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 - 61 through 90 (of 177 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #258075

    Leon Feargus
    Member

    I just had an idea. It is based off the fact that I love the Evolve mechanism. (or rather a promotion mechanism)

    What if there were finite units?
    Tier 1 units would be youngsters, recruits that could perhaps be promoted (evolve) to tier 2 and even further, as they gain more and more experience. But elite tier 4 units evolve into lesser versions as old age will play its part, they are demoted to tier 3 and when they reach elite again their part is done and they return to the earth.

    Could work for machines as well. Unfortunately … Elves
    And, well I don’t see Dread Reapers getting senile.

    #258077

    Hiliadan
    Member

    I’d rather have t3 and t4 units (and maybe t2?) be limited by map resources, so things like pastures (which give cavalry mounts) would become more important

    I think you are victim of the “when I have something, I want something else, I want more” symptom here. We already have strategic areas of interest: cities, fortresses, dwelling (kind of resources, they unlock rare units you can’t have in cities), watchtowers, hearts, structures with MCU (which are actually very very close to resources already!), seals, cities with bonus from EQ (e.g. Imperial Residence), etc. And yet we do not fight that much for them, except for the first three.
    One reason is that the AI is not really coded to fight for the other structures.
    Another reason is that AoW is not a game where you defend. You need to always expand and be aggressive, and you can’t dedicate many units to defending strategic areas.
    It’s also already possible to create resources like you describe with mod tools (as far as I know): add a MCU to a new structure that is required to build all cavalry units and you have a “mount” resource. Yet, nobody did it and nobody is really asking for it.
    So if you really want it, no need to ask the devs or wait for the next game, go mod it. 🙂

    EDIT: I have a proposal that is also very important for PBEM and would change many things! It would be great to be able to give priorities and simple orders for spells (and also to abilities, but it’s probably more complicated) for auto-combat. For instance on the spell book of each hero, you could choose between: “Cast with high priority”, “Cast with medium priority”, “Cast with low priority”, “Do not cast”. The best would be to have a script language for advanced players (so normal players would not have to bother with it, and it would be accessed only through a small icon opening a new window or something) to define simple instructions with if / else. For instance: if there is only 1 unit in the battle, don’t cast, else cast with high priority. Or: if my HP gets below 50 and I’m not engaged, then use, else don’t use. That would really improve very significantly the resolutions of auto-combat and completely change strategies and development choices.
    The script language should be exportable and importable so that some players can prepare templates and share them with others, to make it easy for a wide audience to benefit from improved AI behaviour.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by  Hiliadan.
    #258079

    Gloweye
    Member

    EDIT: I have a proposal that is also very important for PBEM and would change many things! It would be great to be able to give priorities and simple orders for spells (and also to abilities, but it’s probably more complicated) for auto-combat. For instance on the spell book of each hero, you could choose between: “Cast with high priority”, “Cast with medium priority”, “Cast with low priority”, “Do not cast”. The best would be to have a script language for advanced players (so normal players would not have to bother with it, and it would be accessed only through a small icon opening a new window or something) to define simple instructions with if / else. For instance: if there is only 1 unit in the battle, don’t cast, else cast with high priority. Or: if my HP gets below 50 and I’m not engaged, then use, else don’t use. That would really improve very significantly the resolutions of auto-combat and completely change strategies and development choices.
    The script language should be exportable and importable so that some players can prepare templates and share them with others, to make it easy for a wide audience to benefit from improved AI behaviour.

    This would be good, as it would enable community AI mods. However, not in PBEM – both players should have the same AI. I don’t think coding skill should factor into a matchup.

    #258083

    Hiliadan
    Member

    I don’t think coding skill should factor into a matchup.

    That’s not really coding skills, it’s more thinking about what your units should do. A series of if / else is not that complicated, and anyway, if a script language was implemented like that, it would clearly need to be exportable and importable. Then I’m sure most players would not need to write any scripts as other would share their scripts (and some may be willing to help other to correct their scripts to add what they want in it).
    Being better at thinking what your units should do is an integral part of the game, so players should NOT have the same instructions for their units in PBEM. It’s a bit like saying people should get all the spells their opponent researched for free, so that the fight is fairer.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by  Hiliadan.
    #258085

    Gloweye
    Member

    If it’s a script language, it’s going to involve coding skills. And no, if im an ambitious PBEM player who plays to win, I wouldn’t share my scripts. It’d be another advantage I could use.

    And no, it’s not like giving the other all the spells you got. It’s about them being allowed to use the spells that they already have on their units. For a fair fight, either both gets all the spells and abilities they have, or both are restricted in their spells/abilities in a likewise way.

    #258086

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I think, Hiliadan is seriously underestimating the kind of work you can put into this. There have been a game in 1989 about this, called Omega.

    This would be a game in itself and by itself.

    Positively spoken, though, this could of course end up in the game getting the best combat AI ever in any comparable game, provided people would share their programming.

    Repeat: would be a game in and by itself.

    #258087

    Hiliadan
    Member

    Sorry but no, a script that allows only if, then and else does not require coding skills. Anyone can describe what they want, “if my units has less than 50 HP, then it uses that spell”. Most people can help to transate that into the right text with the “(” at the right place.
    I’m not talking about a script language with for, while, call to database, etc.

    And no, if im an ambitious PBEM player who plays to win, I wouldn’t share my scripts. It’d be another advantage I could use.

    Sure, but as I said, why would you want to share your ideas on your tactics and strategies? It’s the same now. If you put hours into thinking how your units should behave, I don’t see an issue on you being rewarded for it.
    But that does not mean NOBODY will share. And you can also observe in auto-fight replays how enemy units behave and understand what the other players did.

    I think, Hiliadan is seriously underestimating the kind of work you can put into this

    Not really, of course people can put a lot of efforts into it. And that’s great.
    As you say, it could make the AI of AoW3 much better (in tactical fights only though).

    I can see both your points and they have truth in them (especially JJ, you’re right that it CAN be a game in itself for those who want, but you don’t HAVE to use the scripts), but I still think the devs should not force players NOT to use such scripts in PBEM (if they ever implement them). Give the players the option and let them see what they do with it (you can for instance add an option in the settings “Scripts: on/off”). Having a dogmatic approach and saying it should be banned because blabla is not appropriate I think.

    #258089

    Gloweye
    Member

    There’d still be plenty coding. You’re really underestimating how AI’s work.

    For example, grabbing characters from code is different. You do it by location ? Or grab all characters in X AP walk/hit range ? Or grab them all and filter ? How do you decide what of your chars get to walk first, and to account for terrain ? Are you going to tell your archers behind your pikes, and how would you ever do that ? because you need multiple variables to store how far you can walk and where you can park which units – and in which order you’ll have to move them. Or even that you move one a bit, then let the other move, then move the first the last bit. And for all that, you’ll need to filter for status effects. A stunned unit cannot move or attack, but he can still be used as meatshield for your archers to hide behind.

    Really dude, while it would be nice to be able to mod the AI, that’s not average user code.

    #258094

    Nemesis_Zero
    Member

    16. Make a Forum were posts can be edited
    17. Some sort of replay-button so a player can see Ai and/or other players movement on their turn. Useful in pbem where ai/players can move inside your visonrange but you dont get any info about their movement even though you should.

    #258095

    I think you are victim of the “when I have something, I want something else, I want more” symptom here. We already have strategic areas of interest: cities, fortresses, dwelling (kind of resources, they unlock rare units you can’t have in cities), watchtowers, hearts, structures with MCU (which are actually very very close to resources already!), seals, cities with bonus from EQ (e.g. Imperial Residence), etc. And yet we do not fight that much for them, except for the first three.

    And why don’t we fight for them?

    I think you misunderstand. I am talking about certain areas of the map that contain risk and reward, unevenly distributed from other areas of interest.

    One area might have more gold mines (economy) whereas another might have structures required to produce T4 units. Which do you focus on, and why? That’s an interesting decision.

    BLOODYBATTLEBRAIN wrote:
    Another possible, tropetastic, limiter would be a chance for the spell to backfire, injuring or killing troops in the vicinity.
    No, this’d be the wrong kind of RMG. It’s really NOT FUN to have that happen.

    Again, details. you;re missing the overall point, which is:

    more interesting drawbacks/restrictions to spell casting, than one spell per turn. Range and time limitations are obvious ones, potential downsides are another (allow players some control, by “overcharging” a spell, and the player gets to push their luck)

    No one would want to cast spells that would force you to wait around 3 turns – that’s boring. It would also make it necessary to unleash something more than what the hero could have done in those turns by conventional means, doing doomsday damage and collecting mega XP. You wouldn’t want that.

    I would take the risk of keeping my spellcaster safe if it meant I got to unleash a strong spell. And by strong spell, I mean something like chaos rift. It allowes for a degree of specialisation even within a hero class. If I pump my casting points, i get my big spells out earlier, but I might be neglecting health, speed etc.

