Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 41 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: Spell of Mastery #127992


    @harleyquin14 It’s not mom. That doesn’t mean good ideas outside Age of Wonder don’t exist.

    @mourioche Point. That would also be a crash and burn fail for it being a directly being spell.

    :\ Mom balanced it by having casting skill & research being a function of how much power a player devoted to it. AoW II partially did away with it, and III completely.


    Just seems odd to me there are so many other measures to keep the game from rolling on forever, and this one got skipped. I guess that’s the point of a seal victory, but the idea behind a spell of mastery was a extreme length cap.

    in reply to: Pesky moral scales… #127988


    […]You don’t believe a word I’ve typed regarding the potential pitfalls to introducing a new alignment system.

    Hm. I don’t believe their pitfalls because I don’t believe it’s a new system. I believe it’s at best the existing system repainted. I haven’t so much as touched the core ideas and idioms that makeup the system. My goal is to establish we do agree on the core ideas and idioms; So therefore, the changes I’ve made are cosmetic. (I don’t work in straight lines. 🙁 )

    Maybe that is our disconnect? Maybe we operate on different layers?

    In fact you’ve been hiding behind the screen of “neither you nor I have any right to start bandwagons nor assume what the game developers think over this issue”.

    Ok, that is the one of the few direct disagreements I’ve put forward.

    That’s three separate issues in my mind though. One is a issue of the changes I want. One is a issue of trying to understand you, Harleyquin14, enough to convey a idea. One is a issue using a bad method of argument.

    […]I remain unconvinced as to why a personal peeve regarding ONE spell in the game necessarily leads to a complete overhauling of the alignment system from something which is easy to pick up and understand more or less from the get go to something much more complicated. You don’t like the labels of “good” and “evil”, but what are you going to call their replacements? The pre-existing notions might be simplistic and flawed, but it’s my personal opinion that they contribute to enjoyment of the game because they are simple and uncomplicated.[…]

    You should remain unconvinced “as to why a personal peeve regarding ONE spell in game necessarily leads to…” they’re isn’t a direct A-to-B connection. It is the seed thought that leads to B, that leads to C, that leads to D, etc. There isn’t a direct line. I’m not even sure it’s a curve.

    It’s starts with “I don’t like…”. Followed by “Why should I…”. Followed by “That makes a useless slot, I want a alternative to…” Followed by “That marks a core difference in me”. Followed by “What is AoW’s moral system if not proving a core difference in me vs. them?”


    (That’s a line break marking a change in topics. :P)

    You are correct, a thief descrying the laws about to cut off his hands for stealing as “unjust” isn’t by necessity a just person. They more likely just complaining they got caught, and trying to find a way to escape their punishment. Saying the law is wrong just happened to be that way he may have chosen.

    Putting the thief and the laws against him on trial requires that there be a real right and a real wrong. Otherwise there’s nothing to measure them against. There would be no point or even ability to say one was right and the other wrong, or which parts are right and which parts are wrong.

    The game implicitly doesn’t believe in real right or a real wrong. I didn’t want to spend 30pages proving there is a real right and a real wrong. Though I believe I can, and already have. Again, what’s the point or how can anyone say anything is right and wrong if they’re not actually appealing to a real right and a real wrong that everyone should already know.

    To put it another way, what’s the point of saying it’s too complicated, too simple, or close enough unless there is exists something that’s perfect?

    in reply to: Disintegrate is utterly ridiculous #127982


    Nerf: Units affected by Disintegrate and Banish can no longer be resurrected or come back to life via Resurgence.
    Woohoo, you made it all the way to the end. You deserve a cookie. Hope you have some tea left to go with that.


    Can I have that cookie now? 😉


    Seriously, how is a “I killz you now, loozer! haha!” spell ever not overpowered? >>

    in reply to: AI need some seriously buff, they are too weak now. #127977


    The AI has two gaps that I know of. It’s ADD when it comes to forming up units any map. It tends to spread them out just outside of a player’s sight or range and throw them in all at once haphazardly.

