|
Tom_Holsinger -> RE: bureaucracy (11/30/2009 12:59:55 AM)
|
Ryvan,
There are different opinions here. Mine is that turn-based space 4x games are fundamentally different than other turn-based 4x games because the former's players are much more interested in combat. Specifically we space gamers tend to consider our 4x games to be vehicles for creating exciting space battles, and/or mastering strategic challenges, both of which are outward directed at our AI opponents.
Fans of the Civiilzation series are more focused on empire management. They like coping with their own unruly populations. Space gamers, by contrast, view domestic unrest as, at best, an annoying distraction from the parts of the game they more enjoy. The enjoyable part of space empire management is much more a matter of optimizing production than of placating unruly citizens. Another significant faction of space gamers really liikes the exploration phase, but that too is outward directed. Most to almost all turn-based space 4x game fans loathe coping with the domestic unrest which, by contrast again, is a major point of enjoyment for Civ fans.
Note that Master of Orion I and II had no domestic unrest at all, and were great successes in their day. This is because Steve Barcia (designer of MOO1/2), who was and is a true genius in the gaming industry, understood the point I just made. He convinced me of it in phone conversations during MOO1 days.
Alan Emrich and Quicksilver added unrest to MOO3 in several ways, some of which worked and some of which didn't. Their implementation of piracy was a flipping disaster. On the other hand, their use of the Ithkul/Harvester bad guy race to create unrest on planets was a wild success. Overall their addition of unrest to the MOO series was effective.
The key insight, though, and this was Emrich's, was his means of keeping player empires from easily winning a game by just outgrowing the AI empires. Bob Smith has something similar, and both are based on the concept that the bureaucracy necessary to run increasingly large empires makes them increasing inefficient.
Emrich's implementation of bureaucracy in MOO3 was what he called the Heavy Foot of Government (HFoG). It is definitely not the same as Armada's "bureaucracy", but they serve the same purpose - giving experienced players a challenging game after 100-150 turns - in different ways. Emrich's in MOO3 is IMO much preferable to Bob Smith's in Armada.
Emrich's HFoG increases building costs as empire size increases, in terms of numbers of planets and total population both. A HFoG rating of 3 means everything costs three times normal. A HFoG rating of 2.25 means everything costs two and a quarter times normal. This means that the really big empires, i.e., player ones, cannot easily win by just outgrowing the AI empires. It's a handicap which dsproportionatey affects the larger empires, and more so as they get bigger.
HFoG absolutely, positively, does not increase or affect unrest in any way. You can run a large empire in exactly the same fashion as a small one - it just takes longer because there is more to do. Most importantly, you can concentrate on beating the enemy, advancing your empire and generally stay outwardly focused.
Bob's bureaucracy scales up in much the same way Emrich's HFOG does, but Bob's bureaucracy does not directly affect production. Instead it adds to unpopularity and thereby, ultimately, unrest. The costs of building things does not change as an empire gets bigger. The costs of creating the many buildings and troops to keep down the unrest, i.e., the cost of doing business, goes up. But, worst of all, Bob's bureaucracy here DEMANDS that players pay an increasingly greater amount of attention to domestic unrest as their empires get bigger, and distracts them from the fun stuff of facing external strategic challenges plus waging wars and fighting exciting space battles against AI opponents. You simply cannot play a really big empire in Armada the same way you play small ones. Quite different play styles are required.
And, IMO, the inwardly-focused, domestic politics, style Bob requires to successfully play large empires in his game is absolutely not the style most fans of turn-based space 4x games want. Sure it's what a lot, perhaps most, players of non-space turn-based 4x games want. But not space gamers.
I.e., Bob's Civ-type unrest implementation of bureaucracy will, IMO, kill the fun of playing his game on a large scale map.
I hope he changes it based on these remarks. It would not be difficult to do. Playtesting it for balance will be the hard part.
|
|
|
|
