The Good, Bad, & Ugly of SE (Suggestions)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

The Good, Bad, & Ugly of SE (Suggestions)

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> The Good, Bad, & Ugly of SE (Suggestions)

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The Good, Bad, & Ugly of SE (Suggestions) - 7/11/2020 7:15:50 PM

SCSNV

Posts: 10
Joined: 7/11/2020
Status: offline

So obviously I want to preface this by saying I've thoroughly enjoyed SE thus far; it's certainly a difficult game and will require quite a bit of trial and error, but I'm sure by the time the virus blows over my head'll be full of thoughts of logistics, chokepoints, and stratagems.

But naturally, the game isn't perfect, and there's a few things I specifically want to point out and weigh in on (hopefully constructively):

1. I know for many, the logistics system isn't popular/needs to be reworked (simplified), but the one thing I would request that Vic consider is including a new logistics system, not reworking the current one. If possible, I think it would be beneficial for all parties if the startup settings of the game were expanded to allow for these differing approaches and styles of play. In general, I think more player choice is much better than less - especially for a game which prides itself on its randomness/replayability.

2. Following in the theme of randomness and player choice, I think SE should strive for more leeway in how the game operates, especially at the start. Essentially, what the randomness of SE boils down to is selecting the planet/its circumstances, designing a flag/nation, and assigning ourselves a title, but honestly, it can feel very dry. That title affects nothing; we can be a 'Supreme Leader' or an 'Emperor', but start the exact same as a 'President' or a 'Chancellor', tied to the same basic stratagems until we get something that can hopefully carry us in the direction we want. We clear the surrounding area to secure our borders, search for supplies and valued regions, et cetera; thus, the gameplay is the same. We never see any distinctive government functions based on whether it's a titular democracy or a kingdom. Even just the little things are the same - for example, our 1st SHQ commander, which is always known as the 1st SHQ, always has a seniority of 100. We always have 'Directors', even though my desert-based fanatical leader (think Immortan Joe) would probably not call his principal ministers 'Directors'. And I think a lot of that can be rectified simply by opening up modding, or at least using some form of text or spreadsheet file for naming, localizations, and so on. Thus, it would be easily modifiable by people who want to create new content with the game and/or make it into something fresh. And I know the 1st SHQ commander always having a seniority of 100 seems like a nitpick, but it's one of those 'death by a thousand papercuts' things - after all, how random can it really be when all these starting parameters are the exact same? Sure, I can start with a couple more zones and some more brigades, but I still don't feel like an 'Emperor' OR a 'President'; I feel like another dude behind a computer screen.

3. Lastly - and this is entirely my own thinking, so it ought to be safely ignored if disliked by the people - I feel as though there should be tertiary level to the leader management, at the unit/building level. Even if nominally (AKA without any stat bonuses and the like), I feel there should be distinct 'unit commanders' and 'building managers' listed somewhere in the unit/building's information. I feel like it'd add significantly to the roleplay to be able to take a commander from one of the subordinate units and place him in charge of the OHQ if the OHQ leader falls, or to promote the manager of a crucial water mine to the governorship. And while I wouldn't necessarily advise recreating the whole leader stratagem/appointment process for this lower level (although, hey, player choice

), I think it would add a lot to a game which already emphasizes those leader management and roleplay features. Honestly, it just feels arbitrary just clicking on a 'Recruit Junior' or 'Recruit Commander' stratagem and sticking them in some OHQ or directorate, and with only two layers of management (the advisor/secretary level can safely be ignored), it doesn't feel as deep or as roleplay-conducive as I think it could.

I know there's a lot here to read through and give input on, but if anyone has opinions on what I've said here (agree or disagree), I'd love to see them. Thanks in advance.

Post #: 1

RE: The Good, Bad, & Ugly of SE (Suggestions) - 7/11/2020 8:32:19 PM

Smidlee

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/24/2014
Status: offline

"But naturally, the game isn't perfect,"

What?? No way. That's blasphemy.