    First, I think it should rally it’s units at or near a friendly city then send them in. It’s too easy to break up their attacks with mobility tactics when they’re trickling in by one or two when you know where they’re rallying at.

    Second, I think the AI is easiest to beat when you have a raiding party looting it’s cities. (It’s a act of evil, but I think this the real reason it’s a act of evil.) It rarely defends them with more then a single unit stack, and only then haphazardly. It’s easy for a or two stack of flying or maybe cal very units to dive in, and raze or loot before the AI responds. (Looting being the better as it will not leave any or many buildings behind for the AI to recapture later.)

    Effectively destroying the AI’s ability to make war a little at a time, and ‘tricking’ it into massing it’s attack units to defend cities it will never reach in time.

    in reply to: Something is wrong with base building.. #127974


    What’s already been said.

    There is a limit on building everything in a city, but it’s a soft limit. There’s no point in spending 1,000+ gold 500+ mana on building all the barracks and it’s subordinates or a tier III class building in every city. They’re purely unit production and there isn’t enough gold income in the game to have every city building units around the clock.

    They’re also already intensive to specialize specific cities to build only specific units in golden age with the unit type specific map upgrades.

    My two cents? Please don’t ask for hard limits on things you probably should not be doing anyway. :\

    in reply to: City Ruins #127972


    A few logic issues.

    1) Razing a city in AoW III, if I read the description correctly, isn’t the total destruction of the city and it’s population. It’s the destruction of every strategically useful resource in that hex. People are in fact still living there.

    2) Moving a city would be great, I’ve asked for that option in another form in another thread. That said? As far as I know the ruin doesn’t impact any bonuses the game does or does not give. (Beyond maybe a trivial moral bonus if your terraform.)

    I’m not sure if your asking to move a city, or blot several thousand people out because they’re sight offends you. The first option I whole heartily approve. The second, I’m remarkably unsympathetic about the sight of a city and surviving population offending someone’s vanity. :\

    in reply to: Pesky moral scales… #127177


    @steven Aus. Noted, though I should point out, that system has been the basis for laws (if not morality) for centuries if not eons. It’s not new … The thief proving quote is it’s twin. :\


    @harleyquin14 Don’t take it personally. :\ I have a standard of how I’ll allow my self to be talked to, but do you really think it’s a double standard? Even if turn out to be a ice hearted rule Nazi, I hardly needed to wait until now if I was going to start unapologetically insulting people. There was no fail condition to the questionnaire. It was a probe to see where I needed to start, because previously everything I said was based on the assumptions now proven false.

    Yes, I can and do “ignore” and “cold shoulder” large paragraphs because they’re answered previously, answered implicitly, have no good civil answer to start with, or there answer would make no sense until something else is said. Also I tend to forget small detail by the time I cover the larger one. >> I did not ask if I forgot to answer something just to be polite …


    The theory behind “Stealing doesn’t make you a thief, it proves you are one” is:

    Taking a object that’s not yours -stealing- is a actions by a person. It can not trigger or create it’s self. The generator of the action are characteristics of a person. A thief taking a object proves that he has and acts on the things that generated the action. Thus proving he can, does, and will steal. Thus proving he is a thief.

    Questions? Disagreements? If there are none, continue reading. If there are any objections stop here. Everything that follows follows the above.

    If a thief is a thief regardless of what was proven? Then as long as he is a thief he will continue to act as a thief acts. (duh)


    While a player’s leader may not be a master thief ,or even a thief on every occasion, they are going to steal at some point. Rating them good or evil for it is just putting a name on it after the fact. They’re no less or greater a thief then when the label was applied. They’re just now a know thief.


    “Proving” something about a leader bases their choice of abilities is just outline how they were going to behave anyway.


    I had the idea of getting rid of the labels. Accepting no matter what a leader does, they always going to do it in accordance to who they are. They’re already good or already evil as they’re ever going to be.


    I put out the idea of removing ‘good and evil’ points as seen by the player, and basing good and evil (how the AI reacts) on things already “proven” about the player. IE, their spell and ability choices.


