Idea: New Nations and Revolutions?

Discussion on game mechanics, balancing etc.
Forum rules
Posted relevant content can be used under GPL or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/) for the project. Thanks!
Post Reply
ForFunAndProfit
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:09 am

Idea: New Nations and Revolutions?

Post by ForFunAndProfit » Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:33 am

I am wondering if it might be possible to reflect an aspect of the game's era that wasn't shown in the original version: Revolutions or the formation of new nations out of smaller ones in the same region

To the prior - eg: Prussia forming the North German Federation and later Germany

To the latter - eg: The toppling of Russia's government towards the rise of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The idea I had for how that might be implemented into the game mechanics beyond flavor text is to have those events rapidly alter relations between different powers in the game. Not quite sure how this would be set in motion though. Is it a dumb idea or does anyone else like what I'm getting at?

User avatar
Trilarion
Founder
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:27 pm
Location: Central germany

Post by Trilarion » Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:45 am

It is a good idea that arises frequently and it would certainly add to the immersion and also add strategic options. However also complexity of the game model would increase which would mean longer development and learning time.

There are basically two possibilities to incorporate these: Scripted events that just happen or are triggered in order to increase historic immersion feeling. This technique is used in many Paradox games like EU or HoI. To me it feels quite artificial and more appropriate for historic simulations. Where is the strategic aspect of revolutions that either almost always happen or happen completely at random. I would advice not to use events in order to force the game developing close to history. This is not good for a strategy game.

Or the other possibility is that revolutions are integral part of the gameplay. Something you can achieve by diplomacy or undercover actions or by militaric means. Something like this was included in the original Imperialism where you could assimilate a minor nation into your empire peacefully (probably by a revolution). So we probably will have this concept too and the question is how exactly we will have it. There more discussion is needed.

Anyway we can include something like "If Prussia owns all provinces of germany it can (if the player wishes) rename itself to: German Empire".

ForFunAndProfit
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:09 am

Re:

Post by ForFunAndProfit » Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:33 pm

Trilarion wrote:It is a good idea that arises frequently and it would certainly add to the immersion and also add strategic options. However also complexity of the game model would increase which would mean longer development and learning time.

There are basically two possibilities to incorporate these: Scripted events that just happen or are triggered in order to increase historic immersion feeling. This technique is used in many Paradox games like EU or HoI. To me it feels quite artificial and more appropriate for historic simulations. Where is the strategic aspect of revolutions that either almost always happen or happen completely at random. I would advice not to use events in order to force the game developing close to history. This is not good for a strategy game.

Or the other possibility is that revolutions are integral part of the gameplay. Something you can achieve by diplomacy or undercover actions or by militaric means. Something like this was included in the original Imperialism where you could assimilate a minor nation into your empire peacefully (probably by a revolution). So we probably will have this concept too and the question is how exactly we will have it. There more discussion is needed.

Anyway we can include something like "If Prussia owns all provinces of germany it can (if the player wishes) rename itself to: German Empire".
I like that idea. In fact, that would be a fun little element to add even in randomly generated games. Just for that extra little goal of satisfaction for players. Even if it doesn't impact gameplay, I think obtaining X provinces in Y region or on Y continent(s) allowing for a namechange and maybe a trinket like more supplies or a new unit (nothing major) sounds like a great idea.

Alias72

Re: Idea: New Nations and Revolutions?

Post by Alias72 » Tue May 14, 2013 7:28 pm

I have an idea for revolutions. when a minor nation is absorbed (either through conquest or through diplomacy) it continues to exist. (without provinces as a flag for possible recreation) there is a militancy score given to it which rises when there is a war or it is partly conquered. additionally if it fell to conquest it gains a bonus. the nation gains resources proportional to its production which it abstractly spends on military units. when the militancy score reaches 100 the troops that it built rise up in one random province and attempt to reconquer the entire state. if the capital is reconquered then it gets a bonus and the AI begins to behave normally again.

this 1) encourages diplomatic annexation, 2) encourages players to focus on their home provinces first (as developed minors have larger armies) 3) encourages the defense of colonies 4) makes it difficult to hold a nation together if it is made up of many components.

User avatar
Trilarion
Founder
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:27 pm
Location: Central germany

Re: Idea: New Nations and Revolutions?

Post by Trilarion » Thu May 16, 2013 8:45 am

I think I know this idea from some Paradox games. :) I would especially like 4) since I feel that a large patchwork empire should indeed be more difficult to keep stable. The other issues might also be able to achieve with different means. For example if war is expensive you also encourage diplomatic annexation. The obvious counter-strategy for the invading part is too leave sufficient garrison military stationed in conquered territories. While this is quite a realistic behavior, it's also a boring task. You have this military and then you need to spent them on a routine job in friendly territory. For a good player with an empire in reasonable shape such a revolution should never be successful, because there would always be enough own troops nearby to put down any rebellion.

An abstraction would be to make integration of foreign provinces into the empire costly (integration costs) and to have a chance of the empire to crumble away / decompose in several parts if the empire is under pressure.

Alias72
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 9:08 pm

Re: Idea: New Nations and Revolutions?

Post by Alias72 » Fri May 17, 2013 10:37 am

one of the biggest flaws in victoria, which allowed revolutions to be simple whack a mole, was that nations selected the nationality of their regiments, and never built minorities. in other words soldiers never defected to states that were revolting, thus ensuring a stable situation. while a stable nation is unlikely to suffer much, if the nation has endured some hardship, like having Germany march all over the Ukraine, and a tzar who couldn't run a lemonade stand oppressing your country, the risk of your own forces defecting is high. if you don't believe me ask the crew of the aurora.

this is why I feel troop defection is important.

User avatar
Trilarion
Founder
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:27 pm
Location: Central germany

Post by Trilarion » Fri May 17, 2013 1:55 pm

Surely it's an interesting effect, which would be realistic behavior and add even more strategical complexity. However I have to admit that I see not many chances for revolutions to come into the base version of the game for two reasons:

1. They would add quite some complexity to the game but aren't really part of the core parts of the Imperialism game that we want to make (interplay of military, economics and diplomacy to conquer the world).

2. Equally important: they would make finishing the first version of the game take longer, also increasing the risk that it will never be finished. This is a very critical point for me and so I try to push all non-core concepts towards a version 2.0 of the remake.

It doesn't mean I don't find it interesting or we shouldn't have it at some point.

Veneteaou
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:23 am

Re: Idea: New Nations and Revolutions?

Post by Veneteaou » Fri May 17, 2013 9:40 pm

2. Equally important: they would make finishing the first version of the game take longer, also increasing the risk that it will never be finished. This is a very critical point for me and so I try to push all non-core concepts towards a version 2.0 of the remake.
This is why I support the idea of a bare-bones model that is a more simplified version of Imperialism under the hood. From a game design standpoint, we know the Imperialism model is enjoyable so we aren't at risk of creating a boring game, it's merely a matter of balancing the game. We can do that after initial release, using a limited community feedback. After the game gets rolling, then we can start implementing the more aggressive and time-consuming changes we want to make.

At the same time, we all know how Imperialism works. We don't have to build a design document and then pour over it constantly to know what we are supposed to be doing. We know the art, the design, and what the code does with it.

User avatar
Creator
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Idea: New Nations and Revolutions?

Post by Creator » Wed May 22, 2013 7:07 am

Veneteaou wrote:
2. Equally important: they would make finishing the first version of the game take longer, also increasing the risk that it will never be finished. This is a very critical point for me and so I try to push all non-core concepts towards a version 2.0 of the remake.
This is why I support the idea of a bare-bones model that is a more simplified version of Imperialism under the hood. From a game design standpoint, we know the Imperialism model is enjoyable so we aren't at risk of creating a boring game, it's merely a matter of balancing the game. We can do that after initial release, using a limited community feedback. After the game gets rolling, then we can start implementing the more aggressive and time-consuming changes we want to make.

At the same time, we all know how Imperialism works. We don't have to build a design document and then pour over it constantly to know what we are supposed to be doing. We know the art, the design, and what the code does with it.
Agreed here. If we can pretty much duplicate what has been done for the initial release we can get the ball rolling afterwards for changing/adding new features.

User avatar
Trilarion
Founder
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:27 pm
Location: Central germany

Re: Idea: New Nations and Revolutions?

Post by Trilarion » Wed Dec 10, 2014 12:42 pm

That's a good point. In the meantime I also feel that revolutions do not add much to the quality of the game. After all they just introduce a too big random element.

Post Reply