View Single Post
Old 03-21-2006, 03:13 AM   #33
thona
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: Birthright to Gurps

I agree on the abstractness, but I would prefer something not AS abstract as ressource points. The main problem is stuff like trade - if we want to make any sensible trade, then we need to get multiple different good on the way, with different uses.

I would go with:

* Stone, Lumber (or: Material)
* Food
* Ore (Iron, bronce).

What could be done is then adding the TYPE of good (what food etc.) into a field, optionally, and track them separate (meat, grain), but with the same value as "food". Just as "background info". Using a computer program you could come up with doizens of subtypes, which have no difference other than providing flavour and possible something for later trade... like "bringing an additional food-subtype not available to a center via a trade route gives bonus income".

For ease of use, we COULD allow converting specific ressources into generic onces (with a loss). But the question really is how abstract we want to keep things.

Anyhow....

My statement on complexity is: I want complexity IF - and ONLY if - it adds to the game. OR can be omitted. OTOH a computer program would jsut be SO handy :-)

For provinces: I would go with hex fields, like FoB, but I would create provinces OUT OF THEM. Like FoB's realms. The main issue I have with "arbitrary size provinces" is that it really goes into comparing apples and oranges at times.

I would go along the Civilization series, or Empire, with "population points", and I would put them into a system similar to FoB - you build population centers, that you have to maintain, but THEN you have to put population in. The population is nice as it can put population pressure on you.... if you an not upgrade. Time for some war, famine or whatever to get rid of the exess. That also runs nice for things like Nomad civilzations, as they can not handle the exess population iwthout settling or conquering.

TL modifier - that IS tricky. What about using the TL+1 for a start.
TL 0 = 1
TL 1 = 2
TL 2 = 3
TL 3 = 4
TL 4 = 5
TL 5 = 6

Or we go with a natural sequence:
TL 0 = 1
TL 1 = 2
TL 2 = 3
TL 4 = 5
TL 5 = 8

I am not sure I like the later - the gab towars the end looks TOO big. A real fibonachie sequence gets even bigger, ending at aove 11 (plus having significant digits).

My bet would be the first, plus limiting settlement size and culture (like FOB's nomadic) to TL 0.

For production, we can use the Fob numbers for ressource production. I would love to assume TL 3 as the "normal" state, still thinking about "The Dark Eye" :-) TL 4 gets modern, slowly.

What about this:

* We use a hex like system, but create provinces out of the hexes. The hexes define what a province produces, how many people it can hide etc., much like in Empire. This allows a more "Civ like" approach, nice for SMALLER realms. It also ties the province back into the map better.
* For the hexes, we use the types defined in FoB. These sort of DO make sense for me.

I really love the concept of FoB for the maximum size of a realm - this can be used to define the maximum size of a province. It MAKES sense - after all, the reaon you do have provincesd, or vassals, is that you CAN NOT manage the whole thing directly.

The question is whether we get more complex than FoB, or less. IMHO we should get more complex.... and use computer aids to handle the difference.
thona is offline   Reply With Quote