Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Heaven

Unit Creation Modeled as Population Growth

Recommended Posts

Age of Kings had peons of diverse gender, so let''s take that and run with it... Male peon and female peon chop some wood. The peons then take said wood and begin construction on a small house, room for four (they plan ahead). Construction complete, they move in, entering the structure and disappearing from sight. A brief amount of time passes and the two emerge, again able to perform regular peon functions. Over time the female graphic would change slightly, indicating her being with child. Nothing major, just a few pixels. Consequently the female peon would then become slower and less effective at purely physical tasks (i.e., chopping wood, mining metal, building, etc.) and she would tend to hang around her dwelling (or town hall) more frequently. When the equivalent of 9 months game time has passed, but possibly varying for different races - e.g., orcs may have a significantly lower gestation period while elves may take longer, the female peon''s onscreen representation changes, now showing her holding a small baby peon. Again, her ability to perform physical tasks would be severely impaired, possibly even non-existent (can''t imagine chopping wood or mining with a baby in my arms). Orcs could perhaps be given special treatment by allowing them to be Indian/Eskimo like in that their babies are attached to their backs, freeing their hands. After additional time passes the baby peon''s representation would change such that eventually the mother peon''s icon becomes a pair: her holding her toddler''s hand. She still moves slowly and has difficulty performing physical tasks however. Later still the two would become separate units, the mother reverting to her original fully functional self, and the toddler becoming a "child unit". The child would have VERY simple AI, simply following it''s mother around. Optionally, a "nurse maid" could be assigned to the dwelling. This would be a unit trained to basically baby sit, freeing the mother from having to tote around an infant or lead around a toddler. This would only be practical in a design that implemented varying degrees of ability. Say each peon had attributes such as strength and speed. Those peons under your control who were slow and weak could thus be assigned as nurse maids, or other less physical tasks such as gathering food or tending crops (as opposed to planting or harvesting which would be more physical). This would free the stronger, faster peons to perform more demanding tasks like chopping wood or planting and harvesting. Let''s go over it again to sum up. Male and female peons pair up inside a dwelling for a brief bit. For various reasons pairing up will only be allowed inside a dwelling (even if it''s just a two person tent or lean to built from gathered sticks). The female peon may or may not become pregnant. Later, the female peon seeks the nearest dwelling (preferrably her own) and attempts to have the child. Midwife units would be handy at this point. There is of course a chance the child would die, and also a chance the female peon would die during childbirth. The chance would be modified by the degree of care received as well as the surroundings (birthing a child in a tent vs. birthing a child in a castle, while it''s raining outside). Assuming success the female peon gains an infant attachment, and after a while a toddler attachment, both of which can be left in a dwelling with a nurse maid. The toddler attachment finally becomes an independent child unit, which of course gradually grows into a male or female peon. I don''t know about you, but simply adding the above in place of Town Halls and Barracks would be simply amazing. It would open up so many possibilities it''s not even funny. Think enemy raids where they kill women (mothers) and children. Conversely, think of an Attack Setting where you prohibit your troops from killing women and children. Think of the vengeance you''d desire to retribute upon your adversary who killed your children. How to train soldiers? Simple. Instead of a Barracks pumping out swordsmen, axemen, bowmen, etc., you would have a Smith who would produce swords, axes, and bows, and leather, chain or plate armor. Peons would then be able to enter the building containing the weapons or armor (which would be objects like bags of gold or blocks of stone, able to be carried about and stockpiled) and "suit up" in whatever format you desired. Click on peon. Click on Outfit icon. Click on Medium Sword and then click on the armory. Peon then enters armory and outfits himself with Sword + Chain (medium armor; light would be leather and heavy, plate). You could have icons for Sword, Axe, Bow and Light, Medium, and Heavy. Depressable buttons actually, so you could combine them. Then you could band-select 20 peons, select Heavy, select Axe, and then click on the armory and all 20 peons would line up, outfitting themselves with axes and plate. Simple combinations producing near endless variations. And finally, think of the excitement of building up your town, person by person, family by family. From scratch if the scenario so dictated (i.e., Adam & Eve Scenario ). Eugenics could be modeled as well, where if you micro-managed enough you could combine strong and fast peons with each other to produce, generally speaking, strong and fast children. And for the record, I will NOT let the player play the numbers. You will have no idea your peon has a 15 strength and 35 hit points, only that the peon is Strong, Able, or Weak and Healthy or Frail (for example). So many possibilities. Now it''s your turn. Please let me know what you think. Care, Chris Rasmus Florida, USA RTS Engine in Development http://www.knology.net/~heaven Jesus is LORD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like a Sim game.

I don''t like the management of populations and unit numbers in RTSes, though other do. Consequently, I''m not much enamoured of this idea and I doubt I would play the game. I really am interested in Real-Time Tactics games, where the player is in indirect control of a portion of an army and issues orders. The recipients of the orders then attempt to fulfill them as much as possible based on situation and respect for/responsiveness to the player.

The player would have superiors (generals, field commanders, heads of state, whatever) and would appreciate or deprecate in "standing" with these superiors depending on efficiency and expense of operations (the fewer soliders you lose and machines you wreck, the more they like/respect you). As a consequence the player''s requests for resources or reinforcements are assigned a higher or lower priority by "Central Command". Population and political forces are independently modeled, to provide the player with challenge.

As you can see, my view of what RTSes should evolve towards is totally different. Age of Empires is similar to a Civilization game, and your ideas continue in that vien.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you''re going to let them play eugenics, you need to put intelligence in there too, so that if someone just concentrates on stupid, strong people, then in the long run they end up losing to someone with more diverse people.

You''d also have to start with a much larger population base, say 20 families or so to avoid the whole incest issue... then you can have people who inbreed create weirdo mutants... hehehe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally that sounds like way too much micromanagement. Not to mention the creepy Nazi overtones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, this sounds like an intriguing idea, and with a little more work, could be really cool. One thing, though. About the whole "throwing out the barracks" idea, I think that having a barracks is neccessary if you plan on having a decent army. If you don''t have a barracks, how would all the peons learn to fight. It would be more of just a milita. If you had a barracks, you could just click on some peons, send them into the place, and a while later, out pop your new soldiers.

You could still asign the peon to the specific weapons/armor that you want it to use, but I think that having a place for the army to train adds to the realism factor that you seem to be going for.


Robby

"Too late?!" There''s no such thing as "too late!" That''s why they invented death! - Walter Matthau in "Out To Sea"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oluseyi wrote:

As you can see, my view of what RTSes should evolve towards is totally different. Age of Empires is similar to a Civilization game, and your ideas continue in that vien [sic].

Understood. Difference between say, AOE and Myth. However I thought it was at least implied that we were talking about RTS'' as opposed to what ought to be a distinct genre, RTT.

Or I suppose you could think of games like AOE as Real-Time Simulations if you consider resource gathering and building more sim-like instead of strictly strategic.

Speaking of giving orders, I at least plan on modeling something of that nature in my "simulation". I want to reward those who micro-manage with a plethora of interesting choices without penalizing the macro-managing "general". Although I don''t plan on making it quite as generalized as you stated (i.e., you never give diret orders to front line grunts). These are after all "god games".

Solinear wrote:

If you''re going to let them play eugenics, you need to put intelligence in there too, ....

Definitely. While Strength and Speed may affect the performance of physically oriented tasks such as chopping or fighting, Intelligence could affect the rate of increase of skills (see my other thread on Settings Based Skill Advancement - http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=86246) as well as such things as magic. Perhaps even pathfinding. Heh heh. There we go, an excuse for poor pathfinding: low Intelligence stat.

Solinear wrote:

You''d also have to start with a much larger population base, say 20 families or so to avoid the whole incest issue... then you can have people who inbreed create weirdo mutants... hehehe.

For simplicity''s sake I wasn''t even going to model incest, but if I did I suppose I could simply make the chance of having lower stats higher if you inbred.

Kylotan wrote:

Why would anyone set their army to not kill women or children? You''d have to enforce or discourage this somehow if it was to play a significant part.

Think of it this way: what if you couldn''t STOP your troopers from killing anything that moved when you set them to attack, and they proceeded to happily cut down every child in sight when invading a town? I don''t know about you, but if I''m not playing orcs for example, just the thought is quite distasteful. Roleplaying is not dead you know.

As far as it playing a "significant part", as simple an aspect as playing a "good" team and being penalized for doing "evil" things would be a good solution. Or I could go the Black & White route and make the options available to you vary depending on your moral choices. Say if you started doing evil things then eventually your healers would lose the ability to cast healing spells. Of course they could transform into "hurters", able to cast spells which harm people. Tons of options here.

The bottom line of course is still choice. I should be able to choose what my troopers attack when there''s more than one target type. Even if it''s just the difference between infantry, cavalry, or ranged units, I should have an attribute I can set on my troopers which predisposes them to certain targets when they are told to attack.

ewiar wrote:

Personally that sounds like way too much micromanagement. Not to mention the creepy Nazi overtones.

The thing is, it could be designed so that you don''t have to micromanage that far if you don''t want to. You could simply build your dwellings and let the peons pair up by themselves. Then, every so often a male and female peon would pair up, enter a dwelling, and start the birthing/population growth process automagically without your intervention. You would only need to keep tabs on which children had grown up enough to "take control of", and begin ordering them around like regular peons. There could even be a function like in AoK where idle peons are indicated, which would let you know when a peon child "came of age".

Nazi overtones?!?!

chaosmaster99 wrote:

..., but I think that having a place for the army to train adds to the realism factor that you seem to be going for.

Yes, definitely. Just that a barracks wouldn''t be a building you could "produce" new units from. Just like you said, you could select some peons who were already equipped from the armory, then right click on the Barracks. They would then enter the barracks and begin practicing with each other. This way you could also staff the Barracks with Veteran or Master teachers, and their high skill levels would help increase the rate of learning of the other peons in the barracks. Of course there would be a limit to the # of peons that would fit in a barracks, and you could even have barracks, or training halls, of varying sizes that would hold more peons. Then again, I don''t see anything unusual with band selecting a group of peons then right clicking on a Master Soldier, signifying that the Master should begin training the peons on the spot. I can easily imagine a large training field, where soldiers line up before the teacher.

Now that I think about it I would be inclined to have the Barracks more as a "repository" for your soldiers. Somewhere you could quickly draw ready troops from, armed and armored. Or somewhere your peons would run to if threatened, to quickly don armor and grab a weapon. Your standing army, instead of living in the dwellings they were born in, could reside instead in the barracks. I dunno''. So many possibilities.

Thanks for all the comments guys! I appreciate it. Any more?

Care,
Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Why would anyone set their army to not kill women or children?

Because you can merge them with your own people. But like in Civilization 3, the foreign peons should be less effective and might even start a rebellion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ecthelion wrote:

Because you can merge them with your own people. But like in Civilization 3, the foreign peons should be less effective and might even start a rebellion

That''s a great idea. You could actually gain extra peons "for free" by conquering a settlement. However, you are right in that I would want to keep some kind of information on the "enslaved" peons which would result in them being less productive and could result in them revolting or running away. I guess a kind of morale setting.

Speaking of which I suppose it would even be more interesting if you could subdue a settlement in it''s entirety, including male [fighting] peons. Something to consider, at least. With the probability that my birthing method of population increase would take more time than simply buying new peons with food from your town hall, this could be an attractive option for budding conquerors.

Care,
Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Heaven
Think of it this way: what if you couldn''t STOP your troopers from killing anything that moved when you set them to attack, and they proceeded to happily cut down every child in sight when invading a town? I don''t know about you, but if I''m not playing orcs for example, just the thought is quite distasteful. Roleplaying is not dead you know.

You honestly think people will care enough to stop their irrelevant-pixel-people from killing small irrelevant-pixel-people or irrelevant-pixel-people-with-breasts in the name of roleplaying, when it makes you less likely to win? Nope, not going to happen. Maybe every 1 in a thousand gamers will think that way. There would have to be some tangible repercussions.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Power Monger, a late 80s/early 90s precursor to RTS games, had similar overtones. You could click on homes in your village and get bios of your villagers, check their activities, and even trace their lineages.

I seriously think, though, that you''ll have to give very careful consideration to what kind of game you''re making. If you build the game around the villagers, then you''ll have a game akin to Settlers or Tropico, where the main fun is in building up the village. If that''s the case, then I think the military engagements should be either de-emphasized (made simple, see Tropico as a good example) or made optional. If you''re making a war game, then the reverse should be true (as most RTS games do already).

The main reason is that if you include two incongruent elements like "gardening" (which is kind of what Sim games are, akin to growing a flower bed) and warfare, I think you run into some important problems: First, if you include not enough of one or the other type of gameplay, you''ll frustrate a particular kind of gamer. The wargamers, as you can see above, would be turned off by all the social micromanagement, probably because complex building throws off the frenetic tempo of battle.

But the "gardener" type gamers would be completely frustrated to see their works ruined by some outside force or army. Gardeners put a lot of emotional investment into their creations, and this creates a feedback that sustains the whole gardening gameplay. IOW, they care about their peons in a way that wargamers do not (or much more so than wargamers, anyway).

Second, if you try to straddle the line between fighting and gardening, you have a potential complexity problem. Think of all the detail you have in a superb RTS. Now look at something like Tropico. The paradox you''ve got to overcome is to give each type of gameplay the full attention and complexity it deserves in order to make it fulfilling, all without giving the player so much complexity that she / he''s overwhelmed. If you just add bits and pieces from gardening or wargaming, without really fusing them, then you''re going to run into irrelevant gameplay (like what Sandman commented about wrt sparing civvies... it has to mean something).

One possibly solution: You could break the game into gardening and fighting modes. This could help cut down on complexity, and even give you a taste of real medieval history. You could nurse your village or empire through non-military challenges (wolves, hard winters, crop blights) during one phase, then send the men off to fight in another. The two should interrelate, so that (for instance) your military campaigns have to end in time to plant crops; or if too many soldiers are felled, the villagers won''t be able to do certain types of labor intensive tasks (building fortifications, or plowing the fields).

You might also consider switching the time scale between modes: When battles take place, for instance, it''s on the scale of minutes; but the gardening gameplay takes place on the scale of weeks. This way, when the town is under attack the player isn''t having to muck around with crops and nursemaids.

I like the idea in general because it lends a sense of personality to the side you control. But I think to really be fun the sim type gameplay should be fleshed out and balanced against the combat.


PS: FYI, you can click "quote" when you see a post you want to respond to. That''ll bring up a window with "quote" and "/quote" (iow, "end quote") blocks which you can copy and paste. It makes reading your replies a lot easier and cleaner, and you save your fingers from having to do extra typing. Feel free to check the FAQ if you need more info.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Heaven
Nazi overtones?!?!


The Nazis were the biggest proponents of eugenics in history. In your game you could essentially create a "master race" right? I guess you'd just have to kill off the offspring of weak stupid peons. Hey, it's a solution. One might even call it a final solution.
EDIT: I'm just joking. I really don't have a problem with your game- just pointing out that some people might.

[edited by - ewiar on March 22, 2002 4:42:12 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This sounds like a great idea but the time should be greatly speeded up (there would be nothing more annoying than waiting for ages for the babies to be born)
You should look into Battle Realms for population ideas (the population growth slows down the more people you have, thus eliminating the grunt rush and puting more emphisis on tactics) and unit creation (you can train units in structures to get new units and train those units in other structures to get even more types of units), it is the best strategy game I have ever played.
I hate grunt rushes so you should keep the population limit low and keep the combat and breeding more intimate so you don''t have to micro-manage a huge race of people.
And think up some new and origional ideas for races! Orcs and elves are very typical.
Keep working on it, I''m expecting you to have the game finished in at least 2 years so I can play it.
Remember, the world is waiting for a revolutionary game (and you might just make it)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m with Oluseyi here. What he is looking for is almost precisely what I want in an RTS game. If anything, I should stop using the term RTS and say RTW for real time wargame.

Nevertheless, for those that like resource modeling, it does have its merits and if you can do this mostly transparently to the player, this is a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Moose42
This sounds like a great idea but the time should be greatly speeded up (there would be nothing more annoying than waiting for ages for the babies to be born)

That’s the plan, and the “realism” will be optional. RTSG’s in general are not “real time”. To keep the game from becoming a simulation as opposed to a wargame, nine month gestation would probably take only forty (40) seconds (where 1 week ~= 1 second of real time) on default settings, as opposed to 40 weeks. Going with the 1 week~=1 second guideline, and assuming a baby/child peon “matured” into a functional adult peon around age thirteen (676 weeks), it would take a little over eleven (11) minutes per baby before you had a new peon. Both gestation and growth rates would be adjustable with a slider, where far right is 100% “realistic” and far left is the shortest time possible. Default (i.e., “realistic”) gestation and growth would result in slower starts in games that only gave you a couple of peons in the beginning, but as your population base increased you would be having more and more babies.

Assuming a pair of peons is put on “baby patrol”, that we alternately birth male and female peons, and that there are no problems birthing:

2 initial peons after 22 minutes equals 4 peons
4 peons after 44 minutes equals 8 peons
8 peons after 1 hour 6 minutes equals 16 peons
16 peons after 1 hour 28 minutes equals 32 peons
Etc., etc.

If the realism slider was jacked down this could be far less. For example, at 5 minutes per pair with an initial startup of 4 couples you’d optimally end up with 128 peons after 20 minutes.

And remember, in my game the peons are the troopers, the healers, the wizards, whatever. There are no extra buildings that you make that pump out different troop types. Your peons must be trained to do different things. For multiplayer super-realistic games, allowing the players to start with a rather unconventionally large number of peons would certainly be desirable. If I allowed players to begin games with say, 20 couples and 10 single peons (50 peons total), then after 11 minutes optimally you’d have 50 base peons + 20 new peons. Getting over that first hump would be the big thing. I could even allow players to begin play with children. Say the players are allocated 100 points to spend on starting troopers. An adult trooper could cost 10 points and a child trooper only 5. If you started with 10 adults (5 couples) then after 11 minutes you’d have 15 peons, but if you started with 20 half matured children, say age 6 ½, then after only 5 ½ minutes you’d have 20 adult peons. Of course you’d be hard pressed to get anything accomplished with 20 children, but I’m just tossing out things I could include as options with little work programming wise. The key thing to remember is the realism slider, which lets you personalize each and every game to your liking. If you want to spend the time simulating the development of your community, then slide that baby to the far right. If you want a game where a couple minutes after game start you’re throwing large groups of peons at each other, then slam the slider to the far left.

quote:

You should look into Battle Realms for population ideas (the population growth slows down the more people you have, thus eliminating the grunt rush and puting more emphisis on tactics) and unit creation (you can train units in structures to get new units and train those units in other structures to get even more types of units), it is the best strategy game I have ever played.

This sounds similar to my plan to have players train their peons in different things to make them into soldiers, healers, cavalry, mages, etc. I also plan on including not only natural birth for population growth but natural death as well. If your average peon lives 40 years, that’s 2080 weeks, or about 35 minutes on the fully realistic setting. I could even throw in sickness and health as well. Stuff like the food you’re eating affecting your maximum lifespan. And before you freak out, if you don’t want to think about this level of micromanagement you don’t have to. If you want to plant nothing but wheat then fine: select your peon, select Farm, and right click on some dirt, but the player who takes the time to plant a variety of foodstuffs will be rewarded by extended lifespan for all of his troopers. Of course the issue may be moot if you raise an army and go wipe his farming arse out after 15 minutes.

quote:

I hate grunt rushes so you should keep the population limit low and keep the combat and breeding more intimate so you don''t have to micro-manage a huge race of people.

Well, the fact that there is that initial hump before you start pumping out more adult peons (no matter your starting group size) sort of puts a damper on that. Plus if everybody starts with large groups and you rush immediately then you’re going to be sending your 50 peons against your opponent’s 50 peons.

quote:

And think up some new and origional ideas for races! Orcs and elves are very typical.

But I really like orcs, elves, and dwarves. I’m a big fan of Tolkien, and Middle-Earth is exactly the type of setting I envision for my game.

quote:

Keep working on it, I''m expecting you to have the game finished in at least 2 years so I can play it.

Heh. I sure hope so. We’ll see if I have something actually playable (i.e., where you can load a map and move some peons around it, performing basic resource gathering) by the end of the year. Lord willing by the end of this summer.

Lord willing.

Thanks for the comments.

Care,
Chris Rasmus


Florida, USA
RTS Engine in Development
http://www.knology.net/~heaven
Jesus is LORD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Heaven
But I really like orcs, elves, and dwarves. I’m a big fan of Tolkien, and Middle-Earth is exactly the type of setting I envision for my game.

You just lost me there. What fun is a war/battle game when all you have are the fairly primitive technology of such times and the intangibles of "magick"? Gimme the Thermonuclear DevastatorTM.

I think I need to contribute to Dauntless'' threads more...

What''s the objective of this game? Is it primarily a war/battle/combat-oriented endeavor (ie, victory conditions are achieved by these means), or is it primarily a social biulding game? Deciding this will determine how much of the other you can include without infuriating your target audience beyond measure.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! | Asking Smart Questions ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
You just lost me there. What fun is a war/battle game when all you have are the fairly primitive technology of such times and the intangibles of "magick"? Gimme the Thermonuclear DevastatorTM.

This is simply a matter of personal preference. Give me the simplicity of the bow and sword anyday!

quote:

What''s the objective of this game? Is it primarily a war/battle/combat-oriented endeavor (ie, victory conditions are achieved by these means), or is it primarily a social biulding game? Deciding this will determine how much of the other you can include without infuriating your target audience beyond measure.

Basically an Age of Empires type game. You begin a "mission" with a certain number and type of troopers. You are typically tasked with harvesting certain resources to build various structures (and in my game, items) in order to advance to a more developed state such that you can overcome your opponents through force of arms.

There will be exceptions of course. Some missions may have non-combat objectives like building certain requisite structures or items, or helping NPC troopers in certain ways.

The micromanagement features I plan on implementing will hopefully be implemented in such a way that their use is not required. If you want, you should be able to simply band select your peons and have them gather wood, stone, build structures, etc., as usual and never worry about manually pairing them off. For population growth purposes, the game will simply periodically do a check, and if there are unpaired male/female peons will make an internal link. Some time later, if those two peons are found idle they will try and make their way to a structure (house, town hall, etc.) and "do their thing". If you keep them busy enough, or separated from each other, then they will either not be able to find the time to "do their thing", or new internal links may be made with peons who are closer with whom it would be more convenient to "do it". Afterwards the female peon will autonomously make her way to the nearest structure if one is available and attempt to birth her child, with or without assistance.

I''ll admit I''m simply theorizing here, but just typing this up brings up tons of possibilities. Just as you can be alerted to the location of idle peons on the mini-map, I could implement things such that female peons about to give birth can be easily located as well. You could then dispatch midwives, healer units, etc., to assist with the birth. Or you could have them automatically seek out the nearest female peon who is heavy with child. I am a firm believer in automation. Anything to relieve the player who is more strategically minded of things which could be mundane.

But what if you wanted to pair up individual peons? Well then you can. You can have them build their own house. You can have them work together, or nearby. You can have the male peon there when his female peon gives birth. Things that other players could give a rat''s arse about might actually affect things internally such that those two peons, and their children peons, would work a small percentage faster or harder than other peons who you don''t take such good care of so to speak.

In other words, make it so it plays as much as possible like a conventional RTS but reward those players who take things to a deeper level. And again their hard work, diligence, and attention to detail may all be flushed down the toilet when their opponent, who has single mindedly been driving his peons to exhaustion to fuel his ruthless war machine, marches 50 well armed troopers into your loving, caring village.

