Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 162 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: Can't build Stables of Unlife #243562

    Hey, I solved the problem.

    Had nothing to do with mods. Wasn’t a bug. Was a quirk. I’m not quite sure how it happened. But the short of it?

    The Corrupted Spring was, somehow, still “unexplored.” On exploring it, I found a Frostling reanimator. (Never knew, but apparently there’s a separate reward list for corrupted springs)

    I must have cleared the defenders with a unit that got killed in the fight, somehow, and never remembered to walk a unit on to the spring. The only slightly weird part is that you can cast Corrupt the Source on an unexplored Spring of Life.

    But, problem solved! Stables built. Let all fear the power of my Ice Queens!

    There’s not?

    The alignment source says “Inherent.”

    It applies to all angels, too. And it makes sense to me that summoned Fallen Angels are dedicated to Evil, etc. I mean, the only way to get access to them is by taking the specialisation that makes all your guys dedicated to evil. So the usual reason to strip “dedicated to” from summoned creatures doesn’t apply. Quite the contrary, in fact. You want your angels to keep their dedication.

    Really doesn’t look like a bug to me. Undocumented feature? It makes too much sense to be a mistake.

    in reply to: Can't build Stables of Unlife #243305
    Tibbles' Triumphant Heroes and Racial Class units Redesign mods.
    Clouds begone and Houses-b-gone (purely graphical map tweaks)
    Summon Spell Tweaks and Expanded Beast Horde (Spell tweaks)
    More Colors for Coat of arms (does what it says on the tin)
    Army of Animated Corpses (Graphics change for Cadavers)

    None of those have anything to do with mystic city upgrades.

    And again, I CAN build the Stables of Unlife in all other cities… it’s very strange.

    in reply to: Can't build Stables of Unlife #243293


    in reply to: Can't build Stables of Unlife #243225

    I certainly didn’t build any Stables of Vigor (Can’t, undead) and I don’t think the city did when it was a vassal. (Do vassals even build buildings?) No stables of Vigor appear in the finished buildings queue.

    I’m thoroughly baffled.

    in reply to: Discussion: The Future of 4X #241772

    I think the author makes a number of points that are true on a thematic level of social commentary, largely but not entirely irrelevant on the level of gameplay, and utterly unrelated to Age of Wonders, which isn’t the kind of game he’s talking about at all.

    To make an analogy: I could complain that Warcraft III has nothing interesting to say about the horrors of war and the way it shapes the societies that fight it. I’d be technically right. I would also be missing the point by several orders of magnitude.

    Fundamentally, 4X games are stagnating because they are ultimately games about progress that nevertheless have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject. Their version of progress is almost universally boring.

    Look, this guy isn’t wrong when he says that Civilization’s view of technological and societal progress is superficial. Doesn’t mean they’re not fun games. Hell, the examples of “good” 4X games he mentioned are Civ2 and Civ4. The genre is stagnating because other games try to copy Civ’s trappings without adding any new ideas. Like JJ said: it’s because these games aren’t justified, they don’t add anything new to the table. It’s not because the games espouse a weird kind of Whig history. (Which Civ does.)

    The author of that article praises Victoria 2 for its ambitions. Now, I love that game because it tries to actually model societal change and the effects of industrialisation and nationalism. I’ve had a great time playing it. Or… well, playing around with its systems. Because as a game it’s a giant mess of barely coherent systems. It isn’t a very good game. Moreover, it’d be fairly terrible if all games tried to do stuff like Victoria 2 does. It’d get old even faster than Civ’s formula.

    The author of that article praises Alpha Centauri for having good writing and lots of atmosphere in everything it does. Well, sure. That makes games better. But that goes for anything, from a first person shooter to a text adventure.

    Now to relate all this to Age of Wonders 3. What AoW does is pick a narrow focus (turn-based tactical combat with a secondary strategic layer) and executes this extremely well. The tactical combat system holds up and informs every other system in the game. Because the battles are fun, people keep playing. Because the battles are important, decisions made on the strategic map that impact those battles are meaningful.

    AoW isn’t about progress. It doesn’t have anything to say about history or society. It isn’t about technological advancement or growth.
    It’s about waging war. It’s about choosing different strategies, to achieve the same goals.
    It’s about exploration. It’s about giving the player a world that has things to discover (and exploit) around every corner, about danger always lurking in the fog of war.
    It’s about giving the player an endless variety of tools to use in uncountable combinations. (Classes, races, spells, dwellings, artifacts, heroes, shrines, events, and so on, and so forth.)

    Story- and setting-wise it’s pretty standard. Is it a “dull fantasy world?” Eh… kinda. I certainly don’t play the game for its setting or story. I wouldn’t judge it nearly as harshly, of course. AoW’s world has charm and humour, the art-direction is very good, the DLC stories are well done, and the sheer variety of concepts and locations it throws at you does a pretty good job of evoking the eponymous wonder. But compared to something like Alpha Centauri, Endless Legend, or Sunless Sea, the setting is not a strong point.

    But would I enjoy Age of Wonders more if it were set in some quirky or deep or entirely original setting? Or would it just end up distracting me? I honestly don’t know. All I can say for certain is that I like the “ordinary” fantasy world just fine, and if I don’t get any insight in the nature of progress when my Orc Theocrat burns his way across the landscape with his army of evil cherubim… well, I wasn’t looking for any.

    I’d say that not all tier 1 and 2 units are created equal.

    Class units typically remain useful throughout the game, no matter what tier they are. Even in the late game I’ll be building plenty of tier 1 hunters and engineers, tier 2 musketeers and golems, crusaders and mounted archers, and so on, and so forth.

    Certain kinds of racial units eventually become little more than fodder. There’s really no reason to build a Goblin Marauder or human Civic Guards (without the net upgrade) when you can build better units. Same goes for units like some racial tier 2 cavalry. They don’t have much to recommend them. But that is true even in the early game: it’s just that early on you likely won’t be able to build better units yet.

    It’s like Jolly Joker says. Abilities and specific stats/resistances count more than unit tier. Some units will always be useful, some are just there until something better comes along.

    All this, though, is much more important nowadays than when the game was first released. A number of features have been added that end up benefiting low-tier units even more than higher tier ones:

    – Mystic City upgrades let you improve certain types of troops in the cities that build them. So, you might be able to build Pikemen that deal spirit damage, or Support units that get resurgence. This will help low tier units a lot.

    – Racial Governance offers specific bonuses for specific racial units if you have a lot of (happy) cities of that race for a long time. So that utterly useless human Civic Guard might learn the Throw Net ability, and suddenly you have a useful cannon-fodder crowd-control unit.

    – The Alignment-based specialisations each add a spell that will boost units produced in the city it’s cast on. So a Shadowborn adept can give all his units lifestealing, and a master can give them extra shock damage and resistance. This helps both low- and high-tier units, but the bonus is proportionally bigger for the low-tiers.

    Result: there’s a huge difference between an upgraded, optimised low-tier unit and a basic one. Just yesterday I had my tier 2 Iron Golem beat up a tier 4 Chtonic Guardian while hardly taking any damage. But the golem had medals and upgrades that gave it, in total, an additional 7 defence over a basic one. Hard to argue with that kind of advantage.

    in reply to: True Resurrect Bugged? #241755

    This normally happens when you true resurrect a summoned unit (the original summoner dismisses it) but not when you true resurrect a neutral phoenix in, say, a ziggurat.

    Perhaps the phoenix from the event counts as summoned, somehow? Did it have the “summoned” property?

    in reply to: Convert bug? capped 24 movement for heroes #241754

    Specifically, this appears to be the case for the special Global Event heroes.

    I just hit Nicholas the Divine (from the “Theocrat roams the world” event) with True Resurrect, and he has 24 movement. (And promptly got himself garrison duty on a seal. Slowpoke.)

