Look at how much PC I have though. You can just get more done faster than I can Ardas.
All builds have weaknesses. It is the player's job to minimize those weaknesses and his opponent's job to exploit them.
And it's the game designer's job to ensure that the strengths and weaknesses of builds are
comparable in magnitude so that they favour a variety of playing styles. I've created a broken game, now let me explain why that's not fun and why I'm going to be doing a fair bit of nerfing before game start.
Say you're playing an RPG (MMO or otherwise). You're playing a fighter and you're looking over the weapons list. It goes something like this.
ACKBAR'S ARMS AND ARMOUR EMPORIUM
Cost Attack Parry Hands Speed
Dagger £5 5 2 1 15
Club £2 4 4 1 10
Handaxe £5 3 5 1 10
Mace £8 6 6 1 8
Flail £10 8 4 1 8
Longsword £15 12 8 1 12
Rapier £20 5 5 1 15
Battleaxe £10 10 2 1 10
Spear £5 10 6 2 12
Greataxe £20 14 3 2 10
Claymore £25 12 5 2 12
Shield £10 2 8 1 10
We'll assume that attack is attack, parry is parry, your character has two hands (and can double-wield) and that speed is proportional (a mace gets in/blocks 8 attacks for every 10 a handaxe does).
There are a few unbalanced items on this list, some intentional, one not. The big one is the longsword. A one-handed sword that out-cleaves a claymore and has all the protection value of a shield, plus you can equip it with a shield as well?
Fighter sees this list, picks the longsword. Goes out into the world, finds everyone's using longswords. Fair enough. Only what if the player really wants to play a Florentine duellist? He picks the Rapier and discovers he's getting trounced in every fight, even though he paid more for his weapon. Fighter has a choice; either throw up arms in disgust and leave or take up the longsword that is now essential equipment for every player and play a role he doesn't really want to.
This is a serious problem when developing games. Most of the weapons are aimed at being balanced so that some either favour parrying or attack, double-handers offer you more attack power or special abilities at the cost of reduced protection (no shields, remember!) and some trade off hit chance for more attempts (low attack, high speed or vice versa).
Then some designer thinks longswords are really cool (or, more usually, katanas). He knows that a longsword is a light, elegant weapon that is made to be well-balanced for good speed, is able to cut or stab through several types of armour and can be used as an excellent parrying blade as well. He inputs these elements into the longsword's stats without really considering them in comparison to the rest of the armoury.
All other weapons are now reduced to the status of 'flavour weapons', used only by roleplayers - the true geeks among geeks. Since these inferior weapons are of little use to anyone, diversity drops as players are punished from straying away from the longsword ideal.
The next problem arises out of fixing the first problem. The developer realises from playthrough that the longsword is broken. Unfortunately everyone is now using a longsword and nerfing longswords will piss everyone off who got used to playing with longswords. Now they'll complain that they're being punished for not choosing 'sissy' choices like the battleaxe. Instead the developer tries to boost all other weapons to fit. This is much harder than just nerfing the longsword, so the new weapons list is invariably unbalanced as well and the flail ends up being the weapon king. There's a short transition and suddenly everyone is flailing instead.
Lesson: Nerf the longsword and deal with the complaints. You're making a lot more people happy in the long run by giving them freedom of choice in their character types. When applying bonuses and penalties, make them small but add up. There should be no single 'essential' item.
A friend of mine once taught me the trick of fighting PvP, back when I still played MMOs. In a well balanced engine, there were no 'super-moves' or special advantages that would win you a fight every time. There were in fact about a dozen micro-advantages, and if you got about eight of them and your opponent didn't you would win consistently nine times out of ten. Balance isn't about having one uber-weapon that wins the game, it's about having a dozen tiny edges that combine to make a killing stroke.
That all said, let's take another look at these balance options. I think the actual Resources/Infrastructure system isn't too broken right now, so I don't plan on changing that (I may or may not tweak with Peacekeeping using Might later). Our main concern is the governments and power bases.
Let's try to redesign these using slightly better design principles. First of all, I (the developer) decide that I want, broadly, three tiers of government based on decentralisation, plus autarchy.
Tier Zero
AUTARCHY
0 Stability
Actions are free
No power bases
This should be the base government type. One big bonus, two big flaws. Big bonus is not having to deal with internal politics. Big flaws are lack of bonuses from a power base and no stability. The penalty for playing an autarch is having to devote Influence to suppressing Unrest, and an opportunity cost versus power base bonuses. When designing the power bases and other governments therefore, there should be sufficient incentive to want to avoid waiting to build up PC, plus sufficient disincentive to some of the power base or government types.
Tier One
MONARCHY
6 Stability
Leader gets 40% of Clout.
20% Discount on Might Recruitment
The big advantage of Tier One governments (comparatively) is a huge chunk of the Clout. We want this to be shared, so we're going to make the Oligarchy have that same advantage. Monarchy gets a big initial stability bonus; unrest overrides at 30 Inf. Very large monarchies will have trouble remaining stable and unrest will cut into PC before then, but for small factions it's very helpful.
I'm tempted to leave it at that, but I want to start differentiating between the imperial and social governments. Imperial governments should be getting either less upkeep cost on Might, lower recruitment cost or cheaper infrastructure purchases. The latter is fairly big and for tier one we want bonuses to be quite small. We go with a lower recruitment cost that should synergise well with the later upkeep discount from Aristocracy - Monarchy and Aristocracy are made for one another.
OLIGARCHY
2 Stability
-0.1 Unrest/Inf
Leader gets 40% of Clout.
20% Bonus to Influence Generation
Oligarchic government, I decided, is basically the same as monarchy but with a table full of people at the top instead of one. Compare and contrast Hegemony, where there are several tables with one person at the top of each. Oligarchy gets a small base stability but suffers less unrest. Unrest will override Oligarchy at 20 Inf, but a larger faction will require less Influence or Might devoted to keeping the peace than a Monarchy.
Oligarchy is a social government choice, so they get a bonus to either/both Wealth or/and Influence. Wealth is very, very powerful, so I want for this early government to stick with social powers. They get a boost to Influence production that should pay out in larger oligarchies.
Tier Two
In the Tier Two governments we surrender more control in exchange for more power. We also start seeing inherent complications arising from decentralisation, so for each two advantages there's a penalty.
HEGEMONY
4 Stability
-0.1 Unrest/Inf
Leader gets 20% of Clout.
20% Discount on Might Recruitment
10% Decreased Upkeep on Might
20% Increased Upkeep on Social Infrastructure
Hegemony sees power devolve from one man with a crowd of supporters to a handful of men with their own crowds of supporters. The government still has the stability perks of imperial government but reduced unrest as well from better management. Being a imperial government style they are still well-suited to maintaining the military-industrial complex, so I'm giving them monarchy's recruitment bonus and aristocracy's upkeep bonus combined. Since these stack, an aristocratic hegemony will be able to sustain quite large armies on its income.
There should be a penalty, though, and a Wealth penalty hits harder than an Influence penalty. When in doubt, go for the more punishing option. On the other hand, an economic penalty would simply negate the might bonus and punish them overall. Instead we'll focus on the inherent social division in a hegemony and give them a penalty to Influence production. That way they still suffer an economic penalty that can be avoided by focusing on their military to the detriment of their society.
BUREAUCRACY
2 Stability
-0.1 Unrest/Inf
Leader gets 20% of Clout.
20% Bonus to Influence Generation
10% Bonus to Wealth Generation
25% Increased Upkeep on Might
Bureaucracy takes the 'committee rule' model of oligarchy and extends it down a few levels as well, entrenching a class of mandarins whose duty it is to run the faction. Although the reins of power are still in the hands of one group of men at a table, the mules have simply become more stubborn.
Bureaucracy is a social choice, so industry and culture flourish from relative autonomy. The bonus wealth should support more social infrastructure in the long term, adding to oligarchy's existing bonuses to influence and reduced unrest. Civil interference in the military causes tensions and funding for social and industrial projects is heavily favoured over defence. Bureaucracies have to spend hard to sustain large armies.
Tier Three
Tier Three sees full or close to full decentralisation. Autonomy means flourishing economies but less direct political power. Flaws do more than just partly negate bonuses.
EMPIRE
6 Stability
-0.1 Unrest/Inf
Leader gets 10% of Clout.
30% Discount on Might Recruitment
20% Decreased Upkeep on Might
30% Increased Upkeep on Social Infrastructure
1/3 Increased Cost to build Social & Economic Infrastructure
In theory, an Empire is run by one supreme autocrat. In practice he delegates control to a vast number of subordinates and ministers, all of whom are answerable to him but who possess remarkable autonomy. The ultimate imperial government has a military that runs like clockwork, but internal corruption is rife and the economy favours stagnation. In addition to the decreased interest in social programs from hegemony, empires do not favour peaceful expansion. Bribery and other special taxes are applied to any civilian construction work and the market is staunchly anti-competitive.
FEDERATION
2 Stability
-0.2 Unrest/Inf
Leader gets 10% of Clout.
20% Bonus to Influence Generation
10% Bonus to Wealth Generation
10% Decreased Upkeep on Social Infrastructure
1/3 Decreased Cost to build Social Infrastructure
25% Increased Upkeep on Might
25% Increased Cost on Might Recruitment
Federations have limited tolerance for unrest but are extremely good at satisfying their citizens under normal conditions. The faction is divided into several autonomous states, akin to a hegemony but usually ruled by their own oligarchy or bureaucracy. The states are then unified under a single federal government with nominal powers. The freedoms extended to citizens result in great economic and social prosperity, and social programs are particularly cheap under a federation. A strong central military is distrusted both by citizens and the member states as a threat to autonomy, so it is expensive to both raise and maintain armies under a federation.
Now let's look at power bases. I want them all to be broadly beneficial, but most should have penalties in addition to the opportunity costs.
