Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Campaign mechanics of future factions

2»

Comments

  • Gael40Gael40 Registered Users Posts: 258
    uriak said:

    For Daemons a possibility would be to indeed control, some - a few - cities as nexus of power. These would spread corruption and maybe allow them to teleport army to one another. The downside being of course that untainted land is very harsh on them too.

    And I still think the TK upkeep mechanic should be adapted to them. Vampires, and WoC needs magic/favor to keep their troops motivated/fed/whatever. But daemon once in the good conditions are numberless.

    For Araby, I'm afraid moving caravans would clutter a bit the map, there is no civilian units moving around. But The caravanserail thing could be a bit like the LM geomantic web. By establishing them, you could create internal trade and bonus (maybe not on the province orders) and that would be displayed with the same UI. Instead of nexus of power, the "nodes" would the trade resources, or to simplfy, capitals.

    There is no need for a rivalry with TK. Their geography will ensure this (a diplomatic penalty may apply)

    For Kislev I don't know outside of the well documented fact they can use winter to protect themselves. Lore wise Kislev a rather passive nation fighting a neverending war of attrition against tribes and creatures in the more savage lands, and occasionnaly getting the brunt of a chaos invasion. This is something a bit limiting campaign wise.
    Still they devised something to explain and force expansionnism on the WE, so we may be surprised.

    Clutter the map ? On the contrary I think it would bring some life to the map. We need a lot more things like that. Of course it wouldn't be the size of an army, and the idea is to have one every x turns to make them more meaningful and not clutter the map. A passive system like the geomantic web would be a bit boring really. In fact the geomantic Web is the perfect exemple of a great idea implemented poorly.

    I agree with something related to harsh winters for Kislev, that's how the russians defeated both Napoleon and Hitler after all :D . Or it could be a Rite bringing winter to your lands with magic changing them visually and giving buffs/debuffs and snow storm spells

    I like the idea to teleport armies to specific highly corrupted conquered places. And maybe those portals could be opened very rarely to faraway lands to spice up things and not always fight your neighbours. It could be tied to special missions from the Greater Gods, random events, hard work from your campaign agents... many possibilities there.

    If the daemon factions also have god specific chaos warriors in them (I hope they will make an appearance somewhere) then we could have limitations on recruitable units between warriors and daemons unit similar to what Wood Elves have. For exemple A true Daemon Legendary Lord would recruit daemons freely but have some limitations on warriors, and similarly on mortal Lord like Valkya the Bloody would have easy access to mortal warriors and have to earn daemons.

    Mortal characters would get blessing from their god in the form of mutations, leading to the possibility of turning into daemon princes at the very end of the road.

    I wonder where the daemon factions will start... All four near the gates of chaos ? Inside the Realm of chaos (that would be dope but I won't get my hopes up :p ) In different places near freshly opened daemonic portals ?

    If they chose the latter, it would be a great opportunity to introduce settlements for daemons, in the form of fortresses protecting the portals from which units are summoned. then as you open more portals you can teleport to them or directly summon there. Losing your last portal means losing the game.
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,430

    az88 said:

    Reading the various suggestions over the last few weeks just makes me increasingly feel that game 3 needs Nagash, with a Chaos vs Undead vibe.

    It would be cool to see a Nagashi faction with three lords: Arkhan the Black (moved from Tomb Kings), Neferata and Nagash himself.
    Only if CA would make the Books of Nagash and Crown of Sorcery an more dynamic items.
  • uriakuriak Registered Users Posts: 4,437
    I hear you about the geomantic web, but CA is toying within a system that has limitation. The TW serie was never a grand strategy game or a 4X and is missing many features of the genre. The most important thing is that is doesn't reward or make a challenge of vertical growth (aka focusing in improving your own cities instead of expanding)

    If you think about caravans, we see that there is already issue with the current trade system, you have not that many friends often and the way resources and trade routes are validated is quite primitive. Araby could be the occasion to work on these in general but as I said, there is no civilians units like in 4X. Ambassadors and co ar abstracted (their micromanagement wouldn't be that interesting though) You don't have to protect worker crews like in civ, too. It's a whole layer that doesn't belong to the TW right now.

    Another trait that would fit araby is an advanced ruin search elements, their long history of pillaging TK artifact is well known and they would be keen to find advanced rewards in dangerous locations.

    About the Daemons I've been thinking tonight and while I did believe they should be a horde originally, I'm pretty sure they should settle now. In lore they certainly don't own cities away from the immaterium, but they aren't described as marauding warbands either. They just come from dreadful events or show up when the winds of chaos blow.

    This means that a horde mechanic wouldn't fit them much. So they should settle in their special, way, each city (with limits on where they can settle) would be more and more pushed into the immaterium with each upgrade, spread chaos corruption and act as lodes for daemons pouring into the moral realm. One side effect ouwld be that conquering army could only raze daemon's lodes, removing all the portals and sacrifical altars and getting a ruin. Or make the conquest system takes several turn, as they are painstainkingly trying to return the area to the material world.
    Daemon would have either a teleportation or a large movement bonus within the bounds of their occupied lodes. The real challenge would be to take and hold new areas for them.



  • Gael40Gael40 Registered Users Posts: 258
    I don't see why any of this couldn't been implemented though. There have been civilians represented in Total war before (Precisely merchants in medieval 2) as well as visible trade (small carts and ships) regardless of clutter.

    But as you say, it's true that TW is lacking in vertical development options. And that is precisely the idea behind the Caravans and Wonders features, to add something to do outside of waging wars. The way trade routes are done could be improved for sure, especially by removing the stupid limitations on trading when your capital/the other capital isn't near the sea. Adding more local ressources would help too, the current ones are too widely spread.

    Saying it doesn't belong is personal opinion really, and tbh I don't see why you are so against such a simple yet elegant and interactive feature.


    As for daemons, lodes or portals all sound good to me. Would be nice to have a visible "hellaformation" of the land as you improve your lodes, with the goal of turning the whole world into another Realm of Chaos.
  • uriakuriak Registered Users Posts: 4,437
    edited May 2018
    Because it makes a map feature of something that is abstracted. There are supposedly caravans and trade ships everywhere. I would be in favor of map activity represented this way, but it should apply to all trade using factions instead. It's true the map can be a bit lifeless, we can just hope such a improvement wouldn't require too much work or not make a too severe hit on the campaign map rendering performance.


    As for wonders and vertical upgrades, yes, go for it! I feel it's an increasingly proeminent feature of newer factions anyway. Makes the bretonnians and empire a bit of small players in comparison. Greenskins and Vampires may stay as theyare , because they either parody a functionnal society or barely occupy places instead.

  • DraxynnicDraxynnic Registered Users Posts: 10,972
    I've been advocating demons being settled myself. People make a big deal about demons appearing out of nowhere, but if you look into the fluff, they generally appear in specific locations and circumstances that allow them to do so.

    However, I think their settlements should behave quite differently to most factions. They could potentially have the skaven feature of looking like ruins, but the demons can't hide their presence quite as well as skaven can: a demon "settlement" (I'm going to call them 'portals' from now on) will appear like a settlement that has been razed by a Chaos force (potentially this can be determined by the alignment of the settlement: in most cases it has the 'chaos portal' as seen on settlements that have been razed by WoC, but if the settlement is dedicated to a specific god, it might have the appropriate Norscan monument instead), providing an indication that demons may be present.

    I'd also see demon portals as lacking population entirely - there are, after all, no noncombatant demons. Instead, the maximum size that portals in a province can reach is determined by the level of corruption in the province, with the demons being unable to settle portals in a province that doesn't meet a certain threshold of corruption (although they might be able to raze them and place a monument there which will produce corruption), and may even have portals reduce in tier if the corruption drops below a threshold. If there is sufficient corruption at a location, however, it's easy for demons to settle there - you don't need to sacrifice troop numbers to settle, and it may be possible to create new portals with any agent as well as with armies. Once you open a portal, it can be rapidly built up to the highest level available at the province's corruption level if the player is willing to spend the resources: build time would be the only limitation to how quickly a portal in a high-corruption province can be upgraded.

    I think the demons should have an upkeep mechanic, with 'chaos favour' essentially representing how much energy the demon faction in question has to fuel the continued presence of the demons in the mortal realms rather than dissipating back into the Realm of Chaos. However, certain parameters like chaos corruption and winds of magic in a province might influence the upkeep - keeping a demon army in a region of high corruption and high winds might be cheap or even close to free, while the same demon army in an untainted low-magic region might be prohibitively expensive to upkeep, forcing the player to only venture into such territories when they have lots of chaos energy in reserve or when they've taken steps to increase the corruption there (such as sending agents or getting mortal allies to attack the area).

    A teleport mechanic from one portal to another would probably be fitting, but should have a significant enough price attached so that this isn't something which is done on a whim. There may also be limits on how many units can be sent through at once based on the size of the entering and receiving portal.
  • Gael40Gael40 Registered Users Posts: 258
    uriak said:

    Because it makes a map feature of something that is abstracted. There are supposedly caravans and trade ships everywhere. I would be in favor of map activity represented this way, but it should apply to all trade using factions instead. It's true the map can be a bit lifeless, we can just hope such a improvement wouldn't require too much work or not make a too severe hit on the campaign map rendering performance.


    As for wonders and vertical upgrades, yes, go for it! I feel it's an increasingly proeminent feature of newer factions anyway. Makes the bretonnians and empire a bit of small players in comparison. Greenskins and Vampires may stay as theyare , because they either parody a functionnal society or barely occupy places instead.


    Sorry but I disagree : basic trade is more a single merchant with a cart, a single ship, etc, the caravans would represent very big shipments from farwaway lands with hundreds of people. It's exactly the difference between caravans on the silk road and trade between city states in italy. The differences are size, risk and frequency. All those differences do actually deserve a unique mechanic.

    There is no way a couple of caravans or static Wonder buildings would have any effect on campaign map performance... To reiterate each caravan is like an expedition, there would be like one every ten turns from each hub where you have built a special building with your merchant hero. They would not have a bigger impact on FPS than any army.
  • Gael40Gael40 Registered Users Posts: 258
    However, certain parameters like chaos corruption and winds of magic in a province might influence the upkeep - keeping a demon army in a region of high corruption and high winds might be cheap or even close to free, while the same demon army in an untainted low-magic region might be prohibitively expensive to upkeep, forcing the player to only venture into such territories when they have lots of chaos energy in reserve or when they've taken steps to increase the corruption there (such as sending agents or getting mortal allies to attack the area).


    Love the idea.
Sign In or Register to comment.