OT: My review of CAP2.

[MarkShot]

Yep, if you can find a product with a very high base cost like computing and electronic items that now one knows how to produce (and is not available via seaports). Then, if you can put everything you have into R&D to beat the AI to it.

You can now charge $6000 for each notebook which is costing you only $1000 to produce. At this point, you should get such a cash lead on the AI that you can do whatever you want about the competition. If you want to be laid back, then you just maintain your research lead and advertise strongly. Thus, your brand and quality should always allow you to charge a premium.

You can hire a COO with retail skill and a CMO to get boosts in these areas, but then the COO probably will not soak the public for your electronic devices.

Now, if you really want to lock the AI out for good. Then, buy up all silica locations and put mines on them. And perhaps, oil too. Effectively, get a strangle hold a some key raw material in the supply chain for notebooks, computer, mobile phones, palm pilots, etc... Once you do this, the AI will be unable to enter these markets despite ultimately have a successful research project.

Granted you can bump the competition level up to the max 200%, but I think once you understand the game, you can still cross the threshold. And once crossed, you simply cannot lose.

Now compare this to Tropico, as the economy increases in complexity instead of getting a vertical supply chain guarantee of profits without end ... the whole economic system becomes increasingly frail with ever increasing points of failure. Any failure is sufficient to throw you into a downward spiral of negative feedback loops. In the meantime, by the default, population hapiness naturally degrades over time. Additionally, voter conciousness gets progressively more sensitive to discontentment as time goes on. So, by definition/design Tropico degrades over time. Only through positive involvement on your part can you fight the entropy which conspires to sink your administration.

It's simply a much better game.

[MarkShot]

Most games but for those with very small text like CAW, ACW, BOA look fine interpolated at 1024x768. I have both a 21.3" LCD and 20" CRT hooked to my video card. The 1024x768 on the LCD is pretty much equal to what I get on the CRT. (maybe the CRT is just a little bit better) I mainly use the CRT for running DOSBOX games in a window. I will run a game like AOD at 640x400 and run the CRT at 720x480/85Hz. On my LCD, the AOD window would be a postage stamp, but on the CRT it pretty much fills the display due to the low res desktop. Having both an LCD and CRT is the perfect combination for modern games (with flexible resolutions) and old legacy DOS games.

[MarkShot]

Here check out my screenshots (follow the links in this thread) to see how I am using DOSBOX. (4th. post down)

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthr ... 450&page=3

[Banquet]

Seems like it runs pretty well. Looks good too

You're right about CAP2. I'm charging way more than any of my competitors for computers and still have a rating that they can't compete with. The only problem I have now is I can't seem to physically build enough to supply the demand. Just built a 3rd factory and they still can't churn them out fast enough.

Of course this has sent the share price of my company soaring and the profits too. I think my shares in the company are now worth something like 700 Million. I sold 10 percent and with the money (about 50 mill or so) I invested in some other company's. This stock is now worth about 300 mill. I also invested some of the company money in other company's and that, too, is worth 300-400 mill. All that with 2 stores and 3 mines.

Of course, playing custom freeform, I could now choose to try other sectors (my tech advantage is in PC's and CPU's only) but I think the same would happen there - just easier this time as I have more money than I know what to do with.

It was shaky at first. When the raw material supplies for PC's shut off I had to build the mines - which are expensive - to get the chemicals, silica, etc.. I had to borrow 20 Mil to stay afloat while the production got going.. but once past the boundary - I don't think there's any going back.

It's a shame. I would have thought it wouldn't take much to fix this. I.e, simply applying less of a rating for quality or, more realistic but slightly more complicated, have a population modelled so they have only so much available spending money. I.e, even if my computers have a great brand and are supremely powerful (the Alienware of my game world) a lot of people will still only be able to afford lower priced models. This would mean I still had competition and would make it not such the game breaker it can be.

All that being said I still had great fun. Trying to fit out the factories to build the PC's was a puzzle in itself!

[MarkShot]

Well, I have being doing a lot of thinking/correspondence about game design. I have recently concluded that the first priority needs to be to define the rules/behaviors of the game system. This needs to be done prior to any concern about computer opponents and AI.

