|
Lassitude posted:Here's the deal with archons in AoW3: "Archon Revenants are corruptions of the glorious and noble Archon. In life, the Archon were a race of enlightened men. Outwardly very similar to humans, their inner peace and nature resembled that of the elves. Always helping humanity, their most fervent goal was fighting and obliterating the undead, who they saw as their ultimate nemesis. They eventually left, leaving behind tombs of warriors in large necropoles. By some cruel twist of fate, they eventually rose from their resting places as undead themselves. Nothing like their former selves, these Archon Revenants are soulless beings intend on spreading death and destruction." Is that the final lore? I always liked the idea of trapped Archons leading an existence without purpose, and they've become these emaciated things across the centuries.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
Lassitude posted:Here's the deal with archons in AoW3: "Archon Revenants are corruptions of the glorious and noble Archon. In life, the Archon were a race of enlightened men. Outwardly very similar to humans, their inner peace and nature resembled that of the elves. Always helping humanity, their most fervent goal was fighting and obliterating the undead, who they saw as their ultimate nemesis. They eventually left, leaving behind tombs of warriors in large necropoles. By some cruel twist of fate, they eventually rose from their resting places as undead themselves. Nothing like their former selves, these Archon Revenants are soulless beings intend on spreading death and destruction." Is that the final lore? I always liked the idea of trapped Archons leading an existence without purpose, and they've become these emaciated things across the centuries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Hah. Started up a Halfling Druid RNG game. Every inch of ground outside my capital is volanic/mountains, as far as the eye can see, including around all the seals. That's uh, that's not a good start...
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Is that the final lore? I always liked the idea of trapped Archons leading an existence without purpose, and they've become these emaciated things across the centuries. What I quoted there is the description of the Necropolis building, which if you control allows you to recruit Archon revenants. So yeah, that's the lore from AoW3. Some other bits of lore is gotten into more with the unit descriptions for the Archon revenant units. Specifically, the Archons I guess had some city called Starwall and during the last days of the Archons a seductive, ancestor-worshipping cult called Shadai took hold and apparently, through it, the dead Archons were corrupted such that they were reanimated with all their skills but none of their former ideals. A fallen god called Urrath was involved somehow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
I think the way the timeline goes is that the majority of Archons went into the shadow realm to fight Shadow Demons, then came back only briefly to ask for help (when Meandor and his posse left with them.) Source
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
I need help with the Animate Dead terrain. What I do is manual combat, but I use auto-combat within the manual combat. But even if I don't use auto-combat, the Independent's guys constantly get re-born and every time I die. What am I doing wrong? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Ideally, you need to kill every enemy on the field at one time so it doesn't get a shot at coming back as the turn flips over and the terrain's Animate Dead is cast on everything dead on the field-potentially turning your own dead against you or at least bringing back things you already put down(Animate Dead can fail). This is not always possible. Still, the attempt must be made. This is speaking of Shadow Magic, but should apply to 3, if you're talking about that. Bloodly fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Lorini posted:I need help with the Animate Dead terrain. What I do is manual combat, but I use auto-combat within the manual combat. But even if I don't use auto-combat, the Independent's guys constantly get re-born and every time I die. What am I doing wrong? Thanks. Kill them faster. Animate Dead is limited to raising a single unit per turn, the faster you kill them the less free spawn you will have to deal with. In city battles the effect can also be disjuncted, but for independent battles you're out of luck.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Lorini posted:I need help with the Animate Dead terrain. What I do is manual combat, but I use auto-combat within the manual combat. But even if I don't use auto-combat, the Independent's guys constantly get re-born and every time I die. What am I doing wrong? Thanks. If you can, sit your troops on top of the corpses of the independents. That will prevent them resurrecting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:If you can, sit your troops on top of the corpses of the independents. That will prevent them resurrecting. This is a hilarious mental image. They can't get back up because you are standing on their heads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
Thanks everyone, I'll give all those suggestions a try.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
Hey Gerblyn, Got a an issue that i'd like to discuss. Previous to the release of the DLC patch, me and my buddy could do multiplayer compstomps with no noticeable issues. Now, when we launch the multiplayer it says we both have a poor connection. Apparently this prevents us from hosting any games, meaning we can no longer play together. What exactly is the system checking the connectivity to? I believe (and i could be wrong) that the multiplayer games are peer to peer. You're server is only to verify login info. If that is the case why can't we at least attempt to host and see if the game runs? Not being able to play together is real disappointment. Is this something that is likely to change or am I relegated to single player for the foreseeable future?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
I had that same issue with my friend, only pre-dlc. We ended up having to use Hamachi to connect to each other, which is actually an option you can choose to use right in the game so it's relatively painless compared to how gaming with Hamachi usually goes. Haven't actually checked to see if we could play normally post-dlc, might be worth looking at
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
j5mello posted:Hey Gerblyn, AFAIK it's checking how well your two machines can connect to each other. I don't know the exact details, but it has to do with the settings you both have in your routers/firewalls/network hardware. Fixing it is a bit involved, since I have no idea how you guys have your networks set up. One common thing to try: most modern home routers have a system called "uPnP", if that is switched on, it should fix the problem. The game does need to try and connect to our servers for you guys to log in, and you can't play multiplayer with each other without being logged in. This does mean you can't play multiplayer without an internet connection I'm afraid. Finally, as ninjewtsu says, you can use Hamachi to try and connect. Once both your computers can find each other via Hamachi, start a game using: Online Multiplayer -> Local/VPN.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Another question. How can you use heroes that aren't of your race/class well? They don't seem to be able to cast the spells you are researching and that seems to really reduce their usefullness. Am I missing something somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Heroes get new spells through skill points. You only get heroes of races you've encountered, for example you wont get a Human hero until you've conquered a Human city
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Non-leader heroes can't use the spells you research, those are only for your hero. If you want a secondary hero to be able to use spells they have to invest level up points in both their casting point skill and they also have to buy the actual spell itself as a level up. It is another reason why researching tactical skills kinda sucks, only your leader can make use of them and secondary heroes start with some spells for free anyway. ^^ is that actually a thing? I thought the race of heroes was either totally random or locked to your leader's race based on the game option you chose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Heroes get new spells through skill points. You only get heroes of races you've encountered, for example you wont get a Human hero until you've conquered a Human city I don't think that's true, I've gotten Heroes when I only have one city (after the first one I mean).
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Carnalfex posted:Non-leader heroes can't use the spells you research, those are only for your hero. If you want a secondary hero to be able to use spells they have to invest level up points in both their casting point skill and they also have to buy the actual spell itself as a level up. Yeah this. I'm beginning to wonder if the secondary guys are worth the money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Yeah this. I'm beginning to wonder if the secondary guys are worth the money. They are, but they need to be protected and fed some levels until they can reach their full power. A high level hero is significantly more powerful than any standard unit. I mean, T4 units can't cast Chaos Rift or grant their entire stack the Resurgence ability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Yeah this. I'm beginning to wonder if the secondary guys are worth the money. More heroes is always worth it. Even low-level scrub heroes can act as army leaders and the extra spell flexibility they provide is frequently useful. A Sorcerer hero who casts chain lightning once per battle is pulling his weight even if he's level one with no gear. In general the game encourages you to use one hero/stack instead of creating a single hero doom stack ala SM, but heroes are still better then basically everything else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Well heroes don't have upkeep costs (I think?) and they have a high potential limit for power vs cost (depending on max level game setting). Actually getting them there requires a lot of babysitting for exp and luck/forging to get items. On top of this, if you play multiplayer you can be sure the autocombat will slaughter your heroes (and anything else you love and cherish). You can get around that by setting them to autorevive in autocombat, though. Basically secondary heroes are only really worth your money if you can drag them around to lots of fights and get them some nice equipment, all without losing them. Usually that means only the first hero or two to show up is going to be worth your money since they will have the most time to stick with you. Later heroes that ask to join will be a higher level but cost significantly more, I think a level 4-5 hero costs as much as building a tier 4 unit ($300 or so). Heroes need about 5 levels and a piece of gear or two to match the next tier of units usually, so buying high tier heroes is usually a pretty awful deal. If you have some powerful gear lying around none of it has level restrictions so you can give the craziest stuff in the game to level 1 hero and have a guy that isn't that much worse off than if he had a lot of exp under his belt. Hero gear is where a lot of their potential comes from. The other thing to consider is what class the hero is when they ask to join, some classes can be very useful depending on your strategy and what you plan on facing. Theocrats are great for keeping your armies healthy and beating up undead, for example, so they are very useful as a secondary hero to just beat up neutrals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Yeah heroes are always worth it on the basis of you being able to equip them alone. This is in addition to them granting you access to some of the better abilities of their class (Chaos Rift) or just being awesome army leaders (Warlords).
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
One last question and I'm out. I'm always out of gold. Yet if I don't order units, the independents kill me off. This game is both fun and frustrating!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
I always make raiding bandit hideouts one of my first priorities with my starting stack. That takes care of those rear end in a top hat who will wander up and steal your cities. While they're taking care of them I build infrastructure in my starting city. Building units is something I try to put off for as long as possible (aside from maybe an archer or two to defend my city). I don't know if it's a good strategy but it's been working so far. But you should always be running out of gold anyway. Money sitting there isn't doing you any good. If it's being drained by units then throw them at something. Either you win a new city or resource to compensate or they all die and you've got your income back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:I always make raiding bandit hideouts one of my first priorities with my starting stack. That takes care of those rear end in a top hat who will wander up and steal your cities. While they're taking care of them I build infrastructure in my starting city. Building units is something I try to put off for as long as possible (aside from maybe an archer or two to defend my city). I don't know if it's a good strategy but it's been working so far. Right, my normal game flow is to queue up some useful buildings in my capital while clearing with my starting stacks. With starting production and upkeep being so low combined with all the stuff I get clearing I'm usually floating several hundred gold until I transition to the actually building units stage. Bandits and similar sites definitely get burned on sight, those guys are bastards if you ignore them. While it's true that you should be always putting money to use, honestly there's no units worth building at the start of the game 90% of the time. At least wait until you can get some solid class units researched or Tier 2 racial units at a bare minimum before blowing through your starting wad of cash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Bandit camps and the like (any structure that's manned by hostile units instead of neutral ones) should be a priority target for you. Gold-wise, I think the easiest mistake to make is not expanding as early as you can. My first building is always the Builder's Hall (the bonus production pays for itself, anyway), so I can churn out a settler as soon as I've found a prime city spot, or some military if there's a neighboring city to claim. There's no check on expansion, and the base gold produced by cities is by far your biggest source of income. Fill the gaps in your empire with cities, even if all they do is sit there and produce gold/mana/science.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Lorini posted:One last question and I'm out. I'm always out of gold. Yet if I don't order units, the independents kill me off. This game is both fun and frustrating! You should be looking to secure sources of gold as early as possible. Getting a second city should be a top priority. Gold is by far the most important resource in the early game so make sure you settle your first few cities near gold producing structures. Secondary to gold are research or population resources. Locations rich in production or mana can wait until later since you can't really take advantage of those until later in the game. Your starting units are also extremely important. Keeping them alive allows to delay building extra units as long as possible, which saves money. Plus, using them to clear independents is a significant source of gold all on its own. Keep in mind that you can sell rewards claimed from independents, so you can sell off crappy T1 units or bad items and instead get a sizable chunk of sweet sweet gold.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Started playing this again after the DLC and to see how buffed the AI got. Well it certainly is better than it was on launch. Do they always collectively declare war on you on King and higher? I can handle one or two opponents at once, but getting three-four is a bit much. Is this because I am aggressively exploring? I'm not aggressively expanding, but I do inevitably end up getting close to the seals of power. What exactly is the "defender strength" option in the advanced options? Does it buff troops who are on the defending side in city battles?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Ojetor posted:Your starting units are also extremely important. Keeping them alive allows to delay building extra units as long as possible, which saves money. I did this, but found out i preferred to go builders hall - full stack with 4 ranged/2 melee T1. This basically doubles my clearing normal sites and some of the easier dungeons, giving me a whole lot of more gold income. Basically the stack pays itself back and more in collected gold, artifacts, potentially rushed independent cities etc. Building infrastructure is something i put off for when i feel i am expanding comfortably in at least 2 directions. Not to mention grabbing up a close AI neighbor if the opportunity shows up! Then again my prefered race is goblins! v  vedit: Heck if you want to save some gold, running a 2 Irregular/2 Ranged/2 Melee T1 build works fine as a second expansion party for goblins at least. I would imagine something like orcs would run something else, think i will run an orc something my next game actually, to experiment with their early units. Noir89 fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
quote:What exactly is the "defender strength" option in the advanced options? Does it buff troops who are on the defending side in city battles? It increases the number and strength of neutral defenders, so at max setting basic gold mines and stuff will have five guys guarding them instead of three, for example.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Rascyc posted:Started playing this again after the DLC and to see how buffed the AI got. Well it certainly is better than it was on launch. Do they always collectively declare war on you on King and higher? I can handle one or two opponents at once, but getting three-four is a bit much. Is this because I am aggressively exploring? I'm not aggressively expanding, but I do inevitably end up getting close to the seals of power. I think AI diplomacy is almost exclusively based off relative military strength. I lost one game because every AI declared war on me after I lost my biggest stack to a treasure site early in the game, and I've noticed that the AI won't sign peace until I've started to produce my second or third stack. Rascyc posted:What exactly is the "defender strength" option in the advanced options? Does it buff troops who are on the defending side in city battles? It's the independent units in treasure sites, like Tower Ruins and Tombs. Maybe also the ones on sites like gold mines and nodes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Rascyc posted:Started playing this again after the DLC and to see how buffed the AI got. Well it certainly is better than it was on launch. Do they always collectively declare war on you on King and higher? I can handle one or two opponents at once, but getting three-four is a bit much. Is this because I am aggressively exploring? I'm not aggressively expanding, but I do inevitably end up getting close to the seals of power. Did you actually claim a Seal? In my experience this causes the AI to go berserk and everyone will declare war on you immediately, even those you are friendly with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
madmac posted:It increases the number and strength of neutral defenders, so at max setting basic gold mines and stuff will have five guys guarding them instead of three, for example. It also means that a 'mythical' treasure site will have 3 tier 4 class units protecting it + support, which means you really do need your own T4s to take it out. Is it possible to get the expansion special buildings (linked to treasure sites) in the original campaign? I'd quite like to replay it, with the additional expansion stuff if that is at all possible. Lobsterpillar fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
I just played a Seal victory game for the first time last night and holy loving poo poo this a whole new ball game folks! After I cleared my first seal and saw the loot... the loot  Anyway I loved it. It might just be coincidence from one match but the AI seems a lot more comfortable contesting seals than it is attacking your cities. There was a lot more tension all over the map with points ticking, and it was the first time that I didn't feel like I'd basically won just because I took someone's throne city. It really solves the "foregone conclusion" effect that makes a lot of 4x games completely lose tension once you've gotten to a certain size. You have to really be dominating the map to feel comfortable in a seals game. A+ will play again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Anyone tried seals on an extra large map?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
I always try to get a builder out asap. poo poo out forts everywhere. Future expansion spaces, crypts and ruins out in the middle of nowhere, or just land denial against the AI. And when you do settle on them the city gets the wall, so you can save turns not having to build them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Kajeesus posted:I think AI diplomacy is almost exclusively based off relative military strength. I lost one game because every AI declared war on me after I lost my biggest stack to a treasure site early in the game, and I've noticed that the AI won't sign peace until I've started to produce my second or third stack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Hey Gerblyn, request for next time you swing by: On the RGM's settings for seals, could you allow a specified number of them? I'd love to raise the stakes by reducing the seal count.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
I just realized that wasn't an option; I assumed it was. That could certainly lead to some tense king of the hill fights with fewer seals. A game with more seals sounds fun too, it would probably lead to more aggressive capturing play since defending any one would mean less and players would likely find one earlier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 19:03
|
|