Hi!

I have an embryo to a game id like to get some feedback on. Its a army management/empire builder/ strategy game. It has map travel similar to "mount and blade":

Control your warlord and ride around the map in realtime with your army. Visit towns to recruit and rest, conquer towns (and have some lighthearted management control of them like order a building or change taxe rates) and collect taxes when visiting. Engage roaming bandits and other armies belonging to various factions on the map.

You manage your army, which starts with a few groups ("companies") of peasants. Each group is maybe 20 men. But you recruit new or upgrade them into infantry, missile, cavalry and war machines of various types and stats. As men fall in battle or flee those companies must be reinforced in towns and castles. Maybe men can be injured and healed back to fighting condition over time (unless that becomes unwieldy for the player). Your army need coin and food, seasons are different with winter draining more stamina and morale while being on the march.

When fighting starts (two armies meet on the map) the game goes into turn-based tactical mode. You move your companies like bricks on a board but it's otherwise similar to a fight in total war: Companies have morale, can break, can charge, can run out of ammo, can flank for bonus damage etc.

When fighting settlements, defensive towers show up like units on the map, and walls may be manned by units for bonus range and damage for missile weapons.

--------

Do you think such a game would be fun? What would you avoid or focus on?

Do you think such a game would be fun? What would you avoid or focus on?

If you read history books you will know there weren't large traveling armies that just roamed a map. This was because a single march would strip land bare and would nearly destroy all small towns in there path.

Mount and Blade, had about the correct number for roaming armies. Mercenaries had large numbers in there roaming armies, although they had to stay away from kingdoms during time of peace.

If you want your game to be realistic then Mount and Blade is as near as it gets, Total war simulates the large scale battles, the soldiers in these traveled to destinations, they didn't roam about.

I think that you could have both types of armies, one that the player uses to roam with and then when the player wants to siege they can use the larger one.

I know but "armies" are not planned to be very large (Larger than mount & blade but historicity isnt my main focus, think more like kings bounty or such games). You can station troops in settlements and those cost half or third upkeep so marching will be expensive!

But it terms on gameplay, do you think it would work? Be repetative? The goal is to conquer the map, as you take more settlements, its harder to maintain your "kingdom" and the established factions will be more agressive to you as they see you as a threat.

strikes me as a step backwards - M&B without the real time combat.

Id say it's more the style of "battle brother" or "might and magic". M&B is focused on third person real-time fighting and RPG, with light management elements. This would be a tactical game with focus on management and empire building.

But it terms on gameplay, do you think it would work? Be repetative?

All I can really say is that it would be a medieval game, how repetitive it would be depends on what you do. What you have described here is just a basic game.

If you want a game that is unique focus on things other developers don't, combat has always been a large part of games however people often skip over the things leading to the combat.

I personally liked how in Mount and Blade, the players actions would effect the game. Things like going to feast, fighting in the arena, doing side missions; all of this effected your standing with the nobles.

Battles will be important but also many management/light simulation gameplay elements:

Id have stuff like settlement order and lojalty, as well as mood and lojalty of the troops, so they can desert. And the army requires coin, food and supplies (and possibly ammunition as well). These must be refilled ("bought") from settlements/castles, even from your own (even if cost of refilling in coin will be lower there).

After winning a settlement battle you can choose how to handle the overtaking (sack, plunder, calmy occupy). Seasons affect mood and food production, so larger armies may need to spread out in different settlements to not run out of food during winter etc. Maybe you can order towns to send carts of food to your army location (and these can be raided).

Actions such as sacking cities will cost you honour points which will make you look like a villain in the eyes of other lords (ai players/other factions) and make treaties harder.

There is many fun things to implement, thats for sure, but harder to know in advance how well it will work as a game (how fun it will be to play). This is often what's hard when planning a new game i think...

For me the actual fighting of M&B wasn't so interesting, I did it so I could manage my party/soldiers and build my kingdom, so maybe this is an attempt to make such a game.