 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Some outstanding stuff here while I was sleeping!
GP, I like your renaming of the sliders....makes it more clear...and I got a good chuckle at "Apathetic Slugs" ....I'm almost thinking we should keep that! 
RPM, I put some thought into the FPS syndrome you made mention of...a thing we can partially solve by the resource squeeze you mentioned (food to move troops, food for attacking), but there again, with more provinces, you have more food to spread around....boom...same problem, perhaps reined in some.
Seems to me though, that these governmental sliders may just be the way to hold the line, if we make the advantages truly meaningful and compelling. Here's where I'm heading in my brain:
A small, compact state should have an easier time raising governance points. This is representative of the smaller population, better lines of communication simply by having less people and provinces to communicate with, and a smaller governmental beurocracy.
The bigger you get, the harder it becomes to meet the (still to be determined) requirements to net you more GP's to allow you to make further changes via the sliders.
The end result *should* be that the smaller empires are quick and nimble, able to make (comparatively) rapid changes to adjust to new situations, where the larger empires would have more total resources, but be somewhat more ponderous in their nature.
We could even take it a step further by leaving the GP acquisition rates the same across the board, but make them more valuable to smaller empires (ie- able to do more).
Example: I'm a little fish with 8 provinces. I go to the governmental policy screen and spend some GP's moving my sliders around. For every point I spend to move a slider, I get up to two "clicks" in the direction I want.
Contrast that to the guy who has 15 provinces....for every GP he spends to move sliders, he only gets one "click" (where a click is a single positional advance in either direction). Thus, it's twice as easy for me to change the nature of my government than it is for the big guy (and, if I'm a little fish, and I know my larger opponent is in pure buildmonger mode, I can zap myself into a war footing and go hunting, while it may take him some time to shift gears....of course, his advantage is in having a significantly larger resource base, and my window of opportunity will only be open for the length of time it takes him to fully shift gears. Once that happens, I'm toast).
Thoughts?
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spaced Cowboy
|
 |
Dallas TX
Nov 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
RPM, I put some thought into the FPS syndrome you made mention of...a thing we can partially solve by the resource squeeze you mentioned (food to move troops, food for attacking), but there again, with more provinces, you have more food to spread around....boom...same problem, perhaps reined in some.
Thoughts?
-=Vel=- |
Well I did suggest corruption for a larger empire, that is, for each province you gain, you get less and less returns (food, energy, and mining). Hopefully, this time, there will be no whipping work-arounds. And I'm not suggesting a CIV3 magnitude of corruption.
Hopefully, the end result is that running a larger empire becomes more difficult and more stategically challenging. If you started to get a smaller percentage of food to keep a larger empire content, then that would leave less for the army in general (moving and attacking, perhaps [additionally] food to support an army over a certain level, or a certain level per province).
On the other end of this equation is the open market or trades between players. I'm not sure how this would work. But in theory a smaller empire could get rich selling excess food to a larger empire. The larger empire would not necessarily attack the smaller because of corruption issues. Also winning by means other than conquest could be considered a viable strategy.
The open market would take a persons overall place in the game in determining the prices offered to that person again maybe "faction" bonuses apply. The leader would get high prices to buy, low prices to sell. The laggers would get the opposite with the basement dweller getting the best buy and sell prices.
All of the other Civ type games that I've played have one strategy: expand and kick-a$$. One could say the CIV3 is different, but it is fluff. While you can win with other stratagies, EAKA is the best. The problem is, once you are ahead, the game is over, so the end game is not worth playing. This needs to be fixed. I'm not saying that I'm come upon the answer. I'm throwing this up for debate. How do we fix this, or at least minimize it?
R:PM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spaced Cowboy
|
|
Dallas TX
Nov 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
We could even take it a step further by leaving the GP acquisition rates the same across the board, but make them more valuable to smaller empires (ie- able to do more).
Example: I'm a little fish with 8 provinces. I go to the governmental policy screen and spend some GP's moving my sliders around. For every point I spend to move a slider, I get up to two "clicks" in the direction I want.
