Field of Glory: Kingdoms

[Undercovergeek]

I dabbled with it. It's quite dense [insert thick-skulled comment here] and demands time investment. But there is a game in there.

I did notice a lot of chatter before it's release and then all got quiet post-release, unless I am just looking in the wrong places.

I agree here - much fanfare was tooted and then it disappeared - I don’t judge a games quality by the number of streamers playing it - but there were a few and then there were none

[Martok]

Here's our front-page writer Peter playing with FOG:K


[snip]


Here's Peter playing through a FOG:K campaign with Jan H (Let's Play History)


[snip]

Oh, nice.  I did check out Peter's excellent first impressions article earlier this year, but didn't realize he (and Jan H) had done an entire campaign as well.  Danke! 

I dabbled with it. It's quite dense [insert thick-skulled comment here] and demands time investment. But there is a game in there.

I did notice a lot of chatter before it's release and then all got quiet post-release, unless I am just looking in the wrong places.

I agree here - much fanfare was tooted and then it disappeared - I don’t judge a games quality by the number of streamers playing it - but there were a few and then there were none

FWIW, I believe a sizeable percentage (majority?) of gameplay/LP videos covering Kingdoms were sponsored, which at least partially explains the drop-off in coverage after release.  In addition, Slitherine's doesn't have the same "marketing machine" as other similar-sized companies -- see: Paradox for a notable example -- so they lack the ability (or at least experience/know-how) to keep the game's visibility up after launch. 

Of course, another factor could be that, like its predecessor Empires, Kingdoms simply has a more niche appeal compared to other grand-strategy games set in the same period (such as Crusader Kings 3 or Medieval Total War).  Games made by AGEOD tend not to be for "casual" players, regardless of whatever efforts they may have made to make this one more accessible.  Kingdoms is clearly fairly dense, with a lot going on; I wonder if some folks found the learning curve too steep, and/or that there was too much to deal with.   


Ah, well.  I admit I'm still highly intrigued.   

[Gusington]

^True on the sponsored-bit, I did not think that. But I would have liked to see more organic 'this is an awesome game' videos sprout up...they didn't.

Does not mean it is not awesome, but still.

I think you can vibe what I am trying to say...it's awesomeness should get at least a few history nerds (like me) to wave that banner and post something.

[Metaldog]

(Arrives in a cloud of smoke) Evening, fellas!  Just stumbled across this thread.  And I am coming to derail it.  Kind of.  Here we go!

Reading back through the thread, it appears that there isn't a lot of hours plugged into FOG:E.  I have over 500 hours.  A shock, I know, to folks who only know me for Civ or Warlock.  I haven't played one second of Kingdoms, but, as long as the game hasn't strayed too far from Empires, I feel like I have a pretty good grip on how it works.

First, battles.  I have a lot of hours in MII:TW, but, I play it by building such huge armies that auto resolve is all I ever use.  So, the animation of battles in Empires is fine by me.  The four key factors in Empires battels are:

1) Frontage.  How wide an area, measured in squares, front line troops will be able to engaged.  Frontage is determined by

2) Terrain.  The terrain you are fighting in determines how many units can be in the front line.  Mountains have a Frontage of 4.  Hills 5 and Forest 6.  Plains are 14.  There are a few other Terrains, but, it all follows logically.

3) Army composition.  Infantry and Skirmishers are the core of any army in any Terrain.  Everything else can be salted to taste.  A very neat feature I abused as much as I could were Provincial Units.  The basic empire unit is the Region.  Enough Regions in the same area under your control can be made into a Province.  Each Province allows recruitment of a special unit with unique characteristics (German Warbands, Hispanic Scutarii, Armorican Javelineers, Brittonic Warriors.  Empire players will notice the best of the best there, but, there are many others that give a neat flavor as well as being varying levels of useful).

4) Generals.  If you got'em.  They are super useful and bring their own special abilities.  I find they tend to die easily even though they are never represented on the battlefield, only the effects of their abilities.  That could also be personal bias, but, it always feels like it to me.

