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 - 121 through 150 (of 177 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #258533

    Taykor
    Member

    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.

    You are probably right. But the issue for me here is mostly not the possibility to make a Destroyer of Worlds, but to reduce probability of losing a hero. I can admit that even in AoW3 you can make a pretty powerful hero. But in most cases it’s too easy to lose him (or, worse, a leader). Flanking is a bit too effective, I suppose. I even thought that we could make it better in AoW3 by creating a mod which increases base (1st-level) hp by 10-30 and defences by 1-2, and decreasing costs of hp, def, magdef upgrades. But I couldn’t find if it was possible and how (for all heroes at once) and then mostly lost interest in the game.

    By the way, another aspect is that losing a leader for magical (and summoner) classes is much worse than for ‘military’ classes. I’m talking about increased upkeeps for enchants (and summons) and a chance of their complete breaking. And that is on top of usual penalties to morale and probably other things I forgot. Also if you make a caster leader, he is much more vulnerable to assassination.
    I think that these additional penalties should not exist if you really want to have a balance between ‘generals’ and summoners. At least in a situation like in AoW3.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by  Taykor.
    • This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by  Taykor.
    #258536

    Gloweye
    Member

    But I couldn’t find if it was possible and how (for all heroes at once) and then mostly lost interest in the game.

    You could mod the ability group attached to the hero and leader requisites.

    #258537

    Taykor
    Member

    You could mod the ability group attached to the hero and leader requisites.

    Thank you. =) But, sadly, I can’t mod all things I wanted to change in the game. This one alone won’t help.

    #258551

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    If it’s too easy to lose a hero, I wonder why most balance mods include hero nerfing by way of making them level up slower?

    #258568

    devolution
    Member

    I would be thrilled if a SDK could be released so that modders could work on the AI. The civilization community (in particular civ4) has a thriving modding community since the game logic / AI DLL was released in source form, thus allowing anyone to make a total conversion (and there’s tons of those) or improve the tactical / strategic AI!.

    #258570

    Bouh
    Member

    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.

    I don’t think it is a good idea to design a game to prevent players from playing against themselves, because this way you limit the game more than it is healthy for it.

    I mean that if players want to spend 200 hours to ruin the balance of the following of the game, they should enjoy it. If they want a challenge in the following, they are free to *not* spend these 200 hours only to spoil themselves.

    To say it differently, I don’t like the idea of protecting people from themselves, because this way you are only spoiling the people who can simply enjoy using the freedom offered. Because yes, there is no other way to protect people from themselves than removing freedom. On the other hand this freedom is precisely what people enjoy most because it allows them to have a gaming experience that fit themselves perfectly.

    A better “solution” to this “problem” would be to remove the forge only in the higher difficulty levels.

    Back to what makes AoW, I’d say the most important part is the focus on deep yet simple tactical combat focus. That’s what made AoW 1 so good to me : this aspect of an RPG with a full layer of strategy. AoW1 played more like an RPG than a strategy game BTW. The strategy was merely a way to make your own customization shops. This feeling was lost in AoW2, but you could still play an RPG-like with the mighty enchantments and the items. The leaders back as heroes was the best thing to be in AoW3 for me.

    So for me the tactical combat is the most important thing : it must be good enough to be the game alone if the player like it so. And the strategic layer must not force the player to rely on large armies and strategic cunning if all he wants is to play an allmighty hero with his fellow elite guards. Some popular mods expand very well on this BTW with the evolve mechanic.

    For solo play at least AoW always was as much a tactical RPG as a strategy game. And IMO this define the game more than everything else. If only because it is the only game to do this. I think the only other game to do something like this is spellforce, but it’s real time strategy/combat. Endless Legend if I remember correctly tryed to approach this, but it lost itself in the 4X part and screwed the tactical combat part. The mix AoW 1 and 3 have is simply perfect.

