WISHLIST NOW on Steam: store.steampow... PLAY EARLY on Patreon: / armchairhistorian LEARN MORE Reveal Trailer: • Master of Command: Sev... JOIN COMMUNITY on Discord: / discord
I wouldn't mind being given just a few "dispatches" about the enemy’s movements and your army's readiness. So you would get the updates and make a decision which you want to march your army to. The other regions have a chance to get better or worse while you conduct your zoomed in grand-tactical campaign
If the map is not important, don't show it too much, if the choice is not relevant it's harder to make the player want to make it, i feel like putting a character to give you the mission or the choice of witch mission puts more focus on the battles. I also find Interesting to add defensive battles only on higher difficulties, making it more difficult and either the player has to choose it or he loses a victory point.
One idea would be that different mission types play differently. For example, in a defend mission the enemy could start full or close to full strength and marching towards you. Until they reach you you have time to gather resources and troops to defend a certain checkpoint. Or raid could be that you have to raid a number of storehouses while there are plenty of roaming enemy armies trying to block you. With different mission types you can make the interesting layer of the game even better
Can you comment here? If u can I have something to change from my comment earlier about the marching songs thing. Maybe you could do something where whenever your units march towards the enemy (either to get into the firing range or to charge) you would have the option to let your units sing or use instruments for their marching songs, which would then affect the enemy, example: I am marching my units to the left flank and I pressed a button for the marching songs, the enemy gets a bit nervous which would give them a -15 or -10 morale if defeated and +20 if they won. something like this I think might work for future development of the game
I think it would help with the exploration if you needed to visit towns to find out where the enemy hq is, and perhaps have the enemy move their encampment once in a while. And to help with it you can send detachment of horsemen or light infantry to do some scouting in exchange of some of their manpower. But those scputs wouldn't be under your direct control and out of sight, then they could report back with the enemys locations or of hints about where they were or are headed.
What about friendly fire? If your troops is in front, sure dont shoot em. But in the example when you encircle the enemy formation, maybe depending on units accuracy, some miss the enemy and shoot their own.
i guess you already consider this, but i would like the map of europe (political map), and regions to conquer insted of missions ofered, that break the inmersion for me, and when you attack the region you go to a random but contextual combat map (strategic map), and then to the map were the units fight (tactical map), but also the IA moving their army to atack regions an defend regions, so you move strategical, and then every region you fight you want to make the best. and that justified going back again, you push and move back, you choose some challenge regions when you are strong, but you choose weaker regions when you have recovering your wounds from last region. Last but nor less, the stats of every unit, i love the sense of knowing your troops and check how the have done every previos region, and kills and loses. sorry for my english.
I THINK I GOT IT! The choice of where and the name of where you are fighting is less important than WHO you are fighting! The WHO is what really matters since the places are procedurally generated anyway. As well as the HOW. So, in the choice system: [Mission type] [Opponent] in [Province Name] So with Prussia, you’ve got three potential enemies and you can choose which one to focus on. Same with the British-maybe the Austrians are an advanced raid or attack. But then the French, Russians, Austrians have a less interesting campaign because they have only two enemies: mainly fighting the Prussians but you need to defend from a British raid or attack. I also kinda like the idea of “chaos mode,” where your enemy’s aesthetics can be completely randomized. Like, the point of this “campaign selection” layer is to pick who and where you are campaigning. So yeah, the choice system. I’d say lean into that. The Europe map just provides context. Maybe an unlocked choice one you beat the game once: after fighting one historical Seven Years War, you’re completely open in who you’re fighting. Because it would be fun to have the French, Austrians and Russians fight each other. Just some post-stream thoughts.
This is all just about correct. I also think this game benefits from more enemy variety, so we'd probably have all enemies enabled by default but then players can reduce the enemy variety in order to fit a more historical war if they wish.
Might be a bit late to the party... but I'd like to add a couple of things. Given the type of campaigns that occurred in the period and even past the Napoleonic era, I think a rolled out map would be good, but instead of planting flags and colouring the map, maybe just an animated icon of two sabres crossing, with a nice sound effect, where you were just fighting, probably with a name like the Battle of Leutzen appearing below. Then the choice of the next offensive/defence/etc. is made and you watch a broken line plotted to the area that you're fighting next. It would ground the player in where the fighting is as you know where the army is and where it has been. Also I'd like it if you could withdraw from battles, or be defeated but still play on. Like if you fought at Leutzen (it's the first name that sprang to mind so I'm sticking with it :D ) and lost then you could be given the option to mount a rearguard or defend somewhere else (there's no reason these scenarios need to be in any way different to an offensive, but the naming has a nice immersive effect). And again, from the site of the battle you watch the route your army takes to take up positions for the next section. Maybe depending on the difficulty when you lose/withdraw you don't gain a victory that counts towards the end but on harder difficulties it would be a minus, so if you lose enough times you'll fail as your country is brought to the bargaining table at a disadvantage and the war is over. Maybe Normal will mean you lose points but can't go below zero (and lose entirely) and Easy you don't get a minus at all. Overall I think Total War 'paint-the-map' style maps give the wrong impression in a game set in this period, the map is redrawn after the war, not during. The army and its general march and counter march in order to hit the enemy where it advantages them, before they can fully gather and so on. I'm loving what I'm seeing of the game so far and I'm looking forward to it a lot.
I wouldn't mind being given just a few "dispatches" about the enemy’s movements and your army's readiness. So you would get the updates and make a decision which you want to march your army to. The other regions have a chance to get better or worse while you conduct your zoomed in grand-tactical campaign
If the map is not important, don't show it too much, if the choice is not relevant it's harder to make the player want to make it, i feel like putting a character to give you the mission or the choice of witch mission puts more focus on the battles. I also find Interesting to add defensive battles only on higher difficulties, making it more difficult and either the player has to choose it or he loses a victory point.
One idea would be that different mission types play differently.
For example, in a defend mission the enemy could start full or close to full strength and marching towards you. Until they reach you you have time to gather resources and troops to defend a certain checkpoint.
Or raid could be that you have to raid a number of storehouses while there are plenty of roaming enemy armies trying to block you.
With different mission types you can make the interesting layer of the game even better
Can you comment here? If u can I have something to change from my comment earlier about the marching songs thing.
Maybe you could do something where whenever your units march towards the enemy (either to get into the firing range or to charge) you would have the option to let your units sing or use instruments for their marching songs, which would then affect the enemy, example: I am marching my units to the left flank and I pressed a button for the marching songs, the enemy gets a bit nervous which would give them a -15 or -10 morale if defeated and +20 if they won.
something like this I think might work for future development of the game
I think it would help with the exploration if you needed to visit towns to find out where the enemy hq is, and perhaps have the enemy move their encampment once in a while.
And to help with it you can send detachment of horsemen or light infantry to do some scouting in exchange of some of their manpower. But those scputs wouldn't be under your direct control and out of sight, then they could report back with the enemys locations or of hints about where they were or are headed.
What about friendly fire? If your troops is in front, sure dont shoot em. But in the example when you encircle the enemy formation, maybe depending on units accuracy, some miss the enemy and shoot their own.
i guess you already consider this, but i would like the map of europe (political map), and regions to conquer insted of missions ofered, that break the inmersion for me, and when you attack the region you go to a random but contextual combat map (strategic map), and then to the map were the units fight (tactical map), but also the IA moving their army to atack regions an defend regions, so you move strategical, and then every region you fight you want to make the best. and that justified going back again, you push and move back, you choose some challenge regions when you are strong, but you choose weaker regions when you have recovering your wounds from last region. Last but nor less, the stats of every unit, i love the sense of knowing your troops and check how the have done every previos region, and kills and loses. sorry for my english.
I THINK I GOT IT! The choice of where and the name of where you are fighting is less important than WHO you are fighting! The WHO is what really matters since the places are procedurally generated anyway. As well as the HOW.
So, in the choice system:
[Mission type] [Opponent] in
[Province Name]
So with Prussia, you’ve got three potential enemies and you can choose which one to focus on. Same with the British-maybe the Austrians are an advanced raid or attack. But then the French, Russians, Austrians have a less interesting campaign because they have only two enemies: mainly fighting the Prussians but you need to defend from a British raid or attack.
I also kinda like the idea of “chaos mode,” where your enemy’s aesthetics can be completely randomized.
Like, the point of this “campaign selection” layer is to pick who and where you are campaigning. So yeah, the choice system. I’d say lean into that. The Europe map just provides context.
Maybe an unlocked choice one you beat the game once: after fighting one historical Seven Years War, you’re completely open in who you’re fighting. Because it would be fun to have the French, Austrians and Russians fight each other.
Just some post-stream thoughts.
This is all just about correct. I also think this game benefits from more enemy variety, so we'd probably have all enemies enabled by default but then players can reduce the enemy variety in order to fit a more historical war if they wish.
Will there be multiplayer like me and a friend could be Prussia and Britain and then fight together?
They won't be adding multiplayer
Might be a bit late to the party... but I'd like to add a couple of things.
Given the type of campaigns that occurred in the period and even past the Napoleonic era, I think a rolled out map would be good, but instead of planting flags and colouring the map, maybe just an animated icon of two sabres crossing, with a nice sound effect, where you were just fighting, probably with a name like the Battle of Leutzen appearing below. Then the choice of the next offensive/defence/etc. is made and you watch a broken line plotted to the area that you're fighting next. It would ground the player in where the fighting is as you know where the army is and where it has been.
Also I'd like it if you could withdraw from battles, or be defeated but still play on. Like if you fought at Leutzen (it's the first name that sprang to mind so I'm sticking with it :D ) and lost then you could be given the option to mount a rearguard or defend somewhere else (there's no reason these scenarios need to be in any way different to an offensive, but the naming has a nice immersive effect). And again, from the site of the battle you watch the route your army takes to take up positions for the next section. Maybe depending on the difficulty when you lose/withdraw you don't gain a victory that counts towards the end but on harder difficulties it would be a minus, so if you lose enough times you'll fail as your country is brought to the bargaining table at a disadvantage and the war is over. Maybe Normal will mean you lose points but can't go below zero (and lose entirely) and Easy you don't get a minus at all.
Overall I think Total War 'paint-the-map' style maps give the wrong impression in a game set in this period, the map is redrawn after the war, not during. The army and its general march and counter march in order to hit the enemy where it advantages them, before they can fully gather and so on.
I'm loving what I'm seeing of the game so far and I'm looking forward to it a lot.
Wow
will there be a Russian language in the game?