The Wonder of Wonders

[acd]

I wonder, is there any logic to Civ outside of the game/competition/strategy box? I know it attempts to maintain a balance between playability/sale-ability and realism, and I'm not complaining, afterall, its just a game. Although, sometimes the game is so in the face of common sense on any number of different levels, its seems to contradict itself. In as much as Civ creates an environment by fundamentals of civilization, and presents principle forces to be mastered for fun and if not the true wargaming spirit, and then it proceeds to shatter your appreciation of it with something colossally annoying, like allowing the Mongols to build the pyramids and denying them to egypt. Egypt? Pyramids? What's that? Or, instead of improving the tactics for the AI at the higher lievels of playing difficulty, it just makes your civs playing environment the most obnoxious and unhospitable environment you can think of.

A word of advice to anyone who is in a position to improve Civ. Back off of the competition thing. Its not what Civilization if truly about. Sure, its a dominant characteristic, BUT its not the only one. SO - here are the only elements that I think you need to improve, and for what its worth.

#1 - True player difficulty levels are not gauged by making all the civilizations want to sell you for fish food, nor do they make your combat units stink in combat and while making your enemies great, nor does it SPY on you especially where there is no such thing as espionage... etc. For example, playing a computer game that anticipates your war strategy with the foresight that only the AI can have - i.e. monitoring production - troop movements, etc. and generally gauging opponent computerized responses on information that shouldn't be available outside of the player's Civ is just CHEATING. Who wants to play a computer that cheats? Its depressing. So, case in point - cut the crap and give the AI advanced strategy and tactic's capabilities for its artificial player nations, and instead of chucking the player's Civ in the toilet at every turn.

#2 - Great Wonders are cultural. They don't exist outside of culture. Therefore, certains Civ's come prefabbed with certain Great Wonders, for example Inca's, Aztecs, and Egyptians with their individual architectural achievements - Eyptians get Pyramids, Aztecs get Steppe Pyramids, and Incas - well - whatever. But, I think you get the idea. If another culture wants to build these architectural achievements after meeting the other civilization and getting a chance to see them first hand, then they should be allowed to build them for whatever lesser yet still significant cultural advantage. But, if I let it go the way it is now, its just NUTS. And, the race to build it is NOT fun. Its annoying. I build the damn things because I don't want some upside down world, like America as the inventor of the Great Lighthouse, or some other culturally schizophrenic environment.

#3 - AI - Make it more interactive such that you develop relationships with the other AI Civs like real alliances instead of friend now stab you later stuff. Of this requires that WINNING is not necessarily the objective of the game. Playing is. So have a game level or venue of play where there are no victory conditions - there is just a histograph and an on-going score (like what's there now) where you can see if you are indeed the superior Civ if you like. Knowing you are the loser is, of course, very simple Your Civ ceases to exist.

#4 - The combat system is good, but Air War should include a system for determing/engaging in air superiority, and City Improvements should be able to be selected for bombing. Air strikes should be able to be called in for land and amphiblious war, such that Jet fighters can select specific enemy units for bombing/strafing - whatever Helicopters as well as Airborne can be carried by Carriers.

#5 - And, finally - a variant level or venue of play where there are no guarantees regarding Technology and its development. Maybe there never will be electricity. MAYBE gunpowder is never discovered. Afterall, it isn't realistic to plot you culture's course on the knowledge that 2000 years into the game YOU HAD BETTER have saltpeter and coal, even though technically, you don't know what they are yet, otherwise, if there is a war, you lose for sure.

Thanks.

ACD

 

[dh_epic]

For me, a game like Civilization but without victory conditions would be fun. Or even a game with victory conditions that aren't zero sum -- where more than one person can win in more than one way.

If Civilization were like that, then you don't have to worry about gameplay balance. You can have civilizations that have 6 wonders against civilizations with 1 wonder. You can have vicious generals against civilizations that superstitiously fear the wrath of the gods, the edge of the earth, and the end of time. You can have AIs that don't care about winning, and would rather just be friends.

But I don't know if other people would want to play that game.

Unfortunately for your suggestion, Civilization has always been about competition, and the game is defined by victory conditions. I think that fundamental assumption prevents your suggestions from being feasible.

 

[Albow]

that actually sounds cool - like a sandpit game, which you can have grossly unbalanced civs doing their own thing ...

 

[Hyronymus]

That's quite an original idea for this type of PC games although I do not agree on everything written in the first post.

 

[Kosez]

Competition is great for the first couple of times. When you manage to win several times with hard difficulties, it makes no sense to play it again. It repeats. If you could sometimes play Civ where there is no particular challenge/competition, where you don`t have to take care of the same old things again and again, it would be a nice thing to do.

 

[MeteorPunch]

It sounds like civ on rails, where things are already decided for you. Also much less warfare. I agree it would be a fun game - in fact you could mod civ 3 to run more like that, but I prefer this civ.

 

[Darwin420]

Give the AI a learning capability. There are several games out there that use Learning AI to give the player a harder time. Essentially, after a game the player WINS, the AI picks up on what the player did (that was visible - Learning AI does not entail CHEATING AI), and tries to anticipate a similar playing style the next time (in addition to what it's learned before).

This means that as the player increases in skill in the game, so, too, does the AI. Maybe not as quickly, but at least it keeps it interested. Thusly, you shall never again have a CHEATING AI (which is REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD), nor an AI you can predict (which is also BAD).

As for have Civ-specific wonders: NO!!! .. at least, not for the Epic Game. If you want to Mod cIV or make a scenario like that, fine and dandy. But for someone who talks about having a variable tech tree, not having all-access to Wonders doesn't make sense.

Variable tech tree: has been said numerous times on the forum. I agree that the tech tree needs to be much, MUCH more dynamic. So dynamic, in fact, that you probably will never research all techs, or even be able to attain them all (even through trading).

A sandbox option might be viable, if it is an option and not the de facto standard of cIV.

Air War does need to be rethought. It's too simplistic and unrealistic as it as. But, again, don't give me more features without give me in-depth, reasonable gameplay.

Just my thoughts.

 

[lcorinth]

Interesting post. I would like to see more emphasis on culture, and something more than a war game. I know there is that in CivIII, and I wouldn't want to take warfare away - that wouldn't be the same game. But history is about more than fighting each other. When you look at the map, you mainly see military units. When you zoom to cities, and then get a city view, it's just a still picture with a few buildings and some wonders scattered here and there.

I'd like something where you could see the effects of your improvements, and cultural developments, the arts, technology, etc. I'm not exactly sure how to articulate this, and I am sort of working on a longer post about this idea (but I want to have a clearer idea of what I mean), but maybe you could zoom in and actually see the cities, see the activity therein, see trade being carried out, see little Sim-like people traveling and conducting trade along the routes, etc.

Maybe you'd even have citizens of other friendly Civs traveling in your territory, conducting trade and tourism. Perhaps being imprisoned when war breaks out, perhaps emigrating, bringing cultural traits with them, so you'd pick up characteristics from other Civs.

Maybe cities and regions within your Civ would have individual cultural traits and differences (though how this would be displayed, and how it would affect game play, I am not sure).

Warfare would of course still be carried out, to protect your borders, trade, interests, or to conquer other lands.

I've got a few more ideas I intend to post separately. But I'm still pretty new to the game, so I need to think about it to better present the ideas. I love the game, but there are things I want in a game that I think would be good additions to Civilization...

I'm so glad I found this site!

 

[Naokaukodem]

Variable tech tree: has been said numerous times on the forum. I agree that the tech tree needs to be much, MUCH more dynamic. So dynamic, in fact, that you probably will never research all techs, or even be able to attain them all (even through trading).

This is a great idea. The tech tree should be so large that it could take many many directions, like some that could have never been thought by the modern human. It would need a deep study of past technologies and science, to be able to draw something that is not our present but that is "technologically advanced" anyway. There should have many "ages" possible. For example, what if the gunpowder is not discovered and if the study of catapult-type of weapon is continued? What if we discover the mean to make an explosion travel by radio waves? Many tech trees would be invented by Firaxis, and they would have to be as realistic as possible, even if we could not be sure if they are really, because we followed a different way in reality. I think Firaxis should consider this kind of thing. And they have the ressources to do it. It would add a really fantastic atmosphere to the game, and a fantastic potential of replayability, not to say a random-like tech reashearch and a reinforced tech trade system (if it would stay the same what is not necessarily evident because of the number and diversity of techs really concerned). Or they could try to put in the game many more steps for each tech, or again associate each tech or step to the civ that discovered it, and rule the tech tree according to what civ is present in the game or not. For example, if China is not in teh game, it would not be possible to discover salpeter, and so on!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Few points:

WINNING

As for the winning, I really do like the idea of playing for points rather than for winning. The problem becomes however that at some point the game should end.

The way I would do this is by putting the game in 'stages'

At each 'stage', the stage is finished rather than won when the the interaction between on-stage and off-stage passes a certain level

So that when your power stretches beyond your neighboring city states, the game puts you into the next level where you are introduced to a whole new host of neighboring empires, and remaining city-states, even if you haven't brought all the neighboring city-states under your dominion.

This would mean the game altogether ends when your power exceeds the extent of the World. A Space race where the game ends when there is a certain level of extraterrestrial development, and each extraterrestrial outpost/colony (represented abstractly off the map) contributes to your Victory points.

So that at each point, your score is recorded and made available for Hall of Fame.
This makes the game more like a series of interconnected scenarios than an epic game, but allows for a far more flexible play.

Another point that is required is that territorial acquisition should be VERY hard, (because of the resistance of the peoples there) so that control of neighbors diplomatically, militarily, and culturally are only one means to increasing your power, balanced with improving your own internal power. Of course that eventually hits a maximum but if consolidating territory becomes both difficult and important, then small powers can continue to play important roles, even if not top on the power graph, because they are unlikely to be eliminated.


CIV-SPECIFIC ...anything; and TECHS

I would say that the fun of Civ is Rewriting History. The question is in how much is to be rewritten, and how faithful it is going to be. This is why there was an uproar when civ-specific abilities and UU were first included because they were forcing faithfullness. Ideally, I'd have a lot determined in-game, but I can see the reason for civ-specificity. If the only difference between an Egyptian pyramid and an Incan one is the graphics... then fine, but for one to have a unique benefit can change the game significantly.

As for 'degree of historical accuracy' I think that

1. Techs that exist in the standard game should be fixed..otherwise history is changed too dramatically (having what techs you can research at a given time be somewhat random, ie you may have the prerequisites for A, B, and C, but only A+B are currently available for you to resaerch because those are the only things that have occured to your scientists so far seems Reasonable, though, as does having multiple possible tech paths) also I think a TRULY random tech tree would just be too difficult. (save that for Civ 2100 AD)

2. Advantages/disadvantages, I would really like to see developed in game as opposed to Civ-based or preset (so the Germans, Mongols, Incas, etc. get the ability to produce Panzers when one of their Elite* Tanks advances to the next level..unless they already had their UU) [perhaps the specific UU could also depend on the traits the civ had accumulated at that time, or some other situational modifiers]
Preset could also be valuable as an Option in this case

3. Graphics/Leaderheads, etc.... That is an area I'd like to see stay preset, just because that provides the real interestingness of rewriting history and only adds color to the game

4. The world...again either preset or randomly determined should be options. (so if you want to play on Earth or another map you can do so)...I would like the idea of unequal starting positions as a way to modify difficulty level (so starting on a continent with few well domesticated food sources would be a strong disadvantage, wheras starting at a rich well stocked river valley would be an advantage... so entire continental regions might have a severe disadvantage (ie New World v. Fertile Crescent))



DIFFICULTY and AIs

AI Abilities... while the game May have a good AI, It will not work as well as the best Human players, so highest difficulty levels MUST involve some level of cheating or unfairness to provide them a challenge (also the newbie players will need entry level against an AI that is at least interesting and sensible so Cheating and unfairness are also mandatory on the lowest difficulty levels in favor of the Human)

I'd use the following factors for difficulty In this order (as you move away from Standard difficulty level either to hard or easy)


AI 'Smartness': as much as possible but this Can't vary as much as we would want it too

General Ability to gain an advantage: More snowball effect on the easier levels, more resistance to power on the hard levels (makes the game faster for lower levels, and simpler because small powers are more easily eliminated)

AI Bonuses: like cost cuts, etc. as opposed to full scale cheats

AI anti-Human Attitude: Good for the extremes

WONDER RACE

Well I do have to agree that I think that who built the wonder first should only affect the result if the two builders are in contact. and the benefit of having built it first should be more of a Tourist/cultural/influence benefit. (although I could see a Brain Drain type effect when two "Newton's Colleges" possessing Civilizations came in contact as one slowly became the dominant one, eventually negating most of the bonus of the other)

This way you don't know who Really has the Greatest Pyramids in the World you only know that you have one that is Greater than all the powers you get regular news from. (who may have their own pyramids or equivalents)

A related idea to that would be mutually exclusive 'wonders' ie you don't have any Pyramids because you have a Colossus, both require a slightly separate, in game developed, culture to provide their full benefits. (similar to the government requirements for buildings in Civ 3)

 

[flamescreen]

#2 - Great Wonders are cultural. They don't exist outside of culture. Therefore, certains Civ's come prefabbed with certain Great Wonders, for example Inca's, Aztecs, and Egyptians with their individual architectural achievements - Eyptians get Pyramids, Aztecs get Steppe Pyramids, and Incas - well - whatever. But, I think you get the idea. If another culture wants to build these architectural achievements after meeting the other civilization and getting a chance to see them first hand, then they should be allowed to build them for whatever lesser yet still significant cultural advantage. But, if I let it go the way it is now, its just NUTS. And, the race to build it is NOT fun. Its annoying. I build the damn things because I don't want some upside down world, like America as the inventor of the Great Lighthouse, or some other culturally schizophrenic environment.

ACD

I like that idea. In my mind, they should have culturally replaceable art.
As in, the Americans can actually built the lighthouse, you see them building it(Am...building the XXXX{Lighthouse Equivalent} sir!), but if you're them, you see yourself building the equal. However if you do build it, no other civ can build their version of the lighthouse.

The idea as I see it, is similar to UU's as a concept, so you don't get Americans build the Pyramids or the Eiffel tower, or Babylonians building the statue of Liberty.

Difficult to work, since they should invent new stuff, but Babylonians weren't meant to survive that long to build a statue of Liberty, so I suppose players might not mind much(they could build the Istar Statue I suppose).

 

[GoodGame]

For victory-less playing----add a sandbox mode, with a free start of money, settlers, and workings.

On the issue of a more peaceful Cultural-Economic game. Simply divsersify the types of culture. Make some pan-national, creating a-political unifications of nations. Make some 'goods' that can be traded; Make some of the goods more effective at generating domestic happiness than culture, while making other purely useful for increasing international cultural standing and prestige.

Diversify the economic model. Allow international trade that actual generates wealth, not just improved relations. Diversify the 'Wealth' option. Some wealth will be trade goods, and some will actually improve the general infastructure (no buildings, but simple thing like improved road / water distribution-----maybe just more buildings in a larger gradient, all the same).