Registered: Sep 2001
Location: Sunny Old England
Posts: 159

Since civilization is all about rewriting history we are not going with the static trait system of civ3. Instead we are having an experince system, just like you would in any rpg game.

So to give you an example, there are a number of categories, but not limited to these:
Agriculture, Seafaring, War, Scientific, Commercial, Industrial,
Construction, Diplomatic, Entertainment, Religious, Exploration.

In each cat there are 5 levels and upon eaching a level you gain certain bonuses to your civ, so in agriculture you gain levels by irrigating the land, seafaring you explore the sea...etc etc.

So, using Seafaring as an example.

Seafaring Level Requirements:
---------------------------------------
Level 1: Built 3 Ports, Have 2 Existing Ships and Destroyed 3 ships
Level 2: Built 7 Ports, Have 15 Existing Ships and Destroyed 10 ships
Level 3: Discovered Navigation, Have 25 Existing Ships Built 10 Ports, Destroyed 20 Ships
Level 4: Built 2 Major Ports, travelled around the globe, Destroyed 40 ships, Have 50 Existing Ships
Level 5. Built 10 Major Ports, Have 100 Existing Ships

and an example of the rewards.

Seafaring Awards:
-----------------------
Level 1: All Ships have +1 Movement
Level 2: All Ships have +2 Defence
Level 3: All Ships have +1 Movement and Ships are 1/2 the cost to build
Level 4: All ships have + 2 Defence, +2 Attack, +2 Movement, can build Elite status ships
Level 5: All ships have + 2 Defence, +3 Attack, +3 Movement, All Ports have no running cost and can build Imperial status ships.

This is all just an example and is subject to change.

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Posts: 2046

That's interesting but your conditions favor big civs. There should be some kind of exclusivity or sense of proportion, like: Have a port in 50% of your cities, have a port in all your cities, circumnavigating the globe (and maybe being the first to do so).

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: soon to be a major religion
Posts: 2837

i agree level five should be something like a great wonder only for one civ...thus you have to specialize

EDIT: i mean the first the reaches level 5 i the only one that can get to level 5

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: From New Zealand
Posts: 2052

Thanks for the suggestions, we will look into those.


We are also looking into building a sort of database record system, where every single action taken in the game is recorded. So that later events in the game are effected by what happened before, or a foreign leader can bring back an event that happened thousands of years ago.

So for example, if you killed 10,053 of Babylonians spearmen back in 5 A.D, the Babylonians may come back to you two thousand years later and say "Remember those 10,053 men you killed back in 5 A.D.? Well prepare to be nuked."

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 653

quote: Originally posted by Sn00py So for example, if you killed 10,053 of Babylonians spearmen back in 5 A.D, the Babylonians may come back to you two thousand years later and say "Remember those 10,053 men you killed back in 5 A.D.? Well prepare to be nuked."

Well isn't that silly?...

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: From New Zealand
Posts: 2052

Its just an example of how the record system works

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Jan 1970
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 679

I wouldn't have thought that any of the level 1's would force you on a warmongering path.

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Jan 2001
Location:
Posts: 710

I hope these things are relative. Like LDiCesare said it would favor big civs now by a lot since eventually they would level up everything. Personally it'd be better to work comparatively and as a % of the civ's total actions, etc. So if one tiny civ uses diplomacy to stay alive and that is basically all it does it should be the best in the world. Which would allow it great skills and options which would make it use diplomacy even more. Also would this be limited or could you keep improving? If it is limited and not comparative and relative, etc eventually everyone will likely be highest level anyways.

Report this post to a moderator |

Harry Tuttle

Registered: Mar 2003
Location: of the Hoople Heads
Posts: 611

Very cool Snoopy. I assume this could be used as a way to identify eras too?

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Sinister Penguin
Posts: 727

I'm always nervous about really broad traits like 'war'. I mean, that's a huge area in itself, and you could easily branch it out into offense, defence, infantry, cavalry, artillery, fortifications, quality, quantity, etc.

