So, thinking about it some, I do like the idea of expansions, but find that the ways in which they're often executed lead to boredom/frustration for me, as a player, becoming bogged down in clerical work!? In a viyograme?! Unacceptable.
Let's start with some examples of games that I think are in a similar genre to Legacy, or at least have a similar perspective (a strategy-layer/overland map with a combat-map/-gameboard):
Master of Magic/Master of Orion 2 (and 1, to a lesser extent)/CivNet/Civilization (Etc. [I'm not gonna list, like, all the f***ing games in the world, people {yeah, people!}])
So, in these games, you begin with your town, and you name it something appealing to you, with maybe an ethnic flair depending on the storyline you're deciding to write for this particular playthrough. That's good. At your town, you build structures that enable you in multiple ways, from unlocking new units and structures to providing resources, rewards, or abilities, to also just making your town look more badass. This is all also good. So let's see. I think that's about all that I think is really good about town/expansion philosophy in these games.
After becoming familiar through multiple playthroughs at increasing difficulties, what you notice is that the computer player is ruthlessly expanding, and so should you, because that's how you optimize your in-game power. What this sort of expansion requires, however, is a meticulous slowing down of your turns as you manage troops, ensure that the appropriate queues are in progress, and that resource rates are all optimized as well, since frequently, ideally, you're stretching your resources to their absolute limit. The more you expand, the more these management responsibilities mount up, and the slower and slower your turns become. The game becomes about maintaining build orders, essentially, and then the AI attacks and stomps half of your towns because they haven't been properly defended, updated, you were spread too thin, etc.
While this is beginning to sound like an apt metaphor for our lives as human beings... as a game... this. Just sucks. It takes most of the awesome out of building legions of ships, or even just bands of barbarians.
What I like about Oldschool XCOM Bases/Expansions
- Different staffs of soldiers among which leaders can rise, or be brought in.
- Didn't punish you for expanding or not expanding. Simply offered you some game-features and story-options (for the story that you're constantly telling in your head while you play the game.... .... ...)
- I beat the game with three bases. I also could have beat it with one or eight, if I really wanted to.
- There wasn't a complex build-order to be followed or too many particular required structures. Merely options and conveniences.
- Base-building was in depth enough to give each base its own character (layout was customizable, and what buildings you chose to build there, and the location and name)
- Bases were attacked, but you could almost always defend them, since being staffed with soldiers. It wasn't low-stakes, because the soldiers themselves would not all make it through the mission, and heroes would be born, and heroes would fall, fighting for the base.
How do we do it right?
It sounds like I'm saying, let's make XCOM. And I don't want to lie, that game is one of the best I've played. It also has some two really annoying features that sometimes really sour me on the game (OP mind control, OP blaster bombs).
I want our game to be different, I want it to be its own. I also want to improve on games like XCOM, not be different for the sake of being different, and at the cost of fun/playability. Anyway I think we should aim close to the XCOM model on bases/expansion. I have one fortress in the beginning. At some point, I choose to build a new fortress up by those mountains over there, to be more in range of some new embattled territories. At another point I'm like, yeah, I'll probably win soon, but it would be cool to have a fortress over there, and maybe explore some more that foresty area that's kind of out of the way. Maybe I'll find some interesting sites there. Etc.
Thoughts?
Yeah that seems right to me... Bases should feel easy to manage, and should extend your range, but aren't the core progression mechanic. One idea we tossed around way way back was that you were basically "settling" the land, and once it was civilized, no more monsters would show up there, so you could safely transfer resources to the frontier. That may actually be counter to what you're saying, because it means the action is always drifting away from your center of operations, which means expanding is necessary?
ReplyDeleteBut it also did provide a solid victory condition without the need for a villain: civilize the Yondering Lands.
Another idea that I think helps is to have your scouting range go up as you get more and better hunters. So that the primary method of expanding your coverage is training your dudes, and building another base is secondary, but powerful in its own way.