 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:36
|
|
Okay, so we've had some good, in-depth discussions of the economic model, and we know where we want to ultimately GO with it. What's needed now tho, is something to get us started. A scaled back version of where we wanna head, so we can get the game up and off the ground, with plans to add to and expand as we go!
To that end, here's what we got so far....I just re-revised all this stuff and put it up for discussion on the board, and wanted to also shop it around here to see if it's robust enough to get us going, not so overly complex that we spend the next six months bogged down in it, etc. So here...I'll just hush and post it...LOL
A survey of Loyalty, population dynamics, and economics
Loyalty
Impacted by (so far, and subject to revision):
Hiring troops (direct decrease to provincial loyalty)
Fate Cards (can either increase or decrease both loyalty itself and/or loyalty recovery rates for a given province or provinces)
Time (natural drift rate of loyalty, tending toward 100%)
Honor/Infamy (Impacts maximum possible loyalty (hereafter referred to as CAP) and recovery rate)
Province Populations: Impacts recovery rates and CAP. Negative effect of population growth is corruption, a derivative of the Loyalty value.
Infrastructural Level (decreases penalties associated with population of provinces and empire size)
Diplomacy Level (as per above)
Direct Spending: Directly increases loyalty by some small, random amount (spending money on festivals and such in a province WILL increase loyalty…what is in question is the specific amount)
Empire Size: Does not impact loyalty per se, but larger empires suffer from increasing amounts of corruption, which is a derivative of the Loyalty value.
Taxation Level (not yet used, for sometime after the initial release)
Workday Length (not yet used, for sometime after the initial release)
Components of Provincial Income
Head Tax: (Population value * 0.0015) for the per turn gold value. This value may be modified by prevailing provincial loyalty or established taxation rates (the latter also not being used in the early version, but put in place for when we flesh out the economic model).
Bonus: This income category is technologically dependent, and grows as infrastructure builds are added to the provinces.
Trade: This category is not currently used, but will serve as a placeholder for additional economic development, once the core game is completed.
BEV: Base Economic Value – all provinces, regardless of size, generate some base-level of economic activity due to the intrinsic value of the resources there and the local populace’s tendency to exploit them to some small degree, even in the absence of organized attempts to do so. Although in-game resources are not used for this version of the game, they are mentioned here to provide some framework for the day when that concept is more fully fleshed out. This baseline value may be altered or modified by in-game events. In-game resources are divided into three categories (cat1, cat2, and cat3), with each resource type falling into one of the aforementioned categories. Cat1 resources are worth 3gpt, Cat2 are worth 6gpt, and Cata3 are worth 9gpt for purposes of BEV calculation. Provinces may have multiple resource types, and BEV is the sum-total OF those resource types.
Resources used thus far:
Cat1
Grains
Fish
Stone
Cat2
Wood
Iron
Horses
Clay
Herd Animals
Mercenaries (Kell)
Cat3
Luxury Items
“Fuel” (Rook’s Roost)
Gold (Precious metals)
Gems
It should be noted that this list is NOT all-inclusive of what will be in the game, and represents only “unfinished” goods. At some point, this will need to be revisited, and categories of finished goods added to the list, but it serves our purposes in the here and now, at least in terms of calculating BEV.
Population Growth (per game turn)
Baseline Growth Rate = 0.0016 (~2% annual)
Maximum per turn growth rate: 0.0083 (~10% annual)
Maximum negative growth rate: -0.0083 (~-10% annual)
Modified by:
Province is attacked: - (# of rounds the combat lasts – 1) * 0.0008
Province is at peace with no recruitment (+0.0008 per turn)
Defensive builds in a province (+0.0004 flat bonus, per level of fortification) (this increases the max, above)
Infrastructure tech = (+0.00008 per tech level) (this increases the max, above)
Fate Cards and other in-game events can modify either population directly, or alter your growth rates and caps
Friendly troops beginning and ending their turn in the province (+0.0001) (number of troops must be equal to or greater than the province’s per turn recruitment rate for this bonus to apply)
Loyalty
Minor change/addition to Deep-O’s masterpiece Loyalty Formula
Newly Conquered Provinces: Have a starting Loyalty of 0% (note to self – consider making newly conquered provinces have NEGATIVE loyalty, meaning that they would actually COST money in the short run….this, plus the increased revolt risk would make management much more important than conquest). This makes them prime candidates for rebellion, and will most probably require a strong troop presence in the short term to maintain order in the province in question. Note that this even applies in the instance of a province lost, and regained on the following turn, as the ruler has demonstrated his lack of concern for the safety and well being of his subjects IN that province, and their trust must be earned anew (note to self…maybe this is too harsh…give a province at least a certain amount of “memory”??)
Loyalty and Growth Rate: Growth Rate is modified by current Loyalty (example: Assume a province has a growth rate of 10% and an 85% Loyalty. The modified growth rate would be 10*.85 or 8.5%)
Troop Hiring
In addition to lowering provincial loyalty, each 1 unit of troops hired will decrease province population by 100. Provinces cannot drop below 2000 pop, and if a province is at 2000 or less, then no recruitment is possible, regardless of current loyalty levels or the availability of barracks. Note that mercenaries are not drawn from the general population, and do not count against pop limits in any way.
Rebellions
If/When a province rebels, the rebel troops are taken from the population pool, just as your hired troops are. This means too, that killing the rebels decreases the overall population, making rebellions disasterous for you and yours. When dealing with rebels, there should be a “attack to subdue” option, allowing you higher than normal troop capture rates (but keep in mind that your rebel opponents are “shooting to kill” in the meantime!). To use the subdual option, archers may not be used in the subduing army, and all your remaining forces attack on tier3. The rebel army sees it’s DEF doubled, and half the hits you ultimately score are subdual hits (captures).
Provincial Income Formula:
1) ((Population * 0.0015) + BEV + Bonus) = Total Province Income (TPI)
2) TPI * Loyalty% = Adjusted Province Income (API)
3) API * 1+ (loyalty%-corruption%) = Province Income Collected
Derivative Values
Build Points
(used to build provincial improvements, and possible to train troops?). Any number of projects may be undertaken at any given time, with the available points being split as evenly as possible between them all (note to self - some means to adjust this, in the hands of the player?). Build Points are calculated thus: (API/10) = Build Points per turn.
Troop Hiring Rates
(maximum number of troops that may be trained at any one time, provided that a barracks exists in the province). Calculated thus:
(API/10) = Max number of troops
Note that population drops by 100 (the size of a recruited company of soldiers), with each recruitment so ordered.
Mercenary Recruitment Rates
(maximum number of mercenaries that may be hired in any given province--no barracks required). Calculated thus:
(API/10)-1
Please note that mercenaries are NOT drawn from the general population and so make a great way to flesh out an army (no pop decrease in your provinces), but if #Mercs is ever greater than #Regulars, the Mercs WILL rebel and attempt to seize the province...use with caution!
Note on Disbanding
Disbanding regulars in a province will add 100*#of units so disbanded to the population of a given province.
Disbanding Mercs simply releases them back into the general (and utterly separate!) Merc population...no impact to population.
For our intents and purposes, there is no limit to the number of mercs that may be hired, sum-total, as that number is controlled by virtue of the number of troops YOU have at your disposal (thanks to rebellion rules, you may not have more mercs than you do regulars, and if you "push the envelope" then you set yourself up as an easy mark by someone with spells, or archers with good aim...)
Corruption
Modifies the amount of income a province generates. The corruption value is normally the same as the loyalty value, such that (loyalty – corruption) = 0 (no modification to the income of the province), but there are factors which can increase the corruption value, and begin to drag down the income value of certain provinces.
Note that corruption does NOT affect a province’s Build Points generated per turn (which are calculated as (API/10), fractions saved and used during the course of any construction project!), nor a province’s troop hiring rate ((API/10), fractions dropped), but ONLY the raw income collected from the province.
Things that impact the corruption value of a province
Empire Size: The more provinces an empire contains, the more corruption one is likely to encounter Up to five (5) provinces, there is no notable corruption impact (loyalty – corruption = 0). Beyond five (5) provinces, an increasing amount of skimming occurs. Every province that you add to your holdings beyond five, corruption increases by 5% in a random province you control.
Province Population: As overcrowding becomes an issue, so does corruption. For provinces with less than 10K of population, there is no appreciable corruption impact (everybody knows everyone). For every 1k increase in population, corruption increases by 0.5%
Infrastructure: A high level of infrastructural development means greater efficiencies and relatively fewer opportunities for “skimming” Each level of Infrastructural development you achieve adds one (1) province to your corruption threshold (ie, normally, the threshold is five provinces. As soon as you hit Inf 1, that limit becomes six (6).
Diplomatic: A high level of diplomatic development is good not only in terms of dealings external to the empire, but also in internal dealings, and this higher degree of human understanding translates directly into less corruption. Each level of diplomatic development you achieve adds a 2k “cushion” to province population impacts (ie, at Dip 1, provinces with up to 12k population will not suffer any corruption due to population).
Fortifications: Fortifications built in an area with corruption will tend to reduce that corruption, and make it less likely to spring up to begin with. Fortifications in a province will reduce corruption by fortificationlevel! (ie, a level 1 fortification would reduce corruption by 1%. A level three fortification would reduce corruption by 1* 2 * 3, or 6%)
Corruption then, can spring up one of two ways. Either randomly infesting a province, as a result of expansion, or in a particular province, due to burgeoning provincial population. As corruption increases, provincial income decreases. (note to self – infamous player ability to tap into the income stream lost as a result of corruption across the whole of the map?).
Honor/Infamy impacts to corruption
Honorable players see NO reduction in corruption due to empire size. Just because the Lord is just and honorable does not necessarily mean that his underlings are, and the Honorable Lord is typically a trusting Lord, who would not call into question the good intentions of those who serve him. On the other hand, the lands of honorable lords tend to be more organized and stable, resulting in relatively less corruption due to provincial population. (bonus is honorlevel * 2k, added to the population threshold).
On the other hand, one tends not to steal from the Devil himself, so Infamous players see relatively LESS corruption than their honorable counterparts, manifested by a bonus of (Infamylevel *0.5 extra provinces added to the size threshold—drop all fractions. (another note to self – think about allowing infamous players to tap into that corruption income stream!)
How provinces are “picked” as corruption targets
As mentioned previously, with regards to corruption due to population, that is a static and predictable form of corruption. Where there are high concentrations of people, corruption will follow. The “other type” of corruption (due to expansion), can crop up anywhere, and to determine WHAT province it lands on, the following system has been sketched out.
Each province you control is assigned a point value, using the following guidelines:
Prov with the lowest loyalty = 1pt
Prov with existing corruption already in it = 1pt
Prov with the highest corruption value in your holdings = 1pt
No anti-corruption builds = 1pt
No troops present = 1pt
Highest population = 1pt
Capitol prov = -2pts
Adjacent to capitol prov = -1pt
The province with the highest number of points “wins” the dubious prize, and if there’s a tie, then a province is randomly selected from the list of “winners.”
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xentropy
|
|
I thought of a few things as I was reading through this, and of course promptly forgot what I thought of as I continued reading, so I should have been typing up my reactions as I went... But I did remember a couple of things that stood out.
I noticed that number of military units in a province doesn't affect loyalty at all. I'd think having a military presense would increase loyalty, due to either the populace feeling safer from outside influence/attack (for honorable leaders) or the populace being *forced* to be loyal or suffer the wrath of their lord (for infamous ones). Perhaps some positive loyalty modifier per turn per unit present would be useful.
Also, is 100% the maximum loyalty or can it go above that? I know honor increases the maximum somehow, so I'm guessing 100% is the max for honor 0 and it goes up or down from there? Either way, I think maybe the "loyalty drift" based on time should maybe drift toward a value below 100%. The "status quo" doesn't tend to make everyone feel great, just apathetic. Maybe a drift toward 75% (or even 50%) would make more sense (balance permitting, of course). Make leaders throw more parties or do more active work to make a population truly willing to do anything for their leader.
I'll post again if I remember what else I thought of. This thing is looking pretty interesting (I just discovered it a few days ago  ) and I hope significant progress is really being made. It's hard not to feel a bit let down and worried, despite your constant reassurances, when I see the beta was originally expected to be available 5 quarters ago.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:36
|
|
I know just what you mean, and yes, our little project has certainly had its shares of trials by fire, but we're still here! 
Some explanations are in order, as well.
The reason that the loyalty tends to drift back towards 100% is based on the thinking that what the "common man" really wants is to be left alone by the ruling nobility. Thus, over time, in the absence of troop recruitment or anything in particular going on, the people will tend to find their old happiness.
Here in the south (and in other parts of the USA, I am certain), we tend to be happiest when there's TOTAL gridlock going on in our nation's capitol, cos that means that the government won't do anything stupid or screw something up. 
The core thinking here is that it is tinkering (no matter how well-intentioned), that leads to dissatisfaction, and generally, a population left largely alone, regardless of how squalid their living conditions, will tend to find some measure of contentment, and actively begin to improve things for themselves.
I had thought too, about some bonus or modification for troop presence, but ultimately decided against it for design reasons, and here's why:
In-game, the act of recruiting troops for this civil war....of drawing sons and daughters away from their families, has a direct negative impact on the loyalty of the province they're drawn from.
Taking loyalty away and then giving it back via the same mechanism just didn't "work" in my brain, tho there IS a component to loyalty that's not mentioned here, but is in place "behind the developmental curtain" so to speak, whereby defensive builds (fortifications) do provide an increase to the natural drift rate of loyalty, which accomplishes the same thing, tho via a slightly different route....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:36
|
|
and you are correct, the natural limits for loyalty are 0 and 100%, however, there ARE game situations in which the actual value can be either higher or lower than these absolutes. In the case of an honorable player, this effecitvely gives you a bit of "recruitment cushion" in provinces with loyalty above 100% (in addition to providing a modest boost to income), which nicely serves to counter the (numerous) advantages inherent in being a total bastard...
-=Vel=-
EDIT: More on Fortifications, and the new versitility they are seeing as we continue to tinker with the inner workings of the game.
One of the things I wanted to ensure was that the game was not dominated by classic "rush strategies." As a long time player of 4x games, rush sucks.
I hate it.
That's definitely a biased opinion, but rush is unrealistic in the extreme, and has no place in a game that's attempting to model a medieval kingdom. Development is at least as important as outright conquest, and probably moreso. In this game, it is *definitely* more important, on the thinking that...here are five major noble houses competing for the prize...the throne of the kingdom. The victor is not, and should not be, simply the guy who can churn out the most troops the fastest and dominate his enemies, but the guy who can do all that WHILE maintaining the loyalty of the people he means to rule, WHILE showing his future subjects that he/she will be a fit and able and capable ruler.
Because of this, several in-game mechanisms are in place to make adding a new province to your holdings no small undertaking.
Classic rush strategies won't work.
What it'll leave you with is a ton of low loyalty provinces with ticked off people who are revolting at every turn (especially if they're given a bit of outside assistance by your rivals), and ultimately the plan will backfire.
That, combined with the limits on provincial builds means that each build has to count.
Now some builds are naturally good on their own. You NEED barracks, despite the hits to loyalty, in order to field a worthy force.
Influence-generating religious builds, mana-generating magical builds....those things have a fair share of value in their own right, and are definitely worthy of consideration, depending on your strategy.
We got builds that increase the money and help with research. Good stuff.
But the fortifications...the defensive builds just weren't quite on par with their counterparts.
They are now, tho, cos they're corruption busters, and loyalty enhancers, in addition to providing solid combat bonuses to your troops stationed there. Before all that, fortifcations were sort of low man on the totem pole. Now tho, they're right up there with the rest of the provincial builds, and an integral part of a sound overall strategy.
-V.
Last edited by Velociryx on 19-05-2004 at 09:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xentropy
|
|
Re: Total Gridlock
As a Liberterian, I'm all for making government smaller, but looking at this realistically from the standpoint of the game, and from a balance standpoint, I'd still be a proponent for a drift to a value other than maximum.
To use your own example, let's say the government as a whole, (especially the local government more than the national one since we are talking about provincial loyalty), just decided to collectively step out for a few pints and change absolutely nothing for a year.
Sure, you're content. No rumors of new taxes showing up in the local paper, no threats of cuts to funding for your local school unless test grades improve. Life ain't bad.
But, before I even continue, is this really loyalty anyway? Or is this seeming perfection just allowing the seed of anarchy in your midn to grow even further? I mean, hell, government isn't doing anything and things are still just fine. Why should I support them? Maybe I'll just stop paying taxes altogether. Morale may be solid, but the other aspects of the value which make it loyalty instead of just happiness aren't really helped by an absence of change.
So, life is good, but during that year, on your drive to work every morning, you had to go along this stretch with lots of potholes. The government reports for duty again and that particular street is one of the first items on the agenda at the next city council meeting. The following week (er, okay, let's be realistic here, this is beaurocracy--more like a couple of months later) the street is repaved. "Wow! The government really does do something!" you think. "Maybe the next time I'm called for jury duty I won't be so annoyed about it."
That's all I'm saying. Status quo really shouldn't be euphoria. It should be more positive than negative, sure, but not a maximum. To really earn maximum loyalty should take some real work "beyond the call of duty" from the leadership, IMHO. From a game balance standpoint (which should really be the top priority of a design aspect, despite all this attention to realism), it gives the player a reason to go out of his way if he wants more than just the usual income and stability from his people.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think there should be any negative aspects to having 75% loyalty. It should just mean there IS room for improvement, and improvement could give you bonuses, but 75% should be the par value. If there are designs in place that make ANYTHING under 100% a horrible thing, then maybe a drift toward 100% is the right decision, but there should be included some very nice benefits to going above 100% for those players who DO go beyond the call of duty to make their people happy, and it should be made clear from the very beginning that, say, 125% is the maximum loyalty one can strive for.
Re: +Loyalty from the presense of troops
I don't see the two situations as mutually exclusive. Yes, recruiting new troops (in this context, somewhat of a draft) *should* decrease the morale of the province. However, if that unit you just recruited does nothing but stand around in the same province defending the rest of the people from attack, their loyalty should recover more quickly than if those troops get sent off to a faraway war. Similarly, if troops from an entirely different province get stationed in this province, the people should feel safer since the king (council, high priest, whatever) feels THEIR lives are important enough to keep threats at bay.
Perhaps no loyalty bonus from mercs but only from "real" troops, or even a loyalty penalty from having mercenaries hanging around (since mercs can be more threatening than safe; you yourself have a game mechanic in which they attempt to take over if not kept in check by regulars) would be in order.
I don't think it should be some rediculously large bonus. But if a sizable army hangs out in the province for several months, I think garnering a couple of percentage points of loyalty for it wouldn't be out of line. It could also allow for the (very realistic) mechanic of an evil warlord ruling with an iron fist, only keeping his people from openly revolting at his heavy-handed and infamous ruling style by keeping armies very visible in every street in the empire. However, the mechanic you already included of decreasing the maximum loyalty due to infamy would allow this warlord only the ability to ensure just enough loyalty to avoid revolt, not 100% loyalty and the best tax revenues, etc., that a kinder ruler would enjoy.
(Sorry for the length of the reply Got a little carried away )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:36
|
|
I think we're actually on the same page then!
Keep in mind that the model above is for the basic game, just to get us up and running.
One of the things that's coming will be to break society down into a number of "groups" each with their own agenda. Each with a list of things that makes them happier and less happy.
When we get to that point, the nature of many of the provincial improvements will be changing (ie, the academic types will take a generally dim view of leadership pushing religion or military affairs on them, likewise, the deeply religious folk will get mightily miffed if you start introducing moneylenders or magic to their lands).
As it stands now, there are simply exclusions in place for simplicity's sake. The population is "generic" and some builds just aren't allowed if you make certain others.
Eventually, that gets supplanted by a more free-form system in which any build is possible, but some might be unwise, given the population makeup of a given province.
For the moment tho, the system in place has a couple of advantages. First and foremost, there's not a sense of "punishment" in place. IE - if the norm were some value less than one hundred percent in the scaled back system we're starting with, and in the absence of the more fully fleshed out pop and society model, there are few mechanisms currently in place to go the rest of the distance, meaning that there's not much chance for ever reaching that magical 100% level.
But it's coming...
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ApolytonGuest
|
|
That's a lot of different resources. To what extent are they user influenced, or is this background minutiae that affects the game mechanics but is invisible to the user?
It sounds like a LOT of micro management if a user needs to keep track of how much of each of these he has. For instance, I count THIRTEEN different resources just from the ones listed so far in the three categories.
I agree with having the loyalty rate drift to 100% instead of some value under 100%. Since there are possible values over 100%, then obviously there is room for improvement, and should address those who fear it would automatically max out and be too easy.
If it drifted to something under 100%, the user would need to constantly intervene to bump it up again once it drifted down -- this creates too much micromanagement that doesn't add to gameplay beyond a nuissance factor.
Alternatively, perhaps the drift goal can be tied to difficulty level, so that at the highest difficulty, the drift might be to 75%, so would make achieving 100% difficult, much less 125%.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:36
|
|
Hullo AG! Yep, that's a wampum lotta resources, and the goal will be a tricky one indeed when we reach that stage in the game's development.
Where resources are concerned, the goals are manifold, and include some of the following:
* Minimize micromanagement! (always at or near the top of the list!)
* Make it as complete and realistic as possible (this will include such features as resource husbanding and conservation, and development of wholly new resources--by way of exploration or prospecting, in the case of mineral resources, and management in the case of renewables....want to make it possible for a province that currently HAS no cattle herds, for example, to get some...player invests in bringing this new resource into the province, and they thrive, or not, depending on how much effort is put into it, and the suitability of the land onto which they are introduced.
This point deserves a LOT more discussion, cos one of the things I HATE about oversimplified resource portrayal is the arbitrary nature with which they appear and disappear. There's no excuse for this, IMO. If you have a vein of gold in a given province, then you must (or can, with proper study) have some inkling of how big a vein you have. This then, can be expressed in game terms (your gold mine contains approximately X "units" of said resource) - up to you to make the best use of those. Contrast that to some other games (no names mentioned) where you get...."poof! No more iron!" - no rhyme or reason....it's just one day gone. Never liked that.
Also, some resources are renewable or semi-renewable. A famine can be dealt with by "sacrificing" X head of cattle. Doing so will reduce your province's production of leather and other related goods (one time spike as the animals are eaten, then, with your smaller herd, you see diminished capacity to produce such things. The herd can, of course, be nurtured back to full size in time)....tradeoffs. Balance, and often precarious balance at that.
* variable use - resources aren't good for just X or Y, but typically have a wide variety of uses, and these will be expressed in any number of ways. For example. "Herd Points" could be spent to speed construction (using oxen to haul construction materials or somesuch....herd size decreases as your assets are "spent" in this manner), while a nearby stone quarry might reduce the NUMBER of construction points needed to build a given building. An iron mine's existance (coupled with appropriate tech level) might make it possible to build a smithy, which would reduce troop maintenance costs, or a toolmaker's shop, which would provide bonus construction points, or any number of other ideas, and again, the concept of combinatronics comes into play here as the different *types* of buildings possible, taken in combination with themselves, and even other seemingly dispirate game elements, may lead to OTHER in-game options (example: A Focusing Sigil or other magic-oriented build in a province, coupled with the presence of a smithy may lead to your ability to construct a "Golem Workshop" (new combat unit), or an Enchanter's Forge (make magical weapons to outfit certain elite troops with), and so forth.
Endless possibilities.
As to exactly how all that hangs together....not sure yet. Haven't thought quite that far ahead, except to kick the ideas around in general terms. Right now, our main focus is on getting the core game up and running and out to you, so we can see how best to tackle the problem of adding these more advanced concepts to it, while preserving balance and without overwhelming the player...but we *always* take time out to talk about the possible futures, which is one of the COOLEST things of all!
So keep those ideas coming! I gotta go make dinner for a certain someone special, but will return later to read some more and comment!
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ApolytonGuest
|
|
My feeling is that this is too many resources.
I agree with your point about making resource husbanding, application, versatility, etc integral parts. But it's better to implement a couple of resources very well, than to do a dozen poorly. And the plethora detracts from gameplay. Just my two cents
The game Colonization has many resources like this, cloth, fur, fur can be made into coats, etc. But the reason for those dozens of resources is because it's partly a commodities trading game, rather than an empire building game, and it feels like that resource system is being shoehorned into Candle'Bre.
I think the key is to choose a few key resources and weave them into complex systems rather than have over a dozen different resources. Complexity comes from game design, not abundance of types. And abundance can in some ways degrade gameplay by diffusing the focus.
It's one thing to have lots of resources like gems, oil, coal, etc. like in Civ. But it's another to make them into complex interactive resource systems. When doing the later, you must perforce limit the key resources, although you can still have tons of the former that don't require active resource micromanagement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:36
|
|
Outstanding points, both of ya!
And I should say upfront that the more advanced economics model has not really even been fully outlined as yet, so if you're looking for a place to truly leave your mark on the game, this one's wide open.
I can outline, in broad terms what my hopes and goals ARE for the eventual state of the model, and then....you guys brainstorm and we'll figure the best way to get from here to there!
To that end, I'd very much like to see an "economic" path to victory eventually, and I think the game very definitely has room for this.
Trade and war are good opposites, and make for some compelling in-game choices. With trade being demand driven, it's just not profitible to kill off your customers, and this could set up some really interesting and entertaining in-game dynamics.
Resources, I see as being used in two ways:
First, to generate trade revenues (in the basic econ model, there's already a "slot" standing ready for this type of income), and second, to enhance provinces via advanced builds, and strengthen certain elements of the existing game.
I envision two broad categories of goods, raw and finished. Raw materials in various configurations can be combined in provincial builds to create finished goods (not unlike the game "Capitalism") which allows for the emergence of wholly new markets during the course of the game.
Economics, like all the other elements of the game, should present a staggering array of choices, such that there's no possible way that any player could, during the course of a single game, fully explore the width and bredth of the economic engine that drives candle'bre.
The basic demand model for goods could be established along the lines of average usage per person (modified by weights, when we begin to break the population into differing segments with differing priorities), multiplied by provincial population, to give a "provincial demand curve" for the various goods available in-game. This would be further modified by variables such as "is this an emerging market, or a mature one?" Is this a "staple item" or a "luxury good"? and other such factors to arrive at some final demand figure.
Prices for various goods would have some baseline range, and "float" upwards or downwards depending on the relationship (total demand:total supply) which would be the final driving factor in determining just how much coin each resource generated for its owner.
Goods would be traded at centers of trade (a la EU), which could either be constructed at player's discretion (a "minor wonder" of sorts), or appear spontaneously in provinces meeting a fairly stiff number of pre-requisites (high infrastructural development, focus on financial builds, certain population thresholds, relative peace, etc)
Centers of Trade should be able to be destroyed, like any other provincial build, which would cause markets to "shift" (sometimes radically) in the face of such destruction.
Given the era and timeframe, it would be unlikely to see "replacement" markets (ie, I do not envision a scenario where one good is phased out--demand drops to zero--because a newer, better good takes its place)....that would be interesting, but is not really in keeping with the times.
Diminishing returns should play a heavy role....it should very definitely reach a point, for example, when production is so high for a given good that the market becomes a money-losing proposition, forcing weaker contenders IN that market out of business.
Developing and growing markets should require devoting an increasing segment of your provincial populations TO those markets, and this would be the driving force behind seeing that a player simply could not fully develop every market in the game (there simply isn't enough manpower to fully "staff" every market type in the game)....this again, creates strategic choice.
Goods should be more valuable than their "simple" trade value (as mentioned above, certain goods should have multi-role functionality, and have value that extends beyond the coin they generate in trade. Thus, even in a really saturated market, some players may choose to keep a money-losing industry going, subsidizing it via the kingdom's treasury to reap the other benefits that the industry in question brings the realm.
Markets should shift in their overall importance over the course of the game. This is somewhat different than a market being phased out by some new product, but sees parallels in SMAC, for example...in the early game, a mineral focus is important so you can build infrastructure quickly. Once that's built, however, the focus shifts elsewhere, and rightly so.
So too, in Candle'Bre, industries which aid in construction of provincial infrastructure would take the driver's seat early on, and as infrastructure comes fully online, then other industries would become dominant, and the older industries would begin to take a backseat.
To reduce micromanagement, there should be a dedicated "agent AI" whose sole purpose in life is to shop around on behalf of the king and ensure that goods are delivered to markets where they'll bring in maximum profit. Likewise, in-game uses for resources should be presented in the form of popup windows when applicable ("Sire, the famine in Brom could be halted if we sent them X head of cattle from our herd in Parthaway") - this sort of thing would eliminate the need for the player to be "always on top of" every last detail in the empire, and bring relevant decisions to the fore.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ApolytonGuest
|
|
It seems we're looking at things differently here. You're looking at it in terms of creating a stock/commodities market trading perspective, and I'm looking at it in terms of interweaving game mechanics perspective (e.g., sacrificing cows to avert famine).
I dislike creating so many resource types because it makes the resources less distinct and creates redundant gameplay mechanics. As a reminder, we already have four key resources to begin with -- gold, honor/infamy points, church nfluence points, and mana points. Adding these 13 new resources brings the total to 17, and you've indicated the possibility of adding more. That'll easily bring it up to 20 or more resources.
This makes it an extremely resource management intensive game and DETRACTS from the meta game. The player should be worrying about diplomacy, his honor/infamy, the personalities of the other factions, how to make nice or piss off the church, etc -- NOT fiddling around for most of the game with resource allocation in his bases to the exclusion of all else. Can you do such a resouce system? Sure, but at considerable detriment to the meta-game experience.
From what I can tell, the Settlers resource system is similar to the Colonization one where you have resources that can be converted into one another and used for building different things. Lots of resource micromanagement.
This interchanging of resources and the slew of resource types creates a false sense of complexity and interactivity. This psuedo-complexity comes from the fact that you're constantly managing the resources and hides the fact that the gameplay of resource A is pretty much the same as the gameplay for resource B.
What I'd like to see instead is an increase in the gameplay factors of each given resource to make them distinct and interesting. Not a bunch of different resources that are exactly alike gameplay-wise.
What do I mean by gameplay factors? I mean tying the resources into other game systems -- like sacrificing cows to avert famine. Or maybe gems are needed to bribe high class targets, cast special spells, can be gifted to win honor or influence, or used to create alchemical weapons. Or preferably do all of the above.
Vel, you mentioned you were writing a novel, well here's an analogy for you. One technique of novel writing is character role integration and assimilation. Let's say your story has a main character and the following people who relate to him -- his coworker, his physician, his wife, his wife's best friend, his best friend, and his friend's wife. Including the main character, that's 7 characters, right? Now let's say we make the physician the same as the best friend's wife, make the best friend's wife/physician the same as his wife's best friend, and make his coworker the same as his best friend. Now, suddenly, we've reduced the number of characters and increased the complexity of relationships and potential interactions. A similar dynamic holds true for game designing as it does for novel plotting.
As you can see, complexity comes not from adding more into the mix, but from REDUCING the number of characters/resources. Whenever you can reduce the number of resources in a game -- DO IT. Not just in the interest of reducing micromanagement, but because the less resources it has, the more complex and interactive you can make it. This doesn't mean eliminating the roles of resources. Take the roles of two resources and combine them into one resource. Instead of having 12 resources -- each of which can do three things like averting famine -- combine their roles into 6 resources, each of which can do twice as much in gameplay.
Make each resource type distinct and irreplaceable and not interchangeable. Give each resource different gameplay dynamics. And if you can combine the gameplay dynamics of two resources into one resource and thus reduce the number of resources while increasing interactivity of gameplay relationships, all the better.
Now do you see what I'm getting at? This is why I believe having so many resources, detracts from the meta-game. Don't have your players tied down with resource management. Keep the focus on the rivalry between the factions. Not just in armies but in politics, vying for honor, church favor, etc. Economic rivalry has a role to be sure, but creating such a large number of resources focuses too much of the player's attention on resource management minutiae and detracts from that meta-game focus.
A poor writer will create tons of characters and falsely believe it means a lot is happening in the plot. A really good writer will focus relentlessly on reducing the number of major characters, merging the roles of several into one to create greater complexity and interactivity.
It's worth noting that many good game design companies have reduced the types of resources as a way to polish their game. For instance, Blizzard removed mana stones from WC3, feeling that the gameplay purpose served could be split and integrated into gold and experience accumulation. Every resource should serve a distinct purpose. If you can combine the roles of resources and thus reduce the number while increasing complexity, you should.
I speak of complexity from the perspective of how many things and gameplay mechanics a resource can do. But in the eyes of the user, although each resource is now more complex, you've actually simplified the interface useability because he now has to keep track of fewer things. But each of those fewer resources is now more powerful and interesting. Thus, counter-intuitive though it is, increased gameplay complexity (from making more powerful and fewer resources) has the happy side effect of apparent userfriendly, useability, and graphical interface simplicity.
As it currently stands, I feel over a dozen resources is too many (and these are in addition to the four major ones of gold/honor/influence/mana, mind you!). I would favor less than six at most. You can graduate gameplay complexity by tying the use of resources and game effects to game progression. For instance, you can sacrifice cattle to gain favor with the church, but only if you've built a sacrificial altar. Or you can sacrifice cattle to throw a feast to increase your honor, but only under certain conditions, like only if you have a festival fate card. Or having a public feast for the peasants will increase loyalty of a province, but only if you've researched the appropriate tech. Or maybe you need X amount of cattle sacrificed to cast a nefarious magical ritual (which carries an honor hit as well as consuming mana and cattle).
The fewer resources, the more complex you can make them! Combine the roles of two into one! The more gameplay options and utilities you have for a single resource, the more the use of that resource becomes a strategic choice for the player. If he uses it for one thing, he won't have enough of it left for another. Dilemma, dilemma. This should be the goal of any resource system -- to create complex dilemmas for the player to choose from a myriad of distinct gameplay options.
Last edited by ApolytonGuest on 30-05-2004 at 19:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ApolytonGuest
|
|
Also, I wanted to address two points you mentioned, Vel.
1) You wanted the system to be comprehensive so that it would be impossible to explore all the resources in one game.
2) You wanted a shift in comparative resource importance as the game progress, like the shift from minerals to energy in SMAC.
I believe both these aspects can be addressed through the graduated complexity system of resource gameplay and does not require a plethora of resources. Rather it requires a plethora of resource uses.
As the game progresses, new gameplay options for resources can be opened up if you research certain technologies, buildings, etc. Thus, since not all these technologies, buildings, spells, etc. will be fully explored by one player in a single game, the various advanced gameplay options will not be unlocked for all resources in a single game. It's not about introducing new resources, but rather introducing new uses for old resources as the game progresses, and depending on the direction.
And by controlling the way these new gameplay options are enabled with game progression, the relative usefulness and resultant importance of differing resources will change as well. This would cause the shift in resource focus. Further, since the advanced gameplay options will unlock in different ways depending on what direction the player takes the game (perhaps cattle is better for an influence heavy game or gems for a spy heavy one), that game resource shift between early game/mid game/late game will be different for every game the player plays -- all depends on which way he plays the game. But the central tenent of relative resource importance changing throughout the game is preserved.
Also, a graduated resource option that opens up more gameplay options as the game progresses makes the learning curve easier for the player as well. The player isn't overwhelmed with all the myriad uses for resources, but learns of them as the new gameplay options for different resources are enabled in the course of the game.
Last edited by ApolytonGuest on 30-05-2004 at 23:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
Gotta say Vel, AG is making some very insightful points...
Excellent analysis!!!
I still hold that in terms of gameplay, the civ style games do it right. Systems that are simple in nature (3 resources drive your economy, few units to start with) that allow you to ease into the game. Once you establish a flow in your gameplay, you can ratchet up some of the complexities, as pointed out by AP, by introducing secondary uses for your resources.
Or take EU2 - it actually is a very simple game to play because the game mechanics are not overwhelming...
- 3 total land unit types
- 3 total sea unit types
- 6 culture sliders (4 tech choices/1 stability slider/1 cash slider)
- 8 government sliders (adjusted once every 10 years)
- Trade handled via a simple merchant placement process, and capped at 6 max.
- Diplomacy limited by the number of diplomats you have at a given time, and capped at 6 max.
- Same with colonists - capped at 6 max.
- 5 total building choice types for each province
- 1 religion slider based on allocation of tolerance
- Resources that are abstacted to the point that they add atmosphere to the game, and determine things such as manpower and tax revenue, but do not force a player to micromanage.
...but offers incredible complexity.
One of the things that drove me off of getting into Hearts of Iron was the way the player is thrown into a very complex system right at the start with a myriad of choices regarding resources, economy, government (including cabinet apointees), military (same thing, appointing your generals) and tech research (hoo boy, there must have been 10-15 tech sliders to choose from). To the casual player, it becomes mind-numbing, and to me, I really did not want to invest the time to get a handle on everything.
I basically didn't even consider the followup Paradox game, Victoria, after hearing that it was even more complex. I'm holding my breath on Crusader Kings though - it sounds like it's not as bad (other than wife searching)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
|
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
Now I will play the other side of the card.
Having multiple resources can work. I have played games where there were 9 (Chariots of War) However, they were handled in a way that was not overwhelming, and the system could of handled a few more, if given a specific purpose
You had the following...
Basics
Food
Building Materials
Military
Horses
Copper
Tin
Wood
Advanced Level Basics
Gems
Incense
Currency
Gold
In the beginning of the game, a player can get by with the bare necessities. (Food, Building Materials, Copper and/or Wood, and Gold as the means to buy all of them)
As a player moves on in the game, he has access to more powerful units and better buildings - and it is at that point where he needs the remaining goods. He can build up stockpiles or purchase on an as needed basis.
So the game gradually moves into a more complex system in a way that does not overwhelm the player. Most items in the game, whether military or buildings, require only two types of goods to construct - and they are always available on the market for purchase.
In essense, I'm agreeing with AG on this in that the game should take a gradual approach in resource useage. I think each resource should have a specific purpose too. Thus, you do not need 3 types of food, 4 types of luxuries, 3 types of building materials...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dale
|
 |
Sir! Why do you keep clicking on me?
Dec 2000
time: 15:36
|
|
1603AD/1503AD also has a gradual rise into a complex resource system too, and it works well.
1503AD resources: (they call them production chains)
- wild game
- grazing land
- coast
- grain fields
- salt deposits
- mountain (stone)
- forest
- marble deposit
- hop fields
- potato fields
- sugarcane fields
- cotton fields
- hides
- sheep
- fur bearing animals
- indigo fields
- silk fields
- gold deposit
- gem deposit
- whales
- grapes
- herbs
- tobacco fields
- spice fields
- hemp fields
- iron ore
All these basic resources could be processed into finished goods (some have intermediate goods as well IE: grain --> flour --> bread). However, the good thing with 1503AD is it's a slow progression into the economic model as the demand for these goods is so gradual by the population. You can play for an hour easily only needing forest (wood), wild game (hides/leather clothing, food) and sheep (wool --> cloth).
Also, another good thing is you only need half of these resources to form a top-level/winning city. IE: Alcohol - you only need one of: potato fields, sugarcane fields, hop fields. They all make beer to sell in the tavern.
This is where I see the biggest failing of Civ3. You have to have access to ALL resources. How many folks have had a fantastic game going, and then found there's only one source of oil.......... on the other side of the map? It always pissed me off that you can have solar power, synthetics, chemistry and even steam power, yet can't build a car without that one oil that an AI built his capital on!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ApolytonGuest
|
|
Thanks, Hex. If you think that was fun, you should see the extensive analyses I have in the random thoughts thread. But I think Vel and I have scared everyone off since we're the only two holding intricate, detailed discussions in that thread. I'd love to know what you think of some of the ideas there.
I think Hex is right -- you don't need more than one food resource, or more than one building resource, etc.
The problem with having all those resources in 1503AD is that the gameplay for each resource is pretty much the same. Have a resource, harvest it, make it into something else in the production chain, rinse and repeat.
Instead, why not have very few resources and have an entirely different gameplay dynamic for each.
