Get rid of Unique Civs

[tniem]

I know that this was a major discussion when Civ III was in the design phase, but I feel that it is important to bring it up again with the advent of RoN. Please Brian get rid of Civ attributes based arbitrarly before the game is released!

Lets look at what he said in the video about civ attributes.

1) Russia's unique attribute is that if you invade their territory you lose strength due to the environment.

2) Japan's unique attribute is that each city can build ten cars instead of five (or at least that is what it sounded like he said on the video).

Now does anyone find this realistic? Yes Russia does have an imposing territory that has been used as a weapon on Earth. But any people given that territory would have the same thing. In the game, the Russian tribes will not be always placed in a tundra, they could be put in a Bermuda type climate and still have the same attributes.

Likewise, Japanese production came about due to complex social interatcions. Had they not occured, these production abilities would not be there.

This seems way to fixed. In my opinion it is a bad idea. I have not been happy with their use in Civ and do not think that they will be a good idea in RoN. They work in games like AoE or AoK because it is more focused on a shorter span of time but in games that are across all of time their effects are contrived and not that fun. It would be better to have random attributes or ones that evolve from choices made during play such as earning points to pick a new attribute (or some similar system). But fixed attributes? Come on Brian, you can do better than that.

[simwiz2]

agreed, especially about the time-span. I know someone who has EE, and he says that a major problem is that the fixed bonuses become worthless later in time. For example if a certain civ has a +2 arrow range, they won't be much use in the WWII era. In games that span a long period of time, fixed bonuses end up having goofy results.

[Inverse Icarus]

i believe we should have a list of special abilities per civ before we judge.

the abilities could be general and span all the ages...

and i dont think its 10 cars per city... im not sure but i thought i heard bars.

[tniem]

Originally posted by UberKruX
i believe we should have a list of special abilities per civ before we judge.

But even if they are general and span the length of time they are still based on our earth's social interactions and climates. Rewriting history on a different planet would lead to different results and it is why I am not for predefined unique civs for a game of this epic scope.

and i dont think its 10 cars per city... im not sure but i thought i heard bars.

O.k. that makes more sense, I didn't think it could possibly be cars. But even still, it appears bars are some type of production thing. Well, just because historical social interactions caused a strong industry in Japan in our society, it may not be the case in a different history. It is just to fixed and does not lend itself to rewriting history.

[Brian Reynolds]

Some nation power comments/clarifications--

* Nations tend to have one central core "theme" for their power, not a whole array of miscellaneous powers.

* We've tried to strike a balance between the Nation powers that you get "for free" at the start with the geography/territory based Special Resource powers you get for controlling e.g. Aluminum or Horses or Silk, and with the Wonder-of-the-World powers you get for undertaking particular special efforts.

* You also get "powers" based on your level of research in various Library categories... e.g. having more Commerce as opposed to having more Civics, etc.

Some players like Nation powers, some don't. The big "pro" in favor of it from a game design point of view is letting players begin the game by making an important strategic choice; a secondary consideration is making the different nations (which look quite different visually) also "play" differently. But I understand why some players object and I think we've improved on the "just turn off the Nation powers with the checkbox" concept by also having the Resource & Wonder powers: you retain the concept of having "powers" based on geography/territory and on particular efforts/choices you've made in the game.

Brian

[JMarks]

Thanks Brian.

However, what people like tniem and me fear most is that in having that check box to turn off special schtuff, the in game evolutions won't occur the same way if they didn't exist.

That is, civs should develope their traits, not be given them. eg Greeks don't get a hoplite unit as a default. That wouldn't make much sense in open country. However, due to surroundings, like superflous mountain/hill sides and little place for horses, phalanx tactics and hoplite armor comes into being. These evolve again when combined with cavalry tactics (Alexander da Great) and when facing other units like elephants and camals.

the same should go with other traits. If your people have access to bow materials, and of course if you push that use (like the British and their longbowmen) you get great archers with better range or acuracy. If you get horses and archery, you can combine them to make superb cavalry archers. To make it interesting, civs can master all or parts of those aspects. So if I'm in a wooded area and push the archery part, I could get say +2 range bonus in archery, while someone else can get better accuracy. Same could apply later on with other developments. Germans can focus on tanks and get +2 armor or something, while the Americans can get them for25% less or something. Of course when I use these names, I don't mean those civs persay. Rather since we're basing this on history, I mean their social and national interactions which developed them, since there is no way to reduplicate their history, and you wouldn't assume the players will even attempt, much less the AI. Or mabey I should have said that the other way around. If you have civ attributes or units, don't sacrifice the hole aspects we're talking about. And no watered down version, because surroundings, natural and humans, are your history, not predetermined atributes.

