Forum Replies Created
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.
Ha, I’m enjoying Eador!
I’m not sure, but I *think* that’s supposed to be a kobold.
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…
Red Key, hoping you’re wrong!
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?
Also, allow us to import our own portraits for heroes etc
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…
Would be cool if we could both build and destroy bridges on the world map.
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:).March 5, 2013 at 20:28 in reply to: Customization Sheilds/Sigils/Unit Rename – Other ideas #2765
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…)
What if night/day happened just during battles?February 22, 2013 at 17:11 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.
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?
Excellent thinking Brother Jo.
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.
Where’s this edit button?
Anyway, another thing I noticed is that the pace of a game seems much quicker.
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…
The internet is a wonderful thing:
Didn’t we smash them up already? Oh well, just have to do it again (it never gets old).
Hear ye hear ye,
Verily plus one
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
#307, Rayb that’s just cruel!
If I am understanding Narvek correctly, then this is brilliant!
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…
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.
Narvek, if you can tear yourself away from work next Monday, any time day or night, I’m up for a game.
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….
Narvek, you’re swift becoming my favourite boy in blue!
Even if you aren’t blue, on your own forum…
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