Massive Multiplayer Civ?

[Leland]

Originally posted by Sore Loser
On this question I'm fairly radical, I see every change request as a potential improvement. But the game will obviously be unsatisfactory to play if bugs pop up all the time. I think the best compromise is to start out with a limited game (either going from 4000 BC to 1000 BC or simply using a static tech level). After the initial trial, assuming it's succesful, the main game can then be started. Whenever a change is needed (and I'm thinking about small changes here, the game models used throughout the game should be pretty much set from the beginning), a small test game can be set up to run for a month or so to find out how it would work.

I am skeptical whether any "non-limited" game would work out; either the game is designed to be static, or it's designed to go through certain kind of progress (which implies that the game will also end and reboot after a time). Chaos will ensue if you kick off the game and shrug the big picture off as "okay i'll just add catapults and lasers and dinosaurs when the players get there"...

Also, I can't imagine anyone wanting to play a game where you have to wait years to be able to do something. You might as well make three or four separate games.

The balance I'm striving for is to make sure the players would view new players as potential ressources rather than potential competitors. If you're well-established then you needn't fear a poor little newbie. Instead, if the newbie shows some interest in the game then you could probably benefit yourself by showing him the ropes and recruiting him to lead some small raiding mission or run a hamlet on the outskirts of your empire.

My point was that the new players are unable to be hunter-gatherers and such, unlike the first few... if the game is never-ending, this is a problem because the first batch gets a more fulfilling gaming experience that the majority of players will never be able to see. On the other hand, if the game is periodic it's not such a big deal because you can have multiple games running in parallel, starting maybe once a month, and all the players have the chance of jumping in at whichever point they find most rewarding (though this might possibly mean that everyone wants to start in the early game, and the whole feudalism aspect is reduced when majority of player migrate away mid-game).

I think that the whole game has to be designed for those who come in mid-game. The early starters are an exception.

There is a problem with this, as I see it. If you give up all control of the power (cities and armies) that you assign to your vassals, then it's just too easy to stab the top dog in the back. Besides, this would make players very reluctantly to share power with their vassals, and I want to encourage them to do so. A well-functioning hierarchical system is the best way to promote social mobility, IMO.

Ah, my intention was not as much to criticise as to express my own cluelessness as to what you meant by the feudalism points. Back-stabbing would, in my opinion, be just as easily prevented by having a rule that you still own the troops and cities you give away... if the vassal betrays you the units revert back to you so it would be rare. Hmm. I think you need to explain your idea some more.

[Sandman]

The way I see it, there could be four main ways in which players could join a new game.

1. Starting out afresh, as a previously untouched stone age tribe. My thought is that these should become available as they come into contact with more advanced civilizations, although there would be some 'virgin' tribes that become civilised on their own.

2. Starting out as a vassal. A large empire may be too centralised, so the 'emperor' may release some areas of his empire to be looked after by other players. It would have to be well-balanced to prevent players just breaking away, perhaps with the 'emperor' player having some sort of leash on which he can hold his vassals, a tight leash will ensure imperial stability, but may cause inefficiency, whilst a loose grip will be more efficient, but also more troublesome. There could be some interesting intra-empire diplomacy, for example:

Eastern Governor: "Emperor, we must expand our fortification system along the Eastern Border to prevent nomads from invading."

Western Governor: "No! We must invest in a fleet to defeat the pirates attacking on our shipping."

3. Starting out as a breakaway state. If a large empire has collapsed under nomad invasions and plagues, then it might break up into multiple, smaller factions. These represent openings for players to jump into. The player may try to defend their independence, side with the remnants of the empire in exchange for hefty autonomy or attempt to carve out a new empire.

4. Taking over a civilization that has been abandoned by it's previous player. Self-explanatory.

[Sore Loser]

Originally posted by Leland
I am skeptical whether any "non-limited" game would work out; either the game is designed to be static, or it's designed to go through certain kind of progress (which implies that the game will also end and reboot after a time).

To clarify, I'm operating with three scenarios: A never-ending one, a progressive one with a set time span and a static one (with or without a set time span). I much prefer the first one myself, but it's also the most difficult one. Both because it would have to be recoded (and possible rebalanced slightly) periodically throughout the game, and because the game must be capable of containing all manners of models within the same engine. For example, it would have to be capable of containing both simple barter economy, simple monetary economy, state-controlled planned economy and investment-based capitalism. Making a system for either of those isn't much trouble, but making them work together is going to be painful. Good thing that I like pain...

The second scenario is a lot more feasible, as it can all be developed and programmed ahead of the game start. Still, this idea doesn't thrill me as much as the first one.

The third one is easy, host multiple games in different historical periods and do away with technological progress entirely. This is even more tasteless than the second, but I guess it can still be a good game. Utopia is a good example of this, there's no real progress during the rounds, but it still has people hooked.

Chaos will ensue if you kick off the game and shrug the big picture off as "okay i'll just add catapults and lasers and dinosaurs when the players get there"...

I think you misunderstand my point. What I want is to make sure that the players can keep developing technogically at any time. Ideally, there would be no problem in designing the entire tech tree and game engine ahead of the game start, but it would delay it a LOT. Players won't know that new techs are being added, as there is no Civilopedia they can look them up in. They'll just know that every once they can research some fairly cool stuff that looks pretty much in thread with what they know already, only a notch higher.

Also, I can't imagine anyone wanting to play a game where you have to wait years to be able to do something. You might as well make three or four separate games.

Ah, but you don't have to wait years to be able to do anything. Technological progress is awfully slow, but day-to-day stuff like managing your town and raping the monks of the nearby monastery happens all the time. Furthermore, small technological progress will happen fairly often. Compared to Civ, the techs will be broken down into smaller pieces, allowing each historical period to last longer.

My point was that the new players are unable to be hunter-gatherers and such, unlike the first few...

However, the players entering later will be able to take advantage of the existing social structure. If the established players have any brains, they'll realise that the new players are more of a potential ressource than a potential threat. If I get the balance right, that is.

if the game is never-ending, this is a problem because the first batch gets a more fulfilling gaming experience that the majority of players will never be able to see.

True, which is why I now think hosting multiple never-ending games is the best solution. I'm well aware that I'm daydreaming, but I prefer to think of ideals first and then narrow them down to get something useful later on.

On the other hand, if the game is periodic it's not such a big deal because you can have multiple games running in parallel, starting maybe once a month, and all the players have the chance of jumping in at whichever point they find most rewarding (though this might possibly mean that everyone wants to start in the early game, and the whole feudalism aspect is reduced when majority of player migrate away mid-game).

One problem with hosting multiple games is that the player base is divided, and I think the game's quality increases with the number of players in it. A couple hundred players just isn't enough to create the social structure I'm aiming for.

I think that the whole game has to be designed for those who come in mid-game. The early starters are an exception.

Well, the game has to be designed with both in mind. The game will be played entirely different if you start mid-game than if you start early, as long as it's enjoyable for both I don't see a problem.

Ah, my intention was not as much to criticise as to express my own cluelessness as to what you meant by the feudalism points. Back-stabbing would, in my opinion, be just as easily prevented by having a rule that you still own the troops and cities you give away... if the vassal betrays you the units revert back to you so it would be rare. Hmm. I think you need to explain your idea some more.

Basically, I meant that the lord retains ownership of the armies and towns (henceforth termed "units" as a collective term for both) delegated to his subjects, so you understood it right. However, I don't think you should be able to transfer any amount of units to your subjects. If you could, it would be too easy to blackmail your subjects into giving you all their units so you could delegate them back to them as fiefs and security guards.

A large empire may be too centralised, so the 'emperor' may release some areas of his empire to be looked after by other players. It would have to be well-balanced to prevent players just breaking away, perhaps with the 'emperor' player having some sort of leash on which he can hold his vassals, a tight leash will ensure imperial stability, but may cause inefficiency, whilst a loose grip will be more efficient, but also more troublesome.

That's exactly what I'm striving for with the Feudalism concept. You're right that a grip should cause inefficiency somehow, I'm not sure how that can be implemented. The basic idea is that any player can only wield a small amount of power directly, the rest has to be delegated to other players. You retain formal ownership and can demand direct control back, but if you wish to meddle with the way the power is being managed then you need to go through your minion and ask/demand that he do things differently.

Also, as you explain nicely, the whole point of the Feudalism concept is to create intra-imperial diplomacy. People should be viewed as either enemies or rivals rather than team mates. I'm sure that some players will argue that this would create a bad gaming environment. I don't think this competitive atmosphere would appeal to everyone, or even the majority, it's just how I would like a game.

Let's say we start out with 100 players, divided between 5 planets. Eventually the planets will become cramped and newcomers will find it increasingly difficult to find their footing in an increasingly competitive environment. Then we can start letting new players start out on unsettled planets, effectively giving them the "new game" experience that Leland asked for. Placement should be random, with placement on cramped planets being less likely (but not impossible).

So basically, players choose themselves whether they wish to start out as nomads or vassals. If the space is cramped already then they'll probably prefer playing as a vassal (and there should be a good tutorial to inform them of their choices), if there is space for them then they'll probably benefit from preserving their independence.

Whenever an emperor becomes shaky, someone else will likely take over, but I don't like the idea of it being a complete newcomer. Instead, the game balance itself will probably take care of things. The viceroys and generals might agree peacefully who takes over, or there can be a festive and bloody civil war, probably ending with the death of one or more of them.

As for players dropping out, I'm not sure how to take care of that. Most likely, the player will donate everything to friends, a solution that I'm not very happy about but which will be difficult to prevent.

OMG why do I keep writing these long posts? I never was much good at organizing, much less arranging things in an aesthetically pleasing or even practical manner. Anyhow, I have identified the following problems to be the primary faults in the concept thus far:

1) Player Death

Without player death, the game would be too kindergartenish IMO. On the other hand, just dying and having to start all over isn't very pleasing. Also, I would like player death to be a natural occurrance as well as an unnatural occurance. The problem with this is that players would probably get PO'ed at having to start over periodically, and they'd feel little point in developing something if they have to start over every once in a while. It would be like asking a kid to see how tall a tower he can build and then knock it over every five minutes. The kid would soon find the task fairly pointless. A heritage system of some sort might be possible, meaning that you control a family house instead of just a single character. But if we go down that road then I'd start wanting a realistic heritage system with diplomatic marriages and stuff like that, linking families together.

2) Turn Structure

I think it's feasible to run two turns a day using the Utopia system. This means that orders are given in between the turns and carried out all at once at the turn change (in Utopia some of the actions can be carried out right away, but I always found that messy). Two turns a day is fairly slow, but is ensures that people won't have to spend too much time to stay competitive. It might even be possible to do three turns per day, as people can log on near the turn change to take two turns in a row, but that might be stretching it a bit too far for the general public.

3) Loyalty

I don't like the idea of a player having complete control over his units. If he doesn't see to their needs then they should be able to rebel. This can happen on a larger scale with minions, but since the townsmen and soldiers themselves are not player controlled, their loyalty has to be governed by the AI. How can this be represented? Also, it should be possible for a minion to gradually undermine the loyalty of the units given to him by his lord, switching them to his own control. The lord should be able to keep an eye on this, and the minion should be able to cover up his foul plans.

