So how complicated (as internal critics put it) or sophisticated (as internal advocates put it) should the Elemental economic system be?
We have the code in for handling a pretty sophisticated/complicated economic engine. But the debate is, is the system sophisticated? Or just complicated.
Let me give you the arguments of each camp.
Camp #1: “Sophisticated”
1. Everything in Elemental is a resource. Food, metal, swords, armor, horses, you name it.
2. Resources can be processed into other resources. Iron Ore into a Sword.
3. Part of the fun of the game would be running a proper empire (or letting AI governors take care of it).
Example:
A mine is built on an iron resource. The mine produces 10 units of iron ore per turn. That iron ore is then directed to go to the city of Torgeto where a blacksmith is able to produce 5 swords per turn. The unused iron ore is stored in a warehouse that can store up to 100 units of iron ore.
Those swords can be directed to be shipped to various other places (with sliders or other UI means to determine what ratio goes where).
In some of those places, the swords are issued to soldiers. In other places, the swords are sent to an alchemist workshop who, taking potions that have been shippped in from Wellford which in turn had taken Aeoronic crystal mined in another town to turn into those potions. The resulting magical swords are then shipped out to various places with the player (or governor) able to control the ratio in which they are shipped.
Caravans appear on the map to show the items being shipped. If those caravans are attacked, the items are lost.
Camp #2: “Simple and Fun”
1. There are only natural resources (food, iron, crystal, horses, etc.).
2. When a natural resource is controlled, the player assigns that resource to a specific town.
3. Only that town can make use of it. Towns that don’t have a resource assigned it cannot build units that require those resources.
Unlike camp 1, there are no ratio sliders to mess with. A resource is assigned to a particular town. That makes certain towns more strategic than others and a lot less micro management. On the other hand, it means that there will be many towns that can only build weaker units. Players can research technologies that increase the base (weaker) unit that cities can build over time but some cities will simply be more important than others.
Caravans would still flow from the natural resource to the target town and if those caravans are attacked, the enemy player gains a bonus and the victim player would get a penalty to their production until the next caravan arrives.
The Argument
Camp 1 argues that a lot of fun can be had in putting together ever more sophisticated and specialized items. If natural resources can be processed into new resources that can in turn be processed again and again and again, you can reward players who might be able to equip elite crack soldiers with very rare but very powerful weapons and armor.
Camp 2 argues that while some people would enjoy that, it would result in a lot of people who would find that system burdensome and turn them off to the game entirely. It also says that those who do like the camp 1 system would still be satisfied with camp 2 where those who like camp 2 would probably be totally turned off if the camp 1 system were used. In addition, they argue that Elemental has so much other “stuff” to it (sophisticated diplomacy, tactical battles, quests, etc.) that many players might find they have to rely on AI governors which would put a heavy burden on having really “smart” AI.
Now personally, I could go either way. I do like the idea of players having to choose certain towns that are absolutely strategic. But I also like the idea of being able to have “processed” manufacturing that can keep specializing things until you get some rare but very valuable things.
On the other hand, I’m also worried that a complex system could turn out to fall apart in actual practice (the user interface for it would have to be incredibly good) and then we’d be stuck having to go to camp 2 late in development.
What do you think?
UPDATE: 5/21/2009
Camp #3: The Merchant
Today we looked at the feedback from here and Quarter to Three and came up with a way that may satisfy both camps and increases the fun overall.
1. Everything is a resource.
2. Resources can be processed into other resources (iron to swords, crops to food, crystal to potions).
3. Resources are sent automatically to other towns based on the resource needs of that town. No micromanagement, no AI.
4. The fun of this portion of the game would be in watching your empire grow organically.
There are no ratios to set. If I build a town with a blacksmith, then one presumes I did that because I want to produce stuff that requires a blacksmith. If I build (or upgrade) more blacksmiths, then one presumes this town is a place where I want to crank out a lot of stuff.
Similarly, if I build a town with multiples barracks it presumes I am trying to train soldiers which means that stuff should be shipped there, particularly if I’m in the process of building a particularly type of soldier.
Caravans (which aren’t player controlled) send out regular shipments of resources to the various towns. When these shipments arrive, they’re available for use on demand or, if the town has a warehouse, they are stored.
When players design a unit, they choose a category of weapon and that category of weapon (whether in the field or in a warehouse) will automatically upgrade as my tech gets better. A short sword doesn’t become a long sword or anything like that. But A short sword would automatically become a better short sword if I research tech that improves is in order to remove the complexity of having to “upgrade” units. However, the cost of keeping a soldier in the field will be fairly high and since soldiers come from population, there’s a real down side to keeping throngs of soldiers idle.
In addition, by building roads, my caravans will arrive a lot quicker (3X faster). Similarly, I have to keep my supply lines secure.
This also opens the door for a lot more trading. Rather than just having “food” you can have “crops”. Crops are processed into food and can be traded with other civilizations or used by special buildings (Inns, restaurants, etc.) to increase prestige (which adds to influence).
It also allows players to have the game be very simple (just keep everything local) or highly sophisticated (have weaponry go through multiple processes – a magic sword processed by a Aereon Forge doubles its damage. The town with the Aereon forge is the one that would get on the priority list of magic swords and the Aereon blades produced would be sent to the town with the barracks that is producing your “Night Guard” or whatever you call your designed unit.
But in this way, there’s no real UI other than providing players the ability to close down shops in a city or expedite their priority to get more stuff sent to them. The player remains the king/emperor and not a logistics manager but at the same time is the architect for success of their kingdom’s economy if they so choose.
UPDATE: 5/23/2009
Camp #4: Quarter To Three concept
Having read a lot of posts both here and QuarterToThree we’ve thought of another way to do it that might be interesting.
2. Resources can be processed into other resources.
3. Controlling a resource automatically makes it available throughout your empire at a basic level. The more resources you control, the more that basic level is provided.
4. If there is a road to a city that connects you to where the resource is provided, that city gets a bonus amount of that resource.
5. Cities can build improvements that have caravans deliver bonus amounts of that resource to that city from the source.
6. Cities can optionally build warehouses whose only affect is that they can store caravan deliveries for later use. I.e. if I’m not currently building death knights, I can store caravans of “stuff” so that when I do build them, I instantly get the bonus at that point.
I want my army to be filled with trained knights who have plate mail, steel swords, plate helmets, etc. Those things are expensive. If I control an iron deposit, I can build them though any town with a barracks. Let’s say it will take 30 turns to create that unit. 10 of those turns is the training of the soldier and the other 20 is the production of the equipment. If I control 2 iron deposits, that production is knocked down to 18. If I have a road that connects this town to the the iron resource (directly or indirectly) then I can knock it down another turn for each resource.
I can also build a blacksmith shop. By doing this, caravans will be sent from the iron resource production area to the town with the armory. When that caravan arrives, it will reduce the time even further.
Similarly, if I want to make a magic sword that requires Aegeon crystal to be turned into a magic potion then as soon as I build 1 Alchemist lab in any town, then any town can build magic swords at a base level. If I build 2 alchemist labs, I won’t get any further bonus unless I control more than 1 Aegeon crystal.
So basically, it’s a much simpler system that provides fairly straight forward bonuses for players who want to create a more sophisticated economy.
1 = good
2 = bad
3 = okish
After reading option #3 I pre-ordered the game, nuff said. (Now let's hope they don't go with camp #2 after all )
That's pretty much what I'd like to see too. If I say "build swords here", the game will know to send Iron from a nearby mine there, since there's now demand for it. That's not really very complicated, but does give you some decisions (building closer to the mine gets you the iron you need faster, but you may have to ship the swords instead).
hmm, don't pretend to be superior because you want to think...I'm here too because I love turn based strategy(both board games and computer games). "Doing things on your turn" shouldn't be confused with making "making meaningful decisions". What will be the target time for a player to take a turn in mid game? 5 minutes, 30 minues, 3 hours? There will only be so many actions a player can take during that time. If turns become too long, then the game bogs down and gets boring. If you automate the majority of the economic system, then are you really making any decisions? Remember MOO3, they made an AI do most the work and the game failed miserably.
In principle, I like option 3
What I question is bullet 3. I think implementing it will be extremely difficult, because everyone is going to have a different opinion on what the AI should do. Even if a nice balance is found, so what. What benefit does bullet 3 provide over just putting resources in a kingdom treasury? I think there are two options: 1. national treasury - this option assumes that turns are long enough for raw materials to make it from mines to the cities where they are needed. 2. Regional treasuries. This option is like Lords of the Realm, where the map is broken out into regions. I think this model would be best because you could have some limited logistics between realms, but it could be manageable to micro. I guess this is also the way total war works.
Another thought to make things less cumbersone late game.
Early on, you only have one iron mine and its production is pretty low. Smartly delegating those scarce resources is going to be important. But by mid game, you might have several iron mines and their production has increased due to upgrades. So maybe micromanaging iron distribution beomes less critical as your empire grows (but there is still the ability to tweak distribution to the micromanagers hearts content.)
