Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.

Some of you in the beta are probably starting to recognize the influence you now have and why we had the beta be so primitive – so that your ideas can really REALLY go into the game.

So let’s talk about how units should be designed in the game.

Here’s how it works:

image

Players design their own units. It’s not like Civilization and such where you have knights or warriors. You start out with a person.

The key traits of that person involve their attack (how many HP damage in an attack they can potentially do), defense (how much of an attack they can potentially deflect), their health (how much HP they have), and their speed (how many attacks they get in a round).

These traits come from giving the unit weapons, armor and equipment.

It’s in what you equip your unit with that things get..interesting.

Let’s look at a late game unit that a player might potentially design (and none of this is set in stone as beta testers will have a lot of say on this):

I have created a unit called “Dread Knight”.

Equipment:

  • Twilight Honey Pack (adds 10% more HP to player).
  • Koladia leaves (increases health regen by 10% per turn).
  • Potion of Valor (provides 10% damage bonus)

Weapon:

  • Mithrilian Long Sword

Armor:

  • Mithril Helmet
  • Mithril Plate Mail
  • Leather Boots

Now this may even be a simplified unit design depending on where the beta takes us. The point being, the creation of this unit may hinge on several different resources being under the player’s control.

Now, in say Civilization IV, if the player didn’t have oil, they couldn’t build tanks. A unit would have a single resource requirement total.

But here, because players are designing their units, there may be several resource requirements. Which begs the question, what happens if you lose control of one of them? How should the game handle it?

I can think of a few different options:

  • Option A: Unit can’t be built. Straight forward but it could get tedious as players would have to design a backup unit or something which could get very micro-managey in a non-fun way.
  • Option B: Unit takes longer to be built. The issue here is how much longer should it take?  If it’s only a little longer, then controlling resources is largely meaningless. If it takes a lot longer then it’s almost worse than option A because the player may be unaware that their main unit is now taking 5X longer to build because they lost control of their twilight bee apiary several turns ago.
  • Option C: If the missing resource is weapons/armor then the player is informed they must substitute the weapon/armor, if it’s equipment then the item is not included on the unit. This simplifies things somewhat and encourages us to try to make as much of the “bonus” stuff fall into equipment. In the case where the twilight bee apiary is taken by another player, the unit is still built minus the twilight honey pack. The player would be able to see that they’re missing it still and the game would go as normal.

I’m a little biased for option C because I’d like to see the resources treated as bonuses rather than as pre-requisites. We keep the armor and weapons as straight forward as possible and have the “power” be in a large number of optional equipment the player can add on.


Comments (Page 7)
9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9 
on Oct 07, 2009

For what it's worth, I feel Option C, if handled correctly, will also probably be the classiest solution.

Still, the combat system seems to be vastly undercomplex so far; it almost seems like a form of CivIV, instead of a decent and variable combat template like Dominions 3. Here, you seem to have little room for implementing spells to change the values of statistics which should underly combat mechanics, such as a unit's dexterity, strength, etc. Armor just seems to add HP, instead of mitigating or subtracting damage dealt, while there seems to be no roll for hits or misses at all.

on Oct 07, 2009

My pref would be C or at a pinch A. Option B seems to rather unworthy measure that would make a mockery of the resource system.

Sid Meier's classic colonisation (great game) was one of the first to have a commodities system whereby you ship/store/manufacture goods from raw material in your colonies and sell them to Europe or the natives. A warehouse system (upgradeable naturally) for the excess would be welcome. Also units simply needed to be any population member given fifty muskets to be a soldier or fifty muskets and fifty horses for a dragoon.

In fact the more like colonisation the better. Keep the commodities real.

on Oct 07, 2009

FWIW, I think you should...

  1. ...need resources to build things
  2. ...get a bonus to build rate and a reduced gold cost if you have multiple resources
  3. ...have multiple ways of getting resources ("harvesting", trade, spoils of war, raiding caravans)
  4. ...have the ability to store resources

For #4 to work, though, it has to be automated.  Few people want a logistical micromanagement game.  If resources are stored and move around one's empire intelligently, though, it should be fine.  For example, the time to complete for building units should take local resources into account, and account for undisrupted travel time if resources need to be brought in.

on Oct 07, 2009

I feel that option A is the way to go with this. Option B could work, although the time penalty would have to be substantial in order to make resources matter (Which they should). Option C is unacceptable. If I'm building knights and I run out of horses I should be able to finish the knight I am currently training and then select something new to train (something without horses). Under option C I would continue training knights, however these knights would not have horses. I don't want to end up with some knights with horses and some knights without horses. I want to be able to tell what my soldiers are capable of just by seeing their name. If I see a knight I want to be able to expect that It has the equipment that I designed it to have.

on Oct 07, 2009

If you don't got the resource, you can't build the unit, but you should be able to set an option that you get notified.

on Oct 08, 2009

None of this affects units that have already been produced, right? (except maybe on reinforcement or resupply)

I'd say go with A. I didn't play GalCivII, except for the demo, but from what I've seen of the unit customization in that demo and the beta here, it should be pretty easy to change your unit, (maybe Stardock could include a 'substandard' tag, as some have suggested), and then build the new one.

Actually, I guess that's sort of a less immersion-breaking version of C (in that the player doesn't get some kind of pop-up warning).

As long as resources are a hard limit (with exceptions for black marketeering, of course) I think it should turn out well.

