I like that it's not overly complex. Europa Universalis drags along at a snails pace. It's clunky and boring. Civilization 4 is strategic, but it also moves quickly and doesn't get bogged down in it's own excessive systems. It's important to note that complex does not mean strategic. Look at simple games like Chess or Go.
Hmm, the one time I played a game like this that stayed tough through to the endgame was actually a mod of Medieval 2:Total War (Can't remember the mod name right now) In this mod, the bigger your kingdom grew, the harder it was to maintain loyalty in your outer provinces, and the more upkeep you needed to maintain it. When your domain became very large, it became dangerous to allow anyone but your most trusted generals to lead a large army, or else they might easily turn on you
Mind = Blown If ever there was a case to be made for "It's the little things that count," this is it. Super special awesome, indeed.
I like that your sovereign's defeat shouldn't be a game over, on offence OR defence. I would prefer a system in which: -An attacking soveriegn if defeated he is severely wounded, and out of action for a number of turns based on how badly he is defeated on the field of battle. This would put a severe hurt on your nation for as long as he is out of commision. Make the morale of the nation drop during this time, too. -A defending soveriegn if defeated in battle, he should be poss
Just a note, people talk about how easy the Total War games are in battle and how it's possible to take on much larger armies with minimal casualties. However, the AI is actually a lot smarter than most games with turn based battles. The easiness of the game is largely due to the morale system. If units fought to the death, then Total War would be a much, much more difficult game.
An AI for the grid system seen in screenshots thus far is much easier to make than in Total War games. Hell, even Empire: Total War fairly sub-par battle AI, and it had a dedicated team devoted to nothing but the AI. As much as I would love a fantasy total war game, this is not that game.
Here's the easiest solution: two sliders. The first slider adjusts the AI's intelligence. The second adjusts how much of a bonus it gets. Want to fight against an idiot with a crap-ton of resources at his disposal? Go ahead. And even though you won't have an AI as smart as a human, AIs have other advantages. Namely, they're far better at number crunching than humans, and can plan out things like economy to run optimally in a way that only the most obsessive players with calculators out and fa
-Female rulers are just as viable. Sure, they may not have the physical strength of their male counterparts, but physical strength is nothing compared to a chaneller's magic, and who's to say they're any worse at that? Also, while fantasy humans are roughly the same as real-world humans, the Fallen are unknown. -I'm wondering how much the family system will resemble the one found in Rome: Total War. In that game, Family members inherited traits from their parents, and also gained trai
I like how armies are set up in Total War games, personally. -Yes, one killer stack of 20 elite units was the best option on the battlefield, but getting one of those was expesive and took a lot of time. Plus, such a stack could only be in one place at a time, so even if you used your stack to lay seige to an enemy, they could move weaker, yet cheaper stacks around and hit you in multiple places. -Multiple stacks could fight at once. Three 20-unit stacks could s
In terms of victory conditions, I'm hoping for something similar to the Titan in Age of Mythology. The ability of your sovieregn to unlock an ultimate spell that would summon/transform him into a creature of godlike power able to wipe out entire armies single handedly. It's not an instant-win, as he technically can be killed... it's just not likely to happen unless your enemy has massive armies and many powerful heroes, or a "titan" of his own.
I do like the intent of the topic cretor, which is (if I'm reading correctly) to make the player choose between multiple city types to prevent the player from spamming an identical "optimal city" build over and over. It would kind of be like in Medieval 2 Total War. Every settlement could either be a "castle" which produced the best troops and was difficult to seige, or a "city" which didn't train as good units but was an economic center. You needed to find the right balance with most
Graphics DO matter. Polygon counts do not. I still regularly play games from the 16-bit era, and some of my favourite games are from then even if I didn't play the games until years after they were released, and as such the graphics were very "dated" in a purely technical sense. To me, games are are made great by their feel and immersion more than anything else. Ninja Gaiden made you feel like a badass ninja, not some guy hitting "X" and "Y" to make pixels move. Rome: Total Wa
Camp #1 and #3 add something pretty important that I think a lot of people are overlooking here. Feel Option 2, while good in terms of playability leads to cities being largely divided into "strong" and "weak" Obviously, you're going to have all your best resources moving to the best location in order to produce units of the highest calibre. However, options 1 and 3 allow you to, and depending on how it's implemented, encourage you to specialize the cities. Yo