Leaders - Some Thoughts

Distant Worlds is a vast, pausable real-time, 4X space strategy game which models a "living galaxy" with incredible options for replayability and customizability. Experience the full depth and detail of large turn-based strategy games, but with the simplicity and ease of real-time, and on the scale of a massively-multiplayer online game. Now greatly enhanced with the new Universe release, which includes all four previous releases as well as the new Universe expansion!

Moderators: elliotg, Icemania

Post Reply
lancer
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:56 am

Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by lancer »


[copied to the WishList]

Leader Ideas

Having Leaders to provide further immersion of Distant Worlds living, breathing environment would be terrific. After thinking about it for a while I’ve found that it’s surprisingly difficult to rough out a working implementation.

Leaders could be done in all sorts of ways but once you start looking at the implication of doing this or that you can easily find that you’ve opened a can of worms.

Making it fun is even trickier. Probably why smarter brains than I design and develop games.

Fumbling around with the concept on my own I’ve figured out that you probably have to choose a couple of aspects and maintain a tight focus on these to prevent the whole project spinning out of control and being unworkable.

So for the benefit of general discourse on the possible implementation of Leaders here are my thoughts.

Illustrated and in colour! I couldn’t resist.

Focus

Restricted to the Player only. Makes the task ten times easier. The AI empires can be assumed to have numerous nameless leaders. They don't need to be fleshed out.

Restricted to leaders who will be in control of a fleet.

Keep the focus tight. Widen it to include colonies, research and armies and the job grows like a noxious weed or, alternatively, has to be dumbed down so much, in order to be manageable, that it ends up bland and boring, a-la-MOO3.

Leaders are exceptional individuals whom, because of their status, command very high levels of popularity on their home planets. Leaders are derived from a specific colony within your empire. They come from somewhere.

The Broad Brush

Admiral Rickunder from Planet BeetleJuice is constantly in the news back home. While he might be Mr. Nobody to the rest of your Empire he is regarded as a shining example of the Beetlejuician way of life and a fine upstanding example of Beetlejuician manhood and military genius.

The career trajectory of the Admiral is off great interest to all those who call Beetlejuice home. They are intensely proud of their Admiral and will react badly if he isn’t treated fairly.

Likewise Admiral Rickunder will have a difficult decision in the event of planet BeetleJuice choosing to separate from the Empire. Which, in the right circumstances could come about directly from the urgings of the Admiral.

Will he look to his own or stay loyal to the Empire? The fleet under his command awaits his decision.


Which leads directly to the two areas where I have chosen as a focus for leaders – Politics and Loyalty.

In a Nutshell - Politics


Leaders could have a number of qualities but the two key ones – apart from their skill in leadership – are Political Cost and their Loyalty.

Political cost is a randomly determined number between, say, 1 and 10 for each leader. It reflects the political sway a leader has back home. Think Douglas McArthur.

Now if you want to fire your leader or, heaven forbid, he resigns in a huff at your bad treatment, then there is a direct hit to the Colony Approval rate of his home planet equal (or worse, depending on the situation) to his Political cost.


Image


How often have you read military histories where the wrong General was in charge but the political cost of removing him was considered too high?

So right up front your choice of leader now encompasses not only his level of skill but the political ramifications that may arise from your treatment of him. This feeds directly into the approval rating of his home colony.

You want to dismiss Admiral Butterfingers? You’d love nothing better to do so right now but his home planet of Arial-7 is currently ‘unhappy’ and he has a political cost of 7. Slicing a big chunk of approval from Arial-7 might just be enough to tip it into revolt. Looks like Admiral Butterfingers will have to stay for the time being.

In a Nutshell – Loyalty

Each leader has a loyalty rating. Loyalty to their empire.

In the event of their home planet revolting then the leader must make a choice – Empire or Rebels? The game makes a die roll against his loyalty rating and a failure results in a leader joining the revolt – along with the ships in his fleet.

So now there is a third dimension to your choice of leader. Do I go for Admiral Sensational who is a strategic and tactical genius but a disloyal son-of-a-b*tch or do I play safe and opt for Admiral Plod who is hopeless in a battle but loyal as a brainless puppy.

Fine Tuning Loyalty


Political cost is a straightforward in operation. Visible and easily comprehensible.

Loyalty, however, is a different beast. One that is wide open to abuse. It needs some finessing.

A player could easily choose only loyal leaders for instance. Wayward leader problem solved. Or he could use disloyal leaders and, whenever it looks like their home planet is on the verge of revolt, transfer all the ships out of the fleets they lead as a precaution. Or he could do the same thing just before firing them to mitigate any ‘blow-back’.

To get around players ‘gaming’ loyalty I’d make it a hidden statistic. Over time it is gradually revealed. Eg. When a leader first arrives his loyalty is ‘unknown’. After a year it is known enough to be classified as either ‘good’ or ‘doubtful’. Another year and you’d get a finer grained picture, say ‘rock solid, high, above average, normal, poor’ etc.

The idea being that you don’t know at the start, but over time the picture becomes clearer. Which, if you’re the Emperor, is probably a reasonably accurate picture of how your leaders would evolve in a large, sprawling empire.

One other finesse would be required. Whenever you added an extra ship to the fleet commanded by the leader then you’d get a small lift in their loyalty rating. Egos, after all, are there to be stroked.

Conversely whenever you remove a ship from his command then there is a larger, significant, hit to his loyalty. Furthermore if this drops his loyalty rating below a threshold (and remember you probably don’t have a clear idea of his exact rating) then he must make a ‘loyalty test’ – a simple die roll against his loyalty.

Fail this and he resigns his commission in disgust. Good riddance you might think? Not really. There is an immediate hit to his home planet approval rating of two times his Political cost due to the absolute outrage back home of their favourite Admiral being shafted.

Far fetched? Maybe. What would Montgomery or George S. Patton have done if they were told that – as of tomorrow – half their command is now going to the other general? No hard feelings, fella.

Overview of Politics and Loyalty

With these two simple stats you have a pros and cons process regarding which leaders to use, where to use them and how to treat them. Eg. As a player you get to make interesting and meaningful decisions without being snowed under with ‘too much information’. Paradox, I’m looking at you.

By tying both aspects into their home planet colony approval rating you also get a political sub-game with a reasonable amount of depth but with minimal additional development overhead.

Where do Leaders come from?


You could dabble with additional planetary structures here such as Naval Academies. Or other, similar systems.

All of which probably are a lot of work for little return. I’d keep this part really simple.

Provide a pool. Say six leaders. These are generated randomly and the player can pick from the pool whenever he needs a leader to command a fleet. There would be no limit to the number of leaders you could have in active service.

One for every fleet. Every time you pick a leader out of the pool it generates another random leader and refills. After a certain time interval perhaps, say, two months.

Pretty simple but you could easily make it interesting by having a couple of leader orientated policy settings in your Empire Policy Screen.


Image


‘Allow Ethnic Diversity’ generates leaders from anyone within your empire. All those independent races you absorbed. All those funny looking insects.

Welcome to the Officer Corps! At ease, Son, we’ll find you a uniform that fits. Not sure about the shoe size, though. How many did you say you needed?

Ticking this doubles you pool size. Now you have a wider choice of up to twelve leaders. Much better. The downside is that you now have to keep an eye on your racial situation. Anytime a leader’s home colony gets a negative impact to their approval rating ‘cause you have gone to war with a similar race as they, then your leader suffers a similarly scaled drop to his loyalty.

You may find yourself with an ex-independent colony about to revolt ‘cause of your ill-considered warmongering ways along with their leader who happens to be in charge of a sizeable chunk of your fleet.

With the newly improved migration abilities your ethnically diverse empire could throw up all manner of these situations. So your vastly increased chances of generating better leaders in a larger pool is offset by a potentially more difficult political juggling act.

A second option ‘Highly trained Officer Corps’ provides randomly generated leaders that have a positive modifier to their leadership skill. As this is time intensive you end up with a pool size that is halved.

Now with a racially pure, highly trained Officer Corps your pool size is reduced to only three. They would likely all be better quality leaders than normal, but not always.

With such a small pool your expansion plans would need careful thought because of the time delay between refilling the pool once you’ve assigned a leader. You may well find – in a period of rapid expansion – that you temporarily run out of leaders. Your pool runs empty.

On the other hand if you allowed ‘Ethnic diversity’ then you are back to a well trained pool of six.

