Master of Magic 2 Wishlist For Slitherine

[asw3]

Seravy I did say only the part about heroes leading stacks and having a limited number of heroes to be better in Heroes specifically in regards to MoM's anything goes style. Heroes does indeed have a whack-a-mole problem, but it has remedies to it as well, and its causes are different, as well as the way it works compared to MoM.

In Heroes each player/AI can have 8 heroes, and there can be 8 total players/AI (Heroes III), meaning that you have 8 units to defend against 56, and you are constantly at war, from the first turn, since you can't form alliances in game - you either start allied or you don't. That's one of the main problems leading to whack-a-mole and frustration with defending towns in Heroes. The other is number of towns on the map (again something the player doesn't have control over) since each town's tavern hires Heroes at a cheap rate which is in fact the main reason why conquering and defending towns is frustrating. But if the map has a small number of town the whack-a-mole problem is greatly reduced/doesn't exist, or if there is a large number of towns - the spell Town Portal essentially eliminates the tedium in regards to defending towns and whack-a-mole, so the game has tools to alleviate it's problems, at least to a degree.

And because you can only move 8 units, it has smaller problems in regards to army logistics as well, again compared to MoM, unless you are doing optimal and perfect hero chaining, something which you won't need in MoM since you can teleport artifacts, and if something like this was implemented, summon and teleport units to them as well I think would be the case.

But if MoM had a similar restriction, it will work much, much better, since you usually have a degree of control in regards to how many opponents you are at war with (so MUCH smaller number of potential stacks to defend against), and also in MoM at least currently you can have only up to 4 opponents, not 7 (also I proposed 4-5 and not 8 units as well per player/AI). Also in MoM getting heroes is a lot harder. I like the idea of you starting with a hero, but getting more being difficult (or like only 1 race having a Tavern equivalent from which it can hire heroes from this specific town only, other races have to go spell route, or something new).

Of course Heroes has its own mechanics which MoM doesn't and I personally think would improve it (like maps being sectioned into zones and greater map object variety).

Anyway, the point is, why Heroes is whack-a-moley and frustrating in its micromanagement is different than MoM's, and I actually think a few mechanics adapted from Heroes to MoM would greatly improve MoM's own problems, exactly because the system and mechanical context is so different.

In regards to you doing something in reducing town/unit micromanagement tedium in MoM somehow, I'm open to all attempts and experimentation at this stage, the game is not getting any younger, and I certainly won't rest my hopes on Slitherine or whichever else developer.

Edit: One more thing to note when comparing Heroes and MoM is the AI. The strength of the AI has rarely if ever been an issue for Heroes II/III, especially not the overland AI (battle AI has its quirks, but even when exploiting them you can only go so far in most cases), and the game does it without letting the AI cheat. On higher difficult setting (above Normal) it gives it more starting resources, and reduces yours, but the AI doesn't get any other bonus, his mines don't produce more resources compared to yours, he doesn't get more growth in his dwellings etc. Sure the AI is not without it's flaws, but its more than serviceable, even with decades of player experience against it, and some aspect of it people think are too strong even now (like him targeting your shooters relentlessly), so I don't get why people think good AI in a strategy game is some sort of myth, or it has to cheat to be good...

[vicwaberub]

MoM + HoMM = AoW (Age of Wonders 2: Shadow Magic is the best part of the series):
- few citys
- heroes (from beginning, but you need no heroes) and units (both with special abillities)
- magic spells
- tactical battles
- lot of items
- nice special race abilities

I have played AoW2 a lot in multiplayer. Nice game!

But the great problem of 4X games are counter: gold, mana, research, production, units, techlevel, citys. The leader wins.

[JustOneMoreTurn]

Someone earlier suggested that it be multiplayer (for a super AI to play and develop a good game AI). I strongly disagree. Too many single-player games have been ruined by compromises for MP. In other games, I could imagine the designers coming up with great ideas, shot down by the MP director saying "No, that wouldn't work for MP." Slitherine should do a poll to determine how important MP is for sales vs a good optimized-for-SP game. My guess is that the majority of played hours for MOM are SP, and would also be for a new game. I expect that the positive feedback and forum activity generated by a really good SP game would generate more long-term sales than a compromised game that gets lukewarm reviews and no forum activity because people stop playing it after a few games.

Once a good SP game is done, they can add on the tools for MP, plus the extra tools for modding it for MP. It might need some extra switches to allow some MP-breaking SP features to be easily turned off. Then let the MP community mod it to their desires. They might have more fun balancing the mod than they do playing the game.

[JustOneMoreTurn]

One common 4X problem isexcessive micromanagement of city building in late game. Build queue templates would help, but I think we'd still get bogged down in checking each city to tweak them (or override bad manager decisions) or changing the city goals occasionally.

One possibility to think over: you have the fun of managing the build queue for your capitol, and the pleasure of seeing your Foresters Guild or whatever get finished, but all your later settlements and captured cities don't have a build queue (unless designated as a unit building city). Instead, they provide taxes, mana, etc, based on their population and the buildings in the capitol, modified by local resources or spells or morale. You can designate them as military training bases (allows a build queue for units), and the training level depends on population and whatever other factors are good for game play. Maybe you can designate other cities as mercantile centres, religious centres, magic research centres, or whatever else. There's no temptation to check the city or adjust it, because you simply can't do it. City placement, and which site to settle next, are still important decisions. Captured (or retaken) cities would start at minimal growth, production, etc, and gradually grow to what should be provided from their population.

Another possibility is to make settling cities uncommon, as opposed to city spam always being the right choice. Instead of settling a city at some good resources, you set some military units to secure a site. The stronger the military presence, the larger the area. Secured areas send resources (production bonus, gold, mana) to the capitol, or the nearest city, or all cities at once. I imagine this as small settlements (that you don'tdirectly manage) that form where the people feel safe (due to the military patrols). Locations near borders or monster-producing sites require more military strength to maximize production. Maybe by mid-game you'd have a few cities, and dozens of resource sites. Warfare would mostly take place at the resources, with cities being difficult to take. The cost of creating and maintaining the military units should be such that you never have enough to satisfy all your needs. You need to keep making construction and deployment decisions. Move some from one site to strengthen another, and raiders/monsters move in, reducing production. I find that games get boring when I have more gold/units/whatever than I need. The game is fun when I'm desperate for just one more 'whatever', and a new building, resource, or spell that becomes available is exciting.


Hmm, I think that last bit is the most important wish for the new game: set things so that we're always desperate for something and have to make critical decisions of how to best employ limited resources. Why do we stay up to 3 AM saying "just one more turn until..."? It's because we want that extra whatever: building, unit, spell, treasure that will make a difference. I'm not interested in 'one more turn' if all it does is change my gold number from 5464654002544 to 5464654002566; especially if there's nothing to spend the gold on. If I already have dozens of stacks on the map, adding one more unit is just part of the grind. By mid-game, MOM was just a matter of pumping out more units and settlers, and moving them tediously about. I'd rather have a few cities and units that make a real difference.

Oh yes, I'd also rather have late game not involve dozens of battles per turn. That's just tedious, and I usually quit by that point. I'm not sure what the proper level would be. Maybe averaging one battle per turn?

That brings up yet another issue: unit movement. Directing all those units every turn is another tedious thing that makes me quit (and maybe start a new game). Yes, moving units across the map is realistic, but I don't find it fun. The delay in moving the latest units to the front line is also realistic but not fun. Magic to speed up movement helps, but still requires a lot of mouse clicks and scrolling. Can we come up with an alternative, such as designating a deployment point (or unit/stack) for a unit build queue, and the unit just appears there x turns later? Less realistic, but more fun?

[JustOneMoreTurn]

Something I posted in the 'can't stand about MOM' thread probably fits better in this thread. What is fun at the start--building things, moving your few units around--is not fun when you have dozens of cities and many dozens of units. I wish that the game developers would keep asking themselves: "Will this feature still be fun later in the game?" Maybe have playtesting sessions specifically to look for things that are no longer fun at that stage, and if it's still worthwhile keeping for the early part of the game, see if there's a way to switch to a different method at some point. For example, optimizing what your population is doing might be fun at the beginning, with one city, but when you have 'x' cities, maybe you are awarded with a minister who takes care of that burden. Managers in other games have been hated for their poor performance, but if the AI isn't as good as a human at that task, add some bonuses so that the overall results are better than if you kept tweaking cities yourself.

[vicwaberub]

Something I posted in the 'can't stand about MOM' thread probably fits better in this thread.  What is fun at the start--building things, moving your few units around--is not fun when you have dozens of cities and many dozens of units.  I wish that the game developers would keep asking themselves: "Will this feature still be fun later in the game?"  Maybe have playtesting sessions specifically to look for things that are no longer fun at that stage, and if it's still worthwhile keeping for the early part of the game, see if there's a way to switch to a different method at some point.  For example, optimizing what your population is doing might be fun at the beginning, with one city, but when you have 'x' cities, maybe you are awarded with a minister who takes care of that burden.  Managers in other games have been hated for their poor performance, but if the AI isn't as good as a human at that task, add some bonuses so that the overall results are better than if you kept tweaking cities yourself.

I have played a lot of HoMM and AoW games, both series with few citys: If you lost one city, you can give up. AoW and HoMM are games with one great battle and the game is over. IMO is that no good game design. 
MoM simulate a world, this needs a lot of citys. The feeling is like in the 'Lords of the Rings': Some units at the beginning and a great war with hundreds of unit at the end. I love this immersion.

[vicwaberub]

One common 4X problem isexcessive micromanagement of city building in late game.  Build queue templates would help, but I think we'd still get bogged down in checking each city to tweak them (or override bad manager decisions) or changing the city goals occasionally.

