A Legionary's Life - historical Roman soldier simulator RPG

[Darth Roxor]

i bet on urmom's life

i hear the biggest challenge in the game is to find enough food

 

[Serus]

"A Codexer's Life" perhaps? In the game you need to shitpost, take sides on political issues, become butthurt, block other users... The usual Codexers activities.

 

[thesecret1]

I hate modern marketing. "Hey guys, here's a BIG ANNOUNCEMENT after years of silence – at some indeterminate point in the near future, I will make a big announcement!"

Still, super hyped for the game. From what I've gathered, he plans to really innovate on the formula.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Maybe a game inspired by Peter Hagendorf's diary.

 

[Modron]

I hate modern marketing. "Hey guys, here's a BIG ANNOUNCEMENT after years of silence – at some indeterminate point in the near future, I will make a big announcement!"

To be fair it's not really years of silence, he periodically gets asked about his next game every few months and has always just said he's working on it and he'll anounce it when it's ready to be shown. I of course hope this translates to an anouncement with a release date at the end of it.

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

Fingers crossed on another historical/semi-historical game, and fingers crossed it'll be similar to this. Was suitably impressed when I picked this up that I'll be much more inclined to D1P some new game from 'em.

 

[Moaning_Clock]

Oh, I checked the discussions on Steam a couple of times a month to see if there's an update on it. Finally something new, sounds like soon-ish!

 

[Moaning_Clock]

I checked the discussions again. That sounds even sooner! ... At least for the setting.

While the answer about the setting and any game details remains the same as before, I can tell you this: as the situation is right now, there will be important news soon. I won't commit to a specific date, but it's safe enough to tell you that it is no longer a matter of years before you know what the new game is about.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

Survived the Battle of Zama, then I saved a legion comrade from palestes. I am having fun.

 

[DemonKing]

Not directly related to the game, but interesting virtual tour of an exhibition on the life of a Roman legionary from the British Museum:

 

[Serus]

I didn't see any black legionnaries in this video, are you sure this is "British" Museum?

 

[Modron]

Got momentarily excited to see this thread bumped after many months of silence thinking maybe he had anounced his next game finally.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

I am a glorious senator now. Will play again to mend the biggest regret of my life of not getting a mural crown. Also I punched Chillach to the torso until he was dead, just like a phalanx before him.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

Legionary's Life is a pretty good CYOA, raising sim, rogue elite and dungeon crawler hybrid.

- It's realistic and tough. You can try to be a hero, but without bonuses from previous playthroughs you will most likely die. I lost many characters for being too cocky. Realistically you will kill only a dozen or two of enemies during first runs. Thanks god you are a legionary under Scipio Africanus leaderships, imagine playing as a soldier under Crassus!
- Game manages to properly portrait being a legionary during Punic Wars. It's a life sim, you see what's happening from the point of view of average soldier and you operate with limited knowledge about the world and politics..
- Writing is decent
- It's fun to see stats go up, especially that your soldier can't be good at everything
- It's satisfying to beat hard bonus challenges that led to early game overs, after you accumulate points from previous playthroghts. However even those OP characters aren't able to usually kill more than a few people per battle.
- Itemization is good, there is no random drops or random stats on items.
- Combat system suffers from the fact that it's nearly always preferable to just focus on attacking the torse. Due to how posture mechanic works going for other body parts offers too much risks(losing a turn) for too little reward. You can make builds to increase effectiveness of other tactics, but due to the fact that it's preferable to dispatch enemies as quickly as you possibly can they are inferior.
- Game is slow even on max speed. On second playthrogh you need to use cheat engine and make the game run 5 times faster.
- Story is quite linear, although there are variations based on your rank within the army and stats. It's fun to learn as a soldier that centurions have put disguise on and left the camp, only to participate in this, when you yourself are a centurion in other playthrogh
- I disliked rolling for stats in character creation. Just give me points to distribute!

 

[Modron]

random stats on items.

There are actually random bonuses on chest pieces in the form of further coverage and damage protection (pretty sure there was were bonuses to swords as well). So rare you probably wouldn't even notice them in shop unless you remembered the base values or noticed an elevated cost see this cool chain mail I got.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Damn, had such a promising run, no heroics, still did really well at new Carthage and Ilpa, getting a promotion, then in the next battle the enemy kills me in three strikes despite being on full defensive stance.

