Vaul_Darkhour

Join Date 11/2008

[Discussion] Remove techs and buildings?

Now I'm not seriously entertaining the idea, but for arguments sake, lets say that the tech tree and buildings were removed. Would this change the game seriously for better or worse? I find both areas a little convoluted and not really needed because I can win the game without relying on both. Obviously areas need balancing, but as long as there is no definite need for both imo, then why are they needed? Could FE be a successful magic wargame/rpg if you just played it as such? Build up your characters and go adventuring and killing monsters, quests and enemy empires... do we really need to be bogged down in micromanaging tech trees and buildings? In Civ its kind of different because you are moving through technological ages. In FE, ok you are remembering key techs etc., but couldn't they be more dramatic and game changing rather than numerous?

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

obviously this is something that can be modded later to suit, but after playing the game, I think maybe its too convoluted at this stage of the game and maybe dumbing it down a little first would help in beta..

Successfully updated karma reason!

Could FE be a successful magic wargame/rpg if you just played it as such?

No, because it's combat and quests, while a fun twist in 4X-TBS genre, are shallow compared to a wargame or rpg

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting smakemupagus,

reply 2

Could FE be a successful magic wargame/rpg if you just played it as such?

No, because it's combat and quests, while a fun twist in 4X-TBS genre, are shallow compared to a wargame or rpg

Sorry I might be reading you wrong, could you expand on that?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Vaul_Darkhour,

reply 3

Sorry I might be reading you wrong, could you expand on that?

I don't know, I take it we just disagree. If you would enjoy it as a tactical game then I don't really want to try to talk you out of it. But to be more explicit,

The combat is pretty shallow, compared to anything I would consider a wargame. There's no benefit to maneuver, no shock or morale, very limited ways that units cooperate, not much way to take advantage of terrain or cover, no sort of dynamic or unique tactical features like buildings.

The RPG is pretty shallow compared to anything I would consider a role playing game. The quests are all kill X, or escort Y to Z. There are no extended story arcs, no character development, no grand moments of triumph or heartbreak. If you look at action-RPGs aspects instead, then you usually get attached to your heroes through their varied strengths and weaknesses in battle situation but here they aren't very different from one another, they're just Mage or Warrior. That is in part because design of Level up system, and partly because combat is simple.

Having some skeleton of these sort of features embedded in a 4X-TBS is potentially super unique & awesome, assuming that the "Tactics minigame" and the "RPG minigame" are fun. But I wouldn't buy those sub-games as a stand alone. Again, all just IMO, if you disagree that is cool.

* also on the strategic layer the wargame aspect right now is limited because there is not too much connection between the manufacturing/logistics power of your empire and your military capability, because you can have one powerful, immortal, teleporting squad meet almost all of all your military needs. Hopefully that's "just" a balance issue, although a very delicate one

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting smakemupagus,

reply 4

Quoting Vaul_Darkhour, reply 3
Sorry I might be reading you wrong, could you expand on that?

I don't know, I take it we just disagree. If you would enjoy it as a tactical game then I don't really want to try to talk you out of it. But to be more explicit,

The combat is pretty shallow, compared to anything I would consider a wargame. There's no benefit to maneuver, no shock or morale, very limited ways that units cooperate, not much way to take advantage of terrain or cover, no sort of dynamic or unique tactical features like buildings.

The RPG is pretty shallow compared to anything I would consider a role playing game. The quests are all kill X, or escort Y to Z. There are no extended story arcs, no character development, no grand moments of triumph or heartbreak. If you look at action-RPGs aspects instead, then you usually get attached to your heroes through their varied strengths and weaknesses in battle situation but here they aren't very different from one another, they're just Mage or Warrior. That is in part because design of Level up system, and partly because combat is simple.

Having some skeleton of these sort of features embedded in a 4X-TBS is potentially super unique & awesome, assuming that the "Tactics minigame" and the "RPG minigame" are fun. But I wouldn't buy those sub-games as a stand alone. Again, all just IMO, if you disagree that is cool.

* also on the strategic layer the wargame aspect right now is limited because there is not too much connection between the manufacturing/logistics power of your empire and your military capability, because you can have one powerful, immortal, teleporting squad meet almost all of all your military needs. Hopefully that's "just" a balance issue, although a very delicate one

Ahh ok very good I understand what your saying and I completely agree but have you heard of the game Warlords (and its sequels)?

