Alt Civs and complexity

[Miznia]

It strikes me, by reading about Alt Civs, and also all the comments (gripes and suggestions) people have made about Civ2 and CTP2 and such, that everybody wants a more complex, more realistic game. Am I right about that? Is anybody working on a game (besides like FreeCiv or Civ2Evolution) that has a different motivation?

I ask, partly because I rarely agree with suggestions people make for Civ2. Makes me feel lonely. The other reason I ask is because I've been working on a comparatively simple game where, I wonder if I'd be the only one interested in it.

I take about as much inspiration from Imperialism 1 as from Civ 1&2. The map uses regions (rather than cities with surrounding tiles), but the regions are hex-shaped rather than irregularly shaped. So it will look more like Imp1. I'm focusing on the 1800's (no sending triremes to explore the black unknown, or a space race). I want to eliminate "micro-management" more than I think anyone else would (e.g., no terrain improvement, a very simple largely "hands off" world trade system, no "tactical" combat), and focus largely on making the computer players interesting to deal with diplomatically. That's what I hate most about everything I've playen so far... The computers would care about the "balance of power," for instance, and remember who their past friends have been.

And I want to have an entertaining but relevant newspaper, to kind of add depth to the world.

You may now commence laughing at my ideas of simplicity.

Miznia
(who usually plays Civ2 with human player set to "none")

[RonHiler]

No one is going to laugh at your idea, Miznia

All the games in the Alt-Civ section have started out much like yours, with an idea. Some are inspired from the Civ series, others have different inspirations (I can tell you the Manifest Destiny was inspired by a game called "Stars!", not Civ).

In any case, each has their own idea about how to improve on the genre. A couple (Civ Evolution, FreeCiv) are taking the Civ games directly and making improvements on them. Some, like GG&S and Clash, are taking the hyper-realistic approach. Manifest Destiny kind of does an opposite thing and tries to keep the play models pretty simple, but not so basic as Civ. I personally think they all have merit. There's nothing at all wrong with simple games. Civ is clearly a very simple model of a strategy game, and it is a classic.

Take your concept and run with it. If you want advice, we'd be happy to accomidate. And once you have the concept down, you can even get your own spot in the Alt-Civ section for your game.

Another option would be to take a look at the games already here, and see if you want to join one of the teams. I think most projects need programmers and other useful talents. You can examine the Guide (which should be on the front page of the Alt-Civ section any second now) to get an overview of the existing projects.

Looking at your idea, you may want to take a look at Europa Universalis. It has concepts pretty similar to your ideas

Whatever you decide, good luck with it. Let us know how it goes.

Ron

[dexter4dxm]

alt civ complexity...

Recently I began work on an alt civ game. Well, I've been putting my ideas on paper for awhile now, but the actual coding started a few days ago. As far as game complexity goes, my view for my project is similar to what Miznia said he wanted to see, in that the game sticks to basics and takes micromanagement away from the user. one of my biggest issues with civ2 is it's user interface. While the UI is much better than other civ games (CTP comes to mind right away), There's way too much micromanagement, game interruption, and tedius clicking on buttons. One of my key design goals for my civ game is an efficient keyboard input layout. If I can, I'll remove mouse capabilities completely. I want the game to be played with all your fingers already sitting where they need to be. Most of the game will be playable from the keypad alone. Of course, this design method wouldn't fit well in many of the projects i've read about here, but I think it will be perfect for my game engine which stresses the importance of time. I don't want to get to far into what I have planned just yet. I'm new to the alt civ forum and I would just like to share ideas and such with people. Maybe someday I'll have my own section for my game, but that hasn't really been my intention. This project is a kind of portfolio for game companies so I can get into the industry.

But now that I've found the alt civ forums and I've thought about it, I would like to share my progress and get feedback if possible.
And about joining other projects, I know it is better in a way because then at least one project will get closer to completion and there won't be so many fledgling alt civs, but my design points are simply too different and I want to be able to show off personal code to guys in nice suits. Sorry that this post started as a reply about alt civ complexity and rambled on into junk about my little project. Actually, I could go on and on a lot more about this, but I have a question... How far should I be before I start to try attracting attention to my project (if i was to want to go that route)?

