Stronghold Definitive Edition Announcement

[Isaiah 19]

Hello everyone,

 

I recently received an announcement that Firefly Studios is planning to release a new Stronghold Definitive Edition that looks like a remake of the original Stronghold. It looks pretty cool, and I hope it lives up to the original and maybe re-spark some interest in this game. Is anyone else considering getting it when it releases?

Edited July 13 by Isaiah

[Crusader1307 293]

Hi Stranger.....

Looking at your Post, I find Firefly just ''sharpened up'' the Mod definitions (which does look good). Hovels are better. Will be interesting to see what else The ''new'' Version does (or doesnt).

 

Thanks for The Post!

[EaglePrince 226]

Hey, those are indeed good news, though we don't expect to much. I mean, we would get some new graphics, although the game is going to remain the same. But it's still going to be much more than what we got before: with the HD, some more resolutions were introduced with everything remaining the same.

It's good, but it's definitely not a remake.

Again, I hope that we would set least great some 500x500 or 600x600 maps, although there is no reason to expect anything like that.

Sent from my Mi A2 Lite using Tapatalk

[LordPaultheDubious 33]

It does look pretty! They have preview vids up on Youtube now.

Hope everyone is well 🙂

[odisseus 10]

Unless they add proper multiplayer support and make the siege AI less stupid, it's probably not worth buying.

That said, there is a number of other fixes and improvements I would love to see:

🛡️ Do something about the unit's collision boxes. Both the absence of collision box (like in original Stronghold), and the rigid box impassable by friendly units (like in most other RTS games) are very lame. I have got some ideas about the possible middle ground, but my voice won't be heard anyway...

🛡️ Make it possible to capture enemy's fortifications, units and infrastructure. In order of decreasing importance:

• Any soldier should be able to control an enemy  gatehouse (just like assassins, but of course without wall climbing).
• Maybe also capture whole outposts (so that they can be repaired etc.), if there are no enemy units in the area.
• It should be possible to take control of abandoned siege machines.
• It would be nice if soldiers could capture enemy's oxen and drive them to your stockpile.

🛡️ That said, oxen should carry not just stone, but also iron and oil, and maybe other resources.

🛡️ Knights and siege machines should be able to walk on walls if the height levels match (and if the wall is wide enough).

🛡️ Build walls and towers of different heights (at least the options that are present in Crusader).

🛡️ Build wooden bridges over water. Fire and catapult stones should damage them.

🛡️ Soldiers (at least more expensive ones such as swordsmen) should be able to hold formation.

The list could probably go on and on, but I doubt there is a point in this exercise.

 

[Alfred The Baker 2]

Proper MP is one of the only things they actually mention in the trailer so you are covered on that. As for AI who knows.

Collisions i don't think would be possible since SH1 had no collision system at all, hell there was no collision system of any kind in these games unti like, well Warlords.

You can already cap abandoned siege machines and any unit can already take over gatehouses, i mean its what siege tower is for, to allow you to acomplish that.

Knights and Siege engines can already walk on walls if they are on same height plane [although i think this is just a bug rather than something intended, but it can happen]

We already have different towers... I really don't get some of you points since they are already in the game.

[odisseus 10]

My memory might be somewhat imprecise, and, unfortunately, I don't have the game at hand to verify, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about the availability of some features.

9 hours ago, Alfred The Baker said:

You can already cap abandoned siege machines...

IIRC this became possible only in Crusader, but not in SH1. I might be wrong on this though.

9 hours ago, Alfred The Baker said:

...and any unit can already take over gatehouses, i mean its what siege tower is for, to allow you to acomplish that.

Now that is definitely incorrect. By controlling an enemy gatehouse, I mean the ability to open and close the gate. This feature became available only in Crusader (and, IIRC, only assassins were capable of it). Yes, a siege tower can get your troops over the enemy wall, but it cannot be used by knights or, say, another siege tower.

9 hours ago, Alfred The Baker said:

Knights and Siege engines can already walk on walls if they are on same height plane [although i think this is just a bug rather than something intended, but it can happen]

I recall seeing knights and siege engines on a wall occasionally, but making them go there is very tricky. On customised maps, stone walls are often used to imitate a bridge between two plateaus of raised land; however, AI enemies often have trouble using them. Even foot soldiers tend to attack the wall rather than walk over it, thereby cutting their own advance path.

9 hours ago, Alfred The Baker said:

We already have different towers... I really don't get some of you points since they are already in the game.

You're right about this one: SH1 has three different tower heights, five if you count gatehouses and wooden platforms. However, it would be nice to have an even higher tower like in Crusader, and also several different heights of wall. The reasons for this are mostly cosmetic, and there is a well-known trick to make a wall of any height in the map builder, but destroying such a wall leaves an impenetrable barrier of rock, which negatively impacts the playability of such maps.

