HFOG to replace IFP idea

[player1]

Simply, the more orders you issuse in turn (or group of turns) the less succesfull are orders done.

More orders, more power in on person, more disagreements, more corruption, more waste.

Less orders more efficiency.

More global istead of local orders -> more efficiancy.

This could work?

[Mongoose]

HFOG is an acronym for what?

[Joe R. Golowka]

HFOG = Heavy Foot of Government It's kinda like corruption in Civ3.

[player1]

You know, I have heard some rumor on Delphi forums that designers are trying to replace IFP (sine they are gone) with HFOG. I assume that it'll someting similar to what I said.

[Spaced Cowboy]

A stategy game where orders do not get carried out.
I hope they figure out a way to let you know the success level of your order when you issue it.
HFOG would seem to be worse than IFP. I do not like not being in control of my empire.

RPM

[player1]

Originally posted by RPMisCOOL
A stategy game where orders do not get carried out.
I hope they figure out a way to let you know the success level of your order when you issue it.
HFOG would seem to be worse than IFP. I do not like not being in control of my empire.

RPM

I didn't ment not carried out.

Just done less effectively.

Like some production penality or something similar.
(only if you give dozens of orders every turn, this should apply)

To make excessive micomanagment not an option.
At least not a good option.

Modarate micomanagment and macomanagment should be key.

[mactbone]

Read the Hound-be-Gone thread and you will see that I predicted this.

It was inevitable that once they mentioned that they just wanted to give incentives not to use total micromanagement that they would employ a similar scheme to Civ3s corruption. The bigger you are (i.e. more powerful) the more of a problem it is = the more you micromanage (i.e. the easiest way to get powerful) the more of a problem it is.

*sigh*

What happened to innovation?

[player1]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Read the Hound-be-Gone thread and you will see that I predicted this.

It was inevitable that once they mentioned that they just wanted to give incentives not to use total micromanagement that they would employ a similar scheme to Civ3s corruption. The bigger you are (i.e. more powerful) the more of a problem it is = the more you micromanage (i.e. the easiest way to get powerful) the more of a problem it is.

*sigh*

What happened to innovation?

It's not realy the same.

In Civ3 the bigger empire is the bigger corruption is.

But, in MOO3, it more look like.

The more EMPEROR micromanages, the more unefficient economy is.

Like in all Totalitarian regiemes.


Of course, if your empire get big, it would probably be better to use macromanagment insted of micromanagment.

No one would force you too micomange.

In fact it looks like that super micromanagment would be an bad startegy.


In Civ3 there is no option.
I would like in Civ3 to have option: Lower corruption for 50% but let advisor do the things.


P.S.
Of course this all is a little speculation.

[Bleyn]

Originally posted by RPMisCOOL
A stategy game where orders do not get carried out.
I hope they figure out a way to let you know the success level of your order when you issue it.
HFOG would seem to be worse than IFP. I do not like not being in control of my empire.

RPM

Well,as I recall, at one point in the design process for MoO3, there were plans that certain settings related to your empire could drift on their own.

The settings were for stuff related to your secret police, and how heavily they would be involved in various parts of your society. At one point one of the designers(I can't remember who) indicated that if in the situation that you decide you don't like where one of those settings is at, and adjust it, you would have to keep an eye on it because over time it could drift back to where it had been before. This was supposed to represent the inertia that such an organization would have and its resistance to changes, especially those that reduce the power of the organization.

Not quite a situation where orders aren't carried out, but it would be cool. Unfortunantly there is no way to know if it is going to make the final cut.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Player1,

Explain less effectively: Do you mean that if I order a fleet to move to sector 7 that it will take longer to do so? Meaning the reinforcements that I needed there won't be arriving when they were expected?

I also will admit that micromanagement drives me nuts as well. I hated having to build the same buildings on all of my planets in MOO2. Although I like having control of my planetary production and development, I'm more of a "Let's build some ships and get nasty" kind of guy.

