Possible Future Direction (personal view)

[Laskaris]

There is no real advantage here. Moving against the 'grain' of the hexes requires you to zig-zag and lose distance by doing so. Similar to what would happen on squares, if diagonal movement was not allowed! I'm not convinced that hexes in boardgames was anything more than a fashion.

As I wrote in my reply to rightfuture, movement on any kind of tiled map, which happens in distinct steps, is an abstraction of one form or another. I do not take it "literally", and I do not think that we should. I do not view movement on a tiled map as one unit "driving" from one tile to another, and therefore "losing distance" if it drives across hex tiles in a zig-zagging motion. I view the movement as taking place in instantaneous, distinct steps, from the center of one tile to another. That is the abstraction of movement which we use when we play on a tiled map, where every unit is allowed to move x distinct steps per turn.

The zig-zagging movement does not change the fact that the distances of the center of one hex to the centers of the neighbouring hexes are equal, and that in this regard, hex maps have more accurate distance / movement modelling across the tiles in all directions than square tile maps.

 

[Laskaris]

@ Acularius: I still find the system you suggest somewhat over-complicated.

I think that if we make a realistic system where non-renewable resources are placed in large, but finite amounts at geographically / geologically plausible locations across the map at the beginning of the game, it should all work out rather nicely for gameplay purposes. Even if resources like copper were finite, there would, along the scope of human history / useage, always be some small amount somewhere that could be mined and used. There is a whole lot of copper left in the world even today, after all our mining activity. It's just that not all of what is left is economically profitable for mining right now. If supply / demand changes and prices go up, more locations would be profitable for mining. This could be modelled rather easily in the game.

In essence, despite having finite resources on the planet, you would never completely run out for practical purposes (although non-renewable resources would become a lot scarcer and more expensive in the late game).

 

[Acularius]

@ Acularius: I still find the system you suggest somewhat over-complicated.

I think that if we make a realistic system where non-renewable resources are placed in large, but finite amounts at geographically / geologically plausible locations across the map at the beginning of the game, it should all work out rather nicely for gameplay purposes. Even if resources like copper were finite, there would, along the scope of human history / useage, always be some small amount somewhere that could be mined and used. There is a whole lot of copper left in the world even today, after all our mining activity. It's just that not all of what is left is economically profitable for mining right now. If supply / demand changes and prices go up, more locations would be profitable for mining. This could be modelled rather easily in the game.

In essence, despite having finite resources on the planet, you would never completely run out for practical purposes (although non-renewable resources would become a lot scarcer and more expensive in the late game).

I tend to disagree with that last statement, but I think that is largely due to how we each view the world. Personally, I believe there is a wall, and I tend to view economic systems as a prime part of the game to me because I tend to be a 'builder' with 'Imperialistic' tendencies. As the economy will be a driver in a lot of wars, specifically the morally unjustifiable ones.
The rise and fall values I suggested in the 'open' system would also give way to 'boom' and 'busts', specifically if a resource is heavily mined.
I just prefer a more in depth game in these regards, with an actual market system.

When it comes down to it, what I would really like in the end is a more realistic infrastructure to support armies by directly connecting them to populations in cities. When the soldiers die on the field, the population dies at home.

Either way, creating a model for the economy will actually be the next hardest part to decide... [If I am given set parameters, I can easily come up with more ideas in regards to the economy]
I tend to enjoy complexity in my military and economic actions of the game. Usually because unless I'm dealing with another player, AI falls rather short in diplomacy.

 

[Laskaris]

I just prefer a more in depth game in these regards, with an actual market system.

I don't see why what I outlined would be incompatible with a market system? Actually, I love games with an in-depth market system as well.

The way I see it, there would be the booms and busts you like with a finite resource system, just like in the real world. But maybe I am just not quite understanding what you are getting at.

When it comes down to it, what I would really like in the end is a more realistic infrastructure to support armies by directly connecting them to populations in cities. When the soldiers die on the field, the population dies at home.

That's what I would like to see as well. Victoria 2 by Paradox Interactive has that kind of connection between military units and the population.

On that note, what I would love to see is a game with realistic population modelling, in terms of what food resources / production technologies are available, what population size and population growth they can support, and so on. It would be great to have a game that features the various agricultural and industrial revolutions of history, and the crises, with assorted population explosions or declines and associated rise and fall of empires (not that a larger population always means more political power, mind you - but often, it does).

The way to do this would be to model "food units" along the lines of actual calories or something to the effect, and flesh out a somewhat realistic system of what soil type can support what kind of agriculture for how long, how much food can be produced with what kind of soil, technology and system of labour, and so on and so forth. I'd volunteer to work on such a system myself if others would like to see it as well.

 

[GiuseppeIII]

Kick starter anybody???

 

[Thunderbrd]

When it comes down to it, what I would really like in the end is a more realistic infrastructure to support armies by directly connecting them to populations in cities. When the soldiers die on the field, the population dies at home.

I suggested this as a mod for C2C and it was generally rejected by the team. Main reason was "What would this add to play?" and a sense of realism was considered of too little value to justify the system.

Perhaps I should dredge that topic up again eventually. I'd also like to see food be something that sustains a population rather than the source of population growth.

 

[AIAndy]

That's what I would like to see as well. Victoria 2 by Paradox Interactive has that kind of connection between military units and the population.

On that note, what I would love to see is a game with realistic population modelling, in terms of what food resources / production technologies are available, what population size and population growth they can support, and so on. It would be great to have a game that features the various agricultural and industrial revolutions of history, and the crises, with assorted population explosions or declines and associated rise and fall of empires (not that a larger population always means more political power, mind you - but often, it does).

The way to do this would be to model "food units" along the lines of actual calories or something to the effect, and flesh out a somewhat realistic system of what soil type can support what kind of agriculture for how long, how much food can be produced with what kind of soil, technology and system of labour, and so on and so forth. I'd volunteer to work on such a system myself if others would like to see it as well.

One option would be to go for a system that has the population itself as the major resource and running pretty much anything requires assignment of some population to the job with separation of population growth and food usage.

 

[Laskaris]

I think that most of these design decisions (about the economy, population etc.) ultimately come down to the question of whether one wants to have more of a board-game design or more of a simulationist design.

Some gamers prefer one style of game, some the other. Like everything else, it is mostly a matter of personal preference. Also, both systems have different objective pros and cons. (Vanilla) Civilization is really a board-game transferred to the PC. There is a fairly simple set of rules and a fairly simple set of calculations which govern combat, the economy and so forth. The rules and calculations don't really seek to be an accurate representation of reality, they are made up mostly for "pure gameplay" reasons like balance etc.The strength of the board-game is this "purity of design", with its simplicity and elegance.

A simulationist game, on the other hand, strives for a more accurate, more true-to-life modelling of reality. The calculations it uses are often very complex, which is why such games are only really practical on the PC with its number crunching prowess. The strength of the simulationist game is that, if designed well, it produces results that are more true-to-life and less "gamey" than the results of the board-game. I would argue that it also offers a higher immersion factor for history nuts, because what is happening feels more historically plausible.

I have played both kinds of games and find that the playstyle and "feel" is very different, obviously. With a game that has the board-game approach, I play much more like I would a board-game around the table, making calculations and planning turns in advance in a fairly rigid manner. "Okay, if my economy gives me x industrial units for y turns, then..." With a simulationist game, this is impossible because the calculations governing everything are so complicated that you as the human player can't keep track. Instead, you find yourself playing more by experience and intution. "If I do this, my economy will be able to produce more consumer goods - I don't know how much more exactly, but I know it's going to be okay for what I want to do..." In essence, I find that in a simulationist game, you behave more like an actual ruler of a polity would, who also wouldn't have near-perfect information and who would govern instead guided by hands-on experience and intuition.

Since Civilization is closer to the board-game approach, a simulationist game would be something of a break in terms of design philosophy. On the other hand, I do get the impression that many of the "hardcore players" who go for mods like C2C like the simulationist approach as well, as I do.

