Independents surrender too easy

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Independents surrender too easy

This topic contains 17 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Athei 5 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #96930

    Athei
    Member

    I’m not sure if it is changed with the recent patch (1.02 currently) or I didn’t mind at start, but independents surrender waaaaaaaaay too much… I mean I’m already good aligned on day/turn 4! That’s because every single independent stack (except the watchtower guards, they must have balls of steel, since I’m such a superpower!) surrendered to me.
    And I have what – 2 heroes (leader + 1st lvl hero), 2 cavalry units, 3 infantry and 1 irregular unit which I split into two armies that went separate ways so I can scout faster and all…
    Half the time I’m not even sure why they surrendered. Once I even got defeated while autoresolving battle (“they must be weak if they surrendered” is what I thought) after pursuing the enemy in my desperate attempt to play evil character…

    Here is a solution I could think of – before the battle AI should do an invisible autoresolved battle, and if my forces annihilate them while they are unable to kill even one of my units they should surrender. BUT if the independent can kill even one of my units, they should not surrender, but fight me and try to wound me as much as they can, so that at least I have to think twice before going straight to the next stack of independents, which is what I do now…

    Or do something else, but please fix this because I’m fighting in the same types of location again and again and again, and not late game, but from the start…

    #97202

    Epaminondas
    Member

    The problem is that independents are too weak in general. I want to see independent cities defended by multiple stacks and sites defended by full stacks.

    #97605

    D00m
    Member

    Well, city garrisons never surrender. That said I agree some of them should maybe be made stronger. That said, it would give even more reason to just buy cities and there’s already a strong incentive to do that.

    #97745

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    Keep the status quo because fighting endless repetative battles against weak neutrals is completely boring.

    Note to OP. If you are playing a random map make sure to set your initial troop strength to the lowest you possibly can.

    #97760

    Athei
    Member

    Well, city garrisons never surrender.

    That just proves my point. And my point is not that some independents surrender and some not. My point is that I rarely have a tactical battle anywhere beside the city or dungeon or watchtower battle which is a buzzkill for me cause I love tactical battles… And don’t get me wrong cities look great (good job whoever made them!) but I want some variety in my tactical combat, because you can conquer only so much cities before it gets old… And I can’t even remember last time I fought on non-structure such as middle of the road, or forest, or mountain peak…

    And that’s not even the real problem, here is what is the problem:

    1. You can expand too fast since you are just “collecting” structures
    2. You suffer no casualties, so you don’t have to spend money to renew your troops
    3. You are “Pure Good” in less than 10 turns, since you let independents run to save your units

    And @goblincookie it’s better than to fight endless repetative battles against weak AI only in one location (city)…

    #97781

    You are “Pure Good” in less than 10 turns, since you let independents run to save your units

    I totally agree to this. and it is the same for the AI. I rarely have seen AI that were more than “slightly evil” but many pure good ones.

    But considering the whole alignment system (overall I think its absolutely great): How come that it is an evil act to burn down an Archon dwelling? Those thing are UNDEAD and DEDICATED TO EVIL.

    #97783

    GoblinCookie
    Member
    1. You can expand too fast since you are just “collecting” structures
    2. You suffer no casualties, so you don’t have to spend money to renew your troops
    3. You are “Pure Good” in less than 10 turns, since you let independents run to save your units

    And @goblincookie it’s better than to fight endless repetative battles against weak AI only in one location (city)…

    You can always choose to become evil and fight the battles anyway.

    If you are becoming Pure Good in less than 10 turns, it is pretty obvious that you are beginning your random map with too many starting units. Set starting units to weak and also outpost starting city, then you simply will not have such strong army to scare all the independants away nor will you be able to afford to build any.

    #97803

    Epaminondas
    Member

    Keep the status quo because fighting endless repetative battles against weak neutrals is completely boring.

    Yes, but Independents become more interesting if they can be made stronger, as I’ve already suggested.

    #97817

    Athei
    Member

    How come that it is an evil act to burn down an Archon dwelling? Those thing are UNDEAD and DEDICATED TO EVIL.

    Devs said they’ll look into it.

    You can always choose to become evil and fight the battles anyway.

    Why would I do that? There is no benefits to being evil, and I get superior economy from the start when I’m good (more economy structures – more gold/mana/production, less unit dying – more gold/mana/production)

    it is pretty obvious that you are beginning your random map with too many starting units

    I always have starting units on medium, I think there are 2 more options for more troops (weak, medium, strong, stronger?), so no, I don’t start with too many units (but I guess I’ll play with “weak starting units” from now).

    But that still doesn’t fix the problem, as soon as I get some strong units, indies will start surrendering again, and unlike AoW SM when you feel strong when indies surrender, in AoW3 I feel… that indies surrender too easy 🙂

    So what I would like to be implemented is independent army strength option to the game flow, similar like the starting units one (with weak/medium/strong options). So those that like to run through independents and focus on other players/Ai can still do so, and for those of us that like to struggle to obtain a strong empire can do that as well.

    #97943

    D00m
    Member

    @athei
    Do you play mostly single player or multiplayer? I assume the former.

    In SP, when I had time, and while I still had patience and thought that it might be fun one day, I used manual combat and pretty much never let enemy flee. I ended up pure evil every single game i.e. all campaign missions. I wanted to minimize my losses and maximize my (XP) gains. In case of the latter, prior to the most recent patch, I was able to level up my leader from level 3 to 13 in 2 small city sieges at the beginning of the game fighting against mostly T1s and a hero and a leader.

    Fighting manual against the AI will never be much fun imo. The AI is nowhere as sophisticated as a human and it will never be in this game (at least not in the foreseeable future). Same with using auto combat, it will always screw you over (at least from time to time). I’ve been using a lot of it in MP for a while now and loosing a hero/leader to 3 scoundrels when attacking with level 2 hero, level 2 leader, 2 T2s and 2 T1s comes as no surprise… and that’s just the first example that came to mind, seen much worse than that. I wish those Scoundrels offered to flee instead, no whenever they do, I gladly let them go.

    There are ways to decrease your losses when using auto combat including, but not limited to, units with healing touch, high hp units (even early ones such as Axeman, Greatsword), units with high defense and (less important) resistance, increasing HP, defense and resistance on heroes… but in the end you will get unlucky and it will happen often, because the AI that’s playing for you is as bad as the one you’ve played against.

    • This reply was modified 1 year ago by  President.
    #97968

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    Yes, but Independents become more interesting if they can be made stronger, as I’ve already suggested.

    Or have them get stronger perhaps…..

    I always have starting units on medium, I think there are 2 more options for more troops (weak, medium, strong, stronger?), so no, I don’t start with too many units (but I guess I’ll play with “weak starting units” from now).

    But that still doesn’t fix the problem, as soon as I get some strong units, indies will start surrendering again, and unlike AoW SM when you feel strong when indies surrender, in AoW3 I feel… that indies surrender too easy :)

    So what I would like to be implemented is independent army strength option to the game flow, similar like the starting units one (with weak/medium/strong options). So those that like to run through independents and focus on other players/Ai can still do so, and for those of us that like to struggle to obtain a strong empire can do that as well.

    Yes you have starting units on medium, poor you. You have to set starting units to weak in order to have a challenge with the early game neutrals. Ideally also set roaming creatures to strongest. Then your initial militia will have their hands full dealing with all the bandits and clearing the stronger creature dwellings.

    You really have the opposite problem as the rest of us. The rest us get sick and tired of fighting so many powerless neutral armies, it is a chore. If we made them powerful then that would also spoil the game, because neutrals are not supposed to be the main opponants, players are.

    #97988

    Ericridge
    Member

    And plus I somehow doubt 4 gold coins divided up between eight men of a tier 1 unit will inspire the men to defend their resource node to death for reinforcements which won’t even come at all. Its quite understandable to see them flee.

    However I had an three wisp mana node choose to fight against my six juggernaughts once. I was quite suitably shocked. I think they also suffer from bouts of insanity.

    #98042

    Athei
    Member

    @d00m Yea, I play only SP, I used to play MP in SM with friends back in the day, but now only few of them own AoW3, and due to our work it’s literally impossible for us play together. But what’s that got to do with this? Independents are too weak in SP and MP alike.

    @goblincookie You really have no idea what are you talking about… What opposite problem? I hate playing against powerless AI too, but unlike you I want to play tactical battles. And passive AI players are the same as independents, barely an opponent…

    @ericridge it’s ok when they run from Juggernauts (even from one Juggernaut), but it’s quite pathetic when they run from weekend warriors which I have at the begining of the game.

    ……………………………………………………………………….

    Beside, what does my idea have to do with any of this? You would get no disadvantages from it, and I’m sure GoblinCookie can even benefit from it. So I’m not sure what are you complaining about…

    Just to say it again to be clear – My idea was to have a independent strength (or starting independents or whatever) dropdown menu in the RMG advanced options where you can choose the starting number and/or tier of independents (weak/medium/strong).
    Medium, for instance, should stay as it is, weak should have only a few independents guards which should be perfect for fast MP, and strong should have more and stronger independents (not tier 4 mind you) suited for long, empire building scenarios…

    #98077

    D00m
    Member

    @d00mBut what’s that got to do with this? Independents are too weak in SP and MP alike.

    As I already tried to explain, independents are much stronger in MP, because you will be fighting them using auto combat, thus your losses will be much greater. Imo independents (or AI controlled players) will always be too weak in manual combat. If you want to give yourself a bit more challenge just play auto combat only. I got bored of manual vs AI pretty quickly anyway, but that’s just me.

    As to your idea, I’d much rather see Resource Structures guards more balanced. Gold Mine at my starting location defended by Shock Trooper, Greatsword and 2 Spearman, really? Mana Node defended by Node Serpent accompanied by Phantasm Warriors – I won’t be touching that for a long long while. And that’s just a few examples, you see these all the time.

    #98096

    Sathra
    Member

    Serpent and Phantasm = Completely normal. Course, you’re screwed early on without non-phys irregulars (I like the ‘beast’ races, so non-issue for me). Might need to be toned down though, since I think its that Phantasms are in the same ‘slot’ as Wisps, while being much, much tougher.

    Shocks and the like, I’ve never seen on a Gold mine. Trading post/flowrock yes.

    Having the start location resource nodes being undefended (mines/nodes only, no free Magma Forges) wouldn’t be terrible though.

    #98135

    D00m
    Member

    Serpent and Phantasm = Completely normal.

    Shocks and the like, I’ve never seen on a Gold mine. Trading post/flowrock yes.

    I disagree about it being fine. Compare it to 2 Wisps only, which happens on a regular basis.

    Happens quite often. A friend had Firstborn + 3 Prospectors on Magma Forge or destruction node defended by 2 Orc Spearman, Draconian Crasher and Warbreed.

    #98272

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    @goblincookie You really have no idea what are you talking about… What opposite problem? I hate playing against powerless AI too, but unlike you I want to play tactical battles. And passive AI players are the same as independents, barely an opponent…

    The opposite problem is what it says on the tin. Spending all your time fighting hundreds of essentially pointless and cost free battles rather than fighting actual opponants with the ability to do something to you.

    It seems to be something copied from Heroes of Might and Magic (insert number) and not really something that has ever really been a major feature of Age of Wonders series until now.

    Given that control is constrained by domain anyway what purpose does all the neutral guards even serve? Making them stronger will only mean that players will have to bring even larger armies, distracting people and AIs from actual conflict and prolonging the early game.

    #98281

    Athei
    Member

    It seems to be something copied from Heroes of Might and Magic (insert number) and not really something that has ever really been a major feature of Age of Wonders series until now.

    Why would you think that? I always preferred AoW combat to HoMM combat.

    Given that control is constrained by domain anyway what purpose does all the neutral guards even serve? Making them stronger will only mean that players will have to bring even larger armies, distracting people and AIs from actual conflict and prolonging the early game.

    And you are missing the point, what I’m proposing is to have the ability to choose the strength of starting independents, they can be stronger AND weaker, depending on the player or whether it is SP or MP.

    I could choose the stronger for my SP game (and I like long games), and you could choose the weaker ones (I guess) for your MP game

Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.