This is really the kind of game I've been looking for a long time. Sadly I haven't discovered it in time to support the kickstarter. But I'll definitely buy it once it comes out on steam.
I've always felt that morale collapsed too quickly in all the previous hegemony games. Is there likely to be a significant rework for slower troop deaths and slower morale loss or do you plan on committing to this system where most lower tier units are too weak to hold a line for more than a few seconds?
Thanks for the feedback. One of the reasons we're releasing this campaign as a standalone game is so we're not limited in what we can change. I don't know how significant a change you're thinking about, but in general we've been trending towards making the battles last longer to give more time for maneuvering and reinforcements (especially in 3 since the battlefields are generally much larger). Fortunately, we've also got more flexibility to slow it down in 3 with more camps and much larger resupply areas so there's less concern about running out of food in the middle of a battle. -rob
That sounds great Rob. I'd be more happy if troops were far less likely to break until flanked or otherwise shocked in some way. Encourages flanking to reduces losses on your own side and grinding down your manpower.
I JUST found this game series recently, so, apologies for the lateness of my comment. Regarding generals and their effect on the units to which they are assigned, please consider adding some feature in battle which shows how they are affecting the battle/units. As it is, it's just a D&D-like feature of +1 to this or that with no feeling for the General actually being involved. At that time, the leaders were extremely important to their troops. People/soldiers would not follow just anyone into battle. Likewise, where are the rituals determining the omens that could raise or depress morale? Lastly, I'm looking forward to the play. Thanks for your efforts!
Thomas Hazlewood Thanks for the comments. When you mention getting general more involved in the battles, are you talking about having more animations to showing them leading the troops or were you thinking more gameplay effects to indicate their command? Re the rituals/omens, while I'm not sure about making it a core feature, I could see it making an interesting in-game event i.e. you get a message saying your priests have declared the next month to be an inauspicious time for battle and you can choose either to receive a debuff or make some sacrifice (food, coin, etc) to the gods to clear it
LongbowOfficial I've given it a little thought. One- When recruiting new units in a city, the presence of a general and his stats should have an effect on the speed/numbers recruited and, possibly, on the immediate level of their training/skills. Accomplished generals were generally also leaders in the community and their call to duty was not lightly disregarded. (Sparta would not need this feature as Spartans were bred to be led) This would hold true with either indigenous troops or mercenaries as the former likely had some sort of commerce with their leaders and the latter would only respond to a renowned leader OR a lot of gold. As for actual battle, the Generals were fully expected to lead from the front. Their personal prowess and immediate success would be noticed and felt and, likewise, so would their injury. In essence, the battle result usually was the same as the General's performance. When he won, they won, and vice versa. Thus, perhaps a bar indicator or maybe a glow/halo effect of color (like the usual green-yellow-red-black) that reflects the ebb and flow of the General's performance which would also affect the unit's performance? Otoh, animations may be more to your liking..heh. Re: Omens- Remember that Caesar (in your Rome campaign), for instance, defeated German invaders because their omens forbade them to do battle until a specific day. Caesar learned this and attacked and destroyed them. The people of those times were serious about the omens..lol.
The game looks nice. I do hope you will bring back the formation system from Hegemony Gold and improve the AI since those were and still are the most problematic things in Hegemony Rome.
+Tiago Toledo no, the 3D map is just Italy. Everything else is just a 2D drawing outside the map limits. The only reason they're even 2D drawings is to make the 2D map square. If it bothers you so much, just make a North Africa map and Carthage faction in the map editor.
no Cartago !?!?!? Greeks? Britain ? Egypt? Iberians?.. hegemony gold was fantastic! they should do that game with other factions and hegemony rome game mechanics(hegemony rome was terrible) and casual maps
Once again a game with stunning strategical potentials ruined with a silly, old, unpleasent tactical real-time battle system. Using a simple textual box with tactical options would be much better imho.
+Myes He basicly wanted a text adventure where he simply has to select the best option instead of actually coordinating his attack to capitalize on enemies weaknesses
***** "coordinating his attack to capitalize on enemy weaknesses"... are you seriuos mate? we are talking about a kind of gameplay which was already old and childish when Warcraft 2, back in 1995, was released...
It's so good to see Hoplites in Hegemony again :)
Just played Hegemony Gold's Demo...I'm hooked. Probably going to pick this up on tomorrow on release. Excellent work!
Is youtube broken, or is this preview extremely laggy?
Hey, u guys got a new fan here.
How come the video is so choppy?
This is really the kind of game I've been looking for a long time. Sadly I haven't discovered it in time to support the kickstarter. But I'll definitely buy it once it comes out on steam.
