Slitherine

These are a bit strange results. Maybe it's better to play with the first advance or something that looks a bit like the achievements we had in the previous game. If not, I think it is better to set a historical scenario in Roman times and play from there. The truth is, the results that AI has given seem to me to make little sense. It could be to begin a scenario at the time of the beginning of Roman expansion through Italy, after the Hellenistic era. Anyway, what I don't like about these results is that there is no progression with what we played before, it changes everything radically.

The game is actually set up to reflect the ebb and flow of historical empires over millennia, and does that fairly accurately imho. The problem is, however, that a single ruler's accomplishments tend to get wiped away like Ozymandias. The lifespan of an empire is, on average, about 200-500 years. Early rapid success (like Alexander's conquests) can mean a catastrophic fracturing within the same generation. Small tribes can rise up in a corner of the map and suddenly overrun a much more established realm. The "instability" rating is a good indication of a realm's fragility, but - at least in the Bronze Age - a ruler can at best slow it down. I also want the timescale to reflect the pace of historical campaigns, but that also has drawbacks - ie, some fronts, like the Roman/Persian frontier, might see centuries of battles with little territorial change, as fickle allies side with the winner than switch to the loser.

If people are interested I could set up a game in 500 BC, with Rome, Carthage, Athens, Persia, and all the classical kingdoms that we know and love, or the 300 BC Rise of Rome. I'd like to try a historical continuation game at some point, but probably 100 years is a more reasonable time-jump that won't utterly transform everything.

I might also change the domestic politics system so that players can have more control over the central dynamic, the race between reform and decay. This would take a while, however.

I mean more at a playable level. I think the objective of any campaign is to have a certain progressiveness. If we are going to play in a totally different scenario, that has nothing to do with the results of my game, I prefer to play another historical era.

I suggest that we play a new historical scenario, at the time of the First Punic War, or the Pyrrhic Wars for example. We recruit new players and play a progressive campaign with a time limit. We can set some goals to establish a winner.

That sounds good. I think what I want to do is come up with a multiplayer scoring system, but also make it so that everything which affects scores - ie, random diplomatic events - is dependent on player choices. Then I'll do a Rise of Rome-era campaign that lasts for four turns or so.

I want to keep the asymmetrical starts and the long-term historical pattern of empire rising and falling, so the score will primarily depend on changes since the game start position due to the player's performance and choices over a single generation. This will take a little while for me to implement and test, however.

In the meantime, thanks to everyone who participated, and look forward to inviting back those interested in a little while!

I'd second the idea of starting with the time of Pyrrhus.

Karvon

Karvon wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:48 pm I'd second the idea of starting with the time of Pyrrhus.

Karvon

I agree