Sullla's Ideas for a New Civ

[Roto-Router]

Carpets of stacks of doom are rugs of doom. Smaller area than a carpet but thicker

Toupees of Doom?

I like a number of the ideas in Sullla's article, particularly the formulation of religion. The separate tech trees idea, with missing techs, also seems fun.

On espionage, it seems you don't really need to come up with an "espionage system", at least for the first release of New Civ. Espionage is about gathering information, so just copy the quick and dirty system from Civ3 and create a spy unit, which is invisible, can go through other AI's territories without open borders, and perform a handful of information-gathering missions. See the tech research, check a city's build queue, spy out unit locations, etc. Nothing fancy, no James Bond stuff like stealing techs or poisoning the water supply. There's a gap in CiV which a unit like that could fill; the system from Civ4 was overkill IMHO.

One other suggestion Sullla, maybe you could change the color scheme on your site? A long article of white text on black background is kind of tough to get through.

 

[Deussu]

I strongly recommend you unfamiliar with Master of Orion go crab yourself a copy wither from www.gog.com or searching with Google. I'm unsure whether it's free to distribute... you find it very very easily with a basic search.

Don't forget Master of Magic. That game a bit bugged and its diplomacy (and AI altogether) is horrendously bad, but otherwise it's pure gold. Elemental: War of Magic was based on Master of Magic. Again, gog.com or google it.

Those two games have been praised as 4X grandfathers, and not without a reason. Sure, they are lacking especially in the AI department on modern standards, but it doesn't make them any less enjoyable.

 

[wolfigor]

Very good article, we may not agree on everything (some people may not agree on anything of it) but we owe to Sulla the effort of starting a discussion about how the best Civ should be.
His effort and example deserve an appropriate reply.

First, I like the basic concept of the design of New Civ: get the feeling of leading an empire without having to micromanage towns and single units.
Moo was extremely good at that, with an interface that simple and intuitive but powerful at the same time.
I have to admit I was an avid player of MOO and sometime I find myself re-playing it.
However very few other games were able to give that sense of being the leader of an empire.


Long story made short: I agree with Sulla on the "Overall Design Goals" and the "Units and Combat" chapters.
It's important to notice that the unit management in this case makes completely sense only if you have tactical combat.

Having 100's of small units and a good automatic system to stack them (see MOO) it's the design that most fits an empire building game.
In pre-history you have a few men roaming the land, until thousands of years later you have huge armies with imposing technology to fight huge wars for the scarse resources.

MOO had a good solution for the production and automatic staking of this large number of units (well described in Sulla's article).

But there are two points that I did not like in MOO and those are still reflected in Sulla's design, even if addressed:

The first point is that tactical combat can be tedious, so a good auto-resolver that brings fair combat results is a must to have.
If we do have it, then tactical combat is not an issue: you use it when you feel it, when you want to feel the "power" of smashing enemy's armies with your hands, and when you need all your cunning to win a desperate battle.

The second point is about the staking in tactical combat: in MOO it was not possible to divide the stacks.
For example if a battle you had 100 units of one type, you could not divide them in two groups of 50.
Being able to divide the stacks in the tactical map could be very important... Imagine having 100 knight, you may really want to divide them in two groups to be the wings of your army.

The concept of "accuracy" is rather good, but it assume that the attacker always strike first.
Units may have another property called "initiative": when one unit attacks another, the first to strike is the one with the higher initiative.
You may have weak units with high initiative (e.g. light cavalry) and powerful units with low initiative (e.g. heavy pikemen)... something similar was archived with 1st strike in Civ4 but the concept I described really comes from Panzer General.

Something that is not described, but only implied, is that in Sulla's design the units are fixed (like in all the Civ serie).
In MOO and in SMAC you didn't have fix models for the units but you were building their design from different categories.
I loved the system in both MOO and SMAC, I wouldn't mind to see it again in a Civ game: you build the design of your units with Attack, Defence, Movement elements taken from what your research offers.
The more "stuff" you put in the design the more the unit will cost.

The MOO-SMAC design of units was a nice touch, but maybe not really fit for a game with historical flavour, but it makes every game slightly different due to the different design that you and the AI can have.
This opens the door for a lot of interesting choices during the game when creating your designs... especially in MOO you didn't have unlimited number of models of units (I think it was something like a maximum of 6 at every each time).
This forced the player to carefully choose the designs, and what to scrap to build a new one.

Hmmm... I'm getting pretty long in my reply I need to shorten it.

About research, I liked the MOO model, and the visibility added by Sulla makes it even better. (short enough I think)

About Civics/Social Policies, again I have to take inspiration from one of my favorite game: SMAC.
In SMAC you always had interesting choices with your policies: you had bonus and malus for each of them.
For example "Planned Economy" gave +2 Growth and +1 Industry but at the costs of -2 Efficiency.
Some leaders were spared by the negative effects of specific policies, leading the player to a very custom game-style with each leader.

 

[whb]

Well, Sullla's gone one step further than me in actually typing up his grand plans for a new empire building game...

A couple of thoughts from skimming a little of the text:
1. "100s and 1000s of units". That's an awful lot of units for for a player to hold in his head and push around the page. The curse of the modern era in all the Civ games was so many units that it slowed playing the game down; making that apply to the ancient era too would be bad news.
2. "Randomised tech tree". Although it sounds like it'd preserve the novelty, it punishes the player for the effort he has put into previous games. Whereas the map (that also gets randomised) is front and centre most of the game, the tech tree is off-screen. Making the player stop what he's doing (actively playing) and go stare at the tech tree for ages to re-learn a new one wouldn't be fun.

 

[ohioastronomy]

Which actually reminded me of the WarCraft (certainly not WoW_MMPORPG but only the initial title that started it all.) Towers.
Dumping cannon balls on troops, shooting arrows - now *THAT* was some tricky but efficient tactical positioning by design.

PS; After reading up further down this wonderful thread (even Sulla chimed in!), i realized people brought back the infamous subject of Stacks and as i said in many earlier comments in this forum; From 1upT, to Stacks, to SOD, to Carpets of Stacks, to Carpets of Stacks of Doom... that's how it goes. No matter how fine-tuned any concept of Stacks are, it will always lead to the very same clug effect we already have with 1upT -- only on a much worse & monumentally (un-micmanageable!) complex scale.

One of the biggest problems with Civ 5 is that no stacking creates a logistical nightmare for the AI whenever anything moves from A to B. If you don't have a stacking limit on the strategic scale then you can move things freely.

You can solve "infinite unit" issues in a lot of other ways. EU3 has "manpower" (e.g. you can't build more units than you have people.) Or you can have terrain cause attrition (but permit movement) when overstacked. There is nothing in a stacking model that requires you to be able to churn out infinite units from an arbitrarily small empire.

 

[BjoernLars]

Sulla, thank you very much for you wonderful article. I've read many of your articles on your blog, and I think you are a very articulate writer with a giant knowledge and common sense on how to make a game run well and be enjoyable.

I think you have a great foundation, good concepts and sound reasoning behind your decisions for what a New Civ would look like. I think many of the ideas are great, though a few I might not be so keen on.

One thing I would disagree is to go back to the square tiles. With your ideas of creating improves that would increase over time, such as the mines, farms, etc, 18 hex tiles in a two rings would be adequate I believe. Plus, I love the way that the borders expanded one by one instead of many at a time. I think that is more realistic and can make even more decisions for interesting game play.

I remember you disagreeing with this mechanic in one of your Civ 5 games, but I think that there are three ways to make this work for people. One, have the computer make the decision for what tiles are going to go first. Second, have the player make a customized list of what tiles they deem to be the most important that is used for every city in the game. Third, have the player number which tiles are the most important in order in their city and the borders will grab those tiles first. With only 2 rings, there will be only one ring of expansion to do and it will be less of a problem.

