Derek, will there be walls and siege battles in FE?

I support this idea.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

This is also a hugely important factor enjoyment-wise for me, too. IMHO, a fantasy 4x game absolutely has to have siege battles in it.

One karma will be given for everyone who posts their support for this petition.

Successfully updated karma reason!

AlLanMandragoran

Join Date 09/2010

+63

Oh, hell, I've been starving for Karma lately! I don't support not supporting supportive posters in this thread. I think.

+2

Successfully updated karma reason!

Don't really care about the karma, but yes. This is pretty essential. The fact that it wasn't included initially was a huge and obvious oversight.

How could it be missed when the two games (MofM and AOW) that are the direct spiritual parents of this game had it as a feature?

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting jpmcconnell,

reply 4

Don't really care about the karma, but yes. This is pretty essential. The fact that it wasn't included initially was a huge and obvious oversight.

How could it be missed when the two games (MofM and AOW) that are the direct spiritual parents of this game had it as a feature?

I don't care if you care about the karma... You are getting it, sir!

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

+1 Karma to everyone!!!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I like this as well.

A suggestion for execution: remove the buff from the various town defenses and simply allow a very unbalanced tactical map (with appropriate fortifications). Then let siege weapons destroy said fortifications. If you attach the unbalance buff to the wall, when the wall is destroyed, it removes the buff (also presumably anyone standing on the wall at the time. (though I wonder if this is actually possible in WoM; all the tactical battle props seem cosmetic to me....)

Of course, I'll probably just play the crap out whatever you actually do make, (and I am confident you guys have a whole slew of more interesting and appropriate ideas) but there you go.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

If not, the devs will have to live knowing that they're still being out-played by a 15 year old game (MoM).

+2

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting oera,

reply 7

I like this as well.

A suggestion for execution: remove the buff from the various town defenses and simply allow a very unbalanced tactical map (with appropriate fortifications). Then let siege weapons destroy said fortifications. If you attach the unbalance buff to the wall, when the wall is destroyed, it removes the buff (also presumably anyone standing on the wall at the time. (though I wonder if this is actually possible in WoM; all the tactical battle props seem cosmetic to me....)

Of course, I'll probably just play the crap out whatever you actually do make, (and I am confident you guys have a whole slew of more interesting and appropriate ideas) but there you go.

Absolutely.

Quoting TheProgress,

reply 8

If not, the devs will have to live knowing that they're still being out-played by a 15 year old game (MoM).

And that would be super embarassing.

Karma for you both! Why? Because meaningful siege battles are actually important.

Successfully updated karma reason!

17 year old game now. Also be outplayed by an 11 year old game (AoW), and an 8 year old game (AoW:SM). sigh...

I just always makes me so sad that the only difference between a fight between my scout and a pair of spiders out in the wastes and a fight at the largest Empire in the game's capital city is that the enemy units have a few extra hit points.

Unfortunately, since we haven't heard a peep about it since the announcement of FE this is one feature that I fear will not be implemented. Along with naval combat, uses for the sea, useful terrain, flying creatures, dramatically differentiated factions, etc. None of these by themselves are game breakers, but they're just things that one would expect from a 4x game set in a quasi-medieval/fantasy world. And all added up just leads to more disappointment.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Absolutely. Huge (currently missing) fun factor on siege battles. You can even end up with unique defensive structures (archer towers, crystal wardens, etc).

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Actually, I'd say one of elemental's biggest problems is a lack of willingness to simply lift good ideas directly from other successful strategy games.

Would elemental have been a worse game if it duplicated Civ terrain system when it came to city production and terrain improvement?

Would elemental have been a worse game if it had simply duplicated AoWs magic system with global mana generation, character specific channeling limits, and diverse spell book?

Would elemental have been a worse game if it had simply duplicated the siege warfare style and tactical battles of Master of Magic?

Would elemental have been a worse game if it had simply lifted the traditional races out of generic fantasy to make some interesting racial diversity? Dwarves good in hills excelling at production and machinery, elves good in forests with faster/invisible units, vampires with extremely strong units that steal life, ware creatures with bonds to the animals of the world, frostlings from the frozen wastes that command blizzards, the undead and their vast hordes, lizardmen from the swamps with limited production but cheap units that deal poison damage, etc.

Personally my answer to all of these questions is no. Learn from predecessors, there's a reason they're popular games.

Instead we have virtually meaningless, empty terrain; a magic system that started with half of AoWs system, shifted to the other half several months after release, and has never been as interesting; boring repetitive tactical battles; and races that differ only in skin color, starting tech and a couple +10% bonuses to resources that are rarely constraining anyway.

