|
Tomn posted:Couldn't you plunder them? You get resources out of it too, I think! I thought plundering the city destroyed it?
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
I would love to see more reason to use the tier II units. Currently they are just that cheap quick unit that I use to protect my towns in the first 15 turns. After that its all tier III and IV. I also find myself wrecking 2 or 3 stacks of the AI's tier II units with just a single stack of my units. That doesn't make much sense to me. The low end units either need a buff or the high end units need a bit of a nerf. Possibly just adding an Achilles Heel to the top end units?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
I guess it's a map size thing. My last couple games have been on medium maps with undergrounds, against 4 AI. Usually win with a few stacks of T2s and 3s. My sorc game I did have a bunch of Eldritch Horrors just because I could summon one right to me every turn. Dreadnought game though I never researched past fire tanks and cannons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:I thought plundering the city destroyed it? Huh. So it does. I have to wonder why Razing exists as an option, though - why pass up on the extra money from plundering?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Huh. So it does. I have to wonder why Razing exists as an option, though - why pass up on the extra money from plundering? Because it's faster and you might want to deny the enemy their city even if you don't have time to plunder it before they take it back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
If you disable city building, does razing still exist?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
victrix posted:If you disable city building, does razing still exist? You can rebuild a razed city with a settler on that game setting, AFAIK.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
victrix posted:If you disable city building, does razing still exist? Yep, and everyone can still build settlers, but these settlers can't found new cities, just rebuild razed ones. As for the infinite city sprawl problem, couldn't you make it so that the more X you have, the more production X costs? It was an elegant solution Rise of Nations had. For example, let's say producing a Shrine of Smiting takes 200 production (I'm using that as an example because I don't have the exact numbers in my head). My throne city has the highest production, that being 120. It would take 2 turns per shrine of Smiting. However, for every shrine of smiting I already have, the next one costs 10 extra gold and 10 extra mana, which makes it both pricier and longer to build. After 2 shrines of smiting, every next one would already take 3 turns AND the price will keep ramping up. This can especially work with dwellings that have low production, as the price will keep ramping up but production essentially stays low-ish (usually hanging around 60 or so). Now let's say a shrine of smiting gets destroyed, then the price drops again. So if all of your shrines of smiting got wrecked, the next one you build would cost 200 again. I think this solution works best because you could easily tweak it for balancing. Maybe even not implement it at all for T1 units, so T1 can be built at the same price all the time which makes them more useful compared to T4 which would very quickly become very costly. You could also tie the price of settlers to the amount of cities you already have. Essentially, the higher the tier, the more extra resources you need to build a next one of its kind. This stimulates the player to keep using lower tier units as the high tier ones will eventually become to costly to be worth it, and it allows players to rather cheaply rebuild destroyed armies anyway because the price drops again once your higher tier units are destroyed. This also means armies can be more varied! If I already have 4 frost giants, I might be inclined to build 4 fire giants next instead of a very pricey 5th frost giant. Deltasquid fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
LordSloth posted:Not exactly... 50 gold a settler is a pretty big cost when directly converting to freetown initially yields only 1 gold/turn, plus pop growth is slower for special towns. You don't keep your special buildings, and there is a possibility that special towns destroy resources... - they certainly don't harvest them. It just makes sense to grow a town normally for a while, you can make that money/mana back quicker. The main thing is that you may end up abandoning old shards entirely at some point. As to gods, just bring up your build tree and look at what options are available for holy sites, and restrict your choices to that (non-humans have a much less varied selection). As to Alliance, don't worry too much about that unless they're actually doing you good. I've had an allied AI demand stuff from me, march past my front lines, all the way to my capitol, issuing demands along the way. If there isn't another enemy they will look for the opportunity to backstab you. This sounds clever and all, but I still won after they got this large force past my front line, thanks in part due to the weird shard geography that pops up. (I wish there was a warlock 2 thread for this) Part of the issue with using the build tree to plan is it doesn't tell you what units entirely do and what those unit upgrades do, so it's a lot of guesswork. It lists abilities, but not what the abilities do. I'm planeswalker, so I can be pretty much any god except for grum-gog and krolm, though I just found an undead city which is making me lean a bit torwards the death god considering I already have undead planeswalker units. The funny thing about the AI ally I've got is she's aggressively, rabidly spamming attack spells on any hostile independent that walks into my vision, even as I've trapped her on the deadend shard she started on. I think she has nothing else to do. Deltasquid posted:Yep, and everyone can still build settlers, but these settlers can't found new cities, just rebuild razed ones. Now there's a really cool idea - it simultaneously punishes stacking any single unit excessively, rewards diversity, curbs excessively large economies, and helps recover from having your entire army wiped out in a big battle allowing for a bit of a comeback. Double it with some sort of diminishing return on gold/mana for excessive cities and it could do a whole lot to curb city and unit spamming. Wolpertinger fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
victrix posted:But if you don't like them, just turn them way down (maybe even off?). If you can do that now it's a new option and didn't exist when I was playing - and we asked on the forums for it pretty much every single day. I've got a game where I'm sat outside the portal to the final realm and I can't go through it because I just don't get time to build up new units and on the other side are rapidly spawning Shadow Dragons. After getting there and seeing that I just gave up and never went back. quote:As for the infinite city sprawl problem, couldn't you make it so that the more X you have, the more production X costs? It was an elegant solution Rise of Nations had. That sounds like a pretty decent idea. Still, though - maybe instead of making T4 units weaker we should be making the earlier units a bit stronger?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
Taear posted:That sounds like a pretty decent idea. Still, though - maybe instead of making T4 units weaker we should be making the earlier units a bit stronger? I don't know. I kinda feel like a T4 should seriously be an "OH gently caress" moment once it rolls into combat, and take a lot of effort to take down, but I'd rather have the enemy have two dreadnoughts supported by waves of musketeers and swordsmen instead of just stacks of 6 dreadnoughts rolling around everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:I don't know. I kinda feel like a T4 should seriously be an "OH gently caress" moment once it rolls into combat, and take a lot of effort to take down, but I'd rather have the enemy have two dreadnoughts supported by waves of musketeers and swordsmen instead of just stacks of 6 dreadnoughts rolling around everywhere. I don't think this works with the way Age of Wonders is. The t3 and t4 units are the interesting ones and if they're removed it's going to be a much less varied and exciting game. I can agree with Dwelling creatures but the only dwellings I ever see are Archon ones and I can't use the things from them because being evil is impossible so I've not really experienced it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
Taear posted:I don't think this works with the way Age of Wonders is. The t3 and t4 units are the interesting ones and if they're removed it's going to be a much less varied and exciting game. Well, they wouldn't be removed, they'd just have to be supported by other units. I think having a mix of units from all tiers in combat is a lot more varied and exciting than 18 shrines of smiting vs 18 dreadnoughts every battle. Also I never ever see Archon dwellings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 10:45
|
|
|
Honestly that sounds ugly and inelegant, it's just adding another system on top of the balancing systems that already exist. Upkeep already means that every subsequent unit you build costs the previous' unit upkeep more, effectively. That it is apparantly not enough to deter higher tier spam suggest that the current economic system is simply too lenient (for some of the map settings people play on), not that it needs another system on top of it. Also comeback mechanics are pretty much always terrible, most 4x games suffer from a endgame slog when trying for a conquest type victory, comeback mechanics will just extend that. From what I can tell, the biggest issues lie in how fast a return of investment you can get on founding new cities and how fast your economy can boom as a result of that. Combined with a lot of people talking about the economy without underscoring mapsizes, amount of opponents and closeness of starting locations, all things that really matter in defining the balance of a game. Tier 4s will get spammed once it is economically (and logistically viable) but there's enough tools in the game as is to limit that viability via unit costs (and thus production speed), upkeep and raw city income/production/growth. Tweaking those elements, perhaps widening the costs/upkeep of different tiers and reducing raw city output/growth seems a much more sensible direction to take. On top of that, I think Gerblyn has already said several times that they're planning a speed slider to use as a scaler for people that want an overal slower development similar to how Civ does it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Well, they wouldn't be removed, they'd just have to be supported by other units. I think having a mix of units from all tiers in combat is a lot more varied and exciting than 18 shrines of smiting vs 18 dreadnoughts every battle. But all the T1/2 units are identical. No matter the race, they do the same stuff. I don't want more of those, because they're not as interesting. It removes variety from the game if you can only have one or two t4/3 units.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
Autsj posted:Honestly that sounds ugly and inelegant, it's just adding another system on top of the balancing systems that already exist. True enough, it's just how it worked in Rise of Nations and I remembered it working very well. Didn't Warlock have the same problem though? I remember looking at that game, and wondering "there's no happiness mechanic like in CiV. How does it keep infinite city sprawl in check?" and I never got an answer to that. Taear posted:But all the T1/2 units are identical. No matter the race, they do the same stuff. I don't want more of those, because they're not as interesting. No, it improves variety because you can only have one or two of the same T4 unit. An army of 2 juggernauts, 2 gold dragons and 2 frost giants is still more varied than 6 juggernauts, even if they're all T4. Making a T4 unit shouldn't increase costs of all T4 units across the board, that'd be incredibly dumb. Also I am not a game designer and the folk at Triumph are, so this system might completely go against the AoW design philosophy, so whatever. If they can dampen or reduce the end-game slog of having to out-spam the enemy with stacks of the strongest available units, then I don't really care how they do it, as long as it makes the game more fun 
