How do you imagine that? Usually you need quite big world to generate something like that.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
How do you imagine that? Usually you need quite big world to generate something like that.
Well, like I said, I've only given this cursory thought, but I imagine the outline would be something like the following:
Divide the map of ardania into provinces. Each noble house the player can choose from has an associated starting province.
Each province has an associated quest. One you complete that quest, you gain control of that province, and can move on to quests in adjacent provinces.
At the same time, other noble houses are competing to complete quests in their neighbouring provinces. Later on, you can try to wrest control of provinces from rival houses through conquest or succession. (And naturally, the converse can occur.)
Controlling a province gives you added resources for either embellishing your capital, or founding new colonies in outlying territories. (A little like Zeus, as you suggested.) Completing a quest usually twinks you out with special artifacts, and of course a portion of your cash and heroes can be carried from quest to quest.
Kidnappings, sabotage, subversion or rebellion, religious conversions and diplomatic missions, or supernatural events like Vendral awakening or Url Shekk being summoned could also be triggered to spice things up. Certain boss-monsters and their followers could effectively behave like rival houses, while requiring hunts for special artifacts to permanently defeat.
So basically, you'd have a little bit of pre-scripted story in the form of individual provinces' quest material, but the overall narrative is something that emerges from the order in which you tackle quests, the large-scale ethical and tactical decisions you make, and how your allies and rivals in turn react to that.
In other words, very similar to a 'Lite' version of what you'd see in crusader kings, which is kind of why I hoped Paradox would jump all over this.
Well, like I said, I've only given this cursory thought, but I imagine the outline would be something like the following:
Divide the map of ardania into provinces. Each noble house the player can choose from has an associated starting province.
Each province has an associated quest. One you complete that quest, you gain control of that province, and can move on to quests in adjacent provinces.
At the same time, other noble houses are competing to complete quests in their neighbouring provinces. Later on, you can try to wrest control of provinces from rival houses through conquest or succession. (And naturally, the converse can occur.)
Controlling a province gives you added resources for either embellishing your capital, or founding new colonies in outlying territories. (A little like Zeus, as you suggested.) Completing a quest usually twinks you out with special artifacts, and of course a portion of your cash and heroes can be carried from quest to quest.
Kidnappings, sabotage, subversion or rebellion, religious conversions and diplomatic missions, or supernatural events like Vendral awakening or Url Shekk being summoned could also be triggered to spice things up. Certain boss-monsters and their followers could effectively behave like rival houses, while requiring hunts for special artifacts to permanently defeat.
So basically, you'd have a little bit of pre-scripted story in the form of individual provinces' quest material, but the overall narrative is something that emerges from the order in which you tackle quests, the large-scale ethical and tactical decisions you make, and how your allies and rivals in turn react to that.
In other words, very similar to a 'Lite' version of what you'd see in crusader kings, which is kind of why I hoped Paradox would jump all over this.
I can't say I like this. This looks like what Dune had. Or Seven Kingdoms 2. BFME II had it too... and other games. This could be mode, but not full campaign. Because you can't make it interesting enough. Or I haven't seen interesting enough version of that. And no, this wouldn't be Crusader Kings lite. As main game would be inside provinces, not outside of them, the outside mode would be too simple.
I'm afraid I'm not personally familiar with those examples, but going by the wiki descriptions at least, BFME (II especially) didn't have a particularly emergent storyline at all. All the major events were pre-scripted- which, as I've elaborated, kind of defeats the purpose here.
I'm also not sure there needs to be some vast distinction between the settlement/ardania views- in the same way that, say, Emperor RotMK allowed you to muster armies to invade and subjugate other city-states, or send away spies, or possibly resign to vassalhood yourself, in ways that interfaced directly with one's settlement. One could imagine assembling a hand-picked team of hero commanders, or bribing a foreign hero into your employ as a double agent, using something similar to reward-flag mechanics.
I'm not saying that doing this sort of thing right would be trivial- I'm just saying that if any studio could pull it off, Paradox could.
I'm also not sure there needs to be some vast distinction between the settlement/ardania views- in the same way that, say, Emperor RotMK allowed you to muster armies to invade and subjugate other city-states, or send away spies, or possibly resign to vassalhood yourself, in ways that interfaced directly with one's settlement. One could imagine assembling a hand-picked team of hero commanders, or bribing a foreign hero into your employ as a double agent, using something similar to reward-flag mechanics.
I'm not saying that doing this sort of thing right would be trivial- I'm just saying that if any studio could pull it off, Paradox could.
