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 - 91 through 120 (of 177 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #258233

    Gloweye
    Member

    Production overflow feels like a huge I want as well, I admit. But perhaps based on balance, disabling hurry will also make production important again. We’ll see.

    Against those diminishing returns systems tho. They’re not fun. Why should my cities become unhappy because im so powerful that they’re nice and safe in their homes ? It just makes 0 sense. Also, players should NOT be punished for doing well and growing larger. Tradeoffs are fine, but this is plain punishment. (tradeoffs as in, build a settler instead of new troops, so you might be low on guards, but if you manage, you’ll come out ahead. That’s a tradeoff.)

    And yes, you should be punished for losing cities like that. It’s logical – if my king cannot (or will not) protect that city, why should I believe he can protect mine ?

    #258237

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    There is no T4 spam. The AI CANNOT spam T4s, since it must limit the production of a specific troop to at most 20% (which means, in an unmodded game, only one fifth of an AI Warlord’s troops can be Manticores).

    For human players you simply have to pick the right settings, and if that’s not enough add a few simpe mods (for a future game, change a couple of basic rules) to limit the amount of cities to build and gold to plunder.

    #258238

    Fluks
    Member

    Diminishing returns (from mines e.g.) could be explained by the larger bureaucracy thats needed to keep your large army running and supplied. However this is not about logic but about game mechanics, same with city unhappiness – sure it makes sense but I think it’s a doubtful mechanic. Loosing a city will already make you loose income, production and vision. The empire wide unhappiness is just hitting on someone already weakened, it will increase the gap between the leading and loosing player further than necessary.
    I think a mechanism that gives the player falling back the chance to catch up is a good thing. It’s not only the before mentioned games (WC3, Civ5 and Catan) that have that mechanism. Think of fighting games with a “rage bar” that unlocks a strong attack after you’ve been hit X times, or mario kart that tends to give stronger items to drivers lagging behind. All those games have this mechanism that’s no coincidence, it is good game design. Of course it is important not to overdo it and “reward bad playing”. And maybe the devs will decide against such a rule and I won’t hold a grudge, but I really hope they at least consider to drop the extra penalty thats connected to loosing a city in AoW3.

    #258267

    Production overflow feels like a huge I want as well, I admit. But perhaps based on balance, disabling hurry will also make production important again. We’ll see.

    Making the production similar to Endless Space and Endless Legend is an interesting idea. The system in place is good. The no production overflow is an interesting game balance mechanic. The knowledge and city building with no overflow except autocomplete and knowledge sites is part of the game balance.

    They have the buyout option, but there is no way to build 2 units or structures in 1 turn. You can have knowledge at 300 per turn and find you need dispel for 60 losing you 240 knowledge. It could use some improvement. An arcane library that you build in a city which gives you a second a low level research path. Perhaps you could have 2 sets of buildings. 2 Warhalls for 2 t2 units in a que.

    Their is many paths a new game could take.

    The Sim City aspect of the game would add depth to the Strategic map. You could worked on that while there is a battle going on. Start constructing defensive placements or a second wall. You could allocate builders to that second warhall or library.

    @ Fluks the Luck Mechanic can be altered but kept in the game. The “secret sauce” of how it works is what unbalances the game. The competitive players need to know that their success or failure chances are static. The sauce could be with every luck save the chances increase. It doesn’t matter, but the competitive players need to know. There is tons of luck in the percentages with magic spells. The halfling luck factor is annoying to many players. You could make the attack the same as a save. The unit attacking has a magic resist of 13 against the unit being attacked magic resistance of 11. Making the chance for the unit to be lucky at 40%. Maybe make luck half of a normal save. making the chance 20%. You could then have it or double it based on morale.

    The repeated debate about high tier units will continue into the next game. I would like to see it take a traditional path with one dragon or superhero and some large monsters leading a mass of regular troops. Like in The Hobbit Smaug could be more powerful than an army of dwarves. The movie suggested Sauron gaining control of the dragon. Smaug and the Nazguls would be leading a large army of orcs in the end game.

    One suggestion that I didn’t see but may have been mentioned is when a unit loses hit points it loses attacks. So an orc archer with 1/3 hps only has 1 attack. It would retain full mps but be limited to one attack. 2/3 hps 2 attacks. An archer with 1/3 or 2/3 could be limited to half or a third mps to fire.The developers put the system in game for playability. It is worth discussing whether the new game takes that into account or not.

