About Sovereign

[Vieux Chat]

What is special about them ?
Wizards have magic, tribal chief have tribal destiny and get resources by raiding.
What should be the main focus for a sovereign ? Empire management.
Most of the empire management options should be reduced for Wizard (they already are for tribal chief). Moreover, the sovereign specialty could be tied to the economics and diplomacy.
Playing a sovereign could be a different way to win : getting enough of the independants under your banner.
It makes a lot more sense than just giving sovereign a way to customize units (which wizards already have with golems... I made a video about that :p)
So the economic part for wizards should be get ridden of (no economic window, they don't care about it, they get workers only when a new one tries to join them for instance)
All the workers related things should be a specialty of sovereign. And the soon-to-come(tm) (:P) changes to the resources and economic window should be tied to the sovereign way of life.
So it would make the 3 different kind of leader really different : you want to focus on warfare ? Play tribal chief. You want to summon powerful units and become immortal ? Wizard is for you. You want a mighty empire ? Play a sovereign.

[Valravn Games]

The custom units for Sovereigns will work differently than for wizards. It won't be quite as "freeform", as I agree it is important to give them a distinctive gameplay experience. It will be more about having unit types tied to a specific province and while there will be opportunity to choose weapons/armor - it will be tied to culture - and special abilities will also be tied to the province/city/culture. Changing them will be possible, but at a cost with cooldown. I know this sounds vague and weird - I should probably show rather than tell :) Suffice to say it's not just going to be a different version of golem design.

Good points about economy and workers. Completely removing the market from Wizards is probably a bit harsh, and I think I would get a lot of unhappy players quickly if I did that. But I agree with the overall sentiment to distinguish faction types along these lines.

I want to avoid overpromising on these things - but I do have plans for making Sovereigns more special. Dynastic management is one such area. I think your thoughts on empire management and economy align with the general direction of my own, if not the details and boldness. So when I work on economy and worker changes - because those are needed and coming, even if by increments rather than great leaps - I will keep these differences in mind. Sovereign Warlords should have an edge when it comes empire management.

[sir Evans]

Removing economy from wizards is in actuallity removing most ways of improving provinces, building outposts, early followers hiring. Obtaining recources required for research and golem construction. Basically nothing left to do here.
BTW, It's a good notion for any development - not to restrict base game mechanics for no real reason other than just "because" :)
Economy and market are core feature enough, that removing it may be trully a bad idea.


I'd rather expand into different features. Sovereign with Dynasty? That sounds way better than just cutting market out of the wizard :) Customizable units? Yup.
Perhaps Sovereign could be the one with ability to peacefully integrate cities into the empire? Vassalize and integrate them or something?

Btw, before we go into altering existing economy and workers, I'd suggest implementing population food and goods consumption first as this may alter resource flow quite a bit.


In general I would consider this:
- certain core game play mechanics should be maintainted between different gameplay styles (market, deities, etc)
- these styles should be differentiated by EASIER access to their specific mechanics (so maybe have wizards pay more for workers upkeep, like for units) and
- have some in depth gameplay unique to them. Magic for wizards, Migration for tribals, Empire building for Sovereigns... rather expand into specific directions instead of cutting these out.

[Vieux Chat]

Give magic ways for wizards to get resources.
Magic ways to get new followers.
etc.
Were you a magic wizard, you woudln't spend a minute caring about how to get resources.. you would send followers for such a thing, or you would use diplomacy with other sovereigns ;)
Removing a part of the game will force different enemies to sometimes cooperate for things they don't have access to.

Tribal warlords don't have access to magic at all and they can compete. They also can't build most of the empire management buildings. They don't have workers. So why shoul dwizards have them ?

At first I hated that lack of access to workers and buildings.
But in fact it is way more enjoyable to have to play in a different way.

Or you would even have some traits for wizards or warlords to have access to the market/magic/empire building mechanics

Another thing Sovereigns could have and also tribal chief are "bonds" between your soldiers (living ones). When they fight together, they would get bonus if they are close to each other, or get new feats (like being able to grab enemies when you have an ally in their ZoC, things like that)
Golem are a way to customize what you can create with magic. There should be a way for warlords (both kinds) to "customize" battles in a way wizards can't.

