You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.
This topic contains 7 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by 
Draxynnic 7 years, 7 months ago.
-
Posts
-
I have three suggestions.
1. The ability to request the removal of active spells in Diplomomacy
Ex: Remove Age of Deception or we will declare war and also the option to bribe. Remove age of deception for gold, mana, structures or spells
^^As it is setup now you must declare war to remove the spell. I use age of deception as an example because there is no other choice but to declare war, even with a loyal ally. There should always be an option2. Ability to trade spells. It makes the game more dynamic because your character can continue learning even after all has been researched.
3. Trade Map information. This is very handy and allows a diplomatic way to scout new territory
#1 applies to six spells, although really probably five, as far as I can imagine. The “Empire” terrain spells(possibly excluding Temperate, since it’s harmless, although it might mess up your own spell strategy, which itself could be harmful to your nominal ‘friend’), Armageddon and Age of Deception.
Is there really any other situation where you would be be demanding a non-enemy to turn off a Global Enchantment?Conceptually, I can understand why Armageddon and Age of Deception will negatively affect even allies, due to them not being the source of the spell, and thus not truly one with the ideal. That is a different discussion though, and not for this thread.
#3 is the main benefit of being in an Alliance, since co-op battles are not exactly frequent occurrences. Personally, I would prefer if that element remained that way.
2. Ability to trade spells. It makes the game more dynamic because your character can continue learning even after all has been researched.
They decided to keep spell trading out for a very good reason. Class and particularly Specialization choice actually matter much more if you can’t just get all of the spells you like from a different setup(even if only Specializations spells were able to be traded).
For what it’s worth, they at least added an Empire Quest that unlocks two new random(not sure if it follows Adept->Master requirements, but I can only presume so) Specializations to research if you manage to research everything naturally available to you.
They slowed the default research rate, they added settings to slow them even further, and a player could always decrease the number of treasure and visit sites in the world to decrease research rates even further.Not trying to be impolite but, there comes a time, though, when a game really should have ended many turns ago. Especially since the Unit and CP research lines are usually among the first to be completed, and also generally the most pivotal to successful conquest.
1. I actually also thought about this too. I support this idea.
2 & 3. What Fen said.
1. The ability to request the removal of active spells in Diplomomacy
Ex: Remove Age of Deception or we will declare war and also the option to bribe. Remove age of deception for gold, mana, structures or spells
^^As it is setup now you must declare war to remove the spell. I use age of deception as an example because there is no other choice but to declare war, even with a loyal ally. There should always be an optionThe Do…. or else option should be added anyway, maybe with options like )alliance or war, remove global spell, break alliance with another player..
Also, allies shouldn’t accept peace from a guy they were at war with when you declared war on them.
They decided to keep spell trading out for a very good reason. Class and particularly Specialization choice actually matter much more if you can’t just get all of the spells you like from a different setup(even if only Specializations spells were able to be traded).
Master of Magic did have a system by which you could only trade spells which you could theoretically have learned anyway (although because of the spellbook system there, it’s possible to get spells through trading that aren’t available for you to research yourself – however, a Death wizard can never trade for Life spells, for instance). So a similar system could allow for, say, dreadnoughts to trade researches for dreadnought skills or two leaders with the same specialisation to trade skills from that specialisation, but a sorcerer can’t give a sorcerer spell to a dreadnought, for instance.
mmm, I would be concerned about same-class collusion. For example, one researches the units and gives them all to the other, and the other since he doesn’t have to worry about units, just researches the empire upgrades and gives them to the other.
Mixed-class opponents against same class opponents in a team match wouldn’t likely stand a chance, since the same class opponents are effectively twice as advanced technologically by specializing then sharing.
The only spell trading I would personally even think of as potentially fair would be either same-specialization sharing, or something like Adept-only sharing. The latter meaning that Adept-level spells can be shared without restrictions. No class research.
Keeping it short because my internet died and smartphones are awkward: it’s already kind of possible to do this. For instance, have Theocrat A focus on building a powerful military subsidised by gold from Theocrat B, while Theocrat B focuses on global spells powered by surplus mana from Theocrat A. It’s still less efficient than outright sharing, but on the other hand, you don’t get the benefit of being able to draw from two different classes.
A compromise could be an arrangement where a friend that has already completed a research can give you a discount – on the theory that they can teach you, but you still need to learn how to do it for yourself.
Incidentally, something else that struck me that I’d like to see as a diplomacy option:
The ability to warn another player that settling too close to my domain is likely to have consequences.
Really, half the time outside of campaigns I’ve gone to war with the AI, the casus belli has been because they plonked an outpost down somewhere where it was competing with one of mine for domain, possibly to the point of stealing a desirable site before my settlement’s domain could expand to it. Human players would at least recognise that this sort of behaviour will annoy a player. The AI… doesn’t.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.