Daily Design: Day 77
Daily Design is a series of game concepts devised daily through all of 2016. These are just basic concepts, designed based on three randomly generated words. Today, they are;
Dictatorship, Knowledge and Apparatus.
As such, the game I’ve designed today is…
In Leadership Hertz, players attempt to build a completely autonomous kingdom ruled by a robot overlord. This overlord then attempts to conquer the in-game map through military and economic victory. Because it’s all automated, however, players have relatively minimal input once the game gets going. It’s essentially a basic RTS game run by AIs that are programmed in-game.
Before a match (the game is playable by up to 4 players in free for all), players will set up their AI with certain parameters, similar to the Gambit system in Final Fantasy XII or the tactics system in Dragon Age: Origins. For the unfamiliar, this means laying out certain conditions, such as “Base is under attack” and assigning it with an action, like “Send all troops back to base”.
Clever use of these systems is needed to survive and win battles, and forethought is important. However, the player also has access to two “Override Protocols”, which are essentially different AI setups that can be swapped out during a match. Once swapped, the original protocol is lost, so this can only be done up to two times in a match.
An example may be that a player’s initial protocol is based on economic growth – gathering resources and building a sustainable economy, like players would do in most RTS games. The second protocol may be based on military action, like growing an army and attacking enemies. The final action could be a trick strategy in which the AI builds a hidden base elsewhere in the map.
It’s important to note that being on a protocol doesn’t necessarily mean any actions are locked. A defense-focused AI can still attack and gather, for example, but their protocols will trigger and take priority. So while a defense focused AI will do everything, if it’s told to defend the base if it’s under attack it will do so at all costs.
Because the game has minimal interaction, I think it would work best as a smartphone game where matches could take a fairly long time (even days or weeks). It seems like the sort of thing that would be fun to check in on every now and then, deciding whether or not to change protocols based on the progress of the battle.
That’s it! Thanks for reading. I’ll be back tomorrow with another basic game concept.