Tackling the 4X Experience
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:56 pm
One of the major elements that has come out of Galaxies is that most of our core player base are most interested in the 4X "start from scratch" style scenario. Part of what I've been wrestling with has been how to shift the emphasis of the rules in this particular direction. There are some elements in the existing rules that play towards these strengths (exploration), but there's others that are a significant road block (tech advancement, population increases).
In trying to break down the problem for analysis, I looked back on my previous campaigns to see how long the games usually lasted. At most, I seemed to get about 10 years in before the campaign either fizzled out or reached a decisive climax -- and it's always more fun to play through the conflict than the subsequent reconstruction.
For that reason, I started assuming that most VBAM campaigns are going to last about 120 turns. This is an important measuring stick, as it gives us an idea for how the game should be balanced to go from a single system on Turn 1 to reaching a conclusion by around Turn 120.
In my experience, most 4X games can be broken down into three phases: Early, Middle, and Late Game. In the Early Game you're exploring and expanding to found your initial empire. There isn't much combat in the Early Game, and it is during this phase that raiders and other localized threats are the most concerning.
Once imperial borders are established and most (if not all) of the systems are claimed, you move into the Middle Game where players begin reinforcing their positions, both diplomatically and militarily, and engaging in the first major wars of the game. I think it's common to see about a 25-33% attrition rate of empires during this period as weaker powers are conquered and absorbed into the larger empires. The major power blocs become evident at this time, with players forming alliances to counterbalance the growing power of their most successful and aggressive neighbors.
Finally, the Late Game begins when these major powers finally kick off a galactic war involving all of the remaining players. Each player ends up taking sides, whether they want to or not, and this continues with on and off warfare until someone achieves victory -- however that is defined by your scenario.
This is in broad strokes, but it does provide some context. If your average campaign lasts 120 turns, then we can expect each era of player to last about 40 turns.
One of the first and most persistent issues we run into is one of colonization and population growth. Establishing new colonies is slow, and population increases are even slower. This was an issue in 1E, which is why I created the Quick Expansion Colony Fleet rules. However, even then all that it meant is that players with the most money could colonize the fastest, which didn't really "fix" the problem -- it just allowed players to effectively purchase Census with economic points in a roundabout way.
The solution that I've come up with so far requires a number of modifications. The first is that star systems have a reduced range of Capacity values. Originally we had 2-12 before modifiers, but my latest rules have it at 2-6. Next, Census is turned into a "fixed" resource like Productivity that cannot be moved from system to system. Instead, you simply build a convoy and move it into an uninhabited system and have it lay down a new colony. Each new colony then begins with 1 Census and 1 Morale.
These changes speed up the rate at which players can establish new colonies, which makes the Early Game more dynamic by allowing for faster colonization and territorial growth.
This still leaves the issue of population growth. The population growth in 1E/2E was largely predicated on the concept of players running established empires where population increases would be rarer. However, in a 4X game, population growth needs to occur more quickly.
The fix I have for this is to keep population increase checks as a once per 12 turns activity, but the roll is changed to being d10+Capacity with a system gaining 1 Census + 1 Morale on a roll greater than 10. The reason Capacity is used instead of Census is because this in turn makes high Capacity systems the best for population growth. This allows the concept of biosphere as I tried to make it apply to 2E work as an integral element of population increases. Importantly, it means that worlds with high Capacity values represent the Earth-like "garden worlds" that should be prized by players.
Once a system is fully inhabited (Census = Capacity), any additional population increases can then be applied to other systems at the player's discretion. This creates a game situation where as players max out Capacity of their inner core worlds, the extra population these worlds generate can be used to selectively improve your other systems that may not be as appealing due to their poorer climates.
Importantly, this die roll means that EVERY system will have a chance of gaining population at the end of each year. This eliminates the need for tracking population increase modifiers for each system, removing an element of bookkeeping.
NOTE: There's nothing stopping players from using d10+Census instead for population growth, and I would probably include that as an optional rule. Or we could switch over if that is deemed more logical
In any event, population growth becomes more reliable and within those first 3-4 years of game time a player can expect to be able to have a decent sized empire established. Compare this to classic VBAM, where it's not uncommon for an empire to go years without any population increases, and some new colonies could never experience a population increase during the entire game.
This combination of elements seems to make the Early Game run faster and gives players the ability to easily claim new systems fairly cheaply. Importantly, it also gives them lots of little colonies that make for good sources of conflict as the players begin bumping into each other.
Tech advancement is something else that has been a problem for us. The 12 turn cycle there is often seen as too slow, and many players ignore it as a result.
To try and address that problem, I've been experimenting with several tech changes. The first is to take a page from the original Master of Orion where you pay into tech investment and once your investment exceeds 100% of your tech advancement cost you then have an increasing chance of success each turn. For example, I have a tech advancement cost of 50 and have 60 tech investment. This is 60/50 = 120% of my advancement cost, which gives me a 20% chance this turn of earning the tech advancement.
