11-01-2004 08:24									#1
	When does Civ become not-Civ? Increase the size of your Attachments

OK, so, we all have a jillion ideas about how to make Civ 4 better than Civ 3.

But at what point do these ideas become "not-Civ".

For example, I see the extensive comments on military tactics which, while often valid, threaten to turn Civ into a wargame.

Another: Civ is basically you vs. the world. It's not particularly realistic, since every empire was defeated internally before being defeated by an enemy, where in Civ your total population management comes down to keeping citizens happy and either building culture or keeping troops in to prevent flipping. But a greater focus on internal details at some point changes Civ from a "us against the world" game to a more SimCity type thing.

And I'm not saying that either of these ideas might not be fun, but would it still be Civ?

Infininte movement railroads are widely hated apparently, but for me I've found them to severely reduce micromanagement in the late game.

I also think, in general, that Civ 4 is going to be Civ 4. I don't think it's going to leap off into a new direction. (Look at Heroes of "Might and Magic IV" and "Warlords IV" and how disastrous recent attempts to "change the formula" have been. ) I think a lot of these ideas (not excluding my own) are so "un-Civ" as to be immediately dismissed by Firaxis.

So, where should the line be drawn? At what point does maintaining military stacks, adding coastal/naval terrain penalties, civil war, etc., become "un-Civ"?

[ok]

	11-01-2004 09:23									#2
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: in Civ your total population management comes down to keeping citizens happy and either building culture or keeping troops in to prevent flipping.

Culture? That's not Civ! Sid didn't think of that.

	11-01-2004 17:10									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: So, where should the line be drawn? At what point does maintaining military stacks, adding coastal/naval terrain penalties, civil war, etc., become "un-Civ"

It's a good question not easily answered.

The problem with Civ is that it is a computer game. I consider the basic game a classic, like chess, but contrary to chess and owing to the fact it is a computer game, it constantly has to be modified and improved. We can't really freeze some features in time and call them "The Classic Civ".

So when does it stop being Civ? I used to think there are only two features basic to civ - tiled map and the tech tree and that all else can be radically changed without critical impact. I am not that sure nowadays.

I'd say it stops being Civ when it becomes bloated with features with no vision behind them. And when every game starts looking almost the same.

	11-01-2004 17:22									#4
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Peter Triggs Culture? That's not Civ! Sid didn't think of that.

I think the very things many people object to about culture are the most Civ-like things about it. Yeah, it lacks subtlety, entire cities flipping like they were bribed by a spy but what could be more Civ-like?

Another example:

One of the least sensible things about Civ is that it's structured around ancient concepts of countries--allied "city-states" surviving based on local resources. A little silly when representing a modern nation.

But Civ 3, with borders, distributed troop support, and luxury/strategic resources "nationalized" certain elements while keeping the Civ-feel. (I think, again, for precisely the reasons that many people object to: Either you have these resources or you don't, no fiddling about with how much.)

But could you make it so that an advance (like "Nationalism" or "Industralization") switched the game's mechanics around so that raw land working was secondary to development, size, traffic, etc.?

Could it be fun, and could it still be "Civ"?

Oh, and as for needing to come from Sid: isn't Civ based on a board game?

[ok]

	12-01-2004 03:10									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: When does Civ become not-Civ?

When it becomes too much of a wargame, which, unfortunatly, I think is happening.

	12-01-2004 06:20									#6
	Increase the size of your Attachments

At the expense of being (probably) unhelpful, I'll say this: Civ stops becoming civ when an addition is not a natural extension of the game.

Here's what I mean by this: culture is civ because culture is a natural extension of the primitive territory system in C2 and the more powerful one in SMAC. A tactical minigame is not civ because it is a feature added completely out of the blue - it isn't a refinement and extension of another feature.

	12-01-2004 07:52									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by skywalker At the expense of being (probably) unhelpful, I'll say this: Civ stops becoming civ when an addition is not a natural extension of the game. Here's what I mean by this: culture is civ because culture is a natural extension of the primitive territory system in C2 and the more powerful one in SMAC. A tactical minigame is not civ because it is a feature added completely out of the blue - it isn't a refinement and extension of another feature.

