Forum Replies Created
July 12, 2013 at 13:05 in reply to: Dev Journal: Monster Dwellings and Independent Settlements #8072
Well, I meant that they aren’t just some new kind of unit (which I just called mummy), but that they are the Archons from SM only that now they are undead 😉
I think you can train at least 4 unit in the necropolis: archer, swordman, titan and those “headless” guys.
I see the first three, but where do you see headless guys? (I suck at finding Waldo :P)July 12, 2013 at 12:12 in reply to: Dev Journal: Monster Dwellings and Independent Settlements #8069
I just noticed something:
In one of the older screenshots in the gallery there is a big battle between angels and what appears to be mummies. But with the Information of this dev journal now I am convinced that they aren’t mummies, but the Undead Archons from The Necropolis and that the giant mace swinging unit in the middle must be their Titan.
July 12, 2013 at 07:48 in reply to: Dev Journal: Monster Dwellings and Independent Settlements #8064
The development so far makes me soooooo happy 🙂
I would love to know what other kinds of dwellings there will be…
Maybe some of the following have a chance:
– A Pirate Bay, always located at the shore, in which you will find swashbucklers, slavers, ships and maybe a Kraken 😉
– A Haunted Castle with all the typical old Horror movie creatures like vampires, doom bats, werewolfs, Zombies, Succubi and Gargoyles (and of course the butler Igor^^)
– An Igloo, always located on the frozen parts of the map, in which you will find all kinds of Frostling units and Dire Penguins
– A secret hidden swamp settlement in which you will find all kinds of Lizardman units and the will-o’-the-wisp (northern glow)July 9, 2013 at 11:58 in reply to: Will dead parts of squad come back for next battles? #7917
Remember that right now the multiple soldiers per low Tier unit are only a cosmetic feature.
Since all units replenish health at some point the amount of soldiers in a unit will increase again until it has full health.
Of course this might change if the devs decide to make this feature not just cosmetic.
That’s quite a lot of interesting information.
Thanks for sharing! 🙂
Brother JO wrote:
Now, squads losing effectivenes when they die would be great aspect if it can be implemented.That would make tier1 units more effective or less effective depending on how you use them and adds strategical depth.
I love the idea too. But i have a fear that if squads are loosing their effectivenes then the gap between low and high tier units will be even greater because dragons, titans ect. are single units so figure/member losses wont affect them(Although it can be balanced if the effectivenes of a dragon will decrease with hp losses)
I personally don’t like the idea of squads becoming less effective with less hp.
There are 2 reasons for this:
1. The gap between high and low Tier units becomes even bigger (unless they also become weaker with less hp)
2. In every battle the player who can move first has a HUGE advantage! Not only does he deal damage first, he will also receive less damage… :/
I do have to to say that, especially if it’s just an option, I am also hoping for your idea to be added to AoW.
I hope very much for an improvement on how the battles take place, the waiting can just be too annoying.
And of all the ideas posed on this website I’d say yours is among the best.
Either give the watching players something to do (like betting on the outcome), which doesn’t give the fighting parties a disadvantage (like if everyone else can move on the world map) or decrease the time spent waiting like with your idea.
You described very well in what situations it would be of most used and just in general how it’s supposed to help.
The only problem being that not only the likely and common things will happen and the feature will also have to work in exceptional cases.
So some questions would need to be solved and I am not sure if there is a good solution for all of them. (Especially since I probably can’t think of all the exceptional cases myself^^)
So basically we need to look at the thresholds.
Just some things to think about:
1. Can you attack a stack, which already has the attack-soon-command to attack another stack beside it? If yes…
1a. if the stack you are attacking wins its own fight, you fight it and you win, where are you going to be moved? Onto the hex where it had originally been when you issued the attack-command or to the hex where it has been moved after it won its first fight? If the latter were true, it could mean that you’d be moved to a hex you can’t be on (e.g. the other two stacks were all swimin and yours isn’t and the stack you were attacking attacked a stack in water).
1b. if the stack you are attacking looses its own fight, will you move to the empty hex, or will you attack the stack it lost against?
1c. Make the whole scenario ridiculous: eight stacks of eight different players stand in a circle and attack each other in a circle: Who the hell fights who in what order and who is placed where after shit got down? 😛
If the issue is that one stack is attacking from an impossible direction, the last person to attack would have his forces relocated (in-combat, not on the strategic map), to the next available ‘legitimate’ slot.
What if there isn’t a legitimate spot left?
3. If I issue an attack-soon-command at some area where both players don’t have magic domain and one or both of us change our domain after issueing the command, so that now we do have magic domain over the battle… would we be allowed to use our magic?
4. I forgot the last one, damn 😛
I AM in favor of your idea, I just think it might cause some issues under some circumstances, which would be hard to fix. But of course I’d love to see them solved and to see this feature as an option 🙂
@NuMetal could you expand on what you mean? Is your concern that if someone issues an ‘attack-soon’ command, another player can just move another stack in (or out)?
I should note that my idea was not restricted to a single-battle. Your post gives the impression that the idea is that A can attack a city, and then B and C can move their stacks to attack the same city. That’s not correct. The idea is that players can fight completely different battles, on opposite sides of the map, at the same time, instead of waiting to fight them one-by-one.
I’m sorry for using the word useless, of course it is not as such useless. After rereading my post I wanted to edit it and change the word, but for some reason I couldn’t 😉
Back to the topic: I like your idea in general, it’s just that I’m looking at the problems that come with it as well and to me they seem quite heavy.
1. You attack a stack of enemy units with a slightly bigger stack of your units with the ‘attack soon’-command. The enemy moves another stack of his units to the one that is being attacked -> they will participate in the battle and you will lose.
-> Using attack-soon only poses a risk that doesn’t need to be taken -> it most likely won’t be used
2. You have an awesome Knight of Badassdom and there are two seperate enemy units very close to him and you want to vanquish both of them at the beginning of the next turn. -> You won’t use attack-soon, because you want to keep right on fighting after killing the first unit and not give the enemy a chance to remove it.
The idea is that players can fight completely different battles, on opposite sides of the map, at the same time, instead of waiting to fight them one-by-one.
Well, I do know what the idea is, but that doesn’t mean that these things can’t happen.
Example: We both find the same city. I come from the North and attack it with the attack-soon-command. You move in from the South, want to attack it as well and now what?
First I fight the inhabitants of the city and afterwards I fight you? That would be totally unfair.
We besiedge the city together? That could cause some pretty retarded battles, since we both want each others units dead and still conquer the city 😛 Also, if we win, who’d get the city?
The problem with your idea is that in most cases it makes sense to fight the battles right on the spot.
And even though I hate to have to wait for battles not concerning me, at least that setting doesn’t give as many options for exploits.
Your idea isn’t useless, it’s quite nice actually, but it contains some problems that I personally find too hard to solve.
Great ideas! 🙂
Just like with some of my own suggestions there is a balance problem with some of your suggestions as well.
-Player who has most forests in his domain within X turns(Spirit of Nature)
The problem is that not all players start out with the same stats (whatever it is we are comparing).
If we are talking about forests surely the elf will win, if we are talking about alignment with good factions surely the good races will win, if we are talking about killing a certain race surely the player playing the race will lose, if we are talking about domain surely the player who already had the biggest domain will win, if we are talking about having a city in all levels of the map some player might already have the quest finished before it starts…
So, in order to balance these out, we’d need to do one of the following:
1. Only give a quest if the starting conditions are similar
If some player already has a big lead or big disadvantage in something, don’t give a quest about having the most of this thing.
Only give the quest ‘Whoever kills 5 Dwarfes first…’, if no player is a Dwarf. Don’t ask for having the biggest domain/forest/army/dick if someone already has a big lead in the asked thing.
2. Make quests, so that the starting condition doesn’t matter (as much)
Don’t look at what the players have, but at what they gained since the quest started. If we are talking about domain let the player win who increased his domain the most, not who has the biggest domain. If we are talking about roads let the player win who built and conquered the most roads since the quest was given and not simply who has the most…
And also as an extra, to avoid trivial quests, give the quests a kind of turn-range in which they can turn up. The quest “Whoever kills a Tier4 unit first” for example doesn’t make any sense in the late game, but would be a great challange to turn up in turn 5 – 25 (circa^^). Every player can find some lair or something with a Tier4 unit in it and than tech and pump units to kill it before the other players do. And noone could wait until the odds are too much in their favor because they’d always have to fear that someone else could kill their own Tier4 unit first and so we might see some very close and interesting battles 🙂
Another example would be the quest to have a city in all levels of the map. This of course wouldn’t work in the late game, but getting the quest right at the start of the game would make all players rush to the nearest underground entrances and cause a very interesting and fragile distribution of their kingdoms, which might be a good start for some epic games…
– Gamble on the Current Battle’s outcome (this could be fun!)
– trade resources with other players
– Work on their cities
– Move units on world map, but not start another battle.
The second and third are good, but the last one is unfair, since it gives the fighting players a disadvantage.
Your first solution could also imbalance the game without adding any strategic improvement if the ante is a real ingame resource. This wouldn’t be a problem though if we’d just gamble with something like honor. It shows that the gambling is just for fun and to entertain the watching players and in the end of the game you may not be the victor, but you might at least be the player with the most honor 😉
@heroic_spur: Your idea sounds nice, but it poses too many problems. Simply being able to add stacks to an oncoming battle makes this useless. :/
How about a big collector’s edition with a plushie Dire Penguin? It will have epic battles with my cat!
Ohhhh yes, that’s a great idea! 😀
And it would need to make this typical squeaking sound…
I would buy a cat just so that it could fight the penguin 😛
Is there a report spam button?!
Why the hell would anyone post this nonsense on a gaming forum…
Some people just want to see the world burn. 😛
We’re on top of it and are deleting spam whenever it comes in.
ahem, I think you deleted my profile as well… ^^
I just re-registered, but is it possible to undo the deleting of my profile? I was NuMetal and you answered my question with your last post…
I won’t be mad if it doesn’t work (shit happens), but if it’s possible, I’d just like to get my old reply-history back 😉
Otherwise I’ll just keep roling with my new profile.