Firstly, I'd just like to say that I think this game is fantastic - as an avid strategy gamer and someone whose studies were focused on this period of history it's been great to find a game as interesting and historically accurate as this one. The interaction between the strategy map and the battle map is also an incredible achievement.

That said, I believe that with a few very minor tweaks this game could become a true classic.

Unit Scale

Though I appreciate there has already been some discussion of this and you made clear your reasons for the units currently being scaled as they are I do think that units might need to be made a little smaller. Looking at the latest alpha you've added a lot of strategic tweaks to the battle system, however try fighting a battle on even an island as large as Crete and you'll find that it becomes incredibly difficult to try and flank any units when each unit seems to take up most of the width of the island. Obviously this becomes even more pronounced when trying to fight on any of the smaller land-masses. The other problem with unit scale at the moment is it detracts from the realistic feel of the game - a line of 30 men seems to stretch out for about 4 kilometres which just doesn't look quite right.

I'll admit that I have very little knowledge of the difficulties required in coding this but would it be at all possible to have unit scale as an option in game? Perhaps give us the option between current scale and 1:1 (or the smallest possible scale whilst still being visible).

Having written this I think that is actually currently the only thing that really needs changing in what is otherwise an incredible game so I'll leave it at that.

Hey!
I'm on the same wagon in that I just bought the game.
I have a couple of suggestions/questions too.

1) When I group select, I think there should be easily visible buttons to detach a unit from a group (permanently) or a setting that automatically detaches a unit from a group when you double-click it.
Maybe there is an option for this but I couldn't find it.
BETTER YET, a button for 'dismantle group'. that's the most important for me.

The way the game is played, I only use groups to move many units to an area, but when combat starts I don't want anything grouped... it keeps happening that I try to take one unit to attack an enemy unit, or select the cavalry to pursue, or really any combat order where I forget to double click and then tediously make sure I've double clicked correctly and only one unit is selected etc... well, it suddenly moves all my 'group', and the attempted manouvers are usually deadly for my army... and the frustration! :)

So if there is a button like this that I've missed (hotkey too) then I'm sorry and please enlighten me,
but I would DEARLY love a 'dismantle group' button/hotkey in the immediate interface.


2) I think there should be some way to 'hold' in the campagin.
By that I mean, some times maybe according to the plot or what objectives the player is going after that disables attacks by some factions, or maybe diplomacy that allows you to pay a ton of gold to prevent a faction from attacking (tribute essentially. why would they attack when you're already paying them and they can use the finances for a campagin against a different faction?).
Phillip himself (and more or less EVERY military strategist ever) used this strategy. You have to secure your back before you can move units to the front.

In short, some mechanics that would slow the game down a little bit, because I find that when playing I'm constantly rushing from here to there taking single units to run down single raider units and it seems that's nearly all that I do. It's like that game 'whack a mole' and I don't find it enjoyable personally. more tedious and prevents me from concentrating on the actual game.

I think a good way to do this is to nerf slave mine production (produce half as much gold as workers), so that you need workers to work mines if you want more money for truces and such, which in turn reduces from your available 'army points', so there is a balance.



3) very important feature: patrols.
I should be able to set regular patrols for units, and also AI behaviors (Attack on sight and capture/attack on sight and execute/etc).
This would really help alleviate the 'whack a mole' problem and also makes a lot of sense both historically and in terms of gameplay.
Even the flavor text in the site talks about how Phillip organized patrols diligently with set routines and such.
this is VERY IMPORTANT I think.


A good way to do this is for you to be able to set a unit/group with a defined "patrol area" or way points and then have the option to set the unit AI to automatically attack any enemy that is seen in this patrol area (by the unit itself or by guard towers or by other units).

I think this is the most important feature a game like this can have.


4) also critical is the ability to change a units home-city.
That is a big annoyance for me. My main campagin units are the ones I made when the game started, with all upgraded stats. they're based in agea(sp?).
When one routs in campagin I have to have to move it all the way across the map which takes hours.
Of course, naturally, this would necessitate almost automatic rebasing of a unit in a newly captured city on the frontier so that your main units would be based in the frontier.
But that's how it was done in history too and makes every sense.

5) player units should have at least enough AI to turn around when attacked by a single unit from behind.

6) more abilities to upgrade and customize cities. More uniqueness to cities in general. Some cities should be very special. Pella feels kind of special because it gets the pella militia and such, but you know. more flavor but also functionality.
Maybe stronger (but expensive to maintain) defensive structures.. maybe a siege factory in order to produce siege units, etc.






SO TO RECAP:

1: "dismantle group" button
2: diplomacy that allows you to take breaths sometimes
3: CRITICAL: patrols+unit AI settings
4: change unit home-city
5: basic player-unit AI 'attitudes' (selected by the player) to keep them from sitting in place while they get perforated in the open. etc.
6: more 'city specialization/flavor'



All of these options may already be in the game and I'm simply unaware of them or playing the wrong version (I played the one that stardock gave me when I bought it yesterday), but these things comprise my list of nags in the game. which is short and seems to be easy to adjust :). well except the patrol mechanic maybe. but that one feature will probably fix it for me completely by itself.

Thanks, fantastic game!

I can address #2 and #4 pretty confidently I think :P
There is diplomacy, you can click on the scroll&feather icon to see how much a truce or alliance would cost for you. Use them wisely!
You can change a unit's home city by selecting them individually (This is important since it won't break the game), find the city you want to change them to, right click, and select the icon that has two buildings with arrows between them.
It sounds complicated, but it's really not.

It's kinda... tedious to maintain an empire against constant attacks by 2-3 raiding units.
I've DLd gold and I'll check it out right now, but my problem with the game is that I have to constantly focus on exactly the things that I dont want to be focusing on.
If that was solved with a patrol system then I'm pretty sure it'll be my favorite game forever

still an awsome game though, good purchase

In terms of Issue #2..

The new price changes to the Alpha 5 build of Gold really helps diplomacy a lot.

I totally know what you mean though, as every time you go on the offensive, somehow, some way, someone else from the complete opposite of the front decides to raid your territories, or outright attack it, lol. The best suggestion I give to that, is have certain areas garrisoned with units to counter this, so this way you won't have to trek units across the map every single time and most importantly can keep your campaigning units, on the campaign. The beginning of the Phillip Scenario, can be a bit hectic, since your basically surrounded from all sides, but at the same time, as you continue to expand, gain money, and use those truces options, the invasions really do slow down tremendously. (Especially once you kick Athens off the Thermaic Gulf)

If it helps try to notice the trends, usually the AI will attack from the same direction almost every time. A good example, the Illryians will always try to invade Upper Macedonia either by going down Wolf's Pass (aka "the High Corridor") from Lake Lychindos or from Penestae down the corridor that leads to your most northern Upper Macedonia city of Pelagoni. So basically position 1 Phalangite Unit and 2 Scout Calvary, each in the cities of Pelagoni and Heraklea Lyncestis, and any invasion attempt through there will be easily quelled with minimal losses. (Since they will usually never come at the same time) Plus, your units only get better at it, as they continue to gain experience. So to sum it up, defense on key regions is very important and at the same time, continue to expand yourself, and declare truces when you can, but only when you feel you've gotten enough of their territory to justify that. Most importantly, use that pause button, it's a life saver, in order to see what's going on.

If you're even more curious, I'm in the process of writing up a beginning gameplay guide, on what directions you should expand first at least for the beginning parts of the game to help out new players and all based on the Alpha 5 build, which I'm immensely enjoying right now. That should be up within the hour or two, so if you're interested in something like that be sure to check back here soon :)

New player here, bought Hegemony a week back, finished the tutorial section then immediately downloaded Gold alpha 5. So far I've conquered the Paenonians and Pheraeans, kicked out the local Illyrians and Athenians, and am now expanding east of Pella. These are the things that struck me after 11 hours of gameplay.

