2 ms·
The basic problem is the disparity in control mechanisms. As a city-builder player, you have central planning capabilities that would make Stalin jealous--and w
by pphysch 5y ago
The basic problem is the disparity in control mechanisms. As a city-builder player, you have central planning capabilities that would make Stalin jealous--and were completely unattainable in the relevant time period due to poor communications technology.
One solution is to make "social power"/"control"/"influence" an actual gameplay mechanic, rather than leaving it entirely to the players cognition/dexterity. Lack of player control is counterbalanced by powerful AI.
For example, at the start of the game you might play as a local authority that manages land rights. You merely specify who owns what land and have limited control over how they use it. Eventually, the peasants build organic settlements, and if they get big enough, you can get transferred there and act as mayor--with the ability to set more precise local policy and therefore begin to shape the town... And so on and so forth.
- svachalek 5y agoAccording to TFA however, one flaw in medieval city builders is that they are too organic, when actual villages were centrally planned. The more major one however is that growth was apparently near hopeless, which would really make them play like a different genre entirely.
- Robotbeat 5y agoI think with modern hindsight, growth would be fairly straightforward, but it’s anachronistic to bring 21st century intellectual tools to bear in a 10th Century context, like bringing a machine gun (and plenty of ammo) to a medieval battlefield. Even things like knowing about sanitation (so don’t put wells where you dump your sewer) would help massively.
- pphysch 5y agoVillages are planned to some extent, but they almost certainly are placed in areas with existing settlers i.e. productive capacity. The farms (settlers) come first, then the village follows.