You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.
This topic contains 100 replies, has 19 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
once again, they launched the game for 5 hours, tried it out, put it down, then forgot to come back to it. not much to be done about that, and it distorts the figures a lot
you’re really fucking reaching here man. pulling out the steam achievement percentages? really? and you’re still sticking by that? lol.
There is a reason they put it down and forgot to come back to it.
And your reason is that people are somehow less important if they don’t play as much as you do. They paid as much as you did.Like it or not evidence is better than pulling stuff out of your back end. It’s irrational and self centered to demand the devs must cater to people who play the game all day, rather than most people who play it for a couple hours.
I am sorry, but he is totally RIGHT.
The game at this point is unlikely to sell tons of more copies to people who haven’t bought it yet. TBS is a small market, restricted to the PC and (rarely) hand-held consoles (some Japanese titles). People who know and play TBS at this point already heard of AoW3 and bought or tried it. Triumph will not get new people by releasing DLCs and Expansions – they will sell that to the people who bought the game and played a lot of it. Would YOU buy a game’s DLC or Expansion for 40$ if it’s a game you once bought on a steam sale and played for 3 hours before forgetting it?
…
Yeah, thought so.Anyway, the game still costs quite a lot, and unless american kids are swimming in money, they will not buy it just to play it for a few hours and never again. Who throws away money like that?
So much love.
So sad to hear about your girlfriend Ninjew, it’s all because of that evil game AoW3.
Still, that’s what you get when you come between a geek and his fantasy tbs fix.
Anyway, the game still costs quite a lot, and unless american kids are swimming in money, they will not buy it just to play it for a few hours and never again. Who throws away money like that?
the game has gone on sale for $10 many times, which is easily affordable by anyone who has the ability to buy games period, and well within impulse-buy range
This would mean T1/T2 which are just cannonfodder for my flametanks, cannons and juggs.
Pretty much any defenders are free EXP for cannons.
Yeah cannons are good in sieges, thats at least partly their role.
But my point is that the defender would probably charge since it has superior numbers (The Ai would probably do it). Then one or two flamtanks at each gate could burn them in one round.
Also no class can mass AoE like the DN. The sieges would therefore be easier for them and more difficult for everyone else and the DN is already the bet when taking/defending cities.
i don’t know if a human player would necessarily charge all their defenders out from behind their gates into eagerly awaiting flame tanks, but the extra chaff certainly wouldn’t help matters much
Just because some attacking unit/combinations like flame tanks would still be able to easily siege AI cities, doesn’t change the fact that this option would still have the intended effect on overall gameplay. ( for DN as well)
They would still be somewhat slowed by having to assault large cities several times, and they would still be hampered by the realistic effect of the captured cities sustaining siege population casualties and pretty long lasting Morale penalties due to losses in the siege. Particularly heavy morale penalties may even necessitate a garrison in the city to prevent your opponent starting a rebellion in your recent acquisition with a further morale penalty enchantment.
This means that even if your strategy makes the tactical battle a cakewalk this change would effectively apply some braking even for a DN steam rolling the AI.
Most of the point of the proposed change isn’t just to have a few extra battles – it’s also to apply realistic challenges and penalties to taking a city by force.
Because right now you can have an empire that basically hates you and you can toggle their cities to yours at ~5 turn absorption rate without regard for race relations or how much they liked their previous owner.
Realistically civilians tend to resist conquerors and I feel like this aspect is lacking right now in the game. Race relations currently only affect passive rates of resource gathering of your cities. Other than that there is little impact on playing ‘benevolent leader’ vs ‘oppressive overlord”. Right now you could have a city that claims to house 20 thousands people who all hate your guts… but you snuck 1 tank into their public square so 20,000 people go… “oh well, he CTFed us but good. Nothing we can do now. Hail our new overlord – will you be wanting some slaves or do we line up for butchery lines now?”
Also “I will still win easily with my flame tanks” is a disingenuous counter argument – no one doubts that cities will still be conquerable. Point is, a city you could previously conquer with 1 flametank + 1 melee cover unit will now require several, which means strategic attacks will still require a significantly greater commitment of resources than they currently do.
I generally like the OP’s idea, though do not know about implementation. Maybe it will be easier if a city would deploy some extra racial units on the battlefield each turn? How many units per turn it will spawn and how much overall can be depended on how the people of a city actually hate you and its size that’s it. The mechanic is almost just the “betray” event, but from the other side.
this game is not meant to be realistic, it’s meant to be a game
part of the game design is that undefended cities are easy to capture, because that encourages raiding strategies and having to balance empire defense with offense, and having to spend your own resources on your defense discourages turtle-style gameplay (i.e. playing sim city and never attacking anyone until it’s turn 1000 and you have the biggest army possible, which is boring as hell for most people, but still a natural response to a lack of pressure which results in players doing it anyway)
this game is not meant to be realistic, it’s meant to be a game
part of the game design is that undefended cities are easy to capture, because that encourages raiding strategies and having to balance empire defense with offense, and having to spend your own resources on your defense discourages turtle-style gameplay (i.e. playing sim city and never attacking anyone until it’s turn 1000 and you have the biggest army possible, which is boring as hell for most people, but still a natural response to a lack of pressure which results in players doing it anyway)
The event may only initiate if the City is defended (recruiting the militia) or if you have really bad relationships with it’s race for example. That way it will not affect the early game but will affect the mid-lategame
late game city sieges are already a giant pain, i dunno if that needs to be added to
being on the offensive in a siege really sucks unless you’re a dreadnought. giving the defender a bunch of free units would probably just add additional frustration.
also if the city is already defended by your own militia i don’t know why you need to throw in more units past that, unless you just really hate rogue assassin-sniping your cities (i.e. you hate rogue and wish it wasn’t in the game, because sniping your 3 poorly defended cities with 3 assassins each is basically the centerpiece of rogue play)
Anyway, the game still costs quite a lot, and unless american kids are swimming in money, they will not buy it just to play it for a few hours and never again. Who throws away money like that?
the game has gone on sale for $10 many times, which is easily affordable by anyone who has the ability to buy games period, and well within impulse-buy range
Not here, for sure. In stores it still costs about 20 EUR or so.
Not here, for sure. In stores it still costs about 20 EUR or so.
does europe not get steam sales?
Not here, for sure. In stores it still costs about 20 EUR or so.
does europe not get steam sales?
We get and i think it was already on sale some months ago.
They would still be somewhat slowed by having to assault large cities several times, and they would still be hampered by the realistic effect of the captured cities sustaining siege population casualties and pretty long lasting Morale penalties due to losses in the siege. Particularly heavy morale penalties may even necessitate a garrison in the city to prevent your opponent starting a rebellion in your recent acquisition with a further morale penalty enchantment.
I thought the point was not to have garrisons since you get you magic defenders popping up when you are attacked?
Because right now you can have an empire that basically hates you and you can toggle their cities to yours at ~5 turn absorption rate without regard for race relations or how much they liked their previous owner.
You know that if a race hates you their cities get a moral penalty? And you can get liberate missions if a city/races hates their leader?
Realistically civilians tend to resist conquerors and I feel like this aspect is lacking right now in the game. Race relations currently only affect passive rates of resource gathering of your cities. Other than that there is little impact on playing ‘benevolent leader’ vs ‘oppressive overlord”. Right now you could have a city that claims to house 20 thousands people who all hate your guts… but you snuck 1 tank into their public square so 20,000 people go… “oh well, he CTFed us but good. Nothing we can do now. Hail our new overlord – will you be wanting some slaves or do we line up for butchery lines now?”
First i don’t thing that one unit only consists of the number they display. I rather think that each stands for like a whole regiment (around 120 men). I know thats my personal opinion but I wanted to show you how i see it.
Also there are tons of examples in history where a small force was able to conquer cities via the use of stealth and surprise. Standing armies where invented because the drafted civilians (like the units you propose) where awful at fighting. Because the had no discipline and could not fight in an ordered fashion.
Also coud some of you answer the simple question what a rogue player will do if you implement these changes? Because you can basically delete the class. It is based on harrassing and sniping of lightly defended cities behind enemy lines. If they need to take like 3 stacks to assault one city and it would take 2 turns only braindead player would not be able to react.
Rogue sneakiness still can be implemented.
If there is garrisons added. then.
whenever a rogue player sneakily attacks a city with its assassins. They get a new attack option, an ability to attack the generic mayor + his bodyguards. Defeat of his mayor and bodyguards = city surrenders to the rogue player after a period of absorbing. The generic garrisons is too demoralized to fight back.
problem solved.
requiring that a rogue bring an entire stack of assassins to take a city that you made absolutely 0 investment to defend (and likely still end up with several injured assassins, possibly a dead one) is kind of crummy, i agree.
Rogue sneakiness still can be implemented.
If there is garrisons added. then.
whenever a rogue player sneakily attacks a city with its assassins. They get a new attack option, an ability to attack the generic mayor + his bodyguards. Defeat of his mayor and bodyguards = city surrenders to the rogue player after a period of absorbing. The generic garrisons is too demoralized to fight back.
problem solved.
Yeah But what about the 20.000 civilians who might be unhappy with their new leader. They yould still defend the town. Your suggestion sounds to me like an explanation why sniping towns with lonely units is realistic (they just choose to not show us how it happened).
Also if you don’t want to implement a completly new mechanic only for rogues (which would in my eyes also be extremly unfair since other classes are also good at harrassing) they would still face up to 36 defenders. I am not sure how 6 assasins would fight their way through that.
Also what would be the conditions for this kind of mission? Could the rogue player try this every time, only when he has less than 6 units, could he take T4s to that kind of mission?
This would be a nightmare to balance.Also what again would this mechanic have to do with the present theme of AoW3. This kind of mission seems more fitting for warhammer/command and conquer missions.
Not a nightmare to balance. Can just code in, only tier 2 units allowed. And if player try to bring shadowstalkers to fight the mayor with, the fight button will just be greyed out.
“only t2 units” ah yes, with all the delicate sneaky grace of a dwarven boar rider, we will hide under cover of night and ambush the mayor
Only realistic way to implementation I see is via building. A new(!) defensive building that would in case of an attack “give” a number of T1 racial untrained Irregs depending on city level (something like 1 for each city level or so). Garrison would diappear after a fight, but survivors would keep medals.
eh. can’t say i’d ever use it, irregulars are cheap and i can use them for other things if the need arises, but it seems like a decent idea.
The only way I see this working is if attackers get to starve cities out.
The only way I see this working is if attackers get to starve cities out.
Maybe enemy at the gate should be à cumulative morale penalty. As long as you have the enemy at the gate penalty, revolt/liberation become surrender, But that can take a while as revolt% are pretty low.
“only t2 units” ah yes, with all the delicate sneaky grace of a dwarven boar rider, we will hide under cover of night and ambush the mayor
Hey, if a Rogue managed to sneak a dwarf boar rider into the city…. he deserves the hilarity of ambushing the enemy player with them. He deserves it. Its awesome.
I still don’t get why this is even a discussion. How much does a T1 irregular cost, 45-35 mostly? Build 4 of them, leave them on Guard in town, end of story. It’s not like anyone who ever played the previous 2 games forgot that towns should never be left undefended.
Not here, for sure. In stores it still costs about 20 EUR or so.
does europe not get steam sales?
If a game is available as a hardcopy, I always buy it like that – preferably the Collector’s Edition. I don’t like paying for virtual things that don’t exist physically. 😉
I’m old-fashioned like that, maybe, but try looking up Apogee’s or 3DO’s websites today and get support for those games. 😉 Time will tell whether Steam will be around 20 years from now.At any rate, salaries in my country are a fraction of what they are in the USA or Western Europe. So people here will think twice about buying a game even for 10$ – that’s about 3000 HUF here. As a comparison, the discounted cheap DVDs in paper-envelopes cost anything from 100 to 500 HUF and discounted games can be found between 500-1000 HUF. I just got SW Force Unleashed 2 for 500 HUF for example.
I still don’t get why this is even a discussion. How much does a T1 irregular cost, 45-35 mostly? Build 4 of them, leave them on Guard in town, end of story. It’s not like anyone who ever played the previous 2 games forgot that towns should never be left undefended.
4? lets not get crazy here. 3 will do, maybe 2 with walls.
about 3000 HUF here
Lord BB shockwave, don’t you also think that the shortcut of your currency sound like a guy that is tired of what he is seeing but don’t want to show it out of decency so tries to hold his breath and pass out.
now ontopic, and for all,
I really don’t see the problem of cities being undefended when you don’t have troops stationed in them? so your city could get sniped by some wandering spiders, and all the inhabitants start to listen to Lord spider and do his bidding. part of the game and really not that big of a issue. if you cant defend the cities and are not willing to take the risk that they get captured you shouldn’t built or capture them, or make the outpost a vassal until you have the recourses to properly defend them….
I think that adding defenders like the total war series would be threatening for the continuity of the game, it will stretch games and I think it will not increase the quality of the game.
I get a bit tired of people who demand big chances because they cant make their tactics fit against a certain problem. Build some fortitude and spend a few days of optimizing your tactics…
about 3000 HUF here
Lord BB shockwave, don’t you also think that the shortcut of your currency sound like a guy that is tired of what he is seeing but don’t want to show it out of decency so tries to hold his breath and pass out.
If by that you mean that it’d be better to just drop this pointless discussion with the thread-starter, then… yes, yes I do. 😉
now ontopic, and for all,
I really don’t see the problem of cities being undefended when you don’t have troops stationed in them? so your city could get sniped by some wandering spiders, and all the inhabitants start to listen to Lord spider and do his bidding. part of the game and really not that big of a issue. if you cant defend the cities and are not willing to take the risk that they get captured you shouldn’t built or capture them, or make the outpost a vassal until you have the recourses to properly defend them….
I think that adding defenders like the total war series would be threatening for the continuity of the game, it will stretch games and I think it will not increase the quality of the game.
I get a bit tired of people who demand big chances because they cant make their tactics fit against a certain problem. Build some fortitude and spend a few days of optimizing your tactics…
Agreed, and the same thing that I said above. Ninjew would not have any problems with crows taking over cities Bird(emic) style if he left at least 1-2 irregulars to defend the town (possibly armed with coathangers).
And maaan, I now imagined a town of scared halflings serving a Dread Spider as their lord. Shelob would approve. 🙂
If by that you mean that it’d be better to just drop this pointless discussion with the thread-starter, then… yes, yes I do
good, if the other party could react with a HUF then it would be all settled now.
Agreed, and the same thing that I said above. Ninjew would not have any problems with crows taking over cities Bird(emic) style if he left at least 1-2 irregulars to defend the town (possibly armed with coathangers
indeed, and if you really have a problem with independent taking over your cities you turn the roaming independent off (sight that I the magnificent evil overlord darkslash advice such a weak thing to do…).
there are allot of other options avaible to defend against birds, you could put a net over your city, put down some scarecrows, have a few citizens with pots and pans to scare them away, make some birdlike kites and put them in the air, hang the corpses of a thousand children to appease the immortal god of pain and let him handle the crow problem.
And maaan, I now imagined a town of scared halflings serving a Dread Spider as their lord. Shelob would approve.
let me advice you, don’t reproduce that situation, it will backfire.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.