First I think we need to acknowledge that we as players are very biased when it comes to our expectations of video games and by extension modifications of those games. A vast majority of mods currently available for Empire at War: Forces of Corruptions play very similar, or rely on existing infrastructure baked into the original title. In general the vast majority of all modifications to games in general typically follow this trend. However, some such as Empire at War Remake deviate from this norm. Such a deviation isn't something to find upsetting, it simply requires a re-tooling of expectations on our part as players. In fact many popular games originated as modifications that deviated heavily from the original games they were based on. With that out of the way we can really begin.

What is a balanced game, and by extension what is a punishing game? Before anyone leaps to conclusions this isn't a topic of difficulty, although many will assume that is what I'm about to discuss.

To determine whether or not a game is balanced or punishing one needs only to inspect the rules of play.

First are rules that are deterministic. To explain a deterministic rule its best described as a cause and effect that always has the same outcome. For example if I instruct a unit in the game to attack an enemy, does it attack when it should? If the answer is yes then that is a deterministic rule or a deterministic game mechanic. Its as simple as a yes or no statement.

Next is variable rules, or deterministic rules that allow variations. An easy way to understand this one is if you tell a unit in the game to attack something, but it has to roll a dice before determining an outcome. In this case the developer can introduce limited "chaos" to improve the game play experience for the player. For example the unit could miss it's attack, fail to attack, or whatever outcome that is pre-programmed for that unit to follow. You often find variable rules such as this in role playing games.

Finally reactive rules, these are the sketchy ones. If done properly they can greatly enhance the game play experience. If not they can have terrible consequences. An example of a great reactive rule is a ragdoll. For example in online first person shooters upon player or enemy elimination they "ragdoll" or go limp allowing the game's physics engine to determine how the 3D model will collapse. The reason the ragdoll is a reactive rule is because there is no set nor predetermined outcome. The outcome is influenced based upon variables in the moment. The ragdoll rule is also a good rule because it operates within both the player and developers reasonable expectation of what would happen in the event of player elimination, and its implementation doesn't directly impact game play.

In balanced games the rules meet reasonable expectations of both the developers and players. They both understand the rules of the game, and can play on equal footing. A punishing game doesn't follow reasonable expectations of either the developer or the player. Yes a game can be punishing if it doesn't follow the reasonable expectations of it's developers. Yes I know that sounds impossible, but it happens far more often than you may think particularly in online multiplayer games. In circumstances such as that players may encounter issues of power creep, or helicopter balancing in nerfs or buffs for example.

Is the modification Empire at War Remake 4.0 a punishing game? Sadly yes it very much is so. Why is it a punishing game?

The game is punishing because the rules of play are different for the player, and the AI opponent. This doesn't mean the game is bad, a lot of games that are considered good by the majority implement punishing game mechanics (rules) to even the playing field between the player and the AI. However, there is a tolerable threshold for this. Some may misconstrue games such as Dark Souls and their ilk as punishing games when in fact they are not, and easier games such as Mario Party as non punishing when in fact they very much are. If you're having trouble understanding the distinction its the rules of play. A lot of people don't understand the rules of the games they play and only determine their experience based upon their expectations and the outcomes they observed. Balanced games most often have iron clad rules, like chess. While punishing games don't.

The issue with Empire at War Remake 4.0 is that both the player and the AI can "cheat" the expectations of the rules in their favor. For example the AI largely doesn't play with the same rule set as the player. This is actually common for most games, however in this case the AI is nearly unrestricted in what it is that they can do. While the player can and will optimize the fun out of the game and find ways to cheat or "cheese" the rules to their benefit. Both the player and AI can also use the rules of play to directly damage each other's position in the game. For example the player can park their fleet on an enemy planet and force the AI to pay upkeep, while the AI doesn't even pay for things in the same manner as the player does. The player is required to build up their economy, the AI isn't required to. These inconsistent rules create a punishing game.

Again the issue here is expectations. Players expect that the rules will be adhered to and that they will be fair, however the reality is that the rules won't be adhered to nor will they be fair. The largest issue here is that the divide between reasonable expectations that the player may have vs. the chaos that is the games rules actually are. A game can be punishing if it meets the reasonable expectations of the players, however Empire at War Remake 4.0 falls outside of reasonable expectations, and doesn't follow it's own rules. That is the first main issue with this mod, its unreasonably punishing to the player.

Now I understand I skipped ahead to game mechanics but there's a reason for that. I needed to frame rules of play (game mechanics) before I dove into game's design philosophy.

