Endgame options

[Richard Bruns]

Again, I like this idea. There is one thing that I'd like to point out, however. This plan assumes that the cost of putting stuff in space is constant. It is not. Better technologies will reduce the cost of putting a kilo of stuff in orbit. Improvements in rocket design have already made it less expensive, and newer designs could reduce the cost even more. In addition to this, new technologies could provide much cheaper ways of sending stuff up. For example, a railgun built with current technology might be able to send small satellites or loads into space for as little as a $500 a kilo.

If even more advanced technology became available, the cost could decline even more. It is possible that sending stuff up with this new technology could be cheaper than making it on the moon, so money put into that technology could be more productive than money spent building space or moon habitats.

But this does not have to ruin the plan. It simply means that we would give players a choice: Do they spend the money to undertake the operation now, or they research in the hopes that they will be able to do it more easily and cheaply at a later date?

Even if we don't model energy explicitly, there would be many advantages to being the first one to build the satellite net. The energy can be modeled by a production boost, and the other bonuses could be extra scientific research and military intelligence.

Space wars could be modeled like espionage operations are. You pay a certain amount of money to do something, like destroy a certain satellite. We don't need to model the units; we can simply have resources and technology produce the desired result.

By the way, how were we planning on modeling normal satellites like weather and communications satellites?

[The Diamond]

It's a nice idea for a "technological" ending to Clash. I'm not entirely sure of the discussion before this, though.

No, it's not in the realms of crazy sci-fi...it's also, if you like, the first step of the "next stage". A bit like Civ 2 ending to set up Alpha Centauri, for example. Dominating the Space Network, whether by constructing this power satellite, or possibly by construction at least one HUGE satellite plus a large Space Station, or whatever. That way, extra satellites for energy (small) could be used for production/pollution modifiers and space stations (small) for research modifiers or whatever.

Basically, I like the idea of Clash ending just before uninhabitable planets are terraformed...that would probably be the next stage...bases on the moon, then Mars. Whether or not the Moon Base could end the scenario, or just be a "Wonder" or whatever?

I'll stop there. Too many ideas from me at once.

[Westergaard]

Endgame options

In the The Clash Forum Guestbook I recently submitted an idea covering the endgame, but since it's such a long post and it might scare away other lurkers, I have deleted it over there and created a new thread for it.

It all started with a question about how far into the future the game would continue. I know I'm quoting myself here, but I think other people should know how my idea started. The quote is not important, so skip it if you want.

quote: I asked this question because I'm very interested in space exploration, in particular it's applications back on Earth - micro-g research and solar power satellites for example. One of the books that spurred this interest, is a study by Gerard K. O'Neill (1927-1992), who was a physicist with Princeton University's Institute for Advanced Study. It’s called ”The High Frontier” and basically describes huge solar power satellites as a solution to the world’s energy problems. Solar power satellites had previously been ruled out since they could never hope to compete with other energy sources in terms of cost/efficiency. O’Neill devised a pretty straightforward method of building these solar power satellites – Build them in space, with space materials. This of course required quite a workforce, requiring accommodation and life support, everything tremendously costly. But O’Neill held that once the initial workplace – “island one” – was in place, the process would inevitably speed up due to the already gained beachhead and the construction of solar power satellites would soon have paid all the initial costs. You can read an introduction to the approach in The Space Settlement FAQ While I read about your project it strikes me that these studies would be a perfect basis for a possible Clash end-game. Not only has it got realism – it’s based on real studies. It could also be implemented without forcing the focus of the game away from Earth. I think that this is very important: a “crazy sci-fi” solution shouldn’t be implemented just for its own sake. For example: Don’t go terraform Mars or whatever – keep the focus on civilizations and their problems on Earth, the main theme of Clash. But then again – why not stay on Earth entirely? I think that this would overlook some of the questions of the modern world. One of the biggest problems of modern civilization is energy. Currently more energy equals more pollution. More pollution equals tons of ecological disasters from the ecology model. But since more growth equals more energy, it’s bound to go wrong sometime? This idea provides the player with a choice: Should the player reduce pollution, and consequently reduce growth, or should he invest a sum of money to open up a new frontier thereby providing deliverance to the “old” world? “The High Frontier” I know that this might cross the 2050 limit, but on the other hand it doesn’t break it by introducing any “crazy sci-fi” stuff. At least I don’t think so. It’s all pretty straightforward technology – some even say it could be done today. I don’t say so, but in the not-so-far-future maybe? So what do you say? I would definitely be willing to give a try at making a model that could fit in the current system, without being especially unrealistic.

***********************************


So now I’m going to try to explain the idea, and how to implement it. Mostly to get some opinions on whatever it’s okay or too far out. Warning! – this is a pretty long text

How it could work in the real world
The goal:
Solar power satellites.

The problem:
A solar power satellite is basically a vast array of solar cells several kilometers across. It’s not a problem to construct such a huge structure, since there’s no gravity to exert structural stress. The problem is the mass of the structure. With launch cost’s exceeding $5000/kg, the construction would quickly bankrupt the entire world economy.

The solution?
It’s a fact that the components of solar cells are all abundant on the moon (+20% of lunar soil consists of silicon). I won’t go much into specifics, but it really is fairly simple to extract the needed materials and process them into usable solar cells. It won’t produce ultra high-tech +30% efficiency solar cells, but an efficiency of 10-15% should be both possible and satisfactory.

So we know that solar power satellites can be produced using space materials. But how?

For the mining part a small base on the moon is needed. It wouldn’t have to be manned since it’s quite simple to have a robot wandering around, collecting surface materials. The gathered material is then launched into space using a “mass-driver” which is basically a high-tech catapult*. It won’t have to be very powerful because of the low gravity and the lack of atmosphere on the moon.

Now that the supply of materials is in place, the real problem starts: Who is going to construct these huge structures? How can the required expertise be convinced to spend years in space? This is where the huge spacestations – the space habitats - are introduced.

To maintain health, happiness and constitution of the “population” (a few thousand people) a few basic requirements need to be supplied: gravity, food, energy, and a breathable atmosphere. To provide gravity, the habitat would have to be circular so it could spin around, thus creating an artificial gravity due to the centrifugal power. I know that this sound like a tremendous task, but it is doable using the lunar materials mined from the lunar base. As long as only a few materials have to be lifted form Earth (with a price tag of $5.000 pr kilogram), it’s not impossible – the lack of gravity makes construction as easy as FE inflating a giant donut sized balloon, and then start spraying the lunar soil on it.

I know that all this might sound very technical, but what I’m basically saying is that it is possible as long as you don’t have to haul an entire space-habitat up the gravity-well of Earth. Most of the price of the new international space station is for example launching expenses.

So when does the income start?

What I have just described is basically a chain of production, so now it should of course start to produce. The choices are either to construct solar power satellites, which have been the goal all along or alternatively the space habitat could start producing additional space habitats. Solar power satellites would provide a payback to the investment when selling cheap energy on Earth. The other option, however, has much more profound perspectives. The elegant thing is that another space habitat would cost but a fraction of the first (because the workforce already is in place and the necessary infrastructure available), so the whole process needs only an initial investment to start, and then it would quickly start to expand faster and faster.

Bingo! The solution of the worlds energy problems and a beachhead in space – the final frontier?

-------------------------------------------------------

How would it work in the game?
OK – so now I’ve spent a lot of words describing how it would work in real world – now it’s time to make it work in the world of Clash.

In Clash a space habitat would function as a “square” without a specific location and with some special rules. Like normal squares the habitat consists of a limited number of farm sites. The number of production and service sites is also limited due to the capacity of a space habitat. Another basic difference between ground squares and habitats is the absence of resource and special sites (the reasons should be obvious – space is void). Without resources, the production sites is of course pretty useless, so resources have to be launched into space from Earth. Unfortunately this would cost a tremendous amount of money and production – I loosely calculated it to about 15.000 production units to lift one single resource unit into space**. This means that for every resource unit needed in space, 15.000 units of production had to be committed to its launch. A space habitat needing 5000 units of production would not only cost 5000 resource units, but also 5000 x 15.000 = 75 million production units back on Earth. Of course I have no idea how many “units of production” a space habitat costs, but it should now be clear that the investment involved is huge.