Columbo said:
Ha, I was thinking the same thing. Or rather, people who clearly are under the illusion that they know what they're talking about.
Alfryd said:
Because I think expanding the role of henchmen *to anything* takes away from what Majesty is. I believe it was mis-billed as "sim", but that was probably the closest term Cyberlore or whoever could come up with to describe what Majesty did and still make it somewhat understandable to players. And again, I don't believe the hero AI is "suicidal".
My desire to see a sequel is just to see more Majesty play extended, since once you've completed the game and NE, there's really nothing left. So aside from my previously noted examples, perhaps linking scenarios so one matters to the next (i.e., you complete one and have access to Dauros in the next) and beefing up the editor so you can create your own *and* link them would be nice.
Spiderman, I still don't understand what you're driving at. Whether or not the AI is suicidal, my personal desire for henchmen development (and to be fair, I'd also like more depth to the range of hero classes), isn't predicated on that. (I don't even think Colombo's is, but I suppose he can speak for himself.)
I only mentioned the point about self-preservation to reassure you that having extra henchmen around need not take away the heroes' role as a primary military force- which, as I understood, was your main and understandable objection- because by their nature, henchmen would be too weak to deal with most threats, and would not try to engage them.
So, unless you have a specific objection to that logic, I need to understand why you think expanding the henchmen's role in any way would undercut the spirit of majesty. Because that is a very broad statement, and I'm worried that you've seized upon some internal interpretation of what we're suggesting that ain't necessarily accurate, as was the case with mixing up races/professions.
EDIT: Also, given your reference to 'sim' as an inappropriate description for Majesty, perhaps it would be helpful if you explained what you believe did make the game compelling. And perhaps that would help us to determine what would or would not conflict with that.
Last edited:
Anyone else having a problem with the reply box continually refreshing itself and going back up at the top?
I agree that the two are separate, I was merely trying to say the heros are not suicidal and should not even be referred as such, since "more or less" implies they ARE suicidal.
I think having henchmen with the expanded role that you seem to be driving at is superfluous. Because I don't view this as a true sim game, I don't need to see merchants or jesters or craftsman or woodsmen or miners cluttering up the screen. Each current henchmen has a specific role: Peasants for building/repairing, Palace Guardsmen and "regular" guardsmen for the occasional fighting and tax collectors to, well, collect taxes. I don't see the need for the examples I just gave because if they're just "there", they're just fluff and if they DO have a role, I can't see it strengthing Majesty.
What made the game compelling was its simplicity. Put down some buildings, hire some heros, and let the game run with the occasional sovereign spell should you feel like it.
I agree that the two are separate, I was merely trying to say the heros are not suicidal and should not even be referred as such, since "more or less" implies they ARE suicidal.
I think having henchmen with the expanded role that you seem to be driving at is superfluous. Because I don't view this as a true sim game, I don't need to see merchants or jesters or craftsman or woodsmen or miners cluttering up the screen. Each current henchmen has a specific role: Peasants for building/repairing, Palace Guardsmen and "regular" guardsmen for the occasional fighting and tax collectors to, well, collect taxes. I don't see the need for the examples I just gave because if they're just "there", they're just fluff and if they DO have a role, I can't see it strengthing Majesty.
What made the game compelling was its simplicity. Put down some buildings, hire some heros, and let the game run with the occasional sovereign spell should you feel like it.
But Spidey, 'simplicity' clearly can't be the game's primary virtue. Otherwise, there would in fact be a compelling rationale to ensure that all heroes behaved in something like a perfectly rational and deferential way, and never berserked or wandered off or played music, or had qualms about buying poison or potions, or asked for a reward for their toil. If simplicity was the game's virtue, you'd simply flag your objectives, assign a priority, and only heroes with an appropriate degree of experience would ever tackle the problem, personality or free-will notwithstanding. If simplicity was the game's virtue, heroes would never actually buy weapon/armour upgrades in person- you'd simply research tech X and Y and Z and see them automatically applied to all units at once, as plenty of RTS titles do.
Majesty in fact introduced a number of significant complications over a standard RTS, while eliminating others, in a pattern that is consistent with improving verisimilitude, but not with increasing simplicity per se. Majesty is simpler-to-use than Warcraft in some ways and more-mechanically-complex in others. So I don't think this is really a fair characterisation.
