It's almost certainly too late to add maps designed for 8 players. There would need to be both new RTS and new Campaign maps. Maps designed for 8 players would likely be too large for 2 players, and 2 player battles is where the fighting mostly takes place.
While it bears some resemblance in single-player, I'm not sure that this is intended to be a 4X game. It's two weeks until release, way too late to add in additional mechanics like Diplomacy or Trading.
I definitely want to see enemy Dragons. They hope to get those in, but it might be post-release.
-Improve multiplayer campaign mode. So far its just a basic capture and hold type of gameplay without political decisions, or any type of diplomacy, where the one holding the most territory, builds the greatest army, and has the most techs researched wins. And it plays way too fast for a tactical map (and you gain cards, gold and research points way too fast as well).
The multiplayer campaign is a bit shallow compared to single-player. I'm not sure how to improve it. They can't have parts where you roam the ship and talk to people in multiplayer, because some people want to do that, others just want to get on with the fighting. I think watser suggested adding a General selection to the multiplayer options, alongside the Dragon selection, that could grant some kind of bonuses to auto-resolve and possibly unique skills in RTS mode.
There will be different kinds of victory conditions implemented, so maybe some of those other win conditions will be possible.
-More descriptions: for things like what are settings like imperialists, the horde and such, because i still have no idea whatsoever. I did figure out that 2 of the same are teamed together. So are they teams? factions? races? what?
According to the manual, the story in singleplayer says that this is basically a civil war. All the different factions used to be part of the same army, then they split up and are fighting each other.
-More color choices for multiplayer
-Setting capital placement (starting position) on strategy map during game setup.
-Toggle button for minimap colors that sets enemy color to red and back while friendlies to blue and self to green on the minimap. (this will allow you to add more colors to the game while avoiding confusion) - Inspired by/thought up by Nuju
Yes, absolutely. I'd like players in the campaign map to start out in a different location. The same starting locations against the same AI plays out the same way so many times.
-If the zealots, imperialists, etc. are factions or races, they need to be more distinguishable from one another, by different tech trees, or the very least different looking units. However if theyre merely teams, why not call them team 1, team 2, etc. Also if theyre teams, please add a no team option in there. So that IF you add bigger maps for 6 or 8 players they won't have to be teamed up if they dont want to.
I don't think I follow. If you don't want to be on a team with another player, then pick a different team and presto you are on your own team. If they're playing 2v2 and you want to play a free-for-all, play a free-for-all.
-In my opinion, when zooming out, units become icons too quickly increasing the distance at which they become icons by about 15%-20% would be nice.
Maybe base that on unit size, because the infantry are so small that you need the icons. Larger vehicles could have a longer distance, but it's not critical.
-Why is every unit a machine of some description? Air units i understand. But why is every ground unit a machine? It would be nice to see infantry in there and they could be different depending on what country you fight in.
The scale is such that individual people would be too small to reasonably see.
Your army is composed of a mix of races:
Humans are Troopers, Shaman and Zeppelins,
Elves are Transports and Hunters
Dwarves are Grenadiers and Ironclads
Imps are Warlocks and Imp Fighters
Undead are Devastators and Bomber Balloons
Lizards are Armours and Juggernauts.
It is possible that the single-player campaign might have race specialized units, maybe as part of the faction arc, but I doubt it.
-Random encounters (with a settable slider) Adding bandit raids, thieves and such to the game. Would make things interesting.
That doesn't seem to fit at all - especially for multiplayer. You want to lose because the other player beat you, not because a random number generator decided you took losses from a random bandit attack.
-More types of dragons to choose from as your dragon form, since you cannot customise your character nor choose your gender, choosing you dragon form would be great. I'm not sure wether the current choices(mountain dragon, zephyr and sabre) are only color or shape as well, but choosing from differently shaped dragons would be nice.
Different appearances for the three base types of Dragons would be nice, but not terribly important.
-In my opinion, adding turns to make some stronger untits in the multiplayer campaign mode would benefit the game(for example armour would be completed in 2 turns, while devastators in 3 and so on.). Also making a large number of units at once would take longer(for example if the player makes 8 troopers, only 4 would be done in 1 turn and another 4 in the next turn, thus adding a queue to a country's capability to make units.)(training, and building the units takes time, and so does recruitment). This would also allow for some new research options to speed up unit production. It would also prevent players focusing on offense to overrun defensive players quickly.
Earlier build showed that research sometimes lasted for multiple turns, but you could buy it sooner. Earlier in the beta, it used to be you needed to wait until the current turn had finished, or buy it now. I'm not sure why Larian changed it, I suppose it was probably to promote faster gameplay.
-Building forts on the strategy map in a country(didn't really think this through fully) could have an effect like:
.add a fort to the map during battle with large hp pool and mounted weapons
.add 50% more armor to your units used in that country during battle
.units in that country do 50% more damage
.can shoot 75% further
and so on
(one of these or a combination of these perhaps?)
Forts would make frontline countries more easily defendable.
Note: only a number of forts can be built by a player, for example 1 maybe 2.
This game is designed for a more offensive playstyle. That makes a bit of sense given the size of Campaign maps. There are a lot of RTS matches, which they generally want to be over much faster. Making defense harder to crack would slow RTS matches down a lot. People might only play one or two battles in a campaign before they got tired. Even now I can't finish a campaign without saving.
-Sorting the list of cards by a given aspect(mercenary cards, dragon skill cards, etc.) during attack and defense
Yes, the battle screens need to be improved quite a bit. We need:
- To see what upgrades the units have researched.
- What map will the RTS be played on
- Much better sorting of cards, by types, the ability go through your deck in circles.
