Castrelout
Microbial
So thats how you wanna play it old man?...
Posts: 8 
|
Post by Castrelout on Sept 15, 2015 23:45:49 GMT
I have a question maybe its not the right place but...
Following the awakening stage, is the gameplay gonna be based on cities (Spore, Sid Meier's Civilization) or another type of thing? Also, if this is cities will this be like Spore, where you place the buildings or Civilization where you don't place the buildings...
And talking of this, is a city gonna take like 12000 Km of the planet.
Anyway, this could lead to an entire discussion on cities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moopli on Sept 16, 2015 1:16:47 GMT
Kinda yes, kinda no. There'll be more than just cities, but cities (or city-like things) tend to be the main centers of control of the politically-important anyway, so they will certainly be important.
It won't be like either Spore or Civilization, and no, you will not place the buildings yourself.
And no, cities will be actual-size, ie, for much of the game, probably very tiny.
Do you wanna also talk about empires, as your thread title suggests?
|
|
Castrelout
Microbial
So thats how you wanna play it old man?...
Posts: 8
|
Post by Castrelout on Sept 16, 2015 12:16:00 GMT
Is this gonna be like, you produce soldiers to conquer the city,you convert the city or you buy the city? Is there gonna be more diplomacy like backstabbing and most important, is there gonna be paths (Remember, in Spore, like in civilization stage,military...)
|
|
|
|
Post by Moopli on Sept 17, 2015 0:27:09 GMT
> Is this gonna be like, you produce soldiers to conquer the city,you convert the city or you buy the city?
Kinda, but not only,
> Is there gonna be more diplomacy like backstabbing
Yes and more,
> is there gonna be paths (Remember, in Spore, like in civilization stage,military...)
I have no idea what you're talking about. The answer is probably no though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Captain McDerp on Sept 19, 2015 10:04:55 GMT
> is there gonna be paths (Remember, in Spore, like in civilization stage,military...) I think he means that your race adopts a certain archetype or philosophy like in spore, where you would get certain traits and types of civs depending on your actions in previous stages. He probably thinks as thrive as some kind of "Spore 2" keeping much of the gameplay mechanics that the original spore had. |
|
|
|
Post by Moopli on Sept 20, 2015 3:44:05 GMT
Well there's your problem, Castrelout. Thrive is not a Spore 2. Thrive plans to cover just about the same stuff Spore was supposed to cover, but we're doing it all very differently. So I guess the answer is no, then. Feel free to ask any more questions you want, may as well ask them here since it's your thread and there isn't a topic for us to go off-topic from anyway. |
|
Castrelout
Microbial
So thats how you wanna play it old man?...
Posts: 8
|
Post by Castrelout on Sept 22, 2015 20:20:58 GMT
I was not thinking of Spore 2. It is just because, will you form units or like... anyway, I think you don't have been thinking so much of the society stage so I will keep this thread quiet unti you begin to programmate the society stage...
|
|
|
|
Post by tjwhale on Oct 8, 2015 14:13:45 GMT
IMO the most interesting question is "how should it feel to play the society stage?" What kind of things are you interested in?
Would you want to be a general (think total war series) where you get close command on a battlefield and history is couched mostly in military terms?
Would you want to be a politician (think Diplomacy series) where you make decisions about the policies of your government and war is handled by someone else?
Would you want to be a city planner (think SimCity) and try to design the cities for your civ?
Would you want to be a business-zerg and build up a business empire while the rest of society runs outside your control?
In some ways this is a great time just to brainstorm because nothing has been decided. Of course the stage can only be one thing (it could be a very complicated deep thing) but it is interesting to talk about what sort of things people like.
|
|
|
|
Post by mitobox on Oct 8, 2015 21:40:07 GMT
IMO the most interesting question is "how should it feel to play the society stage?" What kind of things are you interested in? Would you want to be a general (think total war series) where you get close command on a battlefield and history is couched mostly in military terms? Would you want to be a politician (think Diplomacy series) where you make decisions about the policies of your government and war is handled by someone else? Would you want to be a city planner (think SimCity) and try to design the cities for your civ? Would you want to be a business-zerg and build up a business empire while the rest of society runs outside your control? In some ways this is a great time just to brainstorm because nothing has been decided. Of course the stage can only be one thing (it could be a very complicated deep thing) but it is interesting to talk about what sort of things people like. This gives me an idea. What if the player could choose to control a particular "part" of their civilization while the rest of the government controls the rest? i.e. The player could play as the military and micromanage it for a while, having the rest of their civilization on autopilot. Granted, this could go horribly (and hilariously) wrong if the autopilot AI is horrible. Like if the player's a single polis and, while micromanaging a plot of land as a regional lord, the tyrant the player would usually play as decides that declaring war on the planet's Roman Empire would be a good idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Moopli on Oct 11, 2015 3:16:29 GMT
This gives me an idea. What if the player could choose to control a particular "part" of their civilization while the rest of the government controls the rest? i.e. The player could play as the military and micromanage it for a while, having the rest of their civilization on autopilot. Granted, this could go horribly (and hilariously) wrong if the autopilot AI is horrible. Like if the player's a single polis and, while micromanaging a plot of land as a regional lord, the tyrant the player would usually play as decides that declaring war on the planet's Roman Empire would be a good idea. I've pushed for this quite a bit, I really like the idea too. Nick didn't seem convinced last I remember, but the stages are still very far off so I certainly still have a chance to shape things. As for why it mattered to me tht Nick wasn't convinced, well, he'd written up a bunch of design documents on his ideas for the strategy stages, and I didn't want to go and write my own competing ones  |
|
The_Wayward_Admiral
Spacefaring
The_Real_Slim_Shady
Atrox drew this awesome image of the Keldori!
Posts: 1,011
|
Post by The_Wayward_Admiral on Oct 11, 2015 3:25:40 GMT
Hey, don't mean to butt in, but if it were set up so you could control certain aspects, could you switch between them? For example, if I started out commanding my military but decided to later take over diplomacy, would I be able to do that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Moopli on Oct 14, 2015 23:03:49 GMT
Yeah, should be an easy addition.
I'm thinking that we'll structure the AI hierarchically. So like, maybe the main AI contains a military component, maybe an economic/infrastructure/construction component, maybe a policy-management component, maybe a diplomatic component, etc. Each would have their own components for controlling specific parts, for example, the military one might have separate armies under its control, etc. Just as in real life, how you organize this hierarchy could matter -- maybe the city guards are part of an army under a general's control, maybe they're under the direct control of the head of the city, and it could make a difference in-game.
So then, if you have what essentially amounts to an org-chart tree of the different roles in your government, it makes sense that a bunch of them could be under AI control, and a bunch of them could be under your direct control, as a player. For example, if you wanted to play your game much like you'd play starcraft, you'd assume direct control of every single individual unit, so when the game asks, say, the AI of a particular zergling what it should do, then that question goes straight to you and you can click on the screen to make it act. If you wanted to play through a battle similarly to how you would in a Total War game, you would instead assume control of all of the unit commanders, ordering formations around. In that case, the simplistic AI of a single unit would make it move based on what the unit commander has been ordered by you to do. There's an extra level of communication, basically.
And just as you'd be able to take control of a bunch of AI components, you could relinquish control of some too. Maybe you want to be a statesman president, and only approve strategic plans in a war, instead of micromanaging your generals. Maybe later you appoint a 'minister of the economy', taking another part of the game off your plate. Maybe you assume direct control again later.
The biggest unknown, the biggest risk in all this, is that making an interface that can handle, say, playing as a field commander, getting orders from your general and sending orders to your subordinates; as well as diplomacy, or anything else really, will be hard.
Then again, most of those interface problems would be just as hard in a game without this kind of feature -- the only thing we need to add is a way to get orders, and maybe intel, from your superior. I'm hopeful that it is possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by tjwhale on Nov 4, 2015 22:54:20 GMT
^^This is a very nice idea. It even allows for complicated political reform. Like maybe the mayors of the cities have had the power to set tax rates but you now want to reform this so then central government has this power and sets uniform taxes. This is simply a matter of adding another link in the chain of command. All state control can be represented this way.
|
|
