Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 05 Oct 2010
Offline Last Active Sep 25 2016 10:29 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Automated Space Combat (4X)

25 September 2016 - 10:32 AM


Norman's method should work, it's a little wonky, in that it won't represent any rock / paper / scissor dynamics.  Someone could theoretically find the cheapest ship with the highest combat strength and always auto resolve combat, and they would win out over someone who has a more expensive but more well rounded force. 


 then take it to the next level.


ships have 2 stats: combat strength, and speed/maneuverability.


or the next level:


attack, defense, range, and movement.


but no matter how simple or complex the model, balance will be required to prevent min-maxing from creating a dominant strategy - IE just building the ship with the best strength to cost ratio.    but then you end up with all ships having the same cost/benefit ratio.  Ie all choices become meaningless.   perhaps have stronger ships cost progressively more, as they make it easier to bring a lot of force to bear at a single point - easier than gathering up a whole squadron of smaller ships to do the same job. 


one of the big difficulties is the hands off nature of the game. to make fleet selection meaningful, you need in-depth combat rules. but the combat is hands off, its just the emperor watching the war on closed circuit tv from a surveilance satellite basically. and the emperor is not expected to know the nuances of plasma cannon usage in space combat.  but they are expected to make informed meaningful decision as to what to build.   its hard to add that gameplay feature and keep things high level. 


The trick I intended is that you need/prefer different ships (fleet composition) vs different enemies. So, at the worst case there would be several dominant strategies (each applied on a separate border vs specific alien race).

Also, you can observe the batle and get a lot of detailed information how it works. So, while you can't affect the tactical battle you get tons of information how it works and you can base your decision on this.

In Topic: Automated Space Combat (4X)

25 September 2016 - 10:27 AM

It seems your combat model is WAY to complicated for the level of abstraction you always says you want. Using depleatable ammunition, counter-measures etc. Do you even plan to comvey all this to the player? Will the player control all this in-battle?


If not, I would say skip it and have different ships have different efficiency towards enemy classes (and maybe only three classes: strike, escort, capital).


Such as (vs strike, escort, capital):

Fighter: 4, 2, 1

Bomber: 1, 2, 4

Frigate: 10, 15, 5

Cruiser: 20, 30, 50


or whatever makes sence. Simulation-level battles seems to be way off for the game you are designing.

Yeah... You are right, I want overboard with the whole military thing... Should have kept it simplier. I have redesigned it to something a bit simplier in a recent 0.40 version.

Is there a link to this game?

Yes, in the first post (but it's a easy to overlook).


Here a clickable version :)


In Topic: Slavery, Include Or Not?

29 August 2016 - 10:51 AM

I think you should not look at it from the moral point of view. But from the "what player is going to do/player's morality" point of view.


For example, in case of a game when you run a sugar plantation and you (the player) is personally going to whip your slaves, well, it's kind of outrageous :) But when you have a game like Victoria 1/2 where you have those slaves as an abstract category of population and the player is not catching those slaves and not doing anything bad to them and even have an option to free them, well, it's completelly OK.

In Topic: Very Simple Parser A Bit Similar To Bbcodes

10 August 2016 - 01:36 AM

What language(s) are you working with? There's a few options depending on what tools you have immediately accessible.

C++. Added the proper tag to the post.


You don't need a parser, just a lexical scanner will work, tokenizing the text to a sequence of tokens.


Alternatively, you can use regular expressions, or even look for "[" in the text 'manually', but that seems like more work at first sight.

I see, tokenizer not a parser then :)

Is there a simple and fast tokenizer that suits my needs? Or just should I rather write one?


If the syntax keeps as simple as your example shows then you wont even need a tokenizer just a stated reader something that does

Even if you decide to use a tokenizer/parser just avoid using something like ANTLR because it produces to heavy code. Then you should define your rules by hand it is simpler as you might think even for such syntax schemas as C++


In Topic: How Do You Go About Your Game Design?

25 July 2016 - 07:52 AM

I typically start with mundane technicalities like genre, if it's single player or cooperative, platform, how long the average game session will last, etc. Then I go for a central concept (like "no micromanagement", "you are the Emperor of the Galaxy", "asymmetric gameplay", "historical accuracy of medieval world") and a theme. Then I check if it makes sense market wise and if I can manage it promotion wise (where it will be sold, what the price wil be, what kind of player will play it).


A very important part is the decision what will be NOT in the game (like tactics vs strategy, never both). What will be sacrifaced to make the rest of the gameplay solid. Actually it's far more important than what will be in the game.


Next I try to post about it on some forums. Because I need to persuade people the game will be great I need to write certain things, what I wrote/promised adjusts the game and let me know what's needed to make this game appealing (for example in one game I added "saving princess and slaying dragons" because it sounded cool on the game's description :D). These improved the game.



Oh yes, and the most important thing, I set the deadline :) Without it nothing works :)