Civ traits not hardcoded from the beginning?

[Huxley Hobbes]

The simplicity of having all pikemen being equal makes it a lot easier to reason about the game. I just don't want have to deal with differentiating between France's Pikemen +3 Magical Helmet of Healing or Russia's Spearman -1 Boots of Dung.

Yup, fair point there. Now that I look over it, resources of different quantity is certainly the weaker of my ideas.

Any time you think, "but that will make it too powerful, so there should be a cap," take a step back and re-examine the idea. Caps like that are a horrible, terrible idea that often lead to exploits, neutered features, and unbalanced play. Come up with a different formula that doesn't require a cap to keep it from becoming too powerful.

Again, a fair point. If it needs a cap, it's probably not going to work outside of an RPG, in which case it will merely be frustrating. My first instinct would be to have diminishing bonuses, eg your second library is worth the same as the first, but the third only contributes 3/4 of that value, the fourth 3/5, and so on until you reach a stage of each library only contributing maybe 1/5 of the first couple.

Much, much, much more micromanagement. I agree in principle, but this would make me bang my head on my desk. How should I know whether paying an extra 2gpt for a 3% science boost is a good investment? Besides, taxes and science come from the same pool, so it doesn't really make sense.

xD Entirely reasonable point. I mean, I like micromanagement (I know, I know, but the looney bin is full.) but even I have to be in the right mood for it to be enjoyable, and to maintain that mood over a full game of Civ is, well, maintaining any mood for that long is a trial. (Incidentally, I'm not a fan of taxes and science coming from the same places, certainly not in capitalist systems with (One would presume.) lots of private scientific enterprise. The two should in my eyes be linked but not entirely inextricable.)

Consider this alternative. First, improvements become cheaper to build as you build more of them. For example, your first library might be 80 shields. The fourth one is 75. The 13th one is 70. The 40th one is 65. Maintenance remains the same. Secondly, improvements become more effective over time. A 1000-year old University should give more of a boost to science and culture than a brand spanking new one.

You plucked the idea from my mind. I had meant to include the possible alternative of buildings falling in cost as you built more, but it escaped into the ether. Fortunately, it seems to have found your mind. And I also like the idea of older things being better: this isn't necessarily the case in the real world but I think it works well enough as an idea for gameplay purposes. Although if it could be offset by some sort of cultural stubbourness; Oxford and Yale are inevitably going to change their methods slower than a 20-year old University is. Still, that one's just my personal preference, and I know it'd be silly to actually expect anything like that in the game, especially as every improvement would need to be considered individually for such effects. Can you say dismay? Heck, I can't even think of what the effect would be, except maybe higher resistence to culture, or to have larger-than-normal reactions to unpopular decisions. Not a very robust idea there, I'm sure you'll agree, so I'll just leave it in the post as a curiosity.

 

[Leuf]

I would like to put my two gold/cents/pence/yuan/yen/etc etc into this topic, as it was something I've been thinking about for a little while.

However, to move back towards the idea of diversity, I have two or three propositions. The first entails having not only resources, but of different qualities. Let's take Iron, and a typical Pikeman-style unit. Say the standard power level is 10 for a Pikeman made with normal-quality Iron. With low-quality Iron, this might only be 9, but High-quality Iron might lead to a level of 12. What effects would this have?

Have you ever played the game Capitalism? A lot of what you're suggesting in this post is similar to how it worked there. The game had so much great stuff in it, but ultimately since it came down to just trying to make money it was all about micromanagement and wasn't that satisfying to play. But anyway, in Capitalism there were resources on the map that you could mine. Each source had a quantity and a quality. You would take those resources and use factories to make components, and in turn combine the components into finished goods that you would then sell. The quality of each component/good was determined by two factors, the quality of the inputs it was being made from and by the tech level you had for that component. Different components had the two factors weighed at different percentages. Some things the quality of the raw materials was very important, some things it didn't really matter only the tech level mattered, and some it was a mix of both. Plus the tech levels for the components were open ended, you started at 10 or something like that and you'd research and get it up to 125 and have the best stuff until someone else got up to 275 and then yours were garbage by comparison, so you'd have to keep researching to stay ahead. You could choose the length of time to research with exponential gains the longer you chose. For example you could do 6 months and just get a few points, or 10 years and get 200 at the extremes. Get a slight advantage now, or get a big boost down the road.

Now put that in a Civ game, and the sky is the limit. It can work for trading, all Civs could make pottery but you put a lot of research into it and you have a high quality source of clay so yours is the best, it produces three happy faces. It can work for weapons. You make the best swords and you can keep them to yourself or sell them. And there is all the diversity between Civs you could ever want, tech levels in all the different luxuries and weapons.

The second idea is to increase units, buildings, and even Civs in total depending on their actions; their manufacturing, battles, and so forth. If Japan churns out division after endless division of tanks, and fights a war almost entirely with tanks, isn't it reasonable to think their next batch of tanks will have improvements made? I've always felt that Civ games had too much demarcation between units, and not enough (Ie none.) evolution within the units themselves. With regards to buildings, would it be unreasonable to think that France, with an extensive network of well-funded and often-used libraries, would enjoy greater benefits from them than Britain, with poorly-backed and dilapidated libraries dispersed seemingly at random throughout the Empire?

Again going back to Capitalism, each subunit in your factories/research labs/stores/farms/mines had bar graphs showing how much they were being utilized. You could set how much funding each received. It would take a combination of utilization and funding to promote them to higher levels of efficiency. If your manufacturing units were sitting around with nothing to make they wouldn't improve no matter how much money you pumped into them, and if they were working as hard as they could but you didn't fund them they wouldn't improve either. I find it more difficult to translate this into Civ terms without getting into heavy micromanagement, but I'm sure it's possible.

If you make the same unit as the previous unit in a city it costs some percentage less to complete? Each time you make it in a row it costs a little less the next time. No micromanagement there.

 

[Leuf]

The simplicity of having all pikemen being equal makes it a lot easier to reason about the game. I just don't want have to deal with differentiating between France's Pikemen +3 Magical Helmet of Healing or Russia's Spearman -1 Boots of Dung.

Ah but aren't we essentially going to have exactly this with all the bonuses in civ4? Are we even going to be able to tell what bonuses the other guy has? Or do we just find out the hard way when our +3 rock runs into their +7 paper?

I know a lot of people want hundreds of different units, but I'd much rather have just a few types but each civ has their own strengths and weaknesses. I'd much rather have the bonuses at the Civ level than the unit level.

I think this is an area where a well done Military Advisor could come into play. If you're going to have advisors have them do useful stuff rather than state the obvious. If could have your military advisor open on the side of the screen with a briefing on your opponent and the odds of the attack you were about to make you wouldn't have to keep track of it all.

And on the harder levels, sometimes he'd be wrong

 

[Huxley Hobbes]

Hm. Sounds like I need to get a hold of this Capitalism deely. *Ponders*

I certainly wouldn't mind seeing more intelligent advisors, military or otherwise. "Our army is better than their army!" Yeah, great, we have three more units; but what I need to know is where their resources are and how big their empire is. I know, I know, you find stuff like that out through espionage, but it just seems... facile at times.

 

[apatheist]

Yup, fair point there. Now that I look over it, resources of different quantity is certainly the weaker of my ideas.
...
Again, a fair point.
...
xD Entirely reasonable point.

You are quite possibly the most reasonable person I have ever encountered on the web.

(Incidentally, I'm not a fan of taxes and science coming from the same places, certainly not in capitalist systems with (One would presume.) lots of private scientific enterprise. The two should in my eyes be linked but not entirely inextricable.)

I agree. However, the Civ games have not yet done anything at all to model any type of private enterprise, be it commercial, scientific, cultural, or religious. I think the Civ series should move in that direction, but it will almost certainly take a couple iterations to get it right. What you describe is best implemented as part of a general system that models such private enterprise rather than a special thing just for science.

And I also like the idea of older things being better: this isn't necessarily the case in the real world but I think it works well enough as an idea for gameplay purposes. Although if it could be offset by some sort of cultural stubbourness; Oxford and Yale are inevitably going to change their methods slower than a 20-year old University is.

It depends on your time scale and whether you're looking at sciences or arts. It's a lot harder to be intransigent in the face of change if you are working in the sciences. That type of stubbornness may occur from time to time, but it's usually going to have a half life of much less than the average professor's tenure.

Also, consider the prestige factor. Success feeds itself. If a university has a reputation for excellence, the most talented professors will want to work there, and the most talented students will want to study there. Their accomplishments will further enhance the institution's reputation for excellence, feeding the cycle again. In the real world, of course, you can throw a lot of money at a new university to help it catch up, but I see little point in modelling that in Civ. Although, with the goal I state below, I slightly contradict myself. Very well, then, I contradict myself.

Still, that one's just my personal preference, and I know it'd be silly to actually expect anything like that in the game, especially as every improvement would need to be considered individually for such effects.

I think keeping it simple will make it a more viable idea. It would also keep it more balanced. An improvement gets x% better at whatever it does every Y years. That x% is relative to its effectiveness at the time, not its effectiveness at the start. Thus, a University's research boost would go: 50%, 55%, 60.5%, 66.5%, 73.1%, 80.4%, etc. not 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, etc.

This would be simple to keep from getting too powerful just by tweaking a couple of the things at the other end. Maybe techs get more expensive over time faster than they did in Civ3. Maybe marginal city maintenance increases faster. Cultural victories could be made slightly harder. It can be balanced relatively simply (though not necessarily easily) in those ways, with the goal being to reward those who start early, without having crippling effects on those who start late.

Ah but aren't we essentially going to have exactly this with all the bonuses in civ4?

Sounds like it. I don't like what I hear about that so far. Too many different special abilities.

Are we even going to be able to tell what bonuses the other guy has? Or do we just find out the hard way when our +3 rock runs into their +7 paper?

No idea. I think it's more likely than not that we'll be able to tell. After all, we could tell veteran status in Civ3.

 

[Brain]

My evidence regarding UU and leaders is that there is a screenie showing a Redcoat being built in a city. Now, I doubt very much that they have gotten rid of the Man-O-War, so this strongly suggests that Elizabeth grants you a Man-O-War as your UU, wheras Victoria grants you a Redcoat. Makes sense to me!

I recall a debate about what UU the romans have, since people have seen two different UU for ther romans, the legionary and the praetorian. So, maybe one Roman leader has the legionary and the other the praetorian, but this has to be double-checked. Civrules doesn't put the legionary as the roman's UU in his compilation document, and there must be a reason for that.

The much simpler explanation is that each civ has 2 UUs, as was done in some Civ3 mods.

 

[Che Guava]

Maybe your civ's specific traits could be aquired during your golden age. I know that in CivIII your traits generally dictace when you will have your golden age, but I think it makes more sense the other way around: when you have a great success in battle, build a great monument, etc, your golden age is triggered. That first event determines your first specific trait (i.e., if you win a great battle, you are militaristic). What you do during your golden age determines your other trait. If you build more libraries than anything else, you will be scientific, if you travel great distances, you'll be expansionist.

I realize that this might put some civ's at a disadvantage if they don't get a golden age early on, but perhaps you could start with one and gain more during these ages. ANy suggestions?

 

[Huxley Hobbes]

You are quite possibly the most reasonable person I have ever encountered on the web.

That's very kind of you to say. I've been through the mill online, I know that being reasonable usually leads to far more pleasant and productive discussion than being a firebranding madman. Besides which, you make good points and you put them forth politely; I've no reason not to be reasonable.

I agree. However, the Civ games have not yet done anything at all to model any type of private enterprise, be it commercial, scientific, cultural, or religious. I think the Civ series should move in that direction, but it will almost certainly take a couple iterations to get it right. What you describe is best implemented as part of a general system that models such private enterprise rather than a special thing just for science.

Yes, I suspect that a movement like that (Or indeed most movements away from absolute power.) would require a significant rethinking of how Civ works. On the one hand, I'd like to see more autonomy among your civs and cities, but on the other I'm not so sure I want to turn Civ into a political/economic lobbying game, which is where it might end up going if this route were followed. Much of Civ depends on the very fact that you are an absolute ruler.

It depends on your time scale and whether you're looking at sciences or arts. It's a lot harder to be intransigent in the face of change if you are working in the sciences. That type of stubbornness may occur from time to time, but it's usually going to have a half life of much less than the average professor's tenure.

You're right, I'm probably being overly judgemental of the various institutions of learning around. It's likely more stereotyping than anything else, and as your paragraph about prestige and success shows, there are plenty of good reasons for a Uni to accept new ideas and to push itself forward.

I think keeping it simple will make it a more viable idea. It would also keep it more balanced. An improvement gets x% better at whatever it does every Y years. That x% is relative to its effectiveness at the time, not its effectiveness at the start. Thus, a University's research boost would go: 50%, 55%, 60.5%, 66.5%, 73.1%, 80.4%, etc. not 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, etc.

That sounds fair enough, though I must admit I would like to keep some aspect of it influenced by the player's actions and the world around the improvement. On the other hand, I'm struggling to think of ideas other than my previously mentioned one of just having different levels of funding, and as you've quite fairly stated the micromanagement and calculation would be inordinate.

This would be simple to keep from getting too powerful just by tweaking a couple of the things at the other end. Maybe techs get more expensive over time faster than they did in Civ3. Maybe marginal city maintenance increases faster. Cultural victories could be made slightly harder. It can be balanced relatively simply (though not necessarily easily) in those ways, with the goal being to reward those who start early, without having crippling effects on those who start late.

You know, I'm actually starting to think that given the objective, it's not a necessary thing to include at all. Consider; if you build a university in 1000 AD, you've already got X turns more from it than someone who builds it in 1250 AD. I don't know... I'm thinking of something which rewards you for a solid network and infrastructure more than long-lasting institutions.

Sounds like it. I don't like what I hear about that so far. Too many different special abilities.

I have to say, I am also somewhat apprehensive about it. I think it'd be better to hve an array of units who have some of the various things going into special skills, but I'll reserve judgement until I see what those skills all are and how exactly they work in-game.

Maybe your civ's specific traits could be aquired during your golden age. I know that in CivIII your traits generally dictace when you will have your golden age, but I think it makes more sense the other way around: when you have a great success in battle, build a great monument, etc, your golden age is triggered. That first event determines your first specific trait (i.e., if you win a great battle, you are militaristic). What you do during your golden age determines your other trait. If you build more libraries than anything else, you will be scientific, if you travel great distances, you'll be expansionist.

I realize that this might put some civ's at a disadvantage if they don't get a golden age early on, but perhaps you could start with one and gain more during these ages. ANy suggestions?

Hmmm... I don't know how Golden Ages will work in IV, but I know in III it was entirely possible to go through games (At least on lower difficulties) without seeing one. In addition, it doesn't seem like the computer has them consistently either. Perhaps a Golden Age could give a temporary trait, instead? This would give you a bonus to something (Randomly chosen? We'd need to consider the possible systems of allocating them, any ideas?) aside from the typical areas for a short while, and allow civs to present a short but vital threat to others in marginalized areas.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

If it helps, Huxley, we do know that Golden Ages are going to be much more under the player's control. I don't know if they have also retained the previous system of Golden Ages as well, but it has been confirmed that the 'sacrifice' of multiple Great People will bring about a Golden Age. Additionally, we have also had it confirmed that players can instigate multiple Golden Ages through the game-the only limit being the available Great People.
Hope that clarifies things for you !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[apatheist]

Yes, I suspect that a movement like that (Or indeed most movements away from absolute power.) would require a significant rethinking of how Civ works. On the one hand, I'd like to see more autonomy among your civs and cities, but on the other I'm not so sure I want to turn Civ into a political/economic lobbying game, which is where it might end up going if this route were followed. Much of Civ depends on the very fact that you are an absolute ruler.

I think it's inevitable that the game grow like this. The player will have to keep control over the military, build queues, research, diplomatic relationships, social engineering, and the like. That doesn't preclude introducing more organic trade models, non-governmental bodies, capitalist economies, and other kinds of semi-independent systems that you influence but do not control. In some ways, those would be welcome, as they allow a deeper, broader game without increasing the micro-management burden.

That sounds fair enough, though I must admit I would like to keep some aspect of it influenced by the player's actions and the world around the improvement. On the other hand, I'm struggling to think of ideas other than my previously mentioned one of just having different levels of funding, and as you've quite fairly stated the micromanagement and calculation would be inordinate.

It is indirectly influenced by those things because, in choosing to build such improvements earlier rather than later, you are incurring a substantial opportunity cost. This would have greatest impact on improvements built in the Ancient and early Medieval ages, when the opportunity cost is very high. In addition, you start paying maintenance on all of those improvements much sooner than the other players.

You know, I'm actually starting to think that given the objective, it's not a necessary thing to include at all. Consider; if you build a university in 1000 AD, you've already got X turns more from it than someone who builds it in 1250 AD.

However, if that other person manages to acquire whatever techs you discovered in those X turns, they're at parity with you. There's no lasting advantage that they can't buy their way out of, and potentially pretty cheaply at that. You can go from warmonger to builder in just a few turns, which doesn't seem reasonable.

You might also be interested in my suggestion about educating your citizens.

I have to say, I am also somewhat apprehensive about it. I think it'd be better to hve an array of units who have some of the various things going into special skills, but I'll reserve judgement until I see what those skills all are and how exactly they work in-game.

My anxiety about the special abilities is that they seem too, well, special. Unique, specialized abilities are harder to reason about.

 

[Huxley Hobbes]

If it helps, Huxley, we do know that Golden Ages are going to be much more under the player's control. I don't know if they have also retained the previous system of Golden Ages as well, but it has been confirmed that the 'sacrifice' of multiple Great People will bring about a Golden Age. Additionally, we have also had it confirmed that players can instigate multiple Golden Ages through the game-the only limit being the available Great People.
Hope that clarifies things for you !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Ah, interesting stuff! In that case being able to add another trait, even for a short while, might be overpowering. On the other hand, making it apparently easier to reach a Golden Age does make Che Guava's suggestion on the matter somewhat more viable. Thanks for the info, by the way =)

I think it's inevitable that the game grow like this. The player will have to keep control over the military, build queues, research, diplomatic relationships, social engineering, and the like. That doesn't preclude introducing more organic trade models, non-governmental bodies, capitalist economies, and other kinds of semi-independent systems that you influence but do not control. In some ways, those would be welcome, as they allow a deeper, broader game without increasing the micro-management burden.

It does seem like the way it's likely to go, and it seems like an encouraging way as well. Then, of course, we get on to thinking about the actual purposes and effects of these bodies and situations, not just what they are comprised of.

It is indirectly influenced by those things because, in choosing to build such improvements earlier rather than later, you are incurring a substantial opportunity cost. This would have greatest impact on improvements built in the Ancient and early Medieval ages, when the opportunity cost is very high. In addition, you start paying maintenance on all of those improvements much sooner than the other players.

Ah, you are right, I overlooked that aspect by quite a ways. That's probably because my typical way to play is to make my military secondary, and my cities primary concerns. So from my perspective it's building the military which incurs the penalty But yes, I do see your point on the matter

However, if that other person manages to acquire whatever techs you discovered in those X turns, they're at parity with you. There's no lasting advantage that they can't buy their way out of, and potentially pretty cheaply at that. You can go from warmonger to builder in just a few turns, which doesn't seem reasonable.

Again, a point I overlooked, and I have no good reason for having missed that one. Tech trading makes perfect sense, but also does allow civs to catch up very easily to more advanced neighbours... which means, in fact, that the idea of having improvements which get better as time goes on/as more are built once again becomes a prime possibility.

You might also be interested in my suggestion about educating your citizens.

I will check that out in just a moment.

My anxiety about the special abilities is that they seem too, well, special. Unique, specialized abilities are harder to reason about.

Hmmm... I think it'd be wise if I went and actually read up on what we know about these abilities in Civ IV thus far. xD

 

[apatheist]

Tech trading makes perfect sense, but also does allow civs to catch up very easily to more advanced neighbours... which means, in fact, that the idea of having improvements which get better as time goes on/as more are built once again becomes a prime possibility.

Exactly. The idea that tech level is sufficient is silly. There's a lot more to it than that. You need more than just the knowledge, you need the institutions and infrastructure. I'm sure there are numerous people in Mozambique who know about computers and automobiles and the like, but their standard of living is still below the US in 1965.

 

[Leuf]

Hm. Sounds like I need to get a hold of this Capitalism deely. *Ponders*

It's over 10 years old, good look finding it I actually just tried installing it and it works on XP, but for me the mouse was acting really strange. It would move 2-3 times as fast vertically as horizontally. Fairly annoying. I believe there's a Capitalism 2, but I never played it.

I'm working on my own Civ style game called Froxiv that's going to use a lot of these concepts. I'm about to make a post about it on the Other Games forum.


-Leuf