First impressions / feedback

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 First impressions / feedback

This topic contains 23 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  Stormwind 5 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #246714

    Iaxul
    Member

    Hi,

    I’ve been playing the game for a few weeks now and I figured I’d let you know what I think. I come from background of like a zillion play hours of earlier titles of the series, and AoW3 does live up to its legacy. It’s a worthy successor, and generally an enjoyable playing experience altogether. Frankly, I don’t know what to add to soften the some buts and howevers that will follow, but the game is what a loving fan of the previous games could expect and move on to.

    Now, the buts and howevers. First thing, one that pretty much shocked me, was that you can only cast one spell per combat round, regardless of how many able casters you’ve brought into the battle. This seems like a very arbitrary limitation, and I’ve kind of wondered if I’ve encountered an absurd bug, but I suppose not since the game works fairly well. In Shadow Magic I enjoyed using lots devastating spells, and it seems weird that this option is limited like this in AoW3, when the new classes bring in a variety of options.

    The changes to battles have me mostly at neutral. It’s nice that you can’t miss and that even actions that are resisted still have some effects. Some things could use some fine-tuning though. Like how much obstruction city walls provide. While desperately defending a city against an AI dreadnought, I found out the hard way that a flame tank can spray flames through a stone wall, and that cannons apparently can shoot through a wall/obstacle too. I’d like to be able to build walls that have to be shot down before my troops hiding behind them can be shot. That’s sort of the point of having a wall, and the current implementation doesn’t really support that as much as it should. By default, the defender’s at advantage, but the attacker can counter that by bringing a greater force.

    Oh, and considering how city battles now only show the city from one angle (which is kind of meh), I guess the logical problem with city battles and adjacent hex rule isn’t solved? In my opinion, you should be able to defend a city with all the stacks that are inside it. And likewise, be able to attack a city with all your stacks that are adjacent to the defenders. So for example, a maximum of 7 defending stacks versus 12 or so attacking stacks. I haven’t tried city battles this big yet, but in the earlier games things kind of got ridiculous at that point. It’s sort of sad if the most epic battles imaginable are ridiculous.

    Another thing that kind of bugs me is vision through walls and mountains. Making them affect vision range shouldn’t be that hard, I don’t understand why it isn’t done. This sort of applies to domains now too. In AoW2 it sort of made sense that domains go through everything (except maybe the void in shadow world, which kind of bugs/bugged me too), because magic, but now domains are more physical. Doesn’t make any kind of sense that a city can profit from a treasure site that’s practically half the world away, but technically behind only six tiles of impassable rock. How do the resources flow from there? Teleportation? Then why can’t I teleport troops there or whatever?

    I’ve mostly played randomly generated scenarios so far, and when I looked more into editing scenarios, I was quite disappointed. The editor has no generator in it, and you can’t edit the scenarios that the game has generated. Also, there doesn’t seem to be a tutorial or a manual or anything detailing the finer use of the editor. You can’t even load an official map because it doesn’t let you, so there’s basically nothing to work with. You could’ve and very much should’ve at least included an example map that you can load in the editor that demonstrates how the editor works. It’s a disheartening situation.

    Regarding this, I see there are also other modding options, which seems nice. However, after reading a couple of topics here, where a modder asks about something, half the time the answer’s been a no. It’s excellent that you want to leave room for creativity and tweaking, but was the game really designed with that in mind? If too much is hard-coded in, it kind of seems bad.

    I guess that’s all the big points. Now some minor ones. Some of the class units don’t seem varied enough among races. Like, why would draconians or frostlings or high elves ride manticores? And all the warbreeds are basically the same. Seems lazy/unimaginative/half-arsed/whatever you want to call it. And some of them succubi sort of look hilarious. Oh, regarding that, I initially though some of the unit designs looked pretty bad. I think, say, Shadow Magic, has aged extremely well, and AoW3 designs looked poorer in comparison. Now I’ve gotten used to it though. I guess this is in part because of the moddability, and units aren’t designed as complete entities but glued together from different pieces?

    And well, I sort of wish there’d be one or two more racial units, for extra variety. Or one more class unit with racial variety. And I seem to run into the same heroes in every game, so more heroes! And more hero classes, possibly ones that aren’t options for leaders. And more options for item forge, like more abilities you can add. And possibly enabling more than 5 points for a forged item, for an astronomical price, because 5 points makes kind of mediocre items. Maybe forges (smiths) that level up so that they learn to make better items over time?

    I’m running out of things that come to mind, and must close this with the most minor of them all. The text of the resurrect hero spell sticks out. Citizens praying to God for resurrection of a fallen hero? Might work if you’re a theocrat, but not if you’re, say, sorcerer. What’s with the praying? And even with theocrat, where do the casting points go if it’s the normal people of your empire doing the work? This isn’t really an issue, but I have to say that this is one of the absurdest spells I’ve ever seen.

    So all in all, it’s a rather excellent, enjoyable game. But sadly not without imperfections. I’d really like to see especially the map editor/generator thing set right in a future patch/extension, and gladly some of the easy-to-add/change things too. I guess whatever’s hardcoded deep isn’t likely to change.

    P.S. Anyone else experienced crashes when attacking independents, being prompted for showing mercy (or bypassing that), going to battle and clicking an opponent troop for details?

    #246716

    SikBok
    Keymaster

    Hi,

    AoW3 does live up to its legacy. It’s a worthy successor, and generally an enjoyable playing experience altogether.

    Glad to hear it : D>
    That’s what we hoped we would deliver.

    Frankly, I don’t know what to add to soften the some buts and howevers that will follow,

    No need to, as long as your comments are constructive and worded politely, we can take it. I’ll discuss a bunch of these, trying to give you a bit of an insight into why things work as they do.

    you can only cast one spell per combat round, regardless of how many able casters you’ve brought into the battle.

    That is by design. Without this limit you could alpha strike a target – say the enemy leader – without that player being able to respond.

    how much obstruction city walls provide

    City walls were design to primarily impact movement. In real life the aspect of cover was more important, but emphasizing that too much – arguably – makes city combat no fun for the attacker.

    the logical problem with city battles and adjacent hex rule isn’t solved

    Correct. Location on the strategic map does influence attacker placement, but position in not directional as in other tactical maps. Then again, having a full scale city – in 3d – to implement AHR would mean attacking armies end up very far apart and walking distances for all units would be very large. Also, there are some issues with walls completely enclosing a city in 3d.

    Another thing that kind of bugs me is vision through walls and mountains.

    We discussed having an occlusion system for the world map, but ended up deciding we liked the more simple system more. It appears to be very much a matter of preference.

    The editor has no generator in it, and you can’t edit the scenarios that the game has generated.

    We looked at adding this feature, but unfortunately doing so has not been feasible for us yet.

    You can’t even load an official map because it doesn’t let you, so there’s basically nothing to work with.

    You can load the campaign maps, or at least the elven court campaign maps. We’ve locked Triumph made scenarios to prevent people using modified versions of those to cheat in multiplayer.

    Also, there doesn’t seem to be a tutorial or a manual or anything detailing the finer use of the editor.

    There’s a manual on this site and there’s a forum dedicated to modding. If the manual doesn’t provide you with the information, posting a question on the details you want to know will likely get you the answers.

    The tools were shipped as a courtesy to fans. Basically what you get is the exact tools we use to make the game. Using them does involve some trial and error, but they are pretty powerful if you get the hang of them.
    Writing a manual isn’t really feasible unfortunately. Our designers learn in much the same way as the modders, trial, error and asking questions.

    was the game really designed with that [ed: modding] in mind?

    Partially, yes.
    However, we are a small company using our own engine. This version of the engine is specifically build to make AoW3 and not a whole bunch of different games – like the Unreal engine for example. That means that if we – the Team at Triumph – do not need a particular feature – e.g. scripted AI.
    So, on one side that means that the game isn’t as moddable as a game made using a commercial engine or one made by a 100+ person team. However, it also means that you get an AoW3 that is exactly what we envision it to be.

    I guess that’s all the big points. Now some minor ones.

    Quickly glanced over the minor points, but I seem to remember a mod to fix most of the issues raised there.

    P.S. Anyone else experienced crashes when attacking independents, being prompted for showing mercy (or bypassing that), going to battle and clicking an opponent troop for details?

    If you have the game crash on you, please: start a new topic in the help & support forum here, start a topic over on steam or email our support team.

    Hope this shines some light on why we did the things you don’t like as much about AoW3. Hope you’ll keep on playing to enjoy what you do like.

    GL HF : D>

    #246717

    NINJEW
    Member

    Now, the buts and howevers. First thing, one that pretty much shocked me, was that you can only cast one spell per combat round, regardless of how many able casters you’ve brought into the battle.

    it’d be really unbalanced if you could bring your sorc leader + 5 sorc heroes into a battle and first turn cast 6 chain lightnings at once to just instant obliterate any army

    Like how much obstruction city walls provide. While desperately defending a city against an AI dreadnought, I found out the hard way that a flame tank can spray flames through a stone wall, and that cannons apparently can shoot through a wall/obstacle too. I’d like to be able to build walls that have to be shot down before my troops hiding behind them can be shot. That’s sort of the point of having a wall, and the current implementation doesn’t really support that as much as it should. By default, the defender’s at advantage, but the attacker can counter that by bringing a greater force.

    the point of walls is to provide impassable cover to your ranged archers. it gives your ranged units +2 range i believe, and any ranged units trying to attack them have to take a -50% attack malus

    flametanks and cannons wreck walls because dreadnought, by design, is the master of siege battles. walls as is provide a massive advantage to the defender against any enemy that isn’t a dreadnought, thanks to the tactical advantage of absolute ranged superiority.

