Rome. Been there, done that, had the two years of high school Latin, I'm sick of Rome, thank you. Greece is cooler, but can you really add much to Spartan/GoT? Egypt? For 5,000 years people have been oohing and ahhing over the great pyramid, but really, folks, its just a big horking pile of rocks, get over it. Generally, anything in the Europe/Middle Eastern area has been done to death.
Try this. A culture where war is literally a religious obligation, seemingly a natural setting for a 4x game. Warriors dressed in bizarre costumes emulating fearsome animal predators. Military technology seriously diverged from the familiar european settings. Horses are unknown, cavalry does not exist. Iron is unknown, swords are made with wooden blades edged with shards of volcanic glass. A superstitius population that demands regular human sacrifice or revolts occur. The looming threat of a foreign invasion by a power whose technology is so advanced their leaders are literally mistaken for gods.
I am talking Aztecs, of course. A society where ball games were literally a matter of life and death. What could be cooler than that?
And now for something completely different
Moderator: Slitherine Core
-
IainMcNeil
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am
Thank you for your quick reply. Despite your seemingly negative comment, I find myself encouraged to further discussion. My knowlege of the Aztec military isn't particularly deep, but some facts are universal, please consider the following. This discussion will frequently refer to distinctions with how units are portrayed in Spartan, the Slitherine game I am most familiar with.
I can see how the lack of cavalry would seem to inhibit tactics. But I maintain that in a culture that lacks horses, infantry would evolve to fill the traditional cavalry roles. Cavalry is mostly about speed. Spartan takes a fairly simpleminded view of movement rates. In order to emphasize the distinctions in movement rate between units, so the game has more of the slow troop-fast troop distinctions cavalry will not bring to the game, I reccomend the proposed Aztec game use a more complex model.
Infantry movement rates are a matter of three factors: load, formation, and conditioning. Spartan appears to take load and formation into account. Thus light infantry is faster than heavy, largely because heavy infantry wears more armor, and apparently also because heavy infantry tactics require more rigidly controlled formations. Skirmishers get an additional slight edge for their looser formations.
My proposed Aztec game would take those factors into account, but in addition I would reccomend taking additional notice of physical conditioning as a factor. Poorly fed and ill trained civilian peasants simply should not move as fast as elite troops with lots of military physical conditioning. In Spartan, all troops of the same class have the same movement rate, but realistically the better trained troops within the same general class really ought to move faster. If the Aztec game uses the same system of regular, upgraded and elite barracks buildings as Spartan, then troops raised by the higher end barracks buildings would move faster than the lesser troops raised by the lower end buildings of the same troop class.
One could argue that in Spartan the training factor is accounted for by the fact that higher end troops generally wear more and thicker armor, thus the greater conditioning is offset by greater load. I maintain that in a world without cavalry, commanders would do everything they can to improve foot movement rates, and take a dim view of slowing their troops down with any extra weight that is not absolutely neccessary. Thus the higher end troops would certainly wear higher quality armor, but would avoid wearing actually heavier armor like the plague.
Instead of just two classes of melee infantry, you might consider implementing three, light, medium, and heavy. I would not really reccomend instituting skirmishers as a seperate class, but rather as a tactic that can be potentially used by any troop type. Troops that have the training to do so could be given "skirmish" orders, which means they are expected to advance to a position near the enemy, but avoid actual melee contact, backpedaling away as needed, firing missles if they have them, otherwise just hurling taunts and insults at the enemy in an effort to weaken their morale and draw them out of position. Most better trained troops could use either open or closed formations, with troops in open formations moving a bit faster in clear terrain and a lot faster in obstructed terrain.
A lot of thought should be given to missle troops. Spartan only considers archers and javelin users, but I would reccomend the proposed Aztec game consider other possibilities:
Slings: cheap and lightweight, with potential for extending ammo supplies by picking up rocks on the battlefield. Not especially long ranged or hard hitting. Elite versions might use staff slings for greater range and hitting power.
