Territory conquest game (no map)

[Chris]

STANDARD MODEL:
- there is land (no map, just a number of acres)
- players attack to get other players' land (proper protections so only those within similar land size can fight)
- land affects the number of buildings (when less land than buildings some are destroyed)
- players can get some land by non combat means (turns/gold), usually progressive cost so it can be done at the beginning only.

PROBLEMS:
- I don't like the destroying buildings part
- Is there a way to make different types of land in this/similar model? Like forest, mountains, plains... Or parts of land that grant resources (ore/gold deposits)?


MY IDEAS:
- land is used for producing food only and gathering resources
- there is city (another variable) it is used for buildings. It grows on itself (the more land you have compared to city size the faster it grows). It never shrinks, even if you lose all land.
- land can be improved (irrigation/railroads), the improvement will be lost if land is lost (exactly like buildings in standard model).
- players select a region at the beginning of the game which determine land composition (forests/plains/mountains percentage). Lame solution, but can't think of anything better right now...

[Nox]

"I don't like the destroying buildings part"
Player can have X turns to get enough land so his buildings won't be destroyed

"Is there a way to make different types of land in this/similar model? Like forest, mountains, plains... Or parts of land that grant resources (ore/gold deposits)?"
In my opinion the best way would be to make it transparent and just instead of 'game shows I have X land' it would show 'I have X forest land, Y plains, Z mountains'

"land is used for producing food only and gathering resources"
I think it's a pretty good idea too

"land can be improved (irrigation/railroads), the improvement will be lost if land is lost (exactly like buildings in standard model)"
Yea, I'd just see it as having 100 plains, out of which is 50 improved by X and 25 improved with Y and the rest is normal, doesn't even need it's own table row/land...you'd just have to set some rules how to determine which land would be taken by attack... maybe random, maybe unupgraded first and then either random or ordered by improvement cost/level...

"players select a region at the beginning of the game which determine land composition (forests/plains/mountains percentage)"
You can have premade and named compositions...

[jannesiera]

You should check out this game (I warn you, it's not easy to do it better): http://cubiccreations.net/closing-lw-galava.php

Shoot... the game is taken off line -.- Maybe you could contact the developer + there is a wiki and stuff to get inspiration from.

[saljutin]

maybe people can choose what to capture - forest, mountains etc? so they can somehow point out which resource they need more and that would give more strategical thinking of this game

[Chris]

You should check out this game (I warn you, it's not easy to do it better): http://cubiccreations.net/closing-lw-galava.php

Shoot... the game is taken off line -.- Maybe you could contact the developer + there is a wiki and stuff to get inspiration from.

Yes, my original games I knew about got closed as well It is some twisted irony of the universe I think, the best onse dies first

I can not find wiki nor retrieve any other useful info right now. Can you point out the most crucial mechanics that made this game so good?


What is better "Turns Used" or "Turns Taken" (displayed on player page how many turns he used so far)?

[jannesiera]

I can not find wiki nor retrieve any other useful info right now. Can you point out the most crucial mechanics that made this game so good?

The wiki: http://galava.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
Basic explanation of this game: http://games.bbgsite.com/content/2009-04-14/20090414090340325.shtml

I played the game for a little while but stopped soon because it's just not my style of game. But it's the best game in the genre I know. I thought it was quite balanced and the developers carefully choose their features (even replaced existing features if they weren't that successful). That's one of the good points, you didn't have to deal with boring crap.

The main reason I mentioned this game is because of it's (kinda) unique land type system. When you started you could pick some types of land and they all had their bonuses and minuses. When you progressed (you got some sort of "progress points") you could add a land type (after X number of points). So every turn you would get income or you would loose some resources (depends on what you are building / doing and what land types you have).

So it was kind of a mathematical game in the sense you could play around with % and nr's but not in a bad way . A pitty you can't try it out now .

How the land types system works and battle should be in the Wikia (I hope).

What is better "Turns Used" or "Turns Taken" (displayed on player page how many turns he used so far)?

You're always asking the wrong questions xD. It's quite obvious you are the coder type, not the designer (in the layout/text sense I mean). 

[Chris]

The wiki: http://galava.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

I can not find any gameplay info there, only community stuff. Has they removed it or I'm looking wrong way?

What is better "Turns Used" or "Turns Taken" (displayed on player page how many turns he used so far)?

You're always asking the wrong questions xD. It's quite obvious you are the coder type, not the designer (in the layout/text sense I mean). 

Think of it this way, I'm giving you a great opportunity to show your greatness! Everyone can give a good answer to a good question. But! Giving a good answer to a wrong question is a completely different level of marvelouness

It is quite important question to me since I tend to name the variables the same way that these are ingame, much easier during coding (I hate when players change stuff names and then I learn it too and can not find it in the code anymore )

[jannesiera]

The wiki: http://galava.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

I can not find any gameplay info there, only community stuff. Has they removed it or I'm looking wrong way?

No, it doesn't seem to be there. Sorry for wasting your time. (you waste my time asking silly questions too, so we're even I should have checked it before linking to it though :S.

[Chris]

maybe people can choose what to capture - forest, mountains etc? so they can somehow point out which resource they need more and that would give more strategical thinking of this game

I was thinking that you could get X land each day for free, you can select what type of land it is. When you attack you get land depending on target's composition (shown on attack page).

About Galava
How the provinces worked? Was it Travian style (you get a separate kingdom) or was it that there were like 5 provinces in the game and all players could build one city in each province? If you attacked form province 3 you were getting land from another player in province 3.

[jannesiera]

About Galava
How the provinces worked? Was it Travian style (you get a separate kingdom) or was it that there were like 5 provinces in the game and all players could build one city in each province? If you attacked form province 3 you were getting land from another player in province 3.

Yes, it was like Travian. You got your own kingdom.

From that review link (of before):

To do this, you must learn to manage your finances, build farms and homes, and finally, craft an impressive war machine to bring others under your will. Whether you sink or swim relies on your decisions

That's essentially what the game is (oops, was) about. Managing and taking the right, strategic, decisions. The provinces were the core of that.

I just found something a little bit more detailed. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3174076

Just mentioning it again, do you consider contacting the developer? Maybe that could provide some sort of inspiration / concrete tips / ... ?

[Chris]

Just mentioning it again, do you consider contacting the developer? Maybe that could provide some sort of inspiration / concrete tips / ... ?

Nah, it is not as interesting/compatible with my plans, your input is enough

I have read interesting thing "Additional provinces give your provinces relative position, like concentric rings". Concentric rings... How would you develop this concept (not necessarily related to that game, just wild ideas that could work)?

I imagine there are several provinces, each has a certain amount of land. When you "create" a new province it became outer ring of your kingdom. Then you move troops (preferably to the border provine). Only when enemy defeats outer province he can go further.
The problem with this concept is that everyone will concentrate troops in the border province and once these are defeated in one battle the whole kingdom is as helpless as a newborn gnome.
Solution could be making incentive to spread defences (like the nearer the centre the more experience troop gain through training, or the more morale). Or part of interior forces could help defending border provinces. Or after certain province falls it has to be converted which takes time, in the meantime the remaining provinces are protected.

[jannesiera]

I imagine there are several provinces, each has a certain amount of land. When you "create" a new province it became outer ring of your kingdom. Then you move troops (preferably to the border provine). Only when enemy defeats outer province he can go further.
The problem with this concept is that everyone will concentrate troops in the border province and once these are defeated in one battle the whole kingdom is as helpless as a newborn gnome.

When they break through you're line off defence you still have troops on the side- and back borders of your kingdom who should be able to move and protect the middle kingdom. That might mean sacrificing your border provinces though.

Working with some sort of map / grid usually provides much more strategical / tactical possibilities. I understand you are aiming for a purely text based game though?

[Chris]

Working with some sort of map / grid usually provides much more strategical / tactical possibilities. I understand you are aiming for a purely text based game though?

No map of any kind. Never! I loathe maps, and the thing I really like about BBGs is that you can make a very good game without any maps


What I strive for is more strategic level play. You have a kingdom and you rule it without dvelving into tactical details where your units exactly are located or what their battle orders are. Preferably only one province with abstract "land" consisting of one variable, althrough I'm open to alternatives (but not to maps, rather something between a map and "one variable land").

Another concept is 2 tier land. Like a game in colonialism times where you have world divided into old world and new world (one variable each). Old world is stagnant and wars are impossible or very hard or defensive bonuses are huge. The conquest opportunity lays in new world. You use old world to produce units and build industry. Then transport part of the army to new world to acquire resources and markets to sell industrial goods. There could be also 3-rd type of land (again one variable), sea control, which does not directly affect economy but affects transport costs.

[raestlyn]

So you want to make a turn-based, slightly modified version of Utopia that doesn't have the best part of its design, forced teamplay?

[Chris]

So you want to make a turn-based, slightly modified version of Utopia that doesn't have the best part of its design, forced teamplay?

Exactly, something like Utopia/RedDragon (the rest of examples already went bankrupt ) but without forced teamplay (the biggest obstacle to me as a player). Also more dynamic/frequent combat (I never played long enough to got to combat part in any of this type games), probably low/no casuality combat as well.

[Chris]

Another idea:

- there is land (one variable, or more?)
- before constructing buildings you need to convert land and create city (or build infrastructure) which means you put roads, energy lines, etc
- a part of your land is fertile (percentage? or separate variable?) only on fertile land you can build farms
- a part of your land is minerable (percentage? or separate variable?) only on it you can build mines

So, at the beginning you have a lot of free land, lot of it fertile. When you convert land to build city, it is assumed the non fertile land is used first. As your industrial capacity increases you make your city bigger and after the non fertile land is used up you use non fertile land which results in bigger food problems at the late game than at the early game. Possibly you would be forced to trade with undeveloped players to obtain food?

City buldings just use 1 acre of "city converted land". Farms use a huge amount of fertile land (if lack of fertile land it uses non fertile, if not enough land per farm then framing works on lower capacity). Mines use... I'm not sure here, maybe 1 acre of mineable land? Also the mineable land should be not used up (it uses underground), so the amount of mines is not affecting farming capacity. Or maybe the mine uses 10 acres of normal land, but you can not make them more than the mineable land? This way it would reduce city/farming a bit, but still was highly independent since it uses the underground reserves of minerals as a limiting factor.

Such system could lead to nice gameplay, like you could increase farming by producing expensive harvesters (one per farm max), at tyhe beginning you woiuld have primitive and large farming, later you would switch to small highly advanced farming.

Questions:
My dilemma is how land exactly should work. Separate variable for each land type (but then how to conquer land?) or a fixed percentage of land has certain purpose (except for city land which is overbuild) and auto adjust to fit the land variable value?

Also, how such "land converted to city land" should be named?