District System Discussion

[Jon Shafer]

I'm calling economic district

As a designer I'm confident that thing is definitely an "economic/market"... uh, something-or-other.

- Jon

 

[nyyfootball]

As a designer I'm confident that thing is definitely an "economic/market"... uh, something-or-other.

- Jon

Which system of economic ideology would said district be based on? Would the government of my empire be able to take complete control over these economic districts in the vein of a command/control economy, and be able to plan it out over some period of time? Would the government of my empire be able to completely deregulate the economic district and allow anyone (foreign or domestic) to take part in and benefit from the exchanges taking place there? Would I be able to establish a mixed economy with regulation based on what I would perceive to be the public's well being, such as rule based on safety and fair use?

Could my citizens build a new economic district all their own is response to an action of mine or some other external motivation? Or will I always retain dictatorial control over all of it at all time regardless of what else happens?

 

[Jon Shafer]

Just speculating, but my impression is that the districts will be very much centrally-planned. No way to know for sure yet though.

- Jon

 

[nyyfootball]

What the heck is wrong with you, man?

Huh?

It is a valid question. Liberal economics (those based on Adam Smith and later John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman), although being by far the most common systems, are not the only ones and history is often shaped by competing populist ideas of governance and economics.

One of my concerns with the district system and its aesthetic portrayal, is that these 'urban expansions' will not be physically connected with my cities, and will instead be far away in the rural areas of my empire, thus making them less accessible to the citizens of my empire who do not have the resources to commute to the countryside. My example in previous posts are that in this district system, universities and libraries would only be able to be built in the "campus districts" which would all be in rural areas outside of my city. This would lend towards a system where the wealthier citizens of my empire would be able to attend this rural university, but that the poorer citizens would not, thus leading to ever increasing economic inequality, which could lead to overall less happiness and welfare and possibly an unstable political situation. I am not against the concept of rural universities being included as there are many real world examples of just such schools, but I think these should complement urban universities, which are far more common in real life, and not replace them completely. Another concern is that each district will only be able to be built once, thus leading to a potential large metropolis (multi-millions of people) with only one school.

Even if the trend of Civ away from more historical simulation aspects and towards more board gamey aspects, a rich and deep explication of economics would only enhance the strategies of the game and prevent the game from losing all of its educational aspects.

 

[nyyfootball]

Just speculating, but my impression is that the districts will be very much centrally-planned. No way to know for sure yet though.

- Jon

That makes sense based on the economics of the previous Civ games. Even when my civics are set to things like "democracy" and "free market", my citizens have virtually zero autonomy to act outside of my whims as the all powerful godhead.

 

[Jon Shafer]

That makes sense based on the economics of the previous Civ games. Even when my civics are set to things like "democracy" and "free market", my citizens have virtually zero autonomy to act outside of my whims as the all powerful godhead.

It's tough to make that model work within a computer game. Unless, of course, that's the whole point of the game. For example Dwarf Fortress or Majesty. I'm trying to push a bit more in that direction with my next game, primarily by introducing actual people with personalities, desires, etcetera. But it's definitely tricky (and one of the reasons why it's taken me so long to finish this thing up!).

- Jon

 

[bite]

Life is infinitely complicated, it makes it a bit difficult to reflect that in games

 

[nyyfootball]

It's tough to make that model work within a computer game. Unless, of course, that's the whole point of the game. For example Dwarf Fortress or Majesty. I'm trying to push a bit more in that direction with my next game, primarily by introducing actual people with personalities, desires, etcetera. But it's definitely tricky (and one of the reasons why it's taken me so long to finish this thing up!).

- Jon

I understand the limitations. My hope is that someday, learning AI will progress far enough that such things could truly be possible.

From my understanding, Civ was never meant to be a "God-game" and thus makes little sense that the player would have complete, unfettered, control over an entire civilization of humanity for thousands of year without any external factors dictating the direction of the game.

