I understand, as I'm feeling the same for mine.
However, if you want to exchange ideas (design or coding), contact me by MSN
However, if you want to exchange ideas (design or coding), contact me by MSN
Discussion of The World Remade
- Thread starter Phlegmak
- Start date
Ok, here's the next thing I need some input on.
For custom units, the parts are buildable separately, then they can stay in a pool until needed. For example, let's say you build some swords. Let's pretend it costs 20 resources. The swords in question are enough for 1 unit, which represents 100 people.
After the swords are built, they get put into a nation wide pool of equipment. However, the swords are stored at the city that built them.
So, let's say the swords were built at Athens. The city of Sparta decides it wants to build a sword infantry unit. It takes 20 resources to train the troops. After the 20 resources are spent, the game looks for a swords item that has been built within this nation. It finds one in Athens. So that swords item gets instantly transported to Sparta and is attached to the sword infantry unit.
The reason I want the parts to be instantly transported from one city to another is to remove tediousness. Let's say I didn't do it that way. Then I would need some means of transporting the part from Athens to Sparta. I could make it abstract, where the part invisibly travels along a road using the slowest ground unit's speed. Let's say it's at 3 tiles per turn, like Civ 3. So it might take a few turns for the swords item to go from Athens to Sparta. I don't like that too much due to it being a pain. Consider what would happen if Athens is captured while the swords are in transit. Or if Athens and Sparta are both captured. What happens to the swords?
So, does the means of unit construction that I have outlined above seem reasonable, and more importantly, fun?
For custom units, the parts are buildable separately, then they can stay in a pool until needed. For example, let's say you build some swords. Let's pretend it costs 20 resources. The swords in question are enough for 1 unit, which represents 100 people.
After the swords are built, they get put into a nation wide pool of equipment. However, the swords are stored at the city that built them.
So, let's say the swords were built at Athens. The city of Sparta decides it wants to build a sword infantry unit. It takes 20 resources to train the troops. After the 20 resources are spent, the game looks for a swords item that has been built within this nation. It finds one in Athens. So that swords item gets instantly transported to Sparta and is attached to the sword infantry unit.
The reason I want the parts to be instantly transported from one city to another is to remove tediousness. Let's say I didn't do it that way. Then I would need some means of transporting the part from Athens to Sparta. I could make it abstract, where the part invisibly travels along a road using the slowest ground unit's speed. Let's say it's at 3 tiles per turn, like Civ 3. So it might take a few turns for the swords item to go from Athens to Sparta. I don't like that too much due to it being a pain. Consider what would happen if Athens is captured while the swords are in transit. Or if Athens and Sparta are both captured. What happens to the swords?
So, does the means of unit construction that I have outlined above seem reasonable, and more importantly, fun?
I think it is OK, with a few tweaks:
1- You can get the sword only if you have access to Athens. If Sparta is besieged, it can use only the swords in the city to build reinforcement.
2- You should be able, if you want, to move your weapons, but only if you are not besieged.
3- If the ennemy capture a city:
a) IT was besieged (no escape route), then all the weapons are captured.
b) There was an escape route: a part of the weapons are capture.
So, most of the time you can build the unit without worrying about where your weapons are (I agree it would be tedious micromanagement), but when a city is in danger, then you may need to watch it more carefully if you don't want to be in trouble or have some captured by the ennemy
1- You can get the sword only if you have access to Athens. If Sparta is besieged, it can use only the swords in the city to build reinforcement.
2- You should be able, if you want, to move your weapons, but only if you are not besieged.
3- If the ennemy capture a city:
a) IT was besieged (no escape route), then all the weapons are captured.
b) There was an escape route: a part of the weapons are capture.
So, most of the time you can build the unit without worrying about where your weapons are (I agree it would be tedious micromanagement), but when a city is in danger, then you may need to watch it more carefully if you don't want to be in trouble or have some captured by the ennemy
Actually, I had already decided all of that. The swords item in question is only transportable to another city if there is a viable trade route (determind in the same manner as in Civ 3). So if there is no road joining two land cities, or two cities separated by water have no harbors, etc., then the swords item can't be transported. I simply neglected to mention the transportation via trade route.
I like your idea of part of the cache of weapons being captured.
The whole reason I'm doing this style of unit creation, is because of the after effects of defeating enemy units. Let's say your swordsman unit defeated an enemy phalanx unit. Then your unit will pick up some of the equipment from the defeated unit, such as pikes or shields. You can then carry this extra equipment on your unit until he reaches one of his cities. Actually, I hadn't decided fully on this part: should any captured equipment be instantly transported to the nearest friendly city, or should it just stay on the unit? And when units carry stuff, they have no limit to what they can carry.
