The History Game: let's create a game together

[sophie]

Arguable point.

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

a) They are both very generic in scope.
b) Is he trying to make an RTS?
c) (If so); we already have these 2 games, why make an RTS in the first place? Especially when he's looking for a 2D aesthetic.

 

[Nintz]

Well, no, I was using those as examples.

A hypothetical that it could be done, given enough time and effort. Maybe a bad analogy.

 

[Sonereal]

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, ...)

Caveman2Cosmos?

 

[calad]

I dont want to argue which on is more superior: turns or time but there are plenty of good games in both categories. Time games player need to pause, and turn games you have constant pause and time skips when unpausing.

Anyway the consept is really nice since I know virtually all good paradox games and civ series as well. How well you can mix them up is up to you. Im not a programmer but in case you need history back up write to me. It is intresting see how this process.

 

[sophie]

I dont want to argue which on is more superior: turns or time but there are plenty of good games in both categories. Time games player need to pause, and turn games you have constant pause and time skips when unpausing.

The difference between these two "games" is only arbitrarily drawn up in your mind, the distinction doesn't exist in reality. Paradox games are turn games, just with relatively minute time spans covered by a turn and the ability to skip multiple turns quickly. Functionally civ-type games and paradox-type games work the same, and theoretically could be played in the same way.

Well, no, I was using those as examples.

A hypothetical that it could be done, given enough time and effort. Maybe a bad analogy.

Again, I don't really think that's what he's going for - too broad. I already mentioned my complaint with RoN. It implemented interesting mechanics, but it's constrained by broad demands The CTW campaign became boring because you'd end up doing all the heavy lifting in the Medieval and Gunpowder "ages". I felt EE1 to be the same way. With the broad requirements of the game none of the "civilizations" felt unique or interesting. RoN mitigated this with UUs but still it's a broad and largely unhistorical game.

The historicity is going to be a problem too. Already people on this thread are running into this. What the hell does "Ancient" and "Classical" eras mean? How does this apply to the larger world? Which "civilizations" (whatever the hell that means) are you going to include or exclude? Why? How are you going to design the map to be historical and fun (from a gameplay perspective) throughout thousands of years of history and geographical changes? You're either going to have to go very broad and simplified à la civ, Rhyes and fall, RoN, EE, Spore, etc., or be more specified, like a paradox game.

Your starting point is that the game should play/feel like a long paradox game (CK>EU>Vicky>HoI) with converted saves, only in one game. But as I said before, I really don't see why. The reason this isn't already included in paradox, and most people don't use the conversion mods people have made is that the human player has such a massive advantage over the AI that in the hands of a competent player by the time CK ends the polity crafted by the human is so disproportionately powerful compared to everyone else in the game that to convert it to EU would essentially be a farce as your economic and territorial development would make you several hundred years ahead of any other polity in the EU universe, and this is further compounded as you make your way through the EU universe. If you didn't have much of a reason to continue after the CK campaign, you almost certainly won't by the end of EU (assuming you didn't just get bored and quit halfway through). The only time I've seen a conversion campaign work is when it's played over multiplayer, where parity can be achieved by humans offsetting one another. Even then the world essentially becomes a giant risk board as the AIs are squeezed out and the humans form blocs. Even these games require massive amounts of human players as time commitments and the ups and downs of a campaign see many players bow out. So in other words, before you can start designing this game you're going to have to find a way to answer the two questions I posed above: creating a game system that will work equally well in the "ancient" era as it will in the "modern" one, and how to get the time scale, AI, and map to work such that a human player will not only be conceivably capable of seeing the game through to the end, but would have an interest in doing so without getting bored due to slow progression/too easy AI/conquered the world 1/5 of the way in.