De-constructing history

[Morten Blaabjerg]

@Aussie_Lurker

That pretty much describes the historical conflicts of religion in the 16th century - catholic powers supported by the papacy to lay pressure or wage wars against the emerging protestant nations of the North.

The concept has a lot for it. Hopefully it'll be kept at simple and elegant, clearly defined categories, firmly implemented within the game as such.

I imagine it could be as simple as interest groups rising as your population grow larger - perhaps it could be directly linked to the concepts of happiness and specialists.

Or it could be more free flowing, a la Sim City. I read somewhere, that Sid Meier actually tried implementing something like the Sim City concept of population in the first Civ, but it wasn't much fun, so they took it out again.

 

[LouLong]

Currently civ does not simulate any non-state actors. Maybe that should change. I certainly think that including the basics of a non-state actor system would be the beginning of many great things.

Actually I think there are two, albeit weak and just introduced in Civ3 :
- plague
- volcanoes

Interesting to notice that one is linked to terrain and one to trade (in a way).

I agree this definitely needs some work and could bring a real new dimension to the game if well-executed. If poorly implemented it can be a calamity. It could as well limit the dirigist way you can run your civ at the moment but it might scare off many players who might consider it too complicated or consider they are losing control (albeit personally I am all for it).

I command Morten Blaabjerg on his analysis which is both interesting and ariculated.
But now what about cultures with non-hegelian perception of history (the "large" exemple of China immediately comes to mind) ?

 

[dh_epic]

I think sir schwick was referring more to non-state social effects, not physical effects. While physical effects have had an impact on Civilization's evolution, it's not the most interesting part, nor is it the most "fair" part -- people don't want to play a game that they feel is unfair. Social effects are much more fair, much more controlable, and have many more implications.

But there are no social effects in Civ, with the exception of the occasional civil unrest, and a bit of war weariness. You control the social direction of your civ with basically complete omnipotence.

History is full of challenges -- trying to push a Nation in one direction when something pushes it in another. (State versus Church, Worker Rights versus Wealthy and Powerful Interests, Freedom versus mere Ideology)

 

[sir_schwick]

Also, non-state actors would allow for concepts and things taht should transcend nationality. These things include religion, culture, trade, ideas, knowledge. These things should be international and also be influenced by their local setting.

 

[dh_epic]

International workers/christians/women/intellectuals/entrepreneurs unite!

 

[Tholish]

Ah, the abstraction thread.

There's power and there's ideology. Political states, like what you play in Civ, and basically various kinds of religions (including such non religion religions as Communism and Capitalism). Religions could be just a different kind of transnational state, another option of entity to play. You could choose to play Israel or Judaism, Rome or The Catholic Church, Lutheranism or Germany or Sweden or Norway, Communism or Russia or China. This would involve designing a whole new game for the players of religions, different kinds of units and buildings and economics. Maybe somethig with letting citizens have a complex and shifting "nationality." And different victory types, so that, for example, it could be that when Communism wins Russia wins or vice versa.

The game should not attempt to reproduce history, but to create a representation in which history could have been as it really was, given certain decision and rolls of the die, and forgiveness of imperfect detail (in moderation). When it does that it is convincing that what you are playing is really an alternate history, not just checkers with great graphics.

Civ traits and unique units do not enhance the feeling of alternate history and picking them would not be fun. I don't want to pick stuff before the game, I want to get it during the game. I want to get my traits by building a wonder, get my UU by researching a dead end tech.

I want to start as a Barbarian and choose to research Settlement (the prerequisite for the first tier ancient era techs) rather than whatever it is barbarians research instead that allows them to make Warriors that can make Barbarian Camps that spawn more Warriors. I think I'm getting too concrete.

 

[sir_schwick]

There's power and there's ideology. Political states, like what you play in Civ, and basically various kinds of religions (including such non religion religions as Communism and Capitalism). Religions could be just a different kind of transnational state, another option of entity to play. You could choose to play Israel or Judaism, Rome or The Catholic Church, Lutheranism or Germany or Sweden or Norway, Communism or Russia or China. This would involve designing a whole new game for the players of religions, different kinds of units and buildings and economics. Maybe somethig with letting citizens have a complex and shifting "nationality." And different victory types, so that, for example, it could be that when Communism wins Russia wins or vice versa.

Non-State actor sometimes includes a religious authority, but is not a force of civlization. These are organizations that do exist and have real members.

As for playing a culture, ethnicity(harder), or religion. I had my own ideas. The rest of the civs still play civilization, however the acts of the various forces might affect how they play. You use the cultural and population production of cities and fight for control of these cities. Exact mechanics could be worked out later.

Civ traits and unique units do not enhance the feeling of alternate history and picking them would not be fun. I don't want to pick stuff before the game, I want to get it during the game. I want to get my traits by building a wonder, get my UU by researching a dead end tech.

I am not sure everyone else's opinions, but there are two problems I see with dynamic traits and UUs as the game progresses. 1) Play-balance would be a nightmare considering how many ways one can research and manipulate. 2) In general civ is based upon static paradigms and game mechanics. Shield and food production are the same in 4000 BC as 2000 AD. To maintain the feel and learning curve, static concepts are the most consistant.
My solution was that you choose the civ you play as and the game-play relevant statistics seperately. Balancing gameplay templates would be much simpler than having historical considerations for individual civs. Each civ would have all units as unique or very unique since the names and graphics would be different.

 

[dh_epic]

The game should not attempt to reproduce history, but to create a representation in which history could have been as it really was, given certain decision and rolls of the die, and forgiveness of imperfect detail (in moderation). When it does that it is convincing that what you are playing is really an alternate history, not just checkers with great graphics.

I think this is a great goal. I, too, tire of "checkers with great graphics".

Not to say a completely dynamic model of history is necessary... I'm not sure I'd move so far as to picking a "generic" civilization that eventually develops into something more concrete -- I think this would make a really neat game, but not Civ 4.

But picking China with a few constraints and natural tendencies, along with certain environmental variables and important crossroads... you really should be able to survive and be a victor as any of the great civilizations in history. China for its staying power, size, and isolation. America for its cutting edge science, spurred by its competitive spirit. Rome for its acquisition of 50% of the world's population at one point in time. Greece for its lasting cultural impact on the entire world, as far west as America and as far east as India. Canada or other Scandinavian countries for their high quality of life. Switzerland for its economic greatness despite tiny borders. Britain for its overall influence and power at one point in time.

You should be encouraged to play in these seperate ways, and to do that you need to have forces in the game that encourage more than just conquest and expansion. In fact, you need to have SOME victory choices that are diametrically opposed to conquest and expansion.