Is the "Rule Set" known and can it be added without Approval?
C7 Feature Requests
- Thread starter WildWeazel
- Start date
Is the "Rule Set" known and can it be added without Approval?
I've been wondering, for quite some time, if there is simply a way to disable it, as it does do far more harm than good - & I'm satisfied with have the two different, "Acquire Techs" attributes found elsewhere.
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
So I've come up with an idea for a new model for the mechanics of Population/Citizens based upon an organically-progressing class system.
The key design philosophy is that it reworks the model while preserving vanilla values for importing scenarios designed with the Civ3 model, all the while leaving the door open to segue into additional remodels of other systems; on the one hand we have the opportunity here to rewrite Civ as to how we, the Civ3 Modding Community, think it should have been, but on the other, no-one wants to import their favourite well-balanced scenario to make a the few necessary changes that such an update allows only to find it's been made woefully imbalanced by the reworking of systems and the implementation of new ones. Here, I hope to have found a suitable middle-ground which is pleasing to all parties.
I'll put it in spoilers, because it's quite an effort post. Terms put in square parentheses, bold, with an asterisk like [*this] are feature expansions for another time.
So with that, thoughts, critiques, outright criticisms of my ideas or myself?
And to the Devs in particular, are suggestions for conceptual change on this sort of scale useful, or is it perhaps too out-of-scope from the original Civ3? Likewise, is my emphasis on relating to Vanilla Civ3 rules for backwards compatibility useful in general?
The key design philosophy is that it reworks the model while preserving vanilla values for importing scenarios designed with the Civ3 model, all the while leaving the door open to segue into additional remodels of other systems; on the one hand we have the opportunity here to rewrite Civ as to how we, the Civ3 Modding Community, think it should have been, but on the other, no-one wants to import their favourite well-balanced scenario to make a the few necessary changes that such an update allows only to find it's been made woefully imbalanced by the reworking of systems and the implementation of new ones. Here, I hope to have found a suitable middle-ground which is pleasing to all parties.
I'll put it in spoilers, because it's quite an effort post. Terms put in square parentheses, bold, with an asterisk like [*this] are feature expansions for another time.
Spoiler The Concept :
Spoiler Additional :
So with that, thoughts, critiques, outright criticisms of my ideas or myself?
And to the Devs in particular, are suggestions for conceptual change on this sort of scale useful, or is it perhaps too out-of-scope from the original Civ3? Likewise, is my emphasis on relating to Vanilla Civ3 rules for backwards compatibility useful in general?
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
I would be happy if we could just have upgradeable Specialists with progressively better outputs — but which replaced their precursors.
e.g. the generic Scientists could be replaced by an upgrade-chain from a Vanilla-style 1-beaker "Mystic" (no precursor tech?) in the Ancient Age, to a 2-beaker "Scholar" (with Education?) in the Medieval, and finally a 3-beaker "Scientist" (Scientific Method?) in the Industrial. Similarly, the generic Entertainers could become e.g. "Fool (Feudalism?) —> Actor (Free Artistry?) —> Rock-Star (Electronics?)".
As it is, sure, it's already possible to mod in such Specialist-types, possibly even by using the appropriate default era-specific graphics, but since there is (AFAIK) no mechanism to remove obsolete Specialists from the click-sequence on the city-screen, managing Specialist-assignments city-by-city then becomes even more tedious for the player (5 types is already pushing it). And the existing AI, of course, will also never be able to cope with the new types.
On that last point, even if we can't have upgradeable Specialists, it would still be an improvement to the game if the AI could be taught how to use the existing Specialists properly! (e.g. it is not necessary to assign enough Clowns to make every single citizen Happy, only enough to make more Happy than Unhappy!)
e.g. the generic Scientists could be replaced by an upgrade-chain from a Vanilla-style 1-beaker "Mystic" (no precursor tech?) in the Ancient Age, to a 2-beaker "Scholar" (with Education?) in the Medieval, and finally a 3-beaker "Scientist" (Scientific Method?) in the Industrial. Similarly, the generic Entertainers could become e.g. "Fool (Feudalism?) —> Actor (Free Artistry?) —> Rock-Star (Electronics?)".
As it is, sure, it's already possible to mod in such Specialist-types, possibly even by using the appropriate default era-specific graphics, but since there is (AFAIK) no mechanism to remove obsolete Specialists from the click-sequence on the city-screen, managing Specialist-assignments city-by-city then becomes even more tedious for the player (5 types is already pushing it). And the existing AI, of course, will also never be able to cope with the new types.
On that last point, even if we can't have upgradeable Specialists, it would still be an improvement to the game if the AI could be taught how to use the existing Specialists properly! (e.g. it is not necessary to assign enough Clowns to make every single citizen Happy, only enough to make more Happy than Unhappy!)
