Possible new civilization game: make our own!

[nick0515]

Rather than civics as they are in Civ4, I'd like Civ3-like governments, which can be styled using civics, and only certain civics can be available to each government. So, for example, Democracy would not be able to run a police state, whereas Communism or Fascism would, and within a Monarchy, you could specify, for example, whether it is a Constitutional Monarchy or an Absolute Monarchy. Governments will have set things like corruption and unit support, which can only slightly be changed by civics, and would take much longer for anarchy (say, up to about 7 turns, as in current Civ3), whereas civics aren't as powerful, but only take a couple of turns (so, if you've got a major problem, they can be used to dilute the problem without going into full blown anarchy, but they may not actually cure the problem as a government change might)

This would be great. It would be especially great if it was completely modable, ie that you can add both new govts and new civics. It would be great to be able to customise within a govt type with civics eg Communism - Stalinism or Libertarian Communism.

How about Governments and Economies, a la SMAC?

Best,

Oz

Also a great idea. There are so many economic models that can exist often within different political contexts.

 

[Steph]

Screenshot of the day.

Shows more terrain, without the grid and the coordinates.

When a unit is selected, the selection circle is displayed in the faction colour, and information is displayed on the right.

You can have several units in the same tile, right click shows a menu with the list of units with their icon. Selecting one of them make it active, and it's displayed on the map.




Now, a small explanation of how the battle with work. Example with two players A and B (there could be more than 2), and preplaced units.

Phase 1 : Initial Orders
Each player can give order to every unit. You must select the order before knowing the results!
Orders can be:
- Preparation fire: select a target (a unit or a tile)
- Move : select destination tiles and path
- Charge: select destination tiles and path.
- Defensive fire : select a target (a unit or a tile)
- Defend

When ready, hit next

Phase 2 : Preparation fire
Every unit with the preparation fire order shoot simulatenously. The resolution is done unit by unit, in an order determine by ROF / initiative (fastest unit shoot first).
Once they start shooting, you cannot really control what happen. It means if you have 3 units and the ennemy 3, and you order all your 3 units to fire at one of his, but the first one kills it, then the two others units have wasted fire. It may have been wiser to ask each of your units to fire at an ennemy unit.

Preparation fire is done at full strength. If the target is a unit, it's hit full strength. If it's a tile, it's less efficient, but it can damage every unit in the tile, including hidden units.

Phase 3 : Charge
Every unit with the charge or move order moves simultaneously, by small increment of time, until they reach their destination or "bump" into an ennemy unit (then both units are stopped). as the speed of units is different, and terrain cost is different, you cannot really be sure of what will happen.
Charging units are going faster, but have some restriction.

During this phase: if a unit moves and his the target of a unit with defensive fire order, it can be shoot. It can also be shoot if it enters a tile with his the target of a unit with defensive fire order.
The movement is interrupted to resolve the range attack, and it could stop the movement.

Phase 3 : Second order phase
Once all the movement have been resolved, you can give new orders:
- Advanced fire, only for units which moved (not charge)
- Melee : for units which are adjacent to ennemy
- Withdraw: kind of move

Phase 4 : Second resolution
Advanced fire: done at reduced strength has the unit moved
Withdraw: can try to move away from Melee. If it doesn't succeed (ennemy unit is faster or more experienced), they it will give a penaly in the melee
Melee: close combat rule, with simultaneous resolution.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Very nice! Did you make the terrain?

 

[Steph]

The cliffs were started by Bhiita and completed by a French artist.

Mountains and rivers are from CivIII with a little cut & paste.

The trees are individual tree graphics taken from American Conquest. Yes, the forest is dynamically built by combining several tree graphics, and with 3 density : light, medium, heavy.

 

[da3dalus]

Looks very interesting. I like how you have "formations" by allowing more than 1 unit in a tile.

This begs a question about directions -- will you be able to "wheel" units, so that they're facing in different directions? In your screenshot all units are facing southwest which means their flanks would be vulnerable from the southeast and northwest, etc. If you are planning on adding this kind of support to the tactical battles that would increase the game depth IMMENSELY, because now formations would actually be very important and you might want to deploy your armies so that the infantry's flanks are protected by cavalry, etc.

PS: The forests look wonderful, great idea on the densities and dynamic creation!

 

[Steph]

A small precision; "formation" is not done with several units in the tile, but with one unit made of several sprites. And the sprites will died when the unit loses HP.

I think I can have the facing of units play a role.

However, I'm not ready to have different types of formation, such as square. So I'm not sure it will work very well.

Beside, this pause an interesting question. Suppose a unit is facing S, and is attack from the N. Should it immediately turn to face the N attacker (and the melee animation looks correct)? What if it's attack from both side at the same time? Should it even be possible?

 

[da3dalus]

A small precision; "formation" is not done with several units in the tile, but with one unit made of several sprites. And the sprites will died when the unit loses HP.

Ah I see, that's brilliant. Much more aesthetically pleasing than the HP Bar in Civ.

Beside, this pause an interesting question. Suppose a unit is facing S, and is attack from the N. Should it immediately turn to face the N attacker (and the melee animation looks correct)? What if it's attack from both side at the same time? Should it even be possible?

I don't think that it should necessarily turn to face the attacker from the north. This should only happen if the unit being attacked has movement points left (IE you didn't issue them orders to move or fire). That way you and your opponent issue their orders before action and if you made a tactical mistake and marched your arquebusiers out of line, their flank would be exposed to withering fire from an enemy unit. However, if you left a unit on the right side of the line without issuing any orders and your oponent attempts to attack it on the flank, since this unit hasn't moved yet it should automatically wheel to the right to face its attacker and return fire.

Regarding two directions at once, I don't think it should be possible to return fire to both at the same time. I think historically it was very difficult to issue orders to wheel, present and fire in the heat of battle, so it would be unlikely for a unit to have half the soldiers face right and half face left to address both threats. I think the unit should be able to face one of the attackers and return fire but not both. This would give you a VERY strong tactical incentive to always protect your units from being outflanked or attacked from behind, as in real life this situation would have been devastating.

 

[Steph]

Firing unit is not a problem. I can easily keep a unit facing S when it is shoot at from the North. The problem is when your unit is encircled, and is attacked in melee from both side.

 

[da3dalus]

Ah, I see. I suppose in real life if a unit were attacked on two sides in melee, the soldiers would turn to face the threat and fight with swords/bayonettes.

This makes me think of the Schiltron. All directions have outward facing pikemen. Would your engine be able to render the outer line of infantry facing different directions, or do all sprites have to face the same way?

If you can find a way to render something like the Schiltron, it shouldn't be to difficult after that to fix the issue with the melee attack from two different directions...

 

[Mad Man]

I'm happy to see your still working on this. Keep up the good work

 

[Steph]

This makes me think of the Schiltron. All directions have outward facing pikemen. Would your engine be able to render the outer line of infantry facing different directions, or do all sprites have to face the same way?
If you can find a way to render something like the Schiltron, it shouldn't be to difficult after that to fix the issue with the melee attack from two different directions...

It's the same as square formation. In theory, I can have any sprites in any direction, and possibly with different animation. For instance, sprites in the 2nd line can fire while the one in the first line uses their bayonet.
The main difficulty is to find which sprite should face N or S. I'll have to think about it.

 

[da3dalus]

I see what you mean, kind of tough to write out in code I suppose. Seriously man, this looks really promising. I'd love to volunteer my time to help out in any way I can (as I'm sure a lot of people on this forum would too ^_^).

 

[Steph]

A little update: I have finished to put in place the saving and loading of the rules and map.

It means I will now start to implement the real game mechanism, all the basic steps are done.

 

[JSnider]

Nice to see continuing progress here .. hope no gremlins appear in the works as this progresses.

 

[kairob]

Congrats man!

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

I'd rather have experience for my units, but depending on what you are doing rather then promotion system of CIV.

In CIV, you can have a unit which fight several turns in a desert and get the Woodland promotion...

So instead, a unit can have a bonus in a terrain, once it fight long enough in said terrain.

You do realize that there are several promotions you can get when you win one, and you can choose which promotion you get, right? Also, this link shows all the promotions there are in Civilization IV.

Also, did you consider my Diplomacy theme idea?

Some more ideas:

-There can be multiple leaders for 1 civilization, with each leader having different traits. Thus, for France, there could be 2 leaders: Louis XIV (Industrious/Creative) and Napoleon (Organized/Charismatic).
-The source code would be layed out for everyone to see, rather than just hiding the source code away like Civ3.
-Mods can be loaded without modifying the original game.

I can understand if you want your game to be more like Civilization III. However I would like to consider at least 1 of my ideas.

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

Rather than civics as they are in Civ4, I'd like Civ3-like governments, which can be styled using civics, and only certain civics can be available to each government. So, for example, Democracy would not be able to run a police state, whereas Communism or Fascism would, and within a Monarchy, you could specify, for example, whether it is a Constitutional Monarchy or an Absolute Monarchy. Governments will have set things like corruption and unit support, which can only slightly be changed by civics, and would take much longer for anarchy (say, up to about 7 turns, as in current Civ3), whereas civics aren't as powerful, but only take a couple of turns (so, if you've got a major problem, they can be used to dilute the problem without going into full blown anarchy, but they may not actually cure the problem as a government change might)

Universal Suffrage and Police State are both government civics, and thus, you can't get both civics at once.

 

[Steph]

You do realize that there are several promotions you can get when you win one, and you can choose which promotion you get, right?

That is the problem. You can choose a promotion which has nothing to do with what your units actually experienced.

-There can be multiple leaders for 1 civilization, with each leader having different traits. Thus, for France, there could be 2 leaders: Louis XIV (Industrious/Creative) and Napoleon (Organized/Charismatic).

For scenarios, leaders are interesting, but I dislike them for epic game.

-The source code would be layed out for everyone to see, rather than just hiding the source code away like Civ3.

I don't really believe in full open source. This could be a little chaotic.

-Mods can be loaded without modifying the original game.

What do you mean?

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

I don't really believe in full open source. This could be a little chaotic.

Wouldn't that somewhat defeat the entire purpose of this idea, since the idea for your game was created when Firaxis refused to release the Civ3 Source Code to us? I mean, what if I want to add something like rebellions occuring, and I can't find the code for your game?

 

[da3dalus]

Wouldn't that somewhat defeat the entire purpose of this idea, since the idea for your game was created when Firaxis refused to release the Civ3 Source Code to us? I mean, what if I want to add something like rebellions occuring, and I can't find the code for your game?

This would only defeat the entire purpose of the idea if Steph released the game and then dissappeared entirely and never answered any questions, fixed any bugs or made any modifications to the source to cater to MODer's requests...

He also said he doesn't believe in FULL open source, which to me indicates that he may release some of it as open source (perhaps just certain parts of game mechanics like the AI as a separate DLL that you can recompile...I dunno).

Besides, it's Stephs code, and Steph's game, and it's his perogative as to what source does or doesn't get released to the general public.