A vision for the game

The cataclysm occurred without warning. Was it caused by the Gods fighting among themselves? Or did the buildup of magic trigger it? No one knows or has the ability to care. Survival is more important now.

The destruction so much, caused much knowledge to be lost. The fall from civilization was rapid. From living in the great cities and empires to fighting for survival caused millions to die. Over the course of these lost years, Knowledge became myth, and myth was distorted into a reality that never existed.

Leaders arose during this time to help. They gathered like minded people to expand their reach. However, suspicion and mistrust was the rule of the day. If you were not with us, you were against us.

As the years went past, the great cities dissolved into dust, their valuables lost or hidden by the sands of time. Other creatures arose to fill in the void left by the fall. Yet still people continued their struggle to live. They had to keep moving to avoid, not just the forces of nature and the magic that has run amok, but other groups as well. The division of the world into competing factions was complete.

These factions were willing to avoid each other given the other common dangers they faced in the world. Plus as these groups were constantly moving, finding each other was difficult to impossible. So the world was once again in balance.

The records do not reflect which faction was the first one to found a permanent settlement. It is also unclear as to how the other factions gained this knowledge. Some say, the balance was broken by this event, so to keep the balance all the other leaders were given a vision. Others say it was just time and all felt it at once. Regardless of how this occurred, within a very short period of time, all the factions had made a challenge to, not just the other factions, but to the world at large ‘ Here I am!’.  The race to rebuild civilization was on.

The above is my vision of how the game gets to where it starts. Given this, founding any cities past the first one should be HARD. And I mean very very hard :). As each turn is a quarter of a year, it should take ages to collect enough population/supplies to create a second city. Much less the trained people needed to support it, i.e. militia, artisans, etc. So I basically would like the ability of city spamming by both the AI and humans, to be much reduced. It should be a struggle to locate another faction's borders, much less establish a trade route.

To me the game should reflect this struggle to rebuild a civilization from nothing. To me, the game does not do this at all. Within two years or so after founding your first city, you can have a Pioneer build and another city shortly. Of course if it is felt that the bulk of the player population just wants to blast out cities, then that is fine. I just did not think that was what this game was trying to accomplish.

Several suggestions to make this feel like the struggle it should be (to me anyway) are

-Increase the cost of Pioneer dramticaly

-Pioneers are not built by the player or AI, but are automaticly granted either on a fixed schedule or they could be granted by certain triggers or events that the player/AI accomplishes. For example by exploring X% of the map. This could relect looking for other smaller groups that are still wandering in the wilds. Every additional Y% could grant another one.

-Have netural cities alrady established that join the first person to find them or provide quests that after completing, the city will join your faction.

-Have a special faction ability, say a National Focus that provides several options on what is the most important direction for the entire faction would be. Once of these choices would be 'Expansion' where after X number of consective turns with the focus on Expansion a Pioneer unit is granted. Or even better, a city is automaticly built in a good location nearby.

Of course, having the AI function properly in any other suggestion other than the first one may be problimatic v_v

17,090 views 13 replies
Reply #1 Top

here's another option:

have a scaling mana/gold cost for the building of each city.  your first city is free, natch :grin: .  your second city costs 50 mana/200 gold. your third city costs 100/400, 4th = 200/800, 5th = 400/1600, etc...  the actual scale could be varied depending on the size of the world map (so larger maps have lower costs).

cities should also incur a constant mana cost as well, based entirely on the size of their ZOC.

It's a simple change.  It makes sense with the lore (you're clearly using magic to rejuvenate the world).  And I don't think it would be very hard to teach the AI how to deal with it.

 

Reply #3 Top

I like the idea, maybe add a time component as well - it takes the sovereign or another champion N turns of sitting immobile at the city location to heal the land enough to create a city there. 

Reply #4 Top

And that is an ok vision. I perfer the game to be more like a 4x statagy game where I can expand with out gimicky story line restraints. A sandlot game should not have such constraints put upon it.   Now a campaign game is different and it should have more of these story elements and well as others (campaign creator would be nice)

Reply #5 Top

It's an okay vision, but gameplay usually triumphs over vision. Extending the early phase too much has its own problems. Mainly in that all you will be doing is walking around with your sovereign for god knows how long. That tends to get boring pretty fast unless you can somehow make the exploration part really exciting and fun. Which I think is okay in the current system, but probably not something I would want to extend for a couple of hundred turns. If anything, people are already complaining that the game feels too slow.

To address your suggestions specifically, if you make pioneers too costly/hard to get, you run into the problem of what happens when that pioneer becomes too valuable. Putting aside the fact that outposts would have to be completely redesigned, what happens when you lose that pioneer (be it through monsters, or sneaky players assassinating them, or whatever)? Even if you just make the city pops out... what happens if that city gets run over by a monster (or a player attack)? If you spent too much effort (turns) to get that city... it is essentially a game over. It seems to me like your vision just tries to make it hard to settle for the sake of the vision, but fails to take into account any of the actual hostile forces that are out there in the world.

Reply #6 Top

I'm not sure if this is one of those "go play another game " issues for the devs but I also would like to see the catacylsm to civilization process more played out than it currently is. I feel the problem with cities and pioneers is in the numeric formulaic population system that is a holdover from civ and really doesnt work with this sort of game.

I think instead of some obscure hidden formula being the source of population quests to rescue/convince/tame lost fragments/tribes could be offered. When you've saved up enough money to "fund an expedition" the game sends you to a quest location somewhere on the map. You then have several options how to deal with that population and your success in doing so results in how many people you bring back with you and what kind of production/food/research/mana ect they add to the city. Through bringing population to those outposts they become cities and gain levels. To prevent spam those populations will go nomadic again or die off if you dont bring them fresh members once in a while. Raiding/Attacking the population quest target brings back the least but at minimum keeps a city from breaking up. Any unit can establish camps which provide zones of control. If a unit stays in the camp forashort time you have the option of upgrading it to an outpost which provides larger ZoC and defensive bonus. Camps/Outposts without a unit station their for more than 3-4 session become bandit/monster lairs.