Deltasquid fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
-snip, reply is not edit.-
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
Maybe the class Tier-4s could infer some sort of bonus to tier 1s and 2s specifically? The Shrine of Smiting already behaves similarly, where you need devout units in the stack for it to power up fully. Or hell, with most of the Tier 4s I'd believe if they were "unstackable" i.e. you can only have one Juggernaut per stack or some such and fill the rest with support units. It wouldn't cut down on spam but it would reduce the number of tier 4s you could face in a single battle to 6 max. Of course this kind of breaks down when you try to justify it with Manticore Riders, and it still has the problem of adding additional mechanics when fine-tuning the existing ones should do just as well. E: Having Tier-4s be unstackable does introduce the nice strategic-layer of either spamming tier-4s and have them roll alongside your main hero-stack with a chance of them being individually ambushed or building a half-decent army to escort each. Triskelli fucked around with this message at 11:10 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:No, it improves variety because you can only have one or two of the same T4 unit. An army of 2 juggernauts, 2 gold dragons and 2 frost giants is still more varied than 6 juggernauts, even if they're all T4. But this makes dwellings really powerful. You're then saying "If you have dwellings in your realm, you'll win most engagements" because they can field 4 or 6 T4 units whereas I can only field 2.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:True enough, it's just how it worked in Rise of Nations and I remembered it working very well. It did, and it worked pretty nicely I think. We played a loooot of RoN multiplayer, but we used a pretty heavily modded version that slowed the pace of the game down, so my memories of it are probably skewed. It was definitely a bad idea to over spend on one unit type past a certain point though. Warlock 1 did - depends on if you view it as a problem or not I suppose. Warlock 2 has a city cap that can be increased with research, exceeding it causes your unrest meter to grow, which if it gets high enough causes Bad Things to happen and then it resets and begins to refill again. You can actually disable the city limit setting with a game start option though. Civ 5 put a fair amount of effort into having viable options for going wide or tall, I'm pretty indifferent myself, I don't really care either way - I've played civ5 wide, tall, I played warlock 1 sprawling cities everywhere, I've played aow with and without settling. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with ICS, my gripes with it have more to do with the tedium of managing huge empires than anything else. The more significant issues are gameplay specific - does it overpower any other development strategy, and does it break the AI over its knee? The ideal would be having wide or tall be viable options, but failing that, either style can be executed well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
Taear posted:But this makes dwellings really powerful. You're then saying "If you have dwellings in your realm, you'll win most engagements" because they can field 4 or 6 T4 units whereas I can only field 2. But dwellings already have really low production. Making T4's in dwellings would quickly take an insane amount of turns compared to your larger cities that can have like double the production.  At that stage it turns into "but if I have more cities/dwellings and resources I'll win more engagements" but I guess that's kind of the point of 4X games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
Civ 5 is probably a bad example to look at when trying to think of solutions for ICS. The happiness mechanic never really stopped ICSing, it was alive and well up until BNW, the only things that really kept it in check was other AIs and city states clogging up space and simply because it was boring and tedious. BNW murdered ICS or any wide strategy in general simply by killing your research as you acquire more cities. Since then, 4 cities max and going tall is really the one and only correct way, which also kinda sucks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:At that stage it turns into "but if I have more cities/dwellings and resources I'll win more engagements" but I guess that's kind of the point of 4X games. I don't think I agree, because dwellings are incredibly random. T4 are so powerful that if you've capped them and you can definitely have more because you have more variety through spawning near a dwelling, you're going to win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:18
|
|
|
Then just make the increased costs for dwelling T4's be higher than that of class T4's? Because as it stands, whenever you can decide between making a T4 or a T1-3, the T4 is ALWAYS the superior choice. I don't know how exactly you can fix that without punishing the making of T4's more than the making of lower tiers. Just give them insane upkeep?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Then just make the increased costs for dwelling T4's be higher than that of class T4's? It's going to be almost impossible to balance more upkeep because you're going to have to pit it against people who turn settling off (like me) and people who can spam out loads of cities to pay for it. I guess I don't see it as an issue. I would if t1/2 was more interesting but it's just not, so if armies are all t3 and 4 units I'm glad. It's pretty much how the other games worked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
I guess we just see it differently then. Tiers 1 and 2 are kinda boring but to me it strikes as just very, very odd that the most powerful units become your bread and butter. It's like playing a WW2 game that ends with everyone spamming King Tigers and IS-2's. They should be rare and a way to break a stalemate, not mandatory to even survive. EDIT: also yes, I did just compare a game that involves elves and dragons to World War 2 strategy games. I am aware of how stupid that sounds in retrospect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
I imagine there's room for keeping T1-2 units relevant through experience levels. There's already a mechanic in place for that with the Arena and other buildings of its kind; it's just that the boosts need to be bigger and/or more significant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Then just make the increased costs for dwelling T4's be higher than that of class T4's? It comes down to economic viability, the system you suggested is basically an extra upkeep system. If the economy is tighter and/or price and upkeep ranges are wider, T4s become less desirable. Besides I already disagree with T4 always being the superior choice, I certainly don't build tier 4 in my backwater cities when a few archers can suffice. T4s are for the front so they don't clog too many resources moving all the way forward. But also comes down to map settings as well as playstyle, my last game with a dwarven warlord ended around turn 60- medium map, far starting locations, 4 ai players on King and no city founding. I won that game on Boar Riders and Autsj fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
Yeah, i much prefer when the early tier units in games keeps being useful. Heck i prefer it when they stay the backbone of your forces and higher tier units are added as force multipliers/big hitters but are not viable to spam. For me it just makes for a more fun experience when having a mixed force things. And if we are going for pure visuals, the game looks incredible when you have an army of pikes/archers/cavalry lined up sprinkled with some big units, say shrines and exalted. It looks much more visually boring when it is just a bunch of 10+ manticore riders or juggernauts. I am all for buffing T1s a bit in late game, either through experience bonuses or raw stat-bonuses and making new cities be a drain on the economy until they grow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
Autsj posted:It comes down to economic viability, the system you suggested is basically an extra upkeep system. If the economy is tighter and/or price and upkeep ranges are wider, T4s become less desirable. Besides I already disagree with T4 always being the superior choice, I certainly don't build tier 4 in my backwater cities when a few archers can suffice. T4s are for the front so they don't clog too many resources moving all the way forward. The problem is that leaving non-t3/4 units in your cities behind the lines, the enemy will roll up with one or two T3/4 units and just grab them. I've started putting T3s at least in every city I have as defenders, now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
Taear posted:The problem is that leaving non-t3/4 units in your cities behind the lines, the enemy will roll up with one or two T3/4 units and just grab them. I've started putting T3s at least in every city I have as defenders, now. Pretty much this. If you're going to put 6 archers in your rear cities, you might as well not put anything because a single juggernaut will waltz right through that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
Taear posted:The problem is that leaving non-t3/4 units in your cities behind the lines, the enemy will roll up with one or two T3/4 units and just grab them. I've started putting T3s at least in every city I have as defenders, now. Again, if you and your enemy have enough resources that you can spam T3 or T4s into backwater cities then the problem lies in the overal leniency of the economy. As well as your scouting and your positioning of your main army/muster locations. If he is moving T4s into your backwater cities, you should be able to grab his Throne since that's a significant amount of power that isn't blocking you. Let alone that a 3 or 4 archers + spellspam (or class specific tier 2s like musketeers or assassins) eat a lone T3 or T4 for breakfast. I think part of the problem here might be that we're talking in a limbo, map settings matter. None of the things you guys describe happen in my games but I play on medium maps, with extra opponents and few rescource structures. If you crank the map and resources up and the opponents down, the amount of space/resources you can grab will severely influence the balance of a game. EDIT: I should say, different settings severely influence the balance of the game: obviously playing with extra opponents and fewer rescources means my games are slightly different from average already. Autsj fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
Noir89 posted:I am all for buffing T1s a bit in late game, either through experience bonuses or raw stat-bonuses and making new cities be a drain on the economy until they grow. It's also not too hard to implement a buff for low tier units in the late game. Heck you could even work some class/race quirks into it (as sorcerers unlock higher tier units their lower end casters also benefit from the research, for example.) Agreed that it's mostly an economy issue though. It's a bit too easy to spam tier fours, especially. Mokinokaro fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 12:27
|
|
|
Autsj posted:If he is moving T4s into your backwater cities, you should be able to grab his Throne since that's a significant amount of power that isn't blocking you. Nah, it usually just means his 5 stacks of 6 T4's are colliding into an eternal grindmill at the front lines with your T4's and one of his backwater cities produced a T4 somehow. EDIT: I mean don't get me wrong, I love this game, it's just that I can't play on any map size higher than small because it means that the endgame will inevitably become a slog. A small map without city founding hits the sweet spot for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