MacTBone,

I hope this is not the plan, corruption is one thing that ruined Civ3 for me. Let us hope that it is done a little better here. I agree that a bigger empire is harder to run, but Civ3 way overdid it.

Player1,

Sorry going through the posts one at a time!
What do you mean by macromanaging? Do we have AI advisors that do thing for us (better than we could ourselves..ha! )? I've never seen a TBS that had advisors that did what I wanted them to do.

Bleyn,

I wouldn't mind the drift thing. That is realistic.

RPM

[player1]

Originally posted by RPMisCOOL
Player1,

Explain less effectively: Do you mean that if I order a fleet to move to sector 7 that it will take longer to do so? Meaning the reinforcements that I needed there won't be arriving when they were expected?

Not quite sure how'll QS teams use this for fleet moving.
But for production, game will reward (with some sort of bonuses) those who don't make too much micromanagement orders.
(and let AI controlled govenors to do their job)

Player1,
Sorry going through the posts one at a time!
What do you mean by macromanaging? Do we have AI advisors that do thing for us (better than we could ourselves..ha! )? I've never seen a TBS that had advisors that did what I wanted them to do.

Things like big one big fleet in that sector, or build scools in all undevepoed systems.
These kind of orders.

For more information check MOO3 delphi forums.
There you'll probably find more info.

[optimus2861]

So how does this "inefficiency" due to high-level interference get quantified? If I issue 10 orders on one turn and they all get followed, then 10 orders the next turn and only 8 get followed, the game had better well give me a reason, i.e. "Each order past the Xth increases by Y% the chance that your local commanders will resent the interference and disobey you." Even that, I think, adds a bit too much randomness to it. At least the IFP concept had a hard limit: after X micromanagement orders, you simply couldn't do any more, representing the fact that, at the core of the game was the notion, "You can't do everything". Now the game seems to want to say, "You can try to do everything, it just may not get done."

Without the hard limit, I think you've got a lot harder concept to play-balance, and to explain to new users.

[Xentropy]

I think you misunderstood, optimus. It's not that an order won't get done. It's that your meddling will throw a small wrench in the works and cause what you want to get done to get done more slowly than it would've been done had you not given the order.

For example, planet X just started building a light scout, and will complete it in 3 turns. It plans on next building a research lab, which will take 4 turns.

You decide you don't want that scout, and tell them to remove it from their build queue. Go straight to the research lab. They don't ignore your order, but it takes time for the change of plans to iterate through the ranks, schedules have to be changed, suppliers of the resources needed to build that research lab suddenly and unexpectedly have their deadlines moved up, etc. Therefore, now the build queue has the research lab first; they are in fact building it NOW as you asked. But it will take 5 turns to build, not 4.

It's still done two turns early, but you lose one turn to inefficiency. Making more sense now?

I, too, lament the loss of IFP's, but after the initial shock and dismay, I've decided to wait until I see exactly what will "replace" them before I completely dismiss MOO3 as managementware*.

Xentropy

*Managementware -- That most horrible of game releases--all too common these days, I'm afraid--which has every chance of being successful until the deadline draws near and management shoves their hands into its chest and pulls out the heart of the design, leaving all the pretty features on the outside for marketing to remain successful at duping the public.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Xentropy
It's still done two turns early, but you lose one turn to inefficiency. Making more sense now?

Now I get it!

It'll be more of a "bureaucratic inertia" effect, then. Hrm.. still, wouldn't there have to be some sort of additive/multiplicative effect on how many direct orders you issue, to keep players from abusing this? After all, in your example, the research lab still gets done two turns earlier than it would have if you'd left well enough alone. Hrm again.. some sort of macro/micro tradeoff, maybe - doing too much micro means that your overall strategic goals start to "blur" as you neglect your more important duties..

Jeez, just release the game already, I wanna try it . (No, no, remember Civ3! Take the time and get it right!) Argh! Help me out here, I'm conflicted...

[Spaced Cowboy]

Player1,

Sorry to bother, but where are the delphi forums?

optimus,

Please edit your post. Shhhh! We can wait forever, remember!

RPM