The History Game: let's create a game together

[Persipnei]

For a while now, I long for a full history game, more detailed than Civilization, and broader (longer time-period) than the paradox games (Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria, Hearts of Iron, ...)

You can join the newly made forums at: http://thehistorygame.freeforums.org/index.php

I am looking for people who want to help with the programming, and for people who want to share ideas and have discussions about history in general and how to implement those in a game.

 

[Nintz]

Can't access here at school, but I'll check it out later.

Can I ask how many people and how much funding you have so far?

 

[Maniacal]

I'm going to guess "himself" and "none".

 

[Nintz]

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Though you are probably right.

 

[Persipnei]

Yep, myself and none.

I'm not looking for a huge team. I'd be happy if I found 1 or 2 programmers next to myself, and 1 or 2 people that can make 2d graphics. It doesn't have to be a 3D wonder of a game. I believe more in gameplay and immersion.

And who needs money anyways? It's a hobby project, I program in my free time because I like it, not because I want money for it. I can't be the only one, do I?

I'm not the x th little kid that wants to make a game. I'm 32 years old, have quite a bit experience in programming and strategy games, and I fully realize that, the smaller the team, the longer it will take to make it.

I have to work the next 2 days, but should begin with the first stage of programming later this week. When I have a first pre-pre-pre-alpha version, I'll mention it in this thread. Guess people want to see something to be interested. Can't blame them...

 

[Nintz]

I would help, but I have no experience in programming, or even modding (except a very small amount of time spent modding CK2), nor am I an artist.

So...yeah. Not sure there's anything I can do. If you come up with something though, I would be more than willing to test it out and offer feedback/balance suggestions.

 

[warpus]

more detailed than Civilization, and broader (longer time-period) than the paradox games (Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria, Hearts of Iron, ...)

That's a fairly ambitious plan. I think most of those games you list specialize, because a game containing "everything" might just be too broad to be fun to play. What's your take on that?

 

[Persipnei]

That's a fairly ambitious plan. I think most of those games you list specialize, because a game containing "everything" might just be too broad to be fun to play. What's your take on that?

I don't think it will be too broad to be fun to play. It's not that you will have all possible things at the same time. During the ages and according to the structure you rule at that time (tribe, city, country, empire, ... I'm looking for a decent name to group all those things, if you know one, tell me please ) your possibilities will change dynamically.

I'll keep this thread updated as I go...

 

[Mosher]

I'm not sure you can create a game quite so broad without making several different games and combining them into one.

Look at Europa Universalis, it lasts the longest of any Paradox game and it suffers enough from being too broad and thus having to sacrifice some detail.

Also look at Spore; they took the story of a species from being a cell in the seas to space, but were so broad they had to make several different 'minigames' for each stage of civilization, and this lack of focus actively hurt the game (along with its numerous other problems).

It would be better for you to, I feel, focus on an aspect of history you enjoy very much and focus on that and pile on detail.

 

[Persipnei]

I'm not sure you can create a game quite so broad without making several different games and combining them into one.

Look at Europa Universalis, it lasts the longest of any Paradox game and it suffers enough from being too broad and thus having to sacrifice some detail.

Also look at Spore; they took the story of a species from being a cell in the seas to space, but were so broad they had to make several different 'minigames' for each stage of civilization, and this lack of focus actively hurt the game (along with its numerous other problems).

It would be better for you to, I feel, focus on an aspect of history you enjoy very much and focus on that and pile on detail.

I understand your concern. I would be happy if the game had to sacrifice some detail and still be as awsome as EU. Whatever way it turns out, less detail than CiV isn't possible since they kinda generalised everything in the last iteration. There is a very big gap between the levels of detail of the civ franchise and the paradox games.

In a way, the game will change (be different games) according to the era and what you are controlling. A bit like doing a paradox mega campaign (playing all games in a row and converting saves at the end of one game), but with dynamic changing of the game and not the bad conversions.

 

[sherbz]

My suggestion to you would be to make an ancient game and then cut it off once you reach a certain era If you base the game in Europe then you could cover up to the fall of the Greek and Roman Empires and then leave it there. You could then work on a way of transitioning what you are left with at the end and then migrate to, say, the medieval period. Then again, cut it off and make another modelled on the reformation (for instance) etc etc.

I think one of the problems with civ (from a historical point of view) is that it depicts history as basically the same only with different stuff. The problem with Europa Universallis is that its too complex and too inaccessible. What you want is something in between that grows in complexity as the game progresses. It would also help your development cycle because if people like it, then who knows, by the time you hit the modern era you may have an army of programmers and publisher after publisher hankering after you to have it as an exclusive on the playstation 5 .

 

[warpus]

In a way, the game will change (be different games) according to the era and what you are controlling. A bit like doing a paradox mega campaign (playing all games in a row and converting saves at the end of one game), but with dynamic changing of the game and not the bad conversions.

So your plan is to essentially create several games and to string them together.

That sounds very ambitious! Maybe create the first 'game', balance out the gameplay, and only then think about any additions?