Contrast that to the guy who has 15 provinces....for every GP he spends to move sliders, he only gets one "click" (where a click is a single positional advance in either direction). Thus, it's twice as easy for me to change the nature of my government than it is for the big guy (and, if I'm a little fish, and I know my larger opponent is in pure buildmonger mode, I can zap myself into a war footing and go hunting, while it may take him some time to shift gears....of course, his advantage is in having a significantly larger resource base, and my window of opportunity will only be open for the length of time it takes him to fully shift gears. Once that happens, I'm toast).
-=Vel=- |
Sorry, but if I'm the big fish and have the sliders tuned to my brutal expansion, do I care if I get any GPs??
R:PM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
 |
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
Thumbs up Vel for wanting to include Governance Points in Candle Bre!
Allow me to add my ideas on the subject. I hope you find my ideas interesting, and I look forward to your opinion on them.
I view the concept of GP's as being like the number of "chess moves" the player can make each turn. I feel that if you limit the number of things a player can do each turn, then you add strategy because the player has to decide what is important. My idea is to get rid of the AI governor completely. The player makes all the "chess moves". And the game is a battle of strategy: a super strategy like "ICS" or "super expansion" does not win the game, but how the player uses their precious GP, and what they do with them.
1) Small number of GP
This would:
-make things more manageable.
-force the player to make real decisions
if the player gets 60 GP then their is no tough decision making since they could never spend all of them anyway. GP's need to be few so the player is not able to do everything, and thus has to make tough strategic choices as to what to do each turn.
2) Since GP are few, I believe that unused GP should carry over
This would:
-add strategy as to when to save GP's and build them up or when to go for broke and spend them all in one turn.
For example, a player could save up their GP so as to have more to use in a single turn when they want to go to war. Or they could store GP's so as to have more GP available to deal with a rebellion.
The player would have to manage their GP wisely and decide not just what to do with them but when to save them and when to spend them. I think this would add a lot of cool strategies.
3) things that add GP's ( actual numbers are just for example)
-your home province would give you +2 GP's per turn.
- EACH province in WLTKD would give +1 GP/turn
-there should be infrasctructure that the player could build in a province that give +1 Gp/turn
- "Wonder of the World" type buildings that give +2 GP's/turn
-"Martial Law". Each empire could only use it once per game. Furthermore, for one turn, there armies could not attack and would get a defense penalty (rationale: army can't go on big military campaigns since they have to keep domestic tranquility).
The advantage of the option is that it would give you a big number of free Governance Points.
"martial law" would add some cool strategies because the player would get free GP's but can only use the option once in a game. Since the option penalizes the army, you would not want to do if you were attacked. But using it could give you a load of GP at the right time, allowing to pull ahead. Do I use it when revolts are draining my GP reserves dangerously low, and I need extra GP to quell the potential rebellion? Or do I use it in peacetime to give me a sudden boost in GP's to allow me to launch a massive invasion or engage in a massive construction project aroung my empire?
4) things that decrease GP's per turn
-a province in rebellion would reduce by -1 GP/turn
-a Great Leader would reduce -1 GP/turn if they are a province leader, -2 GP/turn if they are empire leader.
Explanation:
At any time a player could hire either a Province Leader or an empire Leader. The game would present the player with a Leader at random, and the player could choose whether to hire them or not.
A Province Leader would provide a special bonus to a specific province. An Empire Leader would provide a special bonus to the entire empire.
So a Great leader would give Wonder of the World type benefits but at the expense of GP, which means the player would not be able to make as many actions. The player gain something at the expense of something: real strategy!
5) It is imperative that the player get the Big Picture
I suggest there be a window that gives the player the empire status and what types of problems the empire is facing. So it would tell the player how they are doing in the military,economic etc. It would also tell the player what problems the empire is facing.
This way the player would see exactly how their empire is doing and can better decide how to use their GP points.
6) GP's would automatically represent the problems of managing an overextended empire without the need for a messy corruption or culture flipping model!
