The Aspect of Chance and the Issue of Replayability

Mathphysto · May 17, 2001, 13:41

One other thing. Among the singular events I speak of are random acts of nature. So this contains that proposal as well.

Mathphysto · May 18, 2001, 00:20

The number of incidental/accidental events that have changed the course of history is quite large. Even assuming that we really understood society, religion, diplomacy, etc, there are still singular historical people/events that cannot be modeled because they were so unique. In other words, we could never develop a program that, given the exact initial conditions at 2000BC, would give Napolean or Hitler. There are simply too many free parameters, too many improbable events. Can we incorporate the aspect of CHANCE or LUCK into the game?

The question is, then, how many of these parameters ought we to specify, and how many should be left out? If we fix all the free parameters, then we will get a boring program that is really nothing more than a documentary of history. If we don't fix any, then you completely lose the impact of singular people/events on history.

I think that the most important free parameters (singular people/events) ought to be fixed, provided that the conditions are right. For example, only if Germany has a large enough population and high enough science, and has discovered enough techs, would an Einstein appear. And only if Germany is poor enough and has high discrimination would Hitler rise to power.

Also, there could be lists of possible, but not factual, singular events/people which would have some probability of occurring, so long as some conditions are satisfied (which weren't satisfied in real life). For example, if the US is being invaded by the USSR, there may be some probability for someone to rally the people, increasing production and happiness as well as the US's conscription level.

This adds another element - chance. So much of history is built upon luck, hence any realistic game must include some aspect of probability. Also, it makes the game much more enjoyable and gives it greater replayability. Chance is exactly why, for instance, poker and other card games remain so popular centuries after their development - because there is nearly infinite replayability. If Firaxis wants to make a truly great and endearing game, I think that incorporating the aspect of chance would be very useful.
[This message has been edited by Mathphysto (edited May 17, 2001).]

Urban Ranger · May 18, 2001, 02:32

1. I don't think we even know of all such parameters you have mentioned, let alone knowing how they interact or what kind of ranges can they have.

2. Random events may not be that random. Einstein himself admitted that, among all his achievements, perhaps General Relativity cannot be formulated without him. I think this could be an overstatement. Given the state of science it seems that discoveries and inventions are inevitable one way or another. Hitler is more random, but not entirely so.

3. Sid has always been erred on the side of fun. So if random events wrecks the game, Sid would have nothing of it. I think the M.U.L.E. way is excellent: bad things can only happen to the leading players and good things can only happen to the trailing players. This will make the game more fun.