Though you may not have the technical know-how on how to program a game, I am sure that you could design a game through management the ideas and the programmers themselves if the deities of fortune smile upon you.

Keep up the good work, and I hope to see many of you ideas come to fruition.

2. "Randomised tech tree". Although it sounds like it'd preserve the novelty, it punishes the player for the effort he has put into previous games. Whereas the map (that also gets randomised) is front and centre most of the game, the tech tree is off-screen. Making the player stop what he's doing (actively playing) and go stare at the tech tree for ages to re-learn a new one wouldn't be fun.

For this one, I think he had an option to turn off this and make the every tech available. I think this option can make things very interesting as long as there are many viable ways to obtain the missing technologies.

It does make sense. Maybe Civs without a Horse resource within X spaces of their capitals would not have the Horseback Riding.

Anyways, I look forward to many discussion about this post on how to make the next Civ a masterpiece.

 

[Bibor]

This Sulla guy reminds me of one of my former girlfriend's BFFs that kept calling me and meeting me to explain it to me how my relationship should look like. She was single and very frustrated. She probably still is.
Moderator Action: Don't troll other members.

 

[builer680]

This Sulla guy reminds me of one of my former girlfriend's BFFs that kept calling me and meeting me to explain it to me how my relationship should look like. She was single and very frustrated. She probably still is.

This Bibor guy sounds jealous that people are talking about someone besides him.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Something that is not described, but only implied, is that in Sulla's design the units are fixed (like in all the Civ serie).
In MOO and in SMAC you didn't have fix models for the units but you were building their design from different categories....

For a fair enough system to "design" Units with features & supplemental capacity values, have a look at what cEvo does with its crazily efficient Military production.
Instead of some indirect promotions what you get is a way to diversify any classes by adapting their variable principles right when the Units are created.

Such a concept also adds depth to the whole combat model since (however deterministic that game is) the potential for Attack/Defense ratios is entirely dependent on the designs used rather than fixed (or upgradable) Civ5_Units.

 

[Sullla]

Something that is not described, but only implied, is that in Sulla's design the units are fixed (like in all the Civ serie).
In MOO and in SMAC you didn't have fix models for the units but you were building their design from different categories.
I loved the system in both MOO and SMAC, I wouldn't mind to see it again in a Civ game: you build the design of your units with Attack, Defence, Movement elements taken from what your research offers.
The more "stuff" you put in the design the more the unit will cost.

Right, it's a great idea and I thought about this. Games where you design your own units (Master of Orion, Galactic Civ, Alpha Centauri) have a lot to recommend them. However, I see two issues with a unit design workshop mechanic:

1) Intimidating/confusing for newcomers.
2) Thematically doesn't fit with Civilization (since the game is about re-creating history).

I believe that the concept works much better for a science fiction theme, as anyone playing will expect "spacey, futuristic" stuff and you can make up various ships without any real immersion problem. I don't think it works as well for Civ though; there's sort of a general expectation that you're be using swords in the Ancient Age, and then rifles in the Industrial Age, and so on. Designing a fantastical unit (guys riding llamas and wielding halberds?) would be rather confusing, not to mention overwhelming for inexperienced players. I'm not saying it couldn't work - actually, the whole concept would probably work better with a randomized tech tree - I'm simply not sure it's the right fit for Civilization as a series.

Oh well. It's not like this game is going to be created anyway.

 

[Bibor]

This Bibor guy sounds jealous that people are talking about someone besides him.

I'm an active civ5 player and I try to contribute. Civ5 forums have been literally swamped by "what if"/hate posts. I'm used to the normalcy and politeness of CIV4 section. If someone has ideas, there's always the Creation&Customization section. I'm sure Sulla will pick up the full Civ5 SDK as soon as its out and create the game of our dreams. Like all critics, he's good with words and can make a strong point. That doesn't make him a game designer. Talking and making are two completely different things.

Hell, here's an idea! Lets combine CIV5 empire management with King's Bounty combat system! Awesome! Can I get multiple posts of praise and cheer now?

 

[UWHabs]

Right, it's a great idea and I thought about this. Games where you design your own units (Master of Orion, Galactic Civ, Alpha Centauri) have a lot to recommend them. However, I see two issues with a unit design workshop mechanic:

1) Intimidating/confusing for newcomers.
2) Thematically doesn't fit with Civilization (since the game is about re-creating history).

I believe that the concept works much better for a science fiction theme, as anyone playing will expect "spacey, futuristic" stuff and you can make up various ships without any real immersion problem. I don't think it works as well for Civ though; there's sort of a general expectation that you're be using swords in the Ancient Age, and then rifles in the Industrial Age, and so on. Designing a fantastical unit (guys riding llamas and wielding halberds?) would be rather confusing, not to mention overwhelming for inexperienced players. I'm not saying it couldn't work - actually, the whole concept would probably work better with a randomized tech tree - I'm simply not sure it's the right fit for Civilization as a series.

Oh well. It's not like this game is going to be created anyway.

I loved designing units in SMAC, but I agree it doesn't fit in civ too well. The most you would be able to do is very lightly adjust troops. So you'd have (taking medieval times):
weaponry: bow, crossbow, lance/pike, sword
armor: none, light cloak, heavy cloak, light chain mail, heavy chain mail
transport: none (foot), horse

So, where now we have archer, crossbow, swordsman, knight, we could create a mounted crossbow, or a "light cavalry" type unit in addition to that. It wouldn't be bad, but it really wouldn't add all that much to the game.

 

[Bibor]

I loved designing units in SMAC, but I agree it doesn't fit in civ too well. The most you would be able to do is very lightly adjust troops.

What? No!

I want paradrop mech infantry and gravship workers!

 

[thwak]

I think these ideas would be great for Total War, a Master of Orion spin off, or a new series entirely but I don't think it's good for Civ.

I think Civ is very much a macro based game, and by that I mean it's a game where the appeal comes from managing your empire and seeing your civilization evolve.

What I think Sulla wants is to make the micro management in the game more involved than it has any right to be. To put it bluntly, there's a reason why you don't settle cities in Total War or in Heroes of Might and Magic, it would take away from the experience. You would have so many more things to do, it would obfuscate the ultimate goal.

This is what turned me off from HoI3. By the end of my experience with that game I didn't even know what was going on.

I personally think Civ works better when you don't have to micro everything. If you disagree fine, but this is not where I want the series to go.

 

[builer680]

Like all critics, he's good with words and can make a strong point. That doesn't make him a game designer. Talking and making are two completely different things.

Hell, here's an idea! Lets combine CIV5 empire management with King's Bounty combat system! Awesome! Can I get multiple posts of praise and cheer now?

1. You don't need to be a game designer to have ideas and share them. He's free to share them wherever he wants, it doesn't matter where you're "used" to seeing them. You're also criticizing him for his criticism and apparently find no irony in this.

2. No.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Implementation of tactical battles in civ for me would be a good thing to try... But only if it is 1) turn based in itself 2) very simple 3) very quickly resolved (battles last 3-4 minutes max). So basically a bit like it is in the earlier Heroes of Might and Magic games.

One thing that keeps me from playing Total War is that battles are often so long that I kind of lose interest in the tactical game after I'm done with that 45 minutes brawl. Or vice versa, I stop playing because I'm playing a strategy game and suddenly I see looming ahead of me a one hour RTS battle. I still play it, but very rarely do I feel like it.