    Normally, players can’t get these heroes, so you only see this when you convert or resurrect them. But it’s not a bug with convert, it’s just the way these heroes were designed. Maybe working as intended, (To make those roaming armies slower) or maybe a very minor bug.

    in reply to: Allow players to control 2 sides – re-assign sides #240376

    I’m definitely not being snarky, and I apologise if I came across as such. I expect I just didn’t really understand what you’re asking.

    So to clarify: you want a PBEM game both people over the internet AND someone using the same computer in your house? Someone who doesn’t have a separate Triumph account?

    Yeah, I can see how that’d be useful with the player dropping issue. Or a more general option to assign a different player halfway through a match.

    in reply to: Allow players to control 2 sides – re-assign sides #240370

    It would be great if players could control two sides. i.e. Husband and wife share a single computer, etc.

    You can already do that. It’s called hotseat. Simply assign multiple players as human when setting up a scenario.

    For online multiplayer it’s more difficult. The devs will have to say whether or not that’s possible, though I doubt it would be without extensive work.

    I’d actually go further and say that the deathbringer animate tactic isn’t even that big of a deal, because of economics.

    One and later two heroes ghouling stuff pretty much stretched my economy to the breaking point even while selling 80% of treasure site rewards and limited building and unit production in my cities.

    With a deathbringer you can snowball faster, but the necromancer economy is so weak you won’t be able to pay for it all, especially if you’re bee-lining for the really good high tier neutral units you run across.

    Hmm… makes me think. You know what would actually almost completely eliminate this problem?

    If convert, ghoul and reanimate only worked against other players, and not against neutral enemies.

    Then they’d give you an edge if there’s an actual war on, but it would be in accordance with their point cost and the time/effort required to use them.

    What makes these abilities so dangerous is that fighting neutrals means you get in dozens and dozens of manageable, small, short fights where you can use the converting abilities time and time again. It’s much more difficult to exploit these skills in one big battle against the AI or another player than it is in a half dozen small skirmishes.

    Not really a workable solution, I know. And conceptually it makes no sense to treat neutrals differently from player-owned troops. But I do think this would remove the issue almost completely.

    If something is imbalanced in PBEM, it’s imbalanced in SP as well; if I’m able to pull something in PBEM I can also pull it in SP, and once I CAN pull it off, it somehow destroys things because you know it’s there, waiting to be pulled of.

    This is pretty true; certainly as far as the necromancer goes.

    Last single player Necro game I played against emperor AI was a total walk in the park. By the time I declared war on the first AI player around turn 30, they folded after a single battle where I killed a stack and a half of fodder. My ghouled army just completely outclassed the AI at that point, being full of tier 4 Fallen Angels, Eldritch Horrors and King Serpents nabbed from treasure sites.

    And in that game I’d never even found a deathbringer to animate. The tombs just had wraiths in them. It was all my necromancer heroes with ghoul curse. Who I didn’t even power-level, because that playstyle bores me.

    (I did, of course, maximise my chances of ghouling enemies, due to Skin of Oil, Stiffen Limbs, Despair, Weaken & Curse. 100% ghoul chance against tier 4 isn’t an exception.)

    The only reason I stopped ghouling everything is that I wanted to see how well my buffed Ghoul Butchers backed up by buffed Reanimators would do. (Answer: Incredibly, incredibly well. Even on auto-combat they’d beat almost certain defeat scenarios whilst hardly suffering any casualties. Awesome units.)

    Now, the AI is pretty weak in the early game regardless of settings, but if I play a warlord or dreadnought it’s pretty hard to rush the AI anyway since I’ll be working with whatever I nabbed from dungeons. Even if I research good units, it will take time and effort to get them to the front lines.

    Ghouling, and to a lesser extent converting, just turns your leader into an avalanche that saps the fun from even the single player game once you figure out how to use it.

    in reply to: Suggestion: Conversion limit #239838

    I’m going to be devil’s advocate for a minute and say that surely a simple solution presents itself in the simple banning of all heroes?

    The obvious answer is that *may* be quite unfun for people.

    I know you’re not being serious, but I’ll still say this is a false equivalence.

    I’d say it’s abotu the difference between strategy and tactics. Your strategic choice should be influenced by your class and race and specialisation choices. It’s fine if heroes influence your tactical choices.

    Heroes give you stuff like: if you have a Theocrat, you’ll be able to put resurgence on your units. If you have a Sorcerer, you can throw around Thunderstorm. If you have a Warlord, you can get a ton of unit buffs. All fun, and all tactics.

    Strategic choices are stuff like: if you have a Necromancer, you can raise the enemy dead and make them work for you, if you have a Dreadnought you can produce tons of powerful long-ranged artillery and win sieges easily, if you have a Sorcerer you’ll be able to cast many, many overland map and summoning spells.

    The issue is that the Convert style abilities let you change your strategy simply by recruiting a hero of your class. Play a warlord but don’t build any units because you’re converting them with your heroes? That doesn’t make sense.

    If you get a Dreadnought Hero, you can summon the occasional siege-engine in tactical battles. But you cannot create an army of them. So having a dreadnought hero gives a neat twist on your usual style of play, but ultimately you’ll still be relying on your class/race stuff 95% of the time. As long as this happens, I think heroes in this game hit a real sweet spot. It’s lots of fun to get different kinds, but not game-breaking.

    If you get a Necromancer Hero, you *can* raise an army of undead ghouls. If you get a Theocrat Hero, you *can* convert unit after unit, getting access to high-tier creatures way before anyone else.

    These heroes are playstyle changing, in ways that dreadnought, warlord, sorcerer or (mostly) Archdruid heroes are not. And that’s a bad thing.

    If I understand your writing correctly, a Necromancer/Theocrat leader on his own would have an advantage, but not an overwhelming one. Or would a Necro leader on his own still present problems?

    Even for leaders, these abilities are bad in that you get them so early the balance is skewed. The first time I was able to ghoul 2 King Reed Serpents with my leader the very turn I got the ability, and an Eldritch Horror 2 turns later, it was fun, but I pretty soon realised it took all the challenge out of the game. Same for theocrat: getting a Fire Giant a few turn into the game is too much.

    So I like Jolly Joker’s suggestion of making these abilities class-research based.

    A Theocrat Hero would *still* give you resurgence all around, *still* give you access to Theocrat spells in combat, and so on, and so forth. He just wouldn’t let you bypass the need to build an army in the early game.

    in reply to: Suggestion: Conversion limit #239825

    Necromancers also get Control Undead, and Aura of Undeath or whatever it’s called. So even if Greater Reanimate were changed not to work on hostiles, they would have plenty of ways to take control of enemy undead.

    (And it’s not like Greater Reanimate wouldn’t be good even if it only worked on friendlies. Bring back your champion-tier dead tier 3-4 units? Hell yes.)

    I think a big problem with converting-style abilities, in general, is how quickly you can get them going, and how it feels like there’s no point in building units or researching technologies because of that. “Ooh, I just learned how to build a Crusader. With this, I can… well, actually, last turn I converted a Chthonic Guardian, a Troll and two Knights. So who cares about a crusader.”

    I think the jolly joker has a point that it’s mainly the hero abilities that cause this problem. They’re the ones who get them early on, and just need to gain levels to start snowballing. If I think back to my last Theocrat game, I won entirely on converted units, but I only build 2 Evangelists who saw like 3 battles because by that time I’d already marched my army of converted Chthonic Guardians and Fire Giants and whatnot to the enemy gates. And that was on a large map against a bunch of AI opponents. (5, I think.)

    Actually, on reflection, I’m not sure that heroes should get these kinds of abilities at all. Units like Evangelists or Succubuses would be far more exciting and important to build if they were your only way of accessing these abilities.