    I don’t see how it would be any more “boring” than the existing mechanic. Quite the opposite infact. It introduces risk, and in a game risk is spice.

    The most important stat of a unit in the later stages is their movement.

    it’s the most important skill at any point of the game imho, perhaps even more so in the early game when there’s exponentially more of the map that is unnkown.

    The reason swordsmen don’t get built in the later game (or much at all) is not because of mobility imho, it’s because of stack limits.

    If I could move 36 Pikemen as easily as I can move 6 manticores, I’d give very serious consideration to using 36 Pikemen.

    Under existing mechanics I require 6 times as much clicking, and I probably will never bring all 36 to bear.

    I think you;re either misunderstanding, or ignoring, what I’m saying. Simply put:

    racial t4 (but not for every race necessarily) acquired in different ways, with different pre-requisites.

    Part of that would be resources required to field certain units. Cavalry is an obvious example because if there were 3 or 4 areas that produce mounts in a map, now you naturally have an area of interest in the map, that encourages thinking. You might dominate that area of the map, but at what cost to your economy?

    That resource could just as easily be a MCU. If Orcs require a dungeon to bring out the Warmaster (random example) then the player will be excited when it shows up.

    Right now the only limits on t4 are:

    time to research
    economy (only really applicable in multiplayer)
    too many enemy units (only really applicable in singleplayer, late game emperor ai maps).

    I think you’re nitpicking examples that are meant to illustrate a concept.

    The overall idea is a living, breathing, interesting map where you aren’t guaranteed to get through your tech tree, and where one of the primary limiting factors on higher tier, powerful unit usage is the map itself.

    16. Make a Forum were posts can be edited

    http://aow.triumph.net/ forums/ reply/ 258095/ edit/

    Type the above into your url bar. Change the numbers to the post you wish to edit (your own post obviously).

    another edit: remove the spaces!

    #258106

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    No one would want to cast spells that would force you to wait around 3 turns – that’s boring. It would also make it necessary to unleash something more than what the hero could have done in those turns by conventional means, doing doomsday damage and collecting mega XP. You wouldn’t want that.

    I would take the risk of keeping my spellcaster safe if it meant I got to unleash a strong spell. And by strong spell, I mean something like chaos rift. It allowes for a degree of specialisation even within a hero class. If I pump my casting points, i get my big spells out earlier, but I might be neglecting health, speed etc.

    I don’t see how it would be any more “boring” than the existing mechanic. Quite the opposite infact. It introduces risk, and in a game risk is spice.

    Well … no. In single player there is no such thing as risk (or: there is a lot of risk already, for example, the difference between a successful unit conversion and an unsuccessful one) – if it goes bad, you can always reload. In multplayer, in a STRATEGY game, you don’t want to have a contest of who goes most risk successfully, but “risk” always involves an amount of luck. You just don’t want a mechanic like, “I’m starting a spell that will kill you in 3 turns, so either kill me until then or be killed”. It’s a one-sided change of the battle rules.

    The most important stat of a unit in the later stages is their movement.

    it’s the most important skill at any point of the game imho, perhaps even more so in the early game when there’s exponentially more of the map that is unnkown.

    The reason swordsmen don’t get built in the later game (or much at all) is not because of mobility imho, it’s because of stack limits.

    If I could move 36 Pikemen as easily as I can move 6 manticores, I’d give very serious consideration to using 36 Pikemen.

    Under existing mechanics I require 6 times as much clicking, and I probably will never bring all 36 to bear.

    I have no idea why you bring up such a silly example, because it’s completely unrelated. The question is NEVER whether to field a stack of 6 Manticores or to field 6 stacks of 36 Pikemen. And the question is NEVER whether you have to click more with any solution. The question is what is best. And at some point in the game ANY Pikeman just doesn’t have the movement options other units have, which means, you won’t consider it. In the beginning movement speeds matter only for SINGLE (exploring) units, but not for STACKS, because there isn’t much choosing here – you have to take what you can get, and you have to build what will get the job of clearing done. LATER, t6hough, you have a lot more options, and with a lot more options to pick from, mobility becomes ever more important. Being able to get to the enemy while the enemy can’t get to you is pretty cool.

    I think you;re either misunderstanding, or ignoring, what I’m saying. Simply put:

    racial t4 (but not for every race necessarily) acquired in different ways, with different pre-requisites.

    Part of that would be resources required to field certain units. Cavalry is an obvious example because if there were 3 or 4 areas that produce mounts in a map, now you naturally have an area of interest in the map, that encourages thinking. You might dominate that area of the map, but at what cost to your economy?

