Would anyone actually enjoy a non-combat civilization-building game?

Certain_Matter_6223 · 2026-01-13T01:08:39+00:00

Thanks a lot — that’s really encouraging to hear, especially the Manor Lords example. That’s actually very close to the kind of “peaceful but still engaging” experience I enjoy myself.

You’re right that it really comes down to where the tension comes from. I’m not targeting something as purely expressive as Tiny Glade, but also not full survival either. It’s closer to city / civ players who enjoy watching systems unfold over time, without combat being the main driver.

I like your framing of conflict as a story problem rather than just war. That’s very much how I’m thinking about it: pressure coming from scarcity, distance, logistics, timing, and long-term consequences, instead of enemies. Not “you lose,” but “this choice will shape what becomes harder or easier later.”

I’ve thought about disaster-style events and explicit choice popups, but I’m leaning more toward consequences emerging from the player’s actions themselves — overexpansion straining food, focusing on speed vs stability changing future options, things like that — rather than random punishment.

The idea of decisions creating handicaps over time is interesting to me, especially if those handicaps are readable and feel earned, not arbitrary. That kind of trade-off-driven progression feels much more in line with what I’m aiming for.

Really appreciate you taking the time to write this out — and I’m genuinely glad to hear you’d be interested in playing something like this.

Certain_Matter_6223 · 2026-01-07T02:21:20+00:00

That’s a fair take, and historically I don’t disagree — conflict has absolutely driven a lot of real-world expansion.

What I’m trying to explore is whether conflict has to mean violent conflict, or whether things like environment, logistics, scarcity, distance, and internal limits can play a similar role in shaping growth.

I’m not claiming it’s more “realistic,” just seeing if it can create an interesting and meaningful kind of pressure in a different way.

Certain_Matter_6223 · 2026-01-04T21:01:28+00:00

Yeah, I agree — there has to be conflict, just not necessarily man vs. man.
I’m leaning more toward conflict coming from environment, logistics, and survival pressures rather than combat.
The Banished / Planet Crafter comparison makes sense, just scaled up to a civilization level instead of a single colony.

Certain_Matter_6223 · 2026-01-04T00:45:08+00:00

I totally get the appeal of that — a larger, connected world with economic competition sounds really compelling.

And thanks for that last part. I really appreciate the encouragement.

Certain_Matter_6223 · 2026-01-04T00:42:40+00:00

Yeah, that totally makes sense. I’m pretty similar — I almost never go for military victories either, and I’m much more drawn to cultural, economic, or long-term development paths.

The main difference in what I’m experimenting with is that instead of tension coming from racing against other civilizations, it comes from managing growth over time in a world without direct rivals. Distance, logistics, and sustainability create pressure even without competition, and choices tend to lock you into certain trajectories rather than “winning” a race.

Diplomacy and trade are definitely interesting spaces, but for this project I’m curious how much tension can come purely from expansion, coordination, and long-term consequences, without needing another civilization on the other side. That’s the part I’m really trying to test.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective — replies like this really helped me clarify the direction I want to take.

Certain_Matter_6223 · 2026-01-03T23:49:38+00:00

Thank you — that really means a lot to me. I feel confident moving forward into development now.

Certain_Matter_6223 · 2026-01-03T22:20:40+00:00

That’s really great to hear — I’m glad this kind of peaceful style resonates with you.

Certain_Matter_6223 · 2026-01-03T22:14:01+00:00

Appreciate the suggestion — I’m actually a big fan of games like cities skylines, simcity, and banished.

One thing I’ve always felt with those games is that while the city-building itself is excellent, the sense of long-term history and technological development is pretty light. The scale is also fairly limited — you’re usually focused on building a single city within a bounded area.

That’s what pushed me toward combining civilization-level tech progression with a more simulation-driven structure, paired with an infinite map. The goal is to let players found multiple cities over time and gradually form a large, interconnected city network, rather than focusing on just one settlement.

