Expeditions: Rome - the final Expeditions game from Logic Artists

[The Great Deceiver]

Given their limited resources, they probably should've done it more in a style of a card game, like Arcomage from Might and Magic VII.

 

[Tyranicon]

Really odd decision tbh.

Well, it'd be odd if the devs put you in the role of a legatus and didn't give you the option to command legions in some way.

I suppose our MC could've been a Titus Pullo-like character, an ancient Rome Forrest Gump - a small guy that always happens to be present at crucial moments of Roman history. We wouldn't need boring, necessarily simplified strategic elements then.

But as a basic bitch foot soldier you also couldn't do what you can do as a legate in the endgame which is p. cool.

Of course, but the actual mechanics of the minigame are just bad. All you do is pick the stuff that makes numbers go up (or down for the enemy). Does it actually get better later on in the game?

I assume no because everyone seems to hate the legion battles.

Given their limited resources, they probably should've done it more in a style of a card game, like Arcomage from Might and Magic VII.

It's basically a card game as it is, with random draws too. It's just not fun.

 

[cvv]

Does it actually get better later on in the game?

Not really, you just have to keep up with the AI's power creep, meaning upgrading you Workshop (where you develop new stratagems) is your first priority.

If you don't have most of your stratagems upgraded to lvl 2 (and preferably some of them to lvl 3) midway through Egypt you're p. much fucked. But yeah, the legion gameplay itself is just bland and boring.

 

[Tyranicon]

It's strange they didn't apply the same combat system to legion battles, but just simplified. There's a natural class structure already (cavalry, infantry, archers, etc). If they wanted to save on production work, they could've used the same 2d square graphics, just on a grid.

A missed opportunity. Honestly I would've been more interested in legion combat than the standard small party type affair.

 

[The Great Deceiver]

It's basically a card game as it is, with random draws too. It's just not fun.

Not exactly - there's very limited deck building (all you do is add stratagems through workshop) and you don't really react to what your opponent does; there are no strategies as such. It's extremely basic and it doesn't feel like playing any TCG.

 

[oscar]

This game is kind of baffling in how its been overdesigned. It's like they were afraid that just sticking to combat would make the game feel too light so chucked on all these poorly designed, clumsy and illogical systems as padding. Except all the management bloat does is keep you away from the actually decent part of the game, fighting people.

The praetorian system is frankly bizarre. Having to do side missions with randomly generated generic bozos instead of my actual party just sucks.

The sense of scale is all over the place too. The plot and dialogue indicate that I'm well above petty micromanagement and drudgery that is the job of my 8,000 subordinates. Then the game has me managing my party's water supply, scavenging for herbs and wandering around the map looting dead bodies for raisins.

The writing isn't bad but this game fundamentally doesn't seem suited for the Roman setting. Hell most of your party uses spears and bows (what at least aren't the ridiculous dominating machine guns they were in Vikings).

Conquistador was the only game in this series that seemed to have a clear vision of what it wanted to be, with intuitive mechanics that felt logical and made for tough, relevant choices. By this game it becomes very clear that Logic Artist's left hand had no clue what the right was doing. It's a shame as there is a promising RPG somewhere in here, but its buried under a mountain of all these half-baked boring chores and brainless busywork you've got to get through. It feels like the company had some talent but a lot of very bad and confused ideas (and seemed to take the wrong lesson from each game instead of improving).

 

[Lord_Potato]

this game fundamentally doesn't seem suited for the Roman setting. Hell most of your party uses spears and bows

What should they be using?

Spear (hasta) was the primary weapon of some legionaires, especially those oldest and most experienced, that were kept in the third line until they were needed to turn the tide of battle. In the earlier republic those soldiers were called Triarii and were 40-year olds (20 year olds and younger formed the first line, Hastati, 30 year olds the second line Principes).

In 1st century BC some legions were already reformed by Gaius Marius, and voluntary service was introduced in place of a forced conscription, though it is possible that the division between ages remained in some form.

In my game I mostly used Principes armed with gladius, though Triarii certainly had their place.

Archers seem a bit less historically accurate, Roman bowmen were introduced much later, in 1st century BC this role was mostly covered by locally recruited Auxilla.

 

[Ladonna]

what at least aren't the ridiculous dominating machine guns they were in Vikings

A quick demoralize and they were pretty tame.

