The game of everything

Over on the Flat Earths blog, I’ve been caught up in an interesting discussion this week with one or more anonymous game developers. Our conversation has been about the challenges of creating a kind of grand strategy game (and/or world history sim) that would cover the evolution of societies across centuries -- something like the original Civilization boardgame (or its PC version, Incunabula) but with nothing left out. You could tweak a coastline or the climate and see the effects butterfly out into the course of history. I’m mentioning it here because the Fabled Lands blog has a much wider reach, so if this sounds like something you’d be interested to weigh in on, head over to see the full discussion.

In summary: traditional strategy and tactics games often present a simplified view of control, where a single player assumes absolute command over a nation or army. In reality, historical empires were shaped by complex layers of authority and influence, with different factions vying for power. We talk about the potential for a game that reflects this complexity, eg a massively multiplayer and multi-layer World War II game where players assume various roles from platoon commanders to high-ranking generals and politicians. Such a game could offer a more authentic experience by simulating the intricacies of real-world military and political manoeuvring.

We all vary in how they approach games: some players want fast-paced action while others prefer strategic deliberation over days or weeks, and so on. Designing a game that appeals to all the player types is no small feat. We’d need to ensure that the game remains enjoyable and challenging for everyone involved. The idea is to allow players to engage at their own level, whether they are lean-back dilettantes or deeply invested aficionados.

New technology offers possibilities for expanding the scope of strategy games. Imagine a game that integrates different platforms, from PCs to smartphones, to create a rich, interconnected experience. For instance, a farming app linked to the game could engage casual players, who would contribute to the in-game economy and benefit more dedicated players. Such integration could foster a sense of community and interdependence, where players protect and support one another in pursuit of shared goals.

The conversation on Flat Earths also touches on the potential for diverse player roles. Not everyone wants to lead armies into battle or even to take part in the action. Some might prefer to act as chroniclers, documenting the unfolding events and strategies of the players. This mirrors real-world dynamics, where some individuals are active participants in events, while others observe and report. And others watch those reports and are just spectators -- also a valid way to consume the game. Recognizing and facilitating these different roles could enrich the gaming experience, allowing players to engage in ways that suit their interests and skills.

But we mustn't play down the technical challenges of merging different game elements such as abstract military units and individual soldier-based tactics. While current advances make some aspects feasible, ensuring cohesion across multiple layers of gameplay pushes the boundaries of what is currently achievable.

We also discuss the importance of a village or town system as the backbone of the game. Such a system would define troop numbers, trade, cultural values, and achievements. To accommodate a massive multiplayer environment, the game needs to move away from the exponential growth model typical of 4X games, where mismatched opponents often lead to frustration. Instead, my anonymous friend proposes a homeostatic environment reminiscent of the Dark Ages, where cooperation and cultural exchanges are vital. This shift in focus from conquest to cultural and economic development could redefine players’ goals, emphasizing collaboration over domination.

And, of course, commercial viability is a critical consideration in game development. Past failures underscore the importance of minimizing reliance on external investment and (much as I hate to say it) the potential benefits of aligning the game with a popular intellectual property, such as Lord of the Rings or (better) as the veritable psychohistory engine of Foundation.

Anyway, the bottom line is that by blending historical realism with diverse multiplayer roles and leveraging modern technology, it’s becoming possible to envisage a game of a scope far beyond the simple abstractions of the past. Whether you could sell it to players is another question, though maybe government ministers and civil servants would appreciate a way to run simulations before trying out their plans on the only reality we've got.