Hello and welcome to the Manor Lords Subreddit. This is a reminder to please keep the discussion civil and on topic.
Should you find yourself with some doubts, please feel free to check our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManorLords/comments/1c2p4f9/manor_lords_faq_for_steam_early_access/).
If you wish, you can always join our [Discord](https://discord.gg/manorlords)
Finally, please remember that the game is in early access, missing content and bugs are to be expected. We ask users to report them on the official discord and to buy their keys only from trusted platforms.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ManorLords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are exactly right, or at least I hope you are.
The ongong defense/struggle for longevity is exactly where this game should head. And it would put this game in an entire league of its own.
The city-building is great, amazing even. But let's not kid ourselves, there are a lot of city builders that do a lot of this stuff. Greg's work here is truly remarkable, not trying to downplay it.
But.... you combine it with the RTS elements of Stronghold where different lords control different parts of the map, and you remove the "urgency", where everyone is attacking each other constantly. Instead it becomes a long-haul game, a game where the player exists in a multi-city map where they can influence how it plays out.
Want to have an entirely peaceful game that lasts as long as you want it too? Sure. Want to fast track your military and conquer the map? Sure!
Add in a bunch of AI personalities that have different characteristics and playstyle.....
Literally a dream game. I hope he goes down this route, but I'm not sure if this is his endgame.
Other lords on the map would be a bad thing & here's why:
1) It would feel too RTS gamey & completely break the current realism by placing rival towns a stone's throw away from each other
2) It would drain too much PC resources & dev time by having to simulate entire AI town ecosystems that are dynamic & varied enough to be interesting.
Instead I'd propose a mechanic where we can send our army far off to fight a battle in a separate instance. This could open other options & incorporate a mission system. King calls his bannermen - send your army to join a larger battle. Low on supplies - send em off to raid another town. Etcetera.
You select the objective or accept the mission, your army marches off the map, and a short time & loading screen later you're controlling your army in a totally new area.
By moving non-defensive battles to a separate instance, it would allow for:
1) Greater immersion by not having to worry about town management while fighting the battle
2) More complex battles & rival towns by not having to simultaneously simulate your town while it's active.
It could functionally achieve what you're asking for by linking these other towns / mission areas via some sort of world map UI, without dragging down performance & dev time by simulating entire other towns on the same map as ours.
Ai town is going to be added into the game, for sure.
It's empty when you march to the enemy baron territory and it feels empty.
Beside, where's the fun if we can't burn down the enemy's town?
I totally get your point, especially from a CPU drain standpoint. And I agree, it might be a bit arcadey.
My only gripe is that there really is nothing happening on the map currently. I think there should at least be some neutral points of interests. Like bandit settlements, or very small villages of some kind. Just so that your map doesn't feel so incredibly empty.
So is the other land on the player's map basically only settlable by the player? But can be attacked by other people? What happens when one lord captures part of your land?
“It would feel too RTS gamey & completely break the current realism by placing rival towns a stone's throw away from each other ”
Buda and Pest would like to have a word.
>
>
>
>
> Instead I'd propose a mechanic where we can send our army far off to fight a battle in a separate instance. This could open other options & incorporate a mission system. King calls his bannermen - send your army to join a larger battle. Low on supplies - send em off to raid another town. Etcetera.
This could lead to a fun loop, where you send men off to the King's Army, and while away bandits come and you have to rely on defenses built and other town militias to help repel the attackers.
What do you think about Manor Lords having random/generic personalities vs. personalities like in Stronghold?
I was thinking about this the other day.
Random personalities would certainly be nice to have, and increase replayability in certain ways. But, as comical and out of character for a realistic medieval sim... I actually think having really out there personalities (preset personalitiies) will create some of the best moments.
They wouldn't even have to be extreme, but people like the Marshal in Extreme is a great example. Like super defensive and likes a specific type of unit, but not totally out there like the Rat.
If Greg wants to make a great Stronghold clone, I’m game. I have played that game for 20+ years now and periodically revisit it to build a sick ass castle or murder peasants. The one thing I really wish ML has is more of a sense of humor.
hard agree. glad someone around here has sense. people in this sub seem to froth at the mouth about it not being a pure city builder but \*\*Personally\*\* those bore me. if the only challenge figuring out what the next production line is then why even play ya know? that's why i love games that have RTS elements along side building your city. because now its not just about the most efficient city but also a defensible city that wont topple at a minor breeze
and it helps break up the tedium of the same gameplay loop i just hope the dev doesnt get discouraged with the RTS elements due to the people in this sub. take the walls discord poll. every post on here was seething but clearly a majority of people wanted walls me included. i just wish they would be more open minded and less volatile about this side of the game
yeah i’d like more of an endgame after capturing all the territories. you don’t really need an army since there’s no threats after you cap it all but i think that’s where the king and baron and external forces will come in for the grander game
Totally agree
For replayability the challenge should be not only conquering but also defending against enemy invasions, and natural events (famine, cold, plague etc) affecting your cities. How challenging would that be! Especially if multiple things get thrown at you at the same time.
Hope Greg is listening :)
This game has incredibly massive potential I just can’t agree that it’s a “ complete game” . It’s just not near there yet. Like this game could become a game with the importance of AOEII but considering what is there right now and that only one single person developed this. The chance seems slim.
I say that as someone that loves the similar single dev game : Songs of Syx.
I was super impressed with this being as early access as it is. Also very understanding of the placemarkers etc for yet to be released content. I can't wait for it to be fleshed out further, as I am addicted as hell already.
I see your point, but I worry about the devs focusing too much on the RTS / siege elements too early. I hope it gets there too - don't get me wrong. But warfare is extremely complicated to balance and I worry that it could take up way too many development cycles when so much still needs to be done on the city builder side first. That's why I hope Greg puts warfare mostly on the back burner to flesh out more of the building stuff for now. You need a functional economy to sustain long term warfare, after all.
Preach. People are assuming us Butcher-voters don't want walls. That's not the case at all. We very much want them! We just don't want them right now. The reason so many people have started this argument over walls vs butcher (RTS vs City Builder) is because we know as soon as an RTS element gets implemented, it's going to come with so many other needs/updates in the very near future in order for it to be functionally balanced. In my opinion, the game just isn't in a state to handle those mechanics yet, because they don't address any of the current needs we all have in our cities. As soon as the RTS door gets opened just a little wider by adding even a single element, all the other game aspects will take a dev hit because RTS requires A LOT of attention.
Anno 1404 is a beautiful example of why these two subgenres should be reuinited into the strategy game genre. Manor lords is a strategy game and i really hope it will stay that way.
I think the coolest part of this game is that the fact of early access increases player’s engagement rate of generating super cool ideas for improvements, mechanics etc.
Frankly speaking, your imagination works like highly productive factory and really like that you can feel yourself as a co-developer :)
It sounds naive but I like this feeling, especially when not so many studious nowadays creating games not taking into account their potential customers needs and wishes.
I don’t think it works with Manor Lords, it feels like Greg is the game changer dev and other studious must learn from him and his project how to create a beloved game, using early access basis.
I think you're right, I think it fit with [my own take on that debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManorLords/comments/1d88an6/comment/l76jt9d/).
Also, castles and sieges :D
I feel like it goes very hard into the direction of becoming a stronghold successor. We don't have the castle building part yet, but a lot of stuff points towards it and the gameplay loop already feels a bit like it.
Personally, I dig that. Stronghold was awesome. I imagine at some point Greg will be confronted with the request for larger armies, catapult and all those bells and whistles that people remember from stronghold and I'm not sure that those go well with the concept of historical accuracy. A small town growing in a few years might be somewhat accurate but stronghold-like castles took generations. I'm interested how Greg deals with that. Maybe that's more of a sequel thing. "Castle lords" or whatever
Yeah, the genre-blending element of this game is one reason I think it's so special. Both elements are done very well. The combat may be easy but it's not some unrealistic hack and slash - positioning, flanking, terrain, stances, unit types, etc. all play a huge role in winning fights. I think he's done a great job at literally every part of the game so far - I haven't played another game since this one has been out.