 

[Cologno]

this game fundamentally doesn't seem suited for the Roman setting. Hell most of your party uses spears and bows

What should they be using?

Spear (hasta) was the primary weapon of some legionaires, especially those oldest and most experienced, that were kept in the third line until they were needed to turn the tide of battle. In the earlier republic those soldiers were called Triarii and were 40-year olds (20 year olds and younger formed the first line, Hastati, 30 year olds the second line Principes).

In 1st century BC some legions were already reformed by Gaius Marius, and voluntary service was introduced in place of a forced conscription, though it is possible that the division between ages remained in some form.

In my game I mostly used Principes armed with gladius, though Triarii certainly had their place.

Archers seem a bit less historically accurate, Roman bowmen were introduced much later, in 1st century BC this role was mostly covered by locally recruited Auxilla.

40s, wow. Didn't think they'd last that long, either through death/dismemberment or they got too ate up after years of being legionaire. Did the Legions have a mandatory retirement age?

 

[Lord_Potato]

40s, wow.

A couple of centuries earlier, during the Diadochi Wars after the death of Alexander the Great his veteran falangite unit called the Silver Shields fought until its soldiers were in their 50s/early 60s. And they still were a force to be reckoned with, deciding the outcome of battles of Paraitakene and Gabiene (317 and 316 BC).

These were different people, made of hardened steel.

Didn't think they'd last that long, either through death/dismemberment

Casualties in ancient battles were pretty low, especially for the victor's side. And Romans usually were victorious.

Probably more died during marches from drinking poisoned water and eating spoiled food. And of course, dirty and festering wounds.

or they got too ate up after years of being legionaire. Did the Legions have a mandatory retirement age?

The legions were recruited from Roman citizens under the age of 45.

After the Marian reforms when army became professional, Romans enlisted for a period of 10 years. Augustus increased it to 25 years in order to further professionalize the army.

Also 25 years of service in the Auxilla units were required for a non-citizen to receive a Roman citizenship.

As recruits were usually young (18 years or possibly younger) they could finish their service before reaching 45.

Soldiers who got an honorable discharge, could renelist and then were known as the evocati, the elite of the elites.

 

[Tyranicon]

Sometimes I think a strange fascination with roman history is what marks a man of superior tastes.

 

[cvv]

Conquistador was the only game in this series that seemed to have a clear vision of what it wanted to be

Wouldn't put it like that. All three games have a p. clear vision, Logic Artists have always tried to make RPGs with a little tactical/management/survival side dish, to stand out I guess. Viking is probably the most straightforward Fallout-like RPG but even it has camping, healing and shit.

The problem with Rome isn't a lack of vision, it's that this specific application of said vision isn't very good.

That said it's not the only RPG with a twist that didn't pan out. Whenever you can build your own castle or ship or whatever you do in the Pathfinders it always feels like an obnoxious distraction and busywork.

 

[oscar]

It felt a lot more natural in Conquistador when we're in Central America 9,000 kilometres from home in a strange, alien land with only a few dozen men under my command.

It feels far more bizarre having to manage food and water supplies for my personal squad of 12 guys when I'm a legatus with multiple legions under my control (I'd understand mechanics when it was the supply of my actual army that is the dilemma). Surely I'm rich enough that buying bread for myself and my 6 bodyguards shouldn't be a concern?

Archers were quite irrelevant in Republican Roman warfare. Slingers and peltasts were far more common and important. The combat isn't bad but doesn't really feel Roman.

 

[Mauman]

what at least aren't the ridiculous dominating machine guns they were in Vikings

A quick demoralize and they were pretty tame.

That and the leveling limit implemented later extremely neutered them for about 1/2 of the game.

Not that bows were bad, they just weren't the God Option they were when the game first came out.

(now grapple + deathblow on the other hand.....)

 

[Ladonna]

Fresh from a second play through of Viking (I did the more peaceful ending first time, this time total conquest), I am going to jump into this one and see if it stacks up to the last two.

 

[Tyranicon]

This is one of those games that feel like a chore to complete. Everything is tedious. The combat always starts you so far from the enemy, with loads of trash mobs, the legion battles are lol worthy, the skills are not exciting, the characters are just flat tropes....