    We already have T4s like that, just not racial, but “dwelling”.

    Right now the only limits on t4 are:

    time to research
    economy (only really applicable in multiplayer)
    too many enemy units (only really applicable in singleplayer, late game emperor ai maps).

    That is not correct. The game can be very easily set-up and slightly modded to adjust the economy.
    Too many ENEMY units isn’t true either. It is just a matter of finding the right setting and, if necessary modding a couple of things.

    You must remember something. The majority of the half million plus buyers of this game aren’t as obsessed with the game as the few dozen hardcore gamers who are STILL at it, STILL finding new tricks and stuff, gamers who can tell you exactly how a specific battle will go, how the AI will move and so on. You cannot set the game up routinely so, that anyone not being at it 3 years will get a beating. There is a wealth of settings to try and a wealth of simple changes to mod that completely alter the game without the necessity to introduce completely new concepts. Even the MCU that gives a T4 can be modded because a similar pattern is already in the game with the Tame Toll.

    #258107

    Hiliadan
    Member

    17. Some sort of replay-button so a player can see Ai and/or other players movement on their turn. Useful in pbem where ai/players can move inside your visonrange but you dont get any info about their movement even though you should.

    +1, would make a lot of sense (though it would change the way we play PBEM, but that would be for the better).

    There’d still be plenty coding. You’re really underestimating how AI’s work.

    For example, grabbing characters from code is different. You do it by location ?

    I think you misunderstood the ambition of the script I was thinking about. The idea is not to recode the AI, but only to be able to act on a limited number of factors. That would already bring big improvements.
    What I was thinking was to allow specific instructions by unit, ability, spell, unit type (support, infantry, etc. and race). The possible conditions would be:
    – HP left (or % of HP left)
    – status (= property in AoW, e.g. crippled, etc.)
    – round number
    – number of units involved in the fight (with 3 subsets: total, allied, enemy)
    – number of enemy units still alive in the fight (with 3 subsets: total, allied, enemy)
    – can cause friendly fire on the turn it’s used (yes/no) (for instance Corpus Furia can cause friendly-fire and you should be able to prevent it)

    Then the possible instructions would be:
    – Use with high priority
    – Use with medium priority
    – Use with low priority
    – Do not use
    – Use only to deal final blow

    So all the things you describe would not be in the scope of the script. No calculation of the distance to the closest units, no archers behind pikes, etc. So many things would remain imperfect but the idea is to bring some improvements and keep it simple, both for Triumph and for players.

    Hiliadan wrote:

    I think you are victim of the “when I have something, I want something else, I want more” symptom here. We already have strategic areas of interest: cities, fortresses, dwelling (kind of resources, they unlock rare units you can’t have in cities), watchtowers, hearts, structures with MCU (which are actually very very close to resources already!), seals, cities with bonus from EQ (e.g. Imperial Residence), etc. And yet we do not fight that much for them, except for the first three.

    And why don’t we fight for them?

    Well, my point was that you should ask yourself the question. If you don’t understand why we don’t use them, your hypothesis that we need more of them is probably incorrect.
    As I said, we already have many such strategic areas, and they are indeed in different areas of the map (e.g. center of the map for Dwellings, a specific climate for Hearts, etc.).
    And you can really mod what you describe to test it if you want. It’s not even that complicated to mod (if you use existing structures but modify them to unlock T4 or T3 or Cavalry, or Support, or whatever).

    #258108

    Hiliadan
    Member

    A suggestion from Zytozid, that would also seriously increase the ease of play:
    – Allow replacements in PBEM (e.g. the host can invite another human player to join an ongoing game, and replace one human player by another, who takes control of his empire; the idea is to replace players who are inactive or have to leave an ongoing game)

    #258109

    Taykor
    Member

    I would take the risk of keeping my spellcaster safe if it meant I got to unleash a strong spell. And by strong spell, I mean something like chaos rift. It allowes for a degree of specialisation even within a hero class. If I pump my casting points, i get my big spells out earlier, but I might be neglecting health, speed etc.

    Well, I like this whole idea and we discussed it and thought it out already about 3 years ago with a lot of people (like Mezmorki and vyolin, for example). My final suggestion was this, I think:

    the essence of the proposition is that a casting in combat should work like a strategic casting – you have a number of CP you can use per (combat) turn, which is a fraction of (now existing) CP a hero can use per day (strategic turn). So some spells could be cast for several turns, and some could be cast several per turn depending on their CP cost. Plus, casting should cost AP proportional to the turn CP used. So, for example, your hero has 35 CP (per strategic turn), he can use 50% (fixed number in the game) of his CP per combat turn, which is 17 CP, so when he uses 1-5 CP, he spends 1 AP this turn, 6-11 – 2 AP, 12-17 – 3 AP.

    Additionally separated combat CP for leaders could be introduced, which are used for combat spells only, according to the rules above, and acquired on level-ups, same as heroes do. But possibly leaders could receive (twice? half as much?) more combat CP for the same cost (so, 15 initial, 15 for 5 hero points, and so on). Palaces don’t affect leaders’ combat CP, only strategic ones.

    #258110

    Bouh
    Member

    @BBB : the problems you describe (players not fighting enough for locations) is not due to location not being worth enough but a problem of “space-time”.

    There are many very important locations in the game already, but most of the time you can’t alocate resources (units, gold or time) to gather and use them.

    In fact, what you are describing is no more than the dwelling that already exists, and we saw what happens with this : they have been nerfed several times because a player would acquire a T4 too fast. Replace T4 with anything else you are describing in your proposition, like cavalry or whatever, as long as it is a worthy advantage it will work exactly like dwelling.

    And as I said the problem is that time, money and gold are very constrained. And knowledge of the map is limited in random maps. Actualy maybe this knowledge is the key factor. Because with a key structure on the map, you first need to know it’s there to plan with it, or at least know that your ennemy might go for it. Then you can decide if you need to go for it or not.
    And then, once you have this important location, for a fight around it to happen you need the outcome of the conflict to not depend on it : here, does the location garanty the owner a victory ? If not, the ennemy can go for its own objectives and will probably try to win before you can profit too much from the location.

    The equilibrium lies in the speed of units, the size of the map (and the distance, relative to the speed of units), the distance between the various objectives, and the development speed (technology and income growth).

    On a side note, I feel like many discussion involving power balance of things is highly skewed by the random map paradigm : using random map settings, many things can happen, especialy things that gives a player an “unfair” advantage. Yet, by essence the randomness will give different things to players at the begining and hence unbalance things. Balance of things should be considered for custom map, not random map. Applyed to what I’m talking about before, I think that random map largely decrease the value of special locations, because you can’t know where or if you will encounter them, so by the time you find one, your strategy may already have excluded the use of it.

    That would be a wish for a future project BTW : do not balance the game for random maps.

    Also I don’t see the problem you have with spells. I love the current system. I actualy would wish there was more powerful spells like in the first AoW.

    #258112

    Taykor
    Member

    Also I don’t see the problem you have with spells. I love the current system. I actualy would wish there was more powerful spells like in the first AoW.

    Well, I too don’t have any problems with magic system in AoW2. Well, apart from strong randomness which I hate. But the devs and some people here had problems with it, which resulted in totally broken ‘one spell per combat turn’ rule, weaker, more monotonous and bland magic. So we are trying to make a compromise, make the system less constrained in some ways, but balance it by adding other restrictions.

    #258116

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Suppose you’d retain the (3) action points. In this case each unit might CHOSE how many action points to take when Initiative makes it eligible to act.
    So say it’s your Elven Bowman’s turn who has Init 21. The Bowman may act by moving a step and shoot 3 times, finishing his move. However, he might spend an action point on moving 1 step and defend (or shoot once) for 1 AP, reducing his initiative to 14 (so that he might act again). And while the Longbowman had the advantage of being able to shoot 3 times, the Crossbowman had the advantage of actually being able to wait until the last moment to deliver their shot.
    So the combination of APs, Initiative and waiting as a “Defend for 1 AP” might solve something.
    Generally, Heroes whould have a mediocre Initiative, but if the hero system would be similar to AoW3, they might gain them the same way as Resistance.

    Could work. One possible approach, in fact, is to have units only be able to spend one action point at a time, but they HAVE to spend it (they can choose to do nothing, but this is literally doing nothing: the action point is gone nonetheless). Abilities that cost multiple action points can be started, but are not actually triggered until a sufficient number of action points are spent.

    Ammo reduces to having either the builder transport it or having a non-combat Transport unit, say, an Ammo Cart, but under no circumstances would units be required to go back to a town. Incidentally, this is the same logistics issue as “supply” – rations, water, (Ammo), reinforcements, replacements …. – unnecessary micro-management. Also, arrows can be (and were) reused – there was always some loss, but the ammo wasn’t lost completely.

    Yeah, strategic games that track ammo – MoM, TW, HoMM – usually only track it in-battle. Resupply is abstracted out, just as other logistics considerations are abstracted out. Changing that would, I think, make the game needlessly complicated.

    EDIT: I have a proposal that is also very important for PBEM and would change many things! It would be great to be able to give priorities and simple orders for spells (and also to abilities, but it’s probably more complicated) for auto-combat. For instance on the spell book of each hero, you could choose between: “Cast with high priority”, “Cast with medium priority”, “Cast with low priority”, “Do not cast”. The best would be to have a script language for advanced players (so normal players would not have to bother with it, and it would be accessed only through a small icon opening a new window or something) to define simple instructions with if / else. For instance: if there is only 1 unit in the battle, don’t cast, else cast with high priority. Or: if my HP gets below 50 and I’m not engaged, then use, else don’t use. That would really improve very significantly the resolutions of auto-combat and completely change strategies and development choices.
    The script language should be exportable and importable so that some players can prepare templates and share them with others, to make it easy for a wide audience to benefit from improved AI behaviour.

    Personally, I think this is a great idea – with the caveat of not being too ambitious.

    We saw some basic AI customisation with Dragon Age Origins, where you could set scripts for characters to follow when you weren’t directly controlling them. I wouldn’t say they were perfect, but they did allow you to avoid having to babysit them while allowing them to operate in a manner that actually fits with how you intended for them to work with the rest of the team (better than a default one-size-fits-all AI, anyway).

    This could be useful for map designers for single-player maps as well. There’s probably only so much AI customisation that would be worth doing in those circumstances, but it could allow a map designer to make the AI defenders of a certain location behave in a certain way. Or a hero that the player will fight can be given a set of statements so that they behave in a way that fits their personality. For instance, a hero that is described as enjoying single combat against worthy foes might be given instructions to favour going into melee with heroes and high-tier units, while a coward might avoid combat while using spells and ranged attacks.

    Heck, this sort of thing could even be useful in single-player. Don’t want to spend the time fighting out a routine battle, but you have a wounded unit that would probably get killed in autoresolve under the default AI? Set commands that maximise the chance of that unit surviving, and you might save the time it takes to fight the battle manually.

    #258122

    The scripting Hilidian mentions makes me think of Dominions 4.

    Is that an accurate comparison?

    #258123

    The question is NEVER whether to field a stack of 6 Manticores or to field 6 stacks of 36 Pikemen. And the question is NEVER whether you have to click more with any solution.

    We’re approaching this fundamentally differently. In any new game of AoW, I’d like to be able to do the same, or more, with fewer or the same clicks at the end of the game. For me, this question (btw, calling other people’s examples silly just makes you look like an idiot) pops up quite often, and I always pick the higher end units because it means less clicking. Stat for stat and cost for cost, the lower units are fine, good even.

    This links in to strategic resources if higher level units require them, because now the player isn’t guaranteed access to these units, and they have to work to get them, whereas now they don’t.

    I’m envisaging a game where a Dragon showing is is a BIG DEAL, a gamechanger (but not an “I win” button.)

    Yes one could mod this into the existing game, but the discussion is about the new game, and one could also mod races to be highly asymmetric, so does that mean we don’t discuss racial design either?

    The end game here can get tedious because you spend so much time doing busy work. Larger army stacks is an elegant way to reduce busy work. Scaleable larger army stacks, so it’s under player control, is a way to put the onus on the player. In the early game I enjoy having 2 to 3 stacks doing different things. In the late game, especially singleplayer longer games, I might have a super large army but I know I am going to spend a tonne of time moving stacks, fighting several battles that are now comparatively small (3 versus 3 or 4 stack battles, 5 or 6 of them in a turn) in a tunr, and be doing that for quite a few turns, while I literally grind the enemy down (as victory is usually already assured).

    That is not as fun as it could be.

    #258126

    Hiliadan
    Member

    The scripting Hilidian mentions makes me think of Dominions 4.

    Is that an accurate comparison?

    I haven’t played it so I don’t know.
    The idea came to me from Baldur’s Gate II but I googled it (because I didn’t remember how it worked at all :D) and the scripts were actually very simple it seems and hardly customizable (or, as Gloweye says, needed coding skills). So I’m definitely not thinking about something like BG2. My idea is to keep really simple, as I described, while still allowing to correct some issues with the current AI + allowing some specific instructions for each battle. For instance, you could have a script to fight Necro (focus on spells destroying corpses and dealing big damage to Undeads) when you’re near the troops of the enemy Necro players (I’m thinking mostly about PBEM because that’s were you have auto-combats, but that also applies to live MP for auto vs independents), and then you would switch to the buff + debuff script to cast in priority your usual Slayer’s Doubt, Touch of Faith, etc. when close to the Warlord player for instance, etc. So you could change the script applied to individual heroes or to your whole empire at any point of your turn.

    Yes one could mod this into the existing game, but the discussion is about the new game, and one could also mod races to be highly asymmetric, so does that mean we don’t discuss racial design either?

    No, it doesn’t mean that but some of us are telling you that your idea of resource areas to create more strategic tension is already there in AoW3 and adding more of it won’t make it work better. Bouh explained it well I think. So what we mean is that to see if your idea is really good or not, you should mod it and test it. And it’s much less work to mod resources to unlock T4 or Cavalry or whatever than to mod a new race.

    I definitely agree with you that late game is tedious. On a large map where I controlled more than 50% of the map, it was becoming quite boring to move armies for more than an hour and doing so many fights per turn. My turns were lasting 2 hours or more but were not really fun (because I had actually won a long long time ago but getting to the other player and finishing him was taking a lot of time due to the distance).

    #258130

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    You can solve the endgame tediousness quite easily by playing with the Seals VC. It’s an abstraction of area domination and works well, it’s just a matter of finding the “right” number of necessary charges for the settings you play. I usually play max for the setting. It’s enough to make sure that you don’t win by “lucky break”, but it ups the pressure, when you are down on charges.
    It also leads to the AI declaring war on you, once you get the lead eith seals.

    @ BBB
    Well, my point is this: if you pick the higher tier because you are thankful they are there, because it saves you work, than you will ALWAYS try to do it, and complain, if you can’t, because if you can’t then the game becomes tedious.
    Or, from the other angle, if you wouldn’t pick low tier units because they were the better pick in game terms, then making T4s more difficult to get won’t help your cause.

    Now, the way I see this game, if you are on the offense a 3-stack triangle is what you need. Reserves would be nice, but then you have a symmetry problem. So 3 stacks is the conquest mode. Those 3 stacks won’t be 18 Pikemen. However, they won’t be 18 Manticores either, nor 15 plus 3 Heroes. THey also won’t be 18 Horned Gods. However, you might have 3 Heroes, 3 Horned Gods, 3 Shamans, 3 very experienced T3/4 animals/monsters, 3 very experienced Hunters and 3 very experienced racial Supports.
    Depending on the quality of your heroes those will be quite good, far less expensive than 18 Horned Gods, and a lot more powerful than 6 Horned Gods in one stack.

    #258147

    Bouh
    Member

    Actualy, if I understood BBB correctly, what he wants is a way to have less tedious management of large armies, so powerful units can become rarer and go to specific locations.

    This would flatten the unit treeand put the balance pressure on the map I guess, but it would solve the balance between low and high tier units, because low tier units would be the norm and high tier ones would be available on specific places so objectives to fight for.

    Yet, as I said, this would still depend on the space-time-resources constraints (depending on unit/resources/distance balance, it can still be more effective to rely on your base units and kill the ennemy rather than increasing your power), and it would go in another direction than AoW, puting the emphasize on regular units instead of powerful magical ones. That is if I understand correctly.

    #258151

    Gloweye
    Member

    perhaps scrap the hurry production option, which would encourage more lower tier units.

    #258159

    Bouh
    Member

    I’m thinking about something “easy” to test : decrease the cost of movements of everything, like decrease it by 1 or 2 for each and every movement.

    This way, the map will become virtualy smaller and the players virtualy closer. This would mean the players would meat sooner and be forced to fight sooner. Which means less time to simply farm an army and bring it to the ennemy for one big fight. Intelligence gathering would be more important, and it would push players into more defensive positions. A game would often be shorter, but if the players both manage to deter an all-in strike against one or the other, then a “cold war” would start, with each player trying to acquire key location or technologies to get the advantage, and an arm race at the same time not be left open to a big strike.

    Intelligence being more important would also mean more play around it, and more space for economic and magical warfare.

    Basicaly, by making players aware and open to quick strikes, they would have to play in a way that allows a slower warfare, more about position, defenses, siege or guerilla, rather than going for a race to the ennemy.

