global conquest game

[Atrocities]

All of the current GC Games out suck ***. Please talk someone into developing one here. Please.

[Jmenschenfresser]

Curious he asks, "What manner of GC game would not suck ***?"

[Instar]

Well in my opinion I think a GC game should have massive scope with spectacular graphics and AI. And it should run my old Packard Bell 100mhz machine (just kidding)
It would be cool to have a RTS style game with a map that encompasses the whole world and each nation would have its own little ares or whatever
Civ3 is a disappointment, I play it some still even, but its not as fun as I wanted (cruise missiles are land units? wtf?)
Anyhow, I would like a game, where you are given control of a nation and its as true to life as possible (or something)
Ever hear of Republic? Its a game in development where you are the despot or leader of this European country. I read about it in PCGamer. That game may be a good one to have, or maybe not. The article was too brief for much good information.

[ August 21, 2002, 22:18: Message edited by: Instar ]

[capnq]

It would be cool to have a RTS style game

IMO, the preponderance of RTS games is part of the problem; "real-time strategy" is almost an oxymoron. You can't do much deep thinking about strategy while clicking everything that moves.

[Jmenschenfresser]

"real-time strategy" is almost an oxymoron. You can't do much deep thinking about strategy while clicking everything that moves.

Heh, I must say you've given me the phrase I could not find. RTS function sometimes nicely as a battle engine for a larger game. For tactical combat of just a few entities, as seen in Icewind Dale or the like. Not never, ever, ever, never in a global, massive scale game. Never played one I liked.

Maybe it is just the Marxist in me, but GC games and the genre in general demand real economic models. Perhaps not enough game designers are economists, or are scared of the daunting micromanagement it brings to mind, but 4x games will never, ever, ever, never reach their zenith without such. Too much is focused on the expansion and the military. Robust, workable combat engines are great, don't get me wrong. Without them 4x games can get boring. However, I have yet to play a game where the empire I control feels alive. That is the key. I don't want to have control over every citizen. I want in some sense to think that the empire I control lives outside of my actions.

Economics and population are the key, but are most often first overlooked. Population could really just be one bit--on or off, happy or sad. Economics in these games all too often settle for the threesome (wood, stone, gold OR food, shields and gold OR X, Y, Z)...which seems so ingrained in us, thank you Freud and Aristotle and Jung.

****, even if someone said, here's a game without real combat, it's been abstracted, but we've given you a complex economic model and a population with simulated life, life cycles, and attributes which respond according to their environment, I'd lay down my money in a heart beat. Even if it were partially text based, would be ok.

[Gillissie]

Hey Jmenschenfresser,

I think I made the game you just described on my Amiga 500 about 11 years ago. It was ALL text based, turn based, and had population, happiness, unemployment, taxes, military (limited by your population size), police, your nation's size in acres, spies, an economy which was directly based on your population, the unemployment level, taxes (you didn't get taxes from unemployed people).

Each nation's base salary was different, so each nation's economy was a different story. Your employed workers created wood, food, and steel, but you (as the government) had to buy the resources from the workers for a price based on the base salary for your nation. This meant that you could buy resources cheaper from a poorer nation, but that would increase your unemployment.

The population's happiness was not only affected by taxes and unemployment, but also your nation's involvement in military action, and the results of terrorist actions (by rival nations' spies).

[tesco samoa]

AT what GC Games do you play that you hate so much ???

[Sniper]

Hey people!
I've played most of the G/C and 4X games there have been and few of them have ever really cut it in my humble. The problem is probably that our (speakin for myself) expectations are just too high. For me, I dont like RTS. So far I havent really seen one that isnt a mild change on the tank rush gamees like C+C. Now dont get me wrong, I live on adrenline rush, games like Team Fortress are great for that (and if someone was to make a game with the multiplayer stuff from Counter/Strike crossed with R6 crossed with MOHAA then my degree course would suffer so)
But I digress, GC games need to be simple enough to be fun but complicated enough to be absorbing (and boy they should be.)
My guess it would have to be "really" moddable.
PS: My pet idea/wish list game is a 4X set in a medeval/classic fantasy world. Kinda like the old AD/D game "Greyhawk Wars" with more details and stuff. Sorry to go on and on. Cheers
R

[Jmenschenfresser]

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 ]

[Gillissie]

I'm sure that one of these days, I'll revisit this idea, but it wouldn't likely be text only. The only visual thing that really affects the game, though, is the adjacency of territories and distance between them, like you mentioned with the planets in a space based map. However, I don't really see where much strategy is involved in a map where every territory is vulnerable from any direction. Then again, maybe I'm just not into futuristic strategy as much as historical or modern strategy.