Writing this, I realize that the loyalty concept can be used in conjunction with the heritage system to create little civil wars whenever a player character dies. He then assumes control over another character from the same house, but the family's units will not feel the same degree of loyalty towards the new ruler. Idea: Each town or army has loyalty points for any number of players. A player usually does not get loyalty points with the towns and armies of other players without actively seeking them. Usually this is done by bribing or propaganda, but it can also be affected by things like thrilling victories on the battlefields, heavy casualties and standard of living. The townsmen and soldiers obey whatever player holds the top ranking for loyalty at the moment. For example, soldiers that are frequently accomodated in manors will feel a greater sense of loyalty than those who are out in the mud all year. Dicipline could be added as another factor, determining the unit's resistance to subversion.

[Leland]

Originally posted by Sore Loser

To clarify, I'm operating with three scenarios: A never-ending one, a progressive one with a set time span and a static one (with or without a set time span). I much prefer the first one myself, but it's also the most difficult one. Both because it would have to be recoded (and possible rebalanced slightly) periodically throughout the game, and because the game must be capable of containing all manners of models within the same engine. For example, it would have to be capable of containing both simple barter economy, simple monetary economy, state-controlled planned economy and investment-based capitalism. Making a system for either of those isn't much trouble, but making them work together is going to be painful. Good thing that I like pain...

Pain is not a problem for me either, after all this is just a pipe dream for now. The thing that bothers me is to design all these elaborate models and then throwing them away. For instance, if the first few months of the game is run on a barter economy, and then switches to monetary one, the barter phase is history and is never coming back (except under some special circumstances). It's not the interaction between the models that's the problem (well, it is a problem but people like me shrug it off as implementation detail...), but that you're trying to cram several games into one. It's like having a MMOG where you start off playing a first person shooter, then at some point you need to steal a car and drive on a long highway for a while, then you get out and need to play chess, then fly an airplane, and so on ad infinitum never going back. What's the point? Why not just have multiple games instead?

If the game is supposed to be never-ending, there can practically be no "phases" that it's supposed to go through.

The second scenario is a lot more feasible, as it can all be developed and programmed ahead of the game start. Still, this idea doesn't thrill me as much as the first one.

It doesn't thrill me either. The whole point of MMOG is to have a persistent world, and pushign the reset button every now and then is a major turn-off. However, if you want to have the game progress in civ-like fashion, this is the only workable alternative.

The third one is easy, host multiple games in different historical periods and do away with technological progress entirely. This is even more tasteless than the second, but I guess it can still be a good game.

Actually, I disagree. Even if the game rules and the general feeling are static, it doesn't mean that there's no individual technological progress. That's what I was after in my first post when suggesting a non-realistic world where swords and farmers live side-by-side with fusion power and air planes. Each player starts in the bronze-age-or-so level and moves up the ladder by way of his own research efforts. Obviously, this means sacrificing realism and historicity, but I feel that in a MMOG those are probably going to have to be axed anyway.

Also, this means that the progress has to be balanced: go too fast and everyone ends up in the modern world, go too slow and it gets boring.

I think you misunderstand my point. What I want is to make sure that the players can keep developing technogically at any time. Ideally, there would be no problem in designing the entire tech tree and game engine ahead of the game start, but it would delay it a LOT. Players won't know that new techs are being added, as there is no Civilopedia they can look them up in. They'll just know that every once they can research some fairly cool stuff that looks pretty much in thread with what they know already, only a notch higher.

I was thinking more in lines of practically updating the game... for instance, you might have a vague idea that at the start all there is are pointed sticks, and then at some points you add swords, then catapults, then lasers. Okay, sounds good in paper. And even in practise, when you add swords it's child's play because you just code a "pointed stick +1" and call it "sword". But then, when it's time to add the catapult, you notice a bug in the underlying weapons model, or that catapults break the game balance, or some other unforeseen circumstance. So what do you do? Go around it and make the catapult "pointed stick +2". And so on... every additional change is going to be harder and harder because it has to fit in with what has come before, and even though the simplistic situation described here is easy to avoid you will end up with hacks like that sooner or later. It's a fact of software-making.

So, in order for something to work the models have to be designed in advance as much as possible. The game should not depend on some unspecified stuff that may or may not be added in the future.

Ah, but you don't have to wait years to be able to do anything. Technological progress is awfully slow, but day-to-day stuff like managing your town and raping the monks of the nearby monastery happens all the time.

That's a major design choice: do you want the game to be about progressing technologically, or do you want it to be about raping monks? I think that the technological, infrastructural and military progress on a historical scale is what makes Civ games interesting, and those should be the things that the player gets to do, instead of daily micromanagement.

True, which is why I now think hosting multiple never-ending games is the best solution. I'm well aware that I'm daydreaming, but I prefer to think of ideals first and then narrow them down to get something useful later on.

This is where the never-endedness and specific game phases clash... suppose that the initial "early game" where hunter-gathering is important lasts for, say, one month. If the game is designed to have a limited time span, say 6 months, you can kick off a new game every month and not have to have more than six games running in parallel. Not to mention that the players from games that end will probably want to start in the new ones. However, if the game is never-ending, and you start new games every month, you just end up having more and more parallel games. As you yourself realized, this is bad because individual games may start to suffer from low population, and since no games are coming a natural ending this problem will only get worse with time.

One problem with hosting multiple games is that the player base is divided, and I think the game's quality increases with the number of players in it. A couple hundred players just isn't enough to create the social structure I'm aiming for.

