FreeOrion

Forums for the FreeOrion project
It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:47 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:58 am 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
We previously had a very long and complicated thread on the topic of Simulating Citizens.
Nothing from that thread (except a happiness meter that does nothing) has been implemented yet, but the time may be ripe for adding some of it soon.

* Ethos & Alignments = Offtopic
As cool as i think those ideas could be, they are complicated and abstract, and best if left to a later round of development, after other things have been established. The fact that we had such a hard time explaining our proposals for this to each other is a stong hint that they weren't KISS. Also, a much simpler system could possibly be devised to give citizens personality to replace Ethos & Alignments. Alternate, simpler systems for making certain species like or dislike an empire will be on topic.

* I'm going to use terms like "we". This means that i think there was general agreement on a point, but i haven't re-read the whole thread, though i have given it a good skim. It may turn out what i thought was "we", was actually just "me", so feel free to correct me.


Goals we had/have for the simulating citizens's system
    * To use the citizen (dis)satisfaction as the way to give personality to the empires, leaving the emperor free to focus on winning. The burden of pleasing citizens falls equally on AI and human players.
    * To have a reason for unhappy citizens to riot/rebel at a particular planet, rather than a random planet.
    * To enable espionage to incrementally undermine enemy colonies.
    *

The system we can up with, in a Nutshell
    * Each planet has a Happiness meter. If the meter goes too low the citizens riot/rebel which as best puts a hold on productivity, and at worst has the planet leaving the empire and joining another or forming their own. Happiness may be influenced by things like the following: EP of planet, connection to homeworld, blockades, population loss, etc.

    * Each Species has an Allegiance meter for every (known?) empire. If the meter is high, they like the empire, if low, they hate it. Allegiance may determine how much of a fight they will put up against invaders (i.e. fight to the death against a hated empire, and quickly surrender to a beloved empire), how easy espionage missions are, and who rebel planets seek to join. Allegiance is at the species rather than planetary level to give each species a coherent personality, and critically to avoid having a bajillion different meters. Species seem to be something like "factions" in some other games (when "faction" doesn't equal "race").

    * Species or planets have a positive reaction when you ally with Empires they have a high allegiance for, and a negative reaction when you ally with Empires they have a low allegiance for. Similarly they react when you go to war.

    * Species level Allegiance and local Happiness have a strong effect on each other, (weather two-way, or one way, depends on the details).

:arrow: At the time of that discussion, the social resource "Influence" hadn't been considered. It is not yet fully defined, but is the resource that represents such things as diplomatic influence, back-room dealing, espionage, public relations, propaganda, and cultural influence. It seems to me this resource would be strongly tied to happiness and allegiance in some way, so that they probably should be considered together.

There are a ton of reasons we went with the above, though i'm perfectly willing to throw it all out if something better comes along. Though if you want to propose something radically different, think it through and do your research, and most of all consider the consequences of the idea. We may not have a lot of patience repeating the objections to ideas that can be found in the previous thread.


:arrow: I think the critical point to be decided is how does the player "manage" his citizen's happiness. The solution is likely not obvious -- Civ has famously had trouble getting this right -- though i think their recent solutions are pretty good. For FO, we should focus on a non-micromanagy solution that's easy to understand, rather than a detail simulation, which is easy and fun to make up in the forums.


So, i'll just finish off with all the ideas for things that reasonably could effect happiness and allegiance for all species. "Influence" not listed yet, but that should be somewhere.

Happiness:
    + + Citizen lives on a Gaia
    + Citizen lives on its homeworld.
    + Citizen is supply-connected to its homeworld (even if homeworld belongs to a connected ally)
    + Entertainment / Mind-control, etc. techs
    + / - Planet is of the EP (decreasing bonus or penalty the further from the EP the planet is)
    - Citizen is part of a large empire (some increasing penalty as imperial population increases)
    - Population loss
    - - Planet is bombarded (big effect)

Allegiance:
+ Empire controls their homeworld
- Empire contains other species (increasing penalty with additional species. Arguably this might not be a trait for every species, but arguably also arguably, if species Foo only lives in one empire, they will have a stronger connection to it.)
- - Empire X bombarded their planet

EDIT: Updated list is kept here.

