Gamasutra has published a six-page article (http://gamasutra.com/features/20060823/goetz_01.shtml) written by Philip Goetz about the very high number of mouse clicks, keystrokes, and mouse scrolls required in computer games. It states that the unit-based user interface (UI) is no longer sufficient and suggests a different way of thinking about UIs. Civilization III's unit-based interface is used throughout the article as an example. Below is an excerpt from the article:

Computers can now animate more units than any player could reasonably want to control, and the number will continue to increase exponentially. This leads to player frustration rather than fun. In a good user interface design, no player should control more than seven game entities. To enable this, the UI may let the player control something more abstract than an on-screen unit. This requires object-oriented developers to think of code objects as abstractions beyond the mere units on the screen. The UI may also give the player a chance to specify behaviors off-line in order to reduce the amount of on-line supervision needed.

I have to agree with the author. Games along the lines of Civ, as well as most RTS, have gotten a bit out of hand. I, too, dislike the endgame in Civ, not because the game isn't amazing, but because the size of my empire and armies gets overwhelming. This becomes especially true when you develop a navy, which is fairly simple before endgame, and airforce, which is nonexistent before endgame. Shortcuts (like route-to or auto-bombard) can only partially alleviate the tedium and others, like automated works, just don't work that well. What we need is exactly what the author calls for, a new conceptualization of what the player controls.

However, just thinking about creating a distance between the player and individual units inspires fears about losing massive battles based on "luck". Sure, we have all lost a tank to a spearman at some point - but how about losing a massive army based purely on game mechanics that you cannot control. I think it comes down to two competing camps - the "builders" who would welcome a streamlined warfare system stripped of micromanagement, and the "warmongers" who wouldn't play the game without direct control of each and every unit.

Furthermore (am I writing my own article here?), I dismiss the idea of having it both ways - micromanagement for those who want it and automation for those who don't. As any decent Civ player knows, automating workers, except perhaps in endgame, is simply bad game play. Micromanagement is what lets you beat an unfairly advantaged AI. Given the choice, we must choose to micromanage, even if it means we stop playing once the modern era dawns. Which is why the author is on the right track. We don't need more automation options like those in Civ, we need a new conceptualization of how such a complex game can be played.

Any ideas?

lmao, this guy needs to play Starcraft. Or watch a first person VOD of a professional playing. He'll become dizzy and faint if he thinks Civ has too much clicking.

I've been thinking about this while playing lately as well, so this is a timely article for me.

I think Civ4 is about as "big" as the game can get. I think in the next edition they should really go for simplicity (don't just make it an "option".) Significantly reduce the direct control you have, but make the decisions you do make very important.

They should also make the game more linear- give more options at the beginning, less towards the end. Obviously, the game will always get bigger towards the end, but try to reduce the huge variance between the first 50 turns and the last 50 turns.

I have seen wargames similar to what the author suggests, and believe the majority of Civ users will think him silly, if they don 't already, if they saw one of these let-the-computer-run-things stupidity. The key is that when you have bits that the computer controls, either abstract them so the player doesn't really know they are going on, or have the player control them. There's nothing worse than telling a unit to go one place and the wise computer sends them in another (claiming the unit is using it's own mind in the process). We have seen this sort of thing even with the Civ series, where, for example, you tell a settler to go to a spot to found a city, showing the route before he goes there, and then whammo without fail he takes another route, although often the different route isn't a problem. In fact today I had such an instance where the settler for some odd reason actually took an extra step completely out of way towards the goal and directly into the path of a previously seen barbarbian. I'm not talking that the settler had been moving to that objective from a previous turn either. I told the settler to go there with the barb already in view; avoiding the barb was extremely easy. At that point I re-booted my last save, and the exact same thing occurred again. So? The solution was for me to move it manually until it was out of danger altogether. Yeah, like I need more computer help!

Face it. This sort of article is made by people who spend very little time to play games, so they want to dumb them down, and really don't have a grasp on just what the computer can do when unleashed, and the Civ example is very mild compared to a wargame or two I've had the displeasure to experience that were of the automated class. I do like some more ease to some of the play, but i n the right places. Having the view that somehow that unit is thinking on it's own, I've yet to see it work.

When people start putting more effort into the computer making logical decisions, especially for your own side, then and only then is this play a dumbed down game worthy of consideration.

lmao, this guy needs to play Starcraft. Or watch a first person VOD of a professional playing. He'll become dizzy and faint if he thinks Civ has too much clicking.

You know when I saw this, my first reaction was "Finally someone's gonna put those damn SC players in their place". I love RTS games, I love War3 and I hate the SC players who think it sucks because you don't need to get carpal tunnel to play well. I can't believe they actually consider rapid clicking to be a skill worthy of high praise and monthes of dedication.

Face it. This sort of article is made by people who spend very little time to play games, so they want to dumb them down, and really don't have a grasp on just what the computer can do when unleashed, and the Civ example is very mild compared to a wargame or two I've had the displeasure to experience that were of the automated class. I do like some more ease to some of the play, but i n the right places. Having the view that somehow that unit is thinking on it's own, I've yet to see it work.
I didn't get the impression the article was saying "keep the game the same, but let the computer control more", but then I did skim over some of the more technical speak.

I think the answer is just change the way the games are made- keep the player in total control, but lessen the micromanagement aspect. For example (and this is just off the top of my head, don't take it too seriously), why build every single unit- Why not have army bases that can send out an army based on your tech level and military spending?

I think it's more about re-thinking the game, not just handing control to the AI.

I think the problem is less that lots of mouse clicks and so on are required to play computer games, but that it often increases exponentially as the game progresses. For example, I'd say my "ETA" to 1 AD in a marathon civ4 game is 4 hours...and I'd also say that's how long it takes me to play a golden age from the Taj Mahal, as I'll check every city every turn so as to make sure I don't waste any part of it. I don't mind some micromanagement, but it needs to increase in a more linear manner. While making the UI count go down where reasonably possible would be great, dropping 100 clicks out of 1000 at one point in the game isn't going to change the exponential problem as long as it's dropping 10 out of 100 at the earlier point. Even if I'm having fun with a long game, the realization that it will take me several hours in the endgame to go through as many years as were in one turn at the beginning of the game can become a deterrent to continue playing. Exactly how long later in the game doesn't really matter as much since, while an hour or two saved from better UI is nice if I notice it, what I'm noticing more is how little time it took in the early turns of the game.

I don't, however, by any means wish for any sort of AI to control what I do until it's, well, actually intelligent - while I think it's excellent for AI, if I was going to miss any more than a turn I'd have a hard time choosing between letting the AI do its thing and just putting the workers to sleep and my cities in anarchy. In fact, I'd much rather grab a friend that I know is good at games but has never played civ before, give them enough instructions so that they know enough to play and let them have at it for a few turns.

While there's the military reasoning, I still think that the "rule of seven" seems entirely arbitrary - and far too small. He mentions chess - yes, it has sixteen pieces per player, but it can actually become more complex with fewer pieces! Managing several large stack of units often isn't really that big of a problem - partly because they've been grouped together, but as long as they're active I don't find large numbers too problematic. In fact, I often move every unit individually once I've split up a group even if I could reform it, partly because I enjoy making tactical maneuvers if I'm playing well. I've easily had not just more than sixteen "pieces", but more than sixty on my "chess board" in a game of civ and it's rarely been a problem...and when it has been, the inactive units have been more of one. Different people can manage different numbers of "units" and some certain types better than others - thus giving players better options as to what, how and how much they manage would be better than having some ideal management amount.

What I think could help the problems would be better ways of implementing non-AI delegation, which would probably require better notifications and queues. I don't queue many buildings on civ4, for example, as I prefer to still check the city screen when a building finishes - but it would make for less management if I could have the option, enabling me to skip checking when I know I don't want to and making it faster when I do. Being able to set the number of turns to build something and then switch to something else would be great, too. It would be helpful to have notifications for city growth, an option to inspect the city, and, particularly, a queue for which tile to work next. Go to orders could be queued, too. Other changes and improvements to the general way the interfaces of games work could help streamline some of the management issues.

As another example, I'd love to be able to organize my inactive units better with a set of "group/select/wake ___ units" - by location, unit type, city/non-city, etc. In the case of the civ3 railroad dilemma, being able to outline an area of the map, select all workers in that area and then pair them up would be delightful, but not unreasonable to expect. Adding in "build railroad from point a to b" might be even more delightful, but I wouldn't consider it reasonable to expect both due to the increased specificity in the nature of the order and the fact that I wouldn't trust the computer to build the railroad quite where I wanted it. The same might go for adding a "go to this city" order to a unit when it's built, but certainly not "go to whichever of city x, y or z will have the fewest units when this would arrive". Again, the general idea would be to delegate tasks to the game through simple ways to issue and change multiple orders rather than having to delegate to an AI.

I don't necessarily expect games to have a "perfect" way to manage everything, though. If a game is designed well it should become more fun as it gets more complex. Games won't sell because they won't get played if they're overly complex. Sure, sometimes a reasonably complex game will get to be a drag, but there's nothing wrong with taking a break from a game and coming back to it. Certainly I don't think civ4 should be dumbed down in any way - nor given more to the AI to control any more than the player wishes, no matter how good the AI is. No game should ever be a matter of speed of or determined by button mashing, but certainly some amount of button mashing should be just fine.

I don't think you quite get what he means when he says that seven entities are the upper bounds of what a human can remember. Based on several experiments by noted psychologists, that number popped up again and again. A psychologist whose name eludes me practiced memorizing long random lists of letters, and found this to be his essential boundary without practice. Same with most other studies.

Its not like this is some out of the blue number he chose; its backed up by robust studies. None of which I can cite right now, but some of which were referenced in my own Psych 111 book. The author is perfectly correct when he references the command and control system of the US Army. Most other armies have a similar assumption.

Obviously, experience with a system opens up shortcuts and enlarges the number of entities that you can command at one time. A student who participated in a long term version of a memorization study was eventually able to memorize absurdly long lists of numbers by linking them to various track times. When asked to do the same with randomized lists of letters, he was utterly in the dark, not having developed a system. Chess masters, when presented with an utterly randomized chess board, are just as inept as chess novices at memorizing the positions of the pieces.

I would personally lust after a UI improvement that allowed me to simply specify that a defensive line be established on my northern border, or that a railroad be build between X and Y. That is what real world leaders do: they issue a general order, and allow subordinates to deal with the specifics. RTS games are, after all, supposed to be about STRATEGY, not tactics.

Also, you ignore a major point made by the author: those 60 some units you control behave in essentially the same manner. Its not as if you are controlling 60 some units which each behave in some radically different manner.

Perhaps, then, my active units would be considered a single entity and my inactive ones another, but then I'm arguing less that the rule of seven is wrong but that the problem is in the computer/player interaction rather than user interface. One of the problems with computers is that there's a seperation between AI and a program that simply executes orders - if the computer does exactly what it was told, it was never "thinking" for itself. Humans, however, can be trustworthy delegates, as they are (usually :p) capable of both being intelligent and following orders at the same time.

This is why I argue that making the orders themselves more efficient - rather than more complicated but with better implementation - would be more productive. Not, of course, that better implementation wouldn't be nice - in fact, I think it would be a great improvement to have better UI...but less strain on my fingers and/or shorter turns doesn't make the endgame less complex or unwieldy, it just is less unpleasant. It's similar for more complicated orders - it sounds good, but it simply is not possible to consider any AI trustworthy. A human can reliably understand, interpret and execute a detailed order (such as "go to and build city at a location that will make a great person farm"); a computer has to be told specific details ("go to and build city at a location that can produce at least this amount of food and that amount of production"), at which point one might as well just select the location and make a simpler order ("go to and build city here").

That does bring up another possibility for delegation, though - a team of human players that plays the same civ at the same time.

First of all, I'm very interested in ludology, and so Gamasutra is quite a find for me. Secondly, the writer is dead on. It's absolutely my experience that by the late game, or even by 1000 AD or so if I'm playing a warmongering strategy with lots of units, the game becomes highly unwieldy. It begins to feel like busy work as I direct 30 of the same unit all over the map. In fact, that problem is exactly why I tend to focus on a cultural/diplomatic/space race victory, because it involves me caring for only 5-10 objects (my cities) rather than forcing me into having to care for numerous lower level objects (units).

In further iterations of the game, I hope that the design team will construct a UI that involves delegation. This delegation could be managed far better than merely "Automate workers." Rather, there could be varying AI's that represent different advisors/senators/generals/etc. which could be hired, fired, appointed, elected, could be loyal, disloyal, could mutiny, share information with one another, or try to maintain control of their "own realm," could come up with their own strategies that stray from (improve upon?) your plan.

I do understand that this runs the risk of moving Civilization towards too much of a "Political Simulation" rather than what it is right now, but I do believe it would be an interesting road to take, and one that is much more realisticially representative of "ruling a civilization."

If one is scared of tainting the game with political simulations, maybe what the designers ought to do is realize that, at its most basic level, Civlization is a board game. It even looks like one, with every part of the map being not realistic, but rather representative. Giant units walking throught tiny forest squares. Cities with 12 citizens. Working tiles of land. It's all a board game, right down to the core. The problem is that there is simply no way that Civilization 4 could come even close to existing as an actual board game. It would be far too complex, and not just in the numbers sense. There would be too many pieces to keep track of, too much to handle, too much busy work. Maybe the best idea is for the designers to think about handling the game in a more board-game-like manner, and reduce complexity organically with that rule as a starting point.


EDIT: Kudos to the poster above me. Having a Civilization run by many humans would be a brilliant plan, creating truly intelligent delegation and creating a more social game environment. It actually sounds like a very fun idea.

Face it. This sort of article is made by people who spend very little time to play games

That's wrong. I've been playing CIV since the first version, even almost every side version. Because the game topic is actually fascinating and addictive. And I share every single point of the author. I'm sure I spent more hours playing Civ in my life than you.

Though since CIV II or CIV III I actually experience this MABS (Modern Age Burnout Syndrom ;)). This means that in the late game if I don't have the time because it's over midnight but you want actually something to happen before you go to bed. But half an hour later only 4 years have passed. As a result for huge empires you don't take the time anymore to think about every city but just click on the next building to be built (and don't ponder about it anymore for long). Often enough with CIV IV I simply let an unhealthy city just starve away ignoring the why because my domination victory is just 20 turns away (meaning still more than one hour to play).

Your CIV AI experiences are there because no CIV designer actually tought of any of such game abstraction concepts. No settler would run into the lion if you issued the abstract order "put a city (specialized on science) there". The AI would simply build or summon an archer (if you are in war or the "barb threat" is really serious a little army) and a settler. Ok, you might say, I would send the settler alone. But that is your risk. If the settler would be safe on its own the AI could do it as well. This is such a typical scenario named by the author you could choose. Protect the settler or take a risk...

Anyway, I for myself, consider this article being like a distant dream. That's not because I don't think it to be possible. But because I think that the game industry would never support such a revolutionary game development. It's to risky for them. Because they can't know today if they would ever get any interested customer for such a game. Because it's difficult to estimate how much research and development efforts such a revolution would cost. Because it's difficult to estimate the system requirements for such a game. It's rather something for some little company or even open-source game development community. Because they would develop for the fun and not for their net profit :) So don't expect it from Sid Meier. :(

If you plan abstractions from current CIV game concepts like this you could even make the AI truly challenging. Because the difficulty the AI has to keep up with the player through the lack of abstraction. Yes, the AI suffers from the same game concept that we do. The difference is that the game developers have to program the whole AI before the customers play the game and develop better strategies that the AI could ever have. A human brain is simply more powerful that a computers (preprogrammed). But a human can get bored, while a computer cannot.
If there were abstract game mechanisms like 5 generals that present options to and receive orders from you, the AI would have it easier as well. Because it could use the same simple concepts. But as I said, it won't complain anyway. It cannot get bored like I can :)

That does bring up another possibility for delegation, though - a team of human players that plays the same civ at the same time.

Imagine that as a multiplayer - the ultimate team game.

1 person in charge of army building.
1 Person in charge of finances.
1 person in charge of infrastructure.
Have the team decide the strategy as in real government/civics.

I think you get the idea, but, it is one way of lowering the UI level and complexity and raising the multiplayer level.

For what it´s worth, I have to say I think the author is spot on.

I love CIV, but the modern age can become a long winded grind (especially if you have to get up to go to work in the morning!).

With CIV IV, I tend only to play for cultural wins simply because you don´t have to micro-manage vast armies over large distances.

Someone suggested that the game designers won´t take on the radical ideas suggested in the article. Whilst they might not go the whole hog, I don´t see why some of the ideas shouldn´t be taken on board. The notion of being able to specifying what you want to build where and letting the workers just get on with it seems eminently do-able. Identifying borders to be defended, and just letting the troops take up position seems do-able too.

Moreover, even if there is still too much micro-management in CIV IV for my taste, the designers did make a decent fist of reducing the amount involved from previous versions. I don´t see why they shouldn´t move further in this direction in CIV V, CIV VI...

Imagine that as a multiplayer - the ultimate team game.

1 person in charge of army building.
1 Person in charge of finances.
1 person in charge of infrastructure.
Have the team decide the strategy as in real government/civics.

I think you get the idea, but, it is one way of lowering the UI level and complexity and raising the multiplayer level.

This is actually possible in Starcraft, one of the many reasons I love it despite it being ancient. The problem is, you need friends to do this. You have to play with people you trust, though it can make some really fun games. Playing with a griefer would just make it :cry: .

Here's a crazy idea: play an RTS in first-person. You play the role of a king or general giving orders in first person. I could see that being really fun.

If this guy was correct then Savage (http://www.s2games.com/savage/) would have been a huge hit.

About the too many clicks I have somenthing different to say.
When I used to play a few days in a row for 12 hours a day (good old days) my finger and my hand where really hurting. I had to stop playing for at least a day. The worse is when you have to pick a destination for a unit. You have to hold the button and is really hard on the tendon of your finger.
I don't know if any other player had the same problem, but it's somenthing that still effect me.

Regarding the endgame, I must say that I didn't finish many games just because it was taking tooooooooooooooo long to move everything around. It's when you know you already know you won and all is left to do is run over the remaining civs.The game is not a challenge anymore and it becomes less fun. It doesn't really make sense spend more long hours on a game already won.

I also agree with the author, but I would fear to loose to much control when I want it, I don't want the AI take over control for me. So I think the developers need to make options availible where the AI should take over, or what to do when. And you need to be able to do everything yourself but when you're bored with doing something you should be able to give the command away to the AI. And when you want to stop the command wich was given to the AI you should be able to do so straight away.
And late game is boring I almost never see the late game due to early dropout because I became bored and started over.

But still when I read all this back, I doubt if it will be fun enough to give some commandm way to the AI... It's a though dilemma...

I think that the system used in Civ (and most games) is good. You have to choose between managing everything (and destroy your fingers), or let the computer do the job (and destroy your game :lol:).

When I see guys playing wargames (you know, these games in which you move colored squares on hexagons :crazyeye:) with hundreds of units to manage individually, I'm not sure that players really complain about the amount of clicks in games :confused:

Author makes some very valid points, no doubt about that. Designing a user interface is one of the hardest things about creating games, and the Civilization games are no exception to that rule. I found it interesting that the author chose to use Civ3 for his paper, and specifically two extremely tedious game elements (moving hundreds of workers and haggling over pennies on the diplomatic screen) which were eliminated for Civ4. The most recent Civ game was actually designed to remove the problem of needing hundreds of workers, and with a single click you can figure out exactly what the AI is willing to give you in diplomatic negotiations.

