More First Impressions?

[76mm]

One more question--sorry!

I see that turns are annual...is there any way in the editor to make for shorter turns, and have for instance, seasons?

In other words, if I want to have monthly turns is it possible to have "summer" and "winter" turns? Main differences I would think would be movement and supply costs, attrition, etc.

[pavelk]

I see that turns are annual...is there any way in the editor to make for shorter turns, and have for instance, seasons?

In other words, if I want to have monthly turns is it possible to have "summer" and "winter" turns? Main differences I would think would be movement and supply costs, attrition, etc.

Absolutely. You need to change one thing in the scenario file, but it is just copy-paste. Once you are ready to play, let me know, I will send you the change;)

[76mm]

Wow, it is obvious that you really put some thought into making this game engine moddable--kudos! I wish more devs took the same approach.

Just for that I will definitely buy the game once I'm back from my travels in a couple of weeks...

[pavelk]

Thank you:)

Just drop me a private message and I will create a post about this change so others can follow if they want.
Have a nice holidays!

[OldBlighty]

My first impressions are very positive, it has that “one more turn” aspect to it that I find quite addictive.

Initially I found the figures representing units too large but then I spotted an option to reduce their size so I thought that is a nice touch. The game is quite deep really (the 250 page manual is testament to that) so I am learning all the time. The tutorials were essential and really helped my understanding of the game but it is only through playing and experimenting that you discover how the different aspects interact.

One thing I would like to see is the ability to destroy enemy facilities (eg. Mines, temples, etc), without actually taking control of the area (which could be difficult to hold onto in the medium term).

Overall though, an excellent game.

[pavelk]

One thing I would like to see is the ability to destroy enemy facilities (eg. Mines, temples, etc), without actually taking control of the area (which could be difficult to hold onto in the medium term).

You can destroy temples, stables, defensive walls, forts, blacksmiths, towers...basically all the buildings. Just take them and execute action "sell" or "destroy" (depening on damage).

Mines cannot be destroyed and it might totally break the balance, so we currently don't think about that.
On the other hand, you can extremely easy change it yourself (in the mod file).
Let me know if you want to, I will write you what to do.

[OldBlighty]

One thing I would like to see is the ability to destroy enemy facilities (eg. Mines, temples, etc), without actually taking control of the area (which could be difficult to hold onto in the medium term).

You can destroy temples, stables, defensive walls, forts, blacksmiths, towers...basically all the buildings. Just take them and execute action "sell" or "destroy" (depening on damage).

Mines cannot be destroyed and it might totally break the balance, so we currently don't think about that.
On the other hand, you can extremely easy change it yourself (in the mod file).
Let me know if you want to, I will write you what to do.

Thank you for your response. The main point I was trying to make was that sometimes I would like to damage opponents facilities rather than damage what have essentially become my facilities, ie a sort of raid function.

[gwgardner]

Thank you for your response. The main point I was trying to make was that sometimes I would like to damage opponents facilities rather than damage what have essentially become my facilities, ie a sort of raid function.

Really you can do that already. You don't have to repair a mine, or do anything with it. It will gradually get lower and lower in production. So consider that a raid, where you attack it, take it out of the enemy control, then do nothing with it. Don't even have to garrison it. I have to check, but perhaps you can even pillage it.

[pavelk]

You can also pillage mines...

[76mm]

So I'm about 50 pages into the manual (250pp! ), but have another question: to what extent do the different nations feel like, well, different nations, instead of the same nations with different skins, etc.?

Presumably there is a different feel between the civilized and barbarian nations, but what about between the Romans and Seleucids, for instance? Do they really play much differently? I'm mainly interested in random map experience, so that any game play differences don't stem from historical geographic and strategic positions...

[gwgardner]

The main differentiation is army style and terrain, and then the attitude of other nations towards you, based on who you are, your ranking in the world, your stance. That's in the Ancient Med scenario. In the Battle over the Rhenus there is a similar difference, and terrain effects are even more pronounced.

[76mm]

But for instance, does fighting with a legion-based army feel any different from fighting with a phalanx-based army? I'm guessing not, but wanted to check.

[gwgardner]

Same mechanics, but one has to pay close attention to terrain where that type of unit has advantages or disadvantages, morale, etc. So a nation that has Greek style units is going to have an advantage or at least an equality, on plains and grasslands, where formations can be maintained.

[n0kn0k]

So I'm about 50 pages into the manual (250pp! ), but have another question: to what extent do the different nations feel like, well, different nations, instead of the same nations with different skins, etc.?

Presumably there is a different feel between the civilized and barbarian nations, but what about between the Romans and Seleucids, for instance? Do they really play much differently? I'm mainly interested in random map experience, so that any game play differences don't stem from historical geographic and strategic positions...

Unit wise, it's mostly the type of terrain they are most comfortable at and the technologies that are already researched.
But you have to take the other factors into account also.
The 3 big nations get a small edge in technology at the start.
If you start playing as nomadic tribes you don't have any settlements yet. It's quite different at the start and pretty tough.
Also the size of the countries and diplomatic starting points are hugely different. I actually feel scared when playing a small country, and diplomatically it's a lot tougher.
The positioning of the countries makes it also quite different, some countries benefit from a strong navy.
Others are better off staying on land at the start of the game. Some will be wise to start fighting right away, some shouldn't.