 

[thesecret1]

There are actually random bonuses on chest pieces in the form of further coverage and damage protection (pretty sure there was were bonuses to swords as well). So rare you probably wouldn't even notice them in shop unless you remembered the base values or noticed an elevated cost see this cool chain mail I got.

From what I've seen, they aren't actually random. Rather, there are several set versions with slightly different stats.

 

[thesecret1]

Combat system suffers from the fact that it's nearly always preferable to just focus on attacking the torse. Due to how posture mechanic works going for other body parts offers too much risks(losing a turn) for too little reward. You can make builds to increase effectiveness of other tactics, but due to the fact that it's preferable to dispatch enemies as quickly as you possibly can they are inferior.

This is untrue. While the torso is the best spot for an evenly matched enemy, it sucks ass if either the enemy has a solid armor (in which case hitting the torso does nothing) or if he's actually better than you. In such a situation, it is preferrable to go after the legs, as they heavily build up fatigue. If you manage to play defensively and occassionally strike the legs, you can out-fatigue the enemy, and thus take down even a superior foe. This doesn't work in case he wears good greaves (as the legs then are similarly armored), in which case you go after the arms. The neck and head exist for quickly dispatching inferior foes (ie. militiamen in Africa, or even early enemies during OP runs) or as a high risk high reward option for armored foes missing a good helmet. You seem to be making the mistake of comparing the boni in terms of a single foe, when it's more about choosing the right approach for the right enemy. If you always attack torso every time, you won't be able to beat the more difficult foes in the game.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

This is untrue. While the torso is the best spot for an evenly matched enemy, it sucks ass if either the enemy has a solid armor (in which case hitting the torso does nothing) or if he's actually better than you.

It doesn't do nothing. Against heavy armored enemies you can do 0 damage but you can also do a few points of them. To be fair I always pump strength and go for the best sword. Missing, losing posture and risking counteratack is too much risk in exchange of dispatching enemy quicker. Missing in this game means losing turn to regain posture and risking losing another turn if you fail at regaining it.

In such a situation, it is preferrable to go after the legs, as they heavily build up fatigue

Going for a legs of a superior foe without greaves is one of the few exceptions to always attack the torso rule. I agree here with you.

The neck and head exist for quickly dispatching inferior foes (ie. militiamen in Africa, or even early enemies during OP runs)

Neck and to a lesser extent head works reliably in those situations only if you have a swordman perk and max morale.

If you always attack torso every time, you won't be able to beat the more difficult foes in the game

Untrue. I killed Chillach with it. To be fair the second time I killed him with leg attacks was quicker and easier, but attacking torso also worked.

 

[thesecret1]

This is untrue. While the torso is the best spot for an evenly matched enemy, it sucks ass if either the enemy has a solid armor (in which case hitting the torso does nothing) or if he's actually better than you.

It doesn't do nothing. Against heavy armored enemies you can do 0 damage but you can also do a few points of them. To be fair I always pump strength and go for the best sword. Missing, losing posture and risking counteratack is too much risk in exchange of dispatching enemy quicker. Missing in this game means losing turn to regain posture and risking losing another turn if you fail at regaining it.

In such a situation, it is preferrable to go after the legs, as they heavily build up fatigue

Going for a legs of a superior foe without greaves is one of the few exceptions to always attack the torso rule. I agree here with you.

The neck and head exist for quickly dispatching inferior foes (ie. militiamen in Africa, or even early enemies during OP runs)

Neck and to a lesser extent head works reliably in those situations only if you have a swordman perk and max morale.

If you always attack torso every time, you won't be able to beat the more difficult foes in the game

Untrue. I killed Chillach with it. To be fair the second time I killed him with leg attacks was quicker and easier, but attacking torso also worked.

I guess it's not impossible to power through everything with torso attacks, provided you build for it, but it feels like an injustice to say that "you should always target the torso". Even if you pump STR, "doing a few points of damage on armored enemy" is not a tactic I'd use, as doing so means you're building up your fatigue a lot, which can be lethal (especially if you're fighting a series of engagements rather than a duel). Indeed, if you have high defense, losing posture once isn't that big a deal (especially if you time your attacks for when the enemy loses HIS posture), and managing one's fatigue becomes all the more important (which is also when attacking head and neck come into play, as killing the chaff quickly means you're preserving energy for later fights).

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

This is untrue. While the torso is the best spot for an evenly matched enemy, it sucks ass if either the enemy has a solid armor (in which case hitting the torso does nothing) or if he's actually better than you.

It doesn't do nothing. Against heavy armored enemies you can do 0 damage but you can also do a few points of them. To be fair I always pump strength and go for the best sword. Missing, losing posture and risking counteratack is too much risk in exchange of dispatching enemy quicker. Missing in this game means losing turn to regain posture and risking losing another turn if you fail at regaining it.

In such a situation, it is preferrable to go after the legs, as they heavily build up fatigue

Going for a legs of a superior foe without greaves is one of the few exceptions to always attack the torso rule. I agree here with you.

The neck and head exist for quickly dispatching inferior foes (ie. militiamen in Africa, or even early enemies during OP runs)

Neck and to a lesser extent head works reliably in those situations only if you have a swordman perk and max morale.

If you always attack torso every time, you won't be able to beat the more difficult foes in the game

Untrue. I killed Chillach with it. To be fair the second time I killed him with leg attacks was quicker and easier, but attacking torso also worked.

I guess it's not impossible to power through everything with torso attacks, provided you build for it, but it feels like an injustice to say that "you should always target the torso". Even if you pump STR, "doing a few points of damage on armored enemy" is not a tactic I'd use, as doing so means you're building up your fatigue a lot, which can be lethal (especially if you're fighting a series of engagements rather than a duel). Indeed, if you have high defense, losing posture once isn't that big a deal (especially if you time your attacks for when the enemy loses HIS posture), and managing one's fatigue becomes all the more important (which is also when attacking head and neck come into play, as killing the chaff quickly means you're preserving energy for later fights).

I did have fatigue problems, but I haven't had a build with a high endurance. The problem with losing posture is that you are risking a spiral. If you fail to regain posture and enemy uses shield attack or feint you may find yourself at zero posture, which can be lethal. During lost turns you could slowly chop at enemy HP with minimal risk. Most of my experiments with using attacks other than torso proved to be too unreliable.

 

[thesecret1]

This is untrue. While the torso is the best spot for an evenly matched enemy, it sucks ass if either the enemy has a solid armor (in which case hitting the torso does nothing) or if he's actually better than you.

It doesn't do nothing. Against heavy armored enemies you can do 0 damage but you can also do a few points of them. To be fair I always pump strength and go for the best sword. Missing, losing posture and risking counteratack is too much risk in exchange of dispatching enemy quicker. Missing in this game means losing turn to regain posture and risking losing another turn if you fail at regaining it.

In such a situation, it is preferrable to go after the legs, as they heavily build up fatigue

Going for a legs of a superior foe without greaves is one of the few exceptions to always attack the torso rule. I agree here with you.

The neck and head exist for quickly dispatching inferior foes (ie. militiamen in Africa, or even early enemies during OP runs)

Neck and to a lesser extent head works reliably in those situations only if you have a swordman perk and max morale.

If you always attack torso every time, you won't be able to beat the more difficult foes in the game

Untrue. I killed Chillach with it. To be fair the second time I killed him with leg attacks was quicker and easier, but attacking torso also worked.

I guess it's not impossible to power through everything with torso attacks, provided you build for it, but it feels like an injustice to say that "you should always target the torso". Even if you pump STR, "doing a few points of damage on armored enemy" is not a tactic I'd use, as doing so means you're building up your fatigue a lot, which can be lethal (especially if you're fighting a series of engagements rather than a duel). Indeed, if you have high defense, losing posture once isn't that big a deal (especially if you time your attacks for when the enemy loses HIS posture), and managing one's fatigue becomes all the more important (which is also when attacking head and neck come into play, as killing the chaff quickly means you're preserving energy for later fights).

I did have fatigue problems, but I haven't had a build with a high endurance. The problem with losing posture is that you are risking a spiral. If you fail to regain posture and enemy uses shield attack or feint you may find yourself at zero posture, which can be lethal. During lost turns you could slowly chop at enemy HP with minimal risk. Most of my experiments with using attacks other than torso proved to be too unreliable.