Ex: Player A has 15 provinces and makes +3 GP/turn.
Player B has 3 provinces and also makes +3 GP/turn. Player B has a smaller empire and thus would have less to do each turn. Player A has a larger empire, thus has more to do. But since they both make the same number f GP/turn, player A won't be able to take care of as much of their empire in a single turn as player B. Player A would have to find ways to boost their number of GP/turn to have the same efficiency as player B.
I hope people see how this beautifully models the difficulties of managing large empires.
I think this model would add tons of strategy because the player would be forced to make limited number of decisions and thus would have to choose well what to do. The game would be based on real strategy, on how to spent your GP, not on mere super expansion etc...
Any questions, I will glad to explain in more depth.
Last edited by The diplomat on 28-06-2002 at 03:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JMarks
|
 |
formerly known as the artist
Mar 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
Um, RPM, you don't get more GPs with diplomat's model with more territory. Unless you have a WLTKD in every province which should be next to impossible anyway.
I like the idea of GPs, but we shouldn't be slave to them. Furthermore, this could add some stratedgy at higher difficulty levels (which would have less) and can be ignored at lower difficulty levels (which would have more, or infinant amount). Furthermore, we shouldn't just have one difficulty 'slider' but a few. One for general toughness of AI (if we can get REALLY good AI), one for economy model, one for war model, one for GPs, etc, etc as we see fit. This could allow for very costomizable difficulty levels. Or you can use a general difficulty which does everything at the same level.
I think GPs are good in general, and should be avaliable for those who want. :thumbsup:
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JMarks
|
|
formerly known as the artist
Mar 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
GPs, the way I see them, don't add anything in and of themselves. If you need to micromanage, fine, turn them off. However you're limiting yourself. Which actually sounds just the opposite, right? GPs take you down from being a diety type figure to a human with physical and administrave limits. You need to have a better control, get agents who report regularly, build up your beurocracy. No, you don't get GPs with extra provinces (and I don't think you should get them with WLTK days either), so larger empires are prone to go their own courses without agents and beurocracies, and thus have a pretty good chance of breaking up.
But if you want to be a God, fine, but thats the beauty fo the off/on switch. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
|
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RPMisCOOL
Dip (sorry couldn't resist),
Please explain exactly what a GP lets you do. |
Anything that the player would do, would require 1 GP. So, building an army in a province, 1 GP, moving an army to attack an enemy province, 1 GP, building something in a province 1GP, raising taxes, 1 GP, changing a social policy 1 GP etc... In other worfds, any action the player takes, would require 1 GP. The only thing that would not require a GP would be diplomacy. But anything domestic would require 1 GP.
quote:
Originally posted by RPMisCOOL
If I have more provinces than you and all else being equal, I would tend to have more GPs, right? Question is, how does this stop ICS/Bigger is better? |
No, absolutely not! The player would not have more GP's if they had more provinces. Look again at the list of what adds more GP/turn.
A player does not get GP based on number of provinces. So all things being equal, empires would get the same number of GP/turn no matter how many provinces they have. A large empire would get the exact same number of GP/turn than a smaller one.
Here is an example. If we do not take into account WLTK or Wonders or special buildings that increase GP/turn, then based on my numbers, an empire would get +2 GP/turn NO MATTER HOW MANY PROVINCES THEY HAVE (caps for emphasis), since the home province is the only thing that is contributing GP/turn.
So, imagine getting +2 GP/turn if you had a small 3 province empire or a larger 20 province empire.
+2 GP/turn is not enough to manage 20 provinces, so the big empire will have trouble managing everything. The smaller empire will be able to handle things with onyl +2 GP/turn since it only has 3 provinces to worry about.
So larger empires would habe to devote money to building those wonders and buildings that increase
GP/turn and causing "We love the Kind days", to get more GP/turn, so as to be able to bette manage their larger empire.
So, all things being equal, the larger empire would have the SAME number of GP has the smaller empire. So, my model kills "bigger is always better" completely.
As a result, I believe it really puts the emphasis not on Super Expansion but on the quality of the player's decision.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
|
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JMarks
Much more elegant than I Diplo. Still, I prefere the Beaurocracy idea, investing in people over buildings (though to be really effective they'll need some nice buildings.  ) Actually, I'd have WLTK days reduce GPs. Why? A roudy party is hard to do much at all with. Or mabey have it not add or reduce. Anyway, it should just mean they're content with their lot, love the king and work better. I don't see how people celebrating can give you the ability to a province across the nation to build a barracks.  Mabey 1 extra for that province at most. Am I making sense? |
There are 2 real reasons why I suggested that WLTKD add GP/turn:
1) It gives the player a cool incentive to do WLTKD. The player should have a real incentive to invest in making their people not just a little happy but really super happy and loyal. The player should get some kind of reward for that. Giving the player extra pop growth or less corruption, are really good bonus, but I think giving the player an extra GP/tun is a really cool thing!
2) I interpret WLTKD as being when your people are not just happy but also very loyal. It seems to me logical that if your people are very happy and loyal that they will obey you easier. Thus, they are more likely to do things for you without you having to having to force them. GP kinda represent the political authority to tell your people what to do. Thus I think it makes sense that people in riot would reduce your GP since you would really have to force them to comply, whereas people super happy and loyal would do stuff without you having to force them at all.
perhaps, an alternate way to reward WLTKD would be to have it where actions are free (ie cost no GP) in any province experiencing WLTKD. Since your people are so happy and loyal, they obey you without any force needed at all. That game effect might make more sense?
Likewise, maybe instead of reducing the GP/turn, a province in riot could just cost twice the number of GP's. This would represent that you need a lot of force to get the province to obey you.
Would this make more sense?
I guess the reason, I suggested the other way, is because I don't want any special rules that modify the number of GP's that an action costs, because that risks making things more confusing for the player. I figure make an action always cost 1 GP no matter what, but have things simply modify the GP/turn instead. That the player can understand very easily and not have to worry about special rules.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JMarks
|
|
formerly known as the artist
Mar 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
There are 2 real reasons why I suggested that WLTKD add GP/turn:
1) It gives the player a cool incentive to do WLTKD. The player should have a real incentive to invest in making their people not just a little happy but really super happy and loyal. The player should get some kind of reward for that. Giving the player extra pop growth or less corruption, are really good bonus, but I think giving the player an extra GP/tun is a really cool thing!
2) I interpret WLTKD as being when your people are not just happy but also very loyal. It seems to me logical that if your people are very happy and loyal that they will obey you easier. Thus, they are more likely to do things for you without you having to having to force them. GP kinda represent the political authority to tell your people what to do. Thus I think it makes sense that people in riot would reduce your GP since you would really have to force them to comply, whereas people super happy and loyal would do stuff without you having to force them at all.
perhaps, an alternate way to reward WLTKD would be to have it where actions are free (ie cost no GP) in any province experiencing WLTKD. Since your people are so happy and loyal, they obey you without any force needed at all. That game effect might make more sense?
Likewise, maybe instead of reducing the GP/turn, a province in riot could just cost twice the number of GP's. This would represent that you need a lot of force to get the province to obey you.
Would this make more sense?
I guess the reason, I suggested the other way, is because I don't want any special rules that modify the number of GP's that an action costs, because that risks making things more confusing for the player. I figure make an action always cost 1 GP no matter what, but have things simply modify the GP/turn instead. That the player can understand very easily and not have to worry about special rules. |
I like the the free GP for provinces experience WLTK day, and more expensive for rioting provs. However, I still go for the bearocracy thingy. Sure it'll cost a lot of money to get going and to upkeep, but the control, and the efficient tax collecting system can make up for that, and will probably the only way to actually rule all of Candle'bre. No reason to completely penalize people for conquering, just make it harder to keep control without the proper authority.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spaced Cowboy
|
|
Dallas TX
Nov 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
Anything that the player would do, would require 1 GP. So, building an army in a province, 1 GP, moving an army to attack an enemy province, 1 GP, building something in a province 1GP, raising taxes, 1 GP, changing a social policy 1 GP etc... In other worfds, any action the player takes, would require 1 GP. The only thing that would not require a GP would be diplomacy. But anything domestic would require 1 GP. |
We have a concept of armies and units within the army. Armies can be split or joined. What about moving individual units?? Keep in mind that I'm actually for this concept, but I was using food with coruption for the same effect.
quote:
No, absolutely not! The player would not have more GP's if they had more provinces. Look again at the list of what adds more GP/turn.
