Top 10 things MoM Needed (that aren't obviously going to be done already in Elemental)

Research different kinds of training - expanding on this idea

Thinking this through - how about making all the special bonuses and abilities a unit might have the result of specific training requiring research and infrastructure to support them.

Examples:

• Anti-cavalry training - needs long spears to use and a hippodrome or something for troops to get used to charging mounted units and hold the line
  
• Charge - any unit can train charge but its effectiveness increases with movement speed. Requires an Arena
• First strike - needs a lance and jousting lists
• Rapid shooting (rapid 'fire' is not appropriate in a medieval setting) increases ROF for archer units but requires a large archery range
• Urban Warfare (oops, too modern a name) decreases negatives when attacking in city squares, requires a city-watch building
• Stealth - reduces detection radius by scouts and other units, cannot be used for certain units (perhaps, or is just VERY expensive for them? Like stealth cavalry isn't _impossible_ but would take a lot more training than men in tights), requires a hunting preserve
• Long Range Accuracy decreases range penalties to accuracy (absolute accuracy is obviously dictated by weapon design, you will NEVER shoot 300 yards with an unmodified short bow!), requires a long archery range. I'm seeing multiple archery ranges and cavalry type buildings here, perhaps have extensions and modifications to existing buildings rather than 20 different ones.
• Phalanx excellent defensive formation requires long spears and formation training on a parade ground

You get the idea...

1. Option to extend the map and continue on game completion. I posted about this separately and I don't know why it isn't the default for all 4X games. Once a MoM game was over, or past the tipping point and victory inevitable, that was it. 15 hours of gameplay were over and done forever, and there was no point revisiting all that history and story. If you can extend the map and continue, the story continues, the kingdom expands into new lands and challenges. This fits VERY well with a totally open-ended tech or spell tree. Have an option to increase difficulty as this happens too.
   

Yes, this game really needs something like this. One of the things I hate the most in Sins is that when a game ends... it ends... Sure you can keep playing, but there isnt really anything to do. So after building this huge civilization in space for 15 hours, all of a sudden... it just ends. One solution would be the above mentioned expanding of the map.

Another option which could possibly be used in conjuction with this idea would be an idea of rebellions. Give cities a loyalty statistic, which depending on the distance from your capital, will go up or down. If it is going down, you will need to essentially bribe those cities with lucrative trade agreements, cultural objects, or other things of that sort which help to convince the city to stay in your empire. If the city's loyalty got to low, it would either revolt outright or do sneaky little things like sabotaging your nearby armies or having boston tea parties with your ale shipment. This could add an interesting dynamic to the game after the enemies on the map were cleared out, since as you continue to expand, cities will start revolting, possibily forming together to create new AI players. This would add a more dynamic and empire type feel to the game, since instead of just building a mighty empire, you would be able to manage the empire after you had successfully driven off any invaders. Also, the loyalty would be fairly inconsequential during wartime, since wartime is when the populace becomes the most patriotic, and so the player would not have to deal with any internal strife unless he/she was at peace.

It could also lead to some backstabbing options if two neighboring nations were precariously allied. One could see with their scouts that some cities on the other person's northern border were revolting. The player could then deduce that the armies gaurding the border would shortly be greatly diminished, since they would be up north trying to retake the lost cities. Then the player could decide to attack the southern border, since it would take many turns for the player dealing with the rebellion to move his/her army all the way south again to deal with the invasion.

I disagree.   But maybe I didn't play compeditivly enough.  They were needed early game.  I don't think you could get out of hiring one or two without serious hurt to your military strength.  I think refining it would be a better option, or making it harder to get the greater heroes.

I want to add to the list.  in fact I think it should be within the top 10 over things like improving trade routes, but that is just me.

World options:  I love the two worlds, but I want options.  More worlds, maybe 2 light worlds, maybe only dark worlds.  Maybe only 1 world once in a while.

I guess better diplomacy and multipler are the 'are obviously going to be done in elemental' but seriously a major point.

I don't mind the idea of a limited number of resurrections, something about their sol only being redeemable to a certain degree. Its kind of like a cake and eat it scenario that if pursued could open up interesting story elements. For example: Everytime you are resurrected, you lose some diplomacy skill because you are less able to flaunt your charisma, or channeling skill because of loss of spell memory. It would also make protecting the hero a scalable priority.

