Archived from groups: rec.games.empire (More info?)
A few thoughts re strategy vs tactics:
IMHO, Empire as in its current form is primarily a tactical game. In
fact, it is the best tactical game I know of. Empire has the capacity
to transcend the gap between strategy and tactics, but, for it to be
truly strategic, there need to be more strategic decisions to be made.
These are decisions that influence how you develop your forces/country
and how you play the rest of the game.
Examples of current strategic decisions include pushing tech, going
for rapid expansion, using diplomacy to max, and which neighbour to
attack (usually based on fodder index). However, there are only a few
strategic choices to be made. And in the end, most players utilise a
similar strategy, and the difference between most non-newbies is in
tactical combat and ability to optimise growth and development.
Traditionally commercial games have been tactical or strategic. Some
have tried to incorporate both by having a strategic map and a battle
map (eg Caesar and Shogun). But for strategy and tactics to work well
in one game, they need to be intertwined. Rise of Nations (never
thought I would say a good thing about a Microsoft product) is an
example of a game which is succeeding in this.
Empire also has the capacity to achieve this. In fact most of the
required elements are already present in some form. The suggestions in
this thread sound good to me, but you need to go further. There need
to be more strategic decisions/choices that must be made. And these
have to come at a cost. If you pick choice A, your ability to do
choice B will be limited. Examples might include:
1. Tech:
different tech trees for land vs air vs naval forces (maybe nuke as
4th, or it can be based on research alone). This can be coded for by
allocating a proportion of tech built to each arm (would be too
complicated to have 3 different tech centres). Eg 50% air, 40% naval,
10% land. All tech influenced factors would fall into the most
appropriate category (eg flak and fort range would be part of land),
but some factors might be influenced by total tech (eg food production
and radar). Before you say it is unrealistic to allow somebody to
focus on just one tech arm, I think to do so would be to invite
disaster, and a cost weighting would need to be included to stop air
power becoming powerful too quickly.
2. Research:
Not important in most games except for nukes but should be. Plague and
Res_pop vastly increase the importance of a decision to push research
and should be routinely enabled.
3. Fuel:
Needs to be more important. Make us fight more for oil. Strategic
reserves have already been suggested. But charge an upkeep fee
(similar to mil reserves) for this privilege.
4. Happiness:
Make this more important than just for preventing/producing che (and
to a small extent work). Suggestion that it be linked to cash
generation an excellent idea. But why stop there? Also link it to
productivity in terms of avail and production of materials.
5. Education:
I am not even sure why we have edu when its sole purpose seems to be
to increase the efficiency of generating tech. It could be used for a
variety of things such as affecting research, or even improve the
combat effectiveness of mil!
These are just a few suggestions. I'm sure that you can think of
others. Although I am not a programmer, I don't think the above would
be too hard to code.
Wahbit
A few thoughts re strategy vs tactics:
IMHO, Empire as in its current form is primarily a tactical game. In
fact, it is the best tactical game I know of. Empire has the capacity
to transcend the gap between strategy and tactics, but, for it to be
truly strategic, there need to be more strategic decisions to be made.
These are decisions that influence how you develop your forces/country
and how you play the rest of the game.
Examples of current strategic decisions include pushing tech, going
for rapid expansion, using diplomacy to max, and which neighbour to
attack (usually based on fodder index). However, there are only a few
strategic choices to be made. And in the end, most players utilise a
similar strategy, and the difference between most non-newbies is in
tactical combat and ability to optimise growth and development.
Traditionally commercial games have been tactical or strategic. Some
have tried to incorporate both by having a strategic map and a battle
map (eg Caesar and Shogun). But for strategy and tactics to work well
in one game, they need to be intertwined. Rise of Nations (never
thought I would say a good thing about a Microsoft product) is an
example of a game which is succeeding in this.
Empire also has the capacity to achieve this. In fact most of the
required elements are already present in some form. The suggestions in
this thread sound good to me, but you need to go further. There need
to be more strategic decisions/choices that must be made. And these
have to come at a cost. If you pick choice A, your ability to do
choice B will be limited. Examples might include:
1. Tech:
different tech trees for land vs air vs naval forces (maybe nuke as
4th, or it can be based on research alone). This can be coded for by
allocating a proportion of tech built to each arm (would be too
complicated to have 3 different tech centres). Eg 50% air, 40% naval,
10% land. All tech influenced factors would fall into the most
appropriate category (eg flak and fort range would be part of land),
but some factors might be influenced by total tech (eg food production
and radar). Before you say it is unrealistic to allow somebody to
focus on just one tech arm, I think to do so would be to invite
disaster, and a cost weighting would need to be included to stop air
power becoming powerful too quickly.
2. Research:
Not important in most games except for nukes but should be. Plague and
Res_pop vastly increase the importance of a decision to push research
and should be routinely enabled.
3. Fuel:
Needs to be more important. Make us fight more for oil. Strategic
reserves have already been suggested. But charge an upkeep fee
(similar to mil reserves) for this privilege.
4. Happiness:
Make this more important than just for preventing/producing che (and
to a small extent work). Suggestion that it be linked to cash
generation an excellent idea. But why stop there? Also link it to
productivity in terms of avail and production of materials.
5. Education:
I am not even sure why we have edu when its sole purpose seems to be
to increase the efficiency of generating tech. It could be used for a
variety of things such as affecting research, or even improve the
combat effectiveness of mil!
These are just a few suggestions. I'm sure that you can think of
others. Although I am not a programmer, I don't think the above would
be too hard to code.
Wahbit
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram