"A Big Vision for Civilization 4"

[Albow]

Dh_epic:

In reply to the Tech Tree debate. What I thought you were saying in your suggestion was that there are two (or three or four) tech paths. You need to get a gateway tech which then 'forces' you to only travel down that path until you get to the next 'cross over point'. Is this correct?

If so, then why bother having individual techs within each path? Once you are down Path A (lets say for eg Peace and Commerce), then you can simply assigne bonuses for each 'block' of research done, until you make it to the 'cross road' number of blocks. Then, you need to choose again, but can you now go back and choose B, or are there two (or more) new choices? (in other words, by chooseing A, you can never have B)?

If you think through your suggestion like this, then you see why I reacted.

If A excludes B, then you have a system that is more rigid then currently. If you can go back to B, what is the point, it is the same. And if tech paths are completly predefined once a choice is made at a cross road (until the next cross), then why have techs? why not a number of bonuses that accrew over time as determined by beaker production rate?

Happy to continue this debate here or elsewhere.

As for religion - I think you are looking to 'small' picture at what it does. Why do you think religion only means that its a new way to start war or have new units? Religion could be just as powerful as 'regionalism'. It can represent a new power block within your empire, new espionage tactics, new forms of social control (think inquisition), new military tactics 9not just units, but bonuses like fanatisism), new diplo options, more in-depth happiness control (think, you don't just build a temple in each city, but that temples have to be managed in new and interesting ways.

My complaint was that you dismiss religion out of hand without thinking, ok, current suggestions crap, what could it do that is powerful and new.

Regionlism:
Don't get me wrong, I reckon power blocks inside your civ is THE next big thing to make this game advance. Most big civs that fell over, fell over because they were rotten in the middle. So much game play prospects to add with internal power blocks. Regionalism is just one way of doing this, and funnily enough, Im gonna dismiss it out of hand like you do to religion. I think regionalism doesn't have the 'bang for buck' factor. With one notable exception! Covenant's suggestion, if implemented only by the industrial age, would give a spicy new twist to the game. Get rid of city MM, and turn civs into regions, that would be cool, reduce MM and make the late game interesting again.

Pls don't think this is a personal attack, I fully support your work and ideas, but as you stated yourself, need to look critically at things, esp those things we care about a lot.

Cheers,
Albow

 

[sir_schwick]

Dh_epic:

In reply to the Tech Tree debate. What I thought you were saying in your suggestion was that there are two (or three or four) tech paths. You need to get a gateway tech which then 'forces' you to only travel down that path until you get to the next 'cross over point'. Is this correct?

If so, then why bother having individual techs within each path? Once you are down Path A (lets say for eg Peace and Commerce), then you can simply assigne bonuses for each 'block' of research done, until you make it to the 'cross road' number of blocks. Then, you need to choose again, but can you now go back and choose B, or are there two (or more) new choices? (in other words, by chooseing A, you can never have B)?

If you think through your suggestion like this, then you see why I reacted.

If A excludes B, then you have a system that is more rigid then currently. If you can go back to B, what is the point, it is the same. And if tech paths are completly predefined once a choice is made at a cross road (until the next cross), then why have techs? why not a number of bonuses that accrew over time as determined by beaker production rate?

I am not speaking for dh_epic, but what I think he meant(so I guess I am then). Yes, in many ways you could just have bonuses instead of individual techs. However that would be a major style change from the hard distinctions of individual techs that characteris Civ. Discrete units have always been part of Civ, so maintaining them, if just for astethic appeal, is important.

Also, branches could be more complicated than just two paths. There could be paths that cross between branches(at cross-roads you decide) as well as dead end branches that offer unique opportunity later. Also, parts of branches may not be mandatory and only avaliable if you took certain branches earlier on.

 

[dh_epic]

Albow, I appreciate the criticism, and it is not taken personally. I look forward to discussing with you.

Branching Tech Tree

The example I gave in the document was simplified. But the hope is that the paths are not merely linear. In the example, the paths look like this:

A: -[tech]---[tech]----[tech]---[tech]---
B: -[tech]---[tech]----[tech]---[tech]---

But if you go a little bit further, like Sir Schwick points out, the branching tech tree will probably look more like this:

................./-(B)-------------\
Everyone: ----[tech]---[tech]---[tech]-------
.................\-(A)-------------/

Where A and B are more than just a string:

A: -[tech]---[tech]----[tech]---[tech]---
.................\-[tech]-[tech]---/

................./-[tech]
B: -[tech]---[tech]----[tech]---[tech]---
.................\-[tech]-[tech]---/

So the player still has freedom within the branch he has chose -- which tech will I pick first? Will I push forward on my specialized branch, or focus back on the "universal" techs for everyone? How much research will I allocate?

Not to mention you're not just choosing between bonuses. You're choosing between units and wonders and governments and so on. In the long run, both people will discover cannons and democracy. But in the short term, one will discover flaming catapults, and the other will discover the athenian senate (just as an example).

These are the things that you miss by simply giving people a choice between two bonuses for their next string of research.

Religion versus Regionalism

As for religion, I did not outright dismiss it. After careful consideration, it just didn't beat out the other suggestions.

Regionalism solved four problems in Civilization 3. That's what I meant by "bang for buck". Not to mention that it tied into all other major suggestions except the last two, which collectively solved nearly every problem in Civilization 3.

When I tried to apply religion to those same problems, it only had impact when I took for granted a LOT of other features that were not yet implemented.

(E.g.: you need to implement power blocks within an empire in the first place. You need to have an espionage system that's actually worth something. You need to make social control even remotely important. You need to implement that deep temple management system before you ask "what the difference between two different religion's temples.)

Without implementing anything else, religion by itself ends up providing more of the same (holy war, holy units, holy wonders, holy governments)... unless you add traits to each religion, which is a whole other can of worms.

But focusing on what it would take to make religion work is best done in another thread, if that's okay with you.

 

[Sid]

I'm in awe of the very good work that has been done here and of the immensely creative and clear document that was a pleasure to read.

I believe that the Firaxians will read the document and use what benefits their development and commercial interests the most. This is what makes Civilization the most powerful game of all time for me -- it is almost an allegory for itself and for the 'progress' narrative.

I'm getting too deep now, but I'm very grateful for the work that you've all done and to CivFanatics for hosting and promoting it.

 

[Albow]

dh_epic (& sir schwick)

I like your 'extended' version explanation of the tech tree much better than the first. It now shows a lot more depth and possibility (and perhaps, you could evenhave techs that can be traded and those that can't, to add more strategic depth and difference between civs and tec path choices.). I'd hate to see path A techs being totally off limits to tech B participants, it would feel, wrong somehow. Like, how can someone invent 'athenian' senate system, and not be copied by others (or flaming catapults etc) ...

Anyway, discussion for more detail not necessary here.

As for Religion vs Regionalism, I must admit, I don't care which one, as long as there are internal power blocks to deal with, gain advantages from/disadvantages and navigate ... I can see that regionalism would have advantages in terms of 'internal' admin, whereas Religion could (could) have cross game impacts. I'll check out your thread connection.

Over and out!

 

[dh_epic]

Thanks Sid!

And thanks again, Albow, for the valuable thoughts. Let me try to address them.

On science... we ARE oversimplifying, because it's a very small subset of progress that can't be copied by other people. But there are kinds of progress that WILL not be copied by other people. We look at these specifically because they show history making very important tradeoffs. The whole point of the addition to the game is to allow people to make a choice between two broad strategies.

Here's an example, which I'll conceal so it doesn't clutter the board:

Spoiler Ancient China versus Ancient Europe :

Compare ancient China to ancient Europe.

In ancient China, there was a regular undertaking of these huge bronze works, involving hundreds of people building these huge bronze pots on a regular basis. This wasn't a special project like a pyramid, but a regular occurance. This led to the early emergence of a burocracy in China.

In ancient Europe, land was so fertile, and the people had travelled so far that it wasn't abnormal for farms to be family run, as opposed to huge collective enterprises. It's not a surprise, then, that Europe would turn out to be more individualistic.

Now stop right there. If this were a choice on the tech tree, then yes, you would be restricted to one strategy over another. But does this mean that Europe would never have a burocracy? Would this mean that China would never embrace the rights of the individual? Of course not. Europe would pick up the finer points of Burocracy with future technologies like banking and the republic. China would comprehend individualism with the advent of philosophy and, later, democracy.

The point of a branching tech tree is that you're making a tradeoff. But that's temporary. Because any unit or government that you miss out on will eventually be replaced by a more modern and better one.

Instead of focusing on pure, absolute realism, we focused on extracting from reality a few special cases that would be good for gameplay. Civilization does this all the time: Realistically, you should be able to copy someone's unique units, for example. But Civilization doesn't let you do this. Not because it's more realistic, but because they thought it would be better for game play to make those choices actually matter.