We're definitely on the same wavelength on this. Ideally, there should only one huge world everyone shares, and additional games only for special purposes like testing new features or restricted high-level games.

Well, the game has to be designed with both [early and mid-game] in mind. The game will be played entirely different if you start mid-game than if you start early, as long as it's enjoyable for both I don't see a problem.

There are always tradeoffs... a model that works well for early game might not be optimal in mid-game and vice versa. In a limited game, both early and mid-game are part of the experience and deserve equal concern, but in a never-ending game the early game is an anomaly that majority of players will never see. Hence, if there're compromises to be made (and there will be) mid-game experience should always trump the early game.

Basically, I meant that the lord retains ownership of the armies and towns (henceforth termed "units" as a collective term for both) delegated to his subjects, so you understood it right. However, I don't think you should be able to transfer any amount of units to your subjects. If you could, it would be too easy to blackmail your subjects into giving you all their units so you could delegate them back to them as fiefs and security guards.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. In fact, I'm beginning to like the idea!

Also, as you explain nicely, the whole point of the Feudalism concept is to create intra-imperial diplomacy. People should be viewed as either enemies or rivals rather than team mates. I'm sure that some players will argue that this would create a bad gaming environment. I don't think this competitive atmosphere would appeal to everyone, or even the majority, it's just how I would like a game.

The downside of a MMOG is that it's up to the majority what the atmosphere will be like. In a game like this, I would expect to see a lot of non-strategic social interaction such as groups of friends sticking together no matter what, but on the other hand you can consider that to be part of the players' diplomatic play. But in the end, I would expect those players who pick the most competent vassals and play the best game will eventually be on top, and those who suck will be on the bottom.

Let's say we start out with 100 players, divided between 5 planets...

I'm going off on a tangent here, but I really don't like the idea of multiple planets. I'd prefer one map, maybe something that can be added to in time. For example, a flat pizza-like map where the "gods" occasionally slap a new island or maybe even a continent at the edges.

1) Player Death

Without player death, the game would be too kindergartenish IMO. On the other hand, just dying and having to start all over isn't very pleasing. Also, I would like player death to be a natural occurrance as well as an unnatural occurance.

I'd prefer if the players were practically immortal, but quite capable of losing pretty much everything else. If you screw up, you might lose a few cities, or a few dozen cities before you get back up, but you'll never get a blunt "game over" screen. If the player has messed up so badly that he'd rather start from scratch, that should be his choice.

A heritage system of some sort might be possible, meaning that you control a family house instead of just a single character. But if we go down that road then I'd start wanting a realistic heritage system with diplomatic marriages and stuff like that, linking families together.

I'm of the opinion that the player's character in the game should not try to mimic a real person... rather, it should be just a convenient avatar that represents the player's power. Just like in civ, what the player does is move his units and manage resources rather than play a single character. Rather than ruling a faction, the player is the faction. The names and mug shots of the leaders are mostly just eye-candy (and in a MMOG, also necessary handles for the social interaction).

2) Turn Structure

I think that I'd prefer a slow real time system rather than a turn based game. That way, the players can do a lot more things when they log on and get immediate (or almost immediate) feedback. The downsides of RT, as far as I can see, are:

1) Bandwidth. This will ramp up the cost of running the servers, and possibly make the game economically unfeasible.

2) Players getting beaten up while they're offline. This is a problem that I think can be mitigated by balancing the game so that passive fortified units can defend themselves well enough even without player intervention, making the pace slow enough so that even if the player might suffer minor tactical setbacks, his strategy won't be ruined, and finally by promoting player cooperation in their strategies (for example, two players who play one hour per day may individually have 23 hour gaps, but if they synchronize the times they play and watch each other's backs the gap when neither of them is on-line can be reduced to just 11 hours).

3) More emphasis on tactics, less on strategy. This is actually not necessarily a bad thing, as some players (and newcomers in particular) prefer the tactical play and instant feedback.

3) Loyalty

I don't like the idea of a player having complete control over his units. If he doesn't see to their needs then they should be able to rebel. This can happen on a larger scale with minions, but since the townsmen and soldiers themselves are not player controlled, their loyalty has to be governed by the AI. How can this be represented?

Simple value for each ruler in the hierarchy above the unit (or population). The value is an integer that depends on A) charisma of the ruler, B) whether the ruler is the owner of the unit, C) immediacy of the ruler in the hierarchy (units are more likely to be loyal to those closest to them) and D) bonuses, facilities, nerve-staplings and other goodies the rulers give the units. In any case, I don't think this should be a very complicated formula, but rather something simple enough for a player to calculate himself.

Also, it should be possible for a minion to gradually undermine the loyalty of the units given to him by his lord, switching them to his own control. The lord should be able to keep an eye on this, and the minion should be able to cover up his foul plans.

Maybe the Lord can spend his leadership or admin points to appoint one of his units a "spy" that lets him know the loyalties of all units it's in contact with? This means that the vassal might employ "counter spies" who report the loyalties of spies and misdirect them, or possibly have some other means to identify and bribe them to his side.

[Leland]

Originally posted by Sandman
The way I see it, there could be four main ways in which players could join a new game.

1. Starting out afresh, as a previously untouched stone age tribe.

Demands a continuously expanding game area. Quite large one, actually, to avoid old players from immediately moving in and grabbing the newfound land.

2. Starting out as a vassal.

The problem is, whose vassal? Will the players choose an existing player to serve, or will the existing ones pick whom they want? What if nobody wants to rule the newbies because they are quite likely to be independable?

3. Starting out as a breakaway state.

This is even more dependant on the game circumstances than the previous alternative. If there are no conveniently collapsing states, it will be hard to accommodate new players. Also, constant plagues will probably be a nuisance to the existing players who then become resentful towards the new ones who pick up the pieces.

