What do you yearn for in a Civilization game?

I agree, Steve!

I think, Justin, that if you're going to set out to make a new Civ game, you would do well to learn about and try to play the games in this genre that have gone before. The logical starting point is the granddaddy of Civ games, Avalon Hill's "Advanced Civilization". There are a lot of other games in the genre that you should look at, though, including History of the World, Vinci, Twilight Imperium (sort of), Sid Meier's Civilization, La Citta, Empires of the Ancient World, Tahuantinsuyu (Inca-themed), Mare Nostrum, 7 Ages, and probably a few others besides. Also look at the games in this genre that folks on our site have created, including my own "Sands of Time", David's "Wheel of Time", and Rene's "Gheos".

I think that before you embark on your project, it's important to define what you are looking for in a game that doesn't currently exist. After all, if the ideal game for you is already out there, you should just play that!

For myself, what I saw in a lot of Civ games was an emphasis on territorial conquest; this is particularly true of games like Vinci or History of the World. When I heard about Mare Nostrum, it was described as a 3 hour Civ in which you had to manage your empire's military, political, and economic spheres, but in a context of simple and clever systems. I wondered whether I could create a game of my own that fit that description, and it's still an open question whether I'll succeed!

As far as what would make a good theme for a Civ game, I think that thinking outside the box is a good way to go. There's an upcoming GMT game called "Progress and Destiny" which is about the settlement of the American west, yet it has all the hallmarks of a good Civ game -- development, expansion, management, etc. And I mentioned Tahautinsuyu, which is a well-received game set in the Inca empire. I'm something of an "essayist", and so I chose to build my game around the classical period of history, with a game board that centered on the Med (but, a different projection of that region). But I think there's ample room for a game built around a more esoteric or less well known region or era. Perhaps a game about ancient China, or India could be interesting. Use your imagination!

But the mechanics will really be key, and a piece of advice I've learned the hard way is that even a 3 or 4 hour game will be difficult to achieve if you put everything in the game that you'll want to. The key is to come up with elegant ways of interweaving mechanics so that you can keep the overall length down.

Good luck, and let us know when you've got the game laid out a bit; I'm sure myself and others would be interested to hear about it!

-Jeff

Haven't seen all the games mentioned, but of those that I have they are all based upon a map. How about having something a little more abstract?

Could have a board that would allow up to X number of settlements/cities. They would start with 1 - 3 random resources/specials that are hidden at the start. Each player would select one for his first settlement, and explore/expand from there.

Distances would be set, but wouldn't be as "strategic" in a real map game. However, I think the upside of a game like this would be it's ease of "assesment". (Players would play quicker because they'd be looking at less locations, and those locations would all be structured) This would help reduce the game time a lot I feel.

There's a thousand and one things you can do with this style of game, just gotta try and find a way to stream-line it so that only a limited number of events are ever happening at the same time.

Re a boardless civ game, you might look at Medieval. Not sure how successful that it. I think it's entirely possible to make a boardless, or otherwise non-spatial game, but it won't be hailed as the "Civ lite" people are looking for...

As for a LotR Civ game, interesting thought, but what period of Middle Earth history would it focus on? You could probably do something interesting with the material from the Silmarillion, but it likely wouldn't be commercially viable. It's kind of hard to see how the game would actually work; what would the goals for the players be?

-J

Hedge,

You raise an interesting point; there clearly is a disconnect between cultural peculiarities of real civilizations and board game mechanics. Part of the difficulty in reflecting reality is that a game by definition requires a goal. There are so many military games precisely because it's so easy to formulate a goal structure that involves conquest. But defining a goal structure based on "culture" is more challenging, because it's hard to define exactly how to reward players. I could see using cultural considerations to impose limitations or obligations on players in the ways you give as examples, but I do think it will be an uphill road to make a good game out of it.

Another aspect that games tend not to include is the bitter ethnic rivalries that have characterized much of human history. Again, this is hard to model, since, after all, it's just a game -- we, the players, don't really hate each other. But the influence of ethnic tensions should probably play a more prominent role in a "realistic" game. I envisioned a mechanic for my own game whereby each turn you draw an "enemy" card, reflecting a foreign nation with whom your people wish to go to war, and with repercussions if you fail to attack that player. I don't think I'll use the mechanic, but it could be a way to reflect this idea.

Another factor I think that might be interesting to implement is the idea of ethnic groups who don't actually control nation-states. Take the Jews, for example; they spent many centuries without a political state of their own, yet have retained their cultural identity and influenced history all the while. I think incorporating these kinds of ideas could be interesting, but again, very challenging.

In my own civ game, I chose to have scoring relate to the kinds of things historians would be likely to write about -- achievements, military and otherwise. It probably doesn't give the true sense of flavor that you're seeking, but it gives a good context for a scoring system, and allows considerable differentiation in the societies that emerge...

-Jeff

Well, as I was writing my first response, I was formulating a Civ system in my head, which has intruiged me enough to actually try to develop into a real game (now that's a good thread!). Let me give you the outlines of my thinking at this very early stage (and don't be offended by my use of a religion as a game element... we are talking about cultures, here).

Each player would have Cultural Influence cards, which would be used to formulate individual Cultural Iconics. An Iconic is something that is readily identified with that culture, such as a religion. An iconic is a template for how the player scores in the game. Following the guidelines of each Iconic you have formulated would score points for you. For example (and this is really rough, because I've only been thinking for a few minutes about this...), you could have an iconic that you call Capitalism. It could be made of the influences that cause the player to bargain far and wide for wealth tokens, which it then gets bonuses for. But it also reflects a wasteful culture, and the player must discard 3 rescources every turn. These two elements would be taken from Influence cards, and, can the player act as their Iconics dictate, they gat a fixed number of VP each turn.

The important thing here is that players can learn the iconics of other cultures through cultural contact, allowing them to gain the same benefits without using their own Influence cards. When a culture adopts your own Iconic, you get a one-time bonus. This reflects the continuing influence of ancient Greece, for example, and the Roman Empire. Ancient Israel could have had a "Holy Land" Iconic, allowing whomever controls Jerusalem to exert influence over other cultures. Perhaps this Iconic could be considered "unique", so it wold change hands long after the original Ancient Israel player bowed out.

Other Iconics could be Language, Religions, and various cultural elements. I'd have to think for a bit to get a mix that's flexible as well as unique, without being boggy and unworkable. The core idea is that you'd be generating cultural worth that could spread to other cultures to your benefit. This could explain the continuing influence of the displaced Jews of the above example. The cultures that followed them continued to pass along the Jewish Iconics of Jerusalem, The Bible, and perhaps Christianity as well, thus generating a stream of VPs for the player, allowing them to continue in the game.

The "iconics" idea is an interesting one. It sounds a little bit like the scoring system of 7 Ages, in which (as I understand it) each Civ has a specific way of getting "glory points" based on something that you'll emphasize -- be it size, or most ships, or some other thing.

The tricky bit is developing a clean, simple system that can accomodate the diversity of "iconics" that you'll presumably want to incorporate. But it may be doable if you can think of a few simple attributes that these will relate to.

My concern would be, though, that the game may not have a lot of room for strategic creativity; that it might end up feeling more about trying to preserve your cultural identity than about trying to actually build anything or achieve anything. However, the spreading of your cultural identity might be the "legacy" you're trying to establish, although I don't know if this is any more realistic than a conventional Civ game. Not all cultures are really seeking to have their cultural values adopted by other societies; historically, there have probably been more societies interested in the obliteration of their rivals than in their "conversion".

Still, if you can pull it off, it might be neat. Give it a go!

-J