From what I've gathered Empire at War Remake 4.0 really wants to be a more hardcore 4X strategy game, however its building on the infrastructure of a game that isn't one, but looks like one at first glance. To break it down for those that may be confused Empire at War: Forces of corruption is a 4X strategy game (Explore, Expand, Exploit, and Exterminate). The caveat is that its a super simple one compared to others. What Empire at War Remake 4.0 seems to want to do is implement much deeper logistics into the game, and a completely new economical model. The problem I see here is that either the original game's programming is working against it, or the way these new systems were implemented were done in such a way to make them non viable or unreasonable to players.

For example much of the new economical system easily overloads the player. The developers provide this information via info dump upon starting the game, as well in the player's hot bar if they choose to inspect them. The whole system is convoluted, and unnecessary to effective game play. In essence its bloat that could have been simplified to achieve the same result. I'm honestly confounded as to why they implemented such a system. The purchase mechanics also works against the newly established economical model. For example the player can purchase multiple items at once, but are still locked in a queue only allowing one item to be produced on a planet at once. This new system doesn't work with the established purchase mechanic its built of off.

Then there is upkeep. There is nothing wrong with the concept of upkeep, however the system put in place by the mod is wildly unreasonable to players. Active units cost outrageous amounts of upkeep to maintain, and some require upkeep after being lost in battle if the in game literature is to be believed. Then there is the issue of fighters and bombers. The player should have the option to limit their spending during a conflict to limit or stop fighter production during an attack. The fact the player cannot do this, and thus completely dump their liquid assets against their will baffles me. I literally cannot fathom a reason why there isn't a "stop" button anywhere?

Then there is the complete lack of a spending budget. Now in 4X titles that require a lot of juggling there is most often a budget to aid the player in said juggling of their liquid assets (credits) to ensure it gets to where the player deems most appropriate. There isn't one in this, in fact the player is expected to pay for everything off a single line off the ledger instead of directing where funding should be focused, slowed, or sped up. This means the only effective control the player has over their liquid assets is to spend less frequently, or not at all. I will admit though implementing an effective system to budget the player assets would be difficult in a game like Empire at War, it simply doesn't have a user interface that supports such a system.

I can understand the want or push to make Empire at War: Forces of Corruption a more in depth 4X version, but not requiring the AI to follow the same or similar rules that the player is required to does not make logical sense from a game design perspective. In well designed and reasonable 4X games the player opponent is required to follow a reasonable tree of logic to counter the player, not flat out cheat. The level of cheating the AI does in this mod is worse than 90's real time strategy titles. The reason they had to cheat wasn't because they couldn't build a better logic tree, it was processing power, and memory restrictions. Issues a modification such as this shouldn't reasonably be having with personal computers today.

I understand the base game is a major limiting factor, however one must consider what is or isn't actually possible when developing their game. Can the base game support X if yes, give it a shot, if no; Then what is required to make it work? Will it work if I do X, Y, or Z? If not then don't implement it. A lot of mod makers suffer from what I call ideas of grandeur when it comes to implementing ideas that cannot be reasonably implemented. Even Valve the makers of the Half-Life series toyed with various ideas for their engine to discover that some things just wouldn't work and had to move on. Did you know they tried implementing role playing mechanics into their engine, even real time strategy mechanics? They discovered that the engine they had built simply wasn't optimal for such a leap. While yes they could implement a jury-rigged system, it wasn't something reasonable for play. That's what this mod looks like to me, a really good idea, implemented on infrastructure that can't support it, and jury-rigged to look like it works when it doesn't.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh here, maybe this whole thing is an issue of optics maybe? Maybe the issue isn't the choice of rule set, but of the modification's name. When one titles a game a remake I believe the reasonable expectation is that the "remake" will operate in a similar if not identical way the original does, at least with it's rule set. Sure there are a few "remakes" out there that implemented quality of life features slightly tweaking the in game rules to make playing the game more accessible, or adding additional rule sets to expand on an idea; However this mod goes in the completely opposite direction. Maybe calling this a de-make would be a more fitting moniker? I don't suggest this lightly or to offend, I genuinely mean based upon the mod's rule set that a de-make would be more apt as a description. The reason for this is because the original rule set is gone, and has been replaced by something functionally less effective. I understand it may seem like I'm being confrontational on this, but I'm trying to address the issue of optics on this from a rational position.

Finally my conclusion.
Let's explore ways to correct the issues. (Direct talk to the devs here)

First I'll say this, less is more. Particularly when it comes to game mechanics. The more you have the more convoluted, and harder it becomes to debug. I think there are a lot of really, really good ideas this mod wants to explore, but ultimately lacks the foundation or experience to support it.

I think with the economical model it needs to be simplified, and implied to the player what is going on. Sometimes its better to tell the player how the in game world works, rather than actually implement it. It is often far more effective to imply to the player that something is going on and let their imagination do the work for you, than actually try to force something to work, that ultimately won't due to the game's bones. The issue with the economic system in the mod is that the player has no control over it, its just chaos they are forced to contend with. Instead I suggest reworking the economic system into something more rational for game play, and imply to the player what you want them to think. That way you and the player both get what you want. The player perceives a rule set they think they understand, and you get to do a hell of a lot less work, and still implement your needlessly punishing game mechanics.

When it comes to the AI, honestly just put some effort into a functional logic tree the AI can follow. There is absolutely no reason why the AI cheats so much. No, I know better and whatever backwards defense of this idea you think you have will only make it far more worse. This is an issue of effort, and understanding how the AI can or should operate within the game space. You want the AI to be perceived as a realistic threat to the players, however making them cheat like crazy to achieve this tells me that this wasn't considered well. There are way better options for this that doesn't require the player to be hamstringed nor the AI on steroids. Consider this, think small when it comes to generating a logic tree for the AI. Have the AI shoot for small milestones in order of priority. If done properly its relatively easy to program a simple AI opponent that's serious opposition. Hell if done right you can get the AI to implement strategies the player won't expect, such as lay traps, lure them into other enemies, etc...

You may not believe me, but I outlined all of this because I do in fact care funnily enough. I see someone working on a project they are passionate for, and doing everything in their power to sabotage themselves. Its kinda painful to see, but a lot of us have been there. Made something we thought was awesome, when in reality it was a raging dumpster fire with cool paint. I've done it, you've done it, and someone else will do it to, and that's fine. Hell its awesome, its part of the fun making games, and mods, and crazy assets only you or your friends will get the jokes to. That's perfectly fine, and if anything I hope you and your friends continue to do so and never lose that spark. Seriously though, if ya'll post a mod online be prepared for it to be torn apart by someone competent, point out your obvious flaws, and point you in a better direction. I don't care if your a kid, a grown adult, or a space alien; Do better, I know you can. If not, then oh well I tried.

This is a very in-depth and comprehensive review! I think you've made a lot of great points and I hope the mod authors take your advice to heart!

Originally posted by Babaloo321:

This is a very in-depth and comprehensive review! I think you've made a lot of great points and I hope the mod authors take your advice to heart!

Thank you Babaloo321, I genuinely hope that my input is at least some use to the mod developers in some fashion.

I still remember old mods I made back in the day before Steam and the workshop were a thing. Many of them were mostly learning experiences or complete and total failures, which I think is par for the course when it comes to learning. A lot of the pitfalls I encountered back then are things easily remedied now with how fandoms and modders have grown as communities. Now mod developers have quick and easy access to their communities for input, a truly vital resource.

I don't really mod games as much as I used to mostly because of how life tends to take us in directions we don't expect, but when I do get time I like to weigh in with those I think can use it. Perhaps my attempts are in vein, but at least I can grant some support to those I encounter to provide a resource I didn't have back in the day.

Of course the state of the game could be exactly what the mod developers want, in that case then it is what it is. Sometimes modders make unholy abominations they just absolutely love, which is fine. In that case those developers need to be quite clear about what there monster is to those that intend to try it much like the issue of optics I referred to. Most often tempering expectations about a game or modification will yield beneficial results; Preventing the developers from being inundated with emotional feedback, or unproductive criticisms. After all if its labeled as a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck. People can't really complain that its a duck instead of something else.

I'm not really sure what the plan was with the attrition system on fighters. It's supposed to make throwing away these units costly to the player but in practice it just makes carriers wildly non-cost effective. You can potentially lose tens of thousands of credits, an entire cycles income, just from fighting a single battle. Worse still you can lose that money fighting defensively as well, basically halting all production for the rest of the cycle.

Playing as the Rebs especially hurts because your best units, fighters, are the ones you can least afford to actually field. To the point where my go to early game strategy is to mass marauder corvettes as they're simply the most cost effective unit the Rebels get early on. To make matters worse though for the Rebs the majority of the early game fleets you'll fight have lots of anti fighter ships, which means you lose more money if you actually use your fighters.

The balancing thing here is that non carrier capital ships are supposed to have high upkeeps, but its generally not enough to get around the devastation a single battle can have on your funds.

This of course leads into the only winning strategy being to not engage with these mechanics. Fighters should just never be deployed into combat (unless the banks already empty) and high upkeep fleets should be parked over enemy planets where they'll drain someone else's funds. You could try not gaming it like this of course, but in my experience this is basically the only way to expand fast enough to keep from getting tag teamed by every minor faction + the Empire before you get the chance to do anything. There's just not a whole lot of other options when the Sith are rolling up with 20 interdictors and 5 centurions before you have anything heavy enough to fight them.

Holy ChatGPT text wall vomits batman....

This is TLDR on arrival.