Frogboy Frogboy

The Kingdoms vs. The Empires

The Kingdoms vs. The Empires

BG22_Fire For beta testers, only the Kingdoms have been exposed.  The Kingdoms play much like a traditional 4X game.  You build city improvements to get benefits to your city. You train up soldiers hoping they’ll get better and better. It is a civilization based on laws and rules.

The Empire has taken a different path…

In War

Their soldiers don’t gain experience. Such a concept of thinking about individual soldiers is anathema to the Empire.

As such, there is no such thing as a veteran Imperial soldier. However, they can train up special, powerful units (Guardians, Enforcers, and Sions).  These powerful individuals will routinely demonstrate the inherent flaw in trying to train groups of soldiers to be more effective. Greatness is born. Not learned.

In Peace

There is no tradition of civics in the Empire. Moreover, the concept of bee keeping or fruit orchard harvesting and what not is completely foreign. The Empire looks at the Kingdoms with absolute contempt that they would waste time harvesting such things.

Of course, it also means the Empires can harvest fewer special resources in the world. To make up for this, the Empire can build hog farms adjacent to their farms. That’s real food. Pathetic Kingdoms.

The Empire also scoffs at the Civics concepts of markets. Deals are made on the basis of leverage alone. Instead of relying on institutions, the Empire relies on leaders of capitalism to deal with it. Players can build Financiers (until we have a better name, feel free to suggest a better one) who enhance the city’s money making.

Similarly, there is no formal education system in the Empire. Schools? Universities? These concepts are worthless. The Kingdoms foolishly entrust their futures to special interests. In the Empire, players can create Sage units who can be sent where they are needed to boost knowledge production.

There are no pubs in the Empire. No Inns.  Such decadence is forbidden. Prestige is generated by showing respect to those who have seized power such as statues to great figures such as Lord Kir-Tion and Curgen the Dred’nir.

In Magic

Again, letting something as important as magic be taught by a special interest is another weakness of the Kingdom that the Empire has no part of. The Empire instead has its own magic commissars – the Lore masters who study the ancient texts to discover the correct spells needed to dominate the world. These units can be built and sent where needed.

Adventuring? I don’t think so

The Kingdoms have an entire knowledge field called “Adventuring”. There is no such concept in The Empire. Adventuring implies a light hearted search for excitement. This is why the Empire has dominated the world, it has no use for pointless wandering.

The Empires focus on Domination. Finding and re-learning knowledge scattered throughout the world. 

The Kingdoms, dominated by cowardly men, like to stay in their schools and temples. The Empire, dominated by the races of the Fallen and the lone race of men with the strength to embrace the philosophy of the Empires (Kraxis) gain knowledge and strength from going out into the world and seizing it from others. Dangerous places have great knowledge and the Empire is particularly skilled in finding that knowledge.

The Empire will rule

The fact is, the Empires are the dominant form of social organization in the world. The Kingdoms, with their weak, so-called concepts of liberty, social contracts and obsession with the rights of individuals is an absurd, artificial creation that violates the laws of nature.

361,196 views 211 replies
Reply #201 Top

Reading the initial post and Raven X's comment, i still find myself agreeing with the latter. It seems like many of the dynamics on which the game was sold have been chopped out for the empires. Adventuring? Gone. Resource development? Gone, build a pig farm instead. Are guardians, enforcers and sions designed or are they more like Supreme Commander Experimentals? IN that case, does the unit design part of the game dissappear?

 

I appreciate the desire to creat a LoTR style battle of good and evil, but it seems very limiting to draw such massive distinctions. Is it totally unreasonable that a player might want to play a greedy, yet capitalistic and open evil faction, like the Korx in GalCiv? And what happens when half the kingdoms have fallen? If it's impossible for the empires to end up at war with each other then the end game is going to be a pretty much forgone conclusion after the game reaches a certain point. I usually quit when this point arrives as the game is no longer a challenge for me, regardless of whether i'm winning or not.

 

personally i think the title of Vizier is best suited for the finance people. sounds suibtably menacing, beaurocratic and evil.

 

and you do not need to eat meat to be evil, as myself and hitler will gladly attest.

Reply #202 Top

Empires aren't evil, just different :p

Empires eat food from farms AND pigs, (can support larger populations)

Empires don't "ask" for quests, they find maps and plunder stuff (they still get cool lewt)

their mooks don't gain exp (just their champions iirc) and their "specialty mooks" basically just mean more HP except Psions

 

they don't have need for a lot of extra buildings ... instead they gain great (strong and talented) people.

 

// I haven't tested a whole lot with the Empires yet ... but this is just from my initial thoughts

Reply #203 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 25
Players can build Financiers (until we have a better name, feel free to suggest a better one) who enhance the city’s money making.

 

Praetor Imperium

Praetor Inquisitor

Praetor of Serfdom

Iron/Dark/etc Praetor

I do like the idea of a soul-less foreign agent sent to the periphery of empire to instill its will upon the conquered - the Imperial Praetor being the dark agent of sham justice forcing the cogs of empire to produce...

 

-tid242

Reply #205 Top

The "Gold smiths" were the first bankers. One day they got the wise Idea to loan the other guys gold plus an extra % that the Smith could not afford to pay back if something went wrong! What would you do  you was not paid back the gold? I suppose that was like a loan shark they break fingers and such until they get the gold owed to them. But Anyway, the smiths did get the gold back PLUS the profit from the risk that they took!

THE BANK WAS BORN *LIGHTBULB* I GOT AN IDEA!!

Now look where we are, debt with monopoly money and no gold in Fort KNOX.. :S

Reply #206 Top

Nice Ideas!

 

Some name for the  Financiers, if they are the money makers

 

Bankers, Master mint, Tax Collector, Bailiff, Stewart,

 

Mercantilist, Guild Master, Imperial ¨ADD HERE THE NAME¨, Seneschal

 

Magister, Governor, Sheriff, Master Trader, Aristocrat (or aristocrat title like Baron)

 

etc 

Reply #208 Top

Quoting Baleurion, reply 207
You used the word "anathema"

Tool

There, I said "Tool" ....lol.

Reply #210 Top

Quoting _PawelS_, reply 12
After reading this dev journal I get an impression that the differences between individual Kingdoms and Empires will be minor, so we'll have only two really different "factions". It's not much, but I guess more of them will be added in expansions (and mods, of course ).

 

If they would only put this much work into making each and every "civ" different, instead of just two (kingdoms and empires), then we'd be really getting somewhere.

 

Maybe in the future?

Reply #211 Top

We do not really have two different factions... because the AI behaves the same from each... sure, I grant that there are differences in units and buildings but there needs to be differences in behaviors of the AI for each faction to match.