|
Mr.48 posted:Thats actually a fair point if the AoW games have never had unit stacks before and the issue never arose. I guess I just assumed that the earlier games did since they looked similar to the HoMM games. My bad. For AoW III they've replaced the swordman graphic with a squad-of-swordmans graphic, allowing them to bump their numbers effectiveness while keeping the fictional combat disparity between a random guardsman and a dragon intact. Swordsquad is still just a single unit mechanically. Then they decided to make the swordman battalion graphic lose dudes as the battalion unit loses HP, because it looks cooler and also it's fun to set a lot of little mans on fire with your dragons. This left them with a problem though; While a Dragon missing half its HP is still a Dragon, a battalion of dudes missing half their dudes looks like it should be half as effective. So they had to decide if they were going to represent this unit loss mechanically (introducing an entirely new mechanic to half the units in the game), or just leave it as a graphical thing and not get too hung up on "Realism" in their Dragons vs Swordmans game. They went with the latter. If it bothers you, just assume that that last guy out of the squad of 6 is really, really angry about what just happened to all his friends. Splicer fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Jan 24, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
Just assume that in the world of Age of Wonders, everybody has an impeccable esprit de corps that makes them fight harder proportionally to how many friends they have lost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
Mr.48 posted:From their forums: It's a bit of a shame but I wouldn't call it dumbing down, it just changes how the game behaves. It could potentially be better, really, because it means weaker units can compete better with stronger ones, thus making the game a bit less like early HoMM games, where weak units were completely useless. I just have a preference for rotating my units out and dealing with an under-strength army. With everything else they have in the game I don't think not losing attack stats with hitpoints is going to ruin the game. Like I said, Civ5 japan is hilariously fun to play because you can just blitz through everyone giving no shits and taking all the casualties while everyone else is running away to preserve their precious elite units.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Yes, "dumbing it down". That's exactly the right term for it. Yup, you nailed it. It can't have anything to do with reasoned approaches to game design, nosirree. It is dumbing down, because the non-dumbing down version would simply be to use the whole thing logically in your game design. A unit that has fewer models with more hp per model (say a unit of 4 knights) plays differently than a unit of lots of weak dudes (1 Unit of 8 Swordsmen) which plays differently than an awesome single-model hero. You can even have units that have models but don't lose combat power because they're special. Or units that gain combat power as they loose models because they're special. It's a perfect vector of racial and unit distinction and deeper gameplay. It's hardly without precedent either. The King of Fantasy TBS combat (Fantasy General) had it. MoM had it too. Just saying "we'll just do it visually and have no gameplay effect" is not just dumbing it down, it's actively confusing your players. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Wow, I just discovered this game today. I can't believe I missed this. I played all of the previous games and can't wait to get this one.  Actually, I'm glad I didn't know about this before since now I only need to wait just over a month for release.  I suggest someone get the OP updated with the late march release information and other things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:It is dumbing down, because the non-dumbing down version would simply be to use the whole thing logically in your game design. A unit that has fewer models with more hp per model (say a unit of 4 knights) plays differently than a unit of lots of weak dudes (1 Unit of 8 Swordsmen) which plays differently than an awesome single-model hero. You can even have units that have models but don't lose combat power because they're special. Or units that gain combat power as they loose models because they're special. It's a perfect vector of racial and unit distinction and deeper gameplay. This might be a personal thing but a unified model of either no attack loss with damage, or universal attack loss with damage, is far less confusing to understand than a per-unit model.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
It absolutely is simpler (and there's nothing inherently wrong with that) - as long as you don't have visual model loss on top of it.
DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Just saying "we'll just do it visually and have no gameplay effect" is not just dumbing it down, it's actively confusing your players. Two things. First, "dumbing it down" implies that they are changing the design from death spiral to non-death spiral. This is false. The entire series has never had a death spiral damage model, this game included. There is no change, thus it cannot have been "dumbed down". Second, you know what's actually confusing to players? When different units react completely differently to damage. If you base it off of number of models in the unit, then units with different number of models operate vastly differently in combat, even if their stats are otherwise identical. Units that appear identical stat-wise but their art of all things makes one unit significantly weaker than another; THAT would confuse the piss out of people. Also, are you seriously holding up MoM as a good example? That game was imbalanced as gently caress, partly for this exact reason. Each figure in a multi-figure unit got to make attack and defense rolls separately, meaning that a unit of 6 weak guys could handily take out a much more powerful (on paper) single unit, despite the single unit having higher stats in every category.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:It absolutely is simpler (and there's nothing inherently wrong with that) - as long as you don't have visual model loss on top of it. Even then, it isn't beyond the ken of mortal man to learn 'attack stays the same as you take hits' or 'attack reduces as you take hits'. I'm not quite thick enough to have a consistent problem where I see pixelmans dying and this utterly shatters my comprehension of the game rules. I mean, I don't expect my units to start deserting and forming localised rebellions against my rule because I got their BFFs killed in my last battle. I don't expect them to start dying of starvation because there's obviously no visible supply caravans supplying them with food. A visual disconnect between mechanics and aesthetics is par for the course in games. It's easier to grasp 'hey my units are consistently behaving this way, also the game flat out told me that units don't suffer attack penalties from damage' than it is to model the animations just right so that each unit can perfectly convey its precise individual reaction to losing members. I'd like a damage reduction on hit model as well, but it's no dumber or smarter than the one the game's going to use, I just enjoy having to manage my units like that, but it does make the game somewhat easier, I find, because the AI generally cannot handle that mechanic properly, so proper handling on your part gives you a somewhat cheesy advantage. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Eh, Civ4's AI handled managing damaged vs full strength units well enough. It knew to lead off with indirect attacks and AOE attacks when possible, use the units with the highest chance of surviving when attacking full-strength units, then when it had weakened all of your units it would pound you mercilessly. Admittedly, Civ4's combat model is simpler and less random than Age of Wonder's model. You could reduce the chance of victory to a % very easily and it would be pretty accurate. AoW's combat is much more luck-based and while you can still reduce it to a % chance to win (although you'd have to redefine winning since units don't fight to the death in AoW), the variation in results is much higher, and that is harder to code AI for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Realism has no inherent value and the first responsibility of any game is to be fun. Death spiral mechanics do not mesh well with all games, and if the devs decided against it I am going to trust that they did so on the basis of it interacting poorly with the rest of the mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Eh, Civ4's AI handled managing damaged vs full strength units well enough. It knew to lead off with indirect attacks and AOE attacks when possible, use the units with the highest chance of surviving when attacking full-strength units, then when it had weakened all of your units it would pound you mercilessly. I played civ 5 and frankly, the AI is almost always either gunshy or suicidal, it can grasp the concept of retreating wounded units, but it almost always either throws away units when it shouldn't, or its desire to retreat prevents it from really pushing a front to make the progress which would justify its casualites. It has a lot of problems understanding when sacrifices should be made, so it makes them seemingly at random. Half the skill of combat in that game is knowing how to abuse the death spiral mechanic. It's a good mechanic, but it's one the AI really isn't very good at handling, and that is key to beating the AI. It also makes Japan one of the most consistently terrifying nations to square up against if they have a decent army. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
In CiV if I start near Japan I generally just regenerate the world. I can take Shaka, I can take Montezuma, but gently caress Nobunaga and his Bushido-frenzied units. However, if the combat for AoWIII is all like waging a war against Nobunaga I'd totally be down for it because then the playing fields are at least equal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Note that I said Civ 4, not 5. 5's military AI is notoriously incompetent. 4's wasn't stellar, but it did know how to handle the death spiral. Naval invasions and the economy weren't its strong points, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Note that I said Civ 4, not 5. 5's military AI is notoriously incompetent. 4's wasn't stellar, but it did know how to handle the death spiral. Naval invasions and the economy weren't its strong points, though. I haven't played 4 so I can't comment, but I do seem to recall it allowed you to stack N+1 units onto one tile, making it much easier to win by sheer numbers. AoW seems to be more balanced in the numbers department, so the AI's going to need drat good tactical skill to beat a player in that case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
These discussions of tactics and strategy are riveting and all, but has anyone else noticed how... different the draconians look? It's kind of disconcerting that they look more like horny/scaly orcs than dragon people, but I suppose we should be appreciative of the developers' innovation, nevertheless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
DentedLamp posted:These discussions of tactics and strategy are riveting and all, but has anyone else noticed how... different the draconians look? It's kind of disconcerting that they look more like horny/scaly orcs than dragon people, but I suppose we should be appreciative of the developers' innovation, nevertheless. That's a bizarre art change  the old chompy heads were awesome 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
DentedLamp posted:These discussions of tactics and strategy are riveting and all, but has anyone else noticed how... different the draconians look? It's kind of disconcerting that they look more like horny/scaly orcs than dragon people, but I suppose we should be appreciative of the developers' innovation, nevertheless. Half of the races just up and disappeared anyway. And then there's this race whose name eludes me right now, that got turned into undead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
The archons/(teehee) highmen? I'm pretty sure the other races will be implemented in the future as DLC or something. At least the halflings will. Until then, hellooooo goblin succubi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Where are you guys seeing the pictures of the new Draconians? I'm just glad the lovely tiger guys are gone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Where are you guys seeing the pictures of the new Draconians? I'm just glad the lovely tiger guys are gone. This site has some examples. They're definitely more "sci-fi reptilian" than "fantasy reptilian" now. Also those new hatchlings (I assume) are terrifying  
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Their leg structure looks so awkward. I can't even tell whether they're digitigrade or plantigrade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Love the macahuitl's (sp?) those dudes are wielding
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
DentedLamp posted:Their leg structure looks so awkward. I can't even tell whether they're digitigrade or plantigrade. Googling that, while edifying, also led me to a whole bunch of stuff about furries and man they seem to take their weird porn seriously. I like the new Draconian models, especially the headgear on those last dudes. The wings on the second-to-last guys look like they wouldn't carry someone with that much muscle mass at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Googling that, while edifying, also led me to a whole bunch of stuff about furries and man they seem to take their weird porn seriously. Yeah the wings on those guys look awfully token, very unimpressive. But holy poo poo I can't believe this game is only a month out! Going back to the earlier discussion about units I'll admit I'm a little disappointed that unit strength doesn't deteriorate with damage and loss of models because I feel it adds a great layer of strategy and makes certain buffs much more powerful as their worth increases exponentially and lets even basic units retain some mid game value. I was very much hoping to keep veteran shield walls and archers around for later, but now I'll probably just stock up on whatever summon has the beefiest stats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Angling Dragon posted:This site has some examples. They're definitely more "sci-fi reptilian" than "fantasy reptilian" now. Also those new hatchlings (I assume) are terrifying  lookit their little faces 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Inverness posted:Wow, I just discovered this game today. I can't believe I missed this. I played all of the previous games and can't wait to get this one. The OP and the second post gets updated regularly, 'tho i slipped on the March thing. I fix.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Their noses/snouts are too round, it makes them look a bit goofy in my opinion. They need to look... sharper. Their whole head shape should change actually. It would look better if it was similar to the Argonians from Skyrim. Inverness fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
nutranurse posted:Googling that, while edifying, also led me to a whole bunch of stuff about furries and man they seem to take their weird porn seriously. You shouldn't bring up such a horrifying topic in a sanctuary like this. Have you no shame? I suppose I should be the ashamed one, though, for being laissez-faire about mentioning anatomical terminology that could potentially lead to uncomfortable Google results.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
I'm actually kind of digging those Dragonians. They're hideous in a good way, the only thing that could use work is the wings which are comically lovely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Lots of asspergers in this thread about immersion. Did you guys play the other AOWs, no? Because if you did, you would know diminishing strength would be a really retarded thing in this game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
WYA posted:Lots of asspergers in this thread about immersion. Did you guys play the other AOWs, no? Because if you did, you would know diminishing strength would be a really retarded thing in this game. Splicer fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
The most important advantage of diminishing strength tied to models for me, is that early game units in fantasy games tend to be formations of cheap units while summons and late game units are either single units or smaller formations. This lets buffs become so much stronger for certain play styles. Say you have a buff that gives a unit +2 armour, this is fairly worthless on a dragon unit but on a formation of 8 shield bearers this amounts to 16 armour which gives a tier 1 unit a much greater advantage and staying power in the late game. One problem with AoW games have always been that certain units became obsolete way too fast and this would mitigate that problem somewhat. Perhaps this is something that could be experimented with by modders if the game will allow it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:The most important advantage of diminishing strength tied to models for me, is that early game units in fantasy games tend to be formations of cheap units while summons and late game units are either single units or smaller formations. This lets buffs become so much stronger for certain play styles. Say you have a buff that gives a unit +2 armour, this is fairly worthless on a dragon unit but on a formation of 8 shield bearers this amounts to 16 armour which gives a tier 1 unit a much greater advantage and staying power in the late game. But that's not really how it would work though. Buffing your infantry unit would still only give that unit as a whole 2 extra armour, bit its attack would drop proportionally to how much health it has lost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
So here's a lore question. I never managed to finish Shadow Magic, so I don't know precisely how it ended. I do know that Triumph said that the archons have become the undead. Did this happen at the end of SM?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:But that's not really how it would work though. Buffing your infantry unit would still only give that unit as a whole 2 extra armour, bit its attack would drop proportionally to how much health it has lost. Pretty sure that's how it worked in Master of Magic. Kept normal units relevant with enough buffs, which was pretty great for races with magic schools poorly suited for direct combat but had kickass units like the Dwarves or Halflings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Pretty sure that's how it worked in Master of Magic. Kept normal units relevant with enough buffs, which was pretty great for races with magic schools poorly suited for direct combat but had kickass units like the Dwarves or Halflings. Master of Magic was really bad at balance, though. Small units were usually better just because they got so many attacks. The game was fun way back then, mind. But not balanced at all. I think I personally would like it to be a little fairer than MoM got.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Prism posted:Master of Magic was really bad at balance, though. Small units were usually better just because they got so many attacks. Oh no, it's true that Master of Magic is unbalanced to hell. I just appreciated how it avoided stuff like Dominions 3 where even the most badass standard unit is pretty much chaff once you reach a certain point, and the only things worth using then are sacred units (stacking easy buffs), thugs, or Supercombatants (where half their effectiveness comes from breaking the game mechanics over their back).
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:But that's not really how it would work though. Buffing your infantry unit would still only give that unit as a whole 2 extra armour, bit its attack would drop proportionally to how much health it has lost. You misunderstand. Each model in a unit would have it's own stat pool. Damage taken would be spread out at random and the number of attacks is in line with how many characters are in the unit. Take two units of identical swordsmen, there are 8 characters in each unit. Unit A strikes unit B, because swords (in this hypothetical) have a bonus to attack they gain +1 damage per successful attack. They roll 6 hits and do a total of 12 damage to the opposing unit, 2 units take lethal damage and die. The defending unit counter strikes and the 6 units all hit for 6 damage total, killing one unit. In the following turn unit B attacks unit A and gains the bonus, but it's already at a disadvantage because it now has less characters and therefore a weaker attack. Prism posted:Master of Magic was really bad at balance, though. Small units were usually better just because they got so many attacks. MoM's fun came from being unbalanced. Lycanthropy let you turn any basic unit into a normal weapon immune monster that could conquer NPC towns on its own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
Taliesyn posted:So here's a lore question. The demons, after Phobious's empire crumbles, retreat into their former world where the Syron's come from. You press the attack alongside your allies and finally break them for good. The Syrons stay to retake their homes and rebuild, slowly cutting off access to the shadow realm and returning the world back to normality. Merlin however, tired from the wars and disillusioned at it all, walks away from any leadership to find peace hoping the world forgets the old magics, him and old ways. Its less bitter then i make it sound, but its still pretty "gently caress it all, i just want a quiet town where people wont fear me or worship me, maybe with Julia for company." On the topic of changing unit strengths to reflect loss of health, I'm only against it because its not a thing AOW had before. Am i being old and grumpy and basically yelling at you punk kids for wanting new and terrifying things? 
Thyrork fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 17:59
|
|