 

[alpaca]

I'm an active civ5 player and I try to contribute. Civ5 forums have been literally swamped by "what if"/hate posts. I'm used to the normalcy and politeness of CIV4 section. If someone has ideas, there's always the Creation&Customization section. I'm sure Sulla will pick up the full Civ5 SDK as soon as its out and create the game of our dreams. Like all critics, he's good with words and can make a strong point. That doesn't make him a game designer. Talking and making are two completely different things.

Hell, here's an idea! Lets combine CIV5 empire management with King's Bounty combat system! Awesome! Can I get multiple posts of praise and cheer now?

What's your shtick? Sullla didn't even create the thread. Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to share their idea about how the game of their dreams should be like? As the OP said, if you want to criticize something, critize the points not the person. It's not like he said everybody should pay him five bucks because he created such a great idea for a game or like he spam-mailed every forum member about it.

If you're allowed to post completely random videos about psychology that only have a marginal relevancy about the game (even though the video was interesting), then he should certainly be allowed to freely express his opinion on his own website. If others like to read and discuss it, all the better!

Right, it's a great idea and I thought about this. Games where you design your own units (Master of Orion, Galactic Civ, Alpha Centauri) have a lot to recommend them. However, I see two issues with a unit design workshop mechanic:

1) Intimidating/confusing for newcomers.
2) Thematically doesn't fit with Civilization (since the game is about re-creating history).

I believe that the concept works much better for a science fiction theme, as anyone playing will expect "spacey, futuristic" stuff and you can make up various ships without any real immersion problem. I don't think it works as well for Civ though; there's sort of a general expectation that you're be using swords in the Ancient Age, and then rifles in the Industrial Age, and so on. Designing a fantastical unit (guys riding llamas and wielding halberds?) would be rather confusing, not to mention overwhelming for inexperienced players. I'm not saying it couldn't work - actually, the whole concept would probably work better with a randomized tech tree - I'm simply not sure it's the right fit for Civilization as a series.

Oh well. It's not like this game is going to be created anyway.

There's another problem with customizable units: AI. This goes doubly if you want tactical battles. A good AI needs a lot of explicit knowledge about units to function correctly, or a very, very simple system and excellent use of implicit knowledge (aka stats) with a high prediction depth and good categorization within the unit system to allow formations and such to define certain roles. Making customizable units with complex abilities will almost inevitably make the AI very bad at using them on a tactical level.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done but it would be a hell of a trip.

 

[Celevin]

I'm against any kind of "board switching" in a game, which a strategic/tactical map switch falls under. Every time that that is implemented, it is successful if one aspect is the actual game and the other is just a means to get there. For example, in Empire: Total War, the strategic map purposely doesn't have much depth, as it's not the main focus of the game; you move around units on it merely to get to the next tactical battle. There's a strong reason that Spore failed and it has nothing to do with too lofty of goals, instead it has everything to do with making a bunch of little games instead of one big game, and it doesn't matter how much they tie into each other.

If a tactical map is implemented in Civ, the designer will have to choose whether it is the focus, or the strategic map is the focus. And if the strategic map is the focus, what purpose does the tactical map have? We might as well go back to a SoD system with new mechanics and units, not that that is necessarily a bad thing.


I think Civ5 is in some desperate need of improvement, and it's almost unplayable in its current form to me. But I don't think it needs sweeping changes. Rather than try and come up with something completely new, I would love to see Sulla work with what we've got. "Civ6" is a ways away.

 

[He-Who-Hunts]

While I like a tactical battle map in theory, and even like it in practice in series such as the total war games I think its a poor concept to implement into civ.

Mainly for multiplayer.

Its the same reason you really wouldnt be able to play a full out campaign in a total war game online because while one player may have to fight a tactical battle others would simply have to wait.

 

[V. Soma]

On combat in civ:
I believe what is needed is just a bit more finer scaling of the map in actual combat,
more fine than the strategic map, but not set apart for a tactical map... the solution, yes:

More units on a tile when making combat, BUT not unlimited... maybe 2 or 3...
(see my sig for a version of 2)