Gillissie,
Just now caught your reply. Goes to show I overlook things and forget where I put my eggs.
Sounds interesting. I've recently dipped my head into the world of the old/new genre of Interactive Fiction. That's a side story, but one thing it taught me is that text based games shouldn't be as dead as they are. I realize people like to see things blow up, even if the animation was composed using MSpaint, but there's just something appealing about masses of pure data.
I think GC must have a fundamental territorial structure, like that of Risk or Diplomacy, and not like the Civ series or others. Why? If you sacrifice the sqaure or single hex approach for predefined territories (which could certainly be modifiable in an editor) you are able to a) introduce military strategy where the other lacks, and b) add an infinite amount of statistical depth as far as the territory as a living thing goes.
Some may say that the territory approach actually hurts the military advantage you have in Civ games, but I don't think so. I've spent several hours going through the CivFanatics website reading the strategy guides players have come up with, and, admit it or not, at least half of the 'strategies' are really just exploitations of game quirks. Why? Because while allowing infinite piece movement, the games aren't tactical when it comes to military matters, like say the simpler engine of Panzer General, or strategic like Risk.
Think of Risk on steroids. And the territories need not be thought of as indivisible atoms. While not going as far as making each a tactical area in itself, a compromise could be made. Conquering need not be all or nothing. Percentages of territories could be held or lost. Just ideas.
Then as you say, each territory is given a host of attributes, everything from birth rates to their feelings of unity toward YOU the emperor. Police force. Blah blah and on into infinity. The more the merrier I say. Military strenght is then abstracted. Sure you give actual statistics for men and machines and tactical nukes
, but attacking is perhaps better handled through some sorta semi-complex number/type structure, where you decide how many men to send and what type of attack you want, but then the rest is run under the hood by your capable generals.
I really like the idea about buying commodities off of a public market...instead of just owning them like in most games. Adds great depth. You could handle some basic societal development with this system. Supply and demand values as well.
Refugees would be a neat thing to add to the game. They flee to other, safer territories, creating economic stress and further unhappiness.
I can see a certain amount of technology and development implemented as well.
With territories, ones that possess lots of qualities, what to conquer becomes more of a question than just, "hmmm...now if I take northern europe I can flank him without exposing more of my own flesh." or something to that effect.
Such a game that then could generate new maps divided into territories would rock. Or better yet, a map creator.
My two cents. I also think this idea is perfect for a space based economic/trade game, as planets are just too perfect as territories...don't even need a map, could be entirely text with simple coordinates, distance and travel times.
[ September 25, 2002, 21:23: Message edited by: Jmenschenfresser ]
Re: global conquest game
Hybrid Mode
