So, the year is 2012, and the final expansion pack has just been released and reviewed. The following were the points made by the reviewers to illustrate what has made this game an all-time classic. My crystal ball says that these are the highlights.
Anyway, my contribution to this thought experiment. Feel free to dust off your own crystal balls and prognosticate (wishful thinking is also encouraged).
Expanding on unique tech trees dream; I liked the idea of uncommon/rare techs although the implementation I saw before they disappeared was quite bad. I think there was a lot of potential in the idea for rarer more powerful techs to make games a bit more unique, and I hope its added in the hopefully inevitable makeover of the current tech tree. Honestly now that work is probably going to begin on patching soon hopefully I'm going to be plugging this as much as possible along with the more obvious stuff like complete redo of:
Diplomacy: It boggles my mind how many big companies are getting this concept completely wrong the last year or two. Civ 5 and Elemental being the greatest offenders of games I was looking forward to. I can't think of any companies that have made this more interesting or experimented with interesting new ideas, but it seems some are getting it outright wrong now....somehow. Being locked into treaties ruining conquest victory possibility and being able to get away with turning faction's cities into volcano's with no effect on reputation is rather ridiculous to start with.
Equipment: Wizardy gear, rogue-ish gear (much already in by not really balanced), and stat prerequisites for more powerful gear (oh look now champions are unique and not clones). Ex. Broadsword of Badassery, req 45 str, knife of eyepoking 25 dex, longbow of shootierness 30dex 25 str.
Skills: skills/bonuses for leveling up for champions + sov for deep customization and replayability. Sky's the limit with possibilities for this one. Passive skills, tactical skills, city garrison bonuses, etc.
One of the greatest boon to giving the game more interesting choices would be a passive enchant system, allowing you to assign enchants to weapons and/or armor. These enchants would then passively affect the unit, for example, giving a chance when attacking to do extra [fire/ice/chaos/true/*] damage. Ideally, these would receive minor bonuses from shards as well (higher chance to go off).
It would need careful tuning, to make sure that one enchant was never "always the best one". Ideally, different enchants would excel at different things.
This would help with populating the world with magic - even if it's a weak one - making the fantasy world feel infinitely more magical.
Nice concise list. Well done.
2012? The year that Stardock released "Elemental 2: Return of the Master of Magic"
All I'm asking for is the feeling of combat magic fun from MoM, and then plus the 4x building framework of Elemental, plus the modern interface and graphics.
I would also add:
15. Performance optimizations.16. Creation of siege tactical battlefields. Made these battles tactically interesting and hindered early rushing.17. Separate damage types and resistances.18. The addition of unique features on the strategic map. Having remenants from the pre-Cataclysm world helped to create conflict zones and added ambience to the game.
Agree for the most part. A couple of things I would add?
1) I like the spell books. just give us more spells
2) I like the idea of master of magic type combat spells- casting from a wizards tower to ANY battle in your influence, even if you arent there
3) agree with diff damage types and resitances. agree with siege battles
Last- PLEASE make it possible to have varied races in your armies. If I conquer a tarth city, please let me have Tarthians in my army in addition to have Altarans. I hvanet heard any idea if that would be allowed or not, and it would be a lot of fun.
Most of what you posted is pretty common (but very good!) thought about where the game needs to go.
I'd like to see more discussion on the depth of tactical battles (aside from the the combat stats discussion, which has also been pretty thoroughly discussed). I know it is scheduled for a complete overhaul, but I am anxious to hear the details.
Tactical battle maps should be obviously tied to the strategic map. Sieges and combat within the city should happen. The idea of a sovereign being able to take part in a tactical battle as long as they are within their "one per kingdom/empire" spell tower is awesome. As is being able to deform/fortify tactical map terrain ahead of time (I see this as blocking a mountain pass into your kingdom and spending some time and mana to make it as defensible as possible).
Terrain within the battle should matter. Especially taking hills or land flanked by impassable terrain (land typically favorable to the type of warfare the game mimics).
I like the idea of tactical battles lasting multiple strategic turns if one side or the other doesn't retreat or lose. The ability for a skirmish to turn into the "front" in the war would be neat. Having to decide whether to reinforce or cut your losses would add a layer of depth. Should your newly created company be sent to reinforce the current front or sent somewhere else to protect against a possible second assault?
There is a lot of potential in the tactical battle portion of this game that is currently massively untapped. Tapping that potential would go a long way towards making Elemental a classic.
I like this thread, following. It's kind of like seeing the forest through the trees.
Is this the 3-D release or is that in a future expansion?
Delivery of sandwich via carrier pigeon when hungry via ingame interface. Thereby saving precious minutes of walking to kitchen and preparing one that could be better spent playing elemental.
