quote: Original post by krez
without SOMETHING to manipulate, this "game" is merely a chat room (well, also some private messages). there has to be some way of doing something, not just talking about it with other "players"...

This is actually an incredibly observant point. The logical prototype for this kind of thing is a sort of IRC client (complete with private channels) where players spontaneously communicate and negotiate, all with the focus of becoming the most powerful. Each players gameworld existence needs to be matched by possession and/or access to various resources at a certain base level, and then the higher level economies of trade and barter come into play between players.

The "doing something" part, however, is one of the most interesting. In traditional RTS games, the player directly controls troops in god-like fashion. What is desired here is something that has been the topic of a number of recent threads - delegation and autonomy. Each player fits within a hierarchy of command, but is never at the bottom; below the player are assistants and economic and military advisors and agents. In response to the political environment, and to improve his/her standing as much as possible, the player will issue orders, demand reports, etc from these subordinates to maximize advantage.

So say Player A notices players B and C have been engaging in dialogue and perhaps have even fielded a few joint ventures, and player A has poor relationships with both B and C, A will either attempt to sow discord between B and C (surrepticiously attack one and frame the other, publicly accuse one of insulting the other''s mother, something...) and cause them to weaken relative to A''s position, or openly engage one in a favorable confrontation (counting on the fact that the other will be reluctant to engage this early into their respective partnership, and that even when the other does engage A can still probably take them both down).

That''s politics.

quote: Original post by Oluseyi
...A will either attempt to sow discord between B and C (surrepticiously attack one and frame the other, publicly accuse one of insulting the other''s mother, something...) and cause them to weaken relative to A''s position, or openly engage one in a favorable confrontation (counting on the fact that the other will be reluctant to engage this early into their respective partnership, and that even when the other does engage A can still probably take them both down).

It''s worth mentioning that most of these actions will be carried out by the aforementioned subordinate entities, and that the effects of their actions are publicly visible to all participants, though not necessarily their actual actions (ie, when you tell an agent to act quietly, the probability that anyone will obtain evidence of that agent performing said action is very low).

Perhaps we could discuss some ideas (in detail) of some key mechanisms for a game like this? Or discuss possible elements that would make a game like this work.

I''ve been toying around with an idea for a rumour engine, which would tie in with this. Rather than always being able to get instant accurate information on events, a player would have to go to his ''sources'' who themselves only get information from thier own sources which may or may not be accurate. You could even have them getting most of the details accurate except maybe one or two, or have some totally baseless rumours. So it will be up to the player to investigate and figure out exactly what is happening. I think this will be a cool addition becuase that way you are not always dealing with other players directly, as that would be tantamount to one president only talking to other presidents. That way for instance a new player can come in and still have ways of getting information before he has commited to any alliances.
Of course, The information should usually be mostly accurate otherwise it becomes useless, and ideally, a player should be able to start a totally baseless rumour in the hope of misleading some of his enemies.

Let me just clarify that players aren''t all presidents. They are whatever they make themselves. And this is largely contingent on the other players accepting that, or deciding that. One player might be the head of some self declared spy organization. Another player might be Secretary of State of some government, another player might be a rogue terrorist, another player might be head of a media organization, another player might be head of a mining industry...

It''s always been my vision that the players are the ones producing and communicating the information, and actually creating the infrastructure to allow the flow of information.

An event happens. The game engine simulates the event. But information about the event getting to players is contigent upon the players having setup the network to allow that flow of information. Spies, media organizations, intelligence operations, etc. witness the event either physically or through monitoring equipment and ''package'' the information, put a spin on the information, and send it into the information network, where it percolates to the top through many different types of channels, finally arriving at the those who ''do'' something with the information. Then the process is reversed, as decisions are made, and these decisions percolate down the network (which is composed of real players).

I was reading the other post and it seems a lot of ground has already been covered there. I think you should take a look at Alphacentuari. I think this already answers a lot of the problems that have been mentioned like ranking system, cost of war, 1000 people per player e.t.c. except of course it''s turn based. I also think a players resources shouldn''t necessarily be limited at to what they are given at the beginning of the game. Ideally, even if it will be extremely difficult, a single player should be able to grow powerful enough to hold sway over a large coalition of others. Also there needs to be some sort of resource managment invovled(power by itself is useless unless you can use it to directly affect the fates of millions). Money, Population, Technology, Military might etc. Oh, and real estate, perhaps even certain minerals which only occur in certain places naturally otherise have to be synthesized throuh an expensive process. This will give players something to fight over.

For leadership, I tend to lean more toward the knights of the round table scene, where as far as the game is concerned you''ve all entered into an equal agreement, but the players themselves know the people they don''t dare upset. For instance if Player A is the only source of affordable food in the nation(alliance), then his allies will bend over backward to keep him from raising the prices. However, there might be a plan in the works by his allies to capture some of his farms of food synthesis technology. Knowing this he might keep the locations of his farsm a secret and limit how far citizens from his ''allies'' are allowed to travel into his country.

And concerning the communication, the game can be structured in such a way that what is being said from player to player is not as important as what is being done by them.
For instance if players B and C decide they wanted to snatch stuff from player A, They need to first move their troops to attack positions, however a spy in Player B''s army would inform player A of the troop movement. He can then challenge Player B about it, or send false iformation to Player C(who is the smallest of the three) that Player B is also positioning troops so that when the attack is finished he can wipe out C.
Oops I might have gotten carried away.
Anyway, What I''m trying to say is the fact that they are planning to attack won''t be as important as the fact that troops are being moved,whose troops, where and how many they are. And this information can be discovered without necessarily ''tapping the line''.

But communication will play an important part in the game anyway. in a low tech world you could have messages carried by horse or perhaps pigeon(but if the pigeons are visible while flying they can''t be the only ones) Of course then they could be intercepted at the stables or when the messenger stops for food and drink. What would be most important is how spies are recruited, or discovered? If they are NPCs, how will you be able to convince him to become double agents? Personally, I don''t like anything that involves dice rolls, as in reality most variables are not random. Of course eventully yo don''t know if they are going to say yes, but that is why you should be able to protect yourself in someway. Perhaps a hierarchy of spies so that thoe who send out the information don''t know who they are sending it to?

Goodnight

Interesting post, thelurch. However...

quote: Original post by bishop_pass
Let me just clarify that players aren''t all presidents. They are whatever they make themselves. And this is largely contingent on the other players accepting that, or deciding that. One player might be the head of some self declared spy organization. Another player might be Secretary of State of some government, another player might be a rogue terrorist, another player might be head of a media organization, another player might be head of a mining industry...

In other words, the game isn''t all about military-style conflcit and/or resource control and management. It''s basically about good old-fashioned politicking and powermongering/brokering.

I think your ideas on the dual emphasis of direct communication and observable action are spot on. I also think you scenarios are plausible, and that your analysis of the reliability of information, its sources and its couriers is accurate as well. Good job.

quote: Original post by bishop_pass
An event happens. The game engine simulates the event. But information about the event getting to players is contigent upon the players having setup the network to allow that flow of information. Spies, media organizations, intelligence operations, etc. witness the event either physically or through monitoring equipment and ''package'' the information, put a spin on the information, and send it into the information network, where it percolates to the top through many different types of channels, finally arriving at the those who ''do'' something with the information. Then the process is reversed, as decisions are made, and these decisions percolate down the network (which is composed of real players).

An interesting but not so feasible idea would be to use another game and a whole other set of players (RTS/Wargame players) to simulate the battles and their outcomes. Only the players with intelligence capabilities would be allowed to watch the battles while they happened. Another interesting idea would be if the RTS players themselves were traded and used as a "resource" in a game. Reminds me of the Ender''s Game sequels where countries were spending resources to capture the brightest generals from Battle school. It''s totally not feasible but this is your "million dollar idea", isn''t it?

Newspapers could play a big part in a game like this. Just look at todays world for ideas. You have basicly independent news sources that aren''t directly affiliated with a government, but do have their own political bent. You have the state press of more totalitarian governments that spews out the gorvernment''s propaganda.

The press could ask the players their positions on the issues of the day, as well as the players ''seeding'' the press with rumours or sabre rattling or so on.

In short most of these political machinations would play out on the world press, just as they do now.

Jack

quote: Original post by JackNathan
Newspapers could play a big part in a game like this. Just look at todays world for ideas. You have basicly independent news sources that aren''t directly affiliated with a government, but do have their own political bent. You have the state press of more totalitarian governments that spews out the gorvernment''s propaganda.

Yes, I fully agree.

quote: Original post by JackNathan
The press could ask the players their positions on the issues of the day, as well as the players ''seeding'' the press with rumours or sabre rattling or so on.

But I hope you aren''t differentiating between a what player is and what the press is. The two are one and the same. News produced by the press is simply information created and/or transmitted by other players.