I am hopeful that this new AI is a step towards this, in that the AI will not only react to the players actions, but will act on its own, according to its own evolving (hopefully evolving) personality. I like that leaders will each have a specific personality, but these should grow and change over time (much like Ashoka's did).


I wish you well in your endeavors.

 

[Jon Shafer]

I think that may actually have been somewhat of Sid's intention when he first started on Civ back in 1990. The various designers since have pushed it in different directions, but it's still very much has the same flavor of the original game baked in.

Advancements might eventually give us much more detailed, realistic simulations within a couple decades, but I wouldn't expect anything revolutionary for a while. At the moment game design is still very much an art, not a science. There's very little crossover between academic AI and game AI.

- Jon

 

[nyyfootball]

Life is infinitely complicated, it makes it a bit difficult to reflect that in games

Life is actually pretty simple. The problem is that video games (at least those which are based on some aspect of reality) reduce the number of variables so drastically that complexity and elegance are all but eliminated and the nature of the game becomes significantly confused and complicated from that of reality.

Abstract strategy games work so well as they are wholly self-contained and do not attempt to model any aspect of real life. Go is beautiful and simple and complex.

Civilization is beautiful, but is hardly simple or complex in many ways. Civilization is mostly a very well defined explication of Thucydides theory of international politics. The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they much. The goal of the game is subjugate the other players into submission, whether that be militarily, economically or culturally. I would love it if the goal of the game was no longer 'to win', but that Civilization fully embraced the concept of "one more turn" from the very beginning of the game and that the game unfold however each player sees fit, instead of being dictated to them by some inherent and unchangeable set of rules.

 

[nyyfootball]

I think that may actually have been somewhat of Sid's intention when he first started on Civ back in 1990. The various designers since have pushed it in different directions, but it's still very much has the same flavor of the original game baked in.

Advancements might eventually give us much more detailed, realistic simulations within a couple decades, but I wouldn't expect anything revolutionary for a while. At the moment game design is still very much an art, not a science. There's very little crossover between academic AI and game AI.

- Jon

I understand that. My background, academically, is in International Relations and Civilization was a major influence in pushing me in this direction. I loved be able to play through vectors of history and seeing how things play out on their own. Sometimes, I love playing the game through a lens of liberalism, in which i attempt to cooperate as much as possible with the other players and to promote unregulated economic growth as much as possible. And sometimes I love playing like I think Machiavelli or Hobbes would play and behave in a manner in which I see all of the other players as a constant threat to my existence and sovereign power over my state.

Game theory does a great job of modeling realism and economic rationality, but a pretty job of modeling how people actually interact with each other and with their environment.

Sid purposely chose not to model the disintegration of society (the fall part of the "rise and fall") as he saw it as counter to the "fun" aspect of the game, but ironically, I see that as the most fun part of the game. And apparently I'm not the only one, as there are popular mods which attempt to model exactly these aspects. Rhys and Fall and Revolution are two of my favorites.

 

[Westwall]

Even when my civics are set to things like "democracy" and "free market", my citizens have virtually zero autonomy to act outside of my whims as the all powerful godhead.

That's because you see yourself as the leader of your civilization, even though when you think about it, you're really not. And neither are the rest of the "leaders" we see in-game. Real-world leaders don't live and rule for millennia. And neither do they micro-manage every detail of their society's economic, military and infrastructural development. You and the other "leaders" of each Civ are more like avatars -- the collective will of each civilization.

 

[Jon Shafer]

As someone with a history degree I'd absolutely love to see a game more in that vein - it's just a massive undertaking. For the time being the closest we'll probably get is what Paradox and modders offer us.

- Jon

 

[nyyfootball]

That's because you see yourself as the leader of your civilization, even though when you think about it, you're really not. And neither are the rest of the "leaders" we see in-game. Real-world leaders don't live and rule for millennia. And neither do they micro-manage every detail of their society's economic, military and infrastructural development. You and the other "leaders" of each Civ are more like avatars -- the collective will of each civilization.