Obviously, there are copyright restrictions, but copying the flavor and style is perfectly legal. No one has a copyright on land producing food or a wall going across a tile based battlefield, and no one has a copyright on elves.

I understand wanting to create a unique game with your own unique world. Unique is good, but keep in mind that even Tolkien lifted most of his stuff straight out of the mythology of Northern Europe and England. And whenever you try to come up with something unique it should be at least as interesting as just copying the old stuff.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting jpmcconnell,

reply 12

Actually, I'd say one of elemental's biggest problems is a lack of willingness to simply lift good ideas directly from other successful strategy games.

Would elemental have been a worse game if it duplicated Civ terrain system when it came to city production and terrain improvement?

Would elemental have been a worse game if it had simply duplicated AoWs magic system with global mana generation, character specific channeling limits, and diverse spell book?

Would elemental have been a worse game it fit had simply duplicated the siege warfare style of Master of Magic?

Personally my answer to all of these questions is no. Learn from predecessors, there's a reason they're popular games.

Obviously, there are copyright restrictions, but copying the flavor and style is perfectly legal. No one has a copyright on land producing food or a wall going across a tile based battlefield.

I totally agree with all of this. Stardock have gone out of their way to ensure that all the systems are 'original' at the expense of 'as good' or 'better'.

There is nothing wrong with inovation, but it has to be an improvement. The tactical battles are a case in point. Why o why, wasn't the best of what is out there used in any meaningful manner? Heros of Might and Magic, MOM, AOW, Kings Bounty - all of these had great tactical systems, what we ended up with in Elemental is nothing short of sub par.

BUT, this is a new game, so I am prepared to clean the slate and see what the team can provide... (Looking forward to it actually.)

And to stay on topic, Seige battles should definately be included.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting jpmcconnell,

reply 12

Would elemental have been a worse game if it duplicated Civ terrain system when it came to city production and terrain improvement?

Would elemental have been a worse game if it had simply duplicated AoWs magic system with global mana generation, character specific channeling limits, and diverse spell book?

Would elemental have been a worse game it fit had simply duplicated the siege warfare style of Master of Magic?

I don't really agree with these rhetorical questions. While I am a great supporter of more meaningful prop interactions within tactical battles, I don't think simply going back in time and stealing ideas is inherently better for a game. While it would be cool to have siege battles with walls and siege equipment, I would also love strategic map additions as well, such as starving out populations, contaminating water supplies, or simply being able to destroy outer sections of a city.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Not sayings that ideas already in existence are better than every new idea you can come up with. Innovation is often great.

However, if your going to attempt to innovate, it has to better than whats already available or you just look silly.

Elemental tried to come up with a unique vision for tactical combat. Frankly, it sucks. I can think of many other games that have better, more fun, visions of tactical combat. If they had just copied something and tweaked it we would have a better game. Additionally, basing your own vision off the vision of others who have come before does not mean you can't innovate at the margins...

Quoting kenata,

reply 14

While it would be cool to have siege battles with walls and siege equipment, I would also love strategic map additions as well, such as starving out populations, contaminating water supplies, or simply being able to destroy outer sections of a city.

I agree with this type of stuff completely, but that's in addition to making tactical combat in general more interesting, and one easy way to do that is 1. Go back and look at other games that have successfully implemented it 2. Get inspiration from those games 3. Add those ideas to your game

Elemental tried to come up with a unique resource system. However, it makes the rest of the land extremely boring and completely useless. I know there's the argument "But it fits the lore of Elemental". In my opinion gameplay always trumps lore. Rewrite the lore and make an interesting game.

And in terms of the production and terrain system from civ I've never quite understood why there is such an aversion to adding something similar to Elemental? Whenever someone mentions it there seems to be a kneejerk response of "but that would make this too much like civ." I guess my question is so what? Civ is one of the classic strategy games for a reason. Why would Elemental be harmed by harmed by having mines, farms, and hamlets surround a city each contributing to production and output is some interesting way, each of which could be pillaged by marauding enemies? I understand that yes having improvable terrain that contributes to production is like civ, but why is that bad?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting jpmcconnell,

reply 15

Whenever someone mentions it there seems to be a kneejerk response of "but that would make this too much like civ." I guess my question is so what? Civ is one of the classic strategy games for a reason. Why would Elemental be harmed by harmed by having mines, farms, and hamlets surround a city each contributing to production and output is some interesting way, each of which could be pillaged by marauding enemies? I understand that yes having improvable terrain that contributes to production is like civ, but why is that bad?