Losing posture is safe if you know when to time it – when your enemy has low posture, you can afford risky attacks, as rather than try to attack you (and risk a spiral himself) he'll waste his turn recovering. You're making a sweeping condemnation of the combat system based solely on you making one specific build.

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

This is untrue. While the torso is the best spot for an evenly matched enemy, it sucks ass if either the enemy has a solid armor (in which case hitting the torso does nothing) or if he's actually better than you.

It doesn't do nothing. Against heavy armored enemies you can do 0 damage but you can also do a few points of them. To be fair I always pump strength and go for the best sword. Missing, losing posture and risking counteratack is too much risk in exchange of dispatching enemy quicker. Missing in this game means losing turn to regain posture and risking losing another turn if you fail at regaining it.

In such a situation, it is preferrable to go after the legs, as they heavily build up fatigue

Going for a legs of a superior foe without greaves is one of the few exceptions to always attack the torso rule. I agree here with you.

The neck and head exist for quickly dispatching inferior foes (ie. militiamen in Africa, or even early enemies during OP runs)

Neck and to a lesser extent head works reliably in those situations only if you have a swordman perk and max morale.

If you always attack torso every time, you won't be able to beat the more difficult foes in the game

Untrue. I killed Chillach with it. To be fair the second time I killed him with leg attacks was quicker and easier, but attacking torso also worked.

I guess it's not impossible to power through everything with torso attacks, provided you build for it, but it feels like an injustice to say that "you should always target the torso". Even if you pump STR, "doing a few points of damage on armored enemy" is not a tactic I'd use, as doing so means you're building up your fatigue a lot, which can be lethal (especially if you're fighting a series of engagements rather than a duel). Indeed, if you have high defense, losing posture once isn't that big a deal (especially if you time your attacks for when the enemy loses HIS posture), and managing one's fatigue becomes all the more important (which is also when attacking head and neck come into play, as killing the chaff quickly means you're preserving energy for later fights).

I did have fatigue problems, but I haven't had a build with a high endurance. The problem with losing posture is that you are risking a spiral. If you fail to regain posture and enemy uses shield attack or feint you may find yourself at zero posture, which can be lethal. During lost turns you could slowly chop at enemy HP with minimal risk. Most of my experiments with using attacks other than torso proved to be too unreliable.

Losing posture is safe if you know when to time it – when your enemy has low posture, you can afford risky attacks, as rather than try to attack you (and risk a spiral himself) he'll waste his turn recovering. You're making a sweeping condemnation of the combat system based solely on you making one specific build.

This is true, however having enemies be at low posture reliably demands using feints or shield charges. So you are using about 2 turns to prepare attack in 3rd turn. Considering that much can go wrong there, attacking torso still seems to be a more reasonable choice.

In practice I used faints only as I way to survive when I was at low heart.

 

[thesecret1]

This is true, however having enemies be at low posture reliably demands using feints or shield charges.

Lol no. The strat is, usually, to go full defensive stance and just let the enemy miss his swing (while preserving your fatigue, maybe using a feint if you feel like it). Then follow up with your own attack. If you hit, great. If you miss, you're on equal footing again, both missing about the same amount of posture, which is also fine.

Considering that much can go wrong there, attacking torso still seems to be a more reasonable choice.

You act as though torso is 100% hit chance, when it's not - you can miss your swings easily, and timing your attacks when the enemy is at low posture is thus also preferable. Anyway, I believe this whole discussion to be pretty much proving my point – there are different tactics on offer in the game, with "always attack torso" being merely your prefered approach among many, and enabled only by your build (and necessiating exceptions such as attacking legs sometimes, etc.).

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

If I haven't been playing the game too long already, I would go and try your build.

Considering that much can go wrong there, attacking torso still seems to be a more reasonable choice.

You act as though torso is 100% hit chance, when it's not - you can miss your swings easily, and timing your attacks when the enemy is at low posture is thus also preferable. Anyway, I believe this whole discussion to be pretty much proving my point – there are different tactics on offer in the game, with "always attack torso" being merely your prefered approach among many, and enabled only by your build (and necessiating exceptions such as attacking legs sometimes, etc.).

You can (with a swordmanship perk) have a hit chance to torso be usually in 75-90% range.