I haven't played Empire, but on the combat front I would suggest that perhaps we should remove players from 'being' avatars and instead have them become a layer above the in game avatars. To gain control of an avatar or army for a particular battle you could maybe use a system similar to the Clan bidding in the Battletech universe, i.e. 'I can take Kiev with just five companies,' 'I can take it with four, etc.' This way there's no need for the generals to be especially recruited, and no worries over the boring role of being a governor.
A modified bidding system could be use as well, with either votes or the 'Megas' role ultimately making the decision. The benefit of the bid system is that it encourages risk taking and defeats for the player, making the AI considerably more challenging than it would otherwise be, which is important if PvP is being removed. With avatars not one to one with players the consequences of defeat are less as well, such that we may have to reintroduce risk of some kind other than just political fallout for a loss.
To try to put that in better perspective:
1. Players aren't avatars at all, they're completely invented characters 'above' the in game avatars who bid or politic for control of a particular avatar for a limited time. Bidding could be based on time, upkeep, total number of soldiers needed, or anything really.
2. This increases the challenge rating of the AI, which will surely be necessary given the lack of PvP. It also helps control spending and avoid the need for cheats.
3. Risk to the actual player may be reduced too much, such that we need to introduce some possibility of actual death back into the system (Perhaps a making the bid 'I'll lead the men personally!' have considerable weight in the process and run the risk of death).
4. Weighting the system so that votes and/or the Megas role is the ultimate decision maker, or maybe just selects who is allowed to bid in the first place, will maintain a strong role for politics in combat.
![]()
Bookmarks