The rule set needs to provide for convergent behavior through negative feedback loops and such. In a non-fantasy game such convergent behavior needs to derive from real world factors to create the necessary friction against the player's totally unrestricted success. It is only after the rules and processes are defined that one should begin asking how will a computer opponent operate in such an environment to challenge the player.

Here are some more quotes of my part of this dialogue:

Well, it generally doesn't apply in tactical/operational wargames. Why? Because you are looking at a closed system. Except for initial units and reinforcements, you will never have any more resources at your disposal to win or lose.

However, it does apply to grand strategy wargames, since most of these have some form of resource/economy model. So, your nation is going to want to have a supply of steel, oil, rubber, manpower, etc... With that supply you can build a strong military. With the strong military you can conquer other nations which have raw materials. With raw materials, you can strengthen your military.

There you are - a positive feedback loop that results in divergent behavior. Success breeds success. In a grand campaign, you need to cross some threshold at which point, you are pretty much unstoppable.

Now, a company such as Paradox has tried to build into their games various features that will cause convergent behavior (however, for the most part these are not strong enough to really push the system state against the player and his effort at global domination). Some examples from the Paradox games:

(1) Bad boy values: The more aggressive you are, the more other nations refuse to ally with you, will betray you, and in the worst case will attack you as a rogue state.

(2) Stability costs: The greater number of provinces you control the more your stability costs grow in a non-linear fashion.

(3) Cultural stability: The more foreign peoples you dominate the greater the stability costs and the lower their industrial productivity is.

(4) Technology smoothing: The further ahead you are technologically, the greater the bonus your neighbor states receive for their tech development.

(5) War exhaustion: The longer you are at war for, the more tired your people get of it and are likely to openly advocate revolt.

...

All of the above are attempts to dampen the behavior of what essentially is a divergent game system design. In the end, they are insufficient and most seasoned players can secure a victory long before the scenario end by crossing the divergence threshold. A well designed convergent system, would make world conquest with Haiti a total impossibility. A convergent system would make significant conquests very difficult to perpetuate and would keep the player struggling right up to the end of a scenario.

I am not saying that convergent designs lead to historically accurate or realistic games, simply that they result in much better game play and balance. Also, they have the advantage of freeing the developer from producing a superb AI. Since in a convergent design, the player's success is frustrated by the rules and behavior of the system itself; not the AI he/she competes against. Thus, a convergent system with a decent AI should produce a good gaming experience. A divergent system really requires an AI of the highest caliber for the game to play well.

So, I think CAP2 is missing having identified the real world friction factors that might operate against a lone investor to become the dominant economic force in the world. The game lacks those factors and reinforcing those factors such that a quick lead the human player is worn down rapidly by push back of the rule system. Instead, the complete opposite happens.

Here is some more quotes. I provided these example for a friend who wanted my points to be made in the context of wargaming instead of stock trading. I used Paradox's engine as an example of a weak effort to provide convergent behavior after the fact ... too little too late. However, as another friend a game designer/developer pointed out too me, many customers do want to be able to conquer the world with a tiny country with a population of 100,000 in just a matter of 15-30 years. This is the fun which they seek in a game.

(1) You cannot make the convergent behavior so contrived that the game seems unrealistic. The trick is that real life is full of examples of convergent behavior in war (as well as divergent behavior). So, you must find such rules and make sure that they play a key role in a game system implementation. For example:

(1a) A successful attack also leads to supply lines being stretched too thin, exposed, and overwhelmed. Historic examples are Napoleon's invasion of Russia, the Allied D-Day push off the beaches in France, and the American Invasion of Iraq and drive to Baghdad. Thus, an attack may well create the conditions for a successful counter-attack or an encirclement by the enemy.

(1b) A successful attack often leaves the attacking force weakened, lacking cohesion, poorly coordinated, without reserves, and with highly exposed flanks. An example of this would be an example of Soviet counter-attack, that followed the general German attack along the line upon the Kursk salient. Once again this may well be the convergent condition required by the enemy to launch his own operations.