    #258610

    SeeR
    Member

    A Few Christmas Wishes for AoW4 ……

    1. Option for a Combat Round Turn timer
    2. PBEM games allowed on larger map sizes ( XL , Gigantic , Colossal , Titanic etc. from the Extended Settings MOD )
    3. Map Setup option to start all site defenders on lets say Veteran Medal or Elite or Expert or even an option for “Random medal one each unit”
    4. Slightly larger hero pool ( would be nice but perhaps just from overuse ) yes i have tried adding several mod hero sets and enjoy
    5. Pre Tactical combat Deployment phase chance to arrange stacks as desired somewhat with limitations of course ( to prevent the combat round turn 1 rushes commonly experiencecd in live MP )

    6. Some kind of short one battle ARENA mode where u have X amount of gold/research points / mana to spend on purchasing army / hero upgrades etc for a single short version of AoW single combat battle without the strategic map play. ( Would be great way to get players into the game without major time commitments and would be a “hook” making them want to learn the regular empire building play we currently enjoy on world map etc.

    7. PBEM mode and Live Play able to switch back / forth , eg play pbem most of game ….then swap to live just for large scale or pvp combats.

    8. Some kind of built in statistics keeping tracker , that can track a players performance and skill level / ranking ( obviously no easy task ) but have way to rank them in different game styles ( Arena ranking , Live MP ranking , Single Player Ranking , Pbem or Hybrid PBEM ranking ) ….not sure about performance categories ….but loosely associated along lines of score per turn achieved on some kind or curve….take some thought to develop this….and many glasses of wine or beer of course….perhaps a couple of debates and food fights….

    9. Mod matching on launch / lobby join as done in few other games…..when u wish to join a lobby either live or pbem , game automatically gets required mods for that specific game downloaded and loaded into game program for you. ( would be very helpful to increase live and pbem activity ) ..which is languishing (did i spell that right ) …at moment

    10. In game program tournament setup options….instead of player organizing tournaments ….give tournament setup to one player able to arrange it through the program choosing consitent map setup and rules for each game in the tournament when a player signs up for it.

    11. Perhaps a progression of gameplay

    Beginner = Arena mod single combat – with ranking system

    Intermediate = Something like current base game version of AoW3

    Advanced = Something like AoW3 with the 18-24 mods i prefer to use adding lots more units hero upgrade paths , more heros set , new buidlings for cities , larger stack sizes , more intelligent combat AI and Strategic map AI potentially sub classes for leaders / heros…?

    just a few ideas….. thought id toss in my 10cents that i got from recycling the beer can i just drank….. j/k

    $eeR

    #258643

    Jyrgunkarrd
    Member

    1. War score.

    It’s already kind-of in AoW 3, in that the AI will surrender if you do inflict enough damage for them to just give up, but I really would like this system formalized.

    I get into a war by pressing a casus belli; killing stacks & heroes gives me score, annexing enemy cities gives me score. If I max-out my War Score against you, I can press my claims.

    Not only does this make warring feel less grindy, it makes it less of an all-or-nothing experience. Players don’t just outright wipe out other players because they won a single war.

    2. Transparent diplomacy

    AoW 3’s diplomacy is incomprehensible. I can get thousands of points of favor with someone, and they will not play ball with me. Why not? God knows why not.

    Give clear, concrete break points in favor that are just as mechanical in nature as any other resource system in the game. [X] favor gets you [X] diplomatic deal. Making this system wishy-washy,as it currently stands in AoW 3, just makes it frustrating & forgettable.

    #258666

    Draxynnic
    Member

    I don’t think it is a good idea to design a game to prevent players from playing against themselves, because this way you limit the game more than it is healthy for it.

    I mean that if players want to spend 200 hours to ruin the balance of the following of the game, they should enjoy it. If they want a challenge in the following, they are free to *not* spend these 200 hours only to spoil themselves.

    To say it differently, I don’t like the idea of protecting people from themselves, because this way you are only spoiling the people who can simply enjoy using the freedom offered. Because yes, there is no other way to protect people from themselves than removing freedom. On the other hand this freedom is precisely what people enjoy most because it allows them to have a gaming experience that fit themselves perfectly.

    A better “solution” to this “problem” would be to remove the forge only in the higher difficulty levels.

    I somewhat agree with this – where it becomes a real problem is when it enters into “what isn’t forbidden is mandatory” territory. Removing the item forge only in higher difficulties would address this, as that effectively ensures that the game is never balanced on the assumption that players are spending hundreds of turns kitting out their heroes before moving to the next map.

    Limiting what’s available through item crafting is another compromise: you can craft basic stuff, maybe even some more advanced stuff under the right circumstances, but getting the best stuff requires finding it. (AoW3 offered the perfect justification for this sort of thing, in fact: the best magic items were those crafted by Wizards, and the magic to create them just isn’t available any more.)

    2. Transparent diplomacy

    AoW 3’s diplomacy is incomprehensible. I can get thousands of points of favor with someone, and they will not play ball with me. Why not? God knows why not.

    Give clear, concrete break points in favor that are just as mechanical in nature as any other resource system in the game. [X] favor gets you [X] diplomatic deal. Making this system wishy-washy,as it currently stands in AoW 3, just makes it frustrating & forgettable.

    This has actually come about as part of the “preventing players from playing against themselves” that Bouh was talking about. People complained that it was too easy to win games just by making alliances, and instead of this simply being a case of “well, don’t abuse the diplomacy system if you want to have fun”, Triumph made it so that certain leaders just would never accept alliances, however much they liked you.

    It was a decision I didn’t agree with for a number of reasons, but compounding the problem is that there’s really no means of establishing whether the reason you can’t get an alliance is because the leader has that arbitrary “will not ally with the player” tag*, or whether it’s some other reason that the player may be able to overcome. Simply having a response that signals to the player that this is the case would probably help a lot (maybe something like “While we may be friends now, I fear that it is inevitable that we will be rivals and that it would be inappropriate to enter into an alliance”).

    *Possibly not entirely arbitrary: I think part of it is that it’s generally the strongest AI players that get this ‘tag’, the idea being to ensure that the player needs a couple of decent wars in order to earn their victory.

    #258681

    Cosmetic DLC. Similar to the way Dawn of War implemented it. DLC that will allow you to customize your army and banners. You could play around with it in live games while other players are in a battle or in offline mode. So if Triumph goes the expansion route again that players can also have customization.

    You could implement it into the next game and after release. If i worked for Triumph I would want to add creatively to the project and selling cosmetic DLC for a few bucks is a great way for the employees to stay interested in the game. It would also keep players interest longer.

    #258690

    Taykor
    Member

    Another thing: I think that the devs should give themselves more freedom in designing and uncouple casting speed (casting points) and mana cost of spells. (Of course, if the new game would have spells and their mechanics would be close to AoW3.)
    I think that impossibility (or reluctance? I don’t remember if this could be changed by mods) to create cheap and slow or expensive and fast spells sometimes hindered designing. For example for terraforming they even had to create ‘pseudo-spells’. Also the spell diversity should be more interesting for players.

    #258762

    Hello all.

    I’m not sure if the following have been addressed in this thread, or whether they all count as new features or quality of life features:

    1 – a central storage mechanic for items.
    2 – some existing items in the game, which the player can build. Basically a library of items that the player can aim for.
    3- T4 units for (all?) races
    4 – some sort of mass/unit space mechanics, so one can fit more smaller units into the same space. part of this is graphical, part of this gameplay related. I feel Dragons, for example, which are supposed to be huge and amazing, should take up 10 slots.

    Reminder – slots here refers to army space, and I’m operating under the idea that the army size can be expanded as the game goes on. One starts with the current 6 slot max, and through research/buildings etc, can build up to 20 slots.

    The numbers are for illustration purposes, but they basically show that a Dragon would take up the space of 1.5 current (start) max armies. They’d of course be commensurately powerful.

    And yes, assuming 20 slot maximum, that means you’d only ever get 2 Dragons under the players control.

    So, related to #4:

    5 – some very powerful, terrifying, creatures that require multiple/large/powerful armies to defeat.

    6 – related to 5, have these powerful creatures have their own agenda, so they can be placated, bribed to go elsewhere etc. Also have them be able to, on their own, form larger groups (that exceed player control limits, i.e. 3 or more Dragons going around)

    7 – have a victory condition related to these crazily powerful creatures, e.g. “dragon hunter” – be the first to kill 5 Dragons.

    Extension of idea – have some of these Dragons be named, and even more powerful (ancient Dragons?), do Draxynic the Red Dragon shows up in your game at some point, and you’re in a world of pain.

    8 – mercenaries. formed armies you can hire for a set periods of time and which will disappear after that period of time, unless you pay to hire them again. Expensive to hire, expensive upkeep, but useful troops. these could also be named. Think of Regiments of Renown, for hire.

    #258780

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    #4 sucks for a couple of reasons, I’m too lazy to iterate right now. It makes no sense to increase the balancing difficulties by introducing a new variable without necessity.

    #258788

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Extension of idea – have some of these Dragons be named, and even more powerful (ancient Dragons?), do Draxynic the Red Dragon shows up in your game at some point, and you’re in a world of pain.

    Oh, come now. I’m a civilised dragon. With suitable contributions to my collection of valuable objects (“hoard” is such a crass term), the right to hunt livestock as I please, the cessation of foolhardy knights rocking up at my home (not that I mind home delivery of horsemeat packed in its own roasting foil, but not when I’m trying to sleep!) and the head of the dwarf rogue that keeps trying to pilfer from my collection, I can be placated.

    #258791

    Gloweye
    Member

    Oh, come now. I’m a civilised dragon. With suitable contributions to my collection of valuable objects (“hoard” is such a crass term), the right to hunt livestock as I please, the cessation of foolhardy knights rocking up at my home (not that I mind home delivery of horsemeat packed in its own roasting foil, but not when I’m trying to sleep!) and the head of the dwarf rogue that keeps trying to pilfer from my collection, I can be placated.

    Sounds like a good quest line…Kill player X to get the help of a dragon. Or donate him city Y which said dragon proceeds to eat/raze.

    #258794

    @ Gloweye, good thinking.

    @ Drax, your post reminds me of the description for Red Dragons in Shadow magic.

    @ jollyjoker, the variable unit mass idea is nothing new, and is a solution to the issue/probem of trying to simulate smaller, more numerous beings, such as Goblins, in the same space as larger being (us.)

    It also acts as a balancing/gameplay mechanic because it just feels strange to me that 8 pikes and 8 Dragons can occupy the same amount of space. Granted, the Pikes are “regiments” but this is purely cosmetic.

    Whether these regiments ought to have more soldiers or not would be an interesting discussion to have. That could also be a solution.

    I did think that maybe goblin players could have more army slots, but AoW is a multiracial game.

    I don’t think such a system need be particularly difficult to balance or code for either. It could be as simple as:

    Goblins, Haflings, Kobolds etc = 1 slot.

    Humans, Orcs, Elves = 2 slots.

    Tier 2 Cavalry = 3 or 4 slots (the mount is 2 slots, the rider 1 or 2).

    Ogres 3 slots.

    Giants 10.

    Dragons 20.

    And up the army size limit to 40 max (end game) so an end game Goblin army could be really huge, fitting into their swarming design, which I feel isn’t quite served yet.

    It also sets the stage for truly powerful creatures.

    #258796

    Gloweye
    Member

    fractional slots could work. Like goblin, 0.8, human, 1. So a leader with 10 slot stacks (could be different due to for example being warlord, or having better tech) could field either 10 human units or 12 goblins in one stack.

    Racial governance could reduce stack costs, say 0.1 for levels 3 and 5. So a human specialized player can mash as much humans together as he could goblins. While a goblin specialized player could make a stack of 16 goblins.

    If we have really big combat maps, we can also increase unit size. So like a dragon could be 7 hexes, an ogre 3, and normal units 1. Gives a good idea of scale. Also, you might be able to for example build maze-like walls which bigger units like ogres first have to bring down while your defending 1-size units could walk through them. Now that’s tactics 🙂

    #258811

    Draxynnic
    Member

    @ Gloweye, good thinking.

    @ Drax, your post reminds me of the description for Red Dragons in Shadow magic.

    Hahah – I was mostly thinking on a now-dead forum on which I roleplayed a character that WAS a dragon, and running through some of the injokes that built up around said character – regarding kngihts showing up as home-delivered horsemeat, for instance, and maybe a little matchmaking for princess on the side, and somebody else’s dwarf character trying to rob my hoard. 😛

    But yes, my post did have an undercurrent of “there could be quests you can perform in order to placate or recruit large monsters instead of simply killing them” to it.

    If we have really big combat maps, we can also increase unit size. So like a dragon could be 7 hexes, an ogre 3, and normal units 1. Gives a good idea of scale. Also, you might be able to for example build maze-like walls which bigger units like ogres first have to bring down while your defending 1-size units could walk through them. Now that’s tactics

    You could also have some interesting interactions if, for instance, a Giant is able to knock down a single wall section quickly, but can’t actually proceed until its knocked down two or three. However, it might be possible to knock down one wall segment, and then move aside so that a smaller unit can enter the breach.

    One could also potentially introduce a concept of “reach”, whereby large entities can make melee attacks (possibly including attacks of opportunity) at a greater distance than ‘adjacent’.

    #258813

    Gloweye
    Member

    You could also have some interesting interactions if, for instance, a Giant is able to knock down a single wall section quickly, but can’t actually proceed until its knocked down two or three. However, it might be possible to knock down one wall segment, and then move aside so that a smaller unit can enter the breach.

    Exactly how I was thinking.

    One could also potentially introduce a concept of “reach”, whereby large entities can make melee attacks (possibly including attacks of opportunity) at a greater distance than ‘adjacent’.

    For example, giants by default attack an arc of three hexes in front of them – they’re just that big.

    Dragons and pikeman could have the reach to attack an hex away.

    #258816

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Look, guys, the game solves this already, but the OTHER way round. A T1 Archer is depicted as a company of 8, while for example monsters, are single.

    Which means, the game has the basic and uniform slot size = 1 with varying numbers, while you suggest basic and uniform numbers (1) with varying slots. This last one does not gain anything except the requirement to make those units differently sized on the combat map as well, which has its own advantages and disadvantages.
    This would create additional balancing problems.

    I also don’t see the fun. So you get a dragon, but you need all slots for it. Which means, they move alone. Great. What have we gained by that? Nothing.

    #258817

    Taykor
    Member

    Look, guys, the game solves this already, but the OTHER way round. A T1 Archer is depicted as a company of 8, while for example monsters, are single.

    Which means, the game has the basic and uniform slot size = 1 with varying numbers, while you suggest basic and uniform numbers (1) with varying slots.

    I think Gloweye was clear enough in what he meant and why he wanted it. What you are talking about is a cosmetic thing and different. Though it could work more or less the same if these 8 archers, for example, were separate entities. So their unit would lose power with a loss of fighters, and you could manipulate its composition: add more archers to it up to the limit, separate some from the unit, produce them individually.
    One of the main ideas behind this was to put more units in the same space on the global map in the endgame and reduce micromanaging a little. Also to make ‘swarming’ strategy more viable and at the same time make really powerful creatures different and introduce another balancing mechanics for them. At least as I understand it. And I like the suggestion, by the way.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by  Taykor.
    • This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by  Taykor.
    #258823

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Look, guys, the game solves this already, but the OTHER way round. A T1 Archer is depicted as a company of 8, while for example monsters, are single.