Yeah Supcom did this really well in their campaign, it is exciting to say the least. It would be awesome for example, to have a game option that allowed for this, (with a number of increases setting 0 to 3 or something), where if selected, when you won the map, the game engine would spawn a mirror-like civ entity, with all your skills and land mass for you to do battle with on a double of your game map. Something about, the final battle is always against the self or something...or a shadow entity that has the exact opposite of all your magics.

I realize this would be an insanely (and unlikely) large investment of time and energy, but man...think of the awesome carnage when the map first duplicates! It would be a global scale clusterjoust!

Yep trade is crucial eh...I really hope they take this up a notch and weave it into the diplomacy more. I love the GC2 trade, but a sympathetic diplomacy system could really bring the world to life.

Good post btw.

Hmmm I didn't find lesser heroes in the early game to be very useful at all. But then I favoured death magic and I can't think of a lesser hero that could compete with shadow demons without some serious items or even artifacts... and it wasn't worth making them for lessers anyway. Come to think of it, it wasn't worth making items at all really, just wait a bit then make artifacts.

I like the world options idea a lot - kinda like CIV's "design your planet" kinda stage only much closer bearing on the gameplay. Myror and Arcana were cool and definitely the two-plan or more would be great options.

I agree better diplo and multiplayer are crucial but I assumed they were already on the hit list

"Separation of training and experience. This is realistic and would add motivation to engage in smaller-scale conflicts over smaller goals (kill off some barbarians, pirates/bandits, trade, a node or minor resource etc) that don't necessarily lead to city-scale conquest. There should be a jump in effectiveness and morale for units as they get their first few experience points that tapers off into diminishing returns."

Just wanted to expand on this point a little.

In 4X games there is a reduced tendency to perform small-scale military actions. Occasionally there may be a resource rush or a move to curb bandit activity or something, but for the most part players will avoid conflict unless they are prepared to take a city. There is little motivation to raid enemy trade routes or perform small pillaging raids because the player wishes to build up a massive force and take cities and any military losses before doing so will subtract from this plan or delay it.

This all too often leads to the highly unrealistic scenario whereby a militaristic nation builds up a massive military but does nothing with it for generations (while building up), then takes over the world.

I say highly unrealistic because firstly, obviously, that entire war machine will have no experience. Conquering the world with green troops and inexperienced generals should be far more challenging than doing so with an experienced military that has scaled up its activities from a series of smaller conflicts. Secondly, how does a nation which has ZERO conflict maintain a large military? Even in dictatorships this is politically and economically much more difficult than if there is some justification for spending the money and people. How does such a nation keep up the military's morale? It is possible, sure, but more difficult. This second point is probably harder and unecessary to incporate into game systems, but the first (lack of experience as a practical military drawback) should suffice if adequately implemented.

Smaller conflicts that are worth pursuing to the player imbue play with variety and realism.

How should eperience manifest?

To best achieve these aims, experience could manifest in the following ways:

1. Attack and defence bonuses (obviously - soldiers who have fought in real combat have a better ability to attack and defend in real combat than equally trained but less experienced troops. No matter how good your sword training is, the first time your sword gets stuck in someone's skull you won't react as well as the second or fifth time)
2. Special ability effectiveness bonus - obviously no matter how many times you train for getting into the Phalanx formation, there is no substitite for that first experience of the enemy infantry crushing into and impaling itself on your spear. Will you puke at the sight and smell of their blood? Or will you efficiently drag your spear out, maintain position and shove it in the next guy's guts?
3. Morale bonus - it's well documented that soldiers who have already experienced the heat of battle or the shock of a cavalry charge are less likely to break and run. Morale is very much under-represented in 4X games and this is unrealistic - morale won they day in many historical battles. It also makes sense; the way modern psychologists recommend we conquer our fears or phobias is by repeated exposure to them. Experience improves morale - fact.
4. Movement bonus - this is less obvious at first glance, but makes perfect sense. A military unit is not just comprised of troops, it also has a chain of command and logistics support (supply wagons etc). These particularly need experience at moving the unit around and keeping it supplied, and a more experienced unit will always cover more ground in a day's march than an equally trained and equipped less experienced unit. They'll break camp faster, navigate the landscape more effectively, be more disciplined in their movements and experience fewer delays bringing supplies to camp when they stop for the day, etc.
5. Supply Bonus (reduced supply cost) - again related to the command structure and logistics part of any military unit. As the unit becomes more experienced at operating in the field under war-fighting conditions, less waste will be observed in the supply lines. The command chain will be better at getting the right supplies to the right troops at the right time, and the guys managing the carts will lose fewer of them stuck in the mud or to thieves. More experienced quartermasters will use up perishable supplies before they spoil, more effectively implement rationing when supplies are low etc. The other side of supply (which needn't be coded for separately) which is of course supply production and long range transport, is ALSO unlikely to be terribly efficient for a nation which has little to no experience in keeping an army in the field under war-fighting conditions.
   