(in reply to SCSNV)

Post #: 2

RE: The Good, Bad, & Ugly of SE (Suggestions) - 7/11/2020 8:47:05 PM

Destragon

Posts: 475
Joined: 6/8/2020
Status: offline

The new logistics stuff has been available for a while now in the beta version. It essentially automatically places down invisible traffic signs that pull logistics into the places where they are requested. It doesn't replace anything. It's the same system. But it can also be turned off (not that that would be advisable).

quote:

That title affects nothing; we can be a 'Supreme Leader' or an 'Emperor', but start the exact same as a 'President' or a 'Chancellor',

Of course there's no difference between titles. They are just titles. It's flavour text.
As for different government systems, we do have some differences, although they are pretty minor. You can have a politburo, parliament or senate depending on your regime values, but I think it just influences how many demands your political factions ask of you. Some expanding on these political systems and elections wouldn't be bad.

I don't really have an opinion on having leaders for every single unit/ building. Doesn't really sound needed to me, but whatever.

(in reply to Smidlee)

Post #: 3

RE: The Good, Bad, & Ugly of SE (Suggestions) - 7/11/2020 9:05:07 PM

ZiggyMaca

Posts: 41
Joined: 6/20/2020
Status: offline

The political system effects who votes in elections among other effects. It's listed in the manual.

(in reply to Destragon)

Post #: 4

RE: The Good, Bad, & Ugly of SE (Suggestions) - 7/11/2020 9:21:48 PM

SCSNV

Posts: 10
Joined: 7/11/2020
Status: offline

quote:

The new logistics stuff has been available for a while now in the beta version. It essentially automatically places down invisible traffic signs that pull logistics into the places where they are requested. It doesn't replace anything. It's the same system. But it can also be turned off (not that that would be advisable).

To clarify, you can have a 'replacement' be the same system but with additions; it is still, functionally, a replacement of the previous system/how it functioned, as it differs. That being said, I'm not fully aware of the finer points of the logistics stuff, so if it's just QoL changes (which it sounds like in your description of it), I'm not opposed. My primary takeaway in mentioning it is that I would encourage the employment of most additions/adjustments to be left up to player choice. Obviously there'll be some (or many) things that can't abide by that mentality, but it's the principle of it.

quote:

Of course there's no difference between titles. They are just titles. It's flavour text.

Well, that's sort of my point, really. The inclusion of titles is somewhat of a net negative when the framework of the game doesn't actually give players the freedom to function in their self-determined role (especially initially). I mean, the marketing, labelling, and gameplay of the game demonstrates that it is in fact part-RPG. So it seems a little counterintuitive, in a game which emphasizes its customization/replayability, to have an aspect of that customization be superficial.

quote:

I don't really have an opinion on having leaders for every single unit/ building. Doesn't really sound needed to me, but whatever.

I agree, it's certainly not needed, but not many things are ever needed, especially in a pretty well-made game like this. But that doesn't exclude the possibility of more additions/more things to flesh out, eh?

quote:

The political system effects who votes in elections among other effects. It's listed in the manual.

Granted, but my opinion is it seems that there could be a lot more done with it than determining which faction gets the most support in an elected body, and what the name of said elected body is (senate, etc).

quote:

"But naturally, the game isn't perfect,"

What?? No way. That's blasphemy.

Touch�.

(in reply to Destragon)

Post #: 5

RE: The Good, Bad, & Ugly of SE (Suggestions) - 7/12/2020 7:32:25 AM

Tomn

Posts: 148
Joined: 4/22/2013
Status: offline

I feel like an additional layer of leaders wouldn't just be unnecessary, it'd be actively detrimental. As is, when I get to about the end-game I find it hard to care or pay attention to the existing swarm of leaders I need to slot in all my OHQs and new conquests. Having another, bigger mass of names and faces to remember who don't actually do anything would just make the existing leaders even more unremarkable. I'd rather a quality over quantity approach of making the existing leaders stand out more, making their personality traits come out more obviously when interacting with them, say, than just tossing a hundred more names into the mix.

As far as political titles go, to be honest I'm entirely happy with the titles being titular - I would hate to be restrained from being able to lead as Grand Croctopus. More importantly, though, I think you're missing the political profile system - a democratic commercial mind government plays rather differently from an autocratic enforcement fist government. THAT'S where you go for differences from one government to another, not the empty titles.

I'll also add that while player choice sounds nice in theory, there's a logistical limit to how many "forks" a developer can usefully work on at the same time. Simply put, double the forks, double the bug reports, not to mention the work of figuring out how the systems within any one fork interact with each other in subtly different ways from other forks. Vic is just one guy, you know? He needs to sleep sometime.

(in reply to SCSNV)

Post #: 6

RE: The Good, Bad, & Ugly of SE (Suggestions) - 7/12/2020 5:23:54 PM

SCSNV

Posts: 10
Joined: 7/11/2020
Status: offline

quote:

I feel like an additional layer of leaders wouldn't just be unnecessary, it'd be actively detrimental. As is, when I get to about the end-game I find it hard to care or pay attention to the existing swarm of leaders I need to slot in all my OHQs and new conquests. Having another, bigger mass of names and faces to remember who don't actually do anything would just make the existing leaders even more unremarkable. I'd rather a quality over quantity approach of making the existing leaders stand out more, making their personality traits come out more obviously when interacting with them, say, than just tossing a hundred more names into the mix.

I didn't want to give a full explanation of my thoughts (mostly because I wanted people to be able to envision how this idea would be a best-fit in their own minds), but I will jump in and say that, as an example, I wouldn't have it go through the regular appointment process/character face at all. Nor would players have to appease them like they do other players. Functionally, they would not be leaders (in that stage), but names listed amongst the information of the unit or building. They may (or may not, again, I kinda wanted to leave it open to discussion) provide stat bonuses to their unit or building. If they suck, you can press a little button and pay a PP cost to remove/replace them, or pay a PP cost to recruit them into a full leader, names and faces and all. So it wouldn't be dealing with a million names and faces, it would be adding an extra layer of detail which can contribute to the roleplay. I simply don't think the 'Recruit Junior' or 'Recruit Commander' stratagems are compelling at all. It feels very arbitrary and I don't find myself caring about that SHQ commander who just took a bullet after I recruited them using a 'Recruit Mercenary' stratagem a couple rounds prior.

quote:

As far as political titles go, to be honest I'm entirely happy with the titles being titular - I would hate to be restrained from being able to lead as Grand Croctopus. More importantly, though, I think you're missing the political profile system - a democratic commercial mind government plays rather differently from an autocratic enforcement fist government. THAT'S where you go for differences from one government to another, not the empty titles.

When I say 'don't make titles titular', what I really mean is 'allow significantly more startup settings' (i.e. expand the three situations which upgrade your profile by +15), such that you can not only play the Grand Croctopus, but to play the Grand Croctopus with the ability to actually play it as you see fit, rather than the same exact way you would a President or an Emperor. Or, if you want to have your Grand Croctopus serve exactly the same as a President, and you don't really care (as a player) whether or not you're actually roleplaying the role you designated for yourself, then you're free to have your Grand Croctopus/President function however they want, but I feel that the empire startup is woefully same-y in a game which purports to allow you a wide berth of customization and replayability. I'm aware of the political profile system, but I simply don't find it compelling. Especially when I start at functionally the same place as I do every other empire I make when I start.

quote:

I'll also add that while player choice sounds nice in theory, there's a logistical limit to how many "forks" a developer can usefully work on at the same time. Simply put, double the forks, double the bug reports, not to mention the work of figuring out how the systems within any one fork interact with each other in subtly different ways from other forks. Vic is just one guy, you know? He needs to sleep sometime.

That's a very good point, actually. I mean obviously I was aware it wouldn't be functionally possible to provide player choice 100% of the time, but I hadn't fully considered the logistics of it. So fair enough, but I still maintain that the goal should be to expand player choice whenever possible.

(in reply to Tomn)

Post #: 7

RE: The Good, Bad, & Ugly of SE (Suggestions) - 7/13/2020 11:02:29 AM

BlueWombats

Posts: 2
Joined: 8/31/2018
Status: offline

I'm loving the game so far. The only area I am not 100% behind are the Decisions.
I don't have any good suggestions on how to improve them either though, it's just a bit of busy work atm: "Leader did stupid thing" choose A. B. C. D.

If they came up less often but were more meaningful they could be more exiting, they don't necessarily feel connected to other parts of the game. A quick idea could be to use them for crises; during fuel or metal shortages being given the choice to prioritize supplying military units vs cities.

(in reply to SCSNV)

Post #: 8