Throwing clubs: probably carried by troops that are primarily armed for melee, but hurled into enemy formations shortly before combat to disrupt their morale and formations. The tomahawks used by the natives of Eastern North America are a familiar example of this type of weopon, and I think I've read somewhere that the Aztecs had something similar.
Atlatl: An upgrade to our familiar javelin users, these are long sticks with cups on the ends used to hurl javelins with greater range and hitting power. Arguably the elite missle weopon of the game.
I do not know enough about aztec culture to be sure which missle weopons they actually used (except for the famous atlatls). I don't recall seeing any mention of Aztec archers in my reading, but as if they didn't use them some of their neighbors certainly did; the North American plains indians made heavy use of bows before the European settlers introduced gunpowder. Neither do I recall mention of slings, but slings are so simple they would seem to be nearly universal.
There would definitely be a distinction between light and heavy Missle troops, the lighter type would take the role of traditional bow armed cavalry, while the heavier type would be more comparable to Spartan's combat archers. Heavy missle units would use closer formations, wear more armor, have better backup melee weopons, and probably carry more ammunition. Light missle units would run like the wind, avoiding melee combat with everyone. Note that some of the missle meopons mentioned above would not be usable by troops in close formations; atlatls and staff slings require room to use.
Your comment mentions "scisssor-rock-paper" relationships. I will interpret that freely to mean "combat is only interesting if there are a variety of troop types with different strengths and weaknesses, there is no one 'best' troop type, all troops have some types they are best against and others they are vulnerable to. Let me give some hypothetical examples of possible troop types to illustrate how these relationships might be formed in the Aztec world.
Militia spearmen: low end medium infantry, equipped with fairly long flint tipped spears, cheap leather or cloth armor, fights exclusively in close formation, effective at defensive stands in open terrain, extra vulnerable to being flanked, has problems in obstructed terrain, moves slowly
Jaguar knights: top end medium infantry, armed with flint edged swords (sorry, but I forget what those are called) and a couple of throwing clubs, armored with high quality "jaguar armor" (probably boiled leather, worn), carries high quality shields, easily outfights lighter infantry or missle troops, effective against heavy infantry by their abilty to outmanuever them and gain flanking positions, the very sight of these garishly dressed killing machines may reduce enemy morale
Lightning warriors: midrange light infantry, armed with flint tipped spears, small shields but no armor, a few javelins for throwing, useful for scouting and skirmishing, mediocre in melee but good at achieving flanking positions, vulnerable to missles, fast movement
Armidillo warriors: midrange heavy infantry, armed with axes (heads are made of chipped stone), heavy armor (probably thick boiled leather, possibly faced with hardwood scales), large shields, uses close formation, moves slowly
Militia slingers: cheap light missle troops, can't stand up to anybody in melee, decent at skirmish tactics, vulnerable to elite light infantry which can outrun them
Death hurlers: elite heavy missle troops, armed with atlatls and javelins, decent armor but no shields (atlatls need two dedicated hands), excellent ranged hitting power but limited ammo compared to slingers or archers, mediocre in melee with javelins used as thrusting speers, must use open formation to use ranged attack but can switch to close formation for melee, midrange movement rate
I can see how the lack of cavalry would seem to inhibit tactics. But I maintain that in a culture that lacks horses, infantry would evolve to fill the traditional cavalry roles. Cavalry is mostly about speed. Spartan takes a fairly simpleminded view of movement rates. In order to emphasize the distinctions in movement rate between units, so the game has more of the slow troop-fast troop distinctions cavalry will not bring to the game, I reccomend the proposed Aztec game use a more complex model.
Infantry movement rates are a matter of three factors: load, formation, and conditioning. Spartan appears to take load and formation into account. Thus light infantry is faster than heavy, largely because heavy infantry wears more armor, and apparently also because heavy infantry tactics require more rigidly controlled formations. Skirmishers get an additional slight edge for their looser formations.
My proposed Aztec game would take those factors into account, but in addition I would reccomend taking additional notice of physical conditioning as a factor. Poorly fed and ill trained civilian peasants simply should not move as fast as elite troops with lots of military physical conditioning. In Spartan, all troops of the same class have the same movement rate, but realistically the better trained troops within the same general class really ought to move faster. If the Aztec game uses the same system of regular, upgraded and elite barracks buildings as Spartan, then troops raised by the higher end barracks buildings would move faster than the lesser troops raised by the lower end buildings of the same troop class.