    #258273

    Hiliadan
    Member

    What Fluksen described is good game design: helping players who are losing and not players who are winning. That makes for funnier games. It’s not fun to steamroll the AI and play 20 turns at the end of the game where there is no challenge at all. People also like some difficulty. And they also like not having to quit a game after 40 turns because they have NO way to get back in the race because of an error they made on turn 10 (e.g. losing their whole stack while clearing).
    Game mechanisms that completely destroy players who are losing are not good. Of course, you should be penalised if you can’t defend a city but losing the city is already a big penalty, don’t you think? There is no need to be too harsh in the empire happiness penalty. Compensation mechanisms are needed to give an opportunity to losing players to get back in the race if they play well in later stages.

    I fully agree that we need

    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.

    And less income from cities when your army reaches a certain size or similar limitation is a good way to achieve the first part (slowing the leading player).

    Against those diminishing returns systems tho. They’re not fun. Why should my cities become unhappy because im so powerful that they’re nice and safe in their homes ? It just makes 0 sense. Also, players should NOT be punished for doing well and growing larger.

    You’re mixing different things which are unrelated and do not realize the key objective: avoiding that if you have a big lead at one point, it means you have won the game, no matter what happens in the following turns. THIS is not fun.
    Do you really think having 8 gold income instead of 10 when your army is 10 times the size of your opponent (for instance) will be less fun for you? I don’t think so. It will just means you’ll have to reduce to 8 times the size of your opponent to be able to keep the same income, and you’ll still have a lot of fun, but that will increase the opportunity for your opponent to catch up.
    You say it makes 0 sense. It does make a lot of sense: as others said: managing a huge empire and army put strains on your efficiency, you need a big bureaucracy, your costs increase.
    And it’s not about making “my cities become unhappy”. Fluks is talking about finding a mechanism to slow the leading player and support the losing players, he didn’t talk specifically about making cities unhappy when you are winning.

    It’s a difficult balance to reach between rewarding good play but also keeping opportunities open. I also feel like AoW3 gets it wrong. It’s quite difficult to win a multiplayer game if you’re significantly behind in score at one stage, even if you play very well and your opponent plays badly in the next 20 turns.

    #258275

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Guys, I think this is nonsense in a computer game of this kind. First of all, in Single Player, the AI is advantaged anyway, while the player can still reload. So that case is closed.
    That leaves multiplayer, that is, games that feature more than one human player.

    There are basically two cases here.
    a) one player is continually doing something a tad better than the other, doing the odd fight more this turn and that, exploring difficult sites a turn or two earlier, not losing stuff versus losing the odd unit.
    In this case, the better player is just working for vicory and plays better – why would the not-so-good player be rewarded with something?
    b) a blunder. Losing a battle and a full stack, for example. Well. Ask opponent for a reload, for frag’s sake. Or give the game up. But don’t waste time by letting the game pamper you.

    Also: usually, the board game mechanics to help the trailing player are pretty simple, since they get a boon or so. A resource for free, for example. Do you really think it would help you to get 10 gold or mana extra?

    If you want a fair game between players of different quality, you can hand out handicaps, and that is possible with what has already been made a wish:

    Allow to set up the starting conditions for each player separately and more detailed.

    #258276

    Fluks
    Member

    Allow to set up the starting conditions for each player separately […]

    not really high on my wish list but not bad either so +1 🙂

    Other ways to have a “loosers boost”:
    – If there are shrine like quests (like in Shadow magic) easy quests could be given with a higher frequency to the player being last in the scoreboard.

    – Units that take over an enemy city get a “They hurt us plenty” tag for 10 turns and units belonging to the player who lost the city make +X damage against every enemy unit with that tag (similar like this theocrat spell “mark of the heretic”)

    – When the enemy razes your city you get half of what he’d have gotten had he plundered (your citizens rescued their most valuable belongs and managed to flee to your realm). If he plunders it you don’t get anything.

    – Indies don’t attack the weakest player (or at least not their cities).

    – After a city of yours is razed/plundered some units of that cities race (or even a hero) appear at your throne to offer their service since they want revenge.

    – For the next 10 turns after you razed a Tigran city your realm will have the “No one expects the Tigran inquisition” event which means randomly hostile Tigran units can spawn in your realm and attack your cities, if they capture it they will try to migrate your cities to tigran. Works with any other race too, could be made race specific.

    – A city of yours that was taken automatically offers you something similar to the revolt quest (“we’ll open the gates”), could be race specific.

    So there are many possibilities that don’t need a diminishing income. I don’t really care what the specific rule is, I just happen to think increasing the “bounce back” chances would be a good thing.

    Also adding on the wishlist: Make it possible to trade units. I don’t really get why that isn’t included in AoW3, but e.g. if you want to give your ally a city it would be handy if you could also leave him a garrison while you are at it. Or in a ffa when you want to support one player but don’t want his opposing player know. Now you can send only gold and mana to help him out. But units would be so much better 🙂

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by  Fluks.
    #258280

    Gloweye
    Member

    – A city of yours that was taken automatically offers you something similar to the revolt quest (“we’ll open the gates”), could be race specific.

    They actually already will, if they like you much more. It’s given much like a quest for independent cities.

    Also adding on the wishlist: Make it possible to trade units. I don’t really get why that isn’t included in AoW3, but e.g. if you want to give your ally a city it would be handy if you could also leave him a garrison while you are at it. Or in a ffa when you want to support one player but don’t want his opposing player know. Now you can send only gold and mana to help him out. But units would be so much better

    This is…balance volatile terrain. For example, if I have two classes both boosting a unit, will the unit get both ? Like, having inflict stun projectile resistant evangelists might be an issue. Or Ghoul Orc Crusaders with two stacks of lifesteal and power ritual under a necro. Or in a team of 3, give those evangelists also +8 movement because they crossed path with an AD. Sure, they’ll be awesome, but also slightly imba.

    #258289

    Shakey
    Member

    I’d like to see the Empire Quest bonuses be fluid. Instead of the first player to achieve the bonus keeping it forever, give other players a chance to steal the bonus. Would require some empire bonuses to be reworked.

    Example:
    Heptopia – Player X is first player with 7 cities gets 100 happiness bonus. On the next turn, player Y gets 8 cities and steals the city happiness bonus (for having the most cities).

    Would require any empire quests with unit bonus to be converted to resource/happiness bonus.

    #258291

    Taykor
    Member

    Sure, they’ll be awesome, but also slightly imba.

    Traded units could (and probably should) lose all bonuses from the class and specialization of their previous owner.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by  Taykor.
    #258293

    Bouh
    Member

    What Fluksen described is good game design: helping players who are losing and not players who are winning. That makes for funnier games. It’s not fun to steamroll the AI and play 20 turns at the end of the game where there is no challenge at all. People also like some difficulty. And they also like not having to quit a game after 40 turns because they have NO way to get back in the race because of an error they made on turn 10 (e.g. losing their whole stack while clearing).

    Actualy this kind of game design also has its drawbacks.

    First, for competitive oriented minds it means the issue is less stable, because a bad player can be bad all along but profit from one oportunity offered by the power balancing mechanics to steal the victory.

    Second, it can lead to some very long games dragged by the power balancing mecanics if the players are of similar skills (some kind of yoyo effect).

    And third (or a consequence of the first two), it can lead to even more tedious late game than AoW3 is already said to be, because then when you win, you must go against increasingly difficult odds, or you must be increasingly careful and methodical to not let the victory slip through your hands and hit you right in the nose.

    In practice AoW3 is already well served to stop the late game tedium with the leader assassination, the seals and the unification victory conditions.

    The problem of the game dragging after one players has reach an unstopable way to victory is actualy very subtle I thing. It starts with early game allowing to gather enough difference (and that’s what balancing mods aim at adressing in practice).

    That’s why I think the solution would be to put the players in direct opposition, so the race of early game can be countered right when the losing player see he is going to lose. The game may also feel less about playing against the computer until you face a player, with all the random factors it includes.

    Speaking of which, another solution might actualy to have harder independant (both monster and independant cities), so that even a duel would feel a bit like a threeway, forcing players to a more defensive position (to repel the AI), which would also give players resources on which to fall back in case of a defeat buy time to rebuild. I think some 4X have this kind of mecanic already but I can’t say about the results.

    So, tl;dr is either give more time to players before the match result is comited, so the losing player have time to see he is losing and he can adapt his strategy ; or put the players into direct contact so they don’t have time to build enough advance to make the end pointless after the tipping point is reached.

    Finaly, about the “punishment” for being successful, it is a necessary thing for solo play and long multiplayer play I think. Because the game behave very badly when the economy becomes too powerful. These mecanics make the game economy progress logarithmicaly (hopefuly) instead of exponentialy, which allows a losing player to recover in case of multiplayer and the AI to not be completely obsoleted after turn 50. The mechanism is definitely not perfect. Maybe it is only a matter of fine tuning it, maybe it is not a good enough mechanism, but the idea of it is required I think.

    #258317

    Bouh makes some good points there.

    I do think there needs to bem, in any game, some sort of anti slippery slope mechanic, whether that takes the form of “punishment” or rubber banding the losing player.

    I think a way presents itself here because this is a wargame after all, and in war every resource counts.

    So, if in game, every resource had more limits, then the decision of where to use them would matter more.

    No time to elaborate, but5 uick thought:

    things like manpower- armies consume manpower, which is therefore *not* being used to power your industry and farms etc.

    Or having tech upgrades cost resources as well as research points (e.g. better amrour = x metal, x research) but metal is also needed to create the improved armour itself…

    blah blah.

    #258337

    Draxynnic
    Member

    And less income from cities when your army reaches a certain size or similar limitation is a good way to achieve the first part (slowing the leading player).

    Well, this is already largely represented by upkeep. Having upkeep AND having lower income even before upkeep feels a bit like there’s two bites being taken out of the cherry.

    I could see upkeep being something that grows with larger armies, as long as there aren’t any large jumps, due to logistics becoming steadily more complicated. I could also see some inefficiencies developing with having more cities. However, there should never be a point where taking a city actually puts you backwards. Nor should your army size affect your city economy directly, unless some mechanic is put into place to represent your army drawing manpower away from your cities.

    Instead of punishing strong players, I’d rather see mechanics that boost up the weaker players. For instance:

    – If there are shrine like quests (like in Shadow magic) easy quests could be given with a higher frequency to the player being last in the scoreboard.

    This could certainly be one way to give a weaker player an opportunity to regain an edge without directly engaging the stronger player. (Depending on how hard they’re being hit, of course, they might not have the opportunity to attempt the quests.)

    Or some of those quests might involve fighting the stronger player – making any small victories they get along the way more meaningful.

    – Units that take over an enemy city get a “They hurt us plenty” tag for 10 turns and units belonging to the player who lost the city make +X damage against every enemy unit with that tag (similar like this theocrat spell “mark of the heretic”)

    Revenge can be a powerful motivator.

    – A city of yours that was taken automatically offers you something similar to the revolt quest (“we’ll open the gates”), could be race specific.

    It does seem fitting that a city that recently changed hands – particularly one that is in the progress of absorption, migration, plundering or razing – might be a bit less secure, particularly if the original owner returns and the city was fairly happy with the previous ruler.

    Nevertheless, I think Bouh makes a good point:

    And third (or a consequence of the first two), it can lead to even more tedious late game than AoW3 is already said to be, because then when you win, you must go against increasingly difficult odds, or you must be increasingly careful and methodical to not let the victory slip through your hands and hit you right in the nose.

    At some point, the winner is going to have to be allowed to, well, win, and postponing that by applying various handicaps and/or bonuses may actually end up expanding the “I’ve won but I need to mop up” period.

    AoW3 already has mechanisms to speed up the mop-up period. A human player that knows they’ve lost can resign. AI players can surrender (although arguably the surrender trigger is happening a little too early). Making a system that recognises when you’re in the mop-up phase and allows you to end the game early rather than having to eliminate every potential rival probably is better than trying to artificially extend the period during which a weak opponent remains relevant.

    #258339

    Good points @ Drax.

    It’s an interesting conundrum, because slippery slope is generally unfun. But artificial help and penalties are also unfun.

    By artificial I mean very obviously arbitrary, as opposed to intuitively limiting.

    For example, one spell per turn is “artificial” in this sense (but very much needed.)

    Introducing range/time to cast/danger to cast/requiring 3 action points etc would be more “intuitive” limitations. They’d also require more fine tuning and working, and run the risk of becoming cumbersome. All design issues that can bes olved, but a key thing to remember, imho, is this:

    simplicity is often beautiful.

    Simplicity of the base parts can, and in the best case scenario will, lead to emergent complexity, which is what I understand by the “depth” we keep saying we want.

    So, applying this to slippery slope mechanics, well I think TWH2 (and the 1st as well?) has an interesting mechanic.

