New Expansion and Racial Upgrades

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 New Expansion and Racial Upgrades

This topic contains 62 replies, has 26 voices, and was last updated by  Fenraellis 3 years, 12 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 63 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #185334

    Juzza
    Member

    So first off I really like the new Racial Governance upgrades however I have to say I find the economic options to be extremely unappealing compared to the Military options. I don’t think I’ve taken any Economic options in the games I’ve played.

    The reason I find especially for some of the lower level ones is they give a straight cost reduction of like 50 gold to the war hall once per that building be built. So if I’m playing a small map where I might only get 4-5 cities that’s 200-250 gold if I got a warhall in each city. While the Military upgrades well I’m fighting all the time +1 or +2 to damage is fantastic I will use that every single fight.

    What I’m getting at is that I don’t find like there is enough insensitive to go for the economic options, mostly for the early game options. What I would like to see is options that are more competitive.

    Like the First level Tigeran Upgrade.

    The Military option make Tigeran Prowlers 15 gold cheaper, that’s amazing because it makes their normally more expensive infantry about the cost of normal infantry.

    While the Economic option make settlers 15% less expensive. This I just feel is not nearly as good unless you plan to build 10+ settlers in your game, I find the majority of the time I’d take the Military upgrade here.

    And the dwarvern level 1 upgrade is +2 damage to crossbowmen, again great upgrade, it makes them feel like mini musketeers While the economic one is you get gold from digging. I rarely play with an underground, I just don’t really like it so I never take this option.

    I’d love to see the economic options be more competitive so instead of tunneling for gold Dwarven Axemen get Volunteer. This is just a random example that I find more competitive. Or even cycling through 1 of 3-5 options so it’s not the same every game one game you get tunneling for gold but the next time you get Barracks that give +10 gold.

    I’d like to know the communities opinion on this, perhaps I am outlier and the options are great and I suck at the game.

    #185337

    Medic-Tank
    Member

    The true benefit of cost reduction is the associated production reduction. It mean saving a turn on small settlements. A turn may not seem like much but if my class is cavalry friendly like dreadnought, warlord or necromancer it will tilt my preference. I personally don’t care for cost reduction on infantry I usually don’t use. Then again I play usually XL maps so can’t exactly rush their production and expect a win.

    #185338

    Epaminondas
    Member

    I agree generally that the military upgrades look better than their counterparts; with each race, there are may be 1 economic upgrade I’d choose over the military among the 5 tiers. And at Deity tier, the military upgrades are so overwhelming that I cannot imagine anyone would opt for the economic.

    But this will be hard to balance; and doubly hard in a game where the emphasis is on small stacks.

    #185342

    I’ll admit that things like the settler cost reduction are not at all appealing to me, but for the most part I’ve found the economic and military options fairly well-balanced against each other. It all depends on your starting race and class, since you earn governance XP for every city of every race you own, regardless of whether or not you’re using those armies. So if I get a Frostling city mid-game, but my strategy relies on all-Draconian armies, at least I can get some upgrades that make said frostling city better at making me resources, since I’m not going to be using it to build units.

    #185343

    SaintTodd
    Member

    You’re obviously not playing as a human. I end up choosing the economic perks just because the military ones are so pathetic.

    #185344

    esvath
    Member

    The problem is, there is a false dichotomy between Military and Economy categories in Racial Governance. This dichotomy is false because AoW only allow military victory. Thus, only military RG continues to be useful up to the end of the game.

    This will be different if, for example, Unity beacon victory relies solely on economy (it does not cause AI to declare war against you). Then, RG which increase city production, happiness and population bonus will be more attractive to acquire for player who wish to pursue this victory.

    Or, at this moment, AI will only ally with player who have sufficient military strength (I don’t know the exact formula). Good Relations is capped at 600. If AoW changes this by putting emphasis on Good Relations more, then players can bribe AI using gold and mana to accept alliance request, making gold and mana income more important for players who wish to pursue “diplomatic” victory.

    Last, if AoW has a “science” victory, such as casting Age of Magic make a Sorcerer player victorious, then RGs which increase knowledge will become more important.

    But at this moment, what is the point of getting +20 mana, +20 candles, +100 happy from Great Temple (Draconian Deity Economy)? At that late, you will have strong army to crush the remaining AI. Better to choose the Military RG which gives +3 fire damage for Infantry, Pikemen and Irregular.

    #185349

    Mc-doge
    Member

    Doesn’t reduced settler cost also apply to the amount of population it costs to build one? That’s pretty decent if it does.

    As for the dwrves they really need UG to even be played optimally. Same as goblins imo. You lose out on to much terrain/climate, and spell synergy if you don’t. Other than that you are right about there patron idea.

    The patron economics idea for them is of situational as it requires enough dirt to mine to be worth it, and a prospector which isn’t worth the maintenance. The other thing is that dwarves like dirt walls, but on the other hand don’t really care if it turns to barrens. I’d suggest boosting prospectors by giving them reserve to actually make them economical and still give the digging bonus. It’d open up a reason to actually build prospectors, and it’d probably compete with the crossbowman upgrade nicely.

    The other races patron economics ideas are not so bad and I can see myself using them.

    High Elves: I think this one sort of sums up the direction of balance on these ideas. On one hand who wouldn’t want more damage on long bowman. On the other hand a druid hunter can not benefit from that.

    Halflings: It’s not useful if you are not building nightwatchman. I love the military idea, but I would take the storehouse idea most of the time. 35 gold gold is a good incentive to rush the building, but for the necro side I’d probably take the military.

    Goblins: I love the economic idea. It opens up some terraforming madness with them to grow there smaller cities, and it can be a good substitute for expansion specialization.

    Humans: I’m not sure I’d be using civic guard much anyways. Still it’s very decent, but if I was sure I wasn’t I’d take economical.

    Orcs: I’m not sure how many warhalls I’d really want. Still it’s decent enough if you want to spam them.

    Frostling: Haven’t played enough of them.

    #185351

    FrankA
    Member

    Check out Draconian level 3 economic upgrade, 10 CP for your leader and any other Draconian hero. That one is pretty good, if more of them were like that maybe people would be more inclined to pick them.

    Frank

    #185352

    Stormwind
    Member

    Check out Draconian level 3 economic upgrade, 10 CP for your leader and any other Draconian hero. That one is pretty good, if more of them were like that maybe people would be more inclined to pick them.

    Frank

    Didnt even know about that one, and it sounds like a military upgrade to me.

    #185355

    Epaminondas
    Member

    Check out Draconian level 3 economic upgrade, 10 CP for your leader and any other Draconian hero. That one is pretty good, if more of them were like that maybe people would be more inclined to pick them.

    Frank

    Yeah, that’s one of the best economic ones.

    #185371

    Quaranyr
    Member

    Why does elven level 1 military upgrade works only for archers produced in cities with shooting range? This is the only non-medal military upgrade that works only for future units. IMO it should either work on archers you already have or have bigger effect than +1 damage. I’d prefer the former.

    Also why is elves the only race that can’t upgrade t3 unit? Every race other than elves and goblins can upgrade their t3 twice; goblins only once (as their final upgrade doesn’t work on cavalry), instead they get additional t3 – trolls. Why nothing for griphon riders?

    Also, Arcane Arrows. This upgrade don’t make the units stronger, it’s give them choice. That’s fine. What IMO is not fine is the fact that if you playing not as Warlord, Archdruid or Dreadnought, you have a level 4 upgrade that gives alternative (not even stronger!) attack to ONE. T1. UNIT. Very good t1 unit, yes. Still pretty lame for something you get near 80 turn. And level 4 economic is no good either.

    I’d better stick back to playing dwarves propably. Or frostlings/tigrans (exellent work devs, thank you!).
    P.S. And poor swordsmen again got nothing. Not even lowered cost.

    #185428

    DadouXIII
    Member

    Some options really do seem sub-par, the choice between the military and economic option is most of the time obvious and does not require any thinking. Pretty sure a balance patch will eventually address this.

    #185444

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Yep.
    There is also a lot of synergy with the Mystical City Upgrades which also gives something.

