|
CommissarMega posted:Does anyone know what magics go well with Dreadnaughts? I'm thinking a Draconian with Expander and 2 Fire, then proceed to burn everything- good idea? Well, they already get a bunch of fire damage from Flame Tanks, Engineers and Juggernauts. Though having Hellhounds to summon early on is pretty sweet and gives you a decent mana sink for some kick rear end tier 2s you can replenish in the field. Personally I'd go with Air 2, Water 2 and maybe Fire 1. That way you still get Hellhounds and fireball, but later you can start summoning tier 3 Elementals to round out your damage if you're facing stuff with high fire resist/immunity. Plus you can get Zephyr birds for amazing scouting or motherfucking Krakens for total sea domination. Tons of stuff has fire resist, very few things have lightning resist and basically nothing except Bleak Wolves, Ice Giants and Ice Dragons really resists ice. And those are rare as hell. Fire is probably the second worst attack type after blight for the sheer amount of things that resist it like every Draconian, Succubus, Hellhounds, Fire Dragons, Fire Giants etc. Zore fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Apr 5, 2014 |
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
CommissarMega posted:Does anyone know what magics go well with Dreadnaughts? I'm thinking a Draconian with Expander and 2 Fire, then proceed to burn everything- good idea? Going Draconian Dreadnaught means you're already going to have many sources of fire damage, which means that anyone who is packing fire resistance will be a direct counter to both your units and magic. To really play optimally you might want to diversify your damage types, like have Goblin (Poison) Dreadnaught (Physical/Fire) with Master of Water (Frost). That said, this isn't really a game you need to play super optimally. Knowing how to use your tools is going to beat out following a netdeck strategy, and flavor is going to be more fun than pounding the AI into submission every game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
CommissarMega posted:Does anyone know what magics go well with Dreadnaughts? I'm thinking a Draconian with Expander and 2 Fire, then proceed to burn everything- good idea? Air is really really fun for one single spell: Seeker. This eliminates range penalties on a given unit - if you can attack them, you can attack them at full strength. No more will your musketeers have to wait until they're in position for that single crucial shot, you can plug away at maximum range and reload by the time they get in close! Well, sort of. You can only enchant one unit at a time per round so it's not like you can enter battle with a vast army of snipers. It's kind of a niche use, honestly, probably best for sieges where you don't expect the enemy to sally immediately. Still fun when it works out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
I still think they went a bit overboard with Blight resistances and immunities. 2 races have innate Blight resistance to varying degrees, all machines are immune (2 different classes tier 4's!), Spiders have huge resistances as do a bunch of Druid summons, all undead. And to balance it out high elves are slightly more vulnerable to it. I don't think you can even get a spell like fire does to decrease resistance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Dont F3 while loading a game, i couldn't press "Accept" on the little avatar screen "You're rise to power continues." message nor could i close the load game window. My strange game continues, i just crushed the blight mushroom after discovering it refreshes the blightlands around it and finished cleaning up the island. Then two of the ai players declare war, who are at peace with each other. You smarmy cunts. 
Thyrork fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Zore posted:I still think they went a bit overboard with Blight resistances and immunities. 2 races have innate Blight resistance to varying degrees, all machines are immune (2 different classes tier 4's!), Spiders have huge resistances as do a bunch of Druid summons, all undead. Goblins are probably the only race I really like, and this isn't actually a big problem for them. Swarm darters can regularly kill tier 1 infantry in a single salvo, and for anything bigger you can try softening it up with Untouchables for a pretty big resistance debuff. I don't care too much for Blight Doctors since they have to get into melee to do their debuff, but the possibility exists if that is the only way you can quickly bring something down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
The fact that dead heroes usually drop their ranged weapon leads to some pretty silly poo poo where your most effective stack leader is carrying around something like two bows, a staff, a crossbow, and four muskets. The mental image of a hero with all of these strapped to himself somewhere plus all the quivers and bandoliers required while glowing with any number of enchantments and magical equipment amuses me far more than it should.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
MadHat posted:So something that is good to know, do not Convert/Charm the targets when a Quest says to "Kill the Deviants" [was a independent camp of Bards!] Turns out Convert/Charm does not count for the quest and when that Unit eventually dies the quest fails because the "target" was technically killed by the other guy, not you. I did this once and just disbanded the unit and the quest completed for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
I too like air adept for dreadnoughts because of seeker. It's a huge buff to your cannons as well since they will be able to hit ranged units over walls for no penalties. And since the cannon shot pierces, you can fire the shot at a wall and do full damage to the archer standing on top of the wall, it's quite strong. Other than that I almost always go expansion because I have a big hardon for economy and I just love having big cities building lots of poo poo all the time. But I'm considering tossing that for something else and I think I'll try out water because it has a lot of anti-machine spells.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Is there a rule of thumb for where to settle cities? There's the mechanic where their growth slows down when their domains start bumping against each other, but since even the most pimped-out city can only produce one unit at a time and that even the smallest city can build enough stuff to make a profit eventually, is there really any point to not building as many as possible if your specializations are geared for maximizing your economic strength? Okay, I did some numbers on the ICS thing. Basic assumption is that gold is the only resource you are meaningfully constrained by in the long term (which it is, in my experience), and that games go on for about ~120 turns (More? Less? 120 is what other people seem to be saying, but my games tend to drag out because I am not a very aggressive/good player). Settlers cost 150g and 750pop to build (unless I have some cost reducing research on this save that I've forgotten). They have an base income, without sites, tied to their size: Outpost: 2g/t, 20prod/t Village: 10g/t, 30prod/t Town: 20g/t, 40prod/t City: 30g/t, 50prod/t Metropolis: 40g/t, 60prod/t So if you just plop out a city, set it to merch (+50%) gold and forget about it, it'll start turning a profit 18 turns after founding, and after 121 turns will have produced a total profit of 5,265g (I'm only 70% certain I've worked this spreadsheet correctly, so you might want to double check this). Building a storehouse will push profitability back to 22 turns, but will increase final profit to 5,502g. Building a storehouse, public bath and hospital will push the profitability threshold back to 37 turns, and will reduce final profit to 4,870g. This is before happiness effects, though. Building housing instead of merch until you hit metropolis just seems to slow things down, with a slight increase in final profit. I haven't investigated how fertility rites or expansionism effects this, either. This is of course an idealised scenario; in reality, your cities are not going to grow as fast as this because they will be constrained. This goes doubly for an ICS maximum-city-density strategy, but I don't know how constraint is calculated and so I can't run the numbers on that. I suspect you can knock two or three thousand off those profit figures, though. That 750pop on the settlers isn't insignificant, either- you're losing multiple turns of growth per settler, more if you're under any sort of constraint. Then there's the opportunity cost. In the early game, 150g will net you two Elvish Longbows, or a trio or Axedorfs, or etc.- a fairly large concentration of military power that early in the game, which you can use to smash mobs, grab cash in lump sums and clear resource sites. In the midgame, the game could be decided well before ICS begins to pay off. Then there's the problem of defending them- the AI is a supreme bastard when it comes to sniping undefended cities, so you're going to need a garrison. ICS will mean that your cities are fairly close together, but not I think so close that you're going to be able to use one or two stacks to cover the lot. So that's hundreds more gold needed per city to make it work. Obviously, the longer the game drags on, the more attractive ICS becomes. If you find yourself mired in a stalemate which looks likely to drag on for a hundred turns or more, and there are no free resource sites left, then spamming cities might be worth it. Otherwise, I don't think it it. Now watch as someone who's good at this game appears to tell me I'm full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