One possibility to think over: you have the fun of managing the build queue for your capitol, and the pleasure of seeing your Foresters Guild or whatever get finished, but all your later settlements and captured cities don't have a build queue (unless designated as a unit building city).  Instead, they provide taxes, mana, etc, based on their population and the buildings in the capitol, modified by local resources or spells or morale.  You can designate them as military training bases (allows a build queue for units), and the training level depends on population and whatever other factors are good for game play.  Maybe you can designate other cities as mercantile centres, religious centres, magic research centres, or whatever else.  There's no temptation to check the city or adjust it, because you simply can't do it.  City placement, and which site to settle next, are still important decisions.  Captured (or retaken) cities would start at minimal growth, production, etc, and gradually grow to what should be provided from their population.

Another possibility is to make settling cities uncommon, as opposed to city spam always being the right choice.  Instead of settling a city at some good resources, you set some military units to secure a site.  The stronger the military presence, the larger the area.  Secured areas send resources (production bonus, gold, mana) to the capitol, or the nearest city, or all cities at once.  I imagine this as small settlements (that you don'tdirectly manage) that form where the people feel safe (due to the military patrols).  Locations near borders or monster-producing sites require more military strength to maximize production.  Maybe by mid-game you'd have a few cities, and dozens of resource sites.  Warfare would mostly take place at the resources, with cities being difficult to take.  The cost of creating and maintaining the military units should be such that you never have enough to satisfy all your needs.  You need to keep making construction and deployment decisions.  Move some from one site to strengthen another, and raiders/monsters move in, reducing production.  I find that games get boring when I have more gold/units/whatever than I need.  The game is fun when I'm desperate for just one more 'whatever', and a new building, resource, or spell that becomes available is exciting.


Hmm, I think that last bit is the most important wish for the new game: set things so that we're always desperate for something and have to make critical decisions of how to best employ limited resources.  Why do we stay up to 3 AM saying "just one more turn until..."?  It's because we want that extra whatever: building, unit, spell, treasure that will make a difference.  I'm not interested in 'one more turn' if all it does is change my gold number from 5464654002544 to 5464654002566; especially if there's nothing to spend the gold on.  If I already have dozens of stacks on the map, adding one more unit is just part of the grind.  By mid-game, MOM was just a matter of pumping out more units and settlers, and moving them tediously about.  I'd rather have a few cities and units that make a real difference.

Oh yes, I'd also rather have late game not involve dozens of battles per turn.  That's just tedious, and I usually quit by that point.  I'm not sure what the proper level would be.  Maybe averaging one battle per turn?

That brings up yet another issue: unit movement.  Directing all those units every turn is another tedious thing that makes me quit (and maybe start a new game).  Yes, moving units across the map is realistic, but I don't find it fun.  The delay in moving the latest units to the front line is also realistic but not fun.  Magic to speed up movement helps, but still requires a lot of mouse clicks and scrolling.  Can we come up with an alternative, such as designating a deployment point (or unit/stack) for a unit build queue, and the unit just appears there x turns later?  Less realistic, but more fun?

'Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Heroes' has a good idea: units, heroes and citys are characters and customizable. A city can be a military outpost or a trade center or a center for science. You have to decide after a while and you get your own building possibilites per city.

[vicwaberub]

Oh yes, I'd also rather have late game not involve dozens of battles per turn.  That's just tedious, and I usually quit by that point.  I'm not sure what the proper level would be.  Maybe averaging one battle per turn?

The battles are the core of MoM: Research a spell, build an army and test it agains a lot of different combinations of enemy units. That is fun. You feel your strength and weaknesses, you should rebuild your army to be better. That is a core mechanic in MoM. 
Other as AoW or HoMM is MoM designed as: 'You can make a failure, but this is not the end of the game.'

[JustOneMoreTurn]

The battles are the core of MoM:

A part of the core, but certainly not the whole game. There's exploring, expanding and exploiting too, and some people consider those parts to be more important than the exterminate part. I play 4X games to watch the story of my marvelous empire unfold. I consider winning battles to be a validation of the other parts done properly. All the research and other resources I put into developing certain units and spells is validated by defeating an attacker or successfully adding to my empire. Having my troops feast on the livers of those slimey <insert appropriate race> troops is just a bonus.

If MOM was just a tactical battle simulator, I wouldn't have even considered playing it. I tried AOW shadow magic and didn't like it because there wasn't enough empire building. I wish that a new MOM will properly develop those other aspects of a 4X game. If the later game turns into too many tedious battles each turn, I'll have to decide if the early game is satisfying enough to be worth buying the game.

[asw3]

I don't think there exist a sales analytics team that would advise a MoM type game to not have a multiplayer mode... Whether that would be best for the game or not in terms of quality is another matter, but in terms of sales and longevity, you have to have multiplayer (OR extremely good modding tools, which seem to be harder for studios to pull off than mp).

HoMaM is a one battle game only in multiplayer. One of the great things about those games is that you play as much (basically all game if mp except last battle) against the neutrals as much as the other AIs. This gives a lot more variety to the minute to minute (or rather turn to turn) gameplay than MoM.

I definitely don't think hundreds of units roaming the map is a fun mechanic. Actually I think its the exact opposite. The design principle why its bad is simple and straightforward - the more you have of a thing/mechanic/gameplay element, the less meaningful it becomes. The less you have of it, the more interesting choices you can built around it.