Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Game Idea: Empire Builders
Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Wed, 05 July 2006 16:26 |
|
vonKreedon | | Lieutenant | Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003 Location: Seattle, WA USA | |
|
The foundation for this game is the idea that historically empires aren't built by genocide and aren't mono-cultural. This means that empires are built by absorbing conquered nations, not by eradicating them as is the usual practice in Stars! But this absorption of conquered cultures has always had its own problems with increasing complexity and of course nativist revolts that at times can be very inconvenient.
So, in this game you would be encouraged to take over races that you conquer, and the conquered would be encouraged to surrender their race rather than let it be eradicated. Here is how such a surrender would work:
The conquered race would surrender its race and upload passwords to the conquering and inform a designated third party of the fact AND what the passwords are; the passwords cannot be changed for the rest of the game.
The conquering race now runs the conquered as part of its empire, reaping the benifits of doing so. However, the conquered player may at any time attempt to reassert control of the race, or may disseminate the passwords to others and they may attempt to assert control of the conquered race, by submitting turns in hopes that they will be the submitted orders when the turn gens.
So, an expanding empire would gather more races into its empire, but it would have to deal with more rebellions as well as the problems that occur from increasing the complexity of submitting orders for more and more races. The complexity issue alone can cause substantial mistakes to occur, let alone the rebellions, and that would in some degree offset the advantages of playing multiple races.
Any interest in such a game?
Any thoughts/suggestions on such a game?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Wed, 05 July 2006 17:30 |
|
vonKreedon | | Lieutenant | Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003 Location: Seattle, WA USA | |
|
Micha wrote on Wed, 05 July 2006 14:12 |
When a race turns free for all to submit it will just be a matter of who can upload last, which might simply be a matter of time zone ...
|
That is an issue, and I'm not sure of a better way to handle it. I don't want absorbing a race to be a simple and assured thing, but I don't want it to be so much trouble that everyone simply obliderates instead of playing conquered races.
Micha wrote on Wed, 05 July 2006 14:12 |
Stars! has it's own rebels. If you take over a race you have to submit it with a banned serial (or let the host do that for you). Orders not followed, minerals and ships disappear.
His original race stays loyal, so is submitted with a legal key.
|
But this means that every turn will have rebellions, the conquered race is always more of a problem than a help. Also, the added complexity involved in submitting turns with valid/invalid codes can lead to the conquering race suddenly rebelling, though I suppose this could be a feature
Micha wrote on Wed, 05 July 2006 14:12 |
Problem might be that players do not *want* to take over the races that they conquer (for example too weak to bother with), and that the losing player will not surrender his race before it's too weak, no matter how much he is "encouraged".
Better make that part a stricter game rule, like "when a player drops below x score he must give up his race" ...
mch
|
I'm concerned that conquering players may not want the extra complexity of running multiple races, I'm not so concerned that races won't surrender as I see perfectly viable races get abandoned by players all the time. Any suggestions on how to structure this to encourage the conquerors to absord rather than eradicate?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Wed, 05 July 2006 21:11 |
|
Strannik | | Crewman 2nd Class | Messages: 18
Registered: July 2005 | |
|
this seems indeed to be an interesting idea! although i would vote for taking the rebelling option completely out...
something like:
u might take over a conquered race (change pw, etc, e.g. make it _yours_), if u beat it down to, say, X% of initial "strength". mb 10% of max resources this race had once, or X% of planets, or...
something, that will not skyrocket your abilities the same turn u take over, but will still give a nice extra if u invest some effort into it.
this will probably need a neutral host enforcing this policy. (e.g. changing upload pw and giving it to the conquerer)
in case >1 races fighting against common enemy, mb the one "contributing" (again, need a definition here) the most gets the control if the parties cannot agree on it by themselves.
imho rebel option brings too much PITA. i'd rather have a _known_ (and dead ) enemy than a race under my command which i incorporate into my plans and it suddenly does quite the opposite. why bother and risk? no man - no problem.
such race conquering might be a very good boost. OTOH, it also brings more MM, which might balance it a little.
just my
(edit: fixed typos/fonts)
[Updated on: Wed, 05 July 2006 21:14] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Wed, 05 July 2006 22:56 |
|
|
Quote: | The foundation for this game is the idea that historically empires aren't built by genocide and aren't mono-cultural.
|
Master of Orion and Alpha Centuri games had option of diplomatic wins, election is held every x years with 2 largest empires as choices, win 2/3 of score vote/pop vote and you win.
An empire that doesn't vote for you gets hostillity in return. Perhaps in Stars universe that may mean must set as enemy, no trade (till next vote).
A race that surrenders to you in Alpha Centuri will always vote for you.
In my experience, a weak power who no longer thinks he can win may still be willing to stick in if he is mad and wants revenge. After some revenge he may drop without notice.
...
Throwing this into real game senario, who would perhaps have gotten control of your empire in TWW after you couldn't pull off the early kill with your quick start? Micha and Eric launched a joint attack against you, and micha had potential to undo his crippling deterraforming attack if he had remained major power.
You had some early treaty with Pieter and I suspect secretly were friends with Wizard. I had in end perhaps had been friendliest, eg had NAP till end.
So who gets control? If you have 2 equal powers near you, one that trades with you but hasn't saved you and one that is bombing you, who do you join? Or what if also power #3 looks like the game winner, but is further away? What if power #3 offers to find some of your colonists a new home?
Perhaps the guy who controls your HW? If so perhaps I should be an IT race that is friends with everyone, ready to gate some pop over and take HWs over. "Give your empire to me rather than that meanie who is bombing you"
[Updated on: Wed, 05 July 2006 23:04] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Wed, 05 July 2006 23:38 |
|
|
I think I've seen a similar game idea pop up here before, where the owner of a race's capital (the HW) controls that race. Leads to some interesting shifts in the game dynamic - the HW becomes a true 'king piece', capture it and you steal their whole empire.
Much simpler and easier to admin. Make all the races 'passwordless' and give the current occupier of each HW the right to change the upload password for the race that was based off that HW.
There's no scope for 'rebellion' as such, although there is the potential for a third race to in turn capture that HW to steal the race off the original conqueror.
Removes any issues about 'who gets control' - it simply becomes 'who can get population on the HW'. Competition to be the one to take the HW could break up alliances nicely (think USA vs USSR racing to gain control of Berlin...)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Thu, 06 July 2006 02:39 |
|
Marduk | | Ensign | Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003 Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
Note: the following ideas are all probably unworkable, and there is no need to say so. These couldn't really be done on Autohost. And obviously you would have to disallow ship transfers to the empire from their new minions, or rebellion is nearly meaningless. I'm tossing these ideas out in hopes of sparking other ideas or getting someone to pound them into a usable shape.
1) Allow the empire to submit turns for the race, with a random chance each turn (say 50% at first, falling each year) of giving an enemy three or four minutes to make changes prior to turn generation.
2) Assign a chance (perhaps 10%) each year that a system will rebel. If one does, it must be one that has a fleet presence, and that fleet must be stronger than any garrison of the empire that may be present. If all systems in the conquered nation are inelligible, the rebellion does not happen that year after all. Otherwise, the rebel system is chosen at random from those that qualify. Once a system does rebel, each year another random system from those that meet the rebellion criteria will automatically rebel, until the entire rebellion is put down (all substantial rebel fleets destroyed).
Systems in rebellion produce more ships for the rebel fleets, and set the gates to disallow imperial fleets from gating in (imperial orders get changed so would-be gaters remain stationary). Any fleets of the conquered race still under the control of the empire serve loyally (follow orders) if outgunned by imperial fleets in the same location, otherwise they often remain stationary (a 25% or 50% chance to do so, determined for each fleet). Rebellion tends to be contagious, so 'loyal' fleets will happily join the rebels in blasting away at the imperial scum. Sending potential rebels far away from rebel systems is highly recommended.
Any 'loyal' system visited by a rebel fleet rebels if it begins the turn with more rebel force in orbit than there is imperial force. Rebel systems are pacified if they begin two consecutive turns with a superior imperial force in orbit. Unarmed rebel ships with no armed rebel escort revert to imperial control immediately.
Such a rebellion would have to be run fairly, with fleet spliting only done for tactical reasons. In other words, no splitting off a couple dozen individual chaff to visit every conquered world in hopes of instantly triggering a massive rebellion. If the empire left a highly fragmented fleet lying around, that's different... they set themselves up for it. This really seems to be a good bet for a host function. It makes sense that the rebels would have fairly up-to-date information on the empire, justifying the host sending ships to take advantage of known imperial weaknesses.
To prevent a rebellion, garrison and keep conquered race fleets both guarded and away from their own systems as much as possible. You should reduce the rebellion chance over time, as the conquered race assimilates into imperial society. Perhaps the annual percentage chance of a rebellion could revert to 10% in the event of a sucessful rebellion lasting at least a certain length of time. (One or two turn rebellions serve better as object lessions rather than inspirations.)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Thu, 06 July 2006 04:58 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
iztok wrote on Thu, 06 July 2006 09:11 | Hi!
vonKreedon wrote on Wed, 05 July 2006 22:26 | The conquered race would surrender its race and upload passwords to the conquering and inform a designated third party of the fact AND what the passwords are; the passwords cannot be changed for the rest of the game.
|
Sounds good ... on paper. What I'm affraid is a MMNm (MicroManagement NightMare ). Even in normal games I have enough to do with just my race. Those who played a substitute for an ally for just a few turns know what I mean. Now imagine doing that with 2 or 3 races for the rest of the game
|
Or, in Donjon's immortal words: Massive MicroManagement Overkill.
But it can be done. It's been done. It's even been fun some turns. It's even led to victory. It's unlikely it will be done again, at least by me.
Quote: | And the incentive for that? Minimal. A crippled remainder of the empire that could not give much. I'd be glad if it would rebel, just to get an option to remove it completely.
|
Amazing what some crippled races can achieve when helped by their more powerful partners, even if faced with the worst the enemy can offer and unbalanced by too many poor shipdesigns...
Rebuilding your former nemesis can be huge fun, specially if you find you need its full potential to face off your next enemy. Finding the synergies where you used to look for exploitable weaknesses, harnessing two (or several) wildly different races/empires/fleets to the same goal, maximizing planetary usage and/or mineral distribution, getting to use more specialized toys...
Streamlined prodQs, new battlesims and lots and lots of planetary routes become mandatory, at least for big universes. Perish the thought of ever allowing any of that amount of work go to the bin due to some artificially-induced rebellion, let alone finding your heavily intersettled "friend" is now playing against you for no reason at all.
As a defeated player, I don't think knowing my empire is being erased from the universe would be better than knowing it's been used to achieve victory, which would at least make me somehow partner in said victory.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Thu, 06 July 2006 11:51 |
|
vonKreedon | | Lieutenant | Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003 Location: Seattle, WA USA | |
|
I'm pleased by the response to this game idea, thank you.
The main stumbling block seems to be the mechanism for conquered races to rebel, and I agree that the mechanism I've initially suggested lends itself to Ebay style sniping, as Kelzar put it. A couple of options have been suggested:
1 - Treat HWs as "King pieces", if you have population on a HW you control that race absolutely. I'm not wild about this option for a couple of reasons. One is that it requires the conquering empire to not only decisively defeat the conquered's battle fleet, but also bomb and storm their HW. This means that to conquer you have to really cripple the conquered empire and I'd prefer to allow the conquered to retain their HW and its productivity. Another reason for my reluctance to impliment this solution is that it doesn't really simulate nativist revolts, but just creates and easy to manage mechanism for other empires to re-conquered the subjugated empire.
2 - Have a third party "roll" for rebellion and then alter the rebelling race's turn to rebel (see Marduk's post above). This option does do an even better job of simulating nativist rebellion starting in one system and then spreading if not quickly crushed, but has the down side of requiring and increasingly active third party. This would probably mean that I would have to not play an empire in this game
3 - An option has not been discussed is to simply do away with the rebelling simulation entirely. This would be the simplest and would still allow one race to surrender to another and so the conquering empire grows in power and complexity. The orthodox Stars! community view on such conquering is that it gives the conqueror such an enormous advantage that it is unbalancing and so it is viewed generally as cheating, or at least unethical play. Obviously that would not be the case in a game specifically designed with this in mind, but I wonder what you all think about the unbalancing aspects of such a clear cut scenario.
Some have wondered if races would bother to surrender if there is no structure in place to require their surrender when a specified event or value is reached. Others wonder if a race would bother with conquering another race, versus eradicating them, given the increased complexity and potential for inconvenient rebellion.
My experience says that players of defeated races tend drop out of the game fairly early. For instance in the game Paranoia which just ended we had three races drop/suicide while they were still very viable races, including one that was in second (but falling) when real life combined with the in game pressure to cause him to drop. Also, in my many years of playing Stars! I've been quite successful in talking players into surrendering to me, either allowing me to directly play their race or turn the race over to a third party of my choosing, but either way giving me the passwords so that I could ensure that my will was being done So, I don't think that it will generally be a problem to get defeated races to surrender or to get conquering races to accept surrender. Of course there will be some who ascribe to the philosophy of "Never give up, never surrender!" but that just adds flavor and also will tend reward players with good diplomacy skills.
Again thanks for the replys and I look forward to more discussion.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Thu, 06 July 2006 17:45 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 06 July 2006 10:58 | Rebuilding your former nemesis can be huge fun, specially if you find you need its full potential to face off your next enemy. Finding the synergies where you used to look for exploitable weaknesses, harnessing two (or several) wildly different races/empires/fleets to the same goal, maximizing planetary usage and/or mineral distribution, getting to use more specialized toys...
Streamlined prodQs, new battlesims and lots and lots of planetary routes become mandatory, at least for big universes.
|
What have you written a bit higher?
> Or, in Donjon's immortal words: Massive MicroManagement Overkill.
BR, Iztok
{Mod edit: fixed quote}
[Updated on: Fri, 07 July 2006 02:57] by Moderator
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Thu, 06 July 2006 18:15 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
iztok wrote on Thu, 06 July 2006 23:45 | Hi!
m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 06 July 2006 10:58 | Rebuilding your former nemesis can be huge fun, specially if you find you need its full potential to face off your next enemy. Finding the synergies where you used to look for exploitable weaknesses, harnessing two (or several) wildly different races/empires/fleets to the same goal, maximizing planetary usage and/or mineral distribution, getting to use more specialized toys...
Streamlined prodQs, new battlesims and lots and lots of planetary routes become mandatory, at least for big universes.
|
What have you written a bit higher?
> Or, in Donjon's immortal words: Massive MicroManagement Overkill.
BR, Iztok
|
Well, some days I felt like rebelling myself.
But, believe it or not, with the proper setup a team of no less than three big empires can get all their production & logistics done with in mere minutes.
Now, deploying a dozen "main" fleets against an equally huge & cunning enemy might take more time... but that's the *fun* part, ain't it?
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Thu, 06 July 2006 23:24 |
|
Strannik | | Crewman 2nd Class | Messages: 18
Registered: July 2005 | |
|
imho treating HW as a "King piece" has also downsides like:
it leaves a lot up to a chance/luck. one successfull (hidden/cloacked/wormhole accelerated/etc.) attack on enemy's HW and voila - u have a whole nation at your command! nice, of course. just imagine everybody else cursing about u doubling ur resources in 1 turn! also, makes backstabbing a lot easier and a lot more profitable endeavour.
imho needing to reduce the opponent to a certain point balances it a little more. even if he drops, u still need to get him small before u may take over his race. that ensures that u not get too much of a boost in a single turn.
also, imho MM is doable. (as long as it's < large/normal). ofc, it _can_ increase MM substantially. OTOH, u don't have to rebuilt the _whole_ empire. sometimes simple production of some special ships might be an appealing extra point. (MML, or Robber Baron, IT gates, or mb simply penscans?)
just my imho.
regards,
strannik
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Fri, 07 July 2006 00:53 |
|
|
I don't think there's anything wrong with having a kingpiece situation. I certainly don't see how 'luck' comes into it in any big way. If you let someone stay in packet range and don't build defenses that's your own fault. If you don't bother to put up minefields to force cloaked fleets to come into range before striking, that's your own fault. Any sort of defense in depth (make them pass multiple defensive points on the way in) would prevent both 'cheap' methods of conquest.
Certainly SS PRT will look somewhat more appealing than usual, but other PRTs will still be very strong (SD, IT, IS, CA all looking very favourable.)
I guess a wormholes popping up near an enemy battlefleet and your HW could throw the game, if the ends were close enough that there wasn't time to set up a defense. If you turn off RE you won't get any wormholes at all...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Fri, 07 July 2006 04:29 |
|
Micha | | | Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002 Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
vonKreedon wrote on Thu, 06 July 2006 17:51 | So, I don't think that it will generally be a problem to get defeated races to surrender or to get conquering races to accept surrender. Of course there will be some who ascribe to the philosophy of "Never give up, never surrender!" but that just adds flavor and also will tend reward players with good diplomacy skills.
|
Currently I'm in a game where my main enemy now has two dropped races next to him. I OTOH am killing a race that won't give up while he knows (or should know) that he has no chance of recovery (unless something really drastic happens on another of my fronts), I guess he's the "Nguns!" type (which I understand very well since I'm the same), but while my main enemy is taking planets with minimal investement I have to check and check, and invest a whole lot more simply because there is still an unpredictable human in control ...
"G0d forbid" that in this game those two races would surrender and open up their turn files for my enemy while there is *no* game rule that "forces" the Nguns!race I'm fighting to do the same! This situation is already bad, a true surrender would make it even worse ...
OTOH you might have more Nguns!races, because maybe (maybe) people will fight longer (and in the process let their race be destroyed more and more by the conquerer, perhaps even give all their pop suicide pills!) just because they don't want to give *anything* to the race that is killing them. In that case their would be little left for the conquering race ...
Which is another reason to set a rule of when a race *has* to surrender ...
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Fri, 07 July 2006 06:43 |
|
m.a@stars | | Commander | Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004 Location: Third star to the left | |
|
Dogthinkers wrote on Fri, 07 July 2006 11:29 | I do quite like the idea of having dedicated 'protectorate' players waiting in the wings to take over though, and having them ranked based on the winner's decision. I don't think the existing player should be permitted to play on the race though - but rather they should be replaced by the new 'puppet' dictator.
|
A Team by any other name.
So, you won by conquest the right to lead the Team, but perhaps your underlings should have "escape" clauses in case your leadership sags, you make mistakes, your Team fails to secure Victory, and after all their hard work they put into helping you they deserve a chance of independency, or even taking command for the whole Team in your place.
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Fri, 07 July 2006 10:18 |
|
Kelzar | | Master Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 112
Registered: January 2006 Location: Ohio, US | |
|
In reality, a conquering civilization usually attempts to "convert" and incorporate the people of the recently aquired area into the society of the conquering party. The recently conquered often aquieces and often in that process the rewards of technology improvement will occur. (Think Holy Roman Empire and weapon tech, aquaducts, art, philosophy) Now in Stars! the concept of beefing up the tech levels of the recently vanquished, unless you are dead certain they will not turn on you, is a quick way to get knifed in the back. There is little incentive to NOT obliterate a race.
I proposed a few months back a game concept whereby a race that dipped below a set percentage of the leading score, could apply for a permanent alliance with others that had at some point fallen behind. I was trying to create an incentive to not obliterate a race.
The concept you are proposing there needs to be some type of incentive to the conquering party to not just finish off the vanquished but to protect them as well. As there are limited ship slots total ship tranfer won't really work, tech trade is likley to not be much of an incentive, and mass mineral movement may not be desired.
What if the HW is like the kingpiece except the total tech count difference between the victor and the vanquished at the time of HW takeover is the number of planets (and years) that the vanquished MUST surrender freely (strip pop to 100 for the vanquished to popdrop without any resistance) at a rate of 1 per year. Victor chooses the planets, but must provide tech scrappers to the vanquished to get them back on track with current technology? After the occupation time frame has expired the race is handed back to the original player to choose their own fate. I would also suggest that any players that drop (do not submit for 3 turns) are played by the puppet generals as an Nguns! type of race until a HW takeover occurs. Should all HW takeovers be made public knowledge?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Sun, 09 July 2006 21:21 |
|
Strannik | | Crewman 2nd Class | Messages: 18
Registered: July 2005 | |
|
Dogthinkers wrote on Fri, 07 July 2006 00:53 | I don't think there's anything wrong with having a kingpiece situation. I certainly don't see how 'luck' comes into it in any big way. If you let someone stay in packet range and don't build defenses that's your own fault. If you don't bother to put up minefields to force cloaked fleets to come into range before striking, that's your own fault. Any sort of defense in depth (make them pass multiple defensive points on the way in) would prevent both 'cheap' methods of conquest.
|
that's definately correct. i just somewhat dislike situations where conquering 1 planet will give u command of the whole empire. matter of taste, i guess.
also, backstabbing.... get an ally who is about same strength u r. make him set u to friend. gate enough stuff to his HW to take it/bomb it in reasonable time - u have just doubled ur empire. (unless rules require u to bring pop to his HW) OTOH, exactly this can make it more interesting and force people to choose allies carefully, or just go on their on. can also put more weight onto "one man victory" condition.
Quote: | Certainly SS PRT will look somewhat more appealing than usual, but other PRTs will still be very strong (SD, IT, IS, CA all looking very favourable.)
|
that's actually something good! so the unseen can then be seen in games.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Game Idea: Empire Builders |
Sun, 09 July 2006 21:36 |
|
|
Strannik wrote on Mon, 10 July 2006 11:21 | that's definately correct. i just somewhat dislike situations where conquering 1 planet will give u command of the whole empire. matter of taste, i guess.
|
Yup, I find the idea suits my tastes, having a point you can't afford to lose gives a little more focus to the conflict.
Quote: | also, backstabbing.... get an ally who is about same strength u r. make him set u to friend. gate enough stuff to his HW to take it/bomb it in reasonable time - u have just doubled ur empire. (unless rules require u to bring pop to his HW) OTOH, exactly this can make it more interesting and force people to choose allies carefully, or just go on their on. can also put more weight onto "one man victory" condition,
|
Personally in such a situation I wouldn't put a gate at my HW, and I would surround my HW with a dense network of minefields, so should any 'friend' close to within 100-200ly I can switch them on to slow him down while I put up a gate and move in a gateable defense. Alternatively I simply wouldn't ever set someone to friend... All you lose by that is gates and refueling, a fair price to pay for peace of mind.
EDIT: oh, and yes, I was indeed assuming you'd have to actually occupy the HW to take control, not just annihilate it. So that gatable fleet could knock down the world in preparation for the high-speed colony fleet (that was conveniently passing by) to arrive to finish the job. Or you could go IT...
[Updated on: Sun, 09 July 2006 21:39] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 13 02:56:39 EDT 2024
|