    On the other hand, I don’t know how I’d win some of the final campaign scenarios without charming/converting a few stacks of powerful neutrals with my heroes… though that probably just means the campaign isn’t very well balanced.

    in reply to: Suggestion: Conversion limit #239809

    One might even consider making ‘converted’ a unit property, which can be dispelled (perhaps by a dedicated spell, like ‘remembrance’ or ‘mental reset’) in ANY battle, perhaps consequently making the now released unit neutral/berserk.

    I like this idea a lot better than an artificial, micro-intensive “limit.”

    Or… going further what if that attribute would vanish if these converted units start the turn outside the stack of the unit that converted them? Or, more practically, outside the stack of any unit with a convert ability?

    So seduced units get the “seduced” attribute that gets re-applied at the start of each turn as long as they are in a stack with a unit that can seduce. If there’s no such unit in the stack, the unit becomes independent and hostile.

    Ghoul Cursed units could, instead, all get the same decaying hitpoint attribute that Cadavers have.

    All this would make it a lot harder to gather up a huge army of converted/ghouled units, without imposing artificial limits. You could still gather up all kinds of neutral/enemy units, but you’d have to work a lot harder to keep them.

    A Theocrat or Rogue player could still keep a lot of converted units around by building enough Evangelists or Succubuses and putting one in each stack, but these stacks could be countered by a human (kill the converting units!)

    A lone hero, be it a necromancer or a theocrat, would no longer be able to gather stack after stack of converted/ghouled neutrals. (The ghouls would die, the living would rebel.)

    Plus, this way it would “feel” more like these guys are being mind-controlled to me. Yes, they switched sides. But you can never trust a traitor, even if he joined you.

    in reply to: Lizardmen brainstorm #239215

    Very neat idea!

    Would water-cities have walls? I’d say that perhaps they should not be allowed walls, to compensate for the fact that they’re harder to attack and most enemies will have penalties from being embarked. Plus you could then re-use the sunken city combat map, if need be.

    As for racial units:

    Some kind of poison-spitting worm/larva unit as an irregular? The poisonous worm was a AoW1 lizard unit. Maybe evolving like the draconian hatchling? Lizards and dragons are related, after all.

    Some kind of (fishing)net-throwing spearman as tier 1 pikeman? No shield to compensate for the sheer utility of net-throwing. You could base the look a bit on the Roman Retiarius, trident-and-net combo. And it should make for an interesting twist on the usual theme.

    A harpoon-thrower as archer? Like the frostling harpoon, sans frost-damage of course. Maybe blight damage instead, as a poisonous harpoon?

    Perhaps a more animalistic crocodile-type unit as as swordsman? Or an unarmed lizardman, fighting with claws? Would inflict bleeding damage.

    Frog Knight is a shoe in. I’m not sure about the priest unit. Perhaps give it a spawn larva ability, letting it summon an irregular next to it for the duration of the battle? Not sure if that’d be balanced, but it’d be original.

    For the tier 3 unit, either a poisonous concealed lurker or a fire-based (non-swimming?) Salamander might be neat. The Lurker would make for a more consistent theme, the Salamander would provide a new damage type and make the race more unique by offering a twist.

    For a racial trait you could give the lizards +1 defence because of scaly skin, but no armoured units and perhaps some other stat penalty. Not sure which stat would fit.

    Something like the independent spawns called “Avengers” in AoW2 (plus more obviously). So that when you raised a structure, your army was mercilessly hunted by a group of units related to the structure that was raised?

    I was disappointed that they actually scrapped that mechanic in AoW3.

    Yeah, like that, only with a chance of more spawning for say, five turns after conquest. Like the neutral armies that attack unity beacons, only far less strong.

    I was likewise disappointed with the avengers being gone.

    Eh. I like Civ. It’s a fine game, though 4 is more interesting than 5 in some ways. And even in the most uncharitable perception it is leagues ahead of time-waster games like candy crush.

