Design Doc 0.3

[ElmoTheElk]

I see the discussion here has one again floaten toward game philosophy. I know we have a really different philosophy than any other civ game ever had, but why do we have to discuss this over and over. Sorry if I may sound harsh, but I thought we had settled this view quiet well now.

The vision the ' Philosophy' topic in the Design Doc descripes is about the vision we had all the time since at least last summer, when I joined the team. It's quiet good and however the formulation of it changed throughout the game, we all the time had a really well established general idea about how the game should look like.

At least, that's what I thougt....

I see your points about being more like chess than civ, but isn't it what we had in mind all the time? I agree here. But what does this have to do with the MMP you (also once again) bring up into the discussion. I already envisioned in some previous posts that I really don't want massive multiplayer. Why should we include this anyway? Weare playing a great Diplomacy game together currently and it's great fun right? But we are with only 7 players from the begging, so why should GGS have 100's of players. Or even 50? I think the result will be the contrary of what we want GGS to be. It makes the game more complex. I know Diplomacy is the way to go for you, but I personally still love to play games like civ2, even if the Diplomacy sucks.

So that I think is that we stick to the normal MP (and later on SP) version. GGS will naturally be more chess than civ2 ever was, but that's what we designed it to be already. Not because this discussion says ggs has to be like chess.

I hope I descriped well enough what's going on in my mind. It's just that I am supprised to read the last post. Though I agree on most of the content of it...

[amjayee]

Yes, you are right, it was mostly old things. I'm sorry. It was just that I read a lot of stuff and just wished to give some comments and opinions. I will try to elaborate on some deeper thoughts later.

[VetLegion]

Elmo,

I agree, we do discuss it all over and over. But that is how it is. I think issues are better of discussed then left behind. And some things simply have to be said many times until everyone accepts them, like this design doc.
And what would you talk about in this thread??

Leland,

Good work. If we could also get someone to similarily update the Code Design Doc we could say that we covered the documentation of the project superbly (hint)

Having to build roads on every single hex is not at all fun. So in stead this would be handled by allocating money for infrastructure on your budget (in a region or nationally), which will get it built automatically. Besides this you could order specific improvements built on specific hexes.

Well, the last sentence saves it
I think on the contrary that building roads is great fun, and I ll probably do it all the time. Roads should be one of the very few tools with which to alter borders of regions and extend radiuses of regions and units. Perhaps investing lot of money in that expensive mountain road will pay off early. hmm...
I dont see this as a problem, with mouse building roads is notime. That is the gameplay rationale. If you want historical evidence, well I am pretty sure bridges, roads and irrigations were always a major government effort, and not local buissiness.

So generally a civ won't fall because it is large, but because of several natural effects it becomes hard to upkeep such large civs.

Yes, that is very important. Civ will not violently explode in turn x, but what you described.

...The possibilities are endless, making GGS several games in one...

Thumbs up for scenarios, all the way, but some periods and situations will certainly have to be less playable the others. There are many games about the world 1939-1945 that are concentrated on that stuff and do it far better then we or civ2 can.
The point is - we should make game so it is overall good for play 4000 BC - 2000 AD and we should not adapt it to be perfect to play in any given period. Probably obvious, just so it is said

The rest is ok I think.





Elmo,

not only

... we have a really different philosophy than any other civ game ever had, but why do we have to discuss this over and over...

but we also seem to have different philosophies each of us

This may look really strange to the outside viewer, he may ask: "So why do you guys continue to work together if you lot disagree about just about everything?"

First, it is a good team and ok people to work with. Secondly, games are not written by specifications in Design Docs, but evolve very much in their making (true for both this small project and big games with millions in budgets). Thirdly, there is a lot more stuff we agree on then those few fuzzy areas we dont

And that there are areas we envision differently is very true:

For one thing, there is the massive multiplayer nature of the game. This is something I was sceptical from when it was introduced by Joker and Elmo, and I still am.
I have seen quite some on the internet, and I quite often mention http://www.planetarion.com . Can you imagine a game of Diplomacy extended to the extreme? All these games rely on social interaction more than anything else. You do build stuff and attack, but it it more about who to attack (is he in a strong alliance?) and when (is his army home) then how.
Also there are other games in the MMP genre, some very civish. The enormous number of players that play these games prove they are good.

As I said before, while these games are fun, the MMP aspect simply requires games to be simple. One of the goals of GGS is to be both fun and historically accurate (within practical limits). The former does not require a complex game, but the later does very much.

So what should be the catch for GGS? Playing diplomacy has shown me how important human interaction will be in future computer games. Personally, I don't enjoy anymore simple playing, clicking around mindlessly, and learning how certain game must be played as much as I enjoy social interaction with other people, and making strategic decisions in unexpected and unpredictable conditions.

The catch of GGS?
To make an empire building game. To happen on a map. To eXpand, eXplore, eXpropriate and eXterminate (the 4X genre).
To eXpand either territory (conquest victory), richness (economic victory), population (political victory) or your knowledge (AC victory), but definitely to expand and grow as game passes.

The sensation of advancing somwhere has often been mentioned by game creators. Civ 2 could do without cities or units, but not without the tech model. Player has to be able to advance... if you want civ2 Catch in short: its the tech model.

In GGS I think we should not reinvent the hot water too much. I said before that I do not mind at all taking working concepts from other games, and improving them.
Making tradeoffs between different areas you may grow your empire (military, wealth, science, population, teritory) and doing all that in a hostile enviroment of other players, should I think provide enough fun and challenge for everyone. It has also been the winning formula for all civ games so far.

man, I am probably the most conservative guy on the project
We all have played civ games, and that is the genre this project is coming from. There are great, beautiful concepts in previous civ games. There have been many incarnations of civ games. But I still dont think it is spent.
I really think we can make a great game that is going to make someone somwhere think "damn with (insert something that needs to be done), just one more turn". And I think we can do it by building on existing foundations and reducing micromanagment, plus adding some things that have been missed before (populations, religions, etc.). And about realism, I said my oppinion before.
I think evolution is the word, rather then revolution.

So; as has been suggested earlier, I suggest we continue on our path to make ggs a massively multiplayer game where diplomacy is one of the key features, if not the most important feature.

hmm, I d like to see if you would be so enthusiastic about Diplomacy if you were loosing
Personaly, while I think game is great, it is quite misleading when we relate its features to GGS. No computer game can (or will) strive for richness of diplomacy that is offered by this boardgame.

I agree also here with what Leland said. This should be closer to chess or Diplomacy than civ2 - from the gameplay side. There would of course be our precious simulation layer. But; the simulation would only create an environment where the real purpose of the game would be to make chess-like strategic decision, while playing with some underlying simulated things if the player wish. This optional micromanagement would give some benefits to particular areas, like economy, but would not be completely necessary.

hehe, amjayee finds a diplomatic way to say most of "historicaly realistic" stuff falls to water when confronted with "fun factor". Couldnt agree more

Lets not forget that we should not implement something that wont be used. Extremely detailed economic model is one example.
We can simulate tax incomes with simple functions, that maybe are not based in economic theory, but result in realistic income of money to player. On the other hand, as we do now, we can implement a very complex model and leave the player the option not to mess with it. It is very likely that output of complex model will be very simmilar to output of simple model.
The question is, if noone is going to play with it, why are we making it?
It was said earlier that player that wants to may dive into micromanagment, and one that does not doesnt have. But it is in competitive human nature to try to win every time, and I can imagine hordes of players micromanaging their way into history books. If your enemy micromanages, then you have too, to be on even ground. On the other hand, if players agree to play a locked game, on an simpler level (levels: simple-normal-micromanagment) then why do we have all the levels anyway? This is very much like having three games in one, and that is not at all good I am begining to think.

About regions, I agree the player cannot define them completely freely. But, I think some border adjustment should be possible, but only limited... though I'm not sure how this should be achieved.

I think by now we have it very well nailed down where it is both fun and pretty realistic. I ll try and code it to see if it works well.

[Nath]

A couple of suggestions:

1. Will there be damage to units and armies when they cross some terrain types? It wasn't always safe to wander around in a forest or the north pole.

2. Particularly when new territory is being explored, perhaps units should have to carry resources like food, so it isn't possible to explore the whole world with, say, a small boat. All units should have to return to a city every few turns, maybe?

3. Some units simply should not be allowed in some terrain. Perhaps armies could even be re-equipped for different terrain.

[chrispie]

Hmm, this thread has become another "let's discuss the same points a few more times" thread

So, MMP...yes or no? My view: yes, but only to a limited extent - don't know how we decide that extent, but I'm saying that games with 30 people playing might be viable.

I don't want to see GGS just a simple Civ conquer the world game, sure you could play on a small map with few opponents to achieve that effect - but the main use of the game should be to create a world of subdivided area's, like the continents for example. You might have 5/6 players (or many more) fighting for control of Europe (through diplomatic means as much if not more than militaristic means).

I don't think the MMP idea has been tested well enough to say that only simple games work with it. After all, the main goal of GGS is to manage your own nation, interaction with others comes from how you do that, if you don't do so well, you'll have less outside interaction in most cases. Having 30/40/50 people in the same game won't be so much of an overload, cos simply you won't need/be able to have contact with them all at any point in the game.

Maybe we need a new term, BMP ( big multiplayer ) to represent the fact that we have a limited - but high number of players. MMP games usually have 1000s of players.

Now on to Nath's questions;
1. Will there be damage to units and armies when they cross some terrain types? It wasn't always safe to wander around in a forest or the north pole.

Yep, I think this should be the case

2. Particularly when new territory is being explored, perhaps units should have to carry resources like food, so it isn't possible to explore the whole world with, say, a small boat. All units should have to return to a city every few turns, maybe?

Think having them carry resources would be unnecessarily complex, I think using some kind of supply line would be more effecient. If a unit has a supply line, it deducts the required resources - and stay's healthy (ish). If not, it takes no resources, but it's health takes a beating, according to the terrain it's on (ala question 1)

3. Some units simply should not be allowed in some terrain. Perhaps armies could even be re-equipped for different terrain.

Yes, like calvary style units not being allowed into mountains in CTP. I always found that sensible.

I think that specific re-equiping would again be too complex, rather the maintaince of an army might go up - to say that if for example, an army went into mountains - it'd need extra equipment to exist there.

Thanks for your comments

On another note, I'm a bit concerned by some people's ideas of not thinking about the individual hexes. I don't see how they can't be thought of, when defining regions for example, the player would absolutley need to concern himself with hexes, objects will exist on individual hexes after all.

Chris

[DrPerrier]

The Design Module sounds good. Here are a few suggestions or comments:

1) I would allow the player the option to turn "off" some of the dynamics of the game such as Religion allowing those that want the realism to have it and those that don't - the gameplay.

2) Generally, I think of Civ like games the kind of game where a player has total control to do what they wish with a civ. I think this should be remembered in the game. Yes dynamic's will exist that the player has limited control of in their civ but the player should have final say in the overall direction of their civ.

What I always liked about the civ games was the ability to direct my armies against other civ's creating scenarios and strategies of defeating the opponent. I also enjoyed changing history by taking my civ into powered flight and modern warfare while everyone else was still throwing spears.

DrPerrier

[Nath]

About the communication delay, I think it's good that you started the discussion on how exactly it should be done... I think everyone agrees on one thing, that civs who have had no contact also cannot do diplomacy together (and no SMAC style sharing of radio frequencies will be possible), but I think that every other form of delay will have to be talked through. If you come up with good enough model for delayed dip, and if it fits in the game as an option that doesn't rule out non-delayed diplomacy, then I see absolutely no problem with it. but we should take into account the duration of turns here... it's quite likely that if sending one message from a king to another takes over two years, they wouldn't bother with it.

How about a messenger unit that has to reach the other civ's capital before the message is transfered? The other player could kill a messenger, but that would only mean he'd never know what the message would have been. History has many examples of people like this, particularly in the Indian subcontinent. As far as I know, messengers were rarely if ever killed.

BTW, the one turn-one year concept wouldn't be realistic unless armies can travel huge dustances in one turn. Buildings/cities/regions should need two turns to be founded.

[ElmoTheElk]

I don't really like the 'delay' in dip. For example, people would be able to negaciate trough ICQ or whatsoever anyway. Delay in orders are not so fun either I think. And probably not even realsitic, since 1 turn of delay is 1 year already... (This problem could be fixed however if we start usig ticks/cycles. See the latest meeting for this...)

The only good dely implementation is a delay of goverment swithing (if it's possible in ggs), delay in making pacts (like NAVO), etc.

Elmo

[S. Kroeze]

Since this is the last version of our Design Doc, I think it might be useful to bring it to everyone's attention again. It is still the best overall description of what we once wanted to accomplish.

[Leland]

Excellent... I think I will write a revised version shortly (once I get the programming stuff in some kind of order), so if anyone has some new suggestions or considerations please post them here. No one is stopping any of you guys from writing portions of the design doc yourself either... *hint hint*

[Nath]

Excellent... I think I will write a revised version shortly (once I get the programming stuff in some kind of order), so if anyone has some new suggestions or considerations please post them here. No one is stopping any of you guys from writing portions of the design doc yourself either... *hint hint*

I'd started rewriting it in September, but while I was writing the turn system I figured it'd be pointless to continue until we decided upon a map type.

[Leland]

Hmm... did you finish anything at all? All the less work for me if you've already fixed some sections. About the map, since I haven't seen a proper suggestion for a vector-based solution, I think we'll stick with tiles for now. I migth write a detailed description of the map later, though I don't think there's going to be anything that contradicts this version.

As for movement, I suppose you might've been thinking of point-based vs. tile-based? Even if the map is tile-based, it doesn't mean movement has to be. Well, sure, the units would be positioned in a grid determined by the tiles, but the actual movement could be calculated with real coordinates and ignore tiles altogether. I'm not saying it should be done that way (I'm not sure which is more efficient), but it's possible.

[The Joker]

My computer has been down the past one and a half week (more or less) so I haven't been able to check my mail, post here or anything.

It's amazing how fast you become dependant on something.

So I'm sorry for not being able to participate more, especially since I promised doing so.

I have christmas vacation from friday untill late januray (well, I have two exams in januray, but apart from that I am available) so I will get back in touch with GGS.

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Trip (and others),

Did you read this thread?

It is of cardinal importance to the project.

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze