I guess thats why they picked up Derek Paxton here at Stardock

The main question is what level of magic do we use.

We separate them to 3 very rough categories:

Low level: part of your toolbox, usually affecting one creature, used all the time

Medium level: rarer, A weak world enchantment, affecting a city or a a few units, used occasionally and affects the tide of battle

High level: a strong world enchantment, decides a battle

MoM has a wide variety of spells from all 3 levels, from a simple Haste spell to a Zombie Mastery spell. Many of the spells in MoM will fall into the Medium level

FE has a small variety of spells, mostly from the low level and the medium level. While you can cast Haste or Chain Lightening, I can't think of any "Oh god, he just cast that spell I really hate, now I gotta go disjunction that".

AoW3 has a lot of low level and a few high level spells, with a bit of a lack of medium level spells. This just mean that there is a shift between early game and end game. (note- some of the "spells" are passive bonuses, so they do not really enter this, though they would've been counted as medium, usually)

A tactic such as you described, raising a mountain ridge around a city, is not all that effective. It will mean starving your city in order to delay the enemy. Not only that, while you had to raise 9 mountains, all the enemy has to do is lower one (and yes, I'm assuming that if you made mountains impassable that wizards know how to deal with that).

As a reference to this tactic, MoM sorcery school has a spell, I think "city in the sky" or "sky fortress" or something similar, that prevents all ground troops from attacking the city. This could be countered either by disenchanting the city, or recruiting/summoning flying units. Another reminder- most races had a high tier flying unit.

The AI shouldn't have such a bad time, with the proper tools. Helping him work out certain tactics can be a problem (such as kiting), but on the other hand he is expected to be much more optimized. For example, if buyout cost on buildings is reduced at certain production points, the AI knows when to buy it so as to pay the least and get the building the fastest. The same goes for micromanagement- building an army in one city to defend another, the AI can send the units each turn to the right destination or wait and send them in a group, while for human players it can mean a hassle or that they forgot/made a mistake when sending troops.

In FE for example the AI has much easier tools to decide if -10% unrest, an outpost (to connect territories) or a +1 production/material will yield the most production. For me that tends to be a bit of a hassle, and I follow a per-determined order of buildings, even if it's not the correct choice.

All in all, I don't see why the AI is inherently inferior to players, or why high magic setting causes a problem for AI. Saying that the AI has a problem in AoW3 due to magic is like saying that the AI has a problem in civ5 because of the 1 unit/tile or some other reason for it in civ4.

Great post by Heart Shaped Man. What he describes sounds like a fun game.

Still, most players like to play LH as a traditional 4x game, it seems. If you check the 'Help me win' thread near the top of the forum, you will notice that almost everyone suggests to build more cities and train troops. Not the easiest/fastest way to win a game on Normal, imo, but definitely the most traditional one.

LH could lose a lot of fans if it stops being a 4X. It'd be great if Stardock tries to be (even more) original, but I won't blame them if they don't want to take the risk.

This is what I am looking for in a game. This is the fun part of 4x games. I try to bend normal 4x games to be a bit like this. Choosing dense monsters in FE, pressing end turn 5 times at the start of a Warlock game to make it more challenging and stuff like that. In Heroes IV you could choose moving monsters. If you got into their zone they would attack. This made the game a real challenge for me, though most people regard it as the weak brother in the series.

When a 4x game is cleared out of random stuff and monsters, and the slaughter of the AI remains, I will often start a new game. The first 30% of a 4x game is ALWAYS the most fun for me. Make a game where the goal is to rise from some tiny empire to reach a lofty goal while fighting the world with monsters, a mad king, sour magicians and other stuff that is in my way. I dont care about a balanced AI opponent. I want random events to twart my progress. Make the game and me tell a story that is unique each time.

I have to add that I like to set up a game to fail. I want it to be very difficult so that when I finally win, I will feel like I actually accomplished something.

I am the kind of player who will never use any kind of booster in Candy Crush Saga, because I want it to be difficult. I am the nightmare of any "free to play - please buy boosters to avoid grinding game"

first.  great screenshots - am i the only one that finds that aesthetic and ui more engaging than what weve got in fe/lh?

second.  the op broke me.  so many ideas shot into my head at once that my brain ended up like a jackson pollok painting on the wall behind my chair.  when i stand back and take a look at it the most prominent theme appears to be not only that there should be a few universal, opposing victory conditions related to the world-at-large (instead of the other factions), but also that each faction should have a unique one, that relates to their unique play-style.  given that the world-at-large is shared by all the factions, conflicts and comraderies will arise naturally as each attempts to fulfill their own quest(s).

for your specific elemental universe, factions - their unique strategic & tactical powers (magic), playstyle, and victory condition(s) - should all be derived from the elements.  factions of more than one element will naturally be more versatile, but less focused; each with its own strengths and weaknesses.. different strokes for different folks.  every power (spell) will need to be created not only with the player in mind, but also embedded with ai conditionals.  this means that every action will need to have an equal, and opposite re-action, so that the ai will be able to compete (offensively), inherently from the dualistic & oppositional effects of the powers.  a faction that dominates the wind and the skies should have an opposing faction that dominates the underground; a faction that dominates the over-land should have an opposing faction that dominates the waterways and the seas.  these are just extremes of course, permitting gradated combinations.  not every opposition needs to be present in each game, but they should all be developed for a balanced pool with which to randomize/customize from; especially for the ai.  a school of magic with a low-level "create river", mid-level "create lake", and high-level "create moat" spells will need to have an opposing school with a low-level "create hills", mid-level "create plateau", and high-level "create mountains" spells.  a universal victory condition to conquer 75% of the map should have an opposing victory condition to ally 75% of the map.  a faction trying to cover 75% of the globe in water should have an opposing faction thats trying to cover 75% of the globe in land, and a faction trying to dig to the center of the earth should have an opposing faction thats trying to reach the sun.  ..and the ai will have to be taught to utilize all of them, OFFENSIVELY (key!), using a combination of geometric and go(the game)-like tactics.  defensive ai will as usual be a collection of as many pattern recognition conditionals as can be mustered - a database which ideally expands over time with player input.  however, in an asymmetrically balanced game-world, offense is much more important than defense; and stories become much more adventurous.

head

too

fast

for

hands

KAPOW!

addition: implement seasons and youve got another layer of elemental abstraction for players to bite off of when creating strategies..

As long as game designers keep walking the same conceptual paths right into the pit that every game before them has dug the problem will never end.

What is really missing is originality in concepts.

I love SoaSE specifically for the disparate and asymmetrical type of abilities (which can be likened to spells and magic).

Few developers are willing to spend the time to not just layer in things but thread them together so they can produce original outcomes.

Where's Sid Meier when you need him?

Frogboy, you're our last, best hope!

Interesting thread.  I really like Frogboys Dev Journals, and I generally find myself nodding as I read along... generally agreeing with his thoughts.

But can't say that's the case here.... don't get me wrong, I understand the point and it's an interesting discussion - but I don't see Magic as a "problem".  As others have already suggested, it depends on how you you handle it... sure if you're going to have magical nukes and spells that destroy a city / army at the wave of a hand.. then yeah that can be crazy hard to balance and hard to code AI for.  But magic doesn't have to be like that, and just because it's not super powerful that doesn't have to make it less fun.  

Just because it's fantasy, doesn't mean super powered magic is a must.  Subtle magic can be fun.  And I don't see why we can't have a fantasy 4x with magic, that is fun, and has reasonable balance.

Hell, FE:LH is proof that it can be done!  Last time I checked it meets all those criteria, and is a heck of a good game.  And there are other examples as already mentioned.

I'm not convinced that the magic problem is that much different from having to balance technology advances in a space based game.  For example... in a space game X you can research amazing advanced technologies that let you blow up planets, or make an inhabitable planet habitable., or create ships that can warp greater/faster or are 10 times the size of other ships... or whatever.  How is technology in space 4x any more unbalancing than magic in a fantasy 4x?   And how is conquering other cities/factions any more boring/tedious than other genres?

Seems the suggestion is that gamers "expect" powerful magic to be central focus of fantasy 4x... but i'd argue that is not necessarily true.  I love 4x games.... and fantasy is my preferred setting (over space and historical)... but LH hits the sweet spot for me, I don't need/want uber magic thanks.

Anyone remember Sword of Aragon from way back?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_Aragon

Now that was a cool game... yeah sure it had some issue but in a lot of ways it has similarities to FE:LH.  It's fantasy, turn based.... pretty much 4x... but like FE:LH has RPG elements included also.  It was low magic.... and it was damn fun.  What makes it fun (at least for me)... choosing a starting "sov" with a number of class options, designing my own units, exploring, diplomatic elements, rpg elements, the fantasy setting and the way those elements interact in different ways each time the game is played that creates a story.  And that's the same stuff I love about LH. 

I think it's just different ideas of what makes a great fantasy strategy game.  For a lot of people it's MoM.  For me, I tend to think of Sword of Aragon.

So fair enough, I think it's great to explore different game ideas - and good luck with the new project.  But I just hope we get the next generation of FE:LH at some point in the future because it's already unique and strikes a great balance of game styles as is, and I think there is still room to grow in the direction FE:LH has/is going.

I never played WoM, but when I see the screenshots I wonder the same thing.  The UI/aesthetic certainly appears to have a bit of old school charm about it or something.  Not that I don't like the LH one, but yeah the WoM UI looks neat.

We need a WoM retro skin for the LH UI, that's be cool.

There you go, the next DLC idea.

Edit-> How cool this this image, probably brings back mixed memories for some but it's an awesome image:

http://data.sinhvienit.net/2013/T09/img/SinhVienIT.Net---2221338-elemental-poster-150.jpg

I want that on my LH menu screen.

Warlock 2, FE and Eador IMO have all made steps in that direction, the fun in them was mostly the PvE. But even so, I have yet to see a satisfying endgame formula.

I am strongly attached to the 4x aspect and would not be in favor of giving up the empire building for more focused rpg elements.

That said, I agree with joasoze in that once all the early game hard stuff is removed, I will often start a new game because the mid-late is a cakewalk. That said, I don't think that indicitive of the LH being 4x; rather I think it's because the AI isn't in a position to offer enough challenge for the player, as they too had to fight the world they entered.

This leaves two choices/paths to follow:

1. Increase the difficulty and ability of the AI. There are many benefits to this approach, and I strongly encourge this choice as part of the solution so that the player can receive more experience and fame for attacking AI and defeating enemy heroes and conquering AI cities. However, the downside to this approach is that the AI eats away at the world that was meant for the player to eat away at. Part of the rpg element is removed. So the question becomes: How to increase the AI's ability without decreasing the rpg element.
2. Increasing the mid-late game difficulty and ability of the world. Again, many benefits to this approach and it's why I recommended that a DLC be made that adds mid-late game content in the form of quests, monsters, events, etc. It is also why I continue to recommend a redesign of the Wildlands so that they expand overtime and attempt to pinch out the player. The downside to this approach is that the AI have increased pressure against them as well. If they are not improved, then it quickly turns into a player vs world, leaving the AI to sit and watch from the sidelines.

I think both paths need to be followed to properly address the mid-late game and keep players like joasoze and myself from restarting after the first 200 turns everygame.

So, if the two paths listed were improved, conceptually, here are the type of things the player would get to deal with in the mid-late game:

• Way more AI specific units designed and the coding required for the AI to make informed decisions as to what units to build for what situations.
• Expanding Wildlands. The bossmen attempting to take over the world aswell. Player cities being conquered and turned into Wildland lairs. A new Victory Condition: Cleanse the Land (remove all Wildlands...and naturally for this to work the master quest wildland needs to be removed)
• More multi-tasked quests lines. (point A to point B to point C with purpose) -- example: You find an important noblewoman assassinated which leads you to defeat the assassin's which makes you aware of who hired them which gives you the choice to declare war on an AI.
• The oppertunity to involve the AI in the rpg element. (political intrigue, assassination attempts, quests that involve AI triggers, ie conquer a city, or purchase a unique item, or kill an enemy hero that has an unsavory character)
• More Epic level locations on the map that have new monsters/objectives.
• More late game events that are quest oriented
• New monsters...perhaps attack of the fishpeople event...and an army climbs out of the sea...
• Improved diplomacy....perhaps even the need to band together with the unexpected of AI in order to fend off the world around.
• Enable the chance to expand the Kingdom versus Empire aspect. Having a few + or - points in the diplomacy isn't enough. Kingdom AI should reward kingdom players for doing good things or offer good quests or attempt to covert an empire player to the 'light' side. Likewise, empire players should be given extra oppertunity to clamor amongst the other empires, vying for ultimate power. Where are the lucritive deals and missions? Assassinations? Requests to declare war...that have meaningful impacts for either decision you choose. (perhaps it's not just the one that declares war on you for refusing...mabye it's 2 or 3 of their friends aswell)

I think the AI in MoM did a decent job of using the spells available. It just needed some rules of when to not use certain ones. Also some were buggy or underpowered. The civ part of the AI was the most flawed, IMO. These games really just boil down to economic efficiency, just like starcraft. If you want a game about tactics you need to remove the resources and make population / morale be paramount. 

I do think that changing the victory condition would go a long way. If you build off the "Antarrans Attack" mode in master of Orion 2, you could have something special. Make it so the world is ruled by a godlike tyrant who oppresses and enslaves the world. You must secretly amass magic and armies to sabotage and eventually overthrow the tyrant. You will need to leverage other factions, even if only to draw attention away from your rebellious activities. Other factions will probably get wind of your plans and either help out or alert the peacekeepers in hope of getting better treatment. There would still be monsters and lairs to fight, and defeating them would gain access to special resources and entrance to new areas. The secrecy element alone would be interesting, but characterizing the AI as long existing and prejudiced nations rather than fellow pioneers competing for territory would spice things up in a game of thrones kind of way. The beautiful part is that the AI would only have a small selection of magic to use in any situation, so it removes the problem of which spells to use. (Fire demon would have a few fire spells, elven faction would have a few elven spells, plus whatever you traded with them). The main point being that AI controlled characters are there to support storytelling and not to steal spotlight from the player.

Well, that concludes my napkin game design work, carry on!

Disclaimer: I know very little about game of thrones

EndlessLegends has got around this issue by being a low fantasy setting without D&D magic spamming.

Personally the game Braf proposed sounds interesting but is not a 4X game just like Homm,disciples 3 is not.

I have always been more of a fan of fantasy worlds with well defined magic system that have rules and limits. If magic gets too powerful it tends to break immersion as people and societies would break down. That's why I like authors such as Brand Sanderson, Robert Jordan, and Modesitt. They actually build worlds that are interesting because the inclusion of magic has changed how people behave but it's still logical and makes sense. In a lot of books magic is so powerful that taken to its logical conclusion wizards would rule as terrible gods and society would fall apart for hundreds of different reasons. Of course that may be exactly what you are aiming for in the next Elemental game but I'm more of an empire builder at heart.