February 7, 2013 at 11:45 #354
first: sorry for my bad english^^
in aowsm you could recruit flying, floating, swimming and mountain climbing units which could use their abbilities also on the map. will it be also be in aow III?February 7, 2013 at 13:39 #378
Well…it wouldn’t be an AOW game without thatFebruary 7, 2013 at 16:54 #403
Yeah, I’m pretty sure these things are in. T’would be hard to imagine an AoW game without them. Hope wall climbing comes back as well.February 7, 2013 at 20:24 #435
When did wall climbing leave? i remember it in SMFebruary 7, 2013 at 20:41 #437
It hasn’t left, I just worded my post poorly.February 7, 2013 at 21:38 #441
Movement systems remain mostly unchanged. We did change the way transports work as I outlined in the AI thread, and currently we have fliers landing in Combat in between rounds to avoid exploits – seems to work neatly so far.February 8, 2013 at 00:15 #463
So no more Air Galleys and such? It’d feel weird for those to constantly land. Imo the only really bad exploit in earlier games was with flying units that also had ranged attacks and it was mostly only bad for the AI since it couldn’t adapt. For the human player the double gravity spell was readily available along with a bunch of other abilities that could bring down fliers.
Also a zephyr bird blocking a bridge against a bajillion warlords. 😛
I’m not a big fan of fliers landing like that but I know not every class has equal access to magic (some have none I imagine) and it is a serious balance concern.
Heh, in Eador fliers can be attacked by any melee ground unit, flying only helps movement.February 8, 2013 at 00:45 #467
I’m curious as to just what the exploit is that’s being filled. Hitting someone whose army consists entirely of ground units without the ability to hit air with dragons strikes me as a perfectly legitimate tactic – just make sure that any combination of race and class has a decent AA capability and that the AI knows to build it.
What’s a bigger issue is the ‘zephyr bird on a bridge’ effect. What I would have liked to see to fix that is a sense that defenders of a location actually have to defend a location rather than simply survive – if a battle ends with the attackers having more power in the vicinity of a strategic feature, for instance, the defenders are forced out while the attackers seize control. Similarly, for simply blocking off a bride or road or the like, that could be fixed by making units that leave a battlefield by the arrows to leave from the side the arrows are on, so you can simply bypass a unit you can’t attack but which is unwilling to attack you. (This would also mean that in some circumstances it would be possible for fast ground units to outmaneuver and bypass a slow but powerful foe.)
That said, I could certainly understand that many flying units might need to land to rest their wings on occasion – however, I would hope at the very least that attacking a landed flying unit with ground melee would involve some form of penalty to represent that the flyer is still going to be harder to engage from land when it can simply take to the air again.February 8, 2013 at 00:55 #469
Glad to hear about flying units landing in between rounds. My brothers tend to abuse 🙂February 8, 2013 at 07:56 #480
I wonder how the flying units are designed if they can be attacked by ground units due to landing in between turns. I can imaging it working for dragons or angels but I am worried such relativly weak units as halfing eagle rider or ork bats can become useless in combat. Maybe only flying units with ranged attacks should land?February 8, 2013 at 11:15 #487
So in the enemies turn the flying unit will land? What was wrong with the retaliation ? :pFebruary 8, 2013 at 12:05 #496
Personally I don’t see much reason behind fliers having to land in between turns. I could imagine an eagle getting tired, so being forced to perch on something every, say, 3 rounds for small ones and maybe 6 for dragons and the like, but if we have machines like air galley or dwarven helos (we have them? right? we must have them!) then they can stay up there how long they please (getting worried about fuel and the likes would involve too much micro management imho). It’s the commander responsibility to be prepared to face flying units in combat.
However it’d be realistic if fliers were forced to walk if their health drops below certain threshold. Damaged or wounded so they can barely breathe they would certainly have no strength to fly (please don’t test this at home on actual eagles or airplanes).February 8, 2013 at 12:08 #500
I love the idea about wounded flying units not being able to fly!February 8, 2013 at 14:03 #520
Also: a unit should retreat and desert after getting an arrow to the knee 😉February 8, 2013 at 14:33 #525
Hm… so flying units, especially the weak ones are quite useless in battle? move quickly to an enemy, making a little bit dmg and recive first own, has to land next to some enemy melee units and gets killed? it sounds a little bit this way. doesn’t make me happy. give instead archers and other early ranged units a bonus against flyers or just give the most flyers weaknesses against arrows and so on. now that there is not a single archer but a whole groupe of it, it’s hard for a flyer to avoid a cloud of arrows.February 10, 2013 at 11:00 #774
I really hope that flying will return in some form in tactical combat – that was very good feature of the game. If I understand correctly – now flying units will “work” roughly as in Heroes of Might and Magic (and similar games) – they are basically ground unit (stay and fight on the ground) and flying is essentially just a movement which cannot be blocked by terrain features and city walls? It is still very useful – especially with new battle mechanic of flank and (probably) rear strikes – the unit with flying (or phase/teleport) ability will be very useful for delivering such a blows – in flank or rear of enemy formations.
But I think that “real” flying is something of a trademark for the game and will be good if it can be preserve in some form. In this trade there are some very good ideas and I will wrote some of my thoughts.
1) problem with air unit blocking movement of ground unit
First – the problem with blocking access for enemy ground units on tight spot (fortress gate, bridge and that sort of things) with flyer (I think that this is problem – after all, flying unit shouldn`t be capable of preventing ground troops from movement or have any form of zone control over them). I think that elegant solution to that problem is to have a mechanic (or system) similar to that of – for example – “Fantasy General” (or “Fantasy wars” – more recent game in 3D): every hex on the battlefield have to places – one ground and on in the air. Or – to say it differently – the battlefield is composed from two identical (in size) hex grids, on on top of another. All flyers when flying are in the top one – all ground unit on the bottom one, so air unit dont interfere with movement of ground unit.
Another benefit of this system is that we can have bomber-type flyers – that attack units directly bellow them. This can produce interesting variety of flying units – sky hunters (essentially – melee-flyers with additional effectiveness against flying units), flying shooters (fliyng range attack unit), flying bombers (attack only targets directly bellow them, but maybe more effective then range-type flayers and – for some of them, even with area attack – 3-5-7 hexes – in a path or area).
Off course, this mechanic will have to use some kind of interface elements. In Fantasy General there are button for switching from air to ground level, so when there are two units in one hex – flying and ground – to be able to select only one of them.
2) problem with constant flying
Maybe instead of essentially grounding all flyers between turns (flying unit only fly when move but land in the end of her turn) will be better to have a choice between landing and flying. I think that there are at least to possibilities:
2.1 unlimited flying but with somehow limited effectiveness
Every flying unit in tactical combat will have two choices: to stay airborne or to land in the end of his movement for that turn (so some kind of button or activated ability). The difference will be in movement range end combat effectiveness so there will be real choice between two alternatives. The decisions have to be made in the beginning of this unit`s turn – so maybe two different movement functions.
Example: we have some flying unit (wyvern rider). If it fly and land in the end of the turn it will have 16 movement points. If player decide that he want his unit to stay airborne in the end of the turn, the unit will have only 8-10 movement points. So – more vulnerable but with great movement range, or airborne but with smaller movement range. Maybe – some kind of attack penalty (for melee-flyers) for attacking in airborne “mode”. This will create some kind of tactical choice and variety.
2.2 the second solution (already proposed here) – limited flying.
Every flying unit will have the possibility to stay airborne for some limited time – say 2 or 3 tactical turns, after that she have to land for 1 or 2 turn. Some kind of activated ability with limited scope. Different flyers can have different recharge times and active ability durations which will create additional diversity among flying units (which is good IMHO).
Off course, when the ability is recharging the flyers will retain their flying type of movement – to take-off, move and land in the same tactical turn.February 10, 2013 at 11:47 #781
Brilliant, just brilliant, suggestions Gorlum. I like 2.1.February 10, 2013 at 12:48 #793
I agree with you Gorlum. Great suggestions. I do prefer the 2.2 more than 2.1 though. Flyers should get “tired” eventually and maybe land for a couple of rounds. Also this should happen if they get really damged.
Btw, a bit of topic, but did anyone else have the feeling that in AOW2-SM archers and ranged units were a bit…weak?February 10, 2013 at 14:08 #818
Steven AusMemberFebruary 11, 2013 at 00:39 #926
One thing that would probably help is simply increasing the map size, and possibly their range relative to movement speeds. In Shadow Magic, it was usually possible for a nasty creature with a high move like a dragon or kharag to get into the enemy’s artillery within one or two turns.
Another possibility would be to remove Archery and similar abilities as abilities buffed by Marksmanship, and simply give ranged attackers a second stat array for making ranged attacks with (similar to Master of Magic) – that would allow a greater range of ranged attack strengths rather than the current paradigm where most ranged attacks were roughly the same, and the main thing that distinguished high-level ranged attackers like leprechauns and mystics and AoW1 rangers versus low-level ones like normal archers was their ability to fight in melee as well.February 11, 2013 at 13:03 #975
I like the idea of each ranged attack having a different attack and damage at each level, rather than Archery and probably Throw Stones using the Marksmanship stat. In AoW:SM MP Evolution mod, marksmanship no longer affected one shot per turn high attack high damage pistol/cannon attacks, but still, I think Holy Bolts, Magic Bolts, Archery, Throw Stones etc. and even possibly the breath weapons, still used Marksmanship levels to determine attack and damage, and it would be good if each attack type had its own attack, damage and effective range.February 11, 2013 at 15:21 #988
Well i just hated to have idk like 3 elvish archers missing targets that are like next to them. It felt silly. Perhaps their ranged stats could have been quite low. They shouldn’t be overpowered but the felt the exact oposite. Having a flyer 3 hexes away and missing all the time…just didn’t feel right :pFebruary 11, 2013 at 15:33 #991
I think archers were ok in aow 2 with their hit chances (well not against units that have block ability :/ ) But real problem was with cannons,ballistas and catapults.I mean %90 hit chance and you still miss targets like hit chance was %50 😛February 11, 2013 at 15:50 #993
in AOW2-SM archers and ranged units were a bit…weak?
Don’t think they were weak, just they hit chances and range were somewhat on the low side.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.