Elemental's Subsystem Concepts

If there is going to be a diplomatic council or something. (think United nations but more like an 'aged council of the wise)

Have it cool like in Alpha Centauri. Where you can talk to the leaders during the meeting. Civ and GalCiv's was just an elaborate(for the latter) voting system.

Great idea, Spartan!

Battle for Middle Earth's campaign map (where conquered territories would yield bonuses for your side), and also their excellent integration of media with triggered events.

Wizardy 8's excellent quest designs and really wonderful character dialogs (I loved hearing my adventurers bickering or exclaiming in a unique way).

Civilization IV's empire management and map exploration.

If the diplomacy AI is anything like the one in Galciv2 I predict many magnificent bastard moments.

Case in point: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=161570&site=pcg

I would have to add the procedural world/culture/people/everything! generation from dwarf fortress. Specifically the terrain generation aspect but the others apply as well.

@ hiddenranbir - To me that was inherent with the faction idea. However we can break it down further. I think that the diplomacy system used in EU:R is far more robust however. What is the general opinion?

@Lord Reliant - Thanks. Just trying to look at things systemically - a fault of mine. I'm curious why you chose Civ4 management and exploration system over say GalCiv2. Could you elaborate some?

@Tamren - I remember reading that some time ago. A good read to be sure.

Anyway, the list has been updated.

GalCiv2 had nothing to explore, hehe. Just a lot of pointlessly empty squares. I felt GalCiv2 missed a chance, as a sci-fi game, to make space interesting and exaggerate a bit some of the great phenomenons we have out there. What GalCiv2 showed on the larger maps was the growing difficulty to manage stuff. Civ4, was built on being U-friendly. Of course, I expect elemental to be a lot more friendly, especially with the 64-bit maps featuring.

I have an idea on diplomacy and council, I will post it after breakfast!

Cool. I look forward to learning about it.

Mostly for the reasons listed by hiddenranbir.  Exploration in Civ 4 was fun, fluid, and generally pretty easy to follow.  Gal Civ's was so expansive but empty and from a "feel" perspective just didn't seem as easy to follow.  I would have to add the following, though: auto-exploration from Gal Civ 2.  That feature was great, as it automated a tedious function, especially on a really gigantic map.

Civ 4's empire management was easy to bring up (as opposed to a sidebar in GalCiv or a separate tab which required a couple clicks) and allowed you to make most of the changes you needed right from that screen.

Aright. I always assumed the emptiness was a purposeful decision since space is so vast vs a world with a living biosphere. Anyway I'll add the Civ4 explore and management system to the list.

Civilization 4 was a masterpiece in my opinion, pulling together the best ideas of the series. I've said elsewhere I'd really like the diplomacy system, but honestly just about every mechanic in the game is well thought out and deserves a look for how they create strategic choices. For one little example pulled out of the air: the health system. Gives a good reason for trade goods, allows you to model pollution without having a stupid worker stack to clean everything up, would interact brilliantly with magic. So you could have a belching forge city or a forest retreat, and spells would be done more interestingly than just 'your growth rate doubles'.

Also, please not Wizardry 8's character dialogue. The list of clickable topics with stock answers style of conversation needs to die die die. Furthermore, the writing was terrible. I gave up half-way through, because the game was very frustrating and the story not good enough to keep me going. Unless it gets much better in the latter parts, do not recommend.

I tend to agree. I was thinking something like the new ME dynamic story system.

Hello,

My thoughts on diplomacy. I got to thinking of it when Frogboy did his big speechy text on re-doing 4x economics and what not. Now instead of production time taking into simplified assumption about goods availability and trading time, it could all be spelt out.

Well a bit of that I think can be used for our envoys and how they go diplomatificate. One of my issues with diplomacy systems is, calling another leader is instant as if on a video phone. Partly understandable on GC but not so much in the more traditional 4x games. Similarly, dialogue between the two is essentially a balancing act of how much weight on your demands you can have before it outweighs what you are offering. In addition, it is just weird in the olden times, and even in fantasy for two rulers to constantly travel to each other to have simple diplomatic agreements. So...

We send envoys. They don't have to be personalised too much. When you want to work out some deal with another faction. You will send your envoy. You won't send him with a single job that is selected from a menu (like EU). Instead, you allow to give him some parameters with which to work in, to achieve our diplomatic objective.

