The common issue with the majority of 4X space strategy games is the lack or neglected RPG element. Even more ambitious efforts on this area eg. Stellaris look like an addition to digits-wise game mechanics. I mean particular character gives you 20% faster research or 20% faster weapon reload time etc. I see RPG factor as something less predictable (more human?) addition to the game, something that can always surprise you. Your genius scientist should be able to discover something new and beyond the schedule. Your best admiral could betray you if he thinks he is powerful enough to establish his own colony/corporation. Some of your characters could act strangely because they are "hacked" by enemy forces, sick or corrupted. In the space opera environment possibilities are nearly endless. It is always nice to be forced to make a hard decision protect or sacrifice your key figures, retreat or not from the battle if your best commander is in real danger. Of course experience, skills, personality and preferred tactics of your and enemy commanders should play important and visible role during combat phase. What is your approach to this matter?
I'm not sure how many of those elements will fit into this specific game, but I agree that we need more of these dynamic RPG elements in our strategy games. In my mind it would be a huge boon to replay value.
Easier said than done. An RPG factor could certainly enhance the game but how do you pull it off effectively in a 4x game? Were this strictly confined to a space exploration game it would be far more doable but in this situation it seems that the only effective way to do it is "RPG-LITE" Even Moo2 had a bit of this effect with leaders and how they progressed over time and that may be the key. What if you followed a similar mechanic with a twist. For example, when a leader "levels" up you could allow the player to decide which attributes are enhanced rather then simply upgrading his/hers existing stats. This would then give an existing mechanic an upgrade rather than introducing an entirely new one, it could be a good start. Caution must also be exercised in featuring less predictable approaches as suggested by the OP. An admiral rebelling for example should be confined as a reactionary event that fires under the most stringent conditions, not a random possibility. I agree that anything that can make the game more immersive is a plus but at no point should I feel that the game is playing me rather than the other way around
I am against leaders. MOO2 didnt do a good job with leaders, because a real 4x game which spans empires and eons is per definition not suited for this kind of cross over. Portray of persons are just not the same scale and feels odd. I cannot remember to identificate with one single leader in MOO2 or any other 4x game like I do in real rpgs. But if rpg means, by whatever definition, more galactic and funny exploration events then I am for it.
There is a much space between pure mathematics and CK2-like storytelling simulation. Less predictable result of the action is the best anti-boredom vaccine. As for me If you research something precisely defined from point A to point B in fixed time it is actually a simulation and that feeling that the game is playing me. So we need some dice roll flavour definitely. Take a look at the real life, take F-35 fighter project, for example. Billions of dollars, the most advanced technologies but the outcome is still mediocre and the whole project is in serious jeopardy. Coming back to characters and RPG, I guess properly implemented character mechanics could improve some automation issues as a solution for the late game micromanagement mess. I am aware that it is all about the solid AI but that is a truism.
Correct philosophy, worry about the implementation of same. A well designed and executed game can certainly be fun and not predictable, one should not resort to gimmicks in order to achieve less predictability. Less predictable can easily turn into un-realistic if no logic exists to support the un-predictability. Even Moo2 tried to be less predictable, maybe you needed 6 turn to complete research, maybe more, never really set. True about the F-35 but the cause was more mission creep than anything else. The plane was designed to do it all and it does, poorly. I warned about something similar on another thread. Certainly agree with you, anything to actually make me feel like I am "in" the game is welcome but sometimes what is needed is not so obvious.