A player does not get GP based on number of provinces. So all things being equal, empires would get the same number of GP/turn no matter how many provinces they have. A large empire would get the exact same number of GP/turn than a smaller one.
Here is an example. If we do not take into account WLTK or Wonders or special buildings that increase GP/turn, then based on my numbers, an empire would get +2 GP/turn NO MATTER HOW MANY PROVINCES THEY HAVE (caps for emphasis), since the home province is the only thing that is contributing GP/turn.
So, imagine getting +2 GP/turn if you had a small 3 province empire or a larger 20 province empire.
+2 GP/turn is not enough to manage 20 provinces, so the big empire will have trouble managing everything. The smaller empire will be able to handle things with onyl +2 GP/turn since it only has 3 provinces to worry about.
So larger empires would habe to devote money to building those wonders and buildings that increase
GP/turn and causing "We love the Kind days", to get more GP/turn, so as to be able to bette manage their larger empire.
So, all things being equal, the larger empire would have the SAME number of GP has the smaller empire. So, my model kills "bigger is always better" completely.
As a result, I believe it really puts the emphasis not on Super Expansion but on the quality of the player's decision. |
Yes I understood that base was limited to 2, but I was taking WLTKD into account. If I have 20 provinces and you have 3, and on average 50% of our provinces are experiencing WLTKD, then I get 10 more GP while you only get one. This is what I was trying to say. Also, presumably, I'd be able to build more cuz of my production, or is that covered by gp too?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
|
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RPMisCOOL
We have a concept of armies and units within the army. Armies can be split or joined. What about moving individual units?? Keep in mind that I'm actually for this concept, but I was using food with coruption for the same effect. |
My opinion would be that joining and splitting armies would not cost any GP at all. Players should be able to reorganize their armies for free.
I might suggest that moving a single unit would also cost no GP, but moving any army (2 or more units together) would cost 1 GP to move from one province to an adjacent province.
quote:
Originally posted by RPMisCOOL
Yes I understood that base was limited to 2, but I was taking WLTKD into account. If I have 20 provinces and you have 3, and on average 50% of our provinces are experiencing WLTKD, then I get 10 more GP while you only get one. This is what I was trying to say. Also, presumably, I'd be able to build more cuz of my production, or is that covered by gp too? |
Well, in your example the player has managed to have a WLTKD in 10 provinces which took some effort. I would say it is normal that the player get more GP as a reward.
The player is getting more GP but they are doing something to get them. They are not getting them just for having a larger empire. They are basically getting more GP as a result of serious effort.
If the player did not have the WLTKD, they would be in the situation that I outlined above where they would not have enough GP to manage everything. They had to do something that the small empire did not have to bother with, in order to manage their empire as well as the small one.
So, the larger empire has an advantage but it took more effort to get there.
To answer your last question about production. A larger empire will require more GP's. For example, I have 20 high industry provinces because I spent GP's to build stuff and improve stuff, to make their industry better. So I had to spend a lot more GP's than the smaller empire in order to have a large high production empire. I had to spend GP to improve those provinces to make them as good as they are.
Furthermore, even if I have 20 excellent provinces, if I don't have enough GP to give orders to everyone, then some provinces will have to wait.
