Indie Dead Monarchy: Open-World | Turn-Based | Mercenary Management | RPG - Fully Released May 19th 2023

[Doctor Sbaitso]

Nice. You mention UI feedback. This is so critically important for good tactical TB combat. If you haven't, give Knights of the Chalice a try or watch a let's play for an idea of UI feedback done right. Temple of Elemental Evil also did feeback right IMO.

 

[Bantichai]

Nice. You mention UI feedback. This is so critically important for good tactical TB combat. If you haven't, give Knights of the Chalice a try or watch a let's play for an idea of UI feedback done right. Temple of Elemental Evil also did feeback right IMO.

Thanks for those two recommendations, I've bookmarked the two and taken a quick glance at Knights of the Chalice gameplay which gives me nostalgic vibes. I'll be showcasing the current UI features in the upcoming videos as they are not demonstrated well in the current pre-alpha footage.

 

[I'm Big Into Anal]

The Game name is fine, it's the second page of a thread on the codex; if that's all the great unwashed can grizzle about you must be doing something right.

 

[tindrli]

can you make units "RUN" in battlefield instead of walking?

Animations are pretty easy for me to adjust, I do have run animations. If your main concern is animation speed, I am looking into ways for speeding up animations, at that point running/walking probably wouldn't make a difference

not too much but i saw battle animations and since threre are a lot of troops on battlefield i thought that making them faster would be better in overall. Also are all battles on flat terrain?

 

[HoboForEternity]

Interestin project. Will follow uo regularly

 

[Bantichai]

The Game name is fine, it's the second page of a thread on the codex; if that's all the great unwashed can grizzle about you must be doing something right.

Appreciate the vote of confidence

 

[Bantichai]

can you make units "RUN" in battlefield instead of walking?

Animations are pretty easy for me to adjust, I do have run animations. If your main concern is animation speed, I am looking into ways for speeding up animations, at that point running/walking probably wouldn't make a difference

not too much but i saw battle animations and since threre are a lot of troops on battlefield i thought that making them faster would be better in overall. Also are all battles on flat terrain?

The animations themselves are not finalized, alongside adding animation speed settings which are yet to be done. For me it's a personal preference, to me visually I find it awkward for a unit to jog/run to say one tile ahead so it feels more "natural" to see the unit walk since the distance covered is not too far. Games like XCOM to me present a more frantic battlefield, with soldiers running into cover where as in Dead Monarchy, combat is more meticulous as for the most part the bigger battles are formation battles which is why I opted initially to go for walking animations.

In time I can probably add an option in the menus to toggle run/walk animations but this is just off the top of my head, still the good thing about being a solo developer in this regard is the amount of flexibility I have. I could probably blend the animations in too, based on the distance covered. IE, less than 3 tiles is walking, more than 3 tiles is run.

In regards to terrain, currently terrain is flat, but there are two things I am looking into implementing.

1. Terrain modifiers, IE good ground, bad ground etc that gives modifiers, these can exist on "flat terrain".
2. In games like XCOM with a heavier emphasis on ranged combat, height modifiers are easier to incorporate into your game design (Visually and gameplay-wise). In Dead Monarchy while there is ranged combat, the focus is more so on the melee side and since your base attack range is is short if I were to do height modifiers, visually the height of any terrain that gives modifiers would need to be subtle enough to convey an advantage in say reach against your opponent but also not be so high that visually it breaks the animation. In a game like Battle Brothers, height modifiers are easier to incorporate because they simplified the animations. The other alternative is to just give height modifiers to ranged units, which is easy enough.

I appreciate the feedback and anything that engages me in open dialogue with the community. Don't quote me on the things I have listed here, but they are things that I am looking into

 

[ERYFKRAD]

I saw that in the final game you're expected to start as a merc and then eventually conquer the land?
Does that mean character creation is in and the player can join in on the fighting?

 

[Bantichai]

I saw that in the final game you're expected to start as a merc and then eventually conquer the land?
Does that mean character creation is in and the player can join in on the fighting?

The idea is you start as a roaming/roving mercenary band or anything akin to "nomadic inspired gameplay" and then eventually you acquire a village and then more land. Loosely inspired by Berserk and I suppose Griffith's ambition to acquire a kingdom. This is Monarchy mode and the base framework is already implemented, but as I am one person I am focusing on the combat first and foremost and then gradually expanding from that point. The end game goal is to have that yes, I haven't openly stated this (flaunted it on the home page) because it isn't at the stage where I am ready to at least show some pre-alpha gameplay footage.

If I say character creation isn't in then I know I'll get roasted on this thread It's simply something I haven't implemented yet or looked at in depth. I am toying with the idea of having a "lead" character which is the player that can participate in combat. If your player dies, then the game is over as the story is from your perspective. Your player avatar doesn't have to participate in combat though and you can send out other "units/heroes" to fight in your stead. I like the idea of a risk vs reward mechanic here in that your avatar has stronger base stats over your other units, but if it dies the game is over as opposed to the mission just "failing" if your units get wiped out. Meaning that during the course of the game if you find yourself having to deal with a crucial battle, you may consider increasing the chances of your success by fighting the battle with the player avatar as well.

I have pretty wild things that I'd like to create and experience in this game but thoughts like that just lead to scope creep. It's not concrete, factual information that I can confidently advertise just of yet. I would rather focus on the combat first, get that polished and then expand from that point. That being said, if I got the full support from the community I can see myself working on this game for years

 

[Bantichai]

Interestin project. Will follow uo regularly

Thank you, I do try to keep updates somewhat regularly. Everything will be at least linked here

 

[Doctor Sbaitso]

Encounter design is very important to an enjoyable experience. I would suggest you plan to have battles where the party is split by terrain, or terrain suggests it is best for the payer to place their troops. Choke points, elevation changes, split battlefields etc. add a lot of variety and tactical challenge. Put the battle in the middle of some large set pieces and you will do one better than Battle Brothers.

 

[HoboForEternity]

Encounter design is very important to an enjoyable experience. I would suggest you plan to have battles where the party is split by terrain, or terrain suggests it is best for the payer to place their troops. Choke points, elevation changes, split battlefields etc. add a lot of variety and tactical challenge. Put the battle in the middle of some large set pieces and you will do one better than Battle Brothers.

yes, there is a huge difference between hastily put, poorly thought enemies and encounter where there are multiple strategies, battlefield you AND your enemies can exploit and what kinds of enemies litter the field.

This is probably gonna be the hardest part to do aside from core combat and levelling

 

[Bantichai]

Encounter design is very important to an enjoyable experience. I would suggest you plan to have battles where the party is split by terrain, or terrain suggests it is best for the payer to place their troops. Choke points, elevation changes, split battlefields etc. add a lot of variety and tactical challenge. Put the battle in the middle of some large set pieces and you will do one better than Battle Brothers.

Agreed. Once again don't quote me on this but the plan is to have different types of encounters. What I showed was early early footage of a "field battle", larger forces more simplified terrain. Field battles are like the "deciding battles", where you might be fighting over a village and the enemy has sallied forth to meet you on the field. Internally I have done combat tests in more "intimate" spaces such as interiors of houses and caves. Both of those encounters had choke points but currently there is an issue with my AI and how it handles LOS (Looking into it)

 

[Bantichai]

Encounter design is very important to an enjoyable experience. I would suggest you plan to have battles where the party is split by terrain, or terrain suggests it is best for the payer to place their troops. Choke points, elevation changes, split battlefields etc. add a lot of variety and tactical challenge. Put the battle in the middle of some large set pieces and you will do one better than Battle Brothers.

yes, there is a huge difference between hastily put, poorly thought enemies and encounter where there are multiple strategies, battlefield you AND your enemies can exploit and what kinds of enemies litter the field.

This is probably gonna be the hardest part to do aside from core combat and levelling

Agreed, this is where you guys will come into play. Provided the combat demo goes smoothly, I should be able to get some really good feedback

 

[Galdred]

If I say character creation isn't in then I know I'll get roasted on this thread It's simply something I haven't implemented yet or looked at in depth. I am toying with the idea of having a "lead" character which is the player that can participate in combat. If your player dies, then the game is over as the story is from your perspective. Your player avatar doesn't have to participate in combat though and you can send out other "units/heroes" to fight in your stead. I like the idea of a risk vs reward mechanic here in that your avatar has stronger base stats over your other units, but if it dies the game is over as opposed to the mission just "failing" if your units get wiped out. Meaning that during the course of the game if you find yourself having to deal with a crucial battle, you may consider increasing the chances of your success by fighting the battle with the player avatar as well.

Don't worry too much:
X(-)COM don't have character creation. Neither do Battle Brothers or Mordheim. They don't even have a main character either.
JA2 had a pseudo avatar you created, but whose death was of no consequence, so you still played Laptop guy behind the scenes AFAIK.

So you can very reasonably not have character creation.

Now if you want a main character, things get trickier. I have the exact same problems in my game actually:

Medieval era and feudalism does not lend itself well to behind the line commander: It was the very fact that they risked their lives on the battlefield that was the source of the power of the nobility back then.
But then, the main character can die, which is very unfortunate.
Game over on main character death may make ironmanvery hard to balance if you intend to have it.
You can play it Mount and Blade style: lead character is only captured/ransomned or KOed. Ransoming lords was standard in the middle age anyway so it is pretty realistic.
Another solution is to go the Pendragon route (TT RPG): players play an organization or a bloodline: as long as you have a next in command, no game over, he only takes over, Crusader King 2 style.

 

[Bantichai]

Game over on main character death may make ironmanvery hard to balance if you intend to have it.
You can play it Mount and Blade style: lead character is only captured/ransomned or KOed. Ransoming lords was standard in the middle age anyway so it is pretty realistic.
Another solution is to go the Pendragon route (TT RPG): players play an organization or a bloodline: as long as you have a next in command, no game over, he only takes over, Crusader King 2 style.

Softening the fail state from "game over" to "losing everything" isn't that much softer if it still incents savescumming. Ironman balance is difficult no matter what.

True, MnB lord ransoming is something I was considering too. I were to do something like that, the ransoming would only occur with intelligent creatures/humans. The way I look at the player avatar is he is your trump card, most battles would be too petty for him/her to take place in but any battle that is a major deciding battle might require his/her attention. So the risk for playing a unit that powerful is that if it dies, it's game over. If you were fighting against a human faction and they captured you and tried to ransom you back, that would be most intriguing

Thanks for the feedback!

 

[Bantichai]

If I say character creation isn't in then I know I'll get roasted on this thread It's simply something I haven't implemented yet or looked at in depth. I am toying with the idea of having a "lead" character which is the player that can participate in combat. If your player dies, then the game is over as the story is from your perspective. Your player avatar doesn't have to participate in combat though and you can send out other "units/heroes" to fight in your stead. I like the idea of a risk vs reward mechanic here in that your avatar has stronger base stats over your other units, but if it dies the game is over as opposed to the mission just "failing" if your units get wiped out. Meaning that during the course of the game if you find yourself having to deal with a crucial battle, you may consider increasing the chances of your success by fighting the battle with the player avatar as well.

Don't worry too much:
X(-)COM don't have character creation. Neither do Battle Brothers or Mordheim. They don't even have a main character either.
JA2 had a pseudo avatar you created, but whose death was of no consequence, so you still played Laptop guy behind the scenes AFAIK.

So you can very reasonably not have character creation.

Now if you want a main character, things get trickier. I have the exact same problems in my game actually:

Medieval era and feudalism does not lend itself well to behind the line commander: It was the very fact that they risked their lives on the battlefield that was the source of the power of the nobility back then.
But then, the main character can die, which is very unfortunate.
Game over on main character death may make ironmanvery hard to balance if you intend to have it.
You can play it Mount and Blade style: lead character is only captured/ransomned or KOed. Ransoming lords was standard in the middle age anyway so it is pretty realistic.
Another solution is to go the Pendragon route (TT RPG): players play an organization or a bloodline: as long as you have a next in command, no game over, he only takes over, Crusader King 2 style.

Thanks for the feedback, taking a few pages out of MnB is not a bad idea at all. Bloodline idea is also very interesting idea and something I too was considering after playing some the Total War games

Also, your own game looks very intriguing, I like the art style

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

I was excited when I read the title, but it turns out it is not a game about overthrowing monarchy

 

[Bantichai]

I was excited when I read the title, but it turns out it is not a game about overthrowing monarchy

Does replacing the current head of a monarchy with yourself count?

 

[Jedi Master Radek]

No. Only ending it for good

 

[Bantichai]

No. Only ending it for good

Guess you can't please them all. Time will tell

 

[SmartCheetah]

You're planning to have generic troops, or even the basic footman would have a name/traits and his own stats/equipment/visuals? I know that with big numbers it might become redundant and micro-heavy but at the same time that's the selling point of games like Xcom, Battle Brothers, Rim World, Dwarf Fortress et cetera. Having those guys you might get fond off killed, injuired or whatever else. Every playthrough is creating a history for itself instead of becoming generic strategy game where you don't give a fuck.
Or maybe a mix of both? Generic troops + "named" hero units?

Another thing - Can't really judge by the current assets. You're aiming at low fantasy/medieval style, or rather something heroic? I loved BB aesthethics because it was kinda down-to-earth in terms of equipment (Even legendaries haven't went over the top)

Also, welcome on the Codex. :D

 

[Bantichai]

You're planning to have generic troops, or even the basic footman would have a name/traits and his own stats/equipment/visuals? I know that with big numbers it might become redundant and micro-heavy but at the same time that's the selling point of games like Xcom, Battle Brothers, Rim World, Dwarf Fortress et cetera. Having those guys you might get fond off killed, injuired or whatever else. Every playthrough is creating a history for itself instead of becoming generic strategy game where you don't give a fuck.
Or maybe a mix of both? Generic troops + "named" hero units?

Another thing - Can't really judge by the current assets. You're aiming at low fantasy/medieval style, or rather something heroic? I loved BB aesthethics because it was kinda down-to-earth in terms of equipment (Even legendaries haven't went over the top)

Also, welcome on the Codex. :D

Thank you for the welcome!

I am having both, "heroic" and "generic" units. In "Survival Mode" you will only have hero units they will have names and armor/weapons that you can upgrade (combat will be more intimate). In "Monarchy Mode", you will be limited to the amount of total "hero" units you can recruit so to flesh out your ranks you'll need to hire regular troops, they will have standardized equipment that can be upgraded but it is more limited. The idea is that as you expand your kingdom "hero" units get stretched out even further and start acting as commanders and you'll start to field more generic and expendable units.

I suppose a good example is in BB when your participating in noble house wars. If we look at how a "noble house army is composed", the "Knight" is your hero unit and all the other footman/bowman etc are generic units. After playing so much XCOM and BB, I myself would cringe if all I got access too were generic units, player driven story and experiences will be a core part of Dead Monarchy in both modes.

I am still not sure on character creation as it's not something I have delved into yet, but heros will at least be unique visually (without armor on). I had an interesting experience in Expeditions: Vikings, where you were given the option to create additional customizable characters but there was no real context of meeting them. The results driven part of me knew that building these characters exactly how I wanted would optimize my combat efficiency but "immersion" wise they had no background story and I found customizing their looks down to what beard they had to actually be really jarring. I ended up taking them but I couldn't help but shake off the feeling of being disconnected from these new fully optimized party members because they didn't feel "human" with their flaws, they felt like perfected cloned troopers. So personally, that's the internal debate I am having on character creation.

As to my style, I am aiming for a grounded medieval style. Nothing too over the top, anything over the top will be showcased in small bit sized pieces. I myself also prefer a more "realistic" approach to equipment/armor. It will still be more fantasy driven than historical, but it will be grounded somewhat

 

[Bantichai]

I suppose a good example is in BB when your participating in noble house wars. If we look at how a "noble house army is composed", the "Knight" is your hero unit and all the other footman/bowman etc are generic units. After playing so much XCOM and BB, I myself would cringe if all I got access too were generic units, player driven story and experiences will be a core part of Dead Monarchy in both modes.

I'm not sure I like the idea of procgen soldiers occupying two tiers. Everyone should be procgen, so even a lowly peasant conscript can prove himself and rise in the ranks if he is favored by the RNG. Consigning them forever as "Bowman #X" seems like it would cheapen the emergence.

Hmm, but that would mean you would be potentially managing over 500+ units. I'd probably cap the limit of "manageable" units at 50-100 as I think anything further probably would become too unwieldy. Consider your "hero" units as generals I suppose, in the early days of "Monarchy Mode" you'd be fielding "hero" units only since you control less territory and have a smaller army so things are more intimate and you have more control. As you expand, your grip on your kingdom gets harder to manage as you might need to assign your hero units to govern towns whilst others explore or battle. For me I like the idea of fielding "generic" units since you can use them as fodder

The other thing I'd like to implement are AI sub-factions within your own kingdom. IE your kingdom becomes so big that you need to start assigning AI governors to towns, those governors would have different traits and some of them would conspire against you and attempt to incite civil war.

Either way, none of this has been confirmed as I am still working on the combat so feel free to keep the feedback coming, the more we talk the better.

 

[Bantichai]

I think you have to decide whether your game is going to be squad tactics or large scale (ROTK, Total War etc), where the latter usually requires some level of abstraction (like generics that stack) to be workable. Not always though, think JA2's militia.

Honestly, I wouldn't be satisfied until I did both. How far you choose to expand your kingdom will ultimately decide how much management you would be doing. I want to retain the sense of "intimacy" you get when you manage "unique" units but also give the players a huge end-game goal which is attempt to manage a kingdom that works against you. So the game would scale between squad tactics and large scale depending how far you choose to expand. At this point, we'll just have to wait and see how feasible it really is and the feedback I get will help determine that too. At the end of the day for me personally, I like the idea of small scale tactics gradually escalating to larger scale but in terms of "scale" the cap in a battle is 50 or 25/25 which won't be something you can easily field.