Skip navigation

Suggestions

Forum NavigationHome > Forum Index > Hegemony > Suggestions
Level 8 Human gamer
Alignment: True neutral
Posted on December 2, 2010 at 11:53 pm

I just have to say I am loving this game. I purchased about a couple weeks back and quickly switched to Gold Edition as it seems the AI didn't have global manpower limit so it was rush or die (eventually) and I didn't like that and you can't rush in all directions.

Gold Edition makes it really fun :D You guys are doing a great job.



Is there any plans to make the game have a multi-player thing? I mean it would be SOOOOOOOOOOOOO GOOD to have multi-player! Come on!



Oh and a few suggestions:
-If there's an AI the player can use to fight off small raids I think it would be better.

-Just like how we're able to pay a sum to improve the roads, we should be able to pay a sum to increase the number of nodes available to a fort or city (mines and farms should stay as one). Maybe up to a maximum of 2 or 3 more nodes. I HATE how I can't connect stuff right next to each other just due to nodes limitations. I mean those routes in real life if the government doesn't build the road it would probably walked on so often that a dirt path would appear by itself.

-If actively assaulting a garrisoned city, the garrison also fights and cause casualties, not just the catapult. I mean that's what should be the case. Right now the garrison only adds the city's "HP" and man catapults but does not actually fight. So they only make it so the assaulting army take longer to take the city, but can not prevent them from doing so. In theory an army assaulting a garrisoned city or fortress needs at least twice the number of the garrison to win, and three times to win and still have enough of an army left to continue the campaign. Of course this also means either the map and city should be bigger or units smaller or both so more units of the army can assault it. And some cities that are positioned near chokepoints which limits the number of units that can assault it would be a pain (it should be) to take by assault and is better being starved out.

-More tactical elements based on physics and psychology so the different battle formations are actually useful and we can have super cool stuff done, like say ONCE IN A WHILE beat an army twice your size (though I'd rather keep it the way it is if the AI can't handle it)


-Natural attrition when not garrisoned (just a bit), which is bigger in enemy territory, and huge in the winter (there's a reason for winter quatres). So you know, the season thing up on top actually matters on land.
-Farms should have one (or two) harvests a year to limit perpetual campaigning. The harvests are obviously quite large to last the entire year. But the food supply should need to be adjusted (which city needs to store more) for the army. So like if you are sieging at late summer, both you and the city you are sieging would starve out pretty quick. If you siege and take the enemy's harvest on the other hand you're good and he's doomed.

Though I admit the two ideas above might not be good and cut a lot of fun off the game as this would effectively mean only half of the year could be spent fighting.


-It seems like the villages(villas?) were taken out of gold edition because the generals are migrated to the city (which I like). I think villages could still be used, though not constructed. It should be like a farm and generate tax revenue instead of food. Also it can be used to provide like 10 max manpower to the connected city (blockaded city obviously would get that 10 max manpower taken out).


-I really like the city manpower thing in Gold Edition. However I strongly suggest that some form of global manpower limit similar to the one in original be implimented so that no one can just take a handful of cities and then sit on his ass and wait and do nothing until he has a huge ass army that he can stomp through everything. I like the original system where we have one for your native faction and one for non-native mercenaries and both goes up and down depanding on how many cities you control. This reflects that no matter what your recruitment manpower is, your population can only support so many men in the armed forces. The only problem with the original is that this limitation didn't seem to apply to the AI (correct me if I'm wrong) when it should.
Difficulty then can raise or limit this global manpower. Of course I'd rather difficulty be about AI


-AIs should fight AIs. Border cities should change hands once in a while. Though I don't want a superpower to appear all the time (maybe very rarely). That should take a lot of luck and skill (hence the player). More often though AI should interact diplomatically and make alliances or enemies and such.


Oh and if we can increase the map size by a (quite a) bit
Then we can have more details in the map, like more variations, plains, hills (not that these doesn't exist in game) and streams (this doesn't exist in game). So that WATER logistics is also important.
And of course tactical advantage and disadvange with terrain like: above a certain steepness cavalry can't walk through, cavalry AND phalanx completely sux in forested or rocky or broken terrain. Ranged troops have more range on a hill.
That way people can maneuver to good ground for battle. But unless there's multi-player I don't want this if the AI can't handle it.


Oh yeah and what is all the "this unit is a prisioner and can not be used until the city is retaken by its native faction" thing I found all over Macedonian cities controlled by the AI? These units don't do anything at all and make assaulting these cities seem like a cake if the city is garrisoned entirely by these.

And once again.

MULTIPLAYER!

Level 8 Human gamer
Alignment: True neutral
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 4:56 am

Um, always found the node limitations pretty crucial to the differentiation of cities and regions in the game. Having Athens as a naval hub, for instance, is possible only because of its insane number of sea nodes.

Maybe the addition of one node for a steep price would be alright, but generally I think it's better left as it is.

Level 21 Extraplanar gamer
Alignment: True neutral
Location: Toronto
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 6:50 am

The development challenge remains: how best to blend historical accuracy, technical feasibility and fun? To do a proper job of adding multiplayer would take a year. Unfortunately, we just don't have the resources to consider it at this time.

We will have additional improvements to gameplay put in place before we release "Gold", many of which have been influenced by the constructive feedback that we've been receiving from players. Thanks to all!

Jim

Level 8 Human gamer
Alignment: True neutral
Posted on December 3, 2010 at 12:06 pm

Um, always found the node limitations pretty crucial to the differentiation of cities and regions in the game. Having Athens as a naval hub, for instance, is possible only because of its insane number of sea nodes.

Maybe the addition of one node for a steep price would be alright, but generally I think it's better left as it is.
YMMV
I personally found it very annoying that I can't connect a farm like 30 pixels away from my city just because I didn't have enough nodes, or that my road network just looks absolutely silly. If the blockade and logistics is the aim then I don't see how it matters as far as land nodes since all nodes are blocked when the city is surrounded anyway.

And yes I openly admit a lot of my above suggestions wouldn't be good or wouldn't be able to be done >.<

Though some are simple enough right? Like say, global manpower, garrison fighting during assaults, and villages :)

And always thanks for listening to player feedback. Unlike, say, the CA team and TW games.