 |
| |
|
|
amjayee
|
 |
Jyväskylä, Finland
Oct 1999
time: 07:14
|
|
Realism, scope, abstraction and adjusting them
Created: May 23rd 2000
Updated: -
Our intention in making the openciv3 is to allow the player to adjust the game rules, realism, scope and abstraction, not freely, but in certain framework. Restriction is needed to make ai more competitive. To achieve this, we need discussion about what needs to be adjustable.
I will try to keep this list updated according to the discussion. From the beginning of this message, you can see when this was updated.
Here are some things for starters. There's more to come when I have had more time to think about it, and some discussion has been taking place.
Scope&Turn amount etc.
This is one of the more easy things. The player can set freely the starting and ending year, and the amount of turns. The turn amount could be set f.ex. like this: from 4000BC to 1000BC in 20 year turns, then in 10 year turns etc.
The game system has to be able to adapt to the different turn amounts. This is the case mainly in the technological advancement and population growth things.
Or, there could be some pre-set options to change from. This would be easier.
Population handling
There should be various realism levels in the behavior of the population. The most simple system would be much like in civ2.
The more realistic systems would take into account more variables, and give the player less possibilities to control the people, as in the proposed population system.
These realism options should be pre-set, and the player could only choose between them.
More to come...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pris
|
|
I'd rather play a good game rather than a poor game that's customizable. SMAC was the most customizable Civ game but it isn't the best.
Population handling.
Having two systems is pointless. Pick a single system and stick with it. Realism isn't fun.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
amjayee
|
|
Jyväskylä, Finland
Oct 1999
time: 07:14
|
|
Pris:
Thanks for your comment.
How about a good, customizable game? I'm sure it is possible. But don't worry. My vision is, that we will first design one simple complete system, and create it. But, we will need to design the system so, that it is easy to add more realism. If you don't like realism, that's ok, you are free to think so. Speaking about myself, unrealistic strategy games have always bugged me.
Also I think it will not be very tough to have several realism settings, that the player could choose from. Remember, there were a possibility in civ2 to choose the civ1 style combat, for example.
I understand the concern of the people about adding too much realism. But, there has to be a chance for those who want realism, to get it. But as I have said many times, we will start out simple, and add things gradually. The reason why this discussion is needed, is to figure out what kinds of properties people want, so we can take that into account when designing the game framework.
As said earlier, don't ask to remove some property you don't personally like. If it is good, leave it be. You will have a possibility to disable it - when the game is actually ready. That will take a long time, though.
[This message has been edited by amjayee (edited May 26, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
amjayee
|
|
Jyväskylä, Finland
Oct 1999
time: 07:14
|
|
Ok, I had some talk with another member of our team. We came to this conclusion: We have to create a complete game system. There should be some things the player could customize: 2d/3d map, the scope possibly (starting/ending year, turn amount), perhaps 1-3 combat models to choose from, religions or not, things like that. The customizable things have to be decided, and no free editing of game components would be allowed, to make the creating the game system easier.
In short: some possibilities to adjust the game, clearly designed and decided.
What things you would like to be choose-able?
Also, the game system design needs to emphasized in that case. We need to find out, what properties are needed, and design the final game system based on those properties. So, send your comments and ideas to the other sections.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
If we are going to be able to shorten the timescale but retain the same number of turns (which is a Good Thing(tm)) i think there would be more sciences/units, whatever that fit in that timescale.
That's my £0.02.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
I would like the timeframe to go from 4000BC to 2100 or 2200AD. This will make it possible for a realistic launch to AC, and will give us the possibility to add a few sci fi techs. But again it should be custimizable. Ideally we could have a system where people can add their own techs and make units with them without any programming skill. The AI should simply know what each unit can do and thus being able to work with any enviroment you give it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
markusf
|
|
Why should it follow history so closely? If the darkages had never happened we could have had space flight at 1000 AD. I think limiting gameplay to much play trying to follow OUR history will just limit the game to much. After all we aren't building a simulator.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
amjayee
|
|
Jyväskylä, Finland
Oct 1999
time: 07:14
|
|
markusf and Joker:
I agree with markus that the basic game shouldn't try to follow our history. There could be an "Earth scenario" that tries to follow it though. It could also be possible that there are "dark ages" in the game too, f.ex. when a large empire falls, as in our world, but not necessarily at the same time.
