Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Philosophies on development priorities
Published on April 20, 2006 By Draginol In GalCiv Journals

Like many people who play strategy games, we have a lot of ideas for cool features to have in a strategy game.  They come up all the time.

Space mines, orbital bombardment, tactical combat, heroes, special agents, asteroid fields, special powers for races, and dozens I won't mention right now.

It's not that these aren't good ideas -- they are.  I want many of those features too (except orbital bombardment <g>).  For me, PC strategy games revolve around having good opponents.

A good opponent means either another human being who is decent at the game or a computer controlled opponent.  For most of us, another human being who is at our skill level who is readily available to play a game that is going to last many hours is not a realistic option. That's the drawback on turn based strategy games (which isn't to say that we should shun having a multiplayer feature someday, only that it's not at the same priority as computer players).

The features I describe above could be added to the game in a month or two. Features are easy. Computer players who use them effectively are not.  On paper, having a computer player who "uses" a feature effectively seems easy. But in practice, there's a lot involved.  One mans genius strategy is another man's doom when played on a different map or in different circumstances. 

So like I said, adding features is easy. You can create a bullet list of great features but in my opinion, if the computer players don't use them effectively, then it's largely a waste unless you have a really solid multiplayer component and then it's fine -- for the people who play multiplayer. 

When we do the expansion pack, the features we choose to put it in will have to budget not just the time to implement those features but the time to write a computer AI that does the same thing and does it well.  And that can be tricky. 

And so next time someone wonders why "Feature X" isn't in the game, the answer may be as simple as "Because the time to have the AI use it well was longer than we could budget."  If the response is "Game Y had that feature" then ask yourself - how well did game Y make use of that feature for its computer opponents?


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Apr 21, 2006
Lenius, I'm not saying that they start off building speed 3 or 4 colony ships. What I am saying is that they're almost keeping up with me, and almost only because I haven't done any military tech research at this point.
on Apr 21, 2006
Very, very good journal entry. I am glad to see that Stardock has such open and honest employees. Honest companies are the only ones worth being loyal to.

=$= Big J Money =$=
on Apr 22, 2006
This is the same thought I have with the endless 'lolz MoO2' threads on the forums. MoO2 had plenty of features - for better or worse - but the AI appeared to have no clue how to use most of them. The race customisation, for instance, meant that the AI was generalised and almost never played to the strengths the particular abilities of a given race provided. Tactical combat was a joke, because the AI couldn't design a hole in the ground and couldn't use all the 'trick' weapons properly in combat.

I'm a proponent of orbital bombardment, even in a limited sense. I don't like that you have to land troops to mess with someone's planet. I'm not interested in exterminating worlds, but blowing up factories, disrupting production, crippling infrastructure, or rendering planets more vulnerable to trade/culture/etc would be fun. However... it would doubtless be a nightmare to build an AI that can intelligently choose bombardment goals.
on Apr 22, 2006
Stardock's post makes great sense to me.
The only thing I lament about this sensible post is that the crew at Stardock cannot implement these great features AND make the AI work wonders with them! Tant pis, but I sure hope they will try...
on Apr 22, 2006
Thankfully we have you Frogboy to "keep it real" for us. A good majority (myself included) hasn't the foggiest what is needed to bring about adding in feature x or y. Just feature x or y sounds cool and so forth. Nor do we know the implications of imbalance.

My own opinion is that I reject and or refute any ideas based on proposition that some game made before is far superior to this one. So many posts that say MOO2 was uber, GC2 needs this this and this... fall on deaf ears. I think it has to deal with attitude and tone. If someone says game x had this great feature maybe GC2 should have it.. I would read/listen to it. I guess its the arrogant posts they should go straight to the rubbish bin.
on Apr 22, 2006
I would certaintly accept that proposition. Taste being subjective, I'm sure some peole consider other games to be better, but to seriously claim that another game in the same genre was vastly superior to GalCiv2? I would think that hard to justify.
on Apr 22, 2006
It's the people who honestly think GC2 is ever going to be like MoO2 that worry me. The focus of the two games is *totally different*.
on Apr 22, 2006
Yes you would think that anyone who had played both games would realise that, especially if they claim to be huge fans of one of them ...
2 Pages1 2