CivCube
Spicy.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2003
- Messages
- 5,824
If this idea is fully implemented, the resulting game would likely have little resemblance to the Civilization series.
Everyone knows that Civ isn't exactly a history simulator. Nor should it. Gameplay options only deteriorate once you try to implement unique circumstances over all mankind's progress. Civ attempts to balance the feel of history with abstract gameplay by relying on building Athens/Sparta-style cities as representative of a civ's grasp of resources and territory. This works just fine overall, provided nothing impedes the sense of fun. Of course, the game limits in map size, AI, and maintaining fairness often interfere.
The "problem" here is that emphasizing the protection and maintenance of cities as the core mechanic throws away a lot of design possibilities. At best, diplomacy has to be boxed in to correspond with how cities are impacted. Even though I should, I never trade resources with AI because it's difficult for me to gauge just how that translates into human behavior. It's too abstract to resemble "organic" crisis scenarios that pop up in history. Would the Cuban Missile Crisis really have been initiated by a free-for-all for uranium? Extending one's territory by a city? Maybe; the in-game result is still too one-dimensional for my tastes.
This kind of issue goes beyond the core concepts of the series, all the way to how "civilization" is defined. Currently Microprose/Firaxis have left it at, again, a Western notion of independent city-states uniting together to battle with other nations. Indeed, the very title suggests a classical Greek view of legionaries, catapults, and weathered white columns. With Civ V, this idea is starting to reveal its old age. It worked very well for the series so far, but now it's starting to feel stretched thin. Different nations have different powers, but they're still essentially flavored Greek city-states expanding their power over territory, munching through resources and technologies like machines constantly improving themselves.
There's your Borg scenario. I think a way out is to generalize our definition of what civilization is...why not people instead of cities? Here's my idea of how a people-based game of Civ would play out:
You start with a few units, just like a regular Civ. However, these same units already represent your overall power. They could found cities, but such task would take several turns, leaving them vulnerable to attack. Lose all your civilians and the game is over. Over time, they will grow sick or hungry should they be deprived of an organized hunt or farm. Farms and animal migrations would be more important at the beginning of the game than founding a city right-quick. This would hopefully create different styles of expansion based on available resources and the player's chosen style. A religious people starting in a jungle may look very different from a militaristic people that starts the game founding garrisons left and right on a desert.
These units would equal city specialists. Grow more specialists by founding settlements that correspond to those categories. To spice things up, settlements will work differently on different tiles; a library on a desert will likely create different ideas than on a plain. Religion returns with a vengeance as technologies are interpreted by the adopted religion to have different effects.
The player's people will not be entirely beholden to him. In order to establish better control and infrastructure, he will need to adopt social policies, civics, religious practices, or simply create enough of a certain kind of specialist...say, soldiers to keep people in their place, or entertainers to keep them happy, or priests to keep them in a certain point of view. Combine specialists to create new ones with different effects. The result would be a more natural way of representing culture and control in the game.
Over time, you will eventually find Great People (artist, priest, general, etc.) to elect as Leaders. These unique individuals will be based on civ background and use their powers for a limited time. Think of these people as Wonders, Golden Ages, Civ Powers, and Civ Traits rolled all into one. Once a leader is fully exhausted, you can elect another specialist. If it's a different type of specialist, a small penalty may occur to reflect a change in historical momentum.
As civilizations meet each other, their unique philosophies will collide and present the player with decisions. The militaristic civ will have better weapons, but the seemingly peaceful religious folk over here may also have thorough discipline in defense. And what happens even after conquest? Not all of the opponent's people are killed once the last settlement is captured...that is, if the player is smart in setting up an escape route. Even if there are some people left within enemy territory, the player may still control them if enough ethnic solidarity is built through culture. The switch to a people-based Civ would help a domination victory make more sense. Instead of being a variation on Conquest, the player can truly infiltrate the rest of the globe through immigration and culture. Keeping those people alive is another story.
Anyway, I think a map with more fluid elements instead of set-in-stone cities would make things more unpredictable and challenging.
Everyone knows that Civ isn't exactly a history simulator. Nor should it. Gameplay options only deteriorate once you try to implement unique circumstances over all mankind's progress. Civ attempts to balance the feel of history with abstract gameplay by relying on building Athens/Sparta-style cities as representative of a civ's grasp of resources and territory. This works just fine overall, provided nothing impedes the sense of fun. Of course, the game limits in map size, AI, and maintaining fairness often interfere.
The "problem" here is that emphasizing the protection and maintenance of cities as the core mechanic throws away a lot of design possibilities. At best, diplomacy has to be boxed in to correspond with how cities are impacted. Even though I should, I never trade resources with AI because it's difficult for me to gauge just how that translates into human behavior. It's too abstract to resemble "organic" crisis scenarios that pop up in history. Would the Cuban Missile Crisis really have been initiated by a free-for-all for uranium? Extending one's territory by a city? Maybe; the in-game result is still too one-dimensional for my tastes.
This kind of issue goes beyond the core concepts of the series, all the way to how "civilization" is defined. Currently Microprose/Firaxis have left it at, again, a Western notion of independent city-states uniting together to battle with other nations. Indeed, the very title suggests a classical Greek view of legionaries, catapults, and weathered white columns. With Civ V, this idea is starting to reveal its old age. It worked very well for the series so far, but now it's starting to feel stretched thin. Different nations have different powers, but they're still essentially flavored Greek city-states expanding their power over territory, munching through resources and technologies like machines constantly improving themselves.
There's your Borg scenario. I think a way out is to generalize our definition of what civilization is...why not people instead of cities? Here's my idea of how a people-based game of Civ would play out:
You start with a few units, just like a regular Civ. However, these same units already represent your overall power. They could found cities, but such task would take several turns, leaving them vulnerable to attack. Lose all your civilians and the game is over. Over time, they will grow sick or hungry should they be deprived of an organized hunt or farm. Farms and animal migrations would be more important at the beginning of the game than founding a city right-quick. This would hopefully create different styles of expansion based on available resources and the player's chosen style. A religious people starting in a jungle may look very different from a militaristic people that starts the game founding garrisons left and right on a desert.
These units would equal city specialists. Grow more specialists by founding settlements that correspond to those categories. To spice things up, settlements will work differently on different tiles; a library on a desert will likely create different ideas than on a plain. Religion returns with a vengeance as technologies are interpreted by the adopted religion to have different effects.
The player's people will not be entirely beholden to him. In order to establish better control and infrastructure, he will need to adopt social policies, civics, religious practices, or simply create enough of a certain kind of specialist...say, soldiers to keep people in their place, or entertainers to keep them happy, or priests to keep them in a certain point of view. Combine specialists to create new ones with different effects. The result would be a more natural way of representing culture and control in the game.
Over time, you will eventually find Great People (artist, priest, general, etc.) to elect as Leaders. These unique individuals will be based on civ background and use their powers for a limited time. Think of these people as Wonders, Golden Ages, Civ Powers, and Civ Traits rolled all into one. Once a leader is fully exhausted, you can elect another specialist. If it's a different type of specialist, a small penalty may occur to reflect a change in historical momentum.
As civilizations meet each other, their unique philosophies will collide and present the player with decisions. The militaristic civ will have better weapons, but the seemingly peaceful religious folk over here may also have thorough discipline in defense. And what happens even after conquest? Not all of the opponent's people are killed once the last settlement is captured...that is, if the player is smart in setting up an escape route. Even if there are some people left within enemy territory, the player may still control them if enough ethnic solidarity is built through culture. The switch to a people-based Civ would help a domination victory make more sense. Instead of being a variation on Conquest, the player can truly infiltrate the rest of the globe through immigration and culture. Keeping those people alive is another story.
Anyway, I think a map with more fluid elements instead of set-in-stone cities would make things more unpredictable and challenging.
