From: B Lin <lin@r...>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:27:09 -0700
Subject: [semi-VV] Multiple resources - was RE: Game balance
That is more of an issue of game play rather than a problem with mechanics - for instance, if you have players who play Monopoly and lose every time because they refuse to purchase any properties, it's not a problem with the rules, but a problem with how you play. I don't think the game system should be auto-balancing, otherwise why play? If the game system is intentionally designed to produce equal results regardless of what the players do, then you simply flip a coin for eah campaign and winner takes all. The point of multiple resources as a cost factor was to add variety - would monopoly play the same if instead of just property, you could invest in stocks, take loans other than mortgages or cut deals outside of game resources? In the end power is power and should win, but how you get that power should be challenging. The game rules should not stop people from making bad decisions, as that happens in real-life all the time, and part of the gaming process is learning what works and what doesn't within the rule set. In your example, if Nation B gives up it's Quadlithium mines without a fight, then that's a strategic error. But if Nation B fights so hard that when A finally does capture them, it has expended so much time and effort that Nation C, even if it has to pay for both FTL and weapons, comes in and cleans up both since it has been conserving its military resources during the fight. Or alternatively, A can co-operate with B and trade Unobtanium for Quadlithium and both can benefit without depleting their miltaries. If there is a single type point costfor ships and no reason to negotiate with others, then it won't happen. An example of why having a single specific resource can have a major impact on a wide scale; before the 1800's the black gooey tar-like substance that oozed from the ground was pretty useless, now it is a material of strategic importance. The material didn't change, but nation's requirements for it did, making once backwater countries major players in the modern political arena. If you abstract that gooey substance to "energy cost" then the US would never have become dependent on foreign oil as our coal, wood, and other indigenous fuel sources are huge. We still have huge untapped reserves of oil in the form of oil shales and hard to reach deposits, but because we have negotiated a cheap price from overseas we have become dependent on those oil imports, and thus vulnerable to their whims. We have to treat smaller, less militarily powerful countries like Ecquador, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, UAE and other oil-producing countries with respect because they hold power over this! critical resource. Why don't we just go in and take this valuable resource? Because they have other friends who would prefer that such a resource remain in a variety of "independent" hands rather than monopolized by a single nation. Historically, critical materials or lack thereof have played a major role in shaping military plans and equipment - some WW2 examples -Germany's chronic shortage of oil, lack of key metals like tungsten or lack of heavy water to devlop atomic power, Russia's shortage of aluminum and lightweight metals, and Japan's shortage of just about everything. By having critical materials, you will have motivation to defend or attack certain systems vs. others, not just what happens to be the best strategic bottleneck. In addition, there is motivation to negotiate with other nations to get what you need peacefully rather than constantly being on the attack and defense; therefore politics and economic factors will have a greater role in determining objectives, not just strict military values. Optimally, every nation wants to be completely self-sufficient and many strive to achieve that. But self-sufficiency leads to stagnation - for example Medieval to 19th century Japan. As we have seen throughout history, that the greatest growth of countries happens when they open themselves to the world. I feel that the game system should reflect that tone, with trade and interaction producing greater results than isolation, and that military action should not be the only method for achieving goals but that the most effective method will be a combination of economic, military and diplomatic maneuvers that gain the most for the nation with the least amount of effort and resources. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, to win a thousand battles is not the acme of skill, the best is to win the battle before it is fought. --Binhan [quoted original message omitted]