Field of Glory: Empires Unveiled!

[zakblood]

This is an excellent development. I see they also have fatigue rules in the AGEOD game.

It’s operational scale anyway. So it’s very much appropriate.

One complaint with AGEOD games is that the battles are automatic, hard to get into, and hard to figure out what happened. The good thing here is you have an option to get full control. Best of both worlds.

Now as someone mentioned in another thread, this should also link up to Mare Nostrum naval battles.

as Ian has already mentioned it, i also agree this would be then the best of all 3 games

as then only if you wished to mind you, you could import / export the battle into land sea and then overall command, so a real total war game for once, and epic in scale and with you in total control if you so wished, as not everyone i'd guess would maybe want to, but the options there is you did etc and for those who would etc, so the best for all / everybody

a Grand Strategy games with tactical battles to play if you so wish!

[zakblood]

I am also very happy that it has been possible to combine global strategy with Field of Glory 2 battles! I have wanted something like that since the game was released.

Only too bad that it is probably a bit inconvenient to export the battles to Field of Glory 2 and export it back and these balltes are not directly integrated into the game.
I would have been more pleased if Byzantine Games would have tried to talk to the Swedish developer Paradox Interactive about such a collaboration, but I suspect that would not be so easy.

But finally i have some questions:

How many people can join the asynchronous multiplayer of Field of Glory: Empires? Is it just a 1v1, or can every nation be given to a player in multiplayer, like it is the case in Paradox Interactive games?
And if there are several players possible: Will it be possible to ally and carry out battles with mixed armies in Field of Glory 2?

Ian said in the live link last night, that multiplayer regarding size was unknown atm, as it's still in alpha, so that would depend i'd guess on developers and beta etc to some extent regarding testings and suitability etc etc

[melm]

According to Wiki, Paradox France was split away from Paradox Development Studio in 2012. I suppose the incoming title is worked by Paradox France.

[zakblood]

it's Ageod and slitherine combined development working together on the in house Archon engine

[rbodleyscott]

How many people can join the asynchronous multiplayer of Field of Glory: Empires? Is it just a 1v1, or can every nation be given to a player in multiplayer, like it is the case in Paradox Interactive games? And if there are several players possible: Will it be possible to ally and carry out battles with mixed armies in Field of Glory 2?

I doubt if anyone on this board knows the answer to these questions, you will probably need to ask it on the AGEod forum where the Field of Glory Empires developers might see it.

EDIT - This is the best place to ask questions on the game. The dev team will be monitoring both sites but no need to go somewhere else and register an account to post.

[Witan]

I doubt if anyone on this board knows the answer to these questions, you will probably need to ask it on the AGEod forum where the Field of Glory Empires developers might see it.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=53060

Thank you for that advice! Actually, I expected you to be part of it, in some way...

[rbodleyscott]

I doubt if anyone on this board knows the answer to these questions, you will probably need to ask it on the AGEod forum where the Field of Glory Empires developers might see it.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=53060

Thank you for that advice! Actually, I expected you to be part of it, in some way...

I am, but only for the FOGE/FOG2 battle part. So far this only works for single player battles, but I don't know how it might develop in future.

[Pocus]

Hi gents,

Pleased to meet you!

We aim for 16 players MP game, but that's still in heavy testing. Lets be honest, the difficulty is moving from 2 players to n. So once we are past 2, there is no theoretical limit, but 16 is a large number!

You definitively can have naval battles and we have naval models in Empires.

I can't promise I'll pass every day to check the news on Empires on the Slitherine board, so you are also welcome to register on the Ageod forums. One big family after all!

[TheGrayMouser]

Hi gents,

Pleased to meet you!

We aim for 16 players MP game, but that's still in heavy testing. Lets be honest, the difficulty is moving from 2 players to n. So once we are past 2, there is no theoretical limit, but 16 is a large number!

You definitively can have naval battles and we have naval models in Empires.

I can't promise I'll pass every day to check the news on Empires on the Slitherine board, so you are also welcome to register on the Ageod forums. One big family after all!

Sounds promising. Hopefully hot seat is to be an integral part of the game too, as too many games seem to leave it out these days...

[loki100]

Hi gents,

Pleased to meet you!

We aim for 16 players MP game, but that's still in heavy testing. Lets be honest, the difficulty is moving from 2 players to n. So once we are past 2, there is no theoretical limit, but 16 is a large number!

You definitively can have naval battles and we have naval models in Empires.

I can't promise I'll pass every day to check the news on Empires on the Slitherine board, so you are also welcome to register on the Ageod forums. One big family after all!

Sounds promising. Hopefully hot seat is to be an integral part of the game too, as too many games seem to leave it out these days...

The game is a 'wego' design. So in a MP version, everyone uploads their turn orders and they are processed at the same time. Good thing is it removes the need for everyone to be online at the same time.

In the current AGEOD suite of games there are some 3 player MP designs (scenarios in AJE), an option for a 4 player variant to Rise of Prussia, 5-8 in Wars of Napoleon and 8-10 (but potentially more) in Pride of Nations. Works well as long as everyone sticks to submitting their orders on a regular basis but does demand a bit of discipline to keep a game going over a longer period of time.

With this proviso, no reason why two players couldn't share the same computer and set up their orders that way so they are then processed.

[sIg3b]

Don´t know if I am the only sceptic, but I´m pretty sure if you link 2 games, balance goes out of the window.

1. If you are good in the campaign mode, it will make for dull battles.
2. If you are good at winning difficult battles, it will unbalance the campaign.

[TheGrayMouser]

Don´t know if I am the only sceptic, but I´m pretty sure if you link 2 games, balance goes out of the window.

1. If you are good in the campaign mode, it will make for dull battles.
2. If you are good at winning difficult battles, it will unbalance the campaign.

You could say that about any game that features strategic play and tactical battles, whether it be total war, crown of glory etc etc. The presentation of this game gives the impression that the mating of the two is not an afterthought.

Someday maybe we will get to three tiers, strat, tactical, and operational:)

[sIg3b]

Don´t know if I am the only sceptic, but I´m pretty sure if you link 2 games, balance goes out of the window.

1. If you are good in the campaign mode, it will make for dull battles.
2. If you are good at winning difficult battles, it will unbalance the campaign.

You could say that about any game that features strategic play and tactical battles, whether it be total war, crown of glory etc etc.

I actually do say it about TW, CoG etc. etc.

I believe a balanced game must focus on one of tactics, operations, strategy or politics and treat everything else as simplistic as possible.

[sIg3b]

You could say that about any game that features strategic play and tactical battles, whether it be total war, crown of glory etc etc.

I actually do say it about TW, CoG etc. etc.

I believe a balanced game must focus on one of tactics, operations, strategy or politics and treat everything else as simplistic as possible.

In CoG the tactical battles are simply terrible.

TW is somewhat good in both areas, but they undermine each other.

[Nijis]

Don´t know if I am the only sceptic, but I´m pretty sure if you link 2 games, balance goes out of the window.

1. If you are good in the campaign mode, it will make for dull battles.
2. If you are good at winning difficult battles, it will unbalance the campaign.

This is a problem to a lot of designs, but Pike and Shot Campaigns had a good way (and historical) way around it. I've also tried to implement a similar system in Tides of Conquest.

If the armies are not relatively evenly matched, no decisive battle takes place. The AI player simply marches off and does not fight, a la Fabius, the Germans in times of Roman dominance, or de Guesclin. The player then faces the time-consuming process of subduing the enemy territory through guerrilla warfare and sieges. This sucks for both sides economically, but at least offers the weaker side a good chance of survival.

Also, if you march too big an army into enemy territory, or one with too many horses, hunger will take care of it. Any area the size of, say, Burgundy or Normandy or Syria or Cisalpine Gaul should have at least 500,000 inhabitants and, on defense, could probably field at least 30,000 troops. That would be large enough to oppose on relatively equal terms any army that can feed itself in their territory.

It was HARD and expensive in the ancient world to conquer territory. Raiding was easy, staying took resources. Good campaign play should offer the player the CHANCE to conquer a territory. You still need to seal the deal with a battle and/or a hard-fought siege or guerrilla campaign.

A lot of ancients games fumble asymmetrical confrontation between large and small powers, but it ought be both fun and historical. Battles (or campaigns of subjugation, anyway) are almost never won by the side that brings the most resources. Resources allow you to sustain an army in enemy territory long enough to have the chance to subdue it. You still must succeed tactically as well.

Ideally, for conquest, tactics and strategy should be two separate hoops to jump through, and the one can't be used to compensate for the other.

I hope Empires takes a similar approach to P&S Campaigns in this regard.

[sIg3b]

I love P+S, but the campaigns are not what it does best.

The higher the difficulty, the easier to push the AI around with an equal or slightly weaker force.

[TheGrayMouser]

Interesting comments. My opinion is just because it hasn’t to date been done WELL, doesn’t mean it can’t be, ( total war games are horrid , I loved cog though) plus the real problem is the expectation that the developer will in effect create 2 full games for the price of one... in this case we have a fully developed tactical engine already , AGEod can concentrate on any balance issues.

Also, history tells us invididuals can unbalance things: Darius was a better strategist than Alexander, yet succumbed to his overwhelming tactical prowess.

Anyway, more strategic games at minimum should allow the player to alternatively resolve battles using whatever method the player chooses ( who cares if it’s single player?). Very few do and I imagine most developers don’t see a cost benefit to the xtra bit of prgramming .

[sIg3b]

I think it´s a design decision that in most 4X/strategy games battles can´t be resolved at a tactical level, because they don´t want clever tacticians to defeat the strategic AI at the micro-level.

You don´t WANT the player to have too much control over too many parts of the equation, because it will invariably reduce the challenge…

Give the AI (rather than Peace) a chance!

+++

That not meaning to say I am not curious about Empires. But to succeed it will need an enormous effort put into the interaction with FoG2.

And I am not talking about the technical interaction here. This may work technically perfectly, but not meaningfully, either producing lop-sided battles or a lop-sided campaign...

[Lebo44]

Just watching the stream and must say that the game looks really good. The graphics is great, even the icons are stylized after the Ancient Era. Just wondering how this game will distinguish from Paradox's Imperator. Of course the main difference will be ability to resolve battles in FOG2. But the game's concept and target look similar to Imperator. What do you think?

[jomni]

I think it´s a design decision that in most 4X/strategy games battles can´t be resolved at a tactical level, because they don´t want clever tacticians to defeat the strategic AI at the micro-level.

You don´t WANT the player to have too much control over too many parts of the equation, because it will invariably reduce the challenge…

Give the AI (rather than Peace) a chance!

+++

That not meaning to say I am not curious about Empires. But to succeed it will need an enormous effort put into the interaction with FoG2.

And I am not talking about the technical interaction here. This may work technically perfectly, but not meaningfully, either producing lop-sided battles or a lop-sided campaign...

You do know how difficult it is to win in FoG2 at times unless your Richard Bodley Scott. I might rather let it auto resolve instead. Lol!
Anyway, the choice is there, and that's what's important. The game is still complete without the FoG2 experience as with other AGEOD games. AGEOD combat can be pretty complex under the hood. Lot's of pre-planning and luck. You just choose the mode which you understand better. A win-win.
Also, Empires is not only about combat. You win all your battles but your empire grows large and becomes so decadent that it starts to decay.