An "across all topics" issue :: Screwing it up

[Druid2]

I hope that, in chasing our goal of allowing the 'game engine' to help in this or that field, we leave enough leeway that the player has to do *some*thing. He can make it better -or try- and maybe screw it up.

If for example, we take all food production out of the hands of the player, he will never have to face that decision of guns v. butter, because the pop will always produce enough butter.

If the population "does" the researching, with the player able to add only incremental improvements in this or that area... how can he blunder down the wrong path?

Or, if we take all the military logic out of the player's hands by letting him say "Go forth and conquer", why, what is there for him to succeed at? or screw up, for that matter?

If the player selects all the "game AI assists" is his civ "just another AI civ" ?

[Mark_Everson]

Druid2:

Actually I think the whole point is that there's nothing the player Has to do. In this way the player can do what they Enjoy doing. And chances are that what they enjoy is also where they will be significantly better than the AI.

If you leave Everything to the AI and there are, say, 10 civs total, you will By Definition win 10% of the time. Pretty lousy odds doncha' think? The question in Clash is can you be that much better than the AI in the areas you Want to play to get to 90%.

The AI will not be able to beat a really good human player unless we augment it with cheats. We're not miracle workers here. Our AI will just not be completely Awful like that in the other games in the genre. It should, perhaps be able to beat a merely pretty good player.

Guns vs butter:
Sorry, I don't get you here. I think all players will want to make this basic level a decision. Whether to prepare for conquest, or spend on social welfare, is one of the most fundamental decisions. But I want to make this decision by telling One minion what to do, Not manually move a zillion little pretend people around on little pretend countryside. And besides, the populace rarely starves even using the lame-brained automatic placement of workers in Civ2. So you could say the player's hand isn't needed there either. But just as will be the case in Clash, if you Want to pay close attention to the economy in Civ2 you can derive serious benfits.

Population does the researching:
The population will do a Substantial fraction of the researching, but the players actions will always be able to produce significant results. If they're willing to put some resources into it anyway. As a gameplay issue we will ensure this. Also the player's initial choice and subsequent handling of the culture will have a Big effect on what and how much research the people do. Have no fear, there will be lots of ways to screw it up.

Military AI:
There are many levels to military activity, and many places the player can make their mark. Why Should the player be forced to move every single military unit by hand to implement a good grand strategy? I personally want to play a game where I can choose just to do the grand strategy and see how it works out, other things being equal.

These are very serious gameplay issues that you raise. I have the conviction that my view is right for a plurality of the people who play games in this genre. However, there's no way to prove it until playtesting starts.

One piece of personal information may help. I play most military/econ games from an economic build-up perspective. The conquest at the end is much sweeter for me after having built an economic juggernaut. In Civ2 I always go for a military victory shortly after gunpowder gives me an edge. Want to know why Civ is different from those other games? Because I am uninterested in Wasting literally tens of hours of my time pushing the game through to a foregone conclusion. That's what having to feed your people "by hand" does to the game IMO.

I think the metaphor I'd use is that Clash should be a buffet, whereas Civ2 is a nine-course banquet. I don't know about your culinary habits, but I prefer to eat more of my favorites at the buffet. Sure, people might sit around at the buffet and not eat anything. Personally, I haven't met many of that type .

-Mark

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited May 31, 1999).]

[F_Smith]

Hi:

1) Guns v. Butter generally refers to the choice of using govt power and assets on either military might or economic might -- especially in the form of taxation. The primary control that any govt has over it's country is what is taxed, and how much. High taxes to pay for a strong military, or low taxes to encourage strong economic growth. And there will also be govt-funded research, as Mark said.

2) Also as Mark said, govt spending will be able to guide the direction of some of the research. But I liken the desired game feel to more of being a 'coach' than that of being a 'Quarterback'. We will have the 'Quarterback' option in the final game, eventually (even an RT combat module). But this will be strictly voluntary.

3) Strategic direction of armies is actually much harder than the tactical choices, and much more relevant to the eventual outcome, isn't it? Altho, again, the tactical option will be available.

[Mark_Everson]

This is a bit OT, but in the right general area. peterfharris in the Civ3/General forum posted the quote below with the title "General design considerations". I don't agree with everything he says, but it seemed worth repeating here.

we are all suggesting features that we would like in Civ #. I suggest we also adopt a second approach as an increasing number of games have been coming out with lots of great features but the games are nevertheless repulsive.
The games strategy games I like tend to have certain common characteristics (eg Civ 1, civ 2, MOO 2, Caesar 3, Ascendancy, imperialism 2). the games I dislike tend to lack many of these common characteristics regardless of "features"(no names).
I am setting out a draft list of my "common characteristics". Please rip into this poor list and put it back together with better ideas and better expression in the hope that we can avoid a Civ 3 with great features but poor playability. (Be good if message could be got across to all games producers). Apologies for length.
1. easy to learn, easy to play but difficult to master.
2. must contain variety. Not too routine or predictable.
3. Should be challenging but not impossible. All difficulties must be somehow surmountable.
4. events must happen regularly (how often?). If nothing happens boredom sets in.
5. Must be possible to readily and conveniently assess ones' progress (eg is empire growing etc)
6. Should be possible to pursue a variety of different strategies rather than do same things every game. (There must always be options available. Options entails conflicting priorities which tends to add to variety and challenge)
7. AI should be reasonably intelligent and adaptive but not so repetitive that the player gets "sick of the same old thing" even if the repitition is part of a sound strategy.
8. If realism and playability conflict then playability must prevail but game must still make sense.
9. One must be able to readily and conveniently find out what is happening in ones own domain. (game controls)
10. One must be able to readily and conveniently manage ones resources and units etc (game controls)
11. A good manual.
12. Graphics are of secondary importance.
13. There must be suspense in the game. There must always be the possibilty of reverses or loss. (Ascendancy is otherwise a great game but I just know I won't have any difficulties)