Various Comments

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.

Moderator: Pocus

Post Reply
choppinlt
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:14 pm

Various Comments

Post by choppinlt » Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:53 am

Pocus, I have a list of comments after additional play testing and reflection from the holiday. Anyone, feel free to correct me or debate any of the following comments:
UI/QoL
  • Please streamline the process of making diplomatic requests. I think the process can be accomplished with a few less clicks.
  • Provincial management improvements: Can we be allowed to remove a building selection from the construction queue of a region straight from the provincial screen (e.g. a right click)?
  • Could we open the regional construction options for a given region in the provincial management view?
  • Can we see a list of construction options available for regions that don't have slots? Construction options that don't require slots can still be built in regions without available slots, and this can be accomplished in the provincial management screen (e.g press "economic" button and a Craft District might appear in a region with no slots). Currently there is no way to see or select a building for construction in the regional management screen, unless you have slots available.
Diplomatic
  • I understand that adjustments are going to be made regarding ceding regions as peace terms, so I won't say any more about this for now.
  • Many comments have been made about being deluged with transaction requests for provincial troops from other factions, but I believe you are aware and working on this.
  • I had mentioned in a different thread about regulating resource exchanges. Turn 1 the Hiberni and Mauryan can exchange resources (money, manpower, metal, provisional troops). I would suggest limiting this to only those factions within trade range with a direct land route or water access. I think this should apply to peace terms as well, but I just came across a thread where I think you are addressing this as well. :)
  • If 2 factions are at war and they have no water or land access to reach each other then perhaps there should be an auto truce after no troop contact for 5 turns.
  • Currently, troops in enemy territory get kicked out immediately upon a peace deal, typically to their detriment (immediate attrition). I also think you are aware and going to make some changes to this as well.
Additional Development Thoughts
The following is all interrelated...
  • It is my opinion that resources become too abundant for larger empires. Smaller factions were typically more efficient with their resources, but larger empires should suffer from inherent inefficiencies. My basic proposal is the further away from the empire capital then the 3m's (money manpower, and metal) become less efficient. More specifically resources are subject to adjustments for different circumstances applied to the region and province (raiding, loyalty, disease, natural disaster, culture/ethnicity, distance to capital, etc). I know much of this is modeled, but I think it should be a bit more restrictive to lessen available resources.
  • I would like to propose recruitment limits in provinces as a function of the manpower they produce. Right now the only provincial limiter in troop creation is equipment. While I think equipment serves an important purpose, I think manpower should be a significant factor as well.
  • You could eventually work to add provincial governors that add bonuses or maluses to the province, and could add an additional layer of intrigue with empire management. Entire provinces could refuse to cooperate (no taxes or troop creation), but what does the Emporer do about it?
  • Currently the way I see it money only has 2 purposes: paying for troops, and buying friends. Perhaps there should be other things to consider investing in?
Anyway, these are some thoughts and observations from the holiday. I love how the game is continuing to evolve and get better! 8)

rilos
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:30 am

Re: Various Comments

Post by rilos » Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:38 am

I am not familiar with all the mechanics, so I will limit my input to general suggestion :

* Add an option to sync arrival time of multiple armies would be useful.
* Aad an option to disable buildings e.g. in an emergency when the import cost bleeding you out.
* Add an option to embargo trade with specific countries.
choppinlt wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:53 am
  • Can we see a list of construction options available for regions that don't have slots? Construction options that don't require slots can still be built in regions without available slots, and this can be accomplished in the provincial management screen (e.g press "economic" button and a Craft District might appear in a region with no slots). Currently there is no way to see or select a building for construction in the regional management screen, unless you have slots available.
Agreed.

loki100
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1094
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Various Comments

Post by loki100 » Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:43 pm

rilos wrote:
Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:38 am
....
* Aad an option to disable buildings e.g. in an emergency when the import cost bleeding you out.
...
you can, but its a bit fiddly. Set the building to disband (this takes 3 turns). In this period it doesn't produce or consume. Cancel the disband for one turn. Disband again. Repeat.

In effect you keep the building (which may have cost a lot of infrastructure) but only pay the price for 1 turn in 3.

