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 4)
11 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Feb 18, 2010

Wintersong, that is actually not a bad idea at all. Not having access to all the numbers would definitely prevent the game from being 'gamed.' However, it is a bit screwing over the players who want to get in-depth and play this game all-out since without being able to quantify factors it can be hard to choose what to do.

on Feb 18, 2010

One thing I would love, but may not be possible, would be lots of different models for the same type of building.

I love building the massive cities in ANNO, but I always feel like each block feels the same.  The more models, the better.... perhaps using specific models based upon what surrounds the building (sooty houses when next to a blacksmith, houses built into slopes, adobe buildings in desert climates, etc.)

While it wouldn't directly influence gameplay, it woudl go a long way to having me sympathize with city and provide a nice immersion experience.

on Feb 18, 2010

Shurdus
Wintersong, that is actually not a bad idea at all. Not having access to all the numbers would definitely prevent the game from being 'gamed.' However, it is a bit screwing over the players who want to get in-depth and play this game all-out since without being able to quantify factors it can be hard to choose what to do.

No it doesn't prevent the game from being "gamed".

Short answer: You can look up the numbers since the game is moddable in the file itself.

Bit longer answer: You can't stop theorycrafting from happening since it's something certain players will enjoy and thus always try to do. If you hide the numbers, you only annoy them a bit, makes 'em have to do a little bit more work to figure it all out. At the same time you make it impossible for the less hardcore in that direction to fully understand the system without outside help.

 

I did see one question that I haven't seen answered unless I missed it... what kind of system is in place to stop city spamming for the purpose of claiming resources or extending territory?

I'm really curious about this part, cause with what we experienced in the current beta, city spam is only delayed till your territory spread, not avoided.

 

Also, the most important question for me is, what did you change regarding the ressource aquisition system? Currently you have to build snake cities to connect to resources which I hate without end.

on Feb 18, 2010

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.

on Feb 18, 2010

Currently you have to build snake cities to connect to resources which I hate without end.

As do I  unfortunately it seems math is the only way to describe possible ways for games to be made. And I'm terrible at math... I can say that i want city building to be a naturally occurring thing, where cities develop realistically (since we are going for a living breathing world here) but no one seems to know how to accomplish that.

I've seen hundreds of good ideas concerning city building float through these forums. To name a few:

 

  • Economic growth based on location. Areas with a lot of traffic naturally becoming trading hubs
  • Lots of variety in cities, no city can be completely stocked with mansions. There should be rich and poor people.
  • Center city where units are trained and main buildings reside, then around them are outlying villages (outposts) that harvest resources in the general area.
  • People that flock to your city instead of some crazy random population number. Makes people really matter.
  • Placement of main buildings to make citizens build around them. Makes growth more fluid.
I don't know, maybe it's just me. But I think theres a very healthy balance between the anno-style and the simplicity of MoM, I just can't explain it in mathematical context  Maybe that means my words have no weight, but I think I'm making good points if you want cities to be important and immersive rather than just gamey tools to victory as they are in every other game.

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.

Thank you! Im not alone!  

on Feb 18, 2010

Sounds great.  Long time ago I posted something on this forum on the importance of tradeoffs so I love the philosophy behind your approach to cities.  Would love it if even a fully maxed out city still left you wishing you could fit something else in it. That would then mean then you'd have to fit it somewhere else and thus lead to having specialized cities for different things instead of lots of mega cities that are just clones of eachother as happens in late game Civ.  Kudos!

on Feb 18, 2010

I'm kinda torn on this...

I don't like hard caps, so the 8 tiles/city level bothers me.  On the other hand, I like the idea of hard choices (as in not being able to build everything in a city).  On the first hand, civ4 allows building everything in a city but the game rewards not doing that ("good" players specialize -- production cities, great person cities, research/beakers/commerce cities, cities to claim resources or bottleneck terrain, etc.). Building everything in a city is inefficient, and that's an effective softcap mechanism.

I'd prefer a softcap with diminishing returns.  Or possibly a limit on how many of a type of building in a city (multiple houses but only 1 university/etc.? -- yes this is a 'hardcap' but on a lower level of abstraction).

Having houses/etc. automatically upgrade also bothers me. With hardcapped tiles it makes sense, but I'll miss having 'poor' sections of town/etc. (perhaps city design isn't supposed to be that detailed, and if so this isn't a big issue, but still...).  And what if my Sov hates peons or wants them to tough it out (natural selection out the weakest?).

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

The $64 question is -- how?  The hardcap on tiles seems that it'd require more cities, not fewer (as you can't have a few cities that 'do it all'), to be competitive.  Is this another strike against those wanting to play a small but powerful empire?

How will you prevent a large number of "...larger/older cities..." compared to a smaller number of them (as that's the apples-to-apples comparison, not the apples-to-oranges comparison of many small/young cities vs few large/old cities)?

 

on Feb 18, 2010

See my posts here and here if you haven't already.

on Feb 18, 2010

What Rising Legend said?  Yes, yes, yes!  He's always got a very rational overview.

I'm sorry, but I'm very disappointed with the way cities are turning out.  Personally, I think the tile system--- where players decide to build on each tile in an authoritarian fashion--- needs to be scrapped altogether.  It adds very little to the game, as far as strategy.

As soon as I'm done raiding with the wife, I'll contribute more to the debate.  Until then, listen to Rising Legend!

on Feb 18, 2010

Yea ... I totally have to agree that "building Border towns for Resource and Food aquisition" seems to be the next logical step to reducing city spam.

Reduce City spam by favoring a few large cities plus TOWN SPAM!!!! (aka border-settlement spam, rural area, developed, controlled, but not overpopulated ... ect ect ect)

on Feb 18, 2010

Tasunke
Yea ... I totally have to agree that "building Border towns for Resource and Food aquisition" seems to be the next logical step to reducing city spam.

Reduce City spam by favoring a few large cities plus TOWN SPAM!!!! (aka border-settlement spam, rural area, developed, controlled, but not overpopulated ... ect ect ect)

I think the larger and more prestigeous a city, the broader "zone of control" it has on resources.  A city doesn't have to be plopped down on a pile of resources to use it.  Small, simple towns like Tasunke has mentioned would utilize those resources and ship them back to cities to process and utilize them.

on Feb 18, 2010

I love the idea of having less, though more important cities but when push comes to shove if you wanted/needed a resource (in civ 4 for example) the only real way in the past was to just establish a city nearby. If cities are supposed to be important, how are you going to handle claiming resources? Can I assume they wont be as prolific as civ 4? How would you also deal with cities becoming too spread out, with the possibility of each essentially becoming an independant citystate?

on Feb 18, 2010

Well the OP just convinces me that I need to try one of the Anno games before EWOM comes out! I really like the idea that resources are treated as finite units and you could practically track a piece of wood from the tree to the finished item.

And yes, I am one of those crying with pigeonx2 that resources won't be tracked to "almost the atomic level".

on Feb 18, 2010

A lot of the answers to these questions will come through the beta to be honest.

on Feb 18, 2010

I'm sure they will Frog, but the more info we can squeeze out of you guys now is-- well more info now lol  

11 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last