What Game Are You Currently Playing?

Bought a few months back, I've only just started delving into Field Of Glory: Empires

It's probably best described as a 4X game in a similar vein to Civilisation. in FOG: Empires, it's all about balancing legacy and decadence. It's not about how much you conquer (although that can be a route to victory) but about how your regime will be remembered. For example, stumbling through my first number of turns, I have progressed Athens from stable city to glorious city state. This is done via culture tokens that are generated through investment of manpower, infrastructure etcetera in cultural aspects of your regimes existence. This investment is part of your overall economy where food, armies, navies etc also have to be paid for.

Of course, certain areas of the regime are prone to and sometimes generate the negative effects of decadence and these can limit or even reduce your progress.

It's all still very new and I don't really know exactly what I'm doing (or what I'm supposed to do) with regions or provinces (regions being the smallest unit of land and a number of regions can be combined to create a province).

Strategy reviewers give this game a fairly positive score but I'm finding the User Interface a bit of a nightmare. Take regional decision making. In the strategy element of Total War, a window would open offering a choice. You either clicked yes or no. Sometimes that happens in FOG: Empires but there are also a number of pre-existing regional decisions that can be made each turn (at a cost). Opening this dialogue and selecting a decision to implement, I fully expected to find somewhere that I could click to activate this choice but no. Half an hour later, I decided to look on the internet for the answer. It turns out that you have to click on a region in the world map (all qualifying regions glowing a subtle shade of green). The regional choice window is overlayed over the map and, maybe it's just my own stupidity, I never thought to look to the map for the answer. What if the region you want is hidden behind the choice window? Why do it this way? It just doesn't make any sense to me?

Surely a list of names of qualifying regions could be shown within the open dialogue window? Clicking on one could then zoom you in to the map area containg that region in order that you can then confirm your choice is the right one. That's how I would do it anyway.

Verdict so far. Interesting with the possibility of a very good strategy game underneath a needlessly cumbersome interface that could put off players before they really get to grips with the game.
 
An update on FOG: Empires

I’ve found another annoying quirk, this time in diplomacy. Being offered a trade deal, I discovered it a bit frustrating. When the window opens, it gives a trade deal with another faction. You then have to click to open another window for the details, then go back to the first screen to select to either accept, select or amend. This action simply puts the choice in a line within the offer which previously consisted of a line of dashes.
At this point, I’m looking for a tick or an okay to click, or anything to confirm the choice but there’s nothing. Eventually, I give up, close the window and advance to the next turn. Only then, by opening the diplomacy window do I see that the trade deal is now gone. I presume the choice made is now implemented but I don’t know for sure.

I think this game should be called Bloody Infuriating: Empires.
 
I've been playing a bit more of Just Cause 2. This game is absolutely huge: it's a massive land-mass covered in settlements which you have to capture. It gets repetitive, but it's a lot of fun if you enjoy blowing stuff up. Idiocy, but enjoyable idiocy.
 
I think this game should be called Bloody Infuriating: Empires.
Ha! I've been on the fence about that game since it was released. It seems like it does a lot of things well, but has a clunkiness and some weird needless mechanics than would have driven me up the wall.

The big thing for me that stopped me from buying it was the integration with their tactics game. I know... that sounds awesome, and it does... but to have it as a separate game, in both play and purchase just put me off the whole thing.
 
I have the tactical game but don't plan to use it in conjunction with Empires just because it seems such a palaver exporting the battle and then importing the results. I agree it should have all been under one hood.
 
Good news! Duke Anselm Goose managed to claim the throne of England through the legitimate medium of war. And also became king of Wales and Ireland. Better yet, his eldest son, the not remotely sadistic or psychopathic Cynwallon, conquered Scotland, founded the Empire of Britannia, conquered France, founded the Empire of Francia, terrified his subjects through repeated torture of noble captives, asserted absolute control of the empire, and annointed his eldest daughter as successor.

Wasn't all plain sailing, though. Cynwallon's firstborn son was murdered, as was his first wife, and his second son died in childhood. At the moment, his daughter's empire includes the kings/queens of Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England, France, Brittany, Burgundy, Aquitaine, and Navarra. But there are quite a few rebels wanting to reduce her considerable authority.

[Crusader Kings 3, incidentally].
 
I've been persevering with Field Of Glory: Empires. I chose to play as the Picts. Very difficult to win with but my objective was to go somewhere remote and learn the ropes. It's been working and I'm starting to get the hang of things. I've been building up population, infrastructure and trade routes with little or no danger of attack from other tribes. Now, however, I've reached that point where I need to conquer territory in order to evolve further. Possibly getting close to abandoning the Picts and starting again with a nation more likely to make an impact.

My previous opinion still stands. There's a lot going on but finding out how to actually do things is a bit of a pain. I'm wondering what the later game will be like (usually the achilles heel of these types of games) but I'm not sure I'll be able to stay interested until then.
 
Difficult times for Emperor Nicholas of Britannia. Much of Spain demanded independence as he was battling (successfully) to preserve the empire of Francia, so Navarra and Leon (and Sweden) have been lost. However, the empire of Britannia was also successfully defended (due to the claimant dying of obesity) and he has made friends with so many people that rebellions are now highly unlikely.

Still a bit of a problem with few sons. Aethelgoose, the dynasty's founder, had tons of kids of both sexes, whereas Nicholas has been the only male child to survive to adulthood in three generations, so far. If he dropped dead, and there is a plot to murder him, the empires of Britannia and Francia would be split between his daughters.
 
CK always sounds great when somebody writes up their adventures but when I fire up CK 1 I just can't gel with it.

BTW, the name of your dynasty reminds me of an event at work many many years ago. There was a guy who, for some obscure reason, was nicknamed the Goose. He phoned in one day to say he would be off sick and, when the girl answering asked for his name, he said 'just tell them it's the Goose.'

She turned to the rest of the office and said, 'I've got a man here phoning in sick. He thinks he's a goose.'
 
CK always sounds great when somebody writes up their adventures but when I fire up CK 1 I just can't gel with it.

BTW, the name of your dynasty reminds me of an event at work many many years ago. There was a guy who, for some obscure reason, was nicknamed the Goose. He phoned in one day to say he would be off sick and, when the girl answering asked for his name, he said 'just tell them it's the Goose.'

She turned to the rest of the office and said, 'I've got a man here phoning in sick. He thinks he's a goose.'
I don't even know what CK1 looks like.

I liked CK2 but I fully admit that it is an experience that needs to grow on you to enjoy it.

I'd describe it as like playing a really slow game of snooker, taking about 100 hours to finish, on a table 50 metres square with a couple thousand balls and three dozen colours.

Fun when you get used to it.

I should really move onto CK3, but I am determined to get to 1485 from the earliest start at least once in CK2
 
Foxbat, got to admit I'm tempted to write some Secret Diary of Aethelgoose Goose aged 25 and a half type blogs. Anyway, despite losing land Emperor Nicholas is still the pre-eminent power in Western Europe.
 
You guys have persuaded me to give Crusader Kings another go. Now re-installed CK1 and once I'm tired of fighting the user interface in Field Of Glory: Empires I'll give it another go.
 
You guys have persuaded me to give Crusader Kings another go. Now re-installed CK1 and once I'm tired of fighting the user interface in Field Of Glory: Empires I'll give it another go.

I think the best way to approach it is as a dynasty story generator.

Playing as the head of a family with all his/her virtues and vices (CK3 is good in this account as I have vague memories that you get more "points" or experience for actually role-playing your character properly) and experience the ups and downs of your children, siblings and other members of your family.

You can play it as a Totsl War "paint the map" simulator, but such an approach doesn't compete with some of the depths of gameplay you get when you run into dynastic problems!

(Admitedly the combat is pretty basic and not amazingly compelling - I'd love some sort of mixture of "Panzer General" Campaign battles over proper maps with a bit more strategic focus & better goals and "tactical" Total War battles on individual battlefields, rather than the "bigger army wins 95% of the time over 2 week long battle")
 
Warhammer 40,000 Darktide. It's fun but I don't think it has a ton of longevity since the maps aren't procedural and they mostly look the same as each other as well.
 
Warhammer 40,000 Darktide. It's fun but I don't think it has a ton of longevity since the maps aren't procedural and they mostly look the same as each other as well.
I'm quite interested. Is it a story based game, or just a shoot em up, like Quake?
 
It's a four-player shoot em up, a lot like the earlier Vermintide games. From what I've seen, it all looks very samey, whereas Vermintide had a wide range of level designs.

I'm so tempted to reload No Man's Sky. I wanted to like this game so much, but couldn't get into it. However, since then it's had several updates, and I really hope it's now enjoyable.
 
Yea, it's a four-player horde shooter. So you go through a level, A to B, do a few objectives, and otherwise just slaughter thousands of what amount to zombies. Its Vermintide meets Left 4 Dead. It's definitely not a bad game, but lacking in a few ways. I assume that if it does well enough, they'll increase the level variety and tweak the gameplay to improve as time passes.

---

Eugh, No Man's Sky. One of the most regretful purchases I've made. I got it on sale, I played it for 42 hours according to Steam, and the entire time, I was thinking, "is this it?"

It was, and this was after the so-called fixes when people were raving about how much it had improved. Everything about it just felt clunky and poorly implemented. Take resource gathering... you can visit planets and scan around for nodes to mine... or find a single deposit that would let you build a cheap as chips outpost that would give you more of that resource every day than you could ever mine by hand.

There was also so little automation for it, that you had to manually move all this mass in your inventory and then hand refine it bit by bit because it wouldn't fit in all at once. Plus, the marketplace was a total mess, in that you could completely game it by refining minerals at no cost while increasing their value astronomically. And don't get me started on the UI! Just no! Grrrr!

Every planet also started to feel the same as well. They reused the same assets and layouts for the buildings and temples you'd find, and nothing felt new once you'd been to a few. Which as a game designed for exploration... sucks.

Rant over?

Screw No Man's Sky

Now it's over.
 

Back
Top