Stardock

Fallen Enchantress - March BETA FAQ

By on March 6, 2012 3:26:40 PM from JoeUser Forums JoeUser Forums

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001
+1109

Greetings!  We haven’t done a FAQ in awhile so here we go:

S_DestinysGift_PaintingQ: Is Elemental: Fallen Enchantress an expansion pack to Elemental: War of Magic?

A: No.  Elemental: Fallen Enchantress is a stand-alone game. It exists in the same world and is a 4X strategy game, but beyond that, they are very different.

Q: How much does Elemental: Fallen Enchantress cost?

A: It’s $39.95.  You can pre-order it now and join the BETA. We plan to provide some additional goodies for those who own a copy of it prior to release.

Q: What kind of goodies?

A: Additional quests, monsters, and items.

Q: I have Elemental: War of Magic already, is there a discount for Fallen Enchantress?

A: Yes, if you registered War of Magic in 2010, you get Fallen Enchantress for free.  If you bought it in 2011, there is a discount.

Q: When will Fallen Enchantress be released?

A: When it’s done.

Q: No, seriously, I hate when people say that. Do you have any sort of time line?

A: This Spring we plan to release a BETA 3, in Summer we expect to release BETA 4. During Beta 4 we’ll evaluate where things stand.  But we still view the game as being in a good place but still months away from release.

Q: How much will the final game be different from the current game?

A: Probably quite a bit. We get into a lot of debates on this subject with beta testers because there is often a disconnect between what is part of Fallen Enchantress’s design principles versus what a user thinks “needs” to be in the game.

Q: Ok, that was pretty vague. What do you mean by design principles?

A: This would require a separate journal entry but broadly speaking, we mean that Derek Paxton (Kael) has a specific vision for Elemental: Fallen Enchantress which falls under a number of broad design principles. A common request is that the tactical battles be much more complex than they currently are. But one of the design principles of FE is that tactical battles should not decide the outcome of the strategic game. That is, no matter how good someone has mastered the tactical part of the game, it shouldn’t enable them to turn what would normally be a loss strategically into a win.  This is an intentionally vague concept since we want tactical battles to be meaningful but we don’t want someone to be able to win against 10 to 1 odds because they’ve mastered that aspect of the game.

Q: Does this mean tactical battles won’t be changing?

A: We have a number of changes planned. We just can’t commit to anything specific until we’ve had time to play through it via iteration.

Q: What areas of the game do you consider furthest along?

A: The general flow of the game is fairly far along in terms of having a solid core.  It’s not any particular feature. We are in BETA 2 presently, Beta 1 was to make sure the game was compatible (hardware wise). Beta 2 is designed to allow us to create a very tight core from which we can expand upon.

S_Domination_PaintingQ: What areas should we expect to see the game expand on?

A: Our recent poll confirmed that our beta group seems to be on the same page as us.  Making each faction be very different matters a lot to us.  Secondly, the city management is an area with a great deal of work ahead for it.  Not on the poll but diplomacy is an area we want to expand on.

Q: What is the future of multiplayer and why isn’t it planned for initial release?

A: 90% of the multiplayer features are in.  The issue is that we don’t want to split our resources between supporting multiplayer (from a bug testing / stability point of view) while also trying to do the same for the single player game.

Q: What can you tell us about the campaign?

A: It’s been designed and created by Jon Shafer (designer of Civilization V as well as having worked on the Beyond the Sword expansion for Civilization IV) and written by fantasy author, Dave Stern. Voice overs are being done by some of the people involved with Fall From Heaven and music provided by a team up musicians who worked on Civilization V and Galactic Civilizations II.

Q: I have heard that Fallen Enchantress is a different development team than War of Magic?

A: Yes. After the sale of Impulse, developers who had previously worked on Galactic Civilizations II were brought back from the Impulse team to the Games group to work on Fallen Enchantress. It is led by Derek Paxton (Kael) who had previously worked on the Civilization IV mod, Fall from Heaven and as previously mentioned the campaign was designed by Jon Shafer formerly of Civilization V fame.

Q: What is your role on Fallen Enchantress vs. War of Magic?

A: On both projects I am the Executive Producer.  I wrote some of the strategic AI for War of Magic.  In Fallen Enchantress I am the lead developer and am writing both the strategic and tactical AI. This is only possible because we sold Impulse so I have more time to devote to our individual projects.  Kael has the final word on design. It’s his baby.

Q: When will we see a trailer?

A: It’s being worked on.  Since Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion is coming out sooner, its trailer got the art team’s attention first. Now they’re onto the Elemental related work.

Update #1:

Q: How much will tactical battles change between now and release?

A: It’s too early to say. We have the broad requirement that someone should not be able to turn a clear strategic defeat into victory through “massive skillz” at tactical battles. But there are a lot of areas we are looking to expand on and enhance. We’re more inclined to find ways to make them more fun without them becoming more complex. Think MOO or MOM for what we’re looking for.

Q: Do you plan to use Steamworks in FE?

A: There are no plans to use Steamworks with Fallen Enchantress.

Q: When is the next beta?

A: We expect to release Beta 2-B this month.

122 Replies
Search this post
Subscription Options


Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 3:30:48 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting drabhead,

Some solutions to the problem of having tactical battles have too much impact if they become more complex (not a necessary consequence).

1. Have a large number of random tactical battlefields. When a unit attacks another, one of these battlefields is picked. Some of the battlefields might give an advantage to a certain kind of troops, others might give the same kind of troops a disadvantage while again others makes the battle fairly even no matter what units there are on the field.

2. Don't allow very small armies to go into tactical battle with much stronger armies, have those battles play out automatically as a defeat to the weaker side. In this way, you will reduce the risk of a very skilled tactical player being able to gain a huge advantage by somehow exploiting (and in my mind, if this kind of thing is possible, there is a flaw in the tactical battle system in itself) the tactical game.

3. Competent AI is extremely important if the battlefields become more complex. Kiting enemies or sitting on a hill and shooting down a bunch of stupid enemy units that just rushes forward is obviously a recepy for disaster if one wants to avoid having the tactical layer overshadow the strategic layer in importance. Suggestion: hire an experienced AI programmer for tactical games, check out the guy who's made X-COM. He can't be up to much these days.

If the AI is smart enough, a player should reasonably not be able to gain too much of an advantage by winning tactical battles, a goal could be that a relative strenght of 10 to 3 always ends in a loss.

1) I do agree with and like to add that the battle field should reflect the terren your in on the Stratigic map.

2) Personally I don't agree with because I never auto-resolve and never will even if it is a Pioneer vers a full stack of units. So this should be an option. For me the tactical combat should be just as fun as the stratigic part of the game. 

3) Agree with number 3. The better the AI in both Tactical and Stratigic levels the better.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 3:37:00 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting DevildogFF,
Mastroego has an excellent point. It was those FEATURES that made MOM fun. The variety of units and races was really what made the game fun, in my opinion. I've always liked playing different races and having unique units for each race. It's what got me going with MOO, MOM, CIV (to a lesser extent), SINS, etc....

And AOW:SM. They all had this and that is what FE nneds more of

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 3:43:06 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I have high hopes for E:FE, & have huge respect for Frog & company, but I will never understand why someone would purposefully choose to have anything less than an Aow:sm 'clone' of tacticle battles with tha Frogs Ai if your going to have tac battles in this kind of game.  In any way was MoM's tac battles better?<--can anyone think of anything? (I honestly can't remember a single way that didn't have to do with racial abilities).  When I say 'better' I mean the features it allowed, one could pull in additional hexs into the battle (help defend an allies city, or use 3 armies to attack 1 or 2), it had walls/doors/archers on those walls/wall breaking units, wall climbing units, units able to fly over tha walls, walls-rocks-units all allowing for some protection from missles, additional wall spells, certain number of counter attacks depending on unit, etc.  It is these things that I miss the most. 

 

The 'I have to attack these guys before they attack me' setup in tac battles drives me nuts, picking a starting formation would help alot, but there's so many of what I think to be 'must have basics' missing right now & the possible talk about keeping it that way, scares me to no end.  No matter how good the strat part of the game is, if the tac battle are sub-par then I too doubt it'll keep my interest in the long term.

 

My absolute favorite thing to do in Aow:sm was send a couple of 'jedi's' over to my allies capitol city sos I could participate in any battle there.  As it stands in E:FE it is impossible to assist your allies in battle.  Think of Lord of tha Rings if the different factions were not able to join together & have those major battles with Mordor & Isengard.

 

I sorta regret not voting for Tac battles but faction differentiation needed so much work too.  I believe good tac battles can be done without this but why would anyone want a SINGLE player game not to have indepth tac battles, if you don't want to fight tac battles all day, then only do the important ones & auto tha rest.

 

edit: people say that Aow:sm only had the great tac battles, that this made the game.  Ok, if a game with E:FE's overal similiar style can make it only on the tac battles then, why not duplicate this, this way you gain ALL people who liked Aow:sm, plus those that like the other aspects of E:FE.  MoM had races & spells, Aow:sm had tac battles & spells - E:FE is refusing to have either to the same degree.

 


 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 3:43:38 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Sarudak,
Couldn't we just scrap the 9 unit per army limit? I hate the consecutive battle mechanic that results from it. Plus it would make battles so much more epic!

I say they should allow multipule stakes to attack an adjecent square like in AOE:SM and other games. Could have some really cool battles plus you have to watch how you attack a stack or defend on the stratigict level.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 3:44:33 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

While I agree with not using Steamworks with FE, I really think you need to release the game on Steam, just so folks can see it and judge you guys on it.

 

Already, at .86, this game is in an acceptable state.  It will be a lot better with 6 more months of quality work.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 3:46:00 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Frogboy,

Quoting seanw3, reply 69What about the terrible 18 unit limit for battles? The most defeating and buggy element to battles. It would be better to allow more units in city defense battles so that city militia can matter. I would also like the "cast spell at beginning of battle" to be able to summon monsters. So a summoner can have more that nine units in a battle as well.

Militia and such don't count against any sort of limit.  There is no "hard" limit.  It's just that 18 is the current maximum number that the various abilities give you. A modder could go in and change that to be 50 if they'd like. The UI would add a little -> at the end of the list and let you scroll through.

Care to let us know how? It's come up more than once and we can't figure it out. The tactical maps just seem to spawn so many.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 3:55:54 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Frogboy,

Quoting seanw3, reply 69What about the terrible 18 unit limit for battles? The most defeating and buggy element to battles. It would be better to allow more units in city defense battles so that city militia can matter. I would also like the "cast spell at beginning of battle" to be able to summon monsters. So a summoner can have more that nine units in a battle as well.

Militia and such don't count against any sort of limit.  There is no "hard" limit.  It's just that 18 is the current maximum number that the various abilities give you. A modder could go in and change that to be 50 if they'd like. The UI would add a little -> at the end of the list and let you scroll through.

Just remember, no system will appeal to everyone.  It's always a delicate balance between many different considerations.
Currently, the militias kick your regular units out of the battle, though.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 4:05:33 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

RE: 18 hard limit. 

I have posted about this before. When defending a city, it should be possible to have more than 9 units on my side. That is the 9 in the garrison and whatever city militia I have earned. But, as you can see in my Tarth Rising video series, if there are 9 enemy units, you will get your extra units kicked out of the battle. If they attack with only 3, you can have 15 units. So I assumed there was a hard limit here. I would appreciate it if you looked into this now that it has come up. I would love to increase the limit to 50!

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 4:27:30 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Alstein,
While I agree with not using Steamworks with FE, I really think you need to release the game on Steam, just so folks can see it and judge you guys on it.

 

Already, at .86, this game is in an acceptable state.  It will be a lot better with 6 more months of quality work.

 

It'll be on Steam and elsewhere.  It just won't require Steam.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 4:31:33 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Bellack,

Quoting DevildogFF, reply 63Mastroego has an excellent point. It was those FEATURES that made MOM fun. The variety of units and races was really what made the game fun, in my opinion. I've always liked playing different races and having unique units for each race. It's what got me going with MOO, MOM, CIV (to a lesser extent), SINS, etc....


And AOW:SM. They all had this and that is what FE nneds more of

I can only speak for myself and I want to emphasize I'm not the designer of FE so this is just one guy's opinon but the difference is: I just auto-resolved AOW:SM's tactical battles whereas I enjoyed MOM's.  I didn't enjoy the tactical battles in AOW, they were too involved.  I *really* don't like the idea of multiple tiles being brought in.  If someone wants to play AOW:SM, go. Go now and play that. But I don't want FE to be a AOW:SM clone.

There was something just plain...fun about MOM's tactical battles. It was no single thing. And with FE, I think what you'll find is that each build the tactical battles get a little bit more fun until one day, you look back and see how much they've changed and yet, are still within the same design concept they are now.  

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 4:32:38 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting seanw3,
RE: 18 hard limit. 