That doesn't take away from the validity of the argument, but it's a bit of a strawman tactic to focus on interface problems which WERE adressed in a game's sequel. :)

The article is spot-on at the theoretical level, but I start having my doubts about the actual implementation of some of these ideas. The author seems to be suggesting that games should be streamlined by removing direct control over units, cities, etc. Instead he appears to want the player to work through governor mediators, who would deal with the nuts and bolts details of the game. Well - that's a noble goal, and maybe a designer will be able to implement such a vision successfully one day, but I'm a bit leery of the overall idea. This very concept was attempted by the game Master of Orion III, and it was one of the biggest duds ever. You literally had to fight the game's automation to issue any orders, and if you weren't willing to do that, the game would play ITSELF with no input, building fleets and settling new colonies on its own. It was possible to click "next turn" 200 times and win the game without doing anything. All in all, it was one of the least-entertaining games of all time.

So again, it may be sound in theory, but when you start taking away control of the game from the player, you may not be left with very much stuff that would constitute fun! :)

While I agree with the author that most games take too long to finish (whether by too many clicks or not), I certainly don't agree with a lot of his argumentation.

You may wonder why I’m talking about Civ III, when Civ IV has been out for months. I never bought Civ IV. I’d been waiting and hoping for a more playable Civ. What finally arrived was a Civ that takes just as many clicks, but with a new animated 3D UI.

Don’t get me wrong – Civ IV has important new gameplay aspects. Firaxis did far better than companies who create some new units, artwork, and cut scenes, and call it a new version. But I didn’t stop playing Civ III because I was tired of the game, or because it

Well, this article is 5 years late then! He should have really bought Civ4 to make some comparitive statements. True, the 3D engine put me off when I read about Civ4 in the beginning, because I really didn't feel Civ4 would need it. But I bought Civ4 anyhow, because I'm a tiny bit of an addict :blush:
But he just assumes that a 3D UI takes just as many clicks. While he's harping about improving UI's (and the magic number 7), he doesn't come up with something actually helpful and refuses too look at the current Civ4 UI.

One of the biggest annoyances for me about Civ3... Wat pops to my mind are all those popups... "Civil disorder in City 77". "We want an aquaduct/hospital". Overflows of food/production/research that would get lost. The inability to do anything useful with a remotely conquered city. These thing already removed a lot of the tedium. Also now in Warlords, the Vassal states (still having their quircks), it removes a lot of the tedium to conquer all your opponents completely. Civ4, although it has a 3D UI ;), is for me one of the best civs ever. And the progression Fireaxis made with it, certainly removed quite a bit of the tedium.

What example did the author use for the Civ3 tedium? Building parallel railroads. I find that a really bad example. I just stacked a bunch of workers together and let them build from A to B. Automating roads/railroads was actually one of the things automation didn't mess up completely...

To come back on 3D engines. A few years ago, Locomotion, a successor to transport tycoon was released. I found that quite a good game. It's UI had the feel of a typical DOS/VESA mid-nineties game. What kind of review did the game get in the beginning... A 1 by most gaming review sites (although some gave it a 9)!!! To go 3D or not is not an option nowadays. It's compulsory!


In gaming, bad players drive out good players. In roleplaying games, the bad roleplayers, who emphasize accumulating wealth and power over playing a role well, advance faster and eventually drive out the good roleplayers. In a game which allows control of individual units, adrenaline-filled 14-year-olds who can make three clicks a second will beat more thoughtful players who rely on the computer to implement their plans, because we’re still a long way from the day when a computer can control units better than a player.

There is a player demographic that enjoys click-fests and micromanagement, and it may be the same 14-year-old males that the game industry’s magazines, advertisements, and distribution channels are aimed at.

It seems the author has a kind of fobia against 14-years old...
First of all, a lot of the games (especially strategy games and such) are marketed towards and older public (20-35). They have more money than 14-years old and are a more interesting audience. The latter part of this statement is just nonsense.

Also, to generalize that the major skill of 14-year-olds is to generalize that they can click fast and therefore they win... :sad: Well, let's face it, some of these kids are just excellent players! And time matters when you play online games. Or you should try playing by email, if you don't like that.

The author likes to make some comparitive statements to chess. I'm quite a good player myself (if I may so...). But there are occasions where you play against 14-year-olds. And yes, some of these games I lost... To speak of the laughter and taunts of my teammates... It's just as well that another teammate did lose to a girl... :D Eurrrmmm... ;) I still remember the time when I was 14 year and did win against someone twice or trice my age. The disgruntled look on their faces...

Back on topic. Bad players don't drive away good players. I would say. Sore losers are bad players. It's a game.

Smalltalk users called objects “objects”, and, what’s worse, they called methods “verbs”. Ever since, many object-oriented programmers have interpreted the word “object” as something like “noun”. I had arguments with other adventure programmers in the 1980s who insisted that a game wasn’t object-oriented unless the physical objects in the game were OO objects in the code. When I suggested organizing the code so that verbs in the game were objects in the code, thus enforcing a consistent physics on the game, they said, “Objects are objects; verbs are verbs.” To this day, we organize our game code, and the user interface, around the physical objects in the game.

I don't want to go in too much technical discussion here (seems not the place). I agree with the author that physical objects in the game don't need to be the same as the code objects. But a verb (as he calls it) should never be an object. It's just bad OO design (shows old habits of functional programming). Though many OO programmers mave the tendency to make objects far too static, there are much better methods (forgive me the pun) to make them interact together.


In short, I agree with the point of the article but not with the reasoning. And also giving gamers 7 UI interface objects (though 7 appears to be the magical number in UI design), seems not the way to go, it's not a TV show...

What they need is to eliminate the idea of 'units' entirely IMHO wars should be fought completely from the military advisors screen. You have a specific number of people say a 'unit' is a thousend people your screen could say 59,000 troops available. Then you select a number of people say 30,000 thousend and order them to a general area. Tanks artillery etc could all be represented in your troop numbers or even seperated. workers can be represented by say 500 laborers on your worker screen then you say put X laborers to work on building a road from A-B and put Y laberors on building irrigation in D area. Workers or unit without orders would automate and begin working or for units they would settle into fortified positions in your major bases.

What they need is to eliminate the idea of 'units' entirely IMHO wars should be fought completely from the military advisors screen. You have a specific number of people say a 'unit' is a thousend people your screen could say 59,000 troops available. Then you select a number of people say 30,000 thousend and order them to a general area. Tanks artillery etc could all be represented in your troop numbers or even seperated. workers can be represented by say 500 laborers on your worker screen then you say put X laborers to work on building a road from A-B and put Y laberors on building irrigation in D area. Workers or unit without orders would automate and begin working or for units they would settle into fortified positions in your major bases.

But this would be a completely different game then :)

As long as we keep requesting, and getting, more units/techs/leaders/attributes the game will continue to get "bigger" and the effects of being enbiggened (To borrow from Homer Simpson) are multiplied by large maps. Attempting to mitigate this effect by either AI assist or interface simplification would, in my opinion, move the player closer to being a spectator.

Want a short, easily managed game? Play Duel on an Archipeligo map.

Other than the folks who have mastered the game to the point where they get a Space Race victory in the 1700's or a Domination victory shortly after discovering Bronze Working, playing on larger maps means a longer game and a more drawn out endgame.

Ya' pays your money and ya' makes your choice.

Of course I may be biased because my highest scoring game so far (Over 24,000) was a Noble level Duel on an Archipeligo map. It wasn't on purpose. :lol:

But this would be a completely different game then :)

Basicaly I know it would take some getting used to but I think if we are truly going to make civ any better or more realistic. We need to completely overhaul the work and combat systems. I think it has basicly maxed what can be done on the current system in civ3. Civ4 was an attempt to play the same game better and thus it ended IMHO a failure. I hope for civ5 they realize it truly needs to have Workers, Military, Aswell as some kind 'FBI' all implemented very differantly. They also need to atleast in modern imes allow multiple cities to put their shields toward the same project after all the apollo program wasn't all done in a single city. So rebuilding the advisors and centralizing control would reduce unneeded clicks and allow a truly realistic strategy game. Also it would allow a differant level of 'strategic' micromanagement.

IMHO this is the only way to make civ signifigantly better.

IMHO this is the only way to make civ signifigantly better.

You're right. Even with the first civ, having played Hannibal (oooold static VGA game about Hannibals crusade against Rome), I tried to think about merging those two concepts.

Well, though it would be no sequel of Civ as we know it. I would call it Civ-Streamlined but not Civ V.

Basicaly I know it would take some getting used to but I think if we are truly going to make civ any better or more realistic. We need to completely overhaul the work and combat systems. I think it has basicly maxed what can be done on the current system in civ3. Civ4 was an attempt to play the same game better and thus it ended IMHO a failure. I hope for civ5 they realize it truly needs to have Workers, Military, Aswell as some kind 'FBI' all implemented very differantly. They also need to atleast in modern imes allow multiple cities to put their shields toward the same project after all the apollo program wasn't all done in a single city. So rebuilding the advisors and centralizing control would reduce unneeded clicks and allow a truly realistic strategy game. Also it would allow a differant level of 'strategic' micromanagement.

IMHO this is the only way to make civ signifigantly better.

I think you are really looking for a different kind of game. This concept as well as the concept described in the original article (more automation) would never work for a single player experience.

The main problem now seems to be that automation now is a bit crappy if you use it. Ruin your fingers or your game -- juni_be_good :D. The AI, however, uses the same automation to build its empires and player handicaps are necessary to make the game competitive.

Now assume that all the automation is brilliant, that would make the AI, by definition, brilliant too. Hence, a player would never get a noticeable advantage with general directives as "attack in this general area".

I think the focus should be on removing tedium, not more automation. But the former doesn't exclude the latter. And Firaxis seems just to be on this track, imho. I know the experience from tedium varies from player to player. But as binhthuy71 said: "Want a short, easily managed game? Play Duel on an Archipeligo map." (!)

The kind of game you described looks pretty much like online massive multiplayer games such as Planetarion or Mech Warrior. Focussing techs, building your empire, determine the kind of units you want to have and set a target. While both these online multiplayer games are excellent and don't need 5,000 clicks, it is something completely different.

I think you are really looking for a different kind of game. This concept as well as the concept described in the original article (more automation) would never work for a single player experience.

...

I think the focus should be on removing tedium, not more automation. But the former doesn't exclude the latter. And Firaxis seems just to be on this track, imho. I know the experience from tedium varies from player to player. But as binhthuy71 said: "Want a short, easily managed game? Play Duel on an Archipeligo map." (!)