    NOTE: I do not apply that logic in RL. People are not beyond their character changing or beyond redemption! I apply that change or redemption based on my faith though. My faith is not present in the game, and I’m not prepared to argue that one way or another right now. Despite the theocratic being probably one of the worst examples of dark ages Catholicism abuses. I simply note this before it’s taken personally.

    in reply to: Races gaining alignment during play #127167


    I like the idea of a good and evil slayers, but there a few issue.

    If your bored one day and haven’t already played AoW:SM? Map out the difference in how the good vs. evil system worked. AoW III took massive pains to whitewash everything. Which I partially understand, by the letter of the law -if not general understanding- the game was racist. On the other hand, AoW III also does away with the concept of evil as more then a title in front of or behind someone’s name.

    Which is to say, I like the idea of change. It should keep the last two ideas in mind though. :\

    in reply to: AI kicking my butt every time. #127162


    If you can get luck with all-knowing or take Wildmagic master use warp-terrain. Which without a heart of X buildings will demolish a city’s economy. Early to mid game it may even be able to make a city rebel. Especially if you can pile on a -100 lost city or lost leader empire moral mod on top of it.

    If nothing else a city being surround by hated or disliked terrain is going to eat into that city’s output, I don’t know of a way to stop it, and you may be able to exploit it to make your enemy fight on hated terrain.

    in reply to: Anyone else find the "Lucky" mechanic to be bad? #127160


    The flip side of that token is that same units that could not live through a attack of say a raging dragon? Now has not a great, but non-trivial chance to laugh at the dragon and wining the fight.

    I think lucky is a late game benefit. The difference between missing a 5-10 damage vs. 20-30 is annoying in that it can snatch victory from fights that should have been rated: “Not a snowflake’s chance on the sun.”

    in reply to: Draconians #127158


    Point of interest, Bethesda has had and been refining the elder scrolls construction sets since morrowind first released; So early 2002. (Thought I’m not sure they let you do as much with the face until Oblivion in 2006.) Either way, the point being your comparing a game and studio that’s been revolving around the first or second person sense Arena in 1994.

    AoW just started with detailed 3D models, and the game isn’t central to them.

    Not to naysay too much, but just trying to put that in perspective. >>

    in reply to: Statistical improbabilities/outliers #127154


    Having three copies of the same lead in the same games sounds like a bug though. Did a cloning experiment go horrible horribly wrong? Maybe they can’t decide who the real one is?

    I think lucky caps or peaks at about at 25%? So, 25% of a 25% of a 25% of 25% chance is a ?.391%? chance. That’s rare, but not beyond seeing once or twice every game or two. Not sure about the other.

    The most noted map I’ve seen was a island map. I had two volcanic islands between me and the other team. It was nice in that the AI didn’t want to colonize them, and didn’t recognize a heart of volcano was closer to them then to me on one of those same islands. So I ended up with cities the AI couldn’t hold even if it did capture them, and free room to expand the AI wouldn’t touch. Which was very nice. ^.^

    in reply to: Racial Tier III / IV Units #127152


    […]-I’m not sure I entirely understand your second post… the idea I had would be a choice between developing cities to produce class units versus developing cities to produce high-tier racial units. Ideally, it would a city-by-city issue.[…]

    The issue was there is already city specializations. The option to build only a racial or only a class building is doesn’t add anything to what’s already going on, and takes something away.

    To put it another way, it’s like adding speed limit of 80mph/kph to a road when all you have are car’s that cap out at 30mph/kph. It doesn’t change what’s already going on, adds a rule with no current effect, and at some future date when the cars can go over 80mph/kph there’s now a law against it.

    What bother’s me about it is that I think it’s a detail for the sake of just having a extra detail.

    in reply to: Pesky moral scales… #126535


    Perhaps I’m unqualified to speak on behalf of others, but I fail to see how you’re more qualified than everyone else to produce a superior moral system for what is essentially digital entertainment (for the masses?) #126134 comes to mind.

    With my pet peeves out of the way? It’s good you fail to see any extra qualifications. I have nor claim none. Thus personally unable to add a qualification of ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’. They could be added, but not by me. I have described a problem, and put for a solution. We’ve come to a disagreement, and if the disagree is over a misunderstood point it is unknown to me; So, I’m fine with that.

