Message for developers. About: new patch

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 Message for developers. About: new patch

This topic contains 199 replies, has 42 voices, and was last updated by  Nodor 7 years, 2 months ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 181 through 200 (of 200 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #204500

    vyolin
    Member

    You didn’t – @vyolin did. And that’s basically against anything I (and I believe you) think about game balance, while using your words to support his claim.

    It might go against your belief but it’s neither irrational nor far from @BBB’s sentiment. Balancing against more than one setting – more or less narrowly defined – is a futile endeavour. Just look at @epaminondas and his suggestions: There is no way his preferences could be reconciled with the settings most people play with.
    So instead of opting for a one-size-fits-all approach why not balance around the Normal Game Flow with 4-6 players, Medium Map and otherwise standard settings.
    And then introduce another set of rules for the Adventure and Empire flows to accommodate very short and very long games, respectively.
    Those can then be tweaked in isolation and made to suit those rather extreme playstyles without affecting the base balance.

    Accept it, the plethora of options this game offers means that there will never be a single acceptable balance for more than a small subset of setups. Focusing on subset balance – and then reiterating the approach for additional subsets – is the way to go.

    #204502

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    @jj, do you mean something like “future tech” from the civ games?

    I also agree that there necessarily is THE regular game setup that would be an M map with underground, 4 players, everything on normal and standard. If the game is balanced around that and becomes imbalanced with some other settings, then the only thing you should NOT do is changing the balance – you can also change the way settings work.

    You said it better than I.

    I think those that have real issues with whatever map settings, should think of ways to make those particular settings more entertaining, and come up with a list of suggestions, e.g (an example, not a suggestion as such):

    very slow xl maps, settler starts:

    – halve the research gained from research sites
    – halve production

    Well, many games have some kind of “future tech” – that is, a way to invest research into something that will help you in a more general way.
    For AoW I could imagine actually 2 different setups:
    one would give a certain troop type an increase in all stats;
    the other would give all troop types an increase in one stat.
    In any case I don’t think, unlimited research should be a problem.

    And, yes, I also agree that it doesn’t make sense to change the balance of the whole game just because a certain setting produces imbalanced results – that’s in the nature of things.
    If you think about it, it doesn’t matter how difficult you make the game at start – eventually the point comes where you are strong enough to walk through everything the game may throw at you, at which point things tend to become less interesting.
    For example, I’ve been playing most of a year against normal defenders, then went up to strong defenders, which changes the game – up to a point. I also get a couple of ridiculously powerful T1 and T2s – it’s kind of a different game, because T4s are more like making up for the fact that late units don’t have much of an opportunity to collect a lot of XP.
    Long games are easily possible – however, they feel like different games; which is fine, I think, because it adds something.

    Simple question: What is wrong with having a slightly “different” balances depending on the setting? I mean, that’s more or less a prerequisite of the game considering the Class differences.

    So I completely agree with saying that AT FIRST, a solid balance should be based on the average settings. If you have that balance, you can then identify what is “wrong” (as in game-killing) when you change settings. It may be the RMG (too few or too many “things”), the AI (autocombat) or anyything else, but imbalances in extreme settings should not lead to balance changes, provided there IS a solid balance for average settings, which we probably have.
    I mean, think about the latest thread about how sucky Goblins are against undead in autocombat – until a clever guy mentioned, build a RAM, problem solved (and I remember a certain discussions about how underpowered Rams were, allegedly, and no one would use them).
    The truth is, that this game is so vast and complex – even if you think you know a lot, chances are, if you find a problem the solution is already there.

    #204506

    Gloweye
    Member

    You didn’t – @vyolin did. And that’s basically against anything I (and I believe you) think about game balance, while using your words to support his claim.

    It might go against your belief but it’s neither irrational nor far from @BBB’s sentiment. Balancing against more than one setting – more or less narrowly defined – is a futile endeavour. Just look at @epaminondas and his suggestions: There is no way his preferences could be reconciled with the settings most people play with.
    So instead of opting for a one-size-fits-all approach why not balance around the Normal Game Flow with 4-6 players, Medium Map and otherwise standard settings.
    And then introduce another set of rules for the Adventure and Empire flows to accommodate very short and very long games, respectively.
    Those can then be tweaked in isolation and made to suit those rather extreme playstyles without affecting the base balance.

    Accept it, the plethora of options this game offers means that there will never be a single acceptable balance for more than a small subset of setups. Focusing on subset balance – and then reiterating the approach for additional subsets – is the way to go.

    It IS fundamentally different. You’re basically saying: These are the intended settings, and f*ck you if you use something different. That’s not the way this game works, and the Dev intention is that it’s playable on a huge different scale of settings.

    While I agree that there should be a default setting which balance is based on, and I agree that medium+UG 4 player can very well be that map, that doesn’t mean that you can’t have multiple settings the game can be balanced. Also, balancing for other setting might not adversely affect that default setting’s balance, or in such a small way that it’s practically the same.

    I know it’s impossible to achieve perfect balance for all settings. However, it is possible to get quite close, and I don’t think we’re that far away with the game right now.
    ——————————————————————————————————————
    Aside from all that, the game’s rules shouldn’t change depending on your settings – there’s no reason to increase CP of hellfire increased casts on XL maps only, for example.

    What could maybe be done is attach more consequences to the Game Speed setting – right now it’s just pop growth and RP requirements that are changed, and I don’t see why there couldn’t be a CP part in there for example.(for example, grand palaces only give 50% CP on slowest.)

    #204507

    Taykor
    Member

    Devs have said so multiple times in explaining the original intent of ultimate spells.

    Well, I remember something like that. But I still don’t remember them specifically saying that is the only role these spells should have.

    You misunderstood me, and I was fairly clear here. First, I did not mean obtaining an ultimate spell was “random luck.” I clearly indicated that the failure to Disjunct in multiple tries constituted random luck. Further, I qualified that position further by saying that that game itself was “partly” (not “wholly” or “completely”) decided by random luck.

    No, I understood you fine. It’s just there is no ‘random luck’ at all here, if your rival cast ultimate, and you haven’t cast yours or devised another strategy to counter it. You just failed and there’s nothing random in it.

    #204511

    I remember a certain discussions about how underpowered Rams were, allegedly, and no one would use them

    Lol, rams. Free attack, cheap, expendable. Which is to sayI was never above using them, I just didn’t like where they showed up.

    Someone, can’t remember who (Lti?) did a very effective Goblin Untouchable + Ram rush for a while.

    @ gloweye, @ vyolin, I don’t think you guys are that far apart actually. I mean, the base game has already been changed numerous times, and probably will be again, and the version we have now is better than it used to be. So, in and of itself, changes aren’t necessarily a bad thing.

    But, it’s a fuzzy line as to when changing the baseline improves it (desirable change) and at which point it becomes better to switch to working on a subset of settings.

    For that, I’d propose the existing options as a start – fast/regular/slow/marathon speed games, and then tweak those from there.

    #204607

    Epaminondas
    Member

    Sounds like a specific issue with disjunct. As for ultimate spells, I thought they were supposed to act as the stalemate breaker if there was a stalemate, a bit like t4 units as well, and to allow.someone who was in a dominant position to clear up.

    They’re not incompatible.

    I don’t ever recall seeing the devs saying that the intent of ultimate spell was to serve as a sort of “tie breaker,” whereas I’ve heard them say that its intent was to accelerate the mop up process many many times.

    Still, given that you are a beta tester and privy to things I am not, you could be right.

    But this is a good example, because you might not like these spells, and in your games they might not be fun at all, but I dare say lots of people are just fine with them, and that.includes the dreaded disintegrate. (and.The counter to that has been shown, so.in that case at least why remove or alter disintegrate to suit you, when you can adapt your strategy to deal with it?)

    Disintegrate is another story altogether, but in regard to ultimate spells, my solution would absolutely have zero effect on those who like them, because I’d only ask for them to be disabled as an option.

    Nobody loses here.

    As for ‘make it an.option’ I get the feeling it isn’t as easy as that. Some classes have a heavier tilt towards end game strength, so putting in an option without rebalancing around that option would probably lead to some.bizarre cases.

    So you are essentially saying that some classes require ultimate spells? I find that hard to believe, and it goes against a lot of what expert players say (as well as the fact that many games do not even see them).

    Besides, the default game would have it; so inexperienced players would naturally learn to play with them first. Only those who have played with them and do not like them would turn it off. I really do not see how this is an issue. The only argument against it I can see is really wasted dev resources; and to that issue I cannot definitely respond since I do not know the economics and logistics behind all that.