One could argue that in Spartan the training factor is accounted for by the fact that higher end troops generally wear more and thicker armor, thus the greater conditioning is offset by greater load. I maintain that in a world without cavalry, commanders would do everything they can to improve foot movement rates, and take a dim view of slowing their troops down with any extra weight that is not absolutely neccessary. Thus the higher end troops would certainly wear higher quality armor, but would avoid wearing actually heavier armor like the plague.
Instead of just two classes of melee infantry, you might consider implementing three, light, medium, and heavy. I would not really reccomend instituting skirmishers as a seperate class, but rather as a tactic that can be potentially used by any troop type. Troops that have the training to do so could be given "skirmish" orders, which means they are expected to advance to a position near the enemy, but avoid actual melee contact, backpedaling away as needed, firing missles if they have them, otherwise just hurling taunts and insults at the enemy in an effort to weaken their morale and draw them out of position. Most better trained troops could use either open or closed formations, with troops in open formations moving a bit faster in clear terrain and a lot faster in obstructed terrain.
A lot of thought should be given to missle troops. Spartan only considers archers and javelin users, but I would reccomend the proposed Aztec game consider other possibilities:
Slings: cheap and lightweight, with potential for extending ammo supplies by picking up rocks on the battlefield. Not especially long ranged or hard hitting. Elite versions might use staff slings for greater range and hitting power.
Throwing clubs: probably carried by troops that are primarily armed for melee, but hurled into enemy formations shortly before combat to disrupt their morale and formations. The tomahawks used by the natives of Eastern North America are a familiar example of this type of weopon, and I think I've read somewhere that the Aztecs had something similar.
Atlatl: An upgrade to our familiar javelin users, these are long sticks with cups on the ends used to hurl javelins with greater range and hitting power. Arguably the elite missle weopon of the game.
I do not know enough about aztec culture to be sure which missle weopons they actually used (except for the famous atlatls). I don't recall seeing any mention of Aztec archers in my reading, but as if they didn't use them some of their neighbors certainly did; the North American plains indians made heavy use of bows before the European settlers introduced gunpowder. Neither do I recall mention of slings, but slings are so simple they would seem to be nearly universal.
There would definitely be a distinction between light and heavy Missle troops, the lighter type would take the role of traditional bow armed cavalry, while the heavier type would be more comparable to Spartan's combat archers. Heavy missle units would use closer formations, wear more armor, have better backup melee weopons, and probably carry more ammunition. Light missle units would run like the wind, avoiding melee combat with everyone. Note that some of the missle meopons mentioned above would not be usable by troops in close formations; atlatls and staff slings require room to use.
Your comment mentions "scisssor-rock-paper" relationships. I will interpret that freely to mean "combat is only interesting if there are a variety of troop types with different strengths and weaknesses, there is no one 'best' troop type, all troops have some types they are best against and others they are vulnerable to. Let me give some hypothetical examples of possible troop types to illustrate how these relationships might be formed in the Aztec world.
Militia spearmen: low end medium infantry, equipped with fairly long flint tipped spears, cheap leather or cloth armor, fights exclusively in close formation, effective at defensive stands in open terrain, extra vulnerable to being flanked, has problems in obstructed terrain, moves slowly
Jaguar knights: top end medium infantry, armed with flint edged swords (sorry, but I forget what those are called) and a couple of throwing clubs, armored with high quality "jaguar armor" (probably boiled leather, worn), carries high quality shields, easily outfights lighter infantry or missle troops, effective against heavy infantry by their abilty to outmanuever them and gain flanking positions, the very sight of these garishly dressed killing machines may reduce enemy morale
Lightning warriors: midrange light infantry, armed with flint tipped spears, small shields but no armor, a few javelins for throwing, useful for scouting and skirmishing, mediocre in melee but good at achieving flanking positions, vulnerable to missles, fast movement
Armidillo warriors: midrange heavy infantry, armed with axes (heads are made of chipped stone), heavy armor (probably thick boiled leather, possibly faced with hardwood scales), large shields, uses close formation, moves slowly
Militia slingers: cheap light missle troops, can't stand up to anybody in melee, decent at skirmish tactics, vulnerable to elite light infantry which can outrun them
Death hurlers: elite heavy missle troops, armed with atlatls and javelins, decent armor but no shields (atlatls need two dedicated hands), excellent ranged hitting power but limited ammo compared to slingers or archers, mediocre in melee with javelins used as thrusting speers, must use open formation to use ranged attack but can switch to close formation for melee, midrange movement rate
-
IainMcNeil
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am
Reluctantly, I suppose I see your point about the limited variety of unit types. But lets not forget, in your own words, "it would really look cool, though". Looking cool has to count for something. Perhaps the game could be made more interesting by expanded development of other elements than military unit construction.
Religion, for instance. As I said, I am no expert on Aztec history, but my understanding is that much of the tension between the various regional factions was religious in nature. The Aztecs worshiped all those colorful, fearsome divinities, like Quetzalcoatl (the feathered serpent), Tezcatlipoca (smoking mirror), and the bloodthirstiest of all, Huitzilopochtli (left handed hummingbird?!?). Perhaps each city could be associated with a particular diety as a "state religion". Followers of the same god would tend to get along, factions following other gods would tend to be natural enemies, factions whose cities worship several different dieties would have trouble keeping order.
Following a particular god could give cities some slight but useful advantage associated with that god. Perhaps improved production of a particular resource, improved experience or other advantages to a particular troop class built there, reduced costs for producing some type of building or troops, etc. It could be left deliberately vague as to wether these advantages are due to some actual supernatural influence or just a matter of citizens applying themselves extra diligently to the god's percieved area of influence.
Religious affiliation could be marked by an appropriate temple built in the city, cities without a temple would be considered to have no well defined affiliation. Temples could be upgraded through several levels, the higher levels have bigger effects on citizen happiness, and might also increase the advantage associated with that god. These gods all demand sacrifices, though, and the bigger temples will consume some important resource on a continuing basis: gold, food, citizen labor, wood, human sacrifices, whatever.
Players could change a city's affiliation by tearing down an existing temple and building a new one dedicated to a different diety. Players doing this had best have a huge garrison on hand, because the temple's loyal communicants are NOT going to be happy about having their place of worship destroyed. If you really want to get graphic and spooky, you might have temple destruction immediately followed by mysteriously occurring disasters, earhquake, flood, famine, fire, pestilence and the like; the bigger the temple the worse the disaster.
Lets not leave out the priests. Each temple might come with an associated contingent of priests that are represented in the game as a small military unit. These would not have much combat effectiveness on their own, but would be great for travelling around the battlefield inspiring friendly units and scaring the bejeezus out of their enemies. Larger temples might produce extra priest units or more effective ones.
The advantage of using the Aztec culture to explore religion as a game element is that nobody playing the game is likely to be offended. If you tried to do this sort of thing with Christians, Muslims, and Jews, your mail server would likely be flooded with angry messages from fundamentalists taking you to task for all manner of percieved innacuracies and slights.
Religion, for instance. As I said, I am no expert on Aztec history, but my understanding is that much of the tension between the various regional factions was religious in nature. The Aztecs worshiped all those colorful, fearsome divinities, like Quetzalcoatl (the feathered serpent), Tezcatlipoca (smoking mirror), and the bloodthirstiest of all, Huitzilopochtli (left handed hummingbird?!?). Perhaps each city could be associated with a particular diety as a "state religion". Followers of the same god would tend to get along, factions following other gods would tend to be natural enemies, factions whose cities worship several different dieties would have trouble keeping order.
Following a particular god could give cities some slight but useful advantage associated with that god. Perhaps improved production of a particular resource, improved experience or other advantages to a particular troop class built there, reduced costs for producing some type of building or troops, etc. It could be left deliberately vague as to wether these advantages are due to some actual supernatural influence or just a matter of citizens applying themselves extra diligently to the god's percieved area of influence.
Religious affiliation could be marked by an appropriate temple built in the city, cities without a temple would be considered to have no well defined affiliation. Temples could be upgraded through several levels, the higher levels have bigger effects on citizen happiness, and might also increase the advantage associated with that god. These gods all demand sacrifices, though, and the bigger temples will consume some important resource on a continuing basis: gold, food, citizen labor, wood, human sacrifices, whatever.
Players could change a city's affiliation by tearing down an existing temple and building a new one dedicated to a different diety. Players doing this had best have a huge garrison on hand, because the temple's loyal communicants are NOT going to be happy about having their place of worship destroyed. If you really want to get graphic and spooky, you might have temple destruction immediately followed by mysteriously occurring disasters, earhquake, flood, famine, fire, pestilence and the like; the bigger the temple the worse the disaster.
Lets not leave out the priests. Each temple might come with an associated contingent of priests that are represented in the game as a small military unit. These would not have much combat effectiveness on their own, but would be great for travelling around the battlefield inspiring friendly units and scaring the bejeezus out of their enemies. Larger temples might produce extra priest units or more effective ones.
The advantage of using the Aztec culture to explore religion as a game element is that nobody playing the game is likely to be offended. If you tried to do this sort of thing with Christians, Muslims, and Jews, your mail server would likely be flooded with angry messages from fundamentalists taking you to task for all manner of percieved innacuracies and slights.
Well, apparently I'm not going to sell this notion to you. I suppose its up to me to prove that the exotic flavor of the culture can be made to more than make up for the lack of cavalry.
I want to say that I am very impressed with Iain's responsiveness to my posts in this forum. I have been posting to game forums for years, this is the first time I have EVER been replied to by a developer. Iain not only replied promptly to this thread but also to my post in the tech support forum.
I'll add my voice to the many others who have asked: more mod tools, please. I believe I read somewhere on Slitherine's forums that they are considering releasing some of the code for Legion 1 into the public domain. This would be sweet. The only downside I can see is the hundreds of hours I may lose trying to graft an Aztec game onto the Legion 1 engine.
I am fairly confident of my ability to code strategic logic (economy, research, unit construction, basic unit values and roles). I am far less confident of my ability to tweak a battlefield AI to make units behave logically on the tactical map. Actual animation is utterly beyond me, though there may be commercial tools out there that can handle a lot of that. The ability to borrow heavily from an early Slitherine game would be very helpful. I am not much of an artist, hopefully I can find other interested players willing to work on a really cool look for the unit skins. Anyone ever wanted to draw a Jaguar knight? How about the garish, feathered, blood spattered costumes of the priests of Huitzilopochtli?
Come on people. While bantering with Iain is fun, I'd like to hear what the rest of the community thinks of a potential Aztec game. Speak up !
I want to say that I am very impressed with Iain's responsiveness to my posts in this forum. I have been posting to game forums for years, this is the first time I have EVER been replied to by a developer. Iain not only replied promptly to this thread but also to my post in the tech support forum.
I'll add my voice to the many others who have asked: more mod tools, please. I believe I read somewhere on Slitherine's forums that they are considering releasing some of the code for Legion 1 into the public domain. This would be sweet. The only downside I can see is the hundreds of hours I may lose trying to graft an Aztec game onto the Legion 1 engine.
I am fairly confident of my ability to code strategic logic (economy, research, unit construction, basic unit values and roles). I am far less confident of my ability to tweak a battlefield AI to make units behave logically on the tactical map. Actual animation is utterly beyond me, though there may be commercial tools out there that can handle a lot of that. The ability to borrow heavily from an early Slitherine game would be very helpful. I am not much of an artist, hopefully I can find other interested players willing to work on a really cool look for the unit skins. Anyone ever wanted to draw a Jaguar knight? How about the garish, feathered, blood spattered costumes of the priests of Huitzilopochtli?
Come on people. While bantering with Iain is fun, I'd like to hear what the rest of the community thinks of a potential Aztec game. Speak up !
-
duncan
- Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:08 am
- Location: Otxandio
Ok, here I go
1.) About Aztec empire based game: I think it will attract some public. Most of the complains in the strategy gaming forums are about having to fight yet another Europe map again. Let me see: MTW, RTW and their expansions, Imperial Glory, Diplomacy, slitherine's games (expect the beloved COW), Crusader Kings, most of the WWII turn-based games...people want some exotic locations.
This has a downside too. Remember Shogun: Total War? It was the same game as MTW, but the last was set in a more familiar setting, with very well known nations and everything. So MTW sold millions, while STW did not. We're talking about casual gamers. I don't know about Slitherine's finances, but I suppose they want to sell their games in insane quantities and buy yatches and planes and live the life of a football player (both american and "normal"), so they have to balance the design between hardcore gamers and passing by people. And hardcore gamers are few, look at the number of regular posters in this forum.
Also, the information about the Aztec empire is not as vast and exhaustive as the information about Roman empire or greeks or whatever in Europe and Middle East. Imagine a byzantine empire game. People would start raving about recruiting varangians or having Alexios Comneno leading their troops. Or about conquering Constantinople with the turks or with the normans. but little is known about the aztecs or the incas (sp.?), we've got more information about Chinese empire (for example), so we wouldn't get any familiar to catch our attention, only the fact of being the first game about pre-Columbus (sp.?) America.
Anyway, you're right, some extra imagination is needed (not only in Slitherine or gaming camps, also in most cultural sides: music, films, books,...). Why not China or India? Or some sci-fi settings? Efthimios and other posters have been crying for it for years
2.) About Iain being nice and all that, I totally agree. That's what's keeping me coming back to this forums. This people really care. Not only Iain, the others too: Pip, Ste, JDM...they are all great !!!!
1.) About Aztec empire based game: I think it will attract some public. Most of the complains in the strategy gaming forums are about having to fight yet another Europe map again. Let me see: MTW, RTW and their expansions, Imperial Glory, Diplomacy, slitherine's games (expect the beloved COW), Crusader Kings, most of the WWII turn-based games...people want some exotic locations.
This has a downside too. Remember Shogun: Total War? It was the same game as MTW, but the last was set in a more familiar setting, with very well known nations and everything. So MTW sold millions, while STW did not. We're talking about casual gamers. I don't know about Slitherine's finances, but I suppose they want to sell their games in insane quantities and buy yatches and planes and live the life of a football player (both american and "normal"), so they have to balance the design between hardcore gamers and passing by people. And hardcore gamers are few, look at the number of regular posters in this forum.
Also, the information about the Aztec empire is not as vast and exhaustive as the information about Roman empire or greeks or whatever in Europe and Middle East. Imagine a byzantine empire game. People would start raving about recruiting varangians or having Alexios Comneno leading their troops. Or about conquering Constantinople with the turks or with the normans. but little is known about the aztecs or the incas (sp.?), we've got more information about Chinese empire (for example), so we wouldn't get any familiar to catch our attention, only the fact of being the first game about pre-Columbus (sp.?) America.
Anyway, you're right, some extra imagination is needed (not only in Slitherine or gaming camps, also in most cultural sides: music, films, books,...). Why not China or India? Or some sci-fi settings? Efthimios and other posters have been crying for it for years
2.) About Iain being nice and all that, I totally agree. That's what's keeping me coming back to this forums. This people really care. Not only Iain, the others too: Pip, Ste, JDM...they are all great !!!!
"The Art Of War: Fantasy" supporter!
-
IainMcNeil
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13558
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am
-
pipfromslitherine
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9882
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:35 pm
There are also a lot of subtle and subconscious elements of 'group knowledge' that even non-fans have regarding the more common periods - stuff they have picked up without even knowing it . Whereas less well known scenarios, such as the Aztecs, require the game to provide the player with almost all their 'background' - which increases the learning curve.
Cheers
Pip
. Whereas less well known scenarios, such as the Aztecs, require the game to provide the player with almost all their 'background' - which increases the learning curve.Cheers
Pip
