Territory control & combat

[Chris]

How to make a combat system that would more or less fit the description below?


What do I want (outcome):
- there are planets, several players can bring their fleets on the planet's orbit
- several players can control a percentage of a planet (multiple controllers)
- the control level depends on current fleet power on the orbit and on the time spent (the longer you occupy the planet the harder you are to root out by stronger player, especially I want to avoid some strong warmonger to go in and crush everyone instantly)
- I would like to have some "tactical" part, like you had to actually click "attack player X" button. And that a choice which player to attack would matter.
- There must be "my army is stronger than player X who is my real life friend" feeling (not necessarily included into the planetary control part of the game).

Vision of the game (more like an example):
- there are relatively few planets (like 1 per 30-50 players), planets are not equally rich, also can give different bonuses
- players have 5 main fleets, they move these around galaxy to exert control over planets, each fleet can have no more than 40% of total spaceships (players are forced to spread their military assets)
- each main fleet has 1 commander: 2xCaptain, 1xCommodore, 1xViceAdmiral, 1xAdmiral (=5 commanders, 1 for each fleet), if your fleet has higher rank commander than enemy you get combat bonus
- players probably would have several supporting fleets/wings/lone ships that could be moved like normal fleets, but can not control a planet, these can only support the main fleet
- movement of fleets is limited by fuel
- control attempts/attacks/whatevertheydo would be limited by fleet readiness (turns/actions)

Random thoughts/alternatives:
- instead of controlling a percentage a planet, you get "1" land when you move your fleet over the planet. If you attack someone that has NO LESS than you, you steal 1 land from them (if they had only 1 you get 1 but they do not lose it).

[jannesiera]

What type of game are you looking for? Purely text based? Or am I allowed to bring in maps and stuff?

[Chris]

Prefered text, but oh well, you can try the map too I'm feeling so agreeable today

[Chris]

My main goal is to make a "dense/compact" feeling. There are a few planets (an average player would remember all planet names) and players swarm in this small universe (or more accurately in these few star systems) trying to take control/spread influence across these planets. No player would obtain a full control of a planet of course.

Imagine a small space empire, probably at the decline, a few systems with few planets. Various factions or space barons fight to get more power (not necessarily and not only via military means). They try to control planets, obtain imperial offices and titles, control trade guilds, fight pirates and aliens that invade the empire (NPCs?). No player can be eliminated, they can only be denied increase of power/influence (preferably only slow down, not full deny).

I try to find a combat model that would work with the vision above. The simpliest would be to make several movable fleets per player that get no casualities, do not fight and only exert control over a planet they are orbiting at. A bit boring combat I would say So, I try to save as much as I can from the traditional combat systems (or if you can think of something original that would work instead).

[jannesiera]

Ah, I've bought the "Settlers 7: paths to a kingdom" recently (the Settlers series is my favourite). Combat has always been important in the Settlers games but building a strong economy has always been of greater importance. Without a good economy you couldn't support your army anyway.

The Settlers 7 goes farther though. There are 3 main paths you can choose to invest in: technology (building a church and recruiting novices to do research etc), trade (building an export and setting up trade posts) or military (developing stronger millitary units etc). Off course you would always need at least a small army to protect your kingdom etc or on some maps you were almost forced to choose a certain path because of the availability of certain resources etc.

The interesting part is "victory point" (the Settlers 7 can feel a bit like a super cool board game, especially in multi-player). To win the game you'd need a certain amount of victory points. You gain victory points by doing certain things like "research most technologies, having largest army, most settlers, occupying certain areas, doing certain missions, ... ). Some of these victory points had a lock: the first player who builds a cathedral will have that victory point and it can't be taken away. Other victory points could be changed (eg the VP for biggest army).

A cool thing is that when a technology is researched by a certain player, other players can't research it any more. The same with establishing trade posts...

It's a bit a too big a game to explain all the rules and especially hard to explain how it feels to play it. What I am trying to say though is that it is a game about control and power and it takes the focus from combat and puts it in managing an economy and making strategical decisions on what to do and where to invest. Also victory points and some other features could work really well in strategy browser games. Especially round based games.

If you don't want to buy the game (what I am guessing) they have developed a facebook game around the economy managing. I haven't checked it out myself so it might be useless though. (Found it through a link here on the forum: http://www.smartfoxserver.com/showcase/ )

This is quite a fast reply but if you are interested in a particular something I would definitely take the time to explain if you wish so.

[Chris]

The interesting part is "victory point" (the Settlers 7 can feel a bit like a super cool board game, especially in multi-player). To win the game you'd need a certain amount of victory points. You gain victory points by doing certain things like "research most technologies, having largest army, most settlers, occupying certain areas, doing certain missions, ... ). Some of these victory points had a lock: the first player who builds a cathedral will have that victory point and it can't be taken away. Other victory points could be changed (eg the VP for biggest army).

A cool thing is that when a technology is researched by a certain player, other players can't research it any more. The same with establishing trade posts...

Whoa! My beloved eurogames mechanic made into computers! Yes, I'm very familiar with this concept, it is a well known trend in boardgames since around year 2000. Althrough, I never seen it in computer games.

A bit of theory:

Eurogames - small board, few units, no early player elimination, victory points track, abstract, multiple path to victory, almost always turns/round/time limit (the thing you wrote above about Settlers 7 sounds like a perfect example).

Amerigames - big board, plenty of units, no time limit (game go until enemy is eliminated), realistic, intuitive.


You got it right, I want the game to have such eurogames feeling. But I wonder about adding some amerigames mechanic to combat. Typical eurogames have artificial combat (or no combat at all), also, since eurogames mechanics were invented to work with boardgames there is low computation needed, since I will be using it with computer I can afford heavy computation of amerigames. In addition amerigames are simplier to understand and casual players catch on them quicker.
Anyway, this is a secondary point if you can think of a working eurogame style combat I'm eager to hear.

It's a bit a too big a game to explain all the rules and especially hard to explain how it feels to play it.

I'm familiar with the feeling of such game. Describe only combat part (especially in multiplayer environment). Usually such games (boardgames) would have majority control "combat" (or the best army gets bonus), but I assume it works different way in Settlers 7?


I'm so excited to find someone else who likes eurogames mechanics on the forum. Finally, I'm not the only one

If you don't want to buy the game (what I am guessing) they have developed a facebook game around the economy managing. I haven't checked it out myself so it might be useless though. (Found it through a link here on the forum: http://www.smartfoxserver.com/showcase/ )

In case anyone else want to try it, it does not work yet Typical for Ubisoft...

[jannesiera]

First of all, I must mention that the earlier settlers were definitely "Amerigames" as you describe them. So even though the Settlers 7 does really resemble the "eurogames" description it will have quite a few bits of Amerigames as well.

It's a bit a too big a game to explain all the rules and especially hard to explain how it feels to play it.

I'm familiar with the feeling of such game. Describe only combat part (especially in multiplayer environment). Usually such games (boardgames) would have majority control "combat" (or the best army gets bonus), but I assume it works different way in Settlers 7?

Note: I play the Dutch version, not the English one, so my terminology my differ.

Combat is quite simple. There are various sectors, connected in a sort of graph (actually, the mini-map looks like the map of my General's map game design: http://www.bbgamedesign.com/generals-map/generals-map-design-document (scroll down)). Combat is mostly about taking a neutral sector (most of the time there is a little AI army or a bigger AI army in VP sectors) or about taking over an enemy sector. Neutral sectors can be taken by force, conversion (by priests) or by bribery. Enemy sectors can only taken by force.

You start out with one general who has no special traits. If you like you can hire more generals with special traits (bonuses) during the game. You can built 4 unit types and they all have different costs (basic close-combat, basic ranged, advanced close-combat and advanced ranged). If you attack a sector your army will attack the sector and if the enemy wishes to defend that sector (probably yes) he'll send his army. Both armies face each other and the army with the most power will simply win (I think, don't know if there's a random factor involved, probably you can find more details googeling -- I usually don't look for walkthroughs or guides on the games I play).

You can strengthen a sector with defences. There are 2 levels of defence you can build. Your "home-sector" will have a stronger barrier (I think, it looks stronger anyway). Only ranged units can attack defences but they are generally weaker than close-combat units. You can also research technologies that give your units a bonus.

Again, if you look around on the internet you may find much more valuable information about the game. If you think you'll like it I really suggest buying it -- the game is just awesome. I'm quite a "the Settlers" fan so I don't know everybody will like it.

As for multiplayer games, I haven't played one. Mostly played the campaign. Tried multiplayer 2 times but got disconnected twice. It should be very interesting though, especially when playing in teams. The rules don't change but it's always different playing against a human enemy.

I'm so excited to find someone else who likes eurogames mechanics on the forum. Finally, I'm not the only one

If you don't want to buy the game (what I am guessing) they have developed a facebook game around the economy managing. I haven't checked it out myself so it might be useless though. (Found it through a link here on the forum: http://www.smartfoxserver.com/showcase/ )

In case anyone else want to try it, it does not work yet Typical for Ubisoft...

I tried it and it worked here. Just connected with facebook and the game loaded. Didn't feel like trying it out yet though .

[dsheroh]

The simpliest would be to make several movable fleets per player that get no casualities, do not fight and only exert control over a planet they are orbiting at. A bit boring combat I would say So, I try to save as much as I can from the traditional combat systems (or if you can think of something original that would work instead).

That sounds an awful lot like the combat system from the old Avalon Hill Diplomacy game.  As I recall it, each player got 3 armies to move around the map.  Only one army could be in a territory at a time and displacing an opposing army required a second army to provide support.  (Basically, "most armies win, with ties going to the defender".)  Armies never took losses in combat and could only be eliminated by capturing one of the player's supply centers.

Like you said, though... very boring combat.  As befits the name Diplomacy, the real game was in making deals with other players to get them to support your armies, since putting two of them in the same place when you only have three total makes you too vulnerable everywhere else.

[Chris]

I was thinking what is the core of the core of the core of such game I want it something like Emperor of The Fading Suns (that one, not the Pen & Paper RPG http://homeoftheunderdogs.net/game.php?id=367), noble houses, imperial power in decline, houses fight for power and offices. There are no big battles of fleets, more like military is just one of the tools, politics matter. Rather few planets, maybe some NPCs alien invaders or pirates lead by players. A lot of nice backstory and feeling of futuristic feudal society. Maybe a tiny bit of adventure (exploring ancient ruins for forgotten technologies?).

There would be no ploblem if there were 10 or 20 players. But with thousands of noble houses... The meaning of noble house is becoming very watered down. So, I thought about something like this:
- you start as a renegade
- you can join one of 8 predefined noble houses, houses have bonuses (a bit like classes in RPG)
- you can change the house (with difficulty and restrictions, like 1-3 times per round)
- there are 10-30 planets, you can fight on a planet to grab a piece of it (of for other reward?)
- you can not attack any player of your house (renegade can attack other renegade), ocassionally there might be scripted alliances (like you can not attack one another house as well for the time being)
- the planet give combat bonus to all players of the same house depending on number of players of that house (so the more members of your house the harder for other houses to get it, on the other hand you will be having fewer targets on that planet), this will lead to planets that tend to be occupied by 1-3 houses.
- the players might be "forced" to leave planet because it is occupied by the enemy so much it is no benefit staying, so players should not be attached to players too much (more like occupation than building cities, or some other solution for easy exit).

Additional (non combat):
- players are scored by total performance and in house performance
- it is good to be in a big house because it will give plenty of bonuses
- it is good to be in a small house because of lesser competition for inhouse offices (in 5 players house it is easy to be one of top 10 players that get into house council )
- players can produce senators, senators increase number of privilieges the house gets, the house members that produced most senators get additional score (each house separately).
- there might be 3 scoring phases during a round, you get additional score depending on your house standing, after each phase you have 3 days to change house (for free) I'm not sure about this part.
- you produce spies on a planet. Every 10th allied spy gives you +50% to your spies, but no more than number of your spies (so the best is to have the number of spies equal to 1/10 of your house spies). Spies give combat bonus on the planet.


How combat could work here? (preferred a direct player vs player conflict)

[Marek]

I clicked on the link, and it's fitting that an ad for Galactic Imperator appears on the page

I am also intriguied by EOFS and I'm going to try it out, so thanks for the tip.