In most games Empires are Ranked using some kind of "power point" system that combines a wide range of statistics such as territory, tecnology, fleet strength ect ect. All of these things get added up and the results are somthing from 0 and up. Each empire is then generaly ranked from strongest to weakest.
The downside here is that the AI only knows 2 things "So and so is #3 on the power graph" and "so and so is strong/weaker then me". The nature of the simple rankings fail to give a global/Galactic view of whats happening. I propose that Empires be ranked on a more relatavistic scale that is based on Rivalry (or bein UN-Rivaled). The power point calculations and rankings would still function as they have in the past, the following is just an additonal interpritation of thouse results. The resulting descriptions are also inspired by some resent political pundits habit of Refering to the U.S. as a "hyper power" and an interesting article in Scientific American on the sugject. The folowing descriptions assume a wide variety in powerlevels and a large number of empires (much like the real world)
Uber Power - An Empire which is so ridiculsly far ahead that its total power exceeds all other powers combined and has a minimum of 4x the power of its closest Rival. Or if FO alows you to win the game based on your overall Power level this would be equivalent to that Victory condition, you can only play as an Uber power by chossing to continue playing past the point of victory (a must have option I think).
Hyper Power - Their can be at most only 1 Hyper Power in the game at one time. A Hyper Power has a minimum of twice the power points of its closest rival and has the greatest number of PP (power points) of any empire and it must have 5 times the Average number of PP held by all empires.
Super Power - A super power is usaly not alone. A super Power must have between 100% and 40% of the power points of the highest ranked power in the game and cantain more then 3 times the Average number of power points.
Great Power - A great power must have between 40% and 10% of the power of the Highest ranked power and have atleast the average number of PP.
Minor Power - A Minor power is below the average number of power Points.
Trivial Power - A trivial power has less then half the average power point total.
Pathetic Power - A Pathetic power has less then one quarter the average power point total.
As you can see these descriptions are very informative of an empires place "in the pack" and should feed directly into the Computers calculations when it forms strategies and conducts Diplomacy.
Empire Power Rankings
Moderator: Oberlus
-
Impaler
- Creative Contributor
- Posts: 1060
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 12:40 am
- Location: Tucson, Arizona USA
Empire Power Rankings
Fear is the Mind Killer - Frank Herbert -Dune
I would just use the same number converter from galaxy generation to get power points -> %. Obvious the guy who controls the most % is in lead. The % will explain everything you meantioned plus it isn't limited by number of players plus it will always be relative. The system you propose is not very relative nor informative since most empire will be trapped in between great power and minor power most of the game until one shoots off with snowball, which by then I think they know who it is.
-
Krikkitone
- Creative Contributor
- Posts: 1559
- Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm
Actually, with a large enough number of players, you should get a few super powers at various stages. They will then use diplomacy to assemble nice 'grand alliances' against each other. If the 'gang-up' effect is working properly then larger super powers particularly ones that are acting aggressively (ie beginning snowball) should be rapidly ganged up on by the others. Eventually the process of elimination should make the situation more and more unstable.
(This means that to keep an interesting game, there needs to be a reason not to eliminate powers.. empires should know when they are losing a war, offer peace ,and rejection of that peace comes with diplomatic or even domestic in some cases consequences.. conquered populations can rebel, annihilated populations can bring diplomatic consequences.)
The game needs to have more inconclusive wars, wars where the victories are Phyrric and allow powers reduced to trivial to slowly come back (because every little bit of help is needed in taking out/containing the leading superpower, so that trivial power will be helped, and the pathetic power at least ignored.)
Finally, the number dependence is vital. The absolute % should enter in to calculations, but saying someone has 5% of the power on the board is useless. Indeed so is numerical rank.. so someone is #1, do they have a valid challenger in #2 (in which case I as #8 will wait it out, unless major bribes are given) or is #2 going to be crushed by them if they don't get help (in which case I may help if properly persuaded, and #2 doesn't gain too much, at which point I may help the previous #1, possibly by stabbing previous #2 in the back)
or is #2 and everyone going to be crushed easily anyways by Uberpower #1, in which case I attempt to be as nice as possible, to get as many goodies as I can, to get as high in the rankings as possible when the game ends. (this is best if some type of alliances/surrenders are possible, that allow joint wins)
Absolute % of galactic power is only useful indetermining the game win point (once you have some amount over 50% or so you've won, because everyone else altogether can't beat you... assuming its a somewhat accurate measure of power)
Relative power to the average and to closest rival is far more useful for determining strategy in maintaining a 'balance of power' read 'stopping people from getting to the point where we can't stop them'.
(This means that to keep an interesting game, there needs to be a reason not to eliminate powers.. empires should know when they are losing a war, offer peace ,and rejection of that peace comes with diplomatic or even domestic in some cases consequences.. conquered populations can rebel, annihilated populations can bring diplomatic consequences.)
The game needs to have more inconclusive wars, wars where the victories are Phyrric and allow powers reduced to trivial to slowly come back (because every little bit of help is needed in taking out/containing the leading superpower, so that trivial power will be helped, and the pathetic power at least ignored.)