You’d probably also need the player to hit a few population size benchmarks before they were able to open up all the available pool slots. That’s assuming a typical 1 planet 4x game start.


Image


Can I fire Leaders?

Sure you can. Don’t like ‘em, get rid of ‘em.

If you fire a leader that is residing in the pool then their political cost acts as a malus to their home colony approval rating. What an insult declare all the local newspapers!

Firing a leader from the pool simply causes him to leave and a new one, randomly generated, takes his place. Bye bye Captain Dead D*ck and hello Captain Wonderful.

Firing a leader on active service is a bit trickier. The slur you are laying down upon the fair citizens of, for example, Beetlejuice and their chosen leaders military prowess is terrible indeed.

Political cost x 2.

What effect do Leaders have?

I’m thinking a kind of fleet-wide effect such as with the ‘Fleet bonus’ techs.

Could be something else. Doesn’t matter as long as there is a range of skill levels amongst leaders. From very good to very bad.

Randomly generated, of course with a positive kick-along to the generation routine if you have a policy of ‘Highly trained Officer Corps’.

As an interesting twist you could make leaders from each unique race have a specific skill focus. Eg. Humans are good at Beam weapons, Rats at Repairs etc.

Now you aren’t obliged to provide every fleet with a leader. However if a fleet didn’t have an assigned leader then it would suffer a penalty of some kind such that the benefits of having a leader, even a bad one, outweigh the disadvantages of a leaderless fleet.

Do Leaders Gain Experience?

Yep. This is another low-overhead, high return feature residing within my thought bubble.

Leaders all enter the pool at the initial rank of ‘Captain’. They then gain experience over time.

Every battle that their fleet is involved in provides a bonus experience boost regardless of the result. You learn by doing, even from your mistakes.

To keep it simple the bonus would be randomly determined within a range. Learning isn’t a linear process. No need to figure more points for bigger battles, etc. Just assume that some leaders are going to learn faster than others.

Gain enough experience, go up a rank. Each rank provides a small boost to the leader’s skill level making them more valuable. Importantly it also increases their ability to command.

So a Captain, for instance, at the bottom of the scale, could exercise his command ability over a maximum of four ships. Any more ships than this in his fleet and his skill bonus is negated (but still better than the fleet not having a leader).

As a leader goes up in rank his ability to command increases commensurately. Say Captain 4 ships, Commodore 8, Rear Admiral 16, Admiral Unlimited.

Your leaders, in charge of specific fleets, become more and more useful over time. With a bit of luck they may even prove to be loyal.

Importantly the experience is with your Leader, not your fleet. No need to track individual ship experience levels and tie that into the battle system.

Now leaders within your talent pool gain experience at the same rate as in the field. The exception is that they aren’t getting a battle bonus.

All leaders start in the pool as Captains. Overtime they increase in rank and usefulness so you have another reason to have a larger pool and to manage it so you have a decent replacement admiral or two on hand to plug the gap in case of an unexpected ‘fatality’ or sudden ‘resignation’.

An additional advantage of ‘grooming’ your pool of potential leaders is that, as they gain experience and go up in rank, their loyalty becomes less and less opaque. You have a better idea of what you are getting, loyalty wise.

So proper management of your pool of leaders becomes important. Weeding out the duds while they are only Captains could be advantageous provided you can ride out any potential political storm.

One other tweak would be to increment a leader’s Political Cost by one every time he rose in rank. Higher the rank, the harder they are to get rid off. If you are going give Captain Dead d*ck the flick then don’t wait till he is tying up a slot in your pool as a full Admiral.

If you wanted to get more into the political side – and I’m off on a tangent here – you could have leaders, residing in the pool, start demanding a fleet command. Their home colony would suffer a permanent approval malus of, say, one point. But this would gradually increase over time – up to a capped value equivalent to their political cost – as their demands for a command become more and more insistent.

The people of Beetlejuice DEMAND that Admiral Rickunder be put at the head of a mighty fleet!

The fact that Admiral Rickunder is a rolled gold dud and you couldn’t find an opportune time to fire him from the pool when he was a lowly captain is now your problem. Have fun.


Other Stuff


The obvious. Leaders in command of a fleet reside in a flagship. Damage to the flagship command module could be the end of your leader.

Leaders could – and should – also be female. Higher loyalty and lower Political cost?