    Oh, and considering how city battles now only show the city from one angle (which is kind of meh), I guess the logical problem with city battles and adjacent hex rule isn’t solved? In my opinion, you should be able to defend a city with all the stacks that are inside it. And likewise, be able to attack a city with all your stacks that are adjacent to the defenders. So for example, a maximum of 7 defending stacks versus 12 or so attacking stacks. I haven’t tried city battles this big yet, but in the earlier games things kind of got ridiculous at that point. It’s sort of sad if the most epic battles imaginable are ridiculous.

    it’s working as intended. the reduced unit count is intentionally there to keep tactical battles simpler, because ordering around 10 meaningless archers is way more tedious and needlessly time consuming and boring than making important decisions around 5 archers. making cities apply the same rules as normal battles is a part of that overall design philosophy

    The editor has no generator in it, and you can’t edit the scenarios that the game has generated.

    this does very much suck

    Regarding this, I see there are also other modding options, which seems nice. However, after reading a couple of topics here, where a modder asks about something, half the time the answer’s been a no. It’s excellent that you want to leave room for creativity and tweaking, but was the game really designed with that in mind? If too much is hard-coded in, it kind of seems bad.

    modding was built in after 2 expansions, yes. it’s more meant to be able to provide the tools for something like a community balance patch than anything else, i believe. i don’t think modding was a goal of the game form the start.

    Some of the class units don’t seem varied enough among races.

    a lot of work has been put in to make this more varied, there’s a lot of class units that get special racial exceptions. however, the aim wasn’t really to fix this:

    Like, why would draconians or frostlings or high elves ride manticores?

    for the most part, all class units remain the same across races. i like this decision, because it builds on clearly communicating to the players what each unit is capable of. if elves rode beefed up gryphons instead of manticores, but still filled the same roles as manticores, it’s kind of detrimental to gameplay (because it potentially confuses players into thinking that the beefed up gryphon represents an entirely different ability set, while having everyone ride manticores quickly communicates “oh, it does more or less the same thing as all the other guys who ride manticores”)

    that being said, actually look at the stats of the manticore riders. every version of them has abilities unique to that race’s version: dwarven manticores get defensive strike, and elven manticores get inflict stun. so, from a gameplay perspective, there is quite a bit of variety among the class units.

    And some of them succubi sort of look hilarious.

    ???????

    this is a positive, not a negative??????

    i love dwarven and goblin succubi, why don’t you?

    Oh, regarding that, I initially though some of the unit designs looked pretty bad.

    which ones?

    And well, I sort of wish there’d be one or two more racial units, for extra variety.

    what roles would you have those racial units fill? we already have cheap, disposable fodder/flanker in the form of the racial irregular (elf initiates, draconian hatchlings, etc.), anti-pike/cheap frontline/basic wall scaling sword infantry (human swordsmen, draconian crusher), anti-cavalry/pricier frontline/defensive pike infantry (goblin butchers, human halberdiers), basic ranged archers (human archers, draconian flamers), speedy/pricey frontline/flanker cavalry (human cavalry, elf unicorn riders), and the expensive/beefy frontline racial T3s (orc shock trooper, goblin beetle rider)

    can you think of any good roles that aren’t just along the lines of “beefier basic swordmen” (some races do/don’t have these due to interesting racial balance, they could be considered a perk of picking tigran (prowler) or orc (shock trooper))?

    i mean i guess each race could be guaranteed a cheap flier unit or something but i always felt that limiting roles that like to certain races (such as draconians alone getting cheap fliers in the form of chargers) was a good way of creating racial diversity

    #246718

    NINJEW
    Member

    ha, while i was typing that you got a response from a dev

    #246719

    SikBok
    Keymaster

    ha, while i was typing that you got a response from a dev

    Sorry for stealing your thunder NINJEW

    #246725

    Iaxul
    Member

    Thank you both for taking the time to respond. 🙂 I’ll reply shortly, once I get a hold of these quote tags.

    #246730

    Draxynnic
    Member

    That is by design. Without this limit you could alpha strike a target – say the enemy leader – without that player being able to respond.

    To expand on this, this was something that was discovered in multiplayer testing. With multiple spells per turn, the defender could spell-snipe the attacker’s heroes before the attacker had a chance to act.

    City walls were design to primarily impact movement. In real life the aspect of cover was more important, but emphasizing that too much – arguably – makes city combat no fun for the attacker.

    With this said, walls generally should not be a perfect defence against ranged attacks. Arrows can arc over walls, as can a spray of burning oil from a flame tank. A cannonball slamming into a wall could cause pieces of the wall to fly out the other side or the cannonball may even punch through entirely without causing a full breach (note that the cannonball does do significantly less damage after passing through a wall, unless the wall is destroyed in the shot). Plus, a target standing ON the walls is still going to be a little bit exposed to direct fire in most cases. It is a bit weird that purely direct-fire weapons can shoot through a wall (such as muskets against a target that isn’t on the wall but definitely behind it), but the game at present is an abstraction at some levels. Shooting from walls still puts you at a distinct advantage, unless the attacker has a means of negating that advantage.

    Quickly glanced over the minor points, but I seem to remember a mod to fix most of the issues raised there.

    Minionslayer/Tibbles has a couple, including a reskin mod of all the racial units to make them more distinctive and fitting per race (note that they all still ride manticores, though, but they’re distinctly different manticores), and the Additional Supports mod that adds an extra tier 3 support unit to each race (made in concert with Tombles). You can find them at http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198000755696/myworkshopfiles/?appid=226840. There are a few other mods floating around that add more racial units – YMMV on quality, but they’re worth looking for if you want more racial units.

