Skip navigation

Industrious Turtles Unite!

Forum NavigationHome > Forum Index > Hegemony > Industrious Turtles Unite!
Pages 1 2
Level 8 Human Hegemon
Alignment: Lawful good
Location: PA, USA
Posted on February 28, 2011 at 6:04 pm

I hope the title grabs some attention, and I promise it will be explained.

Most new threads here are started with praise for this game, though you won’t find it here as this forum is already saturated with my love. However there is one major wish I have (I won’t call it a complaint as there is nothing to ‘fix’). Hegemony doesn’t cater to turtles!
I have a turtle playing style – I like to expand slowly, taking time to fully secure and develop my lands. Hegemony has strikingly few ways to do this. Apart from allowing the recruit pool to refill, there is no incentive, or even point to doing anything but attacking. So, I’ve humbly put together a small list of ideas for the community to scrutinize and provide a place for you all to propose their own.

Surplus Food – In my current game as Thessaly, every Autumn I have a massive surplus of food going to waste. All my cities, forts, farms, and even my slave bands are full to capacity. Why not be able to designate a city where the excess food will be put towards enlarging the maximum recruit pool and/or population. This could also be an empire-wide effect slowly benefiting all cities. Rate would be a dev designed balance but I would suggest having the numbers increase at a decreasing rate.

Assimilation – After conquering a city, the number of troops required for proper repression should drop until they are fully assimilated. The rate of assimilation could be a function of faction hostility.

Homeland Forts – After significant expansion, a great number of forts that were once useful for border protection become largely defunct. Akin to Medieval 2 Total War, these structures should be able to be converted between a military strong point (Fort), or a revenue generating commercial center such as a regional Trading Post (maybe it could produce more $ if staffed by workers/slaves). The conversion in either direction should be long, maybe half a year, during which time the structure would serve neither function. This way the decision cannot be made lightly.

Farms – There should be an option to spend some coin to have farms produce slightly more, the upgrade should work just like supply chains. Perhaps staffing them with workers/slaves could help as well.

Mines – Upgrade mines to provide another twenty worker slots, perhaps at reduced efficiency.

City Building Options – More robust walls, creating more market nodes, ability to produce superior arms/armor.

Level 8 Human Test Dummy (MK III)
Alignment: Lawful
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Posted on March 1, 2011 at 3:39 pm

I play the same way. I also agree with your ideas and i would like to see more building options for your city.

Level 7 Human gamer
Alignment: True neutral
Posted on March 8, 2011 at 11:24 am

Good thoughts.

One feature I'd love to see is the color of a supply route change from black to perhaps red when it is at full capacity. Would help me know which ones I need to upgrade if the cities along its route are low on food.

Level 7 Human gamer
Alignment: Chaotic good
Posted on March 8, 2011 at 12:01 pm

Yep yep -- the Sandbox campaign in particular could really benefit from some options that would allow you to slowly develop towns, add trade nodes, recruit higher level units, increase mine capacity etc. Of course some of these upgrades might cost quite a bit and take quite a bit of time, but this sort of economic development is a standard feature of sandbox gameplay. Obviously not needed in the Philip campaign, which is more of an 'on the rails' experience (albeit one of the best I've ever played), but for Sandbox this would be great.

Level 8 Human Hegemon
Alignment: Lawful good
Location: PA, USA
Posted on March 8, 2011 at 7:53 pm

Good thoughts.

One feature I'd love to see is the color of a supply route change from black to perhaps red when it is at full capacity. Would help me know which ones I need to upgrade if the cities along its route are low on food.


I like the idea for a visual indication of the traffic on a supply/trade route. I've picked up Rome Total War again lately and it represents the level of route traffic with more carts/merchant ships traveling along it. Your color idea or this method would both work.

@ Cherryfunk - I agree. This may not fit in the scripted campaigns, at least the ones made so far, but would absolutely deepen the sandbox experience.