You should use a "can get it back" method.
If no other unit is close enough, it's sent to the nearest firiendly city.
If an ennemy is close, it can try to attack you to retrieve what you stole
I forgot about the notion of getting it back. Sounds reasonable.
I changed my mind about the instantaneous transport of items when they're needed. Instead, I decided to go with "invisible and abstract" transport of items.
So, let's say Athens built the swords and they're sitting in the city. The owner of Athens can say, "Ok, start transporting of the swords in question to Sparta." It'll go via a Civ 3 style trade route (roads, airport, or harbors by water).
Another similar scenario: Athens built the swords already. It makes no explicit transport of the swords to anywhere. Sparta starts the training of troops for the explicit purpose of being swordsmen. The nearest swords item will immediately begin transportation to Sparta, after Sparta begins the construction of the swordsmen unit. It takes 2 turns for the swords item to be transported and it will arrive in time for the troops to finish being trained.
In the case of the target city getting captured, any items in transit now head back to the source city. If the source city is captured, it has no effect on items in transit. If both are captured, the items are lost, and disappear from the game.
Let's say the borders (like Civ 3 national borders) change, and it would look like it would affect the transit of the items. To make things less tedious, let's just say the transit of the items is uninterrupted.
So, let's say Athens built the swords and they're sitting in the city. The owner of Athens can say, "Ok, start transporting of the swords in question to Sparta." It'll go via a Civ 3 style trade route (roads, airport, or harbors by water).
Another similar scenario: Athens built the swords already. It makes no explicit transport of the swords to anywhere. Sparta starts the training of troops for the explicit purpose of being swordsmen. The nearest swords item will immediately begin transportation to Sparta, after Sparta begins the construction of the swordsmen unit. It takes 2 turns for the swords item to be transported and it will arrive in time for the troops to finish being trained.
In the case of the target city getting captured, any items in transit now head back to the source city. If the source city is captured, it has no effect on items in transit. If both are captured, the items are lost, and disappear from the game.
Let's say the borders (like Civ 3 national borders) change, and it would look like it would affect the transit of the items. To make things less tedious, let's just say the transit of the items is uninterrupted.
Another consideration:
Lines of supplies. Do I even want to bother?
Let's say that any of your units will automatically be supplied if an uninterrupted line can be drawn between him and any of your cities. Let's say, that when Cars are invented, the distance is increased by a factor of 3. Now let's say that when your troops are in faraway lands, they can have special units with them that act as mobile bases, supplying food and whatnot. These mobile bases act as cities with harbors for the sake of supply lines. Supply lines are connected back to a friendly city via a Civ 3 style trade route. Sea supply bases may be needed as well, to increase the length of the supply line for very far campaigns. Allied nations can supply your troops as well.
So, does this sound fun? Tedious? It looks like a tremendous pain to program a good AI for it. The hardest part would be to program the AI to know how to cut supply lines.
If a supply line is cut, unsupplied units lose 10% hp every turn, down to a minimum of 10% of its normal hp. So a swordsman unit with 10 hp will go down to 1 hp and remain there until he is resupplied. Resupplied units heal at a normal rate.
I'm leaning towards the nationwide Civ 3 style of supplying units. It completely removes the notion of supply lines, but it's so much more simple and easy to program.
My original idea for supplying units is, every unit contains a certain number of people. For every 1000 people in the armed forces, it takes 1 food (for example). Fractional food is not truncated. So, if you have 11 swordsmen units, each of which is 100 people, it'll take 1.1 food to supply them, or 2 food. This is handled in the easiest manner by using a nationwide food pool, like what Master of Orion 2 or Master of Magic use.
Actually, in this manner, it is still possible to cut supply lines, but in a very limited, indirect way. That is, an attacker would have to pillage the grounds of cities, reducing food output. I also want to use money to supply troops like in Civ 3.
Lines of supplies. Do I even want to bother?
Let's say that any of your units will automatically be supplied if an uninterrupted line can be drawn between him and any of your cities. Let's say, that when Cars are invented, the distance is increased by a factor of 3. Now let's say that when your troops are in faraway lands, they can have special units with them that act as mobile bases, supplying food and whatnot. These mobile bases act as cities with harbors for the sake of supply lines. Supply lines are connected back to a friendly city via a Civ 3 style trade route. Sea supply bases may be needed as well, to increase the length of the supply line for very far campaigns. Allied nations can supply your troops as well.
So, does this sound fun? Tedious? It looks like a tremendous pain to program a good AI for it. The hardest part would be to program the AI to know how to cut supply lines.
If a supply line is cut, unsupplied units lose 10% hp every turn, down to a minimum of 10% of its normal hp. So a swordsman unit with 10 hp will go down to 1 hp and remain there until he is resupplied. Resupplied units heal at a normal rate.
I'm leaning towards the nationwide Civ 3 style of supplying units. It completely removes the notion of supply lines, but it's so much more simple and easy to program.
My original idea for supplying units is, every unit contains a certain number of people. For every 1000 people in the armed forces, it takes 1 food (for example). Fractional food is not truncated. So, if you have 11 swordsmen units, each of which is 100 people, it'll take 1.1 food to supply them, or 2 food. This is handled in the easiest manner by using a nationwide food pool, like what Master of Orion 2 or Master of Magic use.
Actually, in this manner, it is still possible to cut supply lines, but in a very limited, indirect way. That is, an attacker would have to pillage the grounds of cities, reducing food output. I also want to use money to supply troops like in Civ 3.
Of course you want! I think a kind of supply line is essential to prevent the "send a galley the first turn, it will sail around the world in 200 turns syndrom".
But you can make it simple. Like everyturn the unit is outside of national territory, it has a chance of losing HP.
Horse unit components:
I want horses to be a component that's addable to a unit in the same manner as my swords item that I mentioned in my previous posts.
To get a horse in the first place, it has to be captured. These horses will be wandering the countryside, like docile barbarian units. One of your units attacks it, and if your unit wins, he gets a partial horse unit component, which he can carry back to a friendly city.
Once that horse component is in your city (let's say it's in Athens), it's traded like a Civ 3 resource to all of your friendly cities that have trade routes with Athens. With that horse "resource" available to your cities, the cities can now build Stables buildings.
Ok, so now this is the part where I want to ask a question. Which of these sounds less tedious, and more fun?
* Stable buildings build a new horse unit component (suitable for 100 people, or 1 unit) with every 20 food. In other words, horse unit components are grown like a population in Civ 3. They have their own food box and food is added to it, and after every 20 food, a new horse unit component is grown. These horse unit components require 0 upkeep and act like any unit component, like the 100 swords in my previous posts.
* Horse unit components grow every 20 turns on their own. I don't like this option too much.
* Horse unit components require resources to build, just like swords or spears, shields, or whatever.
So, which sounds more reasonable?
I want horses to be a component that's addable to a unit in the same manner as my swords item that I mentioned in my previous posts.
To get a horse in the first place, it has to be captured. These horses will be wandering the countryside, like docile barbarian units. One of your units attacks it, and if your unit wins, he gets a partial horse unit component, which he can carry back to a friendly city.
Once that horse component is in your city (let's say it's in Athens), it's traded like a Civ 3 resource to all of your friendly cities that have trade routes with Athens. With that horse "resource" available to your cities, the cities can now build Stables buildings.
Ok, so now this is the part where I want to ask a question. Which of these sounds less tedious, and more fun?
* Stable buildings build a new horse unit component (suitable for 100 people, or 1 unit) with every 20 food. In other words, horse unit components are grown like a population in Civ 3. They have their own food box and food is added to it, and after every 20 food, a new horse unit component is grown. These horse unit components require 0 upkeep and act like any unit component, like the 100 swords in my previous posts.
* Horse unit components grow every 20 turns on their own. I don't like this option too much.
* Horse unit components require resources to build, just like swords or spears, shields, or whatever.
So, which sounds more reasonable?
In term of gameplay, I like your first idea. However, why not make a bit like CIV? Horses don't bread in city, but in the country side. And to build an army, you need quite a few.
So you could have a special type of farm / mine, that would be build as a tile improvement, and would produce an new horse component every X turn.
If you want to build a huge cavalry army, then you'll need to use a lot of space as pasture.
Graphics:
I intended to just make the default look of the map practically identical Civ 2. The reason for this is because I wanted to support the vast number of scenarios that have been written for Civ 2. How does this sound? Should I just ripoff the Civ 3 graphic set, or use someone's modded Civ 3 graphic set?
I am making the client disconnected from the server, so the client can potentially have any kind of graphics I want. I can have multiple clients with different graphic sets.
If I decide to allow the release of the client API, then anyone can write his own client software.
Rivers:
So far, we have 3 models of rivers. Civ 1 rivers, which are their own terrain type. Civ 2 rivers, which are on top of other tiles, or Civ 3 rivers, which lie between tiles.
Which is best? At this moment, I'm leaning more towards the Civ 3 river style. Afterall, no ground unit truly stands on top of a river.
I could add a fourth type of river which is: It's on top of other tiles like Civ 2. Ground units can walk on it like in Civ 2, but naval units are capable of traversing the river.
I intended to just make the default look of the map practically identical Civ 2. The reason for this is because I wanted to support the vast number of scenarios that have been written for Civ 2. How does this sound? Should I just ripoff the Civ 3 graphic set, or use someone's modded Civ 3 graphic set?
I am making the client disconnected from the server, so the client can potentially have any kind of graphics I want. I can have multiple clients with different graphic sets.
If I decide to allow the release of the client API, then anyone can write his own client software.
Rivers:
So far, we have 3 models of rivers. Civ 1 rivers, which are their own terrain type. Civ 2 rivers, which are on top of other tiles, or Civ 3 rivers, which lie between tiles.
Which is best? At this moment, I'm leaning more towards the Civ 3 river style. Afterall, no ground unit truly stands on top of a river.
I could add a fourth type of river which is: It's on top of other tiles like Civ 2. Ground units can walk on it like in Civ 2, but naval units are capable of traversing the river.
Darth_Pugwash
wobble wobble
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,873
Definatley the Civ 3 river type, as you say no unit is ever really 'on' a river.
Civ 2 graphics are fine...Civ 2 could actually look surprisingly good with a bit of editing.
Civ 2 graphics are fine...Civ 2 could actually look surprisingly good with a bit of editing.
You should start by using Civ3, to get a result faster. With SSS, we try to make our own mechanism, and it's much longer.
If you want, I could give you some piece of code explaining how the CivIII graphics are handled.
It could save you time
If you use CivIII rivers, do not make the same "mistake" as CivIII, where you cannot have a river going on 3 sides of a tile only. Same for roads, you could consider having roads going explicitly from tile A to tile B, and not automatically from tile A to all adjacent tile where a road already exists.
I don't understand what you mean by Civ 3 would give me results faster. I guess you weren't aware but I already built a map editor that made use of the Civ 2 graphics. The map editor is currently broken, so I don't run it these days. You can see old results of it at this page:
http://cctg.us/~alex/theworldremade
Did you simply mean you would give me your code so I didn't have to deal with Civ 2 graphics, which would make the results faster for me, since I didn't have to figure it out?
I mean, reuse existing graphics so it's faster to do, rather than design a new system. Ifyou have Civ2 ready, fine. If you want CivIII, I can give you some code to help you
There are several GUIs for civ-like games. The latest one I've been playing is Master of Magic. (Below, I use the terms View mode and Order mode. Order mode is when a unit is active and if you press the arrow keys, the unit will move. If you press keys for certain actions, then the unit will perform those actions. View mode is when no unit is currently active. There is a blinking cursor showing what tile is currently being looked at. If you press the arrow keys in view mode, the cursor moves around.)
I'm wondering what is the best uses for right clicking and left clicking. I made a list of how some games work below.
Colonization:
Order mode:
Left click on an empty tile: Recenter map.
Left click on a tile with units: Activate one of the units menu.
Left click on a city: Show city screen.
Right click on an empty tile: Start View mode.
Left click and drag: Goto order.
View mode:
Left click on a tile with units: Activate one of the units menu.
Left click on an empty tile: Recenter map and move cursor.
Left click on city: Show city screen.
Right click on a tile, whether empty or not: Recenter map and move the cursor.
Master of Magic:
(No view mode)
If a unit is active:
Left click on a tile: Goto order for the unit.
Right click on an empty tile: Recenter map.
Right click on a city: Show city screen.
Right click on another unit: Activate unit.
If no unit is active (for example after closing a city screen):
Left click: Does nothing.
Right click: Same as above.
Civ 3:
(No View mode)
Left click on an empty tile: Recenter map.
Left click on an empty city: Recenter map.
Left click on a tile with a unit: Activate unit.
Left click on a tile with many units: Activate "topmost" unit.
Right click on a tile with units: Show menu for activating unit, or showing terrain info.
Right click on an empty tile: Show terrain info. Clicking off the info closes the info.
Double left click on a city with units or not: Show city screen.
Double left click on a tile with units and no city: Recenter map.
Left click and drag: Goto order.
Move pointer to edge of screen: Scroll map in a certain direction.
