Should Firaxis put more emphasis on a changing gameplay/mechanics through the game?

[Loppan Torkel]

Should the gameplay/mechanics evolve through different fases? (Edit: Examples - )You micromanage your workers in the early era but manage your infrastructure with sliders in the modern. You fight with units in the early era but with combined armies in the modern. You research single techs in the early era but focus in tech areas in the modern. You use spy units in the early era but fund spy activities in the modern era.
Krikkitone:

On a side note, one possible way to improve diplomacy would be to abstract it a bit. You give general orders to your diplomats about what is important to you, and how important it is to get a deal, and with who... every turn your diplomats get together each of the other empires and attempt to make a deal (the more you want something the more you Will end up paying for it.. but the more likely your diplomats will actually be able to get it for you)... This could allow 'diplomatic skill' techs/society choices to be important.

- Which could come later when there are a larger number of civs participating in negotiations or biddings.

-----More abstractation and automation the later you get, with the old models going obsolete.
This is to get away from micromanagement in the later periods, which in turn would pull down the level of AI-cheats, as well as keep the fun elements of the game. But it would of course require multiple models for a number of features in the game.
Yes/no - comments?

 

[dh_epic]

I think I speak for everyone, including Loppan Torkel, when I add that the top paragraph only includes examples. These aren't the only things you could change, and they aren't the most important things to change.

But yes, in the long run, the micro-play should give way to more broad level group commands and so forth. At least in some departments.

 

[Dida]

There should be no worker at any era. No worker in the beginning, no worker at the end.
Stacked movement and combined arm combat should exist even from day one. Why would we not be able to move units in stack in ancient age? of course, u don't need to move them in stack if you don't want to.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I think I speak for everyone, including Loppan Torkel, when I add that the top paragraph only includes examples. These aren't the only things you could change, and they aren't the most important things to change.

Yea thanks, it's true, these were the things I could come up with at the moment, if anyone has other examples - feel free to suggest them. The main point of this poll was to see if people want a static game like civ3 was, which verywell could work out great too with new features, less micromanagement and overall more balanced towards the endgame, or if Firaxis should 'split' the game in different areas with features changing through the game to fit the gameplay.
The examples I made are only just examples. Moving units around during the early eras has a strategic role and there's not any micromanagment to speak of to make it boring which it can be in later periods. In the modern era combat could be streamlined in a number of ways, not just stacked, which it doesn't have to be in the early era.

 

[Commander Bello]

Ooops.. where has my answer gone?

Once more then:
I voted "no" as I feel such changes to be nearly impossible to be put into code in a meaningful manner.
As any change in some way would require certain thresholds to be met, improper balancing then in turn not only could, but just would ruin the feeling of the game.
Additionally, it would require two different interfaces being established for the same game, for the same action to be performed.
Again, I don't see this work

 

[dh_epic]

I voted yes, but I agree with commander bello that the biggest challenges would be finding a way for game play to evolve in a sensible way, so the player doesn't have to learn 2 or 3 different games! I mean, I'd be able to learn to play 2 or 3 games worth of stuff, but we have to account for wider audiences.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I'd agree with Commander Bello, the way I DO think it should work (for example)

1. Early in the game you have few units, and a lot of space for them to cover and they can't cover that much space so you will likely have many individual units wandering around (they will tend to stack in wars)..LAter in the game you will have many units with a long reach so they can cover the required area in fewer 'stacks' of units

Note that here the gameplay does not become more different it actually becomes more the same... because the number of "stacks" you deal with stays more nearly constant, but the number of units in the stacks changes... basically they just get stronger.

funding spy activities could be done in all eras, but in earlier eras, the effect of distance could be more severe

for example, using luxuries goods as a model, the effect of having them is technically the same the whole game (after marketplace) but it still results in more happiness later in the game because the number of luxuries you can get naturally tends to go up..assuming you are growing.

So that in all eras you are doing 'broad level play', and the mechanism for doing so is the same each game

The Stack example is probably the best for the idea that the best way to do this is to allow easy player defined** grouping of the 'entities' you deal with (whether units, tiles, cities, or Civs) ie Civs I don't mind annoying, v. Civs to be careful about v. friendly civs (if the diplomacy engine was smart it could even look at one of its actions and say, wait this action against this Civ in 'I don't care' could lead to a war with it's ally in the group with a 'Keep peaceful' order)

** This is key, Player-Groups should be Player defined with no 'triggers/programming conditions' necessary (and VERY reduced if they are..things that are likely/possible to change in large numbers fast, ie Civs at War/Cities in Rebellion. could be handled as a 'programmed group' OR just have the computer 'alert' you to those situations if you would want to change your stance.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I agree that it would be good to have a consistent but flexible system where the player would have options, such as grouping, to reduce the micromanagment the way he/she wants.
The problem with this however is that the eras in some areas, both in real history and gameplay, can be fundamentally different. This can be solved by focusing on either period, or more probable in between to let both sides be a compromise with different 'help-options' such as automating some features like workers (however if you'd like to keep up with the AI in higher levels this won't be an option).
My point is that some features probably would be more fun split in two than having a consistent but compromized one. Some want workers, some, like Dida, don't; some thought the diplomats from civ2 was fun, most of us agree that civ3's more abstract intelligence system as a whole works better, if one would have to choose. Should the religious system be controlled in a window from the beginning or could it be more randomly spread through units in the early ages and more controlled later on? There could be many benefits to the gameplay if it wasn't locked through the game in set features.

The problem would be how to make the transitions to a new model, it should of course have to be compatible with the old ones too, and that it requires extra work to have these multiple models.

The interface part won't be a big problem imo. Civ already consists of a large number of windows holding the information. If the average civplayer was presented with a workerwindow to adjust some different sliders, such as infrastructure or pollution-control, at the discovery of bureaucracy for example, I think it could be handled.

 

[Trade-peror]

I vote no, for a game's rules should be uniform for the game itself to be cohesive.

I would rather see that all options are available at all times, but that different sets of options are more suitable at different stages of a civ or in different circumstances. Thus in general, most civs will go through similar stages, but deviation should be possible in unusual situations or if players explore specialized strategies. Otherwise, there would be a "standard" progression of rule sets that would simply perpetuate the current problem of one standard and inflexible rule set.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Otherwise, there would be a "standard" progression of rule sets that would simply perpetuate the current problem of one standard and inflexible rule set.

There would be a standard progression of the gameplay rather than the rule sets. The rule sets would also change and allow more options, just like the diplomacy opens up in civ3, but the main focus should lie on making the game flexible enough to make it both realistic and fun, whether it involves abstractation, change of interface or rules through the game. I think it would broaden the game to allow more strategic options while still keeping the micromanagment down.
You could keep and expand on the unit concept in the beginning and through a series of small changes at different times you would play the modern times at a much higher, abstract level. And as each feature is made to fit the certain time period there should be more suitable options for different and specialized strategies.

If they expand the concept of exploring/intelligence-gathering it would have to change a lot over time. (a bit OT)One way, like suggested before, could be that you could send out (imaginary) scouts/seavessels that you give orders and get badly made maps when they get back, but the better the communication and 'mapmaking' gets the better control over the intelligencegathering and the more accurate info you get.
However they do this there has to be a natural evolvement through the game to resemble the real world as well as being fun. Why shouldn't the try and do this in other features as well? The workersystem has been critized a lot but many also like it, why not split it? keep it the early eras, streamline it with highlevel decisions later. It wouldn't take away strategic decisions only micromanagment.
If it doesn't work out as well as planned they shouldn't keep it, the changing of models, rules, interfaces or anything else holds no value in itself. It should solely be to benefit the gameplay.

 

[dh_epic]

As much as I worry about the complexity of a game that has a changing ruleset with changing options, I think Trade-Peror's suggestion is even more dangerous.

Having 10 things to play with one half of the game, and a different 10 things to play with another half of the game is complicated.

But having 20 things to play with the entire game, only 10 of which matter at any given time, is even more complicated. What you gain in consistency you lose in a cluttered interface.

This thread is as much about making gameplay interesting as it is about good user interface design.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think what Trade-Peror was trying to say, DH_Epic, is that you shouldn't strait-jacket the player in each era by saying, for example, that in the Classical Age, all you can really do is expand, build and expand. Then, in the Middle Ages say, all you can do is consolidate, fight wars to take more territory and forge diplomatic ties in order to extract vital resources-etc etc. Ultimately, that will just be a calcification of the current mode of play. Instead, T-P seems to be saying that, for instance, trade and espionage should be available from the outset of the game, along with settler and military based expansion, and then it is to the player which method he most wishes to focus on to become properly established. Of course, as the game progresses, tactics might change accordingly, and the player must be free to pursue these courses as he sees fit.
At least, thats how I read it!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

I think the good intentions are there... except that you can only have so many tactics available to the player before you experience too much complexity -- a cluttered interface, unmanagable amounts of concepts to juggle...

And if you keep all the detail there is on expansion, war and building... and then add new concepts in the modern age without reducing those early game details... you end up with that cluttered unmanagable interface.

In other words, if you're going to add more detailed features to the modern age (capitalism and espionage, for example), you either have to cut some detail out of the modern age (with evolving gameplay), or cut detail out of the game across the board.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

But DH, I think the thing is that ALL of the features that will ever be in the game WOULD be in from the get-go, its either that (a) those features are initally 'greyed out' or (b) they vary in their effectiveness in the early part of the game. So, for instance, both espionage and Capitalism can be technically utilized in the earliest part of the game, but they might not be truly effective until you have developed the appropriate levels of physical, technical and commercial development.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Oh I definitely agree. But if capitalism and espionage are available from the get go AND you have to jiggle around tiny workers and units AND figure out what buildings to build in each city AND go to the diplomacy screen to negotiate your deals AND go to the tech tree to choose your research path AND manage your religion and civic life AND any myriad of features they might add...

Then you ruin the game for new players, as much as us vets will really enjoy it.

If all the features are in from the get go, then you have to concede that puts a tighter limit on the total features you can have in the game.

If features are phased out and new ones are phased in, on the other hand, that theoretically permits more features across the entire game.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I think what Trade-Peror was trying to say, DH_Epic, is that you shouldn't strait-jacket the player in each era by saying, for example, that in the Classical Age, all you can really do is expand, build and expand. Then, in the Middle Ages say, all you can do is consolidate, fight wars to take more territory and forge diplomatic ties in order to extract vital resources-etc etc. Ultimately, that will just be a calcification of the current mode of play. Instead, T-P seems to be saying that, for instance, trade and espionage should be available from the outset of the game, along with settler and military based expansion, and then it is to the player which method he most wishes to focus on to become properly established. Of course, as the game progresses, tactics might change accordingly, and the player must be free to pursue these courses as he sees fit.
At least, thats how I read it!!

I'm not sure why one would take out the ability to use trade or espionage/diplomacy in the early parts of the game, I want the features to change according to the game so that the game is focused on being fun instead of trying to have constant, universal features. Firaxis would be free to bring back the caravan and diplomats in the early stages if that makes the game more fun. It would be a mess to have them in the modern era even if they became lorries and agents. The same goes the other way around, espionage and trade doesn't have to be totally abstracted and presented in a window in the early ages, it could be done with a more crude, primitive way such as by units, IF that makes the game more fun.

 

[Trade-peror]

Dh_epic, I completely understand your concern that new players would get swamped if there were too many options. What I suggest, however, is to have a similar progression of options for most players but not restrict those that want to try something different or are in unusualy gameplay circumstances. Please note that I said

deviation should be possible in unusual situations or if players explore specialized strategies

In other words, there will be a "usual" progression of options in most cases but if players try to make their game a little different, they will be able to do so. Those that are content with the usual progression would not need to deal with other options until they reach those points in the usual progression. So nobody is forced to deal with an overwhelming number of options at any point in the game--only those who deliberately try to explore different strategies can look into other options.

 

[dh_epic]

I agree with you in principle, Trade Peror. But finding an interface that hides unnecessary features dynamically, but still allows you to access them should you want to deviate from the norm is very challenging.

I sympathize with Loppan. Not that you'd cut out espionage and trade features at the beginning, nor that you'd cut out the ability to improve tiles late in the game. But at the beginning of the game, many things would be done with units, and later in the game, many more things would be abstracted. Just as a hypothetical. Strategies would be available, but for the most part, they would change with their level of detail.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Strategies would be available, but for the most part, they would change with their level of detail.

I think that is part of the problem, Ancient Civ is Too simple (in that there are too few cities, units, etc.) and Modern Civ is too complex

This is partially caused by the fact that "cities" are too big early on (a single city is the territorial size of most ancient empires other than the biggest ones). This also leads to large 'stochastic' or jumpy effects..ie you have one or two workers and suddenly a new tile gets irrigated or mined, its a major boost for your empire every 5 turns or so, as opposed to a later game where you have multiple squares being developed each turn giving a more gradual improvement for your empire as a whole

One thing I would like to see is
1. A Lot more tiles

2. Units acting like cities in that they have an "area of effect" (so in the modern era a campaign across California is a single turn event potentially involving a very small number of 'units' and 'cities', wheras in the ancient era it is a massive campaign involving dozens of 'units' and 'cities' where each of those grow in area with time (well not time but with improving transport and communication technologies)

So a late game city might have 100s of tiles, wheras an early city would probably be similar to the ones Civ currently has. (they would have to have the ability to 'merge' into each other).. so that ancient Sumer would consist of scores of cities, but Iraq might only consist of a few.

Diplomacy does tend to get get simpler in later eras through the elimination of Civs, but it is also to simple early on... including multiple minor Civs (ones at a starting disadvantage) could mean that you always have neighbors that you could theoretically do diplomacy with (replacing barbarians which you can't)

 

[sir_schwick]

Here is a current symptom of the static gameplay mechanics of Civ 3, Civ 2, and pretty much all the civ games which I call, over reports.

In management there is a term called 'direct reports'. That is the number of people who report to a particular manager and brief them. Ideal organizations have each manager, no matter the level, having at most half a dozen direct reports. Each of those direct reports has there own, and so on.

Lets extrapolate the concept of 'direct reports', because you are managing your civ within the game. Imagine the amount of direction and management you do at turn 10 in an average game could be considered 1 DRU, Direct Report Unit. Because of the needs to expand and so forth, many players have already reached the 6 DRU ideal by the early-to-middle Middle Ages. Even if you expand a DRU to the point where you have around 10 units and 4 cities, you are pushing the 6 DRU limit by the early Industrial Revolution. By the end of the Industrial Revolution I have often been at the 20+ DRU area, making turns seem really long for uncessary reasons. An ideal in gameplay would be if you only felt like you were doing 8 to 10 times the amount of managing tasks during the last 1/4 of the game as you did the 1/4.

What this means to you I cannot answer. What this means to me I will answer after doing some grocery shopping and necessary reading. Sorry to cut your short, but that is the first part of my prospectives.