Reply #7 Top


The main issue I am attempting with this thread, is somehow prevent the entire map filling up with cities and outposts within a very short period. I tried playing on a larger map several times with a reduced number of AI. And they still covered the map with cities and outposts within a few 100 turns. That is only 25 -50 years. It took a 100 years just to get the first settlements across the Appllicians from when Jamestown was first settled in America. Yet an entire world can be overrun in less time?

If city spamming is what everyone wants then that if fine and I will go play something else as there are other games where city spamming is not the point of play. I was just hoping for a game that better reflects the struggle that developing cities truely was. Even in the 1900s, towns and cities were abandomed for many reasons. So developing a city and keeping it viable should be much harder in the game than it is now.

 

Just my opnion of course |-)

 

Reply #8 Top

@Numdyar, you and I are on the same page.  I feel like with FE Stardock has a lot of opportunity to really re-imagine a lot of the 4x tropes.  And as 4x tropes go, expand or die is one of the lamest and most indefensible, but it's also the most universal.

As with most issues on this forum, this is not an either-or thing.  The idea isn't to get rid of quick expansion as a strategy, it's to make it so there are other viable strategies.

Reply #9 Top

I was hoping there would be more like me :)

I just really feel that a game that has all the mobs wandering around on the map of varing levels means that real civilization has been absent for a long time. So starting to rebuild from such a limited beginning should be a lot harder. Rather than 50-100 tuens into the game, not only do you find 1-2 more factions, they likely have 3-4 cities and/or outposts.

If the game starts out a such a primitive level with tech an abilities, the AI and the player should have a much harder time of expanding and finding each other than now exists in the game. Otherwise why not just start the game with the world fully occupied with cities and eliminate the mobs entirely. The whole Explore function compared to the rest of the 4X suite seems horribably unbalanced. So I really hope this is addressed in the future as I do not want to spend 1/10 of the game on Explore and the other 90% of the rest.

Obvious other opinions may vary :grin:

Reply #10 Top

Quoting Numdydar, reply 7

If city spamming is what everyone wants then that if fine and I will go play something else as there are other games where city spamming is not the point of play. I was just hoping for a game that better reflects the struggle that developing cities truely was. Even in the 1900s, towns and cities were abandomed for many reasons. So developing a city and keeping it viable should be much harder in the game than it is now.
 
End of Numdydar's quote

 

I don't think that it is a matter of 'People Want City Spam'. Quite the contrary, I think we see plenty of evidence that the community in general isn't fond of the precise brand of pioneer vomit that E:FE currently engages in.

 

The things is, however, that they also don't like the slow start to the game. Perhaps for the sake of your vision, we could do the window dressing that the last few incarnations of the Civ line have used, which is to have a "Turn" mean something different as you get further into the game. For the sake of gameplay, however, I think that it actually needs to speed up.

 

The two issues, as I see it are:

First and foremost, that playing fewer city strategies does not have any significant benefits. Sure, you grow faster, but it just means you hit your population cap faster. Benefit lost. The benefits for expanding is more and better access to resources (mana and otherwise), more access to population which gives you production, gold, and research, which gets you more access to buildings and weaponry. The stuff of victory. The downsides of massive expansion is.... Your cities grow slower, which means that they get to actually UTILIZE that all-important prestige for more turns of the game. Volatile resource actually creating  a benefit.

 

Second, as you identified, aside from conquest there does not really seem to be a way to mismanage and lose a city by your own hand. I don't think I have ever seen a population shrink, and by the time you have access to buildings with maintenance COSTS (which is to say you are able to actually produce enough of them), you are pulling in piles of cash and those maintenance costs don't matter.  I'm pretty sure that this aspect is going to change quite soon, and really hope that the first does as well.

Reply #11 Top

I really like the idea of questable resources with different outcomes. The development of the world via quests of varying difficulty could adress much of this issue without actually having to change anything in terms of pioneer costs or pop count. Like we have to shut down a death cult to make that fertile land near the river even arable (e.g. usable for city building). With higher quests granting acess to better spots. If there really is such a scarcity of food that is not only a problem for the mahor kingdoms and empires but also for all kinds of animals and non aligned intelligent beings (darklings, bandits, wildlings and so on). So certain lairs could control the land around them and make builing there actually impossible until the lair has been cleared or even better a linked quest completed.

Reply #12 Top

 

.   

This kind of requests have been pop up so many times.   No player like city spams, or boring mop-up, yet it is so hard to avoid with traditional 4X game mechanics, including FE.

Years ago, I've offered a possible solution below for a fresh & pioneering 4X fantasy game.

Achievement based building and unit bonus (Resolving the game being won in the first 10 min & then spending the next 2 hours going through the motions)

[GamePlay] Ranking Bonus, can make FE the best ever game.

And unfortunately, I am not seeing any of this happening in FE beta.    The only achievement so far in FE is controlling as much land as possible, which, is so traditional.   Is the current victory condition doing the job of making this game also a 'land grab/control' game?  

A great 4X game will be a game with long & fun struggles mid-game (or even better, late-game).   Preferably, there are multiple tipping points in the game, make us feel up & down etc.    

Has FE got that as a design goal?  Or, what is the vision of FE, from developer's POV?  

Reply #13 Top

Fun idea climber :), I would actually like to try out that game inside your mind with acheivement based buffs, as long as its done nicely it can be a really neat addition, although I would not get my hopes up here ^_^

Sincerely
~ Kongdej