Influence debates!!!

I'm not sure what's a worse idea - having the CEO of the company as the project manager on a game or having the CEO coding on the game.

I'm worse than some of the most fanatical people out there on those game forums. Whenever one of you guys emails me or gives a game idea that is cool, it ends up in the game. I'm a very weak man.

So having the guy who sets the budget on the game also being the project manager really becomes a drawback because when I hear a cool idea, I just up the budget a bit so that we can put it in. And because of the way the game is designed (hyper modular) we don't delay the release date because we can throw someone else at a module (avoiding the "mythical man month" problem to a large extent).

SO where is this going? Influence is being tweaked. Influence doesn't just stay locked up in a given sector. It leaks out into other sectors. The further away the source, the less intense it is but there's always a background of it.

So then we move this into the sector ownership map. In beta 2, sector ownership is determiend by who has the highest population in a given sector. In beta 3, it's based on influence. Influence is now implemented so that star systems with decent planets tend to have influence of 10 to 15 (and crummy star systems have zilch) with the occasional random star system that has 20+ (and your home star systems start out with 20+ as well to avoid the "capital" game mechanic issue many strategy games fall into).

If you have a star system in a sector you don't control, there is a small chance each turn that it may rebel. The odds of it rebelling have to do with how much influence that star system has and its morale and how many military units you have stationed in orbit.

The idea here being that you should be able to conquer the galaxy in many different ways. Military might should only be one path. Other paths should be equally enjoyable. So a different path is to try to conquer the galaxy with Coca Cola, McDonalds, Levi's, Chinese Food, Volvo's, French wine, and other cultural products.

And you would do this by building up your influence in your star systems and building star bases that have influence enhancing modules on them that help magnify your influence into other sectors. Coding this isn't very easy since you have to avoid self-referencing code but it's going to be pretty cool I think.

The most obviosu difference is that you'll now be able to control sectors on the map that you don't have a star system in. I think this is more along the lines people here have been asking for as it creates real zones of influence.

Now to make sure the AI can defend against this. ;)
342 views 16 replies
Reply #1 Top
sounds very novel - u probably dont want a load of ideas on how the influence factor creates opportunities to link into trade and technology at this stage do you sir?......

p.s. what about building 'influencial' modules on other races planets- trade centres, embassies, McDonalds etc that increase your cultural influence on that world/sector and increase trade income. embassies could support spying and trading in tech...

Reply #2 Top
Steevo's idea could really expand to some other spinnoffs, like being able to deny other races access to build such "influencial" modules on ones own planets, a UP issue that removes anyone that denies such access from the UP, etc. etc.

Are you really sure you wanted to choose the title for this thread that you did? I think some of us are litterally going to think you planned to start a big debate here.
Reply #3 Top
Cood be really cool.

I can picture a game where Galatic Civilzations plays the same way as the end of the cold war.

Humanity is strong good capitalist civilization. The next civilzation is a military government and very evil.

This civilization finds out about the joys of capitalizm and of course we want new markets. :CONGRAT:
Reply #4 Top
When I was attempting to build some game concepts for an rpg game I built a rumor mill based on a modified life algorithm that had properties like the influence here.

Rumors were like viruses, they had a potential to infect anyone they touched and when they moved from person to person they had a potential to mutate and create a new strain of mutated rumors. But they had a definite life span when their 'interest factor' would run out, so that would give them a sphere of influence.

What about a residual cultural influence on planets that you have had for many years? Lets say that somebody takes your planet that you have had for most of the game...there should be a innate residual of influence on the planet itself for a significant number of turns.
Reply #5 Top
Steevo's idea sounds like it could turn out pretty good. If an empire allows another empire to build on it's planets, it would get a small boost to planetary economies, while at the same time making it easier for that planet to become assimilated by the other empire. You could burn down these influential improvements if you didn't mind taking a blow to local economy, diplomatic relations, and maybe getting a few evil-points in the process.
Reply #6 Top
I think that's a pretty neat idea. Ironically, the HARD part is doing a user interface for such concepts that remain intuitive.

I think you'd have to have this in the star system window or something.

Reply #7 Top
yea

it could be something simple (easy for me to say - sorry!) representative/abstract rather than actual say a slider adjacent to the system you are inevesting in indicating the percentage investment and type (i.e. you don't have to plonk the bricks and mortar down)

you could define the investment types, say one for commercial investment (McD's and the like); one for political and or cultural (embassies, spy centres religeous centres, missions etc) and one for technology (research centres, spying? whatever). These may not be right categories and somehow you have to understand the benefits and risks associated i guess?

steevo
Reply #9 Top
Having categories to invest in another empire has some potential to add depth to the overall strategy.

The trade off would be to stay at a dictatorship and control these agencies, but you would lose the edge of the other governments in the long run.

If you opened up you have the potential of getting a lot more tax money, but losing several planets in the process. A planet with a low morale(like a 26 planet) could be seriously affected by such investments. Worse yet, the makeup of your senate could change on the basis of such influence. Imagine being able to influence a enemy empire so much that they couldn't revert to dictatorship to go to war because the senate that you control won't allow it!

Having a Military/Political/Social set of sliders would be the way to go, I think.
Reply #10 Top
I would definitely support the following basic ideas on influence,

(a) effect of foreign influence on planets is modified by government type (0% for lowest type, 100% for highest)

(b) influence and cost can be 'spent' on foreign planets to gain financial trade benefits and possibly further influence. It should cost you a lot of accumulated influence to convince a foreign planets local authorities to let you build that fast food outlet. It would then start providing income for both your empires and also a SMALL amount of influence for you. This should be considered as an economic path to victory and not as converting the foreign planets through influence.

(c) You can only build into foreign empires if your empire is completely open to competition (must be highest government type). No dictatorships running McD chains in other empires. Foreign empire building should be working towards an economic victory not an influence victory.

(d) Influencing a foreign power's political elections is VERY dangerous and can completely backfire. Most contries on this planet make it illegal to do this, I would expect a galatic empire to behave similarly.

Many of the ideas here do not place any boundary between influence victories and economic victories. I love the idea of building on foreign planets, but if you then conquer them through influence it would stop you obtaining an exonomic victory. This needs to be thought out.
Building economic benefits should generate cash and a small amount of influence (not much). Build lots of economic benefits on lots of planets and you should be able to win by an economic victory not have all those planets join you.
Building influence benefits would be an alternative route. These would provide you with influence INSTEAD of cash but must provide the other empire with something in return. Possibly a moral boost, cash, prestige. Consider it as you building a park. These could lead to the planet joining you.

Paul.
Reply #11 Top
Paul this is excellently thought out. I agree wholesale with two comments-

you say: "Foreign empire building should be working towards an economic victory not an influence victory"

-if the increase in influence gained through a commercial investment results in an influence win - so be it, however if the amount of influence gained by a chain of burger franchises across your neighbous empire is only set to return a low level of influence points then your comment is inevitable.

you say:
"Building influence benefits would be an alternative route. These would provide you with influence INSTEAD of cash but must provide the other empire with something in return. Possibly a moral boost, cash, prestige. Consider it as you building a park. These could lead to the planet joining you."

- both are feasible, no need for either or. Economic investment (Big Mac outlets) give cash and small influence, Cultural centres will provide 'pure influence'.
You are right that the influence investments must provide benefits to hosts, otherwise they will not be tolerated - but influence benefits can be subtle. For example a massivly effective cultural benefit gaining influence is a religion/church.
Why other cultures take on other cultures' religions is complex, however influence benefits like these are massive - as are the risks. Backlashes against imposed religions can result revolts

s
Reply #12 Top
Also consider:

Some comercial enterprises can result in influence - that is, if a race denies you the license to build a burger chain the populace could revolt, or, having allowed the chain then demanding you remove it could also cause a revolt. This is influence tied to economy. The boudary between influence and economy continues to get more and more fuzzy.
Reply #13 Top
Historically, such influence moves were very tricky to implement. Poorly implemented influence structures without forethought to the culture they were being implemented in resulted in massive revolt.......such as Iran.

So the stakes should be high and the strategy should vary from empire to empire since the cultures are different.
Reply #14 Top
This really helps in coming up with ideas for future GalCiv's.

I would *really* like to see forms of governments done as modules that users could create just like technologies an dsuch.

Then we could create our own forms of government and have things like:

Government_ID: 1
Name: "Star Federation"
Morale: -5 //percent
Economy: 60
Manufacturing: 50
Influence: 20
Resist Influence: 20
and
so
on

This own't be in GalCiv 1.0 but base don what you guys are saying here, I bet we could get together and come up with something pretty sophisticated yet still very intuitive for new users.

For instance, I'd like to see units have a loyalty factor and a morale factor that woudl affect the odds of them defecting as well as affecting their fighting ability. So differnet forms of govrenment could affect that too. So you would have to pick the good with the bad.
Reply #15 Top
Sounds very interesting and also quite challenging. Could merge very nicely with local politics. Will defer from discussing until after GalCiv 1.0 :)

Paul.
Reply #16 Top
I only got GalCiv on Friday, so I hope you'll forgive me for wading in on this subject. I've seen how culture/influence has been implemented in CivIII, and I'm sure a full debate here will help avoid some of the contraversial design decisions taken there. There are two specific points I want to make:

(1) You should always be able to keep control of an influence-poor empire against any amount of foreign influence so long as you have a big enough army, enough money and the will to do so. I am completely in favour of allowing a path to victory that doesn't include emphasising building only weapons, but this should not be by some dubious mechanism (as per CivIII cultural flipping - no flames please, I understand this is a contentious topic and you're welcome to hold an opposite opinion), but rather by making it very expensive to have to park a large fleet of starships on everyone's lawn who you can't influence to toe your line. That could be achieved by balancing the garrison required with the build and maintenance cost of ships.

(2) I think 4X games need to look to certain examples from history for inspiration on how to deal with culture/influence more than others. The ones that are more relevant are the ones that involve large scale colonization over a vast area from the country of the imperial throne, e.g. as the Americas were by Spain, England and the rest, as per the typical 4X game colonial model. Examples like the USSR or the Ottoman Empire are less relevant where you have many well-established cultures brought under the yoke of an alien power. In the former examples, colonies eventually develop a sense of identity, governance, economy, administration and culture of their own, and the mother country becomes less relevant. For a variety of reasons they often rebel, not becuase they find some other culture attractive and want to join it, but they want self-determination. Influence from the mother country is no longer stong enough to keep them, and words and laws from the Imperial throne to keep colonies in line get replaced by bullets. So in these examples, influence is a measure of the how well the imperial seat can keep control and cohesion within the empire, not something that fights another enemy empire's culture/influence. The relevance of the enemy's influence should come into play once the now independent system looks to find a protector in a not very friendly universe. Here I think we can look to Imperial examples of the first kind also, like the break up of the USSR or Ottoman Empire. What entices small independent states into joining new blocs is that the values of these blocs are closer to their own, and a combination of other things, e.g. money, fear of old Empire coming back, threats from the new Empire. So here I would say that, competing, relative Influence was very relevant, but not decisive as sending large cheques can buy a lot of friends quickly.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that influence works in two ways, a measure of internal, imperial cohesion and to make your empire more desirable to join for independent states. Also "cultural-flipping" happens in two stages: first independence, then being wooed by different empires which takes into account that Empires influence (but also possibly moral and morale levels), and any additional inticements. I would also suggest that empires that decide to jump in and invade the independent state rather than neogtiate with them suffer a major moral penalty and possible sanctions from the Galactic council, not to mention a hyper-rebellious populace within that formerly independent system.


Well, please forgive a total newbie for speaking so out of turn, but this is shaping up to be a great game and a good debate about how influence works is going to really help I think.

John