I can't answer this one for everyone, but in my mind, the reaction is simply caused by the fact that I have never really liked the civ style of terrain and production. I would rather see the ability to build normal city improvements not simply adjacent to each other. For instance, it would be cool if:

1) Terrain effected normal city improvements

2) Improvements could be built anywhere in a cities ZoC

3) Station units could only defend connected sections.

This would give cities a more sprawled look, but would promote players to trade off resource advantages for military safety.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Would love to see something implemented along these lines with walls and sieges.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting kenata,

reply 16

I can't answer this one for everyone, but in my mind, the reaction is simply caused by the fact that I have never really liked the civ style of terrain and production. I would rather see the ability to build normal city improvements not simply adjacent to each other. For instance, it would be cool if:

1) Terrain effected normal city improvements

2) Improvements could be built anywhere in a cities ZoC

3) Station units could only defend connected sections.

This would give cities a more sprawled look, but would promote players to trade off resource advantages for military safety.

This would actually be fine with me. I just want terrain to matter is some way outside of just a few isolated resource clusters. I don't want it to feel like my cities are planets floating out in empty space. I want them to feel like towns situated in the middle of rolling hills, or forests, or plains. How Elemental actually achieves that could be done in a number of different ways. I just want it to move in that direction. Civ way is one way.

And back on the topic of sieges, making terrain outside of towns matter in some way also makes sieges more interesting. Right now there's really no incentive to come out of your city to destroy an invader... there's nothing to pillage anyway (other than that one goldmine or ancient library that only takes 5 turns and a few gildar to rebuild). Making terrain more useful makes a siege a more interesting decision. Stay in your city and let them pillage, or come out and fight?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I hope this topic stays on topic. I abslutely want siege battles in FE.

I would like other interactive tactical terrain features as well.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Heavenfall

Join Date 07/2008

+441

Sieges, hell yes. I wouldn't mind seeing a very clear tie-in with strategical mode. For example, in the shogun games you can starve the enemy city to force them to attack. But if reinforcements come to save them, you'll have to fight both.

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Or similarly as the siege wears on the enemy within grows weaker due to starvation (HPs lower, attack strength lowers, take your pick). But you can construct buildings that counter this.

I've also always been a fan of using a mechanic like this to counter the "octopus" cities that are currently ideal in Elemental. If you have vast tracks of wall to patrol your soldiers are going to get a lot more tired and hungry. You have to chose, do you bring that gold mine inside your walls at the risk of degrading your defenses?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting jpmcconnell,

reply 15

Elemental tried to come up with a unique vision for tactical combat. Frankly, it sucks. I can think of many other games that have better, more fun, visions of tactical combat. If they had just copied something and tweaked it we would have a better game.

I don't see it. Combat is an empty m*n grid with mostly basic attacks and the ability to cast limited spells, with an occasional very small +/-% defense modifier; how is that a unique vision? It's simply a very bland version of the tactical combat of all of the other games mentioned.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Heavenfall

Join Date 07/2008

+441

I agree with tanafres. The things that ARE in aren't unique at all, the whole mess simply adds up to almost nothing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I guess i was just trying to be nice. But yes, it's mainly just boring.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Tridus

Join Date 03/2008

+110

Quoting jpmcconnell,

reply 10

17 year old game now. Also be outplayed by an 11 year old game (AoW), and an 8 year old game (AoW:SM). sigh...

I just always makes me so sad that the only difference between a fight between my scout and a pair of spiders out in the wastes and a fight at the largest Empire in the game's capital city is that the enemy units have a few extra hit points.

Unfortunately, since we haven't heard a peep about it since the announcement of FE this is one feature that I fear will not be implemented. Along with naval combat, uses for the sea, useful terrain, flying creatures, dramatically differentiated factions, etc. None of these by themselves are game breakers, but they're just things that one would expect from a 4x game set in a quasi-medieval/fantasy world. And all added up just leads to more disappointment.

Agreed with this. Sadly, the fact that there hasn't been a peep on this despite it coming up before (though never asked quite so directly) only tells me that it's not happening. If it was, they'd have yelled it from the top of the walls by now because it would be such a drastic improvement. I really hope I'm wrong on that.

Its kind of hard to believe it was overlooked in the first place given how key line of sight & walls were to making tactical combat in previous games what it is.

Successfully updated karma reason!