Forum Replies Created
What I’d go for is a two part inflict ability on the physical channel (because incorporeal has always been a counter to school of enchantment and that shouldn’t change), with the first part being a high strength chance to inflict “dazzle” plus a minor movement and attack penalty on the target say -6mp, -1 strength to the first channel, -1 strength to all channels (these can be made a single physical effect group a la immolate with mod tools).
The second part would only have a chance to affect targets already Staggered/Stricken/Hexed/whatever we want to call the first effect (and perhaps also machines and/or summoned & magical beings – see below), having a weak – strength 5 or less – chance to stun them outright. This gives an interesting tradeoff between spreading debuffs around as much as possible and focus-firing in hopes of an actual stun, and lets single-shot archers like musketeers and crossbowmen act as a decent soft counter to enchanters – though the sorcerer may then need a new means of fighting very powerful single shot units like dragons, cannons et cetera – and removes storm sister antisynergy with sorcery (though elves have plenty of synergy with sorcery in everything other than supports).
As for the other annoying multistun attack, mass stasis, I’d remove it outright and replace it with some sort of mass buff for friendly units of magical origin.September 30, 2015 at 02:22 in reply to: About Experience Farming: How is experience gained exactly? #232645
I suspect zero exp from paralysed units would create huge problems for sorcerers in particular.September 29, 2015 at 21:11 in reply to: Question – has anyone found a way to give situational elemental protections? #232574
Not if you make the full spirit damage to a spirit immune target effect only trigger on a target with any of the following (as a note, you can make targeters select any target with any of the following abilities or requisites, rather than just must have all) machine, strong will, or spirit shield/spirit of the lands. That should take care of like 99% of spirit immune units that aren’t based on unusual item configurations.
That also creates the undesirable situation that partial spirit resistance is actually better than immunity. Perhaps I’ll be able to apply 20% spirit weakness for every copy of spirit resistance or “magic weakness” the target has, and 20% spirit protection per copy of spirit weakness or “magic protection, but if something doesn’t work there it’ll be the “per copy of” part. If I can do all that without modding units, and only add magic weakness/resistance to unit types like elementals I should retain a fair bit of compatibility.September 29, 2015 at 07:10 in reply to: Question – has anyone found a way to give situational elemental protections? #232347
Thank you. I’ll try that, and if it’s what works best it’s what I’ll use. I will do a bit more experimenting this weekend.September 29, 2015 at 05:50 in reply to: Question – has anyone found a way to give situational elemental protections? #232336
The idea isn’t just to have a spirit attack that affects spirit immune units, the idea is to brutally shoehorn a sixth damage channel into an infrastructure that doesn’t really support it, without any preexisting spirit weakness or resistance being taken into account. I can make an attack that does full spirit damage to a spirit immune target, but if I do so it does double damage to a regular target. If I can decouple the “magic resistance” of the struck unit entirely from its’ base spirit resistance I’ll have what I want.September 29, 2015 at 05:16 in reply to: Question – has anyone found a way to give situational elemental protections? #232334
Essentially, I want to be able to give a unit two seperate spirit resistance/weakness values, one used for normal attacks that goes away when the unit has the “magic attack target” property, and one that only comes up when it has that property, and, given the huge number of things that can effect how much spirit resistance a unit has, that would be substantially easier and create far fewer incompatibilities if I :
1)Could add prerequisites directly to spirit protection (namely, only being in effect if a unit doen’t have “magic attack target”).
2)Could go about creating a second protection on the spirit channel (that much alone is possible), only in effect when a unit has “magic attack target” to work as magic protection.
Than if I achieve something similar by mucking around with requisites and abilities, and then manually replacing every instance of vanilla spirit protection or weakness with the requisite version.September 29, 2015 at 03:04 in reply to: Question – has anyone found a way to give situational elemental protections? #232319
Having looked a little further, waht I’m after might be possible with a hidden property that is inflicted in advance of a attack landing and acts as a condition for a universal player property granting all units not possessing the hidden property 20% resistance to an element per copy of a requisite they posess, and another universal property giving 20% resistance per copy for a different requisite only when the hidden property was on a unit, allowing clumsy splitting of damage channels (provided the damage types never mix in one attack) if I did a lot of rewriting monsters with the old resistance and generally being a compatibility nightmare. I might find time to test it this weekend.
In a perfect world, we would be able to add required and forebidden properties, and attacker required/forbidden properties, directly to protections, but I suspect that ship has sailed and that the Dev’s aren’t about to lasso it by the mainmast, drag it back into dock and add another deck or six at this point.
I have two suggestions, onre regarding healing and theocrats/necromancers, the other being a hopefully useful death march compromise:
1) Divide healing into a once-per-battle healing ability, available to theocrats and druids (druids should definitely not have a bigger, healier heal than theocrats, and I’m not super thrilled they get regrowth either), and a “close wounds” or “bless wounds” ability available to theocrats and theo supports that provides a smaller, on cooldown heal, but can only target units below half health – negating the worst “use those webbed archons as an operating table” PBEM abuses, but still giving theocrats solid healing in tactical combat.
Something similar could be done for necromancers, but something like gaining extra HP above and beyond lifestealling for actual killing blows on living foes is more thematic, and can still only be used 6 times per site.
2) I like that regeneration works well with death march, but if death march temporarily removed on cooldown and one-per-fight abilities like phase, healing etc. it could only be used freely with stacks made solely of regenerators, as healers wouldn’t restore any HP in turns it was cast. Thus, we preserve synergy with extremely tough troops, but avoid an athematic synergy with anybody who knows a priest. We also create some interesting and unique drawbacks for certain troops who depend on cooldown powers in combat.
[Edited for spelling]September 23, 2015 at 23:05 in reply to: Should Orcs get something comparable to Memories of Joy? #231163
I’d give either reanimators or all orc priests, living and dead, a “hunger of the dead”/”devour foes” ability that heals undead, monsters, beasts and summoned creatures in their stack 2-3 hp, maintenance style, for winning battles.
Sorry to necro this topic.
Two things I’m curious about regarding heroes & mounts – 1) could a mount with no visible model that changed the “seated position” of a hero’s legs as it moved to mimic walking be made, and 2) could dismounting heroes be implemented via repurposed werepanther mechanics – Having looked briefly at the werepanther mechanics in editor I’m still not sure how to actually select a unit to be transformed into, to my great embarassment.
If you ask me, it would have made a good mechanic for shadowborn. Right now, their spells are evil because they just are. But a spell that consumes population to grant extra casting points is evil because people are getting killed in droves to facilitate a spell that’s very likely also going to kill (3 to 8) people, at the behest of an unelected monarch who thinks compound words are cool.
But my issue with scale is that 50-100 people is an established village in medieval european terms, and 5000 is a city, at least after the plague. Metropoli are actually more reasonable – London would qualify even post plague, despite being relatively small, Paris and Rome would qualify easily and Moscow might actually hit the population cap, but I’d personally prefer that each individual population member mean something in gameplay terms, especially as one soldier and for every 100-1000 men is demographically reasonable, as is one law enforcer (civic guard or nightwatch. not unit, figure) for a village of 300.
Bit of a tangent, but troop-to-poulation ratios are one of many things that would be more accurate if all population & popgrowth numbers were divided by 5 to 10, which would also allow troops to cost 1 pop per figure and have said cost mean something.
I believe Gloweye did something similar with his modified Catapults, in the Ballista mod.
Their attack checks against resistance I think and can therefore miss.
Do they use defence or resistance for miss chance, and if the latter, is it tied to an element, or is it physical protection + resistance?
I can make attacks that check inflict strength against physical protection + defence for a miss chance, or against any elemental protection plus resistance for a miss chance, but not physical + resistance or elemental + defence.
I’m aiming for (ranged) attack strength versus physical protection + resistance for damage done, with no miss chance, with additional spirit damage against incorporeal targets, and apart from the additional spirit damage it isn’t looking doable right now. Though the spirit damage versus incorporeal should be simple.
I could likely set an attack to ignore shields, armour and reinforcement, then increase the damage by ~2, but that’s not a perfect solution.
Can I ask if negative values for healing and brain rot are valid?
Also, is it at all possible to modify the strength of healing abilties based on the target’s resistance, the attackers ranged strength et cetera? I’ve been looking for ways to work around the lack of an officially desiganted magic channel, and my initial idea of writing physical attacks that hit resistance rather than defence seems impossible.
Also, a thousand thanks for the mod tools.
Regarding the discussion of sorcerers and resistance – vanilla sorcerers certainly don’t need it or want it, but it would “match theme” for magicians to be good at countering magic. Which they are to an extent – apprentices have good resistance for their tier and can both dispel and steal enemy spells, and sorcerers themselves aren’t exactly keeling over to vengeful frost either. And for summons, vulnerability to magic is actually appropriate – if they didn’t have it, they wouldn’t be shackled to the will of the summoner in the first place.