(2) I think a game must have well a balanced set of convergent and divergent rules. However, these need to be there as rules independent of the AI. The AI ends operating within the same set of constraints. Thus, even without the intervention of the AI, convergent rules present realistic friction which opposes the players success. At which point, the AI steps in to also oppose the player. In terms, of accommodating different types of players (those wanting extended challenge and those who seek world conquest), the rule set should be tunable in regards to their impact or enabling/disabling.

(3) I think the game Tropico 1 designed by Phil Steinmeyer of PopTop provides us with a wonderful example of a well balance convergent system. In Tropico, there really isn't an AI in the traditional sense. The player mainly struggles to win within the context of the rule environment itself. So, you have a game of pure convergent/divergent mechanics. When compared to 1830, 1830 is a game with convergent behavior, but you still have AI opponents in operation too.

(4) When we look at a game like Paradox's Victoria, we see a game where the convergent aspects of the game appear to be more a less an after thought upon the entire design process. The end result is a game that plays more or less divergent in the hands of experienced players.

(5) This whole conversation has left me with the conclusion that the first step in game design is nailing down the rule set and behaviors modeled --- the environment in which the actors exist. Defining the AI and the actors should come much later.

[MarkShot]

Here is a really nice example of divergence and convergence in action in 1830. The two following graphs show:

(1) Middle game networth graph - at mid-game, I engineer a stable technology situation for my two RR companies, NYC and CAN PAC. Meaning that I will be able to endure the rest of the game without having to upgrade locamotive technology. In the meantime, the other investors are forced to withold dividends to accumulate cash in their treasuries in order to cover enventual technology upgrades. Thus, since they are not paying dividends, their the stock prices of the RRs which they are managing are forced down. Thus, we see what appears to be a very substantial lead in networth I manifest over the other investors, since for a while my portfolio of stocks is of much greater value.

(2) End game networth graph - the other RR presidents reinvested dividends to upgrade technology. Initially, this hurt their portfolios as explained above. They had no choice to do this, since if they failed to do this, they might well be forced into paying for locamotive upgrades at of their own pockets. (Of course, better to have the company pay for the upgrades, then the President, since the President holds at most 60% equity in the RR. So, if the company pays, all share holders share the pain. If the President pays, then potentially as 40% or more of the share holders would benefit at no personal cost.)

Initially, as shown this hurt the AI investors and they took a big hit. In the meantime, their later technology upgrade gave their RRs a class of technology superior to my own. Thus, despite being able to neglect further technology upgrades for my RRs, the other President RRs would over the longer run operate more profitably than my own. Thus, this graph shows the AI investors catching up to me; despite lower share values in their portfolios, they are seeing better returns.

---

So, this is convergence in action. A step taken on my part apparently gave me an advantage, but rather than being of a perpetual divergent nature. The advantage was short lived, since the advantage created a convergent situation that over time would bring our networths closer together. This result you are seeing is not really due to the game play of the AI, but rather it is a direct result of the rule system itself. The AI does nothing clever so much as continue to stay in business. The game rules that cause all this are reasonably realistic in that early production technology although often being sufficient may not necessarily be optimal.

---

Ultimately, I barely win the game a 2.1% lead in networth versus the closest AI competitor, Mr. Huntington.

[MarkShot]

Mid-game networth graph ...

[MarkShot]

End game networth graph ...

[MarkShot]

The victory screen (with portfolio holdings) ...

[MarkShot]

Networth breakdown between stock certificate value (capital appreciation due to paying dividends and market demand for shares) and cash value (money as result of dividends being paid and possibly from the sale of certificates).

[MarkShot]

I have to say that 1830 is the best PC strategy game I know of.

It was originally a board game and five years after its introduction it was ported to the PC with one of the those involved being the original game designer. Thus, at the time of programming, the game strategies were extremely well known and understood. Unlike many games which are not well understood until long after they are released to market.

1830 is the single game that if I was allowed to have no other game with me for the rest of my life ... it would be what I would choose.