Originally this story follows the plot of Harvest Moon an amazing series of games for ps1 and ps2 which I think was the inspiration for Stardew Valley which is almost a carbon copy of harvest moon but I’m not complaining cause now I can play stardew valley on my laptop and be nostalgic about playing harvest moon <3
Sounds like a really interesting concept for a mobile game, until it gets infested by microtransactions, gets balanced to become grindy as shit and have a ludacrious number of artificial limitations. Yeah, I think I'm onto something here.
I’d be into it- with some twists. I mean- a lot of it sounds like the first person fallout games except without the open world scavenging. My proposition: eliminate the overworld and go back to an original fallout style world map with fast travel. Now you have the entire map space memory to fill with settlements and locations to travel to. So you are in the farm. At first you cat really travel because you lack supplies and means to go far, and being away from the farm you can’t protect it, maintain it, trade, or welcome settlers so if you travel you’ll probably die of wasting away if nothing else. As you get more settlers and can assign them tasks, and your farm gets more established and produces more- you can travel more. You can unlock settlements and build those up as well, and create networks where different raw materials and components are created at certain settlements which gives you easier access to certain building materials like stone or metal, and also allows building of...
Simple and complex machines starting with hand tools and going up to things like mills and wells all the way to self powered equipment and more. Different locations have different topographies, resources, and features, and are procedurally generates or randomized within an algorithm each game. Towns have resource requirements and can be self sufficient or rely on each other, but if developed enough even form markets and will start to barter and buy goods from other places. In your “controlled” and unified settlements you are given choice of governance- dictatorships, communes, slavery, religious theologies, democracy, etc. and allied or non affiliated towns have their own which you can theoretically convert- but until then must manage. One critical change I would make is combat.
I do feel that combat should be a part of the game both for authenticity and to set it apart in the genre. The mechanics of that combat I don’t have an idea on at this time. They should suit the game of course. But one should both have to defend settlements from threat as well as have an option to use force to claim lands or convert theologies. Threats could include wood criteria as well as humans from thieves to saboteurs to raiders and other settlements that are militant or you have made spectacular diplomatic failure with or are retaliating for your previous actions. Part of town design should include defenses and have a strategic consideration when being built. The types and frequencies of encounter could vary with the level of development of the town and its location as well as its governing attributes and actions in relation to the world.
For instance- revolts would be more likely in slave type settlements, monarchies or dictatorships, but still possible in things like democracies and communisms, and even religious theocracies provided the actions of the player conflict the theology such that the “faithful” may take umbrage. Thieves can strike anywhere but are way more likely and numerous in developed towns. Most animals are less likely to approach heavily developed towns and more likely small rural ones. Raiders and the like could vary- some preferring a “weak” but small target and others preferring to go for big scores regardless of risk. Where religious theologies exist and aren’t aligned to the player settlements, especially where the player runs their own religious theology, these settlements are more likely to attack as is true of any settlements with conflicting alignments.
However it would be not o lynpossible but pretty much built in assumed that npcs given reasonable tactical considerations like equipment, postings, and choke points and barriers or walls should be able to repel most encounters with no player involvement. Combat wouldn’t be a primary mechanic as much as a background one- but players wishing to lead lives of conquest could make combat a central part of the game. The starting farm would in essence be combat free- only occasional and small critters or human npc attacks if a player more or less makes all out war and all other player settlements are conquered by the enemy.
The dynamics of politics etc and related dialog would add depth as well as morality and a feeling of uniqueness to the overall game as well as each players experience and each play through.
Fact: It's not a war crime if I call it "dead checking" instead of "double tapping".
(Not the game but the way people treat me bc of it)