Well I'm playing around with the idea of starting some work on a Turn Based Strategy game, similar to Civ2. I'm planning to use graphics that I've found within Civ2 mods to save some time, this will allow me to get right to the game (I always get stuck trying to make nice graphics) Anyways I'm thinking of working with some of the things found in Civ2 and Advanced Wars for the gameboy. These are both games that I enjoyed playing. Civ2 because of how detailed it is, and how big the game can get with all the managing that you can do. Advanced Wars for how simple the game seems, the rules are very simple yet the game can get quite involved. What are some things you think are great features to have in a game like this? Do you like all the control you have in Civ, or do you just want the basics like Advance Wars? I'm going to assume that everyone wants Multiplayer (which would mean I need to learn about networking and the like) Do you feel the combat in these games are required, or could the game be based on 1 civilization trying to grow in an un-discovered area? This would make the game more about gathering resources and making the city grow rather then search and destory. (I guess this would become more like Sim City) Just trying to get some idea as to what might be good in a game like this..

I like both the detail of civ2 and the basicness of advanced wars, but I don't like them when they get mixed go for one or the other.

Plus with multiplayer I would suggest that it should also include a way of having some sort of faster game otherwise in these sort of games things can take a long time (though that is what we want sometimes).

I liked Civilization: Call to Power a lot. I can't comment on Civ2 specifically but I assume C:CtP is close enough.

The following ideas are a bit disorganized I admit but more input is better than nothing.

In short: Yes I liked the control in principle. But some of the game play was way too monotone, especially the cycle city with empty building ques/decide build process of every turn. (I didn't like to use predefined build ques because they were not specialized for every situation.) At the same time, there was a bit too little involving combat, despite all possibilities.

Note, armies in CtP can be arranged from stacks up to 9 units. (Necessary information to understand point below.)

Mostly I think this was due to turns giving very few movement points per unit, and the difficulty to attack. I'd have liked a bit more aggressive game in the beginning. I can see the designers' wish to make the equivalent of "rushes" difficult, but it came to the point where four legions would assault one warrior in a barricaded city in disfavourable terrain and get killed. This made any sort of warfare against a properly defended enemy at start close to impossile. Not only that, turns went by so quickly and cities grew so fast it was a much worse idea to fight than to develop peacefully.

To sum it up: Slow the actual pace of city development down a bit and give players time to fight in all ages, so that the player will have time to fight as the Roman empire with primitive techs. Just don't make the game as rush for higher techs at once; there can be an option to start in later ages instead if you don't really want to play in stone/bronze/iron/whatever primitive age.

Another thing I'd have love to see would simply be a more realistic world in terms of civilization numbers. I.e, instead of having civilization X lasting from 3000 BC to 3000 AD some would be become extinct and some other civilizations be created, and in somewhat greater numbers. Obviously we know how to kill civilizations, but how to create them? Let cities revolt (reasons being left to you to work out) and when independent for a sufficient amount of time a city could be considered as an independent civilization. This allows for less of a fixed empires converging towards one.

Thanks for the input, your correct, any input is better then nothing.

I like the idea of Cities revolting and breaking of on their own. I bet that could be frustrating to the player though, your closing in on a civilization, and your just about to attack when one of your own cities revolt because you've left them defenceless (in order to deploy troops for the attack) and then you have another enemy to worry about.

Its definitly a interesting idea to think about.

I'm trying to think of a game idea I can get behind, I don't want to start something untill I have a plan in my head for what I want to create. Right now I'm thinking this game that we are dicussing, or a Zelda like RPG game where you have to head out and collect different items to build/upgrade/decorate your house.

Quote:

Original post by Turt99 Right now I'm thinking this game that we are dicussing, or a Zelda like RPG game where you have to head out and collect different items to build/upgrade/decorate your house.

Any chance of combining the two? Imagine that you're a hero who has to travel a remote, mystical land trying to gather lost technology to build up your king's home city. From time to time, you have to help out the survivors living in the ruins by training them to fight, fixing their water pumping stations, and helping them to defend their battlements.

Probably not the advice you were looking for, but it would be a much more simple view of Civ mixed with RPG gameplay.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Quote: Original post by Turt99 Right now I'm thinking this game that we are dicussing, or a Zelda like RPG game where you have to head out and collect different items to build/upgrade/decorate your house. Any chance of combining the two? Imagine that you're a hero who has to travel a remote, mystical land trying to gather lost technology to build up your king's home city. From time to time, you have to help out the survivors living in the ruins by training them to fight, fixing their water pumping stations, and helping them to defend their battlements. Probably not the advice you were looking for, but it would be a much more simple view of Civ mixed with RPG gameplay.

You could always combine turn based strategy with RPG elements by making a game similar to that of Heroes of Might and Magic, where you move groups of heroes around on your turn to accomplish various objectives (like finding objects, defending/conquering towns etc.), fighting off other heroes, collecting resources, powering up your heroes etc.

As for your specific questions; I like having the option of lots of control like in Civ., but having A.I. helpers is useful too. The game mustn't be overwhelming in either complexity or in trivial admistration issues in the late game. Simple can also work too, as long as it isn't so simple that the gameplay is lacking.

Multiplayer isn't really required. I've never played Civilization multiplayer. In most turn based games, they go on for so long that unless you have dedicated players someone will get bored and quit. For turn-based games, you might want to consider putting in a "play by e-mail" option as well, that could be an alternative to having to deal with networking.

Combat isn't required, but you'll have to have an appropriate game design to not include it. If you are making a game about the clash between civilisations then war needs to be an option. You can throw a whole heap of penalties into fighting to make it an undesirable option, but it would have to be there. Of course, you don't have to make a turn-based game about civilisations; you could think of something else that has similar gameplay mechanics that does not inlcude any fighting.