field of glory EMPIRES

[sser]

Purchased this. Hope to get some playtime this weekend and see what's up.

 

[Morkar Left]

Bought it and had a quick glance at it. So far looks really promising. The available game mechanics look detailed enough without becoming overdetailed.

Played with Markomannen and got my ass kicked / started over after turn 8 while just klicking to the options and getting a feel about the game. It seems some things are randomized each playthrough like which generals you have. How capable the ai is we will see.

But diplomacy seems to be the weak spot with the first thing they should expand in a patch/dlc.

Like the maintheme music btw.

 

[sser]

Game has potential. In typical Slitherine fashion, though, the interface is hot garbage. I don't know why these game designers don't just look at games like Civ and say, "Copy all of that." Iteration is good. I hate playing games where the UI feels like it's ten years old, and find it pretty unacceptable for the genre when there are gold standards to look to.

 

[Hoggypare]

Alright, so after some more time put into it, and since some people here still seemed on the fence, I decided to write up a more comprehensive summary

Overall, it is a very nice game, a mix of 4x and grand strategy, with well designed economy and warfare, (almost) seamless FoG2 tactical battles implementation and some problems in diplomacy and AI department, but it is far beyond anything that Paradox has recently done
+ Building system, economy and trade - this is a highlight of the game and it is hard to divide it into categories, because of how closely all the systems play together. Firstly, they advertised to have about 400 building types and that seems like it is true. Now, most of the provide You with some basic resources of which there are 2 types - in short - state and provincial ones. Within the province it is: food, infrastructure (essentially production for the purpose of building buildings), health (supplements growth alongside food), culture (counteracts decadence - more on that later) and equipment (production for units); as for state level: Gold, manpower, metal and legacy (score and also determines your civ level along with decadence). As You can see there are quite a few, however it isn't just as simple to build as many to get as many of all resources, because of the trade good system
Many buildings require specific materials to operate. If so, said good is automatically imported to allow the building to work (For example salthouse needs salt) if it is available within the trading range. So far it is simple, but most buildings require also 'bonus' trade goods. They give hefty resource bonuses for satysfying their trade requirements, however bonus goods do not get imported automatically (they are used if the good is present in any of adjacent provinces or is imported by some other building to the province). Now the catch is there are a lot more buildings that give bonuses for bonus goods than those that need those good and actually create demand. And it is the bonus goods that make your buildings real moneymakers (some even require them to be any profitable). This makes for a really interesting economy where You actually have to think what to build. It is only made better by the fact that building options are randomized so it is really hard to min-max. Adding to that, some buildings have special traits like giving bonuses to recruitment, taxation, garrison strength etc.
+ Warfare - for a grand strategy the military layer is rather well done. There are about 6-10 unit types per faction and every reqion You conquer has its own provincial units (although many are similar to each other). The auto-resolve battle system is good, and unlike the game contenders it doesn't just boil down to dice rolls. The more experienced Your units are, the higher is the threshold below which a dice gets re-rolled, the better Your general, the more dice You roll and pick the highest number. In short, the better Your troops and command, the more *reliable* Your army gets. This is a nice dynamic. Of course, there are also many terrain modifiers that differentiate effectiveness of your troops as well as frontage system.
The auto-resolve is good, but warfare is made great by the FoG2 integration. As far as the infrastructure goes, changing between games takes a couple clicks and is extremely fast. The fact that it is not within one game is no issue at all. FoG2 battles are just great, and the units transfer over from the campaign pretty well (from what I've seen, everything: terrain, general skills, unit experience and frontage is taken into account). There are however some minor problems. Naturally if You play the battles manually You get advantage over the AI, also because of how FoG2 takes into account desertions and capture, their outcome is usually quite one sided. Also, Your casualties tend to spread over Your units pretty evenly, so it is much much easier to keep Your soldiers around than with auto-resolve (side note: Naval battles and siege assaults can only get auto-resolved)
+ The depiction of age and nations - is rather good. Nations feel and play differently, due to different unit rosters, modifiers (nation specific or dependent on political system) and buildings. There are also numerous world wonders and faction specific mechanics. For example Carthage has to rely on mercenaries because of its low manpower (but gets some bonuses for that), Diadochi empires, if they get in trouble get divided among neighbours. Everything seems well researched and put together. Along with that, there are special decisions - they usually give some option to exchange resources, raise loyalty, gather mercenaries from surrounding tribes, etc.
Furthermore, there are differences between regions, not only they provide regional troops (need good archers? - go to Crete) but also some buildings are region dependent - for example crops related - You can't build a winery in the far north or south
+/- Legacy and Decadence - this is a system that governs Your civilization progress. the devs seem very proud of it, but it is very simple. Basically expansion and having certain buildings raise Your decadence. To counteract it You have to produce culture. When You have a culture deficit for a longer period of time, You country stagnates and deteriorates (and can spawn a civil war). If You produce way more, You advance. Depending on the situation, it can be very easy (in my experience playing Macedonia) to keep it high, or almost impossible (as Carthage). It is nice and is certainly a good system to force a player to slow the expansion, also gives smaller nations some edge. How it plays in the long run however I would have to see over the course of more games.
- Diplomacy - very barebones. You have some basic options, but their usefulness is rather questionable. There is cooperation, that gives some trading rights and raises disposition over time, but I was attacked by nations I was cooperating with more times than i can count. Also, AI really likes attacking You out of nowhere. This would be fine, but when suing for peace You have no other option than to stop the war at the current state - there is no vassalizing, contributions, region trading. You have to either beat them (and get the decadence penalty for regions You don't even want) or to stall and just defend until they get bored and agree for peace
- AI - I am not sure if it is all that bad, since it can be challenging (especially if when as Carthage all the desert nations decide to swarm You) but it makes weird decisions. To give an example, as Macedonia I hold all Greece but Athens. They hold only that region, yet decided to go to war with me. I had no armies around, but they did not send their forces (although my fortresses might have been just to strong for them). While it might be a decent representation of Athenian foreign policy in the 3rd century BC, it was a retarded move that they gain nothing from. Not only that, I gave them money about 4 turns before because i wanted to enter cooperation (that they did not agree to). I might need more time to judge AI as a whole, but it is certainly a controversial spot.
- UI - It is between meagre to terribad. Unit and building descriptions are decently done, but they could provide some more information (for example if they produce a resource - what this resource can be use for, or if any place in range wants to buy it). The decisions I mentioned before are the worst example, since they give You no relevant information whatsoever - if You recruit mercenaries, no info on amount or quality; if doing a religious feast, they explain what the decision does, but then You have to check manually which regions have required buildings for it to take effect (no tooltip whatsoever). I like how the UI looks graphically though.

Phew... I hope it will be of use to any of You

 

[Beowulf]

Alright, so after some more time put into it, and since some people here still seemed on the fence, I decided to write up a more comprehensive summary

[...]
- Diplomacy - very barebones. You have some basic options, but their usefulness is rather questionable. There is cooperation, that gives some trading rights and raises disposition over time, but I was attacked by nations I was cooperating with more times than i can count. Also, AI really likes attacking You out of nowhere. This would be fine, but when suing for peace You have no other option than to stop the war at the current state - there is no vassalizing, contributions, region trading. You have to either beat them (and get the decadence penalty for regions You don't even want) or to stall and just defend until they get bored and agree for peace
- AI - I am not sure if it is all that bad, since it can be challenging (especially if when as Carthage all the desert nations decide to swarm You) but it makes weird decisions. To give an example, as Macedonia I hold all Greece but Athens. They hold only that region, yet decided to go to war with me. I had no armies around, but they did not send their forces (although my fortresses might have been just to strong for them). While it might be a decent representation of Athenian foreign policy in the 3rd century BC, it was a retarded move that they gain nothing from. Not only that, I gave them money about 4 turns before because i wanted to enter cooperation (that they did not agree to). I might need more time to judge AI as a whole, but it is certainly a controversial spot.
[...]
Phew... I hope it will be of use to any of You

The AI acts schizophrenic, as usual in this type of games. I'm actually some 50 turns in as a Carthage - the gameplay description on the startup screen (where you choose your nation) advises, that you can play Carthage as a mercantile republic, holding only key valuable regions and a net of allies against Rome. I did my best to avoid conflict with those desert nations and tried to keep them as allies (like Numidia was historically) or client states, but so far every one of them has declared war on me, some even just 1 turn after becoming allied. Either they have weight bonus for the decision to go o war with the player faction, or they have their objective in the territory of the player and that is a too strong incentive not to go to war.
Combine that with the fact that diplomacy is indeed very barebones, and you have to basically start map painting, as the nations very seldom will agree to a peace proposal, even when you just reduced them to a single poor desert region.

So the decadence system (as a penalty for indiscriminate all-world conquest) is a good idea, the diplomacy mechanics don't support it that well, I was basically forced to conquer every single region in Africa.

Other than that the game is pretty good, I'm enjoying FoG II once more, especially that sometimes the composition of the armies is not optimal (e.g. you just recruited a bunch of cavalry and skirmishes to stop the invasion of mainly enemy phalanx's).
The AI states, except for the above, don't act that bad. I've lost many undefended regions to their raids, they seem rather competent when assigning goals for their troop movements (I wonder if their targets are evaluated on a turn-by-turn basis, or does the AI formulate a longer reaching plan).

 

[HeroMarine]

Combine that with the fact that diplomacy is indeed very barebones, and you have to basically start map painting, as the nations very seldom will agree to a peace proposal, even when you just reduced them to a single poor desert region.

So the decadence system (as a penalty for indiscriminate all-world conquest) is a good idea, the diplomacy mechanics don't support it that well, I was basically forced to conquer every single region in Africa.

Can't you just defend your territory, kill their armies, and wait for a peace proposal instead of conquering undesirable areas?

Note I haven't bought the game yet.

 

[Hoggypare]

Combine that with the fact that diplomacy is indeed very barebones, and you have to basically start map painting, as the nations very seldom will agree to a peace proposal, even when you just reduced them to a single poor desert region.

So the decadence system (as a penalty for indiscriminate all-world conquest) is a good idea, the diplomacy mechanics don't support it that well, I was basically forced to conquer every single region in Africa.

Can't you just defend your territory, kill their armies, and wait for a peace proposal instead of conquering undesirable areas?

Note I haven't bought the game yet.

Yes, but as Carthage You have Your colonies all over Africa. Massylia, Mauretania, Numidia, Garama - all want a piece. Technically, You would need one Home army to operate near Carthage, and two smaller ones to hold Tripolitania and Tingitana. They would need to be able to reliably defeat all raiders (not to mention You need to focus on building fortifications, so You don't lose those provinces first turn they are attacked), so they would need to be at least a couple units' strong. As Carthage You lack an ability to build efficient forces, as Your african troops should be pretty elite (due to low manpower) while all the light and medium infantry are mercenaries, so that means higher upkeep. Those colonies don't make enough money to sustain forces to defend them. And let's not forget there are other problems like Syracusae or Rome, that also need troops to solve.
Beating the invaders into submission would take just about 5 turns, but just defending those regions would require same forces and investment, but could take easily 20. And after that You wouldn't have to wait long until they attack again.
So as You see, it is doable, but unreasonable. The problem is You can easily gather forces for a campaign to wipe those sand-nig-nogs and solve the issue once and for all. It is not in their interest to attack You. I feel like the best course of action is to annex Numidia (due to their proximity to Carthage and great regional Cavalry), and leave Your colonies in Tingis for taking, so that You have to have only one army to defend that whole African region

 

[Axioms]

All of the recent rome games coming out seem pretty similar, and not much different from older games like R2 from CA. Kinda makes me sad. Meanwhile I would bathe the Earth in blood for a Rome 1 or Med 2 style game with much larger maps. I hate the new style provinces and maps. Like Europe wide, or even a map of China but fantasy with Euro units mape with 1000 provinces. None of this shitty 200 provinces shit. If Paradox can make a shitty EU:Rome clone but with 7000 provinces than CA can make Med 1 with 1000. I won't even ask for a decent political system.

 

[Inspectah]

There's a simple form of pleasure in this kind of game that you can't find anywhere else. Like starting a full on mesopotamian war for a random independant province.
Suck it apolonious

 

[Axioms]

So I looked at my bank account and said fuck it. I might end up homeless in a few months but I'm going to go hard on this game anyways. Honestly just seeing someone even try, serious and not in a Paradox way, to do some sort of empire limiting was too juicy to ignore. I'll say its not bad so far though I haven't really hit the blob level yet on account of being turn 2 wardecced by like 4 nations as Rome, on top of the initial war, even though I didn't actually do anything. And I was on the default difficulty. Literally nothing I could do in a few restarts without owning the tactical battle part. Having moved passed that, the primary thing I don't like is the random progress tokens. Just a pain to have only tokens for your objectives vs having hit glorious in 8 turns due to better RNG in other attempts. I love the building system, not hyped about trade. We'll see what happens when I get 100 turns or so in.

100 times better than Imperator though, even this far in.

 

[Axioms]

So yeah, its almost like they are trying to force you to get FoG2 with how much easier the game is with tactical battles.

 

[Martyr]

so what about weather? do seasons change? is there rain? what about negative effects because of snow/rain?
these questions are of utmost importance!!!

