Most grand strategy games emphasize conquest. Unite The World has players balance the political, economic, and social domains to achieve a grand objective, all without too much micromanagement.
I love the concept! Sounds like a highly abstracted version of a Paradox game, though the environmental aspect is novel. My only initial concern would be with the timing - I'm not sure quite sure how the jumps in time perspective between layers would work in practice, especially if being played by multiple human players.
Paradox games are definitely an inspiration. A common reason people give for not getting into them is the complexity. Newer games are incorporating environmental dynamics, and I think they can add a unique element. After I've conquered enough of the world in Hearts of Iron, the endgame has no real element of mystery.
Playing Frostpunk has taught me a lot. I'm looking forward to seeing how they handle social dynamics in the sequel next month.
You're totally right about time being an issue - I actually tried to explain too much for my own good. The time wouldn't need to shift as soon as a player jumped levels, I meant that in an illustrative sense. Naturally there would be a simple button to use to set the time.
As for coordinating between multiple players, that's trickier but solvable. A speed can be agreed on at the start of the game *or* so long as there is no ongoing military engagements players could run a year-long "turn" independently before syncing up.
1) To augment the educational potential, have a mode where players can put the game on pause (or slow things down) to do research on particular theory, science, etc. relevant to a certain decision matrix and then have this open a link to Wikipedia (or an open science repository) with a set of relevant fields/topics/themes identified. So like a leader with a decent civil service to advise them, they can skill-up by learning with the polisci, business, economics, environmental science, etc. literatures today have to say on certain choices.
2) Give the choice to play with certain pre-set ideological approaches (e.g., capitalism, imperialism, socialism, neoliberalism, etc.) that govern behaviours or choice-sets; but always also the option to free play. This could be a fun way to explore the consequences of how ideologies shape decision making, often ignoring the scientific evidence or realities.
3) Could also have preset opposing states that take ideological stances, so helps the player learn how to deal with a world made up of different ideological leadership/state identities, alongside more pragmatic opponents who are not ideological but instead very self-interested/interest-driven.
4) It would be fun if there was a way to bring in media as part of inter-state/province relations - e.g., player could invest in a strong information warfare/propaganda arm to shape external perceptions as well as internal state views of the decisions of government.
An advantage of making something abstract and modular is the ability to bring in lots of neat effects. They can even be optional, so that younger or more casual players can add or remove elements. Or support experimental work.
The social system dynamics are the weakest part of the design at present, I think. Ideally the sim would be able to generate populations with variable characteristics, like affinity for capitalism, socialism, imperialism, so on. This could change in response to events. To build a working AI opponent you have to quantify pretty much everything in some fashion anyway. It needs to be able to look at a number of variables as they shift over time to optimize its own moves.
I'll definitely have to think on how a media system can operate!
Not exactly what you're describing but the game Eco has some interesting elements in that players must work together to "save the world". I've not played it so can't tell you much more about it.
I love the concept! Sounds like a highly abstracted version of a Paradox game, though the environmental aspect is novel. My only initial concern would be with the timing - I'm not sure quite sure how the jumps in time perspective between layers would work in practice, especially if being played by multiple human players.
Paradox games are definitely an inspiration. A common reason people give for not getting into them is the complexity. Newer games are incorporating environmental dynamics, and I think they can add a unique element. After I've conquered enough of the world in Hearts of Iron, the endgame has no real element of mystery.
Playing Frostpunk has taught me a lot. I'm looking forward to seeing how they handle social dynamics in the sequel next month.
You're totally right about time being an issue - I actually tried to explain too much for my own good. The time wouldn't need to shift as soon as a player jumped levels, I meant that in an illustrative sense. Naturally there would be a simple button to use to set the time.
As for coordinating between multiple players, that's trickier but solvable. A speed can be agreed on at the start of the game *or* so long as there is no ongoing military engagements players could run a year-long "turn" independently before syncing up.
A couple of thoughts/suggestions:
1) To augment the educational potential, have a mode where players can put the game on pause (or slow things down) to do research on particular theory, science, etc. relevant to a certain decision matrix and then have this open a link to Wikipedia (or an open science repository) with a set of relevant fields/topics/themes identified. So like a leader with a decent civil service to advise them, they can skill-up by learning with the polisci, business, economics, environmental science, etc. literatures today have to say on certain choices.
2) Give the choice to play with certain pre-set ideological approaches (e.g., capitalism, imperialism, socialism, neoliberalism, etc.) that govern behaviours or choice-sets; but always also the option to free play. This could be a fun way to explore the consequences of how ideologies shape decision making, often ignoring the scientific evidence or realities.
3) Could also have preset opposing states that take ideological stances, so helps the player learn how to deal with a world made up of different ideological leadership/state identities, alongside more pragmatic opponents who are not ideological but instead very self-interested/interest-driven.
4) It would be fun if there was a way to bring in media as part of inter-state/province relations - e.g., player could invest in a strong information warfare/propaganda arm to shape external perceptions as well as internal state views of the decisions of government.
All excellent ideas!
An advantage of making something abstract and modular is the ability to bring in lots of neat effects. They can even be optional, so that younger or more casual players can add or remove elements. Or support experimental work.
The social system dynamics are the weakest part of the design at present, I think. Ideally the sim would be able to generate populations with variable characteristics, like affinity for capitalism, socialism, imperialism, so on. This could change in response to events. To build a working AI opponent you have to quantify pretty much everything in some fashion anyway. It needs to be able to look at a number of variables as they shift over time to optimize its own moves.
I'll definitely have to think on how a media system can operate!
There's a crisis management training product called Conducttr that simulates social, political & commercial dynamics.
https://www.conducttr.com/
Not exactly what you're describing but the game Eco has some interesting elements in that players must work together to "save the world". I've not played it so can't tell you much more about it.
https://play.eco/
Neat, I'll check it out. Thanks!
100% support for your work. Prefer other form of contribution payment than CC. Kind regards