On the topic of lore, is it revealed why the Archon's have become undead. I was surprisingly sad when I found undead Archon's holed up in a ruin. Does the campaign reveal at all what happened to them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
d3c0y2 posted:On the topic of lore, is it revealed why the Archon's have become undead. I was surprisingly sad when I found undead Archon's holed up in a ruin. The unit lore has it. Basically the Archons ascended to another plane of existence. Then all the ones who died in the wars from AoW2 clawed their way out of the ground as undead monstrosities. They're a bit bitter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Autonomous Monster posted:I know that, rationally, III is probably the better game, but I always preferred II. I never liked the way that III normalised the factions (all units have one and exactly one upgrade). And Sorceress/Rampart lost druids and phoenixes! Beware unicorns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Zore posted:The unit lore has it. This makes me want them as a playable race eventually more than ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
MrBims posted:Going Draconian Dreadnaught means you're already going to have many sources of fire damage, which means that anyone who is packing fire resistance will be a direct counter to both your units and magic. To really play optimally you might want to diversify your damage types, like have Goblin (Poison) Dreadnaught (Physical/Fire) with Master of Water (Frost). This is precisely why the Fire is good and maybe even mandatory for Draconians, though. Skin of Oil is a cheap, spammable, no-save spell that inflicts Fire weakness and drops resistances on enemy units. Master of Fire is probably too many eggs in one basket, I agree, but Adept is definitely worth considering.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Zore posted:The unit lore has it. Are there more units than the Archon Revenant Archer, Archon Caster, Archon Revanant Infantry and Archon titan. As they are the only units I can see in the tome of wonders and they seem to just mention a weird ancestor worshipping cult and a being of considerable power. EDIT: Found it under the description for the Archon Necropolis dwelling. Sad stuff. d3c0y2 fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
My Golden Dragon just Divine Breath'd five orc stacks and got a critical.  Also those things are clearly pretty arrogant, they get a morale bonus from their own presence!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Kanfy posted:My Golden Dragon just Divine Breath'd five orc stacks and got a critical. So they're effectively 'always good morale'?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:I too like air adept for dreadnoughts because of seeker. It's a huge buff to your cannons as well since they will be able to hit ranged units over walls for no penalties. And since the cannon shot pierces, you can fire the shot at a wall and do full damage to the archer standing on top of the wall, it's quite strong. Tomn posted:Air is really really fun for one single spell: Seeker. This eliminates range penalties on a given unit - if you can attack them, you can attack them at full strength. No more will your musketeers have to wait until they're in position for that single crucial shot, you can plug away at maximum range and reload by the time they get in close! Seekered Cannons and Musketeers are pretty tasty, but what's particularly evil is Seekering a Juggernaut's heavy mortar cannon. Two juggernauts, two Engineers keeping the juggies reloaded = obscene amounts of AoE damage downrange, especially what with the AI liking to cluster up its units when they're approaching your lines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Ugh, this is starting to look hopeless. Thanks for all the advice, only problem is that if i go the Mighty Meek Pike tactics against the Warlord, the summons/orc shock trooper combo from the Sorcerer and the machine-spam from the Dreadnought screws me over instead, and i don't have the production to take on all three at the same time :\. Did i mention two of them are dwarfs? Yeah, my shrines aren't really doing much against those two, too many dwarf firstborns. Same thing with convert from evangelists. Only works against the orc guy. Many times there is multiple important battles at the same time, and dividing my precious precious casting points between these are a fine balance, while trying to maintain a semblance of global spells. Don't get me wrong, this have been a great map and i will go down fighting but i don't think this will be one of those happy fairytale endings for my Theocrat  .
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
I just had an amazing siege where my goblin crusaders defeated a draconian dreadnought in a great last battle. So many goblin crusaders climbing the walls. I love the visual style of this game.  Also, interestingly, he had snuck into my capital the turn before and when I defeated him, my capital became a city state led by his previous hero who won that battle. I didn't even realise those independent towns' screens show an actual unit they have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:So they're effectively 'always good morale'? Nah, being evil will still put it in the negative, just not quite as low. E:  Terraforming is so weirdly satisfying. Kanfy fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Woozy posted:This is precisely why the Fire is good and maybe even mandatory for Draconians, though. Skin of Oil is a cheap, spammable, no-save spell that inflicts Fire weakness and drops resistances on enemy units. Master of Fire is probably too many eggs in one basket, I agree, but Adept is definitely worth considering. The secret of Master of Fire though is it gives you Hellfire, the ultimate spell for anyone with fire protection and immunities. It does 50 fire damage to everyone on the map, so if every one of your unit is resistant, or immune, then you are the one who comes out on top. When you hit 100 CP, you can send in your draconian leader riding a fel horse for +40% fire resist, cast it twice, and instant win a battle vs most stacks. Even with just 50 you can still send in a lone suicide squad of some cheap rear end tier 1, or send in your leader, cast it, then retreat from the battle. Kanfy posted:Nah, being evil will still put it in the negative, just not quite as low. I kinda wish we could get spells like Raise/Lower mountain, and raise terrain in the water/lower it into the sea, even if they were mid-late game spells. Wolpertinger fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Slowing down research is going to hurt the sorcerer. Unlike classes that can mass-produce T4 in late-game, sorcerer can always only get 1 eldritch horror per turn. Druid is the same, making both classes probably worse at XL maps. The "Load" button actually being a "save" button is my biggest complaint. Press load, the prompt asks if you want to save. I seem to always press yes, thinking that the confirmation prompt is actually to load. Totally backwards. Also mentioned before, the AI will sell cities for sometimes 70 mana. Makes XL maps with 8 opponents last 60 turns when you just buy all of their cities with your 500+ mana per turn, which you can never use otherwise. Game is fantastic. Anyone who is wondering if they should buy it needs to just get on the juggernaut train and leave the station a smoldering ruin behind them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Alamoduh posted:Slowing down research is going to hurt the sorcerer. Unlike classes that can mass-produce T4 in late-game, sorcerer can always only get 1 eldritch horror per turn. Druid is the same, making both classes probably worse at XL maps. Actually, it might be the opposite. You slow down the enemy's research too - it will take much longer for him to start mass producing tier 4 units, which you cannot compete with as well if you don't have a good racial counter. However, on XL maps you do have one huge advantage - do you realize just how long it takes to go from one corner of an XL map to another? It can be upwards of 8+ turns, if not longer. Dropping an Eldritch Horror in his lap, whenever, wherever is GIGANTIC. Plus, if nothing else, your tier 4 units won't empty your bank account like pretty much every other tier 4 unit - if you've got good racial units to spam that can hold up in endgame (dwarf, draconian, elf), you have money to spam those and upgrade even more cities than the other guy while still dropping summons around. Plus, sorcerers could probably still have a shot at winning without any t4 units at all as long as they had Chaos Rift and Static Electricity. Chaos Rift is easily the best combat spell in the game, and Static Electricity is up there in the top ten. On the huge 1v7 final campaign map, it was pretty much the sorcerer hero with chaos rift, as well as elven longbowmen and dwarf forge priests as godlike defenders that won the game for me - not actually tier four spam. I couldn't afford it and when I got some out they weren't in the right place at the right time often enough. I honest to god would have traded my dreadnought class for sorceress there if I had the option, just because the option of summoning something more scary than a hell hound would have changed so many fights, and being able to cast chaos rift without risking game over by sending in a hero that could die and fail an objective would be greatly handy too. Elven longbowmen are just completely ridiculous even lategame - a sixstack of silver medal longbowmen can hold off literally anything short of a red dragon and several wyverns (I had an elven city that did just that, literally holding off dozens of armies with no reinforcements other than a new longbowman every turn when some of them died), and it took him taking a neutral dragon city to do that very thing with the red dragon to finally take it. I suppose juggernaut spam might have done it too because of their +8 defense against projectiles, but somehow he never attacked that city with juggernauts, thank god Wolpertinger fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
 Huh, I didn't realize the debuff chances are recalculated for each damage type. Well, sucks to be this guy. E: Hope Lucian brought a raincoat coz it's about to get stormy.  
