Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

raiding and inter-band rivalry in caveman simulator


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
24 replies to this topic

#1 Norman Barrows   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2138

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 02 April 2013 - 02:18 PM

Hi everyone!

 

Time to implement raiding and interband rivalry in my caveman simulator.

 

and i'm not sure what to do.

 

i've done the research and figured out how it really worked, but i'm still not sure what to do.

 

you'd have bands of cavemen, and they'd have good or bad relations with each other.  they could raid each other for supplies, mates, slaves, etc.        but killing would be somewhat rare, for fear of retribution. but on occasion, a band might be wiped out.

 

in the game, the player controls a band, similar to a household in the sims, or a PC and sqauddie NPCs in a shooter. the player can tab between band members at anytime.

 

non-player bands are either friendly or hostile. friendlies only become hostile if you attack. hostiles never become friendly.

 

if you kill all the hostiles at a cave or rock shelter, you clear it out. if you kill or drive away all hostile at a hut, you clear it out, and can take it over or demolish it.

 

taking of prisoners will be implemented. it was at one point already then turned off.

 

hostile raids on player caves, rock shelters, and huts (CRH's) are already modeled. if there's a player band member nearby, it triggers an hostile encounter. if not, there's a chance they take over (cave, rock shelter) or demolish (hut) your shelter, and you lose your stuff, depending on how well your shelter is camouflaged.

 

this is whats in the game so far.

 

i'm thinking one should be able to form alliances with friendly bands, and that hostiles should likewise form alliances, leading to tribes and nation states, and inter-tribal warfare.

 

any ideas?


Edited by Norman Barrows, 02 April 2013 - 02:21 PM.

Norm Barrows

Rockland Software Productions

"Building PC games since 1988"

 

rocklandsoftware.net

 


Sponsor:

#2 moneal2001   Members   -  Reputation: 607

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 02 April 2013 - 08:36 PM

why no way for hostiles to become friendly?  there should also be levels of relations, with giving of gifts(food, shelter, slaves) and performing actions(quests, attacking enemies, attacking allies) to increase the friendliness/hatred of the different bands.  

 

as well as actions that raise your relations with one band while reducing them for another: like raiding a known shelter of one band for the other band to take over.

 

another thing going along the lines of tribes and nations having power struggles between different bands within the tribe/nation with inter tribe rivalries and alliances.

 

each band should have their own motivations, beyond survival.  and give quests based on those motivations.  

 

maybe you encounter a band that's main motivation is expansion and they are more likely to raid others to increase their area.  or even grow hostile the more you expand in their direction.  



#3 Wavinator   Moderators   -  Reputation: 1771

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 02 April 2013 - 09:37 PM

Yeah the first thing that jumped out at me was moneal's question: Why no ability to make enemy tribes friendly? If you need for there to always be some threat it would seem that animals could fill that role nicely. But if I'm playing a game where I'm encouraged not to kill but there are groups I can't even work to ally with I think I'm going to favor killing them just to get them out of the way.

 

Have you thought of inter-clan rivalries being moderated by formalized tribal competitions? It might go well with a non-violent (or at least non-murder) angle. The vibe I get is sort of a Clan of the Cave Bear summer or winter Gathering where tribes could trade goods, test their mettle, duel and even settle grudges, steal wives, etc. It would give you a meta-game goal to reach for as you play I imagine (especially if you could lose tribe members peacefully or gain them). Maybe this level of diplomacy could evolve officially and become something like the Icelandic Althing, where the most powerful leaders would meet to officially settle disputes and dispense justice. I can see this having Civilization / Alpha Centauri gameplay where you try to not only thrive but become influential enough to control the caveman equivalent of the United Nations.


--------------------Just waiting for the mothership...

#4 Orymus3   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 9041

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:50 AM

While the concept appears original, I remember attending a seminar that glossed over a topic that you might feel relevant:

The "caveman theme", although strong and largely unused, it also one of the less appealing as a PLAYER.

The psychological reasoning behind this is that no one really wants to pretend they are an unevolved being (I'm really summarizing this here, but I suggest you have a look around).

A number of games have initially started from caveman-like themes and somewhat stretched out a bit to avoid making this allusion in the end (Dwarf fortress for example is very early human development centric, but it suddenly makes sense when put in the context of dwarves).

 

I'm not saying you should avoid using this theme, as I said earlier, I find it particularly interesting/original, but if I can drop one single bit of advice, I would definitely not play the immersion card here. The fact you get to manage a clan for example distanciate you from this and this is a good point. Perhaps it can help you make further decisions in that trend.



#5 Norman Barrows   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2138

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 April 2013 - 05:43 PM

why no way for hostiles to become friendly?  there should also be levels of relations, with giving of gifts(food, shelter, slaves) and performing actions(quests, attacking enemies, attacking allies) to increase the friendliness/hatred of the different bands.  

 

yes, i'm thinking that simply having good guys and bad guys is too simplistic a model.

 

really there should just be other cavemen, who can range from friendly to hostile. 

 

each band should have their own motivations, beyond survival.  and give quests based on those motivations.  
 
maybe you encounter a band that's main motivation is expansion and they are more likely to raid others to increase their area.  or even grow hostile the more you expand in their direction.  

 

hmm...  thats an interesting one.     thats taking it to another level.   similar to the politics engine which drove campaign generators, which in turn drove mission generators in my star trek flight sim.

 

we've had this whole backstory thing and stringing quests together realistically plaguing the design of the quest gen for the game

http://www.gamedev.net/topic/638940-types-of-quests/

 

motivations might be the missing link.


Norm Barrows

Rockland Software Productions

"Building PC games since 1988"

 

rocklandsoftware.net

 


#6 Norman Barrows   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2138

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 03 April 2013 - 05:52 PM

Have you thought of inter-clan rivalries being moderated by formalized tribal competitions? It might go well with a non-violent (or at least non-murder) angle. The vibe I get is sort of a Clan of the Cave Bear summer or winter Gathering where tribes could trade goods, test their mettle, duel and even settle grudges, steal wives, etc.

 

yes, i've been leaning in this direction. perhaps not on a multi-band scale, but the same idea when two bands gather together.

 

I can see this having Civilization / Alpha Centauri gameplay where you try to not only thrive but become influential enough to control the caveman equivalent of the United Nations.

 

LOL i love that one!

 

your mentioning of the Althing is right on the money. the caveman version would just be on a smaller and more primitive scale.


Norm Barrows

Rockland Software Productions

"Building PC games since 1988"

 

rocklandsoftware.net

 


#7 Norman Barrows   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2138

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 03 April 2013 - 05:57 PM

this topic has actually spread to three related threads.

 

here are the other two...

 

http://www.gamedev.net/topic/641211-rpg-whats-left-once-youre-high-level/

 

http://www.gamedev.net/topic/638940-types-of-quests/


Norm Barrows

Rockland Software Productions

"Building PC games since 1988"

 

rocklandsoftware.net

 


#8 Norman Barrows   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2138

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 03 April 2013 - 06:10 PM

I'm not saying you should avoid using this theme, as I said earlier, I find it particularly interesting/original, but if I can drop one single bit of advice, I would definitely not play the immersion card here. The fact you get to manage a clan for example distanciate you from this and this is a good point. Perhaps it can help you make further decisions in that trend.

 

this is a little different from you typical "caveman" game.

 

this is what it was REALLY like. 

 

you're not a "caveman", you're a fully developed homo sapien, just like you and me.

 

you are the baddest mo fo to ever come down the evolutionary pike, and are destined to rule the planet, exterminating countless other species in the process (50 of which i model).

 

it started as a D&D type game in a paleolithic setting. it has since evolved into a VR paleo-world. this version is pretty much 100% realistic and authentic, all backed up by scientific evidence. over 3 major versions i've spent about 6 years on the game, almost two of which was nothing but research (when was the net invented? and stuff like that). 


Norm Barrows

Rockland Software Productions

"Building PC games since 1988"

 

rocklandsoftware.net

 


#9 TheStumps   Members   -  Reputation: 112

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 April 2013 - 02:19 PM

To somewhat resound the sentiments of the previous posts, this seems rather simple in concept to solve.

Everything that you are at a basic level outlining currently has been exhaustively explored in many simulator games in the past.

 

For my two-cents, I would actually suggest looking at the Total War or Romance of the Three Kingdoms series', as the political war and social war involved was well done and is conceptually sounding close to the atmosphere of tension that you are looking for to create - instead of simply that of civilization which is not intense on every moment of political and warfare progression due to its interest in working a very long "evolutionary" track, rather than a localized period of simulation.

 

Because of that, I suggest these two period simulators which focus primarily on war and political alliances.

 

I also agree with moneal regarding the oddity of not being able to become friends with enemies; that is a rather crucial human behavior of societies.


I used to be Griffin_Kemp, but I lost all account information and decided to go with my more common username: TheStumps.


#10 Norman Barrows   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2138

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:14 PM

Because of that, I suggest these two period simulators which focus primarily on war and political alliances.

 

hmm, the high level game in total war. yes an excellent politics war game. I'm a big fan of the series myself. I'll have to take a closer look at that.

 

 

I also agree with moneal regarding the oddity of not being able to become friends with enemies; that is a rather crucial human behavior of societies.

 

I've already started changing this, which has let to the questions:

 

 

when should a neutral become hostile?
 
when should a hostile become neutral?
 
now instead of friendlies and hostiles,  90% are neutrals (friendlies were already basically neutrals), and 10% are hostiles (bushwhackers). there are also plans to add thieves and  slavers. bushwhackers try to kill you for your stuff. thieves just shake you down. slavers attack to subdue and attempt to capture you.

Norm Barrows

Rockland Software Productions

"Building PC games since 1988"

 

rocklandsoftware.net

 


#11 mippy   Members   -  Reputation: 1002

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 April 2013 - 06:32 AM

  • Religious sites: back in the old days big rocks, ponds and things in nature was considered sacred. Perhaps the tribes could be fighting about these places. If they hold one location they would gain "morale" which would buff positive attributes and nerf negative ones in different combinations.
  • Leaders: if a clan has a "alpha" male this individual could be shaping the tribe in different ways. Perhaps it has hatred against other alphas or a special favourite religious location that is important to him. Fulfill the alphas wishes and get a morale boost.
  • Resource sites: I don't know if there is some economic system in the game, but having different locations with herbs, wild boars and other things could be important to guard and fight about. Perhaps you could also make it possible to "share" a resource with others.
  • Trading and shared pools of resources: Now that they have resources, perhaps they should have some form of trading capability or shared ware-housing? Could be useful to have "hideouts" where you keep resources and then make it possible to raid these. Squirrels have these hidden piles or stashes of nuts. Perhaps that could be an interesting model.
  • Trading rocks: long time ago here in sweden, people were not living very close to each other. Both for food scarsity and to avoid rivalry. To prevent sisters from marrying brothers they had these annual gatherings around large natural formations. On these sites they formed new marriages and traded goods, as well as doing some gossiping and learning. Perhaps you could set up some regular meetings in the game, where people could send a caravan to, with marriable individuals and goods. These could then be "raidable".

Edited by mipmap, 07 April 2013 - 06:32 AM.


#12 Norman Barrows   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2138

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 07 April 2013 - 05:52 PM

Religious sites: back in the old days big rocks, ponds and things in nature was considered sacred. Perhaps the tribes could be fighting about these places. If they hold one location they would gain "morale" which would buff positive attributes and nerf negative ones in different combinations.

 

I like that one. "religion" in the game is nature worship superstition type stuff. there are caveman gods whose effects are similar to those you describe. dovetails nicely.

 

Resource sites: I don't know if there is some economic system in the game, but having different locations with herbs, wild boars and other things could be important to guard and fight about. Perhaps you could also make it possible to "share" a resource with others.

 

resources and depletion and renewal are modeled. depletion is a function of direct player use and number of bands within say, a days journey of the resource location.

 

Could be useful to have "hideouts" where you keep resources and then make it possible to raid these. Squirrels have these hidden piles or stashes of nuts. Perhaps that could be an interesting model.

 

storage pits, stumbling across storage pits, and raiding of storage pits is modeled. 

 

 

Trading rocks: long time ago here in sweden, people were not living very close to each other. Both for food scarsity and to avoid rivalry. To prevent sisters from marrying brothers they had these annual gatherings around large natural formations. On these sites they formed new marriages and traded goods, as well as doing some gossiping and learning. Perhaps you could set up some regular meetings in the game, where people could send a caravan to, with marriable individuals and goods. These could then be "raidable".

 

 

see the "Althang" suggestion in the related thread listed above.

 

raiding the Althang! how uncivilized! and BOLD!  <g>

 

 

 

i've come up with the following motivations or goals for bands:

survival - we just want to get along - sheep  

xenophobic expansion - only room for us, and we want it all - killers

wealth - raiders/thieves

slaves - slavers

domesticated animals - zookeepers

knowledge - learners

subjugation - kings

 

i'm thinking that bands that are close enough to help, but not so close as to compete will be good candidates for allies (for kings, thieves, etc). this works out to bands that are more than one days travel, but less than 3 days travel away., about 30-60 miles away. sheep bands get preyed upon by all the others. i'm thinking 90% of all bands will be sheep. sheep will probably always ally with any other nearby sheep against the other types. there are about 36,000 bands active in the game at any time. now i have to model their interactions in the background while i run a FPS/RPG in the foreground, or approximate the effects on the player of such modeling.