 

[Axioms]

No weather system at all. This isn't Jon Shafer's At The Gates you know.

 

[Beowulf]

No weather system at all. This isn't Jon Shafer's At The Gates you know.

Every fourth turn is a harsh weather turn - snowfalls on mountains makes them impassable.

 

[Inspectah]

I thought that depending on how soon in the turn resolution the armies colided, the season would be different because of the a year per turn thing.
Bit I guess I just was drunk

 

[Stone Dog]

The inability of subduing enemy nations without conquering them all coupled with the decadence mechanic is an almost crippling flaw, the population assignment automator is busted, the military mechanics could be better integrated with FoG2 and the building system is terribly gamey, but I can't put this shit down. I must have played more than 30 hours over 4 days.

 

[Axioms]

The inability of subduing enemy nations without conquering them all coupled with the decadence mechanic is an almost crippling flaw, the population assignment automator is busted, the military mechanics could be better integrated with FoG2 and the building system is terribly gamey, but I can't put this shit down. I must have played more than 30 hours over 4 days.

Its pretty good. I saw some guy say Imperator was better and I about lost my mind. God made many mistakes creating mankind. This game beats all other 4x/GS games in that trade actually exists. And its well integrated with buildings. The decadence stuff is a bit of a pain. Finally got a start where every nation and their mom didn't wardec me for no reason so going pretty good. Looking to avoid a civil war this time since I didn't have to conquer a bunch of shit to make tribes stop attacking me...

 

[Axioms]

The inability of subduing enemy nations without conquering them all coupled with the decadence mechanic is an almost crippling flaw, the population assignment automator is busted, the military mechanics could be better integrated with FoG2 and the building system is terribly gamey, but I can't put this shit down. I must have played more than 30 hours over 4 days.

Its pretty good. I saw some guy say Imperator was better and I about lost my mind. God made many mistakes creating mankind. This game beats all other 4x/GS games in that trade actually exists. And its well integrated with buildings. The decadence stuff is a bit of a pain. Finally got a start where every nation and their mom didn't wardec me for no reason so going pretty good. Looking to avoid a civil war this time since I didn't have to conquer a bunch of shit to make tribes stop attacking me...

I spoke too soon. War-decs ahoy.

 

[Axioms]

The game needs a way to sell or abandon regions... Got stuck with a shitty one cause of some the celts. Not in a place I can do a province, huge decadence and a stupid governor's palace. Also low pop and now buildings. Ugh.

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

The inability of subduing enemy nations without conquering them all coupled with the decadence mechanic is an almost crippling flaw, the population assignment automator is busted, the military mechanics could be better integrated with FoG2 and the building system is terribly gamey, but I can't put this shit down. I must have played more than 30 hours over 4 days.

So is Empire's Decadence system more or less the same gimmick as Imperator's Mana system? Both seem like flaw fulcrum points.

 

[Nahel]

So is Empire's Decadence system more or less the same gimmick as Imperator's Mana system? Both seem like flaw fulcrum points.

Nah the decadence does not directly prevent conquest. It can be dealt with in several ways and prevents blobbing. The only thing missing is a real diplomacy system and the game will be really interesting. Much better than Imperator or Europa Universalis.

 

[Hoggypare]

The inability of subduing enemy nations without conquering them all coupled with the decadence mechanic is an almost crippling flaw, the population assignment automator is busted, the military mechanics could be better integrated with FoG2 and the building system is terribly gamey, but I can't put this shit down. I must have played more than 30 hours over 4 days.

So is Empire's Decadence system more or less the same gimmick as Imperator's Mana system? Both seem like flaw fulcrum points.

No, not at all. How did You even arrive at that conclusion!?
Mana = spend arbitrarily gained points to do stuff. Wait for them to recharge
Decadence = well... firstly You have numerous ways of affecting its growth (not only conquest affects it, but also more powerful buildings and Your empire's civilizational developement and age, and it can be counteracted by producing more culture), secondly, even if You can no longer control, it actually makes You do 'more' stuff. Because suddenly You have more unrest to deal with and potential civil wars. It is a mechanic that attempts to fix the usual problem of strategy games when You become too powerful, so there is no challenge left (opponents stop being obstacles, but just hurdles to jump over, You have all the resources You need and there is really no more reason to play aside from reaching an arbitrary end date/annihilating everything else). Also it is very very fitting from the spirit of the epoch' standpoint

 

[Wyatt_Derp]

The inability of subduing enemy nations without conquering them all coupled with the decadence mechanic is an almost crippling flaw, the population assignment automator is busted, the military mechanics could be better integrated with FoG2 and the building system is terribly gamey, but I can't put this shit down. I must have played more than 30 hours over 4 days.

So is Empire's Decadence system more or less the same gimmick as Imperator's Mana system? Both seem like flaw fulcrum points.

No, not at all. How did You even arrive at that conclusion!?
Mana = spend arbitrarily gained points to do stuff. Wait for them to recharge
Decadence = well... firstly You have numerous ways of affecting its growth (not only conquest affects it, but also more powerful buildings and Your empire's civilizational developement and age, and it can be counteracted by producing more culture), secondly, even if You can no longer control, it actually makes You do 'more' stuff. Because suddenly You have more unrest to deal with and potential civil wars. It is a mechanic that attempts to fix the usual problem of strategy games when You become too powerful, so there is no challenge left (opponents stop being obstacles, but just hurdles to jump over, You have all the resources You need and there is really no more reason to play aside from reaching an arbitrary end date/annihilating everything else). Also it is very very fitting from the spirit of the epoch' standpoint

It's not a conclusion, it was a question. The Mana and Decadence systems are mechanics within these two similar games that are both controversial. Fans of these games seem to either love them or hate in equal measure. Seeing as how they're both polarizing features, I wanted to know more about them, which is why I asked the question.

And thanks for helping to inform me about said question. It sounds to me like the Decadence system is more in line with something like the Stability rating in Europa Universalis.

 

[Axioms]

The inability of subduing enemy nations without conquering them all coupled with the decadence mechanic is an almost crippling flaw, the population assignment automator is busted, the military mechanics could be better integrated with FoG2 and the building system is terribly gamey, but I can't put this shit down. I must have played more than 30 hours over 4 days.

So is Empire's Decadence system more or less the same gimmick as Imperator's Mana system? Both seem like flaw fulcrum points.

No, not at all. How did You even arrive at that conclusion!?
Mana = spend arbitrarily gained points to do stuff. Wait for them to recharge
Decadence = well... firstly You have numerous ways of affecting its growth (not only conquest affects it, but also more powerful buildings and Your empire's civilizational developement and age, and it can be counteracted by producing more culture), secondly, even if You can no longer control, it actually makes You do 'more' stuff. Because suddenly You have more unrest to deal with and potential civil wars. It is a mechanic that attempts to fix the usual problem of strategy games when You become too powerful, so there is no challenge left (opponents stop being obstacles, but just hurdles to jump over, You have all the resources You need and there is really no more reason to play aside from reaching an arbitrary end date/annihilating everything else). Also it is very very fitting from the spirit of the epoch' standpoint

It's not a conclusion, it was a question. The Mana and Decadence systems are mechanics within these two similar games that are both controversial. Fans of these games seem to either love them or hate in equal measure. Seeing as how they're both polarizing features, I wanted to know more about them, which is why I asked the question.

And thanks for helping to inform me about said question. It sounds to me like the Decadence system is more in line with something like the Stability rating in Europa Universalis.

Yeah that's actually a good analogy. Although stability interacts with somewhat different parts of the game in EU compared to decadence in FOGE. And its not really a blobber mechanic. Decadence isn't really controversial like mana is, though. Mana is trash and Johan will hopefully be forever cancelled after the Imperator drama. Decadence is a pain but its a good implementation. Basically the only option otherwise is to actually simulate politics and population. Whereas Paradox games are board game infested for no reason.

 

[thesecret1]

All the other AGEOD strategy games I've tried were buggy and janky as fuck, with the UI being all kinds of attrocious, but this one's pretty good. Better than Imperator by a mile, in any case (not that that's difficult to achieve). I found the battles to be great, and I can't imagine bothering with FoG2 export - they're fine as is, already much better than Paradox ones with the many ways to get the rolls in your favour. The AI is aggressive and loves to dogpile, something I've sorely missed since the days of EU3, and while the pop system is no Vicky 2, it's still among the better ones in the genre. The biggest negative I see is the "you take it you own it" system, rather than the, actually great, implementation of occupation vs. ownership and peace negotiations, since it means that you can't defeat an enemy (as they usually take forever to agree to a cease fire) without taking his lands, which then leads to runaway decadence. Another thing is the army movement - as far as I know, there is no way to tell armies to arrive somewhere at the same time, which is honestly pretty stupid and leads to gamey solutions like slowing an army down on purpose and similar.