 

on Oct 09, 2009

Option C looks like the best option to me as well.  Option A is also doable, although may become tedious.  Option B just doesn't make sense, and would ruin the immersion as the logical connection is broken in the game.

 

EDIT:  I have never been able to figure out how to actually gain control over any resources I have found in the game.  Is this implemented yet?

on Oct 09, 2009

1) I would prefer A+Trade (like Civ4), but Equipment has to be balanced so that there won't be killer-ressources like oil ( i think civ was improved from 3 to 4 because in 3 iron was a killer-ressource, but in 4 you have copper as a kind of substitute.

2) I like the idea of physical ressources instead of strategic/logical ressources: the killer-ressource mithril (LOR way) is so rare that in one game you only may build one sword for one hero or something. Iron is more common and so on.

on Oct 09, 2009

I suppose one thing we should consider is that extra equipment will add to build times, and it seems the current favored economic model is that if you have access to the proper resource, you have an increased build time for the unit model.

This seems to mean to me that without a certain resource, you will be suffering un-naturally long build times, while also suffering from lack of equipment. Would there be some way to naturally reduce the build time of a unit based on the alternative equipment its load out is switched to? This would not include the % bonus for the OTHER resource however, I should think, as they are trained to use the equipment originally intended ....

augh! it sounds so complicated! :/ ... im starting to wonder if we should have bonuses to build times based upon resource availability. It sounds like a good idea .. while it also seems to favor building alternate unit-builds to switch to when a particular resource is taken over.

Either way, I am in favor of Unit Customization above all else ... and secondly you shouldn't be able to build more iron weapons unless you have a source of iron ore (or iron ore stockpiled)

on Oct 09, 2009

I like option C pretty well since it is basically option A but with an event trigger for letting you know you don't have resources for an item. If you don't have a resource you shouldn't be able to produce an item / equipment. 

on Oct 27, 2009

Let me suggest, giveALL equipment a "Reduced Functionality mode" 

Using this mechanism, gamer do not need to make any change to the "Dread Knight" design when a resource is out of stock, while the Twilight Honey Pack still takes the same amount of time to build. The pack will operated in "Reduced Functionality mode" when any resource is missing during its production.

There should be N different level of "Reduced Functionality mode" pre-defined by Stardock for every piece of equipment, if N type of resources are required to build.

For example, the if the Twilight Honey Pack requires 3 resources while 2 of them are out of stock, it can only add 6% more HP.  If all 3 resources are missing, Twilight Honey Pack is still produced at the same amount of time but it provide no (or minimal) benefit. 

When the missing resources are available later, the game will automate the equipment production & automatically shipping the missing part to any existing units equipped with Reduced Functionality mode equipment.

Some of you will ask, when some of Dearth Knight are equipped with Mithrilian Long Sword with reduced functionality and some of them don't in the same stack, what will happen?  Well, all swords benefit is averaged out, good sword and bad swords included.  The overall Dearth Knight stack will have reduced functionality, in proportion to how many Dearth Knights are using sub-standard equipment.

This is a more innovation solution to the OP's question.  It is more elegant IMHO. 

 

on Jul 08, 2010

EDIT: I see from a bit more reading that alot of this has been suggested. I've cut my text to the more unique suggestions...

Trade resources with fluctuating exchange rates. A simple AI kicks in automatically, selecting the most efficient exchange rate for you. Notify the player when this happens. They can override to use a different resource, or halt production altogether. Similar to Sins of a Solar Empire's Black Market, though it didn't have an AI thing.

On a side note, wouldn't you have some serious problems to deal with when a resource ran dry?

Knight Says: "I'm sorry, but I can no longer serve a ruler who would let the enemy seize their kingdom's mithril supply."
Merchant says: "No honey? Come on Miriel, we're gettin' outta here! Uncivilized varmits..."
Loremaster (Jazzy Jeff) says: "No wood, no pages, nor books to bind. I'm gone for good, leaving your kingdom behind!"

on Jul 08, 2010

What about Option A - but if you have a trade agreement through Diplomacy you are not affected.

on Jul 08, 2010

my choice is 'C' with warehouseing(if possible) for several turns depending upon production rate X time that the resource has been produced - consumption rate with fall back to next best equipment(weapons/armour/mount) that CAN be built, extras skip if not available, BUT WITH the ability to upgrade once the resource IS available again, but if unable to recover the resource within ~20 turns, then the kingdom/empire should suffer a LOSS of prestige per turn across the entire kingdom/empire. this would encorage the re-gaining of resources so as to continue building the kingdom/empire.

harpo

 

on Jul 08, 2010

KellenDunk
I like C as well, especially if you can design units via equipping them with things that break the rules.  I think making sure we have the ability to create rulebreaking units is important to unit diversity.  If we're only deciding attack/defense and hitpoints then the idea is just to make the best we can.  For example creating a unit with a "first strike" like ability that allows them to attack first whether they are defenders or attackers.

 

EDIT:

I just thought of a pretty neat way to do this.

Give them a couple extra equipment slots that you can call "Special training"..

Here you can equip them with special training in things like "first strike" or what have you

 

I was wondering about how you do that myself. The current model seems to have no means of giving normal units any kind of abilities (except for Pioneers). This seems like a good way of doing it.

 

Also - did the dual weapon thing ever make it in? That is, giving your archers a secondary weapon (like a dagger) for when people are right in their face?

9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9