Initial Thoughts

[elxaime]

Great game with lots of promise. Next steps, probably already underway, aside from fixing any bugs and adding any new content or features as already planned:

- expand the diplomatic system with multi-player in mind
- consider DLC that include scenarios with multi-player in mind, e.g. that involve 5-10 positions and are 40-50 turns in length

Overall, I see the new game engine as very well suited to future expansions, e.g.

- Wars of Religion
- Crusades
- Thirty Years War
- Hundred Years War
- Wars of the Roses

The possibilities are really limitless, especially on MP side with the simultaneous turns and the Slitherine server.

[devoncop]

Reducing the turns to 40 to 50 turns would make the central culture/ Decadence mechanic irrelevant and be a straight military fight massively favouring the militarily dominant factions.

In effect this would be making a very different game.

I like some of your other suggestions very much though.

I can see the 16th to 19th century working well .....a "Renaissance to Rifles" game anyone ?

[elxaime]

Reducing the turns to 40 to 50 turns would make the central culture/ Decadence mechanic irrelevant and be a straight military fight massively favouring the militarily dominant factions.

I don't disagree. But I think that is where expanding the diplomatic side of things and adding in scenario specific rules could help a lot. Yes, certain scenarios would have the "600-pound gorilla" such as Hapsburgs and Ottomans in a Renaissance scenario. But you could adjust the victory conditions to keep things interesting even for the powers whose forte is non-military (e.g. a Protestant faction who would be primarily interested in spreading the Reformation). Again, this would mean fleshing out the diplomatic, cultural and religious side a LOT for specific scenarios. But I think the main engine chassis is otherwise perfect for that.

[jnpoint]

I hope they fix bugs and crashes first so we all can get full value for our money.
After that I hope they add more to fx the diplomacy as it is very simplistic for a grand strategy game. And then it would be appropriate do produce DLC's after my opinion.

[devoncop]

Reducing the turns to 40 to 50 turns would make the central culture/ Decadence mechanic irrelevant and be a straight military fight massively favouring the militarily dominant factions.

I don't disagree. But I think that is where expanding the diplomatic side of things and adding in scenario specific rules could help a lot. Yes, certain scenarios would have the "600-pound gorilla" such as Hapsburgs and Ottomans in a Renaissance scenario. But you could adjust the victory conditions to keep things interesting even for the powers whose forte is non-military (e.g. a Protestant faction who would be primarily interested in spreading the Reformation). Again, this would mean fleshing out the diplomatic, cultural and religious side a LOT for specific scenarios. But I think the main engine chassis is otherwise perfect for that.

That is why a 1600 to 1900 timespan suits the existing game mechanics so well. If anything matches the concept of over extension and decadence it is the fate of the Ottoman and Hapsburg Empires. A religion mechanic would need devising as you imply but I think is doable.

[guanotwozero]

... But you could adjust the victory conditions to keep things interesting even for the powers whose forte is non-military (e.g. a Protestant faction who would be primarily interested in spreading the Reformation). Again, this would mean fleshing out the diplomatic, cultural and religious side a LOT for specific scenarios. But I think the main engine chassis is otherwise perfect for that.

I agree the engine (with FoG2) is potentially eminently suited for covering many quite distinct periods of history; maybe even with a similar linkage to Pike and Shot to cover that era. The diplomacy system sure needs filled out a lot more, and it would be useful for the devs to "think ahead" to allow for later periods with very different diplomatic norms and expectations.

As for encouraging players to "play in character" for specific historical nations, the Progress Token system could be used to reward/penalise reaching predermined goals. If you're playing an expansionist nation then sure, goals would include grabbing objective regions. Conversely a tribal nation's goals could be to relocate to a richer/safer region, or eliminate/dominate threatening neighbours. If you're commercially minded, then establishing wealthy trade routes and production/consumption would be desired; grabbed territories would only be a means to this end.

In this way, a future Reformation scenario could use Progress Tokens to encourage spread of a religion and prevent rivals from doing so, whether by war or other means. The token system could encourage achieving a "national philosophy" including by alternative means, as distinct from specific victory conditions which might be too arbitrary and based on our modern retrospective view.

It would make sense for goals to be "tailored" for a nation with its historic characteristics. e.g. a Ptolemy would seek to maintain hold on Egypt without being forced to "mission creep" a blobbing expansion up through the Levant/Asia Minor, or a medieval Venice would only seek to grab strongpoint ports along a major trade route. Mission creep could still feature in, say, the Age of Sail where commercially minded explorers seek to establish trade routes, but these tend to develop into fully-fledged colonies far beyond the original concession ports.

This way specific historic scenarios could come with a set of goals to reflect the events & aims of the time. Goals could be "tight" to try to replicate history, or "loose" to reflect an alternative history of a characterised nation. Potential for DLCs or even standalone games. Or both à la CMANO.

BTW devs, this game is the first in a long time that makes me want "just one more turn" at 4am! Excellent work!

[AlexDetrojan]

+1 on the diplomacy...it is very weak. A robust diplomatic system adds immeasurably to the enjoyment of the game.
Alex