So, you have your Frontage, Terrain, Army and maybe a Leader.  When you enter a Region with your Army, battle starts.  You are brought to a mini map that represents the Terrain, the units of your Army are opposite your opponents constrained by the Frontage of the Terrain.  So, if your Frontage is six, even if your Army has a hundred units, only six will fight at a time.  The battle starts with Skirmishers on both sides firing at the opposing Army.  After they fire, they retreat through their Army then the front line units fight.  One opposing pair at a time.  Damage is dealt, effects of said damage are applied and then you move to the next pair and so on until all units have engaged an opposing unit.  If you win, you move on to the next battle (if there is one) in the Region you are attempting to move into.  If that was the last/only battle, then you take the Region.  Easy peasy.

The harder concepts to grasp, I feel, are in empire management.  I won't lie, it can be a bit dense.  We've all played games like these for years and most empire management is pretty similar in concept: build, grow, learn, conquer.  Empires has all that, but, I found that not all of the features work together in an intuitive way.  At least, trial and error seems to feel as if it can have more damning consequences quickly than other games I've played.  And that's ok.  I've literally started thousands of Civ games.  I ain't skeered.

Each Region can be improved with buildings.  Trade, thankfully, is pretty automatic.  It's also very obtuse, at least to me, in that the buildings in your Regions can require resources from their own or other Regions.  Your Regions buildings can also produce resources.  Trade takes place when Regions' buildings need resources from other Regions.  Trade automatically happens.  However, you are limited to how far you can trade stuff by your Trade Range and Trade Acumen.  What it comes down to is, trade is very difficult to direct in any way manually.  It's more by strategically building buildings that need/make resources and importing/exporting the ones you need/produce in a Region.  Clear as mud, right?

A lot of the rest of what goes on, thankfully, is easier to figure out.  Region management, outside of Trade, is pretty straightforward.  Interacting with neighbors is pretty straightforward.  The amount of information on your and your neighbors Regions is plentiful and easy to find and grasp.  But, and you knew there had to a but, but, there is a mechanic, and it happens to be the way you win the game, that you MUST understand in order to win: Legacy.  And it's two main drivers, Culture and Decadence.

Now, I'm not going to deep dive the aforementioned concept, but, I will do my best to explain a pain in the ass concept as neatly as I can.  Whoever has the most Legacy at the end of the game, 190 A.D. (Turn 500), wins (You can win any time after turn 50 if you have 3x the Legacy of the next civ).  You gain Legacy every turn from the Culture you produce each turn from each of your Regions, your current Government (and how long it has been in the Stage and Age it currently is in), how many Objective Regions you control that turn (certain Regions can become Objectives if your Ruler declares them to be. Capturing, and holding, them grants Legacy points each turn), and how many Wonders and Unique buildings you control.  Culture and Decadence are gained in each Region of your empire.  Forming Provinces will give you a boost in Culture and a reduction in Decadence.  Buildings in your Regions that produce Culture or Decadence are considered in the calculation as well as the age and type of Government you currently are in.  There are other factors as well, but, these are the main ones.  So, in summation, build Legacy through Culture, reduce the Decadence burden as best you can, and you win

There's a shitload of other things I could get into, but, that's a very macro overview.  I suspect that Kingdoms Authority and Disorder is comparable to Empires Culture and Decadence.  It can be very limiting and confining if you mismanage it, but, once you understand it, it holds the key to winning the game.  And just in case it didn't come across that way, I really like Empires.  I would be stoked to try Kingdoms.  And yes, I MP.

[Metaldog]

Sitting here thinking about it, there's a few more things I should add.  Loyalty, Rulers, and Government.

First, Loyalty.  Each Region has a Loyalty to your empire.  It starts at 100 and can be raised or lowered by internal factors (Buildings, Population distribution, Plague, recently conquered, etc) and external factors from Regions on your border (if those Regions are in revolt or suffer from disease).  Keeping Loyalty high is integral to a smoothly running empire.  If your Loyalty falls enough, your Region may Revolt.  In which case, an army of Rebels will spring up and take your Region from you if you do not eliminate that army ASAP (usually within two Turns).  If enough Regions have low Loyalty, and your Government is unStable, your empire may even experience civil war.  Then you're in the shit.

Next, Rulers.  Rulers can be your greatest asset or your worst nightmare.  Each Ruler comes equipped with his own set of (de)buffs.  Your Ruler can be a world beater.  A new Caesar.  Or, he can be worse than Caligula.  And you have zero control over what kind you get.  Once your ruler dies, or is knocked off, you get what they give you.  The (de)buffs you get effect your entire empire.  They encompass military, economic, diplomatic, culture, trade, and more.  Not every Ruler effects every area, but, a Ruler with extreme numbers in one stat can tank/boost your carefully laid plans for scores of turns.

Finally, Government.  This is one of the concepts that eluded me for a long time.  There are three Levels of Government (I, II, III) and five sub-levels in each Level (Young, Stable, Glorious, Old, or Decadent).  You progress through the sub-levels, or regress, by gaining, or losing, Progress Tokens.  You gain or lose Progress Tokens based on your CDR (Culture/Decadence Ratio) compared to the other nations of the world.  You can also gain or lose Progress Tokens by taking or losing objectives or taking or destroying Wonders.  Each turn, your CDR is compared to the other nations.  If you are in the top third, you have 35% chance per turn of gaining a Progress Token.  Bottom third, same chance of losing a Progress Token.  Middle third you neither gain or lose based on CDR (you can still gain or lose a Token no matter what Tier you are in if you gain or lose an Objective or Wonder).  CDR is just your Ratio of Culture to Decadence.  So, you want to make it a priority to keep your Ratio above 1:1 as best you can (which the game does NOT make easy).

Gaining/losing 5 Progress Tokens will raise/lower your progress through the sub-levels of each Level of Government.  Each sub-level brings its own buffs/debuffs.  Progressing to a higher Level of Government also brings its own buffs/debuffs.  Thriving culture/economy/military benefits accrue in Young/Stable/Glorious and debuff in Old/Decadent.  You progress to higher Levels by taking your Government to a Glorious state.  You will then progress to the next Level up (up to III).  Once you start down the Old path to Decadent, it can be real difficult to arrest the slide.  Civil War is looming.  And while you can come out of a Civil War, in some semblance of intact, it's a rough ride.

So, that's pretty much it for the macro.  Again, I haven't played Kingdoms, but, I expect the publisher won't try to reinvent the wheel.  So much of what I've said should have some resemblance to what you find in Kingdoms.  And if I haven't mentioned it, I MP

[Martok]

Dang, MD!    That was most informative; it's infinitely more than the little I've gleaned in the handful of hours I've spent playing FoG: Empires myself. 


You're right, I had no idea you'd spent so much time playing the game.  (I didn't realize you even owned it, for that matter.)  i will certainly keep you in mind when I get around to picking up Kingdoms.   

[Metaldog]

I try to keep every one on their toes if I can   The time period of Empires is in my wheel house.  To be honest, anything Ancient Greek is my time period.  Never been a Rome fan boy.  And Empires starts a few years after Alexander the Great died and Rome begins to rise.  Make no mistake, if you are a Punic War fan, this game is for you.  The three empires that are the focus of the game are Rome, Carthage, and Egypt.  Being the contrarian that I am, I took the Belgae and won with them.  By the end of my last game, I had formed France, Germany, and England. Along with Spain and Portugal.  I had Rome hemmed in at the Alps.  They had dispatched Carthage but had been broken apart by a usurper.

There is a DLC for Empires which focuses on the rise of Persia.  The time is 550 B.C. to 330 B.C.  I went against type and actually took Persia in that.  While the rules remain the same, it seemed to be a much easier time playing that game.  In part because they have a mechanic that puts Persia on a fast track if they can knock out the Babylonians, Sassanids, and one more which escapes me.  Once you start taking Regions from them, their internal functioning collapses and their Regions start declaring for you.  I ended that game somewhere in Egypt and had the Anatolian Peninsula under my control and I was threatening the Greek City States.  That game focuses on Athens, Sparta, and Persia.

But, yeah, man.  I'm a history freak from way back and while AH and SPI games weren't my thing, it's mostly because I was the only I knew who even knew those games existed and I was a broke ass kid who couldn't afford the $15 or $20 those games cost.  WWII was a big deal for me for a long time, too.  I have thousands of hours in Hearts Of Iron II.  Italy, Yugoslavia. Russia.  Those were my go to countries.  Played the U.S., Britain, and France once each.  Poland, too.  Never played Germany.  One of my favorite playthroughs were back to back plays of Japan and China.  Japan is a steamroller until you try to devour China.  It's like any idiot that tries to invade and swallow Russia.  Damn near impossible.  It's easier to defend as China and slowly take back what you lose to the Japanese.