You know what is sad? It's that, for the final expansion, all the things that you list should have already been in the release version.
We have cut Stardock a lot of slack already during alpha beta by accepting that they postpone some features that games had ten years ago:
- naval combat / naval resources
- dungeons to explore (AoW1)
- underground or mystic 'parallel' territory (AoW)
- flying units
- non-human races (lizardmen, undead, draconids,...) with very special characteristics
We accepted that these got postponed because we thought the effort would be put on AI, diplomacy, dynasty system and magic first. That wasn't the case alas.
Now, all this seems so far away that, even when talking about the expansions, people can't think about it. And every little tweak of "combat speed" or "damage and dodge" or whatever is welcomed by a clamor of "Yoohoo!" or "Stardock delivers" or "We had faith in you and it was right"...
It's not a critic of the opening post. It's just that I hope we'll get much more at the end of the expansion phase than what should have been included from the start.Otherwise, it shall be just sad-
Of course, your analysis leaves out the new engine and its capabilities, the faster turn times, the modding capability, and all the things that Elemental has gotten right in regards to other games. It's not enough to justify its release state by any means, but it seems like any discussion of the game focuses on all negatives or all positives without acknowledging the fact that both exist.
And the cry that Elemental doesn't have "non-humnas" is just silly. They don't exist in the world. They exist in modders imaginations. AoW didn't include spacemen in Frisbee shaped ships with death touch or sharks with lasers on their heads, but no one complained there.
I think this is a major point, but I think you are a bit to vague. Right now, Mixed armies of normal units is not exactly meaningful, and once combined arms becomes more meaningful so will tactical combat gain a lot of ground.
I disagree that functional spell books are necessarily a bad thing. Honestly, I think that normal units need to become a bit more "magical" and the spells simply needs to function in balance with this new magical existence. As for your generic shard idea, I think that generic shards could be an interesting addition, but I think that it would take away more than it added. Right now, getting shards of a type you want is challenging and requires a player to engage the world in a meaningful way. Personally, I think that shard power should be able to be traded diplomatically, so a person with 4 air shards could trade one of his allies for a fire or a earth shard to fit his strategic needs.
This is just unnecessary. The best 4x games are not about number crunching balance, but about the feeling of being part of a rich and vibrant world. The only thing this would directly accomplish is making a game which can be easily minmaxed.
I agree with this, but I think that new building blocks should be well considered before being added to the current set.
This would definitely be nice, but I don't think it is necessary for the game to be more fun. Something as simple as a couple unique units and buildings could do wonders for the game without the hassle of making completely unique tech trees and personalities for each and every race.
I actually disagree with this. This was something that was done in GalCiv 2 that I actually found to be less than stellar. Honestly, damage is damage no matter what form it takes. What makes combat interesting is how you deal damage and what effect it has on the unit. For example, A maces and hammers could damage armor as well as damaging a unit, or a shield could be ineffective at blocking attacks from the rear. This would add far more strategy than simply a number crunching system based upon various damages and resistances.
This is a fairly good idea, though I would expand this to say that spells should be expanded to have a sub target. So then, we can target weapons, armor, items, or the unit. On top of this it would be nice to have a party target as well.
Yeah, that's the point. Specifics have been discussed to death, so this is a "big picture" thread.
Well, this is partly due to a personal preference to be able to have a little more control over how I want to play any given game. If I want to have a very offensively oriented spellbook, I'll build fire shrines. If I want a different game, I'll build differently. While I understand the arguement of adapting my strategy to my environment, this is one specific area in which I want to have it chosen by me and not for me, by the map generator. Besides, shards are nerfed to the point that it really doesn't matter that much right now, anyway. So, basically, I don't think that the "meaningful engagement" point outweighs the "personal choice" arguement. We could argue this til we're both blue in the face, but I think that it comes down to personal preference in the end.
I'm not sure that I agree. Having a well design game certainly doesn't make the system easier to min-max. How exactly would something like that happen? All of the games pacing problems would have been ameliorated by a good graphical representation of how the numbers meshed. Of how damage progressions by spellbooks felt. And so on. I'm all for lore, but I don't think it's a zero-sum situation.
Wait, I actually think we are talking about the same thing here. I'm talking about about codable effects here. Essentially the building blocks.
I'm lukewarm on it too, after sleeping on it. It's just a mechanic to enable ways for the Water spellbook to oppose the Fire spellbook, etc.
Anyway, thanks for the comments, kenata and others.
So, I'm also interested in your opinions as to what the reviewers would cite as gameplay mechanics adopted from other FTBS games from 1.1 to 4.1 that made this game superior to others in the genre.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