Don't you think that there's a problem when you consider late-game tedium and carpal-tunnel-inducing numbers of clicks to be an integral part of the game?

I am not a game designer, but I have faith that the professionals at Firaxis could devise ways to reduce tedium in extreme ways while remaining true to Civ. The only thing preventing this is a fear of straying from that spirit, and alienating customers, but, as I see it, and to rely on clichés, sometimes you must break a few eggs to make an omelette. Which is to say, the design team and the players should not be afraid of losing some elements that we see as "quintessentially Civ" when the payoff could be a radically better game.

Now assume that all the automation is brilliant, that would make the AI, by definition, brilliant too. Hence, a player would never get a noticeable advantage with general directives as "attack in this general area".

No, that's not the point. You say: "Capture Philadelphia" and define the strategy after a recon mission: Elite first or last, Massive bombardment of troops before (=suicide cats)/Defence bombardment/Overrun without bombardment or simply abort because of lack of troops. Maybe you can even define which troops are to be assembled where. How to decide depends on many variables. The AI has patterns how to decide here based on troops, terrain, enemy troops.

But you're right anyway. The point is how to involve players intelligence such that she can actually could achieve an advantage through strategy and not through "tactics".

A very good article.

It takes a lot of clicks to play Civ3. I have played it for about a half year and my hands is doing well - so far.

The UI in Civ CTP is even worse than Civ3. It takes alot more mouse clicking and playing CTP have given me serious hand problems in the past. It resulted in quite a few doctor and drug store visits. :(



I think it comes down to two competing camps - the "builders" who would welcome a streamlined warfare system stripped of micromanagement, and the "warmongers" who wouldn't play the game without direct control of each and every unit.
Nah, I'm not so sure if I agree with that. I am certainly a "builder". But I do have an urge to control each and every unit completely in Civ3. :) But I would welcome a new UI - if it worked the way I want it to work.

I would argue that
A) Civ has a fair amount of this already built in, but it's just not good enough
B) The corruption model was designed to reduce the number of cities and thus units, but it failed to do so.

Governors, build queues, automation of workers - all these things can reduce the amount of clicking and raise the number of strategic decisions. the problem is, they do it rather badly. No one automates workers until they are just on pollution cleanup duty, not after they get an idea as to just how bad workers are. I do use the road-to and rail-to features - they are quite useful.

Build queues are useful, especially in cities that have worker or settler farms, or cities that just pop out endless military.

I do think that trading is bad - the advisor could easily say "the minimum they will take is x" or at least say "they cannot pay GPT" or "they don't trust us enough for us to pay in GPT"

but then - the binary search that the user methods is part and parcel of negotiation, isn't it?

I think you are really looking for a different kind of game. This concept as well as the concept described in the original article (more automation) would never work for a single player experience.

The main problem now seems to be that automation now is a bit crappy if you use it. Ruin your fingers or your game -- juni_be_good :D. The AI, however, uses the same automation to build its empires and player handicaps are necessary to make the game competitive.

Now assume that all the automation is brilliant, that would make the AI, by definition, brilliant too. Hence, a player would never get a noticeable advantage with general directives as "attack in this general area".

I think the focus should be on removing tedium, not more automation. But the former doesn't exclude the latter. And Firaxis seems just to be on this track, imho. I know the experience from tedium varies from player to player. But as binhthuy71 said: "Want a short, easily managed game? Play Duel on an Archipeligo map." (!)

The kind of game you described looks pretty much like online massive multiplayer games such as Planetarion or Mech Warrior. Focussing techs, building your empire, determine the kind of units you want to have and set a target. While both these online multiplayer games are excellent and don't need 5,000 clicks, it is something completely different.


No-No-No.

Thats not what I mean. I don't want the AI to control your stuff any more than it does now. I just want you to move your soldiers as large groups that can be split or added to and can cover more than a single sqaure of the map. This is still civ but a far more realistic combat movement system than is currently used by ending the unit system. The AI would not have any control battles would still be fought by the RNM. This way the arbitrary 'units' can be broken down or added onto continuosly. Similarly to civ4's grouped stacks except all the troops would engage at once instead of the unrealistic one after the other approach. It would be similar to the armys vs units except you could remove and any number of units to your armys. Just imagine each HP represents 1,000 people Instead of healing units you 'add' them to another unit wars would be fought basicly by pileing all your units into several large mga-units with hundreds of hp. That can later be broken down agan after the war. All this could be handled from the military advisor screen.

The AI would not be given control of it. All that would happen is that you would a better more fluidic interface as aposed to the rigid unit based interface. This would be more realistic, faster, less clicking, and allow more time for diplomacy ad other usefull things.

Just a couple of quick comments. I agree with those who say that the end game of Civ is boring as it takes so long to run through each turn. I enjoy the early game much more and find myself quitting when I hit about 20-30 cities or so.

One option that you can do with the Civ3 editor is make the Pentagon and Military Academy build leaders and armies, which you can then use to group units together in a coherent manner, and reduce the micromanagement. This is basically what is done in miniature gaming in Napoleonics or US Civil War, where you have hundreds of miniatures on a side, but they are combined into unit blocks using mounting boards. Then you are only moving the board, not all of the units. Same thing in Axis and Allies with the Task Force piece, where you lay out the naval task force, and then only move the marker, not all of the individual pieces.

Basically, the computer games need some way of better grouping units into larger ones, like the military does in building from platoon to company to battalion to regiment/brigade to division. As for city micromanagement, my problem is the AI changing what I have told the city to do, which forces even more micromanagement. In this respect, the limited number of cities that you can build in Rise of Nations makes much more sense. What the Civ designers should start looking at is changing the way cities are being built and located, and what are the production capabilities. Having a minimum distance between cities whould be one option, and also dropping the pollution concept and entertainment concepts, which in one of the major headaches I encounter in endgames in the modern age. My response to the pollution issue has been to not build hospitals, and boost resource yields to avoid the factory issues, so that I can concentrate on the game.

Clickfests detract from the point of strategy games: strategy.

When RTSes hinge less on who can optimize their clicks and hotkeys for the opening 3 minutes and more on actual strategy, I'll start playing them again.

Civ 4 is pretty damn good for strategy, by all measures.

Basically, the computer games need some way of better grouping units into larger ones, like the military does in building from platoon to company to battalion to regiment/brigade to division.

This is actually done pretty well in Rise of Nations. You can select all units of a type, by clicking one such unit and home, IIRC. You can select all military units, by pressing comma twice. You can select all idle workers by hitting period twice. You can group units into individual forces, by hitting control - # (and then whenever you hit that number again, you reselect all those units). Everything has hotkeys to it so you can minimize your clicking. You choose how your units form up (e.g. line formations, v shapes, etc.) and what they do when confronted with an enemy (hold their ground, target civilians first, chase the enemy, etc.). That's why I started playing it again. When telling them to go somewhere, you can even tell them what direction to point their formation when they arrive. It's a rare game combines the ability to micromanage with the ability to not need to micromanage. It lets you focus on what you're good at.

Well, I completely and totally disagree with that article. I don't beleive that I represent a very large part of the community, but my favorite part of the game is warring. I often find my self bored after I finish an ally and there is noone left on my continent. Then, after meeting the other continent, I find that I would need even more than the vast number of troops that I had built to conquer them, and that a war with one would lead to a very near war with their religous friends. I personally enjoy moving each and EVERY soldier across the map. I really don't care much about building up more than a few cities. One or two science cities, one GP farm, three or so production cities, and a countless number of identical commerce cities. but that's just me.

"Civ5: Streamlined for simple gameplay!" ;)

game logic
#######

Start game:

Option A) Play poorly? Outcome: You lose! (score=0)
Option B) Play well? Outcome: You win! (score=1,000,000)

Does this guy even realize that Civ3 is a TURN-BASED game? :dubious:

When you direct a unit to attack in Civ 4, the outcome of the battle is determined randomly. Conceptually, this represents the vagaries of combat, fog of war, morale, weather, training, and leadership. It would be possible to open a combat screen and fight the battle with the constituent units to reduce random elements. And this could be repeate ad infinitum down to individual soldiers.

So we already have a level of abstraction in games by using aggregate units at some level. The article is suggesting that the level of aggregation has become too fine-grained to be manageable. We need higher levels of abstraction. I also agree with comments that offering micro and macro management options in a game is not the way to go.

I think the solution is to develop new paradigms for game activities that are intelligent and easier to interact with. For example, real armies define units and then supply replacements to maintain unit strength and composition. Civ-style games basically give you an amorphous collection of individual units and you build more and move them to the front when units are destroyed. If games operated by defining armies that were automatically resupplied and restaffed, it would simplify warfare and logistics.

It is true that the rule of seven works in real life for managing complexity. The problem is that RTS strategy games are not much fun if you only control seven things. Part of the appeal of games is a degree of micromanagement to beat the system. But too much control becomes unwieldy. There is a happier medium between seven and several hundred. Probably a _few_ dozen things to do in a turn is the enjoyable limit.

Another example is worker improvements. Right now you micromanage workers doing every single improvement. It would be easier to define a set of improvements and allocate manpower points and resources to performing them abstractly. One thing that bothers me about terrain improvements is that they only cost time, but not money (resources). This results in ridiculous things like railroads in every square. The AI and human play would be improved if their was a cost to building everything so that ROI decisions could be made.

Philip Goetz, the author, is exactly on target. I recently heard Sid Meier speak, and he mentioned that one of the design goals of Civ 1 was to eliminate the tedious micromanagement that developed in an earlier game, Empire. He specifically mentioned the problem of moving lots of individual units a short distance, and then repeating it all the next turn.

The problem is that the Civ series hasn't really succeeded in eliminating or even reducing that. It's about as big a problem as ever, and that's due to the inherent problems in an interface where you move every unit individually.

Civ4 tried to do a few things to help with this, e.g., giving workers 2 movement points was specifically so that they could move-and-work, instead of having to move them one turn, and then separately give them a work order the next turn. But that's a long, long way from the kind of high-level control that would be most valuable.

