4 ms·

> what happens next? I want to see civ games where social media dynamics enter the picture. Echo chambers, polarisation, pandering, where different unit types

by op03 5y ago

> what happens next? I want to see civ games where social media dynamics enter the picture. Echo chambers, polarisation, pandering, where different unit types cops, military, city workers, journos, scientists etc start chasing Likes and Followers causing all kinds of side effects. And then the player is given various tools to keep things from collapsing...

29athrowaway 5y ago
I guess he could make a dedicated game titled Internet Ad Tycoon.
mhh__ 5y ago
That sounds like a Democracy game rather than Civ
- yxhuvud 5y ago
  Yes, or kinda like VictoriaII.
Iv 5y ago
The plan I have had in my drawers for about 3 years now is that I want to make a civilization game but where the focus is on keeping your own civ together. Civilizations fell more often because of internal dissensions than because of enemy attacks. Tech and actions would all be about finding things that make two cultures a bit closer, two groups work together.
- op03 5y ago
  Good idea really. Did you work out what type of actions? Made me think of Gregory Batesons schismogenesis work. According to his theory the divisions are sort of almost a given within groups, but they don't lead to schism/conflict/collapse when society produces Rituals. Would be really cool to see games exploring or capable of producing rituals as a route...no idea how that would work...
  - Iv 5y ago
    Actually I have a list of actions but I am not sure which one should be kind of automated and which one should be player controlled. At first, I was mostly interested in the spread of ideas and behaviors. The Player would be in the implicit role of a guiding deity, able to invest in new ideas/behaviors and in reordering priority of one tribe. But then, there is a big list of actions that could also be in the player's control: - Create roads/trades to facilitate exchanges of goods, with the indirect goal of also exchanging ideas - Create trade nexus, for the same goal, and drain a whole area into a common culutural pool - Promote one or several languages, to please/facilitate collaboration within tribes - Promote religions - Have sports events - Have culturual events - Have several type of "diplomats" (priests, doctors, clerks, ambassadors, police officers) with selectabletraits: language, religion, ideas. - Decide to militarize some territories or not with selected troops. - Create research facilities One idea behind research is that as you go, you discover ideas that, once spread, can help your entity grow without breaking up and with less efficiency loss. There would be a lot of overlap with the Civ tech tree but with less emphasis on military tech. My hope is that if done right, this should give the impression to the player that wars are just a huge waste of time and resources.
    - op03 5y ago
      Really interesting...and big list...quite ambitious. You should get to work! :) If you are interested in the cooperation vs confrontation tradeoff maybe check out Robert Axelrods games - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation
- e3bc54b2 5y ago
  Civilizations that fell because of internal dissention were big examples because they were so big that there was no threat from outside. When there is not outside enemy, one is created within to suit the needs. Not to mention internal strife can invite and give another party an opening. See US before/after WW2/Cold war, or Rome before/after Punic wars
- elijaht 5y ago
  There are a couple great mods for older Civilization games that capture this particular dynamic. Rhye's and Fall [1] has a lot of this. In particular it follows the "real" history and capturing a-historical areas or expanding too quickly makes it brutally hard to keep your empire together [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhye%27s_and_Fall_of_Civilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhye%27s_and_Fall_of_Civilizat...
bob1029 5y ago
Perhaps we should stop adding new mechanics to civilization, and go back to refine a few really good ones. Civ6 with all of the DLC turned on is absolutely oppressive with the number of choices you have to make beyond turn 100. It turns off all but the most dedicated players. Most of my friends went back to Civ5. If you really don't want to be bothered with all the decision making, you can always play Venice. Makes it easy to bring in more outsiders. In my experience, the most fun I have ever had in civilization is struggling with simple barbarian mechanics in early game while all of my equally-casual friends encounter the same difficulties. The player who got the island by themselves usually wins the science victory, but I don't mind the win conditions. It's more about the journey.
- toast0 5y ago
  I would love for a Civilization (or Beyond Earth) to get simultaneous mode multiplayer that works better. It's too easy to be fiddling around with something and accidentally delay the turn, or somehow trigger a resync, and I lack the patience to play sequential turns with humans.

by op03 5y ago

29athrowaway 5y ago

I guess he could make a dedicated game titled Internet Ad Tycoon.

mhh__ 5y ago

That sounds like a Democracy game rather than Civ

yxhuvud 5y ago
Yes, or kinda like VictoriaII.

Iv 5y ago

The plan I have had in my drawers for about 3 years now is that I want to make a civilization game but where the focus is on keeping your own civ together. Civilizations fell more often because of internal dissensions than because of enemy attacks. Tech and actions would all be about finding things that make two cultures a bit closer, two groups work together.

op03 5y ago
Good idea really. Did you work out what type of actions? Made me think of Gregory Batesons schismogenesis work. According to his theory the divisions are sort of almost a given within groups, but they don't lead to schism/conflict/collapse when society produces Rituals. Would be really cool to see games exploring or capable of producing rituals as a route...no idea how that would work...
- Iv 5y ago
  Actually I have a list of actions but I am not sure which one should be kind of automated and which one should be player controlled. At first, I was mostly interested in the spread of ideas and behaviors. The Player would be in the implicit role of a guiding deity, able to invest in new ideas/behaviors and in reordering priority of one tribe. But then, there is a big list of actions that could also be in the player's control: - Create roads/trades to facilitate exchanges of goods, with the indirect goal of also exchanging ideas - Create trade nexus, for the same goal, and drain a whole area into a common culutural pool - Promote one or several languages, to please/facilitate collaboration within tribes - Promote religions - Have sports events - Have culturual events - Have several type of "diplomats" (priests, doctors, clerks, ambassadors, police officers) with selectabletraits: language, religion, ideas. - Decide to militarize some territories or not with selected troops. - Create research facilities One idea behind research is that as you go, you discover ideas that, once spread, can help your entity grow without breaking up and with less efficiency loss. There would be a lot of overlap with the Civ tech tree but with less emphasis on military tech. My hope is that if done right, this should give the impression to the player that wars are just a huge waste of time and resources.
  - op03 5y ago
    Really interesting...and big list...quite ambitious. You should get to work! :) If you are interested in the cooperation vs confrontation tradeoff maybe check out Robert Axelrods games - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation
e3bc54b2 5y ago
Civilizations that fell because of internal dissention were big examples because they were so big that there was no threat from outside. When there is not outside enemy, one is created within to suit the needs. Not to mention internal strife can invite and give another party an opening. See US before/after WW2/Cold war, or Rome before/after Punic wars
elijaht 5y ago
There are a couple great mods for older Civilization games that capture this particular dynamic. Rhye's and Fall [1] has a lot of this. In particular it follows the "real" history and capturing a-historical areas or expanding too quickly makes it brutally hard to keep your empire together [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhye%27s_and_Fall_of_Civilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhye%27s_and_Fall_of_Civilizat...

bob1029 5y ago

Perhaps we should stop adding new mechanics to civilization, and go back to refine a few really good ones. Civ6 with all of the DLC turned on is absolutely oppressive with the number of choices you have to make beyond turn 100. It turns off all but the most dedicated players. Most of my friends went back to Civ5. If you really don't want to be bothered with all the decision making, you can always play Venice. Makes it easy to bring in more outsiders. In my experience, the most fun I have ever had in civilization is struggling with simple barbarian mechanics in early game while all of my equally-casual friends encounter the same difficulties. The player who got the island by themselves usually wins the science victory, but I don't mind the win conditions. It's more about the journey.

toast0 5y ago
I would love for a Civilization (or Beyond Earth) to get simultaneous mode multiplayer that works better. It's too easy to be fiddling around with something and accidentally delay the turn, or somehow trigger a resync, and I lack the patience to play sequential turns with humans.