    Armies generally cost considerable upkeep, and in my current Empire playthrough, I have abot 4 of them, upkeep 4000 plus for each. Now the nice mechanic I like is that each additonal army abstracts the increase in inefficiency, by applying a flat % increase in upkeep accross all armies.

    That’s currently an extra 1600 gold per turn I am paying, simply for having more armies which represents inefficiency and corruption etc.

    That’s a fairly obvious anti- leader mechanic, but there is counterplay in that you can develop your generals to have traits that lower upkeep (quartermaster it’s called, at rank 3 reducing upkeep of that army by 15%). The drawback there is that to benefit, that’s 3 levels invested, unlocked after more levels in that development chain, which means you’re delaying developing various other, also very useful, buffs (for example a buff that boosts leadership of spearmen and swordsmen, which at rank 3 is very useful indeed).

    So the player is, in a sense, penalized for having very numerous or large armies. To the extent that I have, twice in this campaign, disbanded 2 entire armies in order to reclaim their upkeep costs.

    In any future AoW game, this could be as simple as having heroes cost upkeep, which rises as they level up. That disincentives having too many heroes, but ofcourse heroes are still useful.

    You could also limit the number of armies by requiring they have a hero to lead them (or be able to promote a unit to hero status, which in and of itself could open up some interesting gameplay. As an aside, I’d very much love for your leader to be any race or creature, and then you choose whihc race to start off leading, and I’d like more races, including ones that are severely unbalanced, and don’t all have class equivalents. I mean, who wouldn’t want to be an actual dragon, leading Dragons, but have it available to Sorcerors, Druids, maybe Dreadnoughts only. As in no Dragon Rogues. Ofcourse these races would be appropriately labelled as advanced options) and you could introduce more resources that can act as limiters, and the resource nodes themselves encouraging areas of interest.

    very obvious examples are food, mounts, different mana types.

    Ofcourse, this could over complicate things. Always a danger. Busy work is the enemy.

    Going back to wishlisting things:

      Any racial leader choosing any race

    (so you can role play an Elven exile leading Dwarves, or roleplay being a goddamed Beholder) as mentioned above.

      Outlier races

    that don’t fit the normal racial mold. Call them Ancients (Giants, Dragons), or Feral races (Lizards/Naga, Draconians, Tigrans).

      A points/gold cost system

    When starting a random map, with different start values, e.g. 1000 gold and mana. You use this to personalize your starting situation, e.g. spend gold to have a barracks already built, or to have more units, or to pick a spell to start with, or choose a hero. Obvious drawbacks are that if you have a larger army to start with, upkeep might cripple you etc.

    #258341

    Bouh
    Member

    I’ve just understood something you are all talking about ! This punishment you’re talking about is, I guess, the fact that at some point the empire moral penalty will put your cities down a moral threshold and cripple your income in a somewhat unpredictable fashion.

    I don’t think there is any better solution for AoW3 (I’ll talk about it), but for another game maybe that could be more of a scale instead of three threshold to reach. I mean that the bonuses could be directly proportional to the moral value instead of being linked to some threshold the moral reach. I guess it can achieve the same limitation as the current system, but it would be more progressive, and hence the player would see it coming and feel less suddenly punished.

    But overall this system is quite elegant for AoW3 because with the little number of mechanics we have it forces you to make choices when you conquer something and, in some way, fix the tedium of managing an unmanageably large empire by preventing you from having an unmanageable empire. Basicaly, there is a limit you can reach in the number of cities you hold. After that, you need to burn or vassal them, or suffer the consequences. Problem is that you need to experiment it to discover it, and the discovery is painful.

    About heroes and leaders : I love the ideas of BBB, like more leader races and more races at all. Already discuss on this forum is the idea of having dwellings as playable races and leaders, would be wonderful. being able to choose another race than your leader one to start would be nice too.

    #258342

    Fluks
    Member

    […] 1.) a bad player can be bad all along but profit from one oportunity offered by the power balancing mechanics to steal the victory.
    2nd it can lead to some very long games dragged by the power balancing mecanics if the players are of similar skills (some kind of yoyo effect).
    3 (or a consequence of the first two), it can lead to even more tedious late game […] In practice AoW3 is already well served to stop the late game tedium with the leader assassination, the seals and the unification victory conditions.[…]

    1. Obviously

    […] Of course it is important not to overdo it and “reward bad playing”[…]

    2. A “yoyo effect” for two equally good players is a good thing imho, it means the game is dynamically shifting.
    3. The mechanisms to prevent endgame drag (leader killing etc.) should stay of course! I very much appreciate them. Whatever bounce back mechanic there is, it probably shouldn’t be (very) relevant in the endgame or work against the endgame mechanisms you mentioned. Fortunately for most made propositions I don’t see that problem.