4. Taking over a civilization that has been abandoned by it's previous player.

What if no such civilizations are available? Also, there's going to be a lot of variation between these civs... some high-end players might quit due to a vacation, or because they have nothing interesting to accomplish, so it is technically possibly for the newbie to start straight from the top if he's lucky. On the other hand, most of these abandoned civs are might be so pathetic that it's nearly impossible to get ahead in the game if you end up starting with one.

As is obvious from my above comments, I am not particularly happy with any of the four options. So I am proposing a fifth one:

5. Starting as "free agents", with a couple of units (preferably of your own choosing) and some cash but without land. From there the player can decide what he wants to be: mercenary, merchant, explorer, colonist, pillager, politician... this allows the players to learn the ropes without being a big nuisance to existing players, and a convenient way for the Lords to choose the most competent vassals.

[Colonel E]

Why not this:

1. Have a constantly advancing tech rate (an average) which determines the tech level of the new civs.

2. Whenever a new player joins, make it so that they're "exiles" from some random country and generate an island on which a whole crop of players starts..

3. Have players be able to commission extremely expensive "expeditions" to discover (i.e., have generated) new islands or continents. I realize the world would be of infinite size, but there you go.

4. Obviously it would have to be in some wack-assed real-time/turn-based combonation. I have no idea how this work, exactly.

[Sore Loser]

Just a quick reply before I'm off for my English class. Again, thanks for the great response so far

The fifth start-out scenario is what I had in mind. I don't want players to have to choose a profession, but I don't think that's what you meant either.

you're trying to cram several games into one. It's like having a MMOG where you start off playing a first person shooter, then at some point you need to steal a car and drive on a long highway for a while, then you get out and need to play chess, then fly an airplane, and so on ad infinitum never going back. What's the point? Why not just have multiple games instead?

Yes, I am trying to cram several games into one, and it's with complete deliberation. One of my all time favourites, Pirates!, did the same thing IMO. You have land-based invasions, fencing, naval duels, political intrigues, commerce and overall strategic decisions. While most of these were simple, they kept me coming back to the game for a LONG time. I have always felt that this "multiple-games" package is a genre that hasn't been explored thoroughly. In Civ, everybody focuses on the same aspects of the game, the only major distinction between military vs development. In this game, people can pursue any goal they desire instead of just being so many wannabee world conquerors. In this respect, I want it to play as much as an RPG as a strategy game (with the strategy part remaining as vital as the RPG part).

you might have a vague idea that at the start all there is are pointed sticks, and then at some points you add swords, then catapults, then lasers. Okay, sounds good in paper. And even in practise, when you add swords it's child's play because you just code a "pointed stick +1" and call it "sword".

I want weapons developments to be a lot extensive than just strength bonuses. More on this later.

But then, when it's time to add the catapult, you notice a bug in the underlying weapons model, or that catapults break the game balance, or some other unforeseen circumstance. So what do you do?

I let the catapults break the game balance, and let the clever players go wild with catapults for a few weeks. Then I make sure that future technological progress tones down the power status of catapults.

And so on... every additional change is going to be harder and harder because it has to fit in with what has come before, and even though the simplistic situation described here is easy to avoid you will end up with hacks like that sooner or later. It's a fact of software-making.

New tech will generally replace old tech, so my postulate is that unbalanced tech can be remedied with future tech.

So, in order for something to work the models have to be designed in advance as much as possible. The game should not depend on some unspecified stuff that may or may not be added in the future.

Yes and no. As much as possible should designed in advance, of course, but mainly concerning the general lines. I still believe that balance issues can be dealt with during the course of the game. Not just by direct implementation, but via small test games that are setup for the occasion.

do you want the game to be about progressing technologically, or do you want it to be about raping monks? I think that the technological, infrastructural and military progress on a historical scale is what makes Civ games interesting, and those should be the things that the player gets to do, instead of daily micromanagement.

One of the things that always bothered me in Civ was that new tech was obsolete the moment you could start utilizing it. While ordinary tech racing games can be great fun for me as well, I've found slower-developing scenarios to be more rewarding. To answer your question, I want both technological progress and monk-raping. I don't feel that it is very enjoyable to rape monks in Civ because the technological progress is so rapid. Every technological advance should be an occasion for celebration, not just another event.

The downside of a MMOG is that it's up to the majority what the atmosphere will be like. In a game like this, I would expect to see a lot of non-strategic social interaction such as groups of friends sticking together no matter what, but on the other hand you can consider that to be part of the players' diplomatic play. But in the end, I would expect those players who pick the most competent vassals and play the best game will eventually be on top, and those who suck will be on the bottom.

I'm glad you bring this up, it lets me go off on another wild tangent. In short, I want the game to be controlled in a Stalinistic manner, repressing freedom of communication And I'm actually partially serious about this. It's wildly unrealistic, but I believe that it would, in theory, work out for the better. The idea is this: You're not allowed to reveal your in-game ID out of the game's context. If you do, and you're caught, you're deleted. A lot more on this later, you're allowed me to call me a fascist or a communist, whichever you prefer. Again, it only works if the players agree with it. I want to encourage a certain atmosphere in the game, and I think there is a small chance that the players will follow the idea if they see that it actually does make the game more enjoyable.

I'm of the opinion that the player's character in the game should not try to mimic a real person... rather, it should be just a convenient avatar that represents the player's power. Just like in civ, what the player does is move his units and manage resources rather than play a single character. Rather than ruling a faction, the player is the faction. The names and mug shots of the leaders are mostly just eye-candy (and in a MMOG, also necessary handles for the social interaction).

I think that the character SHOULD be a real person, and the location of your character should be of importance. For instance, if go away as the leader of a large campaign, you're not able to keep an eye on things at home, and you'll be dependent on loyal vice-leaders. Or your character can be captured, leading to things like ransom and rescue attempts. Again, I'm thinking RPG as much as I'm thinking strategy.

Briefly on RT, I really don't like it. I can't envision any way of making it work without rewarding players who spend a lot of time online, and I don't want that to be a requirement for doing well. Utopia spawned way too many junkies (no, I'm not joking) with its turn-structure.

Briefly on Charisma as a character stat, good idea. I don't see any reason why characters can't have a bunch of stats, letting him customize his playing style. He can still do whatever he wants to do, he just can't expect to do everything well if he specializes. On the other hand, if he becomes a specialist in a field then he can become the highly prized lieutenant of a mighty ruler, which might very well be more interesting than being a minor ruler.

So much for the quick reply, and now I'm late for class

[Sore Loser]

As for world size expansion, I really don't like the idea. It may be more practical than new planets/galaxies, but it just wouldn't feel right. While I have always argued that playability should take precedence over realism, I would like this game to "feel" real. So you could say what I'm aiming for is a simulation rather than a traditional strategy game.

On the turn structure, I still think two turns a day, changing at set intervals, would work.

[Sore Loser]

This is an attempt to sum up all ideas contained in the game thus far, including input from this thread:

1) Geography

The game has two geographical layers: The galaxy and the individual planets. There could be solar systems as well, but that would just be messy. Each planet has a hex-based spherical map, if possible.

2) Player Characters
Each player controls a family house, and you control a specific character of the house. If the character dies, you retain most of your possessions and get a new character. You can only make decisions where your character is. If you're not in a city you own, you cannot issue orders directly to the city. If you want to direct the movements of a large army then you need to lead it in the field yourself.

Each character has a number of stats: Administration, Leadership, Charisma, Pathfinding, Navigation, etc. I'm not sure how these stats can be increased, but I think it should be related to precious minerals. Each character also has combat stats and may participate directly in battles (willingly or unwillingly). Participating in a battle boosts the morale of your troops greatly, but it puts your character at risk.

There is no set profession system, but players will likely find it most rewarding to concentrate on certain aspects of their character and neglect others. Advancement costs in a specific area are primarily dependent on your stat sum in ALL areas. Meaning that getting another point in an area where you already an expert won't cost significantly more than a point in an area where you're a newbie.

4) City Control

This part is fuzzy as of yet. I want to allow for multiple habitation forms, cities being just one of them, so I'll refer to "cities" as habitation units (HUs) from here on. After all, the urban population concentrations of today are a relatively modern phenomenon.

HUs serve multiple purposes:
- harvesting
- manufacturing goods
- constructing buildings
- population growth
- education of soldiers and other specialists
- scientific progress
- defence bastions
- being centres of commerce, diplomacy, military operations and player interaction in general

Your character's Administration rating determines the number of tiles your HU can span. You can only control one HU at any time.

5) Trade

There are six major groups of commodities:
Food (harvested)
Spice (harvested)
Luxury Goods (manufactured from raw materials)
Arms & Armour (manufactured from raw materials)
Raw Materials (harvested)
Precious Minerals (harvested)
Jewelry (manufactured from precious minerals)

Food, Spice and Luxury Goods are used to maintain the morale and loyalty (Food also affects health) of citizens and soldiers. You get a bigger effect from the same number of items if they're of different kinds. For example, giving your citizens 2 units each of Pepper, 2 units of Cinnamon and 2 units of Salt gives a bigger boost in morale and loyalty than 6 units of either kind. Likewise, giving your citizens both grain, meat and fish gives a better result than just giving them fish.

Arms & Armour are only used for equipping soldiers. Depending on your tech level, you can make different kinds of weapons. Weapons do not follow the diversity principle above. You need swords to equip swordsmen, bows and arrows to equip archers, etc. Things like Siege Engines also belong here, and modern vehicles of war are also included.

Jewelry are used for boosting your character's stats somehow. This creates all sorts of run-ins with the stat system as suggest above, so I'll leave it for later.

Merchants are needed as brokers, as rulers have to stay put if they wish to govern their lands. Because a specialized production is more effective than a diverse one, and a diverse combination of goods is more effective than a specialized one, there should be plenty economic space for merchants to operate in.

6) Player Interaction


(to be finished later)

[Leland]

Originally posted by Sore Loser

Yes, I am trying to cram several games into one, and it's with complete deliberation. One of my all time favourites, Pirates!, did the same thing IMO. You have land-based invasions, fencing, naval duels, political intrigues, commerce and overall strategic decisions. While most of these were simple, they kept me coming back to the game for a LONG time. I have always felt that this "multiple-games" package is a genre that hasn't been explored thoroughly.

Well, like you said, it's apples and oranges. I'm all for having various aspects to the game, even moreso than in civ (or SMAC, which may be a better example of well-balanced game of this sort). However, I was commenting on having sequential historical progress. This is not interesting because the player has no choice to play, say, a hunter-gatherer after a certain point. If Pirates always progressed through one hour of fencing to one hour of naval duels to one hour of politics etc. it would be a horrible game. The very reason why I'm in favour of a world where all levels of technology exist in parallel rather than in sequence is to provide the variation for players to choose what to do; it would be a strategic choice to go for a large low-tech army instead of small high-tech one for example.

In Civ, everybody focuses on the same aspects of the game, the only major distinction between military vs development. In this game, people can pursue any goal they desire instead of just being so many wannabee world conquerors.

A lofty goal, definitely worth aiming for, but I'm also pretty sure that it takes very delicate balancing.

I let the catapults break the game balance, and let the clever players go wild with catapults for a few weeks. Then I make sure that future technological progress tones down the power status of catapults.

This works out just fine, and I have no problem with ad hoc additions like this. My opinion is that this progress is not necessarily a good thing if, as you say:

New tech will generally replace old tech, so my postulate is that unbalanced tech can be remedied with future tech.

Terrible waste! I think that the new techs (i.e. the techs that are added to the game on the fly) should merely enrich the game world and not be part of some pre-planned progression in time. I would allow exceptions in case when poorly balanced or boring techs are replaced with sensible and intriguing ones, but that should be an exception rather than the rule.

While ordinary tech racing games can be great fun for me as well, I've found slower-developing scenarios to be more rewarding. To answer your question, I want both technological progress and monk-raping. I don't feel that it is very enjoyable to rape monks in Civ because the technological progress is so rapid. Every technological advance should be an occasion for celebration, not just another event.

While I concur in principle, I can't bring myself to agreeing on the time scales. Waiting years for something to happen is a bit too much in my opinion, and only a very small portion of the players will enjoy this to make it worthwhile.

I want the game to be controlled in a Stalinistic manner, repressing freedom of communication And I'm actually partially serious about this. It's wildly unrealistic, but I believe that it would, in theory, work out for the better. The idea is this: You're not allowed to reveal your in-game ID out of the game's context. If you do, and you're caught, you're deleted. A lot more on this later, you're allowed me to call me a fascist or a communist, whichever you prefer. Again, it only works if the players agree with it. I want to encourage a certain atmosphere in the game, and I think there is a small chance that the players will follow the idea if they see that it actually does make the game more enjoyable.

I don't see how it makes the game more enjoyable not being able to know your opponents. Those who don't want to have anonymity should certainly be able to have it, but forcing it is entirely another matter. Part of the appeal of a game like this is the fact that you can tie it with outside social circles, for example forming an "Apolyton block" or equivalent and then duke it out with your real or virtual friends. Not to mention that if you really manage to build a thriving empire and make it to the top (even briefly) it's really frustrating not to be able to boast about without taking the risk of getting booted. In short, instead of fascist and communist I prefer to call you simply "insane".

I think that the character SHOULD be a real person, and the location of your character should be of importance. For instance, if go away as the leader of a large campaign, you're not able to keep an eye on things at home, and you'll be dependent on loyal vice-leaders. Or your character can be captured, leading to things like ransom and rescue attempts. Again, I'm thinking RPG as much as I'm thinking strategy.

Fair enough. I understand the feasibility of introducing RPG aspects, but it's just not my cup of tea. I would prefer more abstract strategy. No point argung about it though.

Briefly on RT, I really don't like it. I can't envision any way of making it work without rewarding players who spend a lot of time online, and I don't want that to be a requirement for doing well.

I think RT might be a good way to promote that "many games crammed in one" aspect (the positive variety). You'd still have that slower strategic side, but in addition a more fast paced tactical combat and other things that can be considered sub-games in their own right. You're right that it does tend to reward more active players... but then again, there are a lot of ways to mitigate that, for example by simply having a certain number of movement points which regenerate slowly.

Besides, all games reward players who invest more time in them.

As for world size expansion, I really don't like the idea. It may be more practical than new planets/galaxies, but it just wouldn't feel right. While I have always argued that playability should take precedence over realism, I would like this game to "feel" real. So you could say what I'm aiming for is a simulation rather than a traditional strategy game.

I guess what constitutes as "real" to a person may vary, but to me a discworld is just as real as a globe as long as the focus of the game is not on its shape. On the other hand, I find multiple planets an utterly unrealistic concept.

1) Geography

The game has two geographical layers: The galaxy and the individual planets. There could be solar systems as well, but that would just be messy. Each planet has a hex-based spherical map, if possible.

Hexes on a sphere require a few pentagons here and there, so it would not be entirely uniform, but that's not a big deal. I think the larger issue is whether hexagons or spherical maps actually appeal to people... if you want a large number of players, perhaps going for simple flat square map is the best, because that's easy to visualize and all the angles are 90 degrees.

2) Player Characters

As I said a couple of paragraphs above, role-playing a character doesn't appeal to me. Therefore I don't really have any constructive comments on that portion, but perhaps I can try to summarize how I envision the ideal role of the player.

The player's avatar akin to a ghost in the sense that he's immortal, godlike entity who on the map is just a placeholder for the player's supposed location. This is unrealistic, but it underlines the fact that the game is about the player's faction rather than his character.

The player's stats are not RPGish skills of the leader, but rather represent the resources at his disposal. He has administration, leadership and feudal points, as well as cash, tech level, charisma, and social engineering type of attributes. These points are gained from technology, facilities, specialists and other bonuses at the player's disposal. So for example if you want to boost your admin level, you would invest in hiring bureocrats and, uh, bureau buildings. On the other hand if you want to boost leadership, you'd pour your resources in propaganda and military.

4) City Control
This part is fuzzy as of yet. I want to allow for multiple habitation forms, cities being just one of them, so I'll refer to "cities" as habitation units (HUs) from here on. After all, the urban population concentrations of today are a relatively modern phenomenon.

...

Your character's Administration rating determines the number of tiles your HU can span. You can only control one HU at any time.

First, I think "city" is good enough term for a game, even if some of them are "really" small villages.

