Why don't any of the factions have unique mechanics?

Users who are viewing this thread

FizCap

Regular
WB
One thing I noticed about this game is all of the factions are literally the same except geographical locations and different troop compositions. No other faction has a different government system, inheritance system or anything other game mechanic that makes it stand out. For example there are three empire factions, one is a senate lead faction, one is a military led faction and one is a feudal led faction I would say.
Why can't the senate faction have an actual senate where the senators vote for policies and all that and you can work to influence them, something of that nature. The military faction could base your influence off your military power and renown for example. This would give the player a better choice in what faction they want to help in the civil war and which system of governance is best to play around in.
The Sturgian's are based off the Nordic culture so why can't they raid in peace time?

TLDR : None of the factions feel unique in any way in how they play.
 

Penn

Veteran
One thing I noticed about this game is all of the factions are literally the same except geographical locations and different troop compositions. No other faction has a different government system, inheritance system or anything other game mechanic that makes it stand out. For example there are three empire factions, one is a senate lead faction, one is a military led faction and one is a feudal led faction I would say.
Why can't the senate faction have an actual senate where the senators vote for policies and all that and you can work to influence them, something of that nature. The military faction could base your influence off your military power and renown for example. This would give the player a better choice in what faction they want to help in the civil war and which system of governance is best to play around in.
The Sturgian's are based off the Nordic culture so why can't they raid in peace time?

TLDR : None of the factions feel unique in any way in how they play.

+1
 

Danny5

Squire
Agree, this is where the game falls, not being unique. All the factions are just a copy and paste (not the troops), lords feels the same, policies are the same even kingdom decisions are the same.
 

Roy1012

Archduke
Stop hounding the devs. It’s early access. Give them a break. If you don’t like it, go make your own game. How dare you come on THEIR forum and call THEIR game ****?
 

FizCap

Regular
WB
Stop hounding the devs. It’s early access. Give them a break. If you don’t like it, go make your own game. How dare you come on THEIR forum and call THEIR game ****?
Who called the game ****? Can’t criticize anything about the game without done zoo animal corporate simp ruining the vibe
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
I think they stuck their tipy toes in this with the kingdom policies and culture perks, then pulled their foot out because "oh no if they're different some have advantages" so now we have culture perks that are milktoast and often unusable by the AI. Also I think the empires have the same starting policies, not sure. They should add more differences and new culture perks though. Another *actually-special troop* would be sweet too. Also 1 distinct differance, like khuzaits like execution's, Sturgians marry inbreeding, battanians..... trees...idunno, I'm not a game dev, but you see what I mean, something this faction allows or does that the others don't.
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
I think they stuck their tipy toes in this with the kingdom policies and culture perks, then pulled their foot out because "oh no if they're different some have advantages" so now we have culture perks that are milktoast and often unusable by the AI. Also I think the empires have the same starting policies, not sure.
To make this worse, as far as I'm aware the kingdoms choose policies to implement pretty much at random too, which makes them even more meaningless.
 
I guess that balancing kingdoms with uniqueness may be more difficult than it sounds. It's just recently that they reduced snowballing for factions that, as you put it, are virtually the same
 

stevepine

Knight at Arms
One thing I noticed about this game is all of the factions are literally the same except geographical locations and different troop compositions. No other faction has a different government system, inheritance system or anything other game mechanic that makes it stand out. For example there are three empire factions, one is a senate lead faction, one is a military led faction and one is a feudal led faction I would say.
Why can't the senate faction have an actual senate where the senators vote for policies and all that and you can work to influence them, something of that nature. The military faction could base your influence off your military power and renown for example. This would give the player a better choice in what faction they want to help in the civil war and which system of governance is best to play around in.
The Sturgian's are based off the Nordic culture so why can't they raid in peace time?

TLDR : None of the factions feel unique in any way in how they play.
Agreed + 1
 

TengriBless

Veteran
I guess that balancing kingdoms with uniqueness may be more difficult than it sounds. It's just recently that they reduced snowballing for factions that, as you put it, are virtually the same
Who gives a rat's about balance in a singleplayer game? I can understand concern over making factions obsolete - especially when there are only an embarrassing six of them - but it too often comes down to sheer balancing at the cost of depth™ instead of actually bettering the game by making factions reasonably viable, enjoyable and interesting; which are the main factors that attract players. This isn't a competitive shooter or a ****ty MOBA, nobody picks the most overpowered factions to cheese the current META and show the braindead AI who's boss. No you play Vlandia because they've knights, butter and resemble the most iconically medieval European cultures. You play tHe eMpIrE because you like to play the role of a Belisarius saving a falling Roman empire, even if that isn't represented one bit in-game, and because you're a simpleton etc. Not unusually is challenge the main incentive - playing WRE in Attila is bitter agony, when the AI outright cheats the game and builds armies they couldn't possibly sustain, not only is the eventual victory made many times more rewarding as a result, but even in -
**** it what am I saying, they'll just make some meaningless patch chipping off the tiniest semblance of depth disguised as a "balancing improvement" and sure enough you'll be lapping it up like milk, oh the mentality of the player on this forum fascinates me.
 
Last edited:

FizCap

Regular
WB
I think they stuck their tipy toes in this with the kingdom policies and culture perks, then pulled their foot out because "oh no if they're different some have advantages" so now we have culture perks that are milktoast and often unusable by the AI. Also I think the empires have the same starting policies, not sure. They should add more differences and new culture perks though. Another *actually-special troop* would be sweet too. Also 1 distinct differance, like khuzaits like execution's, Sturgians marry inbreeding, battanians..... trees...idunno, I'm not a game dev, but you see what I mean, something this faction allows or does that the others don't.
Yea the kingdoms policy sounds good on paper but it doesn’t have a real affect on the gameplay enough to be interesting. A medieval game that does it alright is Crusader Kings which determines your level of rights as a vassal which is kind of cool
 

Roy1012

Archduke
Who called the game ****? Can’t criticize anything about the game without done zoo animal corporate simp ruining the vibe
I was mocking the TW shills who use this line of "thinking" any time anyone criticizes the game. Obviously, anyone with a brain will understand that this "game" is a complete and total hollow, bare bones shell and defending it is like justifying George Bush's invasion of Iraq.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Thats why i was such a critic of their efforts to curb snowballing -sure you can curb it by just basically making all Factions the same -but is that interesting? Is that good and clever game design?
 

FizCap

Regular
WB
I was mocking the TW shills who use this line of "thinking" any time anyone criticizes the game. Obviously, anyone with a brain will understand that this "game" is a complete and total hollow, bare bones shell and defending it is like justifying George Bush's invasion of Iraq.
Then I have fell for the bait sir
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
Who gives a rat's about balance in a singleplayer game?
The issue of faction balance is completely unrelated to the player. The issue was that for a very long time the campaign progress without the interference of the player was very unfun. Namely, in most cases certain factions would fold extremely quickly, while others would snowball out of control. When you want to play as Vlandia, it becomes rather unfun when half the map is controlled by Khuzaits and they steamroll over everyone. Even if you and your faction stand fast, it is boring when everyone else folds and all you get to fight is endless hordes of horse archers.

So the idea of balancing factions itself is without any doubt a good one, and it is absolutely necessary for the good health of the campaign.

Now that they more or less attained it, it is time for them to go the extra mile and retain it while making the factions unique, which, if they undertake it, will not be a simple effort.
 
Top Bottom