The only good thing is the semi-accurate historical element, and even that is questionable when you open up the praetorian hiring menu.

I'm really struggling to keep going with this one.

 

[kangaxx]

This game is 60% off, a mere £14. Honestly is it worth biting?

 

[cvv]

This game is 60% off, a mere £14. Honestly is it worth biting?

Read and be enlightened.

https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...s-game-from-logic-artists.138337/post-8916106

 

[Grunker]

The second major strength of this game is the C&C. Reading the guides and walkthroughs after I finished I was surprised with all the possible paths my run could've gone. Not gonna spoil here, let's just say your choices do matter a lot.

For all the Codex' purported touting of C&C, they should be all the fuck over this series, especially Vikings. C&C is kind of sprinkling for me since I'm mostly a combat and character customization fag, but these games do C&C very well.

 

[Larianshill]

Is there actually that much CC in Vikings?

Do Power route, get a bunch of content about conquering British Isles and becoming king.
Do Prosperity route, get jack shit for content.

I guess the game recognizes it if you knock out the chick with the butterfly tattoo instead of killing her when you invade Pictavia.

 

[Non-Edgy Gamer]

This game is 60% off, a mere £14. Honestly is it worth biting?

 

[Sensuki]

Is there actually that much CC in Vikings?

Do Power route, get a bunch of content about conquering British Isles and becoming king.
Do Prosperity route, get jack shit for content.

I guess the game recognizes it if you knock out the chick with the butterfly tattoo instead of killing her when you invade Pictavia.

I've replayed the game a few times. There are definitely different choices/decisions to be made for outcomes of quests. Sometimes the consequences are systemic (eg lose reputation with a faction, party member loses morale, party member gains morale), sometimes the consequences include different rewards. Sometimes there is something scripted eg the outcome affects another quest down the line. It's not a high budget game, I think it does a good job for the budget it was made with.

 

[Darth Roxor]

The second major strength of this game is the C&C. Reading the guides and walkthroughs after I finished I was surprised with all the possible paths my run could've gone. Not gonna spoil here, let's just say your choices do matter a lot.

For all the Codex' purported touting of C&C, they should be all the fuck over this series, especially Vikings. C&C is kind of sprinkling for me since I'm mostly a combat and character customization fag, but these games do C&C very well.

because the codex likes c&c only when there's no real gameplay standing in its way

 

[ERYFKRAD]

I liked Vikings, you can be a barbarian in it.
Conquistador I am hesitant to play because once I went to sleep over a battle loading screen and six hours later when I woke up it was still loading.

 

[Alphons]

Started it recently on Hard and there's a really cool game under all these half-baked ideas.
Were they rushed by THQ or cryptobro devs wanting to wrap it up quickly and pump out their "NFT experience"?

Gladiator is a totally useless class aside from provoking enemies.
I could use them for that I could just take a useful class that can run through the entire map to the objective or kill 7 guys in 1 turn.

Half of skills are similarly ass- do you want to finish a KOd enemy and deal 10 morale damage to close enemies or rush through the entire map and bleed out an enemy commander making every enemy instantly retreat?

Legion battles are in that annoying spot where they're too complicated to just click through them, but not in-depth enough to be fun.

Equipment is annoying with the different loot rarities that give you +1% to crit. They should have stuck with just regular items and rare uniques or the scrap upgrade system from Conquistadors.

Why make the MC the Legate? The story would've worked way better if MC stayed just Speculatore and had Lucullus or someone else issue them the missions.

Main companions are OK for the most part, but I don't care about the randoms. They should've had the main companions and a set roster of Praetorians without VA similar to the start of Conquistadors.

Levelling system should've been like in Conquistadors, with your party as a whole receiving XP and then you deciding to spend it to upgrade any character you want.

Combat is fun and challenging- harder than the Vikings but below Conquistadors.
Enemies also having access to tactical items is a big plus.
I see where they were going with the flow of combat by having your characters regenerate AP for killing militia and civilians, but because of that majority of fights have tons of trash mobs and enemy turns take ages until you trim them down.

I like the story for now, it sets up a few interesting hooks, but I'll have to see how they resolve it.
Had a few interesting choices, but they mostly hype up the consequences down the line (sparing certain characters or choosing sides), so no idea right now if it's as reactive as previous ones.