But then, the kinds of people who loving develop their troopers won''t usually be found playing in DEATHMATCH free for alls. And again, the game could implement various modes of gameplay. There would be the conventional FFA''s or Conquest modes, and their would also be modes where you got points for community/social advancement.

What do you think, Oluseyi?

Care,
Chris Rasmus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to include Priest or similar units that can convert enemy peons and troops.. which brings me to another interesting subject.. if you capture orc peons... can they breed with the human peons... a new race? That may put a twist on the eugenics idea..



::aggression is the result of fear::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My advice: Never overdo your game. Be very specific about what you want to create. But you seem to have ideas enough for an original title .

In Age of Empires for example, I hate micromanaging a battle involving more than 30 stupid fighting units to the last click against a larger combined enemy force, avoiding both my own and enemy catapult projectiles. While at the same time having to manage my village and produce reinforcements, redirecting stuck villagers etc.

Such micromanagment will shorten my live!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you pick up a book on the history of the world, it shows that the population of the world grew very slowly at first, and then started to explode between 1600-1800, and is only very recently starting to fall back into equillibrium, (less than 5% population growth). Out of out 6.6 billion people, the last 5 billion were introduced only very recently (technically, so were the other billion) in our 10,000 year history. The growth is directly related to our technology/information level, and this is still reflected in less developed countries today. Just an idea.

Also, eugenics is a great idea, irregardless of who else may be famous for it (yes the nazis were famous for it, although by no means the biggest proponents. Check our own history)

Sounds great, look forward to playing it. Got a name yet?


We''''re sorry, but you don''''t have the clearance to read this post. Please exit your browser at this time. (Code 23)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and maybe to keep things diverse and have large populations, but avoid complete micromanagement, maybe you could keep the villages small, but numerous, and then send them into battle on a more strategic, and less tactical level [ie, send commands as a village vs. individual units], although perhaps breaking apart into individual units if you''re a stickler.

Apologizes, I''m done blathering now.


We''''re sorry, but you don''''t have the clearance to read this post. Please exit your browser at this time. (Code 23)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don´t think that having the population dependent on birth rates would be a very good idea. The main population limiting factor in preindustrial societies is food. A good way to implement this is to populate the map with neutral and player controlled farms and other basic buildings before the game starts. Players would then increase their population by conquering/presuading the neutral buildings or by creating new food producing methods, for example chopping down forests or increasing the efficiency of the already controlled area(better farming methods&tools, horses, etc). There would be no exponential growth of population in the beginning of the game and no need to articially limit the population growth. Birth rates should only play a signifigant role when you have lot less people than the land can support, for example after a big battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Heaven
Basically an Age of Empires type game. You begin a "mission" with a certain number and type of troopers. You are typically tasked with harvesting certain resources to build various structures (and in my game, items) in order to advance to a more developed state such that you can overcome your opponents through force of arms.

You''re not being specific. You''re too focused on details of interactivity than on the fundamental premise of the game. Am I trying to build a civilization? Am I trying to maintain a delicate ecological balance? What is the overall goal?

You mention "troopers" and "missions" - some, you say, with non-combat objectives. Does that imply combat will be central? You then switch to "peons" and domestic concerns, on which you pontificate at length.

quote:
In other words, make it so it plays as much as possible like a conventional RTS but reward those players who take things to a deeper level. And again their hard work, diligence, and attention to detail may all be flushed down the toilet when their opponent, who has single mindedly been driving his peons to exhaustion to fuel his ruthless war machine, marches 50 well armed troopers into your loving, caring village.

This can backfire horribly. People get quite upset when things they have poured their time and effort (and, ostensibly, their "souls") into are arbitrarily destroyed by others, and this is the real crux that I''m targeting. Your game is trying to artificially marry two conflicting objectives (construction and destruction) with one presented as a "deeper level" of the other.

quote:
What do you think, Oluseyi?