Let me just clarify first that I love this game. That needs to be stated, because the next few points are all going to be criticism. But you know, out of love.

1. With the new road system, there needs to be a Trade information screen. It gets a bit tedious clicking on roads one by one (also, unable to click roads when zoomed out) just to check how much they're shipping exactly. Yes, expert players can just glance at a section of road and figure out they're doing 25t/wk, but this is a barrier to entry.

2. The new manpower system is awesome. Making sure there's an unbroken supply line the length and breadth of your empire, not so much. This might be realistic, but not necessarily fun when it takes your core army half a year just to get back someplace they can reinforce. Which brings me to point 3.

3. Supply lines. It's almost a miniature puzzle game in itself, with some cities having entirely too many nodes, and some nowhere near enough. For example, to get a supply line going between Heraklea Lyncentis and Lychindos, I have to either connect them through Metropolis(!) or disconnect a Lychindos farm or mine. I'm just really really glad villas aren't around anymore.

4. Slaves. I'm not the best of players by any means, but after 4 years, I have about 10 stacks of slaves sitting idly by. Have you considered letting them work farms, triremes, or perhaps emancipation to citizenship (and thus, manpower)? Also, capturing slaves when they surrendered right outside city walls is an unnecessary chore. Maybe an "Enslave all" command within a certain radius?

5. I've seen the AI flank. I've never seen them react to flanking. Perhaps this is simply because I've only tried the Macedonian campaign, and Phalangites are surprisingly mobile, but it's something to be considered.

EDIT: 6. You can shift+click to queue move orders, but not other orders. This means I can't order, for example, my spearmen garrison to go capture sheep without microing them.

7. Can't force port cities to use their land routes to other port cities without filling their port nodes first.

Our original idea with slaves was that they'd slowly die off in the mines which would give you reason to continue capturing them. We dropped this idea because we were worried it would be too much micromanagement to be topping up your mines all the time (but it was part of the reason you're currently allowed to put extras in). The idea was realistic though and provided a constant need for slaves so I don't know if there would be a good way to make it work.

Ugh, I think the game has enough micromanagement already that adding this in would not be wise in my opinion. I mean, when I don't feel like getting anymore slaves, I just execute them if they surrender, as it still takes away from the possible recruitment of the other units. I honestly think the way it is now is now with slaves is fine, although I will say freeing them, so they add to population replenishment if the city there in is actually not a bad idea at all.

As to the other feedback you talked about Rob, awesome ideas there in terms of more supply nodes and such, so looking forward to seeing that.

1. Trade. A trade screen could streamline information, and can help me figure out why, for example, the Heraklea Lycentis-Pella route has nothing but 100t/wk roads, yet Pella still only has 2000/5000 food, while Heraklea Lycentis has 9000/2000. I realise there's a popup tooltip on every city screen that shows exactly how much is shipped, but something visible on a further out zoom will help when your empire gets large. Actually, your idea of an overlay on the roads itself is awesome. Perhaps color the roads green-blue-yellow-red, visible on the paper map zoom level?

2. Recruitment supply line. After playing a few more days, I actually mind this less now. Healing shrines are now worth their weight in gold, I have self-sufficient clusters of cities (instead of one empire-wide net), and you can always RP "winter quartering" your troops at home instead of just sticking them in your latest acquisition. Of course, I haven't reached Persia yet, but I suppose you can run a campaign with nothing but mercenaries if it comes to that. That being said, I do still find the market/port node system a bit cumbersome when coupled with the new recruitment system, but I've learned to live with it.

3. New request. A "Forced march" option, basically telling your troops to run when they have stamina. Handy for overland marching long distances.

Other than that, no problem comes to mind. Still enjoying the game immensely and looking forward to further products from Longbow.

Well just got this game today because it looked interesting, and I have sworn so many times. Its good but really wished it was possible to do all sorts of little things. Then I remember the time period and realize, theres not much I can put in because during those times alot of my ideas haven't existed yet. But I was curious. One of my ideas is about slaves. Why not have a side ability for the slaves so that you can train them up inside cities and turn them into free soldiers. They would use up food, but not as much as a normal unit would (usually slaves that are used for fighting are given just enough for a battle), and their maximum size could be 40 or however much you think they need to be. Only way to replace deaths would be to take more slaves and merge them in cities and allow them to train. This would also give an excuse to go out and get slaves, so that you can expand an army without it costing too much. And the food would make it so that you can't create a unholy army of slaves. They also won't be the best of fighters because they really have no will. They would still revolt if they get outside other soldiers or buildings view, and when they do revolt, they can be nasty to your country. I can't imagine having ten armies of slaves and then my controlling unit thats making sure they don't revolt runs off in the heat of the battle and so the remaining slaves revolt, run from battle and then goes straight for two un protected cities. that would be a bad day. Also do not think mercenary should be bought i cities outside your home country. I firmly believe they should act like conscripts and be called conscripts. From what I have seen you are practically forcing them to become part of your army most of the time. Only countries that won't do this are countries that will not rebel, and then they should add to the countries pool. Mercenaries should come from allied countries who you have paid for use of some soldiers. When defeated they will run home instead of staying under your command. Just some things I thought of that I thought could make things interesting.

The last thing I thought is when slaves are forced to fight against their home country, that the chance of revolt go up depending on number of soldiers they are going up against minus number of soldiers you are bringing that are not slaves. Example You bring an army of 4 slaves, and 4 regulars, and the enemies bring an 8 of eight. 8 minus 4 equals 4 which would make 50%. so 50% chance of revolt the longer the slaves are fighting per unit. Couple of regular units run away but hostiles are the same numbers. so its 8 minus 2 equals 6 which would make 85.5% chance of revolt. So on so forth. Hope I did that math right. Tired, played the game last 12 hours. Was doing well but then got attacked on three fronts at the same time. West, directly north of pella, and by the guys I call the blue army, east. Destroyed 60% of what I had created with all of my armies taken out by the engagement in the east. Watched in horror of my 5 hour work destroyed in a matter of 10 minutes. took another 5 to destroy the invading armies one by one to take back what I had orginally gained. Having my original slave armies to fight with would have considerably slowed down these forces enough to where I would have been able to stop the advance early on. I like the idea of trade forts, and being able to choose where to place them. Having set forts like they are is nice, and should be so that these forts cost less to maintain and build, but having other forts that can be upgraded to a certain point and placed wherever would be cool, along with the ability for them to be destroyed. That would make for some interesting situations. And why not have the ability for armies to expand the number of people that are in them for higher food requirements and gold and if it gets to a point, even points. The good thing about them is they are harder to take on by most regular armies, bad thing would be for their higher cost than multiple units would normally be. Now its nighty night time.

I second the idea mentioned above about switching the single-click/double click system for detaching single units and selecting the whole group. If you are wanting to move a single unit during a battle, it is probably going to be a split-second decision, and single click would make more sense. The whole army can be selected by drawing a box round it anyway.

One thing I would like to add to it, though, is an alteration to how group orders are carried out. There have been times when I have had an army moving through an area, with slaves carrying food, and also with sheep that I'm escorting somewhere, and I decide to capture some ruins, or a watchtower, or something. I click on it, and the order is refused, because slaves and sheep can't capture buildings =) Could this be changed so that only the units capable of carrying out the order actually receive the order and therefore carry it out without question, rather than the order being flatly refused?

On the issue of unit scale: I would love, absolutely love the option for "single unit" graphics. In that sense the armies will be treated like the counters on the cloth map and allow me to organise armies and perform greater manoeuvres within tight terrain.


I also would like an expansion on generals and "special" people; not just generals for your units but statesmen, craftsmen for your cities, farms and some such.

