Game Philosophy

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
User avatar
Trilarion
Founder
Posts: 845
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:27 pm
Location: Central germany

Game Philosophy

Post by Trilarion »

I feel there should be a chapter at the beginning of the design material describing the game on a wider scope. So without going too much into detail, what are the challenges, what is required of the player, what is the essence of the game, ... Writing this down will help with all the further development. See it as the goal of the overall project.

In the end I would like to transfer the gist of this thread into the Design master.
User avatar
Trilarion
Founder
Posts: 845
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:27 pm
Location: Central germany

My initial vision from 2012

Post by Trilarion »

So here is what I wrote about the philosophy in 2012. What do you think about it? How would you change it?
Imperialism: the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationships, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination. (Wikipedia)

This turn based strategy game is about the era of imperialism where nations fought a war for strategic dominance by all means - of industrial, diplomatic or military nature.

You start as monarch of one of many grand nations which all aspire to rule the world. Your country is not yet developed, your military is weak, you don't have friends in the world. But you have a workforce willing to contribute to your success and some cash in the treasure.

What you could do as a young leader is to modernize your country. Educate engineers who develop natural resources for you (like building mines for delivering coal) and build a nationwide transportation-rail-system. Command your workforce to produce higher-valued products from these resources. Then trade these away and make profit. With the new money you can extend your factories, feed a larger work force, trade or explore new resources, feed the people and finally make even more profit. Eliminate inefficiencies wherever they occur in order to maximize this profit.

Now the time has come to invest in your military. Don't wait too long or you might find yourself to be the objective of your neighbors. They will build a military too. But with a strong industrial base, you surely can build a military especially adapted to your needs. In the end the most often sought way to expand your empire will be war. Choose your victim carefully and finally tell your generals to advance. The price will be an even larger empire with even larger industrial base and that in turn will boost your army. The sky is the limit.

However, going to war in a world where there are several other empires the size of your own can also be dangerous. Your neighbors might not like what you do and might form an alliance against you. Be careful. Your diplomats will tell you about these dangers. Either conquer them all, and be a warmonger, or act diplomatic, promise enough to some of them to let them ignore your actions or make alliances too. A world full of alliances can make international relations complicated and refreshingly interesting.

With the right decisions, based on the actions of your opponents, with an efficient industrial base, clever diplomatic relations and a strong army, you'll have the best chances to build an empire that shines forever and will have no foe.

Good luck with mastering the fine art of conquering the world!
User avatar
Trilarion
Founder
Posts: 845
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:27 pm
Location: Central germany

Summary

Post by Trilarion »

Here I try so summarize what is written above:

One line description: This turn based strategy game is about is world domination by the optimal interplay of economics, diplomacy and military actions.

Central aspects:
  • Industrialization of a country by extracting resources, tranporting and convert them to higher valued products on ever larger scales.
  • Progress in technology (accompanied by the industrialization)
  • Gaining diplomatic influence by trading.
  • Forming of alliances based on common interests and as defense against common enemies.
  • Building of a military and finally militaric annexion.
  • Balancing militaric budget and industrial expansion
I think these are the central aspects? What do you think about them? Anything to add?
User avatar
Trilarion
Founder
Posts: 845
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:27 pm
Location: Central germany

Trade-Offs

Post by Trilarion »

Trade-offs make a strategy game interesting. You always have to balance different goals, sacrificing one for achieving another. Risk and reward are central elements. The optimal strategy is not only determined by the nations specific situation, but also by the strategy of your competitors. A good game faces a fascinating circle of strategies and counter-strategies. And actions also influence future developments, you have to think ahead.

Here the main trade-offs that I see:
  • Either expand your military now and potentially conquer somebody or increase the industrial base to support and even larger military later.
  • When increasing the industry, either invest in future developments (research, rail tracks) or invest to get some more output now (buy resources, increase output, hire workers)
  • When selling/doing diplomacy either maximize your profit (return of money) or your influence (so other nations do what you say).
The rest is micromanagement. Optimizing the resource, production, ... flow.
User avatar
Trilarion
Founder
Posts: 845
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:27 pm
Location: Central germany

Historical immersion

Post by Trilarion »

Players should feel like they lead a powerful world empire. The time period should be highly visible and there should be no anachronisms. However where historical accuracy interferes with fun and game mechanics, we will have to simplify historical analogies as much as necessary. We just want to create an sentiment, not deliver a historic accurate simulation.
Veneteaou
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:23 am

Re: Game Philosophy

Post by Veneteaou »

As I read all of this, I wonder if you wouldn't be more interested in making a more traditional 4X game as opposed to leaning heavily on Imperialism as we have done. I only say this because, aside from the first sentence in that philosophy essay, you seem to touch more upon the fundamentals of explore/expand/exploit/exterminate or build/research/dominate than the unequal diplomatic nature that separated Imperialism from games like MoO2 or Civilization. Not that I'm opposed to the idea - I've felt that the Civilization series has needed some larger changes in design since Civ2.

Of everything you've said above, the only thing I question is the idea of trade-offs. Yes players need choices, but any competitive game is going to have strategic elements. Just look at the choices you can make in Chess or Tetris or Call of Duty. A player gets to choose when they want to go all-in against another nation, which way their railroad is going to leave their capital on the first turn, and whether they want Cavalry or Artillery to bolster their infantry. The choices will be there, so I don't think we need to arbitrarily increase the number the player has available. Paradox does it with their games, and as much as I love Victoria II there is a reason why many people can't pick it up. The greatest strategic games (Chess, Starcraft, Pente, etc.) are great because depth is hidden within the nuances of very balanced and simple systems.

So I guess my two cents would be a warning against the strategic bloat so-to-speak that we see in franchises like Civilization or Victoria or Master of Orion. They go well beyond the depth needed for enjoyability, to add content. But more choices doesn't always translate into more enjoyable choices.
User avatar
Trilarion
Founder
Posts: 845
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:27 pm
Location: Central germany

Post by Trilarion »

I have to admit that Civ is my favorite game of all times. Actually I think you're right. Unique to Imperialism (the game) was this "fighting" over the dominance of colonies. I forgot about that when writing the text and must incorporate it.

For the trade-offs, I see only one major choice and that is invest money in your industry or into your military. This translates to having a good military now or having an even better military in the future but not so much now. War or peace. That's the most important choice.

Of course you're right with saying that the choices must be enjoyable and not just overwhelmingly many.
Xylander
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:32 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: I. Game Philosophy

Post by Xylander »

I think what Imperialism makes special is
- it's all about money (like it neither is in civ nor in moo2)
- you can ruin your economy (and lose the game quickly)
- a combination of economic simulation and grand strategy game
- understandable game mechanics (!)

There are paradox games that focus on the same but that are ten times as complex. You need years (reading forums) and complex formulas to understand how a Paradox game reacts to your input. In Imperialism what you see is what you get - no complex formula is needed, it's intuitive.

Now if you are going to add complexity you'll have to decide which way you'll go. More realistic moves the game towards Victoria 2. More aspects (e.g. research trees) moves it towards Civ. If you change too much it won't be Imperialism in any way.

I think playing the game should feel like playing Imperialism 3! That means you'll be short on resources in the beginning and building a single war ship is a project itself. Building a warship early seriously hurts your economy because you can't build rails/wagons and increase your factory capacity the same time - other nations will have a stronger economy. But building your economy and not building ships may lead to a war you can't win - when a strong fleet approaches your home port and starts to blockade it!

A player should have to decide where to spend his money/resources. It must be easy to see what is needed to achieve some goal (e.g. earning money). If there is demand for clothes on the world market and prices are good the player should see that producing clothes and a fluyt is neccessary. If he offers clothes and there is demand he should sell it and earn money.

So I think it will be much about the 'feeling' ... about what the player has to take care of. And I agree with Veneteaou that there shouldn't be too many things he has to care about (at least in the beginning). If things go wrong it must be clear why and you should be able to learn it quickly.
Don't repeat yourself. (DRY)
Keep it simple, stupid. (KISS)
You ain't gonna need it. (YAGNI)
http://www.clean-code-developer.de/
User avatar
Trilarion
Founder
Posts: 845
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:27 pm
Location: Central germany

Post by Trilarion »

Yes, I think I described more generic strategy games. What sets Imperialism apart is a) the winning/domination of the minor nations and b) the economic-militaric interplay. Of course I am all for transparent causes and actions.
Post Reply