So-- discuss...

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:48 am 
Offline
Programming, Design, Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Posts: 12041
Location: Munich
Something I think is missing is reactions to planets invasions or ground combats that don't result in an planet being conquered. Presumably for that planet specifically there should be some happiness impact. And for all planets of that species, there should be some impact on allegiance to the invading empire. "Impact" isn't necessarily negative, though...

At some point, a non-military means to gain control of planets - particularly natives - would need to be added. Even before then, some planets shouldn't be happy and species shouldn't be fond of an empire that takes control of them by force (though some might be).

I'm unsure whether and to what degree allegiance and happiness of invaded planets should interact and determine the impact on the other as a result in invasions of empire owned planets. Do invasions of unhappy planets make their species like the invader, or do invasions of happy planets make their species dislike the invader? Or do invasions of planets whose species have high allegiance to the invader make the planet happy? Or does it depend on the relative allegiances to the initial and invading empires? Presumably invading a happy planet that has low allegiance to an empire should generally not result in benefits to either for the new owner. (Re)capturing / liberating a planet that is very unhappy and whose species likes the invader should not have (m)any penalties associated with it, but does it warrant a happiness boost?
Quote:
Empire contains other species (increasing penalty with additional species. Arguably this might not be a trait for every species, but arguably also arguably, if species Foo only lives in one empire, they will have a stronger connection to it.)
"Empire contains other species" and "Species also lives in other empires" are distinct factors, I think.
Quote:
...how does the player "manage" his citizen's happiness.
At the risk of scope creep, if there are any actions initiated by players to manipulate happiness of individual planets, I think a leader type units might be a good mechanism to enact them. Players would need to have a leader located in a system to be able to initiate unrest on a planet or to boost its happiness. Assuming leaders aren't happening any time soon, I'm reluctant to add a means to "buy" local happiness modifiers.

The consequence of having low happiness is probably an important issue... There is presently a rebels meter, which if set to nonzero, effectively generates some ground troops on a planet each turn which the planetary garrison needs to put down in a ground battle. If the rebels meter is above one - which is the rate of growth of planet troops - then the rebels slowly wear down the planet's troops and will eventually capture the planet from a player. (This presently doesn't come into play as the rebels meter is always 0, though you can test by setting rebels nonzero with an effect if so inclined.)

A possibility is to have the happiness meter influence the level of the rebels meter. Essentially, a planet's happiness would be subtracted from its rebels, and planets with sufficient happiness would then never generate any rebels. Planets with happiness below the sum of the other contributions to rebels would have rebel ground battles each turn, possibly leading to loss of the planet. To avoid this, players could have means to boost their troop regeneration rate to compensate for the loss of troops due to the rebel meter being above one. This might be a "suppress rebels" focus.

The level of the rebels meter (before the happiness deduction) could be a fairly simple function of species allegiance.

Regardless of the details, there probably should be more than one means to counteract low happiness or allegiance, so as to permit different strategies.

For now, presumably any player-controlled happiness modifications will need to be not single-planet effects. Area-of-effect buildings are an obvious option, as long as they don't need to be produced everywhere. I'd quite like to avoid anything like "setting the tax rate" that occurs in so many games, but which I find quite uninteresting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:19 am 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
Geoff the Medio wrote:
At some point, a non-military means to gain control of planets - particularly natives - would need to be added. Even before then, some planets shouldn't be happy and species shouldn't be fond of an empire that takes control of them by force.

Possibly you can spend "influence" to win over a native planet. Or at least some species would be open to that.

Geoff the Medio wrote:
I'm unsure whether and to what degree allegiance and happiness of invaded planets should interact and determine the impact on the other as a result in invasions of empire owned planets. Do invasions of unhappy planets make their species like the invader, or do invasions of happy planets make their species dislike the invader? Or do invasions of planets whose species have high allegiance to the invader make the planet happy? Or does it depend on the relative allegiances to the initial and invading empires? Presumably invading a happy planet that has low allegiance to an empire should generally not result in benefits to either for the new owner. (Re)capturing / liberating a planet that is very unhappy and whose species likes the invader should not have (m)any penalties associated with it, but does it warrant a happiness boost?

We can simplify by making the species react to:
* Causalities and possibly building/infrastructure destruction, and
* Does the species have a higher allegiance to the new empire, or not?

A species will always be made unhappy when population is getting blown up, and resent the one who does it to some degree. The more the bloodshed/destruction the more the unhappiness and negative allegiance.
If we rig invasions so that it is easier/cheaper to invade with destructive bombardment, and harder/more expensive to invade with negligible loss of life/destruction-- then we have interesting options.

If an empire manages a bloodless invasion, then the only thing the citizens will be concerned with is weather they like the new or old empire better-- which should effect happiness i think.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:48 am 
Offline
Programming, Design, Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Posts: 12041
Location: Munich
eleazar wrote:
If an empire manages a bloodless invasion
Meaning what? Just dropping ground troops, no orbital bombardment? I assume that means there needs to be an orbital bombardment button next to the invade button then? With essentially the same mechanism to specify which ships will do so (so as to allow the player to control the amount of bombardment)?
Quote:
...the only thing the citizens will be concerned with is weather they like the new or old empire better-- which should effect happiness i think.
Is this an short term / decaying modification to happiness, or a permanent modification that depends on the difference between a planet's species allegiances to its previous and current owners? What if a planet changes ownership several times? Does it remember its original or most recent previous owner? How long does an owner stay "original" or "previous" if nothing else changes?

I assume species' allegiances doesn't generally directly affect happiness on planets, so the ownership-change effect would be distinct from just a change in happiness just because the allegiance of the owner changed (ignoring that it's a different owner)?

If a planet's species is happy but has low allegiance to its owner, and then another empire bombs the planet, presumably the planet's happiness would drop. Would the planet then potentially start generating rebels and perhaps be conquered by them?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:26 pm 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
Geoff the Medio wrote:
eleazar wrote:
Empire contains other species (increasing penalty with additional species. Arguably this might not be a trait for every species, but arguably also arguably, if species Foo only lives in one empire, they will have a stronger connection to it.)
"Empire contains other species" and "Species also lives in other empires" are distinct factors, I think.

Uh, yeah, i crossed my lines of reasoning there.

Geoff the Medio wrote:
eleazar wrote:
...how does the player "manage" his citizen's happiness.
At the risk of scope creep, if there are any actions initiated by players to manipulate happiness of individual planets, I think a leader type units might be a good mechanism to enact them. Players would need to have a leader located in a system to be able to initiate unrest on a planet or to boost its happiness. Assuming leaders aren't happening any time soon, I'm reluctant to add a means to "buy" local happiness modifiers.

I agree, i don't like the idea of allowing the player to mess much with the happiness of a single planet at a time. But i thought espionage missions against particular planets (pushing it towards rebellion via the happiness meter) was your key feature?

Leaders could be involved if we have them, but i don't think a good system would rely on leaders -- it would be a more broad-scale thing.

Here's a list of possibilities -- all will not work at the same time.

    * Excess "influence" is spent boosting happiness every turn
    * The player can perform PR/propaganda missions on entire species with influence.
    * The current system of population boosting specials is imitated/co-oped to make happiness boosting specials.
    * The "trade" resource is basically a luxury resource -- primary purpose is to increase happiness.
    * Each species has a special and/or building that boosts it's happiness.


Geoff the Medio wrote:
The consequence of having low happiness is probably an important issue... There is presently a rebels meter, which if set to nonzero, effectively generates some ground troops on a planet each turn which the planetary garrison needs to put down in a ground battle. If the rebels meter is above one - which is the rate of growth of planet troops - then the rebels slowly wear down the planet's troops and will eventually capture the planet from a player. (This presently doesn't come into play as the rebels meter is always 0, though you can test by setting rebels nonzero with an effect if so inclined.)

A possibility is to have the happiness meter influence the level of the rebels meter. Essentially, a planet's happiness would be subtracted from its rebels, and planets with sufficient happiness would then never generate any rebels. Planets with happiness below the sum of the other contributions to rebels would have rebel ground battles each turn, possibly leading to loss of the planet. To avoid this, players could have means to boost their troop regeneration rate to compensate for the loss of troops due to the rebel meter being above one. This might be a "suppress rebels" focus.

The problem i see with presenting rebellion as essentially an invasion from within is that the natural and obvious response is for the player to try to land more troop ships. But if we allow that, it seems it would be a micro-intensive activity to continually supply your unhappy planets with rebel-suppressing troop ships.

Also for the sake of player attention and sit-rep messages, i'd rather see attempted rebellions as more of an intermittent outburst, rather than a continuous grind of attrition.


Geoff the Medio wrote:
Regardless of the details, there probably should be more than one means to counteract low happiness or allegiance, so as to permit different strategies.

Yeah, that's why i'd like to have either slave/prison planets, or slave status for species. It allows players to ignore happiness for certain planets/species at the cost of less productivity, and vulnerability rebellion. It is the precise opposite to making your citizens happy. Of course there can be multiple, less drastic methods.

Geoff the Medio wrote:
For now, presumably any player-controlled happiness modifications will need to be not single-planet effects. Area-of-effect buildings are an obvious option, as long as they don't need to be produced everywhere. I'd quite like to avoid anything like "setting the tax rate" that occurs in so many games, but which I find quite uninteresting.
Agree.


Geoff the Medio wrote:
eleazar wrote:
If an empire manages a bloodless invasion
Meaning what? Just dropping ground troops, no orbital bombardment? I assume that means there needs to be an orbital bombardment button next to the invade button then? With essentially the same mechanism to specify which ships will do so (so as to allow the player to control the amount of bombardment)?

Yeah, i see the bombardment interface working just like the troop invasion one.


Geoff the Medio wrote:
eleazar wrote:
...the only thing the citizens will be concerned with is weather they like the new or old empire better-- which should effect happiness i think.
Is this an short term / decaying modification to happiness, or a permanent modification that depends on the difference between a planet's species allegiances to its previous and current owners? What if a planet changes ownership several times? Does it remember its original or most recent previous owner? How long does an owner stay "original" or "previous" if nothing else changes?

I assume species' allegiances doesn't generally directly affect happiness on planets, so the ownership-change effect would be distinct from just a change in happiness just because the allegiance of the owner changed (ignoring that it's a different owner)?

Yeah, assuming happiness has a current and target value, i'd see planets changing hands potentially producing a large, temporary spike in happiness. The size of the reaction is directly proportional to the difference between their allegiance to the previous and new ruler. If their allegiance to the two empires is the same, there would be no reaction. I don't see the need for a planet to remember any older owners -- except in as much as they had effected the allegiance meter.

Geoff the Medio wrote:
If a planet's species is happy but has low allegiance to its owner, and then another empire bombs the planet, presumably the planet's happiness would drop. Would the planet then potentially start generating rebels and perhaps be conquered by them?
Quite possibly, though depending on the extent of the bombing, and their previous allegiance toward the bomber, they will likely not like the bomber very much either.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:08 pm 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
Geoff: you've objected to some ideas due to the issues with optimal distribution. Do those objections apply to automatically used the excess of a non-blockadable resource (like influence) to boost happiness?

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:33 pm 
Offline
Programming, Design, Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Posts: 12041
Location: Munich
eleazar wrote:
Geoff: you've objected to some ideas due to the issues with optimal distribution. Do those objections apply to automatically used the excess of a non-blockadable resource (like influence) to boost happiness?
The issues I had were for cases where a resource was both stockpilable and had limitations concerning whether it can be used in certain places that depend on where it is generated (ie. is blockadable). If influence is not stockpilable, or can be stockpiled and spent from anywhere without blockades impacting it, then it can be easily distributed without these problems. It's also OK if influence can only be spent at particular locations if which locations those are doesn't depend on any sort of "connection to the stockpile" type test. So, it would be acceptable to only be able to spend influence where a leader, particular building, or other condition is present or met, as long as there's no requirement that that location be connected to the stockpile or location that generates the influence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:39 pm 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm
Posts: 1396
eleazar wrote:
So, i'll just finish off with all the ideas for things that reasonably could effect happiness and allegiance for all species. "Influence" not listed yet, but that should be somewhere.

