Civilisation 5's tech tree vexes me.

[Winthur]

Y'know what else is wierd? Wonders. Oh, not the building of them per se (though it is wierd that you have to expend mineral resources on, e.g, The Art of War,) but that this uniquely obstructs other civilisations from getting them, ever. I think it might be more reasonable if the first civilisation to build, e.g, The Pyramids got a 50% productivity bonus for 30 turns, or something (similar to a Golden Age. Or maybe Wonders would be how you'd trigger Golden Ages? Or maybe they'd grant you a prestige bonus in diplomacy? *shrugs*)

Well, being the only Civ with certain wonders kind of feels like an accomplishment that helps make it unique. Having wonders as Golden Ages (sans for the Taj Mahal, obviously) would make it a bit shallow (not to mention that, at least in Civ3 and Civ4, you could use a Great Person to rushbuild a wonder,and Great People are also used for Golden Ages in Civ4). Besides - hard to balance. Wonders are this way. You can build Stonehenge in your capital city, but you can't do it too late (it usually is built by 1400 BC or so at the most), but if you do it too early you might lose juicy expansion spots. Finally, the ability to deny certain wonders to the AI is very strategic inherently. I certainly hate to see my neighbors with Statue of Zeus built, but it's taxing for me to build it as well, particularly if I don't have Ivory. It's just a game mechanic, try not to think too hard about it. Also, National Wonders.

If you're treating Cultural traits as a form of tech research, maybe the non-material Wonders could be implemented in a similar fashion?

I think that's how religion-enabling techs work already (I mean, religion gives a lot of culture points). Natural Wonders were there in original Colonization (Fountain of Youth caused a huge influx of immigrants in Europe, I believe) and returned in an expansion pack for Civ5 (where they were broken, wololo)

[Closet_Skeleton]

Civ 5 cut out all of the non-building national wonders except for national epic, which is a national wonder so its 1 per player not 1 per game.

[Carry2]

Well, being the only Civ with certain wonders kind of feels like an accomplishment that helps make it unique. Having wonders as Golden Ages (sans for the Taj Mahal, obviously) would make it a bit shallow (not to mention that, at least in Civ3 and Civ4, you could use a Great Person to rushbuild a wonder,and Great People are also used for Golden Ages in Civ4). Besides - hard to balance. Wonders are this way. You can build Stonehenge in your capital city, but you can't do it too late (it usually is built by 1400 BC or so at the most), but if you do it too early you might lose juicy expansion spots. Finally, the ability to deny certain wonders to the AI is very strategic inherently. I certainly hate to see my neighbors with Statue of Zeus built, but it's taxing for me to build it as well, particularly if I don't have Ivory. It's just a game mechanic, try not to think too hard about it. Also, National Wonders.

(Oops- what I meant to suggest was that the 50% bonus could apply to that wonder's specific benefits. e.g, if building the Hanging Gardens gave you +2 happy citizens in every city, then being the *first* to build the Hanging Gardens would give you +3 happy citizens for the next 30 turns.)

I can understand the appeal of weighing strategic pros and cons when it comes to picking what Wonders to build, but making them permanently one-of-a-kind is an example of the kind of design decision- where fostering interesting competition visibly trumps plausibility- that made me uncomfortable with the series in the first place.

Here's a notion- if you had some kind of blind research system in place, what if Wonders/Secret Projects were actually a primary method of influencing your civilisation's direction for tech investment? i.e, that getting everybody on board with this extravagant project really helped to funnel interest into related fields of study and materials science?

Yes, I know, I'm overthinking things.

[Carry2]

If I might be permitted another sojourn on a speculative tangent, one notion that occurs to me would be break down the game into several chunks of a human lifetime each: one for the stone age, one for the bronze/iron age, one for the renaissance/early-industrial-period, and one for the modern period and possibly an epilogue in the near future. (The question of how you'd maintain your position in a democratic admnistration with fixed terms still rears it's head, though.)

Actually, now that I think about it, there is the exceptional case of FDR, who 'reigned' for 4 terms until dying of natural causes. Of course, you might need a combination of massive popularity during a time of national crisis and some bending of rules to get away with that, but 'dictatorpresident for life' doesn't seem wholly untenable as a game mechanic. It also presents an interesting tradeoff between doing as much good as you can within your term vs. respecting the institutional safeguards that raise the average quality of government.

While I'm speculating in that vein, I'd also imagine gaining different mechanisms for influencing your civ's development during different epochs. (After all, the very idea of 'tech research' would have been essentially alien to most ancient civilisations.)


Primeval Era: Stone age and agricultural revolution- the great migrations from the original point of human origins to colonise the globe. Migrations and Settlement to induce environmental adaptations. Ethnic groups, languages, mythologies and pantheons established, chance of Great Prophets.

Ancient Era: Bronze and early Iron Age. Emergence of large cities and hierarchical social power-structures, empire-building and nascent republics. Commission specific settlement infrastructure and military units. Inaugurating Wonders and Campaigns with a chance to discover Great Builders and Generals.

Inventive Era: Emergence of mechanical labour-saving devices and inventions, loosely equivalent to the Renaissance, Song-to-Ming China, and early Industrial Revolution. Patronage of Genius: chance to commission specific Breakthroughs, Masterpieces and Voyages from Great Scholars, Artists and Explorers during their lifetime.

Modern Era: Late-Industrial and Modern Globalisation period, with near-total dependance on secular scientific mindset for economic functions. Highly focused Research and Development of specific desired technologies. Eventually, Space Programs to explore and colonise other worlds.

[Carry2]

Just one final thought/addendum: If your influence in each era corresponded to a single human lifetime, maybe there's no need for continuity of rulership. You might allow the player to switch at will between civs at the end of each era.

This might help to solve the complaint that civ games tend to be foregone conclusions beyond a certain point, since you could take on the role of the underdog in the next era, and see how that shakes out. It also means you're not neccesarily invested in the success of just one civ, but might be encouraged to consider that civ's impact on the world as a whole.

Example:

Spoiler

Show

In the first era you'd lead your tribe to settle near the mouth of an estuary next to an offshore island chain, thus prompting their future development of seafaring technologies, vast territorial expansion and long-distance trade routes, something like the polynesians, phoenicians or vikings.

In the second era, you might take on the role of plains-dwelling nomads they've been bartering with (something like the apache, mongols or bedouin,) who've copied their developments in metallurgy and writing. You combine those techs with your expertise in domestication and warfare to forcefully establish a continent-spanning cosmopolitan empire.

In the third era, the nomad empire has collapsed under it's own weight, while greatly facilitating the exchange of technologies (and a plague or two,) triggering a demographic collapse followed by a new renaissance. This time, you take up the reigns of a once-conquered city-state and focus exclusively on tech development, fostering a golden age of the arts and sciences and the ferment of strange political ideas.

Finally, in the fourth era, that city-state has founded a global sphere of cultural, military and economic clout. But you might return to the remnants of the nomad empire as it's constitutional monarch, trying to keep pace with demands for economic modernisation and secular reform while pacifying the conservative elements of the culture on which your power-base depends. Your crowning achievement is the political re-unification of the region under your diplomatic stewardship, laying the groundwork for a strong political position within an emerging, quasi-democratic world government.

[Cikomyr]

Just one final thought/addendum: If your influence in each era corresponded to a single human lifetime, maybe there's no need for continuity of rulership. You might allow the player to switch at will between civs at the end of each era.

This might help to solve the complaint that civ games tend to be foregone conclusions beyond a certain point, since you could take on the role of the underdog in the next era, and see how that shakes out. It also means you're not neccesarily invested in the success of just one civ, but might be encouraged to consider that civ's impact on the world as a whole.

Example:

Spoiler

Show

In the first era you'd lead your tribe to settle near the mouth of an estuary next to an offshore island chain, thus prompting their future development of seafaring technologies, vast territorial expansion and long-distance trade routes, something like the polynesians, phoenicians or vikings.

In the second era, you might take on the role of plains-dwelling nomads they've been bartering with (something like the apache, mongols or bedouin,) who've copied their developments in metallurgy and writing. You combine those techs with your expertise in domestication and warfare to forcefully establish a continent-spanning cosmopolitan empire.

In the third era, the nomad empire has collapsed under it's own weight, while greatly facilitating the exchange of technologies (and a plague or two,) triggering a demographic collapse followed by a new renaissance. This time, you take up the reigns of a once-conquered city-state and focus exclusively on tech development, fostering a golden age of the arts and sciences and the ferment of strange political ideas.

Finally, in the fourth era, that city-state has founded a global sphere of cultural, military and economic clout. But you might return to the remnants of the nomad empire as it's constitutional monarch, trying to keep pace with demands for economic modernisation and secular reform while pacifying the conservative elements of the culture on which your power-base depends. Your crowning achievement is the political re-unification of the region under your diplomatic stewardship, laying the groundwork for a strong political position within an emerging, quasi-democratic world government.

I like Your idea of trying to unite your people and having early factions with the same culture as you. I'd like to explore this idea in depth...

[Talesin]

Here's a notion- if you had some kind of blind research system in place, what if Wonders/Secret Projects were actually a primary method of influencing your civilisation's direction for tech investment? i.e, that getting everybody on board with this extravagant project really helped to funnel interest into related fields of study and materials science?

It's a good idea but I wonder if in practise it would fall down because it is either A) random (and that can ruin games) or B) follows a set path that is predictable after your 2nd or 3rd play through, ie I push for culture and that will net me X, Y and Z.

I could see something like this being fun but it needs to give you the ability to 'create' things and I wonder whether this would be too powerful or too complicated for a game setting.

I almost think you want a game to be more immersive/complex but what your vision for the game is might be too complicated. It sounds good though and if a game like this was ever made i'd definitely give it a go.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Hearts of Iron 3. Though its very restrictive, being a game about the WWII rather than an empire building things. However an empire building game that had Hearts of Iron's complexity with the breadth of Civ would probably be exhausting and would take hours and hours to get through a single game.

I like Your idea of trying to unite your people and having early factions with the same culture as you. I'd like to explore this idea in depth...

That might be an interesting mod to Civ, though I don't know how the game coding works. Whether you could have 2 people control a city or not. And whether its actually a bit too simple because there's not a huge amount to do within a city, changing unit production, tile usage etc.

[factotum]

It's a good idea but I wonder if in practise it would fall down because it is either A) random (and that can ruin games)

There is already a fairly significant random factor in Civ games--the location you start can make a huge difference to your early growth, which can have knock-on effects throughout the game. Adding another random factor wouldn't necessarily make much of a difference, then, IMHO.

[Cikomyr]

That might be an interesting mod to Civ, though I don't know how the game coding works. Whether you could have 2 people control a city or not. And whether its actually a bit too simple because there's not a huge amount to do within a city, changing unit production, tile usage etc.

Well.. look at it this way.

1st Stage: Tribal spread. You controlling one city at the time. You can still send settles around to create new city, and maybe electing to switch command to a new city once in a while.

Creating new city promotes trade. You can also potentially war with some of them and sack them for easy $$$.

Each cities develop their own personnalities and quirks based on their geographical locations, militarism, etc... But all of them are defined by the same culture. Ex: Athen was a trading naval city, while Sparta was more of a land-based slaver warrior culture.

Cities that are established near another culture's city may start trading with them, and might be influenced by said culture in their development. Again, war is possible.

2nd stage: Hegemon-creation.

This is where relations between cities become more institutionnalized. Cities might start to be forcefully put in alliances, either through diplomacy or military conquest. Note: Conquered cities are either razed or become the equivalent of a Puppet-State. You still cannot directly control many cities.

Heavy limitations are put while trying to puppet cities of a different culture than yours. Might simply sack them, or try to Hellenize them (convert them to your culture). Cities that are bordering two cultures are... delicate. Might be the subject of war between Hegemons-wannabe.

The point is the buildup of alliances within a single culture. Athen vs Spartha, and see who will forever shape your culture's destiny.

3rd Stage: Nations-building

Hmm.. am a bit at loss, and out of time. Might finish this when I have a better idea of how things could work out...

See ya!