I'm thinking that a real fix to t3/4 units (the city-produced ones, at least) would have to involve remaking their primary mechanics, so that sending them out without a group of t1/2 units for each t3/4 would be quite inefficient. I think the post-nerf Shrine of Smiting is a good example of this direction, with perhaps the addition of only t1/t2 units affecting its attack, and multiple shrines not being able to share units for boosting their attacks. If balanced around the presence of maybe 3-4 t1/2 units, I'd imagine such a unit would slip back into the role of specialized heavy hitter, rather than replacing t1 and t2 units as the bulk of an army in the late game. Edit: The whole issue reminds me of the problem of supercapital proliferation in Eve Online, where the developers mistakenly thought that the power of a ship/unit could be balanced by its cost, because they didn't realize that at some point, cost ceases to be a factor for one or more party in the conflict. Slashrat fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
6 archers will kill a manticore or horned god without too much issue, maybe two. Juggernauts and shrines of smiting would be a bit tougher, and it would depend on medals of each party. . I've got no idea how eldritch horrors would stack up. 6 t2 units (horsemen/muskets/priests/assassins?) can deal with a t4 and a few other things. They may even take no casualties depending on how well the AI can use its tools. I've never really had problems with doomstacks as end game magic is just so very powerful (eg spy drone + hellfire is my new favourite 'global' damage spell, but you'd probably need to use something a bit tougher to initiate the combat against a human opponent). If we're talking back line defence, then city garrisons aren't the way to go. Research logistics, build roads and have line of site such that you get a turn's warning. I don't think I've ever seen good t2 units phased out, although later on there is certainly a bias towards heavy hitting units being more useful. Theocrats, sorcerers and archdruids are the big losers here as their t2 units don't keep value at all. Incy fucked around with this message at 12:46 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
I just got this and managed to fail the first mission. Any good guides out there?Autsj posted:Civ 5 is probably a bad example to look at when trying to think of solutions for ICS. The happiness mechanic never really stopped ICSing, it was alive and well up until BNW, the only things that really kept it in check was other AIs and city states clogging up space and simply because it was boring and tedious. I think what Warlock 2 implemented is going in the right direction. In that game, you have an "optimal number of cities", which is increased by research. You get full use of these cities, which form the core of your empire. You can exceed the limit, but get an increasing gold-per-turn and happiness penalty the further you go over. You can convert any city you build into a special city, which doesn't count towards your city limit. These give you smaller bonuses than full-on cities, and you don't manage them per se (their bonus just increases slowly over the course of the game). You can build "Free Cities", which give a small amount of gold, "Temple cities" that make a god like you and give you mana, and "Fortresses" which don't do anything but are tough with a strong ranged attack. So what ends up happening is a sort of hybrid of Tall and Wide play, where everyone kind of has a Civ 5 Tradition empire surrounded by a number of less-powerful puppet cities. You're still rewarded for expanding, but you don't have the management burden of developing thirty cities, and colonising everything is not a concern that overrides everything else like it is in ICS-friendly games. Gort fucked around with this message at 12:53 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
Gort posted:I just got this and managed to fail the first mission. Any good guides out there? Be balls to the walls aggressive in the campaign. You can have a way more relaxed approach in random maps, so play a few of those for a few hours or so to get a feel for the classes, races and mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:Edit: The whole issue reminds me of the problem of supercapital proliferation in Eve Online, where the developers mistakenly thought that the power of a ship/unit could be balanced by its cost, because they didn't realize that at some point, cost ceases to be a factor for one or more party in the conflict. Eve is essentially made to go on for perpetuity, while a game in AoW is balanced around 100-120 turns. People taking more time apparantly suprised the devs enough that they've mentioned a speed slider to accommodate much longer games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
Incy posted:6 archers will kill a manticore or horned god without too much issue, maybe two. Juggernauts and shrines of smiting would be a bit tougher, and it would depend on medals of each party. . I've got no idea how eldritch horrors would stack up. 6 t2 units (horsemen/muskets/priests/assassins?) can deal with a t4 and a few other things. They may even take no casualties depending on how well the AI can use its tools. I've manually fought with six orc archers against a manticore rider and a draconian cavalry and my entire army was killed because they hit the rider three times for one or two damage, and that's it. Meanwhile one hit kills my archers. quote:Eve is essentially made to go on for perpetuity, while a game in AoW is balanced around 100-120 turns. People taking more time apparantly suprised the devs enough that they've mentioned a speed slider to accommodate much longer games. I feel like I'm on turn 40/50 before the game has even properly started and that's playing on a medium continents map with no underground and four other players so it's relatively crowded!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 12:51
|
|