Alpha Centauri:
Order mode:
Left click on an empty city: Show city screen.
Left click on an empty tile: Recenter map.
Left click on a tile with more than one unit: Show menu to activate a particular unit.
Left click on a single unit: Activate unit.
Right click on an empty tile: Show menu, allow user to perform an order of the active unit, or to enter View mode. Clicking off the menu closes the menu.
Right click on a city with a unit: Show menu.
Right click on an empty city: Show menu.
Right click on a tile with more than one unit: Show menu.
Right click on a tile with one unit: Show menu.
Move cursor to edge of map: Scroll map.
Left click and drag: Goto order.
Double left click: Same as single left clicking twice.
View mode:
Left click on a tile with more than one unit: Show menu to activate a particular unit.
Left click on a single unit: Activate unit.
Left click on an empty city: Show city screen.
Left click on an empty tile: Move cursor and recenter map.
Right click on an empty tile: Show menu.
Right click on a city: Show menu.
Right click on a unit: Show menu.
Move cursor to edge of map: Scroll map.
Double left click: Same as single left clicking twice.
Civ 2:
Order mode:
Left click on an empty tile: Recenter map.
Left click on a city: Show city screen.
Left click on a tile with more than one unit: Show menu to activate a particular unit.
Left click on a unit: Activate unit.
Right click on any tile: Recenter map and start View mode.
Left click and drag: Goto order.
Double click on an empty tile: Show tile info.
View mode:
Left click on an empty tile: Recenter map.
Left click on a tile with more than one unit: Show menu to activate a particular unit.
Left click on a unit: Activate unit.
Left click on a city: Show city screen.
Right click on any tile: Recenter map and move cursor.
Double click on an empty tile: Show tile info.
I'm wondering what is the best uses for right clicking and left clicking. I made a list of how some games work below.
Colonization:
Order mode:
Left click on an empty tile: Recenter map.
Left click on a tile with units: Activate one of the units menu.
Left click on a city: Show city screen.
Right click on an empty tile: Start View mode.
Left click and drag: Goto order.
View mode:
Left click on a tile with units: Activate one of the units menu.
Left click on an empty tile: Recenter map and move cursor.
Left click on city: Show city screen.
Right click on a tile, whether empty or not: Recenter map and move the cursor.
Master of Magic:
(No view mode)
If a unit is active:
Left click on a tile: Goto order for the unit.
Right click on an empty tile: Recenter map.
Right click on a city: Show city screen.
Right click on another unit: Activate unit.
If no unit is active (for example after closing a city screen):
Left click: Does nothing.
Right click: Same as above.
Civ 3:
(No View mode)
Left click on an empty tile: Recenter map.
Left click on an empty city: Recenter map.
Left click on a tile with a unit: Activate unit.
Left click on a tile with many units: Activate "topmost" unit.
Right click on a tile with units: Show menu for activating unit, or showing terrain info.
Right click on an empty tile: Show terrain info. Clicking off the info closes the info.
Double left click on a city with units or not: Show city screen.
Double left click on a tile with units and no city: Recenter map.
Left click and drag: Goto order.
Move pointer to edge of screen: Scroll map in a certain direction.
Alpha Centauri:
Order mode:
Left click on an empty city: Show city screen.
Left click on an empty tile: Recenter map.
Left click on a tile with more than one unit: Show menu to activate a particular unit.
Left click on a single unit: Activate unit.
Right click on an empty tile: Show menu, allow user to perform an order of the active unit, or to enter View mode. Clicking off the menu closes the menu.
Right click on a city with a unit: Show menu.
Right click on an empty city: Show menu.
Right click on a tile with more than one unit: Show menu.
Right click on a tile with one unit: Show menu.
Move cursor to edge of map: Scroll map.
Left click and drag: Goto order.
Double left click: Same as single left clicking twice.
View mode:
Left click on a tile with more than one unit: Show menu to activate a particular unit.
Left click on a single unit: Activate unit.
Left click on an empty city: Show city screen.
Left click on an empty tile: Move cursor and recenter map.
Right click on an empty tile: Show menu.
Right click on a city: Show menu.
Right click on a unit: Show menu.
Move cursor to edge of map: Scroll map.
Double left click: Same as single left clicking twice.
Civ 2:
Order mode:
Left click on an empty tile: Recenter map.
Left click on a city: Show city screen.
Left click on a tile with more than one unit: Show menu to activate a particular unit.
Left click on a unit: Activate unit.
Right click on any tile: Recenter map and start View mode.
