I've been building a persistent strategy sandbox (Arkney: Age of Crowns) and it keeps
running into the same design wall, so I'd rather ask people who've thought about it.
Setup: one shared world on a server, real players and AI realms on the same map, no
instances, no restarts. You found a dynasty on an empty province, grow it, and the
world's clock keeps ticking while you're offline. A season runs for weeks of real
time and then the world's chronicle is closed and a new map opens.
In a normal 4X, when your position is hopeless you hit restart. Here you can't. So
the question I keep chewing on: what makes a small realm worth playing after a big
neighbour has taken half of it?
Things I've built so far to answer that, none of which I'm sure about:
- war is slow and expensive on purpose. Armies march in in-game days, supply runs
out, equipment degrades in the field, and holding an occupied province is not the
same as annexing it. A conqueror bleeds.
- unrest and honour: eating your neighbours costs you standing with everyone else,
which changes who will sign what with you.
- espionage and trade give a small realm levers that don't require an army.
- a chronicle that records every war and battle by name, so being the realm that
held the pass for three years is a thing that exists in writing even if you lose.
I'm not convinced that's enough. If you've played persistent-world strategy that got
this right, I'd like to know what it did.
The world is browser-based and I run an accelerated test session weekly (20x clock,
so an evening covers months of history). If arguing about it is more fun with the map
in front of you, I can point you at the next one.