Would leaders die from old age? No, pump them full of life enhancing drugs and be done with it.

Summary

That’s it.

Leaders, K.I.S.S with a tight focus on Politics and Loyalty.

A few thoughts and ideas – O.K, I got carried away – to throw into the mix.


Cheers,

Lancer
User avatar
Lrfss
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 6:47 pm
Location: Spring, TX

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by Lrfss »

ORIGINAL: lancer


[copied to the WishList]

Leader Ideas

Having Leaders to provide further immersion of Distant Worlds living, breathing environment would be terrific. After thinking about it for a while I’ve found that it’s surprisingly difficult to rough out a working implementation.

Leaders could be done in all sorts of ways but once you start looking at the implication of doing this or that you can easily find that you’ve opened a can of worms.

Making it fun is even trickier. Probably why smarter brains than I design and develop games.

Fumbling around with the concept on my own I’ve figured out that you probably have to choose a couple of aspects and maintain a tight focus on these to prevent the whole project spinning out of control and being unworkable.

So for the benefit of general discourse on the possible implementation of Leaders here are my thoughts.

Illustrated and in colour! I couldn’t resist.

Focus

Restricted to the Player only. Makes the task ten times easier. The AI empires can be assumed to have numerous nameless leaders. They don't need to be fleshed out.

Restricted to leaders who will be in control of a fleet.

Keep the focus tight. Widen it to include colonies, research and armies and the job grows like a noxious weed or, alternatively, has to be dumbed down so much, in order to be manageable, that it ends up bland and boring, a-la-MOO3.

Leaders are exceptional individuals whom, because of their status, command very high levels of popularity on their home planets. Leaders are derived from a specific colony within your empire. They come from somewhere.

The Broad Brush

Admiral Rickunder from Planet BeetleJuice is constantly in the news back home. While he might be Mr. Nobody to the rest of your Empire he is regarded as a shining example of the Beetlejuician way of life and a fine upstanding example of Beetlejuician manhood and military genius.

The career trajectory of the Admiral is off great interest to all those who call Beetlejuice home. They are intensely proud of their Admiral and will react badly if he isn’t treated fairly.

Likewise Admiral Rickunder will have a difficult decision in the event of planet BeetleJuice choosing to separate from the Empire. Which, in the right circumstances could come about directly from the urgings of the Admiral.

Will he look to his own or stay loyal to the Empire? The fleet under his command awaits his decision.


Which leads directly to the two areas where I have chosen as a focus for leaders – Politics and Loyalty.

In a Nutshell - Politics


Leaders could have a number of qualities but the two key ones – apart from their skill in leadership – are Political Cost and their Loyalty.

Political cost is a randomly determined number between, say, 1 and 10 for each leader. It reflects the political sway a leader has back home. Think Douglas McArthur.

Now if you want to fire your leader or, heaven forbid, he resigns in a huff at your bad treatment, then there is a direct hit to the Colony Approval rate of his home planet equal (or worse, depending on the situation) to his Political cost.


Image


How often have you read military histories where the wrong General was in charge but the political cost of removing him was considered too high?

So right up front your choice of leader now encompasses not only his level of skill but the political ramifications that may arise from your treatment of him. This feeds directly into the approval rating of his home colony.

You want to dismiss Admiral Butterfingers? You’d love nothing better to do so right now but his home planet of Arial-7 is currently ‘unhappy’ and he has a political cost of 7. Slicing a big chunk of approval from Arial-7 might just be enough to tip it into revolt. Looks like Admiral Butterfingers will have to stay for the time being.

In a Nutshell – Loyalty

Each leader has a loyalty rating. Loyalty to their empire.

In the event of their home planet revolting then the leader must make a choice – Empire or Rebels? The game makes a die roll against his loyalty rating and a failure results in a leader joining the revolt – along with the ships in his fleet.

So now there is a third dimension to your choice of leader. Do I go for Admiral Sensational who is a strategic and tactical genius but a disloyal son-of-a-b*tch or do I play safe and opt for Admiral Plod who is hopeless in a battle but loyal as a brainless puppy.

Fine Tuning Loyalty


Political cost is a straightforward in operation. Visible and easily comprehensible.

Loyalty, however, is a different beast. One that is wide open to abuse. It needs some finessing.

