Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Retro Retrospective

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
June 13, 2004 12:56:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Retro was certainly a vast improvement, been many years since we had a
strategic game like that.

But there are a couple options that should have been included, in order to make
the game more strategic rather than tactical, and to reduce micromanagement.

During the 1980s, my idea was to make empire more strategic than tactical, due
to comparions with chess, where after playing a perfect strategic game for 40
moves, you can lose to an inferior player due to a single tactical blow. To
give an example, in olden days we had highway networks, where we would hide
bars, and then designate the highway a new bank, and get income from it. Then
someone changed the update order so you would no longer get income from such
new banks (maybe there is a way around that but I haven't figured it out yet).
That meant you had to leave the bars in a bank, which created a fixed target
which if hit by the enemy could be a decisive tactical blow effectively
knocking you out of the game. Even if you have several banks it is still
possible for the enemy to get lucky with one tactical strike and defeat an
otherwise strategically superior country. I don't know of any historical
example from all of military history and strategy where such a thing occured in
a real war, though there have been numerous cases where the treasury was
captured, or the owner of the treasury took it on the road with them, so I
think the original set up where we could run with the bars along the highway
network was fine, and it was really stupid to change that.

In any case, to rectify that ridiculous situation where one tactical blow could
decide the game, my solution was the "superbars" option. That way even if you
hit the bank the bars are undamaged, though the enemy may lose income for an
update. So strategically the country is still viable, and the enemy still has
the strategic prospect of capturing the bars, but it is much harder to defeat
the victim with a single blow, rather the victim has to be beaten
strategically.

Another option was the Go_Renew option to reduce micromanagement. You would
have a very few gold and oil producing sectors, but they would continue
producing throughout the game. That is more like the real strategic situation,
for example the middle east is the oil producing region and retains that
strategic value over a very long period of time, rather than being drained of
oil in an update or two, after which a new oil well has to be found. Without
Go_Renew one is continually micro-managing new gold and oil sectors, which is a
totally useless waste of player time having nothing to do with strategy,
whereas with Go_Renew on the gold and oil sectors have a long term strategic
value and are worth defending and capturing. The middle east has to be defended
for its oil producing value, for example, whereas if the real world was like
empire, the middle east would be drained of oil in an update or two, then
forgotten.

Some moron is going to say "you should defend your bars", but the point is,
that makes it a tactical game, the issue isn't whether it is possible to defend
the bars, the issue is whether the game is tactical or strategic, and if it is
possible in theory to strike a decisive blow with a single plane that pinbombs
the bars and alters the course of the game, that makes it a tactical game.
Since there are obviously some unfathomably stupid players who want that type
of tactical game and are too stupid to understand the value of having a
strategic game, I have to put that caveat in there ahead of time. We'll see if
they react by flaming.

Some of the best games were games where each country had only one gold
producing sector, a mountain, but with Go_Renew on, that shows an example of
how gold could be handled. In olden days before paper money, the gold and
silver producing areas had a long term strategic value, giving the country that
could hold them a huge advantage in being able to finance a larger army. Philip
of Macedon, for example, was able to make Macedonia a great power by virtue of
controlling the main silver mines in the region.

If you want to make oil derricks mandatory, have just a very few land sectors
with oil, but have the oe exploration boats and have some sea sectors with oil
in them, which would be needed to make enough oil to become a great power. I
don't really think much of forcing oil derricks to be used though, too much
micromanagement.

More about : retro retrospective

Anonymous
June 13, 2004 12:56:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Akorps666 wrote:

> Retro was certainly a vast improvement, been many years since we had a
> strategic game like that.
>
> But there are a couple options that should have been included, in order to
> make the game more strategic rather than tactical, and to reduce
> micromanagement.
>
> During the 1980s, my idea was to make empire more strategic than tactical,
> due to comparions with chess, where after playing a perfect strategic game
> for 40 moves, you can lose to an inferior player due to a single tactical
> blow. To give an example, in olden days we had highway networks, where we
> would hide bars, and then designate the highway a new bank, and get income
> from it. Then someone changed the update order so you would no longer get
> income from such new banks (maybe there is a way around that but I haven't
> figured it out yet). That meant you had to leave the bars in a bank, which
> created a fixed target which if hit by the enemy could be a decisive
> tactical blow effectively knocking you out of the game. Even if you have
> several banks it is still possible for the enemy to get lucky with one
> tactical strike and defeat an otherwise strategically superior country. I
> don't know of any historical example from all of military history and
> strategy where such a thing occured in a real war, though there have been
> numerous cases where the treasury was captured, or the owner of the
> treasury took it on the road with them, so I think the original set up
> where we could run with the bars along the highway network was fine, and
> it was really stupid to change that.
>
> In any case, to rectify that ridiculous situation where one tactical blow
> could decide the game, my solution was the "superbars" option. That way
> even if you hit the bank the bars are undamaged, though the enemy may lose
> income for an update. So strategically the country is still viable, and
> the enemy still has the strategic prospect of capturing the bars, but it
> is much harder to defeat the victim with a single blow, rather the victim
> has to be beaten strategically.
>
> Another option was the Go_Renew option to reduce micromanagement. You
> would have a very few gold and oil producing sectors, but they would
> continue producing throughout the game. That is more like the real
> strategic situation, for example the middle east is the oil producing
> region and retains that strategic value over a very long period of time,
> rather than being drained of oil in an update or two, after which a new
> oil well has to be found. Without Go_Renew one is continually
> micro-managing new gold and oil sectors, which is a totally useless waste
> of player time having nothing to do with strategy, whereas with Go_Renew
> on the gold and oil sectors have a long term strategic value and are worth
> defending and capturing. The middle east has to be defended for its oil
> producing value, for example, whereas if the real world was like empire,
> the middle east would be drained of oil in an update or two, then
> forgotten.
>
> Some moron is going to say "you should defend your bars", but the point
> is, that makes it a tactical game, the issue isn't whether it is possible
> to defend the bars, the issue is whether the game is tactical or
> strategic, and if it is possible in theory to strike a decisive blow with
> a single plane that pinbombs the bars and alters the course of the game,
> that makes it a tactical game. Since there are obviously some unfathomably
> stupid players who want that type of tactical game and are too stupid to
> understand the value of having a strategic game, I have to put that caveat
> in there ahead of time. We'll see if they react by flaming.
>
> Some of the best games were games where each country had only one gold
> producing sector, a mountain, but with Go_Renew on, that shows an example
> of how gold could be handled. In olden days before paper money, the gold
> and silver producing areas had a long term strategic value, giving the
> country that could hold them a huge advantage in being able to finance a
> larger army. Philip of Macedon, for example, was able to make Macedonia a
> great power by virtue of controlling the main silver mines in the region.
>
> If you want to make oil derricks mandatory, have just a very few land
> sectors with oil, but have the oe exploration boats and have some sea
> sectors with oil in them, which would be needed to make enough oil to
> become a great power. I don't really think much of forcing oil derricks to
> be used though, too much micromanagement.

Though a "foddersome" rookie, I'll venture my opinion. "Superbars" and
"go_renew" seem like very good ideas. I have to agree with your points for
both, and especially find the depletion of oil and gold a bother.
- Kelly

--
=================================================================
"One day I will come back, yes, I will come back. Until then, there must be
no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs,
and prove to me that I am correct in mine. Goodbye, Susan."
The Doctor, in "The Dalek Invasion of Earth"
Anonymous
June 13, 2004 5:43:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

akorps666@aol.com666 (Akorps666) writes:

> Retro was certainly a vast improvement, been many years since we had a
> strategic game like that.

If enough players agree with you, then there will be more Retro-style
games in the future.

In my experience, Retro is both an improvement and a decline compared
to the stock game, and there are lessons to be learned for improving
the stock game.

> But there are a couple options that should have been included, in order to make
> the game more strategic rather than tactical, and to reduce micromanagement.
>
> During the 1980s, my idea was to make empire more strategic than tactical, due
> to comparions with chess, where after playing a perfect strategic game for 40
> moves, you can lose to an inferior player due to a single tactical blow. To
> give an example, in olden days we had highway networks, where we would hide
> bars, and then designate the highway a new bank, and get income from it. Then
> someone changed the update order so you would no longer get income from such
> new banks (maybe there is a way around that but I haven't figured it out yet).
> That meant you had to leave the bars in a bank, which created a fixed target
> which if hit by the enemy could be a decisive tactical blow effectively
> knocking you out of the game. Even if you have several banks it is still
> possible for the enemy to get lucky with one tactical strike and defeat an
> otherwise strategically superior country. I don't know of any historical
> example from all of military history and strategy where such a thing occured in
> a real war, though there have been numerous cases where the treasury was
> captured, or the owner of the treasury took it on the road with them, so I
> think the original set up where we could run with the bars along the highway
> network was fine, and it was really stupid to change that.

You have a point on tactical blows here, but I don't think letting
players move around bars to hide them without loss of interest is a
good idea. Why? Because manual micromanagement of bar hiding yields
a significant tactical advantage, violating the ideal of an automatic
country.

> In any case, to rectify that ridiculous situation where one tactical blow could
> decide the game, my solution was the "superbars" option. That way even if you
> hit the bank the bars are undamaged, though the enemy may lose income for an
> update. So strategically the country is still viable, and the enemy still has
> the strategic prospect of capturing the bars, but it is much harder to defeat
> the victim with a single blow, rather the victim has to be beaten
> strategically.

Nice to see your rationale on SUPER_BARS.

> Another option was the Go_Renew option to reduce micromanagement. You would
> have a very few gold and oil producing sectors, but they would continue
> producing throughout the game. That is more like the real strategic situation,
> for example the middle east is the oil producing region and retains that
> strategic value over a very long period of time, rather than being drained of
> oil in an update or two, after which a new oil well has to be found. Without
> Go_Renew one is continually micro-managing new gold and oil sectors, which is a
> totally useless waste of player time having nothing to do with strategy,

Agreed.

> whereas with Go_Renew on the gold and oil sectors have a long term strategic
> value and are worth defending and capturing. The middle east has to be defended
> for its oil producing value, for example, whereas if the real world was like
> empire, the middle east would be drained of oil in an update or two, then
> forgotten.

Agreed again. Another option is to slow down depletion very much.
This has pretty much the same effect, except the total amount of gold
and oil remains limited.

[Some ranting deleted]
> Some of the best games were games where each country had only one gold
> producing sector, a mountain, but with Go_Renew on, that shows an example of
> how gold could be handled. In olden days before paper money, the gold and
> silver producing areas had a long term strategic value, giving the country that
> could hold them a huge advantage in being able to finance a larger army. Philip
> of Macedon, for example, was able to make Macedonia a great power by virtue of
> controlling the main silver mines in the region.
>
> If you want to make oil derricks mandatory, have just a very few land sectors
> with oil, but have the oe exploration boats and have some sea sectors with oil
> in them, which would be needed to make enough oil to become a great power. I
> don't really think much of forcing oil derricks to be used though, too much
> micromanagement.

I dislike oil derricks; too much hassle. I admit the Retro deities
used them ingenuously create a set of interesting problems. But I
dislike oil derricks all the same.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 13, 2004 8:08:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Markus Armbruster" <armbru@pond.sub.org> wrote in message
news:861xkj8yzr.fsf@snapper.pond.sub.org...
> akorps666@aol.com666 (Akorps666) writes:
>


> >
> > During the 1980s, my idea was to make empire more strategic than
tactical, due
> > to comparions with chess, where after playing a perfect strategic game
for 40
> > moves, you can lose to an inferior player due to a single tactical blow.
To
> > give an example, in olden days we had highway networks, where we would
hide
> > bars, and then designate the highway a new bank, and get income from it.
Then
> > someone changed the update order so you would no longer get income from
such
> > new banks (maybe there is a way around that but I haven't figured it out
yet).
> > That meant you had to leave the bars in a bank, which created a fixed
target
> > which if hit by the enemy could be a decisive tactical blow effectively
> > knocking you out of the game. Even if you have several banks it is still
> > possible for the enemy to get lucky with one tactical strike and defeat
an
> > otherwise strategically superior country. I don't know of any historical
> > example from all of military history and strategy where such a thing
occured in
> > a real war, though there have been numerous cases where the treasury was
> > captured, or the owner of the treasury took it on the road with them, so
I
> > think the original set up where we could run with the bars along the
highway
> > network was fine, and it was really stupid to change that.
>
> You have a point on tactical blows here, but I don't think letting
> players move around bars to hide them without loss of interest is a
> good idea. Why? Because manual micromanagement of bar hiding yields
> a significant tactical advantage, violating the ideal of an automatic
> country.

Perhaps an easy solution is that bars do not have to be in banks to earn
interest, but only pay interest in relation to how efficient the sector they
are in is. In the "good old days" before fiat money, countries need gold
bullion because they had to make actual coins to put into circulation
so their economy would run.
Anonymous
June 13, 2004 9:48:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Akorps666" <akorps666@aol.com666> a écrit dans le message de
news:20040612165650.16194.00001078@mb-m15.aol.com...
> Retro was certainly a vast improvement, been many years since we had a
> strategic game like that.
>
> But there are a couple options that should have been included, in order to
make
> the game more strategic rather than tactical, and to reduce
micromanagement.
(...)
>
> In any case, to rectify that ridiculous situation where one tactical blow
could
> decide the game, my solution was the "superbars" option. That way even if
you
> hit the bank the bars are undamaged, though the enemy may lose income for
an
> update. So strategically the country is still viable, and the enemy still
has
> the strategic prospect of capturing the bars, but it is much harder to
defeat
> the victim with a single blow, rather the victim has to be beaten
> strategically.

