I think a lot of this will come through soft controls such as forestation and vegetation. Sure, there might be construct-able spaces every half mile but the River Kingdoms are also heavily forested. Other natural formations such as canyons, mountains, lakes the like I'm sure will also prevent super heavy population densities not to mention the old ruins and whatnot that are there from centuries gone by.
Forts have become romanticized a bit. They're not ultra permanent structures where the king lives out his days. They were tactical tools often thrown together in the midst of advancing a line to be to hold an area. Thus, I don't think they're anything special. But, I still think what I said will dissuade an ultra dense fort-laden world.
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing to be considered is even if you can put a massive fort on every single hex, will it be worth the trouble? Will the benefits of building and maintaining a heavily fortified structure on every hex outweigh the costs, or are we just going to naturally see forts surrounded by hexes that have either no fortifications or watchtowers... because that will be the most efficient way to do things?
Obviously in real life you can build 2 forts right next to each other, or even touching each other, but you don't really see that. That obviously isn't due to some artificial limitation.
I think the best limitation on fort density is not giving any big advantage to someone who has a high density of forts. At that point costs will force a more realistic density out of any kingdom that expects to survive in the long run.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also, Ryan has talked about the escalating costs of adding another Fort/Settlement to a Player Nation:
I also intend there to be a mechanic which scales the costs of running a Player Nation such that the first couple of Settlements don't impose much in the way of costs, but after that the cost to add another Settlement gets rapidly more expensive to the point where there's effectively a hard cap due to the inability to fund more expansion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We don't see crazy densities of forts in real life because thousands of petty dictators were not all forced to share the same tiny plot of land.
I will be quite shocked if we see anything like 200 Settlements in the main map before they expand it. Frankly, I would be pretty shocked if even 1/4 of the hexes had Settlements in them before they expanded the map.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This map has about 17 "settlements" of some sort already on it. You think it would be over-crowded if we added 7 more?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lastours there is effectively four fortresses very near to each other. Most are much more spread out, though.
We don't see crazy densities of forts in real life because thousands of petty dictators were not all forced to share the same tiny plot of land.
I'd still like to see, say, a one-hex exclusion zone for most settlement-capable areas, or something similar.
There are two concerns I have with hard limitations.
First off, Ryan is saying that they may control fort density by not putting a spot to build a fort in every hex. (Or at least that is what I gathered.) I really don't like this idea. The players should be able to decide where they want their fort to be placed (within reason). The game (or the devs) should not choose for them. I strongly believe there should be a spot for a fort in every single hex, if not more than one spot, so players can make their own decisions about where they want to fortify.
Second off If you make it so there is a requirement of 1-2 hexes between all forts, that is going to effect politics. Kingdom A wants a new settlement in a certain hex, Kingdom B wants a settlement right next to it.
With a hard limitation this is impossible. They will have to fight it out to see who has the right to settle in that area, where without that limitation they could have had their respective settlements peacefully coexist. I don't like that. If those two nations go to war it should be about one of them deciding they want the other's territory/resources or because tempers flared. Not because they can't build two settlements next to each other.
I think BY FAR the best solution is to make it so that controlling a fort or settlement gives certain benefits not only to your kingdom's structures in that hex, but your kingdom's structures in all surrounding hexes, particularly watchtowers. Make it so these benefits do not stack if you have multiple forts with benefits overlapping the same hex. That will cause players to want to space their forts and settlements out naturally, without the use of unnecessary hard limitations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm under the impression that at least half of those are ruins of some sort.
Let's pretend they're all Settlements, and we add a dozen more. Would it really look "overcrowded"?
I'd still like to see, say, a one-hex exclusion zone for most settlement-capable areas, or something similar.
You're certainly welcome to try to enforce that yourself :)
That will cause players to want to space their forts and settlements out naturally, without the use of unnecessary hard limitations.
I don't think we're going to be able to space our forts and settlements out...
From the same post I linked above:
I want the mechanic to REQUIRE that the Settlements be contiguous.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think we're going to be able to space our forts and settlements out...
From the same post I linked above:
I want the mechanic to REQUIRE that the Settlements be contiguous.
Given that there are only two reasonable conclusions if he stands by that statement.
1. His definition of contiguous doesn't necessarily mean one settlement per hex, and allows for limited spacing.
2. He WANTS us to have a settlement on every hex of the territory we control.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
His definition of contiguous doesn't necessarily mean one settlement per hex, and allows for limited spacing.
I don't understand what you mean by that. And did you mean #1 and #2 to be an either-or situation? Or are you thinking that both will be true?
My reading is that you will have to have a Fort or a Settlement in a Hex in order to control it, and that any new Hex that gets added to a Player Nation must touch another Hex that's already in that Player Nation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The exclusion zone would be a model of competing resources and the lay of the land supporting only so much castellation. Space becomes as much a resource as gatherable resources.
I'm all for competing over land but that already exists. Two nations cannot control the same hex. Nothing more is needed. What we are talking about here is a limitation that is entirely unrealistic saying two powerful nations cannot coexist next to one another.
I don't understand what you mean by that. And did you mean #1 and #2 to be an either-or situation? Or are you thinking that both will be true?
It's an either or. Obviously both those statements can't be true at the same time.
My reading is that you will have to have a Fort or a Settlement in a Hex in order to control it, and that any new Hex that gets added to a Player Nation must touch another Hex that's already in that Player Nation.
That is the most logical assumption but he also implied earlier in this topic that they may force lower density than 1 per hex via controlling where forts can be built.
I think a nation with a 1-2 hex spacing between settlements that control the territory in-between via minor forts or watchtowers would still meet the definition of contiguous since they are connected via territory they control.
You are most likely right in your assumption but he didn't actually say. "You will need a settlement on every hex you control."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is there no point at which you would consider the map overcrowded, settlements, forts, ruins, hideouts and all?
I will be quite shocked if we see anything like 200 Settlements in the main map before they expand it. Frankly, I would be pretty shocked if even 1/4 of the hexes had Settlements in them before they expanded the map.
I would consider it "overcrowded" if more than about 1 in 4 Hexes had Forts/Settlements in them. I might add Inns to that list, but there's a whole lot I don't know.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I want the Settlements in a Player Nation to be contiguous to stop people from dominating huge swaths of land but only occupying a tiny portion of what they control.
If you limit it to contiguous, then could kingdoms still build rings of hexes and occupy the outside ring to control the hexes inside of the ring?
If there are some costs associated with settlements (these might need to be paid with coin or in kind or a mix of coin and kind), then some costs could be per-hex and some could be per-wilderness-hexside. Nations that try to control lots of territory with long strings of hexes could be much less efficient than nations with dense settlement:border ratios.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
His definition of contiguous doesn't necessarily mean one settlement per hex, and allows for limited spacing.I don't understand what you mean by that. And did you mean #1 and #2 to be an either-or situation? Or are you thinking that both will be true?
My reading is that you will have to have a Fort or a Settlement in a Hex in order to control it, and that any new Hex that gets added to a Player Nation must touch another Hex that's already in that Player Nation.
My reading was that each settlement or fort would control a number of hexes, and/or be 'adjacent' to fort sites in nearby hexes- controlling both of those fort sites would control the territory reserved for each, and any territory 'in between' them.
I'm looking at the Civ 5 model of control, where there was a hard limit on density (cities could not be founded too close to any other city, nor in the territory of another nation- territory provided by a city starts smaller than the exclusion zone, and can become much larger over time)
Taking those same thoughts, controlling a fort site would control the hexes adjacent to it; if a different nation controlled an 'adjacent' site, there would be a set of border hexes that neither controlled, but if one nation controlled both sites they would also control those hexes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I had the same thought:
It sounds like really large organizations like the Goons will just establish multiple Player Nations.
