posted 06-17-99 09:29 PM ET        

PS. Does anyone know of a way to crack word passwords? Ive got a couple papers from way back when whose contents are harrasing me with curiosity.

---------------------------------------------

I realize that this letter has little chance in changing the development of the game, especially at this late date, but I feel the need to voice my ideas anyway, irregardless of its ineffectiveness. And believe me, these are the LAST ideas i will send to Blizzard (i sent some ideas to [email protected] some weeks before...)

Just some things i would like to see in Pax Imperia 2:

Names of Technology and World-
This is a small detail, but if a player could name his technology and worlds, that would be a good bonus. Better yet, just as Warcraft 2 has the ability to import sounds effect into the game through the map editor, have the ability to import fonts into the game.
Also, alien races, or even your race, could use instead of english words, letter combinations which have no english meaning, or better yet, use just symnbols of , well, whatever looks sort of alien, to name your or your opponents stuff. So the computer could, when you discovered a new technology, instead of calling it a 'pulse laser' could name it some random combination of cyrillic letters instead. Even if the player has no idea what it says, or even if it really doesn't say anything at all, but is just a bunch of different languages' letters randomly thrown together, it would still augment the games. (By the way, I liked your cyrillic letters in the mission discription scenes for the human players in Warcraft 2. See how neat that looked? Imagine if you also used Arabic, Hindu, or any other wacky looking language!)

Infrastructure, and the Spread and Maintenance of Technology -
I believe to make the game truly monumental, one should incorporate building and maintenance of a planets' infrastructure as a critical aspect of gameplay. Infrastructure could be as simple as different types of 'factories' and buildings to as complex as roads, power generation, mining, processing, and construction facilities, and 'other' structures which may not contribute any goods to the economy but which make your population happy or content (better yet, such buildings should vary according to your races' predisposition's and philosophies... ). All of this infrastructure would be to represent the development of a planet. In Master of Orion, one could only see a planets development represented by the number of "factories" it had built so far. In this system, the development of planets would be much more in depth.
This would also have an effect upon the spread of technology. A "frontier" planet newly made with few colonists could not be expected to have the technological development of a centuries old colony - it takes time and manpower to develop such civilization, and it also needs to, if this makes any sense, "build the factories that will build the factories" Also, this frontier colony could not be expected to have as high a technological base as a more developed planets. Any devices of higher infrastructure technology than currently available on the planet would need to be imported in from another, more advanced world.
Tying one's technological level so closely to the infrastructure is an enormously important point, because it would not only prevent technology from spreading quickly but also it means that ones technology could actually DECLINE. Now THAT would be cool! And if maintaining infrastructure is made an enormously expensive part of an empire (anywhere from 30% to 75% of total production would probably be right), than diverting funds from your infrastructure too long could mean your ability to produce high tech. items would decline, EVEN IF no combat damage was done to your worlds, so a total-war with another empire could actually in the long run degrade your empire; if it is expensive enough.
Just to prove a point about infrastructure - if for some reason in the future we have a atomic war, how many people today, even if they had the knowledge, would be able to build computers, cars, or even roads? But this idea should not be implemented because of its parallel to reality but because it makes gameplay much more exciting and diverse. Also, if after too much time the infrastructure is not repaired, then an empire could actually LOSE the knowledge of that technology, making them re-research it.