[mangosta71]

The default for Alpha Centauri is blind research. You decide what path you want to emphasize - military, exploration, infrastructure, or environmental - and the next tech you gain is randomly selected with extra weight given to the path you've selected. However, tech prerequisites being what they are, the number of ways things can shape up is fairly limited. But that's also going to be true of any Civ game that implements blind research (and since Alpha Centauri is basically Civ In Space, that shouldn't be surprising).

[Winthur]

There is already a fairly significant random factor in Civ games--the location you start can make a huge difference to your early growth, which can have knock-on effects throughout the game. Adding another random factor wouldn't necessarily make much of a difference, then, IMHO.

I'm sure that's the same policy that they had with introducing Random Events to Civ4 BtS and many people loathed those. That, and whether you start off on a desert or in Eldorado does tend to give certain advantages and disadvantages but it does so in a "play the hand you are dealt" way, unlike Random Events and goody huts which tend to slap you with a random advantage/disadvantage that you often have no way of dealing with. (Oh hey, you randomly lose your Cottage or forest because game is a jerk and there's nothing you can do about it. Yay. Or, alternately, get random bonus that you may or may not have anything to do with. Zzz.)

Of course Civ has random factors. Combat is random (Spearman beats Tank and all), land is random and so and so. Rarely does it happen though that the odds completely ruin your plans and if you had to rely on random chance you'd just take whatever result you have. Making an elaborate plan that is ruined just because of some random factors is not my kinda gameplay.

[ObadiahtheSlim]

Civ 4 starting locations are usually pretty balanced. However some like unirrigated corn/wheat could really slow down your early development. Starting gold could catapult your economy.

[Carry2]

I might try to catch up on this discussion later in the week, but I'll just make a few remarks offhand:

* While I have no particular objection to considerations of tactical balance where these can be plausibly incorporated, it would not, personally speaking, be my foremost concern here. Plausibility would.

* Randomness (in. e.g, starting locations) isn't necessarily unfair, as long as your can rely on long-term statistical averages to level the playing field (e.g, being able to migrate long, long distances over a human lifetime to find other places to settle. Bear in mind, most of the planet would be uninhabited at this point, and tech progression negligible, so the drawbacks to long-range exploration should be quite manageable.)

* On the subject of blind research: One point I'd repeat is that ancient civilisations often lacked any well-defined idea of 'the future' or 'progress' or 'scientific curiosity' at all. Choosing 'categories' for tech research is kind of missing the point here- they didn't do tech research, period. (Alpha Centauri did blind research, but as mentioned in the OP, that is the one game in the series where it didn't make much sense. But I digress.)

* What I'd propose here is a more general form of 'blind development', where you only have limited control over what your citizens do in any respect- industrial, commercial, military, cultural, etc- based on how autocratic or consensual your style of government is. (e.g, an aristocratic republic might allow 1/3 of your resources to be spent on government projects, with 1/3 going to popular demands, and 1/3 lost to corruption and waste.) However, since 'necessity is the mother of invention', whatever influence you do have over warfare/industry/trade/politics (or, in the very early game, the geographical features of where you decide to settle,) would tend to spur technological developments in the corresponding arts and sciences. But you actually have to do stuff with tech to make it grow.

* And even if things do turn out badly for your tribe, what about it? In the next era, the player could switch to any other civ you made contact with, and see how they got along thanks to their decisions and environmental inputs. And who knows- in another few centuries, the former might turn out be sitting on top of a billion gallons of oil. ...Won't that be fun!

[Carry2]

Going back over the thread, the thought occurs to me that a number of the objections here may be rooted in the assumption of gameplay features that have been essential to the Civ series in the past, and which I haven't expressly suggested throwing out, but which would probably contradict other gameplay features that I would like to see introduced. So this could easily confuse casual readers, particularly given the piecemeal formulation of my pet ideas over the course of the thread.

Basically, the game I'd imagine playing might only have a few essential things in common with the Civ series- founding cities, growing techs, waging war, exploring the unknown, etc., to the extent that direct comparisons with Civilisation may not have been productive. It might be best if I actually started a different thread with a concise and concrete 'design document' to make the basic gameplay assumptions clear, and see what follows from that.

I'm not sure when/if I'll actually get around to typing that up, but I apologise if I've given the impression of tripping folks up in the current thread. Perhaps it might be fairer to leave the discussion there.