56 réponses à ce sujet

[SerCambria358]

 

Okay, then, you figure out a way to model days and weeks of blockading, mining, and countermining in a way that would be fun in a game. Oh, and add the serious problem of sustaining a besieging army's supplies. Sieges are slow and stupid. What people want are the assaults on fortifications. There's the enemy's flag on top of those ramparts, and here's our army in the lines of countervallation around the ramparts - and now, our flag is on top of those ramparts. Or the pressure of defending against an assault on your own walls. Or breaking a siege by relief. Those are all set-piece engagements. Subsuming them under the general rubric of 'siege' is inaccurate and misleading. You assault a keep so you can end a state of siege. Siege is, as generally construed, 'bad'; it is the end of mobile operations, it is a drain on resources without clear opportunity for advancing one's cause directly, and it is only undertaken because alternatives - an assault, a surrender, or whatever - are beyond the capability of your army. You besiege when you are weak, because you cannot afford to lose many men due to taking a place by storm, and because siege means that you will probably not suffer many casualties to the enemy. Fun stuff! Truly deserves to be the centerpiece of a combat video game.

 

You're over complicating the idea, having a siege aspect doesnt mean we'd be forced to sit there for months to starve them out, the definition of a siege is "A siege is a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by attrition or assault" You can have a siege without drawing it out an unnecessary amount of time. You dont need blockades or mining, you're throwing in all these aspects assuming that if its going to be in the game then all aspects have to be in the game.

 

Same thing with the preparation aspect. Who said you need to handle provosts, marshals and staffs? Who said you need camoflouge and control over food? You're over complicating these aspects by assuming every dynamic must be in the game if we're going to have these features at all when thats not the case. Keep it simple and these issues wont occur, you dont need ridiculous amounts of depth to utilize these features

[metatheurgist]

I hope people aren't letting their expectations run away with them. This is the problem with hyping a game 2 years in advance.

[Killdren88]

I want to train my forces personally....In a fabulous Musical montage...

 

[Innsmouth Dweller]

I hope those are optional. I like adventuring / wandering aimlessly / killing big, angry stuff with just the right amount of tactics involved / exploring dungeons much more than any kind of battle management strategy games. If I wanted to command an army, I wouldn't play RPGs. I'm here for the story and immersion

[DrBlingzle]

I hope people aren't letting their expectations run away with them. This is the problem with hyping a game 2 years in advance.

I know, I have to constantly remind myself of that. The problem is people are building so much on the smallest scrap of evidence, so ive got to remember that a lot of what I want probably isnt going to be in the game.

[Helios969]

Yeah, keep it real folks.  Not sure what to think of "controlling" an army.  Sounds complicated...and tedious.  If it's just acquiring "war assets" to fight for the final battle like DAO, that's cool.  If I have to strategize an entire battlefield, not sure I'd like that (pretty sure I'd suck at it.)

[Dean_the_Young]

You're over complicating the idea, having a siege aspect doesnt mean we'd be forced to sit there for months to starve them out, the definition of a siege is "A siege is a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by attrition or assault" You can have a siege without drawing it out an unnecessary amount of time. You dont need blockades or mining, you're throwing in all these aspects assuming that if its going to be in the game then all aspects have to be in the game.

 

Same thing with the preparation aspect. Who said you need to handle provosts, marshals and staffs? Who said you need camoflouge and control over food? You're over complicating these aspects by assuming every dynamic must be in the game if we're going to have these features at all when thats not the case. Keep it simple and these issues wont occur, you dont need ridiculous amounts of depth to utilize these features

 

These aren't over-complications: these are basic parts of military organization and management across history. Removing them for player convenience and enjoyment is the simplification, not the realistic depiction- which is Saran's point.

 

 

It's hardly a limitation unique to RPGs- remember those modern shooter Call of Duty games praised for seeming so realistic? Here's what a realistic soldier game would be like.

 

http://www.theonion....s-awaiti,14382/

 

http://v.theonion.co...255/zen_mp4.mp4

 

 

Not really a fun game. So they oversimplify and distort reality, and give it outrageous characteristics, and bam. A multi-million genre is born.

[Vortex13]

I don't know how militarily realistic this might be, but I would like to have the option of swapping out my generic human soldiers for fantasy elements.

 

More than just the player races of Dwarves, Elves, and Qunari though, I want to be able to station Golems to defend my keeps. I want to have Sylvans stand vigil over forests surrounding my holdings, have Werewolf and Mabari war packs prowling the wilderness disrupting enemy troop movements. I want to station 'trained' dragons and wyverns as watch dogs to protect my keeps from attack, I want to have Awakened Darkspawn utilizing forgotten Deep Road passages to circumvent enemy defensive lines.

 

I would also like to see a form of upgrading and customization be present for my forces, something where I can not only change the color of my troops' armor, but upgrade said armor to have more defensive capabilities. I would like this customization/upgrade mechanic to also include the fantasy creatures I have at my command as well. Things like installing Lyrium infused gemstones to super charge my golems, or increasing the food given to my Wyverns or Dragons thereby increasing their 'loyalty'.

 

I would also like to see personal, player influenced/created NPCs in the army and/or as Agents of my Inquisition, a feature that I believe could work well with MP (if it should be included). Nothing to do with forcing a player to play MP to get a better ending, but I think it would provide greater immersion in the world if their 'promoted' MP characters would show up in the SP world as agents or commanders of our forces. For example: Being able to walk up to my female Dwarven Rogue as she is preparing to infiltrate and enemy Keep, while playing as my male Quanari Mage.

 

As far as combat with my Inquisitorial forces is concerned, I would like to see something like Kingdom Under Fire level control, but I realize that might be a little too out of scope for DA:I. A more refined and polished summon mechanic, similar to the Battle of Denirum in DA:O would really be all that I would need to see.

[Fetunche]

I want to play a Dragon age RPG not an RTS so I am hoping the the militaristic aspect is minimal or skippable with little to no consequence.

[JoltDealer]

As the leader of the Inquisition, I plan to be cruel when I have to, merciful when I can afford to be, yet always practical.  I hope interactions with my army will let me explore that desire to a great extent.

[Lebanese Dude]

I want to play a Dragon age RPG not an RTS so I am hoping the the militaristic aspect is minimal or skippable with little to no consequence.

But you're roleplaying the leader of a militaristic organization.

[CybAnt1]

As I reiterate, all we know so far from what's been revealed is that the Inquisition has an Army.

 

We know nothing else, including how it can or would be used or what role it plays in the game. Let alone how in any ways we might customize it. 

 

We do know we're taking Keeps. We don't know how. It might be as simple as "enter Keep, play cutscene of Keep taking, Keep is yours". I mean, it really could be. 

 

I have this odd feeling it may be similar to the Agent system or what people are calling War Assets in ME3 (though I didn't play it); it really just might end up being a numerical size-value that ends up determining game end-states. 

 

We really don't know, here. 

[Wulfram]

But you're roleplaying the leader of a militaristic organization.

 

But you should (IMO) interact with that primarily in an RPG manner.  Talking to people and making choices - it should be a matter of story rather than gameplay.

 

Though I'd gladly play a Dragon Age RTS, I wouldn't want it to be grafted on to an RPG.  And mechanical strategy elements should be minimalist and abstacted, because that way they've got less chance of distracting from the story - and less chance of being awful.

[Lebanese Dude]

But you should (IMO) interact with that primarily in an RPG manner. Talking to people and making choices - it should be a matter of story rather than gameplay.

Though I'd gladly play a Dragon Age RTS, I wouldn't want it to be grafted on to an RPG. And mechanical strategy elements should be minimalist and abstacted, because that way they've got less chance of distracting from the story - and less chance of being awful.

Oh well I'm fairly certain that the militaristic aspect is going to boil down to strategic decision-making. An example would be the Crestwood Village decision, as well as assigning agents and improving the organization as a whole,

I sincerely doubt well be thrust into the role of a General. This isn't Rome TW after all.

Any direct combat will be through the player party, with active forces aiding the assault (or not) depending on our choices. An example of this would be Crestwood Village and the dragon fight we saw in that one video.

[mrpoultry]

I want to be able to equip my soldiers with clubs that look like penises.

[SerCambria358]

These aren't over-complications: these are basic parts of military organization and management across history. Removing them for player convenience and enjoyment is the simplification, not the realistic depiction- which is Saran's point.

 

 

It's hardly a limitation unique to RPGs- remember those modern shooter Call of Duty games praised for seeming so realistic? Here's what a realistic soldier game would be like.

 

http://www.theonion....s-awaiti,14382/

 

http://v.theonion.co...255/zen_mp4.mp4

 

 

Not really a fun game. So they oversimplify and distort reality, and give it outrageous characteristics, and bam. A multi-million genre is born.

No, Sarans point was that all these things would be boring, assuming that if we're going to have a certain feature like siege warfare, that it needs to consist of every dynamic that it brings with it in reality, when thats not the case. You dont need to add all these unnecessary features to warfare, like appointing provosts, marshals and staff, that was brought up out of nowhere by Saran when there were no implications of it being in the game, same goes to everything else they brought up, like having to choose the time your soldiers move out etc. I I think they gpt the impression that asking for militaristic features meant wanting complete realism, im still confused on what theyre trying to get at.

[Dean_the_Young]

That... is actually opposite of what her point was.

 

Her point was that the warfare in the game would be unrealistic because itwould consist of ignoring all the necessary but boring features to warfare, like appointing provosts, marshals, staff, and what not. Those are the realistic necessities of warfare. They would also be boring if they were in a game. Removing those elements would make the experience more enjoyable but less realistic experience, and Saran was saying this was a good thing.

[DrBlingzle]

Y'know for something that started on complete speculation this has got pretty heated. Although that is pretty much BSN in a nutshell.

[SerCambria358]

That... is actually opposite of what her point was.

 

Her point was that the warfare in the game would be unrealistic because itwould consist of ignoring all the necessary but boring features to warfare, like appointing provosts, marshals, staff, and what not. Those are the realistic necessities of warfare. They would also be boring if they were in a game. Removing those elements would make the experience more enjoyable but less realistic experience, and Saran was saying this was a good thing.

If you look at their first post, you can see why this isnt the case. They summed up different aspects of warfare and called it "boring" assuming that having those aspects in the game would mean they'd encompass everything, including the unnecessary dynamics. Now if we can end this pointless argument all together, that would be nice

[The Hierophant]

@ Dean_the_Young

 

So basically it's simplicity for player convenience.

 

For me it's the writing behind cutscene combat engagements that bothers me. If any potential battle scene is animated like Ostagar's i'd prefer it if the displayed combat manuevers, strategies and tactics were written with common sense in mind.

 

That mass charge from Ostagar's defenders was kinda fail.

[Aimi]

If you look at their first post, you can see why this isnt the case. They summed up different aspects of warfare and called it "boring" assuming that having those aspects in the game would mean they'd encompass everything, including the unnecessary dynamics. Now if we can end this pointless argument all together, that would be nice

 

Nope, Dean got exactly the point I was trying to make. Probably because he read the entire text of my post.

 

But yes, it is a fairly silly argument, and moving on wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

@ Dean_the_Young

 

So basically it's simplicity for player convenience.

 

For me it's the writing behind cutscene combat engagements that bothers me. If any potential battle scene is animated like Ostagar's i'd prefer it if the displayed combat manuevers, strategies and tactics were written with common sense in mind.

 

That mass charge from Ostagar's defenders was kinda fail.

 

Yes, battle cutscenes in BioWare games are one of those instances when you kinda have to ride out the ridiculousness. Ostagar's defenders abandoned their fortifications to fight in the open where they could get outflanked by the larger darkspawn horde because...uh, reasons. Call it cinematic license. BioWare, and most other video game makers, understand that showing a video of two big forces smashing into each other at full tilt looks cool. They prioritize the visuals and the feeling of intensity, rather than tactical nuance or even their own lore. (To take an example from Mass Effect, in none of the three games does space combat resemble the way it appeared in the Codex. This is because space combat as shown in the Codex would be pretty boring to watch, and because the space battles that they did end up making look exciting.)

 

Like with combat gameplay, I don't consider this alteration to be a bad thing.

 

In fact, for the Dragon Age setting, I would find advanced tactical evolutions to be far more unrealistic than relatively simple 'there's the enemy, go charge at them' stuff. Command and control was really, really difficult even for relatively small armies. Once troops were engaged, it was devilishly hard to pull them out of the line and put them somewhere else to bolster a flank or whatever. Operational thought was virtually unknown until the late nineteenth century even on Earth; in Thedas, expecting anything more complicated than an ambush or a concealed force attacking the enemy flank would be silly.

 

Realism (or, alternatively, 'plausibility') and fun often don't clash with each other, of course. But there are almost always concessions that one must make to one or the other when one develops games.

[The Antagonist]

I'd love to launch drone strikes on mages

[Master Warder Z_]

 Operational thought was virtually unknown until the late nineteenth century even on Earth

 

This mainly due to how difficult it was to communicate new objectives to the forces in the field once they were committed. You could study the battlefield and analyze enemy strengths and weaknesses all you like but once the men were let loose into the fray they were in there, generally they could be rallied to a new objective but that took time and energy for the movement of an entire army, and given you then had to spend even more time piecing the force back together after the initial contact, treating the wounded, recovering the dead and rearming and supplying the able bodied, once you had recovered your force after they were initially committed, you tended to have to let them rest and recoup unless if you were into "forced marches". But that's an entirely different subject of warfare all together.

 

Once portable communication devices were possible you begin to truly see the evolution of "tactical" warfare, given you actually could communicate new directives and occurrences on the fly with forces in the field and advise them of changing situations.

 

Overall i agree with basically all of you're arguments with why full on control tactically of an army would be an immense chore.

[SerCambria358]

 

Nope, Dean got exactly the point I was trying to make. Probably because he read the entire text of my post.

 

But yes, it is a fairly silly argument, and moving on wouldn't be a bad thing.

In that case there was nothing to debate about

[CybAnt1]

(To take an example from Mass Effect, in none of the three games does space combat resemble the way it appeared in the Codex. This is because space combat as shown in the Codex would be pretty boring to watch, and because the space battles that they did end up making look exciting.)

 

Interestingly, though I haven't played Mass Effect, this does remind me of the how they redid space combat in the Battlestar Galactica remake. Interestingly, one thing about the reimagined BSG is it has no beam weapons. Much like Mass Effect, the future weaponry is still based on slinging projectiles ... bullets and missiles, not laser beams and photon torpedoes. 

 

Also, they make one obvious change that people have asked for about sci-fi for a long time: you can't hear explosions in space ... no air to carry sound waves. So when Colonial fighters or Cylon fighters explode, the audience doesn't hear anything. The only sound you EVER hear while space battles are going on come, of course, from inside the cockpits. As far as beam weapons, I know they based that decision on one other 'realism' conceit ... unlike in the movies, you usually can't see the length of a laser beam, especially if it was passing through open/empty space. If you weren't the target, you wouldn't "see" it. In battles with lasers, you wouldn't see any bright blue etc. bolt or beam flashing across the screen; you'd just see the impact of the hit. 

 

Some fans, of course, of the original series and other sci-fi were rather disappointed. What good are movie speakers and DTTS sound systems if explosions in space are silent? Would the explosion of the Death Star have "felt" as cool if you heard nothing, and just saw the blast wave? But that would have been more realistic. 

 

Anyhoo, this just made me think of that.