I've always felt that morale collapsed too quickly in all the previous hegemony games. Is there likely to be a significant rework for slower troop deaths and slower morale loss or do you plan on committing to this system where most lower tier units are too weak to hold a line for more than a few seconds?
Thanks for the feedback. One of the reasons we're releasing this campaign as a standalone game is so we're not limited in what we can change. I don't know how significant a change you're thinking about, but in general we've been trending towards making the battles last longer to give more time for maneuvering and reinforcements (especially in 3 since the battlefields are generally much larger). Fortunately, we've also got more flexibility to slow it down in 3 with more camps and much larger resupply areas so there's less concern about running out of food in the middle of a battle. -rob
That sounds great Rob. I'd be more happy if troops were far less likely to break until flanked or otherwise shocked in some way. Encourages flanking to reduces losses on your own side and grinding down your manpower.
How's the kick start going?
I JUST found this game series recently, so, apologies for the lateness of my comment. Regarding generals and their effect on the units to which they are assigned, please consider adding some feature in battle which shows how they are affecting the battle/units. As it is, it's just a D&D-like feature of +1 to this or that with no feeling for the General actually being involved. At that time, the leaders were extremely important to their troops. People/soldiers would not follow just anyone into battle. Likewise, where are the rituals determining the omens that could raise or depress morale?
Lastly, I'm looking forward to the play. Thanks for your efforts!
Thomas Hazlewood Thanks for the comments. When you mention getting general more involved in the battles, are you talking about having more animations to showing them leading the troops or were you thinking more gameplay effects to indicate their command?
Re the rituals/omens, while I'm not sure about making it a core feature, I could see it making an interesting in-game event i.e. you get a message saying your priests have declared the next month to be an inauspicious time for battle and you can choose either to receive a debuff or make some sacrifice (food, coin, etc) to the gods to clear it
LongbowOfficial I've given it a little thought. One- When recruiting new units in a city, the presence of a general and his stats should have an effect on the speed/numbers recruited and, possibly, on the immediate level of their training/skills. Accomplished generals were generally also leaders in the community and their call to duty was not lightly disregarded. (Sparta would not need this feature as Spartans were bred to be led) This would hold true with either indigenous troops or mercenaries as the former likely had some sort of commerce with their leaders and the latter would only respond to a renowned leader OR a lot of gold.
As for actual battle, the Generals were fully expected to lead from the front. Their personal prowess and immediate success would be noticed and felt and, likewise, so would their injury. In essence, the battle result usually was the same as the General's performance. When he won, they won, and vice versa. Thus, perhaps a bar indicator or maybe a glow/halo effect of color (like the usual green-yellow-red-black) that reflects the ebb and flow of the General's performance which would also affect the unit's performance? Otoh, animations may be more to your liking..heh.
Re: Omens- Remember that Caesar (in your Rome campaign), for instance, defeated German invaders because their omens forbade them to do battle until a specific day. Caesar learned this and attacked and destroyed them. The people of those times were serious about the omens..lol.
Do you think your series could work in the 17th to 20th century and beyond perhaps?
which month is the release?
Rome vs Carthage expansion. Much improved naval combat, elephants, Hannibal. Would be awesome.
The game looks nice. I do hope you will bring back the formation system from Hegemony Gold and improve the AI since those were and still are the most problematic things in Hegemony Rome.
the series need some sound improvements too
No playable Carthage? Disappointed.
It's almost as though the game is set in pre-Alexander the Great Italy.
Oh wait, it is.
The map has North Africa? Yes. Carthage is playable? No.
Sound logic it seems.
+Tiago Toledo no, the 3D map is just Italy. Everything else is just a 2D drawing outside the map limits. The only reason they're even 2D drawings is to make the 2D map square.
If it bothers you so much, just make a North Africa map and Carthage faction in the map editor.
Cybermat47 But why are you commenting on a fucking ancient post?
no Cartago !?!?!? Greeks? Britain ? Egypt? Iberians?.. hegemony gold was fantastic! they should do that game with other factions and hegemony rome game mechanics(hegemony rome was terrible) and casual maps
Why the hell would they be in a game about pre-Alexander the Great ITALY?!
FPS... fps... 10... fps... (((((
Why do you have such a bland and lifeless world map?
Once again a game with stunning strategical potentials ruined with a silly, old, unpleasent tactical real-time battle system. Using a simple textual box with tactical options would be much better imho.
Luka F
What do you mean?
+Myes He basicly wanted a text adventure where he simply has to select the best option instead of actually coordinating his attack to capitalize on enemies weaknesses
*****
"coordinating his attack to capitalize on enemy weaknesses"... are you seriuos mate? we are talking about a kind of gameplay which was already old and childish when Warcraft 2, back in 1995, was released...
Luka F Hm you need to elaborate on why you think its childish and old if you want to be taken serious