So what's the problem? The problem is that designing a good, high-level interface, that doesn't make the player pay a huge penalty compared to direct control, is really, really hard. No one has been able to do it, or get close. My criticism is that they haven't really tried. We need some people to try and fail before we can even get a good idea of how one might succeed. We also need to abstract away some of the unit detail. E.g., instead of workers being represented by individual units on the map, you could just build N workers which would give you N "work points" each turn, which you could then use directly to perform necessary worker tasks, without moving lots of individual workers around. Similarly, there should be mechanisms that naturally group military units into higher-level entities. By increasing the level of grouping, as the game goes on, one could reduce the growth in detail, from the early game to the later game.

Don't you think that there's a problem when you consider late-game tedium and carpal-tunnel-inducing numbers of clicks to be an integral part of the game?

Yes, there is a problem there that it is not fun to play anymore (for me, others might like it). So I don't play that :) Either I try to win before or I use the diplomatic victory as escape. Or I don't finish a game at all. But hey, by then I've had my share of fun, so I don't mind much... And I still have to build my first spaceship part...

My critisism on Fireaxis is that they bug-test enough, but don't playtest enough (if at all on some scenario's in Warlords). In terms of playing time, the balance between begin game (too fast) and end game (too slow) is major. And well, rally points are worthless as they work now. But at least Fireaxis seems a game company that does something with critism as I see a huge improvement between Civ3 and Civ4. And as I said before, the article is weak that it targets Civ3 and not Civ4, just about assuming it's the same without actually trying it. Or assuming that because it has a 3D engine, it can't be better.

The part in the article about UI interface profiling is quite interesting and definately something game designers should consider doing in their design/development process to improve games. Actually, I played a RTS game last year (Empire Earh II) which kept track of number of mouse-clicks and keystrokes. And it had a number of innovating tools for resource allocation and strategic warfare. I think I averaged about 600 mouse-clicks and 400 keystrokes an hour and a friend of mine 1000 mouse-clicks and 250 keystrokes. In retrospect, this sounds a bit much too...

@nc-1701. Sorry, I misinterpreted you. I was a bit triggered off by the idea of giving commands through a military advisors screen and directing them to a general area.

Not a bad article. As one of an apparent few who enjoy the end game: I disagree with rule of 7 but that may be because I'll slow down and check more than the average player. Unlike real life [civ3] is turn based and thus there is no rush to give orders.

I think many Civ players would enjoy some form of victory extrapolation for retirement. I've often read in the forums of the frustration of playing out the end game when the player knows the probable result. E.G. you're way ahead in tech control a good portion of the globe and have the wherewithal to win any way you might opt, but don't feel like playing the hour or two to finish.

I totally agree the game gets bogged down the later it becomes.

The biggest issue is early game, you have let's say 20 units throughout your empire while late game there's easily 100. The simplest way to alleviate this is to simply make units much more expensive (say 3x) but also more powerful (so that it's not to your advantage to go up the tech tree). This reduces the number of units in the game by ~3 times. There's no reason a city should be able to build a military unit EVERY TURN.

Rather than merely having "groups", "armies" would be a nice idea for Civ to have. Explicitly put units in and out of an army that moves together rather than using its last grouping.

Thirdly, where is repeat build (I know it exists!) and why can't I have a rally point? I'd rather simply set a bunch of units to autobuild, put them in an army and be done.

Lastly, I despise how oceans work in Civ. It's a pita to transfer anything over the ocean. I have to click a unit, give it a transport, move it across the ocean, then get the unit off the boat. Why not simply abstract the concept and allow certain units to move over water after you reach a research advance (like Alpha Centari. They simply turn into boats, but are defenseless against ocean-going wepaons. If we still want to have transports, have a "freighter pool" and each unit moving across the ocean "uses" one and when he gets on land, he "returns it" to the pool. Anyone can use a freighter from a pool in any location.)

Smaller maps do help enormously, but I still wish I could play a full game of Civ4 in a couple hours.

Does this guy even realize that Civ3 is a TURN-BASED game? :dubious:


He uses the word "turn" quite a lot, counting how absurd the amount of clicks/keystrokes/pans PER TURN it took him. So yes. Do you have a point?

Yes, there is a problem there that it is not fun to play anymore (for me, others might like it). So I don't play that :) Either I try to win before or I use the diplomatic victory as escape. Or I don't finish a game at all. But hey, by then I've had my share of fun, so I don't mind much... And I still have to build my first spaceship part...

My critisism on Fireaxis is that they bug-test enough, but don't playtest enough (if at all on some scenario's in Warlords). In terms of playing time, the balance between begin game (too fast) and end game (too slow) is major. And well, rally points are worthless as they work now. But at least Fireaxis seems a game company that does something with critism as I see a huge improvement between Civ3 and Civ4. And as I said before, the article is weak that it targets Civ3 and not Civ4, just about assuming it's the same without actually trying it. Or assuming that because it has a 3D engine, it can't be better.



I think we're on the same level here. I find the early game quite interesting, and exciting, but by the mid-to-late game, it's a bunch of chores I'm just completing for the payoff. I understand that people who enjoy micromanagement can keep playing, and I can quit and start over, but why should I only enjoy half a game?

I don't know if the author blindly judged Civ 4. For all we know, he may have been told to stay away from it by a friend or something. I don't want to just say that he assumed.

That's all.

Honestly I never really noticed the clicking in Civ3 or Civ4. There are keyboard shortcuts for most things too.

Diablo2, on the other hand, had so much excessive clicking that I can only play it for maybe 2 days at a time, it's just too rough on my hands.

Starcraft and Warcraft were also kind of bad.

Honestly I never really noticed the clicking in Civ3 or Civ4. There are keyboard shortcuts for most things too.

Diablo2, on the other hand, had so much excessive clicking that I can only play it for maybe 2 days at a time, it's just too rough on my hands.

Starcraft and Warcraft were also kind of bad.

You're taking it too literally. It's not, literally, the number of clicks. It's the time it takes to play, because you are making too many trivial but independent decisions. Diablo is pretty different, because you may think a lot more, but you aren't making a separate strategic decision with each click; you're just doing a lot of fairly automatic actions in pursuit of a single overall plan.

So what's the problem? The problem is that designing a good, high-level interface, that doesn't make the player pay a huge penalty compared to direct control, is really, really hard. No one has been able to do it, or get close.

I wonder... is Civ4 worker management NP-complete or EXPTIME? ;)

It all comes down to strategy vs. tactics. Assuming that AI doesn't get as good as humans, you won't be able to offer both in a game and then realistically expect people to automate the tactics. Games that aren't overwhelming (and overwhelming can be good--see Spore or Civ(!!!)) shouldn't try to have play on multiple levels.

Shamefuly I must admit I have something in common with the author Philip Goetz. I too love Civ3.
Goetz said he never bought Civ IV. I bought it and I also don't play it. Civ IV (or the stategy guide) touted as an improvement "no more wack a mole aproach to pollution control". I really didn't mind chasing down pollution. If I was efficient with terrain improvements what were my workers to do except remain idle? Ah, just extra clicks.
Is there an option to watch the computer play itself? Maybe Philip would like to sit back, take the strain off his evidentely limp wrist, and watch events unfold without having to dirty his hands with the actual work of tactics.
Sheeze, somebody should give him his "keystroke score" for typing his article. If hitting a key or moving a mouse is so difficult, why bother?
Philip Goetz, why don't you pick up a telephone and call someboby who cares?
aloysius

Shamefuly I must admit I have something in common with the author Philip Goetz. I too love Civ3.
Goetz said he never bought Civ IV. I bought it and I also don't play it. Civ IV (or the stategy guide) touted as an improvement "no more wack a mole aproach to pollution control". I really didn't mind chasing down pollution. If I was efficient with terrain improvements what were my workers to do except remain idle? Ah, just extra clicks.
Is there an option to watch the computer play itself? Maybe Philip would like to sit back, take the strain off his evidentely limp wrist, and watch events unfold without having to dirty his hands with the actual work of tactics.
Sheeze, somebody should give him his "keystroke score" for typing his article. If hitting a key or moving a mouse is so difficult, why bother?
Philip Goetz, why don't you pick up a telephone and call someboby who cares?
aloysius


Your post makes it abundantly clear that you missed the point of the article. Specifically your belief that he wants to "watch the computer play," or is unconcerned with tactics, or that "moving a mouse is so difficult." If you'd like me to help you understand the article, feel free to PM me and I'll help you read through it.

Author makes some very valid points, no doubt about that. Designing a user interface is one of the hardest things about creating games, and the Civilization games are no exception to that rule. I found it interesting that the author chose to use Civ3 for his paper, and specifically two extremely tedious game elements (moving hundreds of workers and haggling over pennies on the diplomatic screen) which were eliminated for Civ4. The most recent Civ game was actually designed to remove the problem of needing hundreds of workers, and with a single click you can figure out exactly what the AI is willing to give you in diplomatic negotiations.

That doesn't take away from the validity of the argument, but it's a bit of a strawman tactic to focus on interface problems which WERE adressed in a game's sequel. :)

The article is spot-on at the theoretical level, but I start having my doubts about the actual implementation of some of these ideas. The author seems to be suggesting that games should be streamlined by removing direct control over units, cities, etc. Instead he appears to want the player to work through governor mediators, who would deal with the nuts and bolts details of the game. Well - that's a noble goal, and maybe a designer will be able to implement such a vision successfully one day, but I'm a bit leery of the overall idea. This very concept was attempted by the game Master of Orion III, and it was one of the biggest duds ever. You literally had to fight the game's automation to issue any orders, and if you weren't willing to do that, the game would play ITSELF with no input, building fleets and settling new colonies on its own. It was possible to click "next turn" 200 times and win the game without doing anything. All in all, it was one of the least-entertaining games of all time.

So again, it may be sound in theory, but when you start taking away control of the game from the player, you may not be left with very much stuff that would constitute fun! :)

Thats' basically the point I was making earlier, that you don't know just how awful the to-date implementation of such as idea has been. A lot of people talk about terrible AI in games, and you would think that for what AI focus any game may have, would certainly be more focused on an opponent's AI as opposed to some supposedly friendly AI that makes your job easy.

Like I alluded to earlier, there are people who don't have the time to play, so they dream about this nonsense, whereas the people who HAVE played these ideas out in games know how pointless it all is to one who can play for extended periods. It's not that extended play makes you want to click 100 times to build up power for some unit, but that there is such a thing as any given action being worth it's clicking and there is such a thing as a pointless click and a pointless let-the-computer-do-it. There's an easy way to get what he wants, just watch somebody else play and you won't have to click at all. Of course the player may ignore you just like the AI might do, but that's another subject.

to iheartponeez
I take the greatest umbrance to your second sentence.
Did I say he wants to "watch the computer play"? No I did not. I asked if there is an option available to watch the computer play itself. Your use of quotation marks in this instance is reprehensible.
Did I say he is unconcerned with tactics? Certainly not. Nobody wants to lose. I stated perhaps he does not want to have a hands on approach to this issue.
Did I say he finds moving a mouse or typing is difficult? Yes. Wasn't that the point of the article? Oh, keeping track of more than seven objects can't be done by the human mind. It's not fun anymore.
I think the people who enjoy Civ3 are above the average intelligence. I think they can track hundreds of units and if they make a mistake, that's part of being human - not a computer. If Civ3 is so messed up why treat it as the benchmark of stategic games?
Young lady, we live in a free enterprise society. If you think smokers bother you at the bar, go to a bar that does not allow smoking. The bar should thrive with enough like minded people. This is a form of natural selection (theory of evolution). By the same concept, deprive yourself of a wonderful and unique game like Civ3 if you feel you can not handle the physical requirements to play a pc game. If you want a better game, make it yourself. I'm sounding like my hero Ayn Rand right now.
In ending, if you keep up "quoting" people out of context, you might be able to get a job with mainsteam media.

I'm sounding like my hero Ayn Rand right now.

To me, also. And that is definitely not a compliment!

No-No-No.

Thats not what I mean. I don't want the AI to control your stuff any more than it does now. I just want you to move your soldiers as large groups that can be split or added to and can cover more than a single sqaure of the map. This is still civ but a far more realistic combat movement system than is currently used by ending the unit system. The AI would not have any control battles would still be fought by the RNM. This way the arbitrary 'units' can be broken down or added onto continuosly. Similarly to civ4's grouped stacks except all the troops would engage at once instead of the unrealistic one after the other approach. It would be similar to the armys vs units except you could remove and any number of units to your armys. Just imagine each HP represents 1,000 people Instead of healing units you 'add' them to another unit wars would be fought basicly by pileing all your units into several large mga-units with hundreds of hp. That can later be broken down agan after the war. All this could be handled from the military advisor screen.

The AI would not be given control of it. All that would happen is that you would a better more fluidic interface as aposed to the rigid unit based interface. This would be more realistic, faster, less clicking, and allow more time for diplomacy ad other usefull things.

I think you're wanting what the game already provides. You can group units together in a hex. the only difference is that instead of making one click to move say 50 units in one group covering 5 spaces, you would instead move 5 10 units groups in 5 spaces. I really don't think a lot of us realize just how much clcik reducing potential is in the group concept. I just don't know the particulars like just what unit will attack first and so on, but experience ought to clear that up.

I think you're wanting what the game already provides. You can group units together in a hex. the only difference is that instead of making one click to move say 50 units in one group covering 5 spaces, you would instead move 5 10 units groups in 5 spaces. I really don't think a lot of us realize just how much clcik reducing potential is in the group concept. I just don't know the particulars like just what unit will attack first and so on, but experience ought to clear that up.

The problem is that you get significant tactical advantages by moving all of your units separately. So, you can move them in groups, but you're paying a penalty to do so. Just like automating workers, etc.

If the game made you move your units in groups, or at least gave you a benefit from doing so, that might be much better, than just making it an option (but an option that you know is costing you, whenever you use it).

I don't buy the argument that some have made that you can't reduce the micromanagement without making the game like MOO3. Most everyone seems to agree that the first 100-200 turns of Civ3/4 are just right. The problem is just that the game scales out of control. Only one new idea is needed, I think, to make the later stages of the game capture the playability of the earlier stages. We just haven't discovered that one idea, yet. But it's different than making Civ be like MOO3, where beginning, middle, and end were all unfun.

The problem is that you get significant tactical advantages by moving all of your units separately. So, you can move them in groups, but you're paying a penalty to do so. Just like automating workers, etc.

If the game made you move your units in groups, or at least gave you a benefit from doing so, that might be much better, than just making it an option (but an option that you know is costing you, whenever you use it).

I don't buy the argument that some have made that you can't reduce the micromanagement without making the game like MOO3. Most everyone seems to agree that the first 100-200 turns of Civ3/4 are just right. The problem is just that the game scales out of control. Only one new idea is needed, I think, to make the later stages of the game capture the playability of the earlier stages. We just haven't discovered that one idea, yet. But it's different than making Civ be like MOO3, where beginning, middle, and end were all unfun.

Just to touch on your latter point first if I may. I don't like the first 200 turns, they're almost worse than the end. There is basically no fighting, and in my games anyway it's a matter of dodging animals with a few scouts; far too purposeless to be the cream of the game. That was the part of the game that made we quit after the first hour, the first time I played it, because it was so much more boring, or so it seemed, compared to civ3 (probably lack of music did that actually). There's such a thing as too many units, but the first 200 turns is far too few units and far too much scouting in general.

As for your first point, if you just mish-mash a bunch of units together your group movement will hit some disadvantages, but it needn't be that way. Remember, we're talking hundreds of units for the civ and not 50-100, though there is a level of tedium for even that. For example you could group together 30 units of various movement rates, totally destroying the more mobile movement, or you could group them into seperate 15 unit groups: one movement of one, the other movement of two. I really think the end-game problem with groups is just that people don't want to adapt to trying group-think and instead think they should be able to one unit it all the way. So if your mid-game you're moving 10 units a turn, and late game am moving 100, it's perfectly clear that attaining the ten moves a turn isn't that far away if you can learn to manage groups very well. It's not like you can't move nay individual units for whatever edge that may give, but that we can simpplify it if we want. having said that, I'm not so sure it works all that well, but at least when it comes down to moving from one spot to the other it can be done better than just sticking to individual units. If I ever get warlords to let me play a 12 civ huge marathon without skitzing out, I will learn these advantages and be thoroughly enjoying the end game I imagine. I just love tanks!:)

Just to touch on your latter point first if I may. I don't like the first 200 turns, they're almost worse than the end. There is basically no fighting, and in my games anyway it's a matter of dodging animals with a few scouts; far too purposeless to be the cream of the game.

Civ4 is about managing your production and workers. The "fighting" is definitely secondary, although it can take most of the time. If you really are interested primarily in the fighting, why are you playing Civ, instead of an alternative game that has a lot more emphasis on tactics without all of that annoying economic development that you find uninteresting?

For example you could group together 30 units of various movement rates, totally destroying the more mobile movement, or you could group them into seperate 15 unit groups: one movement of one, the other movement of two.

You're paying a huge penalty, either way.

to iheartponeez
I take the greatest umbrance to your second sentence.
Did I say he wants to "watch the computer play"? No I did not. I asked if there is an option available to watch the computer play itself. Your use of quotation marks in this instance is reprehensible.
Did I say he is unconcerned with tactics? Certainly not. Nobody wants to lose. I stated perhaps he does not want to have a hands on approach to this issue.
Did I say he finds moving a mouse or typing is difficult? Yes. Wasn't that the point of the article? Oh, keeping track of more than seven objects can't be done by the human mind. It's not fun anymore.
I think the people who enjoy Civ3 are above the average intelligence. I think they can track hundreds of units and if they make a mistake, that's part of being human - not a computer. If Civ3 is so messed up why treat it as the benchmark of stategic games?
Young lady, we live in a free enterprise society. If you think smokers bother you at the bar, go to a bar that does not allow smoking. The bar should thrive with enough like minded people. This is a form of natural selection (theory of evolution). By the same concept, deprive yourself of a wonderful and unique game like Civ3 if you feel you can not handle the physical requirements to play a pc game. If you want a better game, make it yourself. I'm sounding like my hero Ayn Rand right now.
In ending, if you keep up "quoting" people out of context, you might be able to get a job with mainsteam media.


1. "Umbrance" isn't a word. You're trying to say "umbrage."

2. Please look up "reprehensible." You're really stretching with that word.

3. "Maybe Philip would like to sit back, take the strain off his evidentely limp wrist, and watch events unfold without having to dirty his hands with the actual work of tactics."

Right here you very blantantly suggested that he was unconcerned with tactics.

4. The "rule of seven" is obviously not a hard-and-fast rule, since the human mind is variable, as he even elucidates with his Chess example. That said, it is supported with quite a bit of research, and more importantly it demonstrates that the amount of objects one can reliably track is not limitless.


And that's just the beginning. Here's where you REALLY went wrong:

It's not that he finds typing difficult, it's that he (along with quite a few others) find the EXTREMES that Civ goes to to be hyperbolic. What you are not understanding is that the sheer amount of micromanagement is not inherent to a good Civ game. You seem to be under the impression that an unwieldy amount of clicks is part of the "ambiance" of your bar analogy, but it simply isn't.

To put it as David Hume would, "Is does not mean ought," which is to say that just because Civ 4 IS full of clicks, does not mean it OUGHT to be, and that there's no alternative. There are a number of ways that the game could be altered, and improved while staying true to what it is, and perhaps even becoming a truer, deeper approximation. The concept is to deepen strategy and complexity while reducing sheer tedium that STANDS IN for complexity.

You will find yourself in the extreme minority if you claim that having to manuever 100 units per turn, for 50+ turns just to conquer the last two enemies that I am obviously going to destroy anyway is a positive part of the Civ 4 interface. I understand if you are willing to put up with it, but that's different than actually enjoying it. Many are willing to tolerate the ridiculous amount of management, very few actually find it entertaining, especially compared the early "sweet-spot" of the game. Firaxis is a damn good company with some very intelligent employees. Notice that in Civ 4 some of the micromanagement aspects have been removed by simply allowing overflow. I assume you were unhappy with this change, as you believe that if one wanted to play a Civ game with overflow, they should have found another bar, but thankfully Firaxis saw things differently. Now, I fully believe that the pros at Firaxis can continue this trend, hopefully in a more radical way, and streamline the game while using the "mental space" freed up by this streamlining to deepen some of the potential strategies.

Another issue I take with your post is that, ostensibly, you believe that Mr. Goetz's "clicks issue" is that it's too challenging for him. The problem is not that so many objects is a challenge, it's simply tedious. If it were hundreds of distinct objects with numerous different jobs and abilities, goals, etc. it would be a different story, but in reality it's 80 of the same unit type, all sent to the same part of the map, one after another to do the same thing. That's not intelligent thought, or useful challenge, it's busywork.

Finally, the last problem is your belief that Civilization is a static entity which is what it is, and will not change. That is simply a fallacy. If it were true, we would all be playing Civ 1 right now, but instead changes are made to the system over and over again. I don't have to make a better game myself because Firaxis is hard at work doing it for me!

Now, I'm sorry that I had to go explain the whole article to you, but there you go. Better luck formulating a coherent argument next time.

PS: You do sound like Rand, which is to say you sound like someone with anger issues ranting about pieces of writing they barely understand. With you it's Phillip's article, with her it was Kant.

PPS: This is what being served feels like.

PPPS: I'm a fellow, not a lady, but I actually think it a compliment if my writing comes off as feminine.

Philip Goetz, why don't you pick up a telephone and call someboby who cares?

With your above-average intellect (as you love Civ3 I hopefully concluded this correctly) and polite advertence you'll have noticed for sure that the authors point is not that he doesn't like to move his computers mouse but that he discovered issues in some famous computer game(s) like 1 turn lasts half an hour in a turn based strategy game without very much to happen during this turn except lots of mouse moving. I think the authors point is rather about game evolution and improvement.

If and only if this game should ever improve in such a way, we're very fine if you just continue to playing Civ3. You see, a fitting solution can be found for everyone, for those who are curious to try something new and for those who like it old-style.

:spear:

Thanks to Thunderfall for drawing attention to this article.

Although Philip Goetz rambles on a bit too long, and his insistence on the rule of seven seems too dogmatic (as he says himself, chess players cope with sixteen units), basically the point he makes is very sound and needs to be made more often.

Civ is quite a fun game near the beginning because there are few cities and few units, and because the decisions to be made are interesting.

It's a dull and dreary game near the end because there are too many cities, too many units, and the decisions to be made are very repetitive and have long since ceased to be interesting.

I've played every version of Civ from 1 to 4, always hoping that the next version would turn out better; and there have indeed been improvements with every version, but not the fundamental improvements that the game needs.

Civ is a good game concept but a poor game design, and I've almost given up hope that Firaxis will ever get it right.

For people who think that Civ is fine as it is: well, aren't you the lucky ones. All computer games seem to be made for people like you. No-one makes computer games for people like me. Although I think there are quite a lot of people like me, in this respect.

Civ4 is about managing your production and workers. The "fighting" is definitely secondary, although it can take most of the time. If you really are interested primarily in the fighting, why are you playing Civ, instead of an alternative game that has a lot more emphasis on tactics without all of that annoying economic development that you find uninteresting?

It's not that I find the building etc. uninteresting, in fact that's the majority of my game, but the first two hundred turns, as I play it, have little or nothing to do with fighting, and even the building is very slow because the economy hasn't done enough to make that more interesting yet. It's mostly socuting like I said. :sleep:



You're paying a huge penalty, either way.

So what's the penalty for grouping 6 horse archers together? I don't get your point. The only way I see there being a penalty as such is if you attack and don't want some of them bogged down because it didn't require all of them attacking (in which case you can split them off anyway). If you have say 5 armies, one in each tile, and they could all move at once, which is what I think you're wanting, the same rules for keeping formation apply with the game as-is, only the game as-is requires 5 moves instead of one. It's not what you're looking for admitadly but my point is there's a way around moving every lasted unit every turn and I see not a whole lot of downside unless you then want to start splitting them all over again, which, could even be necessary if all the armies moved at once.

So do units in such an army lose their promotions or what? Where's the disadvantage? Either the one move for 5 armies or the five moves per five armies, are both going to run into problems covering more tiles if they want and then you get into some measure of single units again, until they joing back up and maybe form three unit armies. I have used armies to some extent, just by accident mostly, and it is somethign of a pain splitting them back into individual units, but then again no matter the size of the army and the ease of moving them, when it comes time to covering more tiles splitting will have to be done.

Anyway, awaiting you response.

So what's the penalty for grouping 6 horse archers together? I don't get your point.

If an enemy city needs only 4 horse archers to capture, then 2 of your 6 are wasted; they could have been advancing on a different city.

If you move them all together, when some are wounded, then either the wounded units don't get a chance to heal, or the unwounded units are wasting turns when they could be advancing.

Inside enemy territory, you aren't "parking" them on several different tiles, cutting enemy city production, or pillaging several tiles at once.

When you transport them on ships, you need different grouping sizes, and different mixes of units, depending on where you're going. Transporting several units for several turns (as opposed to chaining a smaller number of units from ship to ship to ship in a single turn) is less efficient.

If an enemy city needs only 4 horse archers to capture, then 2 of your 6 are wasted; they could have been advancing on a different city.

If you move them all together, when some are wounded, then either the wounded units don't get a chance to heal, or the unwounded units are wasting turns when they could be advancing.

Inside enemy territory, you aren't "parking" them on several different tiles, cutting enemy city production, or pillaging several tiles at once.

When you transport them on ships, you need different grouping sizes, and different mixes of units, depending on where you're going. Transporting several units for several turns (as opposed to chaining a smaller number of units from ship to ship to ship in a single turn) is less efficient.

Alright, but wouldn't you have the same problems with armies period, irrespective of whether they all moved at once or each one required a move?

Alright, but wouldn't you have the same problems with armies period, irrespective of whether they all moved at once or each one required a move?

I don't know what you mean by an "army", I guess. Civ4 discourages players from keeping units together in a single group for an extended period of time; it's better to keep constantly grouping and regrouping, separating and joining, different collections of units, as circumstances and your needs change. This takes a lot of time. Thus the argument that the game should give some incentive for groups of units to stay together. If there were a compensation for keeping your units together, you would do it more often, and thus the total amount of micromangement could (perhaps) be reduced.

I don't know what you mean by an "army", I guess. Civ4 discourages players from keeping units together in a single group for an extended period of time; it's better to keep constantly grouping and regrouping, separating and joining, different collections of units, as circumstances and your needs change. This takes a lot of time. Thus the argument that the game should give some incentive for groups of units to stay together. If there were a compensation for keeping your units together, you would do it more often, and thus the total amount of micromangement could (perhaps) be reduced.

I don't know. I'm operating under the idea that there is something more to making these armies (armies are formed by double clicking a unit and then every unit in that tile is made into an army). The reason why armies aren't more functional, or at least not on the Civ3 level, I suspect, had largely to do with that the AI didn't hardly build them, which of course were actually "built" in Civ3 as opposed to the current method. I would suppose they found it too difficult to program the AI into taking advantage of armies, no matter how beneficial they were, so they decided to more or less drop them for Civ4. You would think they could do something along the Civ3 lines but maybe just make the armies with less upside.

I still think the fundamental problem with armies in Civ4 is very largely based on people not having any obvious fighting advantages with them and so they don't want to use them. Couple that with there's no need for armies to make things easier for much of the game and people don't try to take the only advantage that armies offer, potentially more ease of movement, and instead would rather complain that they are forced to move tens if not hundreds of single units every turn. It's too bad that you can't single unit move throughout the game with the same relative ease, but you have to try to adjust or die I say, and I plan on taking very seriously an adjusting angle should my lousy play ever get me to the modern era again :D .

Even if grouping them into quantities of ten or more doesn't turn out to be very helpful, and I can't see how it can't if you're talking about moving over a hundred total units in attack, but surely with that many units there's something to be said for smaller armies, maybe three or five unit armies. If you're decimating your enemies with not only quality, but also quantity, then how much would you lose by not having single units running here and there, when evitably you will group a good number of them for city assault anyway?

I hope more of us who can't stand moving single units all the time, will give the army useage a good deal of work and let us know just how well it can be used. Even with just 100 marauding units you could probably afford to group 50 of them into 5 seperate armies and leave the rest singular. With 100 units, that alone, assuming you wouldn't break them apart again, would save you 45 clicks a turn (50 single units moved and 5 armies moved [the 5 armies, if unformed, would have been another 50 moves]).

Gamers have to make “Too many clicks!” to play CIV, and especially in the endgame. According to the posts, there is no real disagreement about this. But gamers express the fear of loosing control by letting the AI control more functions than today. The main reason for this, is poor performance of automated workers.

In another post, I have described CIV as a game on the operational and strategical level (see: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=182118). But it is also possible to play on operational and a kind of tactical level:

The game interface works well when we treat each city as a city, each building only as a building, and each unit as one unit; Today we start building a monument, next thing is building a cottage. This functions like the ancient Greek town-states. Every time the gamer act as an interior ruler, he rules only one and one city at a time. Synergy is achieved when the different cities produce coordinated.

In such a context, one can view each unit as such, and take some kind of tactical control in the field by utilizing the terrain. But still the outcome of battle is decided by the AI as a result of rigid parameters (unit, promotions, terrain defence value, and some kind of random generator).

If one looks at CIV as a strategy game, the first settler can be seen as a whole tribe, big enough to have its own language and culture (nation). And they settle in an area; the capital square is the first area where the former nomadic tribe build their houses. The worked tiles are where people live outside the capital. So the number of people on the city screen, is the whole population in an area, not only the city.

Still, it works fine as long as we like it as barbarians in town states.

