I was thinking about taxes and how they are handled in the current version of the game. Other than having to pay for them, they don't interact with the rest of the game in any way I know of other than bringing in the money every turn.

In many games (Civilization II for instance) the player is in control of the tax rate. High taxes = more money/unhappy citizens. The taxes are tied to the rate of scientific discovery and also entertaining your populace to keep them happy.

Having some sort of morale system comes into play at this point.

Well, Req is working on a new version of the game and this is the time to make suggestions because he isn't able to cram all of our BRILLIANT ideas the existing framework. However, you will probably have "lambast" rights if he doesn't do EVERY SINGLE crazy thing we ask for now, right? Right?

(Nine large husky Reqoids burst into Mog's narstie little hovel and take him to the "pre-education" camp where he is taught some manners and is also housebroken)

...as I was saying, thank you, Mr. Requiem. Also, I was drinking out of the porcelain bowls for years, very handy, now I find out you have been using them for your "dirt" and my opinion of you all has gone down even more. "Housebroken" indeed! A Mog cannot be broken! We stand like the mighty redwood tree! We bow to no one!
We...

(Eighteen large, special design Reqoids enter, beat the mandog to his knees and put a roll of duct tape around his head.)

mmmmphhh....mpppph

Yes Mog, I have already started on different taxes, moral, popularity, etc for the new version.

Im still looking at how to do it exactly, but i have several ideas. Im hope to also have a way to determine your nature (Good to Evil), which will also effect your economy, military, etc...

still lots on the drawing board

(rips off duct tape)

Of course, my nature will be extremely good. So good that others will be able to read by my glow.

(346 steaming Reqbots take Mog far, far away)

Well Req one of the things that would help determine if a player is good or evil is if they keep a NAP or an aliance.

In the new version you could create a system that allows players to form NAPs and alliances.

NAP
From my experience NAPS end in one of three ways
1. The NAP has a set number of turns which the player selects. ie ends at turn 50
2. To end the NAP, the player ending the NAP must give a notice a set number of turns before attacking, once again this is selected by the players.
3. One player is a dirty treacherous little backstabber, and attacks the player during the NAP.

You could add a diplomacy page that would allow the players to establish a NAP. They can sellect the player they wish to NAP with and set the terms of the NAP. ie NAP ends at turn 34, you will stay away from my castle, you wont enter my territory without permission. Territory can be established by selecting borders along the north, south, east, and west and can be altered by the players if one of them gains more territory.

Aliances

An aliance would include the same stuff that a NAP does. It would also allow players to move their troops and build around their ally without regard to ZOC.


Penalties

If one of the players attacks an ally or a player they have a NAP with, a pop-up would appear asking them if this is what they really want to do. This way a player can't claim it was mistaken identity (I know it does happen), but with the warning it removes that as a possibilty.

Players that break NAPs and or alliances get so many points towards their evil rating, and possibly suffer a short term negative impact from the player whom they betrayed. Something like the betrayed players troops get a bonus, while fighting that player, for so many turns.


Also if there are negatives for being evil there should be some possitives to ballance it out. Players shouldn't be forced to play in a specific way in order to get the full benefits. Perhaps an evil players troops would have a higher combat moral because they are more affraid of the pinishment they will recieve than of dying. Or they are able to recruit more troops (after all being in the army is better than being a peasant in such a land).

Last Edited : Wednesday, 6 October 2004 - 12:32

GK--What your describing sounds similar to the *alignment* system used in D&D. There are like 9 different possibilities in their system, with pros and cons for each one.


*Sorry to get off-topic *

Last Edited : Wednesday, 6 October 2004 - 13:39

Not even close to D&D seeker. Req made the comment about good and evil and having it effect the economy, and the military, and the other game related stuff. I was merely offering a suggestion as to one of the things that could help to determine if a player is good or evil and pointing out that it wouldn't be "fair" to penalize a player just because they weren't good. If there are negatives to being evil, there should also be benefits to it as well. Otherwise you are creating a game and limiting the number of people who play it simply because they get punished for playing the way they like and not following the good way.

Utopia started adding stuff like this in, and the game got lame (to much micromanagement), thats when I stopped playing it. I just hope req doesn't ruin the game by trying to put more in than necessary.

Who cares how other games do it, go your own way and create a fun game.

Well although I do think at least a "switch" could be added to designate players as either "friendly or hostile" and thereby allowing more ease of movement between them, actually I think a "diplomacy page" where NAP agreements could be listed would be nice also.

As far as "good and evil" I think it is probably possible for the game to be programmed so that it is known who attacks first,
whether another attacks someone who is already under attack,
if someone attacks when another is offline,
or if a high ranked person attacks a lower ranked person,
and also if you cease attacking someone because someone else has joined the attack.

Also as I mentioned once before I would like to see a division of manpower with taxes assigned to population and industry like in another game I have played. I would like also a more formal application of labor to specific industries like weapon construction, textiles and shipbuilding with possibly an additional source of government revenue.
This can be I think the term is "linear" where there is so much manpower and adding it somewhere subtracts it from somewhere else including "troop production";
but with also the possibility of increasing overall manpower through I guess food production.

The paying of tribute even to other players might also be possible although probably prone to potential abuse somehow.
It is my thought that a player might be willing to pay for extended time of peace rather than just be granted it in a NAP agreement.

TR

PS:
Somehow though I'm not quite sure that it is our idea of sportmanship in gameplay that is meant by "good and evil". I think what is meant might be things like "slave labor", "fuedalism", despotism, and totalitarianism as opposed to monarchy, republic and democracy.

TR

Yes, by Good - Evil, i mean your alignment.
How do you govern your populace...

Typically, mean rulers instill fear into the populace, so they work harder and thus produce more. But of course their armies are weaker.

On the other hand, an overly nice ruler makes the peasants less effective due to too much socialising and resting, etc, but the armies fight stronger and with higher moral.

Things like that.

Please keep alliance & nap things out of this thread. Its a different issue, which again will not happen (except in clan games).

That and the fact it was generally agreed that formal treaties would never be implemented on abuse grounds at the very least

Good and evil, I would assume, would also have some kind of 'alignment-unique' unit...?