[sir Evans]

Originally posted by Vieux Chat:

Give magic ways for wizards to get resources.
Magic ways to get new followers.
etc.
Were you a magic wizard, you woudln't spend a minute caring about how to get resources.. you would send followers for such a thing, or you would use diplomacy with other sovereigns ;)

Saruman would disagree :)

Removing a part of the game will force different enemies to sometimes cooperate for things they don't have access to.

Tribal warlords don't have access to magic at all and they can compete. They also can't build most of the empire management buildings. They don't have workers. So why shoul dwizards have them ?

I have not played tribals in over a year, so I was not aware of these limitations.
I would rather keep workers for everybody, maybe limit them somehow in number, increase upkeep?

I don't know. Diplomatic AI isn't there yet for such cooperation, but maybe when it happens Sovereigns could order creation of artifacts from Wizards?

At first I hated that lack of access to workers and buildings.
But in fact it is way more enjoyable to have to play in a different way.

Or you would even have some traits for wizards or warlords to have access to the market/magic/empire building mechanics

It's a whole different game mode. But wizards do need resources. There is no logical explanation for why they couldn't just buy them from the market or hire a gang of orcs to get some timber from Fangor Forest.

In my opinion, I would rather expand Tribal game mode to add possibilities to get both at some point due to some quests or "research". But treat it as an obtainable extras, limited in scope, with some other main goal in mind for a tribal warlord.

Another thing Sovereigns could have and also tribal chief are "bonds" between your soldiers (living ones). When they fight together, they would get bonus if they are close to each other, or get new feats (like being able to grab enemies when you have an ally in their ZoC, things like that)
Golem are a way to customize what you can create with magic. There should be a way for warlords (both kinds) to "customize" battles in a way wizards can't.

What about army traditions? Rather than bonds between units, have an army that exists for a long time "level up". Units level up, so why not the army group as a whole? :)

[Valravn Games]

A lot of the game is currently tuned around the existence of the market. I do have WIP development and plans to make it more supply/demand driven, but until then, it would probably make the majority of players very unhappy to remove it. It's one thing if it had never been there in the first place - but removing now would have knock-on effects all over the place.

However, your point about traits can be used, but the other way around. Not to enable the market - but to remove it. A negative trait, as known from many other games. There's plenty of opportunity to mess up balance with such traits, but I think it would be an interesting one to add - and it doesn't cause issues with current and 'default' gameplay.

I am not sure how to name these traits:

"Cannot hire workers"
"Cannot train units" (can only summon/bind/raise)
"Cannot use the market"

It could also be feasible to have partial versions of the traits, but that's an even bigger balance headache. However, for the sake of experimentation and to give players more options, I think it would be cool to add the three traits above - it's a very small amount of work, so why not?

As for the other ideas you both put forth, I'll give it a deeper analysis - along with the stuff I already archived from the beta thread, where a lot of other cool Sovereign (and general) ideas were shared.

The main goal with 1.0.3 was to get Sovereign functional and out there. It was an important bridge between AI rivals and player faction types. Now I can refine it and add some variety/uniqueness to it. If I had waited until I had that unique flavor in place, it would just take longer all in all - but the downside is that it will be shallow until that time. My experience is best with the incremental approach, so that's what I'll do. But I do want to give Warlords things that other faction types do not have - and also add more stuff to Tribal Chiefs for that matter.

[Valravn Games]

Army traditions / identity and XP is something I've been itching to do for a long time, but have held off on as there's until now always been something else more in need of attention. That is very much something I see as a potential Sovereign core mechanic (with limited access for Wizards and Chiefs - with ways to expand it, like traits or tribal destiny).

[sir Evans]

When thinking about economy and workers, perhaps having Sovereign expand upon these rather than limit a wizard would be a better idea?
Number of non magical workers for Wizards could be related to the amount of pops under their control?
Sovereigns could have faster training (-10% time or one turn less) for workers or/and a research to decrease that further?
Sovereigns could actually have higher base bonus from a worker (10% instead of 5%?) or a research for increasing that bonus?
Sovereigns could be able to upgrade the sites further (limit or lock site upgrades for a wizard in order mastery?)

The whole unique golem mechanics goes out of the window if a Wizard cannot buy resources or build impovements to obtain these resources. This is a main reason I would be agains locking it out of spellcasters.


I will repeat myself here: for the good of a gameplay, let us rather expand unique features in depth, instead of limiting them from existing play styles.


Would be best for Tribals for example to be forced to raze/raid a city in order to obtain workers by force (what Mongols did) rather them for not being able to have workers at all.
As to what they would use workers for is an altogether different thing. Have sites provide resources only when staffed with workers, for example.
In that way, tribal can build mines and farms, but if there are no workers there, they got no benefits.
And if they migrate from the province, these improvements cannot have workers (or research some horde improvement like "trade caravans" that allows you to send resources from sites to your tribe settlement).

There is a lot of room for expansion :)

[Valravn Games]

No, worries, my main focus is on adding, rather than subtracting. But there is merit to the principle of specialization, so while I will not remove core mechanics from Wizards, I think adding the option to play a Wizard without one more of these, is a benefit. Giving players the tools to tailor their gameplay experience is always something I'm keen to do.

Asymmetric gameplay is close to my heart, but as I'm just one person and I have limited bandwidth I will make incremental changes, and thus expand Warlords with more functionality. A larger team could probably succeed at a revamp which removed existing gameplay from Wizards, but in my case I don't think it would work.

Even so, the design principle behind the suggestion is still valid. That was the point I was trying to make. And I see many good ideas from everyone here and in the other threads and sub-forum, about how to accomplish that. I'll do my best to make Sovereigns and Tribal Chiefs more interesting to play - and please keep the ideas and feedback coming. I'm catching my breath after getting Sovereigns out in their first, basic, incarnation. I won't make sweeping changes this week or the next. Right now it's "hypercare" and incremental improvements. Not to forget giving attention to some other parts of the game, like modding or the editor.

[sir Evans]

Perhaps changing from Tribal Developer with no workers to Severeign dev would be in order then? :P

Just kidding, other than short-term subcontractors to provide assets or specialized part of code, having a team can be a pain in the ass for all sorts of reasons.

Anyway, rest and relax, there are no publisher deadlines to meet so... take your time :)

[Valravn Games]

Originally posted by sir Evans:

Perhaps changing from Tribal Developer with no workers to Severeign dev would be in order then? :P

Just kidding, other than short-term subcontractors to provide assets or specialized part of code, having a team can be a pain in the ass for all sorts of reasons.

Anyway, rest and relax, there are no publisher deadlines to meet so... take your time :)

Well, it's purely financial reasons keeping from having more developers. It's a huge leap from a solo indie supplementing game revenue with freelance work to having just a studio of 3 developers. I sadly know plenty of people who found nothing but misery and disappointment going that route. I don't think this project would be viable for anyone but a lunatic indie. If suddenly the game goes viral and I end up with a big wad of cash, I'd not hesitate to re-invest it all into a larger team, but for now I can't do much but chug along as my lonesome self.

I'm resting a bit, after a few long days - but when I wrote 'catch my breath' I actually meant in the sense of modulating my work towards a different aspect, rather than actually taking time off :D It's a mental deceleration and shift of focus towards organizing my backlog of high-priority tasks and making sure I spend some time on areas of the game which have suffered lack of attention for too long. I may not have publisher deadlines, but I do have mental deadlines, and the week or two before an update, things become a bit more messy - a microcosm of how larger-scale development works in a way. So once the update is out, I need to stop, 'clean up the workshop' and make a quick battleplan for the next cycle. Those plans almost never survive contact with reality, but still it's an important phase. But I digress.

Now it's time for some actual, physical rest, and then I'll get cracking in the morning on cleaning up the workshop :)

[SpiralRazor]

Sovereigns might just have a plethora of "chosen" troops and units, maybe triple what another faction may get in return for having whack access to magic.

[cranky corvid]

Originally posted by Valravn Games:

I am not sure how to name these traits:

"Cannot hire workers"
"Cannot train units" (can only summon/bind/raise)
"Cannot use the market"

My suggestions:

* Arcane Obsession - Some wizards are too consumed by their quest to master the arcane to tend to mundane matters such as the development of the land. Their realms are often neglected, unless improved by the wonders resulting from their research.