    You are also correct I was asking for a blanket change. I should not have done so. I will stand by my request, but only if it is a option.

    I still cannot understand why what you’re proposing isn’t anything short of revolutionary in your eyes since it’s tearing many aspects of the alignment system that have already been built in.

    Hm. Assuming you want to know, and I wouldn’t fault anyone for saying ‘no’. If I have been unclear I’ll have to ask questions to find where I’ve been unclear. Do you agree or disagree with the follow two statements:

    1)Stealing doesn’t make you a thief, it proves you are one.
    2)No evil sees it’s self as evil.

    There isn’t widespread acceptance […]

    >> That’s not a statement it’s possible for me to agree with. I can agree there are different ideas. I can agree others have stated things. I can agree there is a interest in the idea in general. I can note similarities and differences between others ideas and mine.

    I’m not qualified to state one way or another what others are thinking. (That’s another bandwagon >>)

    […]any alternatives run the risk of requiring extra testing and feedback which might be detrimental to the development progress of new content for the game that is definitely in the works?

    And if the alternatives (and not by necessity mine) should be deemed the next content?

    I’m not trying to be rude. I’m really not, but I’ve danced around it enough. I’m reading that as: “I don’t like it, therefor you shouldn’t waste their time.” It implies you can or should control ‘their’ time.


    I don’t know why people take the alignment moral system so personally. It was like this with FO3. Ignore it. […]

    If that’s a question it depends on what your asking. I tied my suggestion in to good and evil to neatly hide the whole thing behind the scenes, and be done with it.

    If your asking on a personal level? I believe there is a real right and a real wrong.

    If your asking on a social level? I believe there is a interest in it because whatever the most diehards think or say against it, the reason they don’t ignore it as the difference between it being 6:15 in the morning and 6:16 in the morning is they do have a innate instinct of real good and real evil whispering to them. Worse, they can’t get the bloody whisper to leave them alone. We either agree with it, fight it, rationalize it, or dismiss it but not even the the psychotic can truly ignore it. 😉

    in reply to: Can't seem to ever get empire quests. #126506


    I’m not actually sure what cheerful does other then make a green theater mask. I can detail increases in production of cheerful cities with and without ‘Domain of Life’. I’m not actually sure what the smiley faces do other then function as watermarks for the city’s actual moral.

    Worth noting, ‘Domain of Life’ is just my cup of tea. Any combination that makes a city life the terrain types on each hex will work. I just really like high-elf for the example because they like dense vegetation. Dense vegetation has the side benefit of slowing down most land units.

    So high-elf like having natural walls surround their cities. What a shame that is … 😉

    in reply to: Pesky moral scales… #126495


    Fine, but the end product is going to be yours alone. Not something that other players would necessarily feel comfortable with.

    I don’t qualify as an “other player”?

    You do qualify as Harleyquin14. I apologies for my confusion then. One is speaking from the protective of “other players” which is beyond the scope of just Harleyquin14. The other does not.

    It explicitly or implicitly uses a bandwagon. I loath and despise bandwagons. 😛

    You have left unanswered questions. All I see is a semi-concrete scheme to completely remove the existing alignment system based on your personal disagreement with a game decision on specific abilities without any hard numbers, balance testing or specific timeframe for implementation and execution.

    No one specifically ask for specifics, and they were not implicitly required to share the concept. Do you want specifics? Even if I didn’t have them before, it will not take an hour after I see the answer to write them out. Implementation would also vary depending if I had to (and could) do it from a module vs. proper object oriented source code.

    It’s also two separate ideas if I detail them (, and probably should have.)

    The first idea is not using a ability I personally do have a problem with, and being offer a specifically designed alternate so a personally archetype would want to ignore and use the original only.

    The second, Is not a theoretically difference from the current system. It’s not even a functional difference. It simply moves where the game rates someone good or evil.

    in reply to: Racial Tier III / IV Units #126489


    I thought of a third issue. Though a observation and request instead of a objection. (Also a pet peeve of mine of even having a hard-core rule set in a game.)