THEOCRACY
Stability: +4
-0.2 Unrest/Inf
10% Bonus to Influence Production
10% Penalty to Wealth Production
Stability is the big advantage in the theocracy. A theocratic government alone can negate the size penalties for a monarchy. With almost any other government it actually becomes somewhat resistant to foreign intervention and a theocratic federation is basically impossible to start a revolt in. This is a significant advantage, but mostly defensive. It still needs a penalty and I don't want to discourage imperial governments from using it. We give them a wealth penalty instead of a social one (the church takes its own private tithes in addition to tax).
The wealth penalty is bigger than the gain, though, so we'll balance it out some more. The small advantage of bonus influence favours theocracies as a political and spiritual force, but not to the level of media institutions. That seems good for now.
MULTI-MEDIA
10% Decreased Upkeep on Social Infrastructure
20% Bonus to Influence Production
If the news networks are running the government (or vice versa), you have a lot of control over hearts and minds. The bonus to influence production steps it up higher than Theocracy and the reduced upkeep on social is just an added edge. Should play well with oligarchies or take the edge off hegemonies.
DEMOCRACY
Stability: +2
-0.1 Unrest/Inf
10% Bonus to Wealth Production
25% Increased Might Upkeep
A polarised power base, this. Social freedom limits unrest and favours stability and internal business, but creates great distrust for standing armies. The upkeep cost should discourage imperial governments and standing armies, although an actual Empire could play well with a democratic power base.
PLUTOCRACY
10% Bonus to Wealth Production
Money, and that's it. Plutocracy comes with an opportunity cost rather than a penalty, but bundled with a bureacracy you'll still have an economic powerhouse that doesn't invalidate democracy as a choice.
STRATOCRACY
10% Reduced Cost for Might Recruitment
10% Reduced Upkeep for Might
1/3 Increased Cost to build Economic Infrastructure
Stratocracies should favour large, cheap standing armies. The complete disregard for the civilian economy is a big penalty to peaceful growth, but a military junta (stratocratic hegemony) or absolute monarch (stratocratic monarch) will probably be focused on capturing infrastructure rather than building it anyway.
ARISTOCRACY
Stability: +2
-0.1 Unrest/Inf
10% Reduced Upkeep for Might
Aristocracies are stable and favour cheaper standing armies. They combine well with monarchy and have opportunity costs over penalties.
CORPORATE
+0.1 Unrest/Inf
10% bonus to Wealth Production
1/3 Decreased Cost to build Economic Infrastructure
25% Increased Cost for Might Recruitment
1/3 Increased Cost to build Social Infrastructure
Corporations are extremely good at making money and developing new markets, but bloated defense contracts make recruiting new militaries expensive and insurance-based healthcare limits social care. The relative lack of ethics and continual price fixing and market manipulation stirs extreme resentment in the population to boot.
TECHNOCRACY
1/3 Decreased Cost to build any Infrastructure
10% penalty to Wealth Production
Rule by the literati favours academia and expensive research over day to day business. On the other hand, constant innovation paves the way for expansion and new machines are always available to develop the faction's resources further.
PLATOCRACY
10% Reduced Cost for Might Recruitment
10% Bonus to Influence Production
Rule is managed by an elite of scholarly soldiers, the ideal 'Guardians' or philosopher kings who manage the state not for their own profit but out of duty to the greatest good. Such a state can easily levy soldiers when needed and has the political influence of knowledge and philosophy on their side.
KLEPTOCRACY
Double income from razing Infrastructure
20% Reduced Cost for Might Recruitment
When you are ruled by clans of raiders, not only is it cheap and easy to get troops quickly, they tend to be extremely good at looting. The main penalty to kleptocracy is the opportunity cost.
A SAMPLE STARTING FACTION
La Republica de las Bananas
This peaceful little republic is kept peaceful through ruthless force by its ruling council of generals.
Government: Oligarchy
Primary Power Base: Stratocrats
4 Economic Infrastructure
4 Military Infrastructure
2 Social Infrastructure
10 Wealth, 4 Might
Projected Income: +2.4
Economy: +8 [+8 @ 100%]
Might: -3.6 [-4 @ 90%]
Social: -2 [-2 @ 100%]
Influence Budget: 2.4 [2 @ 120%]
Suppress Unrest: 1
Unassigned: 1
Social Order
Stability: 2
Unrest: 0 (-4)
+1 from 10 Inf (+0.1/Inf after perks)
-1 from Influence
(-4 while Might used for peacekeeping)
Perks
-0.1 Unrest/Inf
Leader gets 40% of Clout.
20% Bonus to Influence Generation
10% Reduced Cost for Might Recruitment
10% Reduced Upkeep for Might
1/3 Increased Cost to build Economic Infrastructure
Power Bases
Ruler: 4 Clout (+4 PC/turn)
Stratocrats: 6 Clout. Neutral to Ruler [25% PC]. (+1.5 PC/turn)
Unrest Penalty to PC: None
Current Political Capital: 5.5 PC
Allied Factions: The Principality of Thrice, The Hobart Corporation
There we go. I'm reasonably happy with these, so we can go with them for now. You may wish to change your governments based on the updates; if so, just edit your sheet and post to say that you have.
On another note, welcome aboard Ghaz and Ardas. Two slots left!
Author
Topic: Clout: Round One, Turn 3 - The Philosopher King (Read 13871 times)