1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Imperia Unity Idea/Wishlist Thread

Discussion in 'AotSS Feedback' started by Texashawk, May 4, 2015.

  1. Texashawk

    Texashawk Developer
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    63
    Hey everyone, if you want to throw your two cents in for what you want to see added/changed/removed from Imperia Unity, here's the place! No feedback will be ignored!

    -Steve
     
    #1
  2. dirkgently

    dirkgently Lord of Statistics
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin Testing The Galaxy, One Star At A Time

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    36
    I'd just like to say, the concept of Imperia is like you looked inside my head, found my dream game, and went 'Hmm, I can definitely improve on that'.
     
    #2
  3. dirkgently

    dirkgently Lord of Statistics
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin Testing The Galaxy, One Star At A Time

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    36
    One thing I worry about a little bit is the combat system. Endless Space has a similar hands-free system and it works really badly - the fundamental problem is that you're spending around a minute watching something you can't interact with, and because you can't react to events, your 'tactical choices' are basically stabs in the dark. If you're going to have hands-off battles, you don't get much of a player's-time budget to spend on them before they start getting stale.

    I know you're not going for hands-on battle management, but given that you're an Emperor modelled to an extent off Napoleon, tactical battle control might actually make a lot more sense in this game than in most other strategy games. Perhaps only the Imperial Fleet could be manually controllable, on the basis that that's the one you're in charge of - this would make the player's preferences impact their strategy the way an emperor's choices would in reality - taking part in battles could also have positive effects on your reputation while putting you at risk and costing ADM...

    Supposing you were to do this, what would be really cool would be a combat system that works something like this:

    The idea is that the two fleets are moving past one another really, really fast, The Forever War-style, giving a very short window of opportunity for combat. So you have two vertical (x and y) hex grids that move towards and pass through each other in the z dimension over the course of, say, six turns - one grid upon which your fleet moves, one for the enemy's. Your grid starts at z=0 and moves 'up' 1 z-point per turn, theirs at z=6 moving 'down'. Moves are simultaneous (as in Diplomacy, or Endless Legend's combat system) and each turn represents the actions both fleets take between z=n and z=n+1. The hexes on the grids line up with each other, so the xy range of a ship's weapons will be displayed on the other grid, and in turn 3 the two fleets will be moving into the same grid. Asteroids and other obstacles would be suspended in the space the grids move through, at particular z-values - if you don't move a ship out of the way of an obstacle, it'll be toast. (If on turn 3 one of your ships and an enemy ship move into the same space, however, they don't collide and annihilate unless you ordered them to try to do so- if you do, ships will have a percentage chance to dodge and/or destroy a ramming ship before it can collide with them.)

    The advantage of this system is that it gives you real spacey-feeling 3D battles without the faff of having to move units around in 3D, and with a fixed time limit. Just an idea!
     
    #3
    pavlosg likes this.
  4. pavlosg

    pavlosg Art Director
    Forum Admin

    Country:
    Greece
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2015
    Messages:
    176
    Likes Received:
    29
    Hello Dirk !

    Hahaha amazingly enough, I have been thinking about a similar system last weekend, walking on the beach ! Forever war...god I love this book, are the follow-ups any good ? I read that a movie is going to be made of Haldeman's book(s). Ridley Scott acquired the rights, if memory serves well ?

    Indeed, I think that 'high-speed passes' would be very common in future space combat. Every pass would be like a 'round' of combat, a bit like boxing: you can suggest new tactics in-between rounds like the coach of a boxer. You can suggest to close or open the distance, to go for a melee, try a pincer move or run away. Every pass is solved automatically, but as it takes days if not weeks of accelerating and decelerating to get into position for the next pass, you have time to intervene and issue orders.

    ... Is that what you have in mind ?

    I see some issues:
    - It is a bit complex. Imagine there are several space battles in the same turn, each with several rounds. Things will have to be designed very carefully to avoid overburdening the player and make him (/her) loose focus of the bigger picture.
    - do we want so much commanding power ? If yes, does it cost you some imperial administration points, Imperial Focus points or the equivalent ?
    - can you let your admiral do that thing for you ?

    Some advantages:
    - more realistic. no, yes, well, right. Could be. More than ships just lined up stupidly or flying in space like planes.
    - lets you command without being an omniscient god.
    - it is both dramatic and fast paced but not a click-fest. It is a bit like Combat Mission system, with a 'wego' system of play.
    - the in-between pass system makes it easier to introduce maneuvers, flanking and the sort.

    I like it. What do you say, Steve ?

    P.
     
    #4
  5. dirkgently

    dirkgently Lord of Statistics
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin Testing The Galaxy, One Star At A Time

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    36
    Thanks, evidently great minds think alike! I've not actually read the Forever War books, though I'd like to - I heard the way the battles work from a friend who got really into them. If Ridley Scott filmed them I would be all over that like a bad rash.

    My idea was that a battle would be a single pass, broken up into four to six turns with the actual pass in the middle. The manoeuvring then wouldn't be so much about the angle of attack, flanking and the like, as trying to anticipate where the enemy's threats and weak spots are going to be - if each ship's movement speed and xy range on the grid is only 1 or 2 tiles per turn, you can do things like trap battleships in front of a wall of expendable fighters, create areas of denial in front of your vulnerable 'artillery' (ships whose xy range is 4 or so hexes) using short-xy-ranged, powerful ships, or immobilise enemy ships in front of asteroids. The potential disadvantage of your system,where each turn is a pass, is that your enemy can completely alter their formation in between turns, so the only information you carry from one battle turn to the next is what ships your enemy has left. It means there won't be as much variety between battles - if you're facing the same lineup, you're probably going to use the same tactics. In a system where position is also preserved/only partially modified between turns, you have another layer of variety to respond to, which keeps things a lot fresher.

    I appreciate the too-many-battles problem - the most characterful way to tackle that in my opinion would be to limit tactical control to the battles your personal fleet fights, with other battles being autoresolved (perhaps with an 'action replay' you can watch if you wish). For the autoresolved battles, the player could maybe set the general strategy beforehand - how much damage the admiral should be willing to take, which enemy ships to prioritise, which of their own ships to protect, that sort of thing. My intuition says players are willing to put up with much more rudimentary auto-resolve systems when it's clear to them that those aren't the 'real' combat system.

    One of the problems games like the Total War series face is that manually fighting a battle always gives you a better outcome than autoresolving it, so you feel obliged to fight them all. I don't think that ought to be the choice here - manually commanding a battle (at least if it were using my one-pass system) would mean you were personally in the flagship, which would cost you some amount of action points (because it takes time), and put you at risk of injury if the ship is damaged or destroyed (we can imagine you have an escape pod/limited-range teleporter/personal wormhole you can use to escape actual death in that scenario), the payoff being that you gain a reputation as a warrior, increasing your popularity and the loyalty of your generals. Which is still a tradeoff that means sometimes you're going to need to manually fight a battle, but it's a much more role-play-able tradeoff, and will only happen occasionally rather than all the time.

    What do you reckon? Either system could work, but I worry modelling each turn as a separate pass would reduce the variety of battles too much.
     
    #5
  6. Texashawk

    Texashawk Developer
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    63
    Welcome dirkgently! I'm glad you like the idea. It's my dream game, too. I am very open to input about a game like this, and I'm serious when I say that we welcome all feedback, development or otherwise! It's the crucible that will make a world-class strategy game.

    -Steve
     
    #6
  7. Texashawk

    Texashawk Developer
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    63
    For me, I'm a fan of the Weber Honorverse series, so if you understand that battle system, you'll understand my thoughts. When Pavlos and I worked on the battle system top-level premise, it tied back to everything else in Imperia: that is, you can't be everywhere at once, and you can't do everything you would like to do. You should be able to give your admirals battle plans, and the idea is that your admiral, depending on how competent they are will actually get the force together and plan (they think) can get the job done. You will have limited control over this; remember, you're managing people, not starships, as the face of an Empire. But that said, battles will feature small numbers of larger ships, similar to the early Honorverse novels, where squadrons, or divisions at most, would fight. It makes every ship matter, as opposed to battle reports where "You lost 155 destroyers, 86 light cruisers, 30 heavy cruisers, and 11 battleships, with 18333 dead and 2449 wounded." While it be more epic, ships at that level don't matter anymore. It should hurt to lose the NHN Glorious since she had been the flagship in 2 other offensive campaigns, and you can't replace her captain and crew experience easily. Those considerations will and should come into play when you look at whether to assemble an offensive force. You will have the ability to 'insist' that certain units be or not be used, and this will come into play when you are trying to get in good with admirals (when you beef up their force, they are happier) and set priorities on actions (for example, taking a system will have a Level I priority meaning it's critical and only the best ships should be used. You will create action plans similiar to the Edict screen.

    I think there might be an option where you go on the flagship, but more as a symbol as opposed to actually commanding the action. Your admirals probably wouldn't like the back-seat driving. :-D For very important actions, such as offensives against the Xyl (the alien threat) I could see that being a thing.

    You and I have similar views on what battle should look like, I think. Plus, there are a lot of things to consider as far as what a battle plan should look like, including objectives, loss tolerance, supply, etc. We're still hashing out the level of detail an operation should have and what you, as the emperor, should have input on. We are going to start putting that design to paper soon, and I think I'd like your input as we work on that. Would that be acceptable?

    -Steve
     
    #7
  8. dirkgently

    dirkgently Lord of Statistics
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin Testing The Galaxy, One Star At A Time

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    36
    I'd certainly be delighted to comment on your designs! I see where you're coming from with the hands-off approach, and it might certainly make for a more focussed game. Having said that, 4X games have long, long session lengths, and a hands-on battle system can offer a refreshing change of pace in the middle of that. There's also something a little more evocative about taking an almost multimedia-type approach to a game universe - if you look at Somnium in the Fall from Heaven II mod for Civ 4, which was a fairly trivial minigame but added more than it had any right to in terms of flavour; or the kooky, impressionistic secret project videos from Alpha Centauri (peace be upon it); or the between-mission bits of Starcraft 2 episode 1, and Hotline Miami; just by opening up multiple angles on the game's world, mechanically and artistically, this kind of feature can really augment the atmosphere of the game. Not that it's not oozing with flavour already.
     
    #8
  9. dirkgently

    dirkgently Lord of Statistics
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin Testing The Galaxy, One Star At A Time

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    36
    With the asymmetric nature of the game, what will you be doing with the non-player factions? There's much more potential for bespoke interactions than in a normal 4X game - each faction might have unique bonuses and problems it brings when assimilated, different 'quests' that allow their peaceful assimilation (conquest by war of another faction, for example)... Just thinking aloud: you might be faced with a choice between co-opting a world's strongman at the price of low output, siding with a rebellion against him for more of one kind of output at the risk of inspiring similar movements on your own worlds, or investing a lot of blood and treasure to conquer and bleed the planet dry. What about democratic worlds - in which the viceroy is periodically replaced by one of his or her challengers, who will be friendly to your interests more or less in proportion to the favour with which you've showered the planet/rigged the election/co-opted the opposition? You might want to stamp out this inconvenience, but it will come at a cost...

    Conversely, worlds isolated for centuries will have produced technological and social innovations, which you or your vassals might then take up or try to suppress. Religious cults, for example, might be either useful or dangerous - a cult which hails you as the Messiah could certainly bolster your popularity, if you're not too obvious about how you promote it, but it might start developing its own ideas about what policies the Messiah ought to be pursuing. What about a Brave New World-style faction which acquired its mass population by growing its citizens in vats? A useful innovation for the production of troops and the population of frontiers, for sure, but bound to raise strong opinions among your vassals and people. Especially those who want to use it to raise their own armies. In the timescale of the game, technologies are less likely to be researched fresh than absorbed from far-flung worlds which have developed them in their own time. You would then be faced with the possibility of implementing them - and if that implementation harms some character's interests, it'll piss them off...

    In terms of layout of the map, too, the game's asymmetry means factions might be arranged around the player - with a few easy targets close in, and the larger, juicier, deadlier targets further out, to be tackled in the mid-game. You could have alternative settings to provide varied challenges - starting right up against a larger, more powerful faction, or a quadrant full of small factions for an easy mode, etc.

    There's also the question of replayability. To provide more variety from game to game, factions might be constructed from a number of variables and modular 'components' - their size, the personality of their leaders, their astropolitical agendas (war with other factions, contested claims on planets), their particular unusual traits (theocracy, vat people, different political structure, etc) and so on. Modularising them like this might reduce the scope for individual character in each faction, however. It might be better just to put together a large palette of factions, of which only a sample are included in each game.

    What are your plans for the non-player factions?
     
    #9
  10. Texashawk

    Texashawk Developer
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    63
    dirkgently,

    Sorry for the length of time before this response. We have been remodeling the house and put in all wood floors, which means no computer (or office!) for a few days. Anyway...

    The non-player factions are going to be critical to the game design. Basically, you are only as powerful as your people allow you to be, and as your military lets you be, and as your holdings allow you to. To stay in power (and ultimately, to defeat the Xyl) you will have to deal with breakaway factions at least somewhat. There are other paths to victory, but that would involve highly developing your military and science areas and staying out of trouble. You will be able to assimilate (or reassimilate) breakaway human factions depending on the state of your empire at the time, your personal abilities, and the skill of your diplomatic Prime. Of course, you always have the military option, but you will have to have a sizeable garrison to put down unrest (plus this is Tyrannical) but in the end it's up to you.

    One thing I liked about ST:BOTF was the minor races that could provide unique bonuses. Breakaway factions will have similar traits, most likely research bonuses or a specific piece of technology that can be used throughout the Empire. I can tell you that modularizing factions beyond the 'home 5' will certainly happen. I'm a big fan of replayability, and I'm working on an algorithm to generate nearly infinite minor human factions. Exciting stuff!

    Events to assimilate could work, and it is something that we'll look at. There will be events for member worlds/systems, and being able to take advantage of an event might be pretty cool!

    Keep your thoughts coming!

    -Steve
     
    #10
  11. dirkgently

    dirkgently Lord of Statistics
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin Testing The Galaxy, One Star At A Time

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    36
    Have you read Jon Shafer's disquisition on diplomacy in At The Gates (at http://www.atthegatesgame.com/node/28 )? It's definitely worth a read. Having global diplomacy stats for your empire, in addition to diplomatic skill, would make the system much more tractable - Trustworthiness, based on past honouring of bargains and consistency of treatment of factions (ie. not declaring war on someone you'd previously been close with) and Menace (based on past honouring of threats and current military might) spring to mind. Trustworthiness would make it easier to make deals, Menace would make threats more effective. Moreover, you might have 'foreign policies' that affect which factions trust and/or fear you - 'Arrogance' might boost Menace at the cost of diplomatic skill penalties, 'Aristocratic Solidarity' might boost Trust with aristocratic factions, reduce it with other factions, and penalise you for attacking or threatening aristocratic factions, and so on. To change your foreign policy, you would have to persuade a majority of your Primes and sector governors to vote in favour of it, giving the choice more weight due to inertia.

    Additionally, your psychic ability could allow you to tell whether the people you're dealing with are lying to you, but only if you've got good enough relations to hold extended conferences with them - this being how you tell at the time if your threats are believed and your treaties will be honoured. Threats would be more likely to be bowed to if they're in proportion to the demand, if the demand is something the recipient can easily fulfil, if their intelligence indicates you can actually carry them out, and if your Menace is high.

