When sword meets shield and diplomacy fails, the outcome is decided only by numbers, coordination, and preparation. This truth is one of the cornerstones of, “The Art of War,” and the very reason tribes joined into kingdoms. While few of such larger scale concerns will involve the player (this is not a strategy game after all), their impact should sill be strongly felt in everywhere in the world. However, most of the forum discussion around combat and battle in the world, has been around individual abilities, with three exceptions:
- VoKi’s topic regarding Small Formations.
- Marco Rossolini’s post on Small Scale Tactics.
- This post about adjusting KC as a Strategy game?
Skirmishes, battles, politics, tax disputes, and scandal, were all equally commonplace, and often little more than strategies and tools for “noble” motives. This ebb and flow of power, money, and battle left commoners to be tossed about in this storm, and KC should be no exception. Most conflict, of any type, started with a series of small skirmishes, and quickly escalated to commit all of an alliance’s might. Whether mountains of bribes and favors to sway the court, or sometimes hundreds of thousands in pitched battle, the storm was always raging.
Secret of Immersive Worlds suggests that if a game’s world cares less about the player, it is likely to create a more engaging and rewarding experience than those that constantly (physically and visually) guide and prod and reward in the right direction. To this end, I might suggest a few interesting approaches that I myself would love to see in this game.
-
A constant struggle for survival.
The player should always feel a sense of urgency and risk. Amidst such chaos, the path and choices should be unclear and risky, with failure costly. Let the situations push the player, and keep the world feeling open, but don’t show them the way. -
Worldly tidal waves of higher order, creating opportunity.
With every battle a shield-wall, and archer or cavalry feints common, knowing when to push, when to pull, and where to move, makes all the difference. A blacksmith may not be able to direct the troops, but a war-cry or warning at the right time, can turn the tide of battle. Such is why experienced Sergeants and alert soldiers are so valuable. Don’t give us an endless series of one-on-one duels, but give us a real battle to struggle to sway with will and force and timing. -
Let the player fail.
Should the player be drafted, yet chose to flee instead, once captured there is no hope of survival. However, if I can just re-load and try again, most of the risk and thus the excitement, is gone. Save points are one thing, but forcing time between saves, or allowing it only at specific locations, can add to the risk and reward of the game. At one extreme is Skyrim’s save-whenever, and at the other is Minecraft’s Hardcore-mode or SteelBattalions death=deleted-character. This does however present a problem if players start playing, and dying, the same section over and over.
Thus, my questions to pose:
- How organised, and on what scale, with most conflicts be?
- Will a strategic dance of shield-walls, archers, and cavalry be present in battles?
- How often will we see the countryside turn to poverty from heavy taxation to pay for some army or bribe? Or, to prosperity when a major political victory is won? Or, to starvation and desolation as an army razes the land in advance of their pursuer?
- What mechanics will be used to lead/prompt the player along the campaign?
- What kind of failure states, or player-risks, are planned to be major components of DC?
Thank you for your time.
-
Wyrd
