19-01-2002 04:13									#181
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune But I would be relatively confident about a rule system for 1500BC-1900AD. One reason why I think a History Simulator needs a lot of units is the Spearman/Tank problem. Now I am not given very much to defending CivIII , but there is a (sort of) reason why a CivIII Spearman can sometimes beat a CivIII tank: This is because the Spearman is meant to 'somehow' 'symbolize' a lot of other things like 3rd class Militia units of a much later age and even unshaved 3rd world 20th century guerillas armed with bazookas.

Something of a contradiction here. On one hand you talk about a rules system up to 1900 AD, but then you talk about modern units with bazookas. It seems to me that you still need to work on your priorities, rather than view your potential game in broad terms. You need define your goals more, not just say "This is a cool idea."

	19-01-2002 04:18									#182
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Sikander Perhaps you / we should start a new thread, and post a link here for it. I am interested in this discussion, it's just that I think we have jacked Vel's thread to death at this point, and it's already pretty long.

I think the discussion is just now so lively and interesting, I would want to carry it on a little longer. If Marcos/Ming think our time is up, you can count on them to close this thread, anyway. I think I can hear them already sharpen their knives in the background.

But youīre right, when I have collected enough ideas to amount to a sort of Alpha version for a design document for a History Simulator, I will definitely start a new thread or two for specifics.

	19-01-2002 04:30									#183
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Comrade Tribune

great idea about skipping the 20th century, however because of the industrial revoltuion and changes in communication, transport, and weapons i would stop the game at no later than 1850, but since nice round numbers are preferable i would make the game span from 1200bc-1800ad (a nice even 3000 years of history)

quote: One reason why I think a History Simulator needs a lot of units is the Spearman/Tank problem. Now I am not given very much to defending CivIII , but there is a (sort of) reason why a CivIII Spearman can sometimes beat a CivIII tank: This is because the Spearman is meant to 'somehow' 'symbolize' a lot of other things like 3rd class Militia units of a much later age and even unshaved 3rd world 20th century guerillas armed with bazookas

while i totally disagree about guerillas in Civ3 (in my opinion the game doesn't represent them at all) but i have some food for thought for you

in civ while it isn't stated, it is certainly implied that each unit is probably somewhere in size from a company (probably more like a brigade) to a division in modern times and something from a cohort to a legion in ancient times, now while there certainly is alot of difference between each soldier how much actual difference is there between two various divisions? consider that

also the task of making a "realistic" game is monumental,
EU2 has a very limited timespan, and although it tries to be realistic it glosses over quite a bit to be playable, plus one of the flaws with EU2 is that it lack Civ's personality it's harder to identify with your nation, and that is certainly a problem (still though its a good game)

so to have a game that takes realism an order beyond EU2 and still remains playable will be quite a challenge, but hey i wish you the best of luck

EDIT:
Comrade, listen developing the design document before forming a team actually capable of producing the game isn't a good model...unless you have the capability to do the programming yourself

otherwise, form the team then design the game

	19-01-2002 04:44									#184
	Re: What kind of gamer am I? Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Captain Other things I like to do but usually don't get to: Build the perfect cities in "personality". For example, build a large ecologically friendly city. Always act honourably towards other players. Never raze a city or do anything I wouldn't in real life. Donate to other players (humanitarian aid in gold, tech, resources, MPPs). Fight off belligerent neighbours who pick on weaker friends, but give back captured allied cities. Preserve forests and other rare terrain tiles instead of developing them for boosted production. Give my citizens something useful to do besides build military units once the infrastructure's done. Build a wonder in every city. Have no unhappy people at any time. And as someone else mentioned, build the transwhatever railline. It just feels like an accomplishment. Especially to complete it while you're in the middle of a raging war! But none of these are really recognized by the game as an achievement. (eg. the game favours playing dishonourably and mercilessly to get the upper hand, then at the last minute jacking up your luxuries). Sounds loony, but I like to be a "good" guy.

This general idea is something Iīve thought a lot about.

My personal philosophy about this is that good guy/bad guy strategies should be evenly balanced. I tend to the solution to award you Victory Points directly for good guy/cultural achievements of great prestige. For example, if you invent Philosophy first, you are not given an extra tech, like in the earlier Civs, but a generous amount of VPīs, instead. Similarly, you get a small amount of VPīs/province/turn with WLTKD equivalent. There will also be some Wonders that give you VPīs directly.

Trouble is the things that give you the most VPīs tend to be the most useless, otherwise. So there will always be a trade-off between beelining for VPīs and beelining for killer technologies.

	19-01-2002 04:49									#185
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune On this point I really disagree. The 2nd best historical strategy game series ever (just a tad behind EU) was Imperialism I/II, but no one ever said it had state-of-the-art graphics.

There's a very simple test available right now on this forum. Someone has completely redone the terrain graphics into a simplistic representation of what was done by Firaxis. You'll find it in "Files" entitled "Simple Terrain mod". Compare the number of downloads of that file as compared to something like "New Road/Rail tiles" in the same area. I'm not trying to disparage the author's work here, I'm sure a lot work was put into it, but I'm pretty certain that most players won't want to use them for their own games.

Players of computer games today expect more from graphics than they used to. A good example is the Command & Conquer series. The game play hasn't really changed all that much since the first release, but the graphics have steadily improved. A short while ago, I downloaded a freeware game based on AD&D rules, Runestone I believe it was called, but after a couple of tries I wiped it from drive because I couldn't handle the graphics quality. It reminded me to much of my Commodore 64 days.

	19-01-2002 06:04									#186
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

You make quite a fistful of demands that coincide exactly with what I want to do.

quote: Originally posted by Cunctator YES! That's the point, been a straight line of accumulation, turn after turn, from turn 1 to 540. Changing this kind of behaviuor would be the real revamp of the civ formula. There should be "turning points" when your achivements are assessed and you need to build upon them.

We can do even better than that. I have two extremely naughty ideas that I am sure Firaxians, being deep in the conventional Civ mindset, didnīt even consider:

1) PROGRESS CAN SET YOU BACK.

2) WONDERS CAN RUIN YOUR DAY.

WAIT! Donīt call the men in the white shirts, yet! This is much more reasonable than it sounds.

Examples For (1):

a) Early in the game, you get a pretty powerful attack unit, the 'Warband'. At some point, however, you have become so civilized you are no longer allowed to build those semi-barbarian units. To add insult to injury, you *must* make a choice of either disbanding your existing Warbands or paying a nice amount of money to 'upgrade' them to a weaker unit type.
The thought of the typical newbies never bothering to read the Manual or Pedia frantically racing to the next tech level to find out they have just lost their strongest units comes close to define 'fun' for me.

b) There is a Cultural Habit (Social Engineering) setting called 'Nomadic'. Being a Mongol-like mostly Nomadic civilization has LARGE benefits in offensive warfare: Not only do you get some units others havenīt, you also donīt have to pay for your offensives. (You canīt build or research much, however.) At some point, like it or not, you will become civilized enough Nomadic is no longer an option. But when you settle down, you will lose your offensive edge, and have a very difficult transition period. A good time for your empire to fall apart again.

(More extremely nasty ideas tomorrow.)

	19-01-2002 06:05									#187
	Re: Part V Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune OK, I christen this (so far) hypothetical project 'The History Simulator'. (The title is, purposefully, as dry and unassuming as Iīd like the game to be.) One purpose of such a production would be 'Eliminating Marketing People Influence', because, in my conspiracy theory , it tends to be the marketing people who insist on unnecessary Fluff and thereby tie up the resources that could be used to create complex, working models, instead. Of course, if the designers themselves think like marketing people, itīs even worse.

Da Comrade, come the revolution the Marketing people must be the first up against the wall!

But seriously, I do agree that that is much of what's wrong with the games in the genre put out by the commercial houses. But worse than the fluff is the Evil Christmas Deadline. I realize games must be shipped sometime, but one of the major reasons for crappy games is the timing issue. And unfortunately given the $$$ involved giving games enough time to be concieved and gestate properly will be tough. That's why my best hope is for the amateurs. Of course it helps a Lot that I don't care much about graphics

	20-01-2002 06:52									#188
	Some More On Nonlinearity Put an end to popups!

(This still relates to Cunctatorīs post on p.6; but I will be catching up with this thread eventually. )

Nonlinearity will really be a TOP priority, if I decide to do this. Not just for realism, but quite as much for gameplay reasons. Nothing better than Nonlinearity to keep the hardcore Power Players on their toes. And there is another reason: Computers are better at handling complex, nonlinear formulas than humans, so a nonlinear environment is a gold mine (from a Macchiavellian designerīs viewpoint ) of increasing the difficulty of winning the game without increasing so much the difficulty of programming it.

Even if I do play nice and give you all the formulas (which I intend to do), there will still be the difficulty of figuring out their practical implications in the game, especially in relation to each other. The interface should be the only easy thing to master. Otherwise I am going to pursue the exact opposite path of CivIII: Create maze-like inner workings, which make it as hard to understand what is going on as possible.

