 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Here's another hot little item we've been kicking around for the commercial release....thought I'd toss it out here to see what the take on it is.
The MOO3 team was initially talking about using IFP's (and I truly forget what that stands for) but they're essentially the same type of thing as our governance points....'cept they couldn't get the AI to cooperate or somesuch, and so ditched it.
I think I know a way (kinna a cheesy way maybe, but a way nonetheless) to work around that problem.
First off, Governance points....what the heck do they do?:
Well, in simple terms, GP's let you do stuff in your empire. We'll start off with a wad of them....just to put a number out there for the time being (and totally subject to change), let's say you get 60GP's at game start.
Now....with all of five provinces, there's simply no freakin' way you're gonna spend all 60 of your GP's....even tho pretty much everything you do....every time you change something, you're spending a GP (looking at or admiring your pretty provinces doesn't cost you any GP's but if you make a change, place an order, move troops, buy troops...ANYTHING like that, poof...spend a GP. When you're outta GP's...that's it for you for that turn.
GP's don't carry over. Use 'em or lose 'em. You'll get a fresh batch of 60 next turn.
Any province you don't spend points on will keep on doing whatever it is they were doing before till the current project is done...at which time, they'll start doing something on their own.
There are two ways you can exert more control over your provinces.
First, and cheapest, is you can hire a governor (this, as opposed to just letting the people do "whatever"). Governors cost money to hire, and require a smallish upkeep. Governors have a few vital statistics (exactly what those stats are is a thing to be fleshed out and discussed here), but one of those stats will be an interest or tendency. These can be anything from "Agriculture" to "Mercantilism" to "Religion" or "Military" and whatever your governor's thing is, that's pretty well what you can count on him working on if there's a choice between things. So....it becomes fairly important to hire the right governor for the right province (hiring a military guy to run your food belt is prolly not a good idea if you wanna get anywhere CLOSE to max food production out of your province). Of course, you're the King, and you can order your governor to do something else, but that will cause his happiness/loyalty to drop (that'll maybe be another stat governors have).
Another way you can increase your control over your provs is to hire an "Agent of the King." Agents of the King are more expensive both in terms of up front cost, and maintenance costs per turn, and each one you hire gives you another 5 GP's to play around with.
Now, if you're a brutal micromanager who's just GOTTA control everything about every province every turn, the solution is to hire a sufficient number of Agents to make that happen. The downside to that control is that your total upkeep costs will spiral up, and you won't be making as much money per turn as someone who maybe takes a more hybridized approach.
What about the AI?
I'm thinking that the simplest way to keep the AI on the straight and narrow where this stuff is concerned is to simply not have them play in that particular sandbox. Either give them a heinous number of GP's so they can micromanage everything and don't have to make choices, OR, simply take the whole GP concept out of their hands and just let them do their thing as they will.
Is it an "AI Cheat?" You betcha. But I'd be willing to wager that there are more people who are interested in having a worthy AI opponent than there are people who are dreadfully concerned that the AI is using the same playbook as the human players.
Thoughts?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Good point, Ravagon! And to answer that question, I think we could take some serious lessons from the AI in the game "Capitalism," by Trevor Chan.
In that game, for those of you who have not played it, you can hire a CEO to run your company for you, while you do other evil things like manipulate the stock market and take over the world....the CEO's presented to you for hiring have areas of interest and expertise (expressed as a percentage), such that one such CEO might be an aggressive personality, with interests broken down thusly:
Agriculture: 45%
Mining and other Heavy Industry: 15%
Advertising (we can sub - in "Military" here) 20%
Marketing (call it "happiness of citizens" for us?) 20%
And that would, essentially be that AI governor's priorities. His biggest interest would be in maximizing food outputs, and he would do so as a first priority unless specifically ordered to the contrary. Once that had been attended to, he would divide his attention between balancing military concerns with the needs of the people under his care, and only after that had been accomplished, would he turn his attention to mining interests.
If any of his "higher priority items" saw room for improvement along the way, he would finish the current task at hand (rather than simply abandon it), and then jump right back on it.
I *think* (based on the generally quite good performance I have seen of AI CEO's in the game), using such a system of priorities, and good matching of those priorities with the needs of the player/province, will yield some pretty reliable results....whatcha think?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Hmmm...I had not thought of that, but you're right...popups for unexpected occurances might well be needed to inform a player that the governor needs a hand.
Another good idea....how about if we programmed the AI Governor to ask for advice from the good King? That could be made a part of the turn. (IE- "Majesty...I have finished my work for the farmers and am happy to report that our food production has been optomized....I had thought to turn my attention of satisfying the needs of the population next, however, my scouts tell me that there are signs of troop movement on our border....what do you recommend?" (present menu of choices, including zoom in and control province direct).
Another possibility here, I think, would be the use of governors. In my mind, I see governors at their most useful in provinces that are fairly stratified (ie - this province is an excellent food producer, but not good for much else), and/or relativly far from "the front" so that the AI governors don't have to worry so much about unexpected troop deployments throwing them off their rhythm.
Any good, or toss 'em?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alex
|
 |
Brasil
Mar 1999
time: 02:19
|
|
I pretty much like the GP idea. (BTW, the IFP in MOO3 stands for "Imperial Focus Points".) I think that, if properly implemented, the governance points might add a new layer of interesting possibilities for the player to deal with.
However, you mentioned that a heavy micromanager would have to hire a sufficient number of "Agents of the King" to have full control over the provinces, and that this action might actually make him lose income. It seems to me that this is a severe punishment for those who just want to have a more strict control. One has to remember that an AI governor will not have the same complex management skill that a human player does. If I had to leave part of my empire in the hands of AI governors just because I don't want to lose money every turn, then I would be frustrated.
Of course, it depends on how the system is implemented. If the player have to make a strategic choice, and if the game can truly give the player this feeling, then it might be interesting.
All in all, I like the idea. More later! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
moomin
|
 |
Moo Like In Moomin
Jul 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
First off, Governance points....what the heck do they do?:
|
First off, let me say this. If CB was a straight clone of Civ1 with no other improvment than GPs thrown in, I'd still be an outstanding game. Late game MM has been the bane of every TBS 4x game ever devised, so a genre game to solve that issue would be - revolutionary. I'm still recoiling from my disappointement at their removal in Moo3.
quote:
Well, in simple terms, GP's let you do stuff in your empire. We'll start off with a wad of them....just to put a number out there for the time being (and totally subject to change), let's say you get 60GP's at game start.
Now....with all of five provinces, there's simply no freakin' way you're gonna spend all 60 of your GP's....even tho pretty much everything you do....every time you change something, you're spending a GP (looking at or admiring your pretty provinces doesn't cost you any GP's but if you make a change, place an order, move troops, buy troops...ANYTHING like that, poof...spend a GP. When you're outta GP's...that's it for you for that turn.
|
In multiplayer, let the players decide this number between themseleves. Also have instant turn end as a player reaches his limit - given off, course, that you can "look at or admire" your emipre in between your turns...
quote:
First, and cheapest, is you can hire a governor (this, as opposed to just letting the people do "whatever"). Governors cost money to hire, and require a smallish upkeep. Governors have a few vital statistics (exactly what those stats are is a thing to be fleshed out and discussed here), but one of those stats will be an interest or tendency. These can be anything from "Agriculture" to "Mercantilism" to "Religion" or "Military" and whatever your governor's thing is, that's pretty well what you can count on him working on if there's a choice between things. So....it becomes fairly important to hire the right governor for the right province (hiring a military guy to run your food belt is prolly not a good idea if you wanna get anywhere CLOSE to max food production out of your province). Of course, you're the King, and you can order your governor to do something else, but that will cause his happiness/loyalty to drop (that'll maybe be another stat governors have).
|
Hmm. Is hiring a govenor a GP-spending act? If it is, it could easily become the main GP-drain as your empire grows. If not, MM is right back.
quote:
Now, if you're a brutal micromanager who's just GOTTA control everything about every province every turn, the solution is to hire a sufficient number of Agents to make that happen. The downside to that control is that your total upkeep costs will spiral up, and you won't be making as much money per turn as someone who maybe takes a more hybridized approach.
|
Excellent! I really like this trade-off, Vel! Consider making each additional Agent cost more, too. At least in MP, or as an game option.
quote:
What about the AI?
I'm thinking that the simplest way to keep the AI on the straight and narrow where this stuff is concerned is to simply not have them play in that particular sandbox. Either give them a heinous number of GP's so they can micromanage everything and don't have to make choices, OR, simply take the whole GP concept out of their hands and just let them do their thing as they will.
Is it an "AI Cheat?" You betcha. But I'd be willing to wager that there are more people who are interested in having a worthy AI opponent than there are people who are dreadfully concerned that the AI is using the same playbook as the human players.
|
I rather think the AI we worry about isn't the AI player - of course they're gonna cheat by skipping GPs - but the govenor AI. It had better be good to carry the brunt of the decision-making.
Last edited by moomin on 11-05-2002 at 17:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
 |
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by moominparatrooper
First off, let me say this. If CB was a straight clone of Civ1 with no other improvment than GPs thrown in, I'd still be an outstanding game. Late game MM has been the bane of every TBS 4x game ever devised, so a genre game to solve that issue would be - revolutionary. I'm still recoiling from my disappointement at their removal in Moo3.
|
Hey moominparatrooper, disagree so violently I was motivated to post   .
While you might be right about MOO3, IMO you're dead wrong on Civ1 +GPs. Everything the AI did was Sooo Bad that Failing to MM any aspect of the game could easily lead to ruin. Its possible I misunderstand your GPs since I've only skimmed the thread, but here is what I think's the likely outcome of the intersection of GPs with Civ AI...
AI: "Sir our troops are positioned for the big battle"
You: "OK, but due to mismanagement at home while I was moving troops the whole homeland is in revolt! So I must Briefly turn my attention there.
AI: "Don't worry Sir, I'll handle it!"
You: "Nooooooo" as your troops boneheadedly attack some hilltop fortress rather than achieve the objective, resulting in their compete annhilation.
As you say lower down you need a good governor AI. IMO in fact Any AI that will potentially take its own actions when you lack GPs must be At a Minimum dull but competent for the GP concept to work. Dull but competent is a standard that we all know has eluded most all commercial 4x games. I think that is why they ditched the concept for MOO3... I bet the playtesters weren't having Fun because of it.
All:
Seriously guys and gals, unless you are willing to put the same total effort into the AI that you are putting into the Whole Rest of the Game in terms of thoughts And coding resources I believe you can't successfully pull off GPs. YMMV 
We are trying essentially to got the "AI can handle anything the player doesn't want" route in Clash. So I have given a great deal of thought to these issues. To get an idea of the lengths I think you need to go to to do this you could check out
AI -- the Thread and the Clash Map AI page on the web page. Unfortunately the only AI code we have to date is the pathfinding and a demo of the map AI  With luck in the summer we'll finally code up the spec that appears near the end of "AI -- the Thread".
Good luck if you go in this direction. I believe good AI is The earth-shattering area for improvement in 4x game, since it enables reduction of MM as a bonus!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
|
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by moominparatrooper
First off, let me say this. If CB was a straight clone of Civ1 with no other improvment than GPs thrown in, I'd still be an outstanding game. Late game MM has been the bane of every TBS 4x game ever devised, so a genre game to solve that issue would be - revolutionary. I'm still recoiling from my disappointement at their removal in Moo3.
|
Hey moominparatrooper, disagree so violently I was motivated to post .
While you might be right about MOO3, IMO you're dead wrong on Civ1 +GPs. Everything the AI did was Sooo Bad that Failing to MM any aspect of the game could easily lead to ruin. Its possible I misunderstand your GPs since I've only skimmed the thread, but here is what I think's the likely outcome of the intersection of GPs with Civ AI...
AI: "Sir our troops are positioned for the big battle"
You: "OK, but due to mismanagement at home while I was moving troops the whole homeland is in revolt! So I must Briefly turn my attention there.
AI: "Don't worry Sir, I'll handle it!"
You: "Nooooooo" as your troops boneheadedly attack some hilltop fortress rather than achieve the objective, resulting in their compete annhilation.
As you say lower down you need a good governor AI. IMO in fact Any AI that will potentially take its own actions when you lack GPs must be At a Minimum dull but competent for the GP concept to work. Dull but competent is a standard that we all know has eluded most all commercial 4x games. I think that is why they ditched the concept for MOO3... I bet the playtesters weren't having Fun because of it.
All:
Seriously guys and gals, unless you are willing to put the same total effort into the AI that you are putting into the Whole Rest of the Game in terms of thoughts And coding resources I believe you can't successfully pull off GPs. YMMV
We are trying essentially to got the "AI can handle anything the player doesn't want" route in Clash. So I have given a great deal of thought to these issues. To get an idea of the lengths I think you need to go to to do this you could check out
AI -- the Thread and the Clash Map AI page on the web page. Unfortunately the only AI code we have to date is the pathfinding and a demo of the map AI With luck in the summer we'll finally code up the spec that appears near the end of "AI -- the Thread".
Good luck if you go in this direction. I believe good AI is The earth-shattering area for improvement in 4x game, since it enables reduction of MM as a bonus!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Morning all....back in the proverbial saddle this morning...er...almost afternoon...had noooo idea just how tired I was...wound up sleepin' till almost noon! (and of course, now I feel like a *total* slacker! 
Trooper....an *outstanding* idea about making the base number of GP's in the MP environment subject to player input! That really rocks and stands to make each game a fundamentally different experience.
I realize that some will chaffe under the notion of spiraling upkeep costs with respect to gaining total control over the Empire you create, but in my mind, this aptly represents the burgeoning beurocracy (prolly spelt wrong) you create by demanding such Nth degree control, and I think it quite a fair trade off.
I think that the secret to making a good AI governor is two fold, and it relates back to something that Urban Ranger pointed to in another thread....a narrow focus. Let's face it...there's NO WAY we're anywhere close to getting to an AI that doesn't cheat, and is anywhere close to as competent as a human player, but as Trevor Chan's *excellent* Capitalism series proved, with cheats, and with a narrow focus (using those "areas of interest" percentages and such), it is possible to create an AI governor that's good in certain task-specific areas. So...it comes down to making sure you hire the right governor for your purposes. No...if you hire an Agro guy, he prolly won't do so well at running one of your research-oriented provs, but you can safely bet that if you hire a guy who's main interest is in research, he's gonna take that ball and run with it like there's no tomorrow.
In my mind, the second phase of making a good AI governor, is to build in a routine whereby the governor won't be shy about bringing a problem to the King (you) if in-game events throw him off-balance. We can set specific parameters up for this (troops appearing on the border, unhappiness reaching a certain threshold--but before it causes trouble IN the province), and so forth....when one of these red flags is raised, and if it's in an area that the AI has no particular competence, he dashes off to the King for advice. Further, these "advisory sessions" need not cost the human player any GP's....we can structure a menu of choices - ie "Majesty, the people are growing restless and I was not sure just how you wanted me to proceed....I had thought to:
Popup Choice 1: Build a Temple
Popup Choice 2: Build troops to keep the locals in line
Popup Choice 3: Ask for your direct assistance
If the third choice is taken, then GP's are spent, but if the other choices are feasable and/or would handle the problem okay, then no GP's are spent (and we could expand this menu of choices as needed/desired).
Other stuffages:
Hiring governors and agents of the king would be/should be considered a GP expense....or rather, a GP investment (as the act of spending them this turn preserves them/increases them in future turns (and to that end, when you hire an agent of the king, you don't get his 'bonus' GP's to use till the start of your next turn.
Mark! I remember having gone into your AI thread once before, as we were first beginning the project, but had since let that bit of information slip my mind! Thank you for the links! I'm not sure if I will be able to make heads or tails of much of it, but we've got a few of our coders researching AI methodologies at present, and I'll make sure they get wind of these links! And thank ya for the assist!
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I have yet to see a simple explanation as to why you would want GP in this game. Please explain.