    If a player manages to grab a ultimate spell early and use it to push to victory. That is also a stalemate breaker. For that player has just took a risk to break a stalemate early. Working as intended in my eyes.

    Once again, it goes against what devs have said was the intent of the ultimate spells.

    Regarding your general position, let’s run a hypothetical: If two people play the same class, have the same crazy doom ultimate spell, and are literally neck and neck in everything. In fact, both research and cast the ultimate at the same time. But one guy fails several Disjuncts through pure luck, but the other guy succeeds. Game over. And you would not have a problem with this result?

    #204613

    Epaminondas
    Member

    Just look at @epaminondas and his suggestions: There is no way his preferences could be reconciled with the settings most people play with.

    This is why I really object vigorously when folks like BBB (even if at times unintentionally or innocently) distort what I actually said and portray me as having made lunatic fringe claims.

    Vyolin, two points:

    1) There have been much debate about what kind of settings “most people play with.” The only actual poll I have seen (from Steam) actually overwhelmingly supports my view that most people actually play larger maps, not small or medium maps. Even if this is a single, small, unscientific poll, the number of people who play larger map settings is nowhere as small as some of you portray.

    2) Do you know what I actually want from the game? They are nowhere as “out there” as BBB and some of you make it out to be, and individually they have gathered much support (and some are borrowed from others, period). Nor would they be so burdensome on the small/medium map players.

    Let me spell them out for you. These three things, and these three things alone, would satisfy and satiate me to the degree where I will hardly ever complain:

    1. Some way to mitigate the effect of the combination of the CP glut and powerful end game spells in larger maps:

    There is absolutely no way you guys can portray my position here as “unique” or “distinctive,” because this is the number one issue for larger map players, and virtually every prominent poster who play them have elaborated this problem. Here I am solidly on the majority of at least larger map player base. And I am open to consider all kinds of solutions, whether it be ascending spell cost for spams, Disjunctionable delays on these spells like Destabilized Mana Core, etc.

    2. Passive XP gain for all units to counteract the AI tendency to mass T4s in larger map Emperor AI games (that is, to make the T1/T2 units you train early in the game somewhat useful by making them higher medaled by the time the T4 massing begins). This is, I concede, my own pet project, and something no one else has brought up as an innovation. Still, it found much support when it was raised; and a dev said he’d consider this.

    This will not burden small/medium map players, because the XP gains will be small to have minimal effect on the standard game (Draxy’s words I am paraphrasing). If even that is too burdensome, then making this optionable, too.

    3. Option to disable ultimate spells. We’ve discussed this already on this thread, so no need to elaborate.

    So there. Are these all such lunatic, singular, “unique” ideas? The first one is something that virtually every larger map players bring up. The second and the third are options that won’t even affect the “standard” game.

    Am I still a raving, singular nutcase whose ideas must be exorcised from these forums, because implementation would be calamitous for all? 😉

    #204626

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    In my very personal opinion I just think that you choose setups that are incompatible with what you actually want.
    To give an easy example – if you want to have a tight economy you can’t play with many sites. If you still play with many sites it makes no sense to protest and ask for the sites giving less money.

    Which means, you have to basically make a list of your priorities for the game and choose your setup accordingly, which may mean, that your setup options may actually be rather limited due to your priorities.

    So – you want to play EPIC maps that take time to build. So you play “slow” for double the research costs (or even very slow). It makes no sense now to pick lots of towns and sites because that will give you a lot of candles. You will have to decide whether you want to play with settling or without. If you want to play with settling you’ll have to play with all sites on few (and towns on at most few as well). If you want your units to still gain a lot of XP you must play with at least strong defenders…

    And so on. Every priority more or less forces you into a specific setup – and SOME priorities may simply not be compatible.

    #204628

    I really object vigorously when folks like BBB (even if at times unintentionally or innocently) distort what I actually said

    So you are essentially saying that some classes require ultimate spells?

    There you are, literally distorting what I said…

    #204629

    Epaminondas
    Member

    So you are essentially saying that some classes require ultimate spells?

    There you are, literally distorting what I said…

    It’s literally a request for clarification so I can be sure I understand what you are saying. Night and day difference.

    #204633

    It’s pretty clear what I said – no need for clarification really. Some classes are better early game, some worse. Look at the Necromancer for the most obvious example.

    That much is evident to anyone who plays the game.

    #204634

    Epaminondas
    Member

    It’s pretty clear what I said – no need for clarification really. Some classes are better early game, some worse. Look at the Necromancer for the most obvious example.

    That much is evident to anyone who plays the game.

    You wrote:

    “Some classes have a heavier tilt towards end game strength, so putting in an option without rebalancing around that option would probably lead to some.bizarre cases. ”

    I assume “that option” refers to ultimate spells. So you seem to be saying, in the minimum, that some classes are balanced around ultimate spells and hence need them, no? I just find this claim incredible, if that is what you are saying. If anything, I thought ultimate spells are the most unbalanced thing in the game! So the suggestion that they may help balance just seems odd for me.

    At any rate, I just don’t understand how disable option is a gameplay issue at all, as I have said. It may be a wasteful resource of dev capital, and that’s an unanswerable objection from my end as I simply don’t have enough data to do a proper cost benefit analysis. But as a gameplay issue, it just doesn’t seem credible. It almost seems to me like you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

    #204643

    I assume

    So you seem to be

    if that is what you are saying

    You assume alot. I strongly suggest you stick to what is written. You accuse me and others of straw man arguments yet here you are doing exactly that.

    And from that you have a bizarre chain of reasoning.

    And then you come up with an inherently faulty conclusion.

    Let’s look at what I actually said:

    “Some classes have a heavier tilt towards end game strength, so putting in an option without rebalancing around that option would probably lead to some.bizarre cases. ”

    and you can see that this can apply to any change.

    (Insert desired change here) and see how every class uses (object of desired change) differently and you see that ‘make it an option’ isn’t as simple as it might seem, unless you want a literally incomplete game. Ofcourse, for some people, that may be appealing. Let’s use an example, which has been asked for:

    (Remove tier 4 units from the game) and see how every class uses (tier 4 units) differently

    Warlord end game will suffer much more than Druid end game, because Warlords won’t be able to leverage their production to gain more Manticores than a Druid can summon Horned Gods.

    Druid will still be able to summon Gargantuan Animal, but that spell will have to be changed to eliminate t4 serpents, so the cost would need to be adjusted.

    When it comes to that stage of the game, WL is relying on Manticores to be able to outfly Horned Gods and pick his fights. Phalanx and Warbreed don’t fulfill the same job.

    Ergo, WL unit balance (cost etc) would need to be rejigged, otherwise WL would be immediately at a disadvantage compared to Druids.

    You can extrapolate this for any class against any other class.

    You can even make it more general, e.g. disintegrate. Disintegrate exists to punish power stacks of doom. Remove that and you remove a counter against power stacks of doom. Who favours powers stacks of doom? Theocrats mostly in my experience, ergo in games where there is no disintegrate, Theocrats automatically get a leg up, and what else will fulfill the function of neutralising power stacks?

    So, without getting bogged down in particular examples of this spell, or that spell, essentially, ‘make it an option’ without compensating the rest of the game, would not be imho a good move.

    Ofcourse, for those that are complaining and advocating for just such an option, the counter argument is that you may be just fine and dandy with such a game, and after all, noone is forcing the ‘rest of us’ to use it.

    So, in that sense, yes you should be free to change your game like that, but that change shouldn;t become part of the base.

    Comes back to the same point, made several posts ago, which you seem intent on ignoring, which is that distinct (although, at what point does distinct come into play?) game modes should be balanced independent of the base, or, easier, just add more tweakable settings.

    Going back to this statement:

    “Some classes have a heavier tilt towards end game strength, so putting in an option without rebalancing around that option would probably lead to some.bizarre cases. ”

    some people may prefer the game with “bizarre” cases (my emphasis) but what I fear, and what seems to be happening to a degree, is that people are clamouring for changes to the base, in order to affect said settings, knowing full well that those settings are distinct.

    My basic point is that some settings ultimately can’t really be served by altering the base, because said alteration won’t benefit the base, and in all likelihood won’t satisfy those asking for the changes.

