Population mechanics: what to model as a POP

For discussion on the most 'core' concepts and ideas for the first version of the SOTE project. This is for absolutely necessary mechanics and ideas that form the backbone of the game.
User avatar
David Buunk
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:46 pm
Location: Netherlands

Population mechanics: what to model as a POP

Post by David Buunk » Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:51 pm

One of the questions for SOTE is what would be treated as a POP and use the population mechanics, and what would be part of the background ecosystem.

I would suggest adding more than just the (semi-)sentient species as POPs. And have, for example, fox POPs that eat your domesticated chicken POPs, but are eaten by wolf and bear POPs, that would at times kill your human POPs. This way there would be a real downside to hunting wolves and bears to extinction.
Programming SotE.

Demiansky
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:03 pm

Re: Population mechanics: what to model as a POP

Post by Demiansky » Fri Jun 23, 2017 12:02 pm

I'd like to track "ambient" pops in the background, though it might not be meaningful to measure it in too much resolution (foxes vs chicken hawks). Remember, individual terrain type tiles (plains, forests, etc) will have maturity levels ranging from something like -10 (super wild wilderness) to a super settled 10 (so think an urban city or a rural province which is surrounded by settled plains for 100 KM's in every direction). In the first case, there would be considered to be TONS of foxes and wolves and bears. In the later case, there is virtually no wilderness left.

Inhumanity
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:04 pm

Re: Population mechanics: what to model as a POP

Post by Inhumanity » Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:46 pm

I agree that tracking each and every kind of animal as 'POPs' is a bit overkill and the limited resources (CPU when playing as well as people actually coding stuff :p) at hand could be used mere effectively.
All relevant creatures should have pop (elves, orcs, human, ...) All that can build a 'society' even it just is a pack of direwolves barely intelligent enough to do coordinated attacks.

Demiansky
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:03 pm

Re: Population mechanics: what to model as a POP

Post by Demiansky » Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:40 pm

Right, I think anything capable of being an organized threat gets tracked. However, I think it also make sense to have an aggragate score of all "non-threatening species." So for instance, the big, dark forest might have 12 percent worgs, 23 percent orcs, 17 percent feral elves, and the remaining percentage "ambient wildlife." It's the named creatures that could organize to go off and cause trouble while the ambient wildlife would be your various woodland critters taking up resources but not able to raise any significant resistance.

User avatar
David Buunk
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:46 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: Population mechanics: what to model as a POP

Post by David Buunk » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:16 pm

I still think it would be a good idea to have a reduced simulation for a lot of larger animals.

So for sentient creatures there would be the advanced pop simulation, with different roles in society, and with leadership/government, and planning for things like raids. But large non-sentient creatures could have a simplified POP system, where only the number of animal would be stored.

There is a lot of animals that are dangerous to human that do not have the organisation to form deliberate "warbands", but still be dangerous to people living around it. But the amount would depend on a lot of things, that cannot be simply derived from the total plant biomass.

This simple simulation would make the world feel much more alive, allow for a lot of interesting mechanics. But its simplicity would mean that it doesn't cost much CPU power, and would be easy to program.

Now, you cannot simulate all possible animals, and you would have "ambient wildlife" left. Where to draw the border? I suggest taking those that would need the biomass of multiple tiles to properly exist.
Programming SotE.

Zerodv
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Population mechanics: what to model as a POP

Post by Zerodv » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:22 pm

Sentient species - tracked down
Big & Relevant animals - tracked down but without the lacking economical, cultural and otherwise sentients´ stuff.
Background animals - tracked down as a "mere" number

I guess you could divide the cathegories down even more.

Jorlmund
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:29 pm

Re: Population mechanics: what to model as a POP

Post by Jorlmund » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:33 pm

I think playable races should be divided to three different levels.
Semi wild - (trolls) species with limited intelligence, barely surpassing chimpanzee's level of intellect but still having enough organizational ability to form some sort of rudimentary settlement
Semi civilized - (Orcs, Gnolls) Beign closer to civilized folks than semi wild species but still maintaining some wild animalistic elements which hurts their organizing ablitities.
Civilized - (Humans, Elves) - The most organized among different civs and also beign the weakest in combat.

Maybe in time species will evolve to higher level of civilization but at the same time lose some of their helpful animalistic traits.

User avatar
David Buunk
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:46 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: Population mechanics: what to model as a POP

Post by David Buunk » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:39 pm

Jorlmund, it might be better to have those represented as characteristics of the particular species, rather than general concepts.
Programming SotE.

Jorlmund
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:29 pm

Re: Population mechanics: what to model as a POP

Post by Jorlmund » Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:00 am

It is just a rough idea to be molded, nothing more.

Demiansky
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:03 pm

Re: Population mechanics: what to model as a POP

Post by Demiansky » Sat Jun 24, 2017 12:04 pm

Yeah Zerodv, I think that's probably the way to go. And Jorlmund, that could be a good framework to work from. Regardless of whether we make it a literal "trait" that a race has, it could be helpful categories so that people have a general understanding of the aptitudes of each race.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests