So, I confess that it's pretty hard to get excited about FE. The game suffers from the same trouble elemental did: it's boring. Every game I start, aside from happening on a random map, is pretty much the same.This is a pretty stark difference from GalCiv, which always feels fresh and exciting.Troubles:All the races are the same. They look the same, but even worse, they play the same.
Indeed, I completely agree with this one. The look doesn't bother me, but the game play does.
All the armies are the same. If I wanted to micromanage a horde of identical peasants, I'd play one of the Total War games.
I agree with this one too : despite having an unit designer, without traits and gear to make units play specific roles on the battlefield, and with so much stuff locked because of tech prerequisite, there is very little room for variety here. Total war games have much more diverse units, because you need some spearmen, some cavalry, some archers, and some grunts to hold the line. Spamming the single same unit does not work as well as there. Note that this was a problem with MoM too, as there was little reason to have a mixed force. But at least, there were several ways to build a stack of death, and many of them were specific to a single build.
There are too few techs, which matter too little and too much at the same time. I have to research the ability to use swords, really?
There are no significant options when designing units. "Identical or helpless" is not a choice. Minor stat bumps are not a choice.
That's one of my biggest concerns with the game : the tech tree is horrible in its current version. I hate having to research basic stuff like swords, shortbows and spears. I'd like most of the boring techs to be given at start, and replaced by techs that would sound "cool".
The sovereign has too many abilities that don't matter. Or rather, no abilities that do matter. My sovereign isn't so much a sovereign as a militiaman with delusions of grandeur.
I don't agree about this one. The sovereign can be pretty bad ass. Mine plowed through countless armies without effort. The problem is that most of it was because of his stuff, and not his skills (except for his skills as a fireball thrower).
Most traits and sovereign starting traits need to be buffed so that they really define the role of the champion or sovereign in game. No more +2 to a stat that did little to begin with, please.
The world is ugly and drab. It may be relevant to the story, but that just means you need a better story, or better vision of it. Enslaved, for example, had a vibrant post-apocalyptic world, one that would have been more interesting to try to save.
Oh, yeah, and I don't care about the story, I just want a fun re-playable turn based strategy. People don't play Civilization for the story.
I don't care much about the ugliness. What I'd like would be to see some lairs repop on the map, as it becomes empty in the end, which is a shame, as monsters are currently more fun to battle than opponents (because they don't only field spearmen and shortbowmen mostly, and because they have special abilities that do matter).
Solutions:
Dynasties like in Crusader Kings II, because family trees and intrigue make everything more interesting, and then heroes would important even if they still had no useful role in combat.
A Sovereign that matters like in Master of Magic. If I'm going to lead a people back from chaos to conquest, I ought to be playing as someone who is at least interesting.
I don't think dynasties would work there, especially if they are pasted out of the blue on a game that has nothing to do with them in the first place. That said, text events that force you to make choices like in GalCiv or Crusader Kings would make us care more about our kingdom.
Diverse races, like in GalCiv II. I can't say this enough, diverse races are half of what makes these games replayable.
Colors, like in Heroes of Might and Magic. The world is prettier in color.
That would be really needed indeed! They are working on it through. Let's just hope they address the problem correctly.
Actually, tactical combat that's engaging, like in HoMM. While FE is an improvement over WoM, the combat still drags because it's a line of identical units versus enemies that have varied appearances, but are mostly just jars of increasing hitpoints with unreasonable damage. Except bears, that apparently get unlimited attacks.
More special abilities (and flanking and no more diagonal attacks) would really help make the combat less dull while keeping the length of most battles under 3 mins. Archery needs to be reworked too, as focusing fire is way too easy, and kiting too. There needs to have some range penalty. That won't make combat more difficult to handle for the player (I expected archery to be less efficient at extreme range. I was quite surprised it was not). Battles needing to last less than 3 minutes is no excuse for poor implementation of archery.
Oh, and buildings that are important and interesting, like in HoMM, or even slightly more interesting, like in GalCiv. I spend a lot of time building things that don't seem to matter much, aside from increasing the oddity and inconvenience of my city shape.
Useful spells that can be practically employed, like in every other game that involves magic. Underpowered, overpriced spells with boring effects... These are not fun to use.
I agree with both the spells and the buildings. Except the anti stack spells and the AOE spells, most other spells are pretty dull and useless (or scale horribly badly).
Overall, I don't really find the game boring, as I like exploring and adventuring with my sovereign while my backwater nations does nothing of consequence. It reminds me a bit of Birthright, which was quite a mess too, but a pretty enjoyable one. It would be a shame not to rework the broken aspects of the game though.