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: From New Zealand
Posts: 2052

pg, it will not be possible to level up everything, we will make sure that it is too damn hard to achieve.

I wanted to make it unlimited, but that would mean we would have to keep coming up with different bonuses; maybe after level 5 it will increase something at very small %'s?


Sandman, we will not let the War trait overpower the other traits.


I believe that with this experience system, civilizations will truly become more unique; for example, in one of your games, there could be a civ that has a very high agricultural experience level and a high seafaring experience level. You will notice that 1. They produce far more food than anyone else and 2. controls the sea's. This is a poor example of course, but you get the idea.

You could either focus your strengths in one or two areas, or focus on all of them, but you may only get half way trying to do all experiences in one game.

Also, keep in mind that this feature will make your games even more different each time you start a new game. In Civ3, you knew what the English had strengths in, but in Humanitas, you won't.

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Lawton, OK
Posts: 10

I don't know...it really does seem off... I like the idea, but if you have balanced players, it would simply be TOO easy to get all of the benefits.

However, to fix that, I think that you guys should consider modeling this system based on international statistics.

For example, if at 1329, Spain is BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE at food production, etc., then Spain should get a bonus. HOWEVER, if at 1594, the world has changed dramatically and Italy is the best farming nation, it should get the bonus. The bonuses increase for as long as one nation holds its power in history.

Because, in actual history, nations get power and then fade out, even though they may not have been DEFEATED, per se, but they lose their advantage.

For example, when Marco Polo did his thing, Italy got the glory for world exploration, but when Christopher Columbus did HIS thing, Italy faded out and Spain came into power.

Spain was a world power for a while, then England became a world power, then America beat England (but was not yet a major world power). France (with Napoleon) almost conquered Europe (so, it took the 'war benefits' from England)...and then the world stabilized.

So, what I'm kind of saying is, these bonuses and abilities should be given to the FIRST civ that achieves them, and then TAKEN AWAY by future civs.

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: soon to be a major religion
Posts: 2837

this creates insentive to keep being the best in something keeping you on your toes

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: From New Zealand
Posts: 2052

Thanks for the suggestion.

We are seeking your suggestions before we implement the features.

Report this post to a moderator |

Platypus Rex

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: Give Blood..Give Life- just 20 min.. Woodland,CA
Posts: 2364

If the civ I was playing was the best at somethng

I would find a way to keep those ideas from being stolen

I think counter espionage would be another great idea

x amount/% to help guard national secrets

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: May 2002
Location: Cheif Manufacturing Officer of Morgan Industires
Posts: 1066

Were starting to hit against the fundamental problem of every Civ game

SNOWBALLING

Basicaly the game rewards you for being powerfull with more power (hense why you always want to play one more turn). The problem is that one Empire rapidly comes to dominate and runs away with the game. Their are realy only 2 possible solutions, weaken the leader or strengthen the followers. No game has yet succeded at modeling the cyclical rise and fall of world powers. Civ III uses golden ages which is a nice touch but still dosn't fundamentaly change the game, some kind of "Dark age" is needed.

That idea for having the advantages be like a trophy that can be taken away sounds like a nice idea. Like the defeat of the Spanish Armada making the English dominent on the Sea's. Unfortunatly thats going to be very unlikly if these bonuses are truely as strong as they apear. Thus is realy shouldn't require a full defeat, rather just a good set-back for you too lose the "king of the Hill" position. That will likly cause the title to change hands more often. You can also trigger these transfer of title/power events on non-combat events like completing a Wonder, entering a Golden Age ect ect.

Last edited by Impaler[WrG] on 03-08-2005 at 19:53

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 4847

To solve this, would it be a good idea to give a civ very powerful for a certain time, an increased chance for a negative trait called "Decadent" or something? It could be in effect for say 20 turns and then either disappear or have a chance to disappear. Perhaps you could try to battle the effects so that they aren't too bad, but then you'd have to use most on your resources internally on that, and therefore have problems dealing with outside threats and problems, risk loosing your lead, get increased revolt risk etc.?