So i downloaded gold this morning and played it. I must say I am having a nightmare, and I am doing my best not to play on a easier level, because normally in most games I can handle this. This time what happened as Macedonia I had forces in middle where I thought my hostiles ships were going to attack. But what happened were a large army went for pella through land and the ships stopped at my starting city and unloaded 6 troops. So my eastern defense force of 4 troops went south, and was defeated :/ Lost pella, and my starting city. Swung around the main army to head to pella and then lost philip to the fighting and then the game. All within 40 minutes of starting the game. Was wondering is this on purpose does the AI realize what it is doing, or is it coincidental?

Wanted to make an omission to my idea of trade forts. I think if they had heavy cost, but can do trades, it could solve the current supply line issue. In the past alot of forts had more use than just simple garrison duties, many also did trade routes. Also could be use to forward supplies much easier than some of the cities can.

Zee army of slaves must bow down to zee enemy.

Making sure there's an unbroken supply line the length and breadth of your empire, not so much.

Do you think this could be fixed by better highlighting the route home and indicating breaks or should there always be some default level of recruitment. Alternatively, we could make camping allow you to get recruits anywhere like healing shrines do or we've discussed the idea of letting the player build Supply Depots which would let you run a supply line to any point in the field.

No no no! Keep the reinforcing difficult, making troops difficult to obtain and thus valuable is a real differentiating factor for H:PoM from pretty much everything on the market. The shrines as plentiful enough as-is, people just need to remember to use them. What about a "hire mercenary replacements" option that would re-populate your unit, but come with a low per-man gold cost on top of the normal unit cost. You could make this even less attractive to the player by making it something one can do with native population at conquered cities, that way at most cities you'd be able to draft 20-30 after conquering a city at most, and by doing so you potentially hamstring your initial defensive squads built there by using all the pop.

With those rules in place I think I would use standard reinforcement through the lines almost always, but in the case of a long campaign or one going particularly badly I can certainly see myself "looting recruits" and setting fire to the farms as I run home with my tail between my legs.

4. Slaves. I'm not the best of players by any means, but after 4 years, I have about 10 stacks of slaves sitting idly by

Our original idea with slaves was that they'd slowly die off in the mines which would give you reason to continue capturing them. We dropped this idea because we were worried it would be too much micromanagement to be topping up your mines all the time (but it was part of the reason you're currently allowed to put extras in). The idea was realistic though and provided a constant need for slaves so I don't know if there would be a good way to make it work.

What about using them as a meatshield infantry? Cities that have slaves inside them gain a new training option that utilizes the in-city slave population and has a small nominal fee. They should still need supervision, but it would make them more useful if just to block canyons from raiding parties.

So i downloaded gold this morning and played it. I must say I am having a nightmare, and I am doing my best not to play on a easier level, because normally in most games I can handle this. This time what happened as Macedonia I had forces in middle where I thought my hostiles ships were going to attack. But what happened were a large army went for pella through land and the ships stopped at my starting city and unloaded 6 troops. So my eastern defense force of 4 troops went south, and was defeated :/ Lost pella, and my starting city. Swung around the main army to head to pella and then lost philip to the fighting and then the game. All within 40 minutes of starting the game. Was wondering is this on purpose does the AI realize what it is doing, or is it coincidental?

Wanted to make an omission to my idea of trade forts. I think if they had heavy cost, but can do trades, it could solve the current supply line issue. In the past alot of forts had more use than just simple garrison duties, many also did trade routes. Also could be use to forward supplies much easier than some of the cities can.

Zee army of slaves must bow down to zee enemy.


Sounds like you had some bad luck man - I build walls around all the native cities as soon as I get slaves, once you've got walls just make sure you have at least one spearman unit in all your main cities and you'll have enough of a force (between the garrison at the rest of the cities plus the damage your enemy will take pounding on your walls) to stop just about anything. Gold is *ALL* about flanking - Use your Companion Cav's to rear-charge whatevers hitting you (that means engage with the enemy with your infantry first, THEN flank) and you'll rout them good. Also make sure you're putting generals on your units!

You'll get the hang of it