As the introduction revealed, all the resources wouldn’t have to be taken from Earth. The price of lifting materials off the moon is negligible in comparison, especially when the mentioned mass-driver system is in place. So an automated mining system on the moon could reduce the cost of the project drastically. Of course the lunar soil won’t be able to supply the same diversity of materials as the entire world economy. Therefore only part of the production can use resources from the moon. In the beginning when manufacturing capability is little and the lunar materials only come from a single mining station, this could be as low as 50%. As processing technology advances, space infrastructure develops and the number of lunar mining stations increases, the efficiency might rise to almost 100% of the needed resources obtainable from the moon, in effect an independent space society.

The first beachhead might FE only be able to supply oxygen (45% of lunar soil), silicon (28%) and iron (18%) (these numbers are for explanation purposes only – they won’t be used in the game). The rest of the required materials would have to be launched from Earth. As an arbitrary number I assume that 50% of the construction materials comes from the moon. Later, when more mining stations has been build, they’d be able to find deposits of rarer materials from craters and ravines. The materials-processing plants in the space habitat would also be more advanced and therefore able to extract materials in smaller concentrations. Rare materials could now be supplied from the moon too, FE carbon (0,0002%), tin (less than 0,00001%) and hydrogen (to make water – 0,00007%). This will increase the percentage of materials taken from the moon, consequently reducing launches from Earth. Mining efficiency is now FE 90%.

This number should become closer and closer to 100%. It should be dependent on the number of mining stations, the amount of production in space (i.e. how advanced processing plants are) and a technology modifier. A formula could look like this:

E% = ( ( 100 – K1^(- # of mining stations) ) * ( 100 – K2 ^ ( - Production capacity in space) ) * ( Techlevel ) ) / 10000

Where techlevel is a number between 70 and 100, describing the current technological level of the relevant techs. This will result in a percentage nearing 100% without ever making it.

So in short: A nation’s space program should consist of a number of lunar mining stations supplying resource units to the space habitats, which processes them and Earth-resources into more habitats, satellites or mining stations, while providing its workers with all necessary requirements. Space-habitats functions as ground squares without location, resources or specials and with a limited number of sites. The amount of materials shipped from Earth is calculated based on the development of space infrastructure. The rest is just details.

--------------------------------------------------------

An example
A pricelist for the different types of space structures could look like this:

• Small space habitat. 10 sites (Could FE be 1 farm, 6 production and 3 service)– 10.000 inhabitants. Cost: 5000 production units in space. (75 million units on Earth without mining. 40 million units with a mining efficiency of 50%)
• Medium space habitat. 100 sites. – 100.000 inhabitants. Cost: 40.000 production units in space (600 million units on Earth without mining. 60 million units with a mining efficiency of 90%)
• Lunar mining station. Provides resources. More mines provide more resources and increases the mining efficiency (more different materials provided). Cost: 2000 space production units (38 million units on Earth without mining)
• Solar power satellites. Sends energy to Earth. Cost: 10.000 space production units. (190 million production units on Earth without spacebased mining, 19 million with sufficient space infrastructure to provide 90% efficiency)

A typical space program might start by building a mining station and a small space habitat. At the very beginning of construction there’s no production sites available, but it’s assumed that the very first habitat (maybe them all - for simplicity) provides construction sites and life support to the workers during construction. Similarly the mine would be able to extract a few resources, before it was complete (Gets too complicated without these special rules for the first beachhead)

So far the construction has cost 5000 + 2000 = 7000 space production units. The available workers (more about how they got there later) would provide these. 5 heads doing production each making 150 P’s per turn results in 750 P per turn (it’s new technology, later it might rise to 250 P pr head like on Earth). This means that the entire structure would be done in 10 years, which I think, is pretty realistic.

About 50% of the resource units for this production comes from the lunar mining station, but the rest (50% x 7000 = space 3500 production units) is launched from Earth at the high price of 3500 x 15.000 = 52.500.000 production units on Earth. It’s evident that this is quite an undertaking, but keep in mind that this is only the beachhead. Now that the first station is in place and able to process the lunar soil better, thus extracting a wider range of useful materials, the mining efficiency could FE rise to 80%. An additional habitat and mining station would now cost:

7000 (the resources needed in space) x (100% - 80%) (the mining efficiency) x 15.000 (the lift cost multiplier) = 21.000.000 production units on Earth + 1400 resource units.

Which is already much cheaper because of the space infrastructure already in place. The same combo with a full 95% mining efficiency would cost only 5.250.000 production units from Earth. Of course, by the time the mining efficiency hit 95%, there would already be a thriving community of space habitats drifting around, and they would be almost independent from Earth supplies anyway.

But let’s get back to the first example with the small habitat and the lone mining station. We have now planned them both and they’re put in a construction queue (or wherever you give build orders). As mentioned, the first habitat provides production sites, even before it’s constructed. So there’s some sites available in an unspecific location in space – but still no people. I imagine that the movement of people into space is handled in the same way as migration between provinces – space could be thought of as a province. Initially, very few people would want to live in space, because of the harsh conditions. So the player would have to place a bag of money in the “space province”. Think of it as wages. If this bonus is sufficient, people will start migrating towards the sky, and suddenly a workforce exists. As the habitats develop in size and numbers, the quality of life will follow. Units of production and service will be given to the spacefarers and they will become happier with their new homes. Eventually the life-quality might even surpass that of the provinces down on Earth, and people will happily immigrate. However it’s not cheap to lift millions of people into orbit. In fact it’s quite expensive. This means that a part of the wages wouldn’t be given to the colonists but used for launching costs. Think of launching costs as negative bag of money on the space-square. Even if the life-quality of the spacedwellers were higher than the Earthlings’, they’d still be reluctant to emigrate because they’d have to pay launching costs themselves. Of course if the life-quality was way higher it’s a whole different story…

Dictators could of course choose to force people aboard the rockets. But this would follow the same rules as forced migrations, still taking the launching costs in account though.

-------------------------------------------------

Perspectives and problems
I have one huge problem – War. I simply can’t figure out how to model space battles in a plausible way. Either it involves 3D maps and space fighters and the whole lot (which I don’t like) or it becomes too simplified to be called realistic. If anybody has a clever idea please share it. I’m really stuck on this one.

Initially I considered suggesting a “space layer” similar to the one in CtP. But in real world the space habitats would be situated in one of the lagrangian liberation points which is somewhere out in the proximity of the moon, and so a space layer is unrealistic. It’s also requires one #!@$ of a programming job .

Another problem is that this should simulate a way to solve energy problems for your civilization. But since energy isn’t implemented in the game it’s kind of stupid to try to solve it. Don’t solve non-existent problems. Maybe energy should be incorporated in the game? It is a major factor in the modern world. Energy consumption could FE be a function of the population and the amount of production. The value would be heavily modified by tech level – population consumption surges with the advent of the automobile, and production consumption is zero before industrialization begins. Energy should be automatically provided – bought, manufactured, stolen, whatever – “Behind the scenes” but available for the player to dive further into. It would affect the ecosystems depending on the type of energyproduction. Fossil fuels pollute, nuclear energy melts down, wind is exceedingly expensive and hydro/thermal power is only available in certain locations. But that’s a whole different topic.

---------------------------------------------

As I've mentioned in previous posts, the most important thing, when thinking of future development in Clash, is to keep the main focus on Earth. I think that this sketch might do a nice job of keeping attention to the Earth - the link being the solar power satellites, which provides the surface cities with much needed clean, abundant energy. This means that players won't explore space for it's own sake - they'd do it to enhance their nations wealth and to provide a higher quality of life for the billions of people remaing on Earth.

So what do you guys think? Is it too much programming work? And is space too far out or could it be a valuable addition to the game?


Here's the notes for the technically interested - if that's not you. Stop reading.

*)A mass-driver is a long rail of coils with a electrically charged bucket running along. When the coil immediatly in front of the bucket is charged, it'll attract the bucket and it will start to move. When the bucket passes, it'll shut off and the next coil will be charged. This results in a tremendous bucket acceleration with very little waste energy. A mass-driver has been demonstrated in the real world, so it's not a crazy sci-fi term.

**)The cost of launching 1 unit of resource is about 15.000 units of production. This is calculated using steel price of $350/ton, launch cost of $5500/kg. Assuming that the price of 1 resource is worth $100, it would cost:

$0,35 pr kg steel, meaning $100 worth of steel weighs 100/0,35 = 285 kg.

285 kg * $5500/kg launch expenses = $1.500.000 to lift $100 worth of resources

$1.500.000 = 15.000 production units.

lassewestergaard@hotmail.com


[This message has been edited by Westergaard (edited October 09, 2000).]

[alms66]

Westergaard,

Your idea sounds good, but IMO it's more along the lines of what is going on in the Wonders model. This is a "project", and I personally feel we shouldn't use a project as the end game conclusion. It's the team's decision, but that's my personal vote. Even if it isn't the endgame, it would definately make a cool Wonder.

I see the endgame options as something like:

1. Conquer the world---and hold it for x amount of time, probably at least 100 years

2. World peace--- for at least the same amount of time as the above

3. Technological, Religious, Economic (whatever) superiority--- being the best or most prolific at something for x amount of time... again probably 100 years.

[roquijad]

I agree with Toubabo. While building things in space/moon might be interesting for those who like the game to go into the future, I don't see it like an end of game.

I think at the end of the game development we'll include some future techs in the default game and this idea could fit there possibly related to the wonders model, as Toubabo said, in the "projects" category.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Westergaard, glad to have you contributing . And thanks so much for putting your proposal in terms of the standard Clash models!

I agree with TK and Rodrigo that your suggestion feels more like a business-as-usual part of the game than something dramatic to end it by... Realism itself is not strong enough to recommend your proposal as a way to end the game. But perhaps there is some tweak on your 'realism-based' model that Could have the features we need for an ending. But it needs to be much more dramatic than simple energy sufficiency IMO.

BTW, energy will/should play an important part in the clash modern economy. But probably as a Special in the econ model. But rest assured, a country will need a serious supply of energy to be at anywhere near the cutting edge of economic efficiency.

[Westergaard]

Richard Bruns:
You're absolutely right that the launching cost should decrease. I think i thought of that myself somewhere, but I somehow forgot to put it in (at least I should have thought of it ). Thanks for the idea. I also like the idea of making a choice - later and cheaper or sooner but more expensive. Great idea!

Regarding space-combat:
After I submitted the previous (long) post, I thought a long time of the "space-war" problem. I finally concluded that while spacemarines might seem cool, the most realistic would simply be to hit the all satellites with missiles, possibly nukes. Considering how fragile these structures is that would make it very hard to defend in space. The only defense would really be the balance of power - if they kill your satellites - you nuke them.

Don't know now though. After I've read your idea with espionage-like space combat I think that is also very good. Space marines are cool!

Mark_Everson:
You know, I really regret the title of this thread, because by "endgame options" I didn't really mean "how to end the game", but rather "what the last part of the game should be like".

You're certainly right when you say that energy sufficiency is NOT an exciting way to end the game. (Wohoo I acquired energy sufficiency! What now? ).

I admit that I haven't got any brilliant ideas for the end-game (now I mean "how to end the game"). Is a trip to AC too old-fashioned? (at least then it wouldn't be from apolloprogram to interstellar spaceships this time)

Toubabo_Koomi and roquijad:
As you can see from my answer to Mark_Everson, I think that this wouldn't necessarily have to be the ending of the game. And so your endgames options are fine - a path to economic victory could for example be helped enormously by having the upper hand in spacebased energy production.

Toubabo_Koomi again:
A whole other thing regarding your ending proposals:
I see a problem with only having endings like those you proposed. In the case of an economic/scientific victory, it would not be certain to produce a winner. The balance could keep shifting between two even nations. I also think that it's very arbitrary to put a number of years on - it hasn't got the "I-accomplished-something" feel to it. I really think it would ruin the thrill of having two competing nations struggling to get to a goal first.

So what I'm basically saying, is that I do think that one of the endings should be a wonder or project. A single accomplishment for the builders at least. And while I agree with Mark_Everson that energy sufficiency hasn't got the needed drama, space exploration at least opens up to other exciting endings. All the stuff people have been dreaming about - going to mars, terraforming other planets, interstellar travel, proliferating across the entire universe - all these dreams of mankind all go one way - up, up, and out in the open space. And the future dreams of mankind - isn't that something that should be included in the ending?


[This message has been edited by Westergaard (edited October 10, 2000).]

[Richard Bruns]

Going to other planets sounds impressive, but IMO it is horribly overrated and impractical. Investment into undersea colonies and exploration would be far more productive than going into space. The concentration of useful raw materials in the ocean floor is much greater than it is in space, and the transportation costs are much less. It would also be much easier than living in space. They have actually created a couple working undersea scientific colonies, but space is more glamorous so scientifically worthless things like the international space station get billions of dollars while useful and productive ocean research projects get next to nothing.
[/rant]

Anyway, I'll continue to push for undersea colonies in Clash. Building a network of undersea colonies would be a project similar to the construction of the energy satellites, and they would provide similar benefits to the civilization that produced them. The system would be about the same; you make a seed colony that uses the resources of the ocean to make more colonies. Although travel to the bottom of the ocean is much cheaper than space travel, it is still expensive enough to make it uneconomical to bring resources up from the bottom. But processed materials or finished products could be sent up to increase the wealth of the civilization.

So that would be another project for civs to work on near the end of the game.

And I do think that these kind of "Frontier Projects" should have a lot to do with marking the end of the game. Assuring an infinite supply of cheap energy is IMO more important and useful than sending a few thousand colonists to Alpha Centauri. At the very least, these projects should have a big impact on the final score.

I think that the game should end with the civilizations working to turn the dreams of humanity into realities. Colonizing the deep oceans, terraforming Mars, or filling the sky with a network of energy satellites would all be good ways to finish the game and assure glory for your civilization. Perhaps one of them wouldn't end the game, but two out of three should mark your civ as the clear winner.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Well i never liked the endgames, but if we have them, there should the the possibility of many types for many types of players, not all are wanting to take over the world or be the most technological advanced so we should consider that.

[F_Smith]

Just to throw out one more possibility --

I would like to have one game possibility be that a player gains points for doing anything that could be consider note-worthy . . . but doesn't lose points if his civ collapses.

So the winner isn't necessarily the player with the biggest civ at the end.

I am mostly thinking about multiplayer, especially online games.

The idea being that a player's civ/civs will be expected to grow, peak and collapse thru a game. The longer the peak, the greater the achievements, the more points the player accumulates.

So a player can have a 'Rome' that rules the world for a thousand+ years, then never again achieve a great civ (but still keep playing, just building up more points with lesser civs). And still end up winning.

This creates an interesting end-game, because players would see that they're 400 points behind player Z, and building a 'SpaceStation' wonder (just a hypothetical) would gain them 600 points. So the race to build a space station is on. And player Z will either need to stop the space station, or find a way to accumulate more points.

This also leaves open the possibility of a perpetual, never-ending world . . .

[Westergaard]

Richard Bruns
Yes undersea colonies have more raw materials. Yes undersea colonies are easier to access and build. But there is one thing that undersea colonies lack - energy! In space there's millions of gigawatts solar energy ready to collect and use anywhere. Taking the energy crisis on Earth in account, I think that even though space is harsh and uninhabitable it could have a drastic effect on the life back on Earth. And that's why I think space comes before undersea colonization.

Submarine cities could however provide other things than energy. Here I'm thinking of the food and the raw materials, not obtainable from space. In the world of today there's not really need for more food and raw materials - food is actually being actively destroyed to keep up prices. But in the world of Clash you could have a world who had all the energy it wanted, but desperately lacked raw materials or food. In that case I'm convinced that governments would push for an increased exploration of the marine depths, and eventually would start building small mining bases, which might someday evolve into real cities.

So I think it's a great idea: Space if you need energy and the sea if your nation lacks raw materials or food.

--------------------------------------------

However when hearing people talk about space exploration (and, in that case, submarine exploration too) as a wonder, I feel that the entire point of the idea is lost. The future doesn't necessarily belong on the dry lands. It could be in under the seas or in the outer space. And I feel that showing this by building a single wonder is way too simplistic. If I have understood your agenda right, you go for little micromanagement but with option to dive further into a topic if you're interested in micromanagement. And a wonder is just so unsatisfying, to the hordes of spaceentusiasts out there. Of course that shouldn't force the rest of the population to tediously build every single lunar mine or undersea farm - they should just tell their advisor to "increase amount of solar energy collected" or "provide new lands for the growing population". But even though they shouldn't be doing the micromanagement themselves, it should be done. On the face it could look like a wonder - but inside the game should keep track of the exact number of space habitats, lunar mines and other satellites. If it doesn't so many beneficial details are lost - A wonder is so inflexible.