* Disarmed Subjects - Perhaps either a control-obsessed tyrant or holding a principled ethical stance, this wizard refuses to recruit troops from among their mortal subjects, instead relying on forces obtained through their magical powers.

* Autarky - Paranoia, bloodlust or some more principled form of isolationism drives this wizard to seal their realm from the outside world, preventing trade from safely entering or leaving.

[Vieux Chat]

I remember how disappointed I was when trying the tribal chief the first time. Because the destinites weren't enough to cope with the lack of magic research and all the things related to it (like golems and summonings), and the lack of empire development.
Sovereign feels like that right now. Just a dumbed down version of wizard because they don't have access to magic.

The main issue with the game at the moemen tisn't the lack of balance or the battles or the diplomacy that could be so awesome and all the "could be" things.
The main issue is when you are selecting your character at start. Will you play a wizard or a warlord ? Why would anyone play warlords ? They don't have anything as interesting as the magic researches. Wizard have the same battles as anyone else, they have access to the same empire management than others.
Would you really think that adding traits that gives +20% of something will make players chose warlords over wizards ? I mean... You can cast fireballs ! Do you really think a +20% recruitment speed would compete with that ?
If warlords would have the same effect through other means it would still be the same problem. If you add powder to the sovereign and they have artillery, then they have their own fireballs. But then.. Why chose Sovereign ? What those "artilleries" do differently ?

Even now, the tribal destinies aren't diverging enough from wizard.

What unique thing can you do when being a Warlord that wizards can't ?
I would say even Saroumane doesn't care about empire building, he only cared about region management. He doesn't care about his own child because they don't need them : they pursue immortality after all.

I really think the winning goals should reflect what a wizard and a warlord is : wizard try to get that juicy ascendancy spell while warlords try to unite the world under their banner. Thus politics is the true thing a sovereign would do. Maybe adding a "Nobility destinies" to replace magic would be great : a bit like crusader kings. A sovereign wouldn't care about followers (they could still ask for dungeon explorations or things like that but they wouldn't have to care about theml too much). A Sovereign would focus on his offsprings and diplomacy.

For me I see the 3 different approach to the gameplay like this :

• Wizard : the tower is the most important thing. Empire building shoudl be barebones, and mostly automated. Battles should be too. Wizards could only use spells in battles and give orders before baattles, not while the battle last (this woudl be the tribal chief specialty)
  
• Tribal chief : warfare is what makes sense. Give them unique battle properties like being able to issue new orders in battle, to create bonds between units, to get influence through that mean, to make their legend live. They would win with enough influence meaning that even if they get destroyed, noone will ever forgot them.
  
• Sovereign : empire building is the key. They can create new regions for instance. This would be a huge specialty for them. Offsprings instead of followers, marriages, diplomacy would be their way to victory. Creating the biggest alive empire.

So a wizard would play "tall", a Sovereign would play "large", a tribal chief would be roaming glory occasions to become immortal through tales.

That would change how players chose their character at creation. How will they chose to play and win the game ?
It would also reduce the old issue of not having a true ending condition, a true goal to pursue : it's sometime snice to chose for ourselve how we percieve "victory", but more than often, players need the game to tell them that they achieved some kind of milestone.

Speaking about Milestones. They could be some narrative help to know how much you've achieved in a game without neccessarily winning it.
Fought a desperate battle. The mage tower being overthrown by failed summoning. Living dead becomeing a follower then falling in love. Making peace between two independant that are really opposed. Etc.
There's so many thing the game could tell us "Wow, you did something worth mentioning in the history books"

[sir Evans]

What unique thing can you do when being a Warlord that wizards can't ?

(...)
So a wizard would play "tall", a Sovereign would play "large", a tribal chief would be roaming glory occasions to become immortal through tales.

That would change how players chose their character at creation. How will they chose to play and win the game ?
It would also reduce the old issue of not having a true ending condition, a true goal to pursue : it's sometime snice to chose for ourselve how we percieve "victory", but more than often, players need the game to tell them that they achieved some kind of milestone.

Differentiating the gameplay that much from core mechanics for tree different factions may end up with these not being able to even "play" at the same map. These would be like 3 separate play modes, and I'm sure that AI would go nuts.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against different play modes, but we have just one developer and he can only do as much.


The realistic scenario is rather that there should remain some core gameplay mechanics common to all 3 currently available play modes. Going forward from there and expanding unique features in scope is the way uniqueness should be achieved. AI will have to somehow be able to handle the differences.


Wizard has the most to do, because it was completed first. Give some time to Warlord features. "Lunatic Solo Indie Projects" take more time to deliver than regular ones, but often the end result is most surprising :)

[Krankus Wrexus]

Originally posted by Vieux Chat:

I remember how disappointed I was when trying the tribal chief the first time. Because the destinites weren't enough to cope with the lack of magic research and all the things related to it (like golems and summonings), and the lack of empire development.
Sovereign feels like that right now. Just a dumbed down version of wizard because they don't have access to magic.

The main issue with the game at the moemen tisn't the lack of balance or the battles or the diplomacy that could be so awesome and all the "could be" things.
The main issue is when you are selecting your character at start. Will you play a wizard or a warlord ? Why would anyone play warlords ? They don't have anything as interesting as the magic researches. Wizard have the same battles as anyone else, they have access to the same empire management than others.
Would you really think that adding traits that gives +20% of something will make players chose warlords over wizards ? I mean... You can cast fireballs ! Do you really think a +20% recruitment speed would compete with that ?
If warlords would have the same effect through other means it would still be the same problem. If you add powder to the sovereign and they have artillery, then they have their own fireballs. But then.. Why chose Sovereign ? What those "artilleries" do differently ?

Even now, the tribal destinies aren't diverging enough from wizard.

What unique thing can you do when being a Warlord that wizards can't ?
I would say even Saroumane doesn't care about empire building, he only cared about region management. He doesn't care about his own child because they don't need them : they pursue immortality after all.

I really think the winning goals should reflect what a wizard and a warlord is : wizard try to get that juicy ascendancy spell while warlords try to unite the world under their banner. Thus politics is the true thing a sovereign would do. Maybe adding a "Nobility destinies" to replace magic would be great : a bit like crusader kings. A sovereign wouldn't care about followers (they could still ask for dungeon explorations or things like that but they wouldn't have to care about theml too much). A Sovereign would focus on his offsprings and diplomacy.

For me I see the 3 different approach to the gameplay like this :

• Wizard : the tower is the most important thing. Empire building shoudl be barebones, and mostly automated. Battles should be too. Wizards could only use spells in battles and give orders before baattles, not while the battle last (this woudl be the tribal chief specialty)
  
• Tribal chief : warfare is what makes sense. Give them unique battle properties like being able to issue new orders in battle, to create bonds between units, to get influence through that mean, to make their legend live. They would win with enough influence meaning that even if they get destroyed, noone will ever forgot them.
  
• Sovereign : empire building is the key. They can create new regions for instance. This would be a huge specialty for them. Offsprings instead of followers, marriages, diplomacy would be their way to victory. Creating the biggest alive empire.

So a wizard would play "tall", a Sovereign would play "large", a tribal chief would be roaming glory occasions to become immortal through tales.

That would change how players chose their character at creation. How will they chose to play and win the game ?
It would also reduce the old issue of not having a true ending condition, a true goal to pursue : it's sometime snice to chose for ourselve how we percieve "victory", but more than often, players need the game to tell them that they achieved some kind of milestone.

Speaking about Milestones. They could be some narrative help to know how much you've achieved in a game without neccessarily winning it.
Fought a desperate battle. The mage tower being overthrown by failed summoning. Living dead becomeing a follower then falling in love. Making peace between two independant that are really opposed. Etc.
There's so many thing the game could tell us "Wow, you did something worth mentioning in the history books"

If the dev ever listens to you he will probably lose this games playerbase people already like these features adding options for certain players to not use them is fine but removing features that are well liked will both ruin a devs reputation and cause massive review hits that will equal a downturn in the games popularity in other words a downwards spiral I love this game but if the recommendations to remove features that you propose are ever followed through my review will be negative as will many others no dev wants to do a GoT late seasons to his own game