I have posted about this before. When defending a city, it should be possible to have more than 9 units on my side. That is the 9 in the garrison and whatever city militia I have earned. But, as you can see in my Tarth Rising video series, if there are 9 enemy units, you will get your extra units kicked out of the battle. If they attack with only 3, you can have 15 units. So I assumed there was a hard limit here. I would appreciate it if you looked into this now that it has come up. I would love to increase the limit to 50!

That would be a bug. There shouldn't be any limit on the number of units you can have on a tactical map. I'll pass it on to Derek.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 4:51:22 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Frogboy,

And AOW:SM. They all had this and that is what FE nneds more of

I can only speak for myself and I want to emphasize I'm not the designer of FE so this is just one guy's opinon but the difference is: I just auto-resolved AOW:SM's tactical battles whereas I enjoyed MOM's.  I didn't enjoy the tactical battles in AOW, they were too involved.  I *really* don't like the idea of multiple tiles being brought in.  If someone wants to play AOW:SM, go. Go now and play that. But I don't want FE to be a AOW:SM clone.

There was something just plain...fun about MOM's tactical battles. It was no single thing. And with FE, I think what you'll find is that each build the tactical battles get a little bit more fun until one day, you look back and see how much they've changed and yet, are still within the same design concept they are now.  

 

Personally I thought of the battles in MoM as boring, there was no real challange. I liked the AoW combat way better. Hexes work great for added strategic dept. But then again, where not making AoW 3 or MoM 2! There is one thing that both had and FE has not, time to get your army in formation. ^^

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 5:07:50 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

I'm with Frog on the AoW:SM tactical battles. I remember playing AoW:SM back in the day for quite a bit. Now I started it again and felt like the tactical battles were indeed too involved. It felt really "heavy" to play the game. Didn't take me long to quit the game and let it be. I did have fun the first go around, but nowdays the combination of hardcore strategy and hardcore tactical battles just felt like too much.

To me, the tactical battles aren't the big issue in FE. It could be more fun, and I hope it will become just that with a bit more polish, but the big issue to me is that I don't find city building or research interesting so far. To me, the strategic side of the game is more precious.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 5:38:00 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Frogboy,
If someone wants to play AOW:SM, go. Go now and play that.

But it doesn't have your ai!!! --- & no offense meant earlier, just trying to make E:FE have the best of all the others in one.  I like to create my own game world using the mechanics offered, there was simply some really good mechanics that I fell in love with & just don't can't seem to picture battles being as fun/&/realistic without them. 

 

Centurian Defender of Rome: had a formations and flanking, other than that the armies pretty much just moved in a line at each other - still 'fun' but way too simple

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 7:07:13 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Frogboy,

Still, I do not believe that the current tactical system is "fun" yet. It was fun the first couple of times in my first game, but the novelty wore off quickly. Rewarding unit diversity (a strategic concept) and astute usage of a small smattering of passive abilities/active abilities (a tactical concept) would improve the current system greatly! Right now? I roll around with one stack of melee units and mostly archers. I also throw in a champion/my sovereign in order to cast some spells to break up the tedium. There are tactical considerations in the current system, but they are limited to melee zone of control (a good concept and one that should be kept), initiative (which is in need of some major tweaking) and spells (the current selection of which could use a little "beefing up").

This is similar to our view as well.

It's what you bring with you into the tactical battle and how you use them that should matter.  Not whether the player has figured out a trick to decimate massive numbers of opposing forces making players feel like they need to play out every battle.

 

 

This really made my day to see that, although we're not entirely on the same level (I enjoyed the AOW:SM tactical battles, though I thought the heroes were WAY too fragile) you still have a desire to make the tactical battles interesting (at least in the sense where things are varied and the player can use some tactics).

 

Like I said, I am totally ok with this. Now, how can we help you to tune the system? 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 7:25:05 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Like I said, I am totally ok with this. Now, how can we help you to tune the system?

Just keep posting ideas. Derek reads the forums and I regularly forward over links I like without commenting.

The #1 lesson I've learned from Kael is: Don't fix the smoke, fix the fire.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 7:44:10 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Frogboy,

Quoting Bellack, reply 77
Quoting DevildogFF, reply 63Mastroego has an excellent point. It was those FEATURES that made MOM fun. The variety of units and races was really what made the game fun, in my opinion. I've always liked playing different races and having unique units for each race. It's what got me going with MOO, MOM, CIV (to a lesser extent), SINS, etc....