There was an interesting experiment made by a German university teacher, who wanted to find out why avoidable catastrophes happen. His thesis was that they happen because humans have great difficulty understanding nonlinearity. So he wrote a pretty basic little program, designed to simulate the workings of a small African country. Then he collected some of the brightest students in a number of fields -including economy-, and let them run the country. They were given an explanation of the situation and the things they could do, and told they should try improve the situation of the people. There were no random natural catastrophes in the simulation, nor was the country assumed to have foreign enemies. There was no unrest either, so all they had to do was managing the economy, and some were experts in the field.

It all started well enough: They hunted Leopards for extra income, and drilled deep holes to find water and improve agriculture. More food was available, and the population grew. They grew very fast in fact, they had to drill more holes. In the meantime, through excessive hunting, the Leopards died out, so no more extra money. No problem. Agriculture was doing so well they could already start to export foodstuff. Two decades later they run out of ground water. Agriculture collapsed, bankruptcy was imminent, and their large, happy population was dying flike flies. Only a tiny fraction of the students avoided to totally destroy the country, so there was something in the professorīs thesis.

I always wanted to make a game like that, but I thought there would be no market. Today I am not so sure. Among hardcore Power Gamers on the one side and people like me who like complexity for the sake of itself on the other side, there may be a niche.

	21-01-2002 07:08									#189
	The Scary Pyramids Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Another idea in the Nonlinearity column: Wonders/Improvements with dangerous side effects!

Example: The Pyramids

First of all: The function of an item should -at least- have some similarity to the real thing. Pyramids as giant Granaries is simply silly. The Pyramids are not Granaries: The Pyramids are Graves.

So what comes to my mind when I think 'Pyramids'? #1: They signify an enormous amount of control over society. Sid got this right in CivI. #2: They are scary. Lots of people must have died building them. Their main content: Mummyfied corpses. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the Pyramids are symbols of an evil religion. They feature in Horror movies and Conspiracy theories. Last, but not least: All Empires who ever conquered Egypt went down the drain.

Sid Meier got to a good start with making the Pyramids give you increased control. A correct idea, but they were too strong. Built by a capable player, they unbalanced the game. Sidīs treatment of the Pyramids also didnīt take care of their scary aspects. Brian Reynolds didnīt improve upon this: Making the Pyramids into Granaries was his worst design decision in CivII, at least from an aesthetic viewpoint. And the CivIII designers, with their usual unfailing capability to do the wrong thing, kept that feature.

Now to explain what I would do with the Pyramids, I must first explain how Social Engineering in my design works. I believe Social Engineering (or however you call it) is one of the most imprtant features, if not *the* most important feature, in a civgame. SE in SMAC was very basic -definitely too basic-, but better than nothing. EUII has much better Social Engineering, but there is still room for improvement. I donīt name the feature Social Engineering or Domestic Policies, but rather Cultural Habits or Cultural Attitudes, which is already an indication of what I am going to do.

A 'Cultural Attitude' is a value from 0-100 (or perhaps -100 - +100) on a sliding scale, and there is quite a number of them, about 20. The important thing is that the values change at their own volition; there is no way you can directly influence them. You can not directly change the slider values, as in EUII; only watch them change.

On the other hand, whatever you do *will* have a small influence on the Cultural Attitudes of your people. What you build and research, how you conduct diplomacy, if you go to war and if you win it or lose it -all of it will have a small influence on the movement of one or more of your cultural sliders. In the long run, the sum of your actions will determine the culture of your civilization. However, there is no way to influence Attitudes in the short term, or directly.

There are also some 'Laws of Nature'. In game terms, a Law of Nature is a general tendency that keeps persisting, and exists independently of your decisions. One of those Laws of Nature is Entropy. Entropy means that, everything else equal, Government Control will decrease by a set amount every turn. Yes, if you do nothing, Government Control will decrease all by itself. A Libertarianīs dream.

If you keep this tendency unchecked, the dream will turn into a nightmare soon enough. First of all, the price of all your actions will increase: You have less control, after all. This will make it harder to check Entropy, so you are already in a vicious circle: The worse Entropy gets, the less you can do against it. Isnīt Nonlinearity wonderful? Farther down the drain comes Anarchy. Anarchy is simple, really: You lose power, your society falls apart, your civilization perishes: Another one bites the dust.