    Which means, the game has the basic and uniform slot size = 1 with varying numbers, while you suggest basic and uniform numbers (1) with varying slots. This last one does not gain anything except the requirement to make those units differently sized on the combat map as well, which has its own advantages and disadvantages.
    This would create additional balancing problems.

    I also don’t see the fun. So you get a dragon, but you need all slots for it. Which means, they move alone. Great. What have we gained by that? Nothing.

    To be honest, I was thinking this as well, even as I was spotting some of the tactical implications.

    On the other hand, I think it is fair to saw that some units fill their hex a lot more than the company of archers. Some of the tier 4s in particular, such as dragons, Juggernauts, and Eldritch Horrors, barely fit into a space that the company of archers occupies comfortably. I’d probably be inclined to use it sparingly – certainly, no multifigure unit should occupy multiple hexes when they could be individual figures each occupying a single hex – but if could be a way to represent the sheer size of some of the biggest creatures and war machines.

    #258824

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    As a method to reduce micromanagement it makes no sense either because it sinks one wish overshadowing the whole AoW 3 patching process, and that is “making all units viable throughout the game”. If you want to accomodate both, then the big units have to be WORSE than having amall units, because in that case, the small units were still viable in the endgame – although in a grinding endgame on a large map, the big ones had the advantage of being easier to handle.

    Makes no sense (you want to minimize the GRIND).

    As with Gloweye being clear – yes, he is. However, I can only repeat, having different-sized creatures create their own balancing problems. There are enough games that field different-sized units, and no matter the side that fields them, big units automatically favor RANGED units, because on one hand they can hide behind them, while on the other big units themselves are more difficult to maneuver (they are more easily blocked). (The opposite is true as well – fast small units are bad for ranged units; you can see that when you consider how effective WISPS are against shooters in AoW3.)

    Fractional slots … unnecessary arithmetics.

    A long time ago I suggested Leadership values – those would work twofold (I repeat): each creature wouild have a LEADER value (that is, a number expressing their overall capacity to lead). Heroes would have a high value here (with different classes/races having different values), while dumb monsters like Trolls would have quite low ones. Also, each units would have a “difficulty-to-lead” value, that is, the amount of leadership necessary to have to lead this unit.
    This second value could (and should) obviously depend on many factors. A Dragon would obviously have a high basic difficulty level. Say, a green hero had a Leadership value of 100, then a Dragon might have 100 as well. This might be modified by: Leader is a Draconian: difficulty -20; +100 difficulty for each Dragon >1 present; -50 for Leader having Bard Skills; -20 for unit with bard skills in stack (not applicable if leader has Bard skills) and so on.

    This makes stack capacity FLEXIBLE. You could easily give penalties for having multi-race stacks. I would also give a penalty to a monster with Fearsome, for example (for lower-tier units, for example), and you have generally a myriad of options to influence this. On top of this, medals/level gains would always be a chance to increase Leadership values.

    I think, that would be an infinitely better way to manipulate stack sizes and combos than via size.

    EDIT: The system also comes with the advantage, that you could hand out high difficult-to-lead values to high leadership values in order to discourage certain stackings.

    For example – HEROES might have difficult-to-lead values, which makes sense, if you think about it; if you have a level 10 Sorcerer and a level 9 Necromancer, both should have high leadership values, but both should also be difficult to lead themselves (their willingsness to be led is all the lower, the more powerful they are), the only expection being the leader (they would obey them, so “Leader in stack” would reduce their diff-level).

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 5 months ago by  Jolly Joker.
    #258827

    You know JJ that this is a collection of wishes, ideas and dreams right?

    It’s not a design document.

    You come across as overly critical imho.

    Also, imho there is a problem currently with how supposedly swarming units can’t really do much.

    AND unit slots is a potentially great way to make them more powerful and to actually balance out the later game, more monstrous units.

