Gamescom 2013 Dreadnought trailer released

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 Gamescom 2013 Dreadnought trailer released

This topic contains 130 replies, has 38 voices, and was last updated by  Brother JO 8 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 91 through 120 (of 131 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #9679

    terrahero
    Member

    Enjoyed watching the video and seeing so much cool stuff. I was a little bothered with the positioning at start.
    Having all your units so clumped up and the defender immediatly raining AoE damage on your whole army with no possible way to avoid.

    I hope thats something thats going to be changed.

    #9692

    Hach
    Member

    Awesome, the only adequate word for this trailer (and THE game)!!!! Or like Mel G. said – – Beeeautiful!! Though I can’t help but not to notice the missing icon for unit damage ( only missing in the unit description in tactical battle – where there are icons and numbers for defense, movement etc. ). It’s nothing major but nevertheless it did crossed my mind.

    #9707

    Having all your units so clumped up and the defender immediatly raining AoE damage on your whole army with no possible way to avoid.

    You know .. i really thought that this was going to be in the game this time .. since it has been an issue from the very first game.

    Perhaps it makes the game feel less streamlined … pausing at the start of every battle … but it would add strategical depth ten fold.

    #9827

    Nerdfish
    Member

    Self destruct is the best unit skill ever 🙂

    #9831

    Draxynnic
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>terrahero wrote:</div>
    Having all your units so clumped up and the defender immediatly raining AoE damage on your whole army with no possible way to avoid.

    You know .. i really thought that this was going to be in the game this time .. since it has been an issue from the very first game.

    Perhaps it makes the game feel less streamlined … pausing at the start of every battle … but it would add strategical depth ten fold.

    Agreed.

    A good compromise I’ve seen before is being able to set formations for a stack before combat – at the very least, between a ‘concentrated’ and ‘dispersed’ formation.

    #9865

    NEHZ
    Member

    A good compromise I’ve seen before is being able to set formations for a stack before combat – at the very least, between a ‘concentrated’ and ‘dispersed’ formation.

    On the screen that shows the stacks and that allows you to choose between manual and auto combat, there should be plenty of space for a button that let’s you toggle between those formations.
    Close formations is exactly what made the catapult so devestating in AoW:SM.

    #9867

    Red Key
    Member

    Just want to voice my agreement that players should somehow be able to avoid their units getting hit with AOE attacks before they even get a chance to move. Increasing battlefield size or allowing us to choose formations before battle begins seem like the best ways to address this as others have already said.

    #9869

    terrahero
    Member

    Just want to voice my agreement that players should somehow be able to avoid their units getting hit with AOE attacks before they even get a chance to move. Increasing battlefield size or allowing us to choose formations before battle begins seem like the best ways to address this as others have already said.

    Or simply spawning units on the field that are already a little spread out. Much like AoW1 did it.
    You can still get hit by an AoE, i suppose like a boon to the defenders. But it wont hit most of your units.

    #9875

    I disagree with toggled close – scattered formations only because … close would almost never be used.. at least never against any heavily defended settlement. I could get behind multiple formations though i guess.

    Though i think a toggle is better than nothing, id much rather multiple setup zones for each participating player. Looking at the map from an earlier journal i was thinking how much fun it would of been to (pre)place units on a grid like this.

    It would obv need adjustments to work correctly (especially if its a a preset option) but it would be really nice :/

    #9883

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Close has its advantages if you’re not facing heavy AoE – it allows stronger units to better protect more vulnerable ones by bodyblocking (at least, if the troop arrangements are a little more intelligent than they were in AoW2, which would often put cannons in front of heavy melee troops…)

    #9885

    Yea, i can see a few advantages to close, which is why i said the against heavily defended areas. Close would be better for assaulting a gate with concentrated attacks and all that i guess

    But at this early(ish) stage of development im voicing my demanding selfishness hehe 😀

    #9907

    Nice the see this video after returning from holiday!
    Keep up the good work!

    #9912

    Brother JO
    Member

    Instead of toggled formations I would rather have my army start like AoW1. Yes, while it takes 1 more turn for armies to meet each other you can at least form your attack and formation before getting attacked. You also always started out of shooters range so it also solves “I got AoE’d before I could do anything” against army of shooters like lightning catchers.