Level 8 Human Vault Technician
Alignment: Chaotic good
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posted on March 9, 2011 at 2:15 pm

Add me to the rooster of industrial turtles, I totally support such customisation options, which would help make each playthrough more unique and engaging.

After having sacrificed years of my free time on the altar of strategy gaming, I found dynamism, healthy randomness and the ability to customise to be the keys to good replayability, which is what sandbox modes are all about.

I once posted a thread about town development through the use of slaves as "currency". It wasn't recieved too well at the time, but you can check it out here, I feel the ideas were generally pointing in the same direction this thread is promoting.

Level 8 Human Sage
Alignment: Chaotic good
Location: Great Britain
Posted on March 9, 2011 at 3:42 pm

i like these ideas too. more in depth gameplay and developement, and something to play around with in the winter months when you often have to sit tight and wait for spring.

i have concerns, however, with the economy and the game balance. i suspect you would have to actually need to do these things to be strong enought to win, otherwise by doing them you would be overpowered and stomp all over the opposition. and needing to do them might be a turn-off for some of the current players. therefore i dont think there should be opportunities to upgrade anything that really affects the game balance. which then begs the question... well what would u want to upgrade that wouldnt affect the game balance? i dont really have a good answer. perhaps just additional defensive measures, after all were talking turtles here. bigger walls, standing garrisons, more city-wall catapults, extra shrines, some purely cosmetic changes (statues in cities, domes, monuments)? but they should cost a lot and take a very very long time.

but if the player is given enough excess cash to pay for upgrades that would enable the player to ignore the developement and just recuit more troops and destroy the game balance anyway (some may argue that theyd enjoy it more, i would disagree and say most would soon get bored). so perhaps all upgrades need to cost food not gold. that would, as a bonus, give a usefulness to all the excess food laying around in the peaceful areas of your empire, and it would allow upgrades without giving the player the opportunity to just spam more units instead. and the food would have to be actually transported into the upgraded building/city, thru the normal supply lines with the option to speed it up using manual transportation (slaves/workers/triremes), with only the surplus above and beyond the structures stockpile setting being "paid" towards the construction.

just my 2 cents. sorry if its a bit rambling :)

Level 7 Human gamer
Alignment: Chaotic good
Posted on March 9, 2011 at 4:00 pm

Good points Kami. Another 'currency' of sorts besides gold would be slaves -- you might need x number of slaves to complete various projects, or to increase a city's population. That would maintain the overall gold/unit balance and also give you more reasons to go slave raiding. Although, I would like any changes in this regard to be historical in nature, and I'm not sure how big the Greeks were on using slave labor. I know the Romans were, but as I understand it Greece in this period had a fairly low and stable population due to the limited space and arable land.

Level 8 Human Vault Technician
Alignment: Chaotic good
Location: Budapest, Hungary
Posted on March 9, 2011 at 5:32 pm

Naturally, if we implement features like this, we need to teach the AI how to use them too (or give some of the bonuses to the AI from the get-go), to avoid upsetting the game balance in favour of the player.

I still think the slave system carries great unexploited potential as a resource to boost/improve/develop your empire, because right now, there's really not a whole lot they can do apart from manning mines and building walls.
I don't know a lot about slavery in ancient Greece, but in most other periods, slave trading used to be hot business AFAIK, and it feels a bit crazy when I reach the point where I just can't be arsed to capture them, because they're so useless that executing them simply feels more convenient. If that's how ancient Greeks did business though, I'm all fine with leaving it as it is.

But if they're ever made into a more precious resource, the AI needs to learn how to effectively capture and manage them too.

And ideally, the AIs also need to start waging war on eachother, if nations on the other side of Hellas are to stand any chance against a player who battled his/her way all over to them.

PS: The problem I see with food as the sole development currency is that once you reach a point where you're large enough to have an inner circle of cities which are safe from enemy incursions, you'd start snowballing indefinitely due to the constant food surplus, which you wouldn't need for military purposes that far from the front anyway. Food could be part of the cost for development though, I just think it shouldn't be the only cost.

Level 8 Human Sage
Alignment: Chaotic good
Location: Great Britain
Posted on March 10, 2011 at 6:52 am

youve both mentioned slaves as a possible currency but theres a problem with that. i think we would all agree that whatever was implemented would have to work with every variation of the game settings, yes? well my first play-through of the Gold release i have the re-enforcements setting to "Off". (Its a war of attrition and i love it.) This means there are much less units in the game, and much less chance to capture slaves. and those that i do capture are far too valuable to use for anything other than disbanding in cities to replenish re-enforcements.

But this train of thought leads to another potential problem, the other setting i currently have is food production on "Normal". the other variation to this setting is "High". so if food was the currency of upgrades then this would pose the same problems as gold would.

As usual i find myself providing more questions than answers.
Maybe i was off the mark with the original premise that the upgrades shouldnt be required. Maybe that wouldnt put people off. Maybe it should be more the Age of Empire games (of which i was a huge fan) in that research and developement are as big a part as warfare.
Maybe its the gold model that needs to be redone. instead of the simplistic running totals of expense versus income and a surplus maybe it needs to be an actual balance that shrinks or grows depending on the situation at any given time.

Level 8 Human
Alignment: Lawful
Location: Oz
Posted on March 10, 2011 at 6:28 pm

Surplus Food – In my current game as Thessaly, every Autumn I have a massive surplus of food going to waste. All my cities, forts, farms, and even my slave bands are full to capacity. Why not be able to designate a city where the excess food will be put towards enlarging the maximum recruit pool and/or population. This could also be an empire-wide effect slowly benefiting all cities. Rate would be a dev designed balance but I would suggest having the numbers increase at a decreasing rate. Or perhaps sell food "overseas" for gold.

Level 8 Human Hegemon
Alignment: Lawful good
Location: PA, USA
Posted on March 11, 2011 at 10:34 am

Or perhaps sell food "overseas" for gold.

This is a good idea, and probably simple to implement, though I'm no coder. I think you could take it a step further and be able to buy food off this global market as well.

Level 8 Human Truffle Farmer
Alignment: Good
Location: Australia
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 2:06 am

Really no way to introduce the upgrades idea without it becomes a mandatory thing in gameplay. Otherwise the point of overpoweredness comes up, if you balance that then epopel who don't upgrade become underpowered.

I think as a solution you have to use gold to build something *for the duration that it is building*. Allow me to upgrade roads between cities that allow my troops to move faster on them roman style (and every civilized nation like persia, greece, etc.). Say it takes a year or half a year of constant investment to finish the road between two linked cities (possibly predetermined to stop spamming?). For the length of that time make a charge of 100 (or whatever) gold be added to my expenses. When its finished building take the expense away. For a farming upgrade, or a wall upgrade or anything do the same, time should be the currency we use with the additional gold cost being the only thing to stop us from simutaneously upgradeing everything.

To provide balance you could set it that all improvements are destroyed upon city capture so to build new market nodes, or finacial systems or public order and city guard bonuses to reduce unrest needs to be rebuilt when you take land from the computer factions. This would also serve to stop constant snowballing as you could either continuously upgrade your empire (for example tiered roads; dirt, then basic paved, then so on and so forth) or expand quicker and have a less developed overall empire. or simply focus on your core and leave the outer edge as undeveloped. Player choice.

The reason I suggest this style of upgrade is that as mentioned in the description of the current currency system is that gold doesn't accumulate because Phillip always found somehting to spend it on, well if I'm Phillip why can't I find anything to spend my excess gold on?

Final note: This should be something that takes a long time and forces some real choices out of the player, it should be realistically impossible to upgrade everything to maximum unless you play for many many hours. Choices and small, upgradable bonuses that can be built upon would work well in this system.

Level 8 Human Sage
Alignment: Chaotic good
Location: Great Britain
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 8:24 am

some excellent suggestions there Blxz, i like them. i think the idea of a drain on your resources during construction which ceases on completion would work well with the current econmic model, without actually making permanent changes to the cash available. well answered, thnx.