Rebellions, New Empires and Multi-Player Games

Something which should be included could be rebellions within an empire. However, I am not talking about a small uprising on a distant world, as in MOO, which had no long term effects, but an actual empire-shattering, civil war kind of rebellion. These rebellions should not always be contained on just one world, but could involve your whole empire. And involve not just an 'uprising' but the defection of your combat troops to rebel causes; sometimes these defections could be in significant numbers. But most of all, these rebellions could form, if successful, another empire, separate from yours, even though it is the same race, an empire which could be dealt with as any other empire.
ex: say for instance your race places a high priority on life and freedom, as one of its philosophies. But you are a ruthless dictator, smashing without regard every other empire you come into contact with. Eventually your people become sick of you, and one of your generals (or governors or whatever) declares his planet and several neighboring planets independent of your empire. Before all is said and done, 40% of your worlds and combat troops (the planets and troops should be geographically touching the new empire, not just 40% of your worlds randomly selected patchwork-like over your empire) have joined this new alliance. You can either fight these rebels to regain your lost worlds or allow them to form a separate empire.
Another important point which should be made here is communication between worlds in your empire - if for example an enemy cuts your empire in half directly down the middle in a large swath, then some of your worlds will lose contact with the 'mother' empire. These lost worlds could either just decay, join another empire, or create a new empire. Thus, the effects of a massive campaign in enemy territory could be the creation of several smaller states as the worlds are cut off from one another (note that if the previous ideas about infrastructure are used, then the technological level of these new worlds should be dependent upon the infrastructure in place when they became separate.) Note also that the worlds may rejoin your empire if communication is re-established, depending upon how long they were independent. Also note that communication should be affected by technology, so that if one's infrastructure declines, it may result in losing contact with some outlying worlds. It could also be possible to have new players join a multi-player network game by allowing them to take control of one of these "independent worlds". Though they probably have no chance, who knows?
Also, if you are the same reader, and remember any of my previous letters, i put forth the idea of several conditions that players may find themselves in, such as 'fallow' race, or merging empires, and so on. If these ideas are implemented, (as i hope) in some form or another, then the possibility for treachery and betrayal should also be considered. So if an enemy wants to assault an alliance, he/she could negotiate separately with a member of the alliance, for whatever gain that could be received from a treacherous act. Also, a member of an alliance could make a power bid and assault the other members; this should be considered rebellion, not normal warfare, for the reasons outlined in past letters describing alliances.
One more point about multi-player games - if the whole deal i talked about previously in the other letter about alliances is taken seriously, this would mean some players would only do certain jobs, instead of doing all the jobs. It is also possible that one player may be assigned a single task that has several players assigned to it. For instance, a player may be given responsibility for a large military taskforce, to be sent against the enemies besetting the empire. Or given responsibility of several worlds in one area of the empire. If this is so, then it is possible for these players to lose contact with the mother empire, who then would, in the normal manner, form new empires or take whatever actions they feel necessary.
ex: a tactically brilliant player is given command of most of the forces in a multi-player alliance, and is charged with defeating the assaulting hordes of the forces besetting the alliance. He only controls the troops and equipment he brings with him, so that when he goes deep into enemy territory no other player can contact him about situations as they arrise. Thus he sets out on a massive campaign to utterly destroy the merciless enemy. But he gets bogged down, and must settle a world deep in enemy territory as a base, and there for five years fights, surviving off of caputered enemy equipment and eager recruits from freed slave races, razing the enemy worlds, and finally ends the war in a climactic battle above the ememies homeworld. Finally, he sets out back to home, but when he arrives he finds that the alliance has dissolved. Right after he left, one of the members bordering the enemy betrayed the alliance and let the enemy pass through his domain to attack from within the empire. Though both the attack and the betraying race were destroyed, the X race, strongest race which kept the alliance together, was also destroyed, and its worlds savaged. Now the remaining members of the alliance are fighting for the spoils of the dead race's worlds, and old conflicts rise again, pitting the members against each other. Distrought at what has happended, the veteran general gathers as much equipment as he can from the dead race's worlds, and asks all of the surving races to join him in rebuilding the old alliance. Though none do, many individual units from all of the races join his forces, bringing much equipment and material. He then sets out to build a new empire among the ashes of the empire which he destroyed, leaving the surviving members to fight among themselves.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you probably are thinking - boy thats far out there! All of that in a game!! It seems a little much. - Well, this is what would HAPPEN, not what the game would say. But the players may think in this way as they play. And a true measure of success in the game would be to see what and how the player thinks about as they play. Because it is not just if you win or lose, but what happens in between that is most important. Above all, that is what should be recognized, that it really isn't whether a player wins or not, but if they have fun. Look at some of the Web pages dealing with Warcraft 2. One in particular is a league (they call it a ladder) of players who play over Kali. That page contains stories of previous games. If you look at the stories, they are not glorious stories of victory - in fact I don't think any one of the authors won their games at all - but what happened that was so fun while they played. Everthing I have sent to you guys is my attempt to make the game in the middle more fun, and I believe all of this detail and interaction between players will do this, - if done correctly, with foreknoledge of what the game allows them the possiblity of doing, an insightful measure of sucessiful and applicable paths, and variable options available to a player to accomplish his or her goals through many different means and ways - this is how to make a great game. I am afraid that Pax Imperia 2 will just be a more complex and graffically apealing rehash of Master of Orion, except with an "ecenomical" element. You guys keep talking about this "economic" element of the game. It, to me, sounds as though you realise the similarities between your game and most other empire simulators, and so are trying to play up this ability to conquer your enemies through ecenomics. But I truly hope that this is not all that is different between your game and other empire simulators. Look at every computer game published to date - most are terrible, and the few that are good have no interaction between players, whether the player is the computer or another human. If the ideas I have put forth are in some manner adopted, then I guarantee this will be one of the most popular games of all time, one you will see being played on networks in schools during lunch hours for years. I knew several computer junkies who just stayed in all lunch and played DOOM when I was in High School Imagine how much MORE they would stay indoors if the game Pax Imperia 2 adopted many of these ideas! I think I'd stay with em, to tell the truth, if I had the chance again, and a game like the hypothetical Pax Imperia 2 existed.