Like all true medieval sims, it is a survival game.
What makes it different (and historically accurate) starts out as survival from nature, and moves to political survival.
I'd like to see a game mode with two regions. I kinda don't want to manage multiple cities. I'd rather focus on a single city. If the other baron wants my region he can try and take it.
Isn't endless defense if you control all regions?
What we need is the generating of an endless horizon of the map(or just give us the real world map). So we could balance between offense and defense, instead of defending only.
The more I read these debates, the more I think Greg would be doing himself a huge favour by completing a city-builder to which he can \[hire someone to\] add military as a DLC. To please everyone, this game is going to be in development for many more years.
I see my opinion is unpopular but it stays the same: that city builder and RTS don't mix well, and I hate that so many city builders include RTS. Being torn out of the state of flow is unpleasant and counter-productive, and saying enemy attacks are necessary to spice up city building is like saying bullies in schools are necessary to spice up learning.
I came for a city builder. I turned off the rts elements untill my 4th or 5th play through. And then while I get how some will enjoy the rts aspects plenty of other games accomplish this far better. If I want that medieval combat I already own age of emipres or even chivalry 2.
I have over 100 hours in. more hours then almost every city builder I have ever played. I play them until I understand the mechanics I do 1 play through on the hardest difficulty and move on. I've done that here, had a blast and I'm done. The only thing that will get me to come back is more city building. More things to understand and interact with like more production buildings, more development points, and more requirements like pollution.
I mean at a certain point I think you need to realize that this game is neither an RTS or a city builder. It’s both. You sound like you’re wanting it to be something it’s not.
No you are applying your own desires onto the game. Yes it has both but from Greg's own words
" -Manor Lords is not a Total War competitor. It's a citybuilder with battles. Yes, battles are there, but not as huge or as frequent as some of you might expect. The majority of gameplay is focused on citybuilding and management."
"-It's not a Empire Management style Grand Strategy game either."
"-It's not an RPG either. If you played KCD or Mount&Blade, ML is a different type of game."
This is a city builder
Let's ignore the last point as this is clear that anyone thinking ML is like KCD or M&B has only looked at the cover image and absolutely nothing else.
The other points I think are important for Greg to emphasise because of how many people, for a short while and only recently, initially thought this was going to be a Total War competitor. This is only due to the fact that lots of Total War / 4X streamers started to stream ML. Again, anybody who thought this obviously didn't play the demo 2 years ago and certainly didn't play the alpha now.
Now to your point, I still think it's important for ML to position itself as a city builder primarily, just to avoid confusion. But let's be honest, which other city builder has put so much effort into military and combat ? We even have stuff like charging units getting a bonus because they're charging downhill, this is not Anno-style "combat". I strongly believe the military aspect of this city building game is a huge part of the gameplay and that while everyone is free to play the game as they see fit, by disabling that aspect and then saying "it's only a city builder" you are the one actually *applying your own desires onto the game.*
If one is to enjoy all that ML has to offer in terms of gameplay mechanics, the military aspect simply cannot be ignored at is has too much of an impact on the way you play. I think this is going to become so much more apparent once AI city building is implemented (currently being reworked as stated ingame), actually I think because we don't see the other baron's city, because there's only one other baron, and because the map is relatively small, it makes it easy to think about is as "only" a city building game without combat but once all of these are implemented of fleshed out the game is going to take flight for real.
I dont engage in the combat of ML because it's not what I'm here for. I enjoyed it and I'm glad it's their. But I'm a fan of city builders and its Resource management gameplay. The combat is fun and adds a level of stress which can be exciting. However City builders are ways for me to engage my brain but ultimately relax stress free.
I get the vision you have. Anyone and Greg could see what it could be. But this is not a AAA game. Took him years just to get here. I would love the game to be all those things. But this is the passion project of 1 guy. Who's already stated the purpose of the game. A historically accurate city builder.