Second, I have an altogether different idea regarding cities. I think that the basis should be the pretty much the same as in civ: cities have facilities, workers and specialists, and there's a certain amount of land attached to each city. The difference would be that there are a lot more of it, and not everything in a city belongs to a single player. For example, there can be multiple barracks, marketplaces and banks, each owned by different individuals and boosting primarily their respective factions. There should probably be some synergy between the facilities, for instance having multiple banks might boost the revenue generated by each one. It should also be possible to rent facilities or services, and the mayor of the city should be able to collect taxes from the facility owners (but this has to be limited so that the players of large cities don't automatically become the richest and most powerful caste).

So, the player does not own a city unless elected mayor, and the administration rate really determines as to how many buildings, workers etc. you can control within cities. There could also be some sort of hard-coded democratical process among players by which the mayors get elected, or it could simply be a matter of conquering the city (or subverting the population).

5) Trade

I like your ideas on trade, except for the weird concept of having jewelry boost your characters stats. I would also like it if the economy worked between low-level and high-level players so that the primitive factions did the harvesting of resources and selling them to their lords, and the advanced ones use those resources to manufacture goods and often sell/give some of them back to the peasants and barbarians. For example, a pre-industrial faction has little use for oil, but they sure would like to have some of those horseless carriages of war to smite their enemies with... a natural setting for trade.

[Colonel E]

This is turning into a really great idea. I'd play it.

[Sore Loser]

Cities
Your suggestion about replacing the feudal structure with a more democratic one makes sense. I'd still want to keep the feudal structure as a possibility, but not necessarily the norm. I also like your description of the various functions in a city, that's exactly what I was thinking of. Note that bigger cities will have more functions, meaning more players will be needed to wield those functions. This means that big cities may dominate smaller ones, but only if those big-city players can put aside internal rivalry. Another thing: How is terrain outside the city tile utilized (if at all)? How many tiles can be utilized? Can there be structures on these tiles?

Turn Structure
I acnknowledge the fact that games do (and should) reward players who spend more time, but that should be more time thinking, not more time processing orders. No matter how you turn it, you add a large element of luck to the game by making log-on frequency (beyond once or twice a day, which is a reasonable expectation) be a factor in reaping tactical advantages. Alternatively you could have multiple players running a single account, but I don't like that solution much either. But I admit that the balance between long-term strategy and short-term tactics is better served with more turns per day.

Character Control

This isn't really a major issue with me either. My main concern is that I think that actions like kidnapping, assassinations and civil war at home while you're away on a crusade in the Holy Land could add an interesting dimension to the game. How about letting stats increase in three ways: Artifacts, blessings from the gods and buildings.

On trade, I like the idea of having underdeveloped cities supply more powerful ones with raw materials. I'm not sure how to implement the mechanisms to do that, though...

On democracy, I have another twist. First, all citizens vote according to their loyalty rating. This means that "your" citizens might vote for another player. Next, each player may place the votes gained in this manner on any player. There needs to be a formal structure lending authority to the elected leader, or the rule of power will simply take precedence over democracy. Or rather, this structure may be gradually developed. At first, whoever manages to assemble a coalition (frightening enough that the opposition doesn't dare threaten with civil war) rules by fiat. Later on, scientific advances and institutions makes the voice of the people more important, and democratically elected leaders are more difficult to overthrow. I can't imagine how to make this work, but I think it'd work out great if it works out at all.

[Sore Loser]

I may or may not just have had a stroke of genius: Let's say the turn changes every 15 minutes, but you are restricted in the number of orders you can issue. Not entirely unlike the scrapped idea of IFP in MOO3. This way, players who log on often won't get as much of an advantage as they would otherwise.

The main problem with this is defence. It's not very fair that RL concerns should make you unable to care for your defencive needs. Possibly an officer system can be created, letting a number of players control a common army?

[DarkCloud]

Great idea, I'll read this more thoroughly and comment later, but I just wanted to let you know that I support your idea fully and cmpletely think that you should continue to flesh it out still further!

but, jsut scanning your first post- I think that the roles in society should be more differentiated- in essence- the players could either
A; work like a parlimentary system in a democracy (electing the king, voting on orders)
B: work like the populace in a monarchy (revolting, dissenting and workign against or for the king)

They could also play roles such as communicating amongst themselves as members of a group- each person would be a unit and they would coordinate orders amongst each other while a "city manager" would run cities but not units?

In that way, the game would work like the upcoming MMORPG- SAVAGE... which has a commander and also has independent units doing whatever they want...

[Sore Loser]

Old idea in new clothes: Mentality, aka Ethos from MOO3.

Each "population segment" (unsure as of yet exactly what this includes) has a number of mentality scores. These track all abilities that are inherent to the segment and not dependent on other modifiers (like buildings/science/artifacts/leader abilities). These include:

Government preference (affects the voting process in some way)
Productivity (one score for each field)
Military knowledge (multiple scores. Some may conflict with one another, such as Berserker vs Tactician)
Hatred/Affinity towards other population segments, cultures or leaders (don't know about the exact effect of this)

I get most of my ideas reading historical fiction. I just finished a great trilogy about the dawn of Sweden's unity by Jan Guillou, "The Road To Jerusalem". I really need to figure out how to catch my ideas in mid-air and then present them to others in an understanable, time-efficient manner.

EDIT: Thanks a lot for your support Dark Cloud, it is most appreciated. You touch on key issues that I'm having trouble expressing myself. I want to allow for several ways of government, both player -> population and player -> player government. One could argue that the players don't need a formal system to do that, but I think it helps greatly to encourage the players to take part if there is one. One way of doing this is to have multiple offices and letting each player fill no more than one office at a time. I don't know if the effect of the offices should be a mere bonus or if it should also affect the player's options. Probably both.