But history shows that this organisation did not work when the units (states) grew bigger. The mere size of matters demanded a system where one gave the orders, and others carried them out. In CIV, we, the supreme emperor, have to do it ourselves. When the civics change, the interface does not.

But there is a way to beat the MABS (Modern Age Burnout Syndrom).

Most of us use the default number of opponents when choosing a map size. But if one increases the number of other powers far beyond default, the situation is getting interesting.

The obvious result of let us say 10 AI civs on a small map, is smaller nations. Instead of clicking 30 cities, one can govern a country made up of three larger areas (The capital of the empire, and two other cities). And in case of hostilities, the gamer has let us say 15 different units in the field instead of 150. (Ok, seems a little, but the other nations build units under the same conditions as oneself.)

Fewer “cities” (in this context the fat cross representing large areas like Arizona or Baden-Württemberg) has other impacts than just fewer clicks. First of all, money: Fewer “cities” (or local capitals like Madison) mean less maintenance costs. On the other hand: Fewer marketplaces and banks produce less money. And few libraries and universities have a rather poor science output.

This low level science output makes it necessary to explore the world and get in touch with other civilisations asap to establish science and resources trade. Resources will be rare, and in many cases situated in another country.

Compared to its costs, wonders will have lesser impact on your state than in default-mode.

After testing this concept, I found diplomacy and trading more challenging. Without proper tech-trading you are lost, even on low levels. I also had capacity to pay much more attention to the diplomacy-screens and had a better overall view of my opponents.

We can not do anything to the town-state interface. But it is possible to change the size of the “cities” and beat the MABS.

The Philip Goetz article is interesting, and I suspect that it will be influential in shaping design of Civ 5. I play Civ to think and relax, not to engage in a manic search for hot buttons etc, which characterize RTS.
Having read the reactions in this forum, my impression is that the key concept that will be developed in Civ5 pertains to delegation. This probably means the advisors become more important with considerable work given to advisor-specific dialogue boxes to minimize the possibility of the AI taking off in an unintended direction (as many forum contributers have noted), and let the advisors execute the human player's strategy. Some advisors would need little micro-management (Science, Trade, Culture), while Domestic and Military advisors would require quite a bit more. How to incorporate the feasible set of strategic choices for these advisors is a key programming challenge. Obviously these will be affected as new technologies become available , whether the civ is in peace or war. Typically delegation involves working on an agreed plan of action, with enough information available for the boss to able to work out whether ongoing results are satisfactory or not, which enough information for the boss to anticipate what the subordinate will do next. It will take quite a bit of work to get this right, before we can even begin to think about the possibility of a feral advisor, however interesting the prospect of this may sound.
To me Civ is about grand strategy motivated by history. It is a game about leadership, making effective choices subject to uncertainty. It emphasizes contextual intelligence, at which the AI struggles. Effective leaders in history have shown the capacity to know when to delegate and judging when the time is right to take direct control. Think of Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis, over-riding his admirals and taking close control of individual naval units during the blockade, being very concerned not to repeat the mistakes of WW1, when mobilization schedules severely constrained diplomatic options. So, if the designers are thinking hard about delegation, my advice is - make it easy for the player to come in and over-ride the advisor. Also make sure the game provides enough information so that the player can anticipate what the advisor plans to do in coming 3 or 4 turns.

the problem, i think, with most strategy games, mostly RTS's is that inorder to become better, the player MUST learn the hotkeys, degrading the game play down from strategy, to a twich based game.

i agree that civ4 is peaking in terms of too much control, but like said earlier you still have to appeal to both camps; rushers and turtelers, why not after you build the unit they stay in the city and just shut up untill you go into the city and "activate" them, build an army and load the units you want to use into the army and send them off. with that you dont have to focus on several units at a time if you dont want too.

I certainly hope Firaxis takes the time to read this thread. It appears that most of us agree that the early-mid game period is near-perfect, while the late game becomes increasingly tedious and, ultimately, boring.

I have long thought that different eras should usher in different game play concepts - simply because ancient or medieval armies, economies and societies function so very differently from industrial or modern ones. This could be a reasonable way of approaching endgame tedium. (Or, as someone else alluded to, this could be achieved through civic selection).

In practice, cities could become less autonomous and more a component of a nation-state. This could help to simplify the Worker system, food distribution, and even building orders (units and structures) by transforming them into nation-based instead of city-based systems. Hence, early-mid game management remains the same while late game mechanics could compensate for the complexities of the 25 city, 200 unit empire we are trying to run.

This would also add a touch of realism. I.e. - here in San Francisco our food comes from all over the nation, our power from across the state, our military training and basing is only at specific locations, and our economy is, of course, intimately linked to the rest of the nation's (or even world's) economy.

There is a preference for incremental improvements to the underlying game, rather than re-engineering the game from the basic precepts.

And I suspect the solution to "too many clicks" will involve ways of improving the capacity to group units together.

This is particularly important in the military sphere. To this end I offer a modest suggestion, one that improves options for grouping, adds to (hate to say) "realism" of the game and makes it easier for a leader to exert strategic control over military units.

its a variation of the Civ3 army idea. Works like this. At any age, you can produce army officers, who would cost as much to produce as say a stock standard defensive unit. Their creation does not arise from direct combat. However their effectiveness is a function of experience in combat.

Each officer has 3 functions.

First they group units together into collective fighting units (as in C3 but with differences). The more basic the level of tech, the smaller number of units that can be grouped. At the base level you have a company commander comprising 3 units, then a battalion commander comprising 9 units, and so on.

The second function officers have is what I call a "zone of command". Sort of works like the zone of tiles claimed by a settler (before he settles, that is). So the officer sits in the middle of the zone of command, and units in the army "spread out" to occupy the zone of command. The better the technology, the better the officer, the bigger the army, the bigger the zone of command. This is a improvement on C3 army which stacks all units in one tile, which enables enemy units freedom to occupy strategic ground (like mountains). My suggestion rules this out, and it enables an army to defend a mountain ridge, or a city, for example.

The third function concerns strategic mission. Options here could include (i) dig in and defend (adds to strength rating if attacked); (ii) patrol/recon; (iii) annoy/harass neighbours/barbarians (in peacetime); (iv) mobility alert (say via additional movement points, earmaking the army for offensive purposes). This is accessed via right click on the officer.

As a secondary point - I propose that the strength rating of indiviudal units that fight in an army improve by virtue of being in the army. However unlike C3, armies can lose individual units, as well as suffer weakness collectively.

I certainly hope Firaxis takes the time to read this thread. It appears that most of us agree that the early-mid game period is near-perfect, while the late game becomes increasingly tedious and, ultimately, boring.

I have long thought that different eras should usher in different game play concepts - simply because ancient or medieval armies, economies and societies function so very differently from industrial or modern ones. This could be a reasonable way of approaching endgame tedium. (Or, as someone else alluded to, this could be achieved through civic selection).

In practice, cities could become less autonomous and more a component of a nation-state. This could help to simplify the Worker system, food distribution, and even building orders (units and structures) by transforming them into nation-based instead of city-based systems. Hence, early-mid game management remains the same while late game mechanics could compensate for the complexities of the 25 city, 200 unit empire we are trying to runYes, I hope they do too. This is exactly what I was thinking as I read this very interesting thread for the first time today. Like Jonathon I also have played civ I, and though I barely bothered with civ 2 & civ 3 for personal time demand reasons, I've returned to playing computer games after a ~10 year hiatus in the last year or two, as my son gets old enough to enjoy them too. I think this thread proves what I have felt about this end-game tedium, no better in civ4 than in the original (and maybe worse, if you factor in that *I* have changed & need to be able to make smaller time commitments), is a common opinion. Civ is a fantastic game but quite frankly I have only been able to play 2-3 games to completion, mostly I just give up on because it all seemed a fait accompli (only the space race seems to give any sense of drama). Although it is a fantastic game, I wonder how many more games I have left in me. Two? Three?

But it is the last couple paragraphs that I quote that struck a chord with my thoughts as I read the discussion here. What we need is a game -- whether it is called Civ is immaterial (in fact maybe it shouldn't since it will deviate significantly from the Sid Meier model) -- in which the current civ is only the first "minigame." At some point (maybe controlled by player, or preset conditions being met?) the existing game state is translated into a starting game state for the next minigame ... thus continuation of the epic sweep of the subject, without the the continuation of constant small-scale interface which leads to monotony.

What would a second stage mini-game look like? I'm not sure, but Jonathon & some others sound like they've been playing computer strategy games a while just like me, so maybe there are a few people that remember "Balance of Power" by Chris Crawford? It was a simulation of superpower global politics, where 3rd world countries were proxy military & ideological battlefields, and the primary weapons were economic & military aid and destabilization actions (direct military intervention also was an option, but realistically it was very expensive & risky and might threaten undoing the effects of all your other actions in all other regions of the world). 15 years ago I thought of Meier and Crawford as the two giants of computer strategy gaming. Sadly I fear this is a forgotten gem, probably largely due to two factors: it only came out on the mac & atari ST, no PC version, 2) a lot of players (not me) were turned off by the "lose-lose" scenario if you pushed the computer opponent too hard, the tension level might go to defcon 1 and once nuclear war starts, NO ONE won. Anyway, I think those are irrrelevant to the real lesson of the game, that the modern struggle of civilizations is very different from the ancient ones. In other words, the Civ series makes a lot of sense (and a lot of enjoyment) as an early era class of civilization simulation, because miltary and tech are the framework of how supremacy really was achieved (well, leaving out leadership ... but that is what the human player is supposed to bring to the game!). But contest of civilizations in the modern world is NOT about military dominance, it's about economic and diplomatic influence, bloc politics and culture. Quite frankly, the fact you can conquer and absorb an entire foreign continent & culture in 1900 BC might make sense ... but not in 1900 AD, it feels hollow to me. Not to go off on a tangent, but Iraq today proves this IMO, and Vietnam before it (for both US and French).

Unfortunately I fear that, not only would this be very difficult to pull off (you would not only have to develop TWO really good games, and to boot figure out a reliable transition between them), I doubt it would make any economic sense for a gaming house to take on that kind of risk. It would truly have to be a labor of love (and financial stupidty I suppose)