R(hyes)ise and Fall

[Mouthwash]

That's clearly the reaction of someone who felt powerless and did something they had power over, even if it didn't really make sense.

Okay Leo, why do you think he feels powerless? Based on his own posts, he believes anybody who isn't an ardent feminist or a supporter of Black Lives Matter is an actual Nazi. Look at what he says in the Reddit conversation: civil war is coming and he's going to fight in it.

You don't get to publicly designate other people as evil bigots who are going to be purged from society. I'm surprised Bethesda didn't take disciplinary action.

 

[Pavel Chichikov]

I agree with what you're saying, but its pointless debating it here. Moreover, its pointless debating any ideology that mainly appeals to emotion.
If not a it's historical matter or game-related, it's off-topic.

 

[1SDANi]

On the topic of the 4X genre evolving, I've been thinking for a while that it'd be interesting if production was made more hands off, being more about funding specific sectors or starting initiatives than directly building every little thing and dictating what lands are used for what.

First cities can't work exterior tiles. Cities would instead produce resources from those imported or available on the lands, and then use said resources to make other resources or yields. Cities would naturally build Libraries, Markets, etc based on what's needed over time, but players could give cities funding for a specific building, or alternatively encourage or discourage a specific industry through funding and taxation. Obviously wonders would have to be directly funded by players.

I've always been bothered by how you can only build one thing at a time, industries were so limited, and you only ever needed 1 of a resource and their number never grew. I feel like this would be an interesting alternative to the current 4X system.

 

[cmakk1012]

On the topic of the 4X genre evolving, I've been thinking for a while that it'd be interesting if production was made more hands off, being more about funding specific sectors or starting initiatives than directly building every little thing and dictating what lands are used for what.

First cities can't work exterior tiles. Cities would instead produce resources from those imported or available on the lands, and then use said resources to make other resources or yields. Cities would naturally build Libraries, Markets, etc based on what's needed over time, but players could give cities funding for a specific building, or alternatively encourage or discourage a specific industry through funding and taxation. Obviously wonders would have to be directly funded by players.

I've always been bothered by how you can only build one thing at a time, industries were so limited, and you only ever needed 1 of a resource and their number never grew. I feel like this would be an interesting alternative to the current 4X system.

It’s not a 4X—rather grand strategy—but the EU4 MEIOU & Taxes mod does a lot of what you’re saying. It runs a massive amount of internal processes like population, food markets, plague spread, etc under the hood. Cities build infrastructure on their own if they possess enough local wealth. However, you can pay for construction yourself out of the national treasury, build roads, infrastructure, etc.

However, I’d love to see this in a 4X game too. Making things more complex and autonomous (although without typical AI ineptitude) would be great.

 

[Logoncal]

So you mean playing Civ IV with a Governor AI always on?

Thanks, but i pass. Besides, that will fudge up almost every single UHV

 

[Pavel Chichikov]

Speaking of which, is Europa Universalis worth playing? Would it appeal to a RFC player or is it too deterministic and scripted?
It looks interesting, but their money-grubbing DLC policy really turned me off trying it.

 

[cmakk1012]

So you mean playing Civ IV with a Governor AI always on?

Well, EU4 is way more complex than Civ 4 in terms of diplomacy, military, etc—not saying its better, necessarily, just different. The AI in the mod I’m specifically talking about is meant to more accurately simulate historical processes; the devs have tried to assemble probable population amounts for every region in the world in 1356, for instance.

Thanks, but i pass. Besides, that will **** up almost every single UHV

Yeah, it wouldn’t serve DoC all too well. The micromanaging is a key part of UHVs. I was more talking about future 4X games.

Speaking of which, is Europa Universalis worth playing? Would it appeal to a RFC player or is it too deterministic and scripted?
It looks interesting, but their money-grubbing DLC policy really turned me off trying it.

I mean, I personally recommend it. It’s just way more complex than Civ4 but limited in scope—covering the world (but focused on Europe) from the end of the medieval era to the 19th century.

It’s less railroaded than EU3 was, or so I’ve heard, but some parts sort of are? I guess? I mean, you can hypothetically conquer the world as the Ryukyu Islands (its an achievement) so it’s not that deterministic.

I don’t like the DLC policy either, but it’s more honest than some devs. At least you have a pretty much complete vanilla game you can play!

 

[DC123456789]

Speaking of which, is Europa Universalis worth playing? Would it appeal to a RFC player or is it too deterministic and scripted?
It looks interesting, but their money-grubbing DLC policy really turned me off trying it.

RFC is definitely more deterministic and scripted than EU4 IMO.

 

[ryanmusante]

You don't get to publicly designate other people as evil bigots who are going to be purged from society. I'm surprised Bethesda didn't take disciplinary action.

You seem angry in general, are you OK, bruh?

 

[1SDANi]

So you mean playing Civ IV with a Governor AI always on?

Thanks, but i pass. Besides, that will **** up almost every single UHV

• No, there are many major differences.
• Governor AI only lets you choose on or off for each yield. This method would let you divvy out percents to each industry, like cereal farming, mining, etc.
• Instead of working tiles, yields come from resources worked by "specialists"
• You can still choose what to build, but cities build stuff on their own at the same time.
• You can choose to build multiple things at once.
• Cities will automatically creep towards the best economy for their own if left alone. A city that would be best used for farming will slowly develop as primarily for farming.
• You can pay money to accelerate the growth of an industry, or make an industry give you money in exchange for slowing their growth.

Also, this isn't a suggestion for DOC, this is an idea of how 4X games could innovate.

 

[Mouthwash]

• No, there are many major differences.
• Governor AI only lets you choose on or off for each yield. This method would let you divvy out percents to each industry, like cereal farming, mining, etc.
• Instead of working tiles, yields come from resources worked by "specialists"
• You can still choose what to build, but cities build stuff on their own at the same time.
• You can choose to build multiple things at once.
• Cities will automatically creep towards the best economy for their own if left alone. A city that would be best used for farming will slowly develop as primarily for farming.
• You can pay money to accelerate the growth of an industry, or make an industry give you money in exchange for slowing their growth.

Also, this isn't a suggestion for DOC, this is an idea of how 4X games could innovate.

"Creating story-based games can be an intoxicating experience for designers, many of whom go overboard with turgid back stories full of proper nouns, rarely-used consonants, and apostrophes. Furthermore, games based on complex, detailed simulations can be especially opaque if the mysterious inner workings of the algorithmic model remain hidden from view. As Sid liked to say, with these games, either the designer or the computer was the one having the fun, not the player.

For example, during the development of Civilization 4, we experimented with government types that gave significant productivity bonuses but also took away the player’s ability to pick which technologies were researched, what buildings were constructed, and which units were trained, relying instead on a hidden, internal model to simulate what the county’s people would choose on their own. The algorithms were, of course, very fun to construct and interesting to discuss outside of the game. The players, however, felt left behind – the computer was having all the fun – so we cut the feature."

-Soren Johnson

 

[1SDANi]

"Creating story-based games can be an intoxicating experience for designers, many of whom go overboard with turgid back stories full of proper nouns, rarely-used consonants, and apostrophes. Furthermore, games based on complex, detailed simulations can be especially opaque if the mysterious inner workings of the algorithmic model remain hidden from view. As Sid liked to say, with these games, either the designer or the computer was the one having the fun, not the player.

For example, during the development of Civilization 4, we experimented with government types that gave significant productivity bonuses but also took away the player’s ability to pick which technologies were researched, what buildings were constructed, and which units were trained, relying instead on a hidden, internal model to simulate what the county’s people would choose on their own. The algorithms were, of course, very fun to construct and interesting to discuss outside of the game. The players, however, felt left behind – the computer was having all the fun – so we cut the feature."

-Soren Johnson

I'm sorry but how does that have anything to do with my idea? My idea has zero complex simulations.

If an industry has demand in a city it grows, if it has negative demand it shrinks, and the player can impose subsidies or taxes to change this demand number.

I'm not taking away player driven production or research, but adding a secondary AI driven version onto it.

Players can let things happen naturally, incentivise or disincentivise them by implementing taxes and subsidies, or directly fund and drive them like we currently do in most 4X games.

Certain foods are more demanded in certain regions, nations, religions, eras, etc, which is in no way confusing with the right tooltips.

What I'm suggesting is heavily abstracted from reality, and deliberately so to keep things manageable.

 

[Leoreth]

The question is where is the player agency? If there is the feeling that player actions are not crucial to success it becomes demotivating.

 

[ozqar]

I've also spent some time daydreaming about what my ideal game would be like, and some situation where cities and industries are somehow automated always comes back. Of course, if the player wants a theater, a theater should be built, but I also see how it would be interesting that at some point, when certain factors occur, a city would build its theater on its own. I can also see how options such as "prioritize culture" or "develop X industry" or "prohibit theaters", applicable regionally or nationally, would be nice management systems and give the player agency over what's happening.

 

[1SDANi]

The question is where is the player agency? If there is the feeling that player actions are not crucial to success it becomes demotivating.

Spoiler Undercooked Idea :

The player agency is in the fact that industries develop so slowly early game that players are more useful in developing them than they are, and develop so quickly late game that they risk causing a collapse if they aren't kept in check.

 

[Leoreth]

Okay that's a problem for the player but nothing more. What you are describing is probably closest to Victoria II and that game already had problems with systematised autonomous economies. I think the shape of your civilisation or empire should be deliberately determined by the player, and a historical phenomenon should either be a mechanic in control of the player or sufficiently abstracted away not to get in the way. Otherwise there will always be a disconnect between a challenge and the player's ability to solve it and feelings of player accomplishment for reaching certain goals.

 

[1SDANi]

Okay that's a problem for the player but nothing more. What you are describing is probably closest to Victoria II and that game already had problems with systematised autonomous economies. I think the shape of your civilisation or empire should be deliberately determined by the player, and a historical phenomenon should either be a mechanic in control of the player or sufficiently abstracted away not to get in the way. Otherwise there will always be a disconnect between a challenge and the player's ability to solve it and feelings of player accomplishment for reaching certain goals.

Yeah, I tend to throw out solutions to a question without fully thinking it through. The whole industry working against you thing wasnt a part of my initial idea. Sorry.

Getting back to the core of my idea and not fluff, it was designed mainly because I wanted to depict how the player isn't in control of these cities, but in control of the empire. And most of the time they won't be deciding what specific buildings to produce. Their governors would handle that.

As such the game would focus more around shaping the economy of cities than shaping the cities themselves. Cities will develop on their own, but without aid from the player said development will be very slow.

As for late game, I still want to implement a feature mirroring the modern rise in the power of industries, but I agree that fighting them wouldn't be too great. The ideas I have thus far are mostly for late game, so any ideas of how to make it as fun and not annoying as the early would be nice.

 

[cmakk1012]

Okay that's a problem for the player but nothing more. What you are describing is probably closest to Victoria II and that game already had problems with systematised autonomous economies. I think the shape of your civilisation or empire should be deliberately determined by the player, and a historical phenomenon should either be a mechanic in control of the player or sufficiently abstracted away not to get in the way. Otherwise there will always be a disconnect between a challenge and the player's ability to solve it and feelings of player accomplishment for reaching certain goals.

In the mod I was talking about before the struggle to manage your country as the player is intentional. The goal is slightly different to a 4X—it’s about trying to simulate the options you realistically had as an early modern king—so your nation is partially controlled by autonomous estates you have to manage. These also exist in basegame EU4, but the mod makes them much more difficult to handle on purpose. It gives them privileges (such as beneficial military positions, etc) that they can demand from you periodically. If you refuse you can lose stability, but if you accept you gain corruption that weakens your technological and financial position.

In a 4X these challenges are frustrating and counterproductive; in grand strategy it more accurately simulates a position.

 

[Pepo]

Speaking about meiou and taxes, it maybe interest some of you to look at the game demiansky (who was the person who develop the Pop mechanics and the states) is developing. I will link here a summary about it:
https://ngd.gamingrebellion.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13&sid=9e9a26c1edb6994a7670cee3a53ba20f

As for Eu4 M&T, I believe it has some glaring problems with the systems that were introduced, if you look at the economy and how it relates with population. Also the mod is limited by being based on eu4; not only there are a lot of aspects that you can't change, but also that this mechanics are usually very simple without offering any depth due to how little they interact with each other