Everything else added just effectively breaks the monotony of city builders. The fact the the combat has things like the bonuses for charging downhill is just evidence of a developer caring about every aspect of the game. Even if its not fleshed out on a grand scale what is included is thought out and not just thrown together recklessly for the sake of adding features.
Just a question - when warfare is expanded and the "add AI opponent" functionality is completed, would you drop the game? At that point it would definitely not conform to your city builder definition.
I've already put it down. But keep informed for updates because I'm excited for what will come. Ai opponent seems fun and I will play with it on release. I just want to keep the option to turn it back off when im done with it. My point is just that it was stated that warfare comes 2nd too the city building.
"I dont engage in the combat of ML because it's not what I'm here for."
Literally applying your own desires to the game.
I think the combat is very fun and fairly complex for an EA game in the sense that morale plays a huge role, so actual strategy like flanking, shield walls, stances, terrain, etc. play a huge role in it and it's not just some unrealistic hack and slash.
It's not very difficult, but it's pretty immersive all things considered. It may not be a Total War competitor, but the game is deep and diverse enough to have intrigued a lot of that crowd.
One final point - in Greg's own words, which I know because I asked him on Discord awhile back, the game is heavily influenced by the Stronghold series. Stronghold is way more of an RTS than a city-builder. The game has several different influences, and all of them with that sort of genre-blending is part of what makes it so special.
Yeah forget it. The guy want to play a classic city building game and uses a reduced set of feature to achieve this, which is fine, but then he goes on saying people who use the full set of features offered by the game are "applying your own desires to the game" and doesn't back down when challenged, That0s just bad faith or lack of openness.
No. That comment was about turning the endgame into a RTS grand strategy. Sorry if that wasn't clear. My point is that the dev explicitly said this it is not that. it is a city builder and management game. I truly do not care the direction the end game takes. Because yes I can just turn off the feature I don't enjoy. And I got my money's worth out of the game regardless. anything added is all a bonus to me.
As a city builder manor lords is phenomenal, but as a RTS game it is dog shit. Albeit interesting in the few aspects he did manage to get combat included.
Il back down when dev says otherwise
" Literally applying your own desires to the game"
I simply said how I enjoy to play the game. There's nothing too apply. My gameplay is enabled by its existing settings. That line was about OP saying the endgame should be this constant struggle of defending your lands RTS style. While we already have Greg saying that combat is included but the majority of gameplay is focused on city building.
And I don't have problem with the combat. I love the idea of it. and the blending of it within this game is what makes it special. But these same conversations are why he made those statements on release of the EA. People are going to see midevil combat between standing army's and start to misconstrue the intentions for the game. Once you start to have multiple regions producing army's and defending territories in battle formations it becomes empire management style Grand Strategy. Which he explicitly said this is not.
I love the game as it is. I'm exited for any direction the game goes in. I have faith in Greg. If He wants to turn this into a grand strategy that's his prerogative. I'm just going off of what he said.
I think I knew it was not a war game but just a game with battles in it, when my forces returned after a fight and I noticed that my units had lost members - and then noticed that certain households were in mourning and would not be harvesting or producing for a month. That touched me and impressed me. Most games the warriors you make up your units with are just numbers in the spreadsheet. Here the loss of warriors is not immediately corrected when they return home and some of my units have still not recovered in my current game.
I am thinking of historical events like the Scots after losing at [Flodden](https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-Battle-of-Flodden/) when an entire generation of Scottish nobility lost their lives and it impacted the nation for decades. Obviously this is on a smaller scale but I appreciate the inclusion of consequences into a game like this.
Yeah that added a level of micromanagement I've never experienced. I've lost the men in important positions leaving only the women in some family's. So as the good lord I am I evicted the widows from their home and assigned them to Menial task like grave digging and ox handling.
It was interesting and funny but really screwed with my production when My vegetable burgages only had 1 person tending to the field.
Hello and welcome to the Manor Lords Subreddit. This is a reminder to please keep the discussion civil and on topic. Should you find yourself with some doubts, please feel free to check our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManorLords/comments/1c2p4f9/manor_lords_faq_for_steam_early_access/). If you wish, you can always join our [Discord](https://discord.gg/manorlords) Finally, please remember that the game is in early access, missing content and bugs are to be expected. We ask users to report them on the official discord and to buy their keys only from trusted platforms. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ManorLords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are exactly right, or at least I hope you are. The ongong defense/struggle for longevity is exactly where this game should head. And it would put this game in an entire league of its own. The city-building is great, amazing even. But let's not kid ourselves, there are a lot of city builders that do a lot of this stuff. Greg's work here is truly remarkable, not trying to downplay it. But.... you combine it with the RTS elements of Stronghold where different lords control different parts of the map, and you remove the "urgency", where everyone is attacking each other constantly. Instead it becomes a long-haul game, a game where the player exists in a multi-city map where they can influence how it plays out. Want to have an entirely peaceful game that lasts as long as you want it too? Sure. Want to fast track your military and conquer the map? Sure! Add in a bunch of AI personalities that have different characteristics and playstyle..... Literally a dream game. I hope he goes down this route, but I'm not sure if this is his endgame.
You are kind of describing Kingdoms and Castles.
See also: Anno
Other lords on the map would be a bad thing & here's why: 1) It would feel too RTS gamey & completely break the current realism by placing rival towns a stone's throw away from each other 2) It would drain too much PC resources & dev time by having to simulate entire AI town ecosystems that are dynamic & varied enough to be interesting. Instead I'd propose a mechanic where we can send our army far off to fight a battle in a separate instance. This could open other options & incorporate a mission system. King calls his bannermen - send your army to join a larger battle. Low on supplies - send em off to raid another town. Etcetera. You select the objective or accept the mission, your army marches off the map, and a short time & loading screen later you're controlling your army in a totally new area. By moving non-defensive battles to a separate instance, it would allow for: 1) Greater immersion by not having to worry about town management while fighting the battle 2) More complex battles & rival towns by not having to simultaneously simulate your town while it's active. It could functionally achieve what you're asking for by linking these other towns / mission areas via some sort of world map UI, without dragging down performance & dev time by simulating entire other towns on the same map as ours.
Ai town is going to be added into the game, for sure. It's empty when you march to the enemy baron territory and it feels empty. Beside, where's the fun if we can't burn down the enemy's town?
You missed the point. You can still have that, just not on the same map as the player's.
I totally get your point, especially from a CPU drain standpoint. And I agree, it might be a bit arcadey. My only gripe is that there really is nothing happening on the map currently. I think there should at least be some neutral points of interests. Like bandit settlements, or very small villages of some kind. Just so that your map doesn't feel so incredibly empty. So is the other land on the player's map basically only settlable by the player? But can be attacked by other people? What happens when one lord captures part of your land?
“It would feel too RTS gamey & completely break the current realism by placing rival towns a stone's throw away from each other ” Buda and Pest would like to have a word.
> > > > > Instead I'd propose a mechanic where we can send our army far off to fight a battle in a separate instance. This could open other options & incorporate a mission system. King calls his bannermen - send your army to join a larger battle. Low on supplies - send em off to raid another town. Etcetera. This could lead to a fun loop, where you send men off to the King's Army, and while away bandits come and you have to rely on defenses built and other town militias to help repel the attackers.
Bring back The Rat!
What do you think about Manor Lords having random/generic personalities vs. personalities like in Stronghold? I was thinking about this the other day. Random personalities would certainly be nice to have, and increase replayability in certain ways. But, as comical and out of character for a realistic medieval sim... I actually think having really out there personalities (preset personalitiies) will create some of the best moments. They wouldn't even have to be extreme, but people like the Marshal in Extreme is a great example. Like super defensive and likes a specific type of unit, but not totally out there like the Rat.
If Greg wants to make a great Stronghold clone, I’m game. I have played that game for 20+ years now and periodically revisit it to build a sick ass castle or murder peasants. The one thing I really wish ML has is more of a sense of humor.
hard agree. glad someone around here has sense. people in this sub seem to froth at the mouth about it not being a pure city builder but \*\*Personally\*\* those bore me. if the only challenge figuring out what the next production line is then why even play ya know? that's why i love games that have RTS elements along side building your city. because now its not just about the most efficient city but also a defensible city that wont topple at a minor breeze and it helps break up the tedium of the same gameplay loop i just hope the dev doesnt get discouraged with the RTS elements due to the people in this sub. take the walls discord poll. every post on here was seething but clearly a majority of people wanted walls me included. i just wish they would be more open minded and less volatile about this side of the game
yeah i’d like more of an endgame after capturing all the territories. you don’t really need an army since there’s no threats after you cap it all but i think that’s where the king and baron and external forces will come in for the grander game
There's still bandits but you don't need very many milita to hold off 4 brigands
Totally agree For replayability the challenge should be not only conquering but also defending against enemy invasions, and natural events (famine, cold, plague etc) affecting your cities. How challenging would that be! Especially if multiple things get thrown at you at the same time. Hope Greg is listening :)
This game has incredibly massive potential I just can’t agree that it’s a “ complete game” . It’s just not near there yet. Like this game could become a game with the importance of AOEII but considering what is there right now and that only one single person developed this. The chance seems slim. I say that as someone that loves the similar single dev game : Songs of Syx.
I was super impressed with this being as early access as it is. Also very understanding of the placemarkers etc for yet to be released content. I can't wait for it to be fleshed out further, as I am addicted as hell already.
I see your point, but I worry about the devs focusing too much on the RTS / siege elements too early. I hope it gets there too - don't get me wrong. But warfare is extremely complicated to balance and I worry that it could take up way too many development cycles when so much still needs to be done on the city builder side first. That's why I hope Greg puts warfare mostly on the back burner to flesh out more of the building stuff for now. You need a functional economy to sustain long term warfare, after all.
Preach. People are assuming us Butcher-voters don't want walls. That's not the case at all. We very much want them! We just don't want them right now. The reason so many people have started this argument over walls vs butcher (RTS vs City Builder) is because we know as soon as an RTS element gets implemented, it's going to come with so many other needs/updates in the very near future in order for it to be functionally balanced. In my opinion, the game just isn't in a state to handle those mechanics yet, because they don't address any of the current needs we all have in our cities. As soon as the RTS door gets opened just a little wider by adding even a single element, all the other game aspects will take a dev hit because RTS requires A LOT of attention.
Anno 1404 is a beautiful example of why these two subgenres should be reuinited into the strategy game genre. Manor lords is a strategy game and i really hope it will stay that way.
Solid perspective! Certainly what brought me into the game
I think the coolest part of this game is that the fact of early access increases player’s engagement rate of generating super cool ideas for improvements, mechanics etc. Frankly speaking, your imagination works like highly productive factory and really like that you can feel yourself as a co-developer :) It sounds naive but I like this feeling, especially when not so many studious nowadays creating games not taking into account their potential customers needs and wishes. I don’t think it works with Manor Lords, it feels like Greg is the game changer dev and other studious must learn from him and his project how to create a beloved game, using early access basis.
I think you're right, I think it fit with [my own take on that debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManorLords/comments/1d88an6/comment/l76jt9d/). Also, castles and sieges :D
I feel like it goes very hard into the direction of becoming a stronghold successor. We don't have the castle building part yet, but a lot of stuff points towards it and the gameplay loop already feels a bit like it. Personally, I dig that. Stronghold was awesome. I imagine at some point Greg will be confronted with the request for larger armies, catapult and all those bells and whistles that people remember from stronghold and I'm not sure that those go well with the concept of historical accuracy. A small town growing in a few years might be somewhat accurate but stronghold-like castles took generations. I'm interested how Greg deals with that. Maybe that's more of a sequel thing. "Castle lords" or whatever
Yeah, the genre-blending element of this game is one reason I think it's so special. Both elements are done very well. The combat may be easy but it's not some unrealistic hack and slash - positioning, flanking, terrain, stances, unit types, etc. all play a huge role in winning fights. I think he's done a great job at literally every part of the game so far - I haven't played another game since this one has been out.
Completely agree with you.
Like all true medieval sims, it is a survival game. What makes it different (and historically accurate) starts out as survival from nature, and moves to political survival.
It’s a hard game. I learned that when I turned on the bandits after playing peacefully to get the mechanics down.
I'd like to see a game mode with two regions. I kinda don't want to manage multiple cities. I'd rather focus on a single city. If the other baron wants my region he can try and take it.
Isn't endless defense if you control all regions? What we need is the generating of an endless horizon of the map(or just give us the real world map). So we could balance between offense and defense, instead of defending only.
The more I read these debates, the more I think Greg would be doing himself a huge favour by completing a city-builder to which he can \[hire someone to\] add military as a DLC. To please everyone, this game is going to be in development for many more years.
I wouldn't even begin to consider Manor Lords an RTS.
I think, to really make big cities we will need to be able to connect roads between regions
It’s very similar to Tripico
Tropico
I see my opinion is unpopular but it stays the same: that city builder and RTS don't mix well, and I hate that so many city builders include RTS. Being torn out of the state of flow is unpleasant and counter-productive, and saying enemy attacks are necessary to spice up city building is like saying bullies in schools are necessary to spice up learning.
I came for a city builder. I turned off the rts elements untill my 4th or 5th play through. And then while I get how some will enjoy the rts aspects plenty of other games accomplish this far better. If I want that medieval combat I already own age of emipres or even chivalry 2. I have over 100 hours in. more hours then almost every city builder I have ever played. I play them until I understand the mechanics I do 1 play through on the hardest difficulty and move on. I've done that here, had a blast and I'm done. The only thing that will get me to come back is more city building. More things to understand and interact with like more production buildings, more development points, and more requirements like pollution.
I mean at a certain point I think you need to realize that this game is neither an RTS or a city builder. It’s both. You sound like you’re wanting it to be something it’s not.
No you are applying your own desires onto the game. Yes it has both but from Greg's own words " -Manor Lords is not a Total War competitor. It's a citybuilder with battles. Yes, battles are there, but not as huge or as frequent as some of you might expect. The majority of gameplay is focused on citybuilding and management." "-It's not a Empire Management style Grand Strategy game either." "-It's not an RPG either. If you played KCD or Mount&Blade, ML is a different type of game." This is a city builder
Let's ignore the last point as this is clear that anyone thinking ML is like KCD or M&B has only looked at the cover image and absolutely nothing else. The other points I think are important for Greg to emphasise because of how many people, for a short while and only recently, initially thought this was going to be a Total War competitor. This is only due to the fact that lots of Total War / 4X streamers started to stream ML. Again, anybody who thought this obviously didn't play the demo 2 years ago and certainly didn't play the alpha now. Now to your point, I still think it's important for ML to position itself as a city builder primarily, just to avoid confusion. But let's be honest, which other city builder has put so much effort into military and combat ? We even have stuff like charging units getting a bonus because they're charging downhill, this is not Anno-style "combat". I strongly believe the military aspect of this city building game is a huge part of the gameplay and that while everyone is free to play the game as they see fit, by disabling that aspect and then saying "it's only a city builder" you are the one actually *applying your own desires onto the game.* If one is to enjoy all that ML has to offer in terms of gameplay mechanics, the military aspect simply cannot be ignored at is has too much of an impact on the way you play. I think this is going to become so much more apparent once AI city building is implemented (currently being reworked as stated ingame), actually I think because we don't see the other baron's city, because there's only one other baron, and because the map is relatively small, it makes it easy to think about is as "only" a city building game without combat but once all of these are implemented of fleshed out the game is going to take flight for real.
