Making a Clone of Civ II

[Prof. Garfield]

Moderator Action: Axx's project links added - Blake00
For newcomers to this thread there is currently a opensource Civ2 clone project here:
https://github.com/axx0/Civ2-clone

Axx's project discussion begins here:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/making-a-clone-of-civ-ii.697563/post-15931778

Example Video:

Original post:

---

I've had this vague idea for a few months about making an open source clone of Civ II using Lua and the 2d game engine LOVE2d . I discovered Love2d a few months ago, have watched some tutorials and looked at the various functions that the engine provides since then, and building a copy of Civ II looks dangerously achievable with the Lua I've learned in the past year of working on Over the Reich. I say "dangerously" achievable, since it is probably a much bigger project than I realize, even if I find myself thinking how to solve various problems that would arise. For now, I'll call this project NewCivII, for lack of a name.

So, I'm here to offer my thoughts and to solicit the thoughts of others on this topic.

Perhaps the biggest objection is "why not FreeCiv." I don't have a very good reason why I go to the trouble of getting Civ II to work rather than use FreeCiv. I've never much looked at FreeCiv, and that worries me that what I like most about Civ II is the fact that it is Civ II, and so I might not even be interested in NewCivII if I weren't suggesting to build it. That said, I do have some arguments about why NewCivII would be "better," or at least "different" from FreeCiv.

There is now 20 years of reverse engineering done on Civ II, so nearly all of the game mechanics are fully documented, so a much closer clone can be achieved. The saved game format is also nearly fully documented, and the stuff not documented is likely not to be important, since if it were important someone would have been able to discover what it is. This means we can probably import existing games (especially scenarios) as long as effort is made that any new features we include are optional. Similarly, it looks like Love2d would allow us to use the existing art format of Civ II, making it easier to import the 20 years of scenarios that have been made. My experience writing a Macro to Lua event converter suggests that reading game data from other CivII text files into NewCivII would not be difficult. So, NewCivII would be better than FreeCiv because it can take advantage of the work done on Civ II, and better than Civ II since it could be distributed freely without worrying about copyright, and, being open source, could have bugs fixed and be further improved (e.g. with extra event triggers).

Copyright, however, brings up a problem. If a big point of NewCivII is to be familiar to Civ II players, well, the Civ II art is also copyrighted. We'd have to distribute the game with custom art, and just make it easy to import "other" art as a default. This would just transfer the problem from needing copyrighted software (and bundled art) to needing the copyrighted art. Now, if no one is actually interested in enforcing the Civ II copyright (which seems likely), then distributing art is more likely to fly under the radar at a place like Civfanatics, since distributing art happens anyway here. The NewCivII documentation could say "go to Civfanatics for scenarios" and one of the "scenarios" is just the basic art package. I should note that when I say "art", I also mean text files like game.txt would have to be rewritten. That would be a big job.

Now, changing files like game.txt brings up, for example, diplomacy, especially with the AI. We'd have to develop a diplomacy model very similar to the one in Civ II, and possibly reverse engineer it for the "feel" of the original. Similarly we'd have to develop an AI (which might also have to have an option to be similar to Civ II, so as not to break imported scenarios) and a map generator. Probably also other things I haven't thought of, too.

What are your thoughts? I'd be perfectly happy to be convinced that my time (and the time of others) would be better spent doing something else, so negative thoughts are, for me at least, welcome.

Why do you play Civ II over FreeCiv? What would NewCivII have to provide to make you switch?

If a (mostly) complete game engine were provided, would you be willing to contribute to the project in some capacity (e.g. provide art/rewrite text files, reverse engineer some game mechanic, maybe code if you have the skill)? Saying yes here is not a formal commitment, just a gauge of intensity of interest.

 

[Buck2005]

Why do you play Civ II over FreeCiv? What would NewCivII have to provide to make you switch?

Reasons why I prefer civ2 to other versions (including FreeCiv):

1. Main reason: Imprinting in the classic Konrad Lorenz description. Civ2 is the first strategy game I started playing. This is probably why the gameplay and game mechanics of other versions of civ are unpleasant and inconvenient for me (even if they are objectively better). However, this does not apply to other games in the genre of strategy, which I occasionally enjoy playing. For example, the development of the Europe Universalis series of games - each new version of this game is definitely better for me than the previous one. I would never consider returning to the old version, unlike civ. So the main reason keeping me in civ2 is essentially irrational.

2. The game audience. Of course, I did not carry out any measurements and studies, however, subjectively, the civ2 audience is slightly larger than the FreeCiv audience (for example, just an observation that does not pretend to be objective: there are civ2 and FreeCiv groups in the local social network of my country. The number of members of the civ2 group is more than approximately one and a half times). I will assume that this is due to the same Imprinting. Many people, like me, prefer this version of the game, simply because once upon a time they started playing it for the first time. Now the vast majority of civ2's audience are adults who don't have much time for games. Therefore, if we manage to find some small time for the game, then we would rather play the good old well-known game than spend many hours to figure out a new unusual gameplay.

One way or another, but objectively there is (albeit extremely insignificant compared to the audience of other versions of civ, but quite sufficient for me) the number of people playing it in civ2. Therefore, if I want to play something in multiplayer, then I will choose civ2.

3. Also, a reason worthy of mention is the presence in civ2 of a more or less convenient set of tools for modding, which allows you to create a mod for the specific desires of specific people participating in the game. However, in FreeCiv modding capabilities also exist, in some ways better, somewhat worse than civ2. Just different. Like FreeCiv itself. If you start to understand in detail, it turns out that FreeCiv is still a different game, only partially resembling civ2.


What would I like to see in the new remake of civ2? Very simple: for starters - the absolute, complete identity of the gameplay. If there are even not very noticeable differences in the game process in the new game (even if they objectively improve the game), then I will not play it, for the reasons described above. Ideally, I would like to see an externally complete copy of civ2 with unlimited modding and interface customization options as I wish.

If you consider the new game only as a new platform for promoting LS scenarios, then I wash my hands. With all due respect to the creativity of your group, I do not consider for myself the opportunity to play scenarios, this is not my genre.

 

[Lord Shadow]

There's C-evo as well.

I don't know, I think Civ2 is well-covered in the alternatives/clones front. I don't know what kind of novel experience a new clone could provide.

I'd much sooner want to see something similar done with Colonization. I think FreeCol died years ago, and Civ4Col always fell short. I'd kill for a direct, moddable remake of the original and its chunky low-res pixels. Room for better quality music, an expansion beyond the independence war... one can dream.

 

[JPetroski]

I will respond in much more detail later, but for now, I think what always appealed about Civ2 was the ease of modding, and I do believe given how popular games like minecraft are, we would be able to build/rebuild a very strong community if only we could distribute the game openly and safely. The advances in lua have been incredible but so few can enjoy them given the trouble of obtaining a copy and then installing it in 2019.

As you're aware I'm pretty useless coding, but I could commit to writing the text files for the game, which would in and of itself be a large undertaking.

As for the art, I suspect our resident artists would likely be agreeable to giving written permission for the game to use their art freely, if the game is made available for free.

That art which we do not have might be within the realm of a fiverr job for a few hundred bucks which I won't commit to NOW, but if we had the game built save a few placeholder graphics, I cant see myself refusing at that point. Or others might join the fray and make that art.

I think this is a great idea personally. I see it as a way to keep playing this game (but better) indefinitely.

 

[Buck2005]

minecraft .

Good comparison. Honestly, I would like to have a civ2-style game with minecraft functionality. For example, one of the most valuable achievements of the gameplay of the Alpha Centauri game is unit production. You can create a unit either from the list of standard ones built into the game (like civ phalanx, legions and the like units). Or your author’s unit, with any, absolutely unique, and even absurd characteristics (conditionally, at least a "paratrooper landing cavalry"), of course, for the corresponding price. I remember that when this game appeared (immediately after TOT), it was very fun to play it, thanks to this functionality. I think if this functionality was extended not only to units, but also to all other aspects of the game, this game would be great. For example, a player himself could choose at the beginning (or in the course of the game) any arbitrary number of types of terrain, set arbitrary characteristics to them according to his taste. Independently create any type of urban improvements and wonders of the world. And so on, to infinity. As you rightly noted, the popularity of the minecraft children's sandbox game (as well as the short-term success of Alpha Centauri) confirms that such a new game would probably really be a success.

However, it is worth noting that creating such a new game will require incredible efforts by the developers. Everything will depend on the ease of entry into this new game. Now modding in civ2 has long stepped over a critical stage when, for introducing a new option into the game (for example, remotely firing artillery, or something like that) it requires knowledge of programming language skills. At a high level, these are possessed by a maximum of 2-3 people per civ2 community. And, frankly, for example, I don’t have any motivation to spend a huge amount of time to master programming skills at least at a minimum, to get an essentially insignificant result at the output (for example, add some special unit to the game. It’s easier for me to do without him than to spend so much effort). If I want to shoot cannons, I’ll just go to Steam and buy the corresponding shooting game there.

In my opinion, one of the reasons for the failure of the Alpha Centauri game, despite the enormous breakthrough functionality that is rarely seen even in the smarter good modern games, was its linearity. That is, the whole game was essentially one big “scenario” (similar to civ2) on the SF theme. Yes, once or twice it was fun to play it. But then, of course, this monotony is tired. And it will be a very big mistake to think that if the game has not one scenario, but 100 or 500, then they will cause more interest.

Thus, in the new game, the key to success can only be the interface that is maximally accessible even to the “most stupid" users. When any arbitrary student can, with one or two mouse clicks, choose any settings to his taste, create any combinations, even absurd from the point of view of the original developer of the game, in all aspects of the game, yes, such a game will be able to gain a mass audience. Creating such a simple and intuitive interface seems to me a task available only to large gaming studios.

 

[Buck2005]

Well, I think you have chosen a good concept for your new game. If everything that you plan is really technically feasible, then this will be excellent.


For me personally, the most important part of civ2 is the presence of multiplayer with the ability to play online via the Internet. I use civ2 only for playing with live real players. All the rest of the civ2 functionality is necessary for me only in order to make the game in multiplayer as interesting as possible.

 

[Buck2005]

Buck2005, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you're OK with TOT-sized art (in the original style), but want the MGE style "feel" (attack animation, blinking units, possibly animated heralds, videos, etc. that the original had)? I do think we should insist on TOT-sized units because that's the majority of what is out there to work with..

This is actually a moot point. Personally, I was really relatively easy to adapt to TOTPP. But the vast majority of players, among whom I advertised a little new features of TOTPP, remained completely indifferent to them. From which I conclude that for these people, it’s more likely that they intrigue in the first place precisely such details of the game that are of little significance to me or to you. Like the ones you listed. I think each player has his own list.

 

[JPetroski]

I've been putting some more thought into this. Frankly I'm trying to figure out any way possible that we don't need to do this, but on the other hand I think the base game here is simple enough that we might be able to band together to create something that's pretty special and others would enjoy. This leads me to an important question though:

-Is there an audience/scope benefit to charging for this? Facebook ads, and probably Steam, both have costs, but I see little point in committing the type of effort it's going to take a team of 5-6 people to make this within a condensed timeframe if we can't actually go out and make people aware of it.

The last thing I want to do is spend a bunch of time to create a game that only has the same dozen people playing it. If we make this, I want to be able to go out and tell the world about it and build an actual audience. Can that be done if it is distributed without cost? If so, let's do that, but we should at least consider if we might need to charge something (with all those implications) so that we can advertise and publish in venues where it is likely to be seen.

-And as a random other point:

We need to develop a map maker with this game that is extremely easy to use, can convert from images somehow, and can create considerably larger maps. A major stumbling block to scenario design today is that the famed map makers of yesterday have moved on. If we're going to hype and release this, we need to do so on maps that look good - not whatever I can cobble together.

 

[Buck2005]

For fans of civ2 who have been playing it for many years (or have played some time ago) - I think it’s not difficult to buy this new immortal version of civ2 (which will work regardless of the operating system). Many even specifically buy laptops with old versions of Windows to be able to play this game. So, the price for the new version may well be comparable to the price of a laptop.

However, it is very doubtful that a new generation of players will be interested in such a game. Now almost every player can create their own game, and such games are distributed free of charge. The market is oversaturated with such simple strategies as civ2.

 

[JPetroski]

and such games are distributed free of charge.

I guess that's my question though - where can one distribute them to a wide audience and how does one reach that audience without any investment whatsoever in marketing?

I firmly believe we can make a better game but then the question is will there be anyone to play it?

I'm also not so certain that a new generation of players would not be interested but I think you might find that you get little pockets of people interested for different reasons (there'd be a few for the base game, a few for each different type of scenario etc.) I do believe I could get a large (to us, that might mean 30 people) number of people playing Over the Reich if I could just distribute the darn thing.

 

[Buck2005]

Without investment in marketing - very, very doubtful. I watched as enthusiasts in my country made their game, an analogue of Travian. In general, we can say that they managed to make a good game, and get a fairly large game audience. But as I understand it, they had to significantly invest in advertising. For example, I learned about this new game thanks to targeted advertising, which I slipped in the feed of a social network. However, this game is free, and does not require any further cash investments (such as "Pay To Play" and similar monetization schemes).

 

[CurtSibling]

If anyone could create a robust and moddable genuine clone of CIV2, with the ability to add Lua-type editing, I for one, would say it would be a winner.

Make it easy to install, on a PC platform, running a modern 64-bit OS, and some nice UI, designed around the classic, elegant CIV controls...

Add the ability to feature scenarios, and it would be a progam to ensure CIV2 into the future.

 

[JPetroski]

@CurtSibling if we came up with something that legitimately looked like it would be finished, would you help out? We would basically need to source all art, including improvements, cities, etc.

Also a really grand scenario to ship with wouldn't hurt either!

 

[CurtSibling]

@JPetroski
I would say yes, with the caveat that I work full time as a freelance 2D artist, so my paid work would always come first and CIV2 second.

That said, if it was modern day version of CIV2 ToT, with hundreds of unit slots, and more than 7 civs, count me in!

 

[JPetroski]

Your argument is good enough for me - just so long as we can actually express to others that this exists I'd be happy.

 

[Buck2005]

-And as a random other point:

We need to develop a map maker with this game that is extremely easy to use, can convert from images somehow, and can create considerably larger maps. A major stumbling block to scenario design today is that the famed map makers of yesterday have moved on. If we're going to hype and release this, we need to do so on maps that look good - not whatever I can cobble together.

It would be cool to also be able to create maps based on a spherical realistic Earth. Tired of these endless variations of the Mercator projection, which kill the realism of the game. Interestingly, at least in one version, "civilization" implemented the Earth model in the form of a real globe (I did not follow the development of this aspect of the game in the series) ... Or is it technically difficult to implement? ...

 

[Prof. Garfield]

It would be cool to also be able to create maps based on a spherical realistic Earth. Tired of these endless variations of the Mercator projection, which kill the realism of the game. Interestingly, at least in one version, "civilization" implemented the Earth model in the form of a real globe (I did not follow the development of this aspect of the game in the series) ... Or is it technically difficult to implement? ...

I don't know how to implement it, so I don't know if it would be easy or hard to do. Might just be easier to reduce move costs for ships and airplanes at the higher latitudes. That is, maybe it would take only 2/3 of a movement point to move across an ocean tile at a sufficiently high latitude, for example. That would be fairly easy to do (and could probably be expressed as map parameters) and wouldn't involve messing about with map geometry. A spherical map might be an eventual improvement, but if I do this, it almost certainly won't make it into "Version 1.0".

 

[Buck2005]

Of course, all potential changes, even definitely for the better, should be left for future versions. The first version should be an exact imitation of civ2. JPetroski is certainly optimistic about the possibility of increasing the civ2 gaming audience by new players who have never played this game. I prefer to think cautiously that the main target audience after all is the old players in civ2. There are quite enough of them.

So, my question is purely theoretical in nature. The point is not only in the speed of movement of units. Namely, in the geometry of movement. Reducing the speed of movement by 2/3 in high latitudes will help simulate the realistic route of the Titanic, I agree. But let's say modeling the trajectory of the flight of nuclear missiles through the North Pole is unlikely to help ... The biggest error of the Mercator projection in civ2 is the incorrect transfer of the area of the territory. When Greenland is monstrous several times larger than India. The population growth of a city in civ2 directly depends on the number of squares that it can “process”. Of course, one can also make an artificial “crutch” here - by making special “highly profitable” resources for India. But, it seems to me that an excessive amount of “crutches” unnecessarily complicates the game.

Once again, these are just theoretical thoughts, or, as we say, “bidding for the best parts over the skin of an as yet unkilled bear” ...)

 

[CurtSibling]

At this stage, I would humbly suggest that keeping the initial clone very close to Civ2 mechanics without getting bogged down in monomania over minute details.
We can later make mods and Lua upgrades to cover features to suit obscure Colonization fans and those who want to simulate climates, etc.

 

[techumseh]

Interesting...and way over my head. My 2 cents: keep it as simple as you can. Avoid 'mission creep' at all costs. Or you'll never finish it.