Well it would be interesting to see how it pans out then. I haven't seen any specifics regarding this system or how it would work. As i said, a system like this could end up with pretty boring one dimensional armies without any 'distinct' characteristics that makes the whole fantasy setting 'magical'.
Willow, Beastmaster 1 (not the horrid sequel), Beowulf. Maybe The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe for those who prefer a more 'cheery' fantasy world.
Yeah, I also loved using culture to expand my empire in Civ. Usually going to war was actually much faster but often times i got tired of having to shuffle my troops from the cities to the frontlines.
Yeah, its odd that no one has done this before. As 4x space games as old as MoO 1 and later Alpha Centauri already implemented such systems. I was wondering was there some inherent complexity or issues in bringing such a system to a fantasy setting? I think one main problem with the fantasy setting has always been the need to keep the lore of the world consistent. Allowing players to custom design their own units would lead to lore breaking stuff like having elven berserker axemen or
Most Space 4x games like GalCiv allow you to design your own ships/units. I am just thinking, wouldn't it be cool if there was a similar system to design your own units in fantasy 4x type games rather than always be provided with a set of 'canned' units? And i am talking about in-game, not mods. You would start off with a base class like peasant, militia, soldier etc. (much like how we have frigates, destroyers and battleships). Each class would then have a maximum carry weight. You t
He! he! Just to add my 2 cents on the debate about grid based/turn based versus free form/real time maps. Both modes are capable of providing greath depth in strategy. However, when i compare TW games versus MoM, TW wins hands down in terms of strategic depth. Flanking manouvers, higher ground advantages, morale, fatigue, cavalry charges, defensive formations. All provides excellent tactical depth when compared to the simple combat mechanics of MoM. Of course, MoM is real old
Interesting idea. It would be nice if borders where negotiable like in real life, but i think creating AI that is able to intelligently recognize ever changing borders may be a tad bit difficult. I like the idea of 'claiming lands' without actually 'owning' them. One of the annoying things about Civ was how the AI constantly 'snuck' through my 'borders' to seize territory in the early land grab stage. I usually had to strategically place my cities in order to link up my borders to pre
I think this is basically a relationship system. The only difference is that relationship values cannot be traded or sold. Relationship values merely improve the odds or determine how demanding it is to close a deal with an AI. Personally, i don't think it would be realistic. An example scenario is, we store up a lot of diplomatic currency. Then later we 'purcahse' the option for an AI to backstab his allies?That wouldn't be realistic unless the algorithm takes into account how much d
Ha ha. I don't mind muskets. Warhammer fantasy battle had musketeers and even steam tanks. Bear in mind that firearms already existed in medieval china long before the europeans perfected the technology and military doctrine for its use in the battlefield. Early on, lack of industrialization probably kept firearms from being effective as muskets were only effective when used in large concentrated numbers.
Most diplomacy AI i've seen tend to exhibit suicidal tendencies. Most AI don't sue for peace to cut their losses when they are clearly losing the war. Especially when they are fighting several fronts. They usually only sue for peace when they have been massacred, which by that time i wouldn't bother with peace as i am rushing to grab their territory before the other AI's grabs it. AI's just don't have any sense of self preservation until it's too late. Another gripe i have alw
Personally i see no difference in terms of gameplay either way. I prefer the game ends if the sovereign dies. If somehow people are able to rush and kill sovereigns in the early game stage, then i would think that is more of a problem with gameplay balancing issues rather than a gameplay mechanic issue.
ooo back on topic. Diplomacy: Personally i think the diplomacy systems like GalCiv is good enough. But i'd like to see more 'character' to diplomacy rather than just a plain old boring 'relations' number. Historical grievances should be modeled. Alignment should also be taken into account. An evil sovereign who's been subjugating opponents by warfare should not be able to maintain good relationships with a good sovereign who values peace no matter how much money is offered.
I guess the devs are going for the much simpler combat route because the aim is more of a Empire Management game akin to Civ rather than a warfare focused game like TW or HoMM. He! he! i guess i am one of those who will be disappointed as i was hoping for more meat to the combat. I loved the fun desparate battles i fought in TW series and RTK series.In those series a well placed army at bottlenecks, bridges or forts could inflict heavy damage onto much larger armies making strategic a
NewSoft100 is a bit too blurry. You can barely make out the details of the knight in the picture. NewSoft75 is much better. But just a tad bit too dark for me. Could do with a bit more vibrant colors. Especially for the important objects like the knight and the fortress. More contrast needed on the knight. The fortress could do with more reds on its surfaces and more blues for the glowing magical circles. NoHDR looks very sharp and 'brighter'. But the odd thing i feel is
Yeah, i have always liked to idea of loyalty. Unfortunately it is very difficult to model it accurately and realistically in a game. It requires you to have complex intelligent AI that is able to 'reason' out the most desired path. Existing games that model loyalty (based on playing Romance of the Three Kingdoms) do it only on a superficial level with a loyalty stat which merely determines how easy it is for enemies to bribe or a percentage chance to rebel. Maintaining loyalty therefo
Sounds interesting, but i prefer having it work using agents as with most games. Agents will subvert population to encourage rebellion, sabotage buildings or poison the populace, burn food stocks, steal research etc.
I think gunpowder wouldn't really be all that bad a technology. Look at Warhammer Fantasy Battle. They have musketeer units. They were powerful short range units but gets ass whupped in melee. And as pointed out, we are talking about a magical world. Conventional technological paths would definitely be a lot different than what we are familiar with. Example, flight may be something that would already be easily available with magical skyships or giant aerial mounts like
The first one has a 'softer' look to it. It looks like a watercolour painting which is quite nice. The second one looks darker and unfortunately duller. The darker lighting means the soft quality of the coloring causes things to 'fade' out and attention drawn to the wrong things. Example, the roundish trees with the whitish tops. The whitish/greyish tops now stands out more than its olive green color making me think of mushrooms rather trees. I think thats also the reason why
If i recall correctly, Master's of Orion 1 had infinite technology. Once all the unique technology paths were exhausted you basically got generic Technology X Level X to research. Each research of this generic technology gave percentage bonuses such as -5% reduced cost to all technology X items etc. Masters of Orion 2 had some interesting technology research mechanisms. Each research category would always have 3 possible research options. However, you could only pic
For attribute 6 there should be enough status effect/ailments to customize your spell. e.g. slowed, feared. poisoned, or blessed, hasted, protection etc.
Well i have also always wanted a fantasy type Total War. But i think WoM is not meant to be that. I hope though that WoM well still have sufficient depth to the battle tactics. Example, taking into account terrain and unit facing as well as morale and fatigue. If you want to try a fantasy themed (emphasis on themed only) Total War i recall there was a Lord of the Rings mod for total War.
ha ha! I really like the look.Simple and stylish. I have always personaly preferred style over polygon counts. Really there is no point in making things look 'ultra realistic' if that is going to make it look 'real-life' and 'boring'. A good clean colorful sense of style is always better then super high res textures etc. Sure many game critics will whine about how 'dated' the graphics look, but honestly if you look at the market for people who actually buy and play TBS games,
Nice game mechanic, but personally i wouldn't mind if it wasn't there. Unless diplomacy and politics is going to play a huge role in the game. Else, having offsprings would be just like getting free heroes. But definitely having offsprings do add to the sense of a living breathing world.
He he! Just wanted to add my 2 cents to this topic. I have always wanted to play a deep TBS game but unable to find anyone willing to sit down to play a proper game due to exactly the problem of long turns. My thoughts on this would be a combination options to reduce the turn time. There should be 2 phases, planning and movement. Everyone takes the planing phase at the same time. Time limit say of 5 minutes could be enforced to add a sense of urgency to this phase.<b
In E:TW i didn't bother to fight the naval battles as the worst that they could do to me was blockade my ports. It just wasn't worth the 15-30 minutes fighting the ship battles. If they landed ground troops they would be instantly annihilated. In contrast, games like Civ had a more useful and prominent navy. Ships could bombard and destroy cities. Tactical and nuclear missles could be fired from ships. Aircraft carriers also acted as refueling stops for your bombers so that they co