Slitherine

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:48 am

sIg3b wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:18 pm

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:11 am

Infact,buy or not buy is your business,but I should noticed you civilization is a 4X historically authentic game,fog:empire is a historically accurate game,so they have *no* comparability.

A game that I can´t finish in 5-10 sessions is a no-go for me.

If you play the grand strategy games just wanna finished them as quick then I suggest you leave these games and go play the command & conquer series.

Command & Conquer wasn´t turn-based, so your comparison is a bit silly.

The more "Grand Strategy" a game is, the more it should focus on the big picture and cut down on the micromanagement.

Well designed games are infinitely replayable.

Bady designed games take infinite time to finish.

sIg3b wrote: ↑Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:20 pm

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:48 am

sIg3b wrote: ↑Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:18 pm

A game that I can´t finish in 5-10 sessions is a no-go for me.

If you play the grand strategy games just wanna finished them as quick then I suggest you leave these games and go play the command & conquer series.

Command & Conquer wasn´t turn-based, so your comparison is a bit silly.

Just directed at your point of "finished game as quick",not only means the turn-based game.Paradox's games needs very long time to finished or maybe you'll never finished with patient but they're still good and with playability.

I don't wanna eat a delicious but small cake,when I start to enjoy it's flavor but I found I already ate and mopped it up.

Can't understand why people don't prefer a four turn per year grand strategy game. Logistically, the movement of armies makes the most sense with four turns. Combine that with good seasons mechanics and it's far more interesting than one or two turns per year.

Ahh, I wish I had made the beta so I could form some opinions without guesswork. So , based on some of the developers comments the vision appears to be one of a grand campaign lasting over millennia. A motivating factor for the player is the continued tech race to get newer and better units. Aka total war( btw this is not meant to be an insult, it’s just what appears to be the model and obviously this game will be more detailed and historical ten fold)

Personally I was hoping the game would be more like a pride of nations or the Aje games with more detailed army movement, logistics considerations etc ( ie at least 4 turns per year)
Even two per year would allow one turn for ideal military operations, and 1 where things could be dicey for logistics, storms( if at sea) etc. the comment that there might be a “bad” weather every 4 turns ( which could be between 4 and 8 years) , I hate to say, sounds like a cheesy compromise to add some seasonal effects and also allow power players to “conquer the world “ in a few nites of playing. Regardless if 2 or 1 year per turn is decided on by the team, wouldn’t it make more sense to have weather effects occur possibly every turn, modified by elevation, latitude etc etc?

Btw, is there only a grand campaign, or can one start at any date one chosen ( like the eu games)?

Agreed Mouser. I really enjoy the effect seasons have on my campaigns. Random aspects like difficult winters or fierce storms really add to the immersion.

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 9:09 am Just directed at your point of "finished game as quick",not only means the turn-based game.Paradox's games needs very long time to finished or maybe you'll never finished with patient but they're still good and with playability.

In Paradox games the AI always sucks. You have to cut features until the AI can compete or you have no game at all.

Dual_CoRed wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:07 pm Can't understand why people don't prefer a four turn per year grand strategy game. Logistically, the movement of armies makes the most sense with four turns. Combine that with good seasons mechanics and it's far more interesting than one or two turns per year.

Grand Strategy Game, yes. I agree, if you want to simulate WWII or the Napoleonic Wars or any 5-10 year period, 4turns/year is fine.

But for a historical pseudo-simulation that spans centuries, a decade/turn would be best.

sIg3b wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:56 pm

Dual_CoRed wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 4:07 pm Can't understand why people don't prefer a four turn per year grand strategy game. Logistically, the movement of armies makes the most sense with four turns. Combine that with good seasons mechanics and it's far more interesting than one or two turns per year.

Grand Strategy Game, yes. I agree, if you want to simulate WWII or the Napoleonic Wars or any 5-10 year period, 4turns/year is fine.

But for a historical pseudo-simulation that spans centuries, a decade/turn would be best.

Well it depends of the taste of people. Some people don’t mind playing a very long campaign, and actually enjoy it, even if it takes 100 hours to end it. And even if the game is a « Grand Strategy » type of game, it doesn’t mean that some players won’t like a complex, but historically accurate kind of campaign, with a multi-layer system (grand strategy, operational, tactical...) with lots of content, even if it means that they’ll have to deal with a very long playthrough.

I think that most players in this genre are looking for a detailed, meaningful experience. Making it less detailed just so that it can be ended in a few hours is a bad move. That’s just my opinion though.
But look at the Total War franchise : game after game, the systems are less detailed, simplified, there’s a constant « casualisation » trend, and you go from Médiéval 2, which was a nice title, to Thrones of Britania, which is complete casual garbage (Again, just my opinion)

I know that the Total War franchise is not the best example, but it shows us that « Simple and fast » isn’t always better than « long and complex »

I might be asking for too much, but for me, the more complex, detailed, long, and challenging a game is, the better. Especially for a historical strategy game

FrenchDude wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 9:05 pm Well it depends of the taste of people. Some people don’t mind playing a very long campaign, and actually enjoy it, even if it takes 100 hours to end it.

…

I know that the Total War franchise is not the best example, but it shows us that « Simple and fast » isn’t always better than « long and complex ».

1. You don´t completely see my point here. I *AM* a micro-manager, and a 1.000 turn game doesn´t take me 100 hours. It takes me 350 hours, and that´s too much. I don´t want to spend half a year on a single playthrough.

2. What´s wrong with <<SHORT and complex>>? If the game has 20 turns, I have no problem with a turn taking 2-3 hours. Limit the time span of a scenario to 10 years, then I am ok with tracking every single militiaman in monthly turns if you wish.

Just don´t give me a large time span *and* excessive detail. One or the other.

FrenchDude wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 9:05 pm
I might be asking for too much, but for me, the more complex, detailed, long, and challenging a game is, the better. Especially for a historical strategy game

Totally agree with this.

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:47 am

FrenchDude wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 9:05 pm
I might be asking for too much, but for me, the more complex, detailed, long, and challenging a game is, the better. Especially for a historical strategy game

Totally agree with this.

And I don´t. If the game is too complex and detailed, it will never be challenging, because the AI will suck. A good AI needs a somewhat streamlined environment.

To paraphrase Sid Meier: Cutting features is the most important part of game design.

sIg3b wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:00 pm

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:47 am

FrenchDude wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 9:05 pm
I might be asking for too much, but for me, the more complex, detailed, long, and challenging a game is, the better. Especially for a historical strategy game

Totally agree with this.

because the AI will suck[/b].

Maybe in the fog:empire this time the AI will not or less suck like other similar games,I hope so...

If you overload the game with detail and give the player too much control, it will. And the longer the game, the more the AI will suck, because even small deficiencies will accumulate weight over time.

Small AI weaknesses that will not have consequences in 10 turns will have consequences in 100.

I dont understand why we cant have 4 TPY or more but after they pass instead of 1 year lets say 3 or 5 years have passed so it wont affect the timeframe if you know what I mean. Seasons are just too important to leave them out.

Yarev wrote: ↑Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:34 pm Seasons are just too important to leave them out.

Yes seasons were important, but that doen't mean they need to be represented by separate turns.

Ancient warfare was almost always seasonally restricted - in the early days of Rome this started in March and ended before winter (there were always exceptions, eg Trebia).

You can still abstract seasonal effects like a bad harvest affecting supply or winter storms affecting naval movement into a turn-per-year design.

For a game that covers 500 years of history, I think that one year per turn is appropriate. I can definitely see that the argument for 2, 3, 4, or 5 years per turn makes sense, but that leads to weird things happening with movement on the map. I think the idea of every 4th year is "harsh" or "winter" is an elegant simulation of seasonal effects.

Games covering long spans of history need to focus on the big picture - the exact seasonal weather in 123 BC is irrelevant in the thousand-year history of Rome.

I'm one of those that like the long game, 4 turns per year to represent seasons, hoping that can be modded.
Not too crash hot on the player being warned of a harsh turn, these should probably be random, Sure Napoleon's invasion of Russia and Barbarossa would not have happened if they knew the weather that was coming, hopefully that can also be modded.
I wouldn't be too fussed about how the game comes out of production, Rome 2 released with 1 year turns and no weather effects, modders added a variety of turns per year along with a host of other features, something for everyone.

FrenchDude wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 9:05 pm I might be asking for too much, but for me, the more complex, detailed, long, and challenging a game is, the better. Especially for a historical strategy game

If a game is good, than the longer the better in my view--more scope for various ups and downs. Just because a campaign can last 500 turns doesn't mean you have to play it through to the end if you hit a boring patch. I'd much rather quit in turn 100 of a boring 500 turn campaign than have a great campaign arbitrarily end after 100 turns.

USGrant1962 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:22 am I think the idea of every 4th year is "harsh" or "winter" is an elegant simulation of seasonal effects.

To me this approach sounds very fake and gimmicky--I say either have seasons or not, not this weird hybrid.

USGrant1962 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 3:22 am Games covering long spans of history need to focus on the big picture - the exact seasonal weather in 123 BC is irrelevant in the thousand-year history of Rome.

Fair enough, but seasons impose real constraints and decisions--should I risk stealing a march on the enemy during a winter turn? Should I risk an assault on a besieged city before winter, or hunker down and suffer the attrition, etc. from a siege throughout the winter? And I haven't seen any of the game play videos yet, but I'm wondering how sieges will work--basically almost none of them should last more than one year (ie, one turn), which would be odd, and not very satisfying.

I personally have no issue with yearly turns as long as the pacing of the game fits with this.

I have watched all of Dastactic's You Tube series playing the game and he makes it clear the pacing is excellent so that is good enough for me.

Some sieges can take two or three years (especially if the city has an unblockaded port) if there is no assault just for your information.I

I would seriously recommend watching at least some on his latest 8 x half hour you tube videos doing the Carthage challenge as he goes in depth into the very intricate trade and economy system, as well as showing a full battle transition from the Empires map into Field of Glory 2 to play out a particular battle. (The battle itself is very one sided but he was doing it to illustrate the process)