Tweet
This is an archive of a thread from the old BB (hope a big HTML post works!) :
Jim Gregors: As the game stands now, will it proceed in a Civilization-type way (i.e., beginning at the dawn of recorded history and moving forward), or will it consist of a series of historical 'scenarios'?
Mark Everson: Yes
I think that both types of game are achievable. Personally, I'm more interested in the "panoramic" whole-history type of game. However, I think that the rules framework needs to handle both. Hopefully, you'll get an idea of the sort
of approaches I'm planning on taking as you read through the rest of my responses in this posting.
JG: For example, the United States played only a very minor (if any) role in European politics until the First World War, and it did not even exist as a recognizable entity until 1789. Yet "Civilization" allows an essentially European civilization to sprout up in a land (America) which was not permanently colonized by Europeans until some 5500 years later.
On the other hand, advanced civilizations did exist in the Americas since (according to orthodox opinion) at least 500 CE. Would these civilizations (Olmec, Toltec, Maya, Aztec, "Mound-builders", etc.) be able to develop advanced technologies and navigational techniques? or would they conform to actual history and inevitably fall to the Europeans and plague?
In the first case, the actual course of history could be horribly upset (what would happen if the Aztecs had gun powder and ocean-worthy sailing ships 500 years before the Europeans?). In the second case, however, it would be pointless to play a Native American civilization since it would never develop the technology to be able to stand against the Europeans when they eventually arrived.
ME: The way I'm looking at things right now (and like everything here this is subject to change) is to allow for "backward"
continents with the understanding that players probably would not want to lead any of those civilizations. The obvious exception would be a Mayan-versus-Aztec type scenario. My thinking about continents that are "behind the curve" has been strongly molded by the excellent book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jarred Diamond. The author's main point is that the inhabitants of several continents got either a late start in the civilization game, or were handicapped in their development by things like lack of critical domesticatable plant and/or animal species. There are many reviews at the "Guns, Germs, and Steel" link below :
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393038912/drjohnholleman/002-4628459-9231446 or if this doesn't work, just search on the title)
In Clash terms Native American Empires would be at a disadvantage due to the lower population densities in the Americas and the fact that trade would be difficult between the major civilizations because of barriers to travel like the isthmus of Panama. However, being behind in technology is, IMHO almost secondary to the problem caused by the "disease gap" between the Old and New Worlds. Native American populations appear to have been decimated (more like nine out of ten dead by some estimates) by Eurasian diseases that cut a swath well ahead of the Conquistador types. So, in short, and anticipating your point about diseases later on, I think Clash needs some sort of modeling of diseases and their effects in history.
JG: The only solution I can think of would be for the game to take place as a series of linked (or independent) scenarios modeling various historical periods. For example, imagine a scenario titled "Heir of Alexander" in which the Seleucids, Ptolemais, Antigonids, Romans, Cathaginians, Sicilian and Italian Greeks, and other Mediterranean powers (along with marauding Celts and Scythians)
struggle to fill (or take advantage of) the vacuum left following the death of Alexander the Great. The scenario could begin with Pyrrhus casting a covetous eye upon the wealth of the Italian pennisula - and end with the victory of Scipio at Carthage. Of course, if events reversed themselves and Hannibal conquered Rome, the game could end quite differently. But, since the scenario would have a defined beginning and ending date, even a total reversal of history would be acceptable, as the later history of Europe and the Near East would be irrelevant.
ME: I agree that scenarios are cool. However I think the whole-history game can be made to work also....
JG: As for plague/disease (which I mentioned above as being one of the pricipal causes for the devastation of the Native Americans), would these be modeled in the game? I would estimate that prior to modern times (and perhaps even now) more people died as a result of sickness than any other cause - with mass starvation probably running a distant second. How many times have the
great military seiges of history been decided not by force of arms, but by the outbreak of disease beyond the city walls - or death by starvation behind them.
ME: I agree completely. My current plan for diseases is not particularly well thought out. However, a crude sketch is possible at this point. Diseases would start out historically at some particular set of locations. They would be spread by various factors such as: military forces, merchants, mass migrations etc. and have different levels of virulence. When spread to an area that hasn't previously experienced them they will cause the expected localized plague. The disease can also then be spread from that location. What happened to the unfortunate Native Americans was that they got hit by three or four plagues at once.
JG: Also, diplomacy should be a key element of the game, just as it was throughout most of our recorded history. Obviously, alliances would be formed and disolved, but what would be the penalty for proving a treacherous ally? Will there be some sort of "trust" level maintained by each civilization - based either on historical precedence or actual game play - which would factor into any negotiations/treaties/alliances? On a macro level, most past civilizations could be assigned at least a beginning level of trustworthiness. For example, the various Greek city-states (with the exception of Syracuse following the Roman victory during the First Punic War - and possibly the Delphic Amphictyony) were notoriously fickle when it came to adhering to any alliance once the immediate cause was removed. Whereas the Romans, on the other hand, could be relied upon to maintain their end of a treaty, so long as the co-signing state/kingdom did not violate it. The game's AI would need to take these things into account if historical accuracy is to be maintained.
Yes, I think diplomacy is a vital element also. As a matter of fact, I'm working on it even before I get the movement right for military units. Trustworthiness will be there. To answer your point below, there will be provision for both paper and "secured" treaties.
