Quick survey on what makes for good 4x/civ design

[Brian Shanahan]

Deep/complex to me basically means there are a lot of rules/algorithms governing how something works, with some of the mechanics being calculations that the player does not see, and other parts being very visible and having clear ways to interact with it. For example, the Civ 4 maintainence system is an example of a fairly complex system, with some parts (inflation) being inscrutable and impossible for the player to interact with, and others, like city maintainence, having obvious ways for the player to interact with it (build cities to raise it, build courthouses to reduce it). I don't have a distinction between complex under-the-hood mechanics and complex surface mechanics, probably an oversight. Just pretend that they are the same for purposes of answering the question.

To me, a high skillcap does not mean "must play for 1k hours to beat the Ai ", but rather that the potential ceiling of optimal play is several times more efficient than that of a new player. It's completely distinct from the AI question.

I disagree with conflating complexity and depth.

-A game can be extremely complex; but lack in depth, like certain Paradox strategy sims, basically they all come down to: get big to "win", while the interface/mechanics can take months to fully understand.

-or the other way around: the basic mechanics of chess can be taught in give or take an afternoon, while the strategic depth of the game can take years to grasp, and most people don't ever get so far as to really "get" chess.

Again these posts are both talking about complicated rather than complex. Complex speaks about outcomes, complicated speaks about inputs.

[Bobchillingworth]

I answered the survey, but the "how many medium / small actions should a play make per turn" questions were a little odd. For most games the number a player is making is less a function of the game's design and more a metric for how well the player is performing; obviously a large empire or army requires more actions to manage than a smaller one (unless you're playing a game entirely presented as abstractions and ruled by sliders, which sounds miserable).

[Dp101]

I answered the survey, but the "how many medium / small actions should a play make per turn" questions were a little odd.  For most games the number a player is making is less a function of the game's design and more a metric for how well the player is performing; obviously a large empire or army requires more actions to manage than a smaller one (unless you're playing a game entirely presented as abstractions and ruled by sliders, which sounds miserable).

That's why I had the note at the top of the category saying to answer assuming the player was in the midgame with a medium sized empire, i.e. the number of decisions to be made should be the average over all stages of the game.

[RFS-81]

How's the project going? If it's not too much work, I'd really like to hear about your progress!

[haphazard1]

RFS-81 performs powerful thread necromancy!

I second his comment, though; curious to hear anything you care to share on progress.

[RFS-81]

RFS-81 performs powerful thread necromancy!

I second his comment, though; curious to hear anything you care to share on progress.

I don't really know the rules here for thread necromancy, but I think I've seen worse...

[Dp101]

Well, the problem is that in the class I was doing this for, we could only work on projects if we got other people interested, and essentially, literally no one else wanted to commit to working on this over other options, despite the earlier support of others. However, second semester we can work by ourselves, so I will end up working on this, just won't be able to start for a month or so. Sorry for the vaguely disappointing result, I'm not happy either.

[haphazard1]

Thanks for the update, dp101. Good luck with the class and the project!

I don't know of any actual rules against thread necro here at RB. What are a few undead shambling around among friends, right?