Making a Clone of Civ II

[Prof. Garfield]

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.

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.649543/post-15931778

Example Video:

 

[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.

 

[JPetroski]

So here are some of my thoughts in more detail.

First of all, I think we need to define, why do we need to build this when Civ2 already exists? For me there are a few pretty basic reasons, and if this project wouldn't achieve at least these, then it's simply not worth it:

1. To guarantee future-compatibility. I suppose this is an unfair one to start with given that none of us have a crystal ball or know what will happen one day, but we need to be able to build something that's likely to be playable for the next several decades. As it stands, every windows update or even just drivers update makes me wonder if Civ2 will still function. If we build something, we should have confidence that we can keep it working indefinitely. I suppose that the benefit to this approach would be that the code would be available for any future (or current) player to tweak to keep it running in the future, where we don't have the source code for Civ2 and can't really do that.

2. To allow us to freely distribute this far and wide and build an audience. I am firmly convinced that the main reason this game doesn't have as many players any more is the trouble of #1 above, and also finding a CD. It's exceptionally pirateable (all you need is someone to send you the game files), but it's not like civfanatics or anywhere else would stand for us just putting up a copy of the game for download.

3. To allow us to finally change the things we always wanted to, but even TNO couldn't figure out. We need a game that doesn't limit units to 127, or civs to 7, or even improvements and terrain to whatever they're limited to. There's probably a practical limit to what any engine could handle but I have to imagine that 127 wouldn't be it. I'd like to simply have a -1, or @END or whatever at the end of each section of the rules to denote where it stops and simply be able to add lines as needed. I'd like the art files to simply count green boxes somehow so that they can be added to anything by simply making the art file larger.

Now, what should it look like?

A. I think @Buck2005 is spot on that this should feature a *very* close clone to the original game for people who just want that. In fact I wouldn't change anything "front stage" though the files would have tremendous changes to make the game more modable "backstage". Part of our audience in #1 and #2 are people who just want the sandbox. 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. My only concern here is copyright. If the "skeleton" (code) is completely different and the art is all unique but the gameplay is the same does that mean the copyright is infringed on and do we need to make this a "scenario" that people can download?

B. I would strive to keep as many of the files looking and functioning just as they do currently. The rules text should be the same. TNO's practice of implementing "extras" after certain areas by adding a comma and then some more integers is what we should aim for. Perhaps this comma and integers are already in place in the base game but -1 or whatever value to show they aren't in effect until the designer changes them.

C. I would strive to add lua modular functionality to other design issues to enhance modability. I'm thinking Wonders of the World or even City Improvements here. I think the game should ship with a module (and each scenario can have it in its own file folder if changes are wanted) that includes a lua description of all wonders and what they do. Each should have an integer assigned to it (0 for palace, and so on). The rules file should look to this. This way, a designer could, for example, make a "new" wonder by adding a few paragraphs of code as integer 101 or whatever in the lua file that describes what the wonder does, and then would have to add a 101st line to the improvements text in the rules file as well to describe the wonder and how much it costs to build, etc. The two kind of work with each other (this is my theory on how to achieve it but of course if there is an easier way, by all means - I'm just saying - as a designer, I want to be able to design a scenario the same way I did pre-lua, but also be able to take advantage of post-lua functionality).

Basically, if we can create a situation where the base game players have their base game, the old-school designers can be inspired to create new scenarios with more civs or units (but not necessarily using lua), and more "change-embracing" designers can take full advantage of lua, and put this all into one game that we think we can distribute for free without being sued, and that we think we (or someone) can keep running far into the future, then we should really consider doing this.

I think if we can't simultaneously appease and appeal to all three of those camps, there's little point to this because we'd be building something for a ghost town.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

1. To guarantee future-compatibility. I suppose this is an unfair one to start with given that none of us have a crystal ball or know what will happen one day, but we need to be able to build something that's likely to be playable for the next several decades. As it stands, every windows update or even just drivers update makes me wonder if Civ2 will still function. If we build something, we should have confidence that we can keep it working indefinitely. I suppose that the benefit to this approach would be that the code would be available for any future (or current) player to tweak to keep it running in the future, where we don't have the source code for Civ2 and can't really do that.

We would be relying on Love2d for future compatibility. Now, Love2d is open source, so even if it stops getting developed (or some of the libraries used in our game get deprecated in future releases and we're stuck on an old one) someone could still make the bug fix and recompile the code. If there is an active community, it shouldn't be too hard to find someone with the skill to do that. Even with the Civ II community the size that it is today, people like @TheNamelessOne and @FoxAhead work on modifying the game.

2. To allow us to freely distribute this far and wide and build an audience. I am firmly convinced that the main reason this game doesn't have as many players any more is the trouble of #1 above, and also finding a CD. It's exceptionally pirateable (all you need is someone to send you the game files), but it's not like civfanatics or anywhere else would stand for us just putting up a copy of the game for download.

For me, this is a big part of why I think the project could be worth the effort. If the current right holders (I think 2K Games) were selling the game for a couple dollars or something, I'd point people there and do something else instead. I can see why they don't bother, though. Given the compatibility difficulties, tech support would probably cost more than they would make.

3. To allow us to finally change the things we always wanted to, but even TNO couldn't figure out. We need a game that doesn't limit units to 127, or civs to 7, or even improvements and terrain to whatever they're limited to. There's probably a practical limit to what any engine could handle but I have to imagine that 127 wouldn't be it. I'd like to simply have a -1, or @END or whatever at the end of each section of the rules to denote where it stops and simply be able to add lines as needed. I'd like the art files to simply count green boxes somehow so that they can be added to anything by simply making the art file larger.

With Lua, the engine would not hard limits to the number of civilizations, unit types, or terrain types, but there would be practical limits in terms of computing power. This might be especially true if we made a mobile interface for phones and tablets. We might have to change the way some of the art is formatted, however.

A. I think @Buck2005 is spot on that this should feature a *very* close clone to the original game for people who just want that. In fact I wouldn't change anything "front stage" though the files would have tremendous changes to make the game more modable "backstage". Part of our audience in #1 and #2 are people who just want the sandbox.

Yes, that is what I was thinking as well. For various game rules, I would have options like "original", "fixed," and "new." For example, the original key civ mechanic vastly inflates your tech cost if your "key civilization" has been eliminated from the game. A "fixed" rule would only compare your technology progress with an actual civilization in game, and "new" might compare with some average of the technological progress among all civs.

Basically, make the game as close to Civ II as possible by default, but then add options or modability as an extra for those that want it.

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.

If I can work it, I would want to be able to accept both MGE and TOT style graphics (I didn't realize they were different sizes). The main reason for this is that there are a lot of MGE scenarios made, and I would want to be able to accept them easily. Of course, there is a TOT converter existing (which I used to convert the Classic Rome scenario), so it might not be a huge job to convert known scenarios to the TOT format, but it would still be preferable to let people easily use stuff they found elsewhere.

My only concern here is copyright. If the "skeleton" (code) is completely different and the art is all unique but the gameplay is the same does that mean the copyright is infringed on and do we need to make this a "scenario" that people can download?

I'm pretty sure that it is legal to have a program do the same thing as another program. In practice, what matters is the ability to link and refer to the download on forums and the like. I doubt very much that civfanatics or anyone else would preemptively say that we can't link to a program and art that we made ourselves. The Civ I forum has an ongoing project to clone the original Civilization, and that started in 2014 and is still ongoing. For "safety," I would probably release a different basic rule set with the game, perhaps the one @Buck2005 and @McMonkey developed, and let people 'import' the original rules.

B. I would strive to keep as many of the files looking and functioning just as they do currently. The rules text should be the same. TNO's practice of implementing "extras" after certain areas by adding a comma and then some more integers is what we should aim for. Perhaps this comma and integers are already in place in the base game but -1 or whatever value to show they aren't in effect until the designer changes them.

Yes, I would make great effort to be able to import existing saved games and to use the rules files as they are. Probably in a manner similar to my Legacy Event Engine.

C. I would strive to add lua modular functionality to other design issues to enhance modability. I'm thinking Wonders of the World or even City Improvements here. I think the game should ship with a module (and each scenario can have it in its own file folder if changes are wanted) that includes a lua description of all wonders and what they do. Each should have an integer assigned to it (0 for palace, and so on). The rules file should look to this. This way, a designer could, for example, make a "new" wonder by adding a few paragraphs of code as integer 101 or whatever in the lua file that describes what the wonder does, and then would have to add a 101st line to the improvements text in the rules file as well to describe the wonder and how much it costs to build, etc. The two kind of work with each other

I'm figuring that there will be various lua modules that govern the different aspects of the game, so if a scenario wanted to change a particular game mechanic, such as science costs, for example, they would simply include their own copy of the science module in the scenario folder, and the game would use that instead of the default.

I don't think there would be an easy way to add or change Wonders of the World at the scenario level, since they affect so many different parts of gameplay. For example, Magellan's changes movement, Sun Tzu changes unit production and promotion, Great Library changes technology acquisition, Oracle changes temple effectiveness and Colossus changes resource collection. We could have a "menu" of possible wonder effects, and allow the creation of wonders within these parameters (and maybe change details, like the science bonus for Copernicus). City improvements face a similar problem, though they nearly all have to do with city production, so they would probably all be changed in a single module.

I'm just saying - as a designer, I want to be able to design a scenario the same way I did pre-lua, but also be able to take advantage of post-lua functionality

Basically, if we can create a situation where the base game players have their base game, the old-school designers can be inspired to create new scenarios with more civs or units (but not necessarily using lua), and more "change-embracing" designers can take full advantage of lua, and put this all into one game that we think we can distribute for free without being sued, and that we think we (or someone) can keep running far into the future, then we should really consider doing this.

Yes, a target of Civilization II plus optional extras is what I've been thinking. This can preserve existing scenarios, allow people to keep making scenarios with their existing experience, and expand horizons if they want.

I think if we can't simultaneously appease and appeal to all three of those camps, there's little point to this because we'd be building something for a ghost town.

That's the key, isn't it? And it isn't even building something for a ghost down, it is re-building something that the existing residents already have. It's hard to know if making a free version available would attract a significant number of people on a long term basis. I suspect that a convincing clone might get a fair number of people to try out the game again for old time's sake, but how many would actually stay? I really have no idea.

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).

That's a good way of putting it.

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.

I think I know how to make the game data do that for units, but not how to choose a sprite for the unit (but I might figure that out). Other aspects of the game might be more difficult.

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.

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.

The more you want to change a game from its original design, the more skill you will need. At the moment, the new Civ II possibilities provided by Lua require some knowledge of programming to use. With time and effort, tools can be written to make things easier and lower the barrier to entry. If the number of active and enthusiastic TOT players were in the hundreds, there would probably be at least a dozen or so who could use Lua, and we'd probably have a macro system similar to the original for many of the Lua features. Being able to change the actual game code also means fewer clever workarounds to achieve a desired result.

MGE has a suite of scenario making tools, which could be remade at some point, but would not have to be completed at the time of initial "release". And those tools don't require much knowledge on the part of end users, nor do they strike me as any more difficult to implement than any other part of the game. Just some boxes to fill data into, which would have to be done for city names anyway. Well, a sprite editor might be a big job, but if that's all that is missing, we could probably find someone to do it.

We don't really need a mass audience (although it would be nice). I'll probably figure out fairly quickly if the job is so much bigger than I expected that it would only be worth doing for mass appeal. I think most of the 'hard' work has been accomplished by Love2d already.

 

[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!

 

[Prof. Garfield]

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.

How much do Civfanatics banner advertisements cost? They're about as targeted to our audience as we could ever get and probably not that expensive. The trouble with "official" advertisements is that saying we made a "Civ II clone" might not be legal (and I don't want to pay a lawyer). Making some Youtube videos that have "Civ II Clone" in the title and Civ II in all sorts of tags is free. In 2013 I made a video on how to play classic Civ II (i.e. version 2.42) on modern computers, and it has 27,000 views, so it is not impossible that we might be able to get some traction and word of mouth if the game is distributed for free.

Charging for the game seems like more trouble than it is worth. Love2d is released under the zlib license, so we could use it, make our own additions and charge for the entire project (and not release the source code) if we wanted to. However, I don't want to pay some lawyers to write us a license and send letters to people pirating the game. Besides, doing that creates the exact same problem that we have with Test of Time: the license holders can't be bothered to sell the game. Why would I buy NewCivII just to run that same risk?

I was thinking of writing the code under the GNU General Public License(GPL). Basically, the GPL says that you can redistribute and modify (or take code from for another project) the program, provided that you provide the source code, and any derivative works are also offered under the GPL. (GPL v2 and GPL v3 are not compatible, but we could license under both, unless we have to borrow source code licensed only under one of them.)

We can charge for software licensed under the GPL, anyone who buys it could then offer it for free (or sell it), so in practice GPL software is usually distributed gratis. (If you look into this more, some people use the term "free software" to refer to software that can be modified or redistributed, and "free as in beer" is not sufficient.) Maybe if we added a mobile interface, we could charge for, or show ads on, the Google Play version (not sure how hard it is to get into the store).

Using GPL would give us access to art and sounds from opengameart.org, which would probably be helpful. A lot of useful Lua code is offered under the MIT License (similar to zlib license), but we might find useful stuff licensed under GPL.

It would be much easier to solicit community help and feedback, especially QA testing, if the resulting game is free. It might also mean that we could get someone to do some "difficult" stuff (such as networking for direct multiplayer) if we had an otherwise mostly complete game.

Not charging means we can do gradual releases. For example, a "proof of concept" "engine" that only acomodates hot seat and uses the original art (which would be enough for Over the Reich), then a game with some rudimentary AI and a diplomacy engine, then some better AI, scenario creation tools, etc.

There does seem to be at least some demand for the game. There's a gog.com wishlist with a couple hundred entries. Not sure how this would compare with other titles.

 

[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".