Left click and drag: Goto order.
Double click on an empty tile: Show tile info.
View mode:
Left click on an empty tile: Recenter map.
Left click on a tile with more than one unit: Show menu to activate a particular unit.
Left click on a unit: Activate unit.
Left click on a city: Show city screen.
Right click on any tile: Recenter map and move cursor.
Double click on an empty tile: Show tile info.
I want exploration to be fun. How could a civ style game have exploration that's fun?
I have the following ideas:
1. There are ruins where the player can send in troops to explore. The ruins might have some dangerous animals or dangerous ancient robots in it which the player must fight. When the combat is over and the player wins, some ancient artifacts might be found. This is similar to what exists in Master of Magic.
2. Some neutral cities (or foreign nation cities) can exist which will trade with the player. The player can contact a city, and say he wants to sell his swords for the city's horses. The deal is made, then both commodities are then transported to the two nations' respective cities.
3. A player can wander around the planet, find a trader for example, and the trader tells the player of something the trader has heard of. Let's say, a great glittering city to the northwest.
4. A variety of plants or animals can exist in different parts of the world. Some of these plants or animals can be domesticated and used for farms or beasts of burden at the player's cities.
So, what ways can I make this game seem like a fun adventure, as well as a civ style game?
I keep thinking of Ultima. Ultima had the potential to resemble a civ style game and simultaneously be an adventure game. Ultima 5 for example had many cities each with people representing different classes. Each city could have produced troops to march to different cities.
I have the following ideas:
1. There are ruins where the player can send in troops to explore. The ruins might have some dangerous animals or dangerous ancient robots in it which the player must fight. When the combat is over and the player wins, some ancient artifacts might be found. This is similar to what exists in Master of Magic.
2. Some neutral cities (or foreign nation cities) can exist which will trade with the player. The player can contact a city, and say he wants to sell his swords for the city's horses. The deal is made, then both commodities are then transported to the two nations' respective cities.
3. A player can wander around the planet, find a trader for example, and the trader tells the player of something the trader has heard of. Let's say, a great glittering city to the northwest.
4. A variety of plants or animals can exist in different parts of the world. Some of these plants or animals can be domesticated and used for farms or beasts of burden at the player's cities.
So, what ways can I make this game seem like a fun adventure, as well as a civ style game?
I keep thinking of Ultima. Ultima had the potential to resemble a civ style game and simultaneously be an adventure game. Ultima 5 for example had many cities each with people representing different classes. Each city could have produced troops to march to different cities.
For the view mode and order mode, I don't have any specific feedback, except on suggestion : make it customizable!
For the exploration:
1. Can be interesting for scenario, in an epic game I prefer the concept of CivIII, where the huts can trigger barbarians, give techs, settlers, etc.
2. Independant neutral / barbarians cities is a must have I think.
3. Can be done with 1. and goody huts. I don't see the need to have several ways to find it.
4. It's important to model correctly the availabilty of resources in cities. CivIII was very poor on that regard.
Another suggestion: when a unit discover a new tile, it is "temporarily" know. To validate the discovery, the unit must come back to your land.
Imagine if Columbus ships all sunk during the trip back? How long before America was discovered? Or put in another way, how many times was America discovered before someone reported it?
For the exploration:
1. Can be interesting for scenario, in an epic game I prefer the concept of CivIII, where the huts can trigger barbarians, give techs, settlers, etc.
2. Independant neutral / barbarians cities is a must have I think.
3. Can be done with 1. and goody huts. I don't see the need to have several ways to find it.
4. It's important to model correctly the availabilty of resources in cities. CivIII was very poor on that regard.
Another suggestion: when a unit discover a new tile, it is "temporarily" know. To validate the discovery, the unit must come back to your land.
Imagine if Columbus ships all sunk during the trip back? How long before America was discovered? Or put in another way, how many times was America discovered before someone reported it?
The problem with that is tediousness. And how could you, the player, send out explorers to a specific area if you're not supposed to see the land there? I'm guessing you could tell your explorer, starting from your city, "go there", then he does, and a few turns later, comes back. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
For this game and any other civ-style game, there must be some notion of what's the strategy game part, and what's the simulation. I decided to go with the strategy game concept. A simulation would be the player just watches what transpires with little direction. Simply experiencing things is the purpose of the simulation. The strategy game concept is where the player does things and everything happens as a direct result of his actions. What I'm saying now is basically from here:
http://www.c-evo.org/text.html
Look at the design principles. Specifically #4.
Similar threads
