32 réponses à ce sujet

[Foolsfolly]

Northern Sun wrote...

I'm not sure how I'd feel about essentially pausing the battle to direct troops(aside from something like the "Please help me/Be cannon fodder!" horn in the Denerim battle), but it would be interesting to be able to position troops before the battle, maybe using a big paper map like in the trailer with giant shaped blocks to represent unit types. Depending on how well you position they could be useless or be very helpful. This would potentially open up the option for persistent units. They could be lost in battle, and would have to be replaced by wither gaining them as quest rewards or by paying gold to hire sellswords. Units who survive could earn XP and eventually achieve some kind of veteran status, making them more powerful.

Of course, for this to be worth the time they would have to actually be capable of killing enemies. Outside of the reinforcements in the Denerim battle, allies outside the party(even companions) have typically just been there for show, doing a irrelevant amount of damage to enemies they fight.

I think the only thing the armies in DA:O were decent for was to be damage sponges. Dwarves and their golems worked well enough for the final load zone with the Archdemon. I doubt they ever killed anything ever. But sometimes those endless waves of darkspawn got caught up fighting them instead of hitting my flank.

...that was worth the second it took to call them.

But I agree with you. Ordering units and helping plan the battle should give you better benefits than that.

[Lau Maru]

MR_PN wrote...

i think it would be kool to have like a part before battles were you talk strategy with your commanders, but then once the battle starts its all fighting.

that would be awesome, it would be cooler if devs apply the rpg aspect to it as far as the commanders' and officers' approval and respect for protagonist. for example,
they like you they obey w/o question, they hate you they more likel to disobey and go loghain on yer hide.

[Sol Downer]

I want battles like Ninety-Nine Nights. That's how you direct an army!

[garrusfan1]

I would like them to do it somewhat but not overdue it. also it is said that it isn't just the mage Templar war it is multiple countries at war and that makes it worse.

[Lau Maru]

they should have the hidden horde of vampiric werewolf-zombies that the chantry kept hidden for 1st 2 games attack yer castle for no other reason than advanced field training for inquisitors

[Sir JK]

I sincerely hope not. Large-scale and small-scale combat are entirely different beasts and I'd rather they focus on making the latter work well than trying to wedge in the former into the system. Even a large battle fought primarily through dialogue would have it's problems. It's a considerably non-trivial thing to do.

Furthermore, there's the narrative aspect to look at. Major battles may not neccessarily end wars on their own, but there's no denying they frequently dramatically alter it's course in the short term. Plans remade, campaigns cancelled or pushed ahead of schedule and so forth. It changes things to an extreme degree and you'd have to have separate plots for every outcome. Not just victory or loss, but to which degree it was either as well. I'm quite certain you could make an awesome dialogue-heavy rpg with this at it's core, but I don't imagine it being a classical bioware rpg in style.

Not to mention that it risks making the player's decision be the determining factor, and not the quality of the armies, their collective officers, morale, equipment, luck and plans which are actually all the factors that determine the outcome. Boiling down the outcome of a battle to a few key decisions would rattle my immersion rather deeply.

So, I'd rather not have the player direct or determine the outcome of large scale battles.
However, I would very much like a large scale battle to be a setting. And I would very much be interested in leading a small unit (squad, or even a company) into it and being a factor on whether or not those men and women walk out of it or not. Perhaps even risk losing my own companions depending on what I do and how well I accomplish my task in the battle. Kind of like Virmire, which in a sense is a good example of this.

And in my own humble opinion, it's at least as interesting to follow the fate of individuals in battle as it is following the generals gauging the progress and giving commands.

[Lau Maru]

Sir JK wrote...

I sincerely hope not. Large-scale and small-scale combat are entirely different beasts and I'd rather they focus on making the latter work well than trying to wedge in the former into the system. Even a large battle fought primarily through dialogue would have it's problems. It's a considerably non-trivial thing to do.

Furthermore, there's the narrative aspect to look at. Major battles may not neccessarily end wars on their own, but there's no denying they frequently dramatically alter it's course in the short term. Plans remade, campaigns cancelled or pushed ahead of schedule and so forth. It changes things to an extreme degree and you'd have to have separate plots for every outcome. Not just victory or loss, but to which degree it was either as well. I'm quite certain you could make an awesome dialogue-heavy rpg with this at it's core, but I don't imagine it being a classical bioware rpg in style.

Not to mention that it risks making the player's decision be the determining factor, and not the quality of the armies, their collective officers, morale, equipment, luck and plans which are actually all the factors that determine the outcome. Boiling down the outcome of a battle to a few key decisions would rattle my immersion rather deeply.

So, I'd rather not have the player direct or determine the outcome of large scale battles.
However, I would very much like a large scale battle to be a setting. And I would very much be interested in leading a small unit (squad, or even a company) into it and being a factor on whether or not those men and women walk out of it or not. Perhaps even risk losing my own companions depending on what I do and how well I accomplish my task in the battle. Kind of like Virmire, which in a sense is a good example of this.

And in my own humble opinion, it's at least as interesting to follow the fate of individuals in battle as it is following the generals gauging the progress and giving commands.

That is true, but nevertheless, as gaming platforms evolve their content will need to do the same, as such by the time my kids get into highschool we might see a DA game where gameplay is an amalgam of rpg & rts. i think thats the direction this series is going. that would be innteresting to see that perfectly blended.

[Sir JK]

Lau Maru wrote...

That is true, but nevertheless, as gaming platforms evolve their content will need to do the same, as such by the time my kids get into highschool we might see a DA game where gameplay is an amalgam of rpg & rts. i think thats the direction this series is going. that would be innteresting to see that perfectly blended.

Absolutely, but I'd prefer if that was the primary gameplay. The DA series are still very much adventuring rpgs, this hypothetical thing would be war- or battle rpgs.The core premise is not exactly compatible. But I would very much like to see it tried.