The only thing I can think of is that there will be significant benefits for Settlements that are in the same Player Nation, so that "allied" Player Nations aren't as efficient, even if they are managed externally by the same organization.
I have no idea what those benefits might be.
If you limit it to contiguous, then could kingdoms still build rings of hexes and occupy the outside ring to control the hexes inside of the ring?
It would take 6 Settlements in a ring just to surround 1 Hex, or 12 to surround 7. I am somewhat doubtful that they'll allow Player Nations to grow to 15 Hexes, but that's pure speculation on my part.
If they wanted to disallow the ring, it would be fairly simple to require that all the Nation Hexes that border the new Hex also be contiguous.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My reading was that each settlement or fort would control a number of hexes...
I can't find it right now, but I think I remember Ryan or Vic or the blog saying something like "Most hexes will have one or two sites appropriate for a Fort/Settlement".
I would be surprised if a Settlement in one Hex provides "control" of any sort over any other Hex.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I don't think that the ring should control the center. Someone who wanted to make an enclave in the center shouldn't be absolutely prohibited. Consider the case in which a single-settlement nation is surrounded on four sides by one nation and two sides by another. If one of those two larger nations conquers the other, should the single settlement cease to exist?
Note that the case where a nation had three or more contiguous hexes under it's control, but got split by an attacking force would be different. In that case, I'm in favor of the split settlements losing their status as nation members, and then being free to form a nation or nations (and then to rejoin their parent nation if they choose to after contact is restored).
That in itself would be a major disadvantage of the 'line' of hexes- it can be broken more easily than a clump.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think that the ring should control the center. Someone who wanted to make an enclave in the center shouldn't be absolutely prohibited. Consider the case in which a single-settlement nation is surrounded on four sides by one nation and two sides by another. If one of those two larger nations conquers the other, should the single settlement cease to exist?
The ring wouldn't control the internal hexes (read - own and pay upkeep on), but it could dominate them (read - control access to resources). It would be hard for any surrounded enclave or independent resource collection to get resources out to external markets if the encircling nation chose otherwise. My preference would be that such a geometry (the ring nation) should be legal, but not very efficient.
Note that the case where a nation had three or more contiguous hexes under it's control, but got split by an attacking force would be different. In that case, I'm in favor of the split settlements losing their status as nation members, and then being free to form a nation or nations (and then to rejoin their parent nation if they choose to after contact is restored).
That in itself would be a major disadvantage of the 'line' of hexes- it can be broken more easily than a clump.
I want to like this idea - breaking the continuity of a nation should have some impact. Historically, some nations have been discontiguous (I was thinking Spain and the Netherlands, but Spain and its New World possessions also applies), but usually such nations splinter in time.
But our nations won't be run by autonomous royalty, loathe to share power with some other king. In many cases they'll be run by large on-line communities that have social ties. If such a group has 2 or more clusters of settlements that operate in sync like a nation, they may as well be recognized as a nation.
A ring of 12 settlement hexes surrounding 7 internal hexes - if that shape is arbitrarily not permitted by PFO, then there need to be in-game forces (carrots and sticks; settlement and nation upkeep costs) that discourage a large group from creating 12 independent but allied nations in the same configuration.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I want the Settlements in a Player Nation to be contiguous to stop people from dominating huge swaths of land but only occupying a tiny portion of what they control.If you limit it to contiguous, then could kingdoms still build rings of hexes and occupy the outside ring to control the hexes inside of the ring?
If there are some costs associated with settlements (these might need to be paid with coin or in kind or a mix of coin and kind), then some costs could be per-hex and some could be per-wilderness-hexside. Nations that try to control lots of territory with long strings of hexes could be much less efficient than nations with dense settlement:border ratios.
I was kind of wondering if you have a large nation and someone conquers all the hexes in a line through the middle of your territory, what happens to you no longer contiguous nation???
I would imagine the disadvantage to a ring would be that a ring wouldn't prevent people from taking the territory inside if they start a new nation. Just from outside nations expanding in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...Heavily fortified territories tended to have forts for a given number of square miles, not forts per square mile.
You should visit the river Rhine region where I life - we have up to four castles per mile.
I was kind of wondering if you have a large nation and someone conquers all the hexes in a line through the middle of your territory, what happens...
If an opponent can slice all the way right through the heart of your empire, why should he stop there instead of taking everything?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I was kind of wondering if you have a large nation and someone conquers all the hexes in a line through the middle of your territory, what happens...If an opponent can slice all the way right through the heart of your empire, why should he stop there instead of taking everything?
Scaling maintenance costs? Reduced ROI, since the last hex he took is worth half your nation and he can negotiate a better ransom for it? Or perhaps another front? Presumably the border hexes will be better defended than the interior or the capital, so it might be possible to punch through them much more easily than some high-value location?
Or, if losing cohesion is a major loss, then there will be fewer nations that consist of a thin line of territory, and thin lines will be less effective at controlling territory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If an opponent can slice all the way right through the heart of your empire, why should he stop there instead of taking everything?
1. The attacker will almost certainly be expending resources for each hex they conquer, so they might just run out of resources.
2. The attacker may be interested not in destroying the defender's nation, but rather in acquiring some valuable hexes.
3. If the attacker is trying to hold the territory and build their own Settlements, they might need to consolidate their strength to defend themselves during that time, rather than spreading themselves too thin just to wipe out their foe.
I'm sure there are some other valid reasons, too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If an opponent can slice all the way right through the heart of your empire, why should he stop there instead of taking everything?1. The attacker will almost certainly be expending resources for each hex they conquer, so they might just run out of resources.
2. The attacker may be interested not in destroying the defender's nation, but rather in acquiring some valuable hexes.
3. If the attacker is trying to hold the territory and build their own Settlements, they might need to consolidate their strength to defend themselves during that time, rather than spreading themselves too thin just to wipe out their foe.
I'm sure there are some other valid reasons, too.
On a lark (and in no small part due to the campaign I'm running in Ustalav), this post made me think of how it could be interesting if constant war over a hex changed its qualities, in a similar way to how the french country side changed circa 1916. Maybe too technically challenging to actually reduce the forests to shattered stumps and the ground to muddy trenches, but if the proliferation of the fallen's remnants (the husks of a monthlong campaign could stack thigh high) changed the quality and type of resources within.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On a lark (and in no small part due to the campaign I'm running in Ustalav), this post made me think of how it could be interesting if constant war over a hex changed its qualities, in a similar way to how the french country side changed circa 1916. Maybe too technically challenging to actually reduce the forests to shattered stumps and the ground to muddy trenches, but if the proliferation of the fallen's remnants (the husks of a monthlong campaign could stack thigh high) changed the quality and type of resources within.
It might depend on the type of activity. I don't think we'd see the ground churned up like it was in WWI with high explosive shells.
But if a hex were under siege for some time, a besieging force might clearcut local woods for fuel, timbers for seige engine, wood for sapping and mining, expedient fortifications to prevent sallies, etc.
Likewise, armies fighting in an area during a growing season would destroy some fraction of any grain crop, just trampling it when marching through, even before fireballs start flying. During harvest season, armies might deliberately forage in enemy fields to feed themselves at the enemies expense.
As for husks - you need to burn them (more forest gone) or bury them (a lot of work), or your clerics do nothing but cure disease. They (husks, not clerics) probably attract dark and cold things as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One idea I was thinking of when considering PFO's proposed size - how could you hope to represent a full-scale world?
You do realize they're not putting all of Golarian, or even all of the River Kingdoms in that map, right? And that they've never said they intend to do either of those things?