Most good games that I play have a hard focus on something.. They could have been broader, but I think in almost all cases that would have taken away from the gameplay.

I think you may be just trying to do too much all at once. You know what they say about people who chase more than 1 rabbit at a time

 

[pesgores]

If you consider that dealing with the evolution of Mankind in a video game is something that has to work with the gradual increase in knowledge over time, much like Civ and its tech tree, you must have a similar base. The only difference being this History game had to have a much more detailed tech tree, many more improvements to cities and towns, and the duration of turns would have to be relatively short and equal in all eras. Or base it on real-time strategy, like EU and the like, but keeping the highly detailed tech tree.

 

[Persipnei]

My suggestion to you would be to make an ancient game and then cut it off once you reach a certain era If you base the game in Europe then you could cover up to the fall of the Greek and Roman Empires and then leave it there. You could then work on a way of transitioning what you are left with at the end and then migrate to, say, the medieval period. Then again, cut it off and make another modelled on the reformation (for instance) etc etc.

I think one of the problems with civ (from a historical point of view) is that it depicts history as basically the same only with different stuff. The problem with Europa Universallis is that its too complex and too inaccessible. What you want is something in between that grows in complexity as the game progresses. It would also help your development cycle because if people like it, then who knows, by the time you hit the modern era you may have an army of programmers and publisher after publisher hankering after you to have it as an exclusive on the playstation 5 .

I couldn't have said it better. The first focus will be ancient times. Only when that's a bit decent, I'll go on to period greek/roman period.


I did a testbuild of a multiplayer framework and got a little lag problem, and I understand why multiplayer groups experience difficulties in paradox games, since the amount of data that has to be send/received/processed every turn is too much. So I have two options: 1) I go for singleplayer only, what is a bit meh... 2) I go for turn based (civ-style) and not pausable real time, but in that case, I wonder if it would be easier to just make it a webapplication. 3) Somebody of you is experienced in creating multiplayer platforms and want to help me

I would be happy to hear your 5c on this.

 

[sherbz]

Personally im not a massive fan of realtime for empire building games unless its very laid back (Sins of a solar empire was a good game and worked well in real time). I certainly think for multiplayer and for simplicity sake turn based would be a better option.

 

[Nintz]

I second the turn-based motion. Make it 5000 turns if need be, but for MP and a starting-out game you don't want to mess with real-time mechanics or balancing.

 

[sophie]

Sounds too broad to be realistically finished, especially considering you have little personnel and even less money.

 

[Quintillus]

The problem with single player is that then you need an AI, and that's another can of worms. On the other hand, you'll eventually need other humans to playtest with for multiplayer... this isn't a bad place to look for them.

The idea sounds cool, and reminded me of stringing together Paradox ones as well. Also reminded me of a few of the more kitchen sink Civ4 mods, Rise of Mankind and Caveman 2 Cosmos. They won't be as varied as the various Paradox games are in gameplay style, but are worth investigating for a Civ-based perspective on adding detail with a long timeframe (though they have their detractors as well).

The only problem with free is that very few people can devote as much time to it as a day job. But the various Civ mods here, as well as projects like FreeCiv, show that with the right idea, organization, and leadership, it's possible to get something cool made.

 

[sophie]

I think the major challenges for this (aside from the obvious - resources, manpower, time, AI, etc), are going to be a) Finding a system and mechanics that work well for all the time periods you want. One of the reasons people say "TW will never work in WWI-era", for example, is because the mechanics of the TW engine really don't translate to the larger operational aspects of WWI. It'll be the same here. Trying to find a ruleset that works as well in the Neolithic (or whatever) era as it does in the Modern era is going to be tricky.

b) Finding a way to mold a timescale that gives due attention to each time period while still making it fun and playing from start to finish feasible and worthwhile. I think this is the main problem. The reason EU3 doesn't go from 1066-1952 is not just thematic. I never quite understand why people want EU3's dates expanded; just the 300 years covered in the game take for. ever. By the time I hit the 1600 mark (hell sometimes even the 1500 mark) I'm already done with the game. Either I've accomplished my goals and the game has effectively become a joke by that point or I've simply gotten bored with the scenario.

It's similar with the TW games. Nobody plays EB to the end, for example, because by that point you've either conquered the world or grown bored with the faction. Likewise M2TW and Vanilla RTW. One of my major complaints with Rise of Nations CTW campaign was that I never got to play modern-era missions because the game was over well before the Industrial Age came around.

You're going to have to design a game with AI challenging enough, or geography minute enough, to prevent a human player from winning the game within the first 5th of the game. This is the main reason why you don't see sweeping Stone Age-to-Modern Age strategy games. That Civ has been able to do it and do it well through 5 iterations speaks to its good design.

 

[Nintz]

That Civ has been able to do it and do it well through 5 iterations speaks to its good design.

Arguable point.

However, games like Rise of Nations and Empire Earth prove that a Prehistoric > Modern is possible, if very difficult to accomplish.