Field of Glory: Empires Nation Modifiers – Which faction has the best set?

[Daniele]

One of the most important features of Field of Glory: Empires is how different and unique each one of the 77 factions plays.

The ability to build efficient fleets, emergency levies, glorious traditions, huge benevolence over populations of your same kin, type of governments and ruling parties, the list is endless.

Have you already found the set that fits best your playstyle? Or would you see featured something completely new? Let us know in the comments!

[13obo]

Let me start off by saying I just finished a Rhodos playthrough that I won by playing as a commercial-focused nation. The merchant olygarchy and hellenistic nation traits make the nation a very strong commerce-focused choice that utilises mercenaries to defend itself with a focus on the navy.

My income reached 10k gold per turn around 110th turn of the game, which was enough to buy anything money can buy. Also, I easily stayed on top of my enemies by commanding a superior fleet even if my land armies do not have the Roman legionairies or Macedonian phalanxes. Many invasion armies transport ships on the way to my islands were sank prematurely.

[devoncop]

I am a big fan of the Ptolemaic naval Legacy bonus as long as it remains with a higher combat power than their army you can harvest 5 Legacy per turn passively. It means a play style can be slow and considered whilst Legacy ticks up until a big opportunity presents itself from the recklessness of others

[13obo]

Anyone recommend some in-the-middle-of-the-action celtic/germanic tribe?

[devoncop]

Anyone recommend some in-the-middle-of-the-action celtic/germanic tribe?

The Galli or Arverni are probably the quickest to get into a rumble with in Gaul. The Arverni start with the strongest army.

[devoncop]

Anyone recommend some in-the-middle-of-the-action celtic/germanic tribe?

The Galli or Arverni are probably the quickest to get into a rumble with in Gaul. The Arverni start with the strongest army.

[13obo]

Thanks!

[Geffalrus]

Personally, I'd like a little more control over the succession aspect of the game. The seemingly completely random dice roll of traits you get can be quite disjointing. Randomness is good, but too much hinders player choice and engagement. I'd offer the following solution:

Your building system has a really nice aspect where the building options are random up to a point, but as the player, you still have control if you think and plan and be patient. I'd suggest that the succession system could borrow a bit from this. When the ruler dies (or reaches very poor health?) the player is presented with a choice of 3(?) possible heirs to the throne. Each one has a combination of traits - some good, some bad - plus an age. The player can then choose between those candidates. Additionally, each candidate should have a Major Cost. Loss of Legacy, increase of Decadence, loss of Money, Effectiveness hit, death of a general, etc etc. These costs would reflect that in addition to an heir's qualifications, there would almost always be something else going on in the background. They'd have the support of a major family, portion of the army, the merchant oligarchs, whatever. Picking one heir tended to have consequences either in the spurned options causing trouble, or there being the necessity to kill them to prevent trouble.

The combination of traits and a Cost would force the player to choose between how good a ruler do they want, does that ruler fit their strategy, does that ruler fit the geopolitical climate (warmonger in peacetime for example), and what sort of penalty can the player best absorb? Plus you add in age - do you want the awesome heir who is already old, or the less good heir who will at least live a while? The player gets bonuses and penalties based a bit more on the choices they make RATHER than 100% the whims of fate. Luck is all well and good, but players should always have some options. I'd also wager that the player would then feel more connected to their choice of ruler (good or bad) than many probably do now. If I get a real clunker due to bad luck, I just have to wait for him to die. I stop caring about that aspect of the game. It's less engaging.

Edit: One additional aspect is that you could have the trait/cost combinations and severity vary a little bit with civilization level. Young and Glorious nations could get heir candidates with more positives than negatives where the agony of choice is about what good bonuses you turn down. Old and decadent nations would instead be dealing with candidates that have more negatives (but at least one major positive?), where the agony of choice is what penalty you suffer to get the heir you need to make a strategy work. Again, the crux is that the player has an engaging choice rather than just a roll of the impersonal dice.

[devoncop]

Whilst this may be easier for the player it would not be as realistic as the current system.

Would a Roman player ever have chosen Caligula ?

Would an Egyptian player ever have chosen any of the later in-bred Ptolemy's who were almost universally incompetent ?

Why would having certain buildings affect the quality of an heir ?

I would say keep the system the same as all countries are affected by it and this is a 500 turn game so a couple of bad rulers is just something like unlucky building choices that players need to work around.

[Geffalrus]

Mmmmmm, no it would be more realistic. Our current system has rulers appear out of thin air, when it actuality, most had some level of public involvement prior to "attaining the throne." Rulers were never completely random as they had years interacting with the rest of the government during which time people got some sense of their quality and trajectory.

In Rome, Athens, and Achaea you had elections. In the Roman Empire, you had the Praetorian Guard. In Macedon you had the acclamation of the army approving the new ruler (or the convenient "accident" befalling a weak heir). New rulers always needed some level of approval from the dominant power structures within the kingdom/empire. Bureaucrats or the Army or the Oligarchs or whatever.

For the Romans, that would depend on the other options. But historically, Caligula didn't actually start out crazy - he evolved into one during his reign. As far as choosing is concerned, the ascension of Caligula was actually a popular event because 1) he spent lavishly on parties (-income, + public order) and 2) he was the offspring of the beloved Germannicus, the great Roman general (+ Legacy, more decadence). Based on the options at the time, a "player making a choice" would have had plenty of reasons for having Caligula sit the throne.

As for later Ptolemies - one thing to remember about "bad" rulers is that they are still there for a reason. People tend to forget that weak rulers are a benefit for SOMEONE. Usually, the someone is a powerful minister or general who can rule - through - the weakling. In such a case, the player might go that route because the "puppet" provides some good administration stats (reflecting the puppet master) at the cost of increased decadence, unrest penalties, and a decrease in the leader pool, all of which reflect some level of resistance to the machinations of the puppet master. So to speak. Had the player gone with a more dynamic ruler, there would be other penalties reflecting resistance from the puppet master and his cronies or other forces in the empire that want to benefit from a weak ruler. Additionally, the later Ptolemies are a great example of a Decadent Monarchy in game terms. So as I originally stated, they'd have heirs of lower quality with fewer positives and more negatives. The decadence of the civilization affects the invisible sociopolitical factors influencing major politicians. An heir in such a kingdom might be great at one thing, but they probably picked up a lot of other bad habits making them worse at others.

To be clear, I'm not saying we need all this backstory in game. I'm just using it to show the logic of how it all fits together.

Buildings wouldn't have an impact. I was just referencing that mechanic as an example of the randomness/choosing dynamic already working well in the game.

You can recycle building choices. You can't recycle a ruler.

[MoLAoS]

I really like this. Having choices is great. Always prefer player choice over randomness. Also shit rulers have the issue where you just don't do anything. Having a bad ruler often makes the game boring. You have no new activities to replace the ones the ruler renders unsafe, like war or w/e. Having a good admin changes your priorities. Having a good general the same. Diplomats similarly. Though diplomacy and its traits will be better when the diplomatic situation improves. Having a trash ruler just means you do less stuff and have fewer interesting choices.

[devoncop]

I really like this. Having choices is great. Always prefer player choice over randomness. Also shit rulers have the issue where you just don't do anything. Having a bad ruler often makes the game boring. You have no new activities to replace the ones the ruler renders unsafe, like war or w/e. Having a good admin changes your priorities. Having a good general the same. Diplomats similarly. Though diplomacy and its traits will be better when the diplomatic situation improves. Having a trash ruler just means you do less stuff and have fewer interesting choices.

The challenge is being able to exploit the good rulers to the biggest advantage and to mitigate the problems caused by bad ones.

Bear in mind relatively few rulers have zero positive traits.

Maybe for those who want a game with more player advantages the Easy level should guarantee strong rulers.....or as you seem to like only rulers with positive traits maybe that should be an option in the game set up ?

I have a truly abysmal leader as Epirus in one of my MP games who makes the average rock look inspired.

The game has still been a great experience though Epirus is not exactly flourishing

Enjoyment can come through overcoming adversity as well as exploiting strength in my view.

[MoLAoS]

I really like this. Having choices is great. Always prefer player choice over randomness. Also shit rulers have the issue where you just don't do anything. Having a bad ruler often makes the game boring. You have no new activities to replace the ones the ruler renders unsafe, like war or w/e. Having a good admin changes your priorities. Having a good general the same. Diplomats similarly. Though diplomacy and its traits will be better when the diplomatic situation improves. Having a trash ruler just means you do less stuff and have fewer interesting choices.

The challenge is being able to exploit the good rulers to the biggest advantage and to mitigate the problems caused by bad ones.

Bear in mind relatively few rulers have zero positive traits.

Maybe for those who want a game with more player advantages the Easy level should guarantee strong rulers.....or as you seem to like only rulers with positive traits maybe that should be an option in the game set up ?

I have a truly abysmal leader as Epirus in one of my MP games who makes the average rock look inspired.

The game has still been a great experience though Epirus is not exactly flourishing

Enjoyment can come through overcoming adversity as well as exploiting strength in my view.

The issue isn't overcoming adversity but being frozen. If you start off with a superior administrator and suddenly flip to the reverse trait, which has happened to me, you are basically frozen. You can't do anything. And you are helpless to prevent it. Decadence explodes and causes massive issues, revolts everywhere, etc from loyalty penalties and so forth. Its not as bad with the military trait though since units not gaining exp slow isn't a decisive change from them gaining it fast.

With the system of picking a ruler from a list of choices you can change your direction but you don't become paralyzed. The game lacks in many areas of simulation besides combat and buildings/trade. So if you get frozen from one of the key gameplay areas it reduces the things you can do. When you swap from a generally good leader to a generally bad one you mostly just turtle. There's no some alternative gameplay element you engage with. Swapping from military to administrative or from diplomacy to getting the architect trait or something is a shift in gameplay rather than a reduction.

[13obo]

I would agree that current inheritance system is although probably somewhat realistic, it nevertheless spoils the fun a bit if you end up with a horrible ruler. Even with generals, you have an option of choosing them, since you have a pool to pick from.

[Southern Hunter]

So far, I find Dacia very strong. Especially the Dacian forts are great for defending your perimeters.

Love that there are so many unique buildings and mechanisms for different nations.

[GodOfNothing]

Cyrene's starting elective govt is a pretty nice boost to an already commercial focused govt. And not a bad start either, just sit back and hope for Egypt to explode