A player could easily choose only loyal leaders for instance. Wayward leader problem solved. Or he could use disloyal leaders and, whenever it looks like their home planet is on the verge of revolt, transfer all the ships out of the fleets they lead as a precaution. Or he could do the same thing just before firing them to mitigate any ‘blow-back’.

To get around players ‘gaming’ loyalty I’d make it a hidden statistic. Over time it is gradually revealed. Eg. When a leader first arrives his loyalty is ‘unknown’. After a year it is known enough to be classified as either ‘good’ or ‘doubtful’. Another year and you’d get a finer grained picture, say ‘rock solid, high, above average, normal, poor’ etc.

The idea being that you don’t know at the start, but over time the picture becomes clearer. Which, if you’re the Emperor, is probably a reasonably accurate picture of how your leaders would evolve in a large, sprawling empire.

One other finesse would be required. Whenever you added an extra ship to the fleet commanded by the leader then you’d get a small lift in their loyalty rating. Egos, after all, are there to be stroked.

Conversely whenever you remove a ship from his command then there is a larger, significant, hit to his loyalty. Furthermore if this drops his loyalty rating below a threshold (and remember you probably don’t have a clear idea of his exact rating) then he must make a ‘loyalty test’ – a simple die roll against his loyalty.

Fail this and he resigns his commission in disgust. Good riddance you might think? Not really. There is an immediate hit to his home planet approval rating of two times his Political cost due to the absolute outrage back home of their favourite Admiral being shafted.

Far fetched? Maybe. What would Montgomery or George S. Patton have done if they were told that – as of tomorrow – half their command is now going to the other general? No hard feelings, fella.

Overview of Politics and Loyalty

With these two simple stats you have a pros and cons process regarding which leaders to use, where to use them and how to treat them. Eg. As a player you get to make interesting and meaningful decisions without being snowed under with ‘too much information’. Paradox, I’m looking at you.

By tying both aspects into their home planet colony approval rating you also get a political sub-game with a reasonable amount of depth but with minimal additional development overhead.

Where do Leaders come from?


You could dabble with additional planetary structures here such as Naval Academies. Or other, similar systems.

All of which probably are a lot of work for little return. I’d keep this part really simple.

Provide a pool. Say six leaders. These are generated randomly and the player can pick from the pool whenever he needs a leader to command a fleet. There would be no limit to the number of leaders you could have in active service.

One for every fleet. Every time you pick a leader out of the pool it generates another random leader and refills. After a certain time interval perhaps, say, two months.

Pretty simple but you could easily make it interesting by having a couple of leader orientated policy settings in your Empire Policy Screen.


Image


‘Allow Ethnic Diversity’ generates leaders from anyone within your empire. All those independent races you absorbed. All those funny looking insects.

Welcome to the Officer Corps! At ease, Son, we’ll find you a uniform that fits. Not sure about the shoe size, though. How many did you say you needed?

Ticking this doubles you pool size. Now you have a wider choice of up to twelve leaders. Much better. The downside is that you now have to keep an eye on your racial situation. Anytime a leader’s home colony gets a negative impact to their approval rating ‘cause you have gone to war with a similar race as they, then your leader suffers a similarly scaled drop to his loyalty.

You may find yourself with an ex-independent colony about to revolt ‘cause of your ill-considered warmongering ways along with their leader who happens to be in charge of a sizeable chunk of your fleet.

With the newly improved migration abilities your ethnically diverse empire could throw up all manner of these situations. So your vastly increased chances of generating better leaders in a larger pool is offset by a potentially more difficult political juggling act.

A second option ‘Highly trained Officer Corps’ provides randomly generated leaders that have a positive modifier to their leadership skill. As this is time intensive you end up with a pool size that is halved.

Now with a racially pure, highly trained Officer Corps your pool size is reduced to only three. They would likely all be better quality leaders than normal, but not always.

With such a small pool your expansion plans would need careful thought because of the time delay between refilling the pool once you’ve assigned a leader. You may well find – in a period of rapid expansion – that you temporarily run out of leaders. Your pool runs empty.

On the other hand if you allowed ‘Ethnic diversity’ then you are back to a well trained pool of six.

You’d probably also need the player to hit a few population size benchmarks before they were able to open up all the available pool slots. That’s assuming a typical 1 planet 4x game start.