Thanks for listening to my rants. Keep up the good work.

JMarks

[One_Dead_Villy]

I agree with tniem and others on this issue and been arguing for that on RON Pantheon, but also I would like to see some civ specific abilities or someway to display some uniqueness. I liked EE for that no civ is cut out of any line but only guided by strategy and the civ bonus choices they themselves choose. But it also leads to a bit of blandness especially in light of everyone having the same look.

I think there is a balance somewhere. I certainly agree that the russian civ advantage is more environmental then cultural...in that regard I think a bit of cultural based civ specific attribute is acceptable, and would be enough. Although its understandable that sometimes its hard to come up with a game element for somethings or some cultural aspects may even be more a stereotype then reality.

[tniem]

Brian, so you have built in a developement of civs throughout the game?

If so, I am glad that this is in. I think that developing civs is an important piece in the strategy that you are looking for in this game. Is this going to be based mainly on research or is some of it going to be based on terrain and/or how the game reacts to your decisions?


I am still not in favor of pregame civ attributes, but I do understand why they are in the game. As long as their is some other uses of attributes in developement during the game I will probably be happy. Good luck with everything and thanks for coming on the boards.

[lord of the mark]

Well you know what i think of unique civs in a 6000 year (or all history) historic game - ie they are unrealistic, dont belong, take away from building your own civ, (and are implicitly racist)

Ive recently been playing AOE on random maps, and i can see what unique units and attributes do for the strategic aspects of a game like that. But for me AOE is so unrealistic, that when i play it on random maps (as opposed to a campaign) that i see it as basically an abstract strategy game in historical dress. A variation on chess. (well, er, uhmm) Civ 2, without being an historical simulation, illustrated grand historical - philosophical themes, which is why i thought adding unique attributes was a travesty. I hope people enjoy civ3, and i may yet buy it someday, but it has clearly left the path of being the ultimate game about human history.

about RON I am torn

On the one hand - its RTS, so do we really expect a deep game??
On the other - EU, city builders, etc have shown that there is no contradiction between RT and depth - and this is BR, after all
On the other - BR indicates there will be unique civs - combined with the AOE/aok look, etc this does not bode well.
On the other - BR acknowledges that many of us have issues with the unique civs, and seems to indicate that the game will be deep and play well without them.

It seems that BR is, marketing-wise, trying to have it all - the EE/Civ3 crowds, as well as those of us looking for something deeper. I dont know how well he will succeed. I can only hope. I have no doubt that he will release a good game (as i believe firaxis did with Civ3) I wonder if he will release a GREAT game.

Lord of the Mark

[Sava]

I like the idea of unique nations. Just be sure to include an editor with the game so I can make my own!

[Kataphraktoi]

agreed, especially about the time-span. I know someone who has EE, and he says that a major problem is that the fixed bonuses become worthless later in time. For example if a certain civ has a +2 arrow range, they won't be much use in the WWII era. In games that span a long period of time, fixed bonuses end up having goofy results.

most EE players only play a few ages at a time.say stone-bronze only....

i believe we should have a list of special abilities per civ before we judge.

the abilities could be general and span all the ages...

and i dont think its 10 cars per city... im not sure but i thought i heard bars

cars? bars??

