I hope this hasn't been discussed too in depth before, but, I find one of the most annoying things about alot of TBS games is that...simply having the most cities/provinces means you are automatically the most powerful. Civ4 attempted to address this, as the more cities you had, the more expensive they were to maintain...This was alrighty, though at some point that game start almost punishing you for having too many cities, which it's good either.
--What I would like to know is, will it be possible to not only survive, but also remain competitive in this game even if you don't have alot of territory. Personally I hope that the cost to research technology/spells is scaled based on how many cities you have...that way even small nations can keep up in the tech race, and remain an important force in the world. Larger nations would still be able to produce more, and field larger armies. As it has been said that founding new cities cost essence, it would make since that this game would not force you to have alot of cities to be a powerful country...And how you run your faction should be alot more important than just how big it is...Your thoughts?
So let me get this straight, you MUST spend essence to create city/towns? Is this correct?
You are not required to spend essence to maintain a town/city?
If so, would'nt it be bettter to let your opponent create towns/cities, and just capture them, if there isn't a corresponding cost in essence (which I understand to be finite) to do so?
Or does the original creator get the essence back, if a city/town is captured?
Defenders are almost always given a huge advantage in battle.
Same as my last reply. Defenders are almost always given a huge edge in battle. It takes a lot less resources, in a well balanced game, to defend two cities than to defend one and attack another. So my second city is going to get garrisoned with troops (say 2/3 in my "capital and 1/3 in the new city) An agressor with only one city would have to build up to the point of maintaining protection of his capital (or risk losing it) and also building up a superior force to attack the new town... again I am seeing a tendency to want to get your essence back from conquered lands. Not saying YOU are advocating this but I see themindset quite a bit. I think that would be an almost game-breakingly poor decision.
I think there is always going to be a risk/reward for expanding - there always is in this type of game. I think with as little as we know, to make the assumption that expanding is going to leave you in a position that your new town is just going to be taken over - I think that is reading a bit much into the tea leaves, it is exactly balancing between the Gandalfs and the city builders that I think will determine how great this game is.
I agree. This is the largest balance issue I can see comming down the pipe. I worry that by making cities so much more expensive (Essence cost) they will become much larger targets. A hero who has has essence spent on him is mobile and can be moved to a safer location if needed, a city can not (Or can it?).
Sammual
It seems it's also going to depend on map size. At first, I didn't know what the heck you guys were talking about. Then I remembered that not everyone plays on "huge" map sizes. Since on a large map, the changes of finding the enemy before they can build a resonably strong first town is slim to nil.
exactly. map size and pure distances (keep in mind larger map sizes usually mean more active players, unless you specify otherwise). in 4x games, it takes time to scout out the map in, find the other players and send your army over there, provided you have one ready and it is well equipped to whatever path your enemy took militarily. also, a second city is not only a liability, it produces stuff! maybe not so much in the first couple of turns, but by the time any sort of real war takes place it should be able to produce something. as such, investing in a new city could give you access to more troops, maybe resources for better troops. after all, where would you recruit this army you were speaking of with just one city?
and yeah, it somewhat counters what I wrote about small being better. it shows how both options could be viable paths and the game would certaintly be interesting, if they really are both competitive.
I know some of you want the Uber Channeler to be exactly equal in combat power to the City troops + lesser Channeler, but in a direct confrontation, the troops + channeler HAS to be MORE powerful than the Uber Channeler.
The advantage that the Uber Channeler will automatically enjoy is that he IS his combinded power. The city owning channeler with troops (while overall much more powerful) still has the MASSIVE operational challenge of focusing all his might at once against the Super Channeler. While the Super Channeler will have a much easier time picking his fights and avoiding fighting combined armies that might be a threat to him (especially if the Channeler can use essense to increase his speed stats).
So, while overall weaker, the Uber Channeler will enjoy the simplicity of not having to coordinate and time the deployment of his forces to the same extent as the Lesser Channeler (who has many cities and units).
Excellent. Hadn't thought of that. Plus, it IS esier (although not necissarily easy) to sit in one place and hoard essence than make an empire.
Also, dont forget the multiple VCs. Maybe an expander WOULD have an advantage for a conquest VC, but the uber channeler (because only small groups can crawl dungeons) would be at an advantage for the Quest victory. Maybe the guy who goes somewhat Gandalf builds one uber fortress city, but rather than expand his borders he runs around clearing dungeons and following the quest. Another balancing issue - the builder/conquester that plays his gamestyle well should be achieving the military force to crack the nut (that sounds wrong) of the Uber channeler's capital uber fortress at about the same time that the equally well played uber channeller is getting close to finishing the Ultimate Quest.
And definitely I feel like if the builder overextends himself on expansion, those border towns are going to be gifts to the uber channeler and his small group of heroes.
Another thought - maybe the choice to "go Gandalf" would have something to do with scarcity of resources. Maybe you start a game planning to hoard essence and become uber channeler - but you start the game and are literally surrounded by resources. You'd be crazy no to lay down your capital and crank out the armies imo. Or the reverse, you are planning to build an army to Stand the Test of Time (tm), but there are no resources to be found near your starting position....maybe time to consider becoming the sole mega wizard-warrior with a few demigodly heroes as your companions....