And AOW:SM. They all had this and that is what FE nneds more of

I can only speak for myself and I want to emphasize I'm not the designer of FE so this is just one guy's opinon but the difference is: I just auto-resolved AOW:SM's tactical battles whereas I enjoyed MOM's.  I didn't enjoy the tactical battles in AOW, they were too involved.  I *really* don't like the idea of multiple tiles being brought in.  If someone wants to play AOW:SM, go. Go now and play that. But I don't want FE to be a AOW:SM clone.

There was something just plain...fun about MOM's tactical battles. It was no single thing. And with FE, I think what you'll find is that each build the tactical battles get a little bit more fun until one day, you look back and see how much they've changed and yet, are still within the same design concept they are now.  

 

 

Amen. I feel the exact same way and it's why I did NOT include AOW, to be honest. I love MOM's tactical battles and I'm beginning to love FE's, too. You guys are *so* close to figuring it all out. I can just tell that this will finally reach its true potential when all is said and done. Flawed? Perhaps. Fun? You're already there. Making it a more polished and varied product will only serve to help it become the classic it's destined to become.

 

I like the idea of a couple technologies that are unique to each faction. Or buildings? Or architecture? Or overall theme, period. Definitely units, though. 

 

Keep up the good work, ya'll. Can't wait for Beta 2B and Beta 3!

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 9:22:47 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Love to see you chiming in on feedback, Brad. Also love to hear from some other Stardockians!

I'm not sure how much extra content will be added between now and final release, but I think some other issues with the game's blahness will be fixed when we get more stuff in there. Items, monsters, units, magic, etc. I know that's coming in the next release, so I'm not as concerned. Part of the issues with tactical battles are their strategic variety, and with bland units, it's not so fun. Bring on the magic, monsters, and various items, and all of a sudden things become much more interesting!

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 7, 2012 10:08:28 PM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Great entry.  Thanks for keeping tactical battles in their place.  FE is more about shaping the destiny of a fantasy world, not having ultra-detailed battles that consume way too much play time.  Folks who prefer more tactical awesomeness should stick with the Age of Wonders series (another great fantasy turn-based dynasty, with almost all emphasis on tactical battles).

 

Tactical battles should be important, but only when they matter.  The current battles with the elemental lords are a good example.  As for inter-player battles, most should have little importance.  It is the aggregate effect of multiple skirmishes that should matter, and key strategic battles (ala Helm's Deep).

So no, I don't think tactical battles should be as important as the strategic game.  

Just my two cents anyway.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 8, 2012 8:53:12 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Tactical battles are a really important point not to neglect, if I had wanted a game without tactical battles I would have bought civ5 !

Tactical battles are what makes this kind of game so special ! You actually have a control over what's happening in the battle and not only othat's strategic map !

This is why I liked FE, WOM, AOW and MOM so much ! Because you have to do more than planning a good strategy, you have to be able to win tactically too if you want to move on with your strategy ! Auto resolving is just killing one of the main interest of the game. Without it, it's just a plain game like civ. !

And spells and abilities plays a major role in enjoying tactical battles.

If tactical battles would be overlooked then I would regret to have ever spent any money in stardock.

What makes MOM and AOW really great is that spells really affect the strategical and tactical play... That's what I would like to see the most in FE right before race differenciations (each should have 2 or 3 monsters type creature too that would act more like behemots or quick harassment units without the need of going questing all over)

I continue to keep my hopes up for FE go go go stardock

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 8, 2012 9:14:32 AM from Elemental Forums Elemental Forums

Quoting Frogboy,

Quoting Bellack, reply 77
Quoting DevildogFF, reply 63Mastroego has an excellent point. It was those FEATURES that made MOM fun. The variety of units and races was really what made the game fun, in my opinion. I've always liked playing different races and having unique units for each race. It's what got me going with MOO, MOM, CIV (to a lesser extent), SINS, etc....


And AOW:SM. They all had this and that is what FE nneds more of

I can only speak for myself and I want to emphasize I'm not the designer of FE so this is just one guy's opinon but the difference is: I just auto-resolved AOW:SM's tactical battles whereas I enjoyed MOM's.  I didn't enjoy the tactical battles in AOW, they were too involved.  I *really* don't like the idea of multiple tiles being brought in.  If someone wants to play AOW:SM, go. Go now and play that. But I don't want FE to be a AOW:SM clone.

There was something just plain...fun about MOM's tactical battles. It was no single thing. And with FE, I think what you'll find is that each build the tactical battles get a little bit more fun until one day, you look back and see how much they've changed and yet, are still within the same design concept they are now.  

