|
I lost a lot of interest when the mentioned tactical combat. I'm really really sick of tactical combat in my 4X games. It interrupts the flow and rarely adds much to the game. If I want to play xcom I'll go play xcom.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
Judging purely on one of the screenshots from steam it just looks like an iteration on the Endless Legend combat system. My ideal 4x combat would be HoMM3 style simple hex battles with a few abilities/leader powers (maybe a deck of cards style? I'm a sucker for card games), done in the strategic map like Endless Legend. Hopefully they nail it here. The main problem with Endless Legend's was just not having direct control over units - I liked the idea of it but not the implementation. Chadzok fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Aug 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
Chadzok posted:
You pretty much just exactly described Age of Wonders: Planetfall which just came out last week. It really scratches the endless legend itch and has WAY better tactical combat. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3857341
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
Bounced off it. The UI just didn't agree with me and also one of my key points in that post was integrating the tactical combat into the overworld map. I don't like the 'smash-transition, now we're in a totally different game' approach to combat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
https://www.polygon.com/2019/8/19/20809087/humankind-sega-amplitude-windows-pc-release-date-preview-civilization
Kurtofan fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Aug 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
"As the game progresses, my cities, my culture, and my military become a melting pot of different influences. My early charioteers survive through to later ages, but are upgraded and modernized along the way, always keeping that Egyptian feel. Ancient marvels of north Africa sit alongside the beauty of medieval European cathedrals." I really need to know what cultures i can make with this
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
i'm gonna make communist vikings holy moley 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
The reveal video has what looks like a neanderthal in space, so maybe it's more than just homo sapiens. [img-animatrix-imreal]
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
Yeah that would be real cool if the first choice is different species of human - homo floresiensis, neanderthal, denisovan etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
Civilization that's got beautiful modern graphics and is not one unit per turn (1upt) will be great! Even if the AI sucks, it can't suck as bad as an AI trying to Nth dimensional chess 1UPT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
Oh man oh man this is exciting. Firaxis really dropped the ball with Civ 6 (and I think fumbled a bit with Civ 5) so seeing a historical 4x from what's now the best developer in the genre is even more exciting than another Endless game (I hope they still make Endless games).
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
We haven't had a proper whole history game since Call to Power 20 years ago. And Rise of Nations a little later, if you can count it. Amplitude is the developer I trust to pull it off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
I liked Civ 6 a fair bit but there's two companies I'd trust to challenge Firaxis on the historical 4x front and Amplitude is one of them, so by all means.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 07:06
|
|
|
It's far too early to speculate but I have concerns about builds being "civilization" choices throughout the ages instead of the choices you make with the different civs. It's probably completely unfounded, but just something that came to mind. Also Endless Legend's gear micro management is hopefully not going to be a thing. I also don't like the combat system. If they do something super simple like basic grid based combat with rock paper scissor style fire emblem units, that'll be amazing. When was the last time a 4x game actually had good combat when it was it's own thing instead of being abstracted?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 07:25
|
|
|
My hope is that they're making tactical combat so that all the people who think 4X games need tactical combat were satisfied, but really they'll do with something simple or straightforward. Recent Field of Glory Empires is perfect in that regard (especially with an option to play combat as 1.5 hour battle in a separate game if you think you deserve this). Resolving the battle takes half a minute and demonstrates you the influence of generals, troop types, quality of troops, geography etc. I'll be slightly disappointed if combat is as complex as EL. Still I doubt you'll have that system of unit equipment, it's hard to imagine they shoehorn something more complex than bronze weapons/iron weapons/steel weapons, I guess?.. As for civilization choice my only concern is that it will all become hard to process and there's no personality. The hope is that you'll still see every nation as Napoleon/Caesar/Shaka with their own personality, and you'll know that Lenin is not just Russian (which is probably a choice around of Renessaince) but Hittite, Khmer, and Aztec.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 08:28
|
|
|
Meridian posted:It's far too early to speculate but I have concerns about builds being "civilization" choices throughout the ages instead of the choices you make with the different civs. It's probably completely unfounded, but just something that came to mind. this is probably my strongest reaction The weaker issue is that mechanically I worry about it being one of those "modular system turns out to be solvable" things The bigger problem is that basically every video game that tries to tie the whole of a society to mechanics winds up hackish, crude, and lazy. Rise of Nations is one of my favorite games of all time and even I can't defend that aspect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 14:19
|
|
|
I have to agree with the sentiment that it is nice to see someone challenge the Civilization franchise and that Amplitude is a good company to do it. I just hope they hired an AI guy, if that is even a thing. I also agree with the sentiment that the combat better not be as fiddly as ELs and unit customization better not be so detailed or even a thing at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 14:22
|
|
|
Of course AI guys are a thing, that's written in my diploma.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
i don't expect them to, but i really hope they cut back on all the pointless busywork customization that plagued combat in EL and ES2. i did not find it fun at all, nor did it seem to matter all that much im also curious how this game will take advantage of their strengths, which are in visual design and writing rather than gameplay
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 14:32
|
|
|
Tulip posted:this is probably my strongest reaction Same. It's likely that there will always be a best choice, and that culture will be chosen every game, regardless of what has been happening in that game. Still preliminary though. Maybe they'll make it work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
Iiiiinteresting! Good to see Civ getting some competition, and I'm really happy that Amplitude's still alive and kicking. I wonder if we'll be seeing more of Amplitude's habit of giving factions a really small number of highly customisable units. I may be reading things wrong, but the impression I'm getting is that if you pick Egypt then you get chariots for the rest of the game- presumably they become motorised eventually?- meaning you'll have access to fast ranged units for your campaign....