    If that’s the way you wish to play? If only having racial building or a class building in a city you own is how you want to play, you can play that way. You couldn’t enforce that rule on others without their consent, but it’s actually a freedom we do currently have. Making it a global rule would curtail freedoms, and I do have a problem with that.

    I firmly believe if you want to play that way, you should be able to play that way. I also firmly believe that if the rule is implemented it should be as a option checked at the start of the game, and not a global rule.

    in reply to: Racial Tier III / IV Units #126486


    Second, problem. :\

    Class business buildings as they stand give empire and unit bonuses. If you can ever only pick one per city it behooves someone to focus unit production on one city, and take the class building for the empire bonuses everywhere else. Functionally simple because the need to pay more gold for higher end units then any one city produces in a single turn, and special class specific upgrade building on the map: It means a player is likely to be focusing unit production in a single city anyway.

    Functionally making someone choice between a race and class building would have a very small impact on the game as it stands. :\


    New units are still a nice idea though. 🙂

    in reply to: Racial Tier III / IV Units #126483


    I don’t disagree that races are a side note next to one’s class. I do disagree with one sentence by the OP: “This would help encourage specialization in cities and improve the empire-building mechanics.”

    @erathil How does that make the game more fun? It presents me with a downside, but no fun upside.

    There is one overriding strategic weakness, The throne city. Even outnumber 5:1 it’s not very hard to win if your willing to wait. I’ve won outnumbered in cities 5:1, holding my line, and keeping a ally on life support. Unlike AoW:SM you can only ever have one “throne city”. If your scouting targets to make a city’s loss painful (Taking out a racial building vs. a class building) it’s far more affective to scout out the throne city.

    No defense is proof against a determined attacker.

    in reply to: Can't seem to ever get empire quests. #126480


    I rare get centurion simply because the way I distract the AI. As far as I know the AI still has to vaguely follow the rules of spending money to make unit. If you get give it a target early enough, can out maneuver it so it never feels it has enough units? (Like say having fast attack stacks roam and pick the units it sends to a rally point in ones or twos?)

    It will funnel gold into make gold into making units and so far I believe ignore building city upgrades. Like say for growth or research.

    Terraform is also a very good spell to reach for first. So long as you’ve got the mana, it doesn’t cost casting skill to make your people happy. Happy people produce more and ever so offend will instantly build something or pump out large sums of gold, mana, or research.

    Highelfs (having +3 research per city) surrounded by forests, and covered my ‘Domain of Life’ and ‘Temperate Empire’ make for some very happy folks.

    in reply to: Old monsters you want to see in the next expansion #126476


    […]You do not want to write a lot of specific code to handle an extremely special kind of unit.

    A little off topic, and not very helpful; However…

    On the one hand I never code under a time constraint. I do it because I want not not because I’m paid to…

    …on the other if you have to write specific one use code blocks for special cases it typically means your doing object oriented programming wrong, thus tip off your doing something else wrong then your current problem. (I innately consider procedure oriented programming as wrong. :P)

    in reply to: Pesky moral scales… #126141


    (Ick, double post. Forgot to answer some questions.)

    […]Would it not be the case that the above are HIGHER PRIORITY and of MORE RELEVANCE to a great number of players than the alignment revolution you are proposing?[…]

    Unknown. Not being a member of the development team, I in no position to rate this or the other as any priority.

    Long story short: Where does it all end?

    Hopefully nowhere, because the game going on forever and always growing would be just awesome.

    Suit yourself. Put your cards on the table[…]Fine, but the end product is going to be yours alone. Not something that other players would necessarily feel comfortable with.

    Did I leave any cards off? Did I fail to answer any (other) questions?

    I can’t speak for other players enjoyment or dislike of my suggestion. They are by definition not me, and as I’m sure we both know quite able to speak for them selves. 🙂

    in reply to: Pesky moral scales… #126134


    There are two guiding phrases to keep in mind: It’s could be summed up in two phrases: “Stealing doesn’t make you a thief, it proves you are one.” and “No evil thinks it’s evil.”

    1. Based on your personal opinion, paid absolution is an “Act of Evil” and should be assigned an appropriate modifier to alignment.

    Mostly correct. That was the seed thought that grew. I believe paid absolution a act of evil, and don’t want to use it. I want to offer alternatives occupying the same slot. The rest is just semantics that have the same outcome though.

    Like I said about ‘Insect Swarm’ vs. ‘Milk and Honey’. It’s not one is innately evil and innately good, it’s proving traits, methods, or ideologues that would conflict. Each adding or removing a little more from a greater profile.

    2. What you’ve claimed as a “semi-arbitrary system of rules that has too many loopholes for me to annotate right now” is something you wish to do away with entirely to be replaced by something which is as yet indefinite, difficult to quantify and to top it off INVISIBLE to the player.

    This is more subtle. My suggestion tallies intangible things in a tangible way.

    I call the current system arbitrary because it defines right or wrong without actually considering the context. Something is just automatically evil or good, come fire, flood, plenty, or famine.

    My suggestion to a computer would have a numerical value. The theory is to line up one idea against another that have tangible conflict with one another. What the ideas are is irreverent to the fact that they conflict. It doesn’t care if both sides are saints or both sinners, or what makes them saints or sinners. It just cares that they’re ultimately conflicting and tallies the count of conflicts. (Honestly, I don’t believe good vs. evil isn’t more then a few degrees off that anyway.)

    3. Even if you have quantified definable game mechanics to make your questionnaire workable, this is very far removed from the current alignment system which the developers have spent time and effort settling on.

    Having to jury-rig input and output through a mod would make things complicated. Though not imposable. Practically? It’s just adds or removes very specialized specializations.

    Instead of getting good or evil points for actions the player was going to take anyway as a means to measure a leader’s character. Proving something about a leader’s core.

    This system just front loads everything. The choices or actions that prove something about a character are just all front loaded to only exist in the beginning of a game. Assuming whatever action a character may take, they’re taking it following their already proved character.


    The practical work for a dev would just be:

    1)They’d have to add alternate spells and abilities.

    2)Moving abilities innate to a class to specialization only available to a class. Then tie the existing or alternates into picking one or more of the specializations.

    3)Adding a large sum of evil or good points each class specialization for the sole use of triggering the existing AI to love or hate a player.

    4)Hiding the exist good vs. evil meter.

    The practical work for me if I had to do this from a mod?

    1)I’d have to add alternate spells and abilities.

    2)Moving abilities innate to a class to specialization only available to a class. Tying the existing or alternates into picking one of the specializations.

    3)I’d have to make a campaign were choosing to raze or not raze a city would added or removed something from the research tree or added or removed specializations.

    4)I’d probably make a large matrix for each know leader to decide if they’re fickle or stalwart and how they got along with each choice.


    If you’re looking for a game which approximates the relativistic nature of actual morality outside the virtual world, are you sure you’re going to find it here?

    Good lord (wo)man! I’d have a ball trying to dictate actual morality to this game and sorting the chaff from the wheat. This is just me being honest about my self and applying what I’ve learned about the human machine. Sense the game goes there anyway.

    What am I trying to accomplish? I had a train of thought that lead me to sidestepping a problem I already had, and adding new abilities to the game. I’m sharing and defending that idea.

    in reply to: Pesky moral scales… #125978


    I won’t be very happy if that variant ends up being something that players OTHER THAN YOURSELF (selfishly including me unsurprisingly) have to live with as an official development of the game via future patches.

    Hm. Question for clarification: What exactly are my proposed changes, and what about it do you not like?

    Because as far as I know it would make Good vs. Evil some background trait hidden to the player and do away with a obvious good or evil icon in the bottom left of the screen. As I understand it, and your case, Harleyquin14, I’m unsure why you object to it.

    In a nut shell, it puts the solution you think ideal to me in the hands of each and every player. It makes a player as good or evil as their they think their choices make them.

    Regardless of feeling I may have about a real right and a real wrong. I’m also at a loss of how this is selfish.