Making tech tree branches mutually exclusive involves the same reasoning. Realism, but only to the point that it inspires interesting game play choices.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Your example, DH_Epic, also highlights the important role of terrain and resource in helping to 'select' the future direction of ancient China versus Ancient Europe. What would have happened, for instance, if Ancient Europe had had readily available stocks of copper-enough to ensure that they got bronze-working very early on. Would Europe have then gone on to develop the system we saw in Ancient China. By the same token, what if China started in a part of the world with very large amounts of arable soil, enough to easily produce vast quantities of food, would that have altered their choice of technologies and governmental systems? Truth is, we don't know for certain, but if we tie civics and tech choices-in part-to terrain and resources, then we can play out these 'what if' scenarios! Hope that makes sense?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

That's a good idea, Aussie. For the most part, though, I tried to favor features that put the player in control, as opposed to aspects of the game that ended up being determined by luck.

I imagine you could balance it so being "born" near copper versus "born" near fertile soil give you two different but equal advantages. (E.g.: collectivism versus individualism.) But I figure the more important first step is to let the player decide between two equal strategies, than find himself pushed into one strategy by his starting condition.

A good idea though. In a perfect world, where this document turned out to be Civilization 4, I'd want this idea to be in one of the expansion packs

 

[Isak]

This is a very good read, and you anonymous writers should give yourself a huge pat on the back for it.

I'd like to give an exceptionally big 'thumbs up' for 4.3 - Domestic Policy. Introducing the 'will of the people' would be a huge benefit to those of us who, as you write "see
Civilization as a kind of RPG, where [we] get to forge [our] nation’s unique identity."

I can't find much I fundamentally disagree with. I might suggest various alternate ways to implement some of the ideas, but as a whole, that sounds like a good Civ4 to me.

 

[sir_schwick]

I don't think terrain should dictate your developement, but rather there are directions of developement that favor whatever terrain you are on.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Sorry, Sir_Schwick, that was a poor use of words by me . I don't think it should 'dictate' it either, but that the bonuses it might give you to certain techs or civics settings might nudge players down a certain path, whilst at the same time leaving the door well and truly open for the players who want to 'play against' the strength of their terrain-if that makes sense?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

Sorry, Sir_Schwick, that was a poor use of words by me . I don't think it should 'dictate' it either, but that the bonuses it might give you to certain techs or civics settings might nudge players down a certain path, whilst at the same time leaving the door well and truly open for the players who want to 'play against' the strength of their terrain-if that makes sense?

Okay! You must have ESPN because that is exactly what I was hoping you meant.

 

[rupakrathore]

Well, I have recently discovered this forum and site about Civ. I love this game and have been playing for some years but never had the inclination to surf the net on this. (I rarely have time to surf the net for anything but work).

Nice document.

The biggest thing I miss in the Civ3 is trading options. I mean having a road to another civilization should not be enough. There are taxes and trading routes like silk road. You can't get oil via road. You invest in building pipelines (good money) passing over civs A, B and C; pay taxes for using their land and thus won't destroy a civilization in middle, if it is risking your supply chain. Their should be some transit benefits.

Another is not having the option to convert sea to land or land to river. (I like that option in freeciv, my favourite game on linux, that inspired me to by CIV in the first place). C'on, we have Holland (built from sea) and suez canals. It is expensive but should be present. May be it need some tech like Dyke building or Water Locks etc.

For mechanical task automation, I like CMAs from freeciv and the consolidate options for cities in freeciv. Like selecting all cities on coast and switching them to build harbour, or selecting all cities that don't have a library and giving them one by switching and then hurrying it up. Also worklist should be saved. I can say that all cities should be building things in this order, unless specified otherwise.

Settlers should be airlifted. If you can airlift a fighter or mech inf over the continents right in the middle of enemy territory into your troubled city, then I don't understand why not settlers. Also, there should be an auto-attack option for units if they spot enemy within range (much like coastal fortress)...

I would have loved more trading options like refuelling the aircraft/destroyer (buying certain goods in one turn or agreement for n turns), setting up air or naval bases, overflight rights for use of airspace (u can't attack a territory C by flying over B without B's permission and with permission, B's ground units and cities should be ignored).

Another suggestions are seasonal trading routes, rivers types (big needing civil engg, medium needing bridge building, smaller crossable with effort like jungle if no tech exist), being able to build bridge from island to continent if near by, realistic movements (I don't think it takes 50 years to move to nearby area/cross a river for settlers), ground water usage for irrigation (and introduction of farmlands with higher yields), some natural disasters like flood, tsunami, earthquakes, meteor and like; better diplomacy; more zoom levels; option to relocated a city to nearby area and its sideeffects; going beyond 5x5 grid for bigger/twin cities (here, i would say if coal can move automatically via road, why not food move from a surplus to needy areas. food has potential to become national resource with some localization benefits to city producing it).

The list could go on and on...

 

[searcheagle]

(Sir Schwick-I think you mean ESP Extra sensory Perception. I don't think ESPN broadcasts brain waves in between football games )

I think that what is meant to be said here is that terrain should have an influence, but not dictate, the direction a civ goes. Terrain will make some choices for civs more profitable and others not. For example, Pacific Islanders became fishers and such because they realized that it would not be worthwhile to farm. Same with the Eskimos.

Terrain does determine what nations can do.

 

[sir_schwick]

(Sir Schwick-I think you mean ESP Extra sensory Perception. I don't think ESPN broadcasts brain waves in between football games )

Don't underestimate the power of Chris, Lee and Kirk! Seriously though, the ESPN line is a pretty old joke.

I think that what is meant to be said here is that terrain should have an influence, but not dictate, the direction a civ goes. Terrain will make some choices for civs more profitable and others not. For example, Pacific Islanders became fishers and such because they realized that it would not be worthwhile to farm. Same with the Eskimos.

Terrain does determine what nations can do.

That was what I was hoping he meant. At first it seemed to read differently to me.

 

[Sub]

I have a quick suggestion. You said that terrorism can wait, but what if you incorporate terrorism into the domestic issues concept. It could be something like "Terrorists have a bomb and are planning to use it in washington unless you pay then x amount of gold. Your people await your stance
A) Send swat teams in (50% chance that the team succeeds)
B) Pay ransom (You lose money, but the bomb doesn't go off)
C) Do nothing (Does nothing?)"

I don't know. It's not a big deal, but it would kill 2 birds with one stone.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I know it did read differently, Sir_Schwick, something I noticed when I re-read the post. Dictate does almost ALWAYS suggest forcing a person to do something, where I was DEFINITELY thinking about it merely influencing decisions. Traits are another thing which should be INFLUENCED by your terrain, resources, tech choices and play style (which, lets face it, will each feed into each-other).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sid]

This is totally trivial and against the spirit of 'completeness' that your document conveys, but I do miss terraforming.

 

[Komoda]

Read both, and I agree for the most part on the restructuring of the AI, so that it is just as blind as the player when it comes to resources. Also, that the AI, which expects you to obey its borders, it should also do the same.
With the techtree, historically speaking, there were many civilizations that followed different paths, but also excelled in one or two areas, and ignored others.
Looking to history, Ch'na was well through its renaissance and reformation long before europe ever entered theirs. The Xi People, came from Africa and were the precursor civ to the historical civs of central america and had already begun the manipulation of certain plants, even before europe was doing wide-scaled agriculture, irrigation and masonry.
My point is, that in cIV, I would like to see a techtree that is non-linear, as human development as it is recorded is most definitely non-linear.

I especially like the idea of having nomadic civs. To see this in human history, one only needs to read about Gengis Kahn, and how it was not just an army that went up against eastern europe, but with him travelled the entire civilization. How many Mongols were there?

Not really sure you went into it dh_epic, but I think more needs to be done in concern to resources and also the processing of such resources. eg: copper was being smelted in 6000BCE, and was not used for weapons until the civ discovered how to anneal the metal to make it stronger. Bronze was not used for centuries afterwards, and it was not the strongest of metal, even when cast, it was alloyed with arsenides. The use of tin, did not come about until 3800BCE.

Sorry about that, try as I might, always seem to include a bit history in my postings. Just an example of how unrealistic the techtree is.

As for the other points, I agree for the most part on all points. Like the Galactic Civ, I would like to see civs given points to divide up among specific traits.

Now, I do have a copy of civII:ToT, and I do like the opportunity to play an extended game. I was a bit aback, that after I had received civIII:conquests, they did not include perhaps the idea of extending conquest into space.

I am not into quick games of kill,kill,kill, must dominate the world scenarios. Enjoying the long games, where the first one into space wins. This is where the AI seems to be unrealistic, as it persues all the needed techs needed to win the victory, and ignores everything else. The AI should at least follow the same rules as the player, and also suffer the same consequences.

That's my 2 sense.

 

[LouLong]

Nice job !

I don't agree with all your ideas for the future but globally I do.

And I think you did a nice job in adding the ten things Firaxis did well in Civ3. Good for their moral and maybe something we forget sometimes (= that there were actually very good new ideas in Civ3 while we usually ***** around what was not in or poorly implemented).