Re: [Q] What makes a good PBM? What would you like in a PBM

From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:59:13 +0000

Michael Wolf <wolfmc@rtsg.mot.com> writes:
>What makes a good PBM?  What would you like to see in a PBM?

A general concept which can be implemented in a lot of different ways,
is that the game should be structured in a way which forces the players
to adapt to circumstances.  That is, there should not be a correct
strategy in isolation from the events of the game itself.

Some ways in which a game can achieve this are: To have players acquire
planets/objects/units/locations with a range of different properties
(e.g., production advantages, combat advantages, contributions to score,
strategic locations, etc.).  To impose constraints which prevent players
from having a completely flexible position (e.g., multi-turn production,
multi-turn movement, limited mobility, limited intelligence, etc.).

Of course the range of properties and constraints should be large enough
to force the players to adapt, but small enough as not to make the game
seem completely random.  They will also introduce complexity.
Complexity is fine, as long as the complexity contributes to some goal.
But complexity introduced just for the sake of complexity---say,
necessary items or units which are low in cost and thus easy to afford,
but which the player still has to keep track of---is a very bad thing.
Forcing the player to do things which the computer could do, such as
assigning the right amount of population to each of several different
tasks instead of doing that automatically, is another form of this.

David desJardins

References

[Q] What makes a good PBM? What would you like in a PBM
wolfmc@rtsg.mot.com (Michael Wolf)
Thu, 06 Aug 1992 17:11:25 +0000