I'm in no position to implement this idea. I know it's not likely, but hey, let's give it a shot: If anyone wants to take it and run with it, be my guest. Just so long as I'm credited somewhere. A penny for my troubles would also be appreciated.
I already posted on Board Game Geek explaining the concept. I'll copy and paste here:
Please forgive me if I'm about to retread a worn path, but I've been looking for something like this for ages. It would play like a board game, but I think it could only be realised online. Which is why I'm posting here.
The game I have in my head revolves around a mechanic/concept I'm going to call "federalising." Let's call the game "Federate."
Imagine we're playing on a Risk board. Except instead of players controlling groups of territories, every territory has one player. This player is the same player from start to finish. Winning is determined by the territory's overall prestige/level of development throughout the game.
Every territory starts as an independent country. My territory produces a unique set of resources, like Catan. I trade with territories depending on if I can reach them and what my trading relations are like with them (automated based on settings?). I build and develop settlements, invest in technologies. And of course, form armies. The mechanics of all of this are pared to the bare bones, because the game is all about...
"Federalising"...
I invade you and some other players. You all surrender, and I now have an additional role of 'dictator.' Because you are no longer independent, at least some of your functions are disabled and pass to me. As 'dictator' I levy taxes, and decide how much freedom you have over your territory. Like what you can and can't build, who you can and can't trade with, etc. And of course, I build all the armies and make all the wars. If I get too despotic you can attempt a rebellion for independence. But you can still win the game under a 'benevolent dictator.' Because as dictator I can pool the kind of resources needed to do things an independent territory could never do alone.
Or we all get together and decide to form a democratic federation. One of us is elected 'president.' He rules just like the dictator, except we can propose votes to change his powers, our rate of tax, and/or replace him.
So technically speaking, when territories "federalise" an extra player is created. Whoever becomes dictator/president is playing two players at once, both controlling the resources of his own territory, and running the "federation."
Of course I'm sure much of this exists in MMORTS and turn-based games already. But if you had automated trading, Diplomacy-like battle mechanics, and drop-down menu politics, you could have a rich game simulating both international and domestic conflict that finishes in just an hour or two.
Does all this make any sense? Has a game like this been done before, so I can go and play it? Or if have I really come up with something new, would anybody like to try and implement it?
And from a subsequent post explaining why I think it will only work online:The game I have in my head revolves around a mechanic/concept I'm going to call "federalising." Let's call the game "Federate."
Imagine we're playing on a Risk board. Except instead of players controlling groups of territories, every territory has one player. This player is the same player from start to finish. Winning is determined by the territory's overall prestige/level of development throughout the game.
Every territory starts as an independent country. My territory produces a unique set of resources, like Catan. I trade with territories depending on if I can reach them and what my trading relations are like with them (automated based on settings?). I build and develop settlements, invest in technologies. And of course, form armies. The mechanics of all of this are pared to the bare bones, because the game is all about...
"Federalising"...
I invade you and some other players. You all surrender, and I now have an additional role of 'dictator.' Because you are no longer independent, at least some of your functions are disabled and pass to me. As 'dictator' I levy taxes, and decide how much freedom you have over your territory. Like what you can and can't build, who you can and can't trade with, etc. And of course, I build all the armies and make all the wars. If I get too despotic you can attempt a rebellion for independence. But you can still win the game under a 'benevolent dictator.' Because as dictator I can pool the kind of resources needed to do things an independent territory could never do alone.
Or we all get together and decide to form a democratic federation. One of us is elected 'president.' He rules just like the dictator, except we can propose votes to change his powers, our rate of tax, and/or replace him.
So technically speaking, when territories "federalise" an extra player is created. Whoever becomes dictator/president is playing two players at once, both controlling the resources of his own territory, and running the "federation."
Of course I'm sure much of this exists in MMORTS and turn-based games already. But if you had automated trading, Diplomacy-like battle mechanics, and drop-down menu politics, you could have a rich game simulating both international and domestic conflict that finishes in just an hour or two.
Does all this make any sense? Has a game like this been done before, so I can go and play it? Or if have I really come up with something new, would anybody like to try and implement it?
I want a game with a similar pace and playing time to Risk. But to achieve the "domestic/international politics simulation" I'm looking for I need one person per territory, meaning 25-odd people. Plus any Catan-style resource trading will take way too long without some sort of automation.
