Historical Simulator

[0302FUN]

Greetings,

This is somewhat off topic, but I am in need of assistance for a serious undertaking and who better to discuss it with than fellow lovers of history...I am seeking to design a complex game based on the actual history of the world. It would be very similar to Civ except only one player, your actions alone would change the course of recorded history...don't want great graphics, in appearance would be similar to original civ, however the programming and game play would be far more complex, with historical depth and serious educational value...any suggestions or is something similar already in existence?

Thank you in advance.

If you are interested or informed on the above please read more below:

The fundamental concept of this game would be a radical departure from the current development course for Civilization- i.e. the cartoony, game consol, fast paced, multi-player, low attention span entertaining variety.

This game would be very basic in appearance, more like a board game...2 dimensional, but the intellectual and educational content would be what made this product so much more enjoyable and valuable...

In this game you would be the incarnate will of the people...sounds strange, but as you progressed your advisors or guiding tendencies would be provided through historical figures of your people group.

You would start off as a small tribe- let us say you select the Akkadians, well at the beginning of the game you would be surrounded by rival tribes of Akkadians, as well as other foreign tribes let us say Hittite tribes... When you discover a rival Akkadian tribe you are more likely to peacefully merge into one larger tribe, this is possible with foreign tribes, like say the Hittite, but it is far more likely that at least initially you will battle with the Hittites and only after a prolonged period of peaceful coexistence in close proximity will a merge be possible with the Hittites- unless of course you forcefully incorporate this tribe. As your tribe expanded into a state, nation or empire so would it's title.

Meanwhile around the world, let us say each continent of the world is split into ten regions, all developing independently- a preset eventuality based on recorded history is occurring, and only after achieving a certain size level and technological ability to encroach on to these other regions can this preset series of events be changed...

 

[Swedishguy]

Please, stop these spam threads already! I can't take this anymore! You can bring this up in Civ4: Ideas and Suggestions, but not here! Beat it!

 

[0302FUN]

Hey Swedish Guy,

Calm down, didn't mean to interrupt your thread, will not happen again...any body else sad that civilization is headed in the direction of Idiocracy, I've got my Brando the thirst mutilator...

 

[Verbose]

You want to make a complex historical simulator, I think you might need to first look into historiographical theory, the theory of history.

What the simulator looks like would reflect what basic premises as to what is the motive force of history. There's quite a range to these options...

 

[0302FUN]

Verbose, I think I know where you are going with this- this game would piss some folks off, but it would go with the historical record which is generally accepted in the West, where at least intitially the bulk of the games audience would be located...this game would be as much an educational tool as one for entertainment...

A game set on autopilot would run out all the major events up to date in recorded human history...the variables for simulation are injected when the human player departs from recorded history...for instance lets say the British never set out to the New World...so the U.S., as we know it, is never created...and the Germans have substantial colonies in the Western hemisphere, so this reduces their desires for conflict in Europe, so there is never a first world war, or a second world war, or a cold war...it could get very messy, but oh wouldn't it be fun!

 

[0302FUN]

From Scilly Guy on CIVIV Creative Thread:

You say it is single player, is this because you absorb rival tribes into yours, you will never get absorbed yourself? What if a rival tribe is more advanced, or forcefully takes you over? Could it not be multiplayer, just theres a large chance you could get beaten when your people defect.

What technological stage were you thinking of starting at? Hunter gatherers? Agriculture and thus settlements?

I have thought about how to better represent true history too. Start off with a tribe, as it grows and your people spread you lose control of distant groups. Think of animals, when their nest, or family group gets too big it divides. You eventually settle and control one town/city this town creates some more settlements nearby which you do not control until you can unite them. Now you can expand your people absorbing other cities, founding new ones, going to war with rival nations. But your nation might divide itself or a group of cities declare independence.

Indeed it could make a game, and it could be fun, you say you are not worried if it is not fast paced, low attention span, indeed it may not be, I understand you are not attempting to make a game to make money, I am aware of that idea myself. However the game needs to be fun. And just because you don't want it to be mainstream doesn't mean it shouldn't be 3D or pretty, all you need for that is the artists and modellers, and a 3D engine, like G3D or something.

 

[0302FUN]

Scilly Guy,

Thank you for your reply. This game would need to be single player and simplistic in its graphic content, due to its size. The game would start off in the stone age. Your initial tribe would only number one hundred people. The game engine would only need to operate your small sphere of the globe- unlike civilization. For example you select a Pict tribe in Northern Scotland, preset events occur around the world, just as they did historically-so until you exit your remote corner- or until you fail to exit your remote corner according to when your people group did historically, the game will run exactly according to historic events.

You could very easily get absorbed in this game, let us say you select a tribe that was later absorbed- it doesn't mean you lose, you as the will of your original people would only be completely eliminated from the game if your group goes the way of Carthage, being slaughtered or completely enslaved. Otherwise you could gradually stage a revolt.

This world would be much larger- maybe a hundred times bigger than the largest maps used... with literally thousands of different tribes at the start of history...the key is that as you grow in size, your population and unit representation would be consolidated to simplify vast numbers...so if you are still a small tribe and you are encountered by a advanced legion, you would appear as a barbarian fraction of the advanced civilizations unit...it would be a matter of perspective...the globe would also seem to shrink as your sphere on influenced expanded, again for simplification- and yet another reason why the game would need to be single player.

This game would be fascinating and fun- just not in a short attention span kind of way...it would be for people who love history, not for a mass audience.

Thanks again Scilly Guy, you rock.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Moderator Action: I will this thread open for now... 0302FUN, pls stop spamming the same post all over the forums. Infraction given.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[0302FUN]

Since my thread at CIVIV was abruptly closed without a link to this one here is the last from Scilly Guy:

lol I read that as if you were calling me a rock, thought it was a reference to the islands from which I take my name.

So would this take place on earth, and only earth? And all history would be what we know. The world would already be populated with small tribes. When you are small you play on a large map that represents a small area. As you grow the map size remains roughly the same but the area it represents grows.

If you represent the will of your people and you are stubborn, like most people, and you resist being absorbed by another civilisation and you become enslaved, how do you go about freeing your people? This mechanic is what I am probably most curious about. If you were to be absorbed by choice, lets say into the Roman empire, what do you now control, how do you influence people and affect decisions when you are receiving orders from rome? I am merely curious how you propose it to work, I cannot imagine it.

 

[0302FUN]

Scilly Guy,

"You rock" meaning you are excellent or I appreciate your input. Sorry for any confusion.

As to the resolution of when your people are absorbed:

As the will of your people you could decide to what degree you would assimilate (depending on the degree of leverage you have with the tribe doing the absorbtion)- unless you are enslaved, then you are basically destroyed- take for example the Carthaginian absorbtion by Rome, the entire population was either executed or enslaved- in this case you no longer exist as a will for your people, because your people no longer have the ability to exhibit a collective will.

But back to the degree with which you would assimilate- you could decide to completely absorb with a dominant tribe and gradually lose the game...if your people's social identity no longer exists...however if you are occupied France during World War II, even though you are conquered militarily, you may still resist and can wage guerrilla fighting- this would also depend greatly on the size of your population (difficult for a nation to absorb millions of people with their own long history).

Much will depend on the dominant nation absorbing you. Just as nations advance technologically, so they do in humanity, tolerance or enlightenment...so lets say you encounter a highly technologically advanced group, with no humanity...i.e. Nazi Germany- depending on their view of your tribe- you may have no choice but to end the game due to enslavement, genocide, or something like loss of social identity-think Pol Pot type reeducation.

Thank you again for your great points.

 

[Tee Kay]

You brought up humanity. This is an interesting point since the concept of what is "right", what is "wrong", what is "acceptable" and what is "not acceptable" had always change through time. Development of moral values, etc, is not a linear progression (and, strictly speaking, neither is science and technology). Beheading as a punishment is almost globally acceptable in, say, AD1500, but now only a few cultures approve of beheading. Same goes with social values and identity: they evolve, but not in a linear progression.

Also, reading the last paragraph of the opening post, it is a good idea in general but I disagreed with the preset "regions". As you know, it is hard to define distinct regions of the world. Try defining "the Middle East" based on historical factors...

I think each tribes should have their own specific historical course of development, not dependent on the "region" concept.

 

[0302FUN]

Taillesskangaru,

Thanks for the input. The reason for distinct regions: The game would always be played on a gigantic world map, in order for the game to function properly, only pertinent areas of the world would be "running"- the rest of the world would be preprogrammed to simulate human history across the globe and until fairly far into the game, a tribe would be restricted based on geography and technology...There would obviously be anomalies, Vikings, Mongols, and other rovers...but as these people set out away from their host lands, unless there is a logistical frame work, they will merely serve as ambassadors for good or evil out of the nucleus of the original tribe. If these rovers are settlers, they may be absorbed- much like those lost under Sir Walter Raleigh. Just think massive game, wouldn't be feasible or fun to have the entire planet running unnecesarily. Thanks again.




Also, reading the last paragraph of the opening post, it is a good idea in general but I disagreed with the preset "regions". As you know, it is hard to define distinct regions of the world. Try defining "the Middle East" based on historical factors...

I think each tribes should have their own specific historical course of development, not dependent on the "region" concept.

 

[Scilly_guy]

Ok so i am back, hadn't realised you had spammed everywhere, as I usually only read the ideas and suggestions forum. Guessing you are new to the whole concept of internet forums, I know of nowhere where it is acceptable to spam the entire forum!

So back to this game concept:
So you start off on a map where each tile represents lets say a square mile, and as you grow and complete that stage of history the map zooms out and now each tile represents a larger area (4 square miles) but the map is still the same size. Completing a stage as I have put it could be through a number of ways, researched a particular technology, grown to a certain size, eliminated any neighbouring tribes.

 

[warpus]

Good luck programming all of this; sounds like a code monkey's nightmare.

 

[0302FUN]

Welcome back Scilly Guy,

Also thanks for the vote of confidence Warpus- I realize this would be a challenging undertaking, but one well worth it- I can't emphasize strongly enough that civilization revolutions is taking a step towards mass markets, towards idiocracy, for those with short attention spans and limited appreciation for depth of content...with this said, I believe embracing history and with its portrayal enabling the possibilities of counterfactual history- giving fascinating glimpses of what could have been...

Scilly Guy, I think the key for when the depiction expands for both land area and units- would be based on population.. Something key in this game would be realistic logistical support, if minute fractional portions of your population immigrate and are absorbed- just as in history, they do not expand your knowledge or scope of power...

Something interesting in this game- once again you are the incarnate will of your people, so as time goes by you receive new historical leaders to act as your advisors...they will direct you in the paths that their leadership guided- you may choose to follow, ignore, or depose them- empowering a new leader contrary to their ideological bent- don't want Mao- you can have Chiang Kai-shek; don't like Pinochet- get Allende... this game would allow players to stay tree top focused- or into the nitty gritty details depending on whatever spheres intrigues this particular player- military campaigns, diplomacy, social reform - again the idea here is depth of content- an educational tool, one that may cause us to question our understanding of the world today.

This game concept, Warpus, is worth a programmer's nightmare.

P.S.- I am aware of FreeCiv, EcoCiv, and Clash of the Civilizations...any others out there known to anyone?

 

[holy king]

Also thanks for the vote of confidence Warpus- I realize this would be a challenging undertaking, but one well worth it- I can't emphasize strongly enough that civilization revolutions is taking a step towards mass markets, towards idiocracy, for those with short attention spans and limited appreciation for depth of content...with this said, I believe embracing history and with its portrayal enabling the possibilities of counterfactual history- giving fascinating glimpses of what could have been...

i hope it's the beginning of a two branch product line. one dumbed down console version, and hopefully a more "mature" civ 5. anyway, i have no idea what means you have to create the game you're planning for, but good luck...

 

[0302FUN]

At this juncture I am fairly limited...doing lots of research, everything from profiles in ethnology to programming with java. holy king and warpus, if you can agree that this is a worthy pursuit how about some contributions- general concepts or features you would like to see in said game.

Also any code monkeys out there feeling frisky, please give me a shout.

Any suggestions, ideas, tips or resources are greatly appreciated.