Strategy Players / Designers - Beware the "False Artifice"

[Bolt01]

This thread is directed at those looking for real strategy or simulation games. If you like RoN the way it is, don't read this.

Anytime a game has what I call a "false artifice", you can be sure that something less than true strategy was implemented in the game design.

A false artifice is an artificial, arbitrary restriction on a game class that bears little if any relation to realism. An example of a false artifice in RoN is the "Pop Limit", which maxes out at around 250 units per side. There are many other false artifices in RoN as well, this is just the most obvious one.

I'm going to focus on the pop limit in this discussion, but this could be equally extended to other false artifices in this game, or other games.

The pop limit was most likely put into the game due to technical constraints. People who mod the rules xml to increase the limits note massive graphics slowdowns.

The amount of population a civilization can support is limited by, among other things, the amount of food it can deliver. Since there are no "maintenance costs" of any kind in RoN, there had to be a way to limit the number of units created from a strategy point of view. That this was also necessary from a technical point of view was all to the good from a marketing and business standpoint. None of this has anything to do with realism, or strategy however. Hence, for a strategy gamer, one must be wary of such false artificies as indicative of design that is focussed more on gameplay than realism. For some strategy gamers, too many false artifices destroys the value of the game even if it is emminently playable.

I believe a better design solution would have been to incorporate maintenance costs for all units that took a certain amount of food per processing cycle. Thus, if a player wanted to sacrifice expansion for the maintenance of a huge army, he could do that. Maintenance costs would have resulted in a "constraint of realism", rather than some false, arbitrary number -- and for the class of gamers I'm addressing here would have made it a better game.

If this idea were combined with much more costly tech increases (or a toggle for same) that made each epoch last a couple of hours (instead of a couple of minutes), strategy gamers would be able to explore the full depth of tactics in each epoch balanced by their own economic and military choices -- all free of artificial constraints.

[Inverse Icarus]

and could only play on a p4 2ghz with 4 gigs of ram.

the pop limit is more for memory constraints than anything else, and you can mod the cost / time of tech research in the xml files, so each age lasts DAYS if you want.

[Sarxis]

False artifices are fine. Its the false ORIFICE you must be wary of.

The virtual limit of 250 is still quite a bit. And though it does artificially force an aspect of the game that could have been more realistically dealt with, this is a game, and gameplay- as well as hardware and software constraints- is a factor.

[Bolt01]

Why not design the game so that it doesn't suck up a huge amount of processing resources for each unit? This would enable a more realistic ruleset which incorporated maintenance costs in game objects.

I'm frankly tired of paying for better and better graphics in each new real life tech cycle, while the simulative quality and realism of games, generally, continues to decline.

I'm fully aware of modding, and have already experimented with modding the rule set in RoN, so that the nuances of each epoch can be fully explored. But, the game designer chose to make a game that can cover 6000 years of history in 1 hour (like the marketing twinkies told him to). In this scope, an event such as WW2 would last about 3 seconds.

There's no question that the pop limit is a matter of technical constraints due to the graphics overload on the processor. That's exactly what I wanted to call attention to. Its not strategy.

[Rust]

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba
False artifices are fine. Its the false ORIFICE you must be wary of.

The virtual limit of 250 is still quite a bit. And though it does artificially force an aspect of the game that could have been more realistically dealt with, this is a game, and gameplay- as well as hardware and software constraints- is a factor.

[Leaper]

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba
False artifices are fine. Its the false ORIFICE you must be wary of.

Absolutely Classic !!!!

----

But, on a more serious note, I didn't listen to what the original poster said. I love the game the way it is, but I read on anway.

Bolt, since I believe I understand what you're trying to say; you make a valid point.

But you have to admit, that above response to your post was classic.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Bolt01
Why not design the game so that it doesn't suck up a huge amount of processing resources for each unit? This would enable a more realistic ruleset which incorporated maintenance costs in game objects.

yes it would, but until you come up with a system for representing the units in such a fashion, you have no right to b1tch about it.

8 nations. 250 units each. 2000 units on the map. and thats not even counting wonders, civ traits, resources. even the simple x,y,z coordinate system is getting a bit heavy now, and that doesnt even take into account the other data that needs to be stored.

I'm frankly tired of paying for better and better graphics in each new real life tech cycle, while the simulative quality and realism of games, generally, continues to decline.

if you want to go back to the graphics of the original c&c, alright, thats your call.

but how can you say that the "while the simulative quality and realism of games, generally, continues to decline"? you're saying this game is LESS STRATEGIC, LESS REALISTIC than it's predecessors? now you're not making ANY sense.