(this is trap, this is a trap, the poster jimmytrick is greatly opposed to the idea of GPs and will be using your response to launch a campaign against them, repeat, this is a trap)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
 Morning JT!
'k....trap or no....I guess I'll take a deep breath and walk into the jaws of the beast....::gulp!::
The main reason I'm so drawn to the notion of GP's is the aid they represent in reducing micromanagement.
Candle'Bre will be somewhat akin to the Civ-series in the sense that the best way to organize your provs is along specialized lines (that is to say, just like in Civ/SMAC, you generally had the "Wampum Big Science City," the "Powerhouse Military-Industrial Complex" and so forth).
The way I see Governors/GP's working is this: If you KNOW that a certain province would be well suited as, say, a Research center, you can hire a research minded Governor and let him have at it, confident that he will do his thing, maximize scientific outputs in the region, and ask for your help if needed...otherwise, you can forget that, and focus on the more important aspects of keeping the realm secure and busting the heads of your rivals.
In the Candle'Bre game itself, GP's and Governors will be of lesser use than in the game that will follow it, which will reveal the rest of the world that the tiny kingdom resides in, but the commercial release of the game will make a perfect test bed for it...make sure we get it right, and make sure it's scalable.
The other thing too, is that if we put in the option to make baseline GP's subject to player defined limits and inputs, it would be very easy to make GP's utterly transparent....that is to say, if you didn't particularly want to subject yourself to those limits, at game start, just give yourself a hundred thousand GP's a turn, and you'd never encounter the possibility of running out.
With the option included though, it adds a whole new dimension to both strategic and tactical planning.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Morning JT!
'k....trap or no....I guess I'll take a deep breath and walk into the jaws of the beast....::gulp!::
The main reason I'm so drawn to the notion of GP's is the aid they represent in reducing micromanagent.
The way I see Governors/GP's working is this: If you KNOW that a certain province would be well suited as, say, a Research center, you can hire a research minded Governor and let him have at it, confident that he will do his thing, maximize scientific outputs in the region, and ask for your help if needed...otherwise, you can forget that, and focus on the more important aspects of keeping the realm secure and busting the heads of your rivals.
-=Vel=- |
Micromanagement is a big issue in most games. I confess to be hopelessly in love with MM; at least insofar as performing it has a direct correlation to success in games. In SMAC for example I still love managing formers because the time I spend doing it pays off.
OTOH, managing workers in Civ3 is not fun. Why? What is the difference? The difference is that in SMAC there are variations to terraforming that constitute a whole mini-game within the game. Max nuts or max mins or max energy? What's the altitude? Solar park! Micromanaging this is a pleasure, even though the forest all strategy is arguably strong, its not best in all situations. So, in SMAC's case micromanagement of formers becomes a major part of gameplay.
In Civ3 the paradigm was addition by subtraction, i.e. subtract game features to add to the AI's ability to compete, which was a miserable and predictable failure. In Civ3 workers can make far few changes to terrain, leaving the player performing only tedious and mindless repetitions. Here you have micromanagement hell because the MM is not linked to successful gameplay. I have to give Soren and co. some credit here for expanding on the automation of workers. But, given the limited options available they may as well have taken the whole concept out of the game. It's become linear and moot. (basically everything that was dumbed down to accommodate the AI is now moot and useless as a game concept).
The point I trying to make is this. Micromanagement is bad only when it is pointless and not a key element of gameplay. A designer's job is therefore not to eliminate or mask MM, but to incorporate the essence of it into gameplay to entice the player to enjoy it.
Now Vel, you say that GPs will aid the player in reducing micromanagement. How? Seems to me that the player should be able to use governors if they are in the game, it’s a sub optimal mode of play, if the player wants to pursue it they should be able to do so without further penalty. As you have indicated there will be an excess of GPs at the start of the game, with expansion the player would begin to run short and have to hand off actions to governors. Let me explain what this means to me. Expansion is good, it is a goal of play, but with GPs I am being arbitrarily penalized for success, without remedy, in order to implement bureaucracy. This is not fun and I resent it already. Modeling bureaucracy may meet someone's expectation of realism but its not necessarily fun.
There must be a remedy for every penalty.
Now, you could implement GPs differently, with few in the beginning and more as certain objectives are reached. In this usage GPs would be rewards allowing, for example, the recruitment of leaders or other goodies. But this is a whole different concept. One I would support.
The whole problem here is understanding the difference between offering the player challenges and rewarding gameplay or creating frustrations in the name of "adding a whole new dimension to both strategic and tactical planning." It has to be fun first. Gosh, GPs as you define them are a darn good reason for me not to want to play in the first place. I prefer to be able to do "whatever". Preventing me from doing that is not good game design.
I conclude that the proposed GPs implementation is just a lazy designer's way to make the game more difficult. Given the problems of creating acceptable AI governors, it is a disaster in waiting. IMHO.
I suggest you concentrate on concepts that do not limit what a player can do, but the opposite, things that make the player feel like they just woke up to find that they had forgotten! Its Christmas morning! And there are lots of presents under the tree.
Let me say again, kill the MM monster by eliminating the repetitious parts, and enhance the MM that makes a big gameplay difference so that the player wants to do it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
JT
Great, solid argument! You have almost convinced me....I say almost because what your argument did do, was convince me that GP's are not an inherently bad idea, but as they have been structured thus far, they are in the "punishment" camp, as opposed to the reward camp.
I liked the things you said about using GP's as a reward, however, and there's a part of me that is still left wondering...if we changed the slant OF GP's to make them a reward-item instead of a penalizing item....would that add to game play in a significant way?
If the answer to the question is yes, then there is yet room for the GP concept....if not, then because I don't wanna be associated with the lazy designer crowd, it's an idea that might be headed for the discard heap.
One other point I wanted to ask you about though, is the point re: "Agents of the King" - essentially, this (especially when coupled with the notion of player input for starting #'s of GP's on the front end of the game), essentially enables you to ignore the system entirely IF micromanagement is your thing. And, for those who don't "get into" the MM scene, there's a game mechanism in place to accomodate that as well.
Thoughts on either?
-=Vel=-
(feeling fairly illuminated about the other side of the argument now, and hopeful that there's a way to work GP's into the mix as rewards)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Thinking out loud (about ways to make GP's a reward-category item).
First thing I'm wondering is: Since we've already got Honor, Influence, and Gold, is another form of in-game "currency" really needed, or would it clutter things up too much?
Second thing is....if we go the route of making GP's do something other than being the currency spent to govern your provinces, is there really much of a need to worry with AI governors at all? (especially in this particular game, where you've got a maximum of sixty provs, and 40 needed for the win)?
If we ultimately DO decide to leave GP's in, however, I really like the idea of using them to attract Governors (cos I think we can make good AI governors), and more importantly, to attract Military Leaders....but what *else* might this form of currency be spent on? Just me...shopping around for ideas here....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigRich@home
|
|
Wales
Apr 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Governance points reminds me of an old SSI board game War of the Ring, where the Sauron player was allowed a number of actions based upon his shadow points(?) (so much to move a Nazgul, so much to move a large army, etc.). Fate cards similar to event cards as well, but I digress...
At the risk of showing a leaning to builder charactersistics, I suggest something along these lines. First you are supposedly a deity controlling a given faction. Second your divine influence causes actions by mortals. So what do you need to influence these mortals (i.e governance points), why temples and cathedrals and other religious facs of course? I would suggest GP's become some function of the amount of religious facs you have. The more you have the more you can influence/meddle in the affairs of mortals.
Just my thoughts at trying to put some rationale to tie in the idea to the game concept
Og |
Hmmm something similar occured to me as well Ogie!
Have a courthouse (or similarly named) improvement available as one of the three province buildings, which effectively gives you extra GPs per turn. So you can set up 'administrative centres' in certain provinces which basically make your Empire more efficient by giving you more scope for micromanagement. At the expense of course of more useful improvements, but hey - thats bureaucracy for you! Game rationale - the courthouse resolves the minor disputes of the population which would otherwise be petitioned to you, thus allowing you more time for the Big Picture.
Some other thoughts that sprang to mind reading the thread:
1. GPs would be a very easy way of setting up a difficulty level penalty. The higher the difficulty level, the fewer the GPs per turn. Can be overcome by use of courthouses. At low levels I'm picturing these not being a concern due to a generous GP allocation. At higher levels they become more of an issue as they force more adept or focused use of other province buildings
2. AI governors coming to you for aid, would presumably
require GP spending for you to make a decision. Maybe half the points that would be spent to carry out the action normally, as your advisors have done most of the data gathering legwork so to speak.
3. Definitely agree with scrubbing GPs for the AI players. If people get unhappy about AI 'cheating' you could always scale this back by just(?) giving the AI's a GP bonus at higher difficulty levels, akin to the production bonus the Civ 3 AIs get.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I think we are talking apples and oranges. I was not talking about the tedium that sets in after the game is won. That is a different issue than the MM of normal play.
I almost always finish my games because they are either PBEM, or OCC, or comparative games.
The problem of how to deal with the "i am so far ahead i can't lose" syndrome has never been solved in 4x games has it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
moomin
|
|
Moo Like In Moomin
Jul 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
I think we are talking apples and oranges. I was not talking about the tedium that sets in after the game is won. That is a different issue than the MM of normal play.
|
Is it? Managing farmers in MoM is tedious from turn one, mostly because you's think it be easy for the AI to do it. Managing anykind of terrain development (except, perhaps strategic road development) in Civ3 is tedious from turn one. Managing pollution in Civ3 is radically boring even if you're not running away with the game.
quote:
The problem of how to deal with the "i am so far ahead i can't lose" syndrome has never been solved in 4x games has it? |
I contend that MM tedium has little to do with the "far ahead" syndrome. I can live with hunting down the stragglers - in fact I regard is as a pleasure and an award for a strategy well executed and a game wll played, but managing these spoils is godawfully tedious. When turn times extend to half-hours, because you need to rush-buy defenders and set up build queues in your twenty newly captured bases. while you struggle to connect it all by tube with your army of formers and moving your five hundered individual military units along, it's certainly not the fact that you're winning that bites you. It's the raw, pure tedium of not having decent macromanagement tools.
Mopping up may never be challenging, but there is no rule that states that it has to be boring as well.
Now, are GPs a good way to resolve those issues? Certainly, if the AI is up to par - otherwise no, for sure. But the promise of a 4x game where I can have the same one minute average turn time at turn one and at turn five hundered certainly seems a worthwile goal to pursue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Seems we have reached a point of disagreement. And that's not surprising or bad or anything.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spaced Cowboy
|
 |
Dallas TX
Nov 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
I'v been having some weird thoughts today, and I thought that I better post them before they are lost.
The key to solving world hunger is....damn, couldn't type fast enough.
Okay, anyhow here are some of the ideas that I'm having.
I really liked the game MULE, and was thinking of ways to incorporate some of the play balancing that MULE had.
Your empire grows food. You allot food to:
1. Your population - keeps them happy and there maybe should be some kind of production slider based on happiness
2. Your troops - basically one food to move one square, one food to do battle for one unit.
Here is the limiting factor: There will be corruption as your empire grows; more food to keep the peps happy, less for the army to do its business. You decide (guns or butter).
Your empire produces energy (for lack of a better term [stream power, animal power, whale oil, wood, etc]). This energy powers your production (food, energy, and mines). You allot the energy via sliders to the three resources. You have a shortfall and your plots do not produce (kinda hard to plow the fields without you horse). Corruption is a problemo here as well.
Your empire produces minerals. These minerals are used to build everything in the game. Farms, energy sources, mines, troops (assuming armor), and the other buildings in CB. Corruption is a problemo here as well.
Lastly there should be an open market to buy and sell these items. Players in last place always get the best deals (somehow similar in fairness to MULE).
Lastly (yeah right), what about random good things (not fate) that happen to the bottom dwellers as opposed to bad things that happen to the top players?
Whew!
R:PM
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2002 04:52
]
but I'll get there, I'm sure)
|
|