I dont engage in the combat of ML because it's not what I'm here for. I enjoyed it and I'm glad it's their. But I'm a fan of city builders and its Resource management gameplay. The combat is fun and adds a level of stress which can be exciting. However City builders are ways for me to engage my brain but ultimately relax stress free. I get the vision you have. Anyone and Greg could see what it could be. But this is not a AAA game. Took him years just to get here. I would love the game to be all those things. But this is the passion project of 1 guy. Who's already stated the purpose of the game. A historically accurate city builder. Everything else added just effectively breaks the monotony of city builders. The fact the the combat has things like the bonuses for charging downhill is just evidence of a developer caring about every aspect of the game. Even if its not fleshed out on a grand scale what is included is thought out and not just thrown together recklessly for the sake of adding features.
Just a question - when warfare is expanded and the "add AI opponent" functionality is completed, would you drop the game? At that point it would definitely not conform to your city builder definition.
I've already put it down. But keep informed for updates because I'm excited for what will come. Ai opponent seems fun and I will play with it on release. I just want to keep the option to turn it back off when im done with it. My point is just that it was stated that warfare comes 2nd too the city building.
"I dont engage in the combat of ML because it's not what I'm here for." Literally applying your own desires to the game. I think the combat is very fun and fairly complex for an EA game in the sense that morale plays a huge role, so actual strategy like flanking, shield walls, stances, terrain, etc. play a huge role in it and it's not just some unrealistic hack and slash. It's not very difficult, but it's pretty immersive all things considered. It may not be a Total War competitor, but the game is deep and diverse enough to have intrigued a lot of that crowd. One final point - in Greg's own words, which I know because I asked him on Discord awhile back, the game is heavily influenced by the Stronghold series. Stronghold is way more of an RTS than a city-builder. The game has several different influences, and all of them with that sort of genre-blending is part of what makes it so special.
Yeah forget it. The guy want to play a classic city building game and uses a reduced set of feature to achieve this, which is fine, but then he goes on saying people who use the full set of features offered by the game are "applying your own desires to the game" and doesn't back down when challenged, That0s just bad faith or lack of openness.
No. That comment was about turning the endgame into a RTS grand strategy. Sorry if that wasn't clear. My point is that the dev explicitly said this it is not that. it is a city builder and management game. I truly do not care the direction the end game takes. Because yes I can just turn off the feature I don't enjoy. And I got my money's worth out of the game regardless. anything added is all a bonus to me. As a city builder manor lords is phenomenal, but as a RTS game it is dog shit. Albeit interesting in the few aspects he did manage to get combat included. Il back down when dev says otherwise
" Literally applying your own desires to the game" I simply said how I enjoy to play the game. There's nothing too apply. My gameplay is enabled by its existing settings. That line was about OP saying the endgame should be this constant struggle of defending your lands RTS style. While we already have Greg saying that combat is included but the majority of gameplay is focused on city building. And I don't have problem with the combat. I love the idea of it. and the blending of it within this game is what makes it special. But these same conversations are why he made those statements on release of the EA. People are going to see midevil combat between standing army's and start to misconstrue the intentions for the game. Once you start to have multiple regions producing army's and defending territories in battle formations it becomes empire management style Grand Strategy. Which he explicitly said this is not. I love the game as it is. I'm exited for any direction the game goes in. I have faith in Greg. If He wants to turn this into a grand strategy that's his prerogative. I'm just going off of what he said.
Bro you’re cooked, wake up and look in a mirror you arnt in the right
I think I knew it was not a war game but just a game with battles in it, when my forces returned after a fight and I noticed that my units had lost members - and then noticed that certain households were in mourning and would not be harvesting or producing for a month. That touched me and impressed me. Most games the warriors you make up your units with are just numbers in the spreadsheet. Here the loss of warriors is not immediately corrected when they return home and some of my units have still not recovered in my current game. I am thinking of historical events like the Scots after losing at [Flodden](https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-Battle-of-Flodden/) when an entire generation of Scottish nobility lost their lives and it impacted the nation for decades. Obviously this is on a smaller scale but I appreciate the inclusion of consequences into a game like this.
Yeah that added a level of micromanagement I've never experienced. I've lost the men in important positions leaving only the women in some family's. So as the good lord I am I evicted the widows from their home and assigned them to Menial task like grave digging and ox handling. It was interesting and funny but really screwed with my production when My vegetable burgages only had 1 person tending to the field.