That is, civs should develope their traits, not be given them. eg Greeks don't get a hoplite unit as a default. That wouldn't make much sense in open country. However, due to surroundings, like superflous mountain/hill sides and little place for horses, phalanx tactics and hoplite armor comes into being. These evolve again when combined with cavalry tactics (Alexander da Great) and when facing other units like elephants and camals.

the same should go with other traits. If your people have access to bow materials, and of course if you push that use (like the British and their longbowmen) you get great archers with better range or acuracy. If you get horses and archery, you can combine them to make superb cavalry archers. To make it interesting, civs can master all or parts of those aspects. So if I'm in a wooded area and push the archery part, I could get say +2 range bonus in archery, while someone else can get better accuracy. Same could apply later on with other developments. Germans can focus on tanks and get +2 armor or something, while the Americans can get them for25% less or something. Of course when I use these names, I don't mean those civs persay. Rather since we're basing this on history, I mean their social and national interactions which developed them, since there is no way to reduplicate their history, and you wouldn't assume the players will even attempt, much less the AI. Or mabey I should have said that the other way around. If you have civ attributes or units, don't sacrifice the hole aspects we're talking about. And no watered down version, because surroundings, natural and humans, are your history, not predetermined atributes.

but i think this is beyond our capabilities right now....

[Crazy Dog]

This means every civ will look the same and feel the same....


That's bulls***! I mean u don't have Greek legionaries (phalanxes, but not legions) or Egyptians with European architecture. I mean, that's unrealistic.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Crazy Dog
That's bulls***! I mean u don't have Greek legionaries (phalanxes, but not legions) or Egyptians with European architecture. I mean, that's unrealistic.

But when you are simulating history what leads to the use of phalanxes instead of chariots many times has to do with terrain and values. Terrain is going to be different in random maps and values as lord of the mark insists (I do now believe rightfully) is inheriently racist. So what the game really needs is some type of evolving civ bonus system that gets points from terrain and your value choices. That way you would have some degree of differences in the civs without them being predetermined and forcing a sterile view of history.

[One_Dead_Villy]

ya a evolution system based on the geography would be right. although the unique techs like russian winter etc kinda complicates this idea. i suppose we could pretend in a game that no matter where Russia gets put that their side of the map is winter wonderland.

but maybe one way to guide research and cultural development is maybe to have local geography make it cheaper for certain research to be done. Like lots of plains would let cavalry and wheeled research cheaper or faster.

[child of Thor]

some kind of editor would be the best way to please most people, still you need to remember this game will cover a huge span of history in about an hours game time, so will it really matter?

[Rohag]

If a computer program aspired to be a “history simulator,” rather than a “strategy game,” I might grant the potentially racist character of pre-determined cultural uniquenesses. But, when the program is a game seeking to model only a few selected elements of history – and highly abstract or ignore the others, then I feel the charge of racism is largely unwarranted.

Cultural formation in its physical and human environments is extraordinarily complex and the subject of much debate. I cannot blame game designers for abstracting it through the use of simple nation-specific traits influenced by real history.

Now, personally, I would be VERY interested in an interactive “Sim History” program. This might involve “players” (I use that term loosely) taking the roles of tribal-kingdom-national leaders with a span of decision akin to real life. That would mean the “player” would have little or no control over many of the natural and even human forces shaping their generic historical entity. I’d find that fascinating. Maybe some others would find it fascinating. Would there be enough of us to make it profitable for a designer/publisher?

[tniem]

Originally posted by Rohag
Cultural formation in its physical and human environments is extraordinarily complex and the subject of much debate. I cannot blame game designers for abstracting it through the use of simple nation-specific traits influenced by real history.

I agree that it is complex and I really can't blame them either. But I do have a problem with taking real history nation traits such as increased production from the Japanese when the game is going to start at the beginning of time. So the reason that the Japanese got so industrious might never take place. Instead, the way you play they should instead be great agriculturalists. It just does not make sense in my opinion.

[One_Dead_Villy]

that is why i think maybe cultural traits that are based on real life geography maybe the best way to go for both anthropoloigical accuracy and flavour. So like Japan and england is an island nation so they should get some kind of sea bonus. just like russian its ok for them to get their russian winter attrition tech. kinda like no matter what map we are on their side of the map has harse weather or something. rather then cultral traits and advantages that are based on current stereotypes.

[Rohag]

Originally posted by tniem

...the reason that the Japanese got so industrious might never take place.

I agree. Speaking only for myself, I’d be perfectly happy with a game featuring generic civilizations, the character of each being determined by a combination of geographical placement, player choices, and in-game interactions (‘history’).

It seems to me many RTS gamers (myself included) un- or semi-consciously role-play. Reading the posts on various forums, some people seem to choose their nations not only for game play advantages but also through some kind of personal identification. The identification need not be positive; some appear to enjoy playing notorious, violent regimes within the safety of the RTS game world, much as they might play a bloody FPS.

This is part of the reason I fear historical games, both RTS and TBS, will usually invest their nations with traits drawn from the popular imagination. Familiar historical images, no matter how shallow, serve as handles for the subtle role-playing of many gamers.

I hope I’m wrong. I’d buy the evolving civilization game you’re describing here – I might even pre-order it.

[One_Dead_Villy]

actually i am not even sure why Japan as an example gets this production bonus. It doesnt seem at all to reflect any historical situation I am aware of, I mean if anyone America is the one nation most often that used its industrial capacity to overtake another nation in peace and in war. Japan on the other hand seemed more often then not the opposite. The only thing I can think of that might have given the impression of Japanese production capabilities seemed to come from some recent events after WW2, but even that doesnt really reflect what is the cause behind Japan's rise after WW2, they like many who studied Japan (which I have since I worked there before), seems to be based on the Japanese affinity to assimulate technology from the outside, but also a tendency to make stepwise improvements rather then revolutionary changes.

I would think a better civ bonus for them would be much cheaper research, but maybe slower research speed. So for a player he/she would be able to if they plan their econ well, be able to start their researches earlier then others to negate the slow speed or since they are cheaper they can have a bunch of research going at once.

Or we can have the other way around and have them have faster research speed but more expensive research costs. Kinda as a reflection of their Meiji restoration period, where great changes took place towards industrialization but at great social costs. Although this second approach isnt quite so unique to Japan really. So the 1st way I like better. I am basing this on the fact that I have worked in Japan for a Japanese company before, and from stuidying Japanese language and sociology in University.

But either way would reflect some character that was displayed by Japan in its history.

Just to elaborate I think a research bonus as I mentioned would be more appropriate since they were very keen to assimilate social and political and literary influences from China through out its ancient past, adopt europeans guns when it was introduced to them in their fuedal times (age of exploration for portuguese), and of course industrialization during the meiji restoration (pre modern era), and technology in the modern era. Most of which was more or less invented by outsiders but Japan, unlike say China, was very receptive to them. Of course Japan also had its period of isolationism but as soon as the industrialized nations came knocking on their door they knew they had to catch up and learn from these outsiders, where as China continued and entrenched their isolationism.

http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf97324/chp7.htm
The above is a comparison of Japan/U.S. productivity and R&D expenditures. as well as comparions between Asia-pacific countries.

In that regard, looking at that article and what I know of Chinese history. I think what China should have is a commerce bonus. It is because of their large population and vibrant internal economy/commerce that was such a boon to them in the ancient times (that propelled its development, certainly there isnt any lack of supply of smart Chinese people but that intellect in the past has been more often then not culturally directed to non scientific pursuits like commerce and politics and arts, while advanced technology for the time seem to me more as a side effect then a concious effort to pursue it), but in a different time was a hinderence to its developmement by resisting trade and assimilation of outside influences and technolgy cause it was feared it would effect negatively on its internal commerse and social institutions. Now if there was to be a system of civ traits that had both an advantage and disadvantage (like my idea for Japan with cheaper research but longer research time), China may because of my analysis of its history would get a bonus on commerce but a penalty in higher research costs.

Of course in whatever case the advantage should outweigh the disadvantages. Like in my China case the superior commerce would more then make up for the penalty in the higher research cost so the overall effect would still be a fairly effective and efficient research nation but it just has to spend more of its resources into research compared to other nations. Just as an example say if commerce bonus allow them to gather 20 extra gold then others per transaction the research cost would cost them say 5 more gold then others. So the effect would be that the extra gold would make up for the extra cost of research and produce much more development in other areas, but to spend it on research would be less efficient then spending that gold on other items. Of course research is vital so eventually some of the gold HAS to flow that way. BUT what that would in effect do is funnel the player toward having big territory (by spending resources gains on civics), many peasants (by spending resources on cities and peasants) and a large army (by spending it on units rather then quality of units) somewhat inferior technology over a long period of time. Which is what we are seeing in the modern world.

In that regard my Japan example the cheaper research is somewhat dampened by the slower research speed, in that they can START the research earlier cause it costs less but it would complete after someone else who started it later, BUT the cost reduction would combine so that the overall speed of getting a particular research would be faster then other nations cause of the time required to gather the extra resources for a research to make up for the base line research cost. In specific terms it would mean if they can spend 10 gold less for a research item that takes say 30 seconds to research, and it takes 20 seconds to gather this extra gold for a base line civ, their research speed would be say 10 seconds slower then others. This would have the effect that their advantage is really a 10 second improvement in research time, or if there was another item that cost 10 gold to research they could have both at 40 seconds cause they would be able to afford both at the same time by delaying their research, While others would have to research each in sequence, and thus have both researched at 60 seconds. I am of course not counting the resources gain during the time of research but those resources can be discounted because we can assume they are used in many other areas. What this in effect would do is to focus the player to have many cheap low improvement research upgrades, or early adoption of advanced technology, which reflect Japan's affinity for adopting technology from the outside and penchant for gradual stepwise improvements, rather then pie in the sky revolutionary technology.

[Axehilt]

Originally posted by Rohag
Now, personally, I would be VERY interested in an interactive “Sim History” program. This might involve “players” (I use that term loosely) taking the roles of tribal-kingdom-national leaders with a span of decision akin to real life. That would mean the “player” would have little or no control over many of the natural and even human forces shaping their generic historical entity. I’d find that fascinating. Maybe some others would find it fascinating. Would there be enough of us to make it profitable for a designer/publisher?

There are quite a few others that would find that fascinating (here in these forums at least), but I sort of doubt it'd be enough to be a profitable computer game. However, with just a little creativity, it'd make a great roleplaying game. It'd even work over email. There needn't be many rules, simply a smart GM in control of everything who gives players realistic feedback every turn as to what would realistically happen with their nation (based on their knowledge of actual historical events).

Only a few statistics would need to be tracked numerically (unless players wanted to get more detailed in that regard). Military size and money. General observations would be relayed by the GM as to the player's Military training, economical power, harvestable resources, political climate (rebellion?), and how prosperous the scientific community is. Think "Civilization the RPG".

Each turn, players would submit paragraphs actually detailing out what actions they wanted their civilization to perform "construct a bridge across this river, concentrate on harvesting the forest, begin a mass propaganda campaign, found new cities, etc". The GM would then reply with the results "the bridge was constructed so trade has improved resulting in more food in London resulting in population growth, the people are now rallied behind the propaganda and intent on crushing your foes, a new village was founded at the crossroads of two of your current cities".

I dunno, it's similar to something I did for about 2 months in my senior year high school History class and it impressed on me the complexities involved in running a government. It sort of modeled the Cold War but with fake names for countries. Two minor countries, each backed by a superpower, had a conflict brewing over a border dispute. Unfortunately, soon after our country landed troops (instead of just backing them with weapons) the other superpower landed troops and it escalated into nuclear war where all sides lost and the game ended. Lesson learned: Don't let superpowers go head to head violently.

It was fun and pretty interesting, though I don't know that I'd want to do it by email :P It was a unique freeform roleplaying experience though.

[One_Dead_Villy]

Axehilt, thats sounds pretty fascinating excercise.
However in a game I think we would need to get statistical I mean afterall it wouldnt be totally objective and thus fair to everyone. When a GM is involved his/her views would inevitably influence things, no matter HOW objectively he/she tried to be. Afterall what makes sense to the GM, doesnt necessarily reflect the actuality nor do countries in reallife do and react in ways which seems logically or reasonable to anyone let alone a GM no matter how smart or broad visioned. I mean look at the American peace efforts in the middle east.


Now the fact that BHG is building into RON many factors from environmental to wonder effects and inherent cultural traits makes it as far as I have seen the best effort so far to at least give all sides a chance to contribute to the debate of civilizations and development, so that no sides feel left out. Just as long as no one side is monotheastic so to speak, and refuses to bow before other gods, we are cooking with gas.

[nobull]

the reason that BHG has chosen these "unique" nations is because the game is spposed to be based on what could of happened instead of what did happen. think about it, if the spanish and english never took over the aztecs land or whatever, there wouldn't be a U.S.A, the game is supposed to be half fictional half real, fiction being the storyline and the realism being the trade, the borders and the way cities are generally built!