 

[Thunderbrd]

A very interesting, and insightfully accurate assessment Laskarsis. I believe you just nailed down the two design theories that often clash here among the development team as well.

 

[ls612]

A very interesting, and insightfully accurate assessment Laskarsis. I believe you just nailed down the two design theories that often clash here among the development team as well.

I'd be the 'boardgame' person, althouhgh I don't think of it in quite those terms. I think of it as just a game, which should be fun first, and realistic second.

 

[Laskaris]

I'd be the 'boardgame' person, althouhgh I don't think of it in quite those terms. I think of it as just a game, which should be fun first, and realistic second.

Oh, rest assured, I want games to be fun first as well! I don't view realism and fun as contradictory, but as complementary. The reason I like the simulationist approach is not that I'm some kind of realism fetishist who only wants realism for its own sake, but because I get an immersive gaming experience from a simulationist game that is a lot of fun for me.

Other gamers prefer what I call the "boardgame" approach, and that's alright - different people like different things. But it can be instructive to become aware and understand such different preferences, because it can make it easier to understand where differences of opinion about design questions come from.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

When it comes down to it, what I would really like in the end is a more realistic infrastructure to support armies by directly connecting them to populations in cities. When the soldiers die on the field, the population dies at home.

The problem in Civ IV is that population points are not the same size and that units are not related to a number of people anywhere.

I would go for when the unit is created then the population is transferred out of the city to the unit. That way there is less to worry about.

Support for the unit would come from cities/forts/supply depots.

 

[Acularius]

The problem in Civ IV is that population points are not the same size and that units are not related to a number of people anywhere.

I would go for when the unit is created then the population is transferred out of the city to the unit. That way there is less to worry about.

Support for the unit would come from cities/forts/supply depots.

That would be okay as well, generally, I think Laskaris and I have similar views, I did quite enjoy Victoria 2, although seeing PDM (POP demand Mod) team working on the the market was always a question of getting the right balance.
Another system I fell in love with was the State vs Private system illustrated by 'Distant Worlds' and to a lesser degree 'Pride of Nations'. Which I think AIAndy touched upon as an option.
I tend to enjoy the 'simulation' world, but again, I want to have fun with the game, and most importantly the people I play it with.

The State vs Private system was that the Private population, essentially your civilians, have needs. You as the State make sure you provide the means to access that demand, through infrastructure, defense (and offense), and other means.

At Laskaris, what you proposed would work in a market system, granted storage would have to be limited to non-existent, for a large amount of goods or inflation would get out of hand. [PDM's concern in the market system for Victoria 2 is largely concerned with how many 'pounds' are in the system... which is the universal form of currency in that game]
That, and how flexible is it in the VERY early stages of the game, when most trade is dealt through bartering and not a form of coinage.
Those were my concerns.
As for the military system, you would have to standardize the population size, for the sake of gameplay, and the military system could be similar to the element system in the AGEOD engine. The size of these armies will largely be determined by how well one can supply them with arms and their food, while maintaining a stable supply route (Cutting off supply routes would then be a viable tactic.)
@Dancing Hoskuld, that's a pretty good way to sum it up as well, but unused soldier populations can also be used to police the population or an emergency militia when the city is under attack. Furthermore, when one conquers a new city, one can settle his soldiers there to boost his influence in the city and gain further control over it.

@ Laskaris, on the topic of agriculture, if the tiles/hexes do employ the 'slot' system, based on ones technology, one can only place so many farms in a tile or run the risk of a 'depletion' malus that effects the tile.
Food being a unit to sustain the population, while the excess can be used to grow the population or be traded off depending on one's current level of infrastructure.
I figure goods like stone/wood/cement, could be used as a means to develop and sustain the infrastructure in an area... opening up further slot use and population expansion.

Either way, I can work with that kind of system, one just needs to be careful of the change from the barter system to a currency system which I suppose could be limited to only nations, maybe allowing a couple of currencies to float around in the game.
For the economy, in the end... I would tend to look at:
Distant Worlds: State vs Private
Victoria 2: POPs and their demands
Pride of Nations: Trade Zones (Not as many mind you. Maybe just limited to the nations and 'independent nations as a group' )
Those tend to be my biggest influence when I think of an awesome economy.
[Like a dream team kind of thing. ]

I do tend to prefer the immersion of simulation in a lot of Grand Strategy games.
I wouldn't mind, the ability of scripted land event for scenario creation to properly model the end of the Ice Age for an Earth scenario and to get the volcanoes to fire around the right time as they did historically. (Or at least the major ones)


After edit: Ah, so we were thinking on similar grounds with the finite resources and mines. Whereas I thought of a world value and a random check to close a mine every so often (incredibly rare, up until industrialism), you propose a finite value for each mining location.
Both work, in honesty though, good system... next we would need to figure out the population unit and figure out what it demands, from that you could determine how many units of a resource should be available in a system.

 

[GiuseppeIII]

kick starter anybody???

+1...

 

[rightfuture]

As I wrote in my reply to rightfuture, movement on any kind of tiled map, which happens in distinct steps, is an abstraction of one form or another. I do not take it "literally", and I do not think that we should. I do not view movement on a tiled map as one unit "driving" from one tile to another, and therefore "losing distance" if it drives across hex tiles in a zig-zagging motion. I view the movement as taking place in instantaneous, distinct steps, from the center of one tile to another. That is the abstraction of movement which we use when we play on a tiled map, where every unit is allowed to move x distinct steps per turn.

The zig-zagging movement does not change the fact that the distances of the center of one hex to the centers of the neighbouring hexes are equal, and that in this regard, hex maps have more accurate distance / movement modelling across the tiles in all directions than square tile maps.

I'm all for taking the movement as an abstraction. I'm not for condensing movement into 2 less directions, or having to plan around natural directions movements to shoehorn into terrain convenient hexes. My imagination, ability to conceive, or understanding of it's advantages in globe creation/terrain overlap are not the problem. Neither is my desire to try new things. It's the gameplay limitations of hexes that frustrate me. I like movement choices, and having more opportunities to navigate around terrain. Not less. Hexes don't improve tactical gameplay. (they make it simpler by reducing options)
Being able to move freely in any direction(8 directions), without being forced to tack to it, is a Big deal.

I understand how distances are so important, modeling globes, terrain overlap, giving an extra flanking turn radius; that is why D&D(roleplaying) settled on hexes for outdoor maps, but when they made anything that required tactics or group strategy, especially for battles, they went to tiles with 8 directions of movement. Even outdoors. Quicker, simpler, and easier games tend to hexes for strategy because they are useful for speeding up gameplay, and abstracting movement to reduce choices.
When video games use them the developers are mostly using them to save computing space, and not for their perceived strategic or tactical 'advantages'. This philosophy holds true for most games, video or board(I have played a lot of them, and love both board and simulation ones). I am a simulation and realism purist, but since all gaming is an abstraction, rules that confine any gamplay for reasons other than fun (like sacrificing gameplay for distance representation) take away from options that are natural to our real world movements.

When distances can be calculated to compensate for diagonal movement discrepancies, 8-directional tiles demonstrate the obvious directions people can go on a map, on a gps equipped phone(google maps), with a paper map, flying over a city in a plane, and pictures over with satellites. Equi-distance visualization simply does not trump movement flexibility or directional options,

Here is some more discussion on the subject:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/616113/history-of-the-hex-grid-and-boardwar-games
http://boardgamegeek.com/article/6352585#6352585
http://warlockshomebrew.blogspot.com/2011/06/grids-vs-hexes.html
The conversation goes both ways.

Here is a gem
"The main reason for hex maps is that you can move in any direction and get a pretty good approximation of the real distance from the number of hexes moved while square grids suffer from diagonal movement issues (even alternating 1 and 2 moves is only a rough approximation). I think there are two main reasons why they weren't used more. First, in the days before laser printers, it was hard to find hex paper and it was often expensive. Second, it can be difficult to represent square or rectangular rooms, buildings, and hallways on top of hexes. One direction is always going to cut against the grain of the hexes. In wilderness settings, there are fewer right-angles to worry about."
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23021

Here is another good one, this time from a 2k forums discussion before Civ V:
"The main reasons most military boardgames went to hexes like forty years ago is that it regulates movement of units far more effectively than squares can. If you move diagonally on squares you cover much more territory in less time.

Another advantage may be that you don't wind up with as much dead space in the middle of your kingdom. By this I mean that you will be less likely to have to significantly overlap cities at times to take full advantage of available terrain and associated bonuses."

and

"If you compare the geometry of the two shapes...

http://image.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/4/45/45-45-triangle.svg.png

http://www.zaimoni.com/grafx/UnitCircleW_InscribedHexagon.gif

The answer is quite clear.

When traveling diagonally in the square grid system your units are traveling at the speed of:

unitSpeed = length of the square's edge

unitSpeed x 2^(1/2)

note, 2^(1/2) ~ 1.414 > 1

when traveling vertiacally or horizontally however, your speed would just be:

unitSpeed x 1

Thus, a unit moving diagonally in the square grid system covers a larger distance in the same amount of time as one traveling vertically or horizontally. Since, in Civ 4, there is no compensation for this, it essentially unbalances the game or at the very least, makes it an exploitable feature.

However, with the hexagon geometry every movement direction choice is equidistant. The result is a more balanced and less exploitable game mechanic.

EDIT: I just realized like 5 people before me said exactly what I have just attempted to prove."
http://forums.2kgames.com/archive/index.php/t-61321.html

All great reasons to consider hexes.

IF you want to go deeper into game design reasons:
http://books.google.com/books?id=UM...X&ei=G_4FUeqjAcnkygH2j4DYDA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwATge
worth reading a few pages

and here is another good comparison:


"The grain of the hex as the man said kills hex as a real feature driver. Go look at a 1/50000 scale map even better 1/25000 scale. The roads cannot be sensibly fitted to a hex map and give the same fields of fire. You cant get a strait road in other than 6 orientations."

That's a very good example.

I suppose one can look at it this way:

Rulers/Templates = analog…infinite possibilities with respect to position, angle, etc. which is both a curse (people start measuring tiny little yet crucial distances which could be changed with a bump of the table or stand slipping down a slope) and a blessing (you could achieve near perfection in terrain presentation but even then most ground scales make a mockery of terrain representation anyway.)

Hexes/Squares = digital…(very!) limited possibilities with respect to position, engle, etc. which is also a curse (your terrain must conform to the grid and units can't face one another at any angle) and a blessing (absolute 100% precision with respect to relative position, distance, angle, etc.)"

"So the question is in modelling the real world have you got your parameters wrong. Terrain is normally the key. If you are compromising that more than is necessary then you need to look at the parameter weighting of the model. A model like a chain is only as good as its weakest link. "Super accurate" modelling (even if its more accurate and not just badly designed ill weighted parametrics (see m240 above) of one section of the model compared to all the rest in the end has minimal effect on overall accuracy.

So as before hex makes excellent modular hills but should not drive everything."

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=160088

So I say for map simulation hexes are the best fit,
For movement simulation 8 directional tiles give more options and positions of units around each other, as well as more accurate directions and control.

It almost all normal cases we give directions to others in 8 directions, go to the NE, or the SW, that building lies to the east.
Board games and strategy games tend to use hexes
-for distance calculation accuracy (can be calculated behind the scenes -visualization not necessary)
-to simulate natural (rounded) terrain,
-to make programming simpler and
-to limit movement options to make strategy quicker. (biggest problem I see)

In the real world military a grid is used. In actual military wargames, hexes are sometimes used to simplify strategic planning. Actual War uses grids.
IF C2C is just a board-game that simplifies gameplay to make things easier then by all means use hexes to simplify programming, player movement options, and combat.
IF C2C is also a simulation and the depth of the gameplay options is important, then 8 directional movement gives more natural maneuvering options (try playing chess with hexes).
I think C2C should be more of playable simulation, than a representational board-game.
The approximations, abstractions, representations, and simulations are there to immerse you in a deeper, more involved gameplay, which connects you to the experience of controlling your own civilization. The rules should free and expand your options, (not limit them to 6 movements), and immerse you in meaningful choices that you manage(automate, group, build order, and direct) so that you can control the details you want to instead of being lost in the rules(needless micromanagement, constraining rules, limited options.) The goal is to keep improving the experience.
Which direction is it that you really want to go?
More simulation? or more simplified boardgame?