The bottom line is that bigger empires would have more potential but they would be harder to manage. For a fixed number of GP, a smaller empire would be much easier to manage than a larger one. That I think makes sense!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JMarks
|
|
formerly known as the artist
Mar 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
Don't forget that the population automatically does stuff on their own accord too. Of course that will probably depend on population make-up. Peasants will build barns, silos, and of course pubs. Townsfolk will build tons of pubs, burlesque houses, and other places of ill repute, not to mention lending houses, etc. Priests might build monistaries or convents, which can have bonuses like spiritual well being for the surrounding area, but might seep off of your tax income through tithes, and stuff.
If you have industrious burgers they might actually build factories when the time comes, and slums to go with them!
Empires go on even if you can't control them to the nth degree.
However the armies may prove a prob with the GP. A player could cheat by ungrouping them, moving them, and then re-grouping them at the other side of a province. Why not have moving any number of troops from one place to another cost 1 GP? So lets say you have two armies in a province and you want them both to go to a neighbors province. One GP is all it takes. This can be used for long term movements. Say you have troops at one end of you country and you need them to defend the other end. Order them there with one GP and they go there on their own accord. However if you need to stop them along the way, that'll take another GP. If armies or troops are in different provinces and are going to the same one, they each need a GP since they don't have the same starting location. Same if they start in the same province but go to different destinations. The starting and ending place must be the same to have it cost only 1GP. Remember, GPs are commanding points. Unless you have spare time or an aid to go do it, that one troop guy won't be able to get the order to attack in coordination with the army in the next province.
Of course we could also add generals with stats (among other things) like obidient (doesn't move unless you tell him too) and strong-headed (will attack if HE thinks he can gain honor in doing so). Just an idea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spaced Cowboy
|
|
Dallas TX
Nov 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
My opinion would be that joining and splitting armies would not cost any GP at all. Players should be able to reorganize their armies for free.
I might suggest that moving a single unit would also cost no GP, but moving any army (2 or more units together) would cost 1 GP to move from one province to an adjacent province. |
Oh so when I want to move my army and not use GPs, I can spilt them down to single units and move them one at a time , then recombine them in the target province....no GPs used. What about just buying units?? I think that we have not set limits on what can be built each turn, but I was thinking that we were limited to one item (unit or building)
quote:
Well, in your example the player has managed to have a WLTKD in 10 provinces which took some effort. I would say it is normal that the player get more GP as a reward.
The player is getting more GP but they are doing something to get them. They are not getting them just for having a larger empire. They are basically getting more GP as a result of serious effort.
If the player did not have the WLTKD, they would be in the situation that I outlined above where they would not have enough GP to manage everything. They had to do something that the small empire did not have to bother with, in order to manage their empire as well as the small one.
So, the larger empire has an advantage but it took more effort to get there.
To answer your last question about production. A larger empire will require more GP's. For example, I have 20 high industry provinces because I spent GP's to build stuff and improve stuff, to make their industry better. So I had to spend a lot more GP's than the smaller empire in order to have a large high production empire. I had to spend GP to improve those provinces to make them as good as they are.
Furthermore, even if I have 20 excellent provinces, if I don't have enough GP to give orders to everyone, then some provinces will have to wait.
The bottom line is that bigger empires would have more potential but they would be harder to manage. For a fixed number of GP, a smaller empire would be much easier to manage than a larger one. That I think makes sense! |
Hmmm....Guess using concrete numbers to make a point didn't work. All I am saying is that If I have X provinces and you have Y provinces, and all other things being equal, don't we both have the same percentage, beit 10, 20, 30, or etc percent, of having X1 or Y1 of our provinces experiencing WLTKD (Again all other things equal)?
And if X>Y, then I'll get more GPs, hence be able to do more per turn (but I am bigger after all), so I can spend more of my GPs getting more of my provinces into WLTKD...which gives me more GPs....
Example (very simplified)
We both have 3 provs..one of them in WLTKD. Gives 3 GPs each
Your turn. Move you army (8 units) from one of your provs to the other. Move into another (neutral no improvements) province and attack. The armies are pretty even, you barely loose (fate, roll of the dice). To compensate for your losses you build a unit to add to your (retreated) army (you lost 5 units). 3 GPs exahausted.
