------------------
"It ain't broke, so BREAK it."
- Raingoon

GGS Website

[Guildmaster]

Also I would like to add (remind) that one of the more interesting features of our game is for the player to assume a role other than government leader. You could instead be a religious leader with strings in every government and every nation, or you could be a CEO of some international company.

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

[amjayee]

Another point worth considering is, that even though this will not be a role-playing game, the player will take certain role. So, I think one of the key ideas in the game is to choose a role for yourself to play, or play the one given to you by the situation. So, if you are forced to be a religious civ, your task would be to play like a religious civ, until you get a chance to gat a new role. What this means we will find out by time.