zamina_mina_zangalewa

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 53 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Game is too easy. #97276

    There are no rally points so I have to give each unit a waypoint. Just conquer each passive do-nothing AI and win before I can even research T4 units…at a rate of one skill every 1-2 turns.

    Ahh but there ARE rally points!

    City display, red flag.

    in reply to: Dev Journal: Adventure Sets #9257

    Ha, I’m enjoying Eador!

    in reply to: Gamescom and an artifact from time long past #9252

    Alexan89,

    I’m not sure, but I *think* that’s supposed to be a kobold.

    in reply to: AoW 2 remake? #9151

    I seem to remember similar arguments in 2002/2003 when AoW2 and then SM came out.

    People moaning that the ‘new’ graphics were ruining the series…

    Of all the things to be concerned about, the least of my worries is the graphics. I am much more interested in seeing how:

    * 6 units in a stack (instead of 8);

    * fliers landing, sieges now being from one side only (i.e. can’t surround the city, no multiple lanes of attack);

    * units now being squads (but oddly enough, not always squads, i.e. the logic behind attacks never missing is that if archers come in a group, then at least one will hit, which makes sense, yet as the unit suffers more damage, its damage output doesn’t change, so how do these 2 things marry up? Is it a unit, or is it not?);

    * and there being less than half the starting races as previous games.

    all affect the game.

    Now, lest you think I am whingeing, I will buy this game no matter what.

    Just wanted to make it clear that I am not worried about the graphics, this game looks beautiful.

    In any case, if the modding system is even halfway good, we should be able to make our own campaigns, which means AoW, 2 and SM camapigns, in the new engine, which makes me happy…

    in reply to: Create a Hero Thread #8953

    Red Key, hoping you’re wrong!

    in reply to: "Suggestions not worth their own thread" thread #8952

    I have some questions, not meriting their own thread, so I’ll put them here:

    What do we know about the hero development paths, I.e. if a hero is a warrior, how does he develop? What are the base classes? Note hero, not leader.

    What resource buildings are available? I’m assuming gold mines and mana mines(mines for mana?) And whatever the leaders/heroes produce.

    Will the workshop from .AoW be coming back?

    in reply to: "Suggestions not worth their own thread" thread #8946

    Also, allow us to import our own portraits for heroes etc

    in reply to: "Suggestions not worth their own thread" thread #8945

    Going back on to the original thread:

    ·Different resources- stole this idea from Eador. If you haven’t played that, then you should! Quick summary: if you lack the resource for a unit/building, e.g. iron, its gold/gem (mana) cost go up, quite steeply, but you can still build it (provided you have the tech…) Posting a province with the resources puts more gold in your pocket.

    ·Ability to rename your heroes, if not already in.

    · For the auto combat, ability to preset magic use levels, ranged/offensive/defensive emphasis.

    · For tactical combat, ability to have pre set formations, stolen from Shogun2:TW.

    · Probably far far too late for this, but flying dragons. I know logically the setting down every turn makes a certain type of sense but I am all up for flavour, not just balance, which is notoriously elusive anyway…

    in reply to: "Suggestions not worth their own thread" thread #8843

    Would be cool if we could both build and destroy bridges on the world map.

    in reply to: Buffs in battle #3741

    If I understand you correctly, you want there to be some some of natural synergy between lower level units, in order to encourage their use?

     

    For example, archers benefit from being near other archers, for example higher ranged attack? So there is an incentive to keep them together, but against that, a group of archers is almost always vulnerable…

    Not a bad idea, but I am more in favour of decreasing their ipkeep and increasing that of lvl 4 units massively, to encourage lower level use, although the current flanking system looks like it will also do the same thing:).

     

     

    I like all of these. Maybe naming gold medal units, extra immersion for the living legends of your armies?

     

    I also wish you could get heroes stepping forth from the ranks, so if your Orc warlord gets 200 kills (for example), he becomes a hero (with the same unit graphics, slightly better stats, and hero abilities…)

    in reply to: Day/Night Cycles #2764

    What if night/day happened just during battles?

    in reply to: Question: Is AOWIII going to simplify the AOW system? #2313

    Terrahero, you have a good point, but I think what people are getting worried about are things like

    small battlefields (relative to AoW1, but more or less the same I think as AoW2./SM)
    not being able to surround a city
    6 units in a stack instead of 8
    higher level units seemingly being the same accross the board (I say seemingly because, we just don’t really know how the classes/specialisation is going to play out practically…)
    fewer units per race (although these will be more ‘racially pure’, so less machines and stuff I think)
    fewer races out of the box (“only” 6, when every other version has shipped with at least 12)

    Which are enough to merit concern, because these are big changes and we just don’t know how they play out, so it’s easy to imagine the worst.

     

    I remember when aoW2 came out, I really took a bit of time to get used to the smaller battlefields, and the defender always starting in the middle. On the plus side, the red/yellow/green movement system was, to my mind, amazing.

    in reply to: Multi-Elemental Spells #2042

    Zealot, I think the general idea is that if you focus on one sphere you unlock the more powerful spells of that sphere, a bit like in AoW1. assuming that’s the case, and I hope it is, then any ideas for lvl 4 spells, accessible only by focusing one one sphere?

    in reply to: Skill Research #2034

    Excellent thinking Brother Jo.

    in reply to: Multi-Elemental Spells #2032

    Personally, I am thinking that if you can combine spheres, then you should also have mutually exclusive spheres, so no mixing air and earth.

    While I appreciate the argument against this (less limits=more options), I believe that by limiting the spheres you force some hard decisions on a player, for example, allowing one to think about the synergy between spheres ( e.g. does air go well with death?) the possible combinations therein (death+air could, for example = plague, a strategic/map spell cast on enemy armies, think ‘curse’ or ‘death domain’ effect in SM, but very focused) and also, levels of spell combinations, i.e. what spells do you get mixing 2 air, 2 death and 2 fire, as opposed to 1 air, 3 fire, 2 death?

     

    With some serious work, this could be a real plus for the game.

    in reply to: blood #2031

    Where’s this edit button?

     

    Anyway, another thing I noticed is that the pace of a game seems much quicker.

    in reply to: Skill Research #2019

    I like a bit of randomness. Perhaps make it so that lvl 2 spells/skills require x amount of lvl 1s, and so forth, because angel early on is just rubbish.

     

    I preferred the AoW1 system overall, if I had to choose between them…

    in reply to: music? #2016

    The internet is a wonderful thing:

     

    in reply to: Introductions Thread #2003

    The Cause?

     

    Pfft……

     

    Didn’t we smash them up already? Oh well, just have to do it again (it never gets old).

    in reply to: The Warning #1873

    Hear ye hear ye,

     

     

     

     

     

    Verily plus one

    in reply to: Multi-Elemental Spells #1855

    Sounds like a great deal if work, but if it were done correctly, correctly would be, in the words of Barney Stinson, legen -wait for it- dary

    in reply to: aow3 races #1732

    #307, Rayb that’s just cruel!

    in reply to: Wizard Tower? Yes nor Not? #1609

    If I am understanding Narvek correctly, then this is brilliant!

    in reply to: Experience of units and heroes #1607

    Someone else in one of the other threads came up with a pretty decent formula for sharing out the XP between units in a fight…

    in reply to: Siege #1606

    At first I thought that sieges from one side would be a bit boring, but the more I think about it, the more I am inclined to give it a chance.

     

    I am slightly worried that there will be some major bottlenecking going on, with 5 gates, all fairly close to each other, which might be seriously exploitable by the defender.

     

    And historically, http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/siege-weapons.htm. Granted, that’s hardly the most definitive resource.

     

    Also, bit more random, http://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/castle6.htm.

    If we’re being “realistic,” is there any chance the walls can be mined? Or multiple walls within a fortress?

    You’ve already mentioned starving out of a city, so +1 as far as i am concerned.

     

    Will siege units be ‘built to order’. So many question I know.

     

    But thankyou for your replies, and to be honest I was hoping something would be done about the SM system. This will be one of the first things I shall test in the beta/demo.

    in reply to: Shadow Magic #1563

    Narvek, if you can tear yourself away from work next Monday, any time day or night, I’m up for a game.

    in reply to: Siege #1561

    So, on a tactical map/level, we can attack one side of the city at a time.

     

    Not a problem I don’t think, if we can use all our adjacent stacks…

     

    Curious why we can’t show the whole city (because it’s too big?) perhaps not all at once, but within the same battle…i.e. zoom out. The TW series has pretty big cities and this wasn’t an issue….

    in reply to: Experience of units and heroes #1559

    Narvek, you’re swift becoming my favourite boy in blue!

     

    Even if you aren’t blue, on your own forum…

    in reply to: What units would you like to see return in AoW3? #1555

    Haha +1 for the Dire Penguin.

     

    About the ashen steppe, Azracs could go toe to toe with Orcs almost all the way. Elephant riders for Tier 1, fast fast cavalry for Tier 2, Beholders and Djinn for lvl 3 (although the warlord was just beastly) and then the Yaka Avatar, who could dominate most Orc units, and forced the red dragon into melee, where he won most of the time.

     

    I won the ashen steppe many many times, all I was saying is that it was one of my favourite maps.

     

    Speaking of all of this, are Beholders in?

     

    edit: for nostalgia’s sake 🙂 http://www.strategyplanet.com/aow/races.shtml

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 53 total)