Now I will say that Majesty's primary virtue was more in the area of psychological verisimilitude than, e.g, physical or economic verisimilitude (which is what would be chiefly improved by, e.g, dedicated ale-brewers and gong farmers.) And I understand that it's possible to be enthusiastic about the one form and indifferent to the other. To be honest, I've agonised over this at some length myself.
And if you're arguing for simplicity in the sense of "a simple interface", then I can totally get behind that idea. (As I gather, that was your main point of concern over race/profession mashups.) For example, I thought excessive micro this was one of the major weak points of, say, Dwarf Fortress, and Maj3 could definitely avoid going in that direction.
I just feel that arguing against henchmen expansion on the basis of 'that would be superfluous' is a little strange, given that Maj1 heroes did plenty of apparently superfluous things- unless you presume that the game's underlying purpose was to simulate a world, and not just to translate the player's tactical intent into action.
And if you're arguing for simplicity in the sense of "a simple interface", then I can totally get behind that idea. (As I gather, that was your main point of concern over race/profession mashups.) For example, I thought excessive micro this was one of the major weak points of, say, Dwarf Fortress, and Maj3 could definitely avoid going in that direction.
I just feel that arguing against henchmen expansion on the basis of 'that would be superfluous' is a little strange, given that Maj1 heroes did plenty of apparently superfluous things- unless you presume that the game's underlying purpose was to simulate a world, and not just to translate the player's tactical intent into action.
More generally, Spidey, when the game is billed as a Sim, and when the original developers always intended it to become a Sim, and when the most appealing mechanics clearly operate like a Sim... then it's really hard for me to think of the game as fundamentally 'not a Sim'.
I always tended to think of Majesty's defining characteristic as being it's attempt (however successful) to recreate the feeling of classic fantasy adventure yarns- not just in terms of armour mechanics or pithy quotations, but in terms of the characters' motives and flaws. There's a pretty popular fantasy show on the air right now, and do you know who the most badass, masterful, dangerous character there is?
It's the tax collector.
I do recall some kind of province-by-province expansion also being included in Rise of Legends (or, for that matter, Dungeon Keeper 2 or Mark of Chaos.) But if that's what you're talking about, I think I can say that these are, in effect, linear campaigns with (A) geographic presentation, and (B) a couple of optional side-quests. Maybe X-Com would be a better comparison, in terms of push-back from enemy AI and freedom of base-building (though not necessarily deployment mechanics)? There have been a lot of versions of Dune, so which are you referring to?
EDIT: I can't believe I forgot this, but the Total War series might be a reasonable model to follow here.
I always tended to think of Majesty's defining characteristic as being it's attempt (however successful) to recreate the feeling of classic fantasy adventure yarns- not just in terms of armour mechanics or pithy quotations, but in terms of the characters' motives and flaws. There's a pretty popular fantasy show on the air right now, and do you know who the most badass, masterful, dangerous character there is?
It's the tax collector.
To be fair, Seven Kingdoms 2 does seem to have been much more freeform. Could you describe the campaign mechanics a little bit, so I could get some idea of how it worked, and what you felt was lacking?
I do recall some kind of province-by-province expansion also being included in Rise of Legends (or, for that matter, Dungeon Keeper 2 or Mark of Chaos.) But if that's what you're talking about, I think I can say that these are, in effect, linear campaigns with (A) geographic presentation, and (B) a couple of optional side-quests. Maybe X-Com would be a better comparison, in terms of push-back from enemy AI and freedom of base-building (though not necessarily deployment mechanics)? There have been a lot of versions of Dune, so which are you referring to?
EDIT: I can't believe I forgot this, but the Total War series might be a reasonable model to follow here.
Last edited:
Alright, let's say for the moment we leave out extra henchmen. Spiderman: I'm kind of at a loss to grasp what you're after, but what kind of, e.g, Scenario Editor options would you want? How would you feel about, e.g, adding heroic prestige classes, or expanding the range of bounty flags?
And let's say we go with a primarily pre-scripted storyline. (Which might satisfy Spidey's desire for, e.g, more quests.) Colombo: What kind of plot might you imagine the game having? Could you live with having the game as a direct chronological sequel to Maj2, or would you want a reboot of the older setting? What do you think would make for a good story (or a bad one)?
Finally, going back to my reply to Hapuga: While it's true that taking Maj2 and fixing the multiplayer, adding random freestyle maps and cleansing every bug would not be enough to redeem the experience for me, restoring at least the original's range of content AND substantially improving on the original's AI might be. It's just that I'm very, very skeptical about InoCo's ability and willingness to do so. With that said, things like party-formation and carrying heroes from quest to quest are definitely elements I'd love to see retained in some form.
And let's say we go with a primarily pre-scripted storyline. (Which might satisfy Spidey's desire for, e.g, more quests.) Colombo: What kind of plot might you imagine the game having? Could you live with having the game as a direct chronological sequel to Maj2, or would you want a reboot of the older setting? What do you think would make for a good story (or a bad one)?
Finally, going back to my reply to Hapuga: While it's true that taking Maj2 and fixing the multiplayer, adding random freestyle maps and cleansing every bug would not be enough to redeem the experience for me, restoring at least the original's range of content AND substantially improving on the original's AI might be. It's just that I'm very, very skeptical about InoCo's ability and willingness to do so. With that said, things like party-formation and carrying heroes from quest to quest are definitely elements I'd love to see retained in some form.
Okay, I'm not sure why when you asked me what *I* thought was compelling about Majesty that you chose to rebut with basically "that can't be it". You asked me, I told you, and if you choose to dismiss it, that's fine, but then clearly, with that viewpoint, I find it useless to continue to discuss anything else about what *I* think since it seems that if it doesn't jive with your viewpoint, it's going to be wrong.
Although it seems you got it in the next post.
But heros are the focus of the game; i.e. they're the ones that respond to flags and do stuff. Henchmen are not; i.e. they don't have a decision tree.
I'm not sure what to make of your statement since in the link you provided, Jay clearly says:
Jay said:
So yes, billed as a Sim, may have been intended as a Sim... but even the developer acknowledges that it did not turn out to be a Sim.
Alfryd said:
Well, I believe I already mentioned that the ability to make your own scenarios and link them would be nice. "Making your own scenarios" is just that, being able to construct everything in a scenario (building, monsters, victory conditions, etc) without using preset ones. Not sure about "prestige classes" since my interpretation of that is existing heros "evolving/training" to become something else; if so, that would be a no but having new classes altogether may be okay, depending on what they are. Don't know about more bounty flags; a Protect one was always mentioned as one but not sure about others. As I also previously mentioned, I barely used flags to begin with so can't say what might be useful to others.
Maybe beefing up the computer AI (I guess kinda similar to Warlock's mage AI from what I'm reading?) so follow some preset behaviors/building patterns, but that's a lot of tackle.
No, I'm not going to automatically reject what you say. But you were saying something that seemed patently false- in that Majesty is not uniformly simpler compared to a typical RTS. You did not explain that you meant 'simplicity' in terms of user interface/low micro, and frankly, the onus should not be on me to try and guess.
Now, if UI/micro concerns are your main objection, then once again, I'm not suggesting the game should impose an extra burden on the player in that respect. I would imagine most citizens being auto-recruited with little or no oversight, after you place the right building in a given spot. There isn't any extra fiddling there, and I think it's unfair to claim that base-building and economics was a less significant feature of Majesty than the heroes were. It just wasn't as good.
You have not explained why this idea takes away from the spirit of majesty, when I have already outlined how existing henchmen behaviour is antithetical to majesty's spirit, how their paucity weakens it as a Sim, and that there are positive reasons to change that- in that this would help to attract a wider demographic from other Sim/citybuilder titles. Frankly, you're starting to sound oppressed by their existence.
Yes, I know that the developers did not consider Maj1 to be entirely successful as an effort at making a Sim. But they certainly wanted to go in that direction in the sequel, believed it would be more successful in that regard, and you're basically telling to me to assume they were wholly incompetent in that evaluation. That is a lot for me to swallow, particularly when it chimes strongly with my own intuition on the subject. If you want to change my mind, you're going to have do better than this.
I'm probably going to regret asking... but if heroes are the focus of the game, why are you opposed to having prestige classes? Given that I already outlined a mechanism for supporting this within the context of hiring mechanics, that you seem to be okay with?
That is NOT what I said. At no point did I mention or compare it to a "typical RTS". And I shouldn't have to explain what it meant in terms of interface/low micro; I explained very succintly why it was simple to me; how you choose to interpret that is up to you (although apparently, you're reading a heck of a lot more into it than what needs to be).
I believe I have. Since you think I haven't, I don't think it will be any more productive by repeating myself.
The sequel has no bearing about talking about the original since it was not made, and the original is what we are talking about. I did not say anything about their competence in regards to their sequel evaluation. Again, from, your statement
This is referring solely to original Majesty, yes? So when Jay says it did not turn out as a Sim, that jives with what *I* said originally about the original game. *You* can still think of it as a Sim, sure, but clearly, you are trying to design a sequel and discuss its goals with a fundamental difference in thinking than I.
Your outline has been lost in all of this posting trying to clarify what I said and trying to stop you from putting words in my mouth. So please quote or explain again what this means to you before I say what I think.
Alfryd: Can you finally see it? This discussion can't go anywhere. That willing to have a discussion and explain his stance. He just stays on a road and fire on anything that come close.
I suggest we take take this discussion on different road, where that guy won't attack us.
I suggest we take take this discussion on different road, where that guy won't attack us.
Really? Show me where I attacked *first*.
Although that is the odd thing about this... it's like the three of us are actually making the sequel and need to come to some agreement about what goes into game before we start coding in tandem. Which isn't the case at all (at least, not on my part). I've stated what I would like in a Majesty sequel (well, more what I *don't* want) and you guys have stated what you want. There's no need to agree or have the other "buy in" to the others' views at all. So I'm a bit baffled about the continued effort of seemingly trying to.
Although that is the odd thing about this... it's like the three of us are actually making the sequel and need to come to some agreement about what goes into game before we start coding in tandem. Which isn't the case at all (at least, not on my part). I've stated what I would like in a Majesty sequel (well, more what I *don't* want) and you guys have stated what you want. There's no need to agree or have the other "buy in" to the others' views at all. So I'm a bit baffled about the continued effort of seemingly trying to.
Rather than answering you point-by-point Spidey, let me try to clear this up one more time.
Let us suppose that I were to propose a new set of heroes. (Which you don't intrinsically object to.) Let me furthermore posit that their first and foremost specialty is not combat. (Which you apparently don't object to, or you'd need to argue against gnomes and healers.) Let me furthermore posit that their specialty is, e.g, making swords and potions and cloaks of stealth, et cetera. Allow me to suggest that the buildings to house such heroes already exist in the game, and to emphasise that these heroes still have full decision trees, quirky personalities, pay taxes, chase rewards they have a fair chance of collecting, and the like.
Now, which step of this do you have a problem with? You can't claim that things like swords and potions and cloaks of stealth are superfluous, because they're evidently vital to the gameplay. Nor is this going to take away the combat role from pre-existing heroes, because by their nature, they're not going to be any more combat-ready than gnomes or healers would be. Fighting heroes will still, well, do the fighting. Which was your other concern.
I am, of course, suggesting something indistinguishable from henchmen development as I have tried to convey it. (Hell, with enough prestige classes, it wouldn't even be the bulk of new material.)
The reason why I am trying to reach a concensus here is because I might, someday, like to try making/releasing a spiritual successor to Majesty. A game whose Sim elements were the most consistently praised, and whose non-Sim elements were, unfortunately, relatively flaky and derivative. And ideally, I would like folks to enjoy it. No, I don't need your permission or approval in any way, but I was hoping, partly out of the (charitable) assumption that you might represent some non-trivial demographic, and partly out of respect for our acquaintance, that I could make a game that you would also like to play. I am still hopeful of that, in that I don't think the priorities I favour actually interfere with yours.
I can only say that I will try my utmost, if such a project ever comes to pass, to satisfy your requirements for a simple UI and minimal micro. These are worthy goals and I fully support them. But you were, in fact, the first to pass judgement in this thread, and I hope you will consider that.
Let us suppose that I were to propose a new set of heroes. (Which you don't intrinsically object to.) Let me furthermore posit that their first and foremost specialty is not combat. (Which you apparently don't object to, or you'd need to argue against gnomes and healers.) Let me furthermore posit that their specialty is, e.g, making swords and potions and cloaks of stealth, et cetera. Allow me to suggest that the buildings to house such heroes already exist in the game, and to emphasise that these heroes still have full decision trees, quirky personalities, pay taxes, chase rewards they have a fair chance of collecting, and the like.
Now, which step of this do you have a problem with? You can't claim that things like swords and potions and cloaks of stealth are superfluous, because they're evidently vital to the gameplay. Nor is this going to take away the combat role from pre-existing heroes, because by their nature, they're not going to be any more combat-ready than gnomes or healers would be. Fighting heroes will still, well, do the fighting. Which was your other concern.
I am, of course, suggesting something indistinguishable from henchmen development as I have tried to convey it. (Hell, with enough prestige classes, it wouldn't even be the bulk of new material.)
The reason why I am trying to reach a concensus here is because I might, someday, like to try making/releasing a spiritual successor to Majesty. A game whose Sim elements were the most consistently praised, and whose non-Sim elements were, unfortunately, relatively flaky and derivative. And ideally, I would like folks to enjoy it. No, I don't need your permission or approval in any way, but I was hoping, partly out of the (charitable) assumption that you might represent some non-trivial demographic, and partly out of respect for our acquaintance, that I could make a game that you would also like to play. I am still hopeful of that, in that I don't think the priorities I favour actually interfere with yours.
I can only say that I will try my utmost, if such a project ever comes to pass, to satisfy your requirements for a simple UI and minimal micro. These are worthy goals and I fully support them. But you were, in fact, the first to pass judgement in this thread, and I hope you will consider that.
Last edited:
With specific reference to prestige classes, I was suggesting that one could adapt the hiring system here to heroes/citizens already present within the kingdom. You could then, e.g, implement vacancies for the position of, e.g, assassin or white lotus boss as researchable 'upgrades' at the rogues' guild, and see who applies for it.
I would say that hero AI doesn't strike me as suicidal per se- rather, the problem is that it's a little too random. That is, you'll (sometimes) see junior heroes berserking against rock golems for no discernible reason, while veterans (sometimes) flee from a puny ratman when they have scads of backup. Some spontaneity is good, but this kind of behaviour verges on the lunatic, particularly from heroes with 15+ int/will. I'm not saying it should never happen, but it happens more often than I'd like.
One fairly common situation that's not exactly at either extreme, but still problematic, is as follows: I put a 500-gold reward on a monster lair that I've discovered, and 4 or 5 low-level heroes will start heading to collect it. They all arrive on the scene and start pelting away at the ruined castle. Then a mid-level monster like a troll or minotaur spawns, and proceeds to demolish or scatter each of the heroes around the perimeter, one at a time- Because all the heroes are fixated on the primary target, never notice the new monster approaching, and don't provide backup to eachother. The result is that a monster they could easily handle collectively winds up trouncing them as individuals.
In principle, Maj2's party-formation or Maj1's follow-and-support arrangement go some way toward fixing this problem, but wind up introducing several others. What I was thinking the sequel could do instead would be to merge party-formation with flag-declarations- i.e, that the applicants for a given attack or explore flag would automatically consider banding together (in terms of group-strength calculations, mutual support, etc.), and dissolve the group once the task was complete. Optionally, you could even allow the player to screen applicants for a given mission this way.
Well, Colombo, since you suggested it, I'd be happy to hear where you might want the discussion to go next. My favourites would be thinking up new heroic prestige classes or finding ways to spruce up the old quest structure, but I'll leave it up to you.
I would say that hero AI doesn't strike me as suicidal per se- rather, the problem is that it's a little too random. That is, you'll (sometimes) see junior heroes berserking against rock golems for no discernible reason, while veterans (sometimes) flee from a puny ratman when they have scads of backup. Some spontaneity is good, but this kind of behaviour verges on the lunatic, particularly from heroes with 15+ int/will. I'm not saying it should never happen, but it happens more often than I'd like.
One fairly common situation that's not exactly at either extreme, but still problematic, is as follows: I put a 500-gold reward on a monster lair that I've discovered, and 4 or 5 low-level heroes will start heading to collect it. They all arrive on the scene and start pelting away at the ruined castle. Then a mid-level monster like a troll or minotaur spawns, and proceeds to demolish or scatter each of the heroes around the perimeter, one at a time- Because all the heroes are fixated on the primary target, never notice the new monster approaching, and don't provide backup to eachother. The result is that a monster they could easily handle collectively winds up trouncing them as individuals.
In principle, Maj2's party-formation or Maj1's follow-and-support arrangement go some way toward fixing this problem, but wind up introducing several others. What I was thinking the sequel could do instead would be to merge party-formation with flag-declarations- i.e, that the applicants for a given attack or explore flag would automatically consider banding together (in terms of group-strength calculations, mutual support, etc.), and dissolve the group once the task was complete. Optionally, you could even allow the player to screen applicants for a given mission this way.
I would rather like automatic parties. That heroes would band together automatically.
Or, they could hire henchmen and be leaders.
Or, they could hire henchmen and be leaders.
I remember that hireable henchmen (at the barracks) were an intended feature in Maj: Legends, and there was a lot of discussion on this topic during the older Maj3 thread. I'm very skeptical about it thematically, but in terms of strict realism, there's some logic to it. So, I don't know. Maybe just for warriors' guild residents, since they are an explicitly military force.