But also around mid game, you develop the tech to be able to mine adamantium. So once again, allocating this scarce resource wisely is more of a big deal. And because there isn't a lot of it, managing the few locations that you want it to go to is again, not that cumbersome. By mid to late game maybe you start scrapping iron mines because you have plenty stockpiled AND you are now using more advanced materials for most of your metalworking.
I like that they called option 3 "The merchant". That is exactly the concept I like - that there is kind of a free market force that pulls resources to where they are in demand, but you as sovereign can still step in and do some central planning.
I like camp 3 with the option to adjust it ala camp 1. That way you can move the swords/iron/whatever to a place before you build your barracks or whatever so you can have the materials on hand when you can produce the requisite unit. More of a strategic way of preparing for war that is only needed on occasion, but would be handy when you do want it.
Hmmm..... Seems the consensus is shifting to "option 3". With that thought, I have a question...
I really loved Capitalism 2's econ system. Has anyone else played it? I think that system would be a natural for this title.
Okay, that's an interesting idea; a totally pull driven economy. All the base resources are harvested and accumulated locally, and only actually shipped when a build order in some town requires them. The time to build in a given town now includes the time to transport the goods, as climber has mapped out. When you design a new unit, then, it pulls both NR and MR from wherever is closest to start building your unit. Would towns that have intermediate MR then accumulate them like an NR would?
As an example, suppose you build some arrow +2 (I'm getting bored with swords) using a fletcher in town A. The fletcher requires wood, iron, and potions. The potions have to be supplied from an alchemist in Town B, and iron from a smelter in town C. Town B's been getting crystal from a crystal mine near it, and has accumulated 10 potion +2 in it's alchemist shop, but the smelter in town C just finished sending halberds to another town, and is fresh out of ore. The order goes out for 20 arrow +2. The AI has to then understand that it needs to get 20 ore from a mine, ship it to town C, have it made to iron, then send the 20 iron to town A. Meanwhile, 10 more crystal needs to leave the crystal mine (let's suppose it had that in it's local reserve) to town B to be made into 10 more potions. Do 10 potions leave town B immediately on a caravan, with 10 more to come later? Or does town B's alchemist wait until it can fulfill the entire order of town A's before it ships? I don't think I like the idea of an unlimited MR conversion rate in any factory, Climber, though I see the point of it. All of your time delay comes from transport, not conversion of goods. Having an infinite MR conversion rate on factories, though, removes some of the strategic choice for more factories of a given type in a town (with it's itinerant use of land, since that's a limited resource as well). With unlimited MR, I'd just put all the necessary factories in the same town, and have the NR shipped there continually.
I think we've got to resolve this issue of obsolescence that's been raised, too. While I'm building arrow +2, I research tech that opens up arrow +3. Do I need to start over again, or can I just ship the tech necessary for the upgrade (potion +3) to the town where the archers +2 are? I think that's a better answer. Provided my archers are in a town where archers can be made (a fletcher is in the town, in this case), I can click on them and upgrade them the same way I could build new, but less materials are needed. Eventually, of course, my iron, wood, and potion +2 will be replaced by adamantium, bone, and potions +5, so there's not necessarily any benefit to upgrading that just building fresh wouldn't get you, apart from the population use. If population is easy to come by (there was a dev post saying towns might range from 100 to 1,000,000 population), then there's no incentive to upgrade if the upgrade is technologically complete. What that argues for is that those times when a complete technology upgrade (arrowhead, shaft, and magic) can be available should be rare. The alternative, from a balance standpoint, should be that the time to ship upgraded MR should be short relative to the time required to train new recruits. This is the other reason that infinite MR conversion rate may not be the best; it acts contrary to this requirement. An upgrade of tech shouldn't require training time, and if training is long time relative to the shipping time for upgrades, there's an advantage to upgrade vs. build fresh. From this argument, I think it might be better to have shipping times short (relatively, and improved by roads), and MR conversion times in towns be long (again, relatively).
If, however, you're balanced so fresh builds of upgrades are preferred, we still need to do something with the obsolete builds. Returning them to raw resources is probably the best way to handle this, so that they can be drawn upon again when a new build order comes available.
So, stocks of all 20+NR and 200+MR in each town. You should be able to sell "obsolete" resources to the merchant to convert them into gold (you won't use iron again once adamantium becomes available, so dump your old stocks on the merchant). NR nodes need to be upgradable for both production and resource, or else that big, well developed iron ore mine deep in your territory will be less technologically useful at the end than the new adamantium ore mine. It essentially becomes a profit "gold" mine, as you'll sell all the ore to the merchant directly from the mine. Or, maybe you force us to caravan it to a town before we can dump it on the merchant. Build orders for new units automatically draw their NR and MR from whatever stocks are closest, whether in the town itself, or in a close by town. The caravans carry exactly what is needed to meet that specific order build in that specific town.
We're gonna need a good UI to be able to watch what caravans are moving what NR and MR to each town to meet each build. And we still haven't resolved the issue of a technology upgrade that occurs (potion +3) while an old technology is en route to a town (a caravan carrying potion +2).
Thanks for the Karma, Climber! Uh...what...er, what is that, exactly? I'm kind of a forum idiot, you see.
Updated it.
So once the resource is tapped and available, all other "accessories" like convenient modes of transportation are just stacking bonuses? It could work.
Will there be penalty for having in your example 10 towns building magic sword at the same time?
Does this means that we won't be able to stack ressources to send them to another city later?
In short, is it possible to have a stock of magic sword + 2 produced in a city in order to send them to another city that will build knights using thoses swords?
Camp 3.
Brad,
Thanks for keeping this discussion going. I think camp 3 is significantly superior to camp 4, for example:
Doesn't sound fun because:
1) There's no way I can disrupt that "base level" of production of an enemy city even if he only has one city with an alchemist lab and a Aegeon crystal mine (does the mine have to be at the same city?), and that one city is on a 2 square island in the middle of a vast ocean on the other side of the map and all his other cities are under heavy blockade. All his cities could build some small amount of magic swords in that case, right?
2) Geographical placement of cities could matter much less depending on how low that "base level" is. If I play a 3x3 map or a 30x30 map my base distribution will work the same. If I have an empire split by a mountain range (or ocean) in one game and an empire entirely concentrated on a flat plain in another game that base distribution is the same. If the base distribution is "you could magically transport 1 soldier's worth of weapons across the world every turn" that's not so bad, but if I have 50 aegeon mines and 50 alchemist labs on one continent and 50 horse squares and 50 stables on another continent I really shouldn't be able to crank out armies of magic sword-equipped cavalry in a blockaded cluster of cities on a third continent.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Keith
Yep 3 is still superior to 4 imo.
I think the international trading, if they have a resource you need or you have a resource they need should be automatic.
Rather than trade deals be based on specific resources, just have a deal which agrees trading or not. Obviously, merchants and trading guilds will then do that. Sort of like in GalCiv2, where it is the "private" companies doing the actual trading, we just take a slice of the tariff. In this case, we're taking the benefit of the resource without having to specifically trade it, it is merely consequention of having a trade route.
I still like 3.
@Winnihym - The issue of time would be mitigated by distance from the MR and number of facilities to produce the item as well as type of travel (fast, slow -etc.). The subsequent post by Frogboy addresses this point nicely to some degree.
Regarding obsolescence I think there should be a conversion function at say a "trade house" where I can decide what is obsolete and get a percentage trade in for any of that resource in my empire and I should also be able to disable any further production of that resource as part of the process automatically.
@ keithLamothe - If the cities had an area of control (increased with size), affect or influence then it would be very possible to disrupt things.
Concerning Frogboy's post and reference to the other site, for those that don’t know it, many developers are a part of that community it is kind of social network for gamer makers. To read Frogboy's thread there click here.
Agreed #3 is still the best. I would add though that if you do go with #3, there are two things you must tell people whenever they try to build (in this case) a blacksmith.
1) How much excess iron your empire is producing. (This can be negative, but the point is I shouldn't have to do the math myself, the game should tell me wether my iron mines can sustain another blacksmith or not, or if I need to expand my iron mining)
2) The amount of time it takes to set up the trade route. (This would basically be the time from the first caravan leaving the mine, to when it arrives at the city with the new blacksmith)
Just wanted to throw my vote for camp #3. Or camp #1.
-Drexion/Ragarth
It seems like one of the biggest concerns with camp 1 is when you look at over 110 resources and who knows how many towns - It just seems overwhelming. And I am a big fan of camp 3, I think done right it could really be awesome. Camp 4 I personally really don't like because it seems to treat resources the way CiV does, and I personally really like the idea of units of resources that you can accumulate, trade, whatever.
Why not treat Natural Resources and Manufactured Resources differently? Based on the numbers from the above post, you could manage natural resources in a camp 1 kind of way and not get bogged down. Either camp 1 or camp 3 for the natural resources would be very doable.
The Manufactured resources seems to be where things can spiral out of control on micro-managment because you can make so many things. So maybe it would be cool to centrally warehouse all the manufactured stuff as soon as it is made. Your first town comes with a warehouse, and warehouses have for all intents and purposes unlimited capacity.
Warehouses only store manufactured resources. Stuff gets distributed from the warehouse(s) automatically as it is needed to create things. This all happens automatically and required equipment could be getting shipped to the barracks while the units that will be using that equipment are getting trained. Unlike the natural resources that have caravans distribute them around, transport of MR is behind the scenes, and would be assume that when you train a unit, it would take longer to train said unit than to deliver the equipment. For all intents and purposes gear just gets pulled from central storage as needed - Just in Time delivery and all that.
This will give the control freaks the ability to get those few Natural resources where they REALLY REALLY want them. This alleviates the concern of swords accidentally getting shipped to your pikeman training camp by a governator.
This is just another alternative option. I still like 3 the best, then 1,2, and 4.
I would like Camp 3 with warehouses.
3. Resources are sent automatically to other towns based on the resource needs of that town. No micromanagement, no AI. (Keep this auto)
Add this friom Camp 4
With warehouses added I could control where resources are sent. Resources would first go to production buildings i.e the blacksmith, but include an option to turn off production so that I can stockpile resources at a warehouses.
What I don't like about Camp 4 is number 3, sounds like Civ 4 and number 5. Why not upgrade mines, roads or caravans to get more resources.
Is this game going to be continuous turns as in no end turn button? I've not seen a clear answer for that. If so then I'm leaning toward the simple/auto economy.
To echo one of PeacePhoenix's concerns, take this scenario and question:Assume I have X iron mines in operation and 10 cities with 1 iron-using-building each. Assume none of my cities have any of the bonuses Brad talked about in the camp 4 proposal (roads, caravans, etc).Therefore each city is getting an equal amount Y of iron per turn.Assume I then build an iron-using-building in an 11th city (also no bonuses)How much iron does each of my cities get now? Y, or less than Y?If the answer is "Y", we have a serious problem. It's still an improvement over some systems (like civ3), and I'd still buy and love Elemental, but it would be a disappointment.---@Spartan - yes, a city area concept could helpIn fact, there are a number of things that could help camp 4:A ) each resource producer only produces so much per turn, so going from 10 cities consuming the "base rate" of magical-transport of a single iron mine to 1000 cities consuming the "base rate" doesn't result in the "magical" creation of 99 times more iron.B ) a city's incoming-transport rate is affected by:-- enemy units either adjacent to or within the city. This could be a fixed % penalty per unit, or modified by unit type, or 2x for inside the city, etc-- wizard-pick/racial/technology/global-enchantment bonuses/penaltiesC ) the incoming-transport rate is applied to each resource provider individually with an additional modifier for distanceThis way transport could be at least somewhat sane. I could live with just A and B, but particularly with C though I understand C involves (number_of_cities*number_of_resource_producers) computations rather than just (number_of_cities).One (the?) major benefit of camp 4 is removing the need to track "shipments" or "caravans". This could be huge for model/UI/AI complexity. In other words, less pain for everyone, devs and players.Another potential benefit is not having to track stockpiles, just production amounts and transport-rates. But I really want stockpiles Thanks for reading,Keith
Exactly.
If you are able to pull off #3 the economic model could be modded to something like #4, right? If yes then count me in for #3.
I'd like to see a wide range of options when you create a game that can be checked on and off. Default should be set to whatever is most simplistic.
You want to reach the widest audience possible - so simplistic is the way to go. These boards are going to be made up mainly of your bigger fanboys (myself included) I personally want camp #1. But more than camp 1, I want this game to be financially successful so I can see tons of expansions and add-ons. So, if feasable, make it all optional with things like "Enable advanced trade routes" "Enable automatic resource allocation"If that isn't possible - I think the more simplistic approach will be more successful, considering the combination of other elements the game already has going.
Maybe even have a resource manager which automatically handles all your resources which you can turn on an off in-game.
A random player who just installed the game should be able to turn on the game, play the tutorials, and go. The defaults should all be set to whatever is simplest, and after a player feels secure in their basic knowledge they can fool around with the advanced settings.
Personally, If I could only pick 1 *for myself* it would be the advanced option. BUT I think that would be a mistake. This game is already going to be fairly complicated, and you are risking making it inaccessable. Keep in mind your learning curve. I know I'm going to love this game, but I hope that I am joined by many many other fans so that I can keep buying expansions.
I gotta be honest, I don't really care for option 4. I'm not sure *what* about it bugs me, but it just seems blah and uninteresting. It's probably just how abstract it makes things, I really am not a fan of the "one iron mine somehow feeds a global empire's iron needs" type of model.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