The most radical solution for Entropy will be the Pyramids. The Pyramids will contain Entropy; in game terms, they will entirely negate its effects. Clearly a powerful Wonder, but it comes at a price: Instead of creating Entropy, your society will now create Closemindedness. Your people will become more closeminded every turn. The effects of moderate Closemindedness are harmless, in some aspects even beneficial, but, once you have the Pyramids, Closemindedness will not stop accumulating; in time, your people will become outright stupid, and this will certainly pose a problem.

There is no simple way to get rid of the Pyramids, either, if you stop liking them. Many improvements in the game have negative side effects; it would be far too easy, if you could simply sell them. Instead, once you have built something, you are usually stuck with it. You canīt 'give' the Pyramids to the AI, either: The game wonīt work like that. You could give the province with the Pyramids to another human player, but only if he wants it. This will work only with a Newbie , because, if the Pyramids change hands, their positive effects vanish, but their negative effects remain: They will be equally split between the original builder and the new owner.

Only the Steam Engine puts an end to the influence of the Pyramids: After Steam Engine, all the Pyramids do is they give you a little gold for tourism, and take away a little amount of research: Every now and then, a few scientists vanish.

Last edited by Comrade Tribune on 21-01-2002 at 07:17

	21-01-2002 13:08									#190
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think you're half right and half wrong about the pyramids. While the pyramids are simply graves and the do symbolize the level of control of the goverment, they also symbolize the technical expertise, and level of organization of the civ. Contrary to popular belief the pyramids were not built by slave labor, instead the populace was required to provide a certain amount of their time for public projects. The Egyptians were the first civ. in ancient times to build granaries on a large scale and require that they be stocked, hence the whole pyramids=granaries.

The trick sin't to provide some sort of rational for the pyramaids but to instead, through game mechanics reflect the ability to mobilize the population for large scale works, whether tombs or canals, palaces or roads, and show how this affects the course of that civs development.

Negative aspects of wonders is all well in good, but the benefits should outweigh the negatives otherwise only the computer will build them, and smart players will let them.


Also, as a complete aside, military units should be able to build roads and perform other construction tasks. Classically one of the tasks of the Roman legions was to build roads. Often times when goverments need to throw lots of people at a project they bring in the Army. Who do you think built the Hoover dam? US Army Corps of Engineers.

But I digress.

	21-01-2002 14:58									#191
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Contrary to popular belief the pyramids were not built by slave labor, instead the populace was required to provide a certain amount of their time for public projects.

Cite?

	21-01-2002 16:34									#192
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

what is this freshman history, since when do we have to post source material? Next time you post libertarian make sure to include YOUR bibliography!

Source, for the curious, Life in Ancient Egypt by Adolph Erman,

do you want page numbers too?

	21-01-2002 16:42									#193
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ghengis-Sean what is this freshman history, since when do we have to post source material? Next time you post libertarian make sure to include YOUR bibliography! Source, for the curious, Life in Ancient Egypt by Adolph Erman, do you want page numbers too?

It seems reasonable that if you're stating something that's contrary to common belief, you would provide something that supports your observation. I could say that the sky was actually green, but we percieve it as blue because of alien mind control. If I don't provide some proof, my statement isn't going to hold much credence.

	21-01-2002 17:06									#194
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Source, for the curious, Life in Ancient Egypt by Adolph Erman

Do you have anything less ethnocentric and written after the 19th century?

	22-01-2002 04:51									#195
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Cunctator This is why "regions" seemed promising to me. There should be a point where you are no more focused on cities but "that" cities you have build are used to achieve something different.

Hitting the nail on the head! My own conception is this:

1) You have (as smallest geographical unit) 'Provinces' the size of France.

2) There is no management below Province level at all, except for battles.

3) Even so, the only Province you will be managing yourself is your Home (Capital) Province. For conquered Countries and for Colonies, you *must* appoint Governors.

4) So all you are doing is:
a) Managing your Empire at the highest level
b) Managing your Home Province
c) Moving your Armies (as a stack, of course ) and fighting battles

5) No Workers, no Micromanagement, no Late Game Tedium, no nonsense.

Anybody like to see a game like that?

	22-01-2002 04:59									#196
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune Hitting the nail on the head! My own conception is this: 1) You have (as smallest geographical unit) 'Provinces' the size of France. 2) There is no management below Province level at all, except for battles. 3) Even so, the only Province you will be managing yourself is your Home (Capital) Province. For conquered Countries and for Colonies, you *must* appoint Governors. 4) So all you do is: a) Managing your Empire at the highest level. b) Managing your Home Province. c) Moving your Armies (as a stack, of course ) and fighting battles. 5) No Workers, no Micromanagement, no Late Game Tedium, no nonsense. Anybody like to see a game like that?