[...]So, while overall weaker, the Uber Channeler will enjoy the simplicity of not having to coordinate and time the deployment of his forces to the same extent as the Lesser Channeler (who has many cities and units).
I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree with you. The Uber Channeler is his combined power, true. That's his strength and his weakness. It means when he is on the field, pretty much everything is on the field. But that means that he can't divide his forces, protect or fight on multiple fronts. He can't attack and defend.
But at the same time if the City troops + lesser Channeler is weaker in direct confrontation than the Uber Channeler then there would be no outright way for the lesser Channeler to defeat the Uber Channeler. In other words, if the Uber Channeler made a bee-line for the lesser Channeler's capital city, the lesser channeler would be completely unable to stop him. So I guess I do agree with you after all.
It is going to be one hell of a ride getting the balance right, though.
Hi Pigeonpigeon, small point with the first paragraph of your response. The Uber Channeler doesn't need massive armies to fight on multiple fronts and defend supply lines.....he doesn't really have any. In fact, he'll probably only have a really built up fortress and nothing else (unless he took it from another player).
Well I'd imagine a channeler would still be pretty uber if he's got one, maybe even two settlements besides the first. And even if he doesn't, there is still the problem of attacking and defending. You cannot invade your enemy and defend your town(s) if your military might is all concentrated into one unit.
I don't know if the Uber Channeler really cares so much about his town in this case.....I mean, does anybody know if the game is a 'lose last town and your channeler dies' kind of game?
From what I've read, I wouldn't assume losing your last town would end the game (although settings for that kind of thing are a must).
Even still, from all Brad's talk about being able to hoard essence to create an uber channeler, I still get the impression that the intention is to have said channeler at the head of a (small) army, not as the army. And I'm sure having at least one city will confer major advantages over being homeless. So if all my assumptions and impressions are anywhere close to being right, I imagine a lone, homeless channeler to be relatively easy pickings.
But I guess we don't really know much at all for certain. We could discuss this for pages and pages, but it'd probably be more productive to wait for alpha or beta to see how things are before trying to figure out the right balance.
I was under the impression that we'll be starting the game without a city. Our channeler will then get to find and choose a good spot....so that means it isn't game over without a city.
Well... how does spell research work? Can the channeler wear equipment like normal units?
If you need libraries to research spells and to create some gear for yourself, the "uber channeler" won't be uber for very long compared to a city builder. That's all but impossible to balance properly.
So, by the end of the process I don't expect it. You're going to need some cities. The question becomes do you imbue some really powerful generals with your essence, or act as your own uber general?
Actually, I don't have the quote to prove it, but brad definitely stated that you start the game with just yourself (i.e. the channeler) wandering around. I think he said that if you then decided to invest essence in an area to make it habitable people would be drawn from the surroundings to populate the town.
Also he said somewhere that he would like to see uber channelers walking around in battles like sauron in the beginning of LOTR. Also the negative to keep in mind with that is that if the channeler dies, game over, no spell of return, nothing.
On a related note to "fittest", how many people would like the ability to have Channelers start with different amounts of Essence? New post here for those interested.
That's why I've become interested in the idea of champions as alternate 'production points' for things like research. Especially for something like magic, there's all manner of precedents for great minds working with few or no material supports like libraries. A champion researcher posted to a mages' guild would boost their output, but she should still have a basic output of her even if you just let her hang in a cave and meditate for a season or three.
Some of the Just You to Start With talk is in Brad's journal A stragegy game that is also a world. I hadn't really paid attention, but that post does at least suggest that there will be no traditional settler unit at the start of the game (or maybe ever?).
That could solve that problem, yeah. But there's magic nodes you can capture. Who guards those?
I just don't see the game working in the long term with "going Gandalf" as a viable option. "Going Sauron" would make more sense, because while Sauron was in there being a badass at the front of his army, he actually owned territory and had an army.
So to me, the distinction is between someone like Sauron who hordes his power and leads his army personally, or something like an Age of Wonders 2 wizard who spreads his power around and sits in a tower lobbing spells from a safe distance (while imbuing Champions to go into the field).
Well, the second city will obviously result in greater military production as well as greater income to support a larger military. In the LONG TERM, that will be the counter to Bob. Also, you'll be able to send out scouts/raiders to harrass enemy caravans (Bob can't be in 2 places at once) while also fielding an army that is a threat to Bob.
In the short term, Bob can come to get you before you have time to build up your second city and make a mighty military....but Bob has to get by your Channeler first = dead Bob unless he can outmanuever you!
Now, the enemy Channeler AND Bob could show up...but that Channeler will have a completely empty single city that is ripe for anyone else to take.
Hmmm, seems like there is a lot of potential for balance here.
I LOVE random maps but hate when your starting position sucks. If you have sufficent options to make any starting position good with the approiate strategy I would be thrilled.
By my understanding, the map generator will employ some sort of anti-suckage algorythm to prevent corners, islands, and other unpleasant places from becomeing start positions.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