 

36000 factions is a few more than in total war   : P


Norm Barrows

Rockland Software Productions

"Building PC games since 1988"

 

rocklandsoftware.net

 


#13 mippy   Members   -  Reputation: 1002

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2013 - 12:36 AM

  • Trading with humans, inlcuding exchange of slaves and "cave-men". Sometimes exchanging warriors could be a sign of trust and friendship?


#14 Amadeus H   Members   -  Reputation: 1180

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2013 - 04:53 AM

I think the Crusader Kings (2) is a better example to use than Total War for the politics. Perhaps some parts of it can be implemented in a cave man setting. I'd suggest looking into it too!

  • All important persons (in your case: the cave men) have their own personal ambitions and goals (get wealthy, become leader etc.).
  • The counties, duchies and kingdoms (in your case: the tribes) have their own goals (reclaim lost territory, form a kingdom etc.).

Let the backstabbing commence! smile.png



#15 Norman Barrows   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2138

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2013 - 12:10 PM

  • Trading with humans, inlcuding exchange of slaves and "cave-men". Sometimes exchanging warriors could be a sign of trust and friendship?

 

 

"what i got on me" trading with anyone is in there, and trading with bands at their shelters (same idea, more stuff) is planned. also, there are NPCs who specialize in trading and have lots of stuff to trade. they are what's left of "the store" in settlements from the original version. they will probably get watered down, and not carry every object in stock. There are also plans for true realistic trader encounters, with wandering professional traders. even at this early stage before man had settled down in one place year round, there's lots of evidence of early trade spanning surprisingly large distances.

 

another NPC specialty is warrior. you can hire warriors from "friendly" bands. but they are quite expensive.

 

attack to subdue is in. capturing  prisoners in combat was turned off while i dealt with a tactful way you can enslave, kill, rape, and/or eat your prisoners. that design problem has been solved, and it "Looks like caveman is back on the menu, Boys!" so to speak.

 

gift exchange is in there, but troop exchange is not. but its a perfectly valid action. i think that one's going on the todo list.  

 

Just to clarify:  in the game, the cavemen are humans. All PCs and NPCs are species homo sapiens sapiens (IE us).   the closest you get to a "traditional" caveman is Australopithecus, a giant gorilla-like ape. But Australopithecus is an ape, not a hominid (early species of man).  While the time period setting of the game could include the era when homo sapiens sapiens, neanderthals, and denisovans were all present at once, homo sapiens are the only hominid species in the game.

 

I have thought about adding the ability to play earlier hominid species, but it would just limit your skills, intelligence, actions available, and your personal "tech tree".

 

i suppose for thoroughness i ought to add the odd encounter with other hominid species that existed at the same time.


Edited by Norman Barrows, 08 April 2013 - 12:27 PM.

Norm Barrows

Rockland Software Productions

"Building PC games since 1988"

 

rocklandsoftware.net

 


#16 Norman Barrows   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2138

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2013 - 12:46 PM

All important persons (in your case: the cave men) have their own personal ambitions and goals (get wealthy, become leader etc.).
The counties, duchies and kingdoms (in your case: the tribes) have their own goals (reclaim lost territory, form a kingdom etc.).
Let the backstabbing commence!

 

sounds like a good approach. both leader goals, and faction goals.

 

the difficult thing about modeling "politics" in this case, is the large number of factions and their small size.

 

this is before there were real "tribes". in real life, a band was 10 to 30 individuals, usually a group of extended families. the biggest bands never topped 100 people.

 

in the game, bands are capped at 10 individuals, as the player controls a band of their own, like squaddies in a shooter that you can tab between at any time. 10 seemed like more than enough for one player to handle at once. and having bigger bands doesn't get you much, a higher chance that someone will have the item or skill you want, thats about it.

 

while the size of bands is capped at 10, the frequency of bands and random caveman encounters still reflects an accurate estimate of population density at the time. also, the game models migration, so bands come and go.

 

the result is, no "country" has more than 10 guys, a "country" only lasts for about 3 months before they pack up and head for greener pastures, and there are about 36,000 "countries" in the game at any given time.

 

so traditional faction/politics stuff doesn't just drop right in and work correctly.   its more like 36,000 households out on the frontier with no formal government, than it is 36,000  factions vying for power. then again, maybe that's the same thing, just on a smaller scale.


Edited by Norman Barrows, 08 April 2013 - 12:50 PM.

Norm Barrows

Rockland Software Productions

"Building PC games since 1988"

 

rocklandsoftware.net

 


#17 TheStumps   Members   -  Reputation: 112

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2013 - 09:09 PM

I also agree with moneal regarding the oddity of not being able to become friends with enemies; that is a rather crucial human behavior of societies.

 

I've already started changing this, which has let to the questions:

 

 

when should a neutral become hostile?
 
when should a hostile become neutral?
 
now instead of friendlies and hostiles,  90% are neutrals (friendlies were already basically neutrals), and 10% are hostiles (bushwhackers). there are also plans to add thieves and  slavers. bushwhackers try to kill you for your stuff. thieves just shake you down. slavers attack to subdue and attempt to capture you.

 

Perhaps model it on venn diagrams rather than raw individual percentages.

Let's say the static value is broken into 0-25 = enemy (category 5/1), 26-45=unfavorable/distrust (category 4/2), 46-65=neutral (category 3/3), 66-85=favorable/trusting (category 2/4), 86-100=friend/ally (category 1/5)

 

But then let's say that you are 75 with group A, but group A is 86 with group B, and you are 25 with group B.

So the balance of your relationship with group A would be the crossing point between B and A to you...perhaps that formula would be something like group A rating less (group B rating to group A), so perhaps some interplay can occur here where say, if you use group A to talk to group B, group A's rating on your behalf is 36 (difference between you to group A and you to group B, less Group A's rating to Group B), and perhaps this inversely could impact your relation to group A at times...

 

Focus on the first number of each category for a moment e.g. category 1/5, only think of this as "category 1", for the moment.

say the standard rate is 1 point per friend point when they are category 1 range and 5 points per friend point if they are category 5 (0-25) range to you.

But in this environment, it could get more complicated...the rate of friend point gain on that 75 that you have with A is dependent somewhat on your relation to group B...meaning, it costs more; so, perhaps half of the your relationship aggregate of friends of group A (in this example, that's just one other entity, group B) is added to the cost to group A gain in friendship for you.

So, A, in this example, would normally cost you 2 points per point of friendship, but due to group B in category 5, the cost rate is 4.5 per friendship point gain for group A for you.

 

Now, flip to focusing on the second number in category 1/5, so that we are looking at "category 5".

Equally, it works in your favor in friendship point earning to group B, so if there is a favorable friend to you that is a friend to an enemy of you, then cost is lessened by the difference in sort of reverse at half the category rating of the difference of group A's friend rating to B less your rating to group B.

So Group A's friend rating to group B is 86, and your friend rating to B is 25, so the final rating is 61, and 61 is category 3/3 (neutral).

Half of 3 is 1.5, so now we take the cost for group B and less it by 1.5 in your favor due to your friendship of their friend.

So the cost per friendship point to group B would normally be 5 points, but with the aid, that becomes 3.5.

 

So a friend weighs a bit in your favor to making a friend of an enemy, but an enemy of yours that is a friend of one of your friends weighs even more.

So...this encourages to "play nice", or rather...be political as hell and get those hands greased up, or you can just pay the extra for those whom you do like and continue to tell their friends to piss off.

 

 

 

This is only a conceptual model to express the idea; and is entirely capable of being scaled to whatever fits best, and can be compounded by many factors beyond these simple starting variables.


I used to be Griffin_Kemp, but I lost all account information and decided to go with my more common username: TheStumps.


#18 powerneg   Members   -  Reputation: 1463

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 14 April 2013 - 03:59 PM

i see you talking about this game a lot here, (which is good,) but maybe you could make one thread just to describe how it is working right now and link to it whenever you create another thread/question ? a lot of the answer depends on how the game should *feel/be* like. for example, diplomacy can make the game (feel) too easy, some kind of need for tribute for alliances would solve this(or just plainly putting a cap on the # of alliances you can have, though this gives less choice for a player)

#19 powerneg   Members   -  Reputation: 1463

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 14 April 2013 - 04:45 PM

oh i just remember, realism was main in your game.
so in this case i would add friendships to the cavemen, and they'd need to interact every now and then with their friends to keep the friendship going and with sufficient "friendlyness" between tribes those tribes could ally.
(this would also allow to temporarily have more friendships/allies as you put more effort in them at some time, because you need to coöperate against a stronger tribe or something, pretty much making the player a politician xD )



#20 Norman Barrows   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2138

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 15 April 2013 - 01:12 PM

i see you talking about this game a lot here, (which is good,) but maybe you could make one thread just to describe how it is working right now and link to it whenever you create another thread/question ? a lot of the answer depends on how the game should *feel/be* like.

 

good point.

 

i should probably post a description in my journal.


Norm Barrows

Rockland Software Productions

"Building PC games since 1988"

 

rocklandsoftware.net

 





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS