STB v2.0.8

[Butan]

Im a bit confused. Dont get me wrong but what i am about to ask is what i really want to know. Why would you make a new browser game when there are tons of similar games (or not so similar), when there will be no combat like in strat?

Because we can and we believe in it the rest will be history and you'll be a part of it if you want to.

And also, I never saw any browser-game like Strategus (prove me wrong and find me one). In consequence, our game will be a variation of something that has no equal.

I mean, a lot of ppl play for those strat battles, and yes i know diplomacy and trade is fun, but strat battles are fueling all that diplo and trade stuff.

Strat battles (and their loyal or not mercenaries) - diplomacy (and its circle-jerking) in Strategus are what kept the strategy player in myself from really enjoying this game. That and the major issues the game has (in terms of balance, core rules and bugs) are the 2 reasons we want to start something new. If you dont agree on those 2 statements, you're most probably not going to like what we are going to do.

To be honest, we could try to find ways to create a game that will have real battles every times armies clashes like in Strat, but even if we managed to find balanced rules to make it work, we dont have the ressources (read, money) to do it. And like I said, I'm not too eager to try to implement it in a game, because (for me) it dumbs down the strategy part of the game to a large extent. Anyone acing the logistic-tactic-strategic part of strategus (the goods-gold-gear-army creation part) and failing hard the "real-time battle" because he doesnt have a good roster will get me. I agree there is an interesting synergy in Strategus with the cRPG world, but in the current state of cRPG its bringing Strategus down more than its bringing it up.


As a result, we will greatly focus on the economical and military warfare part (both of which will dictate the diplomacy) and if we do it right it will become the whole game.

[Butan]

I made a small island of a few dozen tiles large, and fifty tiles long surrounded by water and another very small island.
Could or could not keep that map, its mainly a demo for you guys, and to see how a realistic biome looks like on a bigger scale than the previous one.




Here are 3 zoom level :

Tactical view (scale 1:1):

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Management view (scale 0.5)

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Strategical view (scale 0.1)

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Tiles color reminder :

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Will definitely add a 4rd and maybe 5th view further unzoomed (World view ~0.01-0.001 scale) later on, as the world will be much bigger than that and each player will need to clearly see from small villages to sprawling empires borders.



To add more variety to tiles, we will have images for every kind of settlement (from very small to very large ones) and more special land features, but this is the base we will work on (not shown: bridge, road, snow/glacier, tundra, jungle, and possible new tiles upcoming). + armies running around taking names, the map should reach a lurk level of eye-entertainment.

[Butan]

We tinkered a bit with hex borders and here is what it would look like borderless from afar:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Here is a 0.01 scale preview :

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

What you see in the top left corner is a very small island. Now imagine a whole world (actually, you wont have to imagine for long) from that scale.




We are able to render that map size in less than 10 seconds with our current coding.
We are confident we can increase that size still.

[GRANDMOM]

So far I like what ur doing Butan - keep up the good work!

[Butan]

What would you like for the name of our future game ?

Atm our private project codename is Strategus 2 but we will definitely find a new one 
Our game will most likely be a SP-like experience of M&B but on real-time and online.
Though of names like "Lords & Claims" (a bit like Mount & Blade, but on a strategy game) or "Terra Nova" (because the map will be big and explorable), what do you think?



What would you prefer in terms of fiefs variety and customisation?

- 3 kind of fiefs (like Strategus:villages, castles, towns)
or
- way more than 3 fief type, with basically villages/castles/towns in multiple variations and some "special" fiefs
(atm we have plans for: camps (auto-build when an army stops), crossroads & bridges (taxing, legally or not), forts/castles/fortress, hamlets/villages/market town/ports, towns/cities/capital, manor/palace, and probably "neutral" fiefs to help players (caravanserail/logging camp/mines/etc to win some money, mercenary camps to buy "tickets" and begin adventuring)


- fief's names set in stone (like strategus)
or
- semi-customisation of fief's names (to prevent trolls, you could only pick up from a list of available names, will certainly do this for faction names too)



Tell us your opinion!

[Thovex]

>- way more than 3 fief type, with basically villages/castles/towns in multiple variations and some "special" fiefs
>- semi-customisation of fief's names (to prevent trolls, you could only pick up from a list of available names, will certainly do this for faction names too)

I didn't want to answer the names part since yeah, no I'm horrible at that, I like the looks so far though.

[Vermilion]

What would you prefer in terms of fiefs variety and customisation?

- 3 kind of fiefs (like Strategus:villages, castles, towns)
or
- way more than 3 fief type, with basically villages/castles/towns in multiple variations and some "special" fiefs
(atm we have plans for: camps (auto-build when an army stops), crossroads & bridges (taxing, legally or not), forts/castles/fortress, hamlets/villages/market town/ports, towns/cities/capital, manor/palace, and probably "neutral" fiefs to help players (caravanserail/logging camp/mines/etc to win some money, mercenary camps to buy "tickets" and begin adventuring)


- fief's names set in stone (like strategus)
or
- semi-customisation of fief's names (to prevent trolls, you could only pick up from a list of available names, will certainly do this for faction names too)

3 main designs but give the towns and castles a unique feature at each place which makes certain areas more desirable (depending on your tactics). (such as increased wealth, reduced production costs/upkeep, faster horses.. obviously it's hard to give examples when we don't know what else is going to be included so these are based on strat)

Add something (symbol/flag/clan tag) to fief names/image to identify who it belongs to but keep the base name constant.
So you can make it clear who owns it but you can still navigate via original name.

[Zomg]

There are Strategus-like browser games that are out there. Not exactly the same, but there is. However, nearly every game is somewhat similar to one another. The only difference is, how similar it is. For example, in Travian, you don't have villages, castles and cities - but you still can customize your holding in your own manner. Have one to focus on the grain, so that you can feed your troops, one another merely for recruitment, so you can have cheaper and faster troops than anyone else can every have, et cetera.

My suggestion would be to have three main type of fiefs. Villages, Castles and Towns. And let the players have a chance to customize those fiefs, if they wishes so. Villages can have two different customization, for example, one merely for food, which would support the armies, and one another for production of other goods, for more money and taxation. But also let people have more than one customization in their fiefs, if they wishes so, with some sort of penalty of cost. A cost that would be higher than having an another fief, specialized in that manner.

I like the possibility to customize what you play. It is good fun and makes you do whatever you want. However, remember. You don't want fiefs to have different names every other week, or even month.

I like the taxation of crossroads / bridges, legally or otherwise. Making the parties to move 2/3x faster perhaps, on such roads, than they would normally do in other type of terrains would actually be great, so that people may chose to "try their chances" OR go slower. Those who are moving on such roads should also make people more easily noticeable (2/3x more?) than going slowly, et cetera as well.

You should however not be forced to be at mercenary camps, to recruit troops. Especially if you are holding a fief. Recruiting troops in your own fiefs should be possible, with a penalty to your population. So you have to decide either to recruit and have a smaller growth; not recruit and be defenseless, however rich, or not recruit in your lands but recruit from the mercenary camps, with a higher cost.

Lord & Claims sounds too... meh. And Terra Nova? AFAIK, there is a game already with that name, and it doesn't really fit to the possible lore and magic of the game.

Last but not least, the current map would be okay for Alpha or some shit; but you have to have a better one, if you want even some success.

This game would be hard. Not because of any programming shit you might face, but because there are big titles out there, mmorpg's, and you need to be more unique and better than that. Though I hope you succeed.

[Butan]

There are Strategus-like browser games that are out there.

I played a few mmo-browser-game in my time (Travian and Ogame the most) and I did some research on recent ones (1100AD, forge of empires, grepolis, khan wars, tribal wars, war of legends, e-republik, etc...) and they all have one or two of those problems :

- requires too much online-time to keep up with the competition (staying awake for the game, second per second timed actions...)
- too many gameplay elements that diverts from the core of the game, the war (technology, city-building, lots of resources type...)
- and some other "personal" grievances (too fast-paced, pay to win bonuses, too unrealistic/fantasist...)




I think most of the people that started Strategus were thinking of a M&B campaign online experience and were disapointed. Some adapted and enjoyed the game as it is, but we want to recreate the M&B campaign feel in our game, and that means, as in the SP M&B :



- Very few resources to manage => Gold & Food
- Very few or no background/missions => basic tutorial, some neutral fiefs to start up on gold/food, complete freedom on what to do with all that (a natural incentive to war/diplomacy when controlling territories is the basis)
- Semi-controlled battles/sieges => tactical elements to gain the upper hands in fights (army composition and pre-positioning) but no micro-management (no First Person Hacking mode/ real-time orders unfortunately )
- Simple empire management => a button to press here and there, managing your fiefs will be mostly defending them against enemy armies!
- Very slow-paced game => you need weeks and months to have a good base and start fighting/expanding; in the SP those days passed very fast because they were in-game days, in our game it will be real-life days (allowing a real-life life  )




If you know a game that has everything I said and even more, give us the name of that game so we can begin playing 

(click to show/hide)

I and Chy will react to your opinions/give you updates when we have something to show you!

[Moncho]

Sounds like a very good idea, and for me hex's will always shout Settlers of Catan, which I thoroughly enjoyed in my childhood.

A couple of things that could add depth without being too complex:

I would like to see temporary ones like encampments, etc that you can use to control mountain passes and similar without having to build a whole fief and removable after a while.

Also distinguishing between wooden and stone bridges would be nice to allow for more variety (stronger but permanent or weaker and destructible to cover your retreat).


About the movement difference between 1 person and 100000, it is mostly due to coordination issues, when you move, you need to replenish resources (especially water), take breaks for food, sleep, etc, which for small groups is not too hard, but for bigger ones can cause significant delays. As 1 person you can replace your horse and keep it fresh and fast for longer, for bigger groups this is harder.

[Butan]

We will have all that and more 

[Chychy]

I would like to see temporary ones like encampments, etc that you can use to control mountain passes and similar without having to build a whole fief and removable after a while.

Already planned and could be developed/modified but here is the basis :

When an army doesnt move, it automatically starts building a camp.
After 24 hours of complete immobility, the camp is built. It will provide a little defense bonus and small food generation (represented by scavenging around the camp, it will also balance the food consumption of an inactive army).
After 3-7 days if the army still havent moved, the camp will upgrade into a fort. It will provide an average defense bonus and still the same small food generation (it will never become a good economical choice).
We could add a 3rd upgrade after a month of not moving but not planned atm.
All this knowing that you will have 2 kind of armies : "your" army (direct control) and "AI" army (semi-direct control). You will be able to field multiple armies (the total capacity will increase/decrease with game rules we have to decide on) so it will allow a lot of possible moves (like in chessboard games).

This would also help "AFK"  not getting steam rolled if they forget to move their pawns or have a busy week-end.

Also distinguishing between wooden and stone bridges would be nice to allow for more variety (stronger but permanent or weaker and destructible to cover your retreat).

Didnt think of it but thats not a bad idea, since we already have 2 different paths (trails & roads).

About the movement difference between 1 person and 100000, it is mostly due to coordination issues, when you move, you need to replenish resources (especially water), take breaks for food, sleep, etc, which for small groups is not too hard, but for bigger ones can cause significant delays. As 1 person you can replace your horse and keep it fresh and fast for longer, for bigger groups this is harder.

If done right, food consumption will be the end all be all : if you have 100 000 guys you will consume 100 000 times more food (everyone eat approximately the same quantity of food, we wont go into different food quality...). then if you want to move 100 000 guys, they will not be all packed into one tiny hex, so you will need to have other armies accompanying you if you want to punch a crazy amount of men. But speed will not scale with size, only with where you go and with what troop (mounted or not mainly).

Then, we have to decide how we will manage a multi-army entity on the map but we should be able to find something.

[Zomg]

- requires too much online-time to keep up with the competition (staying awake for the game, second per second timed actions...)
- too many gameplay elements that diverts from the core of the game, the war (technology, city-building, lots of resources type...)
- and some other "personal" grievances (too fast-paced, pay to win bonuses, too unrealistic/fantasist...)

Agreeing on the first point. OGame or Travian, you had to be very active. When you get bigger, and if you don't get attacked you do, with so much resources, risk of getting attacked, need of attacking and raiding other villages, et cetera. Players do really need to put their time into the game. However, you need to remember one other thing. That is one and perhaps the biggest reason for those games to have such a big player base. Moment you have a slow paced game, you have to offer something different to the players, so players would not get bored and leave right away. Especially at the very start of the game.

However, I have to disagree with the second point. Especially Travian, in my opinion, had the right amount of gameplay elements, to specialize yourself and your holdings. Four main resource type, and one of those resource type providing food for your troops. Other three, used to build shit. (Stone, Brick and Iron if I am not wrong) Can upgrade and improve your soldiers, have new troops based on your research and buildings, et cetera. That is the second thing that made players, play the game. Wanting to be better. Doing whatever necessary, to be better.

- Very few or no background/missions => basic tutorial, some neutral fiefs to start up on gold/food, complete freedom on what to do with all that (a natural incentive to war/diplomacy when controlling territories is the basis)

Having a nice back story always make players to connect with the game. Puts you in the mood so to speak. And have tens, no no, hundreds of missions. But also let players have the freedom not to play those missions. There could be some sort of advantages, so to speak, advantages that would cause no trouble not having.

- Semi-controlled battles/sieges => tactical elements to gain the upper hands in fights (army composition and pre-positioning) but no micro-management (no First Person Hacking mode/ real-time orders unfortunately )

I take it as it would be pretty much like Stronghold Kingdoms, when it comes to battle. It is nice to have something like this, rather than putting everything on the hands of script.

- Very slow-paced game => you need weeks and months to have a good base and start fighting/expanding; in the SP those days passed very fast because they were in-game days, in our game it will be real-life days (allowing a real-life life  )

Weeks are nice, as well as a month or two, to start expanding like a cancer. But balance it so that new players wouldn't feel like shit when they start.

[Butan]

The players will write the story of the game, with their own hands: this is why there will be very little to no background/mission. They will all live and die with the same possibilities (no technologies or different buildings, except the fiefs themselves).




We do not want to implement "classic" ideas that we feel are superficial, because in the end, when you have removed everything that wasnt absolutely needed, you have this pure gem : War.
Then we can infinitely polish this gem, and offer many different levels of strategical and tactical elements to the players so that they have a hundred way to win the War.

The players will dictate diplomacy themselves, like on Strategus : fear, rumors, spies, planning, greed...
We will give them a message system and a forum. And maybe an ingame diplomatic system.



I am aware our ideas are rather radical, but I will temperate those thoughts with the fact that we are not here to attract more players than the game will deserve, nor here to make money. We will create something that we enjoy and players will come and go as they please.

This will be the major difference between us and the other browser-games.




A little update...


We have completed a map editor system that can display a theoretically infinite number of chunks (in our system, a chunk = 50*50 hex).

We already have a working client-side system where the map - whatever its total size - will be progressively loaded as you drag it. This was very important since we plan to make a map that is planet-like in size.

We have some cool plans in our bag that we began to think about : what will be the design of the browser-game UI (as immersive as possible), different layers added atop the map to display game details (borders, province/region, area of influence, etc...), and how the economy will function.



I have already drawn the map with my pen & paper. Since we have decided on the total size of the "virtual" map (it will be 5500 hexes long and 4000 hexes high) I have divided the paper map in chunks and we are ready to create it region per region using our hand-made map editor. Our first playable version of the game will be done using only one region to test it extensively. Alpha will begin when we have the starting region ready and all the core features.

[Butan]

I added a poll for the naming of our Game.

Choose the 3 that you like the most !
It will influence our decision (we will take the most liked or mix them up with our stuff)


I chose names from both my own imagination and some video games I liked and mixed them up, I also took some from the M:E topic that I felt would fit in the atmosphere.

About our so called atmosphere, here is what we plan for our game so you can choose a name that will fit:
The background of our game will be a big human emigration/colonisation phase, where everyone start from the same crowded central region surrounded with unattended/unexplored/unexploited places. Simple adventurers/merchants or wanna-be rulers go out of the safety zone and are free to do what they please. Think Conquest of the Wild West in North America, except that you will be able to expand North/South/East and that no government will watch over you    and that it is staged in the medieval era.

(click to show/hide)

I checked for name copyright and didnt find any except a DS game named The Lost Kingdom Prophecy.

(click to show/hide)

And ManowaR Blood of the Kings ftw.