I am worried that civ is going to turn into a "kill-kill-kill" game and quit being an empire building game. If I want a "kill-kill-kill" strategy game, I play RoN.

	12-01-2004 09:06									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I play Counterstrike

	12-01-2004 09:25									#9
	Full PM-box? Change here!

"Civ" is what Firaxis gives you.

quote: I play Counterstrike

Figures. I stopped playing at beta 6 when all the noobs found out.

	12-01-2004 09:55									#10
	Re: When does Civ become not-Civ? Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by okblacke ... to a more SimCity type thing. ....

SimCiv

...but would that be 'Civ' or 'not-Civ'?

	12-01-2004 18:07									#11
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by skywalker At the expense of being (probably) unhelpful, I'll say this: Civ stops becoming civ when an addition is not a natural extension of the game. Here's what I mean by this: culture is civ because culture is a natural extension of the primitive territory system in C2 and the more powerful one in SMAC. A tactical minigame is not civ because it is a feature added completely out of the blue - it isn't a refinement and extension of another feature.

That says it, though probably only to those of us who agree: I don't think military tactics--beyond the crude current ones--would be "Civ" and I do think the, em, ham-fisted approach to culture is.

Moving from caravans to trade treaties made Civ 3 more "civ-like", IMO.

Dunno about workers. I could see workers being eliminated inside city-radii as being more civ-like but I don't know about abandoning them completely. Maybe I'll come across CTP 1/2 in the bargain bin this winter and see how it "feels".

But there has to be some unit movement, I think. One flaw with current Civ implementations is that they don't scale well. I think Jesse from Firaxis mentioned "worker-gangs", and with stack movement, I think Firaxis is probably on the right track.

[ok]

	12-01-2004 20:16									#12
	Re: When does Civ become not-Civ? Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by okblacke I think a lot of these ideas (not excluding my own) are so "un-Civ" as to be immediately dismissed by Firaxis.

It's Atari now -- not Firaxis.

	12-01-2004 20:18									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Odin When it becomes too much of a wargame, which, unfortunatly, I think is happening.

quiet, you hippie

	13-01-2004 00:13									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Since the idea about 'civilization' is about evolving AND the creation of new concepts (Does the ancient Egyptian society reflect the modern Egyptian society? - NO), I would say that any new concepts that add to the depth and flow of the game, even if they were never part of the original concepts of civ1/civ2 are valid for consideration.

	13-01-2004 00:27									#15
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I have to agree with Hexogonian. Civ is a game that explores the whole of human history. To say that taking the next Civ in a new direction is NotCiv seems overly cautious.

I think the greater disservice to Civ would be to keep things that are "classic" when something better exists today. Many of Civ's models were designed because computers of the day couldn't handle anything more complex. To say that they must remain as-is (or as-was) to remain Civ is to stagnate the series.

	13-01-2004 05:32									#16
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Fosse I have to agree with Hexogonian. Civ is a game that explores the whole of human history. To say that taking the next Civ in a new direction is NotCiv seems overly cautious. I think the greater disservice to Civ would be to keep things that are "classic" when something better exists today. Many of Civ's models were designed because computers of the day couldn't handle anything more complex. To say that they must remain as-is (or as-was) to remain Civ is to stagnate the series.

I'm not suggesting they remain as-is by any means. But there are things that are civ-like and things that are not. In particular, I think Civ is a "large scale" game. Strategic, rather than tactical. It is un-civ-like to be able to tell each individual citizen (not pop point, but citizen, like any one of the hundred thousand people living in that town) what to do.

When I read some of these detailed messages, I can see where the poster has a good point, but also how the suggestion would end up "shrinking" Civ's size and scope.

And that's just in the broad sense. If Civ becomes just about kicking ass with our shuffling little units, that's another un-Civ thing.

So, by all means, bring on the funk. Just don't let's lose sight o' things.

[ok]

	13-01-2004 05:43									#17
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: think the greater disservice to Civ would be to keep things that are "classic" when something better exists today. Many of Civ's models were designed because computers of the day couldn't handle anything more complex. To say that they must remain as-is (or as-was) to remain Civ is to stagnate the series.

I agree in the sense that I also wish for Civ IV to be bigger, and more radical upgrade to Civ III than Civ III was to Civ II.

But I can name you at last one thing that is not likely to be changed, ever - the tile based map.

	13-01-2004 05:49									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: When I read some of these detailed messages, I can see where the poster has a good point, but also how the suggestion would end up "shrinking" Civ's size and scope.

This is the inherent problem of discussion about a game that is based on the real world.

It is inevitable that many of us will many times lose focus of the big picture while trying to articulate a particular feature we would like very much. I'll quote Sid Meier :

quote: So I call it the Covert Action Rule. Don't try to do too many games in one package. And that's actually done me a lot of good. You can look at the games I've done since Civilization, and there's always opportunities to throw in more stuff. When two units get together in Civilization and have a battle, why don't we drop out to a wargame and spend ten minutes or so in duking out this battle? Well, the Covert Action Rule. Focus on what the game is.

Amen.

The problem however is that it takes one man's vision to decide the right balance. Did ever exist a committee with a vision?

	13-01-2004 05:56									#19
	Re: Re: When does Civ become not-Civ? Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by MrFun It's Atari now -- not Firaxis.

Wrong, Infogrames changed its name to Atari. Infogrames is the publisher. Firaxis actually made C3, and is still Firaxis.

	13-01-2004 05:57									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by hexagonian Since the idea about 'civilization' is about evolving AND the creation of new concepts (Does the ancient Egyptian society reflect the modern Egyptian society? - NO), I would say that any new concepts that add to the depth and flow of the game, even if they were never part of the original concepts of civ1/civ2 are valid for consideration.

I never said that they had to be in C1 or C2, just that they had to be a natural extension of something in C1 or C2, otherwise it isn't civ. It could be a great game, but it wouldn't be civ.

	13-01-2004 10:36									#21
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by skywalker At the expense of being (probably) unhelpful, I'll say this: Civ stops becoming civ when an addition is not a natural extension of the game. Here's what I mean by this: culture is civ because culture is a natural extension of the primitive territory system in C2 and the more powerful one in SMAC. A tactical minigame is not civ because it is a feature added completely out of the blue - it isn't a refinement and extension of another feature.

There are probably just a few thing that everyone could agree on concerning a 'civ' experience. TBS, isometric tiles, city/building construction, tech research, combat, a reflection of the history of man...however, the opinion of what constitutes a refinement and extension and what is not, ends up being a subjective, rather than an objective matter for each individual making the whole question impossible to nail down.

Your opinion of civ is different than mine - does that make either more or less valid?

I would argue that a tactical minigame could be considered an extension and a progression of the combat model, and as such should be looked at - (though I will say that this feature is not one of those issues that would make or break civ4 for me - if anything, a tactical minigame feature should be kept to a minimum - certainly not at the level as a game like Shogun...).

And, I have yet to hear an argument that says that stacked combat IS NOT part of a progression and refinement of what it means to be a 'civ' experience. The same argument can also be made for the inclusion of asymmetrical warfare units - in fact, taking your argument to its logical conclusion (since the basic civ1-civ2 game is very unit intensive with workers/military/city workers that all have to be manually moved into position for greatest effect), the current setup with spies in civ3 could be called a move away from the 'civ' experience because those spy units have been removed from the board - a removal for the sake of streamlined gameplay...

Next thing you know, you'll be calling for the elimination of workers and suggest going to Public Works...

	13-01-2004 15:58									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by hexagonian There are probably just a few thing that everyone could agree on concerning a 'civ' experience. TBS, isometric tiles, city/building construction, tech research, combat, a reflection of the history of man...however,

I've never liked the move to isometric.