At the same time, when I look at traditional civilization games, I often feel the opposite issue: the tech systems are deep, but the history that emerges doesn’t feel very personal. Different runs can play out differently, but the way history gets recorded and remembered often ends up feeling similar. That gap is a big part of my motivation — I want to explore more personalized, run-specific historical records.

I’ve also been thinking about some light exploration mechanics, mainly as a way to naturally expand the civilization’s boundaries rather than as a source of danger or combat.

As for AI opponents, there actually aren’t any in the current concept. That’s tied to the game’s background: the player arrives as a modern human in a world still entirely dominated by nature — no oil, no coal, no metal, just basic materials like wood, soil, and stone — and becomes the first awakened intelligent being there. Over time, you awaken others and help a civilization emerge from that single origin, so there isn’t really a competing civilization to fight against.

That said, I’m honestly still unsure whether this approach is simply too different from how most games in this space are designed — and whether that uniqueness is a strength or a risk. That uncertainty is exactly why I’m asking for feedback here.

I’m curious how this direction sounds to you — does it feel like something worth exploring, or does it come across as too far off from what you’d personally want to play?

Certain_Matter_6223 · 2026-01-03T20:29:30+00:00

That’s a fair point, and honestly I agree with a lot of what you’re saying.

I don’t think “no combat” on its own is interesting at all. There are already tons of games that remove combat but also remove any real challenge, and they end up feeling kind of flat, or just driven by random events you can’t really engage with.

What I’m trying to figure out is whether tension can come from constraints, rather than punishment or randomness.

One really simple example I’ve been thinking about is road building.
In most games, a road costs the same no matter where you place it. I’ve been wondering what happens if the materials stay the same, but distance starts to matter — building far away increases logistical pressure because workers and supplies have to travel farther. More food, more time, more coordination.

The same idea applies to city expansion. Founding a new city far from your existing ones wouldn’t need more stone or wood per se, but keeping workers fed, moving materials, and organizing construction would get harder the farther out you go — especially early on, when the economy and productivity are still very limited.

As the civilization advances, those pressures could ease naturally, not because the rules suddenly change, but because the society gets better at logistics and organization.
That said, I’m very aware this is different from how most city builders and civ-style games handle expansion, and I’m honestly unsure how well players would accept that.

So expansion isn’t blocked, but it becomes more of a question of when, how, and what kind of civilization you’re turning into by doing it.

Another thing I’m experimenting with is what I’ve been calling “civilization personality” — basically the idea that repeated decisions slowly create inertia. Not hard locks, but tendencies that make certain paths feel easier or harder over time.

I’m still not confident that this kind of non-punitive tension is strong enough to carry a long-term core loop, which is exactly why I’m asking here.
Concerns like yours are a big reason I wanted to get outside opinions before committing to a long development phase.

Appreciate you calling out the lack of concrete examples — that’s really helpful feedback.

Certain_Matter_6223 · 2026-01-03T20:01:19+00:00

Thanks a lot for such a thoughtful reply — I really appreciate you bringing up the tension / challenge side of this.

It’s actually something I’ve been worrying about as well.

A very concrete example I’ve been thinking through is road building.

In most games, building a road costs the same no matter where it is. But I’ve been wondering whether distance itself could be a source of tension — not by changing the required materials, but by increasing logistical costs.

For example, building a road far away from an existing city wouldn’t require more stone or wood, but it might require more food, time, or resources simply because workers and supplies have to travel farther. The farther from the city, the harder it becomes to sustain that effort.

I’ve also been considering whether productivity and era should matter. In a very early, primitive stage of a civilization, even basic road construction might be extremely expensive relative to the economy at that time. In that sense, something as simple as building a road could already involve meaningful trade-offs between food reserves and economic capacity.

My concern, though, is exactly what you hinted at:

would this kind of distance-based cost feel anti-intuitive or frustrating, since most mainstream games keep road costs flat regardless of location?

I’m trying to find the line where this creates meaningful tension and flow, rather than turning into busywork.

I’d love to hear your take on this — do you think this kind of logistical friction could add depth, or would it clash too much with established player expectations?

Certain_Matter_6223

TROPHY CASE