Questions to the Developers

[ubik]

This is true, but it doesn't exclude AI advisors or automation systems. It's all about choice. I like to play Civilization IV, but I don't want to mess around with switching hammers and coins in the cities, so I automate those actions. I like to play space strategy games, but I'm not always very keen on designing my own ships every 5 minutes, so I like it when the game gives me to option to automate this process. When I forget about the possibility of putting a trade embargo on another country, I like it when an advisor pops up and tells me that such an option is available (and I love when it's possible to turn the advisor on/off)... and so on... and so on...

Designing ships every 5 minutes or managing 20 cities every turn are good examples of bad designs.

Of course, I can see the role play potencial of the advisor acting as an...er... advisor, but not automating the game for the player.

[husita]

It's enjoyable for both the work and the team. : )
I'm the guy in the middle

Speaking for myself and as head of the project, I can tell you one simple thing: When it is not fun, people quit. For instace, we recently lost Jan, a very, very talented coder that entered into the engine in February just to take care of graphics improvements while we got into the team Nick, an enormously talented kid that has been coding great stuff for Paradox games for long.

But the important fact here is that the core team of 7-8 people has kept the same since May 2010, shows no signs of weaknening and in fact are deeply involved to have new projects together.

Enjoyable moments? Here is one, taken last Friday in Barcelona with Juan (Husita) and Hernan (Elboludox):




Difficult moments?

Definitely in May 2010 when then Technical Director abandoned ship and the rare birds responsible for doing art at that time were gliding away. Fortunately both Anu and Daniel appeared on the scene then and everything returned to normal in some months and with the extended agenda. But this was the moment of "make or break" for us.

[Panjer]

That Rubik's cube was finished while the picture was being taken, such is the power of Ubik!

[Cybvep]

Designing ships every 5 minutes or managing 20 cities every turn are good examples of bad designs.

Of course, I can see the role play potencial of the advisor acting as an...er... advisor, but not automating the game for the player.

Many players enjoy such micromanagement, so a well-designed automation system can satisfy both the micromanagement freaks and the people who don't like micromanaging things too much. Besides, the simplicity of design cannot always be achieved without detrimental results to gameplay/balance/challenge/fun/whatever, so if you are aware of that, you can enable automation/advisors as a way to mitigate the tediousness of micromanagement.

[Featauril]

Many players enjoy such micromanagement, so a well-designed automation system can satisfy both the micromanagement freaks and the people who don't like micromanaging things too much. Besides, the simplicity of design cannot always be achieved without detrimental results to gameplay/balance/challenge/fun/whatever, so if you are aware of that, you can enable automation/advisors as a way to mitigate the tediousness of micromanagement.

On the other hand, sometimes compromise it the worst of both worlds.

[Twilight]

Of course, I can see the role play potencial of the advisor acting as an...er... advisor, but not automating the game for the player.

How about the possibility of automated generals? I doubt it's possible, but have you considered the option of letting us define theatres for armies to operate in, and then having the commanders choose whether they want seek battle? A strategic level decision, compared to the tactical choices they're making in land combat now?

Would be nice to be able to assign commanders to some backwater outposts and not have to worry about an OPM capturing 3 provinces with a 2K army while my 10K army sits idle and I'm busy focused in Europe.

[Cybvep]

On the other hand, sometimes compromise it the worst of both worlds.

It depends on the available resources and the implementation. IMO it would be good expansion material

[ubik]

How about the possibility of automated generals? I doubt it's possible, but have you considered the option of letting us define theatres for armies to operate in, and then having the commanders choose whether they want seek battle? A strategic level decision, compared to the tactical choices they're making in land combat now?

Well... Its good there is more to do in the game than answer events...

Would be nice to be able to assign commanders to some backwater outposts and not have to worry about an OPM capturing 3 provinces with a 2K army while my 10K army sits idle and I'm busy focused in Europe.

This can only happen if you don't have the message settings on pause when a provincial battle starts... but with 2000 man invading a province I would not bet on the attackers...

[ubik]

On the other hand, sometimes compromise it the worst of both worlds.

Exactly. In my opinion, its wrong game design whenever you have to use automated process to play the game for you. Either your design doesn't fit your goal or you goal is bigger than your design.

[Zolotaya]

... Besides, the simplicity of design cannot always be achieved without detrimental results to gameplay/balance/challenge/fun/whatever, so if you are aware of that, you can enable automation/advisors as a way to mitigate the tediousness of micromanagement.

The genius of simplicity can not be overstated in game design. Making a system or mechanic complex for the sake of complexity only serves to offer more chances of failure.

In my decade plus worth of gaming, I can not recall any situation where more complex was better. As an example, taking the mod mechanics and integrating them into the engine has made them much more simple to implement and achieves greater results.

Using "advisors" as tutors to help you navigate through decisions is one thing, but once these advisors take over the actual gaming and are seen as "necessary" then you start entering the realm of something not being right with the design in the first place.

How about the possibility of automated generals? I doubt it's possible, but have you considered the option of letting us define theatres for armies to operate in, and then having the commanders choose whether they want seek battle? A strategic level decision, compared to the tactical choices they're making in land combat now?

If you read the combat DDs, you will see that the generals you chose are very important, because often they often do decide whether they will seek full battle, to only skirmish, or even to withdraw.

Furthermore, as a little spoiler, you may appoint Generals as commanders for provinces themselves, so your idea of assigning a Field Marshal to protect your flank (or whatever) is entirely within the realm of possibility.

Just as an aside: a OPM army of 2,000 will most likely get bogged down in a single province, finding it extremely difficult to advance anywhere, but perhaps, back where it came from in defeat. Even without any commander posted to that province.

[ubik]

That Rubik's cube was finished while the picture was being taken, such is the power of Ubik!

You can see here Ubik developing MM while Husita and Elboludox are having some fun! It's always like this!

[Twilight]

Well... Its good there is more to do in the game than answer events...

If you read the combat DDs, you will see that the generals you chose are very important, because often they often do decide whether they will seek full battle, to only skirmish, or even to withdraw.

But will Generals have the ability to move their armies between provinces, to actively engage an enemy? Presumably when they withdraw, they will move out of the province, but can it go the other way?

I'm imagining myself directing the war in Europe, while leaving my field commanders to slug it out in the Americas, or at sea. I also think I'm imagining harder than the AI can be reasonably programmed

[ubik]

But will Generals have the ability to move their armies between provinces, to actively engage an enemy? Presumably when they withdraw, they will move out of the province, but can it go the other way?

No. It would not be fun, for sure.

I'm imagining myself directing the war in Europe, while leaving my field commanders to slug it out in the Americas, or at sea. I also think I'm imagining harder than the AI can be reasonably programmed

You are already doing that. Your "Field Commanders" are the generals assigned to province defence. If you don't want to send an army to defend the colonies, you can do it while hoping your local forces can defend against the invaders.

[Ese Khan]

I believe Dharper had replaced it with "Acadia", which at least was a distinct colony with some faint potential of forming it's own land. Pretty much anything to replace one of these two tags would be better.

I can confirm that Acadia and Canada exist as colonial revolters.

[Ese Khan]

You can see here Ubik developing MM while Husita and Elboludox are having some fun! It's always like this![/IMG]

Interesting, Hernan's laptop looks remarkably like my laptop that fried 3 months ago... Does it have the name "X205" anywhere?

[ubik]

Interesting, Hernan's laptop looks remarkably like my laptop that fried 3 months ago... Does it have the name "X205" anywhere?

I believe you sold it to a waitress that smuggled it through the dragon pass, only to offer it, as a lovely gift, to Hernan... who is now trying to solve the mistery of this remarkable voyage... Isn't it Hernan? The issue is with SKILLZZZZZZZ...

[Comrade Chaos]

You can see here Ubik developing MM while Husita and Elboludox are having some fun! It's always like this!

[IMG][/IMG]

Does Husita program with just a keyboard? Does it plug in to his brain or something?

[Zolotaya]

Does Husita program with just a keyboard? Does it plug in to his brain or something?

His cordless keyboard is cause of more then a few laughs during our meetings.

Ubik: Hello? Are you there?

....
...
..
Husita: oh sorry, batteries died.

[Cybvep]

The genius of simplicity can not be overstated in game design. Making a system or mechanic complex for the sake of complexity only serves to offer more chances of failure.

In my decade plus worth of gaming, I can not recall any situation where more complex was better. As an example, taking the mod mechanics and integrating them into the engine has made them much more simple to implement and achieves greater results.

Sorry, I have no idea how the MMtG plays out, so I don't know how its systems fare in practice. However, I cannot agree with your general statement. If it were universally true, then e.g. Red Alert would have the perfect combat system, because of its inherent simplicity. I have too often seen combat systems which ended up with just three values or so (e.g. Strength, Attack, Defence), depriving the game of needed depth. Sure, they were simple, but boring and predictable as hell. The point is NOT to make things overly complex and make the interface very simple and easy-to-use, but when it comes to raw gameplay, you cannot avoid complexity if you want to make it fun for strategy gamers.

Complexity for the sake of complexity is bad. However, when complexity fulfils a purpose and is accompanied by elegant UI, then it can make the game grand.

[Zolotaya]

...If it were universally true, then e.g. Red Alert would have the perfect combat system, because of its inherent simplicity. I have too often seen combat systems which ended up with just three values or so (e.g. Strength, Attack, Defence), depriving the game of needed depth. Sure, they were simple, but boring and predictable as hell.

Shallow does not equal simple. Nor does complex = in depth. What you are not grasping is that in depth gaming has nil to do with complexity.

The point is NOT to make things overly complex and make the interface very simple and easy-to-use, but when it comes to raw gameplay, you cannot avoid complexity if you want to make it fun for strategy gamers.

On the contrary - the best strategic games are the simplest in mechanics. From Go to Chess this has been a proven throughout the centuries. Most of the fun games avoid complexity; even Magna Mundi, which when you get down to the base mechanics and structures is simple.

Complexity for the sake of complexity is bad. However, when complexity fulfils a purpose and is accompanied by elegant UI, then it can make the game grand.

What purpose does complexity ever serve? The only purpose I know game designers to chose complexity over simplicity is to hide flaws.