    And many people asking for changes aren’t paying heed to the base, which is why I always ask for people’s settings when they say “x is op, or up, or whatever” – and remember that this particular exchange started because of this quote:

    It’s not a big secret that almost all the discussions around here about balance and gameplay revolve around MP. Most of them will include statements such as “oh you play SP so that doesn’t matter” or “please include your play settings because chances are you can fix your issue by altering those settings.” And that’s the problem. People think you can fix SP problems by simply altering your settings or playing MP.

    and I felt obliged to clarify why I ask people to include their play settings.

    #204722

    Taykor
    Member

    There is absolutely no way you guys can portray my position here as “unique” or “distinctive,” because this is the number one issue for larger map players, and virtually every prominent poster who play them have elaborated this problem.

    To think of it, I literally don’t remember anyone except you complaining about this. I remember someone discussing Hellfire strategies, but nothing else.
    Is that really true? Some statistics, maybe?

    Passive XP gain for all units to counteract the AI tendency to mass T4s in larger map Emperor AI games (that is, to make the T1/T2 units you train early in the game somewhat useful by making them higher medaled by the time the T4 massing begins).

    Well, I have an easy solution for this problem: don’t play with Emperor AIs on XL maps. Problem solved! Their resources bonuses definitely don’t fit for XL maps.

    #204843

    Epaminondas
    Member

    To think of it, I literally don’t remember anyone except you complaining about this. I remember someone discussing Hellfire strategies, but nothing else.
    Is that really true? Some statistics, maybe?

    I know you are trolling, but I am biting this once, since even trolls should be given an initial chance.

    In regard to the combination of CP glut in large maps and powerful end game spells creating an unsustainable end game on those maps, here are just a few comments from one thread (my thread on larger map issues):

    I feel that this is too much. I enjoy Massing casting points because it feels like progression. However the threat of Mega spells, nuke spells call them whatever you wish, is very irritating when spammed. If all of them had a Timer like mana core, It would already be a major improvement imo.

    I agree with you that end game spell casting is a problem in longer games, I feel that the real issue is that some of those spells are simply too powerful.

    I must admit it’s potentially incredible unbalancing. As for the measures to be taken, there’s something to be said for the Mana Core Treatment, but on the other hand spells like Hellfire enable certain strategies like Succubus Hellfire that I like exist.

    Personally, I would like to see a way investigated to increase CP cost for use of the same battlefield enchantment/global nuke spell in the same combat. For example, 50 Mana for the first Hellfire, and 75 for the next and 100 for the one after that. True, Sorcerers will still be able to spam, but at higher cost.

    This could be expanded to single target spells/all spells or maybe restricted by tier instead of scale, to limit things like x8 desintegrate(costs would rise to 80 CP…)

    Assuming a solid expansion at the “mid game” on an extra large map, I expect to have 200-400 points from Grand Palaces contributing to my CP’s, and with Age of Magic, I want the ability to cast 2-4 Summon Eldritch horrors per turn. So, I agree, casting points become sick and wrong.

    I agree with Epa. As I am an exclusively XL map player I must say a few nagging problems arise on these maps. They are already stated in this thread but I want to give my 2 cents too.

    For me the major problem is those Endgame/Ultimate spells. Age of Magic, Global Assault, etc. If these go away it would help tremendously (will be the first thing I remove when Mod Tools are released) with gameplay enjoyment. I understand why they are implemented, I just dislike them.

    In-battle Ultimate spells, like Chaos Rift etc., could have its mana costs raised so high that you would spent all you casting points casting it. Maybe even making it so that it needs a few turns to trigger, in which it can be dispelled before triggering. This would elimninate spamming and also could mean a few turns respite when you cannot dispel it (and rushing the caster)….

    The ridiculous amount of mana endgame…. A solution might be limiting the amount of Grand Palaces in each empire. Another solution could be raising the mana upkeep of summons, although that might have tremendous impact on summoning classes (although disables the Phantom and Wisp spam early game).

    But we don’t have to refer to other people’s comments; you kinda of concede this is true here:

    Well, I have an easy solution for this problem: don’t play with Emperor AIs on XL maps. Problem solved! Their resources bonuses definitely don’t fit for XL maps.

    Except your solution is not entirely satisfactory.

