Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[umiman]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

We all know Iceberg Interactive love signing promising 4x games (Endless Legend, Star Drive 2 and so on,) and you can now add the ancient China-based Oriental Empires to that list.

Of particular interest is the involvement of R.T. Smith and John Carline as project leads. As you can see from their Mobygames profiles, Smith was Project Director and Lead Designer on Medieval II: Total War (and helped developer the original Medieval and Shogun: Total War,) while Carline was an artist on Medieval II and Kingdoms.

That’s some pretty hefty development experience for a game of this type, especially if you’re someone who preferred the earlier era of Total War games.

Oriental Empire’s single player campaign (it’ll have multiplayer too,) will span the period 1,500 BC to 1,500 AD and put you in command of one of 16 factions in ancient China. Each one with different bonuses or penalties.

The game is said to take place on one seamless strategic map, which will allow you to zoom right in or out of the world. That’s a feature I’ve previously enjoyed in the Hegemony titles.

As is befitting of a 4x game, Oriental Empires will include building construction, research trees (for culture and philosophy, as well as weaponry) and the ability to set edicts, laws and decrees in your realm.

The battles will be “large” in scale, with hundreds or even thousands of soldiers taking part. I’m going to just copy what the press release says about the battles, because it seems as if you give orders ahead of time and then watch the clash unfold (so not really turn-based or real-time,) but it isn’t entirely clear. Here’s the line: “Watch skilled armies and reinforcements go to battle, according to the battle orders and formations set by the player.”

More info here: http://www.incgamers.com/2015/04/oriental-empires-is-a-4x-from-former-total-war-devs

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Hex-grid based? Nope sorry, lost this guy.

EDIT: It also looks almost too good to be true. I have a lot of reservations about this game.

[Karlito]

"4x" does imply more "Civilization" than "Total War", but I guess this is something to keep an eye on anyway.

[sambojin]

I'll keep my eye on this one. Looks right up my alley.

[Teneb]

Hex-grid based? Nope sorry, lost this guy.

EDIT: It also looks almost too good to be true. I have a lot of reservations about this game.

What's with all the hex hate? If it's about stacking, there are hex-based games out there that allow stacking (Age of Wonders and Endless Legend come to mind).

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Hex-grid based? Nope sorry, lost this guy.

EDIT: It also looks almost too good to be true. I have a lot of reservations about this game.

What's with all the hex hate? If it's about stacking, there are hex-based games out there that allow stacking (Age of Wonders and Endless Legend come to mind).

Mostly because that kind of ruins a lot of the military strategy for me. My inner strategist is working best when i'm conducting campaigns and battles on a free-flowing kind of map (tactical or strategic) and any grid system kind of ruins that for me. I enjoy Endless Legends, and what it's done in terms of military, also for "stacking", but honestly the grid system is something I'd to see gone.

Why must everything be on a grid? Why can't we build where we wish, move where we wish, and fight where we wish? A grid is a simplification that I do not find enjoyable in strategy games regardless if they're 4X, grand strategy, or strat/tact.

[inteuniso]

PTW

[Mech#4]

I do find a grid to be better for making a situation either "yes" or "no". Say in "Medieval 2: Total War"; if you put an army at the edge of a bridge then they are guarding that bridge and other armies cannot go over the bridge without removing the army first. I have found in Empire, Shogun 2 and Rome 2 that the area of control style can have a degree of fuzziness when it comes to enemy armies moving through the area of control and not being engaged by my forces. I've had armies near bridges guarding it but forces have still been able to move over and around my army.

In Medieval 2, if an enemy army enters one of the 8 squares around your army, they have to stop and exit the square next turn. I like the clarity that it provides and allows a solid front line of armies to be formed. The area of control, I feel, is less clear.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

The only difference in what you have described in the TW games is the way area of control is calculated

[Sergarr]

Can't the game simply show that radius of control in-game of all your armies to achieve the same effect?

[Mech#4]

Can't the game simply show that radius of control in-game of all your armies to achieve the same effect?

They do show the radius but it feels less definite. I've had situations where enemy armies have manoeuvred through areas that I had thought were being covered by the radius. It might be because the A.I is less likely to stumble into the radius but I don't try and catch enemies with the radius now as much as I outright attack enemy armies.

A similar thing I remember is in "Empire: Total War" and possibly the later games you have to place your army directly on top of a bridge rather than your side of it. If you place them on the space before a bridge enemy armies can move across the bridge and not engage in combat with your army.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

If I recall it works this way, and has always worked this way: if an army ends its turn in another army's radius of control then a battle ensues. If an army has enough movement points to move through said radius of control then its free to do as it wishes. In empire and napoleon, if an army travelled through your radius of control you sometimes had the option to attack. You could also decline to engage. I am unsure of the criteria for this. So ya. The only reliable way to block a road or a bridge is to have an army directly on it. I kind of like it that way, with the radius of control being less definitive.

[Mephansteras]

Looks like this is worth keeping an eye on.

[LoSboccacc]

The only reliable way to block a road or a bridge is to have an army directly on it. I kind of like it that way, with the radius of control being less definitive.

I hate not being able to say, block a zone with an army. you just get dozen stragglers stack running into your territory because wonky programming. it could be brilliant if done well, but I've never seen it done proper (neither in total war nor in the europa universalis rome, can't say about new franchises from them)

[Sergarr]

The other way to deal with that is to use reserve armies mopping up the floor with those who sneaked past the front-line.