Image


Can I fire Leaders?

Sure you can. Don’t like ‘em, get rid of ‘em.

If you fire a leader that is residing in the pool then their political cost acts as a malus to their home colony approval rating. What an insult declare all the local newspapers!

Firing a leader from the pool simply causes him to leave and a new one, randomly generated, takes his place. Bye bye Captain Dead D*ck and hello Captain Wonderful.

Firing a leader on active service is a bit trickier. The slur you are laying down upon the fair citizens of, for example, Beetlejuice and their chosen leaders military prowess is terrible indeed.

Political cost x 2.

What effect do Leaders have?

I’m thinking a kind of fleet-wide effect such as with the ‘Fleet bonus’ techs.

Could be something else. Doesn’t matter as long as there is a range of skill levels amongst leaders. From very good to very bad.

Randomly generated, of course with a positive kick-along to the generation routine if you have a policy of ‘Highly trained Officer Corps’.

As an interesting twist you could make leaders from each unique race have a specific skill focus. Eg. Humans are good at Beam weapons, Rats at Repairs etc.

Now you aren’t obliged to provide every fleet with a leader. However if a fleet didn’t have an assigned leader then it would suffer a penalty of some kind such that the benefits of having a leader, even a bad one, outweigh the disadvantages of a leaderless fleet.

Do Leaders Gain Experience?

Yep. This is another low-overhead, high return feature residing within my thought bubble.

Leaders all enter the pool at the initial rank of ‘Captain’. They then gain experience over time.

Every battle that their fleet is involved in provides a bonus experience boost regardless of the result. You learn by doing, even from your mistakes.

To keep it simple the bonus would be randomly determined within a range. Learning isn’t a linear process. No need to figure more points for bigger battles, etc. Just assume that some leaders are going to learn faster than others.

Gain enough experience, go up a rank. Each rank provides a small boost to the leader’s skill level making them more valuable. Importantly it also increases their ability to command.

So a Captain, for instance, at the bottom of the scale, could exercise his command ability over a maximum of four ships. Any more ships than this in his fleet and his skill bonus is negated (but still better than the fleet not having a leader).

As a leader goes up in rank his ability to command increases commensurately. Say Captain 4 ships, Commodore 8, Rear Admiral 16, Admiral Unlimited.

Your leaders, in charge of specific fleets, become more and more useful over time. With a bit of luck they may even prove to be loyal.

Importantly the experience is with your Leader, not your fleet. No need to track individual ship experience levels and tie that into the battle system.

Now leaders within your talent pool gain experience at the same rate as in the field. The exception is that they aren’t getting a battle bonus.

All leaders start in the pool as Captains. Overtime they increase in rank and usefulness so you have another reason to have a larger pool and to manage it so you have a decent replacement admiral or two on hand to plug the gap in case of an unexpected ‘fatality’ or sudden ‘resignation’.

An additional advantage of ‘grooming’ your pool of potential leaders is that, as they gain experience and go up in rank, their loyalty becomes less and less opaque. You have a better idea of what you are getting, loyalty wise.

So proper management of your pool of leaders becomes important. Weeding out the duds while they are only Captains could be advantageous provided you can ride out any potential political storm.

One other tweak would be to increment a leader’s Political Cost by one every time he rose in rank. Higher the rank, the harder they are to get rid off. If you are going give Captain Dead d*ck the flick then don’t wait till he is tying up a slot in your pool as a full Admiral.

If you wanted to get more into the political side – and I’m off on a tangent here – you could have leaders, residing in the pool, start demanding a fleet command. Their home colony would suffer a permanent approval malus of, say, one point. But this would gradually increase over time – up to a capped value equivalent to their political cost – as their demands for a command become more and more insistent.

The people of Beetlejuice DEMAND that Admiral Rickunder be put at the head of a mighty fleet!

The fact that Admiral Rickunder is a rolled gold dud and you couldn’t find an opportune time to fire him from the pool when he was a lowly captain is now your problem. Have fun.


Other Stuff


The obvious. Leaders in command of a fleet reside in a flagship. Damage to the flagship command module could be the end of your leader.

Leaders could – and should – also be female. Higher loyalty and lower Political cost?

Would leaders die from old age? No, pump them full of life enhancing drugs and be done with it.

Summary

That’s it.

Leaders, K.I.S.S with a tight focus on Politics and Loyalty.

A few thoughts and ideas – O.K, I got carried away – to throw into the mix.


Cheers,

Lancer

I like it! [;)]
User avatar
J HG T
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 4:06 am
Location: Kiadia Prime

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by J HG T »

Commented this on the wishlist, but I reapeat myself saying that this's good. "Allow ethnic diversity" setting FTW.
Nothing is impossible, not if you can imagine it!
"And they hurled themselves into the void of space with no fear."
Bingeling
Posts: 5186
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:42 am

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by Bingeling »

I like a lot about this, but did not go into every detail.

Just some thoughts. We should have some default leader level. For instance being able to rule a 3 ship fleet with no bonus. Maybe named leaders are spawned by default "leader less" fleets being in battle?

Limiting by number of ships may be awkward, and force the "as large as possible, always" policy. Maybe one could limit by fleet firepower instead?

It would be best to make this optional (complicating factor for new players, in an already quite complex game), and one would need to balance this for the AI empires, so it is not an easy net profit feature for the human player.
Canute0
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:43 am
Location: Germany

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by Canute0 »

Sorry to say this, i don't want that at DW :-)

Basicly it's a nice idea and a good improvment.
But at moment DW Player shouldn't have leader to made his live easyer, its allready to easy to win for a player. Maybe the AI-Empires need that.

User avatar
Data
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:43 pm

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by Data »

having imbalances in a game is not a reason to not introduce good features, the imbalances need to be fixed...I'm sure Elliot can do all of these at the same time [:)]
...Igniting stellar cores....Recharging reactors...Recalibrating hyperdrives....
User avatar
ASHBERY76
Posts: 2080
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 8:00 am
Location: England

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by ASHBERY76 »

I think this is the sort of leader concept the game needs to suit the living simulation game that DW is like.

Good stuff.
solops
Posts: 1079
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Central Texas

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by solops »

Don't like leaders. Make them optional in game setup.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.-Edmund Burke
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.-Judge Learned Hand
alexalexuk
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:14 pm

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by alexalexuk »

nice, i like it !

User avatar
tjhkkr
Posts: 2431
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:15 pm
Contact:

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by tjhkkr »

Well, I am not sure how easy it will be to code.
But I like it; it was one of the REALLY COOL things about EA Star Wars Rebellion game...
Remember that the evil which is now in the world will become yet more powerful, and that it is not evil which conquers evil, but only love -- Olga Romanov.
User avatar
Hawawaa
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:20 pm

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by Hawawaa »

I'm down for optional so everyone can play it their way. (Yes you know I love leaders idea).
Mozo
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:54 pm

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by Mozo »

Love the idea. It reminds me of what was so exciting about playing the original Rome Total War. Watching leaders develop - with good and bad traits.

Mozo
User avatar
Tree Dog
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:19 am

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by Tree Dog »

ORIGINAL: tjhkkr

Well, I am not sure how easy it will be to code.
But I like it; it was one of the REALLY COOL things about EA Star Wars Rebellion game...

The other REALLY COOL thing being the game, heh ? [:'(]



Also, I don't know about you guys, but if this is too hard to do, I'd be most satisfied with leaders being just events. Kind of like when someone somewhere discovers that I don't know, humans led a coalition against an evil ancient race and that every human population everywhere gets a happiness bonus...
Except there, you'd hear about some talented captain who has invented some new tactic, giving you a bonus to laser damages for a few years, or a charismatic governor that makes a colony happier, or the opposite, or you'd get reports about a great smuggler that keeps stealing good ands ridiculing your fleet, reducing the GDP of one of your planets and ships' shield strength in that planet's system, to simulate morale going down... That kind of stuffs.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by Shark7 »

First a Disclaimer: I'm not big on the whole leader idea. MoO had it, was just something else to manage itself and be ignored for me. So, while I won't stand against it, I'd really like this to be an optional setting or something that the AI can 100% handle itself. In other words, I do not want to have to give any input into at all, or even better only have it be an 'Opt In' feature of the game. So take any of my comments with that bias in mind.

On Lancer's ideas: They are very good ideas if one is going to implement such a system.

Now then, my take on it should the system be implemented:

1. Planets should be ruled by a Political Leader. Each has a skillset, and not just a base cover all %. Some leaders should be good administrator, some would be very charismatic, and yet other could be authoritarians.

Political Leaders, depending on their skill set would be have certain effects on the planet itself.

Let's look at some examples of possible skills:
  • Leadership: Leadership is the ability of the leader 'get the job done'. Leadership skill should boost (or negatively effect) planetary militia and troop recruitment.
  • Charisma: Simply put likability. Leaders with high charisma should be able to sell sand in a desert. Charisma impacts overall planetary happiness.
  • Administration: Administrators are good number crunchers. The administation skill will affect colony tax collection.
  • Management: Management skill affect mining output and starport effenciency. Managers are good at organizing.
  • Honesty: Affects corruption levels. A very honest leader will reduce the corruption effect, a dishonest one...well lets just say he's the typical politician. [;)]

Each leader would have a 50-150 point rating in each of these skills. Some leaders might excell at the management and administration, but be poor leaders and not very charismatic, etc.

An example leader.

Governor Clu Less: Leadership: 75, Charisma: 140, Administration: 80, Management: 81, Honesty: 120 Overall, this governor is poor at all the necessary things to run the planet...however, he is very charismatic and keeps the colony happy. You will have a very happy, very loyal colony with poor production and and refueling at the starport will be slow...also, troops will take much longer to get to full strength here. His honesty will help keep corruption lower as well.

Another:

Governor Iam Mean: Leadership 130, Charisma 60, Admin: 128, Management: 134, Honesty: 55. Overall, this planet will be very productive and well protected, but the populace is very unhappy with his tyrannical rule. Likely the increased production and star port effeciency may not be worth keeping this guy in charge because the planet will be highly susceptible to unrest and revolt. His lack of honesty will lead to more goverment wastage (as he skims off the top of the budget).

2. Admirals/Captains would be the same way, only with a slightly different skill set:
  • Leadership: Affects Damage control and weapon efficiency. IE high leadership will reduce damage taken and increase damage dealt.
  • Administration: Affects rebuild speed (for fighters), repair speed and refueling efficiency.
  • Beams: A high rating in this category means the leader is very good with beam weapons. Damage and recycle boosts for all beam weapons in this fleet or on this ship.
  • Missiles: A high rating here gives damage and recycle boosts to missiles and torpedoes.
  • Tactics: Improves abilities with ECM, Hyperspace inhibitors, etc. Also affects fighter capabilities.

One again, all these are on the standard DW 50-150 rating system with 50 being below average, 100 being average and 150 being highly skilled.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
EaglePryde
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:21 am

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by EaglePryde »

As good as this idea may seem for a civilization type game, i'm not for it regarding realtime 4x space game. We allready have very much automization features and why should i need "leaders" if i control the empire...oh well.

I would go more with the idea of "advisors" or just 1 leader for each major part. 1 Leader for Research,Military, Espionage, Trade & Economy where everyone has positive and negative traits and you have the ability to swap them out.

In the end it's number swapping in addition to racial traits that would expand the game a bit but isn't that much of interesst like a more diverse research tree. Imho some core 4x space mechanics are more worth expanding than this. Even a Monster Farm would expand the game in more interessting ways than this.

Just my 2 cents
User avatar
Data
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:43 pm

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by Data »

Well, not sure about you guys but for me leaders have always been more of an RP and personalization thing than automatization. Indeed, from this latter point of view DW is great the way it is now.
...Igniting stellar cores....Recharging reactors...Recalibrating hyperdrives....
EaglePryde
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:21 am

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by EaglePryde »

ORIGINAL: Data

Well, not sure about you guys but for me leaders have always been more of an RP and personalization thing than automatization. Indeed, from this latter point of view DW is great the way it is now.

If they are made as RP and customization value giving the game more color i'd vote for it anytime.
User avatar
J HG T
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 4:06 am
Location: Kiadia Prime

RE: Leaders - Some Thoughts

Post by J HG T »

You make really good point there Eagle. 

But, I still support leaders 'cause:

1) I'm one of those gamers who love RPing.

2) I've played MoO 2. There's really no turning back after that.
Nothing is impossible, not if you can imagine it!
"And they hurled themselves into the void of space with no fear."
Post Reply

Return to “Distant Worlds 1 Series”