    Making them expensive and occupying army slots could mean that lower tier and cheaper units would always be useful, by virtue of their cheapness, availability and actual massabilty, none of which matters currently.

    Given the money you’d always go for 6 manticores over 36 pikemen because you can fit 8 easily, and move them easily.

    What if you could only fit 2 into a stack.

    Or if that same space could hold 36 pikemen.

    You’d have a more interesting end game imho.

    And the end game is the weakest link imho.

    #258828

    Taykor
    Member

    However, I can only repeat, having different-sized creatures create their own balancing problems.

    But sizes on the tactical map and capacity of armies are two different questions and not necessarily connected.
    Ok, I looked over recent posts once more and I’m not sure anymore what each of people meant exactly. 😀 And who wants to link tactical sizes and capacity in an army and who is okay to discuss them separately.
    I mainly talk about army (or stack) capacity, i.e. the number of some ‘basic’ units you can put in one army and command it as one on the global map. An idea that this number could increase in the endgame is worth considering. Also that really powerful units could take more of this capacity.
    It’s close to your leadership but simpler.

    A size of units on a tactical map is another difficult question. 7-hex units are crazily big and 3-hex seem too ‘irregular’. So I don’t know about this.

    #258831

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    @ BBB

    “Slots/size” is inferior to “Leadership”, because you can make the latter most flexible , while the former is just working if power is somehow related to size. I mean, compare a Goblin Exalted with an Orc Shock trooper. Or a Succubus. If size becomes a factor than power difference will become ridiculously high – plus, you also want medals/XP have an effect. So what kind of values would a Dragon have? 50 damage? 500 HPs? And what would a MEDAL gain?

    Look at Disciples. That game is “slot-based”, and every hero has 3-5 slots (plus themselves for 1), and they have units that take up 2 slots. That’s a very different ballgame though, because you don’t have many units in that game anyway, and it’s more or less kind of a basic decision how you want your main army to look and what kind of units you have in a faction.

    Then, one of the good things in AoW 3 is that there are many different units and that “stack composition” is a big issue. I think, everyone doesn’t like unit spamming, that is, if from a certain point onwards you see stacks of 6 same units, like 6 Drac Fliers, for example. If you want stack composition being an important point you must not reduce the available slots, because that reduces the options. Instead, you’d offer bonusses, opening up additional slots (just as an example).

    I’m suspecting that you just suggest this as a means to simplify the endgame, but you move stack-wise anyway.

    #258840

    I would like a more reactive and living game world. Free cities were a good first step but everything still feels like its just sitting there and waiting for you to take action. Generally a bit more lore and fluff would be nice. Some small texts that describe areas that you uncover or that give mystical sites some lore when you conquer them.
    This was always a point which i think was handled better by Heroes of Might and Magic 2/3/4 in comparison to Age of Wonders series.

    #258845

    Fluks
    Member

    @Jolly Joker: Leadership or Slotsize are basically just 2 different ways to allow smaller units compete with big ones in the endgame, or to use the old examples: You could lead/stack either 36 pikes in a stack or 6 manticores. I think that is the whole point, at the moment moving those 36 pikemen around is cumbersome and when attacked not all of them will be in battle anyway.

    @ BBB
    “Slots/size” is inferior to “Leadership”, because you can make the latter most flexible , while the former is just working if power is somehow related to size […] If size becomes a factor than power difference will become ridiculously high – plus, you also want medals/XP have an effect. So what kind of values would a Dragon have? 50 damage? 500 HPs? And what would a MEDAL gain? […]