In the real world, maps are almost always used in a grid, .
Movement choices are 'literally' usually described in 8 directions - not 6. Try giving directions in 6 directions in normal english for complicated directional discussions, you will miss the use of e,w or n,s for ease of use.
There is a reason why hexes are used in games, and everywhere else, grids. It is for maximum simplification of strategic detail. That is why it is used.

My solution would be to have the hex grid for terrain/climate fall beneath a grid (8 directional) movement map. Or just superimpose a hexagon over hexes for movement (just an idea-possibly less workable).
Then we can always see which direction units are actually going in (and the game calculates distance computationally behind the scenes.)
This way unit positioning is naturally and visually lined up in more strategic directions (8).

Choices of unit positioning was my biggest functional problem with CIV 5.
This is why 8 directional tile movement is superior to hex movement (and more often chosen for more positioning of units).

Please consider this as well as my other previous arguments.
I vote more immersive simulation.

 

[Laskaris]

@ rightfuture: As I remarked earlier, the squares vs. hexes debate is one that has gone on forever in the gaming community, where one side will never convince the other. It comes down to personal preference. I think it is a rather pointless discussion, to be honest, especially if we aren't able to condense our arguments to posts of less than 1.500 words.

Skimming over your last comment, it seems to me that it rests largely on two premises: 1. That Civilization / C2C is a tactical wargame and therefore movement should be optimised for tactical movement, and 2. That squares are superior to hexes when it comes to tactical movement. I would argue that both premises are false. In Civilization, units represent entire armies rather than battlalions or companies, and turns take years. That's a strategic game, not a tactical one. With the super-large maps Koshling is planning to accomodate for, we might be able to get that down to the divisional / operational level, but even then combat would still be strategic / operational rather than tactical. As for the second premise, since there are numerous, small-unit tactical wargames that use hex maps, I would argue that it is false as well.

But, like I said, I think we can talk here for 100 posts without convincing the other. Everyone is entitled to their preferences. I think both of us have made ours very clear, and that it is time to move on to different topics.

 

[Laskaris]

For the economy, in the end... I would tend to look at:
Distant Worlds: State vs Private
Victoria 2: POPs and their demands
Pride of Nations: Trade Zones (Not as many mind you. Maybe just limited to the nations and 'independent nations as a group' )
Those tend to be my biggest influence when I think of an awesome economy.
[Like a dream team kind of thing. ]

I'm only really familiar with Victoria 2, but will look at the other games you mention.

Generally speaking, I would like to see a game that has a more detailed modelling of the population than Civilization / C2C had. Empires often rise and fall because of demographic changes (population growth, urbanisation, impoverishment of the middle class, "class struggle", over-aging etc.). I think it would be fascinating to be able to model things like the industrial revolution or globalization in a game, and not just in terms of "We have steam engines now and are able to see the whole world map", but in terms of how such developments thoroughly change a society and the way people live. Then, these developments would be a real challenge for the ruler / player, as they are for real rulers.

The trick is to design a system that lets the PC handle all the number crunching in the background while being simple enough for the human player to fundamentally understand. I do think that this is possible. Actually, Victoria 2 had a lot more sales success than the developers had anticipated given the fact that it is a fairly complex game with lots of detail on "unsexy" things like population and economy rather than warfare.

For starters, a system that differentiates population along different social classes and occupations would be neat. Farmers tend the farms, labourers work the mines and gather various other resources, soldiers man the armies, bureaucrats administer everytjing, et cetera. The question is, what assortment of such population groups would we need to do a fairly complex simulation here (including the modelling of pre-modern societies like horse nomads!), while keeping it wieldy enough to be manageable. That would be one compromise that has to be nailed down.

