Interesting.I was wondering the threat of randoms.Can they have full unit stacks too.

If they do attack cities it might be a good idea for the developers to either make sure the city isn't taken or that if it is taken it is destroyed like what happens when a city state conquers a civilization's city in civ.

Propbuddha wrote:
As long time 4X players, we've been trained to pack as many cities as possible into a small area

Which isn't a good thing in all gamers views.

I know I hate "having to" swamp the map with cities or being rolled over by others doing it.

Ashbery76 wrote:
The 1 unit dwarf should conquer your defenceless city and become a major race.

That would be awesome.



Do random monster spawn and wonder the world to harass the weary and unprepared.

Ashbery76 wrote:
The 1 unit dwarf should conquer your defenceless city and become a major race.

Minor factions actually can attack cities but I still have a hero in my city so they would need to go through her first ^_^

The regions look pretty big, even for "small".

Yeah, that's why I'm playing on small regions ^_^

The 1 unit dwarf should conquer your defenceless city and become a major race.

Well that was a pretty rough start, will be interesting to see how the game plays out. I really like what I'm seeing from the Diplomacy system. Not sure how useful saying "Thanks" will be in multiplayer but I like the Influence as a resource mechanic.



The regions look pretty big, even for "small".



WHAT I LEARNED - Clicking "Hold Position" erases your targeting

Go PANCZASU go Nice video.

DevildogFF wrote:
Another great video, Panc!

Thank you!

Another great video, Panc!



Subscribed



Now I just need access FFS

Well, since my first Endless Legend video was a huge success (thank you for that btw! <3 ) I decided to start my next miniseries ASAP.



What you're looking at right now is the first video of a full Wild Walkers playthrough. I'll talk about more advanced stuff then I did in my last video and give you a general impression on how it feels to play as the mad fairies. I'll upload new episodes as fast as youtube lets me.







There's also a link to a playlist that will contain all videos from those miniseries. Click here:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeaFc2f8bm64d53boY3cNc4zC9dSLZRwb



Again, big thanks to Amplitude for letting me do this! You're the best!

That you cannot build more than one city even on the most favourable terrain just enhances the quality of the choice you have to make. If you could just plaster any region with cities all over, you wouldn't have to weigh strategic positioning on heights vs resource plentifulness on wooded rivers vs maybe anomalies to gather vs global positioning to bild a blocker-city between mountains that cannot be trespassed without your express consent?

Propbuddha wrote:
As long time 4X players, we've been trained to pack as many cities as possible into a small area

Yeah and it adds nothing but tedious micromanagement.

Nosferatiel wrote:
That you cannot build more than one city even on the most favourable terrain just enhances the quality of the choice you have to make. If you could just plaster any region with cities all over, you wouldn't have to weigh strategic positioning on heights vs resource plentifulness on wooded rivers vs maybe anomalies to gather vs global positioning to bild a blocker-city between mountains that cannot be trespassed without your express consent?

I know but it sometimes feels really gamey that you cannot settle in an amazing place if you already have a city in a different place, miles away, that is also amazing but sadly lies in the same region. Meanwhile, a second city can be made a few hexes away from the first one if there's an arbitrary white line between them.



Just to be clear, I also want to avoid swarming cities and I'm content with the current system (as long as I play on small regions). But I also think that this system has its faults, just like the standard 4X system of allowing you to have as many cities as you want as long as they're not too close.

Yeah, my first thought (again from years of 4X training) was "those regions look huge" but it's really a matter of scale. A hex simply represents a smaller area in this game.



I was concerned in PANCZASU's first video that the maps were really large (he hadn't met another empire by turn 30). Of course in this video, he gets put right next door to an opponent so it's probably going to be a knife fight in a cupboard

PANCZASU wrote:
I know but it sometimes feels really gamey that you cannot settle in an amazing place if you already have a city in a different place, miles away, that is also amazing but sadly lies in the same region. Meanwhile, a second city can be made a few hexes away from the first one if there's an arbitrary white line between them.



Just to be clear, I also want to avoid swarming cities and I'm content with the current system (as long as I play on small regions). But I also think that this system has its faults, just like the standard 4X system of allowing you to have as many cities as you want as long as they're not too close.

Easy. Add a unit that can "push" borders. Done

How about they add "Relocate City"/"Great migration" in the same regions as an option. But as a penalty you lose all those city tile expanders (forgot how they are called) and some or all city improvements? This isn't unheard of in the history of our civilization, I don't see reason why it can't make it into the game

Why not adding buildings that would be built outside of cities and that give the hex resource to the city ? SO it would add opportunity targets for roaming armies.

metaldream wrote:
How about they add "Relocate City"/"Great migration" in the same regions as an option. But as a penalty you lose all those city tile expanders (forgot how they are called) and some or all city improvements? This isn't unheard of in the history of our civilization, I don't see reason why it can't make it into the game

I think PANCZASU mentioned that you can Raze a City in the first video, maybe if this produced a single settler it would act like you mentioned?



To be fair he didn't have to settle on turn one. He just missed seeing that big forest around the corner. I imagine it's possible to add "districts" to grow into a better area too...

Propbuddha wrote:
I'm not sure about too big (yet). His first region was really big, but some of the others looked appropriately sized. There needs to be distance between regions and cities which is not an arbitrary number of hexes, but a function of how fast the units travel. If the cities are close together and movement is fast, someone can invade with no warning.



As PANCZASU mentioned, there is a risk of putting your city close to an opponent's border in order to exploit a better city location. That's the type of "interesting decision" I like to see.



One city per is a core design principle, but there are options to adjust region size and map size (small regions + large map = lots of cities). This may be a case where the world generator decided to fill up a lot of space because the region was in a corner...

Agreed - the interesting decisions principal is Sid Meier's legacy that must be enforced at all times. However, when the region is so large on the smallest setting it feels arbitrary and punishing. From what I've seen from Pan's vids is that any setting greater than "small" will never be used, so there goes one interesting decision before starting the game, even! Perhaps the regions should be hard-capped not to ever exceed a certain number of tiles (minimum and maximum) or something - the game should have split Pan's starting region on setup into two regions imo.

PANCZASU wrote:


Those are some very interesting ideas! Thanks for sharing.

Cheers!

And yes, I agree that the regions feel too big when you can only settle one city in them. There was a lot of discussion about this on the VIP forums, trust me. Either way, I would love it if there was an option in the setup screen to

a) Have more then one city in a region (with some penalty associated with making two cities in one region)

b) Just have more region options in general (which we're probably going to get since the setup screen is something that will be improved a lot during alpha)

Either/both of these sounds great to me.

VieuxChat wrote:
I like the fact cities don't "swamp" the terrain. Auriga feels a lot more "alive" thanks to that. Moreover there's some buildings outiside the city borders. It they were too close ot would be too easy to protect them with the reinforcement system of the game.

Agreed, it's just that allowing for control of region size on setup should yield fairly predictable results, otherwise it's kind of meaningless.

PANCZASU wrote:
I know but it sometimes feels really gamey that you cannot settle in an amazing place if you already have a city in a different place, miles away, that is also amazing but sadly lies in the same region. Meanwhile, a second city can be made a few hexes away from the first one if there's an arbitrary white line between them.

This.

Just to be clear, I also want to avoid swarming cities and I'm content with the current system (as long as I play on small regions). But I also think that this system has its faults, just like the standard 4X system of allowing you to have as many cities as you want as long as they're not too close.

This is exactly where I'm coming from too. I like the system, I just think it needs some tuning.



Edit:

VieuxChat wrote:
Why not adding buildings that would be built outside of cities and that give the hex resource to the city ? SO it would add opportunity targets for roaming armies.

This is a marvelous idea!