But I agree with Joker that some things need to be simulated. It has to remain a strategy game, but simulation and strategy _can_ exist in the same game. Religion, population, combat and economy are things that need to be simulated. Our intention is though to give some options to choose the combat model, for example, if someone likes a more civ2 like game.
About timeframe, the game should start at some certain time - 4000 BC is ok - but the end date shouldnt' be set. In some world, development could be slower or faster than in our world. The end date should depend on some factors, it shouldn't always be 2100 or 2300 AD. But, it could be possible that in some games there could be the maximum amount of turns specified. Also player could choose to jump in also later, like 1000 BC. The progress in the world would be calculated until that moment. It is relatively easy to create several timeframe options.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:14
|
|
quote:
If the darkages had never happened we could have had space flight at 1000 AD.
|
Umm... actually, I'd go as far as saying that if the "Dark Ages" never happened, we would still be a couple centuries away from space flight. The decentralized, feudalistic nature of the "Dark Ages" caused intense competition between European states, from without, and from within. Technological advances, therefore, were fiercly pursued at any and all opportunities. In fact, this is the main reason, IMO, why the West eclipsed the great empires of the East (China, the Mogul Empire, Persia, and the Ottoman Empire). The Europeans couldn't afford to be too decadent, else they would be destroyed, while the empires of Asia faced no real threats from outside the state, or internal threats. Just my two cents  !
Remember, making this game too complex might be too much for the AI...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
About the scope of the game, we all agree that we should have 1 year turns throughout the game (I think). But I think we should make the starting dates for each game very customizable. Some people might like to start 10,000 BC with the first agriculture, but others, and I think I mostly belong to this last group, really wants to have some action, and would therefore want a later starting date, something like 2000 BC. This is not entirely correct historically, but it offers a gameplay where you don't play for 4000 turns without anything happening. I am not saying we should lock on to one type, but that we should have the system be as flexible as possible.
------------------
Vote Gore. For the sake of people, not god.
GGS Website
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
I agree with Joker about the 1 tear per turn, but if we are going to make that happen it can't be as he pointed out- 4000 turns with nothing happening.
Between 10000 BC and 6000 BC even the smallest most localized plague can wipe out your delicate civ. Just one really bad harvest could take the most powerful city/empire (about the size of a modern-day city block that's huge!) and take it down to nothing.
We need to make that phase of the game extremely volatile. Most likely, a player will go for no more than 50 or 60 turns before something fatal happens to his poor civ. That would be historically accurate, too since that's about how long most early civs lasted- the lifetime of one great leader.
To play 4000 turns as the same civ through such a period as before people begin to understand that there are things out there like germs that kill people, before they begin to understand that when you have something everyone else wants usually someone will try to take it from you.
Perhaps you play the very first civ in the whole game. This is before the concept of diseases. So you are wiped out in a matter of about 20 years. You start again on the same timeline, at 9980 BC with a different civ. Maybe some word got to you about the last civ that was wiped out by disease, maybe you didn't. Doesn't matter because you still haven't discovered the concept of Organized Military, and you are quickly overrun by a rival tribe. So, flustrated, you start again at 9974 BC as yet another tribe. This one is even more backwards than the other two you haven't even discovered agriculture yet. Maybe yu do really well. Maybe you get really lucky and your new civ lasts a whopping 36 years until your chief dies of old age. Too bad his sons can't agree on anything so they split up what little civ you have and fight over the remains thus destroying everything you built (a few bone houses and grass huts)
Around 6000 or 5000 BC we should see some definate evidence of more advanced farming like what we see in the Fertile Crescent, Egypt, and Mesoamerica. By 4000 some definate empires will have developped.