[DarkCloud]

dexter, Minzia, please tell us more about your games they sound interesting:

Unit Designs:
Unit Graphics Philosopy:
# of Units:

Tech Philosophy:
# of Techs:

City Philosophy:

# of Civs:
Types of Civs:
Civs Philosophy:

(Then make a few websites and try to market your games )

[Miznia]

Actually, I kind of changed the subject in my post just like you did.

I'm programming in Java (v1.1 - you may laugh at that). I was originally programming a tile-based game, like Civ, that was supposed to be broader in theme (because I wanted to colonize America), and I had most of the graphics programming done... A few map generators, zoom capability, the displaying of unit icons over terrain, and tile "blunting" to make coasts look rounder.

I gave up on tiles, though, and decided to start over with "region-based" graphics because:
1. I figured it would be much easier to write the AI.
2. I couldn't bear to be so economically complex as would be appropriate in a Colonization-type scenario. If I removed the Colonization thrust, then terrain tiles seem much less necessary.
3. It took too long for the program to redraw the many-tiled map. It was pretty good when I had a "cache" of recently drawn tiles, and it was still okay once I added "blunting," but would it still be tolerable once I added, roads, rivers, irrigation, and mines...? Didn't wanna risk it.

I might just be missing something, though, as far as Java graphics go. Java 2 inherently supports transparency, I think, so maybe that would speed up the displaying of units, and such...

Well, I have changed the working title of my program from "MizCiv" to "MizImp"

If GG&S and Clash are both going for hyper-realistic, then I bet one could have some interesting debates about which is more realistic, or more fun, etc.

Miznia

[Miznia]

>dexter, Minzia, please tell us more about your games they
>sound interesting:

Sure, I can talk about that, even at this early stage... You may not like the answers, though.

>Unit Designs: Unit Graphics Philosopy: # of Units:

So far I've been ripping off units from other games , and pictures of Rachael Leigh Cook and resizing them to 64x64. So I don't know yet, but nothing fancy. There probably wouldn't be very many *kinds* of units, owing to my lack of interest in military detail, and the limited timeframe. You'd move units sort of like "armies," like how Imperialism does it (it assumes you're ordering every unit in the space, but you can easily instruct it otherwise). I'll probably be seeking some advice in the military department...

So far all the graphics are stored in a BMP, so that's pretty customizable. The way I see it, you would mostly play using scenarios, so a lot would end up being customizable. I already have a BMP-to-gamemap conversion program

>Tech Philosophy: # of Techs:

I don't want to say much about this, but Tech will be largely out of your control. It's basically like, the scenario-maker has dealt your player a certain hand, and it'll take some determination to change it much.

Some philosophy: Technology is always gradually improving, and it's much faster to adopt an already extant tech than to invent a new one. Consequently tech will eventually even out all over the world. This will eventually make it too costly to hold unhappy colonies.

>City Philosophy:

Well, to compare regions with Civ's cities... A region has a max population, an ethnicity, and industrial vs. agricultural workers. Population count is meant to be *relative*, meaning that world population will eventually freeze. Regions aren't constantly building something.

Industrial workers produce Capital, Arms, and Luxuries (set like Civ's tax rate). Capital and Arms are pooled for the nation. Luxuries are automatically sold for $$$, the amount depending upon your "luxury tech" (quality) and your trade arrangements with other countries or colonies. You can't directly control whose Luxuries your own people buy. Luxuries are useless; you just need $$$ to get your people to do anything.

># of Civs: Types of Civs: Civs Philosophy:

Well, big and small nations would use the same rules... the focus is imperialism, and scenarios, so # of civs will be limited more by color choices.

More interesting I think are ethnicities, there being roughly one per player, and a region would only contain about one ethnicity. Some regions could have a "misc" ethnicity, where they can come to adopt the ethnicity of a neighboring region under the same ruler. The implications are that if you conquer a lot of mostly "misc" regions, you could unintentionally create some unity among them. Except for misc's, the ethnicity of a region can never be changed.

>(Then make a few websites and try to market your games )

Well, that's a long way off.

Miznia. Sorry to be so wordy.

[dexter4dxm]

i have many ideas that will break off from traditional civ play, but if you were execute my game right now you would only be reminded of civ2. at this point, it's really hard to tell how many of my ideas i'll be able to impliment.

