 |
|
Mongoose
|
|
Harrisburg,PA USA
Apr 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
HFOG is an acronym for what?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000
time: 01:18
|
|
So how does this "inefficiency" due to high-level interference get quantified? If I issue 10 orders on one turn and they all get followed, then 10 orders the next turn and only 8 get followed, the game had better well give me a reason, i.e. "Each order past the Xth increases by Y% the chance that your local commanders will resent the interference and disobey you." Even that, I think, adds a bit too much randomness to it. At least the IFP concept had a hard limit: after X micromanagement orders, you simply couldn't do any more, representing the fact that, at the core of the game was the notion, "You can't do everything". Now the game seems to want to say, "You can try to do everything, it just may not get done."
Without the hard limit, I think you've got a lot harder concept to play-balance, and to explain to new users.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xentropy
|
|
I think you misunderstood, optimus. It's not that an order won't get done. It's that your meddling will throw a small wrench in the works and cause what you want to get done to get done more slowly than it would've been done had you not given the order.
For example, planet X just started building a light scout, and will complete it in 3 turns. It plans on next building a research lab, which will take 4 turns.
You decide you don't want that scout, and tell them to remove it from their build queue. Go straight to the research lab. They don't ignore your order, but it takes time for the change of plans to iterate through the ranks, schedules have to be changed, suppliers of the resources needed to build that research lab suddenly and unexpectedly have their deadlines moved up, etc. Therefore, now the build queue has the research lab first; they are in fact building it NOW as you asked. But it will take 5 turns to build, not 4.
It's still done two turns early, but you lose one turn to inefficiency. Making more sense now?
I, too, lament the loss of IFP's, but after the initial shock and dismay, I've decided to wait until I see exactly what will "replace" them before I completely dismiss MOO3 as managementware*.
Xentropy
*Managementware -- That most horrible of game releases--all too common these days, I'm afraid--which has every chance of being successful until the deadline draws near and management shoves their hands into its chest and pulls out the heart of the design, leaving all the pretty features on the outside for marketing to remain successful at duping the public.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000
time: 01:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xentropy
It's still done two turns early, but you lose one turn to inefficiency. Making more sense now? |
 Now I get it!
It'll be more of a "bureaucratic inertia" effect, then. Hrm.. still, wouldn't there have to be some sort of additive/multiplicative effect on how many direct orders you issue, to keep players from abusing this? After all, in your example, the research lab still gets done two turns earlier than it would have if you'd left well enough alone. Hrm again.. some sort of macro/micro tradeoff, maybe - doing too much micro means that your overall strategic goals start to "blur" as you neglect your more important duties..
Jeez, just release the game already, I wanna try it  . (No, no, remember Civ3! Take the time and get it right!) Argh! Help me out here, I'm conflicted... 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
LordEd
|
 |
Northern California, USA
Nov 2001
time: 21:18
|
|
With HFoG both allowing smaller, more centralized empires to be viable and limiting micromanagement, questions have arisen as to the viability of this process doing both tasks:
quote:
HFOG was intended as a balancing feature to make smaller empires viable; making it pull double duty is going to be touchy. |
- Stormhound
There is an amount of overlap between the two areas. Smaller more centralized empires have less micromanagement to deal with (simply because they are smaller), so the HFoG would help this type of nation in both of its capacities. Thus is is more of an extension of the pyramidal structure of management. As a smaller empire you are able to run things in a circular structure. You, the leader, can read reports, get advice, and act on most decisions. In a larger empire, this does not work so well.
A pyramidal structure is needed. For example, the HFoG can be found recently in real life in the presidency of Jimmy Carter. He, the ruler of a large, complex nation, tried to micromanage everything. This might have worked in a smaller country but instead overworked the president, caused many things to be mismanaged, and even alienated him from his subordinates - thus higher 'corruption/waste' if you will"
Other presidents have had more success with a pyramidal structure. Reagan made a point of concentrating on three things at once, leaving the rest of the work to his trusted advisors. The IFC idea would have worked fair to represent this, but perhaps HFoG is better.
If a president really wants, to, he can micromanage nearly every aspect of the governnment. Clinton did this, Carter tried to, Lyndon B Johnson wanted to (but was hamstrung by his public inappeal), and Gore would have likely done the same thing. Thus HFoG might actually be more effective at representing a realistic government.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2002 04:18
? I've never seen a TBS that had advisors that did what I wanted them to do.
RPM 
Attachment: 
|
