Introductions
Hi everyone. I'm posting this thread to start a discussion, more than anything, following a throwaway comment in the mackoti/Mr. Cairo PB59 thread. The comment was based off a straightforward observation: This forum is populatated by people who have busy and complicated lives (in the main), and Civ 4, even with all the mods, do not take that into account. I have delayed posting this because, surprise, surprise, I haven't had time to write it despite PB59 ending a month ago.
Thus the suggestion, made public: Civ should have a mod designed that keeps the strategic decision making properties which make it interesting to players, and turn by turn tactical puzzles, but each turn should never take more than a one hour to play (not including documenting the turn).
Seems like a challenge to design and make such a mod, no?
First of all, I present the rest of this post purely as a thought experiment and suggestions. I hope this is interesting to players and people will post their thoughts, but it is unimportant if not. It does not matter if this thread has a hundred thousand views and no replies. I have no intention of making this mod, but I would support anyone who chose to.
Secondly, I acknowledge that the suggested aim is arbitrary, and many people would likely look at it and reject it out of hand. But I'm not asking anyone to play such a mod, more consider what they would want from it, and how it would impact the rest of their lives holistically, eg "My GF might actually let me play a game because she knows I will not be engrossed in it every night".
Thirdly, my thoughts only lead to a design, and do not bear much thought to implementation. I am not competent to state what is or is not achievable, but I will try to justify why such changes are likely necessary.
Anyway, let me move on.
General constraints
Couple of points here, which I think are uncontentious in this community, and some which might be.
Assertion 1: 1 Turn per day is the ideal play rate for the majority of the game. It fits in with almost every players schedule and other life responsibilities, and should be the aim. It should be noted then, that the first 50 turns of the game usually have too few decisions to make as the turn pace is normally far faster than this, and the time per turn is far below one hour. The converse is true for the late game, as ably demonstrated by the end game for PB59: the end game has too many tactical decision.
Assertion 2: RB, and the German forum, like playing games with over 6 players. Games with more than 6 players struggle to maintain a one turn per day play rate. The only game mode which enables this is Pitboss, therefore this mod could only be implemented in Civ 4, even if other factors make different versions of civ a potential better starting position to design such a mod.
Assertion 3: Civ 4 is a turn based game and when a turn is played (ie start or end of a turn) matters, but if this mod is designed to slot into a players life with the minimum of overspill, this matter needs to be either eliminated, or reduced to a minimum.
Assertion 4: Victory conditions define good gameplay (ie decisions are made to reach a VC), however once it becomes clear that a player cannot achieve a VC, the players decisions can become far harder to make/justify (as their is little meaning beyond surviving, kingmaking, and ending the game with the highest score possible). Therefore a new victory condition system needs to be implemented, and the current Victory conditions are just a way to end the game.
Assertion 5: A rebuilt VC system should promote engagement at all time periods of the game and can be used to modify in game decision making above and beyond that created either by game balance or other player decisions.
General discussion
Looking at the above assertions, I think Assertion 2 is taken for granted and Assertion 1 is second nature but has an obvious solution: the game should start with more tools immediately available but there should be a far harder limit on the amount of decisions that need making late game. This can only be achieved in the following ways: limit the number of cities, limit the number of units, limit the area of a map that a player can easily interact in.
But dealing with assertion 2 first: It makes more sense to keep as much as possible and rebalance, rather than build completely new. ie keep the tech tree generally the same yet move stuff around freely, keep the units but accept that costs and strength might change, but don't design new units, keep resources as they are but possibly change yields etc. Essentially nothing is sacred, but don't change anything if there is not a good reason (given what I would suggest there will be a good reason to change most things on some level though).
The problem with assertion 1 is that Civ 4 warfare is abuilt around disparate windows of attacking due to tech speed, then building units, then moving units (including attacking, healing and reusing the same units), it is very, very difficult to build a mod without first nailing down map size. I think it is accepted that tight maps lead to very quick bloodshed and games ending before the modern era, and I would propose that it actually makes sense to plan around using large maps, with plenty of space, and then building the rest of the mod ontop of that premise. Consider the alternative: with limited space, a mod would need to have really quick tech speeds to play out from ancient, warriors with clubs through to a spaceship and this would have a knock on effect with balancing warfare. My personal view is that it would probably push warfare to being brutal and very difficult to design a way that would not lead to quick knock outs of slower players and a snowball problem.
My thoughts lead to the following ideas: Increase the minimum distance between cities, gradually increase the size of a cities BFC, and tie all military units to population (eg warrior takes 1 pop point, knights might take 3, tanks might take 5), and put a hard limit on the number of combat rounds that occur (to stop units from dying from only being attacked by one unit and move closer to the civ 6 combat model.
Assertion 4 and 5 are two halves of the same coin: If a new VC points system is designed, (which could include eg out of game point scoring such as public reports voted on by lurkers, or after game votes by players) it can be tailored to include negative points ie -5 VC points for taking more than 1 city from a player, or -10 points razing a city that was settled for more than 30 turns just as easily as it could include positive points for stuff like +25 points for "worlds largest ever city" or +5 points per player that you have not declared war on who survived until the end game. The possibilities when we start thinking of VC with the UN and the diplomatic victory are almost endless (yes this rips off/builds on civ 6, refer back to assertion 2).
This leads to an interesting point: is it even worth thinking about about promoting keeping players alive, not necessarily in a true rump state but even in diminished capacity? After all, it should be possible to balance a VC point system to give points for losing one city, never mind more complex balancing.
Without further ado, here is the start of a change log
Outline of change log
General thoughts
There is a strong argument, IMO, to change up the early game a bit and give the entire first row of techs to all civs and have everyone start with a worker. The only cost is scout, but given the proposed military pop points, this promotes players building scouts and scouting, and with the barb changes gives players something to think about.
The other point is the true rush civs (Maya, Mali) can be more easily fixed, but then all the civs could be on the table for rebalancing anyway.
Slavery is going to get nerfed simply by the additional pop cost of military units, and I'd probably push chopping back.
There will always be a problem with coastal cities (including placement), but I would consider going the route of SMEG mod and buffing harbours etc to increase the yields of coastal and ocean tiles.
Late game balance will probably need to be around growing each city every turn. This is not a bad thing, and there is no reason that the growth formula couldn't be changed (ie 20+3*pop size rather than 20+2* pop size), or saved food from city improvements is adjustable.
There would need to be a field of view change to enable players to see a full city with all 57 tiles in the EBFC, and the whole happy and health system would need rebuilding, but that is just changing numbers around in XML.
The VC rebuild is where this would work. Few cities would be a given, and the pop cost link to military means fewer units to manage, but it is the VC system which would promote player interaction and reduce players trying to launch invasions all the way across the map to save the game a la Miguelito in PB59 (but not sending units to support someone). That would need to be in place before anything else is ever worked on.
In conlusion? Good luck to anyone that wants to work on this. I'd suggest starting from RtR 5.0.0.X as a base but that is probably hubris, just as easy to start from BtS 3.19 with the relevant bug fixes.[/u]
Hi everyone. I'm posting this thread to start a discussion, more than anything, following a throwaway comment in the mackoti/Mr. Cairo PB59 thread. The comment was based off a straightforward observation: This forum is populatated by people who have busy and complicated lives (in the main), and Civ 4, even with all the mods, do not take that into account. I have delayed posting this because, surprise, surprise, I haven't had time to write it despite PB59 ending a month ago.
Thus the suggestion, made public: Civ should have a mod designed that keeps the strategic decision making properties which make it interesting to players, and turn by turn tactical puzzles, but each turn should never take more than a one hour to play (not including documenting the turn).
Seems like a challenge to design and make such a mod, no?
First of all, I present the rest of this post purely as a thought experiment and suggestions. I hope this is interesting to players and people will post their thoughts, but it is unimportant if not. It does not matter if this thread has a hundred thousand views and no replies. I have no intention of making this mod, but I would support anyone who chose to.
Secondly, I acknowledge that the suggested aim is arbitrary, and many people would likely look at it and reject it out of hand. But I'm not asking anyone to play such a mod, more consider what they would want from it, and how it would impact the rest of their lives holistically, eg "My GF might actually let me play a game because she knows I will not be engrossed in it every night".
Thirdly, my thoughts only lead to a design, and do not bear much thought to implementation. I am not competent to state what is or is not achievable, but I will try to justify why such changes are likely necessary.
Anyway, let me move on.
General constraints
Couple of points here, which I think are uncontentious in this community, and some which might be.
Assertion 1: 1 Turn per day is the ideal play rate for the majority of the game. It fits in with almost every players schedule and other life responsibilities, and should be the aim. It should be noted then, that the first 50 turns of the game usually have too few decisions to make as the turn pace is normally far faster than this, and the time per turn is far below one hour. The converse is true for the late game, as ably demonstrated by the end game for PB59: the end game has too many tactical decision.
Assertion 2: RB, and the German forum, like playing games with over 6 players. Games with more than 6 players struggle to maintain a one turn per day play rate. The only game mode which enables this is Pitboss, therefore this mod could only be implemented in Civ 4, even if other factors make different versions of civ a potential better starting position to design such a mod.
Assertion 3: Civ 4 is a turn based game and when a turn is played (ie start or end of a turn) matters, but if this mod is designed to slot into a players life with the minimum of overspill, this matter needs to be either eliminated, or reduced to a minimum.
Assertion 4: Victory conditions define good gameplay (ie decisions are made to reach a VC), however once it becomes clear that a player cannot achieve a VC, the players decisions can become far harder to make/justify (as their is little meaning beyond surviving, kingmaking, and ending the game with the highest score possible). Therefore a new victory condition system needs to be implemented, and the current Victory conditions are just a way to end the game.
Assertion 5: A rebuilt VC system should promote engagement at all time periods of the game and can be used to modify in game decision making above and beyond that created either by game balance or other player decisions.
General discussion
Looking at the above assertions, I think Assertion 2 is taken for granted and Assertion 1 is second nature but has an obvious solution: the game should start with more tools immediately available but there should be a far harder limit on the amount of decisions that need making late game. This can only be achieved in the following ways: limit the number of cities, limit the number of units, limit the area of a map that a player can easily interact in.
But dealing with assertion 2 first: It makes more sense to keep as much as possible and rebalance, rather than build completely new. ie keep the tech tree generally the same yet move stuff around freely, keep the units but accept that costs and strength might change, but don't design new units, keep resources as they are but possibly change yields etc. Essentially nothing is sacred, but don't change anything if there is not a good reason (given what I would suggest there will be a good reason to change most things on some level though).
The problem with assertion 1 is that Civ 4 warfare is abuilt around disparate windows of attacking due to tech speed, then building units, then moving units (including attacking, healing and reusing the same units), it is very, very difficult to build a mod without first nailing down map size. I think it is accepted that tight maps lead to very quick bloodshed and games ending before the modern era, and I would propose that it actually makes sense to plan around using large maps, with plenty of space, and then building the rest of the mod ontop of that premise. Consider the alternative: with limited space, a mod would need to have really quick tech speeds to play out from ancient, warriors with clubs through to a spaceship and this would have a knock on effect with balancing warfare. My personal view is that it would probably push warfare to being brutal and very difficult to design a way that would not lead to quick knock outs of slower players and a snowball problem.
My thoughts lead to the following ideas: Increase the minimum distance between cities, gradually increase the size of a cities BFC, and tie all military units to population (eg warrior takes 1 pop point, knights might take 3, tanks might take 5), and put a hard limit on the number of combat rounds that occur (to stop units from dying from only being attacked by one unit and move closer to the civ 6 combat model.
Assertion 4 and 5 are two halves of the same coin: If a new VC points system is designed, (which could include eg out of game point scoring such as public reports voted on by lurkers, or after game votes by players) it can be tailored to include negative points ie -5 VC points for taking more than 1 city from a player, or -10 points razing a city that was settled for more than 30 turns just as easily as it could include positive points for stuff like +25 points for "worlds largest ever city" or +5 points per player that you have not declared war on who survived until the end game. The possibilities when we start thinking of VC with the UN and the diplomatic victory are almost endless (yes this rips off/builds on civ 6, refer back to assertion 2).
This leads to an interesting point: is it even worth thinking about about promoting keeping players alive, not necessarily in a true rump state but even in diminished capacity? After all, it should be possible to balance a VC point system to give points for losing one city, never mind more complex balancing.
Without further ado, here is the start of a change log
Outline of change log
General thoughts
There is a strong argument, IMO, to change up the early game a bit and give the entire first row of techs to all civs and have everyone start with a worker. The only cost is scout, but given the proposed military pop points, this promotes players building scouts and scouting, and with the barb changes gives players something to think about.
The other point is the true rush civs (Maya, Mali) can be more easily fixed, but then all the civs could be on the table for rebalancing anyway.
Slavery is going to get nerfed simply by the additional pop cost of military units, and I'd probably push chopping back.
There will always be a problem with coastal cities (including placement), but I would consider going the route of SMEG mod and buffing harbours etc to increase the yields of coastal and ocean tiles.
Late game balance will probably need to be around growing each city every turn. This is not a bad thing, and there is no reason that the growth formula couldn't be changed (ie 20+3*pop size rather than 20+2* pop size), or saved food from city improvements is adjustable.
There would need to be a field of view change to enable players to see a full city with all 57 tiles in the EBFC, and the whole happy and health system would need rebuilding, but that is just changing numbers around in XML.
The VC rebuild is where this would work. Few cities would be a given, and the pop cost link to military means fewer units to manage, but it is the VC system which would promote player interaction and reduce players trying to launch invasions all the way across the map to save the game a la Miguelito in PB59 (but not sending units to support someone). That would need to be in place before anything else is ever worked on.
In conlusion? Good luck to anyone that wants to work on this. I'd suggest starting from RtR 5.0.0.X as a base but that is probably hubris, just as easy to start from BtS 3.19 with the relevant bug fixes.[/u]
Somehow I don't think you'll get a lot of interested players with that attitude. The game still has to be enjoyable.