Winning FreeOrion

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

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
DvdW
Space Krill
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:05 am

Re: Winning FreeOrion

#31 Post by DvdW »

Krikkitone wrote:
IConrad wrote:It seems to me that there are a few basic strategies which are viable for victory conditions.

1) Escape the map. (Technological transcendence; develop a trans-galactic warp drive, etc. Mostly a technology end-run.)

2) Unify the map.

This one gets a bit more ... interesting. There are three basic means of conquering the competition.

A) Conquer them with guns and bombs. Straight-forward; build a bigger hammer, swing harder.

B) Conquer them with ideas. Less straight-forward. Shift "enemy" empire's opinions of you with spies in order to more quickly gain alliances, for example. Disseminate your culture far and wide. This is the Diplomatic/Cultural victory.

C) Conquer them with dollars. Buy out their home-world(s), etc.
.
So the three methods of controlling the world would be

1. Fear (Troops)
2. Love (you make them like you)
3. Dependence (economics, you make their economy dependent on you)

I would develop those as
1. would take over one world at a time (although an empire might surrender if there as some 'allied victory')

2. would take over a world through mechanism 1... (rebel troops in support of the empire they love, beating troops of the empire they fear)... (of course it could also have an empire 'surrender' to you and this would work a lot better with an 'allied victory')

3. wouldn't take over worlds, it could be used to 'attack' worlds OR to take over entire empires. (ie surrender or in poverty)
I assume you mean controlling the galaxy. :wink:

Anyway, so there are different weapons to reach the same goal which is good. But the problem is no human player would willingly make his economy dependant on you, as it will make him lose. So the economics would have to be either a player doesn´t find out about until it is too late(or his spies pick up on it) or something that is not directly under his control.

I like the rock paper scissors thing as this will prevent someone from focussing everything on 1 strategy. And it kind of makes sense as a big military power is vulnerable in its economy(USA is a good example at the moment) And a wealthy power is vulnerable to corruption, and espionage won´t stop an attack by strong army. So then every player needs to cover all the bases at least with a minimum, but if they excel at one thing they can be countered with another. This will lead to alliance making and it will take a much longer time before any one empire reaches critical mass and can just outgrow the other empires.

User avatar
Bigjoe5
Designer and Programmer
Posts: 2058
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:33 pm
Location: Orion

Re: Winning FreeOrion

#32 Post by Bigjoe5 »

DvdW wrote:Anyway, so there are different weapons to reach the same goal which is good. But the problem is no human player would willingly make his economy dependant on you, as it will make him lose. So the economics would have to be either a player doesn´t find out about until it is too late(or his spies pick up on it) or something that is not directly under his control.
No - it needs to give the dependent player a temporary, immediate advantage, so that he willingly enters into a subservient relationship for the sake of expediency, putting himself in a bad situation as an alternative to being eliminated entirely. We don't need some sort of shady economic underground for gaining indirect "economic" control over enemy planets. The economics in the game should be real, interactive, player-controlled macro-economics between empires, not abstracted spreadsheet micro-economics.

For example, if Empire A has massive food production, and trades food to other empires at a favourable rate, this will lead to those empires focusing less on food, and furthermore, expanding their empire in such a way as to place minimal emphasis on food production. This gives those empires a large, immediate advantage in terms of all the other resources. However, their inability to produce enough food for themselves means that Empire A has them over a barrel, and it becomes a political/economic contest between Empire A and the other food-dependent empires.
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

User avatar
IConrad
Space Kraken
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:55 pm

Re: Winning FreeOrion

#33 Post by IConrad »

DvdW wrote:Anyway, so there are different weapons to reach the same goal which is good. But the problem is no human player would willingly make his economy dependant on you, as it will make him lose. So the economics would have to be either a player doesn´t find out about until it is too late(or his spies pick up on it) or something that is not directly under his control.
That's the basic reason I had behind the idea of the corporate-buyout of individual worlds/systems using a "meter" approach. It's a more passive approach than military combat-scapes, which some players might not like; but others might (More sim, less action.) It keeps it nice and cleanly "in the open".

I.e.; your first hint would be a StiRep report, "Player X is attempting a buyout of World Y!! The planetary government's reserves will only hold out for # Turns remaining."

But that's the breaks.

Post Reply