    #9921

    Ice Age
    Member

    I agree with Brother JO, i also would like the battle field to be larger and the armies starting further away from each other, then toggled formations or placing units as u like at the start of the battle.
    It will also make tactics like flanking more viable since you’ll have more room to maneuver your army.

    #9922

    I agree with Brother JO, i also would like the battle field to be larger and the armies starting further away from each other, then toggled formations or placing units as u like at the start of the battle.<br>
    It will also make tactics like flanking more viable since you’ll have more room to maneuver your army.

    not bigger, armies just started at the edge of the map

    #9923

    Ice Age
    Member

    Yes, but look at the picture you’ve uploaded several comments up. The defending stack will always start in the middle and the rest starting positions are for armies that are adjacent to the defending stack. So if you want to preserve the adjacent stacks rule and increase the distance between the attacker and the defender, you have to make the battle field bigger.

    #9937

    Draxynnic
    Member

    To be honest, I’d have to say that starting out of range is probably the best way to do it.

    However, even then, a close/dispersed toggle (or just having units start dispersed by default) is worthwhile. One other distinction between AoW1 and its successors is that AoW1 did not have spells being cast by some global caster who could cover the whole battlefield – even heroes already on the battlefield had limited ranges for offensive spells. AoW2 and, likely, 3, however, has spellcasters able to throw magic anywhere on the battlefield, so I think it’s still worthwhile to have some protection against the nuke opener.

    #9940

    Ice Age
    Member

    Having a toggled dispersed formation in the current battle field size will bring you only a few hexes away from the other armies! (as few as 2-3 hexes from the armies on the sides, if you both have dispersed formation, and if that’s an enemy’s stack you’re in big trouble)
    I am not against toggled formations, on the contrary, but the right way to do them (especially the dispersed one) is starting out of range.
    As for global spells, as i understand it, powerful AOE spells don’t get to be cast right away, so starting out of range solves that too, since you’ll have time to prepare.
    Plus it will make the tactical battles more tactical and strategical, in my opinion at least, actually i cant think of a down side for starting out of range.

    #9961

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Both, really. Having large enough maps and starting out of range is a distinct advantage.

    That said, unless there’s something I haven’t seen, there’s nothing saying that powerful AoE spells can’t be cast by the defender on the same turn. We’ve seen one example that follows your logic – the Unstable Mana Core, which blasts everything on the map including your own units. For an apocalyptic spell such as that, it’s easy to see why it has a timer – it stops sreadnoughts from being able to default to the HoMM1 ‘Warlock bomb’ strategy (for those that are unfamiliar, it basically boils down to sending in a tiny expendable force and casting a spell that does massive damage to everyone on the battlefield) – the dreadnought player has to commit at least enough forces to survive until the bomb goes off.

    Unless we see evidence to the contrary, though, my assumption would be that the simpler area-of-effect spells like Fireball can be cast immediately, and like AoW2 will probably be able to be cast anywhere on the tactical map.

    #9986

    I tihnk starting out of range adds too much of an advantage to the attacker, its one of the defenders biggest advantages.

    As the battle is already on the terms of the attacker – you should take into consideration that he will want to aoe your units.

    The toggle – although not perfect – is a great idea.
    Starting further away … is a little to imba for me – unless the defender gets the option to setup outside the walls too so they can still aoe at the cost of the wall defense (they can still retreat inside though :P)

    #10008

    Draxynnic
    Member

    It depends. That was the default in AoW1, but AoW1 also had a system where you couldn’t move and shoot, so the attacker couldn’t use it to get an early hit in. The AoW2 system, however, always struck me as the attackers being a bit moronic – why are they setting up long-range artillery pieces within bowshot of the walls, where half the time they get destroyed without firing a shot? In a world where large AoE effects from catapults and spells are common, why do they march to attack a city in large clumps that are perfect AoE targets?

    I think it’s reasonable to have a system where it’s likely that the defender is going to get the first shot, but I think it would also enhance the game if the attacker has the option to not be a moron about how they approach the enemy.

    #10026

    but I think it would also enhance the game if the attacker has the option to not be a moron about how they approach the enemy.

    oh man that made me laugh 😀

    totally agree with you bud

    As long as the defenders get the same options (chosen after the attacker – dont want both armies outside the walls – very sore for the defender lol) then it would be quite balanced.