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Ghent
Posts: 56

Excellent idea !

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Lawton, OK
Posts: 10

Or continuing with the idea of decadence, the bonuses decay over time--you may have an advantage at first, but that advantage slowly diminishes. Meanwhile, other nations have a better chance of stealing the trophy.

So, this decay could represent how when a snowball is created, the sun WILL melt it eventually. It doesn' t simply continue to grow--one day the sun must come out, and then the snowball will require a little more than rolling to maintain.

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Jan 2004
Location: The most erratic Overlord!
Posts: 7846

With all the AND necessities to grow in power, a clever enough AI can make it so that a player simply doesn't get the opportunity to grow in level. Using the sea strength example, how to increase in level if there are simply not sufficient enemy ships to be destroyed, because the AI led civs don't construct them?

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Lawton, OK
Posts: 10

Then there would be no sea strength for destroying ships in that particular instance.

However, if an enemy sabotaged themselves like that in ALL the aspects of the trait system--you could own them any way you wanted to.

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Aug 2004
Location:
Posts: 1

Something that really needs to be taken into account is that when a civilization loses, it loses hard. For example, when Athens was defeated by Sparta in the Peloponnesian War, their "Golden" civilization crashed as a feeling of pessimism settled in. So when a civ loses a huge battle, or if they lose a high up power (such as losing a level 5 trait and dropping to 4) they would experience some sort of penalty. Let's say Civ A loses it's place as top of the naval ladder to Civ B. Civ B would gain the bonuses of the top and Civ A would be penalized (like slower ship construction).

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Lawton, OK
Posts: 10

This is a very valid point... Although, it would make the game a lot harder!

Report this post to a moderator |

Platypus Rex

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: Give Blood..Give Life- just 20 min.. Woodland,CA
Posts: 2364

quote: Originally posted by wallish Something that really needs to be taken into account is that when a civilization loses, it loses hard. For example, when Athens was defeated by Sparta in the Peloponnesian War, their "Golden" civilization crashed as a feeling of pessimism settled in. So when a civ loses a huge battle, or if they lose a high up power (such as losing a level 5 trait and dropping to 4) they would experience some sort of penalty. Let's say Civ A loses it's place as top of the naval ladder to Civ B. Civ B would gain the bonuses of the top and Civ A would be penalized (like slower ship construction).

has any other game tried this?


Great idea wallish

Report this post to a moderator |

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Milano - Italy
Posts: 1524

quote: Originally posted by wallish Something that really needs to be taken into account is that when a civilization loses, it loses hard. For example, when Athens was defeated by Sparta in the Peloponnesian War, their "Golden" civilization crashed as a feeling of pessimism settled in. So when a civ loses a huge battle, or if they lose a high up power (such as losing a level 5 trait and dropping to 4) they would experience some sort of penalty. Let's say Civ A loses it's place as top of the naval ladder to Civ B. Civ B would gain the bonuses of the top and Civ A would be penalized (like slower ship construction).

Overkilling, and not historically correct, IMHO.
A civ that loses a war, can still raise again. If that wasn't possible in real life you should explain how the crushed German Empire after the defeat of the first WW raised its head and almost defeated the whole Europe at the second WW.

From a game point of view, you should also consider that if you lose some city and resource, you can already be on your knees, without other penalties (don't forget the diplomatic options of the peace treaty: money, tech, maps, luxuries...).

Overkilling by penalties a losing Civ is not a way to enjoy a better game: it's only a way to finish the game early, and that's not "epic" at all, IMHO.

Keeping the game interesting until late turns means to let Civ to raise up again enough to compete, not simply gang up against you "ten musketeers vs. fifty modern armour tank" as last Civ Conquest I finished a few weeks ago.

Report this post to a moderator |