Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
suliman

"Stone" as soldier resource? (stone age)

This topic is 554 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

Im doing a simplified stone-age RTS. I have three resources that are extracted from the terrain:

 

food: from fields. Used for civilian growth and soldiers

wood: from trees. Used for buildings and some soldiers

gold: from mines (using pickaxes on "stony ground"). Used for soldiers and some advanced buildings.

 

The villagers are island dwellers, palm trees and straw huts. There is shamans and totem poles and some magic.

 

The problem is "gold". It's a nice symbolic resource that can be both "high level" construction material and is a typical resource for unit (military) production in many games (doubling as metal, wealth and so on).

 

But with the style it fits better with "stone". Would that seem strange? To have stone being the main unit resource? Maybe it can double as flint as this is used in weapons, but then it goes badly as constrution material. I dont want one resource to be only used for soldier production. Or should I make gold fit better into the style and stay with it?

(it seems strange to have a strong unit cost "loads of stone", easier to have it cost "loads of gold").

 

Your thoughts on this?
Thanks

Erik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

For stone, there may be rocks (for construction etc) and pebbles (for slingers) with rock->pebble using tool.

And I think "missile" units might need both gold and stone while melee ones need only gold (as there is no bronze in stone age)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps when in areas where you would send your villagers or soldiers to search for stone (I.E. Something like a Cave or maybe a nearby Island), they have the chances of finding diamonds, crystals, or some other kind of 'rare' stone. Then again, it might make more sense to make food the primary means of buying/paying soldiers. They are cavemen after all, not like they got much else to need other than food and shelter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stone-age RTS.
food: from fields.
gold: from mines

Hate to break it to you man, but agriculture is not stone age. Neither is mineing.

Easy to fix, just use the correct term: Neolithic setting, not Stone Age (Paleolothic).

The problem is "gold". It's a nice symbolic resource that can be both "high level" construction material and is a typical resource for unit (military) production in many games (doubling as metal, wealth and so on).   But with the style it fits better with "stone". Would that seem strange? To have stone being the main unit resource? Maybe it can double as flint as this is used in weapons, but then it goes badly as constrution material.

if you're going to assign arbitrary resources with arbitrary uses, they can be anything you want, say mandarin oranges, suspenders, and paper clips. 

IE gold is not a construction material, its a trade good, with almost zero practical value in .Neolithic times.  So using gold as a construction material (as opposed to money) - heck it might as well be paper clips, mandarin oranges, or gentlemen's suspenders - makes just about as much sense.

Do you build straw huts and totem poles out of stone? don't think so.  

Are soldiers made of flint?  Whats up with that?

 

 

Or should I make gold fit better into the style and stay with it?

The best thing to do is start with how it really worked. Then you can jing it from there to get the gameplay you want if reality sucks.  

so what can you build? units and buildings.

what do they require? units require a place to muster them (a building), and money - and people.  In the case of military units, you might include some raw materials for weapons, either copper, or bronze, or iron, depending on how new you go. first came copper, then bronze, then iron, then steel, along with early high quality steels such as damascus steel, and ulfbert swords.

and what do buildings require? wood. its a hut, right? maybe a big one for the chief (longhouse), but its still a wood structure. And they require labor, and money.

I assume you do not model upkeep costs for units or buildings. if you do, units cost food and require housing, and military units might cost some copper etc as upkeep too (replacing weapons etc).  and everyone has to be paid!

So where does that leave you?

Well, you have wood, money (of some sort), and people, and food. and maybe some early metal such as copper (utzie the ice man circa 5000 BC), bronze (3000 BC), or iron (1200 BC).

It also looks like neolithic is considered the period when we had agriculture and permanent settlements, but no metals yet. in that case you would have wood, food, money, people, and flint as your resources, and the time period would be about 10000 BC at the earliest - IE the latest possible date in Caveman 3.0, which is 100% paleolithic.

copper age: replace flint with copper. time period = 5000BC

bronze age: replace flint with bronze. time period = 3000BC

iron age: replace flint with iron. time period = 1200BC

take your pick.

re: upfront costs vs upkeep costs. if you don't model upkeep costs, you might increase the cost of units. Make units cost food to build, instead of consuming food as upkeep.  But i would not recommend it. Much better to have food production limit the number of units you can have - IE food as unit upkeep costs.  
 
So you can model upkeep costs, or fake it by rolling some upkeep into the initial price.
 
I have to say that i notice a recurring theme of you coming up with cool ideas for games, but they are set in historical periods, with which you seem unfamiliar.  You might want to try something in a non-historical setting. then things only have to make sense within the rules of how your fictional game world works, and not from a historical perspective as well.  Might make life easier. remove some design constraints - IE does this make sense historically?
 
Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it - or at least fail history class!  <g>
Edited by Norman Barrows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info guys!

 

Norman that is indeed correct (lots of ideas).

 

The game is rather non-realistic, villagers can also pray for "favour" which translates to spells and some upgrades. I'm even thinking the third resource may be "metal" but this also goes badly as building material. So no need for true stone age actually.

 

Hmmm ill need to think this over some more! But plz continue speculating if you want:)

Edited by suliman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disregarding the anachronism of some of your game elements, you seem to be looking for a "currency" resource that feels more archaic than gold. You could look to actual history for such things (beads/wampum, clay tablets, etc) or make up your own. Honestly, I think "flint" works just fine. Players generally understand the idea behind tech resources even if it doesn't make much sense for "flint" to be used in construction.

Edit: On another thought, maybe just "clay" could work for you as well.

Edited by Telcontar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Norman, I've been a fan of prehistory my whole life and I appreciate your informative post. I feel like you got a few things wrong however.

Hate to break it to you man, but agriculture is not stone age. Neither is mineing.

Easy to fix, just use the correct term: Neolithic setting, not Stone Age (Paleolothic).

Neolithic means new stone age. Paleolithic; by contrast, means old stone age. Limited mining and agriculture was carried out in both time periods. The "Stone Age" is a vague term that applies to both. Some of this depends on how you define mining and agriculture.

Is agriculture the planting of anything and waiting for it to grow, or does it imply large fields and careful tending? Exactly how deep do you have to dig for it to be "mining'? Does "mining" only refer to digging up metals or does it count chert (flint), and limestone?

Any definition people come up with for these is, in my opinion, somewhat arbitrary.

Neolithic probably would be the easiest setting simply because more people were sedentary and we know more about the period than the paleolithic.

 

Oldest known mine in the world:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251028587_Middle_Palaeolithic_Chert_Exploitation_Pits_near_Qena_Upper_Egypt

 

 

 

if you're going to assign arbitrary resources with arbitrary uses, they can be anything you want, say mandarin oranges, suspenders, and paper clips. 

IE gold is not a construction material, its a trade good, with almost zero practical value in .Neolithic times.  So using gold as a construction material (as opposed to money) - heck it might as well be paper clips, mandarin oranges, or gentlemen's suspenders - makes just about as much sense.

Do you build straw huts and totem poles out of stone? don't think so.  

Are soldiers made of flint?  Whats up with that?

A larger-sized neolithic settlement would require some sort of chert mine or depend on trade to equip its soldiers. Chert weapons break easily and need constant replacement. Even weapons of polished stone were susceptible to this.

Gold had significant value even in neolithic times. Still, I agree, most buildings would've been made of whatever was available, clay, wood, dirt, etc. Perhaps a settlement leader's residence or a religious site would be made of stone.

 

 

what do they require? units require a place to muster them (a building), and money - and people.  In the case of military units, you might include some raw materials for weapons, either copper, or bronze, or iron, depending on how new you go. first came copper, then bronze, then iron, then steel, along with early high quality steels such as damascus steel, and ulfbert swords.

Most people, even in the neolithic, were nomadic and didn't build permanent shelters. Most did not use a form of currency. There were barter and gift economies. I can see how this would complicate the game though.

 

 

So you can model upkeep costs, or fake it by rolling some upkeep into the initial price.

A third option might be to have those producing food produce a set, constant value depending on how many fields or forage areas and workers you control. This number could be used as a population-cap by restricting the amount of warriors and workers you can get based on it.

This would make managing food somewhat simpler.

 

I have to say that i notice a recurring theme of you coming up with cool ideas for games, but they are set in historical periods, with which you seem unfamiliar.  You might want to try something in a non-historical setting. then things only have to make sense within the rules of how your fictional game world works, and not from a historical perspective as well.  Might make life easier. remove some design constraints - IE does this make sense historically?

This sounds like a really good idea for him.

 

 

 

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!