    #246731

    SikBok
    Keymaster

    I’ll reply shortly, once I get a hold of these quote tags.

    Select text and hit ‘quote’ in the post you are quoting from.
    Mad forum-ninja skills.

    #246741

    Iaxul
    Member

    ^ Ah, that’s handy. I manually copy/pasted them around in a text editor.

    Glad to hear it : D>
    That’s what we hoped we would deliver.

    Yay! 😀

    No need to, as long as your comments are constructive and worded politely, we can take it. I’ll discuss a bunch of these, trying to give you a bit of an insight into why things work as they do.

    Ok. I hope I was constructive enough.

    you can only cast one spell per combat round, regardless of how many able casters you’ve brought into the battle.

    That is by design. Without this limit you could alpha strike a target – say the enemy leader – without that player being able to respond.

    Well, I understand that concern, but eh… The solution throws the babies out with the bath water when your casters can’t do anything other than alpha strike either, including buffing your troops. Was balancing this out really out of question? For example, by increasing leaders’ resistances and protections or even giving them an initial extra protection for one round or so. Or making heavy damage spells more expensive. Or making each consecutive cast of, eg., chain lightning more expensive. Or make it so you can only cast one chain lightning/whatever per combat round.

    And well, isn’t this sort of alpha strike still possible? I haven’t tried it, but I’d imagine that, say, 6 stone giants would be pretty destructive.

    Plus, the defender gets to act first, so I would like to think it’s the responsibility of the attacker to take this into account, even though they weren’t necessarily able to respond.

    Devastating battles should be devastating, arbitrary limits are no fun. 🙁

    how much obstruction city walls provide

    City walls were design to primarily impact movement. In real life the aspect of cover was more important, but emphasizing that too much – arguably – makes city combat no fun for the attacker.

    I don’t think city combat should be exactly fun for the attacker. Capturing a city should be hard but rewarding. And it sure stings when you lose a city, but if it’s trivial to retake it, it doesn’t sting as much.

    So yeah, imo the defender of the city should be favored more. This would probably make the game bit slower and city battles more important, but that’s a matter of preference.

    the logical problem with city battles and adjacent hex rule isn’t solved

    Correct. Location on the strategic map does influence attacker placement, but position in not directional as in other tactical maps. Then again, having a full scale city – in 3d – to implement AHR would mean attacking armies end up very far apart and walking distances for all units would be very large. Also, there are some issues with walls completely enclosing a city in 3d.

    Well, yeah, with a big city, the attacking armies would be relatively far apart. It would most likely be solvable one way or another though. Shadow Magic could’ve had it, in theory. It’s bit absurd to have multiple battles for a city if the defender has enough stacks. Or even more absurd to take the city if the defenders has troops standing.

    Another thing that kind of bugs me is vision through walls and mountains.

    We discussed having an occlusion system for the world map, but ended up deciding we liked the more simple system more. It appears to be very much a matter of preference.

    Ah. I suppose it is. I’d prefer, say, being able to hide in mountains, or creep in underground without being spotted from a watchtower that’s behind two solid rock walls. But this is fairly manageable too.

    The editor has no generator in it, and you can’t edit the scenarios that the game has generated.

    We looked at adding this feature, but unfortunately doing so has not been feasible for us yet.

    Sorry to hear. I wonder how the generated maps are stored then… Oh well. A customizable generator that outputs a map file would be more than excellent. One could generate a map and preview it to see if it’s any good, and then play it straight away, or generate only basic terrain and continue from that with the generator, etc. Considering that the game’s sold over 500k copies, there doesn’t seem to be that many maps out there. 🙁

    You can’t even load an official map because it doesn’t let you, so there’s basically nothing to work with.

    You can load the campaign maps, or at least the elven court campaign maps. We’ve locked Triumph made scenarios to prevent people using modified versions of those to cheat in multiplayer.

    Ah, thanks for the info. I’ll try that and see how it looks.

    Also, there doesn’t seem to be a tutorial or a manual or anything detailing the finer use of the editor.

    There’s a manual on this site and there’s a forum dedicated to modding. If the manual doesn’t provide you with the information, posting a question on the details you want to know will likely get you the answers.

    The tools were shipped as a courtesy to fans. Basically what you get is the exact tools we use to make the game. Using them does involve some trial and error, but they are pretty powerful if you get the hang of them.
    Writing a manual isn’t really feasible unfortunately. Our designers learn in much the same way as the modders, trial, error and asking questions.

    Ah, fair enough. I hope the community’s active enough.

    was the game really designed with that [ed: modding] in mind?

    Partially, yes.
    However, we are a small company using our own engine. This version of the engine is specifically build to make AoW3 and not a whole bunch of different games – like the Unreal engine for example. That means that if we – the Team at Triumph – do not need a particular feature – e.g. scripted AI.
    So, on one side that means that the game isn’t as moddable as a game made using a commercial engine or one made by a 100+ person team. However, it also means that you get an AoW3 that is exactly what we envision it to be.

    Yeah. Might be a matter of preference to some extent. Some of the undoable things I saw discussed weren’t half bad.

    I guess that’s all the big points. Now some minor ones.

