Harleyquin14

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 684 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: AI bonuses #138661

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    I have a question about phase actually. Is it an absolute range or do some units have different ones?

    The ability range is common to all units which have it, so hunter spiders phase at the same range as unicorn riders.

    in reply to: Spell Details #138618

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    Most of these aren’t visible from the Tome – those that are are already on the Wikia and as such not on the above list. Also, those values aren’t given from in-game – there have been values noted in patch notes, but that’s only for the changes made, and not even all of those.

    Even more reason to appeal to the developers to make the Tome of Wonders complete, not just to assist those working on the wikia but also to give players an easier time instead of having to refer to the patch notes every time they need to look something up.

    in reply to: Spell Details #138612

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    There was a thread a few weeks ago where the developers were encouraging users to send in requests on how to improve the tome of wonders. If you can find it, add your request as well and the developers might be able to assist.

    In the older versions, the numbers 9 and 11 seem to have common knowledge as the benchmarks for check values. I can’t remember where that information came from, but if it came from the game then something in the tome of wonders must have included it.

    in reply to: Spell Details #138606

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    Which spell? I’ve never seen a number like that, unless I have been exceptionally unobservant.

    There is a Shield with the Physical damage icon inside it which indicates that the check is against the Defense of the target instead of resistance, like Webbing touch or Entangling touch.

    That’s the one. Does the spell info in the Tome of Wonders give this information? If it doesn’t, it’s worth petitioning the developers to include it since it would make your job easier.

    in reply to: Mammoth rider: cavalry / hero or t-3? #138601

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    Dire Penguins obviously! ;)

    Well that’s a nerf for the frostling heroes since the base unit doesn’t have charge which is what all mounted units should have.

    Looks like a straight choice between frost warg and mammoth.

    in reply to: Spell Details #138596

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    Is it just me, or did I see a number included inside a shield for some of the spells in question? I thought those were the check values that the OP is asking for?

    in reply to: Corrupted Killers #138564

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    The main things I’d like to evolve slower are:

    1) Lesser Shadow Stalkers (This is already fixed with locking out the evolve until the right tech is researched though)<br>
    2) Lesser Elementals<br>
    3) Human Cavalry (maybe)

    The rest are fine. Now, Summon Lesser Elemental will probably be nerfed in the next patch (we’re making it more expensive to research and stopping it turning up as a starting skill), so maybe that will be enough to fix that? My main concern is that the spell has become a no-brainer in MP, since T3 elementals are so strong.

    That leaves the Human Cavalry, who are pretty controversial. Human’s are kind of sucky though, so maybe they can cope with some OP-ness here and there…

    Going by some of the comments elsewhere in other threads, it’s not the amount of XP that lesser elementals need to evolve but their inherent survivability. If they hang around long enough even with increased XP requirements for evolution they can still graduate to tier 3, it appears players in tactical combat don’t have a problem with keeping the elementals alive.

    Compared to goblins, humans don’t have that many interesting units or features to make them attractive to other races. That said, human cavalry going up a gear to knights isn’t exactly “overpowered” since cavalry aren’t terrible at what they do and the challenge of keeping them alive long enough to get the evolution balances out the reward of getting tier 3 units slightly earlier than a research-based path would provide.

    in reply to: Spell Details #138557

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    One of the older posts mentioned how many of the checks to defence/resistance were a standard number (9 or 11 I think). For every point of difference between the check and the target’s appropriate parameter, 5%(?) is added/subtracted from a basic 50% success chance.

    Since every spell in the game gives odds of success when hovering over units, it should be possible to infer what the check values are for many spells.

    in reply to: Mammoth rider: cavalry / hero or t-3? #138551

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    Anyone seen what the Frostling hero mounts look like (aside from the developers)?

    Just like halfling heroes ride ponies(?), maybe the frostling heroes will use mammoths rather than horses. Thematically it would be strange to see them riding horses since it’s hard to raise animals like that in the frozen wastes.

    in reply to: Corrupted Killers #138548

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    I agree that some evolution happens too fast, and we have 2 solutions which we can try:

    1) Make *all* units evolve on champion, instead of Gold. This will double the amount of XP needed to evolve a unit (XP to go from recruit to gold is the same as XP to go from gold to champion 1). Up side is that the units will level at the same speed as they do now. Down side is that it will affect all evolving units, since the alternative is to have 2 evolve abilities (Evolve At Gold and Evolve At Champion) which we don’t want to do.

    2) Give evolving units “Slow Learner”, so their XP gain is halved. Up side is we can give Slow Learner selectively. Down side is that those units will level more slowly, and thematically it would be weird for some units (We can justify slow learner on a lesser elemental, but not on human cavalry)

    Alternately, we can just leave it as is.

    Given a choice, I would opt for one. It would be hard on Draconian hatchlings in particular, but on the upside players who like having them around for their ranged abilities at the very beginning of the game will appreciate having them around for longer. It would also make sense to actually enjoy seeing a gold-medal hatchling/scoundrel/lesser elemental in action with their associated level-up benefits rather than seeing a fresh unit straight away.

    in reply to: Dev Journal: The Frostling Army Core #137961

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    That mammoth rider looks like it’s going to claim the crown for most powerful cavalry from the dwarf and orc offerings.

    Turtling against frostlings looks difficult with the raider’s edge at storming cities.

    I wonder if the frostlings are going to forego a pike unit if the harpoon thrower has an impromptu polearm in its arsenal…

    in reply to: Balance? #137505

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    Btw how much do the research speed modifiers in game setting amplify the amount? I tried slow (As dreadnought) and saw +12 turns to get engineers.. Was an instant stop playing. (I don’t even want to imagine what slowest means)

    Not a good comparison, but it’s 10-20 turns longer for the AI to get the All-knowing quest on slowest compared to normal research speeds and default starting number of spells and abilities.

    Ask Epaminandos, he knows plays slowest exclusively and can give you an exact timescale with the different AI settings.

    in reply to: Patch v1.4 Known Issues, Bugs & Problems #137369

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    aow3support@triumphstudios.com

    Attach the save-game files, describe the problem in more detail.

    in reply to: Age of Wonders 3 Versus Triple A Titles #136921

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    Heard of Notch? He played a huge part in getting this game to release. Once out, it’s the players who will determine if the game continues to be successful.

    in reply to: With PBEM Coming Balancing Classes is a Priority #136916

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    Play By E-Mail. Those who have played the last 3 iterations know this feature wasn’t in the release version of this game.

    in reply to: Watch and Ally fight! #136858

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    I’m not getting the connection between “We need manuals!” and “feature in the game since retail allowing players to focus on events and replay them if they happen to be battles.”

    I learnt about this feature simply from looking at events and either focusing on the event’s location or clicking on the replay button that’s always on the bottom right of the dialog screen for battles, both for my own and for AI players within my domain line of sight.

    The Tome of Wonders in the game should have an entry relating to the events list, it might be worth looking at that just to see if the “feature” you’re talking about was mentioned in the first place with players not aware with it only having themselves to blame for not looking it up.

    in reply to: Watch and Ally fight! #136846

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    It’s not limited to allies, you can basically watch any battle that is flagged up in the events list. I’ve seen rival AIs beat themselves up within my domain line of sight, details for which I can observe for a limited time.

    in reply to: Favorite General not of the class you play #136775

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    No preference, having a hero as squad commander is better than none at all.

    If it’s a class that has heal, get it early to keep squads alive and active longer.
    If it’s good at taking hits, bulk up on the defence and resistance early and often.
    If there are army command benefits like the sorceror, get the nice ones early to help the squad.

    in reply to: Hero Upgrades #136669

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    Doesn’t the item forge give terrain stealth properties to certain items? It’s then a trade-off between equipping the stealth items or using something else in their stead. Either way the stealth request for rogues is still doable without incorporating it in the hero upgrade catalogue.

    I don’t agree with the Theocrat getting flying, since their tier 3 unit is a flyer and tier 4 is a floater but not the lower-tier units who do form theocrat combined-arms stacks. They’re not fast in terms of mp points, but that balances out with the need for land-bound support units and/or crusaders.

    Same deal for the druid regarding invisibility: if you can build a item forge, that’s where your solution comes in.

    As for dreadnoughts, road-building is something that is done early for all classes. Why should the dreadnought get an ability that is ultimately going to prove useless when it’s just to act as a convenience for players who can’t be bothered with extra micromanagement?

    in reply to: Return area guards [Suggestion] #136536

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    It does, since it’s so easy to assume new engine = everything from previous iterations ported over on demand. But going back to the point:

    Depending on the map size and map settings, it sounds like UltraDD’s wish can be easily fulfilled provided the RMG can handle the necessary conditions.

    I suppose when it is implemented, it should slow down the game even more for those who like 200+ turn skirmishes.

    in reply to: Dev Journal: The Frostlings are Coming! #136534

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    It looks like the Frost Queen is tier 3 since the witch looks like level 2 support. They didn’t have something resembling pikemen in the last iteration so I wonder what’s the concept for that unit category.

    in reply to: Return area guards [Suggestion] #136509

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    If AOW:SM managed to keep a minimum distance why wouldn’t this be able to do so?

    I don’t know, what does the editor have to say on my question?

    If the editor can’t answer it, then asking the developers directly is the only other option.

    This game runs on a completely different engine from Shadow Magic, so asking why something like taunt isn’t possible on this engine is only answerable from the developers.

    in reply to: Return area guards [Suggestion] #136503

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    That is very biased toward a specific (extreme) game setting. Isn’t the game by default balanced around village\outpost starts and definitely without indepdendents set to very strong.

    Btw this doesn’t propose plaguing the entire map with area guards :Z. Each player usually had a decent space around their start city with no area guards. (Was enough to build 3 cities when the game prevented any 2 cities being closer than 10 hexes. thats 30 free hexes minimum. (And not all areas in the map have guards, this gives good scouting an advantage since you knew the safer paths)

    Adding another caveat: Is it possible to ensure a minimum distance between area guard spawn and player starting location? If it is, then my concern over a particular situation in a particular game setting no longer applies.

    in reply to: Return area guards [Suggestion] #136487

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    I don’t know what the spawn algorithm is, but on a settler start on tough independent settings, getting a location right next to an area guard’s movement range definitely slows the player down especially if everyone else didn’t get the same spawn.

    With independent spawns, there’s normally a bit of room and turn leeway before the settlement is under attack from opportunists.

    in reply to: Return area guards [Suggestion] #136368

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    How about more boneyards and independent dwellings of a similar strength right at the start? Also, increasing the spawn rate of independent raiders might mitigate the problems you listed in the first post.

    Depending on luck, the area guard concept might make the start more unfair for some players compared to others.

    in reply to: Return area guards [Suggestion] #136361

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    Am I misunderstanding the above concept? Don’t many of the spawned independents from bandit lairs and boneyards have an AI pattern that resembles area guards?

    If it is the case, tweaking the setting that allows for more spawned hostile independent roaming stacks at the start should help, won’t it?

    in reply to: OK, I'm done. #136359

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Harleyquin14 wrote:</div>
    Here’s the thing: He didn’t need to cast all those spells. If he cast Chaos Rift at the beginning, and brings less units, he can still win

    If you don’t retreat wisely….

    How did that quote end up being attributed to me?!

    At that stage of the game, unless the sorceror AI was down to the final settlement no larger than an outpost it’s inconceivable that a developer empire wouldn’t have palaces in the most developed settlements. Normally the leader’s personal CP can be identified on the campaign map, but that’s not really reliable if it’s a large settled empire in question.

    in reply to: OK, I'm done. #136308

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    I must also be missing the point as well.

    I thought the whole point of playing a sorceror was to play the class which could make magic go much further in terms of cost-efficiency, after all the whole class concept is based on summoning troops and using lots of offensive spells as the main tool for beating the other classes.

    Considering it takes time to summon up a big army based on mana and that said army relies on the same pool of casting points as regular spells, it’s not inconceivable that the sorceror who throws away a summoned army in an unsuccessful attack is fatally undermined unless the game is so late that the gold element is also on an equal footing with other classes and settlement-based production can cover for the losses.

    in reply to: OK, I'm done. #136300

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    He cast 3 fireball (30), 2 cosmic spray (30), static electricity (50), mass curse (25) and , finally, chaos rift(50). With all research and age of magic casted, he have 140 CP and halved all spell costs. It’s like he have 280 mana. So 30+30+50+25+50=185 < 280. That is even without a single palace.<br>
    The only thing i deplore fighting sorcerer is the disapereance of power leak.

    I’m not following the calculations.

    Channeller + Spell Casting VII = 95 CP without a palace.
    Age of magic halves all CP casting costs.
    If the above costs are accurate and represent the original costs without Age of Magic, that makes 15+15+25+12+25=87 which is well below the 95 threshold even without a palace.

    in reply to: Empire Quest suggestions #136046

    Harleyquin14
    Member

    Warlords could actually mass any troop type (other than support), and Dreadnoughts could also do machines, cavalry, or archers, and Archdruids could do ranged or support. Theocrats would either do support or infantry or cavalry. Sorcerers could mass any type of racial unit as a supplement, depending on their race class/need (infantry for the draconians, or cavalry for elves).

    Rouges would usually do irregular, true. You could also have elemental as a type, so there could be a division between assassin path and the stalkers.

    Elemental is probably a bad idea, since all classes have access to wild magic adept and its (arguably overpowered?) summon lesser elemental. Even if players are using the Rogue class, there is almost no guarantee of getting “Elemental swarmer” or the like because it’s so much easier to mass the tier 2 elementals before anyone else can get the tier 3 summons out in numbers great enough to fulfil the quest condition.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 684 total)