Level 7 Human gamer
Alignment: Chaotic good
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 10:25 am

I agree, I like the idea of construction costs being applied only for the duration of the construction -- sort of the way truces work, except these would have a finite length. So for example if you want to make a city a major trade hub, over the course of a few years you could add more trade nodes, but it would cost you gold until the construction is complete. This would work well within the current economic model.

Theoretically this would also allow the building of new forts, watchtowers, farms, even new cities, anywhere the player wants to place them. Something that would be great for sandbox mode -- the more the player can 'shape' the world the better (as long as it's balanced, of course).

well my first play-through of the Gold release i have the re-enforcements setting to "Off". (Its a war of attrition and i love it.) This means there are much less units in the game, and much less chance to capture slaves. and those that i do capture are far too valuable to use for anything other than disbanding in cities to replenish re-enforcements.

Kami, how exactly does it work with reinforcements set to 'off'? Does this mean once you've drained a city of manpower, that's it, no more troops from there for the rest of the game?

Level 8 Human Sage
Alignment: Chaotic good
Location: Great Britain
Posted on March 14, 2011 at 6:04 pm

Kami, how exactly does it work with reinforcements set to 'off'? Does this mean once you've drained a city of manpower, that's it, no more troops from there for the rest of the game?

yes. except i tweaked it a bit after about 20 hours or so. the problem was that the AI lost troops attacking me, then the city they came from was unprotected for the rest of the game. just sitting there waiting to be captured. look up "sitting duck" in a dictionary and thered be a picture of one of those cities. and thats just too easy.

so i went into the globals file and found the relevant variables.

<!-- recruitment levels -->
<recruitment level="off">0.001</recruitment>
<recruitment level="normal">0.0275</recruitment>
<recruitment level="high">0.10</recruitment>

i changed "off" from 0.0 to 0.001, which as u can see is about 3.6% of "normal" and 1% of "high". i'm not sure of the maths thats used to translate that into actual men, and in the back of my mind i have the notion that a cities recruit rate is modified by its size, tho ive no idea where i got that notion from. but with 0.001 the largest cities appear to generate around 5 recruits per year, and the smaller cities do seem to generate proportionately less.

in terms of actual gameplay this means that, because recruitment isnt totally off, you have a limited amount of time to capitolise on the enemies losses, which can be from many cities over a large area. and it takes time to find and capture empty cites, bearing in mind you have a lot less troops to capture them with, and you have to be careful not to overstretch yourself. therefore the AI has chance to re-garrison those that you dont capture quickly.
but recruitment is still so low that every soldier lost by you is a major concern, and one of your units being routed is a catastrophe. you have to really play tacticaly, keeping your losses to an absolute minimum while any losses that you inflict have real significance. sinking an enemy trireme for example, would take the enemy 2 full years to recover from (more from a small city). every single battle, no matter how small, matters and makes a real difference. i would highly recommend it (along with food on "normal" aka low) for anyone who wants a really tactical game.

Level 8 Human Truffle Farmer
Alignment: Good
Location: Australia
Posted on March 17, 2011 at 1:54 am

Garrisoning would suck I'd imagine at level. Diminishing troop levels globally and increasing amounts of rebellious land.

Level 8 Human Sage
Alignment: Chaotic good
Location: Great Britain
Posted on March 17, 2011 at 8:03 am

Garrisoning would suck I'd imagine at level. Diminishing troop levels globally and increasing amounts of rebellious land.
when a city is captured the recruits are reset to around two thirds of max. more than enough to garrison it with a some more besides, often enough for a unit in medium to large cities.

Level 8 Human gamer
Alignment: True neutral
Posted on March 17, 2011 at 3:30 pm

i cant find this anywhere in the globals file...

it really sounds appealing to reduce the amount of reinforcements but i cant find it anywhere.

what program do you use for this?

Level 8 Human Paladin
Alignment: Lawful good
Posted on March 17, 2011 at 6:09 pm

Notepad or Notepad++ bro.

Pages 1 2