That is a very interesting formulation of structure and agency. Civ simulates a community of sovereign entities which collectively define their society. "Anarchy is what you make of it".

Unfortunately, the realities of history, counter this formulation completely. An event like the fall of the Roman Republic or the French Revolution become completely impossible in this formulation as there are no intra-state relations. I, as the player, represent an empire, which is the embodiment of an individual, which a unitary consciousness.

Civ could get rid of the concept of "leaders" altogether and recognize the player as the empire itself instead.

 

[nyyfootball]

As someone with a history degree I'd absolutely love to see a game more in that vein - it's just a massive undertaking. For the time being the closest we'll probably get is what Paradox and modders offer us.

- Jon

It also doesn't sell very well to the demographic which plays Civilization either unfortunately. Civ Revolution is popular for all the same reasons for which I do not like it.

 

[nyyfootball]

As someone with a history degree I'd absolutely love to see a game more in that vein - it's just a massive undertaking. For the time being the closest we'll probably get is what Paradox and modders offer us.

- Jon

BTW, your climate change mechanic in At The Gates is just about the coolest thing i've ever seen in a video game and I very much look forward to playing your game. Thank you!

 

[Westwall]

Civ could get rid of the concept of "leaders" altogether and recognize the player as the empire itself instead.

The historical leaders are there to provide something more grounded and relatable with which the player can interact, rather than an abstract "Lady Liberty" or "Motherland Calls" embodiment that would be too abstract for you to get emotionally invested in.

The game needs the more human face of Bismarck or Washington or Montezuma for the player to engage and feel camaraderie or hostility towards. We need them to help us feel like the world is alive and busy with people striving towards similar goals as ourselves, with aims that either align or conflict with our own.

And in war, we need a person to feel vengeful towards when they attack or occupy our territory, to see their frustration when we denounce them and ultimately their humiliation when we defeat them.

It also doesn't sell very well to the demographic which plays Civilization either unfortunately. Civ Revolution is popular for all the same reasons for which I do not like it.

Civilization and 4x in general have a place apart from grand strategy and I think Civ should be content in its niche. Grand strategy isn't going anywhere, so I see no reason for Civ to try to be more like it. I'm all for more random events or internal conflict, but not to the extent that takes away what makes Civ unique. There are still people to this day who quote Shafer whenever they want to talk about how "even the architect of Civ 5 admits 1UPT was a mistake." And I think that's silly.

Civ 5 being more of a tactical game never bothered me and I'm fine with it going in that direction more than just being another grand strategy title.

 

[Jon Shafer]

BTW, your climate change mechanic in At The Gates is just about the coolest thing i've ever seen in a video game and I very much look forward to playing your game. Thank you!

Thanks much, sir! Hope it turns out to be everything you're hoping.

Here's one of the first screenshot when Civ V was announced, just for curiosity

Complete with missing mountain and texture glitch in the tile left of the city... *groan*

- Jon

 

[Edish]

The historical leaders are there to provide something more grounded and relatable with which the player can interact, rather than an abstract "Lady Liberty" or "Motherland Calls" embodiment that would be too abstract for you to get emotionally invested in.

Have you played Europa Universalis? Trust me, the leader changes and is just a name with stats, not even a picture... The country in itself is more than relatable enough.

I completely agree, away with the eternal leader that lives for four thousand years. Maybe have dynamic leaders depending on government form, that dies and lives.

 

[Haig]

Ok this is very off-topic, but even though Europa Universalis IV has more simulator -elements than Civ, it's still hugely abstract game, and has it's own weird and cheesy mechanics.

Fabricate claim, attack and annex, fabricate claim...

A cool game but I like the personality of Civ, EUIV is like this engineer's dream more than a game.

Yours, Haig (2 / 1 / 4)