Rindis.com

All my hobbies, all the time
  • Home
  • My Blog
  • Games
  • History

Categories

  • Books (503)
  • Comics (10)
  • Gaming (917)
    • Boardgaming (673)
      • ASL (154)
      • CC:Ancients (83)
      • F&E (78)
        • BvR – The Wind (26)
        • Four Vassal War (9)
        • Konya wa Hurricane (17)
        • Second Wind (5)
      • SFB (78)
    • Computer games (162)
      • MMO (77)
    • Design and Effect (6)
    • RPGs (66)
      • D&D (25)
        • O2 Blade of Vengeance (3)
      • GURPS (32)
  • History (10)
  • Life (82)
    • Conventions (9)
  • News (29)
  • Technology (6)
  • Video (49)
    • Anime (47)
  • Writing (1)

Patreon

Support Rindis.com on Patreon!
Become a patron at Patreon!

Other blogs:

RSS Inside GMT

  • Coast Watchers – Session Report – “The Airfield” June 5, 2026

RSS Playing at the World

  • Playing at the World 2E V2 Arrives May 5, 2025

RSS Dyson’s Dodecahedron

  • Cyberstyle 8.4 June 6, 2026

RSS Quest for Fun!

  • The Expense Post May 24, 2026

RSS Bruce Heard and New Stories

  • Pain, Exhaustion, and Morale in D&D BECMI June 7, 2026

RSS Chicago Wargamer

  • The 2 Half-Squads - Episode 310: Cruising Through Crucible of Steel January 27, 2023

RSS CRRPG Addict

  • BRIEFs: Black Crystal (1982), Creepers (1982), Chitei Tanken (1982) June 8, 2026
SF&F blogs:

RSS Fantasy Cafe

  • The Leaning Pile of Books May 24, 2026

RSS Lynn’s Book Blog

  • Booking Ahead/Weekly Wrap Up June 7, 2026
ASL blogs:

RSS Sitrep

  • Cardinal ASL Sins March 18, 2026

RSS Hong Kong Wargamer

  • FT114 Yellow Extract After Action Report (AAR) Advanced Squad Leader scenario April 16, 2025

RSS Hex and Violence

  • This still exists? March 25, 2025

RSS Grumble Jones

  • AAR Slides for Schwerpunkt SP96 Husum Hotfoot June 5, 2026

RSS Desperation Morale

  • How to Learn ASL March 16, 2025

RSS Banzai!!

  • October North Texas Gameday October 21, 2019

RSS A Room Without a LOS

  • [Crossing the Moro CG] T=0902 -- Rough start July 18, 2015
GURPS blogs:

RSS Dungeon Fantastic

  • Felltower House Rules Examined June 7, 2026

RSS Gaming Ballistic

  • B-Scale: Damage That Scales from Tardigrades to Kaiju June 5, 2026

RSS Ravens N’ Pennies

RSS Let’s GURPS

  • Review: GURPS Realm Management March 29, 2021

RSS No School Grognard

  • It came from the GURPS forums: Low-Tech armor and fire damage January 29, 2018

RSS The Collaborative Gamer

  • Thoughts on a Town Adventures System January 18, 2022

RSS Don’t Forget Your Boots

  • GURPS Supers Newport Academy #6: “Old Friends, New Again” June 7, 2026

RSS Orbs and Balrogs

  • Bretwalda - Daggers of Oxenaforda pt.4 - Fallen King May 27, 2017

Gaming Technology

by Rindis on December 22, 2017 at 12:00 pm
Posted In: Gaming

Technology is such a ubiquitous fact of our lives today that how to represent it comes up in a lot of games, from tactical differences to the strategic march of progress. The best-known example of the latter would be the ‘tech-tree’ in Sid Meyer’s Civilization, which has been copied many times since then. The general idea is that there’s a large list of possible advancements out there, but only a few are available at a time, and each one not only provides a benefit, but leads to other advancements, like an episode of Connections. But while that’s possibly the most common way of representing technological advancement (and a staple of most computer strategic SF games), it’s not the only way.

The biggest problem with the usual methods of depicting technology, is that the player is generally given a laundry list of choices, and whatever he chooses is inevitably the next one gotten. To a certain extent this isn’t bad for handling engineering, as improvements in equipment are often goal-driven, but much scientific progress is accidental, and even happens while looking for something completely different. This would imply a more random ‘research’ mechanic, which could easily go wrong, and take interesting choices out of the game. But there’s room for games where technology is less important, and you just manage how much ‘funding from above’ you’re doing.

Civilization (the Francis Tresham board game) may be the earliest attempt to show technological progress in a game. While it has a large list possible advances to obtain (like in the ‘tech-tree’ model), they are not dependent on each other. Instead, each belongs to one or two of five different general fields, and each advance acquired in a field provides a discount to all the others. This is often equated to a tech-tree, but nothing requires having gotten another advance first.

Hearts of Iron III had a very interesting take on the question however. It divides fields into practical and theoretical knowledge, and keeps a score in both that slowly degrades over time. Whenever you get any kind of advancement in a field, your theoretical score goes up, while building units or engaging in combat generates points for the relevant practical score. High scores in either, or both, makes research in that field go faster, representing familiarity with the field, or a knowledge of just what types of things need improving. The game still has you picking what you’re going to get next, but activities outside of the tech window also influence things. It’s an ingenious idea, and I’d like to see some form of it show up elsewhere.

While I can’t really complain about the usual tech-tree approach, especially in a fairly abstract game such as SidCiv, I do think hiding away the theoretical end of science could be a useful approach. A space 4X game could do this, and maybe have a number of alternate sets of discoveries that are set when the game begins. In each game, the player doesn’t know what version of ‘physics’ is true in advance, and only finds out as particular discoveries come in, which he then starts basing practical advances off of. It’d be a lot of extra work on the development end, but it could make for a very rich game.

└ Tags: Civ, Civilization IV, gaming, Hearts of Iron, theorycrafting
 Comment 

The Token Cycle—Dust to Dust, Stock to Stock

by Rindis on April 28, 2010 at 11:27 am
Posted In: Design and Effect

Crossposted from the Design and Effect blog on GameSquad.

One of the problems with a physical game is that the components are inherently limited. There’s only so many counters you can fit into a sheet of cardboard. There’s only so many sheets or little plastic minis that you can fit into the box. No matter how big, or expensive, a physical game is, there is a limit to the number of moving parts it has. Early computer games had a similar degree of constraint (it is no accident that Starweb features 255 worlds), but modern ones have no real worries in this regard. They have other constraints to be sure, but number of active objects the system can keep in memory is generally not one of them (displaying them may be…).

Many wargames don’t have too many worries about this. The number of units that show up in the game is fixed, so all that needs to be done is to figure out a way to include enough informational counters, and all will be well. Some games have a bigger challenge. Any game that relies on strength points (like the GCACW series) will need to have counters for each different strength point, times enough for all the units in the game. Some games have free-form production, and providing counters for everything becomes a real challenge (Federation & Empire is the classic disaster of this syndrome, where the original edition could not fit in enough counters for a complete initial setup, partially thanks to the need for different counters for most later production ships).

However, it is possible to use the limitation on the number of counters as part of how the game works. The most successful of these is Francis Tresham’s classic Civilization. The original civilization-building game, it has a map of the bulk of Europe plus North Africa and the Near East. Players have tokens that get used for population as they grow, and move, and fight across the map. Since these are physical pieces there is a hard limit of 55 tokens provided for each player, sharply limiting how far he could grow.

And that’s the least of your troubles with them.

There’s actually three states that these tokens can be in, and shuffling the 55 pieces between them every turn is one of the most important activities in the game. The two ‘in use’ states are on the board as population or flipped over and in the Treasury as taxes. Otherwise, they’re in the Stock, ready for use as either of the other two.

Yes, collecting taxes reduces the amount of population you can have. This is an extremely odd quirk of the game, but the only thing I can really say is that it is part of a mechanic that works really well, and powers some very interesting dynamics that the player must struggle with for most of the game.

The Limits of Growth

The game begins with everyone having one population marker on the board, and 54 tokens in stock (possibly less, the available number of tokens is reduced for some numbers of players to restrict civilizations to a proper ‘size’ for the amount of board available to everyone). The first thing that happens is the population increases. With proper management, it is possible for the population to double every turn, so at the beginning of turn 6, it would be possible for the population to go from 32 to 64—past the limit of what the Stock provides. At that point the player chooses which areas get population growth until out of tokens. (Population growth is not voluntary other than this choice.)

Getting tokens back into Stock occurs through a number of mechanisms. The first one is starvation. Each area has a maximum limit on the population it can support (from 1-5, usually around 2), and once everything else on the board is done, excess population is removed back to the Stock. Related to this is conflict. When two different powers have population in the same area, they are reduced down to the population limit, or until only one player has population left in the area (that clause is important). As Civilization is not a game of direct conflict, this is not a way to wage war, instead populations slowly ebb and flow, largely determined by how the Stock is acting. At any rate, conflict is strictly attritional with the smaller population in the area removing first, followed by the larger. If both populations are tied, both remove at once. It is very common in play to see a player moving excess population into his neighbors; it cycles his tokens back into Stock, and reduces his neighbor’s influence in the region.

The Art of Living in Cities

Next, is constructing cities. Cities are the prime mover of progress in the game, and in fact, early on progress towards the end goal is checked by the need to have two cities on the board. Cities are constructed by gathering six population into one area and replacing them with a city if there is a ‘city site’ in the area, or twelve population if there is no city site. During turns four through ten, this is a common and easy way to get population back into Stock for re-use.

It also generates the prime cause of strain on the system, and what becomes a prime focus for many players as their civilization matures, attempting to find a more regular cycle: taxes. At the beginning of each turn, taxes are raised. This consists of taking two tokens out of Stock and into the Treasury for each city the player owns. If there are not enough tokens available for this, the cities go into revolt, and will change sides to someone who does have enough tokens.

Because this happens first thing in the turn, cities further limit the amount of population growth a player can have because some tokens will always be in the Treasury at that point. It also means that players must find ways to put tokens back into the Stock during the turn.

Cities themselves are limited in the counter mix to nine per player. Again, this plays against other elements of the game design, as the primary purpose of cities is to generate trade cards, and there are nine decks of trade cards (each with a face value from 1 to 9, and you get one of each type up to the number cities you have). It isn’t a bad practical limit either, as the number of calamities that start appearing at that point make it hard to maintain nine cites.

In the Navy…

A minor way of returning tokens to Stock is building and maintaining ships for the transport of population. They cost two to build, or one to maintain. One or two population [I]or[/I] taxes, that is. Usually, this is merely a way to spread influence to under-populated areas, as well as a way to bleed off a little excess Treasury. It is more important for Crete, however, as they have to expand off the island of Crete before civilization building really starts. At any rate, all players usually build/maintain some ships just to have a way to spend Treasury.

There’s Gold In Them Thar Tokens!

The last two ways of cycling tokens are purely ways to get them back out of the Treasury. The first is to ‘buy’ a ‘9’ trade card (Gold—or a calamity) for 18 tokens (the same as the taxes on 9 cities…). The other is to spend them on civilization cards.

Civilization cards are in many ways the ultimate end goal of everything you do in Civilization.  They are advances that give abilities and advantages, and the collection of them is required to hit the ending parts of the game. They are purchased with any combination of trade cards and taxes. Only trade cards can get up to the values needed to buy these, but they are also inflexible—it is difficult to hit exactly the number needed for a purchase. So taxes are handy to round off the spare numbers.

Buying a gold trade card seems like a poor deal; 18 tokens for a card with a face value of 9. However, it does allow you to empty the Treasury on a turn where you may not be able to purchase anything. And, trade cards increase in value geometrically, with a set being worth the square of the cards in the set times the face value. So, two gold cards are worth (2*2*9 = ) 36, the same as their purchase price. Also, if you have nine cities, you are (or should be) getting another gold card that turn anyway, and can immediately get a profit on the deal.

Conclusion

This may sound like it is a fairly complete description of the game. It is. The 55 tokens, and the actions that manipulate them, are truly at the center of the game, and there is very little that is not directly impacted by the decision to make the limited number of tokens that can be provided one of the central motivators of the game.

Things that I haven’t looked at include the trade cards (acquisition, trading, and spending), calamities (related to the trade cards), and the civilization cards (which do include things that can affect the tokens, such as Coinage, which allows you to change the tax rate of your cities), and what is needed to actually achieve victory. These are fairly major parts of the game that are not directly impacted by the tokens most of the time. They are well worth study, but do not reach into as many different aspects of the game as the tokens do.

└ Tags: Civ, gaming
 Comment 

©2005-2026 Rindis.com | Powered by WordPress with ComicPress | Hosted on Rindis Hobby Den | Subscribe: RSS | Back to Top ↑