Always keep in mind that the top four resources -- mana, gold, influence, honor -- are sufficient for the basic structure of the game. And anything more that we add will detract from those. Notice how those four resources each have a different gameplay dynamic. Honor affects winning losing and how other game systems (like upkeep, diplomacy) react to you. Influence allows you to access options with the church. Mana lets you casts spells. Gold interacts with production, population, hiring mercenaries, and spying features.
If you really must add new resources, make them there for different gameplay purposes and behave in different manners.
I would suggest two or three at most.
Cattle -- "renewable" resource. The special gameplay mechanic here is that the future production is a function of present stock.
Thus, husbanding this resource will allow the stock to grow, and in turn mean greater future production of this resource. Conversely, if you use the resource -- to avert famine, tithe to the church on sacrificial altars for influence, slaughter to throw a feast for peasants to raise loyalty, sacrifice to a dark magic ritual -- you not only reduce your current stock but also your future production capacity. This resource become the epitome of the strategic choice of use now or save for later.
Further, you can tie population growth rate of a province to how much cattle it has. (And population in turn translates to gold revenue) So using this resource to activate game options means sacrificing population growth and resulting gold revenue growth. We'll assume the peasants are living off the land/subsistence farming, so won't need cattle to sustain a population, but only for population growth. Thus, your population won't starve to death if you lose your cattle. This prevents the player from being too conservative with this resource and encourages him to use it up on interesting game options like increasing influence through tithing/sacrificial altars. And perhaps there are enemy spells like inflict cattle plague that will decimate and reduce herd sizes.
Precious Gems -- "limiting reagent" resource. The gameplay purpose of this resource would be to act as a limiting reagent (similar to the way gas was used as a braking agent to the use of ore in Starcraft).
This resource is scarce and not easily increased. Let's say you get x amout of precious gems per province you control per turn. This number may be increased slightly if you have a gem mine/deposit in the province, but not by much. Other than that, Gem production is fixed, and the only way to increase Gem production is by conquering new provinces.
Normally, buildings, units, espionage actions are supported by production or gold. But if you want to limit the use of a powerful espionage action or number of a powerful building or unit, one way to is by dramatically increasing the gold cost of that action. However, players can amass huge amounts of gold and gold production as the game progresses. If you want to ensure that the relative rarity of these actions/buildings/units is maintained throughout the game, and progresses at a slower pace than gold production progression -- make precious gems a requirement along with gold. Perhaps special magical spells require gems, or you need gems to bribe high level officials or pay for elite spies or units. Gem production will increase as you gain more provinces, but not as fast as gold revenue which also increases with population and infrastructure builds.
This lets you build in powerful spells/espionage actions/buildings/units without making them unbalancing, since they are limited by the scarce resource of gems.
And perhaps gems have other gameplay effects like gifting/tithing such scarce resources will improve diplomacy with enemies or the church. But at considerable cost since you can't just produce more instantly, only with slow accumulation of time -- making time investment another factor. Gem stocks are a function of provinces held multiplied by the number of turns you held each province.
And although Gems can be converted to Gold (sold on the open market), Influence (gifted to church), Mana (alchemical conversion), the opposite is not true. You cannot buy Gems back on the open market. Thus, once a Gem is gone, it's gone from the game. This makes the resource even more scarce and precious. This is the ultimate prized resource. It can be transformed into any of the those three other resources (but not honor/infamy points because that has a more roleplaying element and affects victory conditions). But those other three resources cannot be converted back to gems. Nor can gem production be increase the way Mana can be by sigils, Gold by increasing population or financial builds, Influence by building churches, or cattle by husbanding it. You cannot prospect for gems or increase gem stock in any way other than with time (You get one gem each turn per province). Gem is accumulated time made into a concrete, limited, non-user increaseable (other than conquering new provinces) resource.
Finally, I suppose there might be room for one more production resource, but I'm still thinking of how to make the gameplay for it sufficiently distinct and different from the behavioral mechanics of the other resources.
That's my thinking right now, anyway. Ditch the hodgepodge of resources and focus on creating intricate systems for a few. Each resource must have an entirely different gameplay dynamic and specific gameplay purpose that is not filled -- nor possibly filled -- by an existing resource.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ApolytonGuest
|
|
I think we have two schools of thought here. One side wants lots of resources and a marketplace bazaar. One side wants few resources with multiple unique gameplay options for each resource. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages, and I suspect the solution might be some compromise in between. I'm not sure if Vel has weighed in on that discussion yet. Ultimately, the choice is up to Vel as lead game designer, and I trust his judgment, whether I favor the final choice or not.
So I'd like to take a break from the particulars of the specific resources and discuss another issue that's just as important -- the path to economic victory. Here's my proposal.
Random Thought Five: Semi-Zero-Sum Valuations
(I'm continuing the numbering system from my Random Thoughts thread )
(A) Population Gold Value(PGV)
Each population is worth a certain amount of gold tax revenue. Your PGV is how much each person is worth in gold tax revenue multiplied by the total population under your control. World PGV is how much each person is worth in gold tax revenue multiplied by the population of all 60 provinces.
(B) Resource Gold Value(RGV)
Each physical province resource (as opposed to the four key resources of gold/honor/influence/mana) has a market value of what you can sell it for in gold. Your RGV is how much of a each resource you have multiplied by the current market price for that resource. Add up the RGV for each resource and you have your total RGV. For World RGV, do the same calculations, except count all 60 provinces and not just yours.
Market Price of a Resource
The price of what you can sell it for in gold is influenced by demand. Demand is a function of world population and technology. I think it would be easier to have a world market price rather than different prices for each province.
World Aggregate Amount (Resource X) = sum total of Resource X from all provinces on map, whether player controlled, neutral, or enemy controlled.
World population = total population in game world
Technology(Resource X) = a Technology coefficient for Resource X
Market Price (Resource X) = [World population/World Aggregate Amount(resource X)][Technology(Resource X)]
With time the amount of a resource can increase (breeding cattle herds) or decrease (when you sell your cattle on the market and thus lower your stocks). The aggregate population of all the provinces will generally increase, but can decrease locally when you recruit them into military units. Thus, this ratio fluctuates.
The [Technology] value for each resource is different and each set to some specific default at the start of the game, and can be modified by new technologies. The default [Technology] values for each resource can be changed in several ways.
1) Research Generic Merchantile technologies. This will cause the [Technology] value for all resources to increase. Yes, this helps your enemies too by raising the price of goods, but if you're playing an economic battleplan, the more you shift value into resources and away from other things, the better for you.
2) Research Resource-specific technologies. This will cause the [Technology] value for only one specific good to increase, and slightly decrease the [Technology] value for all other resources. E.g., research cowhide boots and demand for cattle rises, but the price and relative demand for iron or lumber would drop. There's a limited pool of money from which the peasants can purchase. Increased demand in one area means they have less to spend on another. If you see you have lots of cattle but your opponent has lots of iron, lumber, or whatever, You can "economically attack" your enemy by causing the value of his resource to drop.
There's another way to modify the pricing you can sell something for without modifying the World Market Price. If you build a Center for Trade, you are able to sell things for slightly higher than the world market price as calculated in the original equation. Only you get this bonus and not your enemies, since you have the Center for Trade.
Adjusted Market Price (AMP) = Market Price(MP) * Trading Bonus
Although the AMP is what you see when you interact with the market, the unadjusted MP is what is used for calculating RGV, in order to allow for parity comparison with the world. Your Resource Gold Value is (unadjusted) Market Price multiplied by how much of that resource you possess. Repeat the same calculation with (unadjusted) Market Price and how much of that resource exists in all 60 provinces of the world to get the World RGV.
(C) Infrastructure Gold Value(IGV)
Each building is worth a certain amount of gold. Economic buildings are given greater gold values than non-economic buildings. Centers of trade are worth ten times their gold value -- this is how we account for the Adjusted Market Price element, by moving it into the IGV instead of RGV. We don't want to double count the effects, and that was why we didn't use the AMP in calculating the RGV.
Note, the gold value assigned to buildings here for this calculation need not be the same as any resource/production/gold rush-buying value used for a building in gameplay.
Total up the gold value of all your buildings and you get your IGV. Do the same for every building in the game (including yours) and you get the World IGV.
CALCULATING ECONOMIC VICTORY
As you can see, each of those values changes with time as the game progresses and the player researches things, accumulates resources, builds infrastructure.
Total Economic Value = PGV + RGV + IGV + Gold in Treasury
Your economic might is equal to your population, your resources, and your infrastructure. (Your merchantile technologies are already incorporated into your RGV via the technology coefficient in the market price, and IGV via buildings enabled by those technologies).
World Total Economic Value (TEV) = World PGV + World RGV + World IGV + Gold in Treasuries of all 60 Provinces.
Since the world includes you, the World economic values increases every time you increase your own economic value. Thus, it becomes a matter of proportion, hence the zero sum element. But although your TEV and the rest of the world combines to form a zero sum unity in terms of fractions, the whole pie is steadying changing when not considered in terms of fractions.
Can you grow your economic might faster than your enemies?
The game looks at the ratio of your TEV/World TEV. If your control X% of the world's economy, you win. This percent can be 50% or 75% or whatever you want to set it to.
Every time you grow, this ratio gets bigger. TEV grows faster than World TEV, even though your TEV is included in the World TEV. Every time your enemy grows, your TEV numerator stays the same but the World TEV grows, so the ratio shrinks.
Graphically, you can have a pie-chart available to the player that shows his share of the world economy. If he's trying to win economically, he'll try to increase his slice until it meets the criteria for whatever you set the victory ratio to be (50%, 75%, 80%, etc.). And it gives instant gratification and feedback in that each time he researches a merchantile technology, or builds a center for trade or whatnot, he'll see how it affects his slice.
(Edited: Had the numerators and denominators reversed for Market Price.  And I suspect that equation for calculating market price is too simplistic.)
Last edited by ApolytonGuest on 02-06-2004 at 22:23
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
npilgaard
|
|
Very interesting discussions!
A few thoughts:
>Finally, I suppose there might be room for one more production resource, but I'm still thinking of how to make the gameplay for it sufficiently distinct and different from the behavioral mechanics of the other resources.
>
10-15 years ago I played a game called "Gold of Americas" (or something like that) about the discovery and colonization of America around 1500-1700 AD. What made that game different from other games was the way units were used. Each turn (10 years) you had a number of units (settlers, armies, navies etc.) to your disposal (partially receiving units depending on how well the game went, and partially buying units using the income from previous turn). However, at the end of the turn all units were lost, and new units had to be placed next turn.
This concept leads to quite different game mechanics compared to the usual resource management. Here the resource has to be used every turn, or else it is lost.
The concept does not need to be used for 'physical' resources per se - could probably work well in the form of fx 'ruler actions' (each player gets a limited number of ruler actions each turn - a ruler action is used to improve a certain condition, representing that the ruler choses to spend his time/focus on that particular issue, fx administration increase tax income slightly, leadership increases morale/army size, construction decreases construction time etc.)
Another interesting aspect of that 'Americas...' game, which leads to different mechanics, was the way gold income was handled. The player was in charge of colonizing the New World, but he still answered to the king back in Europe. Every turn the player received gold income, but he had to pay a tax to the king, and that tax was not a percentage of the income, but rather it was based on the income of the prevouis turn (maybe even multiple turns). That meant that as long as the player was able to keep increasing his income turn after turn, then he had money to spend. But if income suddenly dropped, then it meant trouble (at least for some time - eventually the king would demand less tax. The system thus regulated itself).
That created a need for constant expansion and increasing income, just to get a fairly stable amount of gold to spend every turn. Quite a different dynamic compared to the usual 'save up resources turn after turn'.
- Just a few thoughts regarding how to achieve different game dynamics.
---
I really like the thoughts regarding the econimic 'semi zero-sum' game.
An additional idea:
Thorough history it has often been advantageous for trading to stay neutral and let the other fight the wars. Prices tend to go up in war times, the warring countries cannot focus on trade, they trade embargo each other and seize enemy cargo, they need supplies etc.
A few ideas on how to simulate this
- excluding provinces controlled by any faction currently at war with the player when calculating market price (market price would then have to be calculated seperately for each player, though).
This represents that a player of course don't have access to the markets controlled by the enemy and vice versa.
Thus being at war can directly affect the income.
Trade embargos could have similar effect
- the production of all provinces controlled by a faction currently at war is slightly reduced (thus world production will decrease slightly, and market price will thus increase a little - advantage for neutral factions, but due to lowered production the warring factions will not benefit from this)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ApolytonGuest
|
|
To an extent, yes -- hence the need to balance infrastructure and military defensiveness. You need to guard your economic bastions.
And it introduces the strategic element of targeting high infrastructure provinces if you're looking to increase economic valuation by conquering them. Provinces with high economic infrastructure would also have less room (limited amount of building slots) for military machinery buildings. Thus, in digesting such conquests, you would either need to build up the military infrastructure by deconstructing the existing merchantile infrastructure in a conquered province and replacing it with military infrastructure (in order to expand your military machine) or run the risk of a less defensible province that can be reconquered by the former occupier.
Perhaps buildings in a province have an X% chance to be razed and destroyed when a province is conquered.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-05-2004 05:49
The system it used always felt more real than the one in say 'Sim Farm', which while much more comprehensive, just seemed to play a little 'coldly' in comparison(by that i meant the resouce experience felt more clinical - less freindly etc).
overall
of course you could have two different flavours fo the game to play - offer a choice at game start of resource heavy or resource lite?
|