Kanfy fucked around with this message at 11:18 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
This was a good week to get a flu. Over 30 hours already, definitely the best 4x I've played in a while. Anyone got recommendations on making it harder? So far about to beat my second game on Emperor. I've been playing with normal settings for medium maps, only change is classic turns. Might try no city founding, since getting a runaway economy has been key both games. As for ICS, I've found that if there is even one gold producing building it is worth building a city for. Choose the right race for happiness, just set it to merchandise, and you'll have 20+ gold income, paying itself off in at most 8 turns. If you are a Warlord/Dreadnaught, it is even faster, with their passive gold empire buffs. A warlord probably should build a city everywhere possible, so long as it isn't hated terrain. Most cities that don't have +Prod nodes shouldn't get any upgrades, they are just wasted gold. Sometimes a wall, if you need the extra area to catch a building/expect a battle to happen in the city. Otherwise just leave them on Merchandise. I have 16 cities at turn 44 in my latest game, and only 5 of them have ever made a unit besides a settler/tier 0. Most of them have had no upgrades at all, and I'm sitting at 1043 income. You don't even need a garrison for most cities, besides maybe a single tier 0 unit. Just maintain 1 turn of vision with some flying cheap scouts (5/6 factions have a low level summon perfect for this). Then have a response force stationed in a central city for the area, and you'll have plenty of time to respond to any attacks. Besides the occasional snipe attacks, the AI doesn't seem very aggressive at the strategic level, actually. Even if you lose a city, you'll take it back before they can raze/plunder it, and take out an enemy army.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
Ratt posted:This was a good week to get a flu. Over 30 hours already, definitely the best 4x I've played in a while. Out of curiosity, have you tried the campaign? The maps seem designed to force you into more and more disadvantageous positions, with enemies often starting with a multitude of cities and you a single settler. On the other hand, however, you do get to keep your heroes and their levels/items while theirs are usually level 5~ to start with no items, and with a hand-built map there's lots of hidden goodies everywhere that can give you an advantage. Still, even powerful heroes can die pretty easily if they're the only strong unit in your army, and having the enemy start with multiple cities is a huge disadvantage. I swear it feels like the AI is more aggressive in the campaign too, I've just started trying random maps and it feels strange to have so much free time going around hunting independents, and three quarters of the AI will just declare peace/alliance on the spot with no cajoling necessary. I know this isn't a diplomacy game but it does feel like it needs some fleshing out. The disposition modifiers are pretty much 'Have we been fighting? If so, I hate you, good luck making me like you again. Do we have peace/open borders? best buds for life alliance now please thanks' with the occasional random guy who just declares war on sight before you have the chance to ask him for peace (since he would totally say yes without the war penalty). One thing I did like about shadow magic was alignment being so important with regards to AI diplomacy, unit morale, and quite a lot of stuff. It gave you specific enemies and allies and was an interesting tactical decision. Good/evil has been pretty blah in this game - good is a complete freebie that ends up being completely insignificant and I don't think I've ever noticed any. Of course I'll let them run, I don't want to risk units. Of course I'll merge, it's another city and more race variety. Any evil decisions like declaring war or razing a tactically important city are quickly smoothed away - I've never actually gone below 'slightly evil'. And yet, either way, there's almost no effect - Dedicated to Good/Evil units are astoundingly rare since no class nor race is tied to any alignment, and the two alignment specializations have no summons. The most common alignment unit I can find is.. felhorses? Which is sort of funny considering 'fell' means 'dreadful'. It almost seems like it shouldn't exist at all, or be more significant. It's weird that I think an alignment system is good, but for some reason I really thought it added something significant to AoW1 and 2, though since it wasn't tied to behavior there it was more of a system of 'this race is friendly to that race but really hates that race' which lead to some interesting decisions with morale. If the necromancer class is added as an 'evil' class, it could actually be interesting though - you'd be pressured into performing evil acts lest you get morale penalties on your undead units, leading to an actual decision with 'let the enemy run away?'. Assuming, of course, that you don't just get knocked to pure evil instantly from alignment penalties on your spells. Wolpertinger fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 11:37
|
|
|
Anyone know if there is a way to get the random map generator to exclude terrian-types completly? Setting the bar to the lowest don't seem to do it. Was going to try a blight-world run but i always start off in temperate anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
Noir89 posted:Anyone know if there is a way to get the random map generator to exclude terrian-types completly? Setting the bar to the lowest don't seem to do it. Was going to try a blight-world run but i always start off in temperate anyway. The RMG will only allow you to spawn in blight if you play as goblins. It will force a zone of liked/neutral theme around your start city as a safety measure. You really don't want to start with an elf city locked in blight, it might start rebelling at the drop of a hat. You might be able to get around the restriction by setting the start town to be settlers only, but if you do that, then make sure you're only fighting goblins. The AI won't found cities on hated and disliked terrain, so if you put an elf down the AI might never do anything. quote:As for ICS, I've found that if there is even one gold producing building it is worth building a city for. Choose the right race for happiness, just set it to merchandise, and you'll have 20+ gold income, paying itself off in at most 8 turns. If you are a Warlord/Dreadnaught, it is even faster, with their passive gold empire buffs. A warlord probably should build a city everywhere possible, so long as it isn't hated terrain. Most cities that don't have +Prod nodes shouldn't get any upgrades, they are just wasted gold. Sometimes a wall, if you need the extra area to catch a building/expect a battle to happen in the city. Otherwise just leave them on Merchandise. I have 16 cities at turn 44 in my latest game, and only 5 of them have ever made a unit besides a settler/tier 0. Most of them have had no upgrades at all, and I'm sitting at 1043 income. I'm starting to think that settlers need to be much more expensive, and that cities should possibly not even generate gold on their own. A lot of people are saying the game is much more fun without any city founding at all, which is a pretty good sign that something is broken with it... Gerblyn fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
^^ I think it's mostly the case of return of investment, though I could be wrong. Turn 44 sounds thoroughly mid-game to me for a medium map, which seems a bit too soon for a city-boom to start paying off. Slightly higher expenses on settlers, slightly slower growth and a reduction on a city's base gold income are the first things to come to mind. Ratt posted:This was a good week to get a flu. Over 30 hours already, definitely the best 4x I've played in a while. That is pretty impressive, I'm curious if this has impacted the rest of your development. How many of your cities can actually churn out units effectively and around what tier? How's your research doing? Race might matter too, I imagine High Elf city spam becomes a real research monster. For suggestions: try setting stuff to less, fewer resources, fewer independents, try an emperor building start. Also I personally find the recommended amount of players per map size to be far too sparse, for medium maps I'd recommend trying 1 or 2 extra players which will gobble up more of the map quicker. Autsj fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:The RMG will only allow you to spawn in blight if you play as goblins. It will force a zone of liked/neutral theme around your start city as a safety measure. You really don't want to start with an elf city locked in blight, it might start rebelling at the drop of a hat. You might be able to get around the restriction by setting the start town to be settlers only, but if you do that, then make sure you're only fighting goblins. The AI won't found cities on hated and disliked terrain, so if you put an elf down the AI might never do anything. You could go even better, make new cities be a drain on your gold without enough resources + development, like Civilization. It also makes capturing pre-made cities a bit more appealing. Wolpertinger fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:I'm starting to think that settlers need to be much more expensive, and that cities should possibly not even generate gold on their own. A lot of people are saying the game is much more fun without any city founding at all, which is a pretty good sign that something is broken with it... For the record, I personally enjoy playing on empire-building mode and pumping out cities, watching the empty spaces of the land get slowly filled in by a burgeoning and industrious empire as expeditionary forces range far and wide in search of treasure and new realms to settle. That being said, I tend to view AIs in in TBS games as punching bags for my ridiculously over-built empire, something to demonstrate the overwhelming power I have managed to accumulate through economic-focused strategies. Also I usually don't play on very high difficulties. So, yeah, mine may not be a common opinion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:The RMG will only allow you to spawn in blight if you play as goblins. It will force a zone of liked/neutral theme around your start city as a safety measure. You really don't want to start with an elf city locked in blight, it might start rebelling at the drop of a hat. You might be able to get around the restriction by setting the start town to be settlers only, but if you do that, then make sure you're only fighting goblins. The AI won't found cities on hated and disliked terrain, so if you put an elf down the AI might never do anything. Yeah figured it was something like that. No way around it then. As for the city issues, i much prefer non-resource cities to still generate profit. More expensive settlers would be fine i guess. But as the previous poster i love to take a almost undeveloped world and let me and the other players/AIs fill in the void with cities and forts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
Pet peeve of mine: Why does the game default to simultaneous turns all the time? If I play a turn-based strategy game I want it to be turn-based and not turn-based-but-also-not-better-click-fast. It can work in multiplayer if everyone agrees to it, but everywhere else it really doesn't make any sense. I accidentally started a random map with it and it didn't even speed up the game at all. VVVV: You're right. The last AoW I played was shadow magic and it had simultaneous turns set as default. Since there apparently are people preferring simultaneous turns: Apart from multiplayer how does it improve the game for you? I'm genuinely puzzled. 
a!n fucked around with this message at 13:00 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
a!n posted:Pet peeve of mine: Why does the game default to simultaneous turns all the time? If I play a turn-based strategy game I want it to be turn-based and not turn-based-but-also-not-better-click-fast. It can work in multiplayer if everyone agrees to it, but everywhere else it really doesn't make any sense. I accidentally started a random map with it and it didn't even speed up the game at all. I think simultaneous has always been the default in AoW. Don't quote me on that though. Shouldn't be that big of a deal though, you don't start new games that often and switching it around would just inconvenience the people who prefer simultaneous instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
Noir89 posted:Yeah figured it was something like that. No way around it then. As for the city issues, i much prefer non-resource cities to still generate profit. More expensive settlers would be fine i guess. But as the previous poster i love to take a almost undeveloped world and let me and the other players/AIs fill in the void with cities and forts. On the other hand, with my current start, more expensive settlers would kind of screw me since i've yet to find a good city to grab and expand too, but tons of open land ripe for settling. Hum... perhaps a higher population cost when building the settler? There could also be a new city tax to make it unprofitable until a certain size? Exclusive to newly built cities of course. Both of these might strengthen setups that encourage city growth however. Kanfy posted:I think simultaneous has always been the default in AoW. Don't quote me on that though. Simultaneous's been in since the start yeah. vvv Nothing im aware of, It would be a nice to have a toggle that tells the game to not spawn players underground so that the underground layer can be a transport system and neutral towns that are fought over. Thyrork fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
I've decided that I prefer to set resource structures, mana and treasure sites to few in my random maps now. Is there any way to stop starting underground apart from just turning it off? Humans don't like caves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
Yeah i always sets resources sites to few as well, i like when things are a bit scarce. On another note, i did manage to turn the Elf Theocrat game around. After a lot of killing, some diplomacy and a few tactical changes, i peaced out with the warlord, got a few turns of peace with the dreadnought but got a fleet up to stop his invasions by the time he declared war again, and as for the sorcerer...  
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
The crusade marches on, friend!
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 14:08
|
|