If you are going the 'sometimes on AI' route, you may want to have 'policy' instructions for all your units so as to match the current phase or situation in the game (and then with specific overriding orders issued to individual units or groups of units for specific local situations).
That might help a bit with the AI having to make crude decisions.
-------------------------------
The limited comm speed mechanism adds additional complexity especially if situations rapidly develop and they often are 'over' before any orders can arrive. The info of the situation itself coming to the command center would be slowed down as well. In such a 4X game things would then have to happen at a slower place to give the player enough time to react or most things will simply be on automatic AI.
Another thing is that with a delay specific to the info just received and reacting to it, in the mean time it may have changed again possibly causing orders gettin there that no longer make sense or are detrimental in the new situation.
4X game: Communication ranges
If you're looking for help, maybe take a look at how other 4x style games do this type of concept.
If it were me, I'd look at possibly how Hearts of Iron III does "command and control". Basically, the larger the group (or fleet in your case) the higher up the hierarchy command and control centre is needed. So in HoI3 for an Army Group you need a Field Marshal as the HQ, for a division you need a Colonial or Major, and for a Corp you need a Captain.
Basically, to keep it "familiar" to the players you need to see what existing protocols are established and either replicate that, or change it slightly for your game.
So for your game, I would keep the comms distance, but then to allow the player to bypass that require higher levels of commanding officer on the fleet to maintain command and control over the fleet. For instance you may have a Fleet Admiral allow you to retain comms with a fleet of say 5 capital ships and a range of escort ships. If the player only has a lesser commander available, then the fleet must be smaller to retain comms with.
If it were me, I'd look at possibly how Hearts of Iron III does "command and control". Basically, the larger the group (or fleet in your case) the higher up the hierarchy command and control centre is needed. So in HoI3 for an Army Group you need a Field Marshal as the HQ, for a division you need a Colonial or Major, and for a Corp you need a Captain.
Basically, to keep it "familiar" to the players you need to see what existing protocols are established and either replicate that, or change it slightly for your game.
So for your game, I would keep the comms distance, but then to allow the player to bypass that require higher levels of commanding officer on the fleet to maintain command and control over the fleet. For instance you may have a Fleet Admiral allow you to retain comms with a fleet of say 5 capital ships and a range of escort ships. If the player only has a lesser commander available, then the fleet must be smaller to retain comms with.
The limited comm speed mechanism adds additional complexity especially if situations rapidly develop and they often are 'over' before any orders can arrive... in the mean time it may have changed again possibly causing orders gettin there that no longer make sense or are detrimental in the new situation.
So, I'm not sure if it adds to the "fun factor", but both of these would certainly add to the realism. Information is critical to strategic warfare, and information is almost never perfect.
i don't know if what you end up with is strictly-speaking a 4X game, but exploring the concept of strategy in the face of rapidly changing (and out-of-date) information is very interesting.
Author
I've never played 4x before, so maybe I'm not the best judge, but I think the limited comm-speed could work very well. One or more point(s) of reference could be controlled directly by the player, whereas everything else would run on AI and take only orders from the player. The question would be, where the point(s) of reference should be located. I'd like to see you taking your officer-system a step further and have the player control just the one "in charge". It wouldn't be gameover if that person dies since the player would just gain control of the one that comes next in rank (maybe he can even make the character resign to change the person he's controlling. However, the information that a new guy is in charge would also be limited to the speed of light, making this distinctly different from controlling everyone at once). If you wanted to have another ship/planet as the point of reference, you'd have to move the character there.
This would work in a game like super power 2, where its really a simulation game. That's definitely not the scope of this project, and AI is costly in terms of development. I'll have to agree with Acharis here and drop my original idea, but I won't deny this could be a concept worth toying with. To me however, it also feels too 'core': it makes drastic changes to how the game is played, thought and felt.
Originally, I was really looking for alternate implementation of the concept of communication
Something that I have always kind of wanted to see was a game based around planning and a realistic command structure. You set goals, you design strategies, and you issue general orders with that regard. You become far more pulled back from the small details of the whole game, and then worry more about the larger picture.
Make managing the AI a large part of the game. Selecting traits of a commander become important. When given the option of choosing a fleet commander, do you want the older veteran with bonuses to fleet organization, defence, and such, but that is also very cautious on the attack and possibly more likely to fall back and lose ground in an effort to maintain his fleet strength? Or do you go with a younger, more daring commander who is a great tactician, having insanely high bonuses to his fleet's attack power, but is highly unlikely to pull his fleet back on his own, willing to risk high causalities for a victory in the field?
Building a 4X game around heavy reliance on AI control also brings in a very unique aspect that most games gloss over: Internal politics and conflict. All too often 4X games place you as an all powerful god with the full 110% support and backing of their civilization. What if internal politics and intrigue became one of the main factors of the game? Mismanagement of your AI commanders could see you losing a huge chunk of your empire after a highly charismatic and influential commander is allowed too much control over too distant a piece of your forces. (This also brings in another option for diplomacy: Fostering ties with rebel factions, supporting internal conflict, possibly destroying larger enemies by breaking them in pieces and letting them fight your war for you.)
So, in short, if you are going to roll with the idea that you do not retain 100% control over things at all times, then I feel you should embrace it and make it a major element of the game.
Make managing the AI a large part of the game. Selecting traits of a commander become important. When given the option of choosing a fleet commander, do you want the older veteran with bonuses to fleet organization, defence, and such, but that is also very cautious on the attack and possibly more likely to fall back and lose ground in an effort to maintain his fleet strength? Or do you go with a younger, more daring commander who is a great tactician, having insanely high bonuses to his fleet's attack power, but is highly unlikely to pull his fleet back on his own, willing to risk high causalities for a victory in the field?
Building a 4X game around heavy reliance on AI control also brings in a very unique aspect that most games gloss over: Internal politics and conflict. All too often 4X games place you as an all powerful god with the full 110% support and backing of their civilization. What if internal politics and intrigue became one of the main factors of the game? Mismanagement of your AI commanders could see you losing a huge chunk of your empire after a highly charismatic and influential commander is allowed too much control over too distant a piece of your forces. (This also brings in another option for diplomacy: Fostering ties with rebel factions, supporting internal conflict, possibly destroying larger enemies by breaking them in pieces and letting them fight your war for you.)
So, in short, if you are going to roll with the idea that you do not retain 100% control over things at all times, then I feel you should embrace it and make it a major element of the game.
Author
Funny you should mention that.
About 10 years back, I had designed one such similar game, but in a fantasy setting. In the end, after hundreads of hours sinking in, I realized that this was simply not something I could undertake on my own. You could say this was the first of many reality checks that have led me to where I am now.
Now, would that make a great game? Absolutely! Can I pull it off alone? Definitely not...
The scope of my current project is for something I can design and program myself, and commission art for (on budget).
So in short, I fully agree, but I can't take on this kind of project alone.
About 10 years back, I had designed one such similar game, but in a fantasy setting. In the end, after hundreads of hours sinking in, I realized that this was simply not something I could undertake on my own. You could say this was the first of many reality checks that have led me to where I am now.
Now, would that make a great game? Absolutely! Can I pull it off alone? Definitely not...
The scope of my current project is for something I can design and program myself, and commission art for (on budget).
So in short, I fully agree, but I can't take on this kind of project alone.
Something that I have always kind of wanted to see was a game based around planning and a realistic command structure. You set goals, you design strategies, and you issue general orders with that regard. You become far more pulled back from the small details of the whole game, and then worry more about the larger picture.
Make managing the AI a large part of the game. Selecting traits of a commander become important. When given the option of choosing a fleet commander, do you want the older veteran with bonuses to fleet organization, defence, and such, but that is also very cautious on the attack and possibly more likely to fall back and lose ground in an effort to maintain his fleet strength? Or do you go with a younger, more daring commander who is a great tactician, having insanely high bonuses to his fleet's attack power, but is highly unlikely to pull his fleet back on his own, willing to risk high causalities for a victory in the field?
Building a 4X game around heavy reliance on AI control also brings in a very unique aspect that most games gloss over: Internal politics and conflict. All too often 4X games place you as an all powerful god with the full 110% support and backing of their civilization. What if internal politics and intrigue became one of the main factors of the game? Mismanagement of your AI commanders could see you losing a huge chunk of your empire after a highly charismatic and influential commander is allowed too much control over too distant a piece of your forces. (This also brings in another option for diplomacy: Fostering ties with rebel factions, supporting internal conflict, possibly destroying larger enemies by breaking them in pieces and letting them fight your war for you.)
So, in short, if you are going to roll with the idea that you do not retain 100% control over things at all times, then I feel you should embrace it and make it a major element of the game.
I highly recommend taking a look at Hearts of Iron 3.
It's theme is world war 2, but here is what you can do as Supreme Commander:
- divide the war into a number of theatres
- allocate full command hierarchies to each front, including choosing between various leaders with different traits (eg: offensive, defensive, logistics, wolfpack, etc)
- each front will then request the number and structure of units they want, which you then produce and allocate
The beauty of this game's system is you can step in at ANY level of the hierarchy. For instance if playing Germany at the start of the war, you can divide Germany into three theatres (east/west/south), allocate leaders and units, then tell the west and south theatres to "defend their front" and then take a division level approach with the west theatre for the invasion of Poland. Or simply tell the west theatre to capture Poland and it will do it.
Note that the AI commanders are making the tactical decisions (unless you step in and do it yourself). Thus, you may order the front to capture Poland, but the AI manages it, even pulling back and retreating if necessary.
Yes, Hearts of Iron 3 does do a decent job at this in general, but still had a few issues. I'm not a huge fan of how they handle detailed planning and such, and supporting forces roles felt a tad weak.
But honestly I think the biggest problem with that game stemmed from its weak logistical model more than anything. The planning ability felt soft at times, and disconnected from real military planning.
It is a good start, but in my view such a system needs to go over and above for what you can do when it comes to planning attacks and defence responses. For example, being able to define a break through during planning, which then becomes the primary focus of the attack and automatically receives additional air support. Planning to hold strategic elements in reserve until conditions are met, such as a heavy paratrooper deployment to create a larger salient. Being able to stay in control with your planning is important.
And an additional thing: If you allow high level planning and strategy, then ideally this should be done is such a way as to be flexible and be able to export it in a general format for reuse in later games.
But honestly I think the biggest problem with that game stemmed from its weak logistical model more than anything. The planning ability felt soft at times, and disconnected from real military planning.
It is a good start, but in my view such a system needs to go over and above for what you can do when it comes to planning attacks and defence responses. For example, being able to define a break through during planning, which then becomes the primary focus of the attack and automatically receives additional air support. Planning to hold strategic elements in reserve until conditions are met, such as a heavy paratrooper deployment to create a larger salient. Being able to stay in control with your planning is important.
And an additional thing: If you allow high level planning and strategy, then ideally this should be done is such a way as to be flexible and be able to export it in a general format for reuse in later games.
Yes totally agree. But as a "first effort" into this area, I think HOI3 does in fact achieve a lot. There was a lot achieved, a lot learnt, and a lot to improve. But it was a pretty good start.
BTW, you mention logistics issues. I assume you know of the supply patch?
BTW, you mention logistics issues. I assume you know of the supply patch?
Something that I have always kind of wanted to see was a game based around planning and a realistic command structure. You set goals, you design strategies, and you issue general orders with that regard. You become far more pulled back from the small details of the whole game, and then worry more about the larger picture.The interesting thing, I always thout the same way, yet when I played HoI3 i found it inferior to HoI2 for some reason... I felt I was "not needed" there and the AI could perfectly manage without me. I wonder if it was because the whole concept is flawed or if the HoI3 implementation of that concept was poor.
Mismanagement of your AI commanders could see you losing a huge chunk of your empire after a highly charismatic and influential commander is allowed too much control over too distant a piece of your forces. (This also brings in another option for diplomacy: Fostering ties with rebel factions, supporting internal conflict, possibly destroying larger enemies by breaking them in pieces and letting them fight your war for you.)The old Electronic Arts' Imperium
http://www.lemonamiga.com/games/details.php?id=3028 You had to get rid of too charismatic officials before the presidential elections Also, you always ended up appointing incompetent people as governors because you wanted loyalty (and the loyal ones were rarely competent).
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
