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 7)
11 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last
on Feb 19, 2010

We'll see in 1G .. but .. don't you like my idea of a possibly ever-growing city ?
  Yes   We've talked before about connecting cities to reach such an end, but I really fear the cheese at that point.

on Feb 19, 2010

I wasn't speaking of connecting existing cities. That would be .. well .. cheesy like you say

I was speaking of something more organic :

Your town needs to be fully built to get to th enext "level" : you earn one more tile to build on, but you have to wait as much turns as many tiles you have. And that would be with no cap.

A town with 45 tiles fully built ? wait 45 turns and you'll have a 46th tile to build on. etc.

You could plan since the first turn a very very very big city ... and even if 40 tiles is a big number, it's still a cap.

 

And what about "parks" or "traits" like in RPG but for cities ? You choose the "ugly" perk for your city and buildings costs less but your prestige is less.

on Feb 19, 2010

I have recently been studying the city of Novgorod in my Russian History course. It seems applicable to the subject here. Novgorod, or new city, was by far the most progressive and profound populous in euroupe during its time. Imagine a wholly democratic city-state, moreso than the sham of american democarcy, so that every peasant got a vote in every matter and facet of society. It defended Mongol-sieged Russia against the bastard teutonic knights, the illogical lithuanians and was even passed over by Khan himself as a doomed siege. The key to its survival was general equality.

There has been a lot of talk here about realism, what we fail to realize is that western thought is a subjective knowledge of its own history. Equality among serf and sov is not impossible just not done in our countries by our ancestors. Open your minds to new thought, this is afterall fanasy.

The Kingdoms in this game may spontaniously upgrade the quality of life for their peasants, as in Novgorod on several occasions, because the sovergn and the nobles realize, the key to growth, stability and even immense power. Magic cannot hold the will a peasant fighting for his nation, how much moreso if he is treated as an equal part of a fair society!

    Sweet Kievan Russia we know thee not*

on Feb 19, 2010

Sovereigns... expend essence to bring the land back to life so the city can be built.

Does this expenditure continue or is it a one time thing?

One way to contain city spam would make the essence expenditure continue -- if you want a lot of cities you do so at the continuing expense of other pursuits.  This could allow few huge cities vs. many smaller ones. If you run low on essence the 'chaos' eats away at your settled lands, etc.

It could also allow a small but powerful empire to compete with the 'big' empires (as the small/powerful empire has relatively more essence to put into magical puissance, heroes, etc.).

on Feb 19, 2010

Interesting reading how the discussion is going.  For some reason, I find the idea of a single metropolis empire to be...disturbingly attractive.  It is not attractive enough to want to make me play one, but still...

I am rather against hardcaps on the number of cities - I was one of those who found the MOM/Civ style city creating/building to suit my taste.  I am a bit concerned about where the city system might go, but I am interested in seeing how it goes (If for no other reason than no other fantasy 4X games since MOM has really been to my taste.)

 

on Feb 19, 2010

In Civ, every time I consider building a new city I need to decide weather it's worth the investment. In my case, there are two situations where I do it; when I have a spot where my city will prosper, or when I need a city in a specific place for strategic reasons.

For the second group, strategic reasons are almost always gaining territory, usually to get a specific resource. I don't like that system, since I then have a large amount of small cities that eat my resources for rather meager returns.

The system, earlier suggested in this thread, of mining/farming/harvesting colonies is much better in my humble opinion. These colonies, as I imagine them, would be small outposts that require next to nill micromanagement and support. Like the space stations in GalCiv, they become a strategic location and not a domestic one, meaning I deal with it only on a need-to basis and not constantly.

on Feb 19, 2010

and that the upgrade should take time

This is exactly what I was thinking.  I am ok with the process of upgrading happening automatically but it should still take time and preferably have a cost (though reduced).  I like to believe that this world is a real place and having things pop out of thin air doesn't sit well with me.  In addition I could see this causing some game balance issues.  I don't know enough of the game mechanics yet to know for sure but it seems like it would end up being benificial building lots of cheap hovels early and purposely holding off on getting the housing techs so they all get upgraded instantly and for free.  I assume the higher level houses would cost more and take longer to build.

on Feb 19, 2010

One nice thing about cities in Elemental is that they don't really require any micro management if the user doesn't want to mess with them.