... it could be interesting if constant war over a hex changed its qualities...
I agree, and it's not really that hard. They've already announced plans to have the resources and challenges in a Hex change based on the build up of Civilization there. I wouldn't be surprised if that change included a change in scenery. If it does, then it would be a fairly simple thing (I would think) to include scenery options based on War as well.
I think that would be really neat.
You can't actually pick a single tree to cut down...
That makes me wonder if there are any plans to have, for example, the forest in a Hex change if there's significant harvesting of wood resources.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One idea I was thinking of when considering PFO's proposed size - how could you hope to represent a full-scale world?You do realize they're not putting all of Golarian, or even all of the River Kingdoms in that map, right? And that they've never said they intend to do either of those things?
... it could be interesting if constant war over a hex changed its qualities...I agree, and it's not really that hard. They've already announced plans to have the resources and challenges in a Hex change based on the build up of Civilization there. I wouldn't be surprised if that change included a change in scenery. If it does, then it would be a fairly simple thing (I would think) to include scenery options based on War as well.
I think that would be really neat.
You can't actually pick a single tree to cut down...That makes me wonder if there are any plans to have, for example, the forest in a Hex change if there's significant harvesting of wood resources.
Stuff like scenery changes traditionally fall into the realm of changing art assets, not something that typically happens on the fly, and that any level of dynamisism tends to have a lot of overhead. Consider, once you account for damaged trees, where does the detritus go? once you change the color of the ground from verdant green, to a deep muddy brown, where and how to you provide the ground with texture shifts so there isn't just a big hack line in the ground? For these reasons, I think this sort of change is unlikely to appear any time close to launch. Maybe later, but its a lot of extra work.
As to the contents, it would be fun if in addition to changes, new types of resources might appear that would drive "scavenger" factions into the fray. Maybe metal bits and broken weapons, or better materials for opportunistic necromancers. Perhaps even attracting NPC "bosses" or their elite minions to the field to harvest the dead. One of the classic themes of many a campaign is this sort of resurgent evil that consumes the living to fuel the armies of the dead.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stuff like scenery changes traditionally fall into the realm of changing art assets, not something that typically happens on the fly...
There was actually a lot of it in the Wrath expansion of WoW. They called it Phasing. They were able to significantly change the appearance of an area based on factors like whether or not you've completed a certain quest.
... it would be fun if in addition to changes, new types of resources might appear that would drive "scavenger" factions into the fray.
That sounds cool - having special types of harvestable resources show up in a war-torn zone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Scavengers that live off sifting through ruins and the wreckage left in the wake of old battles... reminds me of the Junkers on Freelancer. One of my favorite factions. :)
The problem I see is that when you are thinking war torn Europe we are talking bombs, artillery, stuff that SERIOUSLY tears up the landscape. I know PFO has magic but would it really leave as much destruction behind as either of the World Wars???
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's like you are taking personal offense to my every post or something. : /
To be honest, I was somewhat offended that you would basically call Ryan stupid for doing it the way he said he wants to rather than doing it the way you think he should.
However, the statement you quoted there was actually me trying to point out something relevant. Again, if I'm being honest I probably took some offense that you once again said it in a way that made it sound like you thought Ryan was being stupid for not doing it the way you thought he should.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Regarding WoW's Phasing: One of the great flaws with how they implemented this was how every change happened "off-screen". This was their hack to get around the sudden differences that would be glaring. The actual differences from one phase to another were also generally in terms of "dynamic content" like flame effects or very small textural changes. They've certainly evolved the technique in later iterations, but its still a technical challenge to allow persistence of effects into the actual environment.
@Xeriar; I'm not sure I fully follow your response... My comments on the topic have indicated a firm understanding of the technical challenges, middleware or no. As I stated already, I know its highly unlikely GW will be able to implement the environmental changes as described, but that it would be a fun "pie in the sky" idea. As to data models and regional equations... you flat lost me.