Join me, Anthony Salter (aka Viridian) as I talk about what it's like being a new employee at Stardock and detail what I'm doing to help Elemental be the best strategy game ever.
What we're shooting for and why.
Published on February 18, 2010 By AnthonySalter In Elemental Dev Journals

Hi!  I'm Viridian, also known as Anthony Salter, and I just finished a major revamp of the citybuilding system.  I'd like to talk today about our design goals for citybuilding and how the system currently works.

First, let's look at how our major inspirations, Civilization and Master of Magic, handled cities.  In both games, cities were fairly abstract.  They consisted of a single icon on the map and a screen full of sprites and numbers.



And you would end up with dozens of the things as the game progressed; to the point where you'd probably end up ignoring some because they were too small or unproductive to help you win the game.  (Didn't prevent them from falling into civil disorder and bringing your whole empire to a grinding halt...grr...)

 

As strategy games developed, a genre of incredibly detailed citybuilding games emerged, including the Caesar series, the Settlers series, and the Anno series.

 

 

In these games, everything is simulated practically down to the atomic level.  These are the kinds of games where you need to mine ore to make tools to cut down trees to gather lumber to take to the sawmill to make planks to build new buildings.

Now, there's no doubt this can be fun.  I've enjoyed both the Settlers and the Anno series of games myself.  The only problem is that citybuilding, while important, isn't the only thing you do in Elemental, and thus we can't allow it to dominate the game the way it does in Anno-style games.  (I can hear certain people weeping on the forums already but it's true.)  So what we've tried to do is create a happy medium.

I've spent all this time telling you how citybuilding won't work; it might be a good idea to tell you how it will.

What exactly did we want when we set out to create our citybuilding system?

Well, first, we didn't want city spam.  Thus, we created a system where building a smaller number of larger, older cities is rewarded.

As you probably know, Sovereigns can create cities, thus creating a town hub.  There are five levels a hub can go through - they start as outposts, then upgrade to hamlets, villages, towns, and cities.  At each upgrade point you'll get eight new tiles to build improvements on - and your city will be able to support more efficient improvements that it couldn't before.

Another feature of cities is that they are (mostly) auto-upgrading.  If you expand your city to a village and you have the Housing technology researched, then all your huts will upgrade to houses - instantly, and for free.  Your city needs to be at the proper level and you must have the technology researched in order for this to happen.  Again, I can hear the cries of some forum-goers who think that this will negatively impact the game, but we're facing facts here.  Ninety percent of the time when we get a new housing tech we simply demolish our old houses and build new ones right where the old ones were.  Because of the hard forty-tile limit you can't just throw more out there - non-optimal improvements will literally be a detriment to your city.

Indeed, crafting a good city is going to be a continual series of trade-offs rather than a forever-growing list of improvements.  And as the city grows and the game progresses, you will find yourself continually repurposing your cities rather than building new ones.

An early city in Elemental.

 

Our goal is to strike a balance, so that we aren't overwhelming the player with city management, but we still provide a robust enough experience that you don't just think of your city as numbers and sprites.  When someone attacks your city and your little people start running around screaming, we want you thinking, "Hey!  Stop picking on them!  How 'bout a little FIRE, Scarecrow?!"

 

EDIT:  I originally stated that Sovereigns needed to expend essence to create cities.  This is incorrect; they expend essence to bring the land back to life so the city can be built.  I have fixed the error in the article.


Comments (Page 10)
11 PagesFirst 8 9 10 11 
on Feb 24, 2010

Very much true I suppose, but then again like in so many games it is hard to equate one effort with all others in the sense that by turn 100 everyone is closer to their goals by about the same amount. If the questing AI has more heroes it should still be able to have those heroes smash my armies to bits, but I take it the heroes may very well come back from their quests too late to protect their beloved capitol before I smash the gates in.

Also the teching AI may have more advanced units, yet it should offer about the same challenge to overcome than the questing AI does. I take it it will be very very hard to get everything right so that going after one strategy in multiplayer does not mean suicide.

on Jun 10, 2010

Some thoughts...