    #10034

    happyworld1
    Member

    The Alpha version looks great. The biggest feature I miss is 8 units per party. I hope they include a pre-game option to allow 6, 8 or for that matter 10 unit’s per stack. 6 units will make for a faster game 8 or 10 will allow for epic conflicts.

    #10047

    11balanced
    Member

    happyworld1

    +1 I’ve suggested it too. Current game interface seems to be suitable for that.

    #10048

    Brother JO
    Member

    While I’m not happy about going to 6 unit-per-stack from 8 unit-per-stack too, I don’t think both can happen because it requires change of balance. Unit’s stats are also set up with stack size so for stack of 8 you need to give more durability to lower tiers etc. which is playing with whole balance.

    #10059

    I’ve always been saying the battlefield should be bigger and the armies should start farther out (that’d make 8 units per stack possible, but looks like the devs sacrifice quantity for faster battles). Also with the current battlefield size the greater range of canons is irrelevant (they can find themselves within archer’s range after just 1 turn). This again limits tactical possibilities.

    #10080

    11balanced
    Member

    I also prefer bigger battlefields, but what we can see here IMO is enough taking into account lower movement rate (4 hexes for human infantry for example):
    null

    On the balance issue – I don’t see any necessity of tweaking it when switching stack size from 6 to 8 or 10. Finally it affects only large battles which are not so frequent.

    #10160

    ffbj
    Member

    I think it is simply the strategic advantage given to the defender. A representation, if you will, of the fact that it hurts to be the attacker.
    So the original attacking set-up i.e. clumped together is a special case ensuring the maximum efficacy of the opening AOE attack of the defender with the nod to the fact that they should have an opening round advantage. As the attack/siege progresses that advantage is less pronounced since the attacker can now spread their forces out.

    Now I could see certain unit types having a percentage chance that they will not be noticed by the defender and therefore take less damage in these types of attacks. I think just focusing on the AOE aspect is missing part of the point that I am trying to make, for if it is an AOE what difference would make if a unit(s) where stealthy if it were indeed an AOE attack. What I am saying is that the initial AOE per round spell attack by the defender is special, in that it represents defenses within the terrain, ditches, traps, obstructions, channeling features, that result in the aforesaid disadvantage to the attacking force. This would necessitate changing just the conditional of the first spell attack in a siege, by the defender to check for any units that could partially protect, according to some rating, stealth, siege engineers, for example.

    #10164

    I half agree, its all about game balance. Sure its not 100% realistic, but the battle conditions are already determined by the attacker (and i think i remember a dev saying we can now starve/wait out cities instead of just rushing in) so that first strike spam aoe ability of the defender, although unrealistic, serves a purpose in balancing out a game. Sieges should be costly to both sides.

    #10165

    Draxynnic
    Member

    There’s nothing ever saying that the player on the defensive can’t have chosen to attack instead. If they’re defending, they’ve either been ambushed (kudos to the attacker for outmaneuvering them on the strategic map) or they’ve chosen to take advantage of a defensive position.

    Specifically in the case of sieges, they already have the benefit of the city defenses. Do they need a special the-attacker-is-a-moron bonus too? No.

    Having the attacker start at longer range and, optionally, spread out still gives the defender benefits. They have the opportunity to cast the same spell – and even if that isn’t an AoE that catches the entire enemy army in one blast, it’s still an advantage. They get the ability to set up their force before the attacker gets to them. They have the option to wait and force the attacker to come to them, possibly through city walls and other obstacles. And if there are such obstacles outside the walls hampering and channeling the attacker… then put them on the map and force the attacker to deal with them, not have them be something that justifies forcing the attacker to adopt what local tabletop RPG players refer to as the ‘fireball formation’ regardless of how tactically unwise this is.

    There’s also the element that the first-turn AoE is only an advantage to the defender if they have it. This supposed defender advantage isn’t one if the defender doesn’t happen to have the appropriate spells or artillery, thus it’s more of an ‘advantage for defenders that use specific units and have chosen to take AoE magic’

    That said, one thing I was a little perturbed by is that in the video, the cannons seemed to be able to move around pretty much freely and still shoot. Rather than artificially putting the attacker in bad positions, having ranged units be reduced in effectiveness or even losing their attack altogether if they move too far strikes me as a much more realistic implementation of a defender advantage – as it means it’s up to the attacker to advance into the defender’s field of fire and receive the opening volley.

Viewing 30 posts - 91 through 120 (of 131 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.