 |
|  |
 |
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001 time: 05:35
|
|
I posted this some time ago in the 'what games do you want to see made' thread.
quote: I'd like to see a space 4X game with a twist; all the players start on the same planet, which eventually becomes a Coruscant-style city planet, with far more economic potential than any other world. Do you seek to explore the universe and gain riches that way, or build up your influence on the homeworld? An advanced system of colonization would also be used, involving claims, treaties, mandates, etc, that would end the all too common 'settler diarrhoea'. |
I'm bored, so I'm going to expand on the idea. Space strategy is something of a lame duck, and could use some fresh ideas.
I like the idea of a common homeworld for a number of reasons. Firstly, the city-planet is a common (and cool) theme in sci-fi, so it should make its way into space strategy. Secondly, it provides an inherent balance to the gameplay: all players start out in the same place. Thirdly, it unbalances the economics of the game by giving it a very clear and unmistakable centre of gravity, unlike most other space strategy games where economic activity is spread relatively evenly across the universe.
You could play as a state or a corporation (each could make vassals of the other), and maybe another faction, like a religious order. There would be a number of ways to succeed in the game. You could go for all-out colonisation, and leave the homeworld behind entirely, starting out afresh on a new planet. Your only involvement with the homeworld would be to be threatened by it. Alternatively, you could form trading links between your colonies and the homeworld, succeeding via trade. The last main option would be to stay largely on the homeworld, building up your power and infrastructure there, attempting to gain control over more of it, and thus more power in the wider universe.
There would be an international organisation like the UN which would make wars on the homeworld difficult (if not impossible). But you'd need to gain approval from this organisation to get mandates for colonisation of new planets. Obviously, you could just ignore them and colonise a planet anyway, but other countries would hate you, and you'd suffer from pariah-hood and being fair game for attack by the aggrieved parties.
Suppose that the African Federation sends a probe to a star system, and discovers a colonisable planet. By finding the planet, their chances of getting a mandate for it improve. By agreeing not to seek any other mandates for a while, their chances further improve. By having good relationships with everyone else, their chances improve again.
But the Farflung corporation has been waiting for a chance like this. Without UN approval, they jet off to colonise the new planet, leaving only empty offices behind. Should the African Federation give in, or send troops to take back the planet which they should rightfully own?
Regarding war, technology and improvements, I think that a Europa Universalis 'less is more' strategy could be worth trying for a space 4X game. What do you think?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001 time: 05:35
|
|
quote: Something worth considering is that you could still have alien species, with a homeworld for each. |
I dunno. That kinda dilutes the whole concept. I'd prefer aliens (if there are any) to be a growing menace on the fringes of civilised space.
quote: I'm not sure about this, however. I think that one of the most attractive things to space strategies is the research and technology application (like being able to design space ships) I would really love to see a highly intricate research system that encourages factions to specialize in a certain area (without being completely handicapped in the others, of course) It gives alot of flavour to the game and allows the different factions to develope their own particular style and personality. |
The domestic policy sliders did this in EU2, to an extent. I guess I'm trying to move away from the piling up of endless meaninglessly-named technologies like in SMAC and Galciv, to a more streamlined system.
Regarding ship design, my idea would be to outline your preferred specifications, and then have your scientists and engineers try to build a vessel which tries to match them. Demand a vessel that's beyond your current technical capability and you'll end up with an overpriced, endless project with dodgy prototypes. Although you might get lucky and get a revolutionary new ship. Alternatively, you could constantly refine an existing model, giving you a reliable and cheap workhorse which could be outclassed by revolutionary designs.
Your social system would determine the balance of revolution vs evolution, as well as the classes and characteristics of the ships themselves.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:35
|
|
In the foundation universe the home planet dies, we get an empire of millions of worlds, and yet there is still a lot of power in trantor, the city planet that became one planet city long after human speac colonization begins.
The big issue with such a game would be the tech level-the higher the tech level one can attain, the less plausible this becomes. If colonizing space is cheap and easy, and tech is such that large populations can be attained, then there is no inherent system why the home world should remain for so long as the primary pull of interest.
I think this sort of game would work well by taking the risky step of making it sort of a future simulator like EU is a history simulator. Have it be Earth colonizing the solar system in the next few centuries. The map remains the same (as in, same planet earth, same planets and moons and asteroid to colonize) while the idea of a singular home planet remains. By keeping the tech levels low the game is made more interesting- expeditions cost A lot- space warfare is expensive, at first very small scale, so an action might mean just sending a small band of armed men somewhere to take over somthing. BY keeping the map an known entity you can get into small details like space stations or mining locations- if the game makes the colonization of many foreign planets posssible you have to spend a lot of CPU power simulating those.
one can introduce variability by perhaps allowing the player to vary the opening players on earth: in game 1, there is such a thing as a singular strong EU maybe including Russia, while Japan and China are bitter rivals.. in game 2 Russia is independent, the EU never really took of and China and Japan are buddy buddy. Those things would mean very different games.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bosh
|
 |
Taehan Mingook
Jan 1970 time: 00:35
|
|
quote: e.g. there's no way to move FTL |
Or maybe you can only move FTL if you build an expensive building on two planets to open a FTL "road" (ie some kind of wormhole) between them, a building that requires tech that would take at least some time to get . This accomplishes a few things:
-Slows down colonization because nobody wants to move to a new planet until the "road" is open and with nobody wanting to move there its hard to gather enough resources on the new planet to get the building built. This could mean that it could take quite a few turns to get from discovery of a planet to connection to the "grid."
-Having to make buildings on both ends of every road encourages the construction of transports hubs. Since if you have planets A, B, C and D the cheapest way to allow for trade between all the planets is have roads from A to B, A to C and A to D (with no roads directly between B, C and D). For a loooong time it would be most effecient to have the hub be the shared Home Planet, since its rich enough to build one end of the "road" fairly easily and its centrally located.
This would ensure that the Home Planet is a MASSIVE center of trade and thus vastly richer and more populated than its competitors until WELL into the game.
This also gives people real consequencies from not playing by the rules and trying to break off from the UNish organization, since you'd be cut off from the common trade hub which would make it vastly more difficult to trade with your neighbors, until fairly late in the game.
-Finally there'd be several different stages of strategy, which would keep the game fresh and require you to approach war in different ways at different stages of the game:
Stage 1, Slower Than Light, No Scanners: Everyone would only have slower than light tech available which would make war and colonization slow, expensive and difficult. You'd have to send off attacking fleets years before they'd get there, but once they got there they'd have a great element of surprise as long as no important tech was developed while they were on their way.
Stage 2, Slower Than Light, Scanners: Everyone's still slow so colonization is almost as tough as before, but if someone sends a fleet at you, you know its coming at least sometime in advance and can get prepared. This gives the advantage to the defender and makes war and exercise of picking off the enemies isolated outposts that are far away enough that even if they know an enemey fleet is coming, reinforcements can't be gotten to them in time.
Stage 3, Expensive Wormhole "Roads": This would be an interesting stage. Colonization gets a bit easier since you can send an advance crew to work for a few years on a colony in order to set the wormhole set up and then pour in the colonists, as long as the wormhole connects to a hub. However the warfare is the interesting bit. You can still pick off the isolated outposts (ie the ones that aren't connected to the wormhole road net) but attacking established systems is tough since even if you take it, the counter-attack can come at you down the wormholes while you can't get reinforcements from your own planets until you build your own expensive and time-consuming building. This would make trying to get a future enemey to build a road that could be used as a bridgehead a vital piece of strategy (either that or route your fleets through the Homeworld hub, which would probably aggravate a lot of people politically), so there'd a lot of trade offs between building roads to other people's planets which would encourage trade and make you richer but at the same time allow both you and the trade partner to more easily attack you, which would make for interesting diplomacy.
Stage 4 Relatively Cheap Wormhole Roads: Colonizing gets quicker since you can send a colony ship out at STL speed with a wormhole assmebly kit on board and get a colony up and running faster. This also makes it possible get build up more dense wormhole road networks which makes the Homeworld less and less of a hub and thus less and less economically and poltically important. It also makes the job of the attacker easier since they can build a Quick and Easy (but possible expensive) wormhole construction kit over with the invasion fleet.
