Quoting scifi1950, reply 17
I think Lord Xia has hit the nail on the head. I may not be as hardcore as some of the guys in the Beta, but I've been playing these kind of games for a long time and IMHO FE is no Civ V.
I'm not sure if that's good or bad.
It is going to be bad to begin with because you'll get a crowd saying BLAH BLAH BLAH this is not 4x game... a 4x game should be like (pick your favorite main stream 4x game). But people will learn to appreciate all the depth that is in the game and look at the pretty fonts and say "This is a good game." I know I didn't quite enjoy the game the first go around and now I enjoy playing this game again and again. There are lot of key points that people look at the game and say well maybe not. But your description of the game and the promise of what the game has in store for the consumer is what I found in this game.
The points made in the article are valid and some seem a little short sighted, but then somebody probably needed to say something about the game that is being released Oct 23 and this is what they found out to be. The game is easy to play (great plus) and difficult to master (great plus). I think you have polished up a lot between RPG and 4x strategy. The mix of the tactical battles seems to throw these reviewers for a loop. The articles I've seen show that they miss the purpose and point of the tatical battle portion of the game.
I think there isn't a clear message on what to expect from this game at the moment and people are still figuring this out. Even playing the beta here I notice that there are several camps that push for better RPG or 4x strategy or Tatical battles... I think a clear statement of the purpose of mixing the 3 would go a long way for understanding by all the players here.
My understanding is that you are creating a game to produce an epic RPG empire building game (for sandbox mode). The empire building is clear for what it is build cities and troops and try to dominate the unexplored map. Taking control of limited resources and removing the competition. The RPG portion is a little more touchy, as you are playing the role of a great channeler and you write your story of how you grew to power or fell to mighter powers. The world is against you, the monsters are scary and plentiful and the other channelers are wary of your end goal.
From that description, how do tatical battles fit into the scheme I've described. I believe the tatical battles are an extension of the RPG side of the story. The player chooses to play out the epic more important battles of the sovereigns life to describe the events that took place (speaking of which if the sovereign dies in battle there should be a magical effect around them when it happens). To help flesh out the reality that this is an RPG, there is an element of real danger and the person has control over that person's life. But the less mundane battles can be autoresolved which is the empire building part of the game, and a battle took place where I won and they lost and a few troops died in the process, now moving on.
The point is that there needs to be a clearer message to what kind of game you are intending and what your vision of how the pieces are to fit together, but that is a double edged sword, because then people can say, if you succeeded or not. By the way love the game.
