Collected Wishes for the next project

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 Collected Wishes for the next project

This topic contains 176 replies, has 35 voices, and was last updated by  Leon Feargus 3 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 177 total)
  • Author
  • #257775


    There are a lot of good (and not good) suggestions from the community for Triumphs new project. But no dedicated thread for this (or i was to stupid to find it). That has to change 🙂
    All we know is this

    ‘A new and awesome – 64 bit – tbs game that will appeal to fans of AoW3’.

    And for the next triumph tbs I would very much back up those suggestions:

    @seer suggested an option for saving/finishing manual combat in auto mode if someone disconnects. If the new game has the same distinction between strategic and tactical map, please add this if possible triumph!

    – BBB has a long wishlist in this thread
    I especially like his points 1: scaleable mechanics e.g. research that enables larger stack size, or the possibility to link armies so they always move together (would also solve split stacking).
    And point 3: Racial asymmetry. Would probably be a pain in the ass to balance but even though racial government and glorious patching by the devs (and nowadays continued by the community, thx all) has made the races more distinguished than in the vanilla version. Fundamental different factions are always fun imho.

    – And not to forget my personal wish: An option to make the turn timer chesslike in multiplayer so every player has his own time instead of the slavery of x minutes each turn.

    @all Feel free to comment and add wishes
    @Devs: Feel free to implement 😛

    • This topic was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by  Fluks.

    And not to forget my personal wish: An option to make the turn timer chesslike in multiplayer so every player has his own time instead of the slavery of x minutes each turn.

    Do you mean classic turns? If so, that’s already an option. You can disable the timer as well if you like.


    A chess timer is an interesting idea, but I don’t think it would work out for a game like AoW since a match can take a long time. What would you put the timer at? 2 hours for a small map?

    This might work better for battles specifically, as in each player having 10 minutes per battle or something like that, but I personally see this causing more trouble than it’s worth unless their new game is a much shorter experience.

    @BBB: A chess timer would be when both players have an initial allotment of time, and their individual timers tick down on their turn. In this system, if I only take one minute per turn, but my opponent is taking five minutes per turn, I’ll end up with a lot more time to spend on later turns while my opponent runs the risk of completely running out of time (and losing the game, or having a strict one minute timer every turn after they run out of time, depending on how using up all your time is punished.)



    Posting to subscribe



    64 bit is high on my wishlist, and luckily this has been confirmed, as I think this will imcrease the things they can do with their next game tremendously.

    Need to think on this for a moment to come up with some things. For now, what I would like is Triumph to retain Michiel as the composer for their next project (regardless if this next game is a continuation of the AoW series, which I highly suspect it is), his soundtracks have been an integral part for nearly all of Triumph’s games. And it was one of the main reasons why I played the first AoW for so long and never advanced to AoW 2 and SM, the soundtrack by Mason Fisher just paled in comparison; imho his soundtrack for AoW2 and SM was too mellow, had little variation between tracks, and I hated the overall sound of it and its instrumentation sounded off.



    @bbb and @mauvebutterfly: Introducing a chess timer has been discussed before here and here
    In short: Best would be the option of a timepool T + an added time X each turn and a time Y that is added every Z turns. e.g. You have a timepool of 10 minutes (T), each turn you get 1 minute extra (X) and each 20 (Z) turns 40 minutes (Y) are added to the pool. Each player has of course their own timepool that stops ticking down once you finish your turn. It is no problem at all for long games. In the example given you’d have 30 minutes for the first 20 turns and 60 minutes + the time you saved from previous turns for each following 20-turn interval. Basically it would be like the 3 min. turn timer that is standard in live mp atm, but you could distribute the time better.
    Also since you have the incentive to save time for yourself moves like waiting for the last seconds to attack a city in simultaneous turn mode would come at a cost because you spend your time for that. In classic turns mode it would just encourage faster play.


    A more advanced system like you present here feels much better than what I assumed was a traditional chess clock. Adding additional minutes to the pool over time is a good solution. I could see something like this allowing for games of indeterminate length while still encouraging faster play.


    Member and season or day/night system.
    2.deeper learned AI system.
    3.please tell us little news!!!


    A variable turn timer actually sounds pretty interesting. I’m not sure how it’d translate into combat turns, but I am actually very hopeful they’ll be able to engineer true simultaneous turns, whereby a person can have a battle and also manage the strategic map, even hurrying in reinforcements if they so choose (who’d enter the fight after a certain number of rounds and with maluses to show they’ve essentially force marched there, e.g. lower start mp etc.)

    If they can crack that conundrum, and maintain the quality fights we know and love (i.e. not turn it into the imho not-so-good combat of Endless Legend) then we could have something really special.



    I wish the game is translated in Chinese from its release, that would bring big additional sales to Triumph. Just look at the Chinese language mod on the workshop, it’s one of the top mod by subscribers.


    SikBok wrote:

    ‘A new and awesome – 64 bit – tbs game that will appeal to fans of AoW3’.

    If they can crack that conundrum, and maintain the quality fights we know and love (i.e. not turn it into the imho not-so-good combat of Endless Legend) then we could have something really special.

    The first quote where is the source? I am thrilled if it is true that Triumph’s project will appeal to AoW3 players.

    The second quote is an interesting comment. From my rudimentary understanding of how computer resources are allocated I would say that is a big conundrum. Two players fighting a battle while the rest do their other moves. Our early suggestions were a battle timer to make the battles like speed chess. Team classic. Those were not addressed. They were suggested many times since the game came out.

    No worries. We have had endless fun playing and replaying the game in our 2v2 3v3 or ffa metagames. We instituted house rules which were sort of followed. We argue to this day.

    I am sure Triumph working with Paradox will address these issues. I look forward to the new game especially if the first quote is true.



    @spockimpossible Just click in the name “SikBok” in my original post and you’ll be taken right to the source. You might also notice that that news is 1 year old and was before they announced becoming part of paradox. But I hope things haven’t changed in that respect.

    @Mr.Lost +1 to weather and/or day/night

    and I would also throw more in-game map modification into the ring. Shadow magic had a spell that would let you shape mountain ranges, summon magical woods and poisonous plants all in the strategic overworld map, also elven cities could become “invisible” and appear as forest. Given that terrain and climate play an important role in AoW3 I always felt giving up most overland spells is wasting a lot of potential. In that respect it was a step backwards from Shadow magic. But why not expand it in the new project and allow the dwarven builder (or it’s new equivalent) to make cave entrances and actually create new caves underground anywhere you like on the map? Maybe some race and/or class could be nomadic and move their cities around? All that would of course be even better if the map would not show changes that none of your scouts has seen yet so you could truly hide your cities or secretly build a tunnel (atm if you build a new city or Fort your opponent will see it on the map as soon as you start building it if he had revealed the area before).

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by  Fluks.

    Jolly Joker

    Guys, if you come up with stuff like “day/night” and “weather, then I’d like you to sketch the advantages this would bring in your opinion – or more correctly, the meaningful additions.
    We do have a differentiation of day and night for game purposes already – it’s “night” in the Underground, that’s why you need “night vision” there, to see anything (to improve the vision range). So day/night overground would simply increase the importance of night vision .
    We also have this event that reduces visibility – and guess how many people already complained about that wreaking havoc to serious playing. Most of all, we also have the Blood Moon event – any “night” cycle would severely inhibit the view, and I don’t like that at all, and I’m sure I’m not the only one.
    So pray tell – what is a night cycle supposed to gain?

    Then there is “weather”. The game has “climate” already, which is, come to think of it, actually the same thing, just the “turn-based” version as opposed to the “real-time” effect; in Arctic it already has snowed instead of “is currently snowing”, in Wetlands it already has rained instead of “is raining”, and so on. The effect on the adventure map is quite the same: adverse weather/climate translates into movement point penalties.

    Now, “weather” (or climate) could translate into combat effects as well. Rain/Wetlands might reduce movement on the battlemap as well, and THAT is obviously the practical side to consider here: is the tactical map supposed to imitate climate and terrain in a more serious way.
    This IS in fact a serious thing to consider: would shock damage do more damage in Rain/Wetland condition or come with a stun chance (and would anyone want that)? Would Blight do more damage in Blighted Terrain and Spirit less?
    In the game terms of the current approach, this would all just relate into weaknesses and vulnerabilities. The Choking effect of a Forge would be the default for “Volcanic”. Being in Blighted Terrain would come with an X% Blight vulnerability. Being in Wetlands would come with a X% Shock vulnerability and give shock weapons the “Inflict Stun” ability.

    So again the question – what is “weather” supposed to gain?


    Weather as an event would be cool. Adding weather effects to the game is visually new. Weather as an event + visual effects is a win.

    @ JJ weather as an event whether fantasy weather or a tornado , snowstorm or hurricane is not a bad idea. You could add weather in the way events are in game options. None few normal many.



    @jollyjoker In short it would just provide more opportunities to make the races/classes feel distinct.
    Examples could be small boosts/abilities that are only active during day/night (e.g. vampires get lifesteal only during night). Because in AoW3 the races play very similar imho, especially the ones that were in the vanilla version.
    It could also provide an additional difference between underground and overworld (no day/night cycle ug). Of course you can replace day/night with seasons. The fundamental difference to cosmic happenings would be that this cycle can be planned for and unlike climate it’s restricted by time, not area.
    Having said all this it would probably be too much to have day/night and Seasons. One time-cycle would be enough for me 🙂
    Weather would basically be new cosmic events that change the landscape for a while.


    Jolly Joker

    Weather would basically be new cosmic events that change the landscape for a while.

    I really like that – and I think you can mod that into the game right now. 🙂


    Leon Feargus

    Fluks wrote:

    Weather would basically be new cosmic events that change the landscape for a while.

    I really like that – and I think you can mod that into the game right now. 🙂

    How about day/night? Would that be moddable right now? I guess it would be but the important question is: Would it be fun? I think Triumph might have discarded such an idea because it’s not a lot of fun. You’d have 1 layer (or more even in some maps) that’s totally dark and 1 layer that’s dark half of the time.



    Im pretty sure i looked into this as i wanted to make a mod with a blizzard/drought/monsoon, e.g. terraform the whole map over a few turns cosmic event and didn’t see it was possible, id love to be proven wrong though.

    What i really wanted to make was like crazy random events, like a volcano might spawn up next your base (basically just terraforms some areas to volcanic, ash cloud vision -4, and a crop plague target city hexes to blight, and give cities a decline in population for x turns, and sickness to all units.

    But yeah id be absolutely behind a weather system that effects, towns, units, season growth, and if that very system could be modible :O !



    Just thinking about it gets me excited, heavy winter, major movement penalty, -growth and gold reduction plus all the wolves that have spawned up raising the all new economic system Age of wonders 4 has (just assuming), forest fires, for x turns cause harm on hex, turning the world to ash. But then you’d have the world killer spell at the end, the rare epic cataclysm that turns your nice empire upside down, and rips the world apart. Would be a great mod for sure!


    Units being stuck from departing to sea would be cool because of a storm. Maybe an evil spell that in Game of Thrones when Stannis Baratheon sacrificed his daughter for clear weather an example of a fantasy event.



    @leon Feargus
    Just make the day night change less extreme than it is in AoW3 with the underground. It works fine in e.g. warcraft 3 and helps a lot in making Nightelfs play different from other playable races (no tbs but people depend pretty much on vision too…). But if day/night should turn out to be shitty – seasons (doesn’t have to be 4) would provide another possible time cycle thats not necessarily connected to vision. My main point is that those mechanisms can help making the playable races/classes different and thereby more interesting. One of the very few problems with the Vanilla AoW3 was imho that the races were too similar. It has gotten a lot better with the expansions and patches though!



    I’ll compile my posts with the most important wishes.

    Oh, and I really hope they will be able to create multiplayer working perfectly through all NATs and stuff. AoW3 situation is just terrible.

    Units’ stats window and abilities list should be A LOT more structured. Searching for something in that random list was a pain.

    To clarify further, things like vision range, magical sight and resists definitely deserve their own place in the interface outside of abilities list (like hit points and moving points). And other part of abilities needs at the very least sensible grouping and sorting. Or even complete interface overhaul (getting rid of the list).

    I’d definitely want something to reduce micromanagement in the endgame. Bigger squads, yes. And more powerful units in combination with soft army limits. Not only it feels good when you need only one unit instead of a party (yes, I am still not used to squishy heroes), it’s more convenient. Say what you like, but I like monster heroes more than hundreds of units. Soft army size limits could be in the form of upkeep, as usual.

    Also, try not to force playable classes on people in the campaigns, if you could. If the new game would have something like classes in it. I just didn’t want to play Rogue, Warlord or Dreadnought at all, thematically.

    I think I can suggest at least one thing which can be done to make gameplay of strategic games more interesting (at least for me).

    Inhomogeneous, interactive and changing world. Of course there are some elements of this in AoW3 (and there were even more in Shadow Magic), but not enough, I think. Yes, other elements, like armies, combat, economics, diplomacy should be good, but what didn’t we see there?
    What I’m talking about.

    Inhomogeneous: different conditions for moving, fighting, building, exploiting in different parts of the world. So yes, this includes effects from different heights, climes, vegetation, water bodies, local inhabitants and so on. Other, less conventional objects and effects could exist, too (like anomalies in Endless Legend, if they actually affected anything apart from income). In combat, too: morale bonuses, structure spells, fort and city battles are ok, but there could be more.

    Interactive: you should be able to change world and its conditions. Obviously, this concerns things I mentioned in the previous paragraph: landscape, clime, weather and so on. Also, of course, broad possibilities for building and destruction (and you can build and destroy little in AoW3 apart from cities, which you can’t even completely destroy). In fantasy settings this obviously includes my favourite – strategic magic (which provides extremely wide range of things you can change in the world). Exploring dungeons and structures, entering other parts of the world (underground, other planes) also belongs here.

    And changing: not only you and your opponents/allies should be able to change the world, it should change with time by itself, “linearly”, randomly and/or periodically. Again, this possibly includes everything mentioned above: landscape, climes, conditions, inhabitants, places of interest and so on. So, possibly, weather effects, seasons (better than in Endless Legend, where you can’t actually adapt to winter), cataclysms, invasions, landscape erosion, riverbeds changing, forests growing, new anomalies and ‘dungeons’ appearing and vanishing, and so on.

    So, a world should not be just a static scenery, but another participant of a game (even if without intelligence).
    This is what should make a game more interesting for me, I grew a little tired of (just) playing soldiers… Even city planning (like in Endless Legend) becomes more interesting than soldiers.

    Of course, another crucial thing is AI, for example. AI is just a critical problem for games now, a lot of things improve with time, but AI generally stays the same or even becomes worse. There could not be a good game (in all genres) without a smart AI now. Even fully multiplayer games sometimes need it.
    Other new technologies (like procedural generation of things or speaking AI, for example) would be very welcome, too, but probably for other genres.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by  Taykor.
    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by  Taykor.

    I’d like to see city customization. City walls with a Keep is one. Trebuchets set on the walls manned or unmanned. Tailoring of the area outside the wall and inside. Traditional castle defenses and fantasy. Make it like Sim city. The attcker could destroy the farms causing unit upkeep costs to go up.

    AoW3 sieges are a big part of the game. Adding city placements would be fun.



    Tactical Combat:

    Moddable tactical combat maps.
    Combat maps are made by merging the maps from all the 7 hexes that are in combat, with merge zones for different terrains. So if only the center hex is forest, that’s the only hex with trees. You can have a road passing by on 2 hexes next to the center hex, if thats’what the overland map looks like.

    Fortresses don’t draw battles in – if you get attacked, you’ll have to run to the walls to use them – they may be on an edge hex. Stack size should be bigger, tho. This gives faster armies the opportunity to chase down slower armies.

    Certain circumstances change fortresses. When it’s got land on two sides and water on two other sides, the fortress gets 3-hex wide walls to either side. Same with cavern walls, or cavern walls and water. This means they really will be harder to assault. Of course, extendable by modding, this should be an option for any structure.

    Optionally, all adjacent armies are able to join combat. Armies adjacent to your fighting armies could have like a 3-turn counter, cancelable by the player at any moment, after which they appear on the edge of the battlefield.

    Overall, I think shrinking combat map radius by 5 tiles, and THEN merging 7 of them, would make for an awesome sized combat map.

    Combat enchantments could reach on their host tile, and perhaps a certain bit bigger on the combat map. When casting one, combat enchantments can be global on the combat map, or put on a tile of your choice and a certain radius around it. This makes for more variation.

    Explorable dungeons start unexplored, with the enemies invisible. You have to scout to find them. Night vision is relevant in dungeons.

    Casting Nightwish on a city does the same. (but perhaps larger sight radius. Because walls.)

    If defenders stall the battle until it ends, they are ejected from their location as if they fled the battle. Attackers claim any structures.

    Open for discussion, perhaps allow defenders to flee after X turns. (like, 10.)

    In combat, cities and fortresses change owner dynamically. So if the defender abandons the walls, so that at a moment the attacker is the only one with forces inside, the structure switches sides, and gates will open for the other party.

    City Growth (and a bit of combat)

    Bigger cities cover more hexes. They grow automatically from the center hex when the city does, on the most liked terrain adjacent to the core, random on equal likelyhood. Cannot grow on hated or otherwise invalid terrain, so these factors can constrain city growth. Having more hexes, you can partially capture a city, making in inaccessible for either player until either becomes the sole owner. In an in-city fight, the victor takes all hexes that were in combat.

    Another possibility is that the city would grow a hex for every X improvements. Thereby, it would become more vulnerable the more developed it is.

    Walls surround the entire city. You can make city improvements that add features to the combat map for the city, like walls or perhaps a bastion inside the city, a second, small layer of walls. Or surround the walls with a slowing moat, have enchanted walls, enchanted bastion, combat enchantments, have the hospital show up on the combat map and actually heal units in combat if they stay near it.

    Dynamic Domains

    Domains grow faster over liked terrain, and are seriously impeded on hated/disliked terrain. Lets say:

    • Liked terrain: 0.5 flood cost
    • neutral terrain: 1 flood cost
    • disliked terrain: 1.5 flood cost
    • hated terrain: 2 flood cost

    So a city with domain strength 5 would have 10 hex radius on full liked terrain, 5 hexes on neutral, 4 on disliked and 3 on hated terrain.

    Of if the city, for example elven, is on the border of Arctic Forest and Blighted Wetlands, it has 10 domain one side and 3 domain the other side. If the goblins capture and migrate the city, it has 10 domain the other side and 4 domain the arctic forest side.

    Also, conflicting domains could claim terrain based on domain strength. Therefore, by increasing focus on a city bordering an enemy, you can steal a treasure site. (probably have Open Borders make this impossible between players. )

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by  Gloweye.

    I’d like to see city customization. City walls with a Keep is one. Trebuchets set on the walls manned or unmanned. Tailoring of the area outside the wall and inside. Traditional castle defenses and fantasy. Make it like Sim city. The attcker could destroy the farms causing unit upkeep costs to go up.

    AoW3 sieges are a big part of the game. Adding city placements would be fun.

    I’d quite like cities to take up more space on the strategic map. That’d be a soft limiter right there, if you need physical space, i.e. hexes, to create your city, and there are only so many hexes in the game. Now allow the various city buildings to be constructed on the map, and you get an organic looking city. Allow also that walls are things that are built on a hex. Now limit how much can be built in a hex to, for example, 3 things. Or, another way is to have each hex have a default of 3 spaces. Allow some buildings to take up more than one space.

    Now vary this by race, so Goblins get 4 spaces, but everything they build is rickety and they can’t build stone walls. Every race can build on temperate hexes, but Elves can build on forests (other races have to destroy the forest first), Dwarves can build on mountains, draconians in volcanic territory. Building/occupying territory not to your races’ liking would incure heavy heavy costs – to morale, attrition and the costs of buildings. So Elves occupying a blighted wasteland may want to invest in terraforming it, or burning it and moving on.

    Now allow that when enemy units occupy a hex unopposed, they can destroy one space per turn. You would therefore get a de facto siege situation, because they’d be ruining your economy, which you might allow because of attrition etc (like the Romans against Hannibal). Should the enemy hit a space with your army on it, you get a fight, if that space has a wall, you fight on the walls, if it’s your citadel, you get a city fight.

    In a nutshell – organic city building by using real estate that would be limited naturally by the random map generator.

    Now add in an attrition system and you should, hopefully, see organic battle lines/fronts forming, as there are points of interest (farms generating food – to counter attrition, mines generating gold etc) to fight over.

    edit: now if races and clases could vary a bit in what they find interesting, and you start to have assymetry from the ground up. Add in some conflicting interests, even within a race, and you generate interesting decisions.


    Jolly Joker

    This isn’t Civilization or a Townbuilder. You don’t want to mull over what hexes you build what on, simply because there isn’t that much to build in the first place – and that’s completely ok.

    This may be the right moment to mention, that it would make a lot of sense to make “Fortress” (what you can build with a builder in order to collect gold and mana for the next town) and “town” (the thing you need a settler for) two different things and to remove the tags for both from the map when destroyed. Because that isn’t the case in AoW 3, and that is somewhat influencing the game in a not so good way.

    For one thing, in AoW 3 the centre hexes of “settlements” (both fortress or town) must be a certain moddable distance away from each other (different settings possible for humans and AIs). If Fortress and Town is the same thing for this purpose you have the problem we have: you either pick a low distance to be able to build forrtresses directly in the vicinity of a town – but then you also allow “city-spamming”; or you set the distance bigger so that city-spamming isn’t possible anymore – but then you won’t build fortresses anymore.

    Also, in Aow 3 a structure, once built, will never really vanish. It keeps where it is (to be animated or “respawned” by a settler) and still blocks settling in the current forbidden radius. You should be able to COMPLETELY destroy a settlement.



    Oh, and by the way, ‘one spell per turn’ restriction in combat absolutely must be abolished.
    Instead ranges of action could be introduced for spells too, as for abilities. But preferably appreciably larger, to compensate spending mana on spells. As I remember discussions here, infinite range was the main reason people accepted ‘one spell per turn’.


    Jolly Joker

    Multi-casting is something I did some thinking about about, and one way to try and solve this is via increasing mana costs and/or decreasing spell effect:

    Assumption: any number of spells per turn allowed

    Solution 1) Possible effects to reign this in:
    a) Increasing Mana cost for each following spell; example: 1st spell of a side – regular mana cost; 2nd spell that turn – double the mana cost; 3rd spell – triple or quadruple the mana cost (and so on)
    b) decreasing effect for each following spelll; this would mean that second, thirds and so on spells in one round had a reduced effect (depending on the spell)
    c) Probability for a spell to have an effect at all for each following spell; this would work somewhat like disjunction. The first spell could be cast normally (100% successful); for each following spell that round there was a decreasing success chance, that is, a chance that the spell would have no effect at all.

    However, there is a solution 2, which I think, might, be simpler and more effective.

    Solution 2) A side plays normally, including the casting of 1 spell. If that side attempts to cast a second spell, that is, when the player clicks onto the button to cast or the target hex/unit, instead of the spell taking effect, a safety question appears: abort/continue. If you abort the spell is aborted and the player continues normally. If you don’t abort, the spell isn’t cast immediately; instead, initiative switches to the opposing player, who can now cast one spell (if able to). After doing that (or declining to do so), the initiative goes back to the initial player, whose spell is now cast.



    For spells, I think I’d prefer the limited range option.

    Also, have battlefield elevation influence range. So dont just give +2 range on walls, instead have the elevation of the wall provide that range.

    This could be fun if for example, you build a city on top of a mountain, and while defending you’ll have range bonuses all of the time, because you could have like 10 elevations on a combat map.


    Jolly Joker

    For spells, I think I’d prefer the limited range option.

    Also, have battlefield elevation influence range. So dont just give +2 range on walls, instead have the elevation of the wall provide that range.

    This could be fun if for example, you build a city on top of a mountain, and while defending you’ll have range bonuses all of the time, because you could have like 10 elevations on a combat map.

    Limited range is no option, though, not when you think about it. The nearest thing we have to that now is Call Lightning. Obviously, if a couple of Horned Gods start casting that, there isn’t much standing after one round of casting, limited range or not. Limited range also doesn’t count when it comes to buffs. If you play Frostling Theo, for example, you’ll be able to start the battle with a ton of buffs, each unit/hero buffing another one, spells usually being better.
    Also, I think the reason for this is, that if the side going first can cast spells however they like, the battle may well be over, before the side going second actually gets a turn. So the only thing that is really needed is to allow the other side to cast as well, before the same side gets to cast again.

    Elevation plus terraforming effects may affect the game in bad ways. What you do not want in these games is making defense as such too strong, because that will favor turtling strategies, which isn’t something you want. Also ranged units are good enough already, as it is. Think about what a cannon plus a helper with fast reload can do with additional range.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 177 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.