 

 

I can live with that concept. It's totally valid if the emphasis of the game is put elsewhere, and not in TCs. My fear resides more in resources being destined to a feature that players will end up not using much and auto-resolving, because it's not as engaging and fun as it can be. Especially true if the outcome is not altered by the way you play it (AI TC auto-battles yield the same or better results as a human player).

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 8, 2012 2:25:20 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

I love Tactical battles. I can,T imagine this game without it.

 

I stillr emember during beta 1 wthose battles were way boring. Yesterday I played a few more hours and During a few  battles I was confronted with a huge lac right in the middle of the battlefield. That was way cool.

I agree with Frogboy they do not need to be ciomplicated to be fun. However they do need a few fun things that makes you want to comeback for more. I think that aspect is still lacking.

 

One thing I would change though it's the spells bar. How I hate that spell bar.. PLease give me a spell book!!

 

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 8, 2012 2:28:49 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Frogboy,



Quoting Alstein,
reply 80
While I agree with not using Steamworks with FE, I really think you need to release the game on Steam, just so folks can see it and judge you guys on it.

 

Already, at .86, this game is in an acceptable state.  It will be a lot better with 6 more months of quality work.

 


It'll be on Steam and elsewhere.  It just won't require Steam.

Glad to here it. While I like Steam I hate having games require it to play

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 8, 2012 2:42:38 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting Frogboy,



Quoting Bellack,
reply 77

Quoting DevildogFF, reply 63Mastroego has an excellent point. It was those FEATURES that made MOM fun. The variety of units and races was really what made the game fun, in my opinion. I've always liked playing different races and having unique units for each race. It's what got me going with MOO, MOM, CIV (to a lesser extent), SINS, etc....


And AOW:SM. They all had this and that is what FE nneds more of


I can only speak for myself and I want to emphasize I'm not the designer of FE so this is just one guy's opinon but the difference is: I just auto-resolved AOW:SM's tactical battles whereas I enjoyed MOM's.  I didn't enjoy the tactical battles in AOW, they were too involved.  I *really* don't like the idea of multiple tiles being brought in.  If someone wants to play AOW:SM, go. Go now and play that. But I don't want FE to be a AOW:SM clone.

There was something just plain...fun about MOM's tactical battles. It was no single thing. And with FE, I think what you'll find is that each build the tactical battles get a little bit more fun until one day, you look back and see how much they've changed and yet, are still within the same design concept they are now.  

 

 

Well you and I defiantly dis agree on this. For me this was one of the elements (multiple tiles being brought into combat)

that made AOW:SM and even AOW far superior to MOM. But then Tactical combat for me is one of the most important elements in the game. I'll admit I would love for FE to be the modern AOW:SM clone or at least adopt some of the cool elements of that game but I figured that it won't happen but I still will push for it.

 

I guess I don't want a simplistic form of TC like in Hero's of Might and Magic or Kings Bounty. While those my be fun at a simplistic level they are rally nothing more than a mini-game that does not feel like your fighting a battle. Now FE is right now sort of in the middle between a Kings Bounty and  AOW:SM as far as TC system go.

 

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
March 8, 2012 3:02:31 PM from Stardock Forums Stardock Forums

Quoting LNQ,
I'm with Frog on the AoW:SM tactical battles. I remember playing AoW:SM back in the day for quite a bit. Now I started it again and felt like the tactical battles were indeed too involved. It felt really "heavy" to play the game. Didn't take me long to quit the game and let it be. I did have fun the first go around, but nowdays the combination of hardcore strategy and hardcore tactical battles just felt like too much.

To me, the tactical battles aren't the big issue in FE. It could be more fun, and I hope it will become just that with a bit more polish, but the big issue to me is that I don't find city building or research interesting so far. To me, the strategic side of the game is more precious.

I am currently playing AOW:SM and FE now and got to say I'm still having fun. But I perfer the complex play (but it is not really that complex) the only reall issue I have with AOW:SM is the AI but then I have a problem will AI in most games.

Yes the strategic side is important and FE needs some loving in this area but I have to say that for me Tactical side a a little more important then strategic. But they are both important and should work hand in hand.

Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
Stardock Forums v1.0.0.0    #108433  walnut3   Server Load Time: 00:00:00.0001046   Page Render Time:
Facebook Twitter YouTube Google+