Would I? This is exactly the kind of game that I have been waiting for. If only it were real...

What you described is exactly the kind of civ game I would want to play.

	22-01-2002 05:25									#197
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat Would I? This is exactly the kind of game that I have been waiting for. If only it were real... What you described is exactly the kind of civ game I would want to play.

Perhaps you should check out EU2. It comes closer to that description than Civ ever will.

Cheers,

	22-01-2002 05:28									#198
	Got spare money?

Yes, try EU2. Civ3 is a broken child's toy.

	22-01-2002 05:37									#199
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by yin26 Yes, try EU2. Civ3 is a broken child's toy.

Shouldn't that be a child's broken toy? I get so confused...

Venger

	22-01-2002 07:53									#200
	Jumping back in Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well, why not get back into this doozy of a thread?

A couple of ideas I didn't read anyone state:

Dark Ages: History does not always move forward- it sometimes moves backwards, when something really bad happens. Many civs don't survive, but some do, and return, and then fall again. It nice to play a game with a certain amount of forward movement, but if you want a history simulator, you must be ready to allow for backsliding.

No control of technological advancement: Unfortunitelly for gamers, politicians and generals don't get to tell folks when new techs should be ready by. Blind research ala SMAC is a must, though perhaps an even less directible course would be proper. You take care of your economy and state, and some of your citizens might come up with something new. Fine, in a time of great growth new techs would come pouring out, since new ideas are key to managing the growth. At the same time, govs. may try to stifle all tech. growth to keep the local power hierarchy in power

Power hierarchies. People get to power because of certain reasons, and certain backers. History has endless examples of civs doing not what was best for them in the long term (as we can see with 20/20 historical vision) but what was key to maintaining the power structure. Revolutions are big historical stuff precisely because they run counter to the conservative tide of states.

I must also ask, how far are we willing to go? Many have complained that civ3 awards sneaky, underhanded strategies. I would agree, I like playing the good guy- but I challenge anyone to go out there and find me more than a handful of leaders that would fit todays 'nice guy' standard. History is filled with massacres, attrocities, slavery, genocide, and all sorts of horrible inhumanities- and most of them worked. They worked because no one saw much that was wrong with them- remember that our current values are as much a product of this history we want to simulate as this history we want to simulate was shaped by our values. It might sound radical, but a trully effective history emulator would be one in which, by the end, the likes of Ghengis Khan, Stalin, or Hitler could, depending on how history was shapped, would be considered great statesment and moral leaders of mankind. That not a pretty reality, but one from which we are separated by less than we whish to accept.

	22-01-2002 10:16									#201
	Increase Your PM Length

Ideally tech development would not be player directed though the player, like goverments in the real, could encourage growth in a certain direction. The more trade and wealth a society has the more quickly technology should develop. The more closed off a society, the more authoritarian a goverment, the the slower tech should develop. But it should go both ways, the more opena society, the more tech but also more dissent, since after all you can't have your cake and eat it too.

	22-01-2002 10:56									#202
	Re: Jumping back in Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap A couple of ideas I didn't read anyone state: Dark Ages: History does not always move forward- it sometimes moves backwards, when something really bad happens. Many civs don't survive, but some do, and return, and then fall again. It nice to play a game with a certain amount of forward movement, but if you want a history simulator, you must be ready to allow for backsliding.

Yes that's been bounced around by a couple of people, myself included. Though maybe not here. It makes sense to me. It might make it interesting if your civ progressed on the "two steps forward, one back" approach, especially if there were a number of things that could happen. I think at least Civil War should be brought back, and there should be a possibility of it happening everytime you go into Anarchy to change governments. After all, not everyone in the Empire is going to be happy about the change, especially those who have some power and privilege. If there was some sort of throw that happened every turn in Anarchy, we might be sitting on the edge of our seats until it was all over.

	22-01-2002 10:59									#203
	Remove this text

I would caution, however, if they take that route, they cannot do it the same way they did with culture flipping: That is, we need to understand HOW and WHY these things happen. Otherwise its just dumb luck, which should not play that important of a role in a strategy game.

	22-01-2002 12:08									#204
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by yin26 I would caution, however, if they take that route, they cannot do it the same way they did with culture flipping: That is, we need to understand HOW and WHY these things happen. Otherwise its just dumb luck, which should not play that important of a role in a strategy game.