> Unit Designs: Unit Graphics Philosopy: # of Units:

just like miznia, i've been ripping my unit graphics from other games. right now. the placeholder art makes it look like a mix between civ2 and ctp2. also like miznia, i'm using easy-to-edit bmp files. in my current build, the game supports up to 81 units, however i plan on making this number dynamic. the game already can handle a MUCH higher number, but it will be awhile till i know if i'm even going reach that number of units. obviously it would be bad to have too many, but i centainly will have more than civ2.

> Tech Philosophy: # of Techs:

once again i have some similarities to miznia here. while my game isn't so much "Tech will be largely out of your control", it is does come close to that. also, research is allocated into all available technologies automatically, so in a sense you are always researching every potential tech. this is very similar to what miznia was saying about "always gradually improving" technology, although i'm not quite sure i understand exactly what that means
honestly, i haven't expanded much on my tech ideas, and it's just one of the areas i would like to read more info and get more feedback about.
on a side note, i like your idea miznia about tech being easier to research if it is already existing somewhere.

> City Philosophy: # of Civs: Types of Civs: Civs Philosophy:

one thing i'm absolutely sure about is that i want to eliminate much of the city management that was present in civ2. i'm still evaluating the different methods for doing this. right now i'm aiming at 16 civs, however it might be a long time until i find out if this is possible or not. the civs, or nations as i'll be calling them, will be similar to civ2 with less restrictions such as color.

>(Then make a few websites and try to market your games )

time will tell

lots and lots of words, and yet i doubt i got a lot across to you. i have a stack of papers here outlining big differences i'd like to see in the design, and i'll get around to posting most of that info..

[dexter4dxm]

oh and btw, my engine is written in c++ using directdraw. i know this is going to make you go - it's completely tile based, with an isometric view, and it's ALL realtime

[DarkCloud]

Thank you for the quick response!

A real time civ with nearly unlimited units
and
A civ in a limited time frame designed Sid meier gettysburg-style

If you need any help with design I could possibly contribute some ideas... But I don't program in C++ all I know is some Visual Basic

dexter- how many civs on the board at once? I would think that more than 10 would overwhelm a computer?

miznia- ethnicities... good idea

[Miznia]

DarkCloud, I've never played Gettysburg. Could you tell me how my plans are similar to it?

As far as too many players overwhelming the computer, I've heard talk about this but I can't imagine that it's a problem. Maybe someone can fill me in, but... In all the (text-based) wargames (etc) I've written, AI has always seemed to run so fast that I never had to worry about it. The notion that for each added AI player, every other AI has to devote some time to thinking about it, doesn't seem like a problem to me. For instance, don't you think that it takes a lot more time to calculate a path for a unit, than to determine your attitude towards another player? Think Civ2: the game slowed down as there were more *units* on the board, not more players.

What I meant about tech, Dexter, was just that technology never gets worse. People catch up faster than they innovate, and that's why, at some theoretical point in the future, everyone will be almost even. Hopefully the game ends before that point. ...I'm thinking that tech is a property of ethnicities, rather than of nations. Makes it easier, to say one or the other.

Miznia

[dexter4dxm]

Originally posted by Miznia
As far as too many players overwhelming the computer, I've heard talk about this but I can't imagine that it's a problem. Maybe someone can fill me in, but... In all the (text-based) wargames (etc) I've written, AI has always seemed to run so fast that I never had to worry about it. The notion that for each added AI player, every other AI has to devote some time to thinking about it, doesn't seem like a problem to me. For instance, don't you think that it takes a lot more time to calculate a path for a unit, than to determine your attitude towards another player? Think Civ2: the game slowed down as there were more *units* on the board, not more players.

True, more units on the board adds to the strain on the system, but when you add more players, there are a lot more units on the board.

I really didn't want to give too much away, but I just have to explain how my game works, so we can continue this discussion. Much better to figure these things out now, while i'm still building the structure of the game.
Like i said, the game takes place in real-time, which is nice for many reasons (more on that later), and it is all tile-based. Movement and combat for the most part is identical to civ2, so imagine civ2, but without taking turns. Of course, it would be really stupid if you could just move any unit whenever you want for however long you want, so i'm implimenting a system where each unit has an internal timer, and when that timer finishes counting down from a certain amount, that unit is available for movement again. The unit is then added to the 'move queue'. Once you finish moving a unit, it's timer resets, it is removed from the top of the move queue, and control is passed on to the next unit in the queue. Obviously you should be able to move any unit you like, so i will be leaving that up to the user. This is just for standard play. Now, the AI will have to follow a similar routine, except for certain situations, otherwise the AI will be very inefficent. AI pathfinding will easily cause the most strain on the system, but this will actually be even, if not less demanding than civ2. Think about it, in civ2, during the AI's turn, it goes from one unit to the next, running a routine for each, and the AI turns are usually over pretty quick.

I'd love to hear any more questions/comments either of you have. This disscussion is really helping. Thanks guys

[Miznia]

>Now, the AI will have to follow a similar routine, except for certain
>situations, otherwise the AI will be very inefficent. AI pathfinding
>will easily cause the most strain on the system, but this will
>actually be even, if not less demanding than civ2. Think about it,
>in civ2, during the AI's turn, it goes from one unit to the next,
>running a routine for each, and the AI turns are usually over
>pretty quick.

Dexter, I don't think I understand why your "RT" AI pathfinding might be faster than under civ2. Won't your AI players have to cycle through units in the same way? I can imagine rather that RT would be slower, since in Civ2 all units become available for movement at the same time, whereas under RT you might spend a lot of time just checking and updating and such.

More players *could* mean more units, but I guess I was thinking of a bunch of "minor nations" with not so many units. If you're talking about playing on a larger map in order to support the added players, then I see the speed problem.

Are you going to prettily "round" your continents like Civ1 and 2 (and basically everything else)? When I was using tiles, I doubted I could afford to do anything so involved, when painting the map. Thus, I did "tile blunting." It looks cheesy but not as cheesy as just using a square grid.

I'm fretting presently over how regions should be colored. One option is to paint everything as green Grassland, and use flags and such to indicate the player (the owner, the ethnicity...). I don't much like this option. It seems to me that I should color regions politically (i.e. by owner) because it's easier to interpret and much more meaningful to the game.

Miznia

[dexter4dxm]

>Dexter, I don't think I understand why your "RT" AI pathfinding >might be faster than under civ2. Won't your AI players have to >cycle through units in the same way? I can imagine rather that >RT would be slower, since in Civ2 all units become available for >movement at the same time, whereas under RT you might >spend a lot of time just checking and updating and such.

Excellent point Miznia. I didn't consider the fact that the multiple AI's will be taking their 'turns' at the same time (that must sound really bad, considering i've been planning this to be RT from the beginning). Am i being overly ambitious here? Maybe i should stick to turn based, and just focus more on the other ideas i have in mind.

>Are you going to prettily "round" your continents like Civ1 and 2 >(and basically everything else)? When I was using tiles, I >doubted I could afford to do anything so involved, when >painting the map. Thus, I did "tile blunting." It looks cheesy but >not as cheesy as just using a square grid.

Yeah, and I think it will be more similar to Civ 1. In fact, this was one of the very latest things i've added to the game. I will post a screen shot of my proggie soon, but when I do, keep in mind that the art is "borrowed" from other games

>I'm fretting presently over how regions should be colored. One >option is to paint everything as green Grassland, and use flags >and such to indicate the player (the owner, the ethnicity...). I >don't much like this option. It seems to me that I should color >regions politically (i.e. by owner) because it's easier to interpret >and much more meaningful to the game.

For a regional game, yes that sounds like a great idea. Remember at the end of Civ 1, it would go through the whole history of the game, showing every event that happened? Well if I recall correctly, the map was color coded by owner, and it was pretty cool! I don't see how this would work on any map with terrain though.....

Thanks for your input Miznia, I appreciate the help.

-dex

[DarkCloud]

I meant "Gettysburg" in term of a focus over a small part of time. (Limited time frame)

[Miznia]

Oh, I see.


Dexter: I think if you really want to do RT, you should either work it that way from the beginning, or else decide it's too difficult and put it into a later project. I say that because I imagine it would be pretty difficult to go from a turn-based strategy to a real-time one, as far as the programming goes.

I've kind of changed my focus... The Imperialism-type conception of my game might well be fun, but I'm not sure I can pull it off. I'm more of a simulation guy, as might not be surprising. So, I'm doing more of an empire-building focus, now. Up to nine civs, and an undecided number of native tribes who will take up all the regions not settled by a civ. I kind of envision it as Civ1 with Indians. And hexes.

Miznia