    This is the second time you have implied it, and the first you have outright insulted me. I’ve precised I’ve done you ,Harleyquin14, some wrong and did my best to apologies for it. If your going to call me selfish I am going to demand you explain to me how am I, and in a way that I can’t apply the same logic to yourself.

    I’m making a case. Anyone is fully entitled to disagree and ignore it.


    The comment about six threads existing, that I know of, wasn’t that it was 0.14% of the total threads. It was that it was of any interest at all to change or not change it is interesting to me. It means there’s something to it of interest to players beyond tier I units costing 4 gold per turn instead of 3 or 5 or that cavalry’s base movement is 36 vs a infantries base movement of 28.

    As far as I know no threads exist making a case for gold or mana maintenance or movement types. Yet, I’ve made two, and they’ve sparked enough interest to be apposed or praised instead of flatly ignored as it was just a argument over high-elf should have forestry and cave walking instead of just forestry.

    in reply to: Pesky moral scales… #125966


    […]You could argue all you like about the loopholes and inconsistencies inherent in this current alignment system that we all have to live with. If it bothers you so much, petition the developers to expand modding tools into the game mechanics which determine alignment and then create your own personal perfect world of morality. I’m quite satisfied with the current system and have no issues with other players reforming the game as they see fit PROVIDED IT DOESN’T IMPACT HOW THE REST OF US ENJOY THE GAME.

    First, my apologies if I have found a pet peeve of yours.

    Second, :\ Not actually all that helpful. No matter what change is made it’s going to anger someone. Someone is going to be able to complain “You changed the game so I can’t enjoy it anymore”. How can ‘the rest of us’ be defined?

    Third, I’m quite sure the current system was carefully choose. Outside the AI paying attention to it to decide if it likes you or not it has no real game impact. (Sort of a shame, but ,meh, I don’t disagree that much should stay the same.) Yet, I’ve made two threads, I’ve counted two others in recent history, and the index lists at least two more. Why’s it such a common topic if being ‘good’ is just a meer number to the player base?

    (I’ve avoided preaching as much as I’m able at least to this point. I do not think I’ve even made any absolute statement about morality in this thread. It’s distastefully relativistic to me. :P)

    Forth, Does the editor allow new abilities to be added? (AoW II:SM I had a hard coded limits on numbers and variables that could be changed.)

    Are there scripts?

    Data entry for swapping abilities would should be a trivial thing provide abilities can be removed. The hurtles would be I/O and triggering the removal or addition to abilities. A formula to figure out a relative position each choice led you on a line graph vs. the choices of others be time consuming to code and debug, but not overly difficult.


    Fifth, Where was this other thread about changing a leaders characteristics?

    in reply to: Pesky moral scales… #125953


    (Ok, even hint of a crusade starts a crusade. noted. 😉

    Not to pick on Harleyquin, but I think between us we prove the point.

    I don’t dislike catholic, but if you lock someone like me and a Orthodox Catholic in the same room without some common cause their is probably going to be metaphysical blood (not actual blood) from the coming fight. (Edit: Not that I can or do draw any such conclusion about Harleyquin.) I don’t believe they have any malice toward me, and I like to think I’d love them; However, that doesn’t mean we’d mix all that well once we got started on each others doctrine.

    A catholic and I essentially have the same stated cause: “To go into the world, find the lost, hurt, and wounded, and try to save them.” The general methods used to that end don’t get along very well. In a world were armies and world changing magic is the first tool of leaders? That would probably spark a unbreakable alliances or outright war with no end in sight.

    Which is the goal. The system is no longer about you being “good” because you just happen to kill a bunch of undead, even though your putting thousands to the sword daily just for kicks. Your good or evil because how you’ve proven your self as such in the eyes of other players based on how you use the tools you’re given.

    The fact it would end with us getting new toys is just free cake. 😉

    in reply to: Pesky moral scales… #125943


    The theory behind my suggestion was a little complicated (to me anyway). For example:

    Paid Absolution vs. Faith Healing. Picking one wasn’t (directly) about taking the moral high ground. It was about describing the personality of the leader taking the same devices and using it differently. Like something driving on the right side of the road in the US, and driving on the left in the UK (I believe). They’re both still driving and using mostly the same cars to do it, but use them differently. Mix and matching doesn’t make you new friends, it’s going to cause collisions. 😉

    For example: Someone picking paid absolution could denounce a faith healer as a fraud and trickster. Someone picking faith healing could denounce someone picking paid absolution as lacking faith and being driven purely by worldly needs and wants.

    The same could be said for pick someone picking ‘insect swarm’ over my idea of ‘milk and honey’. They both are driven by control over insects. One has the idea of using them offensively and wouldn’t agree to use their limited control any other way. The other applaud at the idea decimating the insect population that way, and would use their control to more effectively farm the land so their people could be on a milk and honey diet.

    It’s not that one has a ability the other doesn’t it’s the idea they’re personalities drive them to hate one use and love the other use. Then when presented with someone that uses the same abilities differently, their personalities get along that much less (AKA Good vs. Evil). It’s not a choose exactly, as it’s more proof about some flaw or trait -depending on your point of view- about the choice maker.

    in reply to: Pikemen problem #125827


    I think pikemen in theory.

    In practice though simple tactics or just plain overwhelming HP of higher end units make me shy away from them though. As I high-elf theocratic by the time field a few number of pike man to make a difference it’s easier to just put storm sisters out. They stun, don’t cost that much more, and as a theocrat heal. Storm sisters don’t have the health or armor of pikeman, but see also stunning, healing, and ranged attacks. The 80% lightning resistance is nice against some sorcerer abilities too. They also cost 20 less gold then the two pikeman a storm sister’s 8gold maintenance cost and can be put out in a single turn by a good city.

    (Resurgence from the DLC from an alter of bound souls is very nice too.)

    In summary, their nice, but by the time their useful it’s easier to put out a race or class teir II. Crusaders are just all around defensive goodness.

    in reply to: Tigrans and Necromancy #125812


    I thought I’d toss this out here, the old tigran race description:

    The newest race on the Blessed Continent, these savage hunters employ the powers of the great cats to stalk their foes. They are quick and secretive, enjoying a rich lifestyle. They spend much of their time in pursuit of spiritual mysteries. They have unlocked many, and are guided by mysterious beings with the power to bend the wills of men. Tigrans reflect the image of their creator, the fire god, Yaka. The most powerful followers of Yaka fuse with the element of flame and can conjure bolts of fire upon command.

    Their homes are great structures of sandstone, which blend into the desert sands. Most Tigrans appear as beasts, but their appearance is deceptive. They are expert as spies, and relish the enemy that underestimates their capability. They have a hunger to rule over other races, and when placed in positions of power they expect to be pampered and spoiled as any cat.

    If you ever read the description of some of the tigran heroes or units they were either a Theocrat’s dream or nightmare. A few of them were devoted to the wizard Yaka to the point of fanaticism. (The tigran priest hero comes to mind.) If you read the timeline, the old wizards suffer a not inconsequential power hit. Someone or something finding or being found by the tigran’s sounds about right. The hunter and mystic units had a small faith like component to them. Stalkers were somewhat hardcore. I don’t remember the firecat description, and don’t want to reinstall the game just to go lore diving.

    Though that’s wholesale speculation.

    in reply to: New AI – Flaws #125266


    I don’t know if it’s a new flaw, but there is a major flaw in how a AI divides it’s forces attacking a city. I picked up the habit of backing my ranged units up against the wall, and trying to surround them with melee units to prevent them from being killed by fliers or people climbing the wall.

    I’ve noticed the AI splits it’s troops up to the far side to climb the wall out of my range. The AI ends up bogging it’s troops down and attacking me in groups of one or two on each side. With forces it would have overrun me without a wall the AI hobbles it’s self by attacking me piecemeal.

    It’s ‘clever’ for trying to climb my walls where I’m not manning them, but in doing so it consistently makes major tactical blunders. I suggest it pick a single side and stick to it, or wait until all it’s forces are formed up over the wall.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 41 total)