    Combat doesn’t hold a candle to AoW, (any incarnation, but especially 3) of course, but as an empire building game with a sense of development over time it’s actually better. Which, well, makes sense since AoW doesn’t try to do that, but it’s one of the reasons why it’s popular.

    In Civ 4 or 5, you feel like you’re commanding a nation through the vagaries of history, rising from humble beginnings to lofty heights, crushing your enemies or coming to surpass them technologically or culturally until you’re the ruler of the world.

    In AoW3, you’re a great leader of a fantasy army, a wizard or general or inventor, and wage war against your rivals. It’s about winning campaigns, about that time you pulled that brilliant exploit and won that siege battle against the odds, rather than about empires and building wonders and whatnot.

    Both are fun, but there’ll always be people who like the first and don’t care for the more military focus of the second. Tastes differ and whatnot.

    Honestly, big part of the reason why so many more people play Civ5 is that popularity is its own marketing. People play it because their friends play it. That doesn’t make them stupid, that doesn’t make them slaves to marketing. Nor does it make Civ5 a bad game, even if I feel AoW is better at being a wargame than Civ5 is at being an empire-building game.

    Anyway, that reminds me of something. When AoW3 came out, there was quite a bit of criticism levelled at it for not being very good at the empire-building part. Now, I’d say that it’s pretty good at the parts it tries to do and people just expected it to be more like CiV 5 because it’s on hexes that vaguely look like Civ5 hexes. Though I’d also say that before mystical city upgrades existed city building was a bit thin. Now it’s pretty exiting to find just the right place to put a new city that’ll specialise in some specific kind of unit production. Still, the question is still worth considering.

    Should future AoW games add more depth to the empire management? More diplomacy, as Charlatan mentioned? More resources, like strategic resources needed to build high-tier units? An expanded racial relations and happiness system, where you really need to work to get varied races to contribute to your empire, and even wars of extermination have consequences?

    For example, migrating a city could result in neutral rebels of that race having a chance of spawning in the vicinity of the city for a time, who would raid resource structures or even attack the city, requiring you to garrison your conquests if you’re evil, whilst trying to absorb them might cost money over time as you reorganise the administration and bribe people to work for you now.

    Tweaks are nice, but an AoW4 will require some truly new and innovative mechanics.

    Just think: AoW2 introduced wizard towers and domains, which completely transformed the game. AoW3 introduced classes, which had an even bigger impact. Even Shadow Magic, which was more or less AoW2.5, had the Shadow Realm with its own unique gameplay mechanics.

    New races and damage types are more the kind of thing for an expansion pack. Sure, I’d love to see the Archons again, but they’re not enough to justify a completely new game. If Triumph makes an AoW4 (and I sincerely hope they will, if only some years from now) it should have something truly new to add to the series, that will make the game play in a different way.

    Any ideas?

    in reply to: Converted units disappearing? #238452

    Specifically, it’s my fault. I reported weirdness where I wasn’t paying the upkeep for summoned units I’d taken over.

    This is working as intended! The same thing happens if you mind control a summoned unit.

    Just because you control the unit doesn’t change the fact that it is magically created and sustained by the original owner, and that owner can simply stop sustaining the spell that keeps the unit around if they choose (or if you defeat them). The actual bug is that the AI doesn’t simply cancel the spell the moment you take control of one of their summoned units.

    So they fixed it, and now the AI won’t pay the upkeep for the units you converted but simply cancels the spell and poof. No more unit. Smart move on their part, annoying for you, but I quite like it because it makes the AI feel more competent.

    in reply to: How many heroes? #238398

    Leaving them in a city contributes to happiness, so they earn you gold even if you don’t use them.

    Really?! Didn’t knew that. How much?

    As far as I can tell, this isn’t the case.

    Having your leader in a city gives a +50 happiness boost. If that +50 takes you over one of the (200 increment) thresholds it can give you bonus income. (50% at cheerful, 30% at very happy, 15% at happy, etc. Plus a chance for the special bonus events to happen.)

    But I can’t see any effect on either happiness or income from having an ordinary hero sitting in a city.

    in reply to: Bot attacks spotted #238309
    in reply to: Way to heal units? #238304

    IMO, all supports should have a passive 6hp group heal, and all hero classes should have access to at least one healing ability.

    They do with the item forge. Snacks packs for everyone!

    Of course it will take a while until you can produce enough to supply all your heroes, but you also stand a decent chance of finding nourishing-food items in dungeons.

    Now, in general I think the lack of universal healing abilities on classes is fine. But I do think it’s something of an issue that the starting hero you get makes such a big difference. A sorcerer player who starts with a theocrat or archdruid hero will have a much easier time scouting and creeping than one who starts with a necromancer or rogue hero or something.

    Sure, you can ask for a new hero, but that slows you down by a turn or two and you might still get unlucky.

    It’s a bit random for my tastes.

    in reply to: [Bug] Shooting Stars + Lucky Cloverfield = 0% Luck #238151

    so you are saying you can lucky evade attacks with no luck but only high morale? Yeah never seen that happen.

    Not only high morale. You need both the “Lucky” ability and high morale.

    No luck = no evade.

    Low morale = no evade.

    Luck & neutral-or-better morale = chance to evade. Higher morale = better chance.

    in reply to: Bug with Customise Leader – specialisations #238127

    And hey, look at that! The screenshot upload is working again. Have some.

    in reply to: Bug with Customise Leader – specialisations #238125

    Admittedly, it’s a genuine game-crash that happened because I went “Huh. This is weird. I wonder what happens if I click this now non-existent button…”

    In other words, if I had been playing normally instead of trying to poke at the stuff that was breaking I wouldn’t have had a problem. Which probably is why this bug wasn’t discovered before.

    in reply to: [Bug] Shooting Stars + Lucky Cloverfield = 0% Luck #238100

    Not a bug.

    The lucky chance works off your troops morale. If you have high morale, you have a higher chance to evade attacks.

    If you have negative morale, your chance to evade is zero. 1.5 x 0 = still zero, so even the cloverfield won’t help.

    And going by that frowny face on the screenshot you provided, your guy very much has negative morale.

    If you fight on better terrain, or get some morale-boosting effects, you’ll find that the “lucky” ability starts working again. That’s probably why it worked for the enemy: they like the terrain you’re standing on.

    This is also pretty important to know in AoW3 in general. Pick your battlegrounds. If you fight on hated terrain against an enemy who likes it, they have a hell of a home-ground advantage.

    in reply to: Combat-only online games #237945

    You could, however, use the map-editor to hand-craft scenarios that are basically just both sides starting with a big army.

    People would post on a forum or in chat what troops they want up to a certain gold value, the host puts those units on the map, saves it and launches the game, and battle begins.

    The host could likewise tweak terrain according to the matchup. I.E. if Frostlings and Draconians are fighting, the terrain should be temperate so nobody gets a penalty.

    And you could easily make a few different types of duel-map like this. Siege attack and defence, for example.

    Obviously, this requires a bit more hassle to organise. But it could be done, I think.

    in reply to: Archdruid heroes: the best? #237933

    Ok 20% is very low…

    Does add up over the duration of a battle tho…

    It used to be 20% for all party resistances. The others got boosted to 40%, but that would be a bit to strong with Toughness.


    Even as-is, if you play a sorcerer and get a warlord hero, and give him a bunch of Phantom warriors… that’s 80% physical resistance on those. With tireless at gold medal and the warlord casting Last Stand, one of those can single-handedly clear out high-level treasure sites. (well, provided they’re up against Manticores or the like.)

    For normal stacks, 20% isn’t enough to base strategies on. But it does mean your troops will live a good bit longer.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 162 total)