General Abilities

[choppinlt]

I like what I see so far with Generals and their characteristics. Without being able to play it yet I wonder if there are some additional ways to help replicate generals and their impact. Perhaps this isn't overly original, but what about force multipliers? There are some famous quotes regarding generals and their impact. For instance Wellington said Napoleon's presence was worth 40,000 men.

Perhaps force multipliers are unnecessary with Empires battle resolution system. Perhaps it would be handier when it came to battlefield conversions for FOG2. Again I have no idea what clever thoughts are already planned, but take the case of 2 players deciding to play out a battle using FOG2. Assuming those players are of similar talents, this doesn't reflect the game situation well IMHO. I know there has been some discussion on increasing sub generals, but this doesn't feel like it could make up for a Hannibal-Sempronius type of matchup.

Has this been thoroughly examined?

Thanks,

Choppinlt

[loki100]

The next dev diary will cover combat and that might help answer your questions. But basically good generals are a real force muliplier within the Empires combat system - and some have traits that work especially well/badly in the right circumstances (not all traits are 'good').

At the moment you can't use FoG2 in MP Empires - would probably be hard to manage with the WEGO turn system but there may be plans to address this (genuinely no idea).

Differences in leadership comes across to FoG2 in a few ways. One is extra sub-generals but it also gives a boost/reduction to unit morales. So if you have a v good general up against a poor one, odds on the first will have a better trained army - of course this depends on the existing value of the units, if the poor general is leading a set of elite legions that have won every battle they have fought in the last 50 years, then they probably will still show as having decent morale.

But it does make a difference, I've just done a test battle where on the basis of unit types and terrain I should have been in real trouble, but the leadership aspect of the translation, plus having a veteran army in the first place, really compensated.

[choppinlt]

At the moment you can't use FoG2 in MP Empires - would probably be hard to manage with the WEGO turn system but there may be plans to address this (genuinely no idea).

Nooo! I really do hope they make this functional. This is the aspect I found most unique and looked forward to the most. I definitely understand how fighting FOG2 battles can interrupt the MP flow, but I would at least like to have the choice...

Thanks for all the info though. It sounds like it may be fully addressed. I guess I will have to wait till game release... or the next dev diary.

[choppinlt]

Just read Dev Diary 9 about combat. First of all, it sounds like a simple elegant system, yet it provides solid results while encouraging players to pay attention to force composition! All I can say at this point is that it sounds great!

I noticed that there were no apparent caveats or exceptions when the Dev Diary talked about FOG2 porting. In other words it sounds like MP FOG2 will be supported. Is that a fair assumption?

[loki100]

J....
I noticed that there were no apparent caveats or exceptions when the Dev Diary talked about FOG2 porting. In other words it sounds like MP FOG2 will be supported. Is that a fair assumption?

the FoG2 comments at the end were to stress the option. At the moment no, you don't have the link in PBEM (& we are testing PBEM now).

[Pocus]

Sorry no, as I explained in the Slitherine forum, that would be a logistic nightmare to solve. Only a very popular request would convince Slitherine to opens this Pandora box. Nothing is impossible, formally and functionally, but there are many issues to solve to not kill all tempo of a MP game, if you allow tac battles.

Unless you are talking of a 1 vs 1 MP game, this makes things simpler.

[choppinlt]

Allowing it for 1v1 MP would be a great start, and yes that makes things MUCH simpler. However I don't think it has to stop there. Here are some considerations (I will apologize in advance for the long post):

First there seems to be a notable amount of support in the FOG2 community that looks at Empires as a fresh take on generating MP battles. I don't have any demographic data on this, just my opinion.

Next, regardless the number of MP participants in a given campaign of Empires, if all players have the same understanding about porting battles to FOG2 then there should be little issue with turn times. A key point here is that I don't foresee every battle being played out using FOG2 (though players would have that option if they want). I foresee only those few key battles in a given PvP war to be played out....and that would require mutual agreement by both belligerents. If players do it right on the strategic level, then most battles will be so lopsided that they won't be interesting to play out. Using FOG2 for battle resolution would be based on 1) player preference (they may or may NOT want to play it out); 2) A quick discussion whether or not player schedules would allow for resolution "Hey Bill, you got time to play this battle out?".

Regarding battles against non-player countries (NPC's), there are probably a number of FOG2 generals who would like to participate in a "mercenary" mode whereby they only act as the general to fight out the FOG2 battles without being part of an Empires campaign. Use of the "Challenge" in FOG2 for MP battles would enable this. Empire players can issue passwords to limit who accepted these challenges.

The following are some design concepts that could be incorporated to help smooth out Empire turn resolution concerns:

Restrictions could be placed on the time allowed to finish a battle using FOG2; if battle time were exceeded then Empires would auto resolve that battle instead and move the turn along.

Concurrent battles: WEGO allows for the possibility of multiple battle notifications to be sent to players at the same time. With all players establishing their moves, the computer will be able to predict most battles (but not all) and when/where they will occur. Notifications can be sent to affected players and they can make their decision for auto resolve or FOG2. Then multiple battles can be fought concurrently to help keep things moving, as well as engaging as many players as possible.

A checkbox option could be added to the End of Turn sequence that would prevent battle notifications for player vs NPC battles. I.e. auto resolution for PvNPC battle instances becomes default for that player each turn the box is checked. This means the selecting player would only get battle notifications against other humans, otherwise that turn keeps moving.

A checkbox option could be to the End of Turn sequence indicating a players preference to *only* use auto resolve for that turn. It can be altered from turn to turn according to player preference. When only using auto resolve the game knows to not even bother that player (and his opponents) for battle notifications further reducing turn interruptions.

Develop a simplified method of comms for players to make simple game decisions during turn resolution. This could be something web-based, text message, email message, a simple mobile app...basically anything that would allow universal access by mobile devices to enable quick decisions to facilitate turn resolution over the course of the day without a person being in full-gaming mode. Example: responding to a text message at lunch saying "Battle Alert: Impulse-3; Region-Apulia, 10 Width; General-Hannibal, 16 units vs Roman with 20 units" Obviously this is just a crude example to illustrate the point. Anyway, players get the notification and can make a quick binary decision on what they want to do. Hit the Play Out action or the Auto Resolve action, then move on.

Bottom line: you would give players maximum flexibility in their gaming experience to make it what they want. I primarily see myself playing with 4 or 5 other people I know who have similar ambitions with their gaming experience, and I estimate most other users do the same.

Anyway, I just wanted to throw some considerations out there because I have given this a fair amount of thought. I think there are reasonable methods to help reduce Turn interruptions to a level acceptable to those involved in that campaign. This is an option I would even be willing to pay extra for.