    It is certainly a counter-intuitive idea, because one would think that a faster paced game would deter from going sideways, but in practive, from what I know of competitive gameplay, the game actualy turns into a race to farm the best army on the way to the ennemy, but by leaving time for players to consolidate at the begining, it means a single defeat will often means the end of the race, and then a slow grind to the end if there’s no quick abandon of the loser. But the power difference usualy build with time whereas the armies are balanced at the begining. So if a player would open himself to an attack when he tries to race the other, he would be more cautious about it, a caution that would actualy allow for more fights of lesser importance.

    Side effect : the most mobile units would lose a bit of their superiority because it would be kind of overkill.

    I’ll try to mod this to trial the idea !

    #258161

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    That would make the bonusses too harsh. With 4 being the standard cost, reducing it to 3 means, road movement 2 and bonus road 1, which would be pretty bad. It will also make all “running” skills OP.

    Instead, when you simply increase movement points for everyone, you have to “align” this with battlefield movement costs. If you increase BF movement to 7 (6 for Tigrans), you could increase speeds by +6 MPs for everyone.

    Seems more practical.

    #258163

    Gloweye
    Member

    I think movement skills should be more varied. Reintroduce 6 MP for subterranean, and perhaps make light and heavy forest at 5 and 8 MP respectively. Wetlands stay at 6, barren and fertile plains at 4. Make it matter a bit more, and if there happens to be a big forest between you and someone else, it does slow the journey a bit, unless you got the good abilities.

    It’s probably a rather problematic idea, but I do kind of miss the flying creatures being immune to melee combat from ground-bound creatures. I also miss Physical Immunity.

    #258176

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Memories are short indeed. 🙂 UG movement was initially 6 (Cave Crawling reducing that to 4), because people found that this would make maps with UG too much of a no-go for races and units without cave crawling.

    #258210

    Nemesis_Zero
    Member

    18. Fix current luck mechanic. Luck and miss-chance are terrible gamemechanic choises. Try something like reduced dmg if a unit gets lucky or a fixed dmg reduction. Sorcerer stun has the same issue. Maybe make it like “War Cry”, a one time use ability so the support unit can stun for 100% but only once in combat.

    #258211

    18. Fix current luck mechanic. Luck and miss-chance are terrible gamemechanic choises. Try something like reduced dmg if a unit gets lucky or a fixed dmg reduction. Sorcerer stun has the same issue. Maybe make it like “War Cry”, a one time use ability so the support unit can stun for 100% but only once in combat.

    Great suggestion as luck is weirdly unbalanced. Perhaps making it static like 1 out of 10 for basic morale and 1 out of 4 (25%) for cheerful. Making it like warcry is a good idea. Cast it once per battle for 2 rounds. Either way seeing a unit save on 3 out 4 attacks happens to other grades of luck besides cheerful.

    #258230

    Fluks
    Member

    Imho luck is a wonderful mechanic and same goes for chances of stun with the cooldown. I’m glad the “luck” mechanic from AoW2 has been replaced with a 100% hit chance but i think it’s OK for some units to have it. It makes the game a bit less predictable (as is the case with the random spells you get to research).
    On another subject

    perhaps scrap the hurry production option, which would encourage more lower tier units.

    I think better would be

    – What about production overflow? So cities with enough production could produce 2 units a turn.

    Whenever you build a low Tier unit in AoW3 in a good city you are basically wasting production points. BBBs 36 pikemen not only are (rightfully) slower and (unfortunately) super cumbersome to move, they also take much longer to produce than the 6 manticores (even if you would disable hurry production). Make it possible to train multiple low level units per turn and allow larger stack sizes (maybe also make T4 units occupy more space in a stack) and I think a good deal of the T4 spam we have now will be gone and low level units will be much more likely to be useful lategame. If someone is just pumping out T4 monostacks, a universal way to counter that would be nice, regardless of your race/class.

    Adding something new to the wishlist: Please consider some mechanic for your new game that slows down the leading player or at least stay away from punishing the players that are with their back against the wall. There are plenty of examples in games that successfully have such a rule e.g. in Warcraft 3 you mine resources slower once your army hits certain sizes, Civ5 will add unhappiness for each new city, Settlers of Catan lets each player discard a card if you have more than 7 cards in your hand whenever a 7 is rolled. All those rules punish the strongest players harder than the weakest player to keep the game interesting.
    In AoW3 if you just lost a city you’ll also get an empire morale penalty (and thus less income from unhappy cities and less fighting power due to unhappy troops), so you punish the player that is with his back against the wall – at a time in the game where gameplay wise you’d like him to retaliate to keep the match interesting.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by  Fluks. Reason: spelling
Viewing 30 posts - 61 through 90 (of 177 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.