Turn CIV4 into a RPG2

[krasny]

yes i think its a crappy idea as well, BUT ..........

RPG elements could be built into the game to make it seem more personal, eg.


1. you are represented in the game by a unit, this unit fights well but if you die your civ continues for a number of years without your intervention

2. enable character development, you choose certain characteristics at the start (eg. science bonus or better unit morale), and add to these as play progresses by such means as conquest, finding barbarian huts, etc

3. the information you get in game reflects the information you would get as a head of state in a given era, news from far flung cities would be out of date

4. deal with the various factions in your civilisation, you want to change to democracy, but the land owners are happy with republic and the church wants a theocracy

 

[sir_schwick]

The biggest problem is thus: It would involve an entire paradigm shift of the role of the player in Civ. You would go from god game to king game. This would be even more a king game then MTW. Good for TW, not good for Civ.

This also reads like an incomplete version of my thread on The Leader Paradigm.

PS: I am a shameless thread self-promoter. This I freely admit.

 

[krasny]

well do we want CIV4 a paradigm sift or officialy modded CIV3?

 

[Teabeard]

I think some of your proposal is good but I think some is not so good. I think it is a good idea to be able to listen to citizens and see what they want. But I'm not sure about the rest of your proposal...

 

[sir_schwick]

Lets examine upgrade versus redesign.

Upgrade:
Cheap - Proven Concepts Market-Wise - Will Not Alienate Audience

Redesign:
Expensive - Possibly Revolutionary Concepts - Might Alienate Audience

In terms of franchising you cannot do too much redesign. Personally I was a big fan of SMAC because it did redesign critical parts of the Civ paradigm, but lets remember how well that did on the open market. Of course there is an upgrade minded design team also. We can look to Civ 5 for more redesign.

 

[yoshi]

You can already do this using Civ2's macro:

Have you, as a civ starting with only one unit and no cities. The unit then has to go about the map completeing tasks or whatever you want it to do.

You can do this using Civ3 but it's harder because as a designer, you have no control over what happens during the game (i.e. you can't make certain things happen at certain times due to a lack of triggers).

Personally, I would be more interested in introducing RTS elements into a battle view.

 

[sir_schwick]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo! Civ is a turned-based game, keep it that way. no part of civ requires tactical knowledge. All the 'unfun' elements seem to be caused by tactical portions of the game(worker movement strategy, mass bombardment).

 

[troytheface]

i have seen the future, and its Rome Total War. Wait, and u will see how civ4 moves in its direction.(which uses warpstorm like terrain- that works on a larger/closer scale map). It also combines turn based mixed with real time battles. The difference of each civ is amplified -a nice break away from civ3's sameness that the different civilizations seem to attain as the game goes on- Civ3 multiplayer interface is much easier to deal with- and the strength of Civ3 -simplicity- need not be compromised ...

 

[sir_schwick]

There is a specific reason Civ is Civ and TW is TW. I think the TW games in general are awesome, but so are the Civ. Each has a unique feel that is somewhat incompatible with the other. THis is how I prefer it, since both are good. If Civ moves toward TW then it will be like a wierd version of TW that is not as good.

Besides, you could not get the historical depth of TW in a Civ game for many reasons. 1) Considering how long a single game from 1087 to 1458 took in MTW, would you really want to play 6000 years? 2) The territories and loyalties and such were based off of real history, not new history like civ. 3) The RTB system was great, but would prolong and already long Civ game,a nd Firaxis has no experience at it. 4) Variations in Civs could be achieved. Of course RTW and MTW factiosn were not equal at all, that was part of the fun or challenge.

I don't mean to knock anybody, its just that I like both games and I would not want to see one try to take the others style.

 

[yoshi]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo! Civ is a turned-based game, keep it that way. no part of civ requires tactical knowledge. All the 'unfun' elements seem to be caused by tactical portions of the game(worker movement strategy, mass bombardment).

Worker movement "strategy" is nothing more than sending a worker to do the right job at the right time. Should be automated (would require smarter AI so that you wouldn't have to keep an eye on workers). By mass bombardment do you mean bombarding many times in one turn? If so, that's hardly a strategy but just players' way of making up for the all-too-frequent failed bombardment.

Face it: Civ is a war-oriented, TBS game and will become more so as the franchise progresses and quite frankly, seeing automated boxing-ring-type battles btween units on adjacent squares is so NOT tactical that it actually make sthe game boring since all the alternatives are just a waste of time (i.e. tech or wonder victories are...god, how can anyone...anyway, boring and the diplomatic victory is disfunctional because of the AI--and who really gives a flying Sid about score?).

A tactical RTS-style battle view is the closest thing to Civ without changing the game too much (i.e. add a new element but you always have the choice of just automating the battle so that you can play normally--see Total War).

Besides, you could not get the historical depth of TW in a Civ game for many reasons. 1) Considering how long a single game from 1087 to 1458 took in MTW, would you really want to play 6000 years? 2) The territories and loyalties and such were based off of real history, not new history like civ. 3) The RTB system was great, but would prolong and already long Civ game,a nd Firaxis has no experience at it. 4) Variations in Civs could be achieved.

The downside to TW is precisely that it is limited by highly specific historical parameters.

Civ has no limitations--it can even include play beyond the planet itself.

Sure, I would love to see innovation in Civ-like things (e.g. something with cultural depth, a more complex system of demographics, etc.) but Civ3 didn't even touch on that and the only thing that seems to always get 100% attention is warfare so...well, there you have it.

You make a good point about the turn limitaiton and all I can say is that it's about time the guys at Firaxis came up with new temporal mechanics.

I've actually thought about this a bit and I figure the best solution is to actually slow down time when war takes place. But really, if 6000 turns are fun turns, what is there to complain about? The problem is if you have 6000 turns only to spend half of them pressing enter to end your turn--there's got to be (interesting) stuff to do. What is that stuff you ask? Well you've got me ther because most humans througout most of history have spend their time doing squat. I guess putting down disturbances in the population, developing unique culture and making war on your neigbours whenever you get the chance is pretty much what Civ3 does only made boring and tedious.

The RPG thing would only work for Civ if you had leaders that actually have lifespans and you control each replacement. To make it interesting some leaders have different advantages over other types. So a militaristic leader has advantages where warfare is concerned for instance, but this may change with the next guy in line. (It would be nice to not have to deal with the same leader for the ENTIRE game.)

 

[Davidizer13]

I like the "leader unit," but isnt that the regicide? Still, as I said to Blackbird, one rotten idea.

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

I like the "leader unit," but isnt that the regicide? Still, as I said to Blackbird, one rotten idea.

yeah i posted this idea to but I actually misworded it as an RPG when i meant it to include a turnless mode. but it is a very rotton idea as it makes it less strategic and much more faster than you can use for real strategy. I say we should keep the turn-based aspect alone and work more on gameplay additions like provinces and trading units.

 

[grallon]

Well I for one wish something new out of this franchise. As of now we have a game that is completely linear: you know where you start, where you'll end and all the steps in between

What I want is a social development simulator basically. What I like is to test pet theories about what would have happened (and how) if this or that element had been changed, etc. This sound dreary of course but it doesn't need to be. Look at the Europa Universalis engine : there are concepts and ideas that can be re-used and if integrated with some proven Civ features - it would make for an awsome experience.

I've long beleived that a successful game is one that integrate multiple approaches into one coherent experience. Someone mentioned R:TW - there you have some strategy mixed with tactical combat - both very different in terms of operations - yet complimentary. So obviously with a concept as broad as Civ the idea would be to multiply those points of view. Something I'd call : interlocking. Your point of view would change depending on the types of actions you'd start: from grand startegy planning to operational to tactical to 1st person RPG. Obviously the main problem would be to keep all the elements functionning coherently so that when you'd leave the 1st person RPG mode and return to the operational mode events would have evolved accordingly.

So let's look at an exemple:

1) The first step would be to design the world you want to play in (mostly physical characteristics - basically that's when the anchor of your game -> the map - would be generated);

2) The second step is to select the human population you'll be playing with (no pre-defined culture here - only a report about available populations, their location and their general characteristics ->

Location: continent - river basin surrounded by deserts

Climate: desertic and sub-saharian

Ecology: seasonal supply of food resources - varying from scarce to very abundant in a relatively stable cycle.

Social Impact:

1st characteristic: relative abundance of food generates surpluses that needs to be stocked - thus an early labor division and stratification between those who produce the food, those who manage it and those who defend everyone else.

2nd characteristic: the cyclical nature of the food supply coupled with the dependency on the river for said supply induces a strong religious feeling in the people.

3rd characteristic: consequence of the 1st & 2nd - maintenance of the new social structure forces individuals to adopt a greated cooperation attitude.

so: highly organized / deeply religious / strong social cohesion

Choose people ? Yes - No

Yes - Name your people : __________

Your people beleives in 3 deities - name deities

3) Then you jump into the map (1st level - strategic - you see the cultural and religious area your people is predominant in). There are already small settlements dotting the landscape so you pick one of them and name it.

4) At this point you can jump a level deeper - on the operational map - where you can see the available resources and affect your environment.
So you'd have say a radius of ... 50 to 100 miles surrounding your original settlement. The map is divided into small hexagon which you can select by click & drag then by right-clicking and assigning a function:

10 hexes devoted to cultivation of wheat will feed 500 individuals - when that is selected you'll see a small worker go out and do as you commanded.

Here too would be displayed the settlement's ZOC: effective borders - the farther away from center you're trying to act the more costly it'll become.

5) The third level is the tactical one where you either fight or built your cities/ infrastructures

Inside a settlement you have access to the factions evolving and interacting there. At first it's easy: the clan leaders - then the warriors vs the priests vs the laborers. later on this complexifies further. Each has an agenda whose pursuit will affect the whole and how it'll evolve. At this level you can enact laws, research new things, sponsors art, favor religion etc etc. Every change affecting the factions which in turn will affect the whole in a dynamic system. At this level you have actual individuals appearing in various areas: a warrior, a shaman, a huntress... etc

6) The final level is the RPG portion where you can select one of the characters that appeared above and jump into 1st person mode - Neverwinter/Morrowwind style. If you're a warrior you could go ahead and lead the assault on the neighbooring settlement that you planned on attacing while being at level 2. Or you could be a priest/shaman and devise the minutiae of your people's religion...

So with these elements you would have a game engine - actually a series of engine working together - that would provide the game the whole spectrum of experiences ... thus keeping the game stimulating.

Make the this macro engine solid enough and then the publisher could live off it for a long time - issuing modules for various epochs or online offshoots etc etc etc...

A game world with scope, depth and breath...


Not gonna happen but at least I could share this with other gamers here



G.

 

[yoshi]

A battle-view is realistic though and it wouldn't reduce strategy--in fact, it would increase strategy. It just means that you would be able to control those little randomized battles between two units in a small map created based on on defender's tile. The RTS element just makes this more reaslistic and faster but you can always pause to make decisions (I suppose in MP you could default the battle-view to TBS mode since you can't be pausing constantly and making the other guy wait--unless you have a system of generlaized orders so the units can organize and engage without any micro-management in which case you wouldn't have to pause).

I didn't understand the part about leaders. Was this refering to my comment about limited lifespans (i.e. multiple leaders for same civ)?

[grallon, social development is way too complex to even begin to reproduce it in a game of this level of scope--even games of far less scope like SimCity are major simplifications when compared with their real-life equivilants.
Nevertheless, it would be nice to see MORE elements of this in Civ4 even if it's just a fantastic simplification. I would start with population, since that is what allows your civ to function: immigration/emmigration (i.e. citizens are automatically added/removed based on success of your city/civ.]

 

[Zild]

I fear I must confess... I am a Total War fan at heart.

True, I've been playing Civ for years - but only because it was around longer. But I've been playing Total War much more since I first got it (Shogun, then Medieval, and Rome when it and I are released in the same country at the same time!) Indeed, I'd be playing Medieval: Total War right now if it weren't for a bodged uninstall on my part and the MTW disc sitting several thousand miles away!

The one thing the Total War series lacked (and still does in Rome, I think) is any form of campaign multiplayer. I think Civ3 has shown some ideas for workable solutions on that, and I must be surprised I'd be surprised if they haven't managed it in Rome...

Civ is near perfect. Total War is near perfect. Total War wasted a good year of my degree and then some. Civ just happened to mystically appear on my computer during my finals...

I hate them both, because I love them both! But please, for both their sakes, do not try to make them like each other!

 

[yoshi]

Fine. Since you put it that way...

 

[Zild]

Sorry - didn't mean to stop you - I'm sure you were coming up with some good ideas.

Please continue!

Just wanted to express my extreme love of both series (and my undying anger that Rome is not out here in Japan yet!)

 

[yoshi]

Okay, okay. If you insist.


But you're right though: the two franchises should not overlap. But then there are many reasons why they couldn't even if they wanted to simply due to the nature of each concept.

The other fact is that developers like to exploit niches in the market so that means the guys developing Civ4 are not going to mess with areas that other developers (e.g. TW) can cream them in.

At the same time, developers want to keep pace with market demand and the market for that kind of gaming is really skyrocketing (even pure RTS games are making a comeback. Adding a touch of RTS (and even RPG) in a unique Civ-style would add a new and interesting element to the game.

I think the best way of maintaining Civ's scope using RPG would be to address the leader issue (as I stated earlier). Eternal leaders that always react the same way throughout history is something that players have never really liked.

Here's how a new leader system could work:

- player controls leader;
- civ is controlled by leader;
- leader has advantages and disadvantages that allow different leaders to be used in different ways that allow player to govern according to the leader's abilities;
- leaders have lifespans and can be killed;
- new leaders are chosen at random within certain historical parameters (so if at war, you will most likely get a militaristic leader); a potential option would be to allow player to choose from a list of potential leaders each time one dies--you chose the best one for the circumstances, if you chose the wrong one, you'll run into problems just like you would in Civ3 for choosing an inappropriate spot to settle a city;
- if rebellions were to be added, rebel leader falls under player's control if rebellion succeeds only player loses points in Civ score for being a loser as the previous leader;
- being able to select different ministers (appear in Council--yes, they should bring this back in Civ4...only make it more useful and less corny) and generals (like GLs) would add to the decision-making ability according to leader
- same thing for AI (additionally, each AI leader has a different personality; i.e. seperate settings for each leader)

All other RPG elements that I can think of (e.g. you start as one unit and must make friends with other lone units (civs without cities and only one non-settler unit) and discover treasures and all that other typical RPG stuff could be modded (Python scripting program will open a lot of doors where that sort of thing is concerned).

 

[yoshi]

Actually, that leader idea sounded a lot like TW.