Post #8 Politics of the Siege
- I believe giving the player the options for politics and attacks is very important to enjoyment. And, I’d even say that tweaking these settings up or down during play should be available. The thought is that a player started hard core, but then started creating a really nice city and wanted to “finish” it, rather than play the war game at that time.
- Giving just a little bit of reasons and back story to the adversaries that would affect interactions would enrich the game a bit, and maybe direct or adjust the war part of the play differently in each new game. Types/info potentially being:
- Raiders – tribal/nomads, attack for profit and survival, and focus on weakness and easy targets. Not a group to interact with. The stronger the player city grows, the less likely they would attack at all. And, in the Guild and Renaissance age, they convert to small thieving groups that occasionally try to make off with some goods.
- Local Lords types – weaker/smaller, medium, strong cities or city-states. Most of the traders that pass through would come from these. With the largest cities having different needs than the smaller ones and different production.
- Local cities biomes – Maybe there is a weak city nearby, but they live in a swampy area that produces lots of medical roots. The player buying from their merchant helps enrich that city. Even better, helps that city grow if trading their needs back to them.
- Local Lord’s disposition – of the several that might directly border the player’s land, their disposition towards the player as a breakaway group would affect how much they might demand of the player in terms of tribute, or just wanting to take over or wipe out completely.
- Trade complications - Local Lords have a different relationship to each other. Maybe there is a hostility setting for this. So, the more a player trades with a merchant that supports a particular city, the more potential a rival city might be inclined to cut off trade for a year, or maybe attack?
- Siege should be a method of attack against a strongly defended city with upgraded walls. And the method of siege should vary a lot by the attacker’s capabilities.
- So, a weak rival might attempt a siege, but can only keep it up for three months because of supply issues. At the end of three months might even have a bluff of a reduced tribute demand. But, if the player judges correctly, the rival will have to just go away.
- On the other hand, a better rival might lay siege and give several chances to pay up, and attack with wall scaling towers and other devices, taking tribute as they see fit.
- Or, a very strong adversary might just attack outright with all kinds of weapons, or lay siege for over a year – causing the player’s citizens to have all kinds of issues.
- There might be hints of a siege or an army marching, in which case the player can decree a “prepare for possible siege” causing people to consume less and hoard more, at a growing expense if discontent or other consequences.
- Surviving a siege or wining a significant battle, might reward the player with a small statue or something.
- The developer would need to have some sort of pull down where a player could check on the status and disposition etc… on the neighbors.
- Guild presence or a primary guild in a city might affect trade in a positive sense for the player, and might attract improved trade relations.
- In the Renaissance age, there might be a “far away” Lord, who is trying to unite the city-states into one kingdom. This could give the player an opportunity to support the resistance, or support the unification, or try to remain neutral for as long as possible. All choices will turn alliances on their heads and have the player have different kinds of attacks, or negotiations, bribes and such. As well as maybe producing and using bigger weapons, and gate buildings as well as lending soldiers to the cause. In the end the player will join the kingdom, either by agreement, or by force, but be allowed to continue to govern their city.