In its own way a very simplistic game BUT very fun game. It was a strategic wargame in the simplest form. You build troops, you have heroes that level up, simple diplomacy, there are quests and blessings, magic items, you conquer cities and can raze them if you wish. I consider it a wargame (with some simple rpgish elements) simply because there is an absence of building and a tech tree that is a crucial part of games like Civ etc..

I just think that FE could be the game that expands upon Warlords (and MOM). Games that are primarily wargames designed to crown one victor, not building games as such that are dragged out in building and technology progression, but thats just my opinion.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Techs need something done. Some removed, maybe the mechanic reworked.

Since there are many fewer buildings, it's not a terrible micromanagement thing currently, although I'd argue that there could still be fewer, most of which exist just because of the tech tree. Something like 10% more research isn't a particularly fun game mechanic. It does the job, but it's not something to get too excited about.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Vaul_Darkhour,

reply 5

have you heard of the game Warlords (and its sequels)?
In its own way a very simplistic game BUT very fun game.

Is that the same series as "Warlords: Battlecry III"? I have that on Impulse and like it because it runs on my netbook, but I never really got too into it. The game that E:FE reminds me of that is one of my all time favorites is Age of Wonders.

Yeah I am on board with what I think you are saying at least in the following sense. The game system or engine they have here is capable of being a strategy wargame, an exploration 4X game, a tactics game, a city builder, a roguelike RPG. Maybe someone could dream of making it all these at once. But if you're NOT going for everything at once then absolutely streamline the extra bits. e.g. If it's not a citybuilder then don't make the player micro place the buildings and micro manage the caravan, it just takes your attention away from the fun parts. "Remove" especially the whole tech tree may be an extreme case of streamline but I think I see where you're coming from

The thing I don't like about Techs currently isn't so much the trees themselves, as that they don't really tie in too much to other facets of the game. In FFH (or GalCiv) you might see a cluster of silk plantations (or an ore rich toxic planet), and you would beeline the tech that lets you exploit that resource. Maybe in another game you instead need to target something that changes the game like boats, or that one tech that you know is critical for fixing your economy. Later you might choose generally between a deep research path to grab your civ's unique unit, or a broad path for general efficient goodness, but either way is a reasonable choice.

In the current E:FE though so far I don't see those interactions between the tech tree and the world; I haven't identified any opportunities where it actually pays off to do anything other than research the next cheapest things. Or, where what order you choose among the next cheapest group feels critical. Maybe those interesting decisions are hidden in there and i'm not seeing it due to my lack of experience, or to pacing/balance.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting smakemupagus,

reply 7

Quoting Vaul_Darkhour, reply 5
have you heard of the game Warlords (and its sequels)?
In its own way a very simplistic game BUT very fun game.

Is that the same series as "Warlords: Battlecry III"? I have that on Impulse and like it because it runs on my netbook, but I never really got too into it. The game that E:FE reminds me of that is one of my all time favorites is Age of Wonders.

Yeah I am on board with what I think you are saying at least in the following sense. The game system or engine they have here is capable of being a strategy wargame, an exploration 4X game, a tactics game, a city builder, a roguelike RPG. Maybe someone could dream of making it all these at once. But if you're NOT going for everything at once then absolutely streamline the extra bits. e.g. If it's not a citybuilder then don't make the player micro place the buildings and micro manage the caravan, it just takes your attention away from the fun parts. "Remove" especially the whole tech tree may be an extreme case of streamline but I think I see where you're coming from

..

The thing I don't like about Techs currently isn't so much the trees themselves, as that they don't really tie in too much to other facets of the game. In FFH (or GalCiv) you might see a cluster of silk plantations (or an ore rich toxic planet), and you would beeline the tech that lets you exploit that resource. Maybe in another game you instead need to target something that changes the game like boats, or that one tech that you know is critical for fixing your economy. Later you might choose generally between a deep research path to grab your civ's unique unit, or a broad path for general efficient goodness, but either way is a reasonable choice.

In the current E:FE though so far I don't see those interactions between the tech tree and the world; I haven't identified any opportunities where it actually pays off to do anything other than research the next cheapest things. Or, where what order you choose among the next cheapest group feels critical. Maybe those interesting decisions are hidden in there and i'm not seeing it due to my lack of experience, or to pacing/balance.

I'll reply more in depth later but quickly - Battlecry is the RTS equivalent of the TBS Warlords.. look it up! Gotta go..

Successfully updated karma reason!