How can blockchain better model market forces in gaming?

I speculated in my last article that using cryptocurrency in gaming would improve the gaming experience by making allocation of computer resources strategic.

By application, each unit of crypto would be "backed," by the plane or tank purchased with it. It is worth speculating about the following complicating factors: 

As you mine, and (for example) pay soldiers, you accumulate more currency than materiel. An available decision to add, is whether or not, or possibly at what time to "fork" the cryptocurrency, and stop accepting new coins.

Soldier's pay might be lost to the game, if there is no economy for the soldiers to expend it on. If they buy food, it is perishable, but some currency might be preserved by building restaurants, or having service industry staff buy televisions, phones, and stereos. Meanwhile, Soldiers might pay for uniforms, and boots, if they are not provided by their "government." 

If I were designing this, I could contrive Rock concerts for the service staff to attend, Propaganda programs by radio, and introduce a misery index.

The idea that some currency is "lost," argues a way to calculate inflation. The word "misery" in misery index also suggests a way to calculate or assign morale, both at home and among the troops. A "good," government might provide uniforms and boots, boosting morale, while a poorer country might fail to do so. I suppose soldiers with high morale kill more enemies than soldiers with low morale.

Above, I have gone some distance in devising a single particular game. These thoughts are recorded so that designers of other games can look at them, and contemplate innovations of their own

Presumably there is some advantage to be assigned for having a "stronger," or "weaker," currency. These last are computed in economics against trade; Gross Domestic Product is compared to Imports. For this to become a feature, I would need to invent allies, with unique natural resources, and they would have to "decide," whether to export raw materials or finished goods. Labor would be a factor of production to decide (player or predetermined by the game?) Soldiers would be a form of labor. Export manufacturer's would reduce inflation, both by mining natural resources and by profiting from exports.

I have invented richer and poorer countries. Any game I devise, must have some way that I have not yet envisioned, for a poorer country to prevail against a richer one. Population provides a muse. Many workers can mine more resources, and more soldiers provide cannon fodder.

Perhaps the player must estimate or choose population density against choices of geographical area. Predetermined limits would govern how dense population can be... denser in smaller countries, less dense in larger ones. Or it might be better for each country to come pre-populated with a characteristic number.

Likewise, each "country" should probably come with a predetermined wealth of gold, iron and forestry.

The board game "Risk," appears simple by comparison. We can take clues from the real world. WW I Japan had a large population, for such a small country, with a high population density. Africa has historically been rich in gold. China appears crippled, rather than advantaged by population (not sure what their net pop. DENSITY might be.) Also, China has historically eschewed war.

In closing, a war game should have predetermined CAUSES for war. History provides an adequate selection, and not all wars are morally JUST.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Question About Erasthmus' Sieve

A Cryptographically Sound Vigenere.

Notice of corrupted results: Vigenere may yet be found to be a "group."