View Single Post
Old 05-03-2002, 06:53 PM   #17
Yui Unifex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 323
Yui Unifex is on a distinguished road
Send a message via ICQ to Yui Unifex Send a message via AIM to Yui Unifex
Question

Ashon, you raise a number of good points, and I'll attempt to extrapolate solutions and clarifications here. Please let me know if there are any holes in my logic =).

Two points: I believe that the cycle should have definable lows and highs -- the cycle wavelength will be as long as the amount of change necessary to incite the societal need for better defenses, times the amount of time it takes to gain the necessary resources. In my mind, this might take quite some time (RL weeks or months, depending on your game flow). But I do see how it could become a problem (all other things not considered) if your game flow is very fast.

The second point: Sending out better equipped, stronger mobiles is most certainly a good thing. How does one have NPC wars if the NPCs don't adapt to their opponents tactics? This problem would likely to be easily solved under a good system. If the settlement invests more resources but has the same return, I very much doubt that a sound AI system would keep sending better equipped raiders. By then the survival need should overtake the societal need, and nobody would take those jobs. Or the societal need for those jobs would fall with no success.

Strategic potential with such a system is wonderfully high. Imagine a king that knows he is hated by the surrounding nations. He might wage a proxy war by sending small units to attack the outlying settlements, so that when his enemy's army rolls through, they are weakened by the bolstered settlement's attacks.

Then we simply make it so it is not in the player's best interests to destroy a settlement. If a player depended on settlements for supplies and equipment of their own, they might wish to protect their favored settlements, or hometowns as KaVir noted. Players would likely have a vigor for defending their hometown, and quite possibly the settlements that their hometown depends on for trade and defense. If settlements are neutral and underpowered, I doubt that players would have any qualms with destroying them. But if they're destroying them so that their own nation gains more territory, we lend a great strategic credence to their continued survival.

I'm not so sure about this. Maybe if your system is designed poorly, this would happen. I can't see how one would necessarily have to join a guild unless your world is very tiny. Even then, stronger settlements could get so strong that they branch out and smash the lazy camping guilds. If growth were exponential, players would be forced to face the larger strongholds lest their own nations be overcome.
Yui Unifex is offline   Reply With Quote