I'm fully aware of modding, and have already experimented with modding the rule set in RoN, so that the nuances of each epoch can be fully explored. But, the game designer chose to make a game that can cover 6000 years of history in 1 hour (like the marketing twinkies told him to). In this scope, an event such as WW2 would last about 3 seconds.

funny how you started with my original thought and then completely ignored it. you can mod the game AS SLOW AS YOU WANT, it doesnt matter how they coded it, you can change it.

[Bolt01]

Originally posted by UberKruX


yes it would, but until you come up with a system for representing the units in such a fashion, you have no right to b1tch about it.

8 nations. 250 units each. 2000 units on the map. and thats not even counting wonders, civ traits, resources. even the simple x,y,z coordinate system is getting a bit heavy now, and that doesnt even take into account the other data that needs to be stored.

but how can you say that the "while the simulative quality and realism of games, generally, continues to decline"? you're saying this game is LESS STRATEGIC, LESS REALISTIC than it's predecessors? now you're not making ANY sense.

I don't have to come up with a system, plenty of other games like Empire Earth use a less involved 2D graphics system that permits 5000 units. Moreover, the RTW game will allow for a RTS system with over 16,000 units in full 3d (release spring 2004). In my opinion the pop limit and slow processing if you mod above it is the result of overzealous 3d artists. Every bit of color in the 3d textures needs to be measured against the processing hit. If the graphics processing hit starts forcing design parameters like a pop limit, then the graphics need to be toned down.

I don't want to pay for a game I have to mod to overcome a fraction of the design holes that remove the strategic and tactical realism.

I've been playing computer games since 1990. I've seen a general decline in simulation quality in favor of graphical detail. Plenty of other games had richer and more realistic detail. I haven't seen much progress in this area at all, and for example this game, RoN, has less strategic realism than Empire Earth (later versions), and its obvious that the marketing team was in charge of the design ("6000 years of history during lunch" etc.). They are trying to cash in on the no brainer game console RTS crowd that doesn't have have the education or inclination to concern itself with things like realism, though they have plenty of time to occupy with gaming.

For my money, I'll take Uncommon Valor or War In The Pacific. Or, even, the free version of War In Russia. RoN has about as much "realism" as chess.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Bolt01
RoN has about as much "realism" as chess.

.000000000000000000001/10

[Buckets]

Sounds like what you want is a simulation game. I don't think RON ever purported to be anything less abstract than other rts. Don't confuse the kiddies, realism not = strategy.

[Bolt01]

Also the whole Cossacks / American Conquest series has much more elegant tactical battles, great tech trees and expansion, and supports something like 8000 3d units per side.

[MxM]

Am I along in it? But I actually do want to have population cap! I do not want to see more then 200 units at the screen at the same time! Because it will be huge mess in sense of a) controlling them, b) visually distinguishing them

Even in RON, the end game battle is more like a spectacular mess, where I can not effectively command the units, unless I pause the game.

I agree that from the simulation point of view you need to make different rules, like having support cost, but from game design point of view and play fun point of view, I think capping works better, because it is simpler. And I hate to break it to you, but RON is not a simulation, it is GAME! If you have a suggestion of how to improve the gameplay, let’s discuss it, if you have a suggestion of how to make a warfare simulation, we can discuss it as well, but it has little to do with RON.

On the final note, if you would like to think, that RON is simulation that accurately represents the earth population increase, then you can think that each unit represents many, the amount of which depends on the game time past (or on the amount of resources produced).

[FrostyBoy]

Bolt, in a way I agree with you but in another I disagree. They made the game to the best of their ability - that I believe and can see.

But they didn't leave us hanging, they basically said, "we know some of you won't be happy, so here, take these xml files and tga files and change it to your liking - what's the difference between me (bhg) doing it, and you doing it? nothing really!"



Anyway, I'm not all for this rush everything and get it all over and done with in a few minutes with a massive war. But I am for a week long game, with many changes and conflicts and challenges.

Which is why I am going to make a civ-like RoN, I JUST posted a thread with screenshots so that you can see.

(I haven't tested it yet, but the shrinking of units and buildings may increase the Frame rate enough to have more units than usual - dunno yet..)

Here's the thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=86731

[doolally]

-if you're worried about the er, False Artifice [apparently invented by the Department of Redundancy Redundancy] perhaps you'd like to give Medieval: Total War a shot in your dark? described by one wag as a game 'so deep it will push all other knowledge out of your brain' AND 10,000 troops on screen at once.

-it's great fun! not better than RoN just...different, offering a more deliberate and involved gameplay experience.

[Rust]

Originally posted by MxM
Am I along in it? But I actually do want to have population cap! I do not want to see more then 200 units at the screen at the same time! Because it will be huge mess in sense of a) controlling them, b) visually distinguishing them

No you are not alone, I totally prefer the tactical feel to low pop games. I like each unit to have more worth. Generally I play AOK on 75 pop.