Print Page | Close Window

Sov cost, local influence

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Suggestions & Game Enhancements
Forum Description: Got a great idea? A feature you'd like to see? Share it here!
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=2339
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 13:20
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Sov cost, local influence
Posted By: Albatross
Subject: Sov cost, local influence
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2011 at 02:10
Rather than simply a 'distance from city' cost, I think the player-ownership and Sov of other squares in the vicinity should influence the cost. There are lots of simple efficient mathsy ways of doing this straightforwardly, or there's an iterative influence model that has more dynamic pressures on territory. If there's interest, I might explain further.


Replies:
Posted By: Faldrin
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2011 at 10:29

Sounds like something interesting.

Do I understand correctly if I say it will be cheaper the more sov you have in an area ?


-------------

Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2011 at 13:26
The game balance would depend on what the devs would decide, so what follows is hand-wavy illustrative waffle...

I guess that having, say a couple of Sov Vs together would make them mutually less expensive to run, because of the local feeling of security (among the ordinary people at least) that extensive lands would bring. Likewise, having confederate or allied towns immediately nearby helps, and conversely enemy towns or armies would make Sov less practical (I'd be nervous working on the east edge of a territory where you can see the smoke of enemy fires, and provided I'm not a slave, I'd be wanting reasonable compensation).

At the moment, real security is not much use, because armies can ride roughshod over any terrain or ownership to reach any square, so a pathfinding weighting based on Sov would help implement a practical aspect to security, and bring the cost down that way.

I write all this in the knowledge that the Sov cost is not purely bribery money, mostly reflecting the cost of central provisioning, but even then, I'm sure that there are economies of scale, which would be reflected in the modified Sov cost mentioned above.

Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2011 at 13:41
Looking further into the implications for bigger players, it would change two aspects:
  1. Population limits. At the moment, the upper limit of Sov and pop is almost linear and easily predictable. The above change could (depending on the balance decided) bring extreme rewards for effort spent optimizing and building Sov; there's a long tail at the upper limits. This gives some meaning to 'extra push' and 'temporarily overstretching' a town, with the corresponding risks. Two cities located close together would be more than the sum of their parts.

  2. With the iterative model, influence propagates, tailing off with distance [it's a very simple model, like a blur filter with the sources added every time]. Large-scale territorial campaigns become possible, if the range of influence is large (say a radius of 10 squares or more). We'll end up with battlefronts, frontiers, encampments, and defensive towns. At the moment that would evolve over weeks, rather than hours or days, helped by the forthcoming town relocation.


Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net