I like this idea...am I understanding it right? Lemme do my version.
Each time you start a world there are different variables that determine the 'flavor' of the world. AND possibly the player does not know right away what these factors are. Maybe there is a rarity of horses, or abundance of dragons, or metal is virtually non existent ( game breaker?)
Exactly. You are effectively playing a different game every game.. Or at least, a different environment that is different with other things than just the shape of the map.
I can see how if the wrong variables get implemented the game may become impossible...OR I don't know...is there enough means for the player to pursue to overcome most any problem.?
IE dragons are common, metal is not. Instead of well equipped warriors maybe the player has to rely on numbers and large stores of food for an almost too large population of mediocre pointy-stick wielders to go remove dragon problems.
Yes, but think of it. If such occurence would happen, where metal is rare, you'd end up with a world focusing its research on magic weilders. Armies will be primitive, but mythical. That's what I like in a fantasy world: there is always an alternative.
And no metal + Dragon = Wizard Dragonriders. You'd end up with a world filled with magical beasts, with wizards and priests trying to tame and harvest them for supremacy.
This would probably have to be an option I guess...or maybe highly limited to what is randomized in this fashion. But I like the idea that this 'feature' would randomize end-game play.
Most games that have random maps and encounters still use the same inventory every game, so the player know what the most powerful creatures and spells and items are at the start...so they know when they are maxed out for effectiveness. The 'best' equipment never changes game to game, just the path.
I am not sure about that. I like the randomnization of elements that would be harvestable in the gameplay, it means that the endgame units will be different from game to game, the strategies involved will also be different.
Also, please remember: what happens to you also happens to your opponents. The player won't be 100% screwed just because there arne't any metal in his part of the world. None of your opponents have metal either. So it's a race for a different kind of warfare. If you happen to face an ennemy that have the single source of metal of the world, he focused his technology on metallurgy, which might cause a surprise against everybody... But then again, he will probably be lacking in some technological field that the non-metal opponents have focused on.
PROBLEM: It would SUCK to find out 10hrs into gameplay that you are not going to survive the game because the variables are so overwhelmingly against you the game is in fact impossible. So I assume there would have to be a 'weight' system to these so that +/- can be relatively balanced.
Side note: I also like the idea for major events in this game. This can change your path completely.
A weight system might be nice, indeed. But then, remember a basic mantra: you aren't changing the circumstances of a single faction. You are changing the world. all the factions will then suffer or thrive equally because of those circumstances..
I'd understand why a city which has access to the only source of Iron of the world would be a "King of the Hill" situation, with everybody wanting to seize it. Does it make it un-playable? Maybe. Does it make it fun? Hell yhea. You'd end up with strange situations in the game, and avoid repetition.