27-05-2004 19:17									#1
	Random Thoughts, Questions, and Suggestions Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well, here's a thread for random brainstorming and half-baked ideas. Maybe the DevTeam will deign to answer some of these

I'll start.

Random Thought One: Optional Rulesets
Is there an optional ruleset selection menu like the one you get at the beginning of SMAC, MOM, and even CIV (when you choose map settings)?

Random Thought Two: Unit Investment and transformation
One of the issues that face game design is unit investment, not in terms of investing resources in producing units, but in terms of the player investing emotionally/strategically into the units so that they're more than just pixels and canon fodder.

(Sid Meier discussed this problem in one of his now defunct Dinosaur Game diaries -- of how he considered using hero dinosaurs to allow the user to empathize more with the game.)

There are two levels to this.

The first level is personalization. You can see how this is the more obvious level and addressed through the hero system -- evident from Warcraft 3 to Master of Magic to Master of Orion.

But there's a second level that's a bit less obvious, and that's the build up of regular units, or rather TRANSFORMATION (I'll explain why I use this term later), of regular units so that they become a greater investment with time. One approach is the use of an experience system to make the troops stronger with time so that a just produced troop is not as good as an experienced troop. They're no longer interchangeable cannon fodder, but represent a time investment by the player, not just an interchangeable construction resource investment.

The player becomes more attached to the older units because they've gained experience with time/battles and are stronger. The player becomes more invested in them. Such an experience system for regular, non-hero troops, is used in SMAC, MOO2, MOM.

Now let's take it further (I did promise to explain "TRANSFORMATION"). The concept of unit transformation is used in RTS but not as much in TBS. I think this concept is a valuable one that can be -- and should be -- introduced into TBS games.

Here's an example -- In Starcraft, you can build units that can be morphed into different units. You can take hydralisks or mutalisks and (with the input of additional resources) change them into lurkers, guardians, or devourers. Thus, these new units represent a greater investment, not only of resource but of time, since they aren't built from scratch but built from other units.

To top it off, these new units have different abilities from the preceding units. Thus, it's not a simple calculus of greater investment = better unit. Rather, the pre-morph units are still ever bit as useful as the post-morph units, they just do different things. The older models do not become obsolete. But since the post-morph units are more resource intensive, they are slightly more valuable. To make the post-morph units an attractive option, they are more "powerful" in that they have abilities that the pre-morph units don't -- like invisible/burrowing or longer range or greater damage. But to keep the pre-morph units viable options and prevent them from being obsolete, the post-morph units cost more and have special weaknesses to balance out their greater strength -- like slower firing, or inability to hit ground/air.

Thus, it creates a strategic choice for the user. To stick with one type of unit or to SACRAFICE them in order to transform them into another type of unit of greater power, but also greater weaknesses. Which type is better depends on the circumstances, and makes the skill of the player's decisionmaking important, when paired with the type of strategy that makes use of this unit.

Other than Starcraft, I remember seeing this unit transformation technique being used in another game in development some years ago, never heard if they ever published it or cancelled it. I believe in that one, you could produce a swordsman and shove him into a calvary training facility to turn him into a knight, or alternatively create a calvaryman and shove him into a fencing school to turn him into a knight.

And this unit type upgrading is also evident in many RPGs.

Now, with all this background discussion, here's my suggestion for Candle'Bre: implement an experience gaining system for normal units. Once these normal units advance up the experience rankings, they will eventually reach a point where new options open up. Under these new options, the unit can be transformed into another type of unit.

These post-transformation units can't be created from scratch, but must be made by sacrificing a highly experienced unit. And keep the options greater than one, to force the user to choose.

Let's say I have a regular calvary unit, as he gains experience he gets stronger. When he reaches the top level, I can choose to transform him (possibly by sending him to a special upgrade training facility) into a heavily armored Mounted Knight (greater defense), a Blitzkrieg Raider (faster movement), or a Crusader (increased damage from religious zeal and fervor). Since the user can't build these three units from scratch, but only make them out of highly experienced calvary units, these new units become much more valuable an emotional investment on the player's part. And since he has to choose from three good upgrades, he'll have to decide strategically.