-----------------------------------------------

But all this is just for the last part of the game - not necessarily the ending of the game. For the ending I like F_Smith's method of declaring a winner. If it's not going to end with a project - and I don't think it should (can't think of a plausible one) - this is the best method I've seen yet. And I totally agree with Lord God Jinnai that the last part of the game should see as many different paths as possible "for as many different players as there is"

[Lord God Jinnai]

I still don't like the idea of endgames because I feel rushed in the ends of those games to complete my agendas which i might not have enough time because of the way I handle my civs and other circumstances that arise. True, you can continue afterword, but it doesn't record the information in scoring or anything in those other games which i thought was wrong. If I wanted to go on forever trying to keep expanding my knowledge and get points for it, i should, however, a forumala might haveto be introduced in such a case to see how you compare timelinewise.

[F_Smith]

Lordy:

I'm with you, one of my dreams is a 'perpetual world' that has no 'end'.

That's kinda my idea of one way we can make money off of this, in the end -- running a server with a bunch of online 'perpetual worlds'. People can just jump into one and take over any one of the unused small civs and start accumulating points. Turns run at different intervals -- once a day, 4 turns per night, that kind of thing. And some of the worlds should be hard -- every area should have a major catastrophy once a century, that kind of thing -- so that people will play for the challenge of just making it a few centuries. Perhaps prizes for the highest scores each month. Recognition for the highest scores, most advancements, longest reign, that kind of thing. Perhaps a 'SuperPlayer' kind of designation for the lucky few that make it 6,000 years in one of the harder games?

We focus on building a community.

Then we charge people a small fee to play the harder, 'Pro' worlds. I'd like to keep it low, a dollar a month, something like that. If we could build up to generating ten thousand players a month, we're making some profit.

Ultima Online, here in Austin, has 100,000 users paying $10 a month. The Microsoft Zone has some 10,000 people a day playing Age of Empires/Age of Kings. Battle.net has up to 50,000 people at a time.

It just seems like a workable business model.


[This message has been edited by F_Smith (edited October 11, 2000).]

[roquijad]

I just wanted to say that F_Smith's idea (his first post) is brilliant!

I've been specially worried for a long time about the ups-and-downs of real civs versus the likely opposition players would find in seeing thier empires falling down. If we provide a realistic game with empires rising and falling, chances are players will hate it. But if we determine the winner via F_Smith's idea, then having a modest civ by the end of the game is not such a bad thing and you can live with that. Your goal would not be having a fantastic civ by the end of the game, but to try to have a few peaks during the game for a moderated "decent" time. Achieving that would be the real challenge. How many civs actually did it IRL? too few...

I love that idea!!!

[Richard Bruns]

I had always assumed that the score would accumulate every turn; I think I read somewhere that you all had already planned on doing that. Maybe F_Smith has proposed this before. I think it is definitely a good plan, so historical greatness will impact the score.

Wait, I remember now. Someone proposed that plan on the Civ 3 thread way back when I was just a lurker at Apolyton, and I got things mixed up in my memory.

Anyway, the "winner" that built the projects isn't necessarily the one with the highest score, but that action ends the game and gives a score boost. In civ 2, you could go to AC but not have the highest score. So building the ocean colonies and satellite network wouldn't make you win, but it would give you a score boost and end the game. The winner could still be someone who was a grand civilization in medieval times.

As a practical matter, the game has to end sometime. I think that the ending should involve some contest and not simply an arbitrary cutoff. But we would still have to stop things at a certain date if no one built any of the projects.

The only way to make the world "perpetual" would be to run everything at turn intervals of one year or less for over 6,000 years and set things to have about ten turns per day. Even then, the world ends in a couple years. And since almost all of it takes place in ancient times, players who want to experience the modern ages could get really bored.

The other option is to find a way to let civilizations leave Earth and become galactic empires. In that case, we would need a tech tree that goes thousands of years into the future without getting repetitive or boring.

Or we could institute arbitrary catastrophes that send people back to the stone ages when tech gets to a certain point. That could make things go forever, but it could seem like a cheap trick and annoy players.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited October 12, 2000).]