Finally, the number dependence is vital. The absolute % should enter in to calculations, but saying someone has 5% of the power on the board is useless. Indeed so is numerical rank.. so someone is #1, do they have a valid challenger in #2 (in which case I as #8 will wait it out, unless major bribes are given) or is #2 going to be crushed by them if they don't get help (in which case I may help if properly persuaded, and #2 doesn't gain too much, at which point I may help the previous #1, possibly by stabbing previous #2 in the back)
or is #2 and everyone going to be crushed easily anyways by Uberpower #1, in which case I attempt to be as nice as possible, to get as many goodies as I can, to get as high in the rankings as possible when the game ends. (this is best if some type of alliances/surrenders are possible, that allow joint wins)
Absolute % of galactic power is only useful indetermining the game win point (once you have some amount over 50% or so you've won, because everyone else altogether can't beat you... assuming its a somewhat accurate measure of power)
Relative power to the average and to closest rival is far more useful for determining strategy in maintaining a 'balance of power' read 'stopping people from getting to the point where we can't stop them'.
I thought I said "% will explain everything...plus it will always be relative." O well. Sorry. Yes, you are required to understand quantum modeling before you can understand % pie chart. My mistake for thinking that everybody here has some background knowlege in relativistic quantum mechanical modeling of two brutes in a tug of war.
-
Krikkitone
- Creative Contributor
- Posts: 1559
- Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm
Sorry, I just didn't see the point in making it % when his system was all relative anyways. (as in 2* average, etc.)
Actually, what I like about that method of doing it is a power could consider its known neighbors, without knowing about the whole galaxy.
ie the basic measure of a power is Its power divided by the average power of all empires 'I know of'. and its power relative to the next closest 'that I know of' (or to the top power 'that I know of'). Finally compare it to the total powers 'that I know of'.
Essentially, when you know a few powers, early in the game all would be considered great or minor, eventually once you knew a large number, the possibility of superpowers would emerge.
Those categories shouldn't be the thing used to make the AI decisions. The AI should look at the actual numbers used to generate it. But those categories might be helpful to players as good way of categorizing (as well as a neat bit of color ('Imperial analysts say we/they are considered a hyper power').
And useful also for pacing/balance, I think we want to maintain the game at the Superpower stage (a few major players and a lot of others that they use against each other, and that attempt to use their rivalry for greatest advantage.) for as long as possible. That provides more interest than the Hyper power stage, (third most interesting) because diplomacy is Really worthwhile as a superpower...as a Hyper power its somewhat of a failed cause, and as an Uber pwer its unnecessary. In the great/minor power stage (second most interesting), all concerns shrink to your immediate neighbors, since there is no developing 'galactic history'. Its all about how to get ahead.
Actually, what I like about that method of doing it is a power could consider its known neighbors, without knowing about the whole galaxy.
ie the basic measure of a power is Its power divided by the average power of all empires 'I know of'. and its power relative to the next closest 'that I know of' (or to the top power 'that I know of'). Finally compare it to the total powers 'that I know of'.
Essentially, when you know a few powers, early in the game all would be considered great or minor, eventually once you knew a large number, the possibility of superpowers would emerge.
Those categories shouldn't be the thing used to make the AI decisions. The AI should look at the actual numbers used to generate it. But those categories might be helpful to players as good way of categorizing (as well as a neat bit of color ('Imperial analysts say we/they are considered a hyper power').
And useful also for pacing/balance, I think we want to maintain the game at the Superpower stage (a few major players and a lot of others that they use against each other, and that attempt to use their rivalry for greatest advantage.) for as long as possible. That provides more interest than the Hyper power stage, (third most interesting) because diplomacy is Really worthwhile as a superpower...as a Hyper power its somewhat of a failed cause, and as an Uber pwer its unnecessary. In the great/minor power stage (second most interesting), all concerns shrink to your immediate neighbors, since there is no developing 'galactic history'. Its all about how to get ahead.
-
Impaler
- Creative Contributor
- Posts: 1060
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 12:40 am
- Location: Tucson, Arizona USA
We have also been doing some brainstorming on the idea of MOO3's magnete Civalizations and other weaker empires.
Basicaly I belive that the game should be capable of starting with an un-even playing field, a few great or Super powers and a wide range of progressivly lesser powers to imediatly create a web of superiority/inferiority relationships to work in (rather then have these relatinships develop from a state of total uniformity at the start of the game).
This is for one thing more consistent witht he games back story inwhich The glorious Orions had previously united the galaxy and then vanished leaving behind a broken fragmented realm with wide tecnological differences. Add to that new "post Orion" civalizations that are just reaching space travel and we have a very diverse galaxy. This stands in stark contrast to the traditional Civ based aproatch of starting everyone out isolated and at tecnological equality (bottom of the tec tree)
Basicaly I belive that the game should be capable of starting with an un-even playing field, a few great or Super powers and a wide range of progressivly lesser powers to imediatly create a web of superiority/inferiority relationships to work in (rather then have these relatinships develop from a state of total uniformity at the start of the game).
This is for one thing more consistent witht he games back story inwhich The glorious Orions had previously united the galaxy and then vanished leaving behind a broken fragmented realm with wide tecnological differences. Add to that new "post Orion" civalizations that are just reaching space travel and we have a very diverse galaxy. This stands in stark contrast to the traditional Civ based aproatch of starting everyone out isolated and at tecnological equality (bottom of the tec tree)
Fear is the Mind Killer - Frank Herbert -Dune