    If I may, I'd also like to pontificate a little about events:

    The problem with events is that they're disconnected from the rest of the game. They pop up, then they go away, and maybe you get a bonus or something, but they always feel like 'here's something we couldn't fit into the mechanics any other way'. That's fine sometimes, but for problems like whether to topple a warlord or co-opt him it's not adequate. These will be ongoing problems, with a variety of ramifications. A rebellion within a faction won't be a one-off event, it will build up over time, have one or two key leaders to deal with or 'deal with', and might inspire similar movements elsewhere. Characters would likely have opinions on these things.

    So a more sophisticated version of 'events' would be 'ongoing phenomena': something like the story engine in Sunless Sea, where you have:
    - a 'phenomenon' status flag that applies to a faction or planet;
    - a number of associated role tokens that are applied to the various characters and worlds involved and give them special abilities, criteria for when they will use those abilities, and describe how they will be affected if the phenomenon develops (the revolution takes place/is crushed, for example) - this could include slots for characters who aren't part of the aristocratic/administrative hierarchy;
    - a number of triggers to develop the phenomenon one way or another (changing the phenomenon flag and its effects), including sets of player options that may either be pushed on the player as events or sit passively for the player to choose between at their leisure;
    - and criteria for NPCs forming opinions one way or another on the player options - tags like 'threatens religious interests' 'profitable for grain producers' etc. It would be even better if this could be done partly procedurally - the game works out the effect of choosing one branch rather than the other on the incomes etc. of different characters, and adjusts their opinions accordingly, modified by the interaction of the phenomenon's tags with their personality traits etc.

    Unless there's a good reason to hide them, all of these would be visible to the player - perhaps the future developments of the phenomenon might be hidden. Effects of different options might be procedurally generated, so depending on the economic sectors supporting/opposing the rebellion (to continue this example - it doesn't all have to be rebellions!) the outcome would produce different effects on output.

    What do you think?
     
    #11
  12. dirkgently

    dirkgently Lord of Statistics
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin Testing The Galaxy, One Star At A Time

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    36
    So another thing that I've been thinking about is what motives the characters have to like or dislike you, other than your promoting or demoting them. This next idea might be a bit too much complication, but on the other hand it might fill a gap, so here it is.

    The idea is that characters have financial interests, which come in three flavours.

    1. Planetary exports & imports. If a character's planet/system/sector exports a particular good (food, MFG, services) they will be pleased by measures which increase demand and reduce their competition, and pissed off by the inverse. If their planet/system/sector imports a good, vice versa.

    2. Corruption. Wealthy characters may cut poorer characters in on their profits to reverse their type 1 preferences and increase their political power - characters will be pissed off if you move against their patrons or clients. You can unearth networks of corruption with intel and psychic powers. Also you can do this yourself. Characters may approach you with bribery offers to favour them one way or another, bringing us to...

    3. Corporate shares. Various Imperial functions - trade, ship production, different economic sectors - will each have several corporations competing to fulfil them. Grant a corporation a contract to run an economic hub, a shipyard, or an economic sector on a planet, and it will provide a variety of bonuses and penalties. More importantly, though, it will provide its shareholders with cash and goodwill towards you - and, to a lesser degree, anger their competitors' shareholders. Characters may buy a share in a corporation (each will have a limited number available, maybe 10 at most) by bidding for it - thus up-and-coming characters can expand their holdings whilst characters in a tight spot, or owning shares in a tanking corporation, will sell up. (You can also buy and auction shares!)

    Corporations' bonuses and penalties change with time and growth/shrinkage. If they have competition, they will provide new bonuses; a lack of competition leads to increased penalties (and higher dividends for shareholders!) Similar effects will occur if many shareholders have shares in multiple companies in the same field. (Each corp would have a 'competition index' stat, visible to the player, which is the basis for these developments - shareholders sitting on multiple companies in the same field would push this number down.) Each company has a special share, the CEO's role, which has higher dividends; the stats of the character who holds this share - their intelligence etc - will also affect the development of bonuses and penalties. This opens up the way to 'Anti-Trust Suit' actions (which can break up cartels but anger the shareholders), laws mandating corporations split or merge, and so on.

    You can also integrate technologies into this - perhaps a smaller company gets hold of an advanced technology, offering you superior performance; the larger company might then try to conduct industrial espionage, which you can aid or hinder. You might requisition the advanced technology from the smaller company in the 'national interest', which would of course be Tyrannous. Newly-integrated factions might have their own corporations, that start competing with your own on this basis. The possibilities are endless!

    EDIT: I'm not sure whether you ought to be able to have non-corporate-controlled trade hubs etc. Either you can't have them, or they're always worse than the corporate ones. That's not to say you can't have a corporation wholly owned by the player control them, only that it'll be of the same type as the other corps, with the same monopoly disadvantages.
     
    #12
    Last edited: May 29, 2015
  13. dirkgently

    dirkgently Lord of Statistics
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin Testing The Galaxy, One Star At A Time

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    36
    NB: it would be a good idea for in-game decisions to list for the player exactly who they're going to please and who they're going to infuriate before you make them. Having to remember who own what shares in which corps, who's whose brother, etc. would not make for fun gameplay.
     
    #13
  14. dirkgently

    dirkgently Lord of Statistics
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin Testing The Galaxy, One Star At A Time

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    36
    AI thought: if the player finds themself in a strong position, it'd be great if the game noticed and threw some sort of spanner in the works, like the AI Director in Left 4 Dead. So, say you have everything locked up, your empire's super productive, you've got five tight allies in control of everything - the AI notices this (somehow? how would you register how interesting the player's experience is?) and assassinates one of them, or gives the player an opportunity that would alienate two of them, or something. Just a thought.
     
    #14
  15. Texashawk

    Texashawk Developer
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    63
    Well, this is a good point. While we don't want perfect information, we could list characters that might be influenced by a specific decision. This is actually a good idea, and something I hadn't thought of as far as making the game more playable (it could be your regent saying something like 'Your system governor of Naxus may not be pleased with this decision' or something to keep it canon in the game). Great thought!

    -Steve
     
    #15
  16. Texashawk

    Texashawk Developer
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    63
    Well, the Xyl will more or less take this role; they'll be plenty for the player to deal with. That said, there will be a mode where you don't have the Xyl; just good ol' empire (re)building. In that mode, this might make sense!

    -Steve
     
    #16
    dirkgently likes this.
  17. Texashawk

    Texashawk Developer
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    63
    I like this a lot. I really like how you think. I haven't played Sunless Sea (but the atmosphere looks fascinating and I've been really tempted more than once) and I like the idea of a playable narrative using events and reactions. In Imperia, events will be both one-offs and chained events, sort of a choose your own adventure. Of course, they have to be written, but a cool part is that they can be written as XML format and using built-in triggers, anyone can write an event! I do like the idea of showing opinions based on decisions - that's been a fine line between 'not giving exact information' and 'how the hell do I know how my province governor is going to react?'

    I'll post more on this tomorrow. This is a topic near and dear to me in Imperia.

    -Steve
     
    #17
    dirkgently likes this.
  18. nadia911

    nadia911 Alpha Tester
    Testing The Galaxy, One Star At A Time

    Country:
    Argentina
    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2015
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi Steve, I detail here some elements that I would like to see incorporated in Imperia:
    Independent commercial enterprises run by the AI but influenced by government actions. (The type of Aurora 4X and Distant Worlds)
    Detailed structure of government, with an Imperial Senate, a court of justice and an aristocratic court. (more or less as in CK II?)
    Dynasty system and allocation of government posts (more or less as in Knights of Honor)
    Autonomous decisions by the governors of systems and planets.
    Religion !!! With his own faction (as Emperor of the Fading Suns)

    Some of these things we see in Imperia?
     
    #18
  19. dirkgently

    dirkgently Lord of Statistics
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin Testing The Galaxy, One Star At A Time

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    36
    I think there's an important distinction to make between not giving the player perfect information (good) and making information available but difficult to access (bad, unless there's a really good gameplay reason for it). If information is available to the player, it should be available wherever needed, in the most convenient form; if it's available but imperfect, the potential flaws need to be flagged up. So for each decision - maybe even for each action - you'd have a list of which characters would be affected, and how, based on the intelligence you currently have on them, with notes for unknown factors (eg. 'Faction allegiance unknown', 'Not all this character's income is accounted for' etc). Apart from anything else, letting the player see at every decision who's affected by what and why will drill the NPCs' interests into them by repetition, making it easier to think about the impact of decisions without even looking at the lists.

    As for keeping it in-character, the Emperor's intelligence staff would as a matter of course put together dossiers detailing whose interests will be advanced or compromised by different policies. It'd be out of character not to make them available to the player.
     
    #19
    nadia911 likes this.
  20. dirkgently

    dirkgently Lord of Statistics
    Staff Member Developer Forum Admin Testing The Galaxy, One Star At A Time

    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    36
    Thinking some more about how to make cause and effect transparent to the player, what if there were a dynamic visual representation of the relationships between the characters to go with the empire screen? Something like a galaxy map for interpersonal relationships, with portraits for stars, that shifts with the political landscape. Each character would have link lines to their handful of particular friends and enemies (as far as the player's intel can figure them out), and their immediate superiors and inferiors, and would be grouped on Venn-diagram blobs or 'constellations' representing court factions or similar. Characters' ranks/roles might be represented by increasingly ornate borders around their portrait, with detailed information available on a click; their spatial arrangement might be a sort of spreading-circles/dandelion/fractal arrangement, with each character's inferiors grouped around them in a roughly circular formation:

    [​IMG]
    (Diagram courtesy of Charles Darwin. The Emperor is probably at the second branch point up from (1).)

    Family membership could be represented by combinations of two colours used in the portraits' borders, plus a coat of arms underneath them when zoomed in; planetary viceroys needn't bother with lines to the system governors, but could simply be placed on a circular tray centred on their guvnor; likewise admirals. If there were a fourth type of loyalty network on top of hierarchy, faction and family - corporate share ownership, say - it might be represented as a set of 3D squid-shapes sitting on top of the map, translucent tentacles extending to their members. Personal alliances and vendettas (represented by presumably green and red lines) might also be more readable if they arched over the map, instead of just wandering around it.

    The advantage of doing this is that it gives the player a handle on the power structure of their empire. It's much like having a galaxy map, actually - you could build a 4X game with no map, just a list of planets and their immediate neighbours, but it would be way, way harder to get your head around. Making the political landscape into an actual landscape would help make an intimidatingly tangled system more transparent, sort of like a tech tree does. The rise and fall of court factions would be as obvious as the loss and gain of physical territory, with positions in the hierarchy taking the place of provinces on a map - all aiming to encircle the Emperor. The hierarchies of other galactic factions (we're going to need two different terms for these things) would appear on the political map as you discovered them, outside your own hierarchy - on assimilation, another bright line shoots out from the Emperor to whoever's in charge of them.

    The obvious risk is that this would be too busy to use - if you've got a couple of dozen characters, you're going to end up with hundreds of lines running about the place. You would need toggles for different types of information, plus the ability to view only a single character's relationships (or those of a group of selected characters), and any combination of these. So, for example, the player could set up a view where they look at only share ownership plus the personal feuds of Baron Harkonnen and the family relationships of Duke Atreides, and then save those settings for use later on.

    What do you think? Useful? Overkill? Too complicated?
     
    #20
    nadia911 likes this.

Share This Page