[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

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of Oerjan Ohlson
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 12:07 PM
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: RE: Game balance (no longer really very VV-related)

Binhan Lin wrote:

>Probably the best method is to un-abstract point costs and make
different 
>portions of the ship utilize different resources.  For instance, FTL
and 
>normal engines require Unobtanium. Nation A is lucky and has a source
of 
>Unobtanium, Nation B has to import it's Unobtanium.  Therefore, Nation
A 
>could build a particular FTL/high maneuver design more cheaply than
Nation B.
>
>If Beam weapons require Quadlithium crystals as focusing elements and 
>Nation A has no indigenous supplies, while Nation B does, then Nation B

>can build beam weapons cheaper.
>
>On average, the Point costs for the same ship design built by the two 
>nations will be roughly the same (Nation A pays more for weapons,
Nation B 
>pays more for FTL)

...until A concquers B's Quadlithium mines and thus becomes able to
build 
both FTL drives *and* beam weapons cheaply, while the B survivors have
to 
pay extra for *both* resources (or vice versa). When this happens, you
get 
a Monopoly-style campaign: much gets more.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry