Forum Replies Created
While I mourn the loss of the sabretooth tiger riding,bow wielding tigrans,as they were as sure as day the race I connected with most,I rejoice in the fact that they made the world a better place and will forever haunt the memories of good and evil alike.
On a more serious note
I didn’t mind the Archons too much,as AOW at the point of their inclusion really did need a more zealous race to appear.
The Shadow Demons fit their role quite well,yet I couldn’t help but feel the Undead and Shadow Demons could have been merged with the loss of some units to both factions with greater effect.
Unlike others in this thread,I really couldn’t relate to or appreciate the Syrons.Without putting a finger on the exact reason why,to me,they just seemed out of place and context,both visually and with prior lore.When creating huge maps I always opted out of using Syrons because they just didn’t fit right in any scenario I conjured up for the map.
As for the rest
AOW3 could have a whole new set of factions/races and I’d still be 100% satisfied with having a new AOW title. =)
Higher tier units wouldn’t be for sale,so as to speak similar to M&B warband.Ensuring a steady flow of lower tier units,as casualties need replacing.The upkeep cost of too many high tier units early game should be prohibitive enough to stop spam abuse of high tier units.If low tier units also have reliable and usefull abilities then you may also feel inclined to keep a good portion of them unleveled.
Easier is a point of view,I find it easier to upgrade towns and purchase troops than carefully level up troops,keeping them alive over time and have in my possession the troops I require,when I require them.
But at any rate,if AOW3 uses the buy tiered unit system as per old titles,it really doesn’t worry me,it’s a tried and tested system.I have no info on the unit acquisition or the unit progression system,I’m just putting scenarios out there. =P
The more I think about it,the more I like the idea of unit evolution.
It can be handled much easier by both the developers and players.Also if you lack self control,like myself,it puts an end to leveling up units with overpowered abilities that they really should not have (like in shogun 2).Best save the heroic stuff for something like heroes me thinks.lol
Hmm,maybe something like Mount and Blade Warbands system except without the option of evolution branches.Because we all know given the choice of branching into Swadian Knights or Swadian heavey infantry we are going to choose Knights. lol
So yeah,just simple evolutions would probably work infantry,cavalry,ranged,maybe even a spear tree with the only player option being not to upgrade so as to keep the perks of earlier evolutions in army stacks.
Starting to sound like a lot of work and balance nightmare now tho hahaha
First tier archers could build ballista.
First tier swordsmen could build battering rams
But why stop at offense ? =)
For the defender
Spears could Utilize spike/tar pits or boiling oil from the walls
Limit to one siege/artillery or whatever to one per stack,both attacker and defender.Stacks need to be within the city influence radius to build them.
But anyway,you get the idea.Might be doable,might not. hehe
Pre battle victory conditions is a simple fix for this.
Victory conditions need to be player choice,as so many players have different opinions of what makes for a great victory.
For example I love long drawn out huge maps (some custom maps I’ve made took longer than the campaigns) that end with the player having to crush the last bastion of AI hope.So for me it’s not broken or boring to play out end game scenario.
But for others it just is no fun.Having choices for personalized victory conditions alleviates this.
As someone else has mentioned,your game experience may change depending on how YOU play the game rather than how the AI plays the game.All AI is exploitable and as gamers,wether we like to admit it or not,we all exploit the AI to some degree forcing some situations upon ourselves.
If you want to see an AI make a *comeback*or do something other than turtle in its last bastion past the point of no return,I’m afraid you might just have to help it make that come back or sally by your own hand.
Knowing that your approaching the break even point is the most important part.At this point in the game it’s entirely the players decision if the game continues to be a challenge or plays out as a turtle breaker game.
I’m partial to the idea of lower end units having the ability to build siege equipment.
While I never really had a problem with having to build siege equipment in any game,what did erk me was seeing siege equipment self propelling itself around world maps and tactical maps.Kinda immersion breaking lol.The game Cossacks also suffred from the possessed artillery syndrome.
As Tartantyco pointed out
Having siege units constructed on site would be a very good idea, but that is dependent on turn scale balancing. The point of a siege mechanic is that inferior armies can hold off superior armies for a reasonable amount of time that allows reinforcements to arrive provided they are close enough or if the player has made the necessary precautions. So, depending on the scale of each turn, the speed at which armies move, and the speed at which a siege unit is constructed on site, it could turn out great or it could turn out awful
I’m very interested in the editing tools and what they will offer for map/campaign creation.
I agree that crafting was pretty damn cool,yet at the same time if left to my own devices with lots of spare cash I always ended up with super heroes rather than just…heroes(and that’s as much my fault as the games,low self control lol).
It pretty much trivialized most combat and ended the campaign and it was so much more fun finding items off enemy heroes or in ruins/tombs/caves.
I would suggest as others have said to keep overly powerfull effects off the crafting list and reserve them for unique type items to be found in the locations I previously mentioned.That way the found items become all the more valuable and crafting retains its usefulness.
One of the coolest things for me as a map creator was placing well earned rewards for tasks that deserved them
I wouldn’t go the same way as Shogun Total War 2 with experience,or at least not to the same extreme.
While lower end units need to be usefull,they should never outshine or take the place of a higher tier unit at the same or similar task.Lower tier units and higher tier units should never share any abilities/traits/jobs and preferably be at their best as a mixed party of high and low tier together.
But without knowing how any of the units function or even scale up or compare to each other at different technology tiers,I really got no right to even comment. lol
Just found out about AOW3 and had to sign up and say thankyou,thankyou,thankyou.
Have played AOW series since it’s release,am 45 years old now and really didn’t expect to see a new AOW title,at least not from the original crew.Loved AOW1 and SM,AOW2 was kinda meh but introduced what became my all time favorite AOW race the Tigrans.
I believe I actually spent more time creating and perfecting maps than actually playing maps for glory with this series.And that’s a good thing because it taught me how to balance,debug and over all understand what makes a game fun,which in turn has helped me alpha/beta many games ever since.
I have played many similar games over the years and AOW is the benchmark I hold all others too ,which none ever achieved the same status overall.I’m so glad that the same people are developing this title.