    Quickly glanced over the minor points, but I seem to remember a mod to fix most of the issues raised there.

    Anyone remember the mod’s name?

    P.S. Anyone else experienced crashes when attacking independents, being prompted for showing mercy (or bypassing that), going to battle and clicking an opponent troop for details?

    If you have the game crash on you, please: start a new topic in the help & support forum here, start a topic over on steam or email our support team.

    Hope this shines some light on why we did the things you don’t like as much about AoW3. Hope you’ll keep on playing to enjoy what you do like.

    GL HF : D>

    Thanks, I’ll do that. Your post was enlightening.

    #246742

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    you can only cast one spell per combat round, regardless of how many able casters you’ve brought into the battle.

    That is by design. Without this limit you could alpha strike a target – say the enemy leader – without that player being able to respond.

    Well, I understand that concern, but eh… The solution throws the babies out with the bath water when your casters can’t do anything other than alpha strike either, including buffing your troops. Was balancing this out really out of question? For example, by increasing leaders’ resistances and protections or even giving them an initial extra protection for one round or so. Or making heavy damage spells more expensive. Or making each consecutive cast of, eg., chain lightning more expensive. Or make it so you can only cast one chain lightning/whatever per combat round.

    And well, isn’t this sort of alpha strike still possible? I haven’t tried it, but I’d imagine that, say, 6 stone giants would be pretty destructive.

    Plus, the defender gets to act first, so I would like to think it’s the responsibility of the attacker to take this into account, even though they weren’t necessarily able to respond.

    If I may chime in here – this is also a RANGE issue. The actual problem here is that spells have an unlimited range – which makes a lot of sense, if you think about it – plus, you can cast with your last action point. So in theory a stack of 6 caster heroes can even run away from all attackers (or defenders), casting like mad in the process, which doesn’t sound like fun. There is already enough encouragement for building doom stacks, since heroes gain levels too fast in all non-autocombat games.
    To make up for that, Heroes can learn all sorts of ABILITIES which are basically mana-free spells as well, except that they have a range (many are Touch, some, like Charm or Convert, are short range, but there is also long range stuff like Curse), which makes up for it.

    #246745

    Iaxul
    Member

    Iaxul wrote:

    Now, the buts and howevers. First thing, one that pretty much shocked me, was that you can only cast one spell per combat round, regardless of how many able casters you’ve brought into the battle.

    it’d be really unbalanced if you could bring your sorc leader + 5 sorc heroes into a battle and first turn cast 6 chain lightnings at once to just instant obliterate any army

    Well, by the point you can get 6 chain lightning-capable sorcerers in a stack, your opponents may have 18 tier IVs agains them. And shock protection helps.

    And eh, having a pile of eldritch horrors doing a shock breath on a bunch of sitting ducks obliterates them all the same. Strong units can do strong things, seems odd that the restriction applies only to sorcerer-oriented spellcasters.

    the point of walls is to provide impassable cover to your ranged archers. it gives your ranged units +2 range i believe, and any ranged units trying to attack them have to take a -50% attack malus

    flametanks and cannons wreck walls because dreadnought, by design, is the master of siege battles. walls as is provide a massive advantage to the defender against any enemy that isn’t a dreadnought, thanks to the tactical advantage of absolute ranged superiority.

    Hmkay. If it’s better against other classes than dreadnought, then that’s good. For some reason I’ve started next to a dreadnought every time so far. 🙁

    it’s working as intended. the reduced unit count is intentionally there to keep tactical battles simpler, because ordering around 10 meaningless archers is way more tedious and needlessly time consuming and boring than making important decisions around 5 archers. making cities apply the same rules as normal battles is a part of that overall design philosophy

    Well, eh, is that really better than to have multiple consecutive battles for one city when all of the defenders don’t fit into one battle? Or capturing the city while some defenders are still around in non-adjacent hexes?

    Iaxul wrote:

    Some of the class units don’t seem varied enough among races.

    a lot of work has been put in to make this more varied, there’s a lot of class units that get special racial exceptions.

    They’re pretty minor differences. I could easily take them a bit further to different directions.

    for the most part, all class units remain the same across races. i like this decision, because it builds on clearly communicating to the players what each unit is capable of. if elves rode beefed up gryphons instead of manticores, but still filled the same roles as manticores, it’s kind of detrimental to gameplay (because it potentially confuses players into thinking that the beefed up gryphon represents an entirely different ability set, while having everyone ride manticores quickly communicates “oh, it does more or less the same thing as all the other guys who ride manticores”)

    that being said, actually look at the stats of the manticore riders. every version of them has abilities unique to that race’s version: dwarven manticores get defensive strike, and elven manticores get inflict stun. so, from a gameplay perspective, there is quite a bit of variety among the class units.

    I see your point, but I don’t think it’s the best point ever. I mean, how different can two flying cavalry units be in to each other? 😉

    And yeah, they have some different stats, but I guess I think they could still be a bit more different.

    ???????

    this is a positive, not a negative??????

    i love dwarven and goblin succubi, why don’t you?

    I guess this is purely subjective. 😀

    Iaxul wrote:

    Oh, regarding that, I initially though some of the unit designs looked pretty bad.

    which ones?

    I guess the ones I mentioned, at least. To some extent this applies to the graphical style in whole, but I sort of got used to it by now, so it mightn’t be an issue, but initially I didn’t think the units looked that good. I don’t know how to analyze it better, so I guess this part wasn’t very constructive.

    Iaxul wrote:

    And well, I sort of wish there’d be one or two more racial units, for extra variety.

    what roles would you have those racial units fill? we already have cheap, disposable fodder/flanker in the form of the racial irregular (elf initiates, draconian hatchlings, etc.), anti-pike/cheap frontline/basic wall scaling sword infantry (human swordsmen, draconian crusher), anti-cavalry/pricier frontline/defensive pike infantry (goblin butchers, human halberdiers), basic ranged archers (human archers, draconian flamers), speedy/pricey frontline/flanker cavalry (human cavalry, elf unicorn riders), and the expensive/beefy frontline racial T3s (orc shock trooper, goblin beetle rider)

    can you think of any good roles that aren’t just along the lines of “beefier basic swordmen” (some races do/don’t have these due to interesting racial balance, they could be considered a perk of picking tigran (prowler) or orc (shock trooper))?

    i mean i guess each race could be guaranteed a cheap flier unit or something but i always felt that limiting roles that like to certain races (such as draconians alone getting cheap fliers in the form of chargers) was a good way of creating racial diversity

    I’d probably come up with funky irregulars or something that’s way more different. I strongly think racial diversity is important, so I wouldn’t necessarily just clone every unit for every race. Maybe something that focuses further on what a particular race is best at. Right now, classes have all the focus in that regard, imo maybe a little bit too much.

    Also/alternatively, some more units for each class, like supports that give buffs and certain protections. Coincidentally, I’ve mostly played as a sorcerer so far, so I’m thinking stuff like a weak imp/familiar in a martyr-like role where they channel extra casting points to a caster (during battle), and a weak magical servant support similar-ish to apprentice except it’d give an enchantment, or so.

    #246748

    Iaxul
    Member

    With this said, walls generally should not be a perfect defence against ranged attacks. Arrows can arc over walls, as can a spray of burning oil from a flame tank. A cannonball slamming into a wall could cause pieces of the wall to fly out the other side or the cannonball may even punch through entirely without causing a full breach (note that the cannonball does do significantly less damage after passing through a wall, unless the wall is destroyed in the shot). Plus, a target standing ON the walls is still going to be a little bit exposed to direct fire in most cases. It is a bit weird that purely direct-fire weapons can shoot through a wall (such as muskets against a target that isn’t on the wall but definitely behind it), but the game at present is an abstraction at some levels. Shooting from walls still puts you at a distinct advantage, unless the attacker has a means of negating that advantage.

    Depends on the height of the walls. 😉 And the further away from the wall the arcing arrow is shot, the further from the wall it’ll land on its way down, so to shoot at someone who stands right behind the wall you’d have to stand right next to the wall and aim up, or so.

    And since you mention abstraction, a defender standing on a wall isn’t just idly standing there when they aren’t shooting. They’ll take cover behind the fortifications, or at very least duck behind an obstacle. So even though they’d appear to just stand on a wall, they should receive some kind of protection.

    And well, I feel there could be more options for defensive strategies. The fight is on your ground, there could be moats, obstacles, mines, whatever. Even the emphasis on defensive structures isn’t that much. Consider that you build your great empire from your great capital, a metropolis containing wondrous constructions… Yet you only have a small stone wall around it that can be punched with one cannon. I’d build a wall mile high and half a mile thick. 😛

    And yeah, there are a couple of defensive city enchantments, and the turret structure, but still a huge majority of the focus is on offensive aspects.

    #246751

    The spell limit isn’t just about chain lightning, it’s an issue will all offensive spells nor is it limited to the late game but can be a problem from very early on.

    Nobody likes the 1 spell per turn limit but it had to be done, it was one of the most glaring problems that got addressed very near release. Before you ask, no, limiting just offensive spells to 1 per turn and allowing others isn’t a good solution.

    #246752

    Iaxul
    Member

    If I may chime in here – this is also a RANGE issue. The actual problem here is that spells have an unlimited range – which makes a lot of sense, if you think about it – plus, you can cast with your last action point. So in theory a stack of 6 caster heroes can even run away from all attackers (or defenders), casting like mad in the process, which doesn’t sound like fun. There is already enough encouragement for building doom stacks, since heroes gain levels too fast in all non-autocombat games.
    To make up for that, Heroes can learn all sorts of ABILITIES which are basically mana-free spells as well, except that they have a range (many are Touch, some, like Charm or Convert, are short range, but there is also long range stuff like Curse), which makes up for it.

    Well, it’s also sort of a non-problem, since, like you said, it makes sense. Spellcasting requiring two or three action points could work as well.

    And well, that casting could be countered by other means than limiting you to one cast per round. And you can still sort of do things like that, just shoot your opponents with something that causes them to lose their moving points. Or stuns or freezes them. Watchers are pretty good at petrifying. And yesterday I attacked a dungeon or something that had three manticores and three berserkers. I managed to daze all of them for two rounds with a couple of shock breaths.

    And I’m not sure I think doom stacks are bad, as long as everyone has a chance to make them, and there are several formulas to it.

    And that’s what heroes do, they’re heroes. More or less unique, and grow to be incredibly strong. And everyone gets them.

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by  Iaxul.
    #246753

    Iaxul
    Member

    The spell limit isn’t just about chain lightning, it’s an issue will all offensive spells nor is it limited to the late game but can be a problem from very early on.

    Well, I see it as a mere balancing problem, and I have hard time believing it truly isn’t one. If it isn’t, how so?

    Nobody likes the 1 spell per turn limit but it had to be done, it was one of the most glaring problems that got addressed very near release. Before you ask, no, limiting just offensive spells to 1 per turn and allowing others isn’t a good solution.

    I’d argue it’d be a far better solution. Less arbitrary meddling, no sniping, no?

    #246755

    Well, I see it as a mere balancing problem…

    It is and it was solved.

    I’d argue it’d be a far better solution. Less arbitrary meddling, no sniping, no?

    It’s very unintuitive and adds even more arbitrariness to an already arbitrary situation. Moreover it opens a whole new can of worms related to balance of the limited offensive spells relative to all others plus the idea was to encourage players to spread out their heroes and have them lead different armies rather than put them all in the same group. In addition it keeps the spellcaster heroes more balanced relative to non spell users.

    #246756

    Iaxul
    Member

    I’d argue it’d be a far better solution. Less arbitrary meddling, no sniping, no?

    It’s very unintuitive and adds even more arbitrariness to an already arbitrary situation. Moreover it opens a whole new can of worms related to balance of the limited offensive spells relative to all others plus the idea was to encourage players to spread out their heroes and have them lead different armies rather than put them all in the same group. In addition it keeps the spellcaster heroes more balanced relative to non spell users.

    Aren’t stack-wide buffs that only work when the hero leads the army enough “encouragement”? And even if you have one hero per army, you can still cast with your leader too. If you’re a sorcerer and you have to pick one caster, it generally mightn’t make much sense to learn any spells for your heroes if your leader is always simply better at it than them, especially when it matters the most.

    #246757

    NINJEW
    Member

    And well, isn’t this sort of alpha strike still possible? I haven’t tried it, but I’d imagine that, say, 6 stone giants would be pretty destructive.

    way harder to get than 6 heroes

    i think the (entirely true) point that draxynnic was trying to get across is that it doesn’t have to be 6 consecutive casts of chain lightning. it can be 6 consecutive casts of, say, root spears. having the power to turn 1 nuke your opponent’s leader, then retreat from battle, is more than a little absurd, and fixing it would be an awful lot fo work and create an awful lot of confusing rules. saying “well leaders get resistances turn 1” or something doesn’t help, because then the guy with 6 heroes just hangs back and does it round 2.

    I see your point, but I don’t think it’s the best point ever. I mean, how different can two flying cavalry units be in to each other?

    halfling eagle riders are actually pretty different from elf gryphon riders

    I’d probably come up with funky irregulars or something that’s way more different. I strongly think racial diversity is important, so I wouldn’t necessarily just clone every unit for every race. Maybe something that focuses further on what a particular race is best at.

    this is what the racial T3 and support are for.

    how about as an example: what new unit would you create for the goblin line-up?

    #246764

    The solution throws the babies out with the bath water when your casters can’t do anything other than alpha strike either, including buffing your troops. Was balancing this out really out of question?

    The spell limit isn’t just about chain lightning, it’s an issue will all offensive spells nor is it limited to the late game but can be a problem from very early on.

    Nobody likes the 1 spell per turn limit but it had to be done, it was one of the most glaring problems that got addressed very near release. Before you ask, no, limiting just offensive spells to 1 per turn and allowing others isn’t a good solution.

    As the guy who flagged this up in mp testing, after rolling into a battle with 3 druids and 3 sorcerors or something stupid and destroying 12 units or something crazy (details are vague) this is an issue I feel passionate about.

    When multicasting was in, your 2 viable options were sorceror and druid, and speccing out offensive spells. You could, infact you *had* to. ignore all summons and buffing spells. It took several patches and an expansion (or was it 2? when did scouts come into the warlord roster?) to finally make Warlords competitive, and the game degenerated into an offensive spells race. You could also totally ignore racial units.

    It was pretty bad.

    Ofcourse any solution to any problem comes with drawbacks, but if I recall correctly there was a huge thread about this, including some ideas such as:

    having multi-turn spells, in combat (i.e. hero must stay stationary for 3 turns to cast x spell, so the targets have 3 turns to try and take the caster out before chain lightning deploys)

    spells to be more like abilities, i.e. with varied ranges, and line of sight penalties etc.

    spells to have a % chance to misfire

    because, currently spells have no range limit, so they have a spell/turn limit. Remove spell/turn limit and you’d need to remove the range limit.

    Have fun searching for that thread, it was a good discussion.

    edit: I do think city combat is the weakest part of the game to be honest, but short of radically redesigning the adjacent hex rule (p.s. go back a few months in the “news section” or a discussion on this very thing) to make more of a zone of control (like total war) with some mechanics to discourage extremely huge doomstacks (I was thinking a “logistics” rating, similar to casting points, so the higher the logistics rating, the larger your armies could be, which would allow for class distinction, e.g. Warlords having a higher starting logistics rating, the way Sorcerors start with the “channeler” trait. Exceeding your logistic rating increases attrition and reduces morale, and is an abstraction of, well, logistics, as defined by the management of men and supplies. In real life it’s very challenging organising a large group of people together) there’s not m,uch you can do, and such a redesign is more appropriate for a new game imho, whereby the aim is to have fewer, but bigger and more decisive, battles. But even that is potentially controversial.

    #246766

    As the guy who flagged this up in mp testing, after rolling into a battle with 3 druids and 3 sorcerors or something stupid and destroying 12 units or something crazy (details are vague) this is an issue I feel passionate about.

    in the first combat round no less.

    People still argue that Sorceror and Druid are overpowered in live mp *now*, so imagine the power of destroying your opposing army in the first round, every round.

    #246776

    Draxynnic
    Member

    And since you mention abstraction, a defender standing on a wall isn’t just idly standing there when they aren’t shooting. They’ll take cover behind the fortifications, or at very least duck behind an obstacle. So even though they’d appear to just stand on a wall, they should receive some kind of protection.

    They are afforded ‘some degree’ of protection. Units standing on or behind a wall receive a significant bonus from ranged attacks that are affected by line of sight by units outside the wall. A ranged attack that is labelled as ‘straight shot’ has a fairly stiff penalty to damage due to cover, while ‘arcing shot’ attacks have a lesser but still quite significant damage penalty due to cover.

    This represents things like the ducking behind the battlements that you’re talking about. It’s not a perfect protection, but it is a significant one – and, IIRC, it’s statistically similar to the benefit from walls due to shooting in AoW2 (except there it was a high chance of missing but you’d do full damage if you DID hit, while in AoW3 you always hit but at reduced damage).

    Some attacks do ignore cover entirely, but this is generally due to something special about the attack that makes it hard to take cover from – such as indiscriminately covering the area with fire or some other unpleasantness, the attack coming from above, the projectile turning in midair like a boomerang to avoid cover that way, or the projectile being a delivery mechanism for venomous arthropods that attack anything in the hex.

    #246883

    About spell casting: It is exactly as JeanLuc said. No one really likes that it has to be this way, but it must be to prevent first turn alpha striking. The current solution is the simplest and avoids opening up other problems. Even with a range limit battles would degenerate into who can cast all their offensive spells first. It would take an entire redesign of all spells and the casting to make multiple casts work.

    About walls: IMO as implemented walls are almost perfect. The only issue I have is that attack proc abilities don’t have their % chance affected by walls. However in terms of damage, most attacks (including cannon balls and dragon fire) have their damage severely reduced by intact walls. Walls give a good advantage to the defender (bonus range, tons of defense, and movement limitation) without stagnating sieges.

    About extra racial units: I actually agree. IMO each race could fit in an extra utility unit and/or machine unit. Still, the game is designed well enough that each race plays pretty differently from another without any additional units.

    • This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by  Dementophobic.
    #251058

    Газобетон AEROC являет собой вариант ячеистых бетонов и, по сущности, считается искусственным камнем со сферическими порами, однородно разделёнными точно по объёму. Диаметр пор равняется 1-3 мм. Качество газобетонных блоков обусловливается равномерностью распределения, равностью объёма и также закрытостью данных пор.
    Загодя чем закупить газобетон, полагается ознакомиться с спецификами его изготовления, техническими и рабочими характеристиками, а дополнительно сферой применения. Что касаемо области применения, то представленный вам строй материал применяется при возведении стен зданий разнообразных объектов, но основное использование – это малоэтажное жилищное строение.
    Генеральными компонентами, нужными для его выпуска, несомненно являются кварцевый песок, цемент, алюминиевая пудра, а также в отдельных вариантах в него прибавляют гипс и известь, промышленные отходы (зола, шлаки). Сырьевые материалы смешивают с водой и помещают в формочки, где проходит взаимодействие алюминиевой пудры и жидкости. В итоге этой реакции проходит выделение водорода, какой образует в нем поры.

    газоблок аэрок

    #251059

    Stormwind
    Member

    Dont worry if your russian is not fluent, as always I can provide translations. I have followed Budpostachgear for years, we are nemesis!

    Budpostachgear’s ideological colors may have changed over the years. Nevertheless, his core principle has remained the same: to revile everything in the most obscene terms and drag it into the filth of the basest possible outlook. If you don’t believe me then note that if I didn’t sincerely believe that it is an ongoing scandal that Budpostachgear continues to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society, then I wouldn’t be writing this post.

    I have no idea whether Budpostachgear is seriously claiming that dishonest, truculent lotharios are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive or if it’s simply the case that no matter what terms are used, he’s doing all he can to ensure that his kith and kin get a free pass from the establishment.

    In closing: Blaming conscienceless tuchungism on bad-tempered witlings is one of Budpostachgear’s favorite themes.

Viewing 24 posts - 1 through 24 (of 24 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.