Coming Soon

Wyrmsun is an RTS / Grand Strategy game which features elements of mythology, history and fiction.
User avatar
Andrettin
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:58 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

Coming Soon

Postby Andrettin » Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:31 pm

The following features are planned to be included in the game in the next patches:

- Celtic, Latin, Goth and Norse place name generation
- Rivers for the Grand Strategy world maps
- Inventory for heroic-tier units (i.e. Stonelord) to carry potions

And these features are planned to be implemented in the game in the longer term:
- Buildable walls
- Roads which speed up unit movement
- Priest units who can bestow different bonuses depending on civilization and religion
- Docks and naval units
MrFlibble
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: Coming Soon

Postby MrFlibble » Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:33 pm

Andrettin wrote:- Silver and copper harvesting (transformed into gold when delivered)
What about getting a full-blown trade system? The most simplistic one I can think of is like in War Diary where you just have a menu in the Town Hall. The more you sell, the lower the price (and vice versa).

A more complex resource system can be found in Eador (not an RTS but anyway). There are lots of special secondary resources which may be found in provinces. Production of certain units may require a type of special resource. However, if such resource is not found in any of the player's provinces, they still can get the desired units, but at a higher price in gold, which implies that the necessary resource is purchased from merchants at the market. I guess this could be implemented in some way in the grand strategy mode?

Of course there's also the plain real-time trade similar to that in the Age of Empires games, but perhaps with limitations such as not being able to trade with enemies, and an actual supply-demand dynamic. The system as used in the Age of Empires is too easy to exploit, especially in the second game where you can trade with markets and not just ports. An enemy market can easily become what is essentially a free wood to gold converter.
User avatar
Andrettin
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:58 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

Re: Coming Soon

Postby Andrettin » Sat Oct 31, 2015 6:19 am

MrFlibble wrote:
Andrettin wrote:- Silver and copper harvesting (transformed into gold when delivered)
What about getting a full-blown trade system? The most simplistic one I can think of is like in War Diary where you just have a menu in the Town Hall. The more you sell, the lower the price (and vice versa).

A more complex resource system can be found in Eador (not an RTS but anyway). There are lots of special secondary resources which may be found in provinces. Production of certain units may require a type of special resource. However, if such resource is not found in any of the player's provinces, they still can get the desired units, but at a higher price in gold, which implies that the necessary resource is purchased from merchants at the market. I guess this could be implemented in some way in the grand strategy mode?

Of course there's also the plain real-time trade similar to that in the Age of Empires games, but perhaps with limitations such as not being able to trade with enemies, and an actual supply-demand dynamic. The system as used in the Age of Empires is too easy to exploit, especially in the second game where you can trade with markets and not just ports. An enemy market can easily become what is essentially a free wood to gold converter.
I think options to trade resources for gold (in a market building or the main hall) would work well. A more complex resource system should probably be left for the grand strategy mode (or for special scenarios). There is already trade in the grand strategy mode (of stone and lumber for gold), with supply and demand, but it would be nice to have more resources.

Also, I updated the thread's original post now to reflect that many of the features listed were implemented in versions 1.4.0 and 1.5.0.
MrFlibble
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: Coming Soon

Postby MrFlibble » Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:10 am

I'd probably vote for a separate market building for trade. I'm still not sure to which extent this could be implemented in a Warcraft style RTS, but I guess with the great modding flexibility of Wyrmsun it could be possible to do in different ways. I'm quite a fan of Seven Kingdoms which has a much grater emphasis on economy that a "typical" RTS, so I would appreciate any expansion into the more peaceful developments of gameplay (that would also have some historical grounding too).

An update to v1.5.0, nice! ^_^ BTW, I've noticed that screenshots from older versions apparently get removed from IndieDB with new updates (there are thumbnails in old news announcements but no large screenshots in the gallery). Perhaps you could organize a historical gallery somewhere showing the stages of the game's development? Something like what The Battle for Wesnoth does.
User avatar
Andrettin
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:58 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

Re: Coming Soon

Postby Andrettin » Sun Nov 01, 2015 5:26 am

MrFlibble wrote:I'd probably vote for a separate market building for trade.
Yes, that's also how I would do it.
I'm still not sure to which extent this could be implemented in a Warcraft style RTS, but I guess with the great modding flexibility of Wyrmsun it could be possible to do in different ways.
It would likely require engine changes - but I think it would be worth it.
I'm quite a fan of Seven Kingdoms which has a much grater emphasis on economy that a "typical" RTS, so I would appreciate any expansion into the more peaceful developments of gameplay (that would also have some historical grounding too).
Yeah, I liked Seven Kingdoms a lot too :) The main trick is balancing expanding gameplay with the added complexity. For example: copper and silver add new resources to gather, but since they are converted to gold, it doesn't really add significant complexity that would increase the game's learning curve or which could make the gameplay too cumbersome.
An update to v1.5.0, nice! ^_^
Thank you :)
BTW, I've noticed that screenshots from older versions apparently get removed from IndieDB with new updates (there are thumbnails in old news announcements but no large screenshots in the gallery). Perhaps you could organize a historical gallery somewhere showing the stages of the game's development? Something like what The Battle for Wesnoth does.
Usually I delete the screenshots from IndieDB which no longer represent the current state of the game. A chronology of the game's development (with screenshots) could be interesting... but truth be told, I prefer showing only screenshots of the game in its latest state, to show it at its best.
MrFlibble
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: Coming Soon

Postby MrFlibble » Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:59 am

It's logical to only include up-to-date screenshots at the game website, that's why I suggested a separate gallery. Additionally, version comparison a la Wesnoth also helps illustrate how the project develops, creating a sense of progress for the (prospective) players.

If I allow myself to get carried away a bit, I think I'd appreciate a more complex resource/economy system in the Grand Strategy mode. I've always thought that the abstract "resource" of Civilization type games somewhat limited the ways they could be played, and moved away from a more realistic approach. A game where you realistically acquire resources and use them to create weapons, fortify defences and expand trade would have a lot of depth, although of course it would probably make the learning phase more extensive.

There's one thing in the way many strategy games handles resources that I think could be changed/experimented with, and that is fixed resource requirements. For example, the game says you need 600 stone to build a castle (AoE 2), and that's it. Either you have this amount and build it, or not at all. However, it is pretty far from how real life works. Suppose the relationship between the player's needs and resources was inverted. Instead of having a linear "if you want a castle, you need 600 stone", there could be a branching selection of different solutions to fill the functional niche of a castle, each requiring different resources.

In a typical strategy game setting, there's a linear dependency between resource cost and combat efficiency of units and defensive structures. The palisade wall in AoE 2 is extremely cheap, but it also offers only a fraction of protection compared to the stone wall. Whereas in real life a wooden wall would offer quite adequate protection against infantry, and would probably be only significantly weaker against siege machinery/artillery. If a similar relationship were implemented in a strategy game, that would give the player more opportunities in situations where not every resource is affordable, and also introduce variable strategies to go with in each scenario. For example, if you have wooden walls which are generally OK but weak against siege machines, you need an extra counter against siege machinery if the enemy uses them.

This could also help create regional varieties of tribes/nations/civilizations depending on the resources available to them. Continuing the same example, if stone is scarce in a territory it is generally not reasonable to expect the inhabitants to build stone fortifications (unless of course they import stone or acquire another territory with a quarry). However this does not mean that they will not build any fortifications at all. The same goes for food production and even combat skills: supposedly a people who live off hunting should be generally better archers, and plains dwellers are better at horsemanship etc.

I think that this kind of environment determination could work quite well as an alternative to pre-defined perks or stats boosts that individual civilizations get on an arbitrary basis like in AoE games.
User avatar
Andrettin
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:58 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

Re: Coming Soon

Postby Andrettin » Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:05 pm

MrFlibble wrote:It's logical to only include up-to-date screenshots at the game website, that's why I suggested a separate gallery. Additionally, version comparison a la Wesnoth also helps illustrate how the project develops, creating a sense of progress for the (prospective) players.

If I allow myself to get carried away a bit, I think I'd appreciate a more complex resource/economy system in the Grand Strategy mode. I've always thought that the abstract "resource" of Civilization type games somewhat limited the ways they could be played, and moved away from a more realistic approach. A game where you realistically acquire resources and use them to create weapons, fortify defences and expand trade would have a lot of depth, although of course it would probably make the learning phase more extensive.
I very much agree. The plan is in fact to add more resources eventually, and allow manufacturing out of raw materials. The addition of workers to the grand strategy mode is a prelude to that, as they would be needed for industrial production. Instead of lumber being gathered automatically from logging lodges, the player could instead have to first gather timber, and then process it into lumber. Grain could be (optionally) processed into bread, which would make it give 2 food per unit instead of 1 food per unit. Other things that are planned for the grand strategy mode is infrastructure building (so the player would need to have roads in place instead of being able to gather resources in a province right off the bat), as well as the addition of rivers (which could serve both as a way to transport goods and increase farm output in the tiles they run through). Many rivers are actually already set up for the Earth map, but they are disabled from appearing in the game since the art for them hasn't been made yet.
There's one thing in the way many strategy games handles resources that I think could be changed/experimented with, and that is fixed resource requirements. For example, the game says you need 600 stone to build a castle (AoE 2), and that's it. Either you have this amount and build it, or not at all. However, it is pretty far from how real life works. Suppose the relationship between the player's needs and resources was inverted. Instead of having a linear "if you want a castle, you need 600 stone", there could be a branching selection of different solutions to fill the functional niche of a castle, each requiring different resources.

In a typical strategy game setting, there's a linear dependency between resource cost and combat efficiency of units and defensive structures. The palisade wall in AoE 2 is extremely cheap, but it also offers only a fraction of protection compared to the stone wall. Whereas in real life a wooden wall would offer quite adequate protection against infantry, and would probably be only significantly weaker against siege machinery/artillery. If a similar relationship were implemented in a strategy game, that would give the player more opportunities in situations where not every resource is affordable, and also introduce variable strategies to go with in each scenario. For example, if you have wooden walls which are generally OK but weak against siege machines, you need an extra counter against siege machinery if the enemy uses them.
That sounds interesting. It could be implemented by having palisades which have (relatively) high armor, but a special vulnerability to siege weapons.

Different solutions using different resources is a good idea, although increasing the quantity of buildings would increase the quantity of art necessary for the game, slowing down the development of other parts of it.
This could also help create regional varieties of tribes/nations/civilizations depending on the resources available to them. Continuing the same example, if stone is scarce in a territory it is generally not reasonable to expect the inhabitants to build stone fortifications (unless of course they import stone or acquire another territory with a quarry). However this does not mean that they will not build any fortifications at all. The same goes for food production and even combat skills: supposedly a people who live off hunting should be generally better archers, and plains dwellers are better at horsemanship etc.

I think that this kind of environment determination could work quite well as an alternative to pre-defined perks or stats boosts that individual civilizations get on an arbitrary basis like in AoE games.
I agree, it is better than predetermined bonuses, although predetermined bonuses can also have their place in conjunction to that to add flavor and differentiate the factions. If you have, say, horse resource tiles (horse ranches) which produce horses, which would then be necessary to make cavalry units. If those horse ranches appear only on plains, then a faction owning provinces with many plains is more likely to have greater horse production. So researching a cavalry-related upgrade would make more sense for them, further strengthening their relationship with horsemanship when they do so. Meanwhile, a tribe which lives on mountains could not have easy access to horses, and thus end up going a different path.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests