Help me design a strategy game

Cafe Society
1

Hello people.

Me and a few friends are about to begin design/development of a turn-based strategy game (for Windows using OpenGL in case you were curious). What we have in mind is something like “Civilization” or “Master of Orion”. Something with more focus on depth and gameplay and less focus on graphics and eye candy (mainly because we are lousy artists).

So what made your favorite strategy game great? What features would you like to see? Setting (should the game take place in space, on earth, middle earth or something else)? What would you have added to “Civilization” if you were the developer? etc. etc.

All input, great ideas and random thoughts are most welcome.

Thanks :slight_smile:

2

Exploding cows?
(Actually, I just wanted to give this thread a bump so it wouldn’t disappear).
Moooooo! bang

3

Been there, done that(Diablo II).

4

I loved Master of Orion. How about something based in the solar system, or in a small local cluster of solar systems? Technology trees, research, space, interplanetary and planetary combat? Count me in!

5

Decent diplomacy options. I really liked call to power II, but every time I encountered the diplomacy system I wanted to hunt down the programmers, wire a computer to their brain and force them to use said options for all their future communication with other people. Then I wanted to tear their stomach out and feed it to them.

I’ll second what Krisolov said - I’d love a space based strategy game set in a single solar system. Ooh - how about this:

The solar system (not neccesarily our one) has been colonised - the major planets have been occupied and industrialied and people are turning to the asteroid belt, both for living space and valuable materials. Mostly volatiles and delicate carbon structures, but the asteroids are also surprisingly rich in other areas.

Unfortunately it takes a while before an asteroid is self sufficient, so a lot of stuff has to be shipped in from the inner planets. So, that war that broke out was rather inconvenient. Lets just hope that we have enough stuff to last until they can set up trade again, some time in the next thousand years while they climb their way back up from that stone age they were bombed into. Oops, there goes fusion plant number 3… Say, doesn’t that other asteroid colony have a spare? I’m sure they wouldn’t mind if we ahh… borrow it. :slight_smile:

And so it begins - the asteroid colonies don’t have enough for them to survive on their own, so some are going to have to fall. Build up your resources, split them between your military, infrastructure and research. Can you survive long enough to become a self sustaining civilisation? (And then conquer the solar system, as all self respecting civilisations want to do. :slight_smile: ).

Geeks (I mean that in a nice way - I’m one) everywhere would love you to bits if you included the two following features:

Light-speed transmissions. Have a turn be a month or so - nearby ships will get your orders instantly (turn-wise), others may take a turn or two.

Accurate fuel usage - finding optimum paths (the computer would do a lot of that for you) in gravity wells, fuel storage in ships, reaction mass, etc. No reactionless drives until you get impressively advanced, no faster than light travel.

If you could have the planets and asteroids move right under gravity as well that would be stunning. :slight_smile: Gravity simulators aren’t that hard to program, especially if you don’t need a high level of accuracy.

Your civilisation would start out fairly small - little more than a couple hundred people. Perhaps an individualising system for specialists - pilots, scientists, etc. Pilots could have preferred maneuvers, scientists could have areas of strength, etc.

Allowing travel out of the ecliptic would be nice, but isn’t really neccesary.

This also fits pretty well with your low graphics requirement. Space ships can be little more than blips on the screen, with not much more required for asteroids and planets can just be circles with little detail.

6

Going off what kitarak stated, you can allow the option of a space elevator which carries with it a hefty sum in both creation time and cost, but allows for easier flow of needed materials once completed.

Greater technology means better ships which, in turn, gives you a greater advantage in getting more materials for your society to thrive.

There can be factions within each world, working together or in opposition. You don’t need every world to be unified.

Random asteroid collisions, unless adequate measures are taken beforehand.

If you’d like to make it really complex, each world has choice minerals in certain locations and control of a particular grouping of those minerals allows for creation of new machines and designs. You know, like if you can secure enough qwertonium and esdiembee from planets X and Y, you can make the pan galactic gargleblaster. This allows for trade agreements or “hostile takeovers.”

7

I wouldn’t say Civ3 lacked focus or depth nor would I say it was focused on graphics and eye candy.

8

Not entirely, no. But it lacked versatility - in particular the tech tree was gutted. Everything was very military, with most of the non-military applications of techs removed. This resulted in a lot of technologies which did absolutely nothing.

9

Just remember: a little micro-management is okay, but a lot makes some people (myself included) want to toss the game right into the trash can.

Example 1 - Resource Collection
It’s okay if you have to tell your serf/space miner/orc pawn to go mine/collect/harvest/steal whatever resource(s) makes your little world tick. It’s not okay if you have to tell them at the beginning of every turn. Once you give something a repetitive task, it should perform that task until you tell it do something else (or it dies, or gets chased away, or whatever).

Example 2 – Armies
I love games that allow you attack with massive armies. I hate games that make you give orders to each individual unit in the army. When you have armies of 20+ individual units, being able to group units is a very good thing.

10

The biggest flaw in my favorite game of all time, Civilization 2, was the weak AI. What do you intend to do for AI in your game?

11

That’s actually what i meant :). We would like to make something like Civ 3. But much better o/c :wink:

I like the idea of a single solar system. It’s different and allows for multiple levels of strategy (System, planet, base etc.). I like it.
Another bonus is that space/sci-fi games allow for a lot of creativity when it comes to technology and story (like a faction of spontaneously exploding cows).

I’ll post later when i have given it a little more thought.

When it comes to AI i’m thinking of a scriptable hierarchical fuzzy state machine (wow). Scriptable meaning that a lot of the decision making will be hard coded. Fuzzy (maybe non deterministic is a better term) that a response to a situation isn’t set in stone. States could be (for example) “Agression”, “Expansion”, “Prepare for war” etc.

With hierarchical i mean a chain of command of sorts. Imagine that the top level AI is in a state of “Agression”. A course of action could the be:

Query the Tactical level for a suitable enemy base to attack.
Tell Research to “Prepare for war” (research that plasma cannon).
Tell all bases to “Prepare for war”.

Now “Base 1” is in a state of “Prepare for war” so it queries Tactical for what ships to build. It raises taxes, starts drafting and do whatever you do when preparing for war.

This brings me to micro management. This chain of command might, to some degree, be available to the player. You could for example ask a base to “Prepare for war” and thereby make the AI take over base management.

12

I’d like to see multiple routes to success. Trade/Mercantile domination, military, hegemonic (e.g. cultural or religious takeover). I agree that a lot of these games tend to focus a bit too heavilyi on military options…

13

How about a game like Caesar III? I think a Caesar/Civilization hybrid would rock the casbah. It could be in the Middle Ages. Make a town and a castle, have trade, an economy, military. You can build up troops and siege a castle. Instead of trying to have a bunch of cities (with little interactivity inside the cities) ala Civilization, you could have one interactive city, but more military-based that Caesar.

14

I think so far, most of you are describing most of Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri. Sorta.

15

I’d like to see a decent strategy game based on the idea of creating a sustainable ecosystem.

16
  1. Races (remember, non-anthropoids are always evil)
  2. Micromanagement
  3. Multiplayer Cheat Codes
  4. ???
  5. Profit!!!
17
  • what I missed in Civ was a “Brigadier with staff” unit, a middle manager that you could assign other units to and have them encamp, patrol and do other basic stuff without micromanagement.

The Solar System/asteroid belt w. real orbital mechanics sounds awesome - something a la “The gripping hand” where there might be a major difference in the value of a given resource dependent on the delta-v to move it to where it’s needed.

Space elevators, launching lasers (to augment the solar sails) and lots and lots of negotiation and backstabbing.

18

Wow… well, one of the things that I’m experiencing right now in Civ3 is a lack of real warfare that I don’t initiate. I love to see a good war, and even better is to benefit from someone elses war.

political machinations… support of rebel forces, though not immediately turning them to your side.

Civ3 seems to lack the Civil War effect, wherein you could seize the capital of an opponent and his empire would split into two factions. I miss that.

I’m so up to Beta test this for you… hehehe

19

Well, yeah… except for the part where it completely fails to resemble Alpha Centauri in any way, shape or form.

I too would like to second a non military victory option. What would probably be good is allowing player customizable victory options. Various economic targets, eliminate x rivals, control a certain number of asteroid habitats, control x planets, etc.

I’m going to suggest you don’t allow customizable species - I think it would be an unnecesary complication without adding too much to the game. The problem is that you should be able to conquer without killing everyone, and then you have to deal with controlling multiple species. The only way I can see this working is if you don’t allow different species to have compatible environments, so you can keep which species controls which habitat/ship constant rather than mixing them. Even then I’m dubious - that causes issues with inhabiting planets.

It would probably be a good idea to have a multiplayer option. Maybe play by e-mail?

Actually, the game this is reminding me a lot of is Stars. They’re far from the same, but there are similarities. You might want to take a look at it for inspiration. It’s quite old, so if it’s still available then it’s probably pretty cheap. I believe it was made by Empire Interactive, but I’m not certain of that. It’s particularily a good reference for what not to do. Stars micromanagement makes my head explode.

I’d also be very happy to beta test this. :slight_smile: I’m also happy to throw as many ideas your way as you wish. Might even be able to help a bit with the maths/physics (but my orbital dynamics is a little sketchy).

Oh, random fun idea - perhaps you should be able to move habitats? They could have their own big rockets and be capable of (very small) acceleration, to move them to a more desirable position e.g. where there are better mining opportunities or less big asteroids on a collision course with the habitat.

20

Thanks again :), this brainstorm really helps.

Here are some of the things which has come up so far:

Single solar system consisting of asteroid Belt, planets (divided into sectors), Orbital bases. If possible, (somewhat) realistic orbital dynamics will be incoorporated. I really, really like this idea.

Focus on diplomacy, negotiations and backstabbing. This requires a strong AI, but we’ll definately give it a shot.

Rich technology trees (Perhaps some branches could have negative effects on certain societies (like cloning in a religious society or pollutive technologies in a green society).

Resources (and combinations thereof) dictate both what productions and research projects may be undertaken. Resources could be distributed in the system according to a predefined model, maximizing tactical considerations.

Economy should play an important role. Economic might may be a perfectly valid substitute for military might if the player plays his cards right. Likewise religion/culture should play a significant role. imagine somthing like a strong culture boosting internal morale and/or inspiring mutiny(sp?) in others. Certain doctrines/technologies may only be available to certain societies think Jihad).

Construction of armies. Assigning generals to these armies may add various bonuses depending on the general.

Races/species seem out of place in a single system game (unless you include martians). An alternative could be letting a mix of technology/culture allow the player to differentiate the people of his faction somehow. Genetics, biomechanical techs, self-enhancing drugs come to mind. This ofcourse has consequences with respect to morale, culture, religion, how enemy factions view you etc.

I’m afraid orbital dynamics will make things to complicated for the casual gamer. Still working on this (perhaps we don’t care too much about the casual gamer).