Posted July 31, 2020
Paradoxnrt
New User
Paradoxnrt Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2018
From Canada
And G
And G Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2013
From Switzerland
Paradoxnrt
New User
Paradoxnrt Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2018
From Canada
Posted July 31, 2020
I hope you enjoy your well deserved rest....1.45 is amazing!
I like all the ideas you listed for 1.4x.....let's see, my thoughts...
You want to make the Undead and Azrac's stronger?....since unit abilities/stats can be done within the Editor, it seems less important than the other changes you mentioned.
But, since we are on the topic, maybe make 'cursed' status last several turns longer, and so there would be more need to remove the curse status via the spell 'heal, or 'dispel'. Would 1) make undead slightly stronger overall and 2) would make priests a little more useful (for dealing with curses)...
How about making the Azracs and Lizards friendly? Since Lore-wise, they would NEVER compete for territory (drylands/desert vs swamplands/coastal) = they only have reason to co-operate.
Lightning/Frozen combat status are super powerful, I wouldn't extend them. While less powerful during combat, Cursed/Poisoned/Vertigo also have the advantage of enduring (3 game turns). The only odd effect out is Fire Strike....it helps a little that you extended the combat duration to 4 turns, but it still is FAR inferior to any of the other type of 'effects'.
Maybe give fire strike 'burning' a penalty to resistance and/or defense while on fire (for 4 combat turns)? This would represent units flaying around trying to put out the flames.....
As far as faster animation speeds....I've never really found their speed to be a problem.
I like all the ideas you listed for 1.4x.....let's see, my thoughts...
You want to make the Undead and Azrac's stronger?....since unit abilities/stats can be done within the Editor, it seems less important than the other changes you mentioned.
But, since we are on the topic, maybe make 'cursed' status last several turns longer, and so there would be more need to remove the curse status via the spell 'heal, or 'dispel'. Would 1) make undead slightly stronger overall and 2) would make priests a little more useful (for dealing with curses)...
How about making the Azracs and Lizards friendly? Since Lore-wise, they would NEVER compete for territory (drylands/desert vs swamplands/coastal) = they only have reason to co-operate.
Lightning/Frozen combat status are super powerful, I wouldn't extend them. While less powerful during combat, Cursed/Poisoned/Vertigo also have the advantage of enduring (3 game turns). The only odd effect out is Fire Strike....it helps a little that you extended the combat duration to 4 turns, but it still is FAR inferior to any of the other type of 'effects'.
Maybe give fire strike 'burning' a penalty to resistance and/or defense while on fire (for 4 combat turns)? This would represent units flaying around trying to put out the flames.....
As far as faster animation speeds....I've never really found their speed to be a problem.
Post edited July 31, 2020 by Paradoxnrt
Lagi_
New User
Lagi_ Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Feb 2014
From Poland
Posted July 31, 2020
fastest animation would be great. I would not need to use cheat engine anymore.
well if there is 8 units or more per side. And you looking at enemy dudes moving, the time wait for your turn, start to be feelable.
well if there is 8 units or more per side. And you looking at enemy dudes moving, the time wait for your turn, start to be feelable.
southern
Old User
southern Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Jul 2011
From United Kingdom
Posted July 31, 2020
Despite my obsessive griping about certain numbers, even I think 1.45 is great.
It might also be cool to see snow and desert cost 5 movement points - ideally reduced to 4 with Cold/Fire Protection or Immunity.
AoW2's MPE engine modification makes snow cost 5 movement points, reduced by ''Snow Wanderer'', an ability which he adapted from an unused ability. Since the AoW2 engine has many points of similarity, there are probably things you could transfer from MPE to AoW+. If you ask Hellbrick at hellbrick@gmail.com he might be able to give you useful info
IMO you don't need to worry about Azrac diplomacy too much, theirs is not the worst and they have elephants. Maybe nerf the elephant less? Or you could do what you mentioned might be an option - default self-race relations at Polite for most races, but for some, like the Theocratic imperial Azracs, it could be Friendly.