    […]This is already largely represented by upkeep. Having upkeep AND having lower income even before upkeep feels a bit like there’s two bites being taken out of the cherry. […]

    Good point! Maybe cutting income is not the most elegant way to do it.

    Adding to the wishlist:
    Units on champion level can be upgraded to heroes which gives them the normal inventory slot heroes have, they keep their other stats and can level up just like heroes from then on (skill trees being a mixture of infantry/archer/irregular/cavalry/monster and race). Of course once the hero limit for that game is reached (e.g. max 3 heroes) that option greys out and can only be activated once another hero of yours died. Also Heros don’t come to you but you can hire them in inns

    Shooting ground etc. unlock customisation options for that unit type e.g. shooting range I unlocks option +1/-1 dmg, +1/-1 range and shooting range II gives +/-2 dmg, razor bows, longbows. The changes are reflected in the units production cost. The customisation options should be race and maybe even class specific.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by  Fluks.
    #258347

    vota dc
    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.

    I wouldn’t expect anything different from a skill called lucky. There is already luck involved from any inflict status. The problem is that luck doesn’t care of the attacker in fact it is luck for a reason!
    I think they could introduce an offensive version of luck for modding purpose.
    HP = total health
    Defense = armor
    Luck = old defense
    New Luck = old attack

    #258356

    Draxynnic
    Member

    So, applying this to slippery slope mechanics, well I think TWH2 (and the 1st as well?) has an interesting mechanic.

    The system exists in the 1st, but the 2nd made it a lot harsher, at least at higher difficulties.

    I don’t think a direct translation would work without an overhaul of various other mechanics. For instance, TWW abstracts a lot of the unit recruitment process. Units aren’t recruited at cities, but in the armies they’re recruited into, with the pool of available units being determined by the buildings in the province. Sending troops forward from cities towards the rear is abstracted through the global recruitment system, while scouting is mostly done by agents (which are immune to attack except by other agents and attempts to kill them involve paying an upfront cost and then a pure RNG roll) rather than the AoW approach of using a fast unit for scouting.

    Essentially, the system works for TWW because if fits nicely into the Total War mechanics. To make it work in Age of Wonders, though, would require completely changing the underlying mechanics of the game… more so than AoW2 or AoW3 did.

    What might work is having thresholds that scale slowly. Instead of a 15% jump for having an extra army, maybe upkeep goes up by 1% for every X units. You could then have various circumstances that make units not count for this process: for instance, units garrisoned in a city might not count, and heroes might have a skill which means that units in the hero’s stack don’t count.

    #258357

    Nerdfish
    Member

    Only one wish really.
    Please put in an option for auto garrison depending on city’s wall, barrack level and population size.
    This will eliminate a lot of pointless micromanagements and scout cap is really getting old.

    #258361

    @ Drax, perhaps I should have caveated it better, but when I mention mechanics from other games I’m not proposing a direct transplant.

    I am instead trying to consider how those mechanics deal with issues I think pertinent to age of wonders, issues such as late game tedium (fewer, larger armies imho instead a strong contender here, ditto quest chain victories) or runaway leader/slippery slope (assymmetric victory conditions could be useful, or simply asymmetric development paths, e.g hypothetical Draconian not having walls could mean they simply don’t need the hypothetical resource of stone, but may need more food, as opposed to Dwarves who will absolutely need stone -and mithril- so the challenge of development varies, hopefully meaning a Draconian player in this instance could still be in the game against a developed Dwarf opponent, because he can attack the mithril mines, thus strangling the production of higher tier dwarf units…

    It’s not a well thought out example- point is a way of gating development that introduces weaknesses, which hopefully reduces snowballing.)

    AoW is very much it’s own thing.

    Back to wishlist:

    Option to have cities fixed in size.

    Have city development tied to city size.

    #258370

    Draxynnic
    Member

    @ Drax, perhaps I should have caveated it better, but when I mention mechanics from other games I’m not proposing a direct transplant.

    Oh, I’m aware. I did include a bit on the end about how the general principle could be ported into AoW3 mechanics, as you might have noticed.

    That said, I do think it’s part of the flavour of AoW that it is a game series where units can move around independently, rather than needing a character to hold their hands (or other appendages) as they do in TWW and most of the HoMM series. AoW3 already offers good incentive to have your armies led by heroes; I don’t think it needs to be required. Plus, for campaign purposes, it keeps heroes special rather than requiring a bunch of generic characters because the game mechanics make them required.

    #258371

    Draxynnic
    Member

    On this note, actually…

    We’ve been talking about things to add, but which things (assuming the new project is an AoW game rather than branching into something different) would we want to stay? What things do you think define the Age of Wonders series such that, without them, it wouldn’t feel like an Age of Wonders game to you (similar to how, for many people, HoMM4 doesn’t feel like a HoMM game)?

    For me, I’d probably go with:
    * Ability to freely move individual units
    * Ability to form multiracial empires
    * Customisable heroes (#2 is relatively lacking here, but still has some meaningful choices)
    * Adventure sites for magic items and other treasures.
    * Research system for spells and other skills/upgrades.
    * Multiple branches of spells and skills to choose from (whether ‘spheres’ in previous games or classes in AoW3)
    * City-based recruitment
    * City management (possibly basic, but nevertheless present)
    * Separate tactical combat maps
    * Hex-based movement (not essential, but nevertheless part of the brand)

    What does everyone else think?

    #258388

    Taykor
    Member

    I think that I now sound like a broken record, but still in my opinion you forgot at least two key things:
    -substantial magic on the strategic map and (really) powerful heroes.
    (no, just city buffs and summoning don’t count; also powerful heroes don’t die because of your first mistake, constantly fussing over heroes is really tiresome)

    Without these it’s not an Age of Wonders, it’s a game about tin soldiers or some relative of HOMM. The former in the end is just boring. Soldiers aren’t wonderful. =) And original Heroes of Might and Magic are incomparably less cumbersome at the end of a long game.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by  Taykor.
    #258480

    Draxynnic
    Member

    I think that I now sound like a broken record, but still in my opinion you forgot at least two key things:
    -substantial magic on the strategic map and (really) powerful heroes.
    (no, just city buffs and summoning don’t count; also powerful heroes don’t die because of your first mistake, constantly fussing over heroes is really tiresome)

    Without these it’s not an Age of Wonders, it’s a game about tin soldiers or some relative of HOMM. The former in the end is just boring. Soldiers aren’t wonderful. =) And original Heroes of Might and Magic are incomparably less cumbersome at the end of a long game.

    Not forgotten – I don’t consider these elements to be essential. AoW1 didn’t really feel like it had much more powerful overland magic apart from the storms, and they were limited by AoW1 being the most restrictive about where you could cast spells. AoW2 didn’t have really powerful heroes unless you made heavy use of magic item crafting.

    You’re free to disagree, of course, but I consider those elements to be nonessential rather than something I forgot to include.

    #258485

    Fluks
    Member

    Pretty much agree with the points made by Drax and Taykor, but the distinctive feature for me is altering the terrain (terraforming). I don’t know of any other similar game that allows such a degree of freedom in shaping the land. I think that is something really distinctive for AoW (at least AoW2, SM and 3, haven’t really played much AoW1) that no other game I know offers.
    Anyway @triumph when is the next news update, has been a like 5 month since we heard you were bought by paradox and not much really since…

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by  Fluks. Reason: forgot a word
    #258492

    Hiliadan
    Member

    To add to the wishlist, some features that are painfully missing in AoW3:
    – mechanisms scaling up and down based on empire’s size, map’s size, turn or score. What I mean is spells whose upkeep is different based on the number of cities or troops you control, or based on the map size (more expensive on large maps) or based on the turn or score (more expensive on turn 80 than 10 or when you reach a certain score)… For instance Treasure Raiding’s cost should increase with turns, it’s currently a bit dear early game but real bargain mid game and later on, when you clear many sites every turn. Spells like Artic Empire or Entwined by Shadows do not have the same value on different map sizes.
    – similarly, some spells should depend on the characteristics of the target, e.g. Animate Ruins should cost more on a Metropolis
    – we also need more subtle mecanisms for spells like Undead Plague, to be able to say which cities benefit, and not give everything to the closest city

    All this should of course be modable.