Edited August 6 by odisseus

[odisseus 10]

Regarding the siege AI... This video review of the demo (in German) suggests that it hasn't become any wiser. The AI will happily send its soldiers to run the gauntlet maze, mistaking it for a breach in the walls. Which is a shame, because the power of personal computers has advanced quite a bit over the past 20 years, and the AI could definitely afford spending a few more CPU cycles to discern such situations.

[EaglePrince 226]

Still, many of these things wouldn't matter if we, as players, didn't want to exploit them. I'd rather lose the game than exploiting the maze trick for example. Yup, it's stupid, but it's not a deal breaker.

Unfortunately, we should be expecting much. These games were made more than 20 years ago. No way Firefly would try to mess with that code today. They'll just do the "simple stuff", make the multiplayer, and they will improve the graphics.

Sent from my Mi A2 Lite using Tapatalk

[Alfred The Baker 2]

18 hours ago, odisseus said:

Regarding the siege AI... This video review of the demo (in German) suggests that it hasn't become any wiser. The AI will happily send its soldiers to run the gauntlet maze, mistaking it for a breach in the walls. Which is a shame, because the power of personal computers has advanced quite a bit over the past 20 years, and the AI could definitely afford spending a few more CPU cycles to discern such situations.

I hope we can convince Firefly on Discord to perhaps remedy this, Warlords already solved this issue in like one of its first patches so they clearly seem to have knowledge to make changes, though generally i am happy with SH1 siege AI, they work well on most maps and its more about them going on in Numbers.

[EaglePrince 226]

Today I watched a YouTube video by Firefly. Nick said they didn't want to fix the old bugs, nor improve the AI much, as the game is old, the players are used to those exploits, and so they don't want to change the old game. The way he said it, I agree with it. They could make the AI smarter for example, but that would completely mess up the Crusader Trail for example, and even some missions from the campaigns. Not to mention tons of the fan made scenarios!

That could be an excuse, but I think it's a valid one.

If we want to, we can always give huge advantage to the AI, that works too.

Sent from my Mi A2 Lite using Tapatalk

[Alfred The Baker 2]

I said on other places that i am fine with things like AI being the same, and i ultimately never expected something like a Skirmish mode. However exploits need to be adressed, at least some of more serious ones that could break, or even crash the game.

I am also not a fan of lack of certain information, most of the stuff was said outright [which i did not expect personally] however some things felt avoided like stuff regarding 'modding' as Nick only really talked about custom maps. As well as what bugs they are fixing. No information about stuff like Multi Team, Player keep position, switching keeps or player change colour like from the latter games was even mentioned.

Still, 15 euros is a fair price, even if they don't change much the native Steam MP support and Workshop will be nice enough, and i enjoy the visuals, especelly on the buildings.

[SteelyProv 1]

13 hours ago, EaglePrince said:

Nick said they didn't want to fix the old bugs
 

I would do it if they gave me the tools

[EaglePrince 226]

Exactly, Nick did mention modding, but it was my impression that he somehow avoided the question actually. Don't remember in detail. But Stronghold 1 and Crusader 1 actually never were mod friendly. It's just that fans had figured it out themselves over time.

As for the bugs, I agree, those bugs that could break the game should be addressed, especially if some of them appeared in newer versions. And even though I personally would love to see all bugs and exploits removed, I realize that many of my friends find this game interesting especially because of those exploits. Some people just love to put 200 crossbowmen atop their keep, and watch themselves being invincible.

Sent from my Mi A2 Lite using Tapatalk

[Nigel 68]

Hi guys,
sorry for beeing absent for such a long time. I seem to spend most of my time on the official FireFly Discord these days.
But glad you are still active and talking about the current games 🙂
 

There was quite a discussion on the Discord about "bugs" in the map editor, that allows mapmakers to create some really cool stuff: the magic eraser trick, the 2000 stone trick and other things. I think these are the bugs that Nick has in mind when he says that they will not fix them.

Skrimish, for sure ist not coming and I could imagine that it would be a major re-work of the game code to achieve that. When the initial code was written, the idea of skirmish was not there at all.  Larger maps, they are still trying to implement, but it is not easy and may or may not be possible. For higher unit limit, Nick is more hopeful and it is quite possible that we will get that.

What I am rally happy about it, that there will be some nice Quality of Life additions. Auto-market will probably be implemented and I am hoping for a "recruit 10 units with 1 mouseclick" feature.

There is also a demo on Steam (not sure if it is still available for download) and they have a feeback form where they are asking for our opinions. 

[EaglePrince 226]

Hey, always great to see you!

Exactly, the auto-market is something I was hoping for since I was a kid. No more "your stockpile is full my sire" during long sieges. That thing would stop wheat, wood and iron from arriving into the castle, which would cause your economy to lag a little if you're not careful enough. That is going to be helpful for the armory and the granary too, but having your stockpile full could even cause your popularity to drop eventually.

Sent from my Mi A2 Lite using Tapatalk