Devil's Advocate: is this the end of creativity in Civ?

[Mxzs]

A caution, based on my own recent misadventures:

Anyone looking to suggest a change--and still more, to suggest an implementation of the change--has to remember that the player's in-game experience is far more important than the underlying technical models. I'm not talking about interfaces like keeping or abolishing city-view screens (those are cosmetic features that have changed quite a bit over the years). I mean that you need to keep track of how the player interprets his experience while playing the game.

In my case, for instance, I wanted to change the player's experience by coming up with some way that would license a much richer array of alternative techs and units than the game currently allows. The idea was that a new technical way of modeling techs would make them more "modular" and easier to connect with each other so as to create novel units; the process of creating techs could be partially realized in a new version of Civ and easily expanded by the mod community. It turns out, however, that the model I proposed was functionally equivalent to the system already in the game, so that 90% of what I wanted to do can already be done by a clever modder. So, if you're going to come up with a new system, you need to be sure that you're not just reinventing something that is already possible and that the designers have left to the modding community to exploit.

Alternately, you need to watch out for ideas that, in practice, might simply recreate the current in-game feel. I worry something like this might happen with ChrTh's idea. He wants there to be a real difference between "discovering" a tech (in the sense that a civ can pick it up and play with it) and "adopting" a tech (in the sense that a civ can actually start using it). There is more going on with his idea, which is good, because I doubt this elementary change would be enough: the process of "discovering and then adopting" by itself seems indistinguishable from the current game's "finding in the research queue and then discovering" process.

 

[dh_epic]

Commander Bello, I wish everyone's suggestions were as thoughtful as yours. This thread was started because I think a lot of suggestions miss the sweet spot -- either by being too small to warrant a sequel, or by being so big they are either vague or complicated.

By bigness, I'm not asking for a revolution. And I would never pull the "back of the box" test as a mask for my own opinion. Some stuff just clearly doesn't go on the back of the box: like how Civ 4 changed railroads from infinite movement to 1/10 movement. That doesn't qualify (without a gross lie like "totally new transportation system!!!"). Assuming that an idea is bigger than that, maybe reasonable people could disagree which would sell more, but at least there's a case that you might see it on the back of a box . That's what I meant by the test.

Your suggestions get passed the back of the box test, as far as I can tell:

"Experience new technological categories, such as 'philosophy' and 'war', with faster discoveries if you actually practice what you research."

I'd hope that we could go beyond just tying the existing 7 religions to who generates some culture, or beyond having war affect the current cultural border system. But I think these could be the start of some neat effects for religion and culture, and a new "influence" concept to have an impact on diplomacy. Even by themselves, they'd make a solid "medium" level feature -- like how Civilization 4 introduced collateral damage (which sucks, but that's not the point). You've also done a pretty good start on the resource conversion, by being a bit more creative than just piling on twice as many resources.


As for Mxzs and an ambitious tech tree overhaul... I don't think ChrTh's idea should be downplayed. It may seem small, but then so is the idea of changing the "tax collector" citizen from Civilization 3 to a "merchant" citizen who generates Great Merchants. Balance the game in such a way that there is surplus food, and next thing you know there's an entire strategic avenue opened up: instead of just trying to grow and grow and grow, you might freeze growth, ignore tiles, and win with a specialist economy. Similarly, with the dynamic of "semi-blind" research and the potential to "lose" a technology, you might just revolutionize tech trading and research itself.

Civil war is a thread unto itself. It's hard to imagine how Britain could blow it so bad in a Civ game that they lose such valuable territory that goes onto be the most economically dominant power the world has ever seen. If they could have just raised their luxury rate, it's hard to imagine how a civil war could ever happen except for a novice player. Or, if it would still happen to an expert, it's hard to imagine why anyone would try to build an empire as big as Britain with lots of overseas territories. Like I said, this is a thread in itself. (In fact, there's already a million threads on this.) At this point, it's not even so much about telling Firaxis you want civil war. You'd have to describe it in new and unique terms that haven't really been articulated yet.

My main point still stands... that the truly great suggestions are few and far between. Too many suggestions that are just a few XML changes. Or suggestions that are vague or overcomplicated. Or suggestions that are detailed, but involve so much change you have to question what the heck is the pay off is that it would warrant such a big risk.

That said, maybe that's the way it always was, and we just have to trust that Firaxis will do the appropriate digging for those rare gems of ideas.

 

[Commander Bello]

[....]
My main point still stands... that the truly great suggestions are few and far between. Too many suggestions that are just a few XML changes. Or suggestions that are vague or overcomplicated. Or suggestions that are detailed, but involve so much change you have to question what the heck is the pay off is that it would warrant such a big risk.

That said, maybe that's the way it always was, and we just have to trust that Firaxis will do the appropriate digging for those rare gems of ideas.

Dh_epic, please don't feel confronted by my postings. I had to address you, since you claimed to play the role of devil's advocate and you have expressed what people might use as arguments against certain proposals.

That said, I completely agree with the quoted paragraphs.
A lot of suggestions written down in the forums even do not qualify as an idea for a modification.
Others would be just this, a modification (think of all the "add this civilization / that leader / give me that combination of traits").
And finally, from time to time, there are ideas, which would alter certain aspects of the game. Some for the better, other for the worse.

Yet, I am pretty sure that a combination of - each taken individually - relatively small ideas could make for a complete new gaming experience.

Let me once again refer to the ideas I have mentioned above (not, because I would be so damn proud of them, but just to have something at hand). Take them (assumed they would turn out to be fun and feasible) and add, let's say, hex-fields.
Would such a game being recognisable as an altered Civ4 or would people say:"Hmm.. that must be Civ5!"?

What I want to express by this example is, according to my point of view you do not have to have necessarily the "big" changes - it would be sufficient to have enough small changes to make for a new experience.
(Of course, I have left out any technically concerns like new graphic engine, new coding and so on - personally I think the graphics engine is a flaw of Civ4; not because it is 3D, but because it consumes computing power without giving you much in return).

 

[ChrTh]

I've started thinking about Civil War (I know, I know, I owe updates on the Tech Tree stuff; don't worry, there are no managers in the office tomorrow I'll get it done then), and it occurs to me that most players envision something like the American Revolutionary War or India, i.e., a large chunk of the Civilization suddenly becomes its own Civilization. The problem is that doesn't always happen. Sometimes Civil War can cause a Civilization to crumble. Any Civil War mechanic added to the game has to have two possibilities then:

• The Civil War is a quick 1-turn affair that results in 2 Civilizations; or
• The Civil War causes the Civilization to take a nosedive in power that could cripple the chances of winning

Let's stick with just two results for now, because that allows us to set up a binary choice with predictable outcomes.

Now, something has to trigger the Civil War in the first place. I have no idea what--but we don't need to worry about that yet.

So your Domestic Advisor pops up and says

Sire! Six cities [cities would be named] desire independence from your illustrious leadership! What shall we do?

And you are given 2 choices:

1. If they do not want us, we do not want them! Let them go!
2. We will never let them leave!

These choices have an immediate game effect. If you choose Let Them Go!, the following effects occur:

• A New Civilization is formed;
• Its cultural borders are those of the cities
• The cities lose no builds or Wonders
• All units are kept; in addition, the AI autogenerates new troops to a determined level (to prevent easy pickings from the AI)
• The citizens of the new Civilization have a new ethnicity (no "longing for the motherland" unhappiness)
• Since you let them go, they have a positive diplo modifier (we fondly remember our motherland) that decreases over time
• You can not attack them for X turns (optional: never?)
• They can be culturally flipped, but it's not as easy as a typical AI (some sort of negative influence modifier)

If you choose We Will Never Let Them Leave:

• The cities' productivity drops to 0. No money, no research, no additional culture, no growth, no hammers, no great persons
• Troops have to be used to quell the dissidents. X power per population point for Y turns in each city.
• Unhappiness in all of your cities that grows as time passes
• Every 5 or 10 turns you're asked if you want to let them go. If you give up, same effects as above except for a negative diplo modifier (you were a jerk!) that diminishes over time

Tada! A realistic Civil War outcome mechanic. Now I just need to come up with a realistic yet not unbalancing mechanic for why the Civil War breaks out

 

[NYHunter]

The way how I always favored civil wars would be to have barbarian type units, lets call them "rebels", appear and then you will simply have to crush them. It's a rather simple way of handling what would otherwise be a complicated process.

Rebel units would be allowed to do everything that regular units can. They have no established leader until they capture a city though. For example let's say you are playing as the Americans. To make this a simple explanation you have six cities: Washington, Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami. You neglect Miami so X rebel units appear in Miami's fat cross. However they would have to defeat the troops stationed in Miami in order to become an established civ with a leader. could also simply roam around pillaging improvements. Obviously, their should be more cities but I chose

Players could even adjust the rate of rebellions in the setup screen.

I can get into greater detail, and I left certain things out, but this is basically how I feel it should work. And there we have a mechanic that should be simple enough for Firaxis to implement and doesn't really drag down the game.

However, my current problem is the same as ChrTh- finding a mechanic that causes the actual rebellions. I currently am coming up with an idea that involves "frowny" faces but it is worked out very well at the moment.

 

[dh_epic]

I think a lot of those little features could add up. But there has to be at least two "killer features". Religion, Civics, and 3D were the big hype for Civilization 4. As time went on, Great People, Combat Promotions, and a "more flexible tech tree" were added to the list because they either sounded smaller or harder to envision what they might do.

The little features were actually what I liked the MOST about Civilization 4: vastly improved AI, closed off the dumb tech tree exploits, drew out the early game expansion phase more, and made mindless expansion less of an obvious way to victory. But you can't put things like "slower railroads" on the box, even though they make a significant strategic difference.

At any rate, I feel like there are some very intelligent people in this thread with great ideas. I just hope this can inspire more thought.

(And I've been contemplating having the 'civil war thread to end all civil war threads'. I feel like it's too soon to have that debate though.)

 

[Dudedudeyo]

Well, I just finally had the time to read through this thread and I think I agree with dh_epic. Most suggestions had been add unit X, include leader Y, or make building Z. However there is still a lot of time till Civ 5 so I don't doubt that the community will be able to come up with some really good ideas.

Actually this thread seems to have jumpstarted people's brains; people are trying to meet dh_epic's challenage and a few incipient, yet great ideas are starting to emerge. ChrTh's tech tree idea will probably be the one of the first of a chain of great, new suggestions.

I myself will try to provide feed back to other peoples' suggestions and hopefully I will be ale to make some of my own.

 

[Trade-peror]

Dh_epic, I'm glad to see you're again leading the charge into the next iteration of Civ.

It's been awhile since I've posted any new major ideas, or done much future-Civ brainstorming at all, but I'll be following this discussion for sure. If a mod is reading, I suggest stickying this thread!

(When I find time, I'll join this discussion, focusing particularly on some of the economic ideas being thrown out here.) Good job everyone!

 

[Mxzs]

Any Civil War mechanic added to the game has to have two possibilities then:

• The Civil War is a quick 1-turn affair that results in 2 Civilizations; or
• The Civil War causes the Civilization to take a nosedive in power that could cripple the chances of winning

Interesting, but it still sounds like a lose-lose situation. Each situation ought to have a positive aspect so exploitable that you're not sorry to see a Civil War erupt.

In the case of a war that leads to fighting, it might be a five- or ten-turn "mobilization" phase that leads to sharply faster military, industrial, or economic development: the kind of permanent infrastructure that might leave the player's rump empire in far stronger shape than it had been before. The player could choose to use the "We'll never let them go" option as an exploit for development while spending only minimal attention on trying to coerce the rebels back into compliance.

In the case of a peaceable breakup ... Well, there the options seem more limited. Since the game to such a strong degree emphasizes the size of an empire's geographic and demographic base, what could possibly offset the loss of a huge part of that base?

The way how I always favored civil wars would be to have barbarian type units, lets call them "rebels", appear and then you will simply have to crush them. It's a rather simple way of handling what would otherwise be a complicated process.

I like this. It's not "civil war" so much as it is the return of the guerilla uprising. But if we could get those and the barbarian "sea people" back, I'd be very happy.

(When I find time, I'll join this discussion, focusing particularly on some of the economic ideas being thrown out here.) Good job everyone!

Excellent! I was very happy to follow and read the threads in your signature. Economics is one place that Civ seems underdeveloped.

 

[Wodan]

Each situation ought to have a positive aspect so exploitable that you're not sorry to see a Civil War erupt.

Why do you think so?

What's wrong with a negative... a penalty for expanding too fast and outstripping your ability to control such a vast empire, or for neglecting your citizens' happiness, or what have you?

Wodan

 

[ChrTh]

Why do you think so?

What's wrong with a negative... a penalty for expanding too fast and outstripping your ability to control such a vast empire, or for neglecting your citizens' happiness, or what have you?

Wodan

... I mean, how often in history has Civil War been a positive thing?

 

[Diamondeye]

Keep up the good work ppl. and Dh_Epic, you're doing great as Devil's Advocate!

 

[NYHunter]

I too agree.

I am going to bring up all of those city building games by Impression Games. Civ is an empire game so it's not the same but in this aspect I believe it is comparable. If you expanded your city too fast, you would run out of money too soon, chances are you weren't paying attention as much as you should have and you forget to build things such as theatres, police, etc. As a result people are not happy and those beggers and criminals start roaming around your city attacking citizens which leads to more unhappiness.

The point is, too make it that if you don't pay attention you suffer but it should be easy too pay attention and not too difficult to get the situation under control as long as you see the problem fast enough and take action. Similar too how if your cities aren't growing fast enough, or if they are growing too fast you can end up suffering in certain ways. But it is not too difficult to fix the problems.

An other problem with comparing the two is that Civ is turn based as those games are RTS. But, the fact that civ is turn based should actually make it easier for such feature to be implemented, in my opinion anyway, I am not a programmer so I can't really say.

 

[dh_epic]

I guess the return of the guerilla uprising would be a decent way to implement a civil war. But most people want more than that. They want new civilizations to be born and enter the map. They want America to be founded in 1776. They want the Confederacy to be a sovereign entity 50 turns later. Then they want America to be able to do something clever to re-unify, allowing them to win the space race by the year 2030.

Players don't just want to fight some annoying militias. And if the American Civil War will stall the USA and guarantee a German or Russian victory, you might as well not implement civil war at all: just implement a "defeat condition" that can kick in if you do something wrong midgame. Vice versa, if Britain can unify its empire in the 18th century as easily as America unified in the 19th century, then you have to wonder why they rebuild the British Empire in reality.

I actually think Mxzs is on the most right track. It may seem counter-intuitive, but civil war needs to be related to a form of success rather than pure failure. If civil war is purely the result of failure, then you may as well implement a defeat condition. Or re-implement a nuisance like civil disorder should you make a few small mistakes. Civil war needs a carrot for it to happen as often as it has in reality. Something that makes you say "yeah, I knew it would probably happen, but it was worth it."

(PS: thanks for the interesting thoughts and kind words. Maybe someone could PM a moderator for a sticky, if they feel this discussion warrants it?)

 

[Wodan]

I'm still not buying it, dh_epic.

I agree that players want more than simply some modern barbs popping up. I also agree people want the cool factor of the American Civil War or the War of the Roses.

However, keep in mind that, in the perspective of the ruling governments at the time, both the American Civil War and the War of the Roses (and I daresay every other civil war from Rome, France, and on), really sucked rocks.

I disagree that a civil war, implemented as a negative == a simple "defeat condition". The difference is that with the former you are still in the game and can recover, while with the latter the game is over and it's a done deal: you lost.

Personally I see it as a perfect way to "bring balance back to the Force". Right now, players, especially high-level players, see wars and early conquest as the best way to do well. It's an exploit of the AI (and humans) inability to defend against an attack out of the blue.

So, we have games being won early. Or, if not outright won, then we have a player or players setting themselves up with an empire such that the rest of the game is a cakewalk, just going through the motions. All this before they have so much as a telephone to keep the "provinces" in line. And, all this with the clear neglect of culture, happiness, and/or religious well-being of the population.

It just seems like an ideal solution.

Wodan

 

[Vael]

Civil Wars have no place in Civ.

What would be appropriate triggers to have a civ split? And will expert players always be able to avoid them? After all, losing a bunch of cities is pretty much the worst thing that can possibly happen to a civ. Players will do anything they can to avoid them.

And plus they're not fun. Unless it's happening to someone else.

Better to focus on making the game better by adding things which add to the fun of the game, rather than for the sake of realism.

 

[dh_epic]

Only someone competing at the wrong difficulty level will lose a city in Civilization 4. And if they do lose a city, but still win, it's because they copped out and decided to go for the space race -- they were likely a peaceful type of player anyway.

That indicates, to me, that civil wars are already going to be starting out on a bad foundation. If losing a city by war is only something that affects someone who made a mistake, then losing multiple cities by peace (that's what civil war is) sounds like it's in the same category. It strikes me as the kind of thing that will prompt a reload or simply dropping down a difficulty level.

I don't share the same opinion as Vael. But I do think that his arguments are more persuasive, so far. If we'd like to see a more living-breathing version of Civilization with new countries being born midgame, and others being absorbed or reabsorbed... well, we're gonna have to get more creative.

 

[Wodan]

Well, if it is implemented as I suggested, expert players will be able to avoid them. Simple: #1 Don't expand uncontrollably. And, #2 pay attention to multiple key factors of your civ, rather than focus on just one or two.

There are many things that aren't fun, but are in Civ to provide balanced gameplay.

Look at it this way: what is the negative to beelining BW, doing nothing but build axes, whip the crap out of all your cities, and conquer all your neighbors, keeping tasty cities and razing the rest? Currently, there's absolutely no negative at all. In fact, most players would say that's the easiest way to win on Emperor+ levels. Is that fun? It's an exploit. Might as well load worldbuilder.

That's what we have Starcraft for: make troops the fastest, kill everything in sight, win.

Point #2: pay attention to multiple factors. Trade, lack of communications, distance from capitol, research, foreign policy, luxury goods, happiness, food, economy. All should be potential sources of unhappiness in a city. These are the potential for civil unrest/war or a dark age, especially if the same ting is occurring in multiple cities.

Wodan

 

[Wodan]

Only someone competing at the wrong difficulty level will lose a city in Civilization 4.

Unh, surprise attack? Happens all the time.

And if they do lose a city, but still win, it's because they copped out and decided to go for the space race -- they were likely a peaceful type of player anyway.

Losing a single city is hardly a death knell, and going for space is hardly a cop out. You make it sound like anything except Conquest is a second-rate game.

That indicates, to me, that civil wars are already going to be starting out on a bad foundation. If losing a city by war is only something that affects someone who made a mistake, then losing multiple cities by peace (that's what civil war is) sounds like it's in the same category.

To me, if you expand uncontrollably, then you've made a mistake. In Civ4, that mistake has no negative. (I suppose some would say it is therefore defined as "not a mistake". Circular logic there. The point here is to reinvent the game for Civ5.)

It strikes me as the kind of thing that will prompt a reload or simply dropping down a difficulty level.

A reload won't cure the underlying causes of a civil war. Unless civil war is a totally random occurrence that occurs 0.5% chance on any given turn. (Which is an implementation I would be very much against.)

Dropping down a level? Well, I suppose. Let's make it easier on them. Simply add a flag to game options for "No Civil Wars" and another one for "No Dark Ages".

Note, however, that this would turn it off for the AIs too.... Just as lower levels should have much less chance of AI having their civil wars or dark ages.

I don't share the same opinion as Vael. But I do think that his arguments are more persuasive, so far. If we'd like to see a more living-breathing version of Civilization with new countries being born midgame, and others being absorbed or reabsorbed... well, we're gonna have to get more creative.

Countries being born midgame is a lot harder to implement.

SMAX did this, kind of, for the alien factions. The humans got something like a 10 turn jump start. So the computer just autoplayed until it got to that point. It would be fairly easy to do this in Civ5 for a semi-random point in the game, say around 100AD. Just autoplay the AIs until then, and pick the largest AI, then split off a reasonable number of cities to form the new Civ, which the human takes control of. You may or may not automatically start at war.

Wodan

 

[ChrTh]

SMAX did this, kind of, for the alien factions. The humans got something like a 10 turn jump start. So the computer just autoplayed until it got to that point. It would be fairly easy to do this in Civ5 for a semi-random point in the game, say around 100AD. Just autoplay the AIs until then, and pick the largest AI, then split off a reasonable number of cities to form the new Civ, which the human takes control of. You may or may not automatically start at war.

Wodan

... this might be feasible in Civ 4 already with the BTS advanced start. That's a nice scenario idea, though (I don't think you'd be able to convince the majority of players to start that way in the base game)