Stage 5: FTL. People finally figure out how to make ships that can go FTL w/o wormholes and the whole nature of warfare gets completely turned on its head.
And there'd be a couple of substates in which people figure out tech that would allow them to close wormholes (good scorched earth strategy) and then later tech which blocks wormhole closing and then tech which counters that etc. etc. Would be nice to have tech that changes the way you have to go about war rather than tech that just makes you incrementally richer and more powerful.
I also love the idea of a common homeworld that people are radiating out from. It feed into the whole thing about having strategy change over time since early in the game the homeworld is vital but over time it becomes less and less important as population grows elsewhere before finally becomming obsolete as an economic/political/cultural hub. It also makes expansion messy and more fun, since instead of just expanding outward until you start bumping into your neighbors you all start from the same place and are all competing over exactly the same planets from the very beginning, should make borders very messy and empires bizarrely pie-slice shaped.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001 time: 05:35
|
|
quote: One big question has to be why waste resources in space, when you could always try a simple conquest of the home planet to win outright. |
I agree that is a big question. There's very little in space that we can't also get on Earth.
This is why I suggest an interstellar scale, rather than an interplanetary one. There's just not enough in the immediate solar system to justify trade.
Tradeable goods would include things like rare-earth minerals, technological goods, anti-matter and expensive planet-specific luxuries.
The rare-earth minerals would be a source of ready cash for fledgling worlds of all sorts, especially there was plot device making such elements important or necessary for a strong economy. For example, maybe you need them to make effective superconductors or wormholes.
Technological goods would be another source of income; particularly for Earth. If a colony world wanted to get on the technological goods race, it would have to secure patent rights to protect itself. If you ignore the UN, you'll not get any, and scientists on the homeworld will reverse-engineer any tech you produce. Although by ignoring the UN, you can behave in this way yourself.
Anti-matter would be super-rocket fuel. It would super-charge your economy and especially your military power. To begin with, Earth would have a total monopoly, and building your own manufacturing facility would be extremely expensive. Unless, of course, you find a natural source.
Luxuries would be where the real money lies, like tea and chinaware in colonial times. Colonies would have a chance of developing their own, distinct luxury, which would fetch a pretty penny back on Earth. If a planet had native life, it would get even more luxuries to sell. If you were lucky, your luxury would embedded in the culture back on Earth, like coffee and chocolate. If you were unlucky, it would simply be a passing fashion, never truly gaining acceptance. Or someone might come along with a better product that trumps yours. Or create an inferior, but cheaper copy.
Another aspect would be the distinction between legal and illegal products. The UN would try to prevent you selling highly addictive drugs or pirated technological products. Trade in anti-matter would also be controlled.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pax
|
|
I've got it as a project to design a boardgame using the solar system as the map. The players all control a portion of the earth and can colonize different section of the solar system. Most planets will have multiple zones more than one player will be able to colonize those planets/moons.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001 time: 05:35
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Smiley
Hey, I'm gonna try making this a forum game. Post suggestions. |
Whoa. Ok.
A simple economy model:
Each starting nation on the homeworld has a basic economy value of 10.
Each colonised planet has a economic value of 1 to 5.
You get a bonus to your economic value for each colonised planet, representing trade. It applies to all of your worlds. It can either be the mean, median or mode of the economic values of your colonised worlds. Which one it is depends on your government. It is always the lower value, and it is always rounded down, if there is confusion.
It's not exactly intuitive; there may be instances where it's not worth colonising poor worlds.
Suppose you colonise a 1, 4, and a 5 class planet. The 'government' which nets the most is the median. All these planets (and your homeworld holdings) will get +4 to their economy.
If you get a new 1 class planet, it makes sense to change to the mean 'government', since the new (always lowest) median is 1. Even then, you've still lost out by 3 economy points overall, if the mean is always rounded down. If the mean is rounded up (it's 2.75), then you've still gained nothing.
There are several potential strategies available; targeting vulnerable systems to cause serious disruption to the enemy economy, limiting your colonisation to good planets, trying to create a balance between good and bad, or just colonising loads of bad planets.
You can even colonise class 0 planets profitably if you're set up for it.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35. Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|