[ICW 2.2] Era Progression Overhaul

[fireball900]

Personally I'm just glad I'm not stuck with Isard the entire GC. I've done a couple of IR GCs, and I found it very hard to lose Isard in a manner that wasn't complete stupidity - I was sending her alone against entire rebel fleets and winning. And while, yes - super star destroyer, it should be worth a fleet on its on... It was very irritating when I was constantly thinking 'DIE already, I want my Palpy's superweapons!"

They are?

Now that sounds promising!

[taupin121]

Personally I'm just glad I'm not stuck with Isard the entire GC. I've done a couple of IR GCs, and I found it very hard to lose Isard in a manner that wasn't complete stupidity - I was sending her alone against entire rebel fleets and winning. And while, yes - super star destroyer, it should be worth a fleet on its on... It was very irritating when I was constantly thinking 'DIE already, I want my Palpy's superweapons!"

I think SSD got nerfed for 2.2 so that will be easy to lose Isard.

[Schräge Musik]

I think SSD got nerfed for 2.2 so that will be easy to lose Isard.

That would be very helpful.

[Jagen Eripsa]

Can't wait to play with Pestage and discover the new transition system!

[SAYMYNAME159]

This looks incredible! Love the choices and flexibility you're giving the Imperial player!

[ErikModi]

I'm. . . hesitant on this.  I liked the system that was shown earlier, the ability to basically pick one leader and play them for an entire GC, unless you messed up and got them killed.  While I appreciate the added depth here, being forced to lose a leader after a certain amount of time doesn't really sit well with me.  I kinda like to get to one of my favorite leaders, and then try and play them for the whole campaign.

[kucsidave]

I'm. . . hesitant on this.  I liked the system that was shown earlier, the ability to basically pick one leader and play them for an entire GC, unless you messed up and got them killed.  While I appreciate the added depth here, being forced to lose a leader after a certain amount of time doesn't really sit well with me.  I kinda like to get to one of my favorite leaders, and then try and play them for the whole campaign.

Understandable, but if that leader is Palpatine, where the IR is the strongest in their progression, then One could just use this to stomp everyone.

[taupin121]

Will the AI research the "Voluntary Progression" ?

[ErikModi]

Understandable, but if that leader is Palpatine, where the IR is the strongest in their progression, then One could just use this to stomp everyone.

In single player games, is this a problem?

[Iregon]

You may have mentioned this elsewhere, but I just missed it. Sorry if I did.

'Timed: Kir Kanos kills Carnor Jax. Daala emerges from the Maw and begins her campaigns against the New Republic. All previous Imperial heroes are removed.'

Is the time on this one 100 weeks as well? Or is it a different length of time? I am wondering because, since it is the second half of era 3, I could see it waiting for a shorter amount of time.

Also, how long does the Voluntary progression take to build/research, and will it be subject to heroes that reduce costs?

[Recursion]

The era system need this change thank you

[Recursion]

Will the AI research the "Voluntary Progression" ?

I'd imagine so

[0ffkilter]

I'm. . . hesitant on this.  I liked the system that was shown earlier, the ability to basically pick one leader and play them for an entire GC, unless you messed up and got them killed.  While I appreciate the added depth here, being forced to lose a leader after a certain amount of time doesn't really sit well with me.  I kinda like to get to one of my favorite leaders, and then try and play them for the whole campaign.

I'd imagine there are multiple single era campaigns that will let you play with your leader; there are several era 3 and 4 campaigns already in 2.15 and I don't see them going away

[ErikModi]

Yes, but those tend to be fairly limited in scope, which is understandable for what they represent.  I like taking a single Imperial leader through as much of an era-progressive GC as a I can, and was actually VERY excited for the older idea of basically skipping straight to my preferred leader and playing them the whole way.  Adding a timer feels like a step backward.

[0ffkilter]

That does make sense, but depending on which leader you want 60 or 100 weeks is a long time.  In the video he made, Corey did say that it was mostly for other factions if you can't find the leader or he won't die. 

[Corey]

It's 100 weeks per leader. Some eras have 2 leaders, so up to 200 weeks in a single era. Also, the size of some of the single-era GCs is comparable to Art of War in 2.15. If it turns out to actually be a problem we can change it, but it seems likle the people complaining about that particular change are ignoring the context of every other change to the mod. These GCs are era progressive, that's what they're designed around- it's not supposed to simply be a glorified in-game menu to choose which individual era you want to play in. That's why the era-specific GCs exist, and that's why we put in as much work as we did to make those a lot more expansive, too. This isn't just the old 2.1 setup of every GC, plus a timer.

[ErikModi]

It's 100 weeks per leader. Some eras have 2 leaders, so up to 200 weeks in a single era.

True.  Though my favorite leaders (Thrawn and Daala, though not sure why since I hated the Jedi Academy Trilogy) aren't among those.

Also, the size of some of the single-era GCs is comparable to Art of War in 2.15.

Are the single-eras being expanded?  Sweet.

If it turns out to actually be a problem we can change it, but these GCs are era progressive, and what people are asking for the Remnant has never been an option for the other factions to begin with.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Do you mean that every faction except the IR has to advance in era in era-progressive GCs, because they have to kill the Imperial leader as the conquer or someone else does it for them?  The IR does, in older versions, have the option of winning the game just with Isard, since she's the starting leader and pretty hard to kill (what with the SSD and all), and that's arguably the easiest option since the IR is still at it's "height."

[Corey]

Are the single-eras being expanded?  Sweet.

We've done a news post for each individual era over the last 2 years, covering what the GCs in those eras are.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Do you mean that every faction except the IR has to advance in era in era-progressive GCs, because they have to kill the Imperial leader as the conquer or someone else does it for them?  The IR does, in older versions, have the option of winning the game just with Isard, since she's the starting leader and pretty hard to kill (what with the SSD and all), and that's arguably the easiest option since the IR is still at it's "height."

That's sort of what I'm saying. The IR has always had toe power to get to whatever point they want, and stay there. Manual era changes increasdes that even more- they can get to when they're stronges (Era 3) or stay when the NR is the weakest (Era 1) and if they decided to keep that hero back, or if the AI were to hoard them, there's fuckall the NR or any other faction can do about it.

There are a few points to this:

Gameplay/Balance: The timer puts at least come pressure on the IR to take advantage of their power points, and stops them from being the sole determining factor in a system where they otherwise have all the power to determine their own decline/enemy growth.

Story: The regime changes are the backbone of the narrative in the GC, and from a lore perspective, the timed events tend to be the closest to how things "actually" happened- the player can simply choose to expedite those events.

Player Choice: This is the one that I think is causing some people to dislike the change, but I think people are looking at it the wrong way. If the basis of the complaint is that "I want to choose which era I'm playing in for the largest GCs and stay in it indefinitely" then saying there's no timer is, I think, the worst way to address that point. Because again, that option only exists for the Imperial Remnant and in no way solves the issue for anyone else, and still requires getting to that point in-game, which is a significant investment in time and resources.

So, if the point really is getting to choose which era you're playing in for large GCs, I think the better solution there is the most direct- we keep working to expand the roster of GCs in each era, which makes that choice be available for every faction, instead of, in my opinion, cheapening the era mechanic in the GCs that are supposed to be progressive as a story thing as opposed to just being a glorified menu system to pick an era in a larger GC so that one out of what is currently 8 and growing total playable factions can have that choice.

If we were to remove that potential drawback to those power points, it would have to come at either an extra cost/disadvantage for ther IR, or in a way that still pushes the other factions forward so it's not simply a method to win as easily as possible, which will take a lot more work to implement.

[ErikModi]

That explains things very well, thank you.

Still not sure I like it, but I understand it.  But since I haven't played it, I'll withhold judgement for now.

[0ffkilter]

Yeah that does make sense, I guess the other factions still have very little power over what they can go to advance (esp NR in era 1) except for waiting it out.   I'm hoping for the best, and thank you for the explanation!