I'm developing an indie game, and just started to go public with it today. This is a sneak peek of what it looks like with minimal gameplay footage because the UI is looking like trash and there's a lot of stuff needing refinement, so it's more of a small concept video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xuYVckMpSI
Can I obtain Roman booty?
What's the gameplay like? Turn based strategy tactics kinda deal? Are units all heroes or are they army units you can recruit and manage?
>>342173284
Advertising isn't allowed, so I'd suggest if you post this again to frame it as looking for suggestions. Which is probably what you are doing, but you never know if a mod will have panties in a bunch.
Anyway, I like the setting. I've always wondered why there haven't been more games set around the Fall of Rome.
Tell us more. I'm interested.
>>342173815
Any person you capture, military men or villagers, can either be captured and sold as slaves or be persuaded and slowly integrate your group as workforce. Treating well captured people will make them integrate faster, but some men from your group probably won't like captured men serving you due to the inherent risk. On a time where workforce is scarce, the decision-making can be quite difficult.
Gameplay is real-time when out of combat, turn-based in combat. So you move your warband/small army/party (depends on how many soldiers you have) around, and it takes a certain amount of time to reach farther away places (real-life measures on a ~1:5 RL/Game time; if it would take 40 real-life days for you to cross a distance by foot, in-game it will take 8 RL days. Longer distances will need to be covered by sailing, which reduces travelling time drastically, but also cut you off from support of nearby territories.
Units are either Ordinary or Authority figures. Authority units are much more expensive and work like heroes, but cost-effectively they have the same weight (for example, a lowly Authority figure, a warband Captain, fights like a medium-cost Ordinary unit, but can lead in combat way better than any ordinary units). You can recruit and manage as many Authority/Ordinary units as you want, but any warband with a scale 1:5 in leaders/ordinary units will be posed as an inherent risk; other leaders may see your group as ripe for taking with a mutiny, specially if they dislike you.
>>342174312
The entire point here is for people to discuss and debate the game, I'm not advertising anything because there's nothing here to sell. The game won't be officially out for about several months.
>>342174584
>discuss and debate
We don't really have much to talk about, mate, besides asking what we can do and any kind of history discussions
How accurate are you looking at in terms of combat and representation of the falling Roman Empire?
>>342173284
I dont want to ruin your dream game here but tactical turn based is nothing new or notable, but what is would be the size and scale of execution. Put a hundred units on the battlefield with war machines, calvary, field surgeons, and phalanxes and stuff. The problem you would have to face would be "now move unit #76" would be tiresome, so you could split them into battalions and let them move as groups, maybe groups of archers letting arrows rain or frontliners advancing all as one. Pretty much rts mechanics but turn based, you can have groups of units but also split them up, but balance it by having enemies have a chance to counterattack or something.
Also have lots of commanders and lieutenants with unique abilities. Group buffs or extra attacks or something.
>>342175006
There are no weaponry/armor/tactic which cannot be reasonably be historically plausible. Example: It is a fact that women did not serve under Roman military armies. So all tribes which had heavy influence in Roman military tactics do not have female military units. However, it is plausible that Scandinavian tribes might have used women in times of need as soldiers, so it is possible that, out of the entire roster of Scandinavian units (tribes have roughly 20 different units), one or two can be female.
>>342175034
This is not a dream game. This is a game under development to be released in the near future. I don't want to reinvent the wheel here, I'm simply taking what was succesful in previous games and making it all cohesive in one single game.
Battles in the hundreds are not possible in this scenario, not without instanced combat (10vs10 players, each with their ~15-20 unit batallions, face each other in different parts of a map; the result of each battle dictate how other players encounter their further battles).
This is not a RTS. It is a tactical turn-based game. I do have lots of commanders/lieutenants (Authority units) which play differently, so each tribes has their own strengths and weaknesses in not only that field, but others, like infantry, cavalry, ranged, and other types of units and how they play.
>>342175678
well if you take what works and add nothing new, expect it to be just another steam shovelware indie game that barely sells. Gotta innovate in such a saturated market
I'm not exactly sure what your game will consist of, but my idea sounded cool in my head. I'm sure you know what you want though
Just my two cents
>>342176206
There are many combinations of game mechanics that were never tried before by AAA companies which indie companies attempted, and were largely successful. I'm taking their example and using concepts from two different game genres. It's innovative in that it meshes two things that weren't tried in the way that I am trying (at least with this setting).
Thanks for your ideas, though. I'm not letting this be shovelware in any way or form; even those who will simply hate the game just because will find that they had learnt something from the history behind the game.
>>342176698
godspeed anon
>>342174584
Looks neat OP, although I'm not sure how much I'd like how you described moving. Seems liked it'd take much too long. I'm kind of picturing Mount and Blade and remembering how long it sometimes took to get from place to place, and how boring and tedious it got after a few hours of play.
I can't judge of course, not having seen the game, but I would make sure there's stuff to do while moving your armies across the map to prevent boredom
>>342178192
Yes, i've discussed with the guys about it. Moving around isn't supposed to be something easy, but what I can best describe as "light" operations won't be exceptionally boring; just have a horse ready for every soldier and raid villages in an adjacent territory. You can always interact with your soldiers during the march; plan who will join the intiial assault, check out your abilities, the progress of the soldiers in their training, how well supplied you are, or even take a break in marching every now and then to hunt wildlife, using game meat instead of rations to preserve your food.
You can also always disconnect while your army is moving to a more distant place and play as the "AI" (you take control of the AI of your own tribe to defend places), or a game separate from the "world" (a skirmish in a 1v1 scenario which has no relations with the "MMO server", and is simply a "match server"; training is always useful to know how well your tactics would work.
>>342178786
Will the game still run while you do the other said activites?
>>342178913
Yes, the game will still be running. Disconnections and logging out won't be penalized as long as you don't do it while in-battle. In this case, your soldiers will either attempt to retreat or become AIs. In both cases, if you are defeated, there's always a chance soldiers can flee and regroup later on. If you win, you will automatically leave the area with no loot and "hide" from other players. The AI will then run activities for you trying the best to preserve the group's morale.
