We have at least partly discussed the possibility here. To include vassalization, and other diplomatic options inherant in minor powers dotting the land. A lot of people also appear to be hoping for a strong RPG (or at least character development) element.
Realistically a system of caves and caverns isn't too practical (Mammoth Caves is the longest and largest set of caves on earth by several times, and having been through some of it, while it is long it isn't exactly big enough to fit much of a civilization in). However that being said, having limited systems under mountains and certain sections of the map would be fun, especially if an effort was made to differentiate the cave system from the land above (something n
I think that including different levels of population is a great idea, although really most of the difference between cities, towns and villages can be summarized by size. Perhaps allow settlements away from specific "fertile land" tiles, but limit their size substantially.
I have to agree, that does seem like a fantastic idea you all came up with. I must say I concur as well.
Continuous turns aren't difficult to control, and are far less clunky than full on turn based. We aren't talking RTS here, more like an EU style of system. I have never had difficulty with Paradox's continuous time concept, nor have I seen many (or really anyone I can recall) complaining about it on the forums over there. All you have to do is pause, issue orders, let things play out until you see something you want to do, pause again to make changes, and keep going.&nb
Wow. I can see a large number of empires frantically casting "floating land mass" as espionage informs them that another empire is getting close to "terra submersion." I like the ideas, but I also think that there should be something that other nations can do to mitigate the effects of some of the uber spells and influence the way in which those spells effect their particular empire. It would be very frustrating to have spent a great deal of time building an empire only to s
Well, at some point you have to have the army scatter... otherwise it will get very irritating trying to chase down armies comprised of five or six lucky souls who happened to survive out of an army of 7000.
I'd say this is where tactics come into play. When you are in the battle map using your avatar to lay waste to enemy armies, probably best to keep him near the back, where he can run if things go south. I mean, these guys can alter the world dramatically. That means they have to be capable of taking on entire armies by themselves, so committing them to most combats (if they are strong because you've been focusing on them at the expense of empire and heroes) shouldn't be to
If I would have to guess, I would think that dragons won't exactly be a summons. Perhaps controlling existing dragons, but from the way they've organized things I doubt that too many beings that powerful are just going to appear out of thin air.
Honestly, I don't think the appeal of a general research system is mostly about realism. To be quite frank, I don't like to micro-manage technology when I play multi-player, but that is what a specific tree forces one to do in most games. If you want to win you have to tech up to specific techs, generally in a certain order, and so who wins the game is largely dependent upon who can tech up to those specific technologies the fastest. Technology in the Middle Ages provided an
Agreed. As a general, I should be rewarded for getting my enemy's flanks, or a well executed ambush. These things should not be irrellevent, the way they are in so many games.
Oh, I agree. I just don't want them to oversimplify things, as is the habit with a lot of games when they go down to the tactical level. No point in even having it if they leave no room for strategy and tactics. However, I think that this will have to be a bit more complex than you are thinking, simply to make designing your own units worthwhile.
It doesn't need to be complex, it just needs to be more complex than "pikemen beat cavalry every time." Things like terrain, unit orientation, weather, and possibly formation need to be taken into account. Otherwise all that manuvering you do to get your cavalry around their flanks (or your phalanxes directly in front of their swordsmen) becomes frustratingly pointless. Pikemen should be stronger than just about everyone in a straight up fight provided they are
[quote who="landisaurus" reply="4" id="1933988"] man, the more I think about it the cooler it sounds. It would be like Civ 4's vassel system, except it would be useful in multiplayer since I've never seen human players use that feature, but computers would. I think it would force diplomacy to be a factor too. Because in like, Sins of a solar empire for example, you may not focus on any AI computers in a multiplayer game because you know you are goi
[quote]Also, what makes troops really good is training and social dynamics rather than technology. If you dont have a society that encourages use and training in military technology you wont be very good at it even if you are very advanced technologicaly.[/quote] I think this right here hits the nail on the head... and is why specific technological development is wrong for this game. I would also like to point out that having a clearly deliniated tech tree benef
This thread is quite interesting from a learning standpoint, however I think in order to be intuitive things have to be dumbed down a bit more... that being said, I can't understand why anyone would want a rock-paper-scissors model in a Turn Based Strategy game. I would also like to note that a large amount of a weapons effectiveness is based upon how the weapon is employed. Macedonian Phalangites were extremely effective to the front because of the above
Preventing mini-maxing doesn't necessary mean that people can't focus on one particular strategy, however it does preclude exclusive styles of playing. Having one nation only be playable by researching the same things in the same order nearly every time is not a way to enhance replayability. Also, I have to imagine that magic would be treated a bit different than technology (since learning magic is an academic process, then that lends itself to a bit more focused style of
How about a "War Between the Heavens" type of spell? Since it seems like we'll have various types of good and bad aligned civilizations, make this spell so that large armies of devils and angel like beings burst forth from various nodes (sky for angels, ground for devils, or surface for angels and underground for devils). These armies attack each other and towns/troops of the opposite alignment. Once the war is won (all of the nodes spawning either the angels or devils
I don't think that general orientation instead of researching specific technologies is bad game design at all... it is simply different game design. And one that is more realistic at that. Anything that prevents the mini-maxing so common with most strategy games is a good thing.
Personally I think having independent AI empires who don't have magic is a great idea. Not having a channeler should hobble them sufficiently that they don't win (relying for magical items on more advanced empires the way the American Indians relied on Europeans/Americans for guns), however large numbers of conventional troops and a strong economy should be fairly effective without guns. And a system where vassals are set up would be fantastic, especially if each of those vassal
I like hiddenranbir 's thoughts on a dynamic envoy system for diplomacy. Such a system would play well into a character based strategy game (which it kind of sounds like this is looking to be). As for the council or UN, I like the idea of having something of this nature in the game, simply because it adds a level of politi
Going with a research focus, rather than just researching specific technologies, helps prevent mini-maxing, which isn't what running empires has ever been about. The British in the high middle ages didn't just one day decide, "hey we need a long ranged armor piercing bow that can stop a cavalry charge... get working wise men!" Instead the longbow and its widespread use came as the result of a fairly random invention and the long term shift that was made in society to mak
If I recall, in EU: Rome (and I think EU3: In Nomine as well) they added rules to prevent the common problem of a continually running stack. If an army twice its size routed it in less than five days (and armies can't retreat voluntarily for the first five days) then the smaller army would be destroyed. That was to prevent having to detach a large army to continiously chase down those annoying 1-2K armies that just refused to die.
[quote]Morale is fine to use considering pursuit can kill off most troops if you have fast pursuers, leading to fights that are more one-sided than fights to the death. But then you must take care of the scattered troops. In a province based game, it's possible to destroy all fleeers if they have nowhere to go, but in a freeer map, mopping up fleeing units may be a pain.[/quote] I liked the idea that only a fleeing unit that retained over 50% of its strength would be able to retreat o
Insofar as water is concerned, the point I'm trying to make with my initial post is that naval warfare is a very important aspect of warfare and always has been, as the bulk of the world's population up until the industrial revolution lived on or near the coast or a navigable river. It was simply the only way to move bulk goods. Therefore cutting off a city's ability to move food by blockading its port or cutting off its river access was a very (and often the only) effective way t