  • Man does that map make me miss MoM. I just found out about this game while checking the MoM wiki.
  • If this is a post apocalyptic world unlimited growth seems counter-intuitive. Soft food and/or population limits seem sensible. Particularly with a dynastic system in place population growth tracking seems like a no-brainer.
  • I'm not keen on these "snake-cities." There was mention made of espionage options. I'd suggest cities with too high a ratio of outerwall to total area count as 'leaky' and are more subject to espionage and have generally weaker defenses.
  • Likewise cities should need a zone-of-control to feed their population, with different terrain types providing different levels of production. So like in MoM you might build a mountain city knowing it's never going to support itself, but it's worth building because of local resources such as Adamantine mines or a Mana node. That city then siphons off the global food pool.
  • Population growth should slow to a crawl or halt when the food pool plateaus, then the players need to either conquer more farmland or cast a growth spell. Again similar to how in MoM a couple of halfling cities would serve as your breadbasket that powered the conquest machine of other high production/high bonus cities.
  • I do wonder what this city-spam limiter is. If cities need large ZoC to feed themselves, and are limited in their ability to grow by the simple lack of bodies in this wasteland that seems adequate. So for example suppose you have a 'population recruitment pool' of size X. Then each turn (or year or whenever growth is handled) that population is divvied out amoungst your available cities according to how attractive each one is. So if you have too many cities the growth will slow to a crawl.
  • For that matter if you want to be really realistic before the last 100 years almost all cities were mortality sinks. That is they killed more people (through disease, starvation, crime, etc) than were born in them and maintained their populations through a steady supply of suckers coming to the big city in search of a better life. So maybe size 1,2, and maybe 3 towns are population producers that add people to the population pool, size 3 and/or 4 are population neutral, and size 5 cities are steady drain on the pop pool making it impossible to grow all your cities to full size. Realistic and game balancing in one easy shot.

Oh. And Hi all.

on Jun 10, 2010

Just some random thoughts of mine. Every post I am reading has people assuming you need cities to claim resources. but those of us who have played Beta 1 know thats not true, we have pioneers.

Of course the problem with pioneers is that when they claim a resource they only produce at half efficiency and of course defending this wayward outposts is kinda brutal.

So my suggestion is the way to fight city spam isn't to make pioneers less effeicient but more effecient. Lets take a mine for example. Pioneered mine only produces .5/turn in beta 1 where a city produces 1/turn. But what if the pioneered resource produced 2/turn vs 1/turn from a city. Now you have the hard choice of easier to defend said mine if it is a city but less productive vs harder to defend but twice as productive. And then bam you don't have people "Having" to drop cities all over the map to claim resources.

Or if the harder to defend is a problem make a mechanic where a second pioneer will build a fort over the resource to give any stationed units a defensive bonus,

Just a thought, because I hate having to drop an entire city just to get a single out of the way shard,

on Jun 12, 2010

... Of course the problem with pioneers is that when they claim a resource they only produce at half efficiency...

Given the apparent decision to have buckets of mundane research, perhaps the plan includes ways to improve outposts, perhaps by enabling us to send a second pioneer to install upgrades or somesuch.

on Jun 12, 2010

I think a XeronX makes a good point, Without even considering balance, pioneering should have a more valuable role than it currently has. Pioneers are currently nearly always worse than just building a city.

Without even considering balance, pioneering should have a bigger role than it currently has. The reason for this is that unlike games like Civ 4 where simply having a resource flags your empire as having that resource, most Elemental resources are built up over time. Shards break this mold but you would never pioneer a Shard node currently; Half a shard is worthless, and surely if there are two of the *same* shard around you would be capable of locating a city somewhere near one of them instead of the 400 gold, 100 material of two pioneers claiming it.

 

My proposal is simple Pioneer outpost sites should either be upgradable or should start equal to city level.

on Jun 12, 2010

GW Swicord

See, I would get frustrated with soemthing like this. If I'm used to X building producing Y, I don't want to have to figure out "now why am I now getting Z instead of Y from X"...mostly where Z is a MUCH lower number than Y.
Holy over-20k treasury penalty, Batman!

Re the 5-step plan for pop centers, I would also prefer to see a smoother, more organic approach to pop site growth. Ditching level numbers for words in that specific case seems good for soothing complaints like Wintersong mentioned while not at all obscuring the underlying math, even if the 5-step plan gets to RTM.

The main thing I find missing from the 'revolutionary TBS' crowd around here is some support for sites that stay low-population but can still play a meaningful role in a faction's economy, like farming villages, mining towns, and garrison towns. This genre needs to get some good mechanics for what boils down to a "metropolitan area" in modern urban planning terms. Or at least some way to model a classic city-state like pre-Renaissance Venice, which took control of some mainland territory simply to maintain a wheat supply.

 

I was thinking along the same lines. I would like to see limits on the number of large cities and make smaller ones more important to overall growth and expansion.

 

For an example, you are allowed 2 large, 5 medium and unlimited small cities/towns. Large cities can have nearly unlimited number of tiles, but are 'controlled' by available land, and possibly other factors. Mediums would be restricted to (1/3) of your large city size. Small would then be (1/3) of that number. You would never have hard-caps on growth but 'natural' restrictions would be in place to curb sprawl. Some ideas are:

*More unbuildable land which makes location selection more important especially for large cities.

*More turns to build or make upgrades take time (not be immediate).

*Restrict specialization (eg an all farm town) to small cities and force larger ones to remain balanced in their building. (This makes the smaller towns more valuable if a player wants to specialize. Enable a small specialized town to produce that 'good' faster than the big city.)

 

If there was interest, I'm sure this could be fleshed out more. I like the idea of making each town/city their own. Usually players max out each city as there is never incentive (or restrictions) to keep cities smaller.

 

Any thoughts?

on Jun 13, 2010

Is there will be a possibility to develop one big-evil-slave city? Or i must have a couple of city's to maintain development?

on Jun 14, 2010

Cauldyth

Well, first, we didn't want city spam. Thus, we created a system where building a smaller number of larger, older cities is rewarded.





Indeed, crafting a good city is going to be a continual series of trade-offs rather than a forever-growing list of improvements.




Those are two great starts.  I'm tired of games where "every city has every improvement," and I'm equally tired of city spam.  Both of those problems just turn city management into a bloated, tedious, generic mess.

 

But some of us like it that way.  I say let it be a toggle. I perfer 'city spam' and building up my cities but I can understand why some don't so a toggle would be really nice much like in the Civ games where you let the city manager take over. Personally I never use the city manager because a good portion of the fun of the game was building the cities but others made great use of this.

 

on Jun 14, 2010

I also agree that pioneering should get a boost to bring the value to an equal level with town production.  Another way to do that might be to give the technology Logistics or Caravans the effect of boosting pioneered resources from 50% to 100%.  Both of those techs suggest you have the logistical capacity to get the resources to town.  Or maybe each one adds 25% more so that by researching both you hit the 100%

on Jun 14, 2010

Cynjian
I also agree that pioneering should get a boost to bring the value to an equal level with town production.  Another way to do that might be to give the technology Logistics or Caravans the effect of boosting pioneered resources from 50% to 100%.  Both of those techs suggest you have the logistical capacity to get the resources to town.  Or maybe each one adds 25% more so that by researching both you hit the 100%

 

Excellent idea, in fact much better than mine!

 

Having techs to improve upon Outposts makes perfect sense, and would keep Pioneers from overshadowing city-building in the opening turns of the game.

 

One other addition would be to have Pioneer units gain some sort of other ability from certain techs. Something like "Build Watchtower" in the Warfare line, "Build Magic Beacon" (allowing you to summon creatures at that location instead of your Sov's), or even "Build Trade Depot" for selling items to adventurers.

on Jun 15, 2010

Cynjian
I also agree that pioneering should get a boost to bring the value to an equal level with town production.  Another way to do that might be to give the technology Logistics or Caravans the effect of boosting pioneered resources from 50% to 100%.  Both of those techs suggest you have the logistical capacity to get the resources to town.  Or maybe each one adds 25% more so that by researching both you hit the 100%

Or maybe have the outposts production about upgraded by actually sending caravans to it, like you would to other cities? 

They start at 50% when first created and each caravan you send to an outpost upgrades its output by X% (15, 25) up to 100%.  Then, given the natural road system and the caravan system, roads would develop and merchant trains would go from the outposts to the home city.  Protecting those merchant trains (just like your inter-city caravans) would add a bit more depth to the need to defend your own territory and it would simulate the difficulty and danger in getting resources from a remote location back to your trade centers and on to the rest of your empire.

on Oct 09, 2010

Also specail bulding for orks, goblins, trolls are

troll hunters hut

ork and gobling pig farms

butchers hut for orks

smoke house for goblins

Dwarf goat farms

cave forest pop up by goblin invertors hut and can be built anywhere.

on Oct 09, 2010

You for got an important game Age of wonders. The city system was simple food = population buildings = productions and gold and mana were the basic resources. Migration was also important. Say you encounter a minor race. So you then choose to migrate that minor race to your city. I have a human city and humans are neutral so I migrate it to elves. Then I build a forestry and trees grow all around my city and it becomes hidden in a forest. Also you could build cave cities. Dwarfs and goblins did well under ground and around your city would pop up little mushroom farms if you had space. And you could make space by spell and artifacts to dig more cave out or seal off your city from the rest of the world. Adding under sea cities would be nice for a merpeople race. I suggest you look at age of wonders I has some good stuff in that would be great for this game.

on Oct 15, 2010

Is there a list of city improvements available and what they actually do? So I don't waste time researching, e.g., Construction for the important sounding construction yard (which I assumed to be a production boost, but no, it adds 20% to my materials generation. That would be great at around Turn 20 when materials can be a bottleneck. By Turn 200, one has thousands of materials and nowhere to use them. Need more materials? Don't think so.). And is the Missionary Hall actually useful? Increases influence. Nice!!! Wait a minute, by how much and what does influence do again? The game has great potential and an equally great absence of useful information.

on Oct 28, 2011

Bummer, I really like micromanaging and building cities from the ground up. Resource management adds a whole new layer of strategy as well.

but given the scope of the game this is ok

11 PagesFirst 8 9 10 11