Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
ops

'historical' strategic 'simulations'

This topic is 4812 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

ops wonders. before radio and telegraph, and evn later on bureaucratic grounds, decisions by central authorities were always made on the basis of out of date or incorrect information. assuming that modeling this is a priority how can this be simulated in todays reality where every playr hasa cellphone. as a general solution ops proposes. that every player emperor must be represented upon the game map and subject to extreme sanction. every asset hasan 'allegiance' or 'loyalty' rating. the greater the 'distance' between any given asset nd it's ownrs 'location' the lower that assets loyalty. playrz are givn various means to encourage assets to 'defect' to the winning side. comments/suggestions invited/plz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
This is a good idea. Here's my prediction:

You will get a bunch of replies here, ranging from "This is a good idea" to six-page dissertations on the nuts and bolts of a system similar to, but not quite like, what you have in mind. Here's my advice:

Get a big notebook, sit someplace quiet, and work on this. Decide what "extreme sanction" means. Is this civ with fog of war? Is it a third-person adventure taking place largely in your throne room and audience chamber? Will it focus on economics, battle or espionage? Single player? Multiplayer? MMO?

Work out the details, and come here occasionally with little things. This thread will provide seriously diminishing returns as the posters are all caught up in the potential of your idea, and expand on it in a thousand different directions. You should have seen the monster post I deleted before typing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
thank you iron. we apologise for the loose language.

this idea comes in the context of a multiplayer 'near' future 'hard' sci fi 4X turn based strategic design where there is no instantaneous 'sub space' interstellar comms.

we are still highly inclined to be eXtreme nd programmatically time lag the playr interfaces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whooops nd ohhh dear. the immediately previous post was actually authord by ops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In addition to what ICC suggests, I'd like to recommend previous Civilization games and the discussions around unit bribery. If you do what you're proposing, you'll need to overcome player resentment at losing a battle not because he was strategically stupid, but because he wasn't rich enough. To get over this, you'll probably want to tone down victory by strategy, and emphasize victory by politics, treachery and economics (which is something I've never seen, could be kinda cool!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I understand what you're getting at, that distance from the center of control can influence the loyalties of different factions, you may come across a scenario where both sides are locked in continuous struggle at a border equidistant to both centers of the opposing forces. As you push further towards the heart of your enemy, his defenses become stronger and your offense becomes weaker, and vice versa. Basically, you've got an arm-wrestling match where the opponents have all the strength to keep their side from falling, but not topple the other.

What can ensure victory in this system? Is it the first player who physically moves himself towards his enemy? Or the first to get a lucky push?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thank you wavinator, hi praise indeed.

ops has specified their units functionally. as example, ops has defined a 'political' asset. this unit models an infrastructure nd skills devoted to acquiring political power. by electing, bribing or meriting themselvs into the positions of political power inna target asset that target can be induced to defect to the aggressor.

thus there are many strategies that gain control of assets more effectively than the crude military intimidation of exemplary destruction.

ops would hope that this multiplicity of offensive and defensive powerz will in some sense alleviate the problems pointd out by NecroSen.

for instance the loyalty of crucial military or industrial units could be boosted by the effect of local political assets.

p.s. this "Fleet0ps" design isa sci fi theme. perhaps a new topic ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Quote:
Original post by ops
ops wonders.

before radio and telegraph, and evn later on bureaucratic grounds, decisions by central authorities were always made on the basis of out of date or incorrect information. assuming that modeling this is a priority how can this be simulated in todays reality where every playr hasa cellphone.

as a general solution ops proposes.

that every player emperor must be represented upon the game map and subject to extreme sanction. every asset hasan 'allegiance' or 'loyalty' rating. the greater the 'distance' between any given asset nd it's ownrs 'location' the lower that assets loyalty.

playrz are givn various means to encourage assets to 'defect' to the winning side.

comments/suggestions invited/plz




Players likewise should be given means to coerce their territories to stay 'loyal' (limited resources that have to be 'strategicly' applied)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!