I get luckier, I attack right next to where my army (8 units) is and win (total luck cuz the situation was the same as yours) (I still lost 1 unit). I build a structure in one of my provinces that might throw them into WLTKD. The other I spent on a tax increase building (TIB). 3 GPs exahausted.
Turn 2: You buy two more units (gotta get that army back in strength). And wow where did all the money go...You use a GP to build a TIB. Three gps toasted.
I, Just having the luck o' the Irish, get another prov in WLTKD, and get 4 GPs. I buy 2 units(9U), a TIB, and a WLTKDB.
Turn 3: Your army (6U) still sucks, you buy 3 units, gotta get that province.
I, Oh well, that other prov did not go WLTKD, still have 4 gp. I spend again 2 units, a TIB, and a WLTKDB.
Turn 4: You army rules(9u), you go after that other prov again and crush them (-1U). You build 1U and a WLTKDB.
I, that other B did the trick, now have 5 GPs, I use my 11u army to stomp a stronger neutral (that has a TIB and a WLTKDB). It was rough (-4U) but I won. Again I build 2 units, a TIB, and a WLTKDB.
After four turns you have 4 provs 2- WLTKDB, 1 TIB and an 8U army,
I have 5 provs, 6-WLTKDB, 3 TIB, and a 9U army.
More GPs means more to spend on GP improvements that means more GPs.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The diplomat
|
|
Terre Haute, IN USA
Sep 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RPMisCOOL
Sorry, thought you'd get it especially on the TIB, since I first used it after the shortcut
TIB - Tax increasing building (Revenue increase)
WLTKDB - WLTKD building (a building that drives you pop into WLTKD)
Again, diplomat and JM, keep in mind that I like GPs, I just think that you have to be real careful about how they are implemented.
R:PM |
Thanks for the clarification. I reread your post more carefully and I got it. I was about to edit my post but you had already posted your clarification.
You are right: it is all in the implementation, isn't it?
Your example brought up a good point. I would hate for my model to have simply replaced one super strategy (ICS) with another (more GP to get more GP).
Perhaps for my idea to work better, there should be some kind of limit on max GP/turn. Perhaps, the GP/turn should be less fuild and more static. The player should not be able to simply "get" more GP/turn at will. The whole idea is that Gp sould be limited so the player has to decide how best to use them.
Here is a wacky alternative just for discussion:
Nothing in the game would increase the number of GP/turn. So, WLTKD would not increase GP/turn and there would not be any Wonders or buildings to increase GP.
GP/turn would be fixed based on the type of government. No matter what size of empire, you were, you would get the same GP/turn depending on your government type. For example, democracy might give you +3 GP/turn, dictatorship +4 GP/turn. This way the player could not just crank up the GP/turn and would trully have to manage their GP every turn.
How easy is it to get a WLTKD? From your example, it seems like it is fairly easy. The player is alsmost guaranteed to get a WLTKD by building the right buildings? I am not sure that WLTKD should be that easy.
Last edited by The diplomat on 29-06-2002 at 00:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JMarks
|
|
formerly known as the artist
Mar 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RPMisCOOL
Oh so when I want to move my army and not use GPs, I can spilt them down to single units and move them one at a time , then recombine them in the target province....no GPs used. What about just buying units?? I think that we have not set limits on what can be built each turn, but I was thinking that we were limited to one item (unit or building)
|
I already addressed this. see above.
quote:
Hmmm....Guess using concrete numbers to make a point didn't work. All I am saying is that If I have X provinces and you have Y provinces, and all other things being equal, don't we both have the same percentage, beit 10, 20, 30, or etc percent, of having X1 or Y1 of our provinces experiencing WLTKD (Again all other things equal)?
And if X>Y, then I'll get more GPs, hence be able to do more per turn (but I am bigger after all), so I can spend more of my GPs getting more of my provinces into WLTKD...which gives me more GPs....
Example (very simplified)
We both have 3 provs..one of them in WLTKD. Gives 3 GPs each
Your turn. Move you army (8 units) from one of your provs to the other. Move into another (neutral no improvements) province and attack. The armies are pretty even, you barely loose (fate, roll of the dice). To compensate for your losses you build a unit to add to your (retreated) army (you lost 5 units). 3 GPs exahausted.
I get luckier, I attack right next to where my army (8 units) is and win (total luck cuz the situation was the same as yours) (I still lost 1 unit). I build a structure in one of my provinces that might throw them into WLTKD. The other I spent on a tax increase building (TIB). 3 GPs exahausted.
Turn 2: You buy two more units (gotta get that army back in strength). And wow where did all the money go...You use a GP to build a TIB. Three gps toasted.
I, Just having the luck o' the Irish, get another prov in WLTKD, and get 4 GPs. I buy 2 units(9U), a TIB, and a WLTKDB.
Turn 3: Your army (6U) still sucks, you buy 3 units, gotta get that province.
I, Oh well, that other prov did not go WLTKD, still have 4 gp. I spend again 2 units, a TIB, and a WLTKDB.
Turn 4: You army rules(9u), you go after that other prov again and crush them (-1U). You build 1U and a WLTKDB.
I, that other B did the trick, now have 5 GPs, I use my 11u army to stomp a stronger neutral (that has a TIB and a WLTKDB). It was rough (-4U) but I won. Again I build 2 units, a TIB, and a WLTKDB.
After four turns you have 4 provs 2- WLTKDB, 1 TIB and an 8U army,
I have 5 provs, 6-WLTKDB, 3 TIB, and a 9U army.
More GPs means more to spend on GP improvements that means more GPs. |
Uh, yeah, RPM, that is the point. Of course, I would think that 2-3 GP would be a higher GP difficulty level. If luck as you put it is against you, you'll likely fail even without the GP. If you're silly enough to spend all your GPs (not to mention manpower! those units don't come from nowhere and they use up resources!) on your army early on, and if your unlucky enough not to get a good return on your investment (ei conquer other provs), then of course you'll go downhill. And your example had better be extremely simplified. If the game worked like that, turn 1 build bank, tons of cash comes in, then I'd have to puke.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spaced Cowboy
|
|
Dallas TX
Nov 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
Yeah JM, we sort of cross posted there. Shh! I'm at work now....Sometimes there are interruptions.
Also guys, it was very simplified and exagerated. I was trying to make a point without having to type 35 turns worth stuff.
I was mainly try to show how if we tied GPs to WLTKD and there were buildings that would help trigger it, that a player could get ahead in GPs and stay ahead, even though the other guy was playing a good game.
Sorry but luck plays into these games. How many times have you popped a settler in Civ on the first hut. Sweet, yes, luck, even more so.
Static GPs. I don't know about that either. With static GPs, what is my motivation for getting more provs? What do I gain by taking more provs? Seems like I'd have too many in the beginning of the game, and not enough in the end.
A solution would be to start with a small amount of GPs and increase them throughout the game. Oh and we also discussed GP carryover somewhere else. I think we determined that you could only carry over 1/2 of your GPs to stop hoarding.
Anyway, it is Fri nite, and I'm going home. Prolly won't check back until Mon, so see yas then.
R:PM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JMarks
|
|
formerly known as the artist
Mar 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
Woohoo, RPM won't reply till monday!
Anyway, my solution to the GP would follow suit to Vel's much earlier suggestion. Beurocracy. Sure it costs a bunch (money and later pop wise), but it allows better control, aka more GPs. Otherwise, what would be the point? A micromanager won't use AI governors anyway, and the people already build to their whims. More control would make micromanagers tend to one type of governing (really independant of whether its a monarchy, repub, or ogli) that is, fine beaurocratic detailing.
Still, if we impliment GPs, we should have different playing methods. Static GPs, GPs which grow with Beaurocracy (which is independent of buildings, but will require them to be even more efficent, bigger buildings for bigger beaurocracies), and no GPs. Three options to fit all of our pallets. Of course the first two would vary the GPs with GP difficulty. Am I making sense or am I flailing again?
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-05-2002 18:06
|
|