Possible new civilization game: make our own!

[QXZJ16]

I think this is a great idea and though I would love to help, I can't do anything more than make suggestions as a casual CIV player and modder.

The main thing should be that there aren't limits on the game, like limited numbers of units, buildings, civs, cities, whatever. You want to leave everything open so you can add more later. Like if you can't decide whether to put Canada or Australia into your modern scenario, you can do both because there's no limit on civs.

I think an effort should be made to make each civilization very unique; for example flavor units and buildings. So probably at the beginning there will be very few civs, but room for alot of expansion later.

Also the addition of canals into the game would be a great concept. The ability to build the Suez Canal without destroying Alexandria and Cairo's production would be nice, and this also ties in to the desire to rework production and population.

I also think there should be a way for civilizations to import more things, not just resources, like the United States exporting old F-4 Phantoms all over the world. This would add to the ability of a less advanced civ or one which is resourceless to compete in the modern world.

 

[general-jcl]

It would be great if the game could deal with nomad civs during ancient and medieval times. Perhaps in having some "moving" cities. We couldn't build anything but units in those kind of cities.

 

[JSnider]

Hmm quiet on this lately, one thing, don't know if asked or recommended before, but would like to set up barbarians to morph through the ages (or when a certain tech is researched) into different units/groups. They may become less prevalent but have the ability to always be there disrupting a civ. In effect want the center of unrest to be able to show up within a civs area as an alternative in later ages as part of the design.
Also would it be possible to have a civ contract in controlled area based on social events? Right now the controlled area just expands as city grows, but if say some social upheaval occurs could the area of control be made to contract and thus a civ decline in power and control .. would also say let more barbarians/peasant revolts/warlords show up in the space vacated. Oh also the number of units disbanded per turn needs to be based on funds/resources/power to support and not 1 a turn (if I recall correctly for civ3). Thus could lose 10-20-or more units when power goes down.

Have fun and enjoy

 

[Steph]

I am a bit worried that so many changes in all aspects of the game will take longer to implement, and in the end the game will not be at all like civ3. The success of freeciv was due to the fact that it aimed at being a better civ2. It allows for more nations, and have other things such as borders, but the basic game is civ2. Perhaps this project should have an analogous aim.

That would be true if we had the source code of Civ3. As we won't have it, trying to remake CivIII could take in fact more time than rethinking some parts. Especially if we want to reproduce the errors. Some are so strange that retro engineering them would take ages.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

I think the basic game(epic game) and what it should have and not have in it should be talked about here. That was the aim of my first post.

I happen to think ages are a part of civ and should be part of the game. Without them, there is no civ. Its the best part of civ, but in Civ3 its too simplified. Empire Earth 1 and 2 were examples of how it should work.

 

[Taras Bulba]

I'm just curious.... what would you guys think of instead of a turn by turn based game, we try a real-time game. That would fix this whole age problem we're having.... kind of.... maybe.... there's a chance... but still, you get my point

I thought a real-time civ might be interesting.... but I'm not sure if its worth it, it would be a big change.

 

[Steph]

I'm against a real time civ. Civ is fun because it is turn based, and you have time to to things and plan them.
Beside, programming a turn base game is easier than a RTS.
However, the game does not need to follow the same pattern of turns as Civ.

Regarding era... I think the first question should be "what should be the real game effect of changing era?"

 

[CiaranB123]

I'm against a real time civ. Civ is fun because it is turn based, and you have time to to things and plan them.
Beside, programming a turn base game is easier than a RTS.

I agree with this

 

[wolf_brother]

Regarding era... I think the first question should be "what should be the real game effect of changing era?"

Well, most eras end in either one of two separate ways; a dark age, or a golden age. Perhaps there's some sort of way of implementing this in game?

Say for example that you are the first civilization to lead the world into the Atomic Age; you get some sort of bonus for it - perhaps not as powerful as what currently happens in civ3, but something along those lines.

However, if another player leads the world into the Atomic Age and you're X amount of techs behind from this same feat, you enter into some sort of Dark Age as punishment. Not something entirely crippling, because that wouldn't be fun or helpful at all, but enough of a bother to make being tech leader worth and interesting. I can't even count the number of games I've played, even in mods, where you can get anywhere from four to a dozen techs behind the 'power-house' civs and still kick their butt.

 

[jony_malcatra]

The graphics are very beautiful. The idea of different density of the forest is great, it can make real big forests. Did you said that the map is 1900x1200 tiles?
In witch part is your project? Is there any prevision of finish?

I have an idea for you work. I know that it don't matters to the mechanism of the new game but I saw the graphics and presumed that the artist is very nice. I think that mines should be a continuation of the cities. Factories comes together with more residences, so, a productive city must be bigger. With this, it would be able to connect two cities with the mines, creating a metropolitan region. (Like happens with many big cities in the world)

PS: Is it possible to expand the map from 362x362 on the normal Civ3?

