2023-09-24

Civilization 1: No, not the computer game

I'm going to try something a bit different here and start a deep dive into a classic game, looking at some of the things that make it great and some of the things that I might want to change, and thinking about how I might create a game that takes some of its ideas and implements them according to my own design aesthetics. This may or may not turn into a playable game, but we'll see how things go.

The game I want to look at is Civilization, an epic game about the ancient peoples of the Mediterranean basin, designed by Francis Tresham and first published in 1981. To be clear about my own credentials with the game, I am not an expert in it, having only played it a handful of times, and not for a good few years now. Part of the reason for this is that, while I very much enjoyed every time I played, the game is huge and long - the back of the box I own says that the full game takes 6 to 8 hours, and I feel that range is optimistic if any of the players are inexperienced. This is a game that I would normally say that you should start in the morning and not plan anything for the evening. 

My copy of Civilization: box, board, and photocopy of rules from a different edition.

And to be absolutely double clear, I am not trying here to "fix" Civ, or make a new, better version. I'm just taking a closer look at something that has been stuck in my brain for quite a while now to see if I can learn anything from it. There are whole communities of people out there hacking the game in all sorts of ways and there is no way I can compete with their knowledge, so if you want to see what the real fans have got up to, Board Game Geek's forums for the game might be a good place to start looking.

Anyway, this is all way too much for a single post, so I'll just look into some aspects of the game this time, and hopefully continue in future posts and see where it takes us.

The version of the game that I own is the late-80's Gibsons edition, but with a missing rulebook that got replaced at some point by a photocopy of the rules from one of the Avalon Hill editions. I don't think it matters that much (apart from things like tokens being different shapes to what is described). I'll be basing this discussion on that edition (though I might go looking online for more material) and not on any expansions or other developments of the system like Advanced Civilization or Mega Civilization. If you think I'm missing out on something important because of this, please comment to let me know.

By way of overview, Civ is a "sweep of history" game for up to 7 players, set in the area around the Mediterranean Sea, and takes players from a period of growing tribal kingdoms up to a period around the time when the Republic of Rome were developing a significant beef with Carthage and Archimedes was advancing scientific knowledge by taking baths. The game sees players expand the influence of their nation by settling (and sometimes fighting for) new lands, forming cities, trading goods with each other, developing new technologies, and withstanding calamities that strike from time to time. This takes place over a series of rounds, and at the end of each, time moves on and, if they have achieved certain goals, the players all move along the snappily titled "Archaeological Succession Track" - and whoever gets to the end of the AST first is the winner!

Where to start?

Sidebar, kinda: I've been sitting on this topic, and then this particular post in an unfinished form for quite a long time. What if the post isn't interesting? What if I get bits wrong? What if I just look like a clueless idiot? Eventually I just figured, what the heck? Plenty of my posts in the past have probably been interesting to nobody but myself, but then some of the ones I though uninteresting resulted in someone contacting me to say thanks for introducing them to something. So I guess the real message is to not listen to that voice in my head that keeps questioning and being negative: if I just write stuff down, then I at least have thought something through and can move on, and there is always a chance of being useful or interesting to someone. Anyway, sorry for the digression (this post is partly about thought processes, though!), and on with the actual plot...

I guess the board is a good place to kick off. It is a map, divided into land and sea areas, with the land areas further divided into regions, different combinations of which are used for the game depending on player count, which can look a bit weird during play, but works well to keep gameplay tight regardless of how many of you are playing. The areas vary dramatically in physical size, in an attempt to mimic the effects of real life geography, which does mean that tokens can get very crowded in some locations.

To get more tokens on the board (you start with one in your home area) there is population expansion: at the start of each round, you add tokens to locations where you already have tokens, which represent your population (though they represent your economy too, as we'll get to later). You can move each token by one space on the board during the movement phase. Then later in the round, any locations with more tokens in than the location's population limit (as marked on the map) loses the additional tokens.

So far, so straightforward. There are boats too, which can be important, but I don't think I need to go into them for the line of discussion I am on here. The area movement and population limits thing is simple, easy to explain, and quick to do in practice. 

Conflict, then, and this is another element that is shockingly straightforward. Different players can coexist in an area, but if the total number of tokens in an area is greater than the population limit, then tokens get removed, one at a time, starting with the player with the fewest tokens, and continues until the population limit is met. In principle, players can coexist all over the board without much in the way of conflict, but in practice, this doesn't happen much due to the drive towards cities...

Cities are quite literally essential for progress in the game - you need an ever increasing number of cities to move along the aforementioned Archaeological Succession Track, and cities provide you with trade cards which provide the currency to acquire civilization cards, which provide helpful advantages to your people as well as forming part of the final victory conditions - but I'll leave discussing all that for a later date.

If you gather either 12 or 6 tokens in a location (the number depends on which location you are in), you can remove them and replace them with a city token, thus getting tokens back into your supply, which brings us to one of the really clever and subtle parts of the game which feels like it belongs in a far more modern Eurogame: the tax phase, which occurs at the start of each round, before population expansion, once cities are in play.

When not on the board, you store your tokens on a player mat that has two areas: treasury and stock. For the most part, tokens move between the board and the stock area. During the tax phase, you must move two tokens from stock to treasury. If you are unable to do this, your "untaxed" cities revolt and get taken over by another player, which is a pretty brutal punishment for miscalculating, but I don't remembering it happening often. 

A player mat and a bunch of tokens, cities and ships.

These treasury tokens can then be used towards purchasing civilization cards or for building ships, in which case they go back to stock, and as the game develops you will need to make sure this happens, in case you become rich but unable to collect taxes. This does sometimes lead to the weird phenomenon of players cycling their tokens by scrapping and rebuilding ships, which I think is a kink in what I think is an otherwise smooth and awesome mechanism. I think that if I made use of this system in a game, I would want to make the treasury tokens more generally useful than they are.

Anyway, that brings us pretty much full circle on a round, other than the little, clunky matter of the census phase, which involves counting up tokens on the board in order to determine who goes first in the movement phase. This makes sense (it means smaller nations can react to the movements of their larger neighbours) but a few minutes of everyone simultaneously counting tokens on the board is not much of a good time. 

The stuff I have discussed so far is actually pretty much all you need to know for the first couple of rounds or so (I absolutely love that!), but once cities come into play you get those trade cards, which opens up the rest of the game and most of the complicated stuff, which I'll discuss another time, as and when I have the spoons.

So far I've only really been thinking about the game from a mechanical point of view, but of course, its theme, and the way the theme is expressed through mechanisms, is a whole other kettle of fish that I might get into later, but if you are interested, Georgios Panagiotidis wrote an interesting critique of the game a few years ago, picking up on a load of stuff, both thematic and mechanical, that he found jarring.

Until next time...

2023-09-07

Sen's Lens

You may have come across Sen-Foong Lim, an experienced game designer with an impressive portfolio, and part of the Ludology and Meeple Syrup teams, as well as plenty of other cool things he has done. Well, he recently shared an image titled, "Your Board Game Critique. Things I'd probably tell you if I had playtested your game", I believe initially on Facebook, but it soon started getting passed around on Twixxer, Bluesky, and I assume other bits of social media too. I gather there was a bit of pushback due to the slightly blunt language, but I was instantly taken by the truth of the document. I have heard most of the points Sen makes aimed at my own designs over the years, as well as at other people's games.

A day or two later, Sen released an updated version with slightly softened and also tightened up language, but making the same points, and I've added this version below.

YOUR BOARD GAME CRITIQUE Things I'd probably tell you if I had playtested your game to help you improve your next iteration. 1. There's way too much going on. Identify the specific experience you want to curate inside of the game's box; remove everything that takes away from that. 2. The audience for the game is ill-defined. Identify the game's audience, specifically, and ensure that it meets the players' reasons to set it up again and again. 3. This will cause headaches at manufacturing. Design to real-world manufacturing considerations. Make a physical prototype instead of relying solely on a virtual one. 4. There are a lot of rules that are easily forgotten. Design edge cases out. If a rule is rarely used, find a way for it to be more impactful or remove it completely. 5. The game is 1.5 times more clever than it needs to be. The game should provide a great first experience that isn't confusing or that makes players feel lost. 6. Innovation can be a trap. More often than not, players want something that they know and understand with a twist, not something that comes out of left field. 7. Modularity can be a trap. Ensure that the game works as intended in every configuration of the set up that the game allows. 8. The game takes too much time and effort for the amount of fun it provides. Simplify the core play loop and reduce procedural actions required for the game to "run". 9. The game does not communicate the rules well. Focus on writing rules over lore and the graphic design over illustration. 10. Rules need to be wherever the players think they should be in the rulebook and on the components. Use call out boxes, marginalia, player aids, and on-component text. 11. There's a disconnect between the game's promise and playing the game by the rules versus what I hoped to be able to do in the game. The game's theme and mechanisms should inform each other to support the intended experience. 12. I'd rather play a shorter version of this game twice, even if the total amount of time would be more than playing it once in its current iteration. Hat tip to Jim Zub and Steve Lieber for their comic script and portfolio critique lists, respectively. Thanks to Chris Schweizer for the art. This is from a larger piece in which Chris captured he, Jay Cormier, Matt Kindt, and I playtesting a prior version of Mind MGMT at Gen Con in 2017. Find me:  @senfoonglim  @senfoonglim.bsky.social
I first saw the list just before a planned chat with Alex, who I am working with on The Artifact, a game project that I need to blog about again soon (though this post kinda counts). We're working through some structural ideas at the moment and trying to figure out if we are on the right path, and Sen's points proved to be a really useful starting point for discussion. We went through the list, point by point, and had a discussion about whether that criticism applied to our project. 

So, is there too much going on? Is anything detracting from the core experience? Maybe - we have a couple of elements that are currently a bit extraneous, but overall we think the game is about the level of intricacy we want.

Is the audience ill-defined? We have to admit that we're basically making a game that we'd like to play together rather than having a strongly defined target, which probably isn't great for when we get around to pitching the game.

Would the game be painful to manufacture? We don't think so - despite having been developed mostly in virtual form, it is manufacturable with a pretty standard number of cards, a few punchboard sheets for tiles, and not-that-many additional tokens (maybe wooden, maybe punchboard), plus a board, so while it won't be a budget game, it shouldn't be a problem.

...and so on. We got to identify a few things that need further thought, and had some good discussion  about some other areas that should help us move forward. We've both worked on assorted games before, and this game has been through a good few playtesting loops, so we were pretty sure we wouldn't be too far off the mark here, but it's interesting how revealing it can be to just work through some of these basic points.

If you're working on a game yourself, I'd really recommend having a look and asking yourself to answer honestly to each point: does this apply to my game?