Strangely I realised 3 hours ago, while taking a short nap, that bars need
to be removed.
If you need more money, increase the income from civilians and/or uws.
Like you I'm thinking that bars and their destructions have a too great
impact.

Just another idea: if you need more money, indexes the income on happiness.

(...)
> If you want to make oil derricks mandatory, have just a very few land
sectors
> with oil, but have the oe exploration boats and have some sea sectors with
oil
> in them, which would be needed to make enough oil to become a great power.
I
> don't really think much of forcing oil derricks to be used though, too
much
> micromanagement.

Go_Renew is mandatory to lessen the hassle of management.
Oil derricks give a strategic feeling to the game when land oil is low but
something has to be done to deal with their production in a more automatic
manner. May be some oil reserve (like mil reserve) need to be implemented.
I'm leaning toward the need of "strategic reserve" that would include all
possible commodities (may be except civ and uws).

Retro clearly showed many that land units were too powerfull (instakill
invasion) but no land units is a bad thing.
I would tweak the land units so that they can only take one or two sect more
than regular mil (less max mob and/or less speed).

Retro (re ?) introduced non instant unit constrution. This is a fine idea
but I don't like the max eff gain. Why a pt and a carrier need the same time
to be built ? The construction should be indexed on the avail needed. If,
for example you're playing a game with a max avail spent = 50 and a pt needs
50 avail, you will have your 100% pt at next update. If a carrier needs 200
avail, it will take 4 updates to be completly built (I'm skipping the
starting 20% that honestly should be removed). It would be the
responsibility of the deity to either let units with "not round" update
construction (for example needing 75 avail) or making a set of units with
avail multiple of 50 (in the previous example).
And yes, I know, if I want it I have to code it... :) 

I've been thinking to a tweak in the technology model but this does not
belong to this thread.

Chtom.
Anonymous
June 13, 2004 9:48:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

midposted


> > In any case, to rectify that ridiculous situation where one tactical
blow
> could
> > decide the game, my solution was the "superbars" option. That way even
if
> you
> > hit the bank the bars are undamaged, though the enemy may lose income
for
> an
> > update. So strategically the country is still viable, and the enemy
still
> has
> > the strategic prospect of capturing the bars, but it is much harder to
> defeat
> > the victim with a single blow, rather the victim has to be beaten
> > strategically.
>
> Strangely I realised 3 hours ago, while taking a short nap, that bars need
> to be removed.
> If you need more money, increase the income from civilians and/or uws.
> Like you I'm thinking that bars and their destructions have a too great
> impact.
>
> Just another idea: if you need more money, indexes the income on
happiness.
>
> (...)
> > If you want to make oil derricks mandatory, have just a very few land
> sectors
> > with oil, but have the oe exploration boats and have some sea sectors
with
> oil
> > in them, which would be needed to make enough oil to become a great
power.
> I
> > don't really think much of forcing oil derricks to be used though, too
> much
> > micromanagement.

I've had the same thoughts exactly! PettingZooTwo will only have some
dust in a few mountains, probably enough to only make 50 or so bars
per update. This allows players to have some income from bars, and yet
provide a small reward for taking out a player if you are careful not to
damage
their bank. Further, in PZ2, all players get a 100% fort, so if they are
totally
getting dogpiled, they have the capability to hit the 'self destruct button,
and shell all their useful commodities to disallow the aggressors from
capturing it.


>
> Go_Renew is mandatory to lessen the hassle of management.
> Oil derricks give a strategic feeling to the game when land oil is low but
> something has to be done to deal with their production in a more automatic
> manner. May be some oil reserve (like mil reserve) need to be implemented.
> I'm leaning toward the need of "strategic reserve" that would include all
> possible commodities (may be except civ and uws).
>
> Retro clearly showed many that land units were too powerfull (instakill
> invasion) but no land units is a bad thing.
> I would tweak the land units so that they can only take one or two sect
more
> than regular mil (less max mob and/or less speed).

I also had this very same thought, and it is being implemented in PZ2.
unit max mob = 63
unit mob gain = 30


> Retro (re ?) introduced non instant unit constrution. This is a fine idea
> but I don't like the max eff gain. Why a pt and a carrier need the same
time
> to be built ? The construction should be indexed on the avail needed. If,
> for example you're playing a game with a max avail spent = 50 and a pt
needs
> 50 avail, you will have your 100% pt at next update. If a carrier needs
200
> avail, it will take 4 updates to be completly built (I'm skipping the
> starting 20% that honestly should be removed). It would be the
> responsibility of the deity to either let units with "not round" update
> construction (for example needing 75 avail) or making a set of units with
> avail multiple of 50 (in the previous example).
> And yes, I know, if I want it I have to code it... :) 

Interesting idea. Kinda like that old Empire Deluxe game, where it would
take 24 turns for a destroyer, 60 for a carrier, etc, to be manufactured in
a city.


> I've been thinking to a tweak in the technology model but this does not
> belong to this thread.
>
> Chtom.
>
>

Bungy
Anonymous
June 13, 2004 10:47:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

"Bungholio" <empire_bungholioNOSPAM@verizon.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:XU_yc.16396$H65.1249@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
(...)
> > Retro clearly showed many that land units were too powerfull (instakill
> > invasion) but no land units is a bad thing.
> > I would tweak the land units so that they can only take one or two sect
> more
> > than regular mil (less max mob and/or less speed).
>
> I also had this very same thought, and it is being implemented in PZ2.
> unit max mob = 63
> unit mob gain = 30

I noticed it in PZ2. I would have put max mob = 48.
Please tell us if 63 is the right number (I suppose you're using vanilla
units).

> > Retro (re ?) introduced non instant unit constrution. This is a fine
idea
> > but I don't like the max eff gain. Why a pt and a carrier need the same
> time
> > to be built ? The construction should be indexed on the avail needed.
If,
> > for example you're playing a game with a max avail spent = 50 and a pt
> needs
> > 50 avail, you will have your 100% pt at next update. If a carrier needs
> 200
> > avail, it will take 4 updates to be completly built (I'm skipping the
> > starting 20% that honestly should be removed). It would be the
> > responsibility of the deity to either let units with "not round" update
> > construction (for example needing 75 avail) or making a set of units
with
> > avail multiple of 50 (in the previous example).
> > And yes, I know, if I want it I have to code it... :) 
>
> Interesting idea. Kinda like that old Empire Deluxe game, where it would
> take 24 turns for a destroyer, 60 for a carrier, etc, to be manufactured
in
> a city.

Strategic wargames (tabletop) have this system. For example, in WiF (World
in Flames) the fastet units (to be built) are available in one turn (2
months) where carriers take 12 turns (2 years). This could be easily modeled
in Empire if we limit the available spent per update on units.

Chtom.
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 12:15:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:43:19 +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:

> akorps666@aol.com666 (Akorps666) writes:
>
>> Retro was certainly a vast improvement, been many years since we had a
>> strategic game like that.
>
> If enough players agree with you, then there will be more Retro-style
> games in the future.
>
> In my experience, Retro is both an improvement and a decline compared
> to the stock game, and there are lessons to be learned for improving
> the stock game.
>

I'm watching this thread, and some of the points here will be included in
Seawolf II -- Go_Renew with reduced sectors with gold & oil for one.
There may be some other changes as well though, to sort of push things
towards a naval campaign (reduced aircraft ranges, to make carriers
more valuable etc.).

I'm experimenting slowly - there may not be much less in the way of
micromanagement though. I'm thinking that requiring fuel for ships is a
good idea.

Anyway, it won't be for everyone and won't come together until later this
summer anyway.

Cheers,

voor
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 12:47:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

>>I don't think letting players move around bars to hide them without loss of
interest is a good idea. Why? Because manual micromanagement of bar hiding
yields a significant tactical advantage, violating the ideal of an automatic
country.

That's true enough, but its one of those "you had to be there" scenarios. In
olden days, one of the most fun and exciting and memorable parts of the game
was trying to hide your bars somewhere on your highway network (we all had
large and complete highway networks in those days) and make a new bank there so
you had cash for one more update. The other part of the fun was for the
attacker to try to hunt down the bars and figure out where they were hidden.

Does anyone besides me remember those days? I remember vividly hunting down
Park Place bars on his highway network, and conversely trying to find a place
to hide my bars from Redline. I had the highest tech so I had jet fighters and
nobody else did, but every update he would hunt all over for my new airports to
try to bomb them below 60% so my jets couldn't fly.

I don't think I ever took another risk with security in order to get a tech
lead after that game :-)

On the other hand there are gamblers like Resvon who go all out for tech, you
may beat them before they get their nukes but if they make it to nuclear tech,
watch out, as Mirkwood will attest :-)

Another point is, to minimize micromanagement, the game should be set up so a
highway network is a decisive strategic advantage. So everything in favor of a
highway network is worth considering, as movement along such networks is
fundamental to a strategy game. I would say you probably shouldn't even be able
to move from a non-highway except to a highway/bridgehead/span

Or make the weights for moving to non-highways heavier and heavier by
experiment until it proves necessary to have a highway network for a country to
function

(I don't really believe in bridgeheads, being descended from a bridge engineer
it doesn't make much sense to me to require a whole sector for a bridgehead, so
the easy_bridges option seems to make more sense)
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 10:52:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

>> If enough players agree with you, then there will be more Retro-style games
in the future

Who cares if enough players agree with me. The "democratic" approach to empire
has ruined it beyond any hope of repair, kind of like the Clinton approach to
politics, sail this way or that depending on the latest poll numbers. Now we
get the "collective" approach to empire, instead of eliminating complexity so a
single player can have a level playing field, add stuff that favors a team of
co-rulers on 24/7, and when you win, that reinforces your belief that you are
right so the collective belief system becomes even stronger, a vicious circle
(reflexivity principle)

Even the Gods can't fight the stupidity of mass democracy, I certainly can't.

Mith knows from sailing, sometimes you have to sail against the wind. Otherwise
you get blown somewhere you don't want to go.

I don't care any more in case it isn't clear from the above, I wasted 10 years
trying to get empire going in the right direction and don't have any more
energy to waste on that project. I just wrote down the truth because I felt
like it, not because I was trying to persuade you of anything. When a belief
system is solid enough, it is like impenetrable concrete, nothing will get
through, only some external shock can make you see that a different viewpoint
is possible. It is when you are most successful and most convinced that you are
right that in reality you are most delusional (I know from experience :-)

This is just my current viewpoint of course, which is all I can express.
Probably I will find some mistake in at least part of it tomorrow. I just tried
to uncover the logic of strategy and put it into the game, trying to find what
the hidden premises are. Most people don't even look at the premises, they just
accept some belief system uncritically and want to run with it, rather than
examine it to see if it is flawed.
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 6:11:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

akorps666@aol.com666 (Akorps666) writes:

> >> If enough players agree with you, then there will be more Retro-style games
> in the future
>
> Who cares if enough players agree with me. The "democratic" approach to empire
> has ruined it beyond any hope of repair, kind of like the Clinton approach to
> politics, sail this way or that depending on the latest poll numbers. Now we
> get the "collective" approach to empire, instead of eliminating complexity so a
> single player can have a level playing field, add stuff that favors a team of
> co-rulers on 24/7, and when you win, that reinforces your belief that you are
> right so the collective belief system becomes even stronger, a vicious circle
> (reflexivity principle)
>
> Even the Gods can't fight the stupidity of mass democracy, I certainly can't.
>
> Mith knows from sailing, sometimes you have to sail against the wind. Otherwise
> you get blown somewhere you don't want to go.

What you call `democratic' development is a red herring. Sure, it
doesn't work, but it's also not what I suggested, and certainly not
what's happening. What can work is to think hard, implement some
ideas and run games. That's leadership. If the games are enjoyable,
players will want more, and the ideas will find their way into the
stock code eventually. If players don't enjoy the games, then the
ideas are immature, badly implemented, badly explained, not applicable
to Empire, or just plain bad.

Talk's cheap, show me the code.

Regarding your claim that we're having `collective' Empire now: Empire
rule development (changes that affect game rules, not just
implementation of game rules) has been slow, at least since I started
to follow it in '01. I honestly can't see any server change that
affects coruling, and I can't remember any game that was slanted
towards corulers, except maybe Ice World IV (clearly unintentionally,
and others may well disagree with me on the slant).

[snip...]
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 8:02:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)

Bungholio <empire_bungholioNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote:
> I've had the same thoughts exactly! PettingZooTwo will only have some
> dust in a few mountains, probably enough to only make 50 or so bars
> per update. This allows players to have some income from bars, and
> yet provide a small reward for taking out a player if you are careful
> not to damage their bank

I personally liked the bank's function in one of the Iceworld games,
gold to money directly...

--

Daniel Tryba
!