It's important to note that while an army's commander may well influence all of these things, he or she will also depend on their officers leading and within each separate unit and the quartermasters of each unit for the timely and efficient execution of his or her orders. I'm a line manager myself and I've seen first hand obviously that even the best CEO I could have would be useless if I couldn't implement their ideas effectively. So the commander in charge of an army is important, but so is that army's overall experience, from the unit commanders right down to the poor fools holding quivering spears up to the onrush of bear cavalry.

If you combine these you can see where it's heading. If your nation avoids all conflict for a hundred years but builds up a massive military, when you finally try to take over the world you will be doing it with an army of green recruits who will throw up at the sight of blood, break and run in terror from their first cavalry charge, move slowly and inefficiently through the terrain and cost more to supply due to waste.

This is realistic.

On the other hand if, during your buildup phase, you participate in a series of smaller conflicts for goals that don't directly win you the game (i.e. not necessarily city capture as the goal) then you could go to war with some, most or even all of your units more experienced, more effective, more reliable, more maneuverable strategically and more efficient to support.

I think it is important to keep the ability to focus your heroes in different directions.  It makes them feel different each time you play.

Rather than just getting generic bonuses, I think I perfer the HoMM's skill style.   Though, it annoyed me a little when the skills I wanted for a character wouldn't come up, I think it made it interesting.

This is a thread deserving of karma!

Some sort of forced march would be good idea,dont like when am missing just one or two tiles to attack city with full force,so basicly units continue marching and become tired and that lower their stats in % based on amount of additional tiles they moved over their normal movement but can participate in battle.

If you just lift the limit on the number of heroes, you"re set. I tend to agree, some heroes you refused just in order to be able to get a better one.

I disagree. Dominions3 has some of the best heroes around. Most cannot be resurrected or summoned again, and it works well.

I never automated stuff in MoM and didn't mind. It all depends on the amount of micromanagement needed.

I have no interest in this either. I want the game to end, and actually like the turn limits on games.

Definitely agree.

Depending on how it's implemented it can be interesting.

Great ideas.

I'm all for trade goods and more explorations of the ruins and the likes. However I am against resurection of Heroes. I do not want them to become cannon fodder. I don't see why the heroes could  be resurected when the channeler dies. I want the hero to die and not come back. This way I thinnk we will be more careful with them and not just send them into battle without evaluating the risk factor.

Hail the Frog

I disagree, if anything blur the lines between lesser and greater, but I like having a wide variety of heroes both in strength as well as specific abilities. All heroes should not be created equal!

I mostly agree with everything else in the OP

Hmm. I think maybe we have to reduce some of the other limitations on heroes (MoM let you have 6, there were very few truly "great" heroes, and when those tiny few died that was it - there were also a lot of cheap and nasty ways they could die), if nobody likes resurrectable (at big cost) heroes and level 1 heroes who can grow to become level 50 awesome ones.

Heroes I think should be a fairly essential part of any valid strategy and a big problem for people who don't use them, not basically an optional fluff thing which was realistically more trouble than it was worth. High-powered summonable stuff arrived at a higher level of power much earlier in MoM, in my experience. Fully artifacted-up demigods were better than anything you could summon, but only just, and they took forever to summon, equip and train. On the other hand someone with a lot of books in any one field could start with relatively powerful summonable creatures and get seriously powerful ones much earlier than uber heroes.

Getting the lesser heroes was, to me, a bit of a waste of money and it wasn't worth wasting cast-time on lesser items or for that matter lesser heroes. If lesser heroes can't learn to become greater ones then they need some other advantages, or perhaps reduction in their opportunity costs?

• Maybe 6 lesser and 6 greater slots?
• MUCH cheaper to hire?
• Lesser items dramatically cheaper to make - taking into account the opportunity cost of what you could've been casting or summoning while you make a crappy item you will later throw away?
• Or maybe you wont throw away lesser items if you have 6 lesser hero slots... hmmm...

cheers,

Kul

Well, I'm hoping that there won't be a hard cap on the number of hero units. I'd rather see any limits there based on things like your budget and perhaps channeler leadership skills. So when you're starting out, you can only manage a few, but if you make it to the end-game on a Ludicrous-sized map, you could get to a scene like when Mat Cauthon blew the Horn of Valere in The Great Hunt. A small horde of heroes seems like it fits thematically with the ambition for worldwrecking end-game magic.

I disagree I think that playing with few or even no heroes should be a valid strategy. I like the way it's been presented so far by the devs: that using heroes is a trade-off. To create or recruit heroes you imbue them with some of your channeler's own power. I like the idea that any strategy from spreading out the vast majority of your channeler's essence into heroes and settlements and other enchantments to spending only a minimal amount to create a small number of cities and maintaining an extraordinarily powerful channeler will be viable. 

I'm also with GW Swicord about not having a hard cap on the number of hero units. It should be dependent on the channeler (maybe entirely on essence, maybe also have certain traits affect it, or even a modified version of AoW fame system). Also, I don't think there should be a hard delineation between lesser and greater heroes. Instead I think the power of heroes should depend on their 'level' (or experience if there aren't going to be strict levels, you see where i'mg etting at) and the amount of essence they've been imbued with.

I would like heroes to have some personality. Not only could this make them more memorable than 'Hero #4', its a relatively natural way to have a soft limit on the number of heroes, and provide some balancing effect against strong attributes. I also like the idea of powerful heroes with flaws, ones you have to work with and plan for. A couple ideas:

- based on Channeler's abilites - a paladin would refuse to be hired by one with Death Magic spells; a mage will only join if he feels the Channeler has enough essence; a barbarian who hates magic will only join if the Channeler's essence has fallen below an acceptable level

- an army's current hero set - if a paladin is hired, the necromancer currently employed would leave; a womanizer hero may only join if a certain percentage of the heroes are female; a hero may recognize a current hero as one who somehow failed before the events of the game, and refuse to work alongside them

- certain actions - a diplomat may leave if a treaty is broken or a compassionate hero may leave if cities are razed; on the other hand, aggressive heroes will leave if you don't

- misc - a particularly powerful hero may come attached with a much weaker hero, they come as a set and if one leaves or dies, the other leaves; a hero who refuses to retreat from battle; one who becomes addicted to the Channeler's essence, and drains some each turn; a hero who has a chance to become berserk and uncontrollable if they are injured; cowardly against a specific creature type (eg undead) or if a particular magic type is used against them (eg fire); split personality, where there's some chance a suppressed personality (represented as another hero with different stats), becomes the dominant personality for a time

I'd also like the ability to appoint heroes to particular positions. If you've played King of Dragon Pass, something along those lines. For instance, a Knight in one of these positions may give an empire-wide bonus to all cavalry-type units, but would also slow spell research. A High Priest could increase general morale, but slow technology research. They could also give ideas on how to expand your empire, based on their personality type. While working these positions, of course, the hero would be unavailable for field duty. So, they provide benefits other than just stomping enemy troops.

You know, you're completely right. On 15th thoughts I much prefer the option to use heroes as a strategy or not, and have them cost enough to justify either decision if part of a well thought out strategy.

or at least have you be able to set it at game options.   I was tired of being limitd to 6 on both small and large maps.

I suspect I'm usually going to imbue hero units because they seem like good story fun, but who knows what we'll all think after we see this 'essence' stuff in action. I very much like the tradeoff schema as Brad's sketched it so far, but it could unfold in quite a few different ways depending on whether it is a finite resource, can be stolen from another channeler, can be withdrawn from lands or heroes, etc.

In terms of 'things MoM needed' but I never could have imagined, this 'parallel' magic system seems like all that and a *fat* bag of chips.

I, personally, think you forgot "number 11".

11. Better AI for both the computer (I heard they are working on it for the computer controller) and the units. In MoM the auto system blew sometimes when having a caster hero with no mana run ahead and suicide on the enemy units instead of letting your heavy foot units go ahead. In total war (atleast while I played it) you had massive problems using complex strategies (like flanking) because the AI stopped you and made the units attack.

Another reason for the need for good AI is for the difficulty change. In MoM, the harder you set the game, the less you things recieved  at the start of the game and the more powerful your opponents became. I'd much rather be able to try "zerg rush" on my computer enemies without knowing that by the time I reach them, they will already be controlling 5 times my troops, or having my enemies bother me with endless rush of 1unit attacking my city every turn.

While I agree better AI is vital, considering who is coding the AI for this game I left it off the list as it's something obviously already planned...

True enough Kuloth, but I still don't know if he is in charge of "computer player" only or all the AI, so I thought it should be included (assuming it's the first).