I like the idea (and here's a more readily digestible explanation of what an Organic Programming Environment is.) My caution would be that our "devs" have all but certainly agreed upon a system development methodology by now.
I've always been thinking of something similar to Virote's idea.
What I was thinking of, more exactly, was division of populations along ethnic lines. E.g. Varangians in Constantinople. They did not fight in the same manner nor with the same weapons as their counterparts. What if some specific non-generic units required types of population to recruit them from? Foreign/minority units have been a staple of any multinational society, such as Alexander's Græco-macedonian armies, or the Roman or Mongol Empires later on.
Edit: maybe the class system could be tied to the forms of government, i.e. a stratified society with a differentiated warrior caste or castes would be limited to them. Sparta had its famous citizen hoplites but they were few in number and the rest of their army was perioeci, helots and mercenaries.
What I was thinking of, more exactly, was division of populations along ethnic lines. E.g. Varangians in Constantinople. They did not fight in the same manner nor with the same weapons as their counterparts. What if some specific non-generic units required types of population to recruit them from? Foreign/minority units have been a staple of any multinational society, such as Alexander's Græco-macedonian armies, or the Roman or Mongol Empires later on.
Edit: maybe the class system could be tied to the forms of government, i.e. a stratified society with a differentiated warrior caste or castes would be limited to them. Sparta had its famous citizen hoplites but they were few in number and the rest of their army was perioeci, helots and mercenaries.
These, for now, can be represented by, e.g., having a "City State" Go type which would need to pay maintenance for units (Renaissance Italian City-States) or (*sigh*) have them auto-produced by an (expensive) SW, with the option of Drafting Units on Population Cost Basis.
Yes, those are some of my ideas for city-states within the current ruleset of Civ3, but this particular iteration of civ is not friendly twards city-states. Hence why, for example, one-city challenges are considered to be nightmare-difficulty civ.
I've already mentioned them in the past, but things like multiple production queues, or at least separation between units' and buildings', is something I'm interested in.
Edit: And having the maximum number of production queues tied to the organisation of your society (government-class structure-economics) is also interesting.
I've already mentioned them in the past, but things like multiple production queues, or at least separation between units' and buildings', is something I'm interested in.
Edit: And having the maximum number of production queues tied to the organisation of your society (government-class structure-economics) is also interesting.
I'm implementing City States in Terra Fantasia, all non-Player. No way for them to grow larger than Size 2; no Settler production.
... The also, perhaps, multiple Tech Trees going at once (Growth; Military Technology; etc.) There would still be "cross-dependencies" for many advances - but they could be weighted, either by Player or Scenario preference - Didn't SMAC do something like this?
(it's been awhile.)
I don't have a copy of SMAC to check.
Free d/l-s:
Moderator Action: Links removed due to site policy regarding piracy. leif
Last edited by a moderator:
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
It's legally available from www.GOG.com for nearly pennies right now (€ 1.39 in Germany) ... if you have access?I don't have a copy of SMAC to check.
https://www.gog.com/game/sid_meiers_alpha_centauri
Given that the game is from 1999 and might fall under the category of, "abandonware," at least one of the sites I cited seems reputable enough ...
... & it's also available for $(USD) 1.49.Going strictly by legalities I have to say that under GOG's terms it is legal to buy a copy and then redistribute it as often as you want. But, and it's a big but*, you have to redistribute it unaltered.
*: why did i just hear Beavis and Butthead sniggering in the background?
*: why did i just hear Beavis and Butthead sniggering in the background?
tjs282
Stone \ Cold / Fish
Heh heh heh, you said, "Big butt," Heh heh heh.
No, pretty sure that's exactly not the case.
GOG User Agreement said:
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,305
This is a problem with all mods, given how they all rely a remarkably dumb AI into doing the smart thing.
Given how Mr. Weasel has repeatedly stated that variables are not to be hardcoded if possible, then an ‘original Civ3’ ruleset could be included.
Essentially, yes. Whereas the game mechanics are well-documented, the Civ3 AI behavior is less clear. Thus, my long-term forecast is you will be able to play existing mods, but the AI will not behave identically. This could be seen as a good as well as a bad thing. If a mod has been highly tweaked to work with the limitations of Civ3's AI, it may be better suited to continue to be played with Civ3's original AI. Other mods might benefit from AI improvements that C7 will (hopefully) allow, or being able to tweak what the AI values in C7. For example, in the WWII in the Pacific scenario, the American AI would be more effective if it built more ships and Marines, and if it had better tactics for naval warfare. It is likely that AI would behave differently if the scenario were loaded in a future version of C7, but it might subjectively appear to play better (or worse, depending on the state of the C7 AI at the time).
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,305
Question: Does anyone else think we should start encouraging feature requests to have their own threads?
My thinking it motivated by two things. One is that the development team is experimenting with moving dev-focused discussions to GitHub Discussions, leaving this forum focused on the non-technical discussions.
As important, with this thread now approaching 200 posts, there's very much a "things will get lost in the middle of the thread" hazard. This includes both small suggestions, but also bigger ones such as Virote_Considon's post above. IMO, if you are willing to take the time to think through a feature in that much detail, it should have its own thread, so it doesn't fall into obscurity as soon as another page is added, and so there can be feedback more specifically about it. This would also make it easier both to find those suggestions, and to see the community reaction to them, at a later point in time when we may be ready to decide, "what should be added beyond Civ3-matching functionality?"
Starting with the questions at the end.
Yes, it is useful. One of the challenges I've mentioned is that a lot of suggestions are piecemeal, and it's hard to combine piecemeal suggestions into something cohesive, especially if they aren't closely related to existing game mechanics (see below).
My understanding of the general plan (as outlined by WW) is that the first goal will be compatibility with Civ3, but eventually we do want to offer an "enhanced" 4X mode as well as the "classic" Civ3 mode that mirrors existing mechanics, without additions or with only optional additions. That "enhanced" 4X mode is more likely to come from larger-scale conceptual proposals than an accumulation of smaller piecemeal proposals, simply because the parts will have to work well together to make it compelling from a gameplay standpoint.
Maybe it's too out-of-scope. The reality check is that it will be a long time (years) until we're ready to implement anything new (not already in Civ3) on this scale. I would encourage getting it on paper, as you've done. But not expecting we're going to be ready to consider, "is this the direction we should go?" for at least a couple of years. Even when we are, there will likely be several proposals to choose from, and only one can be chosen - it will be like choosing, "what's our first expansion pack going to focus on?"
Backwards compatibility is useful, because any conceptual additions will have to build on top of a Civ3-like foundation, from a mechanics perspective.
This is a good example of a smaller change that falls into the "tweak Civ3" category, and quite possibly the, "possible with slightly more modding power" category. From a mechanics standpoint, I believe this would be achievable simply by having a "Made Obsolete By" option for specialists, similar to what already exists for buildings. If a Mystic is Made Obsolete By Education, and the Scholar is available with Education, then you essentially have your upgrade path.
-------------
This also helps me clarify my thoughts on types of feature requests:
- Small changes, tweaks: Like tjs282's suggestion, these don't add new mechanics, but are small enhancements to existing ones. They don't change the flavor of the game significantly, and would be relatively easy to add (but of course there are a ton of existing mechanics to add first)
- Small changes, new mechanics. Hybrid unit types are a popular example. There are a lot of interesting ideas here, but they would start to change the flavor of the game, and would generally require more work to add (especially since the AI would have to know how to use them). There's also the question of whether different ideas here, added together, would mesh nicely; a grab bag of approach of adding the most popular ones might result in a game that feels disjointed.
- Overhauls; new systems. Virote_Considon's proposal falls into this category. Significant changes to one area, or to a few areas, where there is interaction between the changes to different areas. Generally aiming to add a rich new layer. Expansion-pack scale.
Some of the first category might be added along the way, as we're still adding Civ's existing mechanics, if not as default rules than as options for mods. But if we ever get to matching Civ3's mechanics, there will be a time when we have to decide what is next. If "Civ3 mechanics parity" is release 1.0, my guess is "a bunch of the tweaks the community has wanted" would be a strong contender for release 1.1. For the "2.0" expansion, we could add a bunch of the second category items, or a few of them and one overhaul, for example.
But it will be helpful to have some context around what the high-demand items are, which is why I'm thinking a single thread with 200+ posts probably is not the way to organize it. Not really a major problem now, but I do suspect some good ideas will get buried in the thread over time.
My thinking it motivated by two things. One is that the development team is experimenting with moving dev-focused discussions to GitHub Discussions, leaving this forum focused on the non-technical discussions.
As important, with this thread now approaching 200 posts, there's very much a "things will get lost in the middle of the thread" hazard. This includes both small suggestions, but also bigger ones such as Virote_Considon's post above. IMO, if you are willing to take the time to think through a feature in that much detail, it should have its own thread, so it doesn't fall into obscurity as soon as another page is added, and so there can be feedback more specifically about it. This would also make it easier both to find those suggestions, and to see the community reaction to them, at a later point in time when we may be ready to decide, "what should be added beyond Civ3-matching functionality?"
Starting with the questions at the end.
