What I want in Galciv3
from
Stardock Forums
Can anyone remember in Dr Who where the planet of the Daleks had gone through such a terrible, long war that it reverted back to the stone age? It's a common enough theme in lots of science fiction. On the other hand, the Civ manual explained that war was the stimulus that lead to new technology and development. So too, I guess, with WW2 and the Cold War. And (although I know nothing about the period I get the impression that) ancient civilizations lived in pretty much perpetual states of war.
Which is true? does war lead to regression or development? I reckon the answer is this: in an old-fashioned society, war was a feasible state. But in a modern society, war might provide brief stimulation, but it can't be kept up for long. Indeed, that's what happens in Civ3 and Europa Universalis.
I'd like to see this in GalCiv3. Where too many wars make you regress. Where too large a dominion makes you fall apart. (yeah, Civ3 had it, and everyone complained because the limit seemed so hamfisted, but I like the idea). I want to see Galciv4 where "conquering the universe" just doesn't happen. The bigger you get, the more fragile your unity is, and if you're too fragile then a single incident can make your empire fall to pieces.
The skill and gameplay in this sort of game wouldn't come from building an enormous number of homogenous worlds which all churn out a neverending stream of Battleships or Terror Stars or Mobile Artillery. Instead it'd come from crafting a smaller empire that's more perfect in itself, and that gets on better with its neighbours, than any other empire.
So what's the point? Who wins in the end?
Here's an idea for a goal, based on the tabletop game "Credo". As the game progresses, the empires gradually form larger and larger alliances, and the universe matures into peace. Every so often there will be questions as to the functioning and way-of-life of these alliances. You will try to persuade everyone that your ideas are best. They will put forward their ideas. Compromise, conflict, pressure, threats, diplomacy, power, friendliness, prejudices, they'll all come into this horse-trading. Maybe the game ends with a single Galactic Unification government, or with several equal, stable antagonistic factions. In any case, the winner is the race who managed to get their philosophy to shape the the universe the most.
The game won't degenerate into micro-management, because empires get more fragile as they get bigger, so limiting their size. (too big, and even a small recession might be enough to trigger a collapse, like in Crimson Skies). Maybe there'd be a sort of "limiter" built into the research, so that as the game advances, it gets harder and harder to pull ahead of the other empires. (Instead, in most current games, it gets easier and easier to pull ahead of them, which is why I feel that most games are built around the "ethnic cleansing" model.)
That means that the mechanics of war and conflict will be important in the early stages of the game; the mechanics of tweaking and optimising the running of your empire become important in the middle of the game; and the mechanics of alliances and influence become important later on in the game. In this respect, it'd be similar to "Europa 1400".
That's what I'd like to see in GalCiv3!
Which is true? does war lead to regression or development? I reckon the answer is this: in an old-fashioned society, war was a feasible state. But in a modern society, war might provide brief stimulation, but it can't be kept up for long. Indeed, that's what happens in Civ3 and Europa Universalis.
I'd like to see this in GalCiv3. Where too many wars make you regress. Where too large a dominion makes you fall apart. (yeah, Civ3 had it, and everyone complained because the limit seemed so hamfisted, but I like the idea). I want to see Galciv4 where "conquering the universe" just doesn't happen. The bigger you get, the more fragile your unity is, and if you're too fragile then a single incident can make your empire fall to pieces.
The skill and gameplay in this sort of game wouldn't come from building an enormous number of homogenous worlds which all churn out a neverending stream of Battleships or Terror Stars or Mobile Artillery. Instead it'd come from crafting a smaller empire that's more perfect in itself, and that gets on better with its neighbours, than any other empire.
So what's the point? Who wins in the end?
Here's an idea for a goal, based on the tabletop game "Credo". As the game progresses, the empires gradually form larger and larger alliances, and the universe matures into peace. Every so often there will be questions as to the functioning and way-of-life of these alliances. You will try to persuade everyone that your ideas are best. They will put forward their ideas. Compromise, conflict, pressure, threats, diplomacy, power, friendliness, prejudices, they'll all come into this horse-trading. Maybe the game ends with a single Galactic Unification government, or with several equal, stable antagonistic factions. In any case, the winner is the race who managed to get their philosophy to shape the the universe the most.
The game won't degenerate into micro-management, because empires get more fragile as they get bigger, so limiting their size. (too big, and even a small recession might be enough to trigger a collapse, like in Crimson Skies). Maybe there'd be a sort of "limiter" built into the research, so that as the game advances, it gets harder and harder to pull ahead of the other empires. (Instead, in most current games, it gets easier and easier to pull ahead of them, which is why I feel that most games are built around the "ethnic cleansing" model.)
That means that the mechanics of war and conflict will be important in the early stages of the game; the mechanics of tweaking and optimising the running of your empire become important in the middle of the game; and the mechanics of alliances and influence become important later on in the game. In this respect, it'd be similar to "Europa 1400".
That's what I'd like to see in GalCiv3!