PDA

View Full Version : Winner?



birq
08-15-2005, 06:40 PM
Is this a forever-ongoing game, or is there going to be a winner at some point and everything set back to "the beginning"?

It seems like at some point there will be a few "superpowers" and all the rest of us will be relegated to the "third-world", which would most likely suck.

Just curious...

hypeserver
08-15-2005, 06:43 PM
most likely the game is on going since the cities are owned by a new person almost everyday even less in some cases.

Mickey
08-15-2005, 06:51 PM
Is this a forever-ongoing game, or is there going to be a winner at some point and everything set back to "the beginning"?
I'm trying to build it in such a way that it can go on forever. There will always be a "leader", but never a "winner".


It seems like at some point there will be a few "superpowers" and all the rest of us will be relegated to the "third-world", which would most likely suck.
My thought with the whole "value" system is that it will help to eliminate this. If someone captures Beijing, others will want to get it, since it has the highest value. Even if that person has 1000 armies in it with 1000 troops each, there will hopefully be 500 people with 3 armies each that battle for it.

This will involved a lot of balance in terms of jewel collecting and army costs and such, but I think it's possible.

France
08-15-2005, 08:31 PM
To help going on this, maybe you could popose specific tool for diplomatic meeting, and the possibility to win a city togather. Maybe a "market place" to prepare coordinated attacks?

birq
08-15-2005, 09:32 PM
My thought with the whole "value" system is that it will help to eliminate this. If someone captures Beijing, others will want to get it, since it has the highest value. Even if that person has 1000 armies in it with 1000 troops each, there will hopefully be 500 people with 3 armies each that battle for it.

If you go to the "natural resources" model, then I don't agree that this will eliminate the "third world" problem. My reasoning is: You need money to get armies. To get money, you have to take advantage of a city's natural resouces. You have to hold a city to take advantage of its natural resources. You have to take a city to hold it. You have to have armies to take and hold a city. You need money to get armies... etc.

If you stick with the model of the jewels that are randomly strewn about, then it's only a matter of spending all your time going around collecting jewels, which is boring as hell.

I can just see a situation where someone gets dug in and builds an impossible number armies. You even highlight the problem with your example: if the person in the city has 1,000,000 troops and those 500 people all band together with their 150,000 troops... what good does that do? It's a drop in the bucket.

I just don't want it to get to the point, like in a lot of other "empire building" games where it's fun for the person leading and boring drudgery for the hoardes that are losing. Not that I ever plan to be losing... :)

rasqual
08-15-2005, 11:20 PM
If you go to the "natural resources" model, then I don't agree that this will eliminate the "third world" problem. My reasoning is: You need money to get armies. To get money, you have to take advantage of a city's natural resouces. You have to hold a city to take advantage of its natural resources. You have to take a city to hold it. You have to have armies to take and hold a city. You need money to get armies... etc.

What natural resources do cities have? Sometimes cities are near them, but they only house the people who service the economy that's driven by the wealth production these resources drive.

The United States grew as people spread out and exploited natural resources. This created wealth, which drove an economy that allowed cities to flourish as centers of opportunity amid the natural resources mined, drilled, and dammed out of the frontier.

That's kind of one problem with this game and the real world we have, with it's cities and populations. We're trying to map a game to existing cities in a virtual world where we have no congruent economies, resources, populations (except as "values" for cities -- they're properties of cities, not objects that relate in any way to anything).

And that's a tough one to think about.


If you stick with the model of the jewels that are randomly strewn about, then it's only a matter of spending all your time going around collecting jewels, which is boring as hell.

Absolutely, but then so was trekking out into the frontier with your hoss and a dawg. ;-)