 

[Steph]

The graphics are very beautiful. The idea of different density of the forest is great, it can make real big forests. Did you said that the map is 1900x1200 tiles?

No, my screen resolution is 1900x1200.

PS: Is it possible to expand the map from 362x362 on the normal Civ3?

I'm afraid it's hardcoded.

 

[jony_malcatra]

I went to your Group Memberships and found the project listed, but I search on google and forum search for this and couldn't find. where should i put the name of the project to find the other thread?
Thanks.

 

[Taras Bulba]

Regarding era... I think the first question should be "what should be the real game effect of changing era?"

well.. I was just curious

I wasn't really sure how a RTS would work with Civ III anyway, if at all
maybe there could be some sort of effect that after you research a tech or combination of techs you enter a new era (but are not allowed techs from that new era until you enter it)
for example, your stone age builds up and builds up until you learn bronze working, and you enter the bronze age. Which builds up and builds up until you research Iron working, and you enter the new age.

I also believe that there should be a chance of simply assimilating a technology, or when 1 civ (or multiple civs) learn a technology, it becomes A LOT easier to research. Or simply it doesn't take the tech to build what you can earn from resources from that tech.
for example, the Iroquois didn't have the power to really make gunpowder, but they still used rifles and muskets when skirmishing because they traded for them. If you get what I'm saying


I just want to bring in aspects that occur in real life that aren't in Civ III.... such as the fact that the industrial revolution spread from England to Europe to USA to Asia, etc... or how the Renaissance started in Italy and spread from there, etc... How civilizations try to "catch up" when they fall behind in technology, like Poland did after WWII, or what Japan did during the Meiji Era (I believe that was it) Any other ideas how that could be obtained... I'm not very clever when it comes to programing... you guys are quite a bit better at it than I am

 

[Steph]

I also believe that there should be a chance of simply assimilating a technology, or when 1 civ (or multiple civs) learn a technology, it becomes A LOT easier to research.
..
I just want to bring in aspects that occur in real life that aren't in Civ III....

This already exists in CivIII. A tech is more expensive if no other civ has discovered it yet.

IMO, the civ systm is stupid because:
a) You can research only one tech at a time
b) You know what you are researching. Imagine the king in his Palace:" My good wise men, I want you to discover the wheel". "And what is that?" "I don't know, but it will allow us to build charriot!" "Oh, that's clever, will start researching it at once! ... What is a charriot by the way?"

I'd rather have a system of simultaneous and progressive discovery of techs, that will then release new units/buildings, etc.

Example: if you have horses resources, you get 1 tech point in the "mounted" warfare" tech / resource. If you exploit it (build a farm), you get 2 points.

For every mounted unit build, you get 1 point, etc.

When you reach 100, you have "mounted warfare level 1" and can build horsemen. When you reach 200, you have level 2 and can build horse archer..

With iron deposit, you gain point in "metallurgy" or "armory".

To build knights, you need "mounted warfare level 4" + "armory level 4" + "feodalism", etc.

 

[Keroro]

Haven't really had much time to post recently, but I've been reading with interest. I agree with Varwnos, that the basic game should be similar to Civ 3, with extra features taken from the best other games of the genre. Blind research and social engineering (like civics in Civ 4) were features of Alpha Centauri, I'd love to see them make a comeback in any future game. Revolts were one of my favorite features of Civ 2, I'd love to see them again. Promotions and the way you utilise resources in Civ 4 are cool.

Your thoughts on how to implement research are interesting, and could work pretty well I think. It would allow civs to develop in very different directions depending on the resoures they had available. I think, however, that keeping the traditional kind of research that you do in Civ 2 or 3 would also be important so that players who were used to the old games could pick yours up and be familiar with it. What I'm imagining is: You have your 'normal' research as it would be in civ 3, then your access to various resources and utilisation of them (like the farm or pasture you build for horses) will multiply the effect of the normal research in that particular area. So if you had lots of horse resources then the research that is going into domestication and cavalry areas would be multiplied. Maybe a 25% increase for each horse resource you had, an additional 24% for each farm on a horse, so 4 horses with farms would multiply your standard research in that area by 200%. Hope this makes sense...

I'd support a turn-based game over a RTS personally. Nothing against an RTS, but it's not really why I play civ. I'm imagine that you would already have these planned, but an events editor and the absence of any hard-coded limits on numbers of civs etc. would be great. Also, and I'm certain that you have this planned, but please make sure that we can use all of the great units and other graphics that have been made for civ 3 already, and please keep things in 2D for the benefit of slower computers.

 

[Steph]

Haven't really had much time to post recently, but I've been reading with interest. I agree with Varwnos, that the basic game should be similar to Civ 3, with extra features taken from the best other games of the genre. Blind research and social engineering (like civics in Civ 4) were features of Alpha Centauri, I'd love to see them make a comeback in any future game. Revolts were one of my favorite features of Civ 2, I'd love to see them again. Promotions and the way you utilise resources in Civ 4 are cool.

I want to having something roughly similar to civIII in terms of game possibility, but I don't want to use CivIII as a base for the mechanism behind, because I don't want to be stuck with a faulty design.

And as I don't have the source code, there is no reason to stick to civIII.

I guess what I'm trying to say is we should think in terms of "how do we want it to be?" and not "how should we modify CivIII".

Your thoughts on how to implement research are interesting, and could work pretty well I think. It would allow civs to develop in very different directions depending on the resoures they had available. I think, however, that keeping the traditional kind of research that you do in Civ 2 or 3 would also be important so that players who were used to the old games could pick yours up and be familiar with it. What I'm imagining is: You have your 'normal' research as it would be in civ 3, then your access to various resources and utilisation of them (like the farm or pasture you build for horses) will multiply the effect of the normal research in that particular area.

Well, the research mechanism of CivIII is a very stupid one, so I will definitely not reuse it. I'm more for something like in Hear of Iron, but less complex.

And a bit blind. I think you can direct research in main fields, such as "science", "industry", "religion", but not be able to pick exactly what you want to research, EXCEPT if you already know it.

So you shouldn't be able to explicitly decide to research horseback riding, until you have met ennemy horse units.

So, either you wait for horseback riding to be discovered "naturally", or you can research it faster when you know it.

And research should some kind of randmoness also. Who will discover the atomic bomb first? America, or Germany?

This would also add to replayability, as from one game to another the research will not unfold the same way, depending on what you are doing, what resources you have...

I'm imagine that you would already have these planned, but an events editor and the absence of any hard-coded limits on numbers of civs etc. would be great.

There will always be an hardcoded limit to keep performances and memory usage acceptable, but it will remain opened.
For instance, I could put a limit to era, but it won't be an abritrary 4, but rather something like 256. A number high enough so modder should normally not reach the limit.
And anyway, the limits would be done in such a way I could easily increase it in a patch if necessary.

Also, and I'm certain that you have this planned, but please make sure that we can use all of the great units and other graphics that have been made for civ 3 already, and please keep things in 2D for the benefit of slower computers.

So far, only the unit graphics can be reused. For the map, the map engine is to different to allow using existing graphics.
For leaderhead, tech icons, buildings, etc, I don't know yet how I'll make it work. So I'll try to reuse existing graphics, except if it would put to many limitations.

The game is 2D. For once, I don't know how to program 3D

 

[Ondskan]

I'm curious...Did you know about these sites:

http://www.rjcyberware.com/md/about.html
http://clash.apolyton.net/frame/


There's two more Civilization Evolution and Free Civ but the prior attempts to only fix Civ II and the later is an open source project.



Now about Manifest Destiny.
It seems just as the game you want to create...deep, interesting, unique and highly customizable.

At the same time: Clash of Civilization which seems a bit stuck sadly seems to want to create a complicated and well thought through AI and give the player a true challenge. It's also a very deep and complex game. I think this one would fit you the best.


So why not work with them, provide them with the graphics you have and join your team with either one of them, or join both?

A new project...I Just fear it will fade away and die like they all seem to do.
Or if you've already got a solid base and are further in developement than they are then why not ask them to join you?

 

[jewmpaloompa]

Hey I have a great idea for resources... when a resource appears it needs to be limited to the number of cities that it can supply... as in I just found a deposit of iron, unfortunantly it can only supply three of my cities... so I will give iron to my top three cities in terms of production so that I can build swordsmen faster... the same thing should be implemented with food so that you can have large cities that don't have huge farms surrounding the cities... also it should cost you to "transport" the goods around your country/world...

 

[Steph]

I tried to contact several of these teams some time ago, but I did not get a clear answer. And a lot of the contact people are not valid .

 

[Babylon746]

I only recently discovered this.
It's a great idea, and to me it looks well thought out. If anyone can do this, Steph can!

Your idea about research is very good. And I second jewmpaloompa about transportable food.
Also, I would definitely vote for a turn-based game engine. As you said yourself, you can plan things thoroughly.
Personally, I'd like it more if there were no eras. People never thought: "Hey, we've just entered a new era." Those were labels put on the history afterwards. But I see that many like the idea of eras.
I had the idea that you should have more complex trade. Both resources, but also production: If you have good relations with another civ, you can ask if they would contribute X shields/turn to you for Y gold/turn. Same with food.
And the idea with countries evolving later in time (best example: US evolving from British colonies) is good, too. If it's too complicated to implement this in the game (I think it is), you could do it like this: If, let's say, the Germans conquer Italy, the Italian citizens will be more and more assimilated, but they'll remain Italians for a long time (especially if the Italian civ was big at some point in the game); and if the German civ goes through a phase of weakness, Italians could revolt and re-erect an Italian civ. This way, beaten civs may come back.
Also, I'd like that unique technological advances (represented by UUs in Civ3) should be transferable, if you conquer a major part of that civ. I just conquered China and Korea as the Mongols, and I think it would be more realistic if I could build Hwacha's when I come around to that, too.