Yes, it is useful. One of the challenges I've mentioned is that a lot of suggestions are piecemeal, and it's hard to combine piecemeal suggestions into something cohesive, especially if they aren't closely related to existing game mechanics (see below).
My understanding of the general plan (as outlined by WW) is that the first goal will be compatibility with Civ3, but eventually we do want to offer an "enhanced" 4X mode as well as the "classic" Civ3 mode that mirrors existing mechanics, without additions or with only optional additions. That "enhanced" 4X mode is more likely to come from larger-scale conceptual proposals than an accumulation of smaller piecemeal proposals, simply because the parts will have to work well together to make it compelling from a gameplay standpoint.
Maybe it's too out-of-scope. The reality check is that it will be a long time (years) until we're ready to implement anything new (not already in Civ3) on this scale. I would encourage getting it on paper, as you've done. But not expecting we're going to be ready to consider, "is this the direction we should go?" for at least a couple of years. Even when we are, there will likely be several proposals to choose from, and only one can be chosen - it will be like choosing, "what's our first expansion pack going to focus on?"
Backwards compatibility is useful, because any conceptual additions will have to build on top of a Civ3-like foundation, from a mechanics perspective.
This is a good example of a smaller change that falls into the "tweak Civ3" category, and quite possibly the, "possible with slightly more modding power" category. From a mechanics standpoint, I believe this would be achievable simply by having a "Made Obsolete By" option for specialists, similar to what already exists for buildings. If a Mystic is Made Obsolete By Education, and the Scholar is available with Education, then you essentially have your upgrade path.
-------------
This also helps me clarify my thoughts on types of feature requests:
- Small changes, tweaks: Like tjs282's suggestion, these don't add new mechanics, but are small enhancements to existing ones. They don't change the flavor of the game significantly, and would be relatively easy to add (but of course there are a ton of existing mechanics to add first)
- Small changes, new mechanics. Hybrid unit types are a popular example. There are a lot of interesting ideas here, but they would start to change the flavor of the game, and would generally require more work to add (especially since the AI would have to know how to use them). There's also the question of whether different ideas here, added together, would mesh nicely; a grab bag of approach of adding the most popular ones might result in a game that feels disjointed.
- Overhauls; new systems. Virote_Considon's proposal falls into this category. Significant changes to one area, or to a few areas, where there is interaction between the changes to different areas. Generally aiming to add a rich new layer. Expansion-pack scale.
Some of the first category might be added along the way, as we're still adding Civ's existing mechanics, if not as default rules than as options for mods. But if we ever get to matching Civ3's mechanics, there will be a time when we have to decide what is next. If "Civ3 mechanics parity" is release 1.0, my guess is "a bunch of the tweaks the community has wanted" would be a strong contender for release 1.1. For the "2.0" expansion, we could add a bunch of the second category items, or a few of them and one overhaul, for example.
But it will be helpful to have some context around what the high-demand items are, which is why I'm thinking a single thread with 200+ posts probably is not the way to organize it. Not really a major problem now, but I do suspect some good ideas will get buried in the thread over time.
I Absolutely Agree Quintillus... most existing MODs were made with "tweaks" and "Work Arounds" to provide what cannot be directly gained from the CivIII/Conquests programming.
I believe C7 is a Worthy Goal to also allow New MODs/Scenarios with better selectable Features that are wanted and not in the programming of CivIII/Conquests.
C7 can be made to allow playing existing MODs/Scenarios but they would need to be "reworked" for the Differences between C7 and CivIII/Conquests.
IF we could somehow, with Approval, get the Code from Canada... it would allow C7 to be exactly the same as CivIII/Conquests with added Programming that would allow New Features that can be turned on and off.
That would be the Only way to have existing MODs/Scenarios Play Exactly the same as they were made and intended.
Certainly, MODs and Scenarios could be "Reworked" for the New C7 Game and indeed most if not all would have to be Remade to accommodate the New Features that are wanted because New features would change Game Play anyway.
What I am saying is even if we could make C7 Exactly like CivIII/Conquests with added New Features, existing MODs/Scenarios would still need to be "Reworked" simply because Game Play would be changed by adding New Features.
For example... If the AI used Lethal "Shooting" (Bombardment) on the Map, I would have to Radically Remake EFZI2 Elite because it was made to accommodate and compensate for the AI programming. Therefore, I do not see any reason to strive for an exact duplication of CivIII/Conquests but rather create a New Game like CiVIII/Conquests with Desired New Features.
Bottom Line: It needs to be made Clear that C7 will not be able to exactly play existing MODs/Scenarios the same or as intended without adjustments or remaking them.
The Great Thing is that if successful, C7 will allow far better MODS/Scenarios to be made from the New Features and better AI Programming
Similar threads