Additionally, he'll be more careful of not letting his units die, but investing emotionally to see that they level up so that he can transform them.

These upgraded units will have higher hit points. To make it more interesting, perhaps the Mounted Knight will have decreased resistance to magic, the Blitzkrieg Raider has lower defense against range arrows, and the Crusader has lower speed. These decreases will be extremely slight and in relation to the standard, highly experienced pre-transformation calvaryman. Thus, although the post-transformation unit is generally more valuable, there ordinary calvaryman will still be viable.

Or to really spice things up, these upgrade types are available to the second to highest experience level for the calvaryman. But if you upgrade/transform them, you won't be able to reach the highest experience level of Calvaryman, which is a bit weaker but brings it's own benefits like reduced upkeep cost or loyalty or something.

Now, apply the same concept not just to calvary, but to every other type of unit, and you get a bewildering concoction of interesting choices and options. You can even tie the particular type of upgrade/transformation possible to other choices like fame/infamy, magic/church, or the type of magic selected, etc.

I've got a few more random thoughts, but I'd like to see what people think of these for now. And feel free to add your own random thoughts

	27-05-2004 19:37									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Oh, and to prevent the transformation system from being abused, there are ways to add variations and build in limiting factors.

For instance, the obvious one is making it expensive resource-wise to transform a unit once it has enough experience. The other limiting factor is that you need to level up the unit first.

Here are some other variations. In Starcraft, to make a Dark Archon or an Archon requires not one unit but two. Two regular units are melded to create the new unit.

In the RPG game Flame Dragon 2, you can transform your unit into a new advanced type once you get enough experience, but the choice of what it turns into is restricted by scarce items. For instance, you can change a swordsman into a master swordsman, but not a dragon swordsman unless you have a dragon egg or something. And to change your swordsman into a godslayer, you need a special pin or something.

Thus, as a game designer, you can control the transformations by controlling these limiting factors. You can make it extremely expensive to transform the unit. Or you can set the experience bar extremely high. Or you can require that the player possess some limited item like a special spell or fate card or special resource province. Or you can tie it to circumstances -- i.e., you can only transform one calvaryman for every 50 calvaryman you produce or possess, or for every five province you control or something.

	28-05-2004 15:33									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Hey man! We've already got some of that in place, but of course, the exact nature of those pre-game options can and will, no doubt, shift over the course of time. Right now, about all we've got in place is random or set turn orders, random or historic maps, AI aggression levels, and the strengths of the neutrals, but yes, I can see a whooooole lot of other options being opened up after we've got the core game established!

Unit Investment and Transformation is another excellent concept that won't be fully realized until we get the game out the gate and can begin upgrading the various engines that drive her.

There was a FANTASTIC discussion about taking the combat section from the strategic level (where it is currently) to the tactical level, complete with a dramatic increase in the number of combat-relevant variables (including morale, experience, armor level, and even the possibility of something similar to SMAC's "unit workshop"), and when we reach THAT point, then there'll be a whole lot of transformation going on!

And the coolio thing is that the transformations can be manifested in-game in a variety of ways....either thru tech progression (straight line transformation), or through an increasingly complex web of provincial improvement builds (combinatronics), or through experience shading (ie - if an infantry unit survives X battles which involved enemy cavalry, and gains Y experience in combat in general, you can "transform" that unit into.....hell, I dunno....something...LOL)

Stuffs like that!

-=Vel=-

	28-05-2004 17:01									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Hiya, Vel. Glad to see you guys are thinking about these things. Any chance of a link to that fantastic discussion on the combat system and changing the perspectives from strategic to tactical? I'd love to take a gander.

On the topic of transforming one type of unit into another, you can tie the transformation mechanisms into the other game systems like infamy/honor and church/magic. For instance, if you cast a spell on a unit (with has the threshold experience needed -- this experience aspect is important to create player attachment and value to individualizing units) to give it demonic speed, it causes a loss of standing with the church or perhaps infamy. On the other hand, if you have sufficiently high influence with the church, you can ask them to annoint one of your high experience level knights into a holy warrior.


Random Thought Three: Governates
One of the problems facing any 4x game, and TBS in general, is that the endgame becomes micromanagement hell. Attempts to solve this problem have taken two approaches -- reducing micromanagement elements and automation.

The first approach has created limited success since any changes that reduce micromanagement in the endgame also reduces the necessary interesting micromanagement in the early game. Although reduction of micromanagement is still a necessary guiding principle, the balance between the early game and the endgame prevents too much reduction of micromanagement.

The second approach of automation depends heavily on game complexity. The more complex the game (and thus fun and interesting), the worse any automated AI would do compared to humans. Thus, handing the reins of daily base operations over to automated governors yields worse results than if the human player had exerted direct decisionmaking control -- and this is the cause of micromanagement hell in the endgame. An example of this is the failure of automated base Governors in SMAC.

I propose a third alternate approach -- the concept of supra-provinces -- GOVERNATES.

When certain conditions are met -- like sufficient number of provinces, or tech level, or population, whatever you want to use to indicate the mid/end game -- the player is allowed to fuse several provinces into a new Governate. When fused, the Governate acts as a super province and is managed by the player as a single province. Thus, the micromanagement of a dozen provinces can be reduced to the micromanagement of one super province.

The properties of the new Governate will be dependent on its constituent provinces. Thus, there's an incentive to develop those provinces before fusing them. Because once you fuse them, you are no longer able to improve those provinces.

The restriction that fused Governates will not allow you to micromanage the individual provinces does mean the longer you wait, the better the resulting Governates because of more improved provinces. This is one of the tradeoffs for the reduced micromanagement of the Governates.

Obviously, the reduction of micromanagement by creating a Governate is not sufficient incentive for the reduced optimized utility of the provinces. You only need to look at why people prefer micromanagement hell to using the automated base governors in SMAC. They want every bit of advantage and are willing to endure micromanagement hell for it, even though it lessens the gaming experience in the long run. Thus, an additional incentive needs to be introduced to lead players to choose the less micromanagement choice of creating a Governate.

Let's say that certain buildings or units are only possible when you have a Governate. Or that certain advanced game options like special spells or spying techniques or fate cards or whatever are only accessible through Governates and not Provinces.

Thus, you've created a gaming mechanism where the player willingly chooses the micromanagement reduction path later in the game (while preserving the fun micromanagement environment at the beginning of the game) without suffering for that choice. It is a strategic choice in that the longer the player holds out on not forming a Governate, the better the provinces will be and thus the eventual resulting Governate. But the earlier he chooses to merge a few provinces into a Governate, the faster he'll have access to more advanced options, as well as lessened micromanagement.

He'll still have fun in the late game, because there will be new micromanagement things from managing the Governates. But it will not be micromanagement hell, because he will no longer have access to the micromanagement at the province level. It's a way of creating a shift in the micromanagement environment -- as well as gameplay options environment -- of the whole game, while keeping it fun at both the beginning and end.

By setting minimum thresholds factors like number of provinces needed, time, gold, or whatever, you can ensure that the new Governate environment will be relegated to mid game/late game. And if a province of a Governate is conquered by an enemy, the Governate collapses into it's constituent provinces (or maybe if it falls under the minimum threshold?). There would be reprecussions like the obvious loss of the Governate level improvement buildings (and perhaps loyalty of the provinces?).

Since you have a current restriction of 60 provinces, of which 40 are necessary to win, you already have a cap on endgame micromanagement. Thus, you may not need the concept of Governates. I have no idea what the micromanagement level is for the end game, since the game isn't even out yet But using the supra-province Governate model would mean you could make that number variable and increase the number from 60 to whatever without unduly increasing the corresponding micromanagement hell in the end. And it allows a transition point -- that alters gameplay mechanics -- from early game to mid game or mid game to end game.

	29-05-2004 04:52									#5
	Increase the size of your Attachments

AG...the Governate idea is positively brilliant!. Now THAT's what I'm talking about! Love it!

And that concept could be further expanded and built upon. Governates could become another means of reducing corruption (ie - assuming something similar to the thresholds we have in place now where corruption is concerned, the formation of a Governate could bring you below the corruption threshold, thereby mitigating that as a problem.

In a game with only sixty provinces, we might not need to move beyond the Governate concept, but were Candle'Bre ever to extend and expand beyond the basin, and begin to explore the world beyond the mountains, then perhaps this could give rise to a "super governate" or a collection of governates, bound together to form yet another layer. This (and the governate idea you postulated) brings all sorts of juicy options to the fore, not the least of which are NPC "leaders" which could be appointed to head such agencies....again, referring back to "Capitalism" where you could hire a CEO to run your company, we could take that concept and build a Noble family, the prominent members of which would be your "hiring pool" when making such appointments, each with his/her own strengths and weaknesses. Another possible means of reducing micromanagement....either run them yourself or appoint a unique AI agent to do it for you (brings back shades of some old Konami games too....which were absolute masterpieces in their day!)

-=Vel=-

	30-05-2004 19:34									#6
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I'm glad you like the idea. I can't promise that every random thought I have would be as insightful.

If someone wanted to, there's probably research somewhere on google about the hierarchy and nomenclature that would fit the timeframe for Candle'Bre. Barony, Dukedom, Fiefdom, etc.

Random Thought Four: Rumors and Quests
Here's a way to integrate a more RPGish element into the game. Many strategy games have incorporated the hero system and to a lesser extent the scenario goal system (basically quests) in an effort to create greater player attachment. And since Candle'Bre has the stated intent of being story and plot-driven, it might benefit from this feature. We've discussed the hero system before, let's now look at ways to implement the quest system organically so that it doesn't feel artificial to the game.

One way is to tie it to other game systems, so that quests occur naturally. Let's say, the Church presents an edict or proclaimation about an nefarious den of rogue mages in a distant neutral province. If a player is able to defeat those mages in the province to conquer it, he gains influence points with the Church.

Or perhaps a peasant arrives at your doorstep pleading for relief against a band of bandits who have taken over his province. Liberating the province would earn you honor for fulfilling the request.

Or perhaps you learn that there is a mystical artifact somewhere that would give extra mana points to any player who controlled it. Or perhaps you learn of a religious relic -- fingerbone of a saint, or "holy grail" -- and you go on a quest to find it to earn influence points.

These quests can be presented as fiat events through fate cards, public edicts, random events. Or be influenced by user choices -- for example, the Church won't ask you to go on a search for a holy grail unless you have sufficient honor points or influence points. Or maybe you can only get these by actively asking the church by expending points. Or maybe you need to actively find these quests by seeking rumors in Taverns.

To cloak the mechanism some more, perhaps the final quest destination is unknown.

Let's say you set your spymaster to listen in a tavern, spending X turns with Y chance of sucess. The spy comes back with information that he hears rumors of a fabled cache of gold of legend in a distant province. These don't even need to be formal quests, but ways for the player to interact in a more storylike feature with the game world. He can choose to pursue these quests or not. It becomes a strategic choice.

You can introduced plot twists, like the percent chance that your spy is right depends on your spying ability. Or perhaps the spy learns he needs to go to another province to learn more about the final destination. Thus, he would be sent on a wild goose hunt around the map, getting closer with each step, depending on your spying ability.

If the player accomplishes one of these quest goals, there's a bonanza in influence/mana/gold. But to attain a goal also means diverting resources of troops, spies, attention, etc. from other things.

The quest reward could also be physical, like a special weapon you can equip a hero with, or a secret spell that can only be attained from a long lost legendary grimoire of a dead mage.

And finally, such an organic way of incorporating storyline events and quests is just plain fun, and true to the medieval theme.

	30-05-2004 20:15									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You can also add a time component to it.

Let's say your spymaster finds a refugee at a tavern and brings him to your court. The refugee says the bandits who have take over his province say they'll kill his family unless he comes up with X amount of Gold in Y turns.

You can choose to give him gold to redeem the ransom of his family, thus earning you honor at the cost of gold.

Or you can mobilize your forces to conquer the bandits in that province. In which case, you are racing the clock to get it done by Y turns. And this would mean a strategic choice because you'd have to abandon other things, like diverting resources away from infrastructure development or taking your troops away from something else, in order to scramble to met the threat in time. This would earn you a province with a higher than normal starting loyalty for freeing them from the bandits.

Or if the Y turns expires and the bandits execute the refugee's family, he curses you and departs. The quest reward expires, so you don't get honor or a higher than normal loyalty province if you conquer it. And perhaps you take a slight honor hit for not paying the exorbitant amount of gold to save the ransomed family or suceed in stopping the execution by beating the bandits in time.

Or maybe the quest reward is a the refugee's family heirloom of a fabled sword to equip one of your hero if you conquer the province in time. Or perhaps the refugee IS the hero. If you save his family by freeing his province (but not by just paying the gold ransom), he'll join you as a hero unit, thus adding more story background to the game.

This is a mechanism for making time a more central strategic element. Adding urgency to gameplay and strategy.

Last edited by ApolytonGuest on 30-05-2004 at 20:21

	02-06-2004 19:43									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Random Thought Six: Graphical Representations
(I stuck Random Thought Five into the Economy thread )

Graphical representations have two uses -- 1) data presentation tool, 2) data manipulation tool.

Examples of data presentation would be the powercharts in Civ, SMAC, MOM, etc. These graphs chart rises and falls, relative strengths of each faction in particular areas, etc. It makes trends and information easier to digest for the player.

Barcharts and linegraphs are common place. But for purposes of showing proportion, piecharts can be useful too, and these are less commonly used. Perhaps there's a place for them in Candle'Bre? Instead of showing trends, piecharts show proportional relationships. The type of chart one uses for data representation depends on what data property is most of interest.

Examples of data manipulation are slider bars and up/down arrows that let you modify values. Graphical representations work as data manipulation tools because they're intuitive. The user isn't inputting specific numbers, but rather causing change by clicking on or clicking-and-dragging graphical elements.

But although slider bars are ubiquitous, there are other graphical representation methods that are less common that can also be useful. For instance, take the triangular representations used in SimAnt.

The problem with slider bars is that they are a binary device. There are two ends to the bar. For datasets with three distinct directions, you must use three slider bars tied together so that changes in one affect the other. But what if the user wants to divert things from A to C, but not B? In such a set-up, you need to account for the ambiguity by introducing a "lock" capability that lets the user lock one of the bars when manipulating the others. You see this "lock" ability implemented in the Psych/Energy/Research of SMAC, and the Mana/Spell Skill/Spell Research slider bars in MOM.

But a simpler way would be to replace those three separate bars with one Triangle display/manipulation device. The triangle has three corners, each of which represents something. Inside the Triangle is a dot. The user clicks on the dot and drags it. Whichever corner the dot moves towards, the higher the allocation value for that element. Thus, you end up with a two dimensional input device rather than using 3 one dimensional slider bars. And since its a self-contained triangle, there is no need for a "lock" capability. This is the data manipulation tool used in SimAnts. The fact that it's a click and drag dot inside the triangle makes it a more intuitive graphical interface.

	16-07-2004 02:55									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Random Thought Seven: Anti-Obsolescence Special Abilities for Units

As you progress up the tech tree, new units can often become more useful than older models which become obsolete. Thus, MOO2 and SMAC allow you to "upgrade" one type into a newer model. But this redesigning of units and modular upgrading becomes less feasible thematically with medieval games. A second way is to provide an upgrade pathway where your older units are needed to morph into better units. Another way to maintain the viability of older units is to build in special abilities that make them every bit as useful in the late game as in the beginning.

For instance, when you get Shard Rovers, all your Impact Rovers become obsolete. But what if your Impact rovers allowed you to conduct "Impact Strikes" that gave you a 15% chance of destroying a building in a city at the cost of losing your Impact Rover?