The Traits of a Populous

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12762
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#16 Post by Geoff the Medio »

Biologically, you could justify a number of war-favouring bonuses as Natural Selection... (or Artificial Selection, debatably). Having lots of troops fighting (or rather, winning) in wars makes your people, on average, genegically more adapted to waging war, as surviving troops that come home and produce offspring are more likely to spawn skillfull, war-survival adapted offspring.

Socially, having an overly happy and never-threatened populace might lead to decadence, sloth, weakness, etc. This could negatively affect your people's willingness to work (reduced industry, slowed construction) and innovation and originality (reduced trade, research). More warlike-races (eg. klingons) would be more susecptible to such penalties. Pasivist races might factor in oppositely.

Alternatively, races could be graded on their self-motivation or tendency for slacking off if not pressured. Or sources for competition and challenge could be found within your empire, without requiring you to go fight others... Running a "Meritocracy" government pick or somesuch would reduce your empire's tendency to slack off... though might leave you more susceptible to foreign espionage, or more prone to having lots of disaffected lower classes that like to rebel...

Also, there can be goals for "winning" that don't involve the standard kill everyone / dominate / transcend type stuff. Some victory conditions might require a more consistently "outgoing" (not necessary warring) gameplan. (There's probly another thread for alternate winning conditions already though, so please avoid going off on that tangent too much here...)

guiguibaah
Creative Contributor
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:00 am

War related empires

#17 Post by guiguibaah »

So true - there were many Moo2 games I've played where I REALLY didn't want to get into a war with a 2nd race, because I knew that while doing so, the 3rd and 4th race would quietly gain technologies behind my back and beat me even if I did win the war against the 2nd race.

The end result was that I almost always was behind, so I would try to appease me neighbours until I had a sizeable fleet.


To that end, I like Geoff's suggestions. Perhaps another option is - if you participate in enough battles / skirmishes (losses or wins) your military tactics improve as a whole, and you gain certain bonuses. So your troops would start to be built as Veterans instead of Regulars.

Or, for those who have played Zero Hour, when you have earned enough "Battle experience" you can cash this experience in for some extra bonuses. Perhaps you could make a small fleet appear anywhere on the map as an ambush every X turns, or all your missile turrets double in size, or your ships get a special attack.
There are three kinds of people in this world - those who can count, and those who can't.

Triplelk
Space Krill
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2005 3:45 am

#18 Post by Triplelk »

Socially, having an overly happy and never-threatened populace might lead to decadence, sloth, weakness, etc. This could negatively affect your people's willingness to work (reduced industry, slowed construction) and innovation and originality (reduced trade, research). More warlike-races (eg. klingons) would be more susecptible to such penalties. Pasivist races might factor in oppositely.
I particularly like this idea 8) Not many 4x games have incorperated social trends such as these into the set up, but it would definetely be cool.

Perhaps periodic sitrep messages with Neitzsche style aphorisms could inform leaders that their Empire has become overly decadent... and thier populus growing weaker as a result. :lol: That would be entertaining to have flash across the screen.

Just out of curiousity, has anyone begun work on the "Galactic News"? I always enjoyed that feature of Moo2 and it would definetly be cool to have something similar in FreeOrion. Perhaps, instead of a being completely random event, certain "Breaking news reports" could also be brought on by player actions and population characteristics.
Want to play Axis and Allies 4th edition on your PC? Check out

http://triplea.sourceforge.net/

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#19 Post by utilae »

Triplelk wrote:
Socially, having an overly happy and never-threatened populace might lead to decadence, sloth, weakness, etc. This could negatively affect your people's willingness to work (reduced industry, slowed construction) and innovation and originality (reduced trade, research). More warlike-races (eg. klingons) would be more susecptible to such penalties. Pasivist races might factor in oppositely.
I particularly like this idea 8) Not many 4x games have incorperated social trends such as these into the set up, but it would definetely be cool.

Perhaps periodic sitrep messages with Neitzsche style aphorisms could inform leaders that their Empire has become overly decadent... and thier populus growing weaker as a result. :lol:
I will hate that idea.

It's like in dungeon siege. Your characters get better at combat if they use a sword alot or better at magic if they use magic alot. I would rather these changes in my characters come across as a result of active choices, not as a result of history.

Plus, the idea sounds like something you have little control over and you would have to really manage something alot to avoid weakness in your race, ie micromanagement.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12762
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#20 Post by Geoff the Medio »

utilae wrote:
Triplelk wrote:
Socially, having an overly happy and never-threatened populace might lead to decadence, sloth, weakness, etc. This could negatively affect your people's willingness to work (reduced industry, slowed construction) and innovation and originality (reduced trade, research). More warlike-races (eg. klingons) would be more susecptible to such penalties. Pasivist races might factor in oppositely.
It's like in dungeon siege. Your characters get better at combat if they use a sword alot or better at magic if they use magic alot.
Having persistent biological / genetic changes in this manner is one possibility, but it wasn't the only one suggested.

Another possibility would to have the actual characteristics of your race ("warlike", "pacifist", etc) be fixed and not depend on what you do in the game, but rather have all races be affected in some way by how much fighting or other stresses they've been put under, and certain races would be affected more or less according to their characteristics.

For example, warlike races would have big penalties to happiness and productivity in general if you don't fight much with them. Pacifist races would be less prone to such effects.
I would rather these changes in my characters come across as a result of active choices, not as a result of history.
Isn't the history mostly a result of your choices? Maybe you could rephrase the objection?
Plus, the idea sounds like something you have little control over and you would have to really manage something alot to avoid weakness in your race, ie micromanagement.
Isn't this a bit self-contradictory? If you don't have control over it, how can it require lots of micromanagement to control?

And regardless, it's a bit early to decry it as micromanagement-prone. That would depend on how things are implemented. If you just get empire-wide changes to happiness or laziness or whatever due to fighting space or ground wars, then it becomes a fairly high level choice to fight or avoid fighting. Micromanagement would be having to tweak some settings every turn on each planet... which could possibly be done, but can probably be avoided for this or most other happiness / health type cosiderations.

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#21 Post by utilae »

Geoff the Medio wrote:
I would rather these changes in my characters come across as a result of active choices, not as a result of history.
Isn't the history mostly a result of your choices? Maybe you could rephrase the objection?
History forces you to make a decision based on the event. I mean being able to make decisions regardless of the event. For example, in an rpg game, if most monsters were easier to kill with a sword then with magic, then through history you would choose to use swords specifically to defeat the monsters. If you had a choice, you could continue getting better at magic, even if it would not handle the events very well, at least you have that freedom.
Geoff the Medio wrote:
Plus, the idea sounds like something you have little control over and you would have to really manage something alot to avoid weakness in your race, ie micromanagement.
Isn't this a bit self-contradictory? If you don't have control over it, how can it require lots of micromanagement to control?
What I mean, is if people are going to try and keep the publics state at an optium level (ie not too dependent on luxuries and not too angry) it could only be achived through micromanagement.

Post Reply