 

[Acularius]

I'm only really familiar with Victoria 2, but will look at the other games you mention.

Generally speaking, I would like to see a game that has a more detailed modelling of the population than Civilization / C2C had. Empires often rise and fall because of demographic changes (population growth, urbanisation, impoverishment of the middle class, "class struggle", over-aging etc.). I think it would be fascinating to be able to model things like the industrial revolution or globalization in a game, and not just in terms of "We have steam engines now and are able to see the whole world map", but in terms of how such developments thoroughly change a society and the way people live. Then, these developments would be a real challenge for the ruler / player, as they are for real rulers.

The trick is to design a system that lets the PC handle all the number crunching in the background while being simple enough for the human player to fundamentally understand. I do think that this is possible. Actually, Victoria 2 had a lot more sales success than the developers had anticipated given the fact that it is a fairly complex game with lots of detail on "unsexy" things like population and economy rather than warfare.

For starters, a system that differentiates population along different social classes and occupations would be neat. Farmers tend the farms, labourers work the mines and gather various other resources, soldiers man the armies, bureaucrats administer everytjing, et cetera. The question is, what assortment of such population groups would we need to do a fairly complex simulation here (including the modelling of pre-modern societies like horse nomads!), while keeping it wieldy enough to be manageable. That would be one compromise that has to be nailed down.

That was actually my initial outlook on the population demographics, where merchants form trade nodes between cities, and the ruling class provide varying bonuses and maluses which would be fairly straightforward.
Granted early game, the player would be a tribe and as the population grows, other tribes would break off from his, further seeding the environment with humans... as the Ice Age tapers off and sea levels rise, the tribes have about 45000 years to cross the Bering Strait into North America, and the lower sea levels into Australia (hence my askance of scripted land). Settling the Fertile Crescent, where a HUGE amount of domesticated flora and fauna are present, could give way to an early lead into the game, or one could come across the Horse in the Ukraine (or the Urals) which lead to the change of the matriarchal societies in Europe, to the more patriarchal one that had domesticated the Horse. Leaving your mark on the development of the world essentially.
Either way, these land masses could be colonized after these events with boats coming into play, but it would be interesting to see how a world would develop if there was no human interference in North America. [Scenario specific question, and if the start date was around 50k BCE as it is currently.]
You can choose to settle, or you can continue the nomadic existence, specifically in the plains of the Urals for example.
Basically, if problems happen in the far East, with a tribe pushing another tribe, which then pushed another tribe off its land... they could escalate into something akin to the Migration period into Europe, where the Nomads and soldiers of these cultural groups may settle in the pre existing population centres and surrounding land while supplanting the existing laws and social structure.

 

[Laskaris]

@ Acularius: The great thing about Civilization / C2C is that we are not limiting ourselves to playing on Earth, or worlds that have a similar continental layout to Earth. On a world that has one huge pangaea supercontinent, history would develop quite differently. Domesticated crops and animals would spread all across the continent. There would not be an "old world" where civilization has a head start and a "new world" which falls behind. Instead, civilzations across the world would develop much more in tandem.

With primem0ver's GeoRealism map generator, we are trying to develop a tool that should eventually be able to place "wild" versions of domesticable crops and animals (wheat, rice, sheep, horses etc.) in geographically plausible locations at the beginning of the game. There, they would be domesticated by humans, and their use would spread to neighbouring societies, just like agriculture and animal husbandry spread from the Fertile Crescent, the Indus river region or the big Chinese rivers in the real world.

So, certain societies that are, by coincidence, placed in geographically favourable locations at the beginning of the game, with a good domesticable crop and animal "package", will have a head start. This would be a problem in a standard Civilization game, because societies with less favourable starting locations would not be able to catch up. In the game I envision, however, this would be possible, and societies that develop more slowly in the beginning could eventually overthrow the old civilizations. Think of the Germanic tribes that overthrew the Roman Empire and repaced it with their Germanic kingdoms, or the nomadic Mongols who conquered China in the 13th century and founded a new dynasty there, or the Turkic tribes who came to India and founded the Mughal Empire. Examples of "lesser" societies overthrowing and replacing more "advanced" ones exist aplenty.

The way this could work is that, in societies which are very powerful and unchallenged by any rivals, research and development slows down. People become complacent and eventually decadent. The society stagnates. Other, more dynamic societies on the outskirts can catch up and get a chance to overthrow the stagnant old empires. I think tying research and development to competition between societies like that would be a fascinating idea.

The result would be a game that is a lot more dynamic and less linear than standard Civilization. In Civilization, societies all across the planet develop in fairly parallel ways, which is not just unhistorical, but makes for a one-dimensional game. In the game I would like to create, your society could take all kinds of different paths. You could be among the first, old civilizations of the world. Or you could be a society of "barbarian" tribes on their outskirts, raiding the advanced civilizations and perhaps eventually overthrowing and replacing them if they stagnate too much. Similarly, later in the game, you could be among the first societies which, with the right ingredients, accomplish an industrial revolution. Or you could be a stagnant old empire which is overtaken and exploited by the new industrial powers, undergoes painful strife and reform, and eventually overtakes its rivals again, like modern China is doing today.

 

[Acularius]

@Laskaris, I tend to use Earth as a reference when describing mechanics because it is the common thing we can think upon.

I tend to think that demographics themselves will put pressures on the older empires, borders being much harder to control when only one nation is controlling them, the Roman limes being a prime example of a civilization realizing its limits and moving to a more defensive posture since the gains of conquering new land were outstripping the means to support it.
I would say development slows, but not technological achievement, an bureaucracy or a patrician class can easily change into a more aristocratic class (or an equally conservative force, coupled with bad education)... if the newer civilizations put pressure on the older advanced civilizations, they could cause the walling up of urban centers and the collapse of much trade due to roving bands of angry 'barbarians'... much similar to how the limes of the Western Roman Empire ultimately failed in keeping the barbarians out, with much of the army on the borders... once a large enough 'band' punched through they had easy pickings throughout much of the Empire.
The Chinese, had their problems as well, and were not as stable or homogeneous, as they have their own internal problems which is seen in a fair amount of foreign dynasties mixed with native ones.
So the option of accepting a foreign culture into your own patchwork should be possible, allowing syncretic possibilities.
Essentially custom (dynamic) religion and from that, 'cultures' and a dynamic 'trait' system of my culture is what I'm proposing... a powerful heresy (like Christianity, and from that the further divides within it) could very much become a religion in its own right, often shaping the cultures that follow it... while being shaped by the society it came from.
An example I can think of is the caste society that is found in the Hindu religion was believed to have come from the Aryans that had conquered the inhabitants of the Ganges delta.

I also tend to view technology as something that wasn't state sponsored until the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution... so its largely in the hands of your citizens, their demands, environment, education and local infrastructure.
Which will also keep in check the more 'advanced' nations, they might have had an early lead in domestication of flora and fauna as well as early metallurgy, these ideas would spread rapidly into neighbouring tribes and peoples who could potentially find the next step into more efficient mining, farming, infrastructure building (roads, buildings, manufacturing...), etc. through the early systems of trade.
It'll also provide a natural 'slower' for the advanced nations as they may make a series of discoveries only to find that they themselves cannot afford to take advantage of it... such as learning to prospect (to find) and work Iron without any sources of iron nearby.

Once you have a sufficient means of centralizing your nation, you could potentially stall the spread of ideas... such as the Chinese attempted to do with Gunpowder and Silk, the former to a lesser degree of success than the latter... although some monks from the Byzantine Empire did manage to smuggle it out (the silk that is).

On a side note, a Pangaea map would be interesting, to see how it develops.

Dark Ages can be simulated by the loss of infrastructure or the ability to keep the knowledge intact.

Edit: I'll probably mull over this as I walk the dog... cold air is good that way. The freezing rain though I could do without. XD