Jim Gregors: As the game stands now, will it proceed in a Civilization-type way (i.e., beginning at the dawn of recorded history and moving forward), or will it consist of a series of historical 'scenarios'?
Mark Everson: Yes
I think that both types of game are achievable. Personally, I'm more interested in the "panoramic" whole-history type of game. However, I think that the rules framework needs to handle both. Hopefully, you'll get an idea of the sortof approaches I'm planning on taking as you read through the rest of my responses in this posting.
JG: For example, the United States played only a very minor (if any) role in European politics until the First World War, and it did not even exist as a recognizable entity until 1789. Yet "Civilization" allows an essentially European civilization to sprout up in a land (America) which was not permanently colonized by Europeans until some 5500 years later.
On the other hand, advanced civilizations did exist in the Americas since (according to orthodox opinion) at least 500 CE. Would these civilizations (Olmec, Toltec, Maya, Aztec, "Mound-builders", etc.) be able to develop advanced technologies and navigational techniques? or would they conform to actual history and inevitably fall to the Europeans and plague?
In the first case, the actual course of history could be horribly upset (what would happen if the Aztecs had gun powder and ocean-worthy sailing ships 500 years before the Europeans?). In the second case, however, it would be pointless to play a Native American civilization since it would never develop the technology to be able to stand against the Europeans when they eventually arrived.
ME: The way I'm looking at things right now (and like everything here this is subject to change) is to allow for "backward"
continents with the understanding that players probably would not want to lead any of those civilizations. The obvious exception would be a Mayan-versus-Aztec type scenario. My thinking about continents that are "behind the curve" has been strongly molded by the excellent book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jarred Diamond. The author's main point is that the inhabitants of several continents got either a late start in the civilization game, or were handicapped in their development by things like lack of critical domesticatable plant and/or animal species. There are many reviews at the "Guns, Germs, and Steel" link below :
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393038912/drjohnholleman/002-4628459-9231446 or if this doesn't work, just search on the title)
In Clash terms Native American Empires would be at a disadvantage due to the lower population densities in the Americas and the fact that trade would be difficult between the major civilizations because of barriers to travel like the isthmus of Panama. However, being behind in technology is, IMHO almost secondary to the problem caused by the "disease gap" between the Old and New Worlds. Native American populations appear to have been decimated (more like nine out of ten dead by some estimates) by Eurasian diseases that cut a swath well ahead of the Conquistador types. So, in short, and anticipating your point about diseases later on, I think Clash needs some sort of modeling of diseases and their effects in history.
JG: The only solution I can think of would be for the game to take place as a series of linked (or independent) scenarios modeling various historical periods. For example, imagine a scenario titled "Heir of Alexander" in which the Seleucids, Ptolemais, Antigonids, Romans, Cathaginians, Sicilian and Italian Greeks, and other Mediterranean powers (along with marauding Celts and Scythians)
struggle to fill (or take advantage of) the vacuum left following the death of Alexander the Great. The scenario could begin with Pyrrhus casting a covetous eye upon the wealth of the Italian pennisula - and end with the victory of Scipio at Carthage. Of course, if events reversed themselves and Hannibal conquered Rome, the game could end quite differently. But, since the scenario would have a defined beginning and ending date, even a total reversal of history would be acceptable, as the later history of Europe and the Near East would be irrelevant.
ME: I agree that scenarios are cool. However I think the whole-history game can be made to work also....
JG: As for plague/disease (which I mentioned above as being one of the pricipal causes for the devastation of the Native Americans), would these be modeled in the game? I would estimate that prior to modern times (and perhaps even now) more people died as a result of sickness than any other cause - with mass starvation probably running a distant second. How many times have the
great military seiges of history been decided not by force of arms, but by the outbreak of disease beyond the city walls - or death by starvation behind them.
ME: I agree completely. My current plan for diseases is not particularly well thought out. However, a crude sketch is possible at this point. Diseases would start out historically at some particular set of locations. They would be spread by various factors such as: military forces, merchants, mass migrations etc. and have different levels of virulence. When spread to an area that hasn't previously experienced them they will cause the expected localized plague. The disease can also then be spread from that location. What happened to the unfortunate Native Americans was that they got hit by three or four plagues at once.
JG: Also, diplomacy should be a key element of the game, just as it was throughout most of our recorded history. Obviously, alliances would be formed and disolved, but what would be the penalty for proving a treacherous ally? Will there be some sort of "trust" level maintained by each civilization - based either on historical precedence or actual game play - which would factor into any negotiations/treaties/alliances? On a macro level, most past civilizations could be assigned at least a beginning level of trustworthiness. For example, the various Greek city-states (with the exception of Syracuse following the Roman victory during the First Punic War - and possibly the Delphic Amphictyony) were notoriously fickle when it came to adhering to any alliance once the immediate cause was removed. Whereas the Romans, on the other hand, could be relied upon to maintain their end of a treaty, so long as the co-signing state/kingdom did not violate it. The game's AI would need to take these things into account if historical accuracy is to be maintained.
Yes, I think diplomacy is a vital element also. As a matter of fact, I'm working on it even before I get the movement right for military units. Trustworthiness will be there. To answer your point below, there will be provision for both paper and "secured" treaties.