Actually there's another thing I wanted to mention:
Until your civ figures out ways of calculating and tabulating stuff, you won't know what date it is. I don't think you should have a thingy telling you how many turns have pased since the beginning, nor do I think a BC/AD calendar should be arbitrary. I think that when a civ dcides to make their own calendar, they get to count the number of turns.
My reasoning is this:
In Civ2 it's easy to play on one single continent isolated form the rest of the world and all you need to gauge the technology level of other civs is the date. You knew by what the date was how advanced the other civs were, even though you never encountered them. You use that in your strategy, where if you get a quick jump start with some units then you attack because you know by 0 they still won't have pikemen. Well if you don't have the year so arbitrary as that you can't use that. Maybe they already have musketeers and you're attacking with an elephant because you don't know what year they are on.
------------------
How will you make it if you never even try?
-Macy Gray
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
I think it is a fascinating concept to use game years in stead of historical years. But like the starting date it should remain an option. It is, after all, not something that will take an awful amount of time to implement.
------------------
Vote Gore. For the sake of people, not god.
GGS Website
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Ok something just occured to me, if we're going to use that concept of time, then there is no such thing as a starting date! Since there is no year save yesteryear and next year, how can we say it's the year 10000BC?
I think that the players should be able to start the game instead at a certain tech level...
and choose which tech level they want to start at.
------------------
How will you make it if you never even try?
-Macy Gray
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
I have a better idea:
A player gets to choose not only his own starting tech leve, but also the relative tech level of his competitors!
why?
BIG BONUS POINTS
Say you could start at the dawn of the information age (1979?)
You could start with the USA, in which case you get no bonus.
Imagine, however, you could start playing as Ghana or Bangladesh or Afghanistan or something like that. Not that I'm saying those countries are backwards, but in terms of communication networks, military might, and consumer buying power they don't compare to any of the industrialized west countries. In fact I think it would present an interesting challenge to BE the country that the superpowers use in a proxy war. SO why start at such a disadvantage?
Say for every major science handicap you take you get an exponential ammount points added to your total score for that game, x squared where x is the number of handicaps you take.
Then you could do the same with deliberately taking a leader that is "less than the wisest."
------------------
How will you make it if you never even try?
-Macy Gray
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
hehehe
Then we don't have to make stupid rules that sets difficulty levels of Civ2 which determine how much cheating the AI is allowed. That makes the game more simple too, since there is only 1 difficulty level.
Only thing now is to ask: How are points going to be used, and what good are they?
Do we want to just have a high-scoreboard or what?
If we're going to use the relay-race thing where you start another game right after you lose the last one and keep the same timeline, then perhaps you could "spend" your points on something like more money or something like that. I dunno?
------------------
How will you make it if you never even try?
-Macy Gray
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guildmaster
|
|
Up your butt and around the corner
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
I know!
Perfect!
We know that assuming the game is good enough, people will play the crap out of it for days and months and years.
We can have secret subcommands in the game that unlock hidden toys once you reach a total number of points on that computer.
Suppose normally the game would end when the first player dominates the world (ho-ho I'm the king of the world let's play again) or something like that. If you had enough points as a player as a whole since you started playing the game, say at 2,500,000 points the following event happens:
you would suddenly be introduced to an alien species and being the emperor of earth you would have to defend the Jupiter colonies against an alien invasion force, then try and mount an interstellar counteroffensive with the latest starships and space marines. You would be inducted into the Galactic High Council and begin an arms race against the Korban empire while they threaten you with the devastating "Omega-Bomb" and have to spread a vast network of genetically engineered spies across the galaxy to make sure they don't try to smuggle something like that to Earth.
Perhaps another idea:
You reach 5,000,000 archaeologists discover in a remote cavern of Antarctica: what appears to be a timecapsule. Apparently, before the last Ice age, some 30,000 years ago there was a tremendously advanced civilization on Earth, but was destroyed by some cataclysmic event. To prevent everything from being lost, they mustered everything they could into an enourmous data-storage machine built to last eons. Well you found it. In it, you find all sorts of technological wonders the world hasn't pondered for millenia- hypersonic matter-displacement drive systems, radically advanced physical theories and calculations describing the exact nature of light and how to accelerate past it, reciprocating micro-fusion power plants that use water for fuel and make air for exhaust, microscopic Bio-genetic automatons that can be wired directly to the brain's neurons and act like living nanites that a person can control as easily as an arm or a leg.
I dunno, what do you think?
------------------
How will you make it if you never even try?
-Macy Gray
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
amjayee
|
|
Jyväskylä, Finland
Oct 1999
time: 07:14
|
|
I'm afraid that moving single units tile by tile is quite out of question. The units will be 1000-10000 men each, so there would be hundreds and hundreds of them, and it would be quite impossible to create AI to handle that kind of mass of units. With armies, that task would be easier. Also armies makes handling the combat far easier, since we can simply decide, what effect each kind of unit has in the outcome of the battle; thus we can make a system where, unlike in civ2, the different unit types don't work in the same way. Thus, we can have much more realistic artillery, archers, cavalry etc. than earlier. And let's face it; war is organized combat between armies, where different unit types cooperate, not single units; it has been that way for thousands of years. Only the earliest clashes between small tribes and guerrilla war make an exception.
Even with larger tiles, they will still be some 50-70 km wide; one tile would be quite large an area to be covered only one division of 10000 men. So the scope also propose the use of armies.
Also another point is, that the map sizes will be, as said, way larger. It would kill both you and your keyboard to move 200 units tile by tile across large distances.
I can see your point here, but I'm afraid we simply can't go along that path anymore. It is quite natural way of thinking that if we change something that is familiar for us, and we like it, it might become less good or fun. But I'm quite assured the new system would be just as good, and at least just as fun as the old system; it's just that it would be good and fun in another way.
Also, the opinion of the guy who needs to take part in programming the system, it would be much easier and more fun to use the army system. And yes, I think it would become far better also. And this system consumes also less computer resources.
And finally personal level, conquering the world, where you needed massive armies, was quite tedious. Basically, underneath the keyboard hassle, the strategics and tactics were fun, but the unit movement was not very fun after a couple of games like that. Just my personal opinion.
[This message has been edited by amjayee (edited November 27, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
 |
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:14
|
|
Hi All!
I hope you don't mind non-members inserting opinions...
I just wanted to support amjayee's point about armies being better than units. I'll be brief (actually after proofreading, I Lied, its not brief).
1. Historically the more powerful armies win wars (duh!) but only by concentrating military power at the critical points. The only reason this doesn't work in Civ is because arbitrary rules, like only one unit in the stack defends, make 'real' armies untenable at least in the open. In a game without these rule distortions the more powerful force will generally win if it is concentrated. A more powerful force will lose if it is dispersed while its opponent concentrates, since each small army can be defeated in turn by the large army with very small losses. Of course, guerilla war is an exception, because the dispersed forces refuse set-piece battles.
2. We've discussed this a lot over in the Clash forums, and armies are pretty much the hands-down winners because of reduced micromanagement, and more historical gameplay. (Feel free to peruse our forum on this point Elmo) But there is one caution. You need a vaguely reasonable supply system or the 'reality' I speak of in item 1 will imbalance the game. First, supply rules will limit army size since only so much food can Get to a single square. Second, without supply limits or other restrictions on task force (TFs, our army units) movements the first really great army can sweep the board. What prevented this in history was geographic boundaries, supply limitations, and human concerns, like Alexander's troops forcing him to turn back from India.
So Elmo, IMO if the AI is concentrating into armies, you will be forced to do so by the inevitable results of losing all your single units in turn. At least if the GGS military system is vaguely realistic.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-05-2000 19:27
|