    I might must have missed some important point in your “leadership” values, but as i understood it instead of size being power-related you proposed something like “leadability” being power-related to achieve the same effect. So I don’t see how your criticism of the size to power would be solved by changing it to “leadability” to power? But in the first place I don’t even understand whats the problem with size to power and I don’t know how the leadership could easily be shown and since it’s somewhat important you shouldn’t have to dig somewhere deep in the unit description and start noting down your heroes leadership points and compare them to your units “leadability” values to calculate how much of what he could lead…
    With stacks you can immediately see if something is taking 2,3,1/2 whatever number of slots in your army. But hey that is something for the devs to figure out no need to go into too much detail about phantasy mechanisms. I just would be glad if in the new game “swarming” is more viable than in AoW3 atm (production overflow *wink).
    Also +1 for basically all of BBBs ideas here
    and also that giants could get “reach” and/or “smash” (aka wingbeat 🙂 is a good idea imho. But let’s not forget we don’t know if the new game is actually Age of wonders 4 or has a complete different setting.

    #258846

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    We are talking two completely different things here.

    Take Fairies, Wisps and so on. They are very SMALL. If they would fill 1 slot (and humans 2), how WEAK would a T1 Buttercup Fairy have to be, to not be completely overpowered? Wisps as well. A phasing static shield unit would be very good. I mean it’s pretty harsh that a T1 unit can shock a T4 into stun – but how much harsher would it be if a handful of wisps would shock your T4 10 slot Dragon into stun?
    It doesn’t make a lot of sense.

    There also must be some kind of balance with spells vs. creatures. In AoW 3 the spells that work with a check are pretty balanced when compared with the creatures of different tiers. But if your stacks consist of 1 or 2 creatures only, because they are so big, they either have to be immune or nearly immune against spells – or they are too easily reigned in by spells (and then not worth the while).
    You don’t want the game to give you creatures that are invincible (except maybe as a means to mop up, but even then – why having to mop up in the first place?).

    With Leadership, though, this becomes a lot more flexible; while you could break down size into a more numerous arithmetic – by having more like a “volume” – this IS actually merging into leadership, except that there are no modifying factors: size is size.

    With Leadership, though, you can make a lot of interesting things. For example, Trolls might halve “difficulty values” of Goblins, and have a lower difficulty value under a Goblin leader. You could have VARIABLE slots as well. I mean, imagine the Rogue’s Bard, Bard Skills reducing handling difficulty of everyone by 20%. That would mean, a hero with 5 units might take on a Bard IN ADDITION (something that would obviously give them use throughout the game, how good or bad they would be as a battling unit).

    It would also be interesting to add Laedership value with each gained medal/level. Keep in mind that not all stacks are led by a hero. Instead you have stacks led by normal units.

    Which means, you can use Leadership in a much more controlled way to steer things like stack composition or as an additional balancing factor. With size that’s not possible.

    #258869

    Bouh
    Member

    I’m on JJ’s side on this one.

    Tying the power of units stacks to their size was discussed BTW, at the begining of AoW3. The problem is that it inherently makes weak units weaker and strong units stronger, because logic implies that small units are weaker and large ones stronger ; exceptions occur of course but they become even harder to balance.

    And we already discussed similar problems in this thread anyway. The thing is that balancing early, small and weak units versus late, large and strong units is difficult because the equilibrium is very thin. If early units are too powerful, late units become completely useless. And if late units are too powerful, people complain that their early units are obsoleted. This subject might differ from the size to power ratio currently discussed, but ultimately it is deeply tied to it.

    Considering all this, I think the solution of Jolly Joker, having leadership values and capabilities is the best to reflect this size to power ratio without making an AoW4 a completely different game. In fact, I’d say that the balance between low tiers and high tiers units is quite good in AoW3, particularly with the flanking mechanic.

    I don’t remember if I talked about it, but these idea about the size and number of units in the stack imply that you consider the scale of the fights you want. AoW series have alway been designed around a small scale tactical battles. If a dragon must be equivalent to 8 units you need to either change how the battle plays or increase the battle scale dramaticaly. Neither would be very interesting IMO.

    Another idea for late vs early balancing is to make the smaller units evolve, like there already is in AoW3 with evolve mechanic and champion levels. Some mods explore very nicely this idea BTW.

Viewing 30 posts - 121 through 150 (of 177 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.