Quote
a cross between Dwarven Fortress and Seven Cities of Gold.
This is the game I keep thinking about. Think 7 Cities, but where you inhabit a region, and thrive while you can, as best you can. Remember Dwarven Fortress, or even Hammurabi.
You interact with your neighbors. Nature helps and harms (think random events in MULE). And if you don’t like where you are, you pick up and move... rebuild elsewhere, leaving behind ruins which slowly decay. In fact, this is the way I see the game working: you develop an area, then a confluence of events drive you to leave some or all of it behind. Civil wars, defections, famines, drought, floods, freezes...
I want to set it up so that it’s easy to bootstrap your culture, but also not difficult to lose it... without completely frustrating players. I think that means I’m aiming for Exploration, networking, conquest, where it’s easy to get something started, but where Empire is impossible to hold together.
It predates the Age of Sail. It might max out at the Bronze Age.
It’s not about micromanagement. In fact I’d like the citizens to build the cities themselves. So cities are resources, not fortresses or factories. I think this means that units are FAR less differentiated than in Empire games.
So it’s not 7 Cities, and it’s not Anno 1602, SimCity, Civilization, or Age of Empires. I don’t know what it is, but I’ve wanted it for a long time.
I think the way I approach it is to start with 7 Cities and change it.
* instead of one unit type (warrior), there are four types.
* instead of one building representing an entire settlement and its nature (fort, mission, complex city, city, nomadic camp etc), there could be multiple buildings which could together help define that settlement in a more granular fashion. I think.
* instead of arriving from across the ocean, your people have always been here.
* Your supply lines extend from your settlement, rather than your transoceanic ships.
* your technology has to be nurtured and developed, rather than being given by fiat.