    #204848

    Epaminondas
    Member

    You’ve written, as usual (and I confess I am guilty of this too quite often), a lot of stuff that are really side shows and not terribly relevant to the issue. But this is the nub of the matter, so let’s please stay on topic:

    Ofcourse, for those that are complaining and advocating for just such an option, the counter argument is that you may be just fine and dandy with such a game, and after all, noone is forcing the ‘rest of us’ to use it.

    So, in that sense, yes you should be free to change your game like that, but that change shouldn;t become part of the base.

    I simply do not understand how the “base” game is being changed when certain “base” features can be turned off as “options.” If you don’t touch the options, everyone will get the “base” game. The people who want to disable ultimate spells (or T4s, as many want, though again I do not belong to this group) know what they want from the game and assume the risk that they will find the result unbalanced compared to the “base.” It’s exactly the same as assuming the risk when someone disables underground because they do not like how it is implemented. Sure, some unbalances may be introduced as a result; for instance, the overland map becomes too crowded, or underground races such as Dwarves are partly nerfed. But has the base game been changed for all, because an option to disable the underground is there? No, the base game is still there and unchanged; an option can never change the base game for anyone until he affirmative decides to click off that option.

    Once again, I understand if you think certain options are too silly or lack the popular demand to be worth dev resources to implement. Without having hard facts, such an objection is difficult to answer. But I am really having difficulty understanding your argument, and I am trying very hard.

    Comes back to the same point, made several posts ago, which you seem intent on ignoring, which is that distinct (although, at what point does distinct come into play?) game modes should be balanced independent of the base, or, easier, just add more tweakable settings.

    I don’t think I ignored this point; if I did on this particular thread, it’s probably only because I’ve answered it elsewhere, as we’ve had this dialogue many times. But again, for the record: I would obviously support your idea on distinct modes. Yet, and once again, the issue for me with this is that it would likely be not implemented, because I suspect that greater dev resources would be required then merely making certain “options” available at map generation. I am not in the habit of asking for impossible or unlikely things, whether from the government, God, or game devs (some would say all three are about the same!) 🙂

    My basic point is that some settings ultimately can’t really be served by altering the base, because said alteration won’t benefit the base, and in all likelihood won’t satisfy those asking for the changes.

    I’ve made quite clear what will make me ecstatic and in the thrshhold of nirvana, not just “happy.” And they can be largely achieved by making very marginal, on the edge changes, mostly via options. That may not be the case for others who want a new house, rather than to redecorate the front lawn. But I am not one of those folks.

    #204854

    Ericridge
    Member

    I like the CP of XL maps. It makes things fun for me.

    Spy Drone swarms booyah!

    #205009

    Taykor
    Member

    I know you are trolling, but I am biting this once, since even trolls should be given an initial chance.

    Oh, my, you really shouldn’t trouble yourself doing me such favours!
    I definitely don’t want talking nice to you after that comment.

    And while I now see some examples of such opinions, well, I’m still not convinced. For example, limiting single-target spells with a system allowing only one spell per round is just plain nonsensical. And in general, penalties for consecutive uses of spells is a bad idea. (At least because it would affect not only late game “abundance” of CP).

    But we don’t have to refer to other people’s comments; you kinda of concede this is true here

    Why the heck is that?

    Except your solution is not entirely satisfactory.

    But as you yourself said, it’s a solution, as in ‘problem solved’. Nothing more is needed, obviously. I don’t really care if you don’t like it.

    I like the CP of XL maps. It makes things fun for me.

    +1

    #205017

    Ravenholme
    Member

    I like the CP of XL maps. It makes things fun for me.

    Agreed.

    And I also agree with the point made earlier in this thread (By.. BBB?) that spells like Hellfire etc are supposed to be stalemate breakers. They have ways to combat them, either strategically (CP draining battles etc), or tactically (Disjunction).

    Epa’s complaint about them breaking a stalemate and thus being broken is a bit nonsensical to me, because that is just the game working as intended. He got out-teched, and so his equal opponent now with a tech advantage was able to tilt the scales and win.

    #205020

    Nodor
    Member

    I like the CP of XL maps. It makes things fun for me.

    Spy Drone swarms booyah!

    Economies of Scale are fund to build. XL maps give you and the AI the time needed to build those massive economies with all of the drawbacks and benefits that massive implies.

    XL maps are in a good place right now. I just wish they were available for PBEM games.

Viewing 20 posts - 181 through 200 (of 200 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.