But tiles, sure.

quote: the opinion of what constitutes a refinement and extension and what is not, ends up being a subjective, rather than an objective matter for each individual making the whole question impossible to nail down.

Fortunately, we don't have to nail anything down.

quote: Your opinion of civ is different than mine - does that make either more or less valid?

Depends. Do you think Civ is lacking a firt-person perspective and a double-barrelled shotgun?

quote: I would argue that a tactical minigame could be considered an extension and a progression of the combat model, and as such should be looked at -

I don't think so. "Minigame" is a good sign that you're on the wrong track, at least for Civ. When a short game takes eight hours, streamlining play is best. IMO, of course.

quote: And, I have yet to hear an argument that says that stacked combat IS NOT part of a progression and refinement of what it means to be a 'civ' experience.

If by stacked combat, you mean a group attacks as a unit and combat is resolved that way, I'd say that's not "unCiv". As long as it resolves quickly and is easy to comprehend.

If you're talking changing screens, going into a tactical view, then I say, "unCiv".

quote: the current setup with spies in civ3 could be called a move away from the 'civ' experience because those spy units have been removed from the board - a removal for the sake of streamlined gameplay...

I would say "the Civ experience" includes ICS, tedious micromanagement, crappy graphics and stupid exploits, because Civ games have always had such things.

But I also think of "Civ" as being a concept as well as a game, and the implementations never have been (and never will be ideal). You can't just look back and say "Well, Civ games have always had tedious micromanagement. You can't get rid of that, it wouldn't be Civ!"

Adventure games have always had tedious inventory management puzzles, but they're generally best served without them, people have found.

quote: Next thing you know, you'll be calling for the elimination of workers and suggest going to Public Works...

I realize that's a hot button around here, but I don't know that I'm opposed to it. I haven't done CTP so I don't know how it worked. You'd still need some workers, though, for building roads between cities.

I see Civ as being about large scale decisions. But there are gray areas. Moving your individual worker around and deciding where city pop should work is large scale when you have one city, and micromanagement when you have 30.

[ok]

	13-01-2004 16:03									#23
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by VetLegion quote: So I call it the Covert Action Rule. Don't try to do too many games in one package. And that's actually done me a lot of good. You can look at the games I've done since Civilization, and there's always opportunities to throw in more stuff. When two units get together in Civilization and have a battle, why don't we drop out to a wargame and spend ten minutes or so in duking out this battle? Well, the Covert Action Rule. Focus on what the game is. Amen. The problem however is that it takes one man's vision to decide the right balance. Did ever exist a committee with a vision?

That Sid guy knows a thing or two.

As for committees, I was heavily into "Seven Kingdoms" for a while, and had my fingers in the beta for 7K2. I think Trevor Chan is a great designer, but he made a fatal mistake with 7K2: he listened TOO MUCH to his testers and fans.

As a result, 7K2 is too much. It's hard (perhaps impossible) to absorbe everything in real-time. Also, the AI is a killer, even at the easiest levels, because the beta group consisted of the best players.

[ok]

	13-01-2004 22:14									#24
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by okblacke I'm not suggesting they remain as-is by any means. But there are things that are civ-like and things that are not.

I didn't think you were. I have to admit that I took certain things for granted as being a part of any Civ. Turns, cities, units. I'd argue that tiles are a needed componant, but will conceed that they are likely here to stay for the time being.

Really, my opinion is that whatever game seeks to represent the kind of history progression that Civ does, keeping the game focused on building and expansion, is Civ, no matter the details. CtP was Civ (legal battles aside). So was CtP 2. Because Civ 2 was their starting point, and they represented the same thing. SMAC was Civ(ish). Just the location was changed.

Radical changes to the game can be made (more so than in the series I've mentioned) before it becomes Not Civ in my eyes.

	14-01-2004 12:01									#25
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Not Civ

Sim City. Disasters frustrating, no disasters boring.

Animated Units.

Realtime.

Could be Civ

limited city planning.

limited tactical minigame. Taking place on actual maps of city streets?

Public Works.

Hexgrid.

Irregular Tiles.

Unit Workshop.

Stacks regardless of tactical minigame.

Spherical Map.

Legitimate Civ and Fun Regardless

Culture

Very Civvy

Elvis.
Isometric Grid.
Workers.
Wonder Movies.
Palace View.
Caravans.
Editor.
Scenarios.
Turn- based.
Citystates.
Borders.
Asymmetrical Warfare.
Largescale Decisions.
Micromanagement.
Simple Graphics.
Exploration.
Rewriting History.

	14-01-2004 12:12									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Fosse I didn't think you were. I have to admit that I took certain things for granted as being a part of any Civ. Turns, cities, units. I'd argue that tiles are a needed componant, but will conceed that they are likely here to stay for the time being.

MOO doesn't have tiles. It's very Civ-ish.

quote: Radical changes to the game can be made (more so than in the series I've mentioned) before it becomes Not Civ in my eyes.

I agree, I just wonder if a lot of suggestions are losing sight of the Big Picture.

[ok]

	14-01-2004 18:19									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by okblacke MOO doesn't have tiles. It's very Civ-ish.

Right. I reread my post and saw that it may sound like I'm supporting tiles. I'm not, just saying that they'll probably be with us for a while. I hope I'm wrong.

quote: I agree, I just wonder if a lot of suggestions are losing sight of the Big Picture.

Almost certainly. Lots of those ideas get pounced on right away by the community. Some by being torn apart, and some with heaps of praise. Firaxis should watch those ideas carefully. Even if they don't implement them, they might spark an idea or two.

	15-01-2004 00:55									#28
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: And, I have yet to hear an argument that says that stacked combat IS NOT part of a progression and refinement of what it means to be a 'civ' experience. The same argument can also be made for the inclusion of asymmetrical warfare units - in fact, taking your argument to its logical conclusion (since the basic civ1-civ2 game is very unit intensive with workers/military/city workers that all have to be manually moved into position for greatest effect), the current setup with spies in civ3 could be called a move away from the 'civ' experience because those spy units have been removed from the board - a removal for the sake of streamlined gameplay... Next thing you know, you'll be calling for the elimination of workers and suggest going to Public Works...

I never said stacked combat isn't civvish because it is - I just don't like it, especially as implemented in CtP(2). The abstracted Espionage is an extension of the diplomacy system

	15-01-2004 17:40									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Fosse Right. I reread my post and saw that it may sound like I'm supporting tiles. I'm not, just saying that they'll probably be with us for a while. I hope I'm wrong.

Nah, but I wanted to point out that there are Civ games that don't have tiles.

I see only one real problem with giving up tiles, and it's more to do with giving up workers: A certain amount of unit shuffling at the beginning of the game gets the player involved. It makes the whole experience more dynamic.

MOO often feels sort of static or detached, not really a living empire you're involved with. (I haven't done MOO3 yet, tho'.)

I'm coming more and more to believe that the fundamental "problem" with Civ is that it doesn't scale well. Stacked combat, worker gangs, etc., could be a way to improve that.

Anothert thing might be "forced" armies: Units that aren't joined together in batallions (or whatever) could have a higher maintenance cost. Army production would feed into these batallaions instead of producing individual units. You'd rarely shuffle individual units around in a system like this, unless maybe for recon.

[ok]

	15-01-2004 20:03									#30
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by okblacke I'm coming more and more to believe that the fundamental "problem" with Civ is that it doesn't scale well. Stacked combat, worker gangs, etc., could be a way to improve that. [ok]

The problem of civ scaling is, I think, one of balance. Right now, your economy expands faster than the cost of units, which means that over time the number of units grows drastically. If the costs were rebalanced to be more in line with the growth of the economy, you could keep down unit numbers.

BUT in order to do this, you need to implement some form of combined arms bonus, otherwise a tech lead translates into an overwhelming military lead.

Additionally, a gradual increase in the upkeep cost of units would lower the amount of units in a standing army.