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
I really want to see motorized chariots now
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 10:55
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:I really want to see motorized chariots now Witness me, bloodbag
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 11:22
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:I really want to see motorized chariots now Those are one of the saddest cuts from Fallout New Vegas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
On the official forums, the devs have said the units per tile will be similar to EL  , and that there will be a [stronger] tactical component when the battles happen. Not sure how I feel about it going more along the XCOM/AOW direction, but it's got to be better than 1UPT since you can presumably just auto-resolve if you really want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
Really wonder if a stronger tactical element is just a marketing term. Maybe they mean that strategic element of the battle - deciding on your troop and heroes equipment, heroes skills, getting buffs from various sources - will be weaker compared to role of right decisions in combat itself. It doesn't sound so good to me, cause it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth when efforts of a huge empire that existed for millennia are moot because some general made a dumb move. It's bad both thematically and gameplay-wise, and it often leads to a game being "solvable". Still, Amplitude didn't get in that trap yet so maybe it's not what it seems. I certainly hope that the war will always be a grind, and tactics won't allow you to win hopeless battles with no losses like tactics-heavy grand strategy games often allow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 08:58
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:It doesn't sound so good to me, cause it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth when efforts of a huge empire that existed for millennia are moot because some general made a dumb move.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 13:22
|
|
|
It's telling that the most renown Roman military defeat happened when they were in their golden age, hundreds of years before they perished.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 13:33
|
|
|
And the defeat was more, "well, I guess this is where the gravy train stops" than "this is the beginning of the end."
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
A game that reflected most of the more coherent philosophies of history would probably be really unfun since feedback takes centuries and you wouldn't control "an empire" but like "a person who tries to tell administrators and mobs what to do and hopes for the best." Plus you can't "win" history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
Tulip posted:A game that reflected most of the more coherent philosophies of history would probably be really unfun since feedback takes centuries and you wouldn't control "an empire" but like "a person who tries to tell administrators and mobs what to do and hopes for the best." Plus you can't "win" history. Sure you can. Oblivion is the final destination of all mortal toil after all. Now I want to play a God game where the goal is to trainwreck civilization indirectly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 15:13
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:Sure you can. Oblivion is the final destination of all mortal toil after all. isn't that just late game SimCity/SimEarth
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:It's telling that the most renown Roman military defeat happened when they were in their golden age, hundreds of years before they perished. toasterwarrior posted:"well, I guess this is where the gravy train stops"
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
I'm talking about the fact that military tactics are often remembered as something important but it's often more of a symbolic thing. Like 300 Spartans didn't really achieve anything from the military point of view, and that Teutoburg forest didn't decide the fate of Rome or Germany. Maybe tactics decide something when everything else is in balance, like Battle of Gaugamela. But games that rely heavily on the tactical side of the whole picture are often bad both from gamedesign point of view and historical feeling. They really go for Hollywood history feel, when everything leads to a single glorious battle. And it's the way new players tend to play strategy games, preparing for a decisive battle that may never come. Games like XCOM or maybe even Age of Wonders or Total War can do this cause they know they're about tactics. But when you're talking about grand empires through the centuries it's a little repulsive when they're decided by a lowly troop commander.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:I'm talking about the fact that military tactics are often remembered as something important but it's often more of a symbolic thing. Like 300 Spartans didn't really achieve anything from the military point of view, and that Teutoburg forest didn't decide the fate of Rome or Germany. Maybe tactics decide something when everything else is in balance, like Battle of Gaugamela. But games that rely heavily on the tactical side of the whole picture are often bad both from gamedesign point of view and historical feeling. They really go for Hollywood history feel, when everything leads to a single glorious battle. And it's the way new players tend to play strategy games, preparing for a decisive battle that may never come. But the success of empires isn't decided by anyone in particular. They also don't last nearly as long as these games do. The whole genre is built on gamest bullshit. It sounds more like you really hate the tactical layer and are coming up with "historical" justifications for why it is bad. You don't have to, its fine to just hate Civ's combat. edit: We could make the exact same argument about pretty much any decision made in a 4x. Technology trees have very little to do with the actual progression of technology. Culture is more the product of environment and neighbors than a list of options civilizations choose from. Egypt had chariots because of the terrain, not because that was their innate, genetic contribution to the world. Everything about the genre can be described as repulsive and gross if you only care about a "realistic" portrayal of history. KPC_Mammon fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Aug 22, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
KPC_Mammon posted:Everything about the genre can be described as repulsive and gross if you only care about a "realistic" portrayal of history. yesh, reality is a lovely video game Also remember that the Spartans were only powerful between the Peloponnesian War and the Battle of Leuctra, which is like 30 years
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Tulip posted:yesh, reality is a lovely video game
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
KPC_Mammon posted:It sounds more like you really hate the tactical layer and are coming up with "historical" justifications for why it is bad. You don't have to, its fine to just hate Civ's combat. I've said that I don't like it from game design perspective and answered (probably imagined) point of view that it makes sense thematically or historically. Any feature that hijacks the game is bad. If, say, filling museums with stuff becomes much more complex and much more important in Civ I'll hate that too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
my guess is that by tactical they mean cover options and destructible objects, that kind of stuff. They kind of got close with EL with varying terrain types and the limited advantages of elevation for some damage boosts, line of sight, and pathing, but EL didn't have cover per se, or destructible objects, just line of sight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
my guess (hope) is they mainly mean you control the units directly instead of whatever the hell endless legend combat was meant to be
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2019 22:51
|
|