The other change I'm testing is to divorce tech investment from economic points and tie it instead to Utilized Productivity. Your empire then generates a point of tech investment for each point of Utilized Productivity in your empire. Certain systems gain a bonus to this output. In the base rules, Ruins systems produce double the normal tech investment.
This does two things: it makes it impossible for players to do the Turn 12 tech investment spend, and it varies the rate of tech advancement in interesting ways. An empire with a lot of low output but high Productivity systems are going to earn comparatively more tech investment than an empire with high output systems. This effectively makes those garbage 2 Capacity / 1 RAW systems into research bases that generate relatively more tech investment. For example, if I have a 4 RAW system, then each Productivity is going to raise my tech advancement cost by 8 (2 x output) and generate 1 tech investment per turn. A Productivity point in a RAW 1 system is going to raise tech advancement cost by 2 and still generate 1 tech investment per turn. The first system has a tech efficiency of 1/8 versus 1/2 for the second system.
One of the interesting side effects of this rule change has been that empires that get stuck with a lot of largely worthless unimportant systems is going to end up researching faster than their opponents. This isn't a great trade off for being economically weaker over all, but it can provide enough of a boost to keep them competitive.
As an empire finds itself losing systems to an enemy, too, its tech advancement cost is going to drop because its total system output has dropped, and this might reduce their advancement cost enough to let their accumulated tech investment "catch up" and give them the next tech advancement they need a bit quicker than when their empire was actually doing well.
You'll also notice that as empires expand and take on more lucrative systems, their tech advancement costs are going to surge and their tech advancement rate will start to slow down. This in turn allows their weaker neighbors a little time to catch up.
In the games I have played with this tech variant, players can expect to earn a tech advance about every 6 turns on average. Assuming the 120 turn game, this means players could expect to get about 20 tech advances over the course of the game. This aligns well with the number of units we were including on the force lists before. If each force list includes 6 units per Tech Level, then it will take about 3 years per era to advance technology. This keeps new units being unlocked at a reasonable clip.
What we do lose is the ability to invest economic points directly into tech, but you still have some avenue for doing that when it comes to colonizing those unimportant systems and turning them into de facto research bases for your empire. Finding and controlling Ruins systems is also of a high priority for players that want to get their tech faster.
# # #
I am going to have to end this post there, but I'll provide some examples of how this works this weekend. I'd love to find some players that are interested in taking this for a test run, too, to see if we can't work out the kinks and compare and contrast it against the existing Galaxies rules.
In trying to break down the problem for analysis, I looked back on my previous campaigns to see how long the games usually lasted. At most, I seemed to get about 10 years in before the campaign either fizzled out or reached a decisive climax -- and it's always more fun to play through the conflict than the subsequent reconstruction.
For that reason, I started assuming that most VBAM campaigns are going to last about 120 turns. This is an important measuring stick, as it gives us an idea for how the game should be balanced to go from a single system on Turn 1 to reaching a conclusion by around Turn 120.
In my experience, most 4X games can be broken down into three phases: Early, Middle, and Late Game. In the Early Game you're exploring and expanding to found your initial empire. There isn't much combat in the Early Game, and it is during this phase that raiders and other localized threats are the most concerning.
Once imperial borders are established and most (if not all) of the systems are claimed, you move into the Middle Game where players begin reinforcing their positions, both diplomatically and militarily, and engaging in the first major wars of the game. I think it's common to see about a 25-33% attrition rate of empires during this period as weaker powers are conquered and absorbed into the larger empires. The major power blocs become evident at this time, with players forming alliances to counterbalance the growing power of their most successful and aggressive neighbors.
Finally, the Late Game begins when these major powers finally kick off a galactic war involving all of the remaining players. Each player ends up taking sides, whether they want to or not, and this continues with on and off warfare until someone achieves victory -- however that is defined by your scenario.
This is in broad strokes, but it does provide some context. If your average campaign lasts 120 turns, then we can expect each era of player to last about 40 turns.
One of the first and most persistent issues we run into is one of colonization and population growth. Establishing new colonies is slow, and population increases are even slower. This was an issue in 1E, which is why I created the Quick Expansion Colony Fleet rules. However, even then all that it meant is that players with the most money could colonize the fastest, which didn't really "fix" the problem -- it just allowed players to effectively purchase Census with economic points in a roundabout way.
The solution that I've come up with so far requires a number of modifications. The first is that star systems have a reduced range of Capacity values. Originally we had 2-12 before modifiers, but my latest rules have it at 2-6. Next, Census is turned into a "fixed" resource like Productivity that cannot be moved from system to system. Instead, you simply build a convoy and move it into an uninhabited system and have it lay down a new colony. Each new colony then begins with 1 Census and 1 Morale.
These changes speed up the rate at which players can establish new colonies, which makes the Early Game more dynamic by allowing for faster colonization and territorial growth.
This still leaves the issue of population growth. The population growth in 1E/2E was largely predicated on the concept of players running established empires where population increases would be rarer. However, in a 4X game, population growth needs to occur more quickly.
The fix I have for this is to keep population increase checks as a once per 12 turns activity, but the roll is changed to being d10+Capacity with a system gaining 1 Census + 1 Morale on a roll greater than 10. The reason Capacity is used instead of Census is because this in turn makes high Capacity systems the best for population growth. This allows the concept of biosphere as I tried to make it apply to 2E work as an integral element of population increases. Importantly, it means that worlds with high Capacity values represent the Earth-like "garden worlds" that should be prized by players.
Once a system is fully inhabited (Census = Capacity), any additional population increases can then be applied to other systems at the player's discretion. This creates a game situation where as players max out Capacity of their inner core worlds, the extra population these worlds generate can be used to selectively improve your other systems that may not be as appealing due to their poorer climates.
Importantly, this die roll means that EVERY system will have a chance of gaining population at the end of each year. This eliminates the need for tracking population increase modifiers for each system, removing an element of bookkeeping.
NOTE: There's nothing stopping players from using d10+Census instead for population growth, and I would probably include that as an optional rule. Or we could switch over if that is deemed more logical
In any event, population growth becomes more reliable and within those first 3-4 years of game time a player can expect to be able to have a decent sized empire established. Compare this to classic VBAM, where it's not uncommon for an empire to go years without any population increases, and some new colonies could never experience a population increase during the entire game.
This combination of elements seems to make the Early Game run faster and gives players the ability to easily claim new systems fairly cheaply. Importantly, it also gives them lots of little colonies that make for good sources of conflict as the players begin bumping into each other.
Tech advancement is something else that has been a problem for us. The 12 turn cycle there is often seen as too slow, and many players ignore it as a result.
To try and address that problem, I've been experimenting with several tech changes. The first is to take a page from the original Master of Orion where you pay into tech investment and once your investment exceeds 100% of your tech advancement cost you then have an increasing chance of success each turn. For example, I have a tech advancement cost of 50 and have 60 tech investment. This is 60/50 = 120% of my advancement cost, which gives me a 20% chance this turn of earning the tech advancement.
The other change I'm testing is to divorce tech investment from economic points and tie it instead to Utilized Productivity. Your empire then generates a point of tech investment for each point of Utilized Productivity in your empire. Certain systems gain a bonus to this output. In the base rules, Ruins systems produce double the normal tech investment.
This does two things: it makes it impossible for players to do the Turn 12 tech investment spend, and it varies the rate of tech advancement in interesting ways. An empire with a lot of low output but high Productivity systems are going to earn comparatively more tech investment than an empire with high output systems. This effectively makes those garbage 2 Capacity / 1 RAW systems into research bases that generate relatively more tech investment. For example, if I have a 4 RAW system, then each Productivity is going to raise my tech advancement cost by 8 (2 x output) and generate 1 tech investment per turn. A Productivity point in a RAW 1 system is going to raise tech advancement cost by 2 and still generate 1 tech investment per turn. The first system has a tech efficiency of 1/8 versus 1/2 for the second system.
One of the interesting side effects of this rule change has been that empires that get stuck with a lot of largely worthless unimportant systems is going to end up researching faster than their opponents. This isn't a great trade off for being economically weaker over all, but it can provide enough of a boost to keep them competitive.
As an empire finds itself losing systems to an enemy, too, its tech advancement cost is going to drop because its total system output has dropped, and this might reduce their advancement cost enough to let their accumulated tech investment "catch up" and give them the next tech advancement they need a bit quicker than when their empire was actually doing well.
You'll also notice that as empires expand and take on more lucrative systems, their tech advancement costs are going to surge and their tech advancement rate will start to slow down. This in turn allows their weaker neighbors a little time to catch up.
In the games I have played with this tech variant, players can expect to earn a tech advance about every 6 turns on average. Assuming the 120 turn game, this means players could expect to get about 20 tech advances over the course of the game. This aligns well with the number of units we were including on the force lists before. If each force list includes 6 units per Tech Level, then it will take about 3 years per era to advance technology. This keeps new units being unlocked at a reasonable clip.
What we do lose is the ability to invest economic points directly into tech, but you still have some avenue for doing that when it comes to colonizing those unimportant systems and turning them into de facto research bases for your empire. Finding and controlling Ruins systems is also of a high priority for players that want to get their tech faster.
# # #
I am going to have to end this post there, but I'll provide some examples of how this works this weekend. I'd love to find some players that are interested in taking this for a test run, too, to see if we can't work out the kinks and compare and contrast it against the existing Galaxies rules.