    #258493

    vfxrob
    Member

    If its a game like AOW3 I hope they remove the class units, or make them vastly different from one another. I think only have 7-9 good racial units like AOW1 and 2 with an intricate mechanic, synergising well with one another and maybe having if you had to choose a class effect these units, rather than add the 20 something class units for every added race that slightly vary in racial stats, and the occasional new ability.

    Also having very different units in one class thrown in together is a little immersion breaking, e.g.every warlord having access to spartan, mongol riders, manticore riders.

    If they did go down the road of adding class units, think it would be a better system if you had a class system and it effects your core units of each race, so e.g. infantry, archer, cavalry.

    And if they researched something like mounted archer > the racial cavalry unit gain access to Archery and maybe gain a cosmetic model piece like a quiver on the mount, or back of the unit.

    #258503

    Taykor
    Member

    Not forgotten – I don’t consider these elements to be essential.

    Ok, maybe my wording was not very precise, but I was just answering your questions “What things do you think define the Age of Wonders series such that, without them, it wouldn’t feel like an Age of Wonders game to you?” and “What does everyone else think?”
    As for AoW1’s strategic magic, well, I guess, I don’t care much about AoW1…

    AoW2 didn’t have really powerful heroes unless you made heavy use of magic item crafting.

    Why would you exclude item crafting? And I’m more or less sure that with it you can make much more powerful heroes in AoW2, then in AoW3. Or at least, much less vulnerable.
    What you mentioned is not enough, I think. They’re rather generic things, and you can make with them a game, arbitrarily different from AoW. Of course, both our lists lack AoW’s lore and artistic style. And music. And humour, even though it’s not very visible in AoW3.

    but the distinctive feature for me is altering the terrain (terraforming). I don’t know of any other similar game that allows such a degree of freedom in shaping the land.

    Yes, it’s very important for me too, but I included it into “substantial magic on the strategic map” and also things like “interactive strategic map” which I’ve written about earlier.

    #258526

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Ok, maybe my wording was not very precise, but I was just answering your questions “What things do you think define the Age of Wonders series such that, without them, it wouldn’t feel like an Age of Wonders game to you?” and “What does everyone else think?”
    As for AoW1’s strategic magic, well, I guess, I don’t care much about AoW1…

    Sure, I was just clarifying that for me, they’re deliberate omissions rather than being forgotten (and giving the reasons why). If you consider them essential, your opinion is just as valid to Triumph as mine. 🙂

    Why would you exclude item crafting? And I’m more or less sure that with it you can make much more powerful heroes in AoW2, then in AoW3. Or at least, much less vulnerable.

    First, if I recall correctly, it was something that was only available in Shadow Magic, not in AoW2 vanilla. I may not recall correctly.

    Second, I think item crafting, especially being able to craft items that remained between scenarios in campaign (where you could have the scenario effectively won, and then sit around crafting items) was a little bit broken. Shadow Magic was very generous regarding what effects you could put on a single item (including the infamous Break Will+Dominate combination) as long as you were willing to spend the time and gold.

    AoW3 may have gone a little too far the other way: what you can produce there is relatively mundane. Even there, though, I agree with the decision not to allow it in the campaign (except in the Eternal Lords finale, where if you do want to spend the resources on items rather than troops or some other benefit, go ahead!). What I’d like to see, I think, is something like Master of Magic where the enchantments you have access to are limited by your leader’s characteristics, and possibly the city’s. So, to use AoW3 mechanics as the basis assumption, there may be some enchantments that are available to certain classes and spheres, some that are made available by the presence of certain treasure sites (which may overlap), and some which may be made available through certain races (for instance, an elven city with an Archery Range might unlock crafting longbows, while some races might unlock “crafting” special mounts with a Rider’s Hall).

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by  Draxynnic.
    #258532

    Gloweye
    Member

    First, if I recall correctly, it was something that was only available in Shadow Magic, not in AoW2 vanilla. I may not recall correctly.

    You recalled correctly.

    Also, I 200% agree with your analysis about crafting items. I think that’s the best way to do it. Also, limit leader-provided crafting options by research, so you can only grab the stronger options later on. And of course, Kill item crafting in the campaign. I think it’s not to bad if you delay winning just to explore treasure sites and level your heroes, but item crafting just made it silly. I had won the first Julia scenario of Shadow Magic in like 30 turns, and ended it on turn 200, to make sure I had a couple of sets for all heroes. Not that I ended up needing them, but well, there we are.

Viewing 30 posts - 91 through 120 (of 177 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.