Ideas for a new Civ-style game

[demipomme]

The link below it to a webpage with a list of ideas that will be the basis for a new civ style game if there are any programming people out there interested. I have read Mark Everson's New vs. Joining and I think its better to have to wait several years for lots of games than put all the eggs in one basket. If you want to play an alt civ now go download c-evo or freeciv, if you want to be part of something original click this way:

http://www22.brinkster.com/abpo

Thanks

[Dale]

A nice couple of ideas, but nothing I can see to warrant a new game. I'm not trying to discourage, but what about these areas that I see "lacking" in current Civ games:

- diplomacy (and don't give me that Civ3 rubbish again)
- City versus Empire management. EG: CTP series is better than Civ series at simulating Empire management.
- Advances. How do you simulate the different flows of tech advancement? EG: China was the master of civil advances before 1500AD, the Amercias were masters of government doctrines before 1500AD, and Europe were masters of religious and weaponry before 1500AD. After that there was a lot of cross-blending of techs.

You'd need to flesh out your ideas a LOT more before anyone is going to start taking your invitation. See Clash webpage with all it's model descriptions for a way to do it.

[demipomme]

Thanks for the pointers . I've updated the webpage with a few more ideas.

[Dale]

Not bad at all. I would suggest that Empire/City-management and the level at which it can be performed, should be related to government type.

IE:
- Dictators/Kings would have total control over all lands.
- In Constitutional monarchies (parliament ruled by Monarch, like Great Britain) maybe it takes a majority vote from all provinces, while player holds a veto for issues.
- In a Republic maybe all provinces elect a President, and he holds the veto (may not be the player).
- In a constitutional democracy you could have each province elect a representative who has to win by stating goals during election process, and if player is elected in a province he has to stick by them. In parliament issues are decided by majority vote of reps.
- In a Religious controlled state (like the old Muslim states, or the Vatican City) the player is the supreme religious power in the nation and has decisions limited by the religion.

Just a few things to think about anyways.

[Hommer]

I suggest you to see the rules of PBEM E-Civ game at the http://e-civ.univer.kharkov.ua/eng/rules.htm.
I think this game have the most advanced concept from all others Civ-like games.

I can post some of its concepts here:
1) The core of empire is not units or cities but POPULATION. The PEOPLE live in the cities, form a units or ships. If you have less population you cannot produce huge armies or fleets as you can do in all other games. Say NO to resource-based concepts of empire-controlling games.
2) Cities should perfrom many (a said MANY) actions per turn; they can study different sciences; gather and produce different types of resources; recruit unitS and shipS; build building etc. It is CITY, not a village.
3) Military concept is based on units but battles occurs between Armies that can contain infinite number of units of each side. Unit is the group of PEOPLE that can be armed with some equipments. Units can be freely upgraded, change its size and equipment. Also units can be added to the cities and even establish new city.

[Hommer]

4) Spies are sompletely different from people units and are subjects of the state at whole. They shouldn't interact with military units in any ways and can be targetted on the cities or others spies only. They are formed not from people but from money and consume a lot of money each turn.
5) The all production in the game is consentrated in the cities; cities produce only few action at whole but really most of production is performed in city buildings. In the buildings work people. The city affects the productivity of working people by some multipliers. No buildings (with the exception of Wonders and City Defences) can produce anything without working people.
6) Ships are used for sea transportation and sea combat. The ships concept is different from unit concept - units can be recruitted freely but ship needs costly Hull; it is a core of ship but crew is used for operation and combat. Crew is people.

People here, there and everywhere. Looks VERY realistic. Easy as pie but nobody have introduce this idea in the game.

However large population is not the 100% success of game - indeed the productivity of workers and soldiers also affects something. And nothing in the world (even game world) can be done without politics and diplomacy.

[demipomme]

Thanks for the feedback. The major thing i'm thinking about now is religion, the power it wields, how it can spread from country to country, how it is adopted and changed by those in power etc. Quite a complex model is needed there. I've updated the site (above) with a few more ideas.

[Hommer]

One of the most problem in empire-controlling games is the exponential growth of time for making turns late in the game. When you control capital and one-two cities you spend five minutes per turn. But when you control 20 cities you spend 5 hours.

I think it is the most important problem. The game should not be overloaded by features and concepts, because it can paralyze the game final...

[LDiCesare]

The core of empire is not units or cities but POPULATION. The PEOPLE live in the cities, form a units or ships. If you have less population you cannot produce huge armies or fleets as you can do in all other games. Say NO to resource-based concepts of empire-controlling games.

In Clash, units are built from population, so you can't build units out of nowhere, and they are needed to farm, etc. Having 0 resources may be fun, but is not realistic IMHO, and reduces teh need to fight for some areas which are highly productive.

I agree that end-game management is problematic. Someone suggested somewhere (one of these forums, can't find which right now) that the game 'scale' as you progress: First rule over villages, then a larger map of cities, but at differen scale, so, overall, you have the same number of actions to take, then scale up to regions, then to nations, empires, when you finally have a world map but control 10 countries instead of 10 cities.

[Hommer]

Having 0 resources may be fun, but is not realistic IMHO, and reduces teh need to fight for some areas which are highly productive.

I don't said we have 0 resources; in E-civ possibly can exists infinite number of resources. But the core of game is population.

[LDiCesare]

Yes, I checked the site in more depth, and understand this. The model implies a lot of micromanagement, and looks like you control each and every citizen, making you even more omnipotent than in civ, although the screenshots hint that there is some happiness management in.

[Hommer]

Yes, micromanagement is very important part of our game.
It can be justified by high-level commands for client program; the works on it are started.

Another good concept of E-Civ is Strategic resources concept. It looks like the concept of Civ3 but the implementation is completely changed. I have said "changed" but E-civ is 4 years old and consists this concept from the very start.

Like Civ3, strategic resources are not seen at the game start, until you discover proper sciences. They becomes available to use when player discover certain tech, but in different way.
In Civ3 you just may have Road over resource in Empire borders - and voila. Free resource using in infinite numbers. Quite stupid: you can produce huge tanks armada from the single Iron deposit.

In E-civ the resource concept is different: all resources can be gathered in cities with the certain productivity. Basic resources (wood, stone etc) are common and can be produced in almost any quantities but strategic resources are rare and cannot be "plant" like trees. So players are limited in strategic resources.
Next thing about Strategic Resources is nothing is free. The production of Bronze, Iron, Oil etc is very costly process. You cannot produce Musketeers just for free instead of Pikemen when you have Iron as you can in Civ3. You should process raw Iron from Iron deposit; then you should bring it to the city with Metal industries and only then you can produce equipment for military or economy.

You can produce non-strategic equipment too; it can be much less effective but much cheaper. Money are important, aren't it?