| Gerry Quinn 2004-10-25, 8:57 am |
| In article <2u2io6F26trm7U1@uni-berlin.de>,
try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com says...
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> I see the 4X TBS genre as a highly analytical AI problem. Of course, I'm
> planning to improve the genre, not just rehash it.
There are certainly improvements that could be made to the standard Civ-
style AI. Coordinated use of force being the obvious one. But assuming
you've solved that, is it really an issue of requiring X amount of
processing time?
>
> I'm a designer, not a statistic. I'm open to concrete discussions about 4X
> TBS map problems.
If map problems are the only issue, why not make your game on a simpler
map? What does a complex mapping problem add to gameplay?
> In fact, I'm skeptical that we're working on similar problems. I know Erik
> and Philippa aren't. You, Gerry, seem to be working more on 'simple game
> design' stuff, rather than 'complex simulationist' stuff. That's a
> perfectly valid design direction, and many a time I've contemplated bailing
> for it. But my tragic flaw is I remain terribly interested in the design
> problems of 4X TBS games. That's why I stick to my guns. It may not be
> profitable right now, but it's what I want out of my work.
It's true that I work on small games - my attitude is that if I finish a
small game I am better placed to write a bigger one! And I'm good at
thinking of simple ideas for little games. (That said, my current
project is a bit more elaborate than usual.)
But I have to point out that if you are really interested in the design
problems of 4X games, the obvious step is to model a simple one as a
test-bed for your ideas. Simple flat map, crude graphics, standard ADM
armies, cities that produce according to a simple scriptable model.
Produce that (there's not a lot of work involved) and you can test out
your AI ideas in code rather than imagining them on paper.
- Gerry Quinn
|