Happiness:
    + + Citizen lives on a Gaia
    + Citizen lives on its homeworld.
    + Citizen is supply-connected to its homeworld (even if homeworld belongs to a connected ally)
    + Entertainment / Mind-control, etc. techs
    + / - Planet is of the EP (decreasing bonus or penalty the further from the EP the planet is)
    - Citizen is part of a large empire (some increasing penalty as imperial population increases)
    - Population loss
    - - Planet is bombarded (big effect)

You sort of mention this, but
+/- Citizen has high/low allegiance with this empire

There is an issue with a planet changing from one empire to another.
So I would suggest, the Happiness this turn should have nothing to do with the Happiness in a previous turn.

This allows it
1. to be a more "jumpy" statistic (for sudden rebellions/riots)
2. to not have to have complicated calculations every time we switch empires

As regarding
Resources->Happiness

I'd suggest that the 'distribution' would be
Automatic (resources automatically distributed for equal effect across planets..possibly excluding 'slave' worlds)
+
Special "targeted" abilities (buildings, leaders, espionage)... these should be less efficient, and possibly take time to implement/remove/move (so you only put them in certain locations)

eleazar wrote:
Allegiance:
+ Empire controls their homeworld
- Empire contains other species (increasing penalty with additional species. Arguably this might not be a trait for every species, but arguably also arguably, if species Foo only lives in one empire, they will have a stronger connection to it.)
- - Empire X bombarded their planet


So-- discuss...


Regarding HW
I don't think "empire controls hw" should always be a +
instead
Empire controls hw with this species living on it = +
Empire controls hw with another species living on it = -
Empire contols hw and it is under some type of occupation/slave world(if those are implemented)= -

This way I won't be happy with an empire that invaded Earth and exiled humans to Mars


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:27 pm 
Offline
Programming, Design, Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Posts: 12041
Location: Munich
Krikkitone wrote:
There is an issue with a planet changing from one empire to another.
So I would suggest, the Happiness this turn should have nothing to do with the Happiness in a previous turn.

As in you think there should be no happiness meter separate from target happiness, or that the happiness meter's value should be completely reset after an ownership change? If there's no persistence of happiness between turns, with the value moving towards target happiness, that makes temporary changes from discrete events difficult to handle.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 6:35 pm 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
Krikkitone wrote:
You sort of mention this, but
+/- Citizen has high/low allegiance with this empire

I'm not sure if happiness should effect allegiance, or if allegiance should effect happiness. Or maybe both should effect both -- if that's possible without causing some runway snowballing effect.

Krikkitone wrote:
There is an issue with a planet changing from one empire to another.
So I would suggest, the Happiness this turn should have nothing to do with the Happiness in a previous turn.

This allows it
1. to be a more "jumpy" statistic (for sudden rebellions/riots)
2. to not have to have complicated calculations every time we switch empires

I'm not sure what you mean "an issue with"...
But i'd prefer a simpler model of happiness with no historical memory (i.e. there's not a target and a current value), but it could lead to weird things, like citizens suddenly not caring about the slaughter that occurred two turns ago. Of course, maybe we just rely on allegiance store the reaction to things in the past.


Krikkitone wrote:
eleazar wrote:
Allegiance:
+ Empire controls their homeworld


Regarding HW
I don't think "empire controls hw" should always be a +
instead
Empire controls hw with this species living on it = +
Empire controls hw with another species living on it = -
Empire contols hw and it is under some type of occupation/slave world(if those are implemented)= -

This way I won't be happy with an empire that invaded Earth and exiled humans to Mars

Good points.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:27 am 
Offline
Vacuum Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 2:51 pm
Posts: 500
Krikkitone wrote:
Empire controls hw with another species living on it = -

This could be a global happiness malus for the species instead. We could make a species that originally lives outside its designed homeworld and would get a major happiness boost if an empire would settle the homeworld with the species.
Quote:
This way I won't be happy with an empire that invaded Earth and exiled humans to Mars

This should be handled by allegiance drop upon invasion, I think.