I agree that the MOO2 leader system wasn’t very immersive, but I don’t think that means you should write off the leader system entirely. A scattering of characters can elevate the government beyond a bland set of numbers and really help with player immersion. As I see it, there were two main problems with MOO2’s leaders: 1) They were just bland sets of numbers. They were prepackaged personalities that you couldn’t interact with, and the strategy was limited to “stick industry guy onto the industry planet to get more industry”. Not adding much to gameplay. 2) They were always the same selection of multi-racial mercenaries, no matter which empire you were playing. I know that a “shared hero pool” is a common trope in 4X games, but I’ve never understood why, as it is downright weird, at least from an immersion point of view. It led to some pretty silly moments in MOO2 – you could be waging a genocidal war of extermination against, say, the Psilons, but for some reason you’d have hired a Psilon guy who would happily manage your homeworld throughout all of this (because, inexplicably, there were no internal candidates for any of your government roles). It’s a pretty absurd system and I hope it gets ditched. So to avoid the MOO2 problems I would suggest a Stellaris-style leaders system where they are randomly generated based on your government choices and the races you govern, with one or two personality traits that you can develop through skill trees in different ways. They could be used as a very plausible way of acting as ‘catch up’ mechanisms if you are losing – it’s extremely plausible that an admiral who gets beaten by a stronger enemy will start to develop unique tactics, traits and advantages, that you simply wouldn’t see if you were cruising to an easy victory (hopefully encouraging a losing player to struggle on with his now-grizzled leaders, rather than to ragequit). (I’d also love characters to be tied to story events that react to what is happening in your game, but they’re extremely difficult to get right (usually not enough variety or meaningful choices). "Funny" exploration events and similar can get quite tiresome quite quickly)
So while I said I am against leaders I should add if that if they are well implemented I could imagine a kind of subsystem like the following: 1. The number of leaders an empire can have is restricted by no. of planets, race, minor races, artifacts, techs and game progress. Lets say it goes from 3 -15 or so. 2. Leaders dont have character classes as in MOO2, but they have individual stats. 3. Leaders can be assigned to certain roles by the player. Every leader can have each role. The player will of course assign his leader to roles which are corresponding to high stats, but sometimes thats not possible because you dont have enough leaders with high stats for the job. 4. Possible roles are for example: Fleet/Ground General, Administrator, Spy, Researcher, Hero 5. The stats (ranging maybe from 0 to 6 ) a leader can have are: -Hit Points (his life energy, if it hits zero he is dead) -Strategy (added to the stats of fleets or ground troops when his role is that of a General) -Administration (added to the economical output of a system when he is in the role of a Administrator) -Combat (important when making adventures or spying) -Stealth (important, when making adventures or spying) -Intelligence (important as general boost for all roles) -Research (helps to boost the current tech research) -Age (leaders should age and die) 6. Adventures: From time to time the game should generate "space adventures" which pops up. A player can assign 1 or more of his leaders in the role of a Hero to accomplish these adventures. These adventures could give rewards (artefacts, money, techs, new leaders etc.) when positively resolved, but should not be easy. The higher the assigned leader stats (like combat, intelligence, stealth...) are in these adventures the more likely should be that the assigned leaders resolve them positively. Maybe the adventure description gives a hint which type of stats are needed to increase the chance of sucess. The results should be auto generated one or more turns later, depending on the type of adventure. Example: The Alkari space nation has at the moment 5 leaders. One of them, Tupari (age 43), has the follwing stats: Hit points: 5 Strategy: 1 Administration: 2 Combat: 6 (he is a weapon master) Stealth: 4 Intelligence: 2 Research: 1 Story: During the war against the humans Tupari served as General of the First Alkari Fleet and all ships in this fleet has been given a bonus of +2 (stategy stat). But after the war the nations needs rebuilding, so Tupari goes as Administrator to the system Feepy 9 and gives each turn his bonus of +3 (administration stat) to the economical output. In the year of 2435 something strange happens: a mysterious signal has been found at sigma centauri and a window pops up to inform the player about this. (an adventure) The adventure description gives the player the hint that combat and intelligence is most important in this adventure. The player decides after a while to assign Tupari as Hero to this adventure because he has combat 6. He hopes that his low intelligence of 2 is not endangering the success . It was no easy decision because the bonus for Feepy 9 is not longer available because of the absence of his administrator but maybe it pays off by finding something nice. So he clicks "assign Tupari" and "ok". 4 turns later another window pops up and the results of the adventure are revealed. Tupari lost 2 Hit points damage (which are regnerating with +1 per turn) while fighting against evil meklar space pirates but due to his high combat stat, he survived and detected a large cash of stolen resources which are added to the alkari reserves. The adventure ends and the player assign Tupari again to his role as Administrator of Feepy 9. (roles underlined) The above system is by no means a perfect one, but it should serve as idea for developing a nice and meaningful leader system. With this or a similar system, I hope leaders could be a fun experience and the most important, the game would give incentives for the players to manage their leaders actively and make meaningful decisions for them and his empire every turn or every other turn.
Gents, You have said it well, leaders in Moo2 were bare bones economy class. Any level of enhancement will have a noticeable effect and could be a plus. With enough done, you can get that RPG factor, at least as regards managing leaders With enough done I can see it as a nice expansion or DLC Many solid ideas here already
Endless Legend, a deep 4X game, had excellent RPG aspects. It actually sets the bench mark, and I imagine the new Endless Space 2 will incorporate this as well. It will advance the bench mark further and be competition for this game. The devs of this game are highly recommended to play both games and learn what they did well and are recommended to continue the genre forward from where these trendsetters have left off (or will leave off), not from where Moo2 left off.
