Field of Glory: Empires is a grand strategy game in which you will have to move in an intricate and living tapestry of nations and tribes, each one with their distinctive culture.
Set in Europe and in the Mediterranean Area during the Classical Age, experience what truly means to manage an Empire.
rs2excelsior wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:00 pm
Just got home and logged in, and I can confirm that whatever issue there was with my multiplayer server has been fixed. But the only games I see listed are password-locked. Did this one already fill up? Or is it just not showing up for me?
Damn, I think you missed it, it has started.
If you want to get one going I'd join it
Done. Same criteria--16 players, 2 days/turn, no password. Open to whomever wants to hop in
Given the amount of depth/time you can sink into a turn i hope multiplayer is fairly active. Makes sinking time into the building layouts, and army micro more enjoyable. Kinda like how dominions is almost multiplayer only due to its depth (enjoyed seeing it referenced in the manual)
Rs2, that's great except I picked the polywhatevers and I had a quick try on my break and I found them overwhelming with the amount of stuff you have to do with them will I have time to get back and change or will I be thrown in at the deep end
"I'll gladly trade you some ARVN rifles, never been fired and only dropped once"
Only at the end of your turn there is the ability to put together a public comment on the message board for all players. No "private" chats between players.
devoncop wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:30 am
Only at the end of your turn there is the ability to put together a public comment on the message board for all players. No "private" chats between players.
That's one aspect of the game that feels really limiting. I think these games work best with complex negotiations and shifting geopolitics. Limited and constantly open communication makes the human players seem more like an AI than actual living and breathing actors. Even if you can negotiate strategy you can't quite feel people out and judge their position based on reactions. This game is very similar to a boardgame and I think those very much resemble poker in the sense that you often play the player and not the cards.
As an example I once played a eu3 no game that saw a three way balance of power treaty where the winner took some territory in Europe the loser was sold colonies in India by a third party and the third party secured agreements from both players to stop colonisation in South America. Negotiating that deal was one of the most enjoyable experiences I had in a Grand strategy game, it was constantly tense and other players kept trying to see it fail because they weren't happy with one or all of the three outcomes.
indeed good chat is important, but its never going to be in game. When people only check once every 48 hrs, you can't communicate. Your basically never going to be on at the same time, and people arn't going to boot up the game to check
What is needed is a discord server, along with games that require user to join the discord (a channel per game with a pinned player/nation list). Works well for other games at least
Yeah definitely a side program could be used, you can already on people on the forum's but it's a bit clunky. Even just a private letter system that you can access on your turn or even between turns in game though would greatly improve the system, as not everyone will come on the forum's or join the discord so some players just end up being left out.
Also the turn based system does support negotiation as you don't have to do it while managing ten other things in real time.
I will also bring this up at the end of turn messages, then, but I'll go ahead and ask here: are y'all good with allowing forum PMs for private communication? I think the backroom negotiation adds quite a bit to the game, but if folks (even a significant minority) joined on the promise of public only chat, we'll leave it like that.
In the main MP game I am playing as Egypt and which only starts tomorrow but has been active for diplomacy by private message for a few weeks the pre game negotiations between a 3 or 4 of the 16 players and myself I have found this hugely enjoyable and indeed fascinating and I am sure other players in the game may well have had similar experiences based around other parts of the map but this is not for everyone.
There is a rudimentary way of proposing co-operation agreements, alliances, sending insults etc in game and this diplomatic system is (I am confident) going to be expanded further. It is much quicker and less time consuming and importantly fair on all players specifically those who do not wish to spend extra time outside of the game system sending out of game detailed messages. I have had two players in other games I am running specifically ask that negotiations all be done in game to ensure a level playing field and I respect that.
Finally I very much am not a fan of Discord or Steam community groups so personally would not use that approach but as in all things, we are all different. I just thought I would add my own perspective on it.
I agree there might be different preferences. But the ingame chat at the end of the turn is not at all suited for negotiations of any type. In effect you are relying on the in-game actions to make your intentions known, but co-ordinating an alliance would be almost impossible, even if you can message publicly in in-game chat. I just don't find it realistic to be discussing how and when an alliance should attack its enemy not only once per turn with a one turn delay for people to read it and reply, but also in public. It kind of breaks that part of the game for me. Not saying I wouldn't still play the game, but in-game only chat might as well be no chat for all the limitations it makes on any co-ordination, element of surprise or negotiations more complex than "stop attacking me!" "no."