    Generally, I’m not sure whether racial governance advantages should strive to be somewhat more situational as well.
    For example, when you have a military upgrade that gives units a bonus, that bonus might be terrain-dependent (they get the bonus only only on liked terrain or not on hated).
    Likewise, you may get things only when certain buildings are there.

    Economic advantages may be situational as well (Mystical City upgrade buildings cost only half would be one).

    There is a lot of room to fine-tune this.

    #185525

    esvath
    Member

    I suggest just drop this “military” vs “economy” false dichotomy and present two interesting options at each level.

    — unlock a new creature OR improve the existing ones?
    — unlock creature A OR creature B (Leprechauns or Faerie Dragons for Halflings)?
    — improve racial units OR strengthen class feature (thus, each class will get different option)?

    These will present the game with better options, which will lead to greater replaybility, and create a true dilemma for players!

    #185975

    vota dc
    Member

    For the Warlord Draconian the prophet economic upgrade is better than the military one: martial arts is usually researched (prophet upgrade come very late), so it is just +6 moves for flyer vs cheaper T3 building, extra medal for T1 and T2 and more city vision.

    Also why is elves the only race that can’t upgrade t3 unit? Every race other than elves and goblins can upgrade their t3 twice; goblins only once (as their final upgrade doesn’t work on cavalry), instead they get additional t3 – trolls. Why nothing for griphon riders?

    Halflings, Dwarves and Humans 3 upgrades for their T3 (but only 2 of Dwarves upgrades improve the performance in battle).
    Frostling just one for T3, but is a lot more powerful (and come very very late) than the goblin one.
    High Elves pay the price of having the best ranged upgrade I guess.

    #185991

    freese2112
    Member

    Some options really do seem sub-par, the choice between the military and economic option is most of the time obvious and does not require any thinking. Pretty sure a balance patch will eventually address this.

    Definitely agree with this, some choices are absolute slam dunks. Other issue is that some of the benefits for the Prophet/Diety level bonuses aren’t going to matter that much by the time that you make it to that level.

    #186019

    I suggest just drop this “military” vs “economy” false dichotomy

    It’s not a false dichotomy.

    As a theocrat player, I never build archers for my main stacks, so RG upgrades for them are useless to me. (Yes, that includes elven longbowmen.) Additionally, crusaders tend to trump any racial infantry in my eyes, so upgrades for specific racial infantry are similarly undesirable in my eyes. Why upgrade greatswords when I can build tireless crusaders that will remain tactically viable in the endgame? For these types of situations, choosing the military upgrades would be a waste, since I will never build the units that benefit from these upgrades. However, +50 morale for a cheap building, or 50 gold off a war hall, are things that will net me benefits even in the end game, and are thus worthwhile.

    #186020

    Mythabril
    Member

    The dwarven upgrade increasing gold income from mining dirt is a bit counter productive. Dwarves like cave walls, so if you mine them all away, they will lose happiness and thus productivity.

    Only really useful in conjunction with Domain of Earth to compensate for the lack of happiness from walls.

    #186023

    The reason there is no gryphon rider upgrade is that the devs tried to find something lore appropriate that wasn’t too strong, and it didn’t really ever work.

    Total awareness was the first stab, and that was ridiculous. You could never charge the unit until using up all its mp, and at gold you could never ever charge the unit unless you webbed them.

    I think gloweye had a shadowborn one kill a stack of giants. The problem was that first strike and tireless were too good to put another ability on top of without debuffing the unit before the upgrade.

    #186053

    Quaranyr
    Member

    Yes, total awareness upgrade does sound insane. What level it was? 3? And what about this weird shooting range requirement on level 1 upgrade? And was this lam- I mean very situational arcane arrows always level 4?

    What I don’t like in elven upgrades in general is the fact that they all are so low-tiers oriented. Only level 5 give something for two tier 3 units… and this units are: shaman who almost always have better things to do than shoot his low-damage poison bolts, and succubus who need sloooow upgrade to have shooting attack at all. Not to mention that their elven variants get total awareness that encourages melee.

    #186102

    Eh, what? Arcane arrows is the best buff ever. It allows the best tier 1 archer, the best tier 2 archer, and their default racial archers to have basically no natural enemies. High elf hunters and longbowmen put out enough damage so they can put down most tier 3 units per cost. With arcane arrows, that includes shadow stalkers and Dread Reapers. Totally rebalances numerous fights.

    High Elf horse archers are in their own class for damage, survival, and this makes them flat out anything killers. High elf musketeers also become dual purpose archers, and aren’t reliant on reloading or engineers.

    With the final military, all high elf longbow archer units have seeker. Literally the spell, since they get +1 shock ranged and physical (+1 per damage channel) and ignore everything in the way. All supports get corner shooting, and the storm sister gets seeker status as well. That is a hero level weapon kit on a massable unit.

    And total awareness isn’t about melee, it is about melee proximity. It lets succubi seduce, and shaman entangle (as well as evangelists touch of faith or heal) without fear of flanking or backstabbing.

    As these abilities are critical for fighting priests, it is a great advantage.

    #186254

    esvath
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>esvath wrote:</div>
    I suggest just drop this “military” vs “economy” false dichotomy

    It’s not a false dichotomy.

    I should say “false” dichotomy to make it clear.

    Current RG system is a “false” dichotomy instead of “true” one because it presents players with superior military options. The only time that players will take the economic ones is when they adopt another military options, just like your case who choose to utilise Class unit more, or other cases when players choose to utilise other races more. This is first and foremost caused by AoW’s victory conditions which always involve Military strength. AoW3 doesn’t have the equivalent of Civ’s economic/cultural/science victories, thus making the economic RG less appealing than the military ones.

    Therefore, I suggest that we drop the dichotomy between military and economy and present true choices at each level. Maybe both options will be economic ones, maybe militaristic ones, maybe a combination.

    For example:
    Human I can be “cheaper Settlers” or “faster population growth”.
    Human II can be “+50%xp for Cavalry” or “Infantry get Martial Arts”.
    etc.

    At level V, maybe we have the choices to unlock a new unit or improving the existing ones. These will be beneficial for late game play, instead of giving population bonus (which will be useless after cities reaching Metropolis) or candles (which will be useless after players have researched all and failed the Sage quest, so no new specialisation to unlock).

    This rework on RG will present “true” dichotomy because each option will be interesting and there will be a real decision making that a player should ponder.

    Other option is to rework the Victory Conditions so that they will be less determined by military strength and more influenced by other assets such as gold and mana (in their raw form) or hammer, as I have explained in the previous post.

    #186374

    Quaranyr
    Member

    I do not question that elven archers are awesome, they really are. My problem is that elves became what is called in my mother language “theathre of the one actor”. Archers this, archers that. Level 1 upgrade for other races usually helping their weak side (civic guards, crossbowmen etc.), elves have buff for archers (that for some reason doesn’t work for archers you already have). Level 4 upgrades ONE FIRST TIER unit for 5 classes out of 7 (technically two units for archdruid but you’ll use only hunters anyway) – it’s alright because it’s archers! Weak, bland and overpriced swordsmen? Because ARCHERS!

    Dedicated elven players will propably not agree with me, but I would totally agree for nerfing archers and getting something for some other unit. ANY other unit. Just not archers. By all means, I’m not against “race with strong ranged combat” concept, I’m against “ARCHERS!!!!111 and their helpers” idea. At the moment the elves doesn’t feel like high elves, they feel like wood elves with armor.

    I’ve also wanted to whine about dwarven level 4 military upgrade but looking on elves made me change my mind. And our level 5 upgrade (meteoric armor) is best in the game anyway.

    #186396

    Gloweye
    Member

    I do not question that elven archers are awesome, they really are. My problem is that elves became what is called in my mother language “theathre of the one actor”.

    You never cared to build Unicorns(Phase, with governance at a unique 1 turn CD), Storm Sisters(Seeker at governace), or Gryphons(by some regarded as the best T3)?

    Not really a 1 man show that race…Even the Union Guard drew some flack when it got Inflict Shocking at Bronze.

    Level 4 upgrades ONE FIRST TIER unit for 5 classes out of 7 (technically two units for archdruid but you’ll use only hunters anyway) – it’s alright because it’s archers!

    Well, maybe you’re not picking them for just that one upgrade, and maybe you might want to pick the other option. Not all options can be equally strong. However, it completely makes them functional against literally every unit. Two “Archers” with Arcane Arrows and 1 or 2 medal ranks can kill a Dread Reaper with a bit of luck – or get 3 archers and you won’t even need the luck.

    That aside, an ability like this is pretty unique among race governance.

    #186416

    zeelilus
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Emperor Jarin wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>esvath wrote:</div><br>
    I suggest just drop this “military” vs “economy” false dichotomy

    It’s not a false dichotomy.

    I should say “false” dichotomy to make it clear.

    Current RG system is a “false” dichotomy instead of “true” one because it presents players with superior military options. The only time that players will take the economic ones is when they adopt another military options, just like your case who choose to utilise Class unit more, or other cases when players choose to utilise other races more. This is first and foremost caused by AoW’s victory conditions which always involve Military strength. AoW3 doesn’t have the equivalent of Civ’s economic/cultural/science victories, thus making the economic RG less appealing than the military ones.

    Therefore, I suggest that we drop the dichotomy between military and economy and present true choices at each level. Maybe both options will be economic ones, maybe militaristic ones, maybe a combination.

    For example:<br>
    Human I can be “cheaper Settlers” or “faster population growth”.<br>
    Human II can be “+50%xp for Cavalry” or “Infantry get Martial Arts”.<br>
    etc.

    At level V, maybe we have the choices to unlock a new unit or improving the existing ones. These will be beneficial for late game play, instead of giving population bonus (which will be useless after cities reaching Metropolis) or candles (which will be useless after players have researched all and failed the Sage quest, so no new specialisation to unlock).

    This rework on RG will present “true” dichotomy because each option will be interesting and there will be a real decision making that a player should ponder.

    Other option is to rework the Victory Conditions so that they will be less determined by military strength and more influenced by other assets such as gold and mana (in their raw form) or hammer, as I have explained in the previous post.

    Even if military victory is the only victory, it doesn’t make economic choices any less effective. Not sure if you noticed, but units take gold or mana to produce. Your economy dictates how many armies you can have.

    On my recent game I was a Tigran rogue and when it came down to stronger sphinxes or cheaper temples that give candles, I chose cheaper temples. I was able to build the temple faster and use that extra gold for different uses. The candles also allow for more researches to give even more advantages.

    While I agree the stronger war machine wins in AOW3, you’re putting too much into stats. Who cares if your elven archer is doing +1 damage if I was able to get a warhall 1 turn faster, and put out a cavalry unit instead of my weaker archers. The military upgrades are only good if you plan on spamming those particular units imo.

    Long story short, your army is FUELED by your economy. While you’re not making your units “stronger” with the economic upgrades you’re still making your war machine as a whole stronger.

    #186429

    zephyrcloud
    Member

    I think we’ll see this get smoothed out when the devs hit their 4-8 week post-launch mark when they said they’ll begin balancing the new Eternal Lords content in earnest.

    #186464

    freese2112
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Quaranyr wrote:</div>
    I do not question that elven archers are awesome, they really are. My problem is that elves became what is called in my mother language “theathre of the one actor”.

    You never cared to build Unicorns(Phase, with governance at a unique 1 turn CD), Storm Sisters(Seeker at governace), or Gryphons(by some regarded as the best T3)?

    Not really a 1 man show that race…Even the Union Guard drew some flack when it got Inflict Shocking at Bronze.

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Quaranyr wrote:</div>
    Level 4 upgrades ONE FIRST TIER unit for 5 classes out of 7 (technically two units for archdruid but you’ll use only hunters anyway) – it’s alright because it’s archers!

    Well, maybe you’re not picking them for just that one upgrade, and maybe you might want to pick the other option. Not all options can be equally strong. However, it completely makes them functional against literally every unit. Two “Archers” with Arcane Arrows and 1 or 2 medal ranks can kill a Dread Reaper with a bit of luck – or get 3 archers and you won’t even need the luck.

    That aside, an ability like this is pretty unique among race governance.

    I think that Quaranyr’s point was that it’s potentially a missed opportunity to diversify the range of playing styles for some races to accentuate the strength’s instead of attempting to address the weaknesses.

    I tend to play HE, but absorb most races, so I feel like I have a decent grasp on the usefulness of most units. Inherently “buffing” the longbow units is borderline kinky because they were already so damn good. Same thing with turning Storm Sisters into “Electric Longbows with Stun!” I felt like the buffs to the Shocktrooper were similar in that they improved what was already an “upper tier” unit.

    Compare that to the Goblin upgrade with getting the Troll. The Gobbo’s added a really key piece that was missing from their arsenal, and it makes them more fun to play IMO. Buffing the already over the top Longbows or Shocktroopers doesn’t have that same game experience, and actually makes me feel a little “dirty” like I’m powergaming the system. (Of course – I do it anyway because I’m weak!) ;o)

    #186470

    I disagree with a lot of the assessments in here.
    The value of most RG upgrades is heavily dependent on tactics (and game options), but I found few to be not worthwhile.
    As the OP complains about the orcs I will use them as an example:

    Orcs get a racial price reduction to barracks of 50 gold.

    At patron they can decide between +1 damage for their racial infantry and pikes or 50 gold cheaper warhalls.
    The military simply gives two (good) T1 units +1 damage. To me that is a minor boost and while definitely worthwhile in the early turns to boost your clearing army, it peters off quickly.
    The economic shaves of 50 gold and production from your second military building, which together with the barrack reduction allows even outposts and villages to rather quickly get them out (total of 175 gold/production).
    If you go for it a freshly founded outpost next to a magma forge can one-turn the barracks and 3-turn the warhall and on turn 6 you have a village that can spit out black knights. If you focus on cavalry or pick up an orc settlement past the early game I think the economic RG option is far better. Also gold is gold and happiness is more gold and other resources

    At protecter we have the option to make razorbows better in melee or make arenas give some happiness and gold.
    I’d always take the latter as i don’t use razorbows much.

    At Champion we can get more damage and guard breaker on the black knights or more production from siege workshops.
    Remember out outpost from patron level? Those black knights are very nasty now.
    Or we can still benefit from our warhall reduction by taking the production boon and use it for the dark citadel.

    At Prophet we get better shocktroopers or more money and an easier time to get them. The economic upgrade allows us shave another 100 gold off the price of admission for the racial T3. For a total of 375 gold and 100 mana we can build T3 infantry (instead of the normal 575 + 100) and we get some gold and mana income too. Thought he better shocktroopers from military are good too.

    Economic orcs get their better troops far faster and easier than military ones. Depending on the map this can translate to a significant territory and military power advantage.

    As such I do think all RG decisions are similarly useful.
    Some are circumstancial but can be leveraged some are more universal.
    But so far I have seen none I would never choose depending on map size, environment or other factors (though the razorbow one is close).

    #186474

    freese2112
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>esvath wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Emperor Jarin wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>esvath wrote:</div><br><br>
    I suggest just drop this “military” vs “economy” false dichotomy

    It’s not a false dichotomy.

    I should say “false” dichotomy to make it clear.

    Current RG system is a “false” dichotomy instead of “true” one because it presents players with superior military options. The only time that players will take the economic ones is when they adopt another military options, just like your case who choose to utilise Class unit more, or other cases when players choose to utilise other races more. This is first and foremost caused by AoW’s victory conditions which always involve Military strength. AoW3 doesn’t have the equivalent of Civ’s economic/cultural/science victories, thus making the economic RG less appealing than the military ones.

    Therefore, I suggest that we drop the dichotomy between military and economy and present true choices at each level. Maybe both options will be economic ones, maybe militaristic ones, maybe a combination.

    For example:<br><br>
    Human I can be “cheaper Settlers” or “faster population growth”.<br><br>
    Human II can be “+50%xp for Cavalry” or “Infantry get Martial Arts”.<br><br>
    etc.

    At level V, maybe we have the choices to unlock a new unit or improving the existing ones. These will be beneficial for late game play, instead of giving population bonus (which will be useless after cities reaching Metropolis) or candles (which will be useless after players have researched all and failed the Sage quest, so no new specialisation to unlock).

    This rework on RG will present “true” dichotomy because each option will be interesting and there will be a real decision making that a player should ponder.

    Other option is to rework the Victory Conditions so that they will be less determined by military strength and more influenced by other assets such as gold and mana (in their raw form) or hammer, as I have explained in the previous post.

    Even if military victory is the only victory, it doesn’t make economic choices any less effective. Not sure if you noticed, but units take gold or mana to produce. Your economy dictates how many armies you can have.

    On my recent game I was a Tigran rogue and when it came down to stronger sphinxes or cheaper temples that give candles, I chose cheaper temples. I was able to build the temple faster and use that extra gold for different uses. The candles also allow for more researches to give even more advantages.

    While I agree the stronger war machine wins in AOW3, you’re putting too much into stats. Who cares if your elven archer is doing +1 damage if I was able to get a warhall 1 turn faster, and put out a cavalry unit instead of my weaker archers. The military upgrades are only good if you plan on spamming those particular units imo.

    Long story short, your army is FUELED by your economy. While you’re not making your units “stronger” with the economic upgrades you’re still making your war machine as a whole stronger.

    First – great post by you and esvath!

    And while I agree 100% with your point regarding the economy driving your military force (which is what drives my decisions in the game), the current mechanics with no carry over of research and production SIGNIFICANTLY impact the evaluation of the usefulness of incremental hammers or candles. Currently, there is a HUGE, HUGE “step function” where you gain a huge benefit at certain levels of production or research.

    The “incremental lift” in production or candles is only useful if you are right at the “tipping point”. By mid game when I’m getting the Champion and higher level RG upgrades, the odds of the incremental resources being useful is low. This is similar to the old “+5 production” advantage for Humans which very rarily was actually a benefit because of no carry over production.

    You mention candles as a reason to take the Temple upgrade. Looking back – if you can determine how often did the incremental candles make an actual difference in the amount of time to complete research? It’s my experience that I really strive to get to a certain RP level (80 early game, 400 mid-game), and there isn’t much actual difference between being at 400 or 500 RP point per turn. (Obviously there are exceptions, and this is just based on my experience in the type of games I play – SP, L/XL maps, King difficulty. YMMV.

    My problem is that for the way I play using the HE as an example, none of the “Economic” upgrades except Diety are even remotely close to strong enough to consider not taking the military option. Again – YMMV.

    #186479

    freese2112
    Member

    I disagree with a lot of the assessments in here.<br>
    The value of most RG upgrades is heavily dependent on tactics (and game options), but I found few to be not worthwhile.<br>
    As the OP complains about the orcs I will use them as an example:

    Orcs get a racial price reduction to barracks of 50 gold.

    At patron they can decide between +1 damage for their racial infantry and pikes or 50 gold cheaper warhalls.<br>
    The military simply gives two (good) T1 units +1 damage. To me that is a minor boost and while definitely worthwhile in the early turns to boost your clearing army, it peters off quickly.<br>
    The economic shaves of 50 gold and production from your second military building, which together with the barrack reduction allows even outposts and villages to rather quickly get them out (total of 175 gold/production).<br>
    If you go for it a freshly founded outpost next to a magma forge can one-turn the barracks and 3-turn the warhall and on turn 6 you have a village that can spit out black knights. If you focus on cavalry or pick up an orc settlement past the early game I think the economic RG option is far better. Also gold is gold and happiness is more gold and other resources

    At protecter we have the option to make razorbows better in melee or make arenas give some happiness and gold.<br>
    I’d always take the latter as i don’t use razorbows much.

    At Champion we can get more damage and

    FA – I think you’re one of the better poster on the board, but you seem to have a major logic fails in this post from my perspective.

    Because you feel the orc benefits are balanced – you think that all RG benefits are similarly useful? Elf Patron for example – +1 damage for longbows (HUGE) vs. +50 population (both from Shooting Range). I bet that 99% of the time the miliary option is chosen. Same thing for Dwarf Patron as the amount of “mining” that occurs in most games is minimal.

    I’d be interested to see if Triumph can track the “election” rate of each benefit from PBEM & MP games (or even SP games somehow). I would expect that most of the elections as they currently stand are likely 80%+ or more for one of the upgrade selection (not always the military one), but it just seems like the selections aren’t necessarily very well balanced right now.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 63 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.