Culthrasa
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2017 3:07 pm

Re: Various Comments

Post by Culthrasa » Thu Jan 09, 2020 1:06 pm

Was just about t make a thread myself regarding suggestions, but now i don't have too! +1 to OP's suggestions!

Two things to add...

Could we have a way to mark a province? In larger empires getting things organized becomes a challenge... what was this province specialization and such...
Perhaps that we could add a tooltip ourselves i.e. "focus on metal" or "build solomons temple!!!", and/or that the province name could be color coded (green, blue, red, orange, yellow, metallic and purple). Some way to not have to examine the province everytime we visit it to build something :)

And could the larger fortifications have a Zone of Control? An enemy can use the roads the same way as the nation itself can, which doesn't make sense if large fortifications are present. A well placed fort guards the main road, bridges and mountain passes. At least reduced movement (for example not being able to use the road bonus) or just plain denial to continue.. Would make amphibious invasions more strategic too!

edit:
A third request... Could we have a button with an overlay for terrain? Stylized and easily readable? I'd like to see in a glance if a province is open/arid etc and next to what other provinces (for example knowing that a province is adjacent to an Open province makes it better to build a Granary without the bonus, but knowing it will come....). It is also very helpful for combat. Knowing what terrain an army is on or moving to without having to click on each province....

Pocus
Ageod
Ageod
Posts: 1799
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: Various Comments

Post by Pocus » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:10 am

Lot of sound remarks, I would not deny that. They fall in 3 categories: (1) quite legit and I would like to do them. (2) legit but not given priority because the team has limited 'manpower' and (3) contextual to a nation or differing depending of the player (for the UI, some players prefer one way, some another).
In particular, I would like to have a peace treaty providing a 'passage right' so you can move back your troops without them being either land locked or teleported by magical mean to your territory.

A few remarks also would complexify the game and every feature must be weighted compared to the added complexity and confusion it might add. For example it's true that it might be logical to add a restriction on the units you can create per turn because of low local manpower. But that would render the game more complex. Playing Devil's Advocate (not sure the devil deserves a capital letter ;) ) low manpower means low population. Low populations means fewer buildings slots. Few building slots means trouble having several military buildings providing equipment. So somehow, population limits recruitment speed!
AGEOD Team - Makers of Empires, ACW2, WON, EAW, PON, AJE, RUS, ROP, WIA.

FrenchDude
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:27 pm

Re: Various Comments

Post by FrenchDude » Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:23 pm

Pocus wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:10 am
Lot of sound remarks, I would not deny that. They fall in 3 categories: (1) quite legit and I would like to do them. (2) legit but not given priority because the team has limited 'manpower' and (3) contextual to a nation or differing depending of the player (for the UI, some players prefer one way, some another).
In particular, I would like to have a peace treaty providing a 'passage right' so you can move back your troops without them being either land locked or teleported by magical mean to your territory.

A few remarks also would complexify the game and every feature must be weighted compared to the added complexity and confusion it might add. For example it's true that it might be logical to add a restriction on the units you can create per turn because of low local manpower. But that would render the game more complex. Playing Devil's Advocate (not sure the devil deserves a capital letter ;) ) low manpower means low population. Low populations means fewer buildings slots. Few building slots means trouble having several military buildings providing equipment. So somehow, population limits recruitment speed!
I think that Pocus is right, as players, we would like to make some aspects of the game more complex but sometimes, some mechanisms of the game already encompass the subject in a more abstract way !

« It is my opinion that resources become too abundant for larger empires. Smaller factions were typically more efficient with their resources, but larger empires should suffer from inherent inefficiencies. My basic proposal is the further away from the empire capital then the 3m's (money manpower, and metal) become less efficient. More specifically resources are subject to adjustments for different circumstances applied to the region and province (raiding, loyalty, disease, natural disaster, culture/ethnicity, distance to capital, etc). I know much of this is modeled, but I think it should be a bit more restrictive to lessen available resources »

This part of choppinIt’s post caught my attention : It is true that sometimes having a big empire means drowning in ressources and it makes things a bit too easy. One current mechanic deals with the overflowing of money during late game : Administrative Burden. Why not make administrative burden a feature that also affects manpower and metal ? Limiting it to money isn’t enough in my opinion, because even with restrictions on money, having metal/manpower in over abundance enables the player to get money through other means (decisions, transaction deals). It could make late game’s ressource management more challenging and more fun !

Southern Hunter
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:12 am

Re: Various Comments

Post by Southern Hunter » Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:48 pm

I think administrative burden could be a good feature, but then it should be subject to investment by the player, so as to minimise it. It also needs to be folded into the UI, so the player can see the impact.

rilos
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:30 am

Re: Various Comments

Post by rilos » Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:30 pm

Southern Hunter wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:48 pm
I think administrative burden could be a good feature, but then it should be subject to investment by the player, so as to minimise it. It also needs to be folded into the UI, so the player can see the impact.
Isn't this already folded into decadence

Southern Hunter
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:12 am

Re: Various Comments

Post by Southern Hunter » Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:29 am

That is a good question. I think decadence might be a different concept.

What I do know is that, once you get past a certain point, the amount of money (especially), and manpower / iron becomes ridiculous.

rilos
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:30 am

Re: Various Comments

Post by rilos » Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:54 am

It seem to me that decadence already accounts to population size and urbanization, the larger an empire is the more you have to divest from growth (into culture generation), which sound a lot like the administrative burden you speak off.

Personally, I also enjoy from large sums of money, manpower and iron. But I face minimal military opposition and losses, something that I doubt will persist on higher difficulty levels, and with diplomacy becoming more nuanced in next update.

Seamus
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 3:36 pm

Re: Various Comments

Post by Seamus » Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:36 pm

rilos wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:54 am
It seem to me that decadence already accounts to population size and urbanization, the larger an empire is the more you have to divest from growth (into culture generation), which sound a lot like the administrative burden you speak off.

Personally, I also enjoy from large sums of money, manpower and iron. But I face minimal military opposition and losses, something that I doubt will persist on higher difficulty levels, and with diplomacy becoming more nuanced in next update.
Yes, I agree.

choppinlt
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:14 pm

Re: Various Comments

Post by choppinlt » Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:42 pm

Pocus wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:10 am
Lot of sound remarks, I would not deny that. They fall in 3 categories: (1) quite legit and I would like to do them. (2) legit but not given priority because the team has limited 'manpower' and (3) contextual to a nation or differing depending of the player (for the UI, some players prefer one way, some another).
In particular, I would like to have a peace treaty providing a 'passage right' so you can move back your troops without them being either land locked or teleported by magical mean to your territory.
Fully agree with you here, and I understand. Ideas are cheap and frequent, and most don't pan out for many reasons. I also agree that having a 'passage right' is a perfect fix to the issue of moving troops after a peace treaty. Perhaps 1-2 turns of free movement before attrition starts?
Pocus wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:10 am
A few remarks also would complexify the game and every feature must be weighted compared to the added complexity and confusion it might add. For example it's true that it might be logical to add a restriction on the units you can create per turn because of low local manpower. But that would render the game more complex. Playing Devil's Advocate (not sure the devil deserves a capital letter ;) ) low manpower means low population. Low populations means fewer buildings slots. Few building slots means trouble having several military buildings providing equipment. So somehow, population limits recruitment speed!
When you say complexify, if you mean the game itself, I'm perfectly OK with that. If you mean the game design/coding then I'm OK with that as well :lol: , but I suspect you wish to keep that under control. So your explanation about manpower makes perfect sense here. Additional complexities such as a bit more internal intrigue (like governors) could theoretically add a lot of additional flavor without too much additional complexity (both playing complexity and development complexity), BUT I understand this falls under items 2 and 3 from your post... I figured I would at least bring it up. I havn't seen or heard of a plan moving forward, but when you get to a certain point perhaps this is an area where you could create some optional DLC for purchase? I will finish by saying that I really appreciate all of you and your teams time, effort and dedication to this title. I find myself continually coming back to play Empires. 8)

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory: Empires”