Orcish arena happiness doesn’t work well with all classes either, but I did try with the tigrans – though in retrospect a happiness buff like orcs get might be perfectly serviceable. Production seems a bit out of character given tigran technology to me – many of their troops fight with knives and underwear, even the draconians make sure every soldier without fire magic gets a real weapon and a skirt, hatchlings excepted.
Suggesting variants on Tigran/Human RG1:
Human: Builders halls and/or temples give +3-5 research: this works well with human production without adding even more production to the human economic tree, and the temples half is thematically nice – we have priests, guilds and knights, monastic schools would fit with all those.
Tigran: Guard halls can be built without requiring warhalls and give +5 mana (or possibly gold? maybe some pop growth to mimic the previous fast expansion idea?) – this helps sun guards a bit, helps tigran sorcerers a bit (which is good, given their internal redundancy issues) and also bolsters warlords just slightly. The idea is that the places where sun guards are trained are sacred and temple-esque.
Previous discussion on this topic did two things – remove true sight from phantasms, which was necessary, and raise the idea of true sight on the first medal for racial supports – not free, but still available on demand via laboratory.
I don’t think true sight on heroes should be more expensive – for theocrats, sorcerers and necromancers it’s too expensive, if anything, because they can have supports with it so easily and benefit so much from them, plus sorcerers get it on gold wyverns. There’s no real incentive to take true sight on most leaders that can have it, especially where it would make thematic sense, though the dreadnought is a possible exception.
Idea of an illusory army spell is neat, and might be a nice thing to add to nightwish if possible (all structures under spell have an illusory garrison of shadow stalkers, perhaps?)
Bear in mind that medals would slowly bring the physical component in line with the fire, and largely go to waste in the process. Once you’ve medalled up to 3/4, shields and projectile resistance are in full effect again. But even so, 3/3 might be better.
If there is one class that won’t be broken by a triple channel attack, it’s the sorcerer. Star blades is a triple channel attack, apprentices are triple channel attacks on legs, and cosmic spray has six channels. That being said, there is a risk of overspecialisation.
And I also object to wyverns on the premise that the sorcerer can summon every dragon lair wyvern and then the obsidian wyvern on top of that. It leaves the lair without a good niche before t4 dragons even if wyverns become amazing. Something more unique would be nice, to give more flavour to both the class and the dwelling.
I’ve previously proposed an enchanted gargoyle with high defence/resistance, awful physical attack, nonregeneration and wing beat, which would give sorcerers an obvious mid-game starblade user even if they lack good cavalry, give players more use for mend magic, and serve a uniquish role as a unit that can hold a line even against supports, while not being the sword-absorbing, damage dealing eventually tireless powerhouse that phantasms are.
I believe that there are fears that a high defence, high resistance sorcerer unit would be too good. And given that’s part of the problem with frostling sorcerers, Caution may be the best approach.
Against draconians, dwarves, hellhounds etc. the razorbow might wish to carry some normal arrows. Though your point about shields and projectile resistance is a legitimate concern – maybe if it was made a straight shot the tradeoff would be more noticeable and better? Alternately, it might be possible to tie razor projectiles solely to the arrows with actual metal heads rather than pitch, hay and charcloth. Either way, there are situational advantages to each shot type already, even if some are edge cases.
If we are seeking to buff the node serpent – not to imply there is a consensus – my first suggestion would be giving it all its’ MP at baseline to make freshly baked serpents more viable, and my second, given the sorcerer already has an astoundingly good shock melee troop and star blades besides, is to consider making the serpent venemous in the manner serpents sometimes are at expense of some of its’ electrical potential.
I think that one of the unit’s biggest flaws is that many cavalry units, especially flying cavalry, can just recieve star blades and do nearly the same job. For this reason, flying would be a nerf, as it would further erode the advantage of serpents over flyers.
What I’d like is a good, reliable t2 to replace Summon Disposable Wyvern.
what, like give them some kind of arcane arrows type secondary mode of fire? eh. any ideas for what that mode of fire would be?
what would it do? i’m not coming up with any terribly good ideas
Basically like arcane arrows, yes, something like 2 physical 4 fire flaming arrows – not a good attack, just a crude tar-soaked flaming arrow, but kills the undead without taking poison away from orc priests and acts as a self counter for orcs against shock troopers. Possibly too good against phantasms, but sorcerers are good orcslayers anyway.
Hello. Can you tell me at this point if it’s going to be at all possible to alter existing unit abilities/conditions, such as stunned, or add new ones? Or, and I suspect the answer is no but have to ask, will we be able to add new damage channels (such as “magic” in prior games)?
Hi. Haven’t checked these forums in a while, but seeing the discussion of orcs, and particularly of razorbows and orc-on-undead violence, I felt that I might suggest emulating battle for wesnoth, another game with terrible orc archers. But these terrible archers have a dual purpose – in addition to an unimpressive ranged attack with arrows, they have an even worse ranged attack with flaming arrows, because why did you think a fist-sized lump of tar and cloth would make a good arrowhead? But this low damage attack has some uses – it counters heavily armoured infantry and undead troops. And something similar might work quite well here, I think. Any thoughts?
Depends how you average things – they’re better sorcerers than pre-RG orcs (once orcs get production boosts, throw curse + inflict stun is pretty good, but even with those boosts humans crank out more supports), elves or tigrans on the backs of 1-turn apprentices, and redundancies with elves/tigrans, arguably have parity with if not superiority to goblins (goblins have weaken + stun and are also very spammy, so might be better except in the early game and sustainwise) and dwarves, but all of those are below the mean when factoring in draconian and especially frostling sorcerers.
Human theocrat is the absolute worst theocrat in theo/tigran, theo/dread, theo/druid and theo/theo fights, but outside of them competes on excessive healing. I don’t think it competes with orc, tigran or dwarven theocrats, and it doesn’t have a strong archer for mighty meek like goblins and draconians do, or frostling multichannel infantry for the same spell + templar knight boosts, but devastating charge + mark of the heretic is quite good. I’d still pick any other race first just in case my opponent has a good counter, or even a bad counter, to spirit damage all the time on racial and class units alike.
The Longswordsman is unique as having most of the tankiness of sheild infantry and all the attack power of great weapon infantry, though the dwarven axeman shares that niche to a degree with his extra defensive strike damage. Halberdiers are better pike breakers, but fare worse against bows and infantry. If you want to exaggerate that difference, projectile resistance seems like the right tiny buff.
I’d agree the human core troops are good now, so my suggestions there focused on utility over raw power. I don’t think that highly of a lot of their class units though, especially their overspecialised matyrs and exalted. And I’d say frostlings, elves and dwarves are more powerful as races, excepting in the dreadnought class – I’d like humans to not be the clear best dreadnought, but I do think that they should be good at dreadnought cavalry tactics – currently this is actually where they face the most competition. I will certainly say it shows how far balance has come since vanilla that units like civic guards and knights are entirely viable, and can even require counters.
Regarding Human Longswordsmen and Halberdiers: Halberds are excellent, being one of the only human units that get’s their signature trait at baseline (compare human cavalry, who get their signature strong will after their second gold medal, or blessed arrow archers). Overwhelm is the core of the unit, and cheap pike superiority does as much to make humans the cavalry race as knighting cavaliers does (@Ericridge is on record as angry that humans evolve IIRC, but knights really were promoted in the field sometimes).
Longswords should also keep overwhelm. Guard breaker at elite is good for them, offering synergy with dazing, nets, multichannel archers and devastating charge, but before that what they have is +1 defence. Something very minor, like inflict bleeding or projectile resistance on bronze, or armour piercing resistance (angled plate is going to outperform chain), might work, but +1 defence is already pretty good.
On Human Priests: Dispel helps with some sources of strong will, but giving the priest a weak throw stones attack when he has nothing else to do could help him. He’s already good, but stoning heretics would suit his theme. Against machines it’d be a largely symbolic gesture, but a priest-magician is supposed to make symbolic gestures.
On Archers: Armoured archers have terrible defence, excepting the projectile resistant, deals full damage when his foes do half longbowman. Getting a full +2 compared to nudist equivalents for being armoured would be good, and if any human unit should have coup-de-grace, it’s the archer. Not that his melee attack is worth much, it’s just a nice reflection of what historical archers did with maul and misericorde to downed foes. Alternately, but still stealing abilities from tigrans, I’d be interested in seeing these guys with bronze-medal athletics.
Regarding Cavalry: It would make sense for gold cavalry to get devastating charge rather than inflict bleeding wounds. It would be nice if pre-strongwill knights had some spirit resistance, though I’d not give more than 40%.
Racial governance stuff: Throw net is good, but could be a medal ability to much the same effect. Cheaper settlers are OP, and settling mechanics as a whole are loathsome to me.
Faster Cavalry Evolution doesn’t excite me compared to the actual stat bonuses most races unlock, I think RG3 could be put here, though I’d love some love for the halberdier. Harbour gold could be better if harbours worked differently – for this and other reasons I’d like builder-constructed harbours.
+2 Melee damage for mounted humans is good, but see above. Road & Fort building is neat and unique, but neither of these upgrades is much use to druids or sorcerers. Cheaper roads & forts + watchtowers in friendly domain produce +3 research (or mana?) would be cool, but could be OP.
RG4: Military requires building investment most upgrades don’t, doesn’t bring anything new to the table, but does prolong the lifespan of cheaper lower tier units with extra starting HP & damage. It’s a bit weak compared to the hilariously strong but also building dependent Economic fork. Switching some of the production upgrade for research would be cool thematically while avoiding one turn Juggernauts, but this comes so late a lot of important research (E.G. Produce juggernaut) has already been done.
RG5: The military side of this is nice for heroes, but doesn’t hold a candle to the likes of meteoric armour and reinvigorate. Adding extra HP or 20% spirit resistance would make it feel less like a placeholder and more “finished”. Produce merchandise buffing further incentivises city spamming and is not nearly as useful to summoners as to gold classes. The latter could be weakly patched by also boosting generate mana.
On class units:
Theocrat: The spirit blast of Human Martyrs is frankly a shame. It added extra spirit dependency to a class/race combo that in no way wanted it and doen’t assist the martyr in his primary role, and drops the cool stone the heretic feel from the unit. Something that made the martyr resemble historical flagellants could be cool. Inflict bleeding wounds + break control would be nice fot a niche, though an in game martyr is a shirtless peasant, not a mystic, and the best thing might be volunteer.
Evangelists are fine. Crusaders are a unit I’d like to see a polearm or overwhelm variant of (though no pikesquare for obvious balance reasons), and with orc crusaders already being tireless, the polearm-or-overwhelm niche is conveniently open A mace might be the best single-handed weapon for overwhelming attacks. Lastly, the crusader helmet was clearly designed for elves and suits nobody else, which is a pity when historic crusaders had very pretty helmets.
Human Exalted should turn in their extra spirit damage for their old physical damage back. I’d like them to have guard breaker or overwhelm and to use the flammenschwert-greatswords used by monster hunters.
Warlord: I’ve previously suggested silver swords for monster hunters. I’d like blessed arrows on mounted archers dropped for charge + armour piercing, emulating the historic, composite bow using cavalry of china, mongolia and turkey. I’d like all berserkers to gain mariner and human berserkers to swim on gold medal. The warbreed is a blight on the game and should be replaced with some sort of valkyrie or einherjar.
Sorcerer: Human apprentices could perhaps eat a cost increase for focused on gold, semi-emulating strong will on gold knights while fittiing their combat role, though this might require a change to their attack, as 4 channels is a bit much.
Dreadnought: Pike square muskets, charge on gold medal.
Rogue: Bestow Iron Heart on bards, perhaps? Humans have the best scoundrels, and the same shadow stalkers as everyone else, which is a reason to object to shadow stalker evolution. Perhaps bards could get throw net, so that scoundrels losing it at inconvenient times is less of a hindrance. I don’t play much rogue, and I feel like it’s showing.
Dead Guy: Human necromancers are already among the best, given their spirit attacks. Human reanimators with spirit blast as an alternate ranged attack wouldn’t obsolete priests, but they’d be able to hit hard after moving and would be interesting to use against despairing targets. Human reanimators already get extra spirit damage if I recall correctly, but this would be more visible and give strength through flexibility.
Regarding the supposed lack of conceptual justification for slower floating movement at sea, “where there are fewer obstacles” – obstacles are also called landmarks. They make navigation easier, and thus make travel faster, or at least less prone to going off course.
Regarding the effect of a slowdown to floating units on scouting – rogues and theocrats are supposed to have superior scouts. Rogues use them to enchant and snipe cities, theocrats have them because they’re built around a strong early game.
@draxynnic: I prefer overwhelm to guard breaker on prospectors – guard breaker only works if you are attacking an opponent who is ready for you – exactly the sort of opponent whose head you’ll struggle to stove in with a pickaxe which, while capable of splitting stone, is not a maneuverable weapon. Overwhelm incentivises flanking when possible, as shield almost cancels it out from the front and polearm usually goes hand-in-hand with first strike. And sneaking up to flank someone is going to circumvent the unresponsive and unwieldy nature of a mining pick rather nicely.
Also, with dwarves being, in previous games, the original berserkers, their total lack of overwhelm infantry in this one is unusual. Having miners as a lower tier berserkeresque troop with a sideline in siege warfare would fit fairly nicely with their lore tendency to take their shirts off in rage and throttle foes to death with their beards, no?