To be honest, I wouldn''t play the game. If I destroyed someone else''s carefully and lovingly put together community simply to gain strategic advantage, then I''d be cast as a villain when all I''m doing is playing the game the way I see as appropriate. I also dislike the fact that to "get more" from the game I''m forced to engage in activities I have no use for (building families and other such stuff).

Not that I don''t think the peon-development ideas are interesting; I just think they should be couched in a different type of game - something more Civ- or Sims-like. Best of luck, and keep us posted.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! | Asking Smart Questions ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
You''re not being specific. You''re too focused on details of interactivity than on the fundamental premise of the game. Am I trying to build a civilization? Am I trying to maintain a delicate ecological balance? What is the overall goal?
As I said, similar to Age of Empires. What is the goal in a typical AOE/AOK game? Enter a mission, establish base of operations, begin harvesting resources, locate enemy forces, increase combat ready troops, develop base of operations, destroy enemy forces. But again, as I also mentioned, just as AOE/AOK had FFA''s and other modes (first one to build a Wonder, first one to kill the king unit, etc.), my game of course would follow suit. If you''re prone to micromanagement and developing your peons to the max then you''re not going to go into a FFA game.

quote:

You mention "troopers" and "missions" - some, you say, with non-combat objectives. Does that imply combat will be central? You then switch to "peons" and domestic concerns, on which you pontificate at length.
Combat will be a big part, of course, but where other games in the genre have left combat as the *biggest* part, I plan to flesh out the other aspects so that that combat is just one part of the big picture.

quote:

People get quite upset when things they have poured their time and effort (and, ostensibly, their "souls") into are arbitrarily destroyed by others, and this is the real crux that I''m targeting.
Thus the different modes of play.

quote:

Your game is trying to artificially marry two conflicting objectives (construction and destruction) with one presented as a "deeper level" of the other.
Rather, my game is trying to implement two conflicting paths of development (development vs. combat) so players have a choice how they want to play. In real life the threat of war is always present. In the game you have the choice to take that threat away (i.e., modes of play which restrict/prohibit combat or simply agression).

quote:

I also dislike the fact that to "get more" from the game I''m forced to engage in activities I have no use for (building families and other such stuff).
The plan is to make combat at least as rich as present or past titles (i.e., AOE/AOK). Added functionality is also planned, but if the gameplay is similar to conventional titles in the genre, why wouldn''t you want to buy the game simply because you like RTS games?

I appreciate your comments.

Care,
Chris Rasmus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Heaven
As I said, similar to Age of Empires. What is the goal in a typical AOE/AOK game? Enter a mission, establish base of operations, begin harvesting resources, locate enemy forces, increase combat ready troops, develop base of operations, destroy enemy forces. But again, as I also mentioned, just as AOE/AOK had FFA''s and other modes (first one to build a Wonder, first one to kill the king unit, etc.), my game of course would follow suit. If you''re prone to micromanagement and developing your peons to the max then you''re not going to go into a FFA game.

Unfortunately, those terms are meaningless to me. I don''t play very many games, and I''ve never played more than a demo version of AOE. FFAs? What are those?

quote:

The plan is to make combat at least as rich as present or past titles (i.e., AOE/AOK). Added functionality is also planned, but if the gameplay is similar to conventional titles in the genre, why wouldn''t you want to buy the game simply because you like RTS games?

I don''t like RTS games. In fact, I basically only play sports and simulation games (and they still make me mad). I like the potential of many genres, but I can''t stand the current implementations (this is very well documented). I''d like an RTS that focuses on Real-Time Strategy, not micromanagement, peon pumping (I hate that word "peon") and blind rushes. I want a war game that lets me play at my comfortable level of "detail" and doesn''t bother me with extraneous details. I can''t find such a game on the store shelves, so I''m waiting on Dauntless, Sandman and Silvermyst to make me happy.

[ GDNet Start Here | GDNet Search Tool | GDNet FAQ | MS RTFM [MSDN] | SGI STL Docs | Google! | Asking Smart Questions ]
Thanks to Kylotan for the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites