NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/games/empire/3573

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-28 | 6.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!chainsaw.ecn.purdue.edu!ts
From: [e-mail] (Thomas Ruschak)
Newsgroups: rec.games.empire
Subject: Re: Just out of curiosity...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 92 19:10:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET news)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 131

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (   James A Seymour) writes:
>NOTE: I am not running a game.  I'm just curious.
>
>SUBJECT: Start Islands...
>
>When I first started playing empire start islands were all
>the rage.  People seem to have gotten away from them lately.

    Start islands are a way of giving 'fair' starting positions to players.
This is in recognition of the fact that people can't always be on within
microseconds of the game's beginning, and those who aren't on then start
in a weaker position. (Not impossibly weaker, but starting surrounded isn't
much fun, for most people) Other ways have been tried, like segregating people
on a large continent with 'fences' of deity-owned forts with 1 mil. Some like
it, some don't. (Personally, I hate it -- I don't type well, and I begrudge the
time it takes to wipe out all those little forts :-)

    Are start islands a good idea? Depends. Is empire a game where players
try to win, or is it a jungle, ruled by tooth and claw?

>What goes into setting up a world of start islands?  I realize
>that there is probably a lot of hand editting, but what else
>is involved?  How do you decide on the island sizes, i.e. is
>it arbitrary or are there sizees that just fit better than
>others?

    There are two basic ways of doing this that I know of. 1) You can
hand edit the islands into existence, and hand-place the resources. This
is doable, but a real pain in the ass. You can also use Xland2 and an
X-display and draw the islands and run ore normally. This is much easier.

    You could also hack the land program to do what you wanted. No one's
done this as yet that I know.

    How to decide on island sizes? It depends on how bloody and complex
a game you want. It is pretty hard (takes a while) to conquer a 100 sector
island. By contrast, a 10 sector island is pretty easy, so people die like
flies. Also, once you've killed 1 or 2 100 sector nations, you've got 200-300
sectors to run, which can be burdensome or enjoyable, depending on your bent.
With 1-2 conquered 10 sector islands, you've got 20-30 sects, which most people
could run in their sleep. So, how much time do you have to play?

    I'd call 100 sector islands big, 50 average, and 10 small. This is
very subjective, tho...

>How much extra work does a good deity need to devote to
>start islands?  Notice I said good deity.  I have come into
>contact with a deity or two that basically did nothing more
>than run the land programs and throw sanctuaries about the
>world.

    It's not difficult. With Xland2 I can draw up a world in 5-10 mins,
and put standard resources on the islands in a few seconds. Putting the
sanctuaries on takes a little longer, but not more than a half hour or so
for 50 countries. (slow typing :-)

>Do you like start islands?  Why or why not?

    Hard to say. At first I liked them, but now I kinda miss the sweaty-
palms period of expansion. Still, it does make the game easier for new players
to learn, since they don't start out surrounded by forts :-)


>SUBJECT: World size...
>
>I realize that world size depends greatly on country number.
>However, what is the multiplier that seems to work best?
>And what % of land?

    This depends on 3 things. Start island/territory size, i.e. how much
land does each player get? Number of countries. Sea %.

    Say an average start island is 50 sects. There's about 10 sects per
player of unclaimed land. 50 countries. 50% water. So, you need (50+10)*50*2
sectors in the world. Lessee.. that's 6000 sectors. Take the square root: 77
or so.. Now, look for a power of two: 64 is closest. Then, multiply the X
size by 2 (due to the way empire coords work) 128x64 = 4096 sectors.. A little
light. Try bumping it up a bit. 192x64 = 6144 sectors. Close enough.

    To be 'square', i.e. to be as long horizontally as vertically, you
need a world size that looks like 2YxY, so 128x64 is square. There's nothing
wrong with being non-square, except that it increases the maximum distance
that can seperate 2 countries. With a square world, players can more easily
get close to a given country. (Good for people with grudges :-)

    Oh, another thing. You may ask, can't I run a 77x77 world? You can
try, but I shudder to think of the bugs you might find :-) Stick with
multiples of 2, and your life will be easier.

>I suppose some of this depends on how much early fighting
>you want to happen.  Also, how much importance you want
>to place on ships vs planes.  Kinda hard for planes to dominate
>a game if they can not even reach the enemy, eh?

    Right. Think of the UA game, which was based on 'clusters' of 6
start islands. Each cluster was a long way away from the others, relative
to plane range. There were also no usable (5-10 sects) islands between
clusters, so the only way to invade another cluster was with ships, very
tough in normal empire. If the clusters had been within long plane range,
it'd probably have been better. Still, it depends on your tastes.

    Do you like land combat? Use 75% land. If you like sea combat, try
about 75% sea. If neither, try something in the middle...

>SUBJECT: Where is empire headed?
>
>BUT, back on the subject, is the game becoming to complex?
>OR, is it just coming into its own?  Is empire entering its
>golden period of enlightenment?  The tools and "new" clients
>allow people to play without having to have the knowledge that
>was hard to gain in the days of yore.  (Notice, i said "play"
>not "master")
>
>What are your views on the subject?

    Is empire too complex? What is too complex? I think the real question
is, is it fun? People have different complexity thresholds. Right now, I think
the game has a decent balance of approachability and depth. Some people prefer
the earlier versions, KSU or thereabouts. I think the empire community is big
enough to support a spectrum of game types. Of course, having multiple game
code sets does interfere with pissing matches. 'I'm the best!' 'Yeah, but you
only play that wimpy old KSU code!', 'Well, the code you play is trash!'
'Oh, yeah?!?' etc, etc, etc... :-)

    Anyway, I've almost finished my last enhancement. Land units are in and
working pretty well. Once testing is finished, I'll release Chainsaw 3.0, and
hang up my keyboard, and stop complexifying the game :-). I've done my best to
make them simple to use, and tried to give them lots of 'intelligence' to take
some of the mundane tasks off the player. We'll see.

Tom