_________________
[...] for Man has earned his right to hold this planet against all comers, by virtue of occasionally producing someone totally batshit insane. - Randall Munroe, title text to xkcd #556


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:30 am 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
em3 wrote:
Krikkitone wrote:
Empire controls hw with another species living on it = -

This could be a global happiness malus for the species instead. We could make a species that originally lives outside its designed homeworld and would get a major happiness boost if an empire would settle the homeworld with the species.

One problem with happiness/allegiance as it has been considered so far, is that many events could plausibly effect either or both. Generally the distinction i've been using is that happiness is only effected by things that happen to that particular planet.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:24 pm 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm
Posts: 1396
em3 wrote:
Krikkitone wrote:
Empire controls hw with another species living on it = -

This could be a global happiness malus for the species instead. We could make a species that originally lives outside its designed homeworld and would get a major happiness boost if an empire would settle the homeworld with the species.
Quote:
This way I won't be happy with an empire that invaded Earth and exiled humans to Mars

This should be handled by allegiance drop upon invasion, I think.



What if instead, The Human empire conquered Species X, and then Species X became the dominant species in the Human Empire (Species X has great production bonuses, I'm going to evacuate my original Humans off of Earth to try and get more Species X)
Invasion isn't required (Species=/=empire)

Although there should be an allegiance drop on invasion, I agree.



Also given the nature of Happiness (it can't have any memory if it is going to have empire specific results, nor would it reasonably be affected by 'foreign affairs' ie stuff other empires do)

It should probably be the more limited (ie default is that something affects Allegiance Unless it
1. affects some planets and not others (of a particular species)
AND
2. has no memory (ie only affects this turn)



Some additional thoughts on Happiness
+ lives on Capital
+ Supply connected to Capital
- Distant from Capital
+ supply connected to a Gaia?
+ Imperial Excess Influence/Imperial Population

and Allegiance
+ Our species is Present in Empire X (so the Foo will like empires with Foo Citizens more than those without)
- Empire X Invaded one of our worlds (possibly dependent on collateral damage and Allegiance to the defending Empire)
--- Empire X destroyed our HW (Nova bomb)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:17 am 
Offline
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Posts: 3858
Location: USA — midwest
Krikkitone wrote:
Also given the nature of Happiness (it can't have any memory if it is going to have empire specific results...

Um, can you explain what you mean?

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy

—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:38 pm 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm
Posts: 1396
eleazar wrote:
Krikkitone wrote:
Also given the nature of Happiness (it can't have any memory if it is going to have empire specific results...

Um, can you explain what you mean?


Planets move between one empire and another. If Happiness has Empire specific contributing factors, and it has memory, then the new empire suffers/benefits from the previous empire's unhappiness factors.

Basically the Empire Affected by happiness (the owner now) is not necessarilly the one contributing to it (the owner then)

Unless there is an adjustment for Happiness on exchange
[although that might be doable... adjust Current happiness by differences in Target Happiness under old owner v. current owner]... That still means the new owner suffers/benefits from 'one time events' from the previous owner.

in that case Never mind the second limitation. (and that would probably be better)

However, because Happiness Is
1. not empire specific
2. location specific
It would probably be better to keep it limited to things that are strictly local (ie they won't influence other planets)
[Internal Propaganda, Conditions on that planet-distance,empire size, starlane connections, capital, Gaia, etc.]

The other issue is the complications if
1. Both Happiness and Allegiance have a memory (Target+Current)
and
2. The Current of 1 affects the Target of the other

so if they both have 'memory'

I'd suggest
Target Primary ->Target Secondary effects
and
Event X -> +Current of Primary, also give +Current of the Secondary


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group