 |
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
good idea, but again, implementation?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999 time: 23:15
|
|
This sounds like an idea that I had for a hypothetical civ game.
Basically, the player would be the actual leader of the country. There would be screens for domestic policies, military policies, agricultural policies, diplomatic policies etc where the player could determine how things work, from tax rates, trade tariffs to military draft etc.
There would also be a "law screen" where the player could actually create any kind of law that he/she wants by combining different elements in any combo. For example, the player could pass a law that encourages 5% pop growth. Or, the player could pass a law that bans freedom of speech. The amount of political power the player had would determine how many laws the player could pass in a single turn. And of course if your country has a senate, they might have to vote on your laws before they became actual law. And the senate could pass it own laws.
The player could see the effects of their policies as cities grew, shrank, as population migrated, as popular opinion rised or dropped, as even revolts popped up etc
It would be very dynamic. The best of all is that the player would have a great sense of what kind of leader they were by lookng at their policies. Are they a benevolent dictator? Are they emphasizing agricultural development instead of industrial?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by The diplomat
This sounds like an idea that I had for a hypothetical civ game.
Basically, the player would be the actual leader of the country. There would be screens for domestic policies, military policies, agricultural policies, diplomatic policies etc where the player could determine how things work, from tax rates, trade tariffs to military draft etc.
There would also be a "law screen" where the player could actually create any kind of law that he/she wants by combining different elements in any combo. For example, the player could pass a law that encourages 5% pop growth. Or, the player could pass a law that bans freedom of speech. The amount of political power the player had would determine how many laws the player could pass in a single turn. And of course if your country has a senate, they might have to vote on your laws before they became actual law. And the senate could pass it own laws.
The player could see the effects of their policies as cities grew, shrank, as population migrated, as popular opinion rised or dropped, as even revolts popped up etc
It would be very dynamic. The best of all is that the player would have a great sense of what kind of leader they were by lookng at their policies. Are they a benevolent dictator? Are they emphasizing agricultural development instead of industrial? |
I like it - freeciv2 anyone, cuz it aint happenin from firaxis
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jason Beaudoin
|
|
Canada
Jan 1970 time: 00:15
|
|
My key message in this post has nothing to do with RTS. Although it would be a game with more RTS qualities, it would feel more like a simulation.
For example, you wouldn't see instant results from your actions, but rather, a series of actions would create an certain type of atmosphere, much like what we've seen in Sim City.
Of course, the logistics of programming in units and combat would have to worked out, but I would welcome the idea of trying to meld the concept of Simulation into an Empire building game.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Timtopia
|
|
Story City, Iowa, USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:15
|
|
That's a great idea, I think you should call it "SimNation" as you may recall from SimCity 3000 you city is actually part of SimNation and the people coming to your city are from the "SimNation". Lets get Will Wright and Sid Meier on this project.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jason Beaudoin
|
|
Canada
Jan 1970 time: 00:15
|
|
Thanks for the info Earthling7! I never knew that Sid had tried that out, and I guess he's right. There would be a lot of watching rather than playing.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sabre2th
|
|
Why do people keep trying to do this? If you make it that different, it's not civ. If you want a game like SimCity, play SimCity. Civ is unique in many ways. If you make it like other games, it loses what makes it special. Leave civ alone.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Tjoepie
Sounds like a promissing idea, but I think that before such a game is developed some big progress will have to be made in AI.
The danger if AI is not up to specs in such a game is that it will seriously hamper replayebility.
You'll think , "ok but that's same in Civ" , wéll yes for your opponents , but here you'll even need AI on your side aswell! |
You hardly need AI for opponents - this is would be more of a solitaire game like caeasar 3 - opponents would be more abstract - realize thats harder in a nation-building context than a city-building context, but still the idea would be to give up on MP, and, using assymetry between human player and others, have the design subtitute for the AI (am I making sense?) Would not so much need AI for your side, but "models" of behaviour, as simcity has a migration model, transportation model, etc. These could be play tested (aka validated) and refined.
I rather hope that this is what Sid intends as eventual fruit of Maxis colloboration, not more golf games.
LOTM
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15. Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|