Say, for example, I want Faction A to stop fighting with Faction B, a friend of mine. I will bring up my envoy screen or whatever. I will designate his destination and then I will set his 'goal' at the meeting. Which is to get A to stop fighting. I will then give him parameters in which to help him convince him. I can allow him to use gold but go no higher than 1000. To offer trade agreements or not. Hell, we can even use our magic to 'bless' the envoy with greater negotiating abilities, to help make it easier. And that is where it excites me. Our envoys will have an ability ranking. Maybe it can be determined from our over-all level of culture/literature. Or each envoy can be unique and special. But rather than the player having to play the balancing act they send an envoy with parameters to negotiate for us. Essentially, it will be doing the same thing that we used to do. Working out a balanced deal, but that's something for the computer to do for us.

Also, to spin back on when I mentioned re-worked economics. Factions are generally at different distances to us. So envoys won't be sent or return instantly. An envoy to a neighbouring kingdom may only be one turn's work but for another it could be three. 

--------------------------------------------

The Fantasy UN. Problem with UN sort of things are they are all just voting systems. SMAC had to some degree allowed you to talk but that was merely to persuade leaders to change their votes. That was a step in the right direction, atleast.

Firstly, we can consider them like a council meeting of the elders. Wizards. A Wizard's council. Secondly, they can't be in limbo when they do this, or talking to each other on a video phone. Given we want the map to have some meaning. Let's have an actual place on the map where these epic council meetings take place. Thirdly, they need to be more than voting resolutions. These are the most powerful beings in the land, almost like demigods. I think this is where a good deal of long term negotiating can take place. 

I haven't thought yet, what the council can talk about but I have ideas of some wizards seeking to maintain a balance of power. Obviously the evil ones will be seeking to increase their power but since these wizards are use mana, we can have some interesting thing that they are all bonded in the greater scheme of things.

Putting myself in the role of a Evil wizard near Demigod powers, I could not care less for a council. Secondly I would not put myself in a position where the other wizards could gang up on me by going to a meeting (I trust nobody being evil). If I want to negociate something I will use a spell to get in contact with the others. Something like the mirror in MOM.

For me putting something like the UN in a fantasy game seems wrong somehow. Alliances are weak things because of distances and risk of putting your nation on ther line for somebody that can backstab you the next day. Councils rarely win wars.

Envoys are all good and dandy but I think they put a non necessary strain on the game mechanics. But that's my opinion.

My 2 coppers worth

I like hiddenranbir's thoughts on a dynamic envoy system for diplomacy.  Such a system would play well into a character based strategy game (which it kind of sounds like this is looking to be).  As for the council or UN, I like the idea of having something of this nature in the game, simply because it adds a level of politicing and backstabbing in that wouldn't otherwise be there.  All the diplomacy and intrigue of a Holy Roman Empire sounds like fun to wade through.

One question.  What does SMAC stand for?

I meant more of the conversation between characters in the party, not dialog with NPCs.  I agree that wasn't the best system, but it sure beat the old "guess what magic text I need to type in" system.  I thought the responses characters in my party gave when they encountered something new or verbal jabs back and forth was unique, creative, and added charm.  I'm not sure how applicable that could be here, but it's something I appreciated from that game and made playing it much more fun (even if you had to slug through far too many random encounters).

Google is your friend. However in the interest of time... Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

@Spartan

I can't stand

• Crusader Kings heir/lineage system

• Total War's Vices & Virtues & Traits system

Too much like Sims x Pokemon x Tamagotchi.

Too much time consumming. Hate consulting the stud book and other pedigree.

So if it can just be an optional gaming rule, i will live with it.

@McFungos - That my friend is what I love most about them - the time involved. For a RPG game the immersion factor is the most important gameplay element for me. That wrapped around a great story and well it's like x-mas. I do agree however that the systems should be optional. Moreover I also believe that a manual should not be required. Screen info, pop-ups and a well developed in-game infopedia should be the only necessary sources of information.

@Spartan

I hate long & careful planning getting scewed up because the wrong characters got the wrong trait resulting a revolt in one of my top cities and hurting my war effort very badly.

Heroes can come into 2 flavors those who are good administators and those who are good field commander. They should neither age & nor breed but they could be assassinated or corrupted.

@McFungos - Again dont shoot the messenger. The system itself is righteous the implementation of it leave much to be desired. Game making is an art forum you know.

Anyway, I made a quick list of some general core systems we have been discussing in various threads. They are:

• Government system
  
• Doctrine system
  
• National Idea system
  
• Vice & virtue system
  
• Trait system
  
• Heraldry system
  
• Vassalage system
  
• Movement system
  
• Weather system
  
• Magic system
  
• Technology system
  
• Item system
  
• Unit system
  
• Combat system
  
• World system
• Economic system
• Diplomacy system
• Trade system
  

There are more but I'm to tired right now...

@Spartan

It is no way your fault, just if only those games disign flaws are not repeated in Elemental.

In the past people confused immersive gameplay with complexe gameplay

Getting the most immersive & exalerating gaming experience while not being burdened by too much complexity is a worthy goal for Elemental.

LOL! I was not refering to me but the system as the messenger.

On this we are in lockstep.

I think the Crusader Kings lineage system was a great idea... as long as your family was relatively small.  It was a lot of fun at the beginning of the game, but became a chore once all your time started going to arranging marriages for the offspring of all your fourth and fifth cousins.

A good variation on the system might be to limit the player's control only to the head of the family, their spouse, and their children.  When the head of the family dies, you name a successor (or the game automatically picks, say, the eldest son), and your control shifts to that character and their offspring.  All your uncles, siblings, cousins and so on become AI controlled.

Yes exactly. I'm not arguing that SD import the systems wholesale and hack them together in their entirety but merely that the fundamental essentials of those systems be integrated into a coherent, complementary and highly functional comprehensive avatar system which would obviously need to be game play friendly for both long and short term game styles. A sort of 'unimatrix' with lots of options for lack of a better word for now.

1) I don't want there to be a succession system. I did like it in Total War, but there my characters were just people. Royalty, yes, but still just people. In this game my character is going to start out as a dawdling magician and end up with god-like powers. For one, I don't want that character to just up and die some day to be replaced by an apprentice or heir who would probably be a significant downgrade, and secondly with all that power my character should be able to live as long as I want him to (other than being killed of course). In Total War, who your king was didn't make such a huge difference to your kingdom. In this game, who your channeler is will be paramount. If your channeler dies and you get a new channeler, what happens to all the things that were imbued with your original channeler's essence? Are they canceled? Transfered over? If transfered over, what if your new channeler isn't strong enough? No, I don't like it. It ruins the immersion for me and creates too many sticky problems.

2) I think diplomacy should be instantaneous. Channelers should be able to communicate with each other from afar through magic with little effort.

3) However, I don't think trade should be instantaneous, but it should use the caravan system. If you just trade for a specific amount of a resource, a caravan should set out from one end and make its way to the other. If you set up a constant trade route, caravans should constantly head back and forth. This would make trading with close nations easier due to both distance and danger. A caravan coming from far away will be much more likely to be raided than one coming from your next-door neighbor.

I also think that foreign caravans traveling through a nation's territory should generate some income for that nation. This would actually provide some protection for caravans - if you raid every caravan that comes through your territory people are going to choose a different trade route and you will lose that secondary income. However, if you allow all caravans to pass through your territory, even those heading to your enemies, you could gain a reputation for being gracious. The AI could calculate the safety/value of different trade routes and nations' reputations regarding foreign trade could be a major factor. So if you're in a central location, or between two major powers, it might be worthwhile to allow trade to pass freely through your lands and become a major trading hub. If you're hostile to trade, routes might be diverted around your nation, sacrificing the shorter route through your nation for a safer, longer one.

Basically, simulation of major trade routes and associated benefits would be amazing. For this to work well, trading would need to be a major part of the game - which I think would be a very good thing. Resources should be dependent on terrain, and abundant but scattered enough so that most nations will have a surplus of some things but shortfalls of others, making trade very mutually beneficial.

Again the idea is to have the systems components as options one can select at creation time. I for one want a succession system with inherent traits and for the traits of the heir's to be based off of what my avatar had at the time of the birth as well as any genetic variables.

On the trade topic, the tax system for caravans would simply rock.