There is no morale or approval or what have you. 

You want a mining outpost? No problem, plop down your keep, build the mine and you're done. Your entire civilization gets a benefit.  Want to increase that benefit? Build a road to it.

 

on Feb 19, 2010

Ok... But what's the advantage of not turning that mining outpost into a huge city?

on Feb 19, 2010

Good, my micro skillz are terrible. I can't attack and build and develop multiple cities at the same time

on Feb 19, 2010

Gazing

The system, earlier suggested in this thread, of mining/farming/harvesting colonies is much better in my humble opinion. These colonies, as I imagine them, would be small outposts that require next to nill micromanagement and support. Like the space stations in GalCiv, they become a strategic location and not a domestic one, meaning I deal with it only on a need-to basis and not constantly.

I was going to point this out, but you beat me to it. The "colony" solution being proposed is very much like a GalCiv2 map with only a handful of good-quality planets but a huge amount of those little glowing crystals scattered all over.

I think Tridus is really onto something here. Historically, most large cities were founded in areas with access to fertile land and clean water. Smaller settlements might crop up elsewhere to exploit specific resources, but these rarely grew into large population centers because the land couldn't support it. Instead, they would harvest the resource and trade it to the big cities for food and other necessities.

In addition to solving the "snake city" and endgame micromanagement problems, this would also provide a number of soft targets that can be attacked. That encourages smaller, more mobile forces on both sides, and doesn't allow you to just turtle in your cities and roll over your opponents with a single giant stack'o'doom.

on Feb 19, 2010

Sarudak
Ok... But what's the advantage of not turning that mining outpost into a huge city?

 

Easy: You don't have to spend gold building houses, etc. for that city, and you don't have to provide food for the growing city. (meaning you have money and food free for the expansion of other cities)

on Feb 19, 2010

I do like the general direction SD is going.  However there are some important features/functions coming from Citybuilding does not seem to show in OP (& I have not read all posts above)

Location based building bonus:  Cities built surrounded by forests should be given productivity bonus for its lumber mill; cities surrounded by other major cities will be naturally better at trading.  This allow specialization of a city because the city is naturally good at it. 

Achievement based building bonus:  Some buildings (and Units) should receive a huge bonus when your empire achieve a meaningful (& multiple dozen turns) milestones .  These milestones maybe be Ranked, or come in first-come-first serve bases (sort of like 1 per world Wonder, but different in terms of the condition).   Mid game will become more fun, because each empire is trying to achieve these milestones, and the game will become no longer restrained by land = power.   The first 10 turns of land-grab is important, but its importance is lessened somewhat.

Production-center based building bonus:  A medium productivity bonus should be given the lumber mill, when you squeeze more and more lumber mill into the same city (of course, other buildings that are required to support its working population should be there, providing enuf food, prestige, protection etc).   When a player want to specialize in one type of a product, let them do so. Give enuf bonus that 1 hugely focused metropolitan can provide enuf of that stuff to the whole empire.   Let player decide if they want a centralized production pattern or a dispersed pattern in his empire.

Reversed population based bonus
:  Some buildings should receive a huge bonus when the area is quiet, peaceful, and less polluted etc.  Or, instead of a huge bonus, certain higher-end technology can only produce bonus when the city is at village level but not anything above.  These buildings can be farming related, magic-related, academy, hunting, horse-breeding facility.    This give player reasons that huge cities is not always the goal.  Some stuff works better outside huge cities.

Tile based building placement is not what I like.  I feel that individual building placement inside city is not all that fun.  And there are also a micromanagement aspect of placing 40 tiles over some many cities in the game.    Unless individual placement significantly affect how your city defence, I'll prefer a Slot-based city-building instead.  The actual placement of buildings are handled by AI.  The only concern a gamer has should only be on the composition of various buildings in the city.  Spending time placing buildings on tile will because tedious after a while.

I like the auto-upgrade idea when your pop/tech/$ allows it because potentially it minimize micro.  I am at the camp that strictly hate AI governors, I wonder how will SD resolve the issue, when a humble hut can branched out into 10 different buildings when the game progresses, without the use of AI governors?   I am suggesting a goal based building but this is just a rough idea for your further improvement.    Is it possible that on a particular tile/slot,  the player decide the highest tier/most advanced building on turn 1?   As the game progress, the game auto-upgrade/downgrade the building due to the pop/tech/$ factors.   I am aware there are some disadvantage (that I am too lazy to write), but in general I prefer this that the "mostly (upgrading).  I want FULL upgrading without the use of AI governor.   Can that be possibly done?  Is there a good way?

on Feb 19, 2010

One nice thing about cities in Elemental is that they don't really require any micro management if the user doesn't want to mess with them.

There is no morale or approval or what have you. 

You want a mining outpost? No problem, plop down your keep, build the mine and you're done. Your entire civilization gets a benefit.  Want to increase that benefit? Build a road to it.

 

Like Sarudak said, what is the advantage of not turning the mining outpost into a huge city? Especially if founding said outpost required expending the same amount of essence as you'd need to found a full-on city that you intend to develop.

The whole colony/outpost idea has been floating around for a while and I have yet to see a good reason for not implementing it or something like it. Now, if you come up with some as-yet unmentioned mechanism that discourages you from developing all of your cities as far as possible, then perhaps outposts would be redundant. But as it stands, I see no reason not to develop every one of your cities as far as you can take them...

Outposts could differ from 'base' settlements in significant ways, too. For one, maybe they'd be less efficient at generating resources (or maybe they'd be more efficient, discouraging city spam). They would probably be much less defendable - juicy targets for your enemies.

Of course, we'll get a much better idea of how things work in the next beta hopefully. Maybe this will all be moot. But right now empire building is not at all where I'd like it to be. Cities are far too plentiful at the moment, and resource/shard placement forces you to do strange things to gain access to them.

 

on Feb 20, 2010

Frogboy
One nice thing about cities in Elemental is that they don't really require any micro management if the user doesn't want to mess with them.

There is no morale or approval or what have you. 

You want a mining outpost? No problem, plop down your keep, build the mine and you're done. Your entire civilization gets a benefit.  Want to increase that benefit? Build a road to it.

 

Based on how things work right now, I agree with the other comments about this. I proposed the colony system simply because in playing Elemental so far, I've *never* had a reason to NOT turn anything I build into a huge city. Now it's possible the numbers aren't tweaked or I've been lucky with fertile land, but right now a city is always better then an outpost. So you always upgrade it. Sure, you can choose not to, but why would you?

The downside is that when you can effectively plop down a city everywhere just because you happen to want to control the mine near it, cities themselves become less interesting. Each city is "just another city", and not something you're particularly investing in (since as the game moves on you can create more and more cities without spending essence).

My idea largely rests on food being more valuable then it is right now. When it is, you can't build 50 cities without a huge empire to support them, so you use the cheaper colonies to feed resources into the few great cities you can build. It makes your few cities feel special and important, because you're committing a lot of resources from smaller colonies into supporting them.

It also increases tactical choices. Do I try to build a new city on the border at this shard (and thus take food away from my core cities), or a colony? How big do I want my existing cities to grow before I build another one? Where do I focus my defenses? And against the other guy, do I try to take one of his few great cities (which if big cities are uncommon and special is a major blow), or try to do fast raids on his resource colonies and weaken him that way instead?

11 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last