exactly

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I haven't written any quests up to this point, so I'm not the guy for this at the moment.  My modding focus back in the day was more on spell and equipment mechanics.  This does sound like a cool idea though!

I think that is a major part of the problem; your cities aren't an interesting area. Citybuilding mechanics aside, if you look at the game's setting and lore, cities should be something special; a glowing beacon of civilization and hope in a devastated world. Your heroes are fighting to keep them and their citizens safe. You would assume that most of those heroes would enjoy spending some time in them. After a long campaign against an enemy, or clearing a wildland, they have earned some time off for recreation, to recover from their wounds, sell loot, upgrade equipment, and start looking for a new adventure/threat to their home town. Isn't that what you do when you play a (good) PnP RPG? But right now time spent in or near a city is time wasted.

It's just one of those things that kills immersion for me. Just like the merchant himself, with his endless coffers of gold and stores of equipment (there was an excellent thread about this a few weeks ago). Or how there are merchants, and nobles with wandering daughters, and guards for those nobles and merchants, and all sorts of generic fantasy characters in a world that is supposed to have been a devastated wasteland for the past 150 years. Or how your sovereign is supposed to be one of a very small group of people that is still able to cast spells, but there are also dozens of heroes around that can also do just that. Or how troops with a little experience become so much more powerful than fresh troops that they are nearly undefeatable by similar fresh troops. Or how you can stretch a town with only 20 people living in it over 4 or more tiles (so more than 2 turns of movement), just to include a resource in the town's defence. Or how the town can have walls, but this only results in a stats boost for the defenders. I think I could go on for quite a while here.

Some of these things are the way they are because of engine limitations, some because of 'gameplay', some because their mechanics aren't done yet but might be fixed at some point in the future, and for some I really don't know why.

Point is, most of these things could be overlooked on their own. But there is such a big list of things that just don't feel quite right, that I never forget that I'm playing a game rather than being immersed in it. I never feel like I am a king, fighting to restore my vision of civilization in a ruined world. I never feel that my opponents are anything other than an AI trying to play the same game I am. My heroes don't seem more than a collection of stats and traits. And the people I rule, if they all dropped dead at some point, I don't think I'd notice for at least a dozen turns. Or care.

You know, I see that argument a lot around here, and it makes me wonder. Whenever there is a sequel or a remake of an older beloved game, everybody is pissed off when the developer starts talking about 'updated gameplay' or 'enhanced accessibility'. And rightly so. But whenever there is a discussion about some immersion breaking, realism defying feature, gameplay always trumps realism. "Of course you can include thousands of acres of farmland in your city limits. Would you rather be forced to keep an eye them, maybe even setting up patrols? That's no fun." "Of course the merchant can buy all your loot, would you rather have him run out of money at some point? That's no fun" "Of course you can use metal produced in one city for training units in another one, would you rather set up a supply chain?" Etc. I'm not advocating busywork here, which can be an issue when you try to add to much realism into a game. But at what point does 'better' gameplay become dumbed down gameplay?

Very well spoken sir.  I know that it makes the game less fun to have to go to your city to visit a shop, but is it okay for you then to have to go to a city to upgrade your troops?  All I'm saying is it seems silly to me to be able to visit a shop so far from a city, but I have to go to said city to do any other equivalent thing.

  For those of you who have a problem with how I post my ideas, I apologize.  I think it would be easier as someone who has to read these forums that seeing an idea in the title is much better than having to open each post to read them.  It's also easier for people who may be new to a forum to see what every post is about.  I wasn't starting this thread as a discussion so much as throwing an idea out for the dev's to see.

 

  Obviously you found something to discuss.  I think the title of the thread says exactly what it needs to say.  Next time I'll spell it out more clearly for you.

My reactions to this thread --

 

What???  I don't have to go to my cities to buy stuff??? My all powerful mind was never informed of this! I always just figured that is what would be true! I guess this makes my life easier? But way less of what I wanted it to be...


...wa- waht? There was a problem with the format of the OP...?  Thread hijack, lol.

Whoa. Yeah. Game immersion vs. play-ability. Chosing what to abstract and how exactly to abstract it within a game's universe is incredibly tricky... That choice always has to be made, because otherwise we're going to be asking ourselves... "Well, how can research be done when I only have 2 people and a couple tents? Do I need to train scientists? Do I need schools for scientists? Do I need standardized tests to verify the institutionalized knowledge being given to students at the schools? What about janitors?... "   --- it all depends on what IS the game, and what is a part of the game. What are the levers, and what are the functional cogs?

Since one can place individual structures and EVEN determine their relative orientation upon placement, name them, see how they change the landscape, one could deduce that these "shining beacons of hope" and their significance in this realm are part of what E:FE is. Hence, the confusion. Because they fundementally aren't.

This is likely one of many spandrals resulting from the marriage of two very unlikely genres of game.

You can buy stuff that other players are selling in their territory. Thought that was neat. What they are selling reflects what technology they have researched.

 

If store prices were more reasonable, it would be even more fun. Though I'm not sure it makes sense to improve the equipment of an enemy hero. 

 

Really?  I guess I never noticed that.  Hmmm...that's funny.

The thing is, I am a proponent of realism that is also good gameplay. Instead of conceding to a life of realistic treks to and from cities with a weak hero I have to use as a courier, why not just slightly alter the UI to make more realistic sense? 

My solution:

Shop button opens up the same window. A brief note at the top of the shop screen explains that you have flagged a traveling merchant from the Serrane Merchant Guild of the town of Calder. You are in luck that he has an ample supply of gold and is ready to trade. The shop would be exactly the same and realism has been satisfied. A little picture in the corner of a trade caravan and a fat little merchant might do for imagination. If the gameplay is solid, but he logic is thin, just make a few logic adjustments. No need to revamp the entire shop system. 

 

Dev solution:

Why the frak is everyone so concerned about the damn shop? It works fine, while many other parts of the game are seriously broken. I wish I could respond, but this is just too silly to waste my time on. I still need to fix all those real issues before next fall...

And the winner is... the DEVELOPER!!!

Thanks for playing .

lol