True, there'd have to be some sort of mechanism in place to allow a certain amount of control over the situation, even if you're not always successful. At least you would have some sense that you tried your best. Maybe that's why people are getting so upset with the flipping and the corruption. They have few or no options that will help them control it, at least nothing that they can understand.

	22-01-2002 12:30									#205
	hmm Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

if you are going to go into this whole game as you describe so far, i think you will have to change what you control too. if you are going to include nonlinearity what happens if your civ goes into long standing anarchy? you lose? doesn't sound too fun, why could you not retain control of your civ or regain your prominence later?

instead of being the leader of such a civ maybe you could be something like the god(or whatever) that watches over it. you could still make it work so you can retain direct or indirect control. it just seems that if you do include history going backwards that you would need a different control/focus group. maybe you will be in charge of a region or a people instead of a civ? maybe if someone conquers you or something similair, you'd become part of his empire yet still retain some control over your civ(or whatever).

populous was interesting in that you had some control, yet you could never micromanage everything. the computer ai did most of the controlling(read: micromanagement) but not macromanagement. i also liked ogre battle(for snes) where you controlled squads of units but the fighting was all automated, and you could only specify general strategy. i can't quite get a firm mental grasp on how your game would play comrade. maybe you can do a better job elaborating on more of your game ideas and the core of your gameplay? you have given some good examples of how it would differ from civ but i can't quite figure out how it'd play.

	23-01-2002 07:34									#206
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Willem Something of a contradiction here. On one hand you talk about a rules system up to 1900 AD, but then you talk about modern units with bazookas.

Yes, I talked about two different things:

1) The persistent CivI-III problem of the occasional Spearman beating a Tank. My solution to this, in a nutshell, is: More units, and making obsolete units *really* obsolete.

2) Discussion of the eras to be included or not included in my own project.

	23-01-2002 07:49									#207
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by korn469 in civ while it isn't stated, it is certainly implied that each unit is probably somewhere in size from a company (probably more like a brigade) to a division in modern times and something from a cohort to a legion in ancient times, now while there certainly is alot of difference between each soldier how much actual difference is there between two various divisions? consider that

Civ is too vague all across the board. My (Civilopedia) description of a unit would definitely include #of men, vehicles (such as half-tracks or tanks) and equipment (such as catapults, siege towers and guns). It would also include what arms and armour the men are supposed to be carrying. I see no reason why we cannot be as precise and detailed as a wargame here.

	23-01-2002 07:58									#208
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by korn469 also the task of making a "realistic" game is monumental, EU2 has a very limited timespan, and although it tries to be realistic it glosses over quite a bit to be playable, plus one of the flaws with EU2 is that it lack Civ's personality it's harder to identify with your nation, and that is certainly a problem (still though its a good game) so to have a game that takes realism an order beyond EU2 and still remains playable will be quite a challenge, but hey i wish you the best of luck

Thanks, Korn, and you are making a valid point here.

But note the difference between 'realism' and 'detail'. In a nutshell again, I want a game that has more *realistic* models than both CivIII *and* EUII, but that is not necessarily as *detailed* as EUII, at least not in every respect.

But it will be more detailed than EUII in *some* respects (such as warfare), and more detailed than CivI-III in *most* respects.

Edited: As to the 'personality' argument, I donīt really agree. I could identify with Saxony in the 1617 scenario (EUII) better than with anything in CivIII, ever, but I agree that identification in the EU series is generally quite dependent on prior knowledge of the situation/period.

	23-01-2002 08:14									#209
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by korn469 Comrade, listen developing the design document before forming a team actually capable of producing the game isn't a good model...unless you have the capability to do the programming yourself otherwise, form the team then design the game

Heh; I take the view that the best games are those designed by one (1) person, from start to finish. Btw, I have finally decided to really do it! More info coming soon.

On the other hand, I plan to stay open for suggestions from the community throughout. In fact I will soon open a few suggestion threads for your input.

	23-01-2002 08:26									#210
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Willem Players of computer games today expect more from graphics than they used to.

I agree that stunning graphics donīt hurt. Everything else equal, that is. But everything else isnīt equal, and I still prefer content over form.

Btw, TBS gamers are more or less used to less-than-stunning graphics; CivIII graphics are not that wonderful, after all, even if they tried to improve them. The only TBS game with stunning graphics is the HoMM series; you can go directly to an HoMMIV screenshot here: http://strategyplanet.com/homm/imag...s/chh4shot3.jpg
Donīt ask me, how they do it, though; I wish I knew.