As for the Undead, like I mentioned a month or so ago, the game copes okay with lizardmen swimming, goblins having 4 HP, etc - Undead could simply get +1 HP across the board. Comparable to the Highmen having 30 movement points. I know, I know, another ruleset-style change....
What do you have in mind regarding AI targeting?
https://github.com/HellBrick/AowSdk/tree/feature/player-race-default
This might also interest you, regarding MPE / AoW2 / Hellbrick.
And G: For the record, here's a list of stuff I am still considering for AoW+ v1.4x:
- terrain movement costs
- AI combat targetting priorities
- fastest animation speed faster
- possibly asymmetric race relations matrix
- possibly further changes to durations of status effects
- possibly somehow make Undead and Azracs stronger to offset relations
Terrain: is that only Tunnelling (ie dirt walls) movement cost? - terrain movement costs
- AI combat targetting priorities
- fastest animation speed faster
- possibly asymmetric race relations matrix
- possibly further changes to durations of status effects
- possibly somehow make Undead and Azracs stronger to offset relations
It might also be cool to see snow and desert cost 5 movement points - ideally reduced to 4 with Cold/Fire Protection or Immunity.
AoW2's MPE engine modification makes snow cost 5 movement points, reduced by ''Snow Wanderer'', an ability which he adapted from an unused ability. Since the AoW2 engine has many points of similarity, there are probably things you could transfer from MPE to AoW+. If you ask Hellbrick at hellbrick@gmail.com he might be able to give you useful info
IMO you don't need to worry about Azrac diplomacy too much, theirs is not the worst and they have elephants. Maybe nerf the elephant less? Or you could do what you mentioned might be an option - default self-race relations at Polite for most races, but for some, like the Theocratic imperial Azracs, it could be Friendly.
As for the Undead, like I mentioned a month or so ago, the game copes okay with lizardmen swimming, goblins having 4 HP, etc - Undead could simply get +1 HP across the board. Comparable to the Highmen having 30 movement points. I know, I know, another ruleset-style change....
What do you have in mind regarding AI targeting?
https://github.com/HellBrick/AowSdk/tree/feature/player-race-default
This might also interest you, regarding MPE / AoW2 / Hellbrick.
Post edited July 31, 2020 by southern
southern
Old User
southern Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Jul 2011
From United Kingdom
Posted July 31, 2020
Thoughts on boosting Life Stealing? Currently it is okay, but it only exists on units which already have a strong attack. For example, Executioners have an offensive attack that rolls up to 6/4 damage. Assuming they hit, this means they typically do 6 damage per round, and heal themselves for only 2 damage - a third of that, even before considering defensive strikes where Lifesteal is not applied.
Lifesteal plays like a minor auxiliary ability. That's fine, but I'd find it fun if it was a more defining and powerful ability, with 2 HP healed per hit. This would allow units with the ability to be readjusted to have weaker stats - more reliant on and defined by the ability, which I would find more interesting. Probably a bit radical and unnecessary though.
Also, could you boost Fury? +2 ATK, -1 DEF is weak compared to Stoneskin, Enchanted Weapon, even Bless. It's part of why people have long viewed Fire as the weakest sphere. Even considering that it's cheap. Maybe +3 ATK, -1 DEF?
Lifesteal plays like a minor auxiliary ability. That's fine, but I'd find it fun if it was a more defining and powerful ability, with 2 HP healed per hit. This would allow units with the ability to be readjusted to have weaker stats - more reliant on and defined by the ability, which I would find more interesting. Probably a bit radical and unnecessary though.
Also, could you boost Fury? +2 ATK, -1 DEF is weak compared to Stoneskin, Enchanted Weapon, even Bless. It's part of why people have long viewed Fire as the weakest sphere. Even considering that it's cheap. Maybe +3 ATK, -1 DEF?
Post edited July 31, 2020 by southern
Thereunto
ɹǝs∩ ʍǝN
Thereunto Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: May 2018
From Canada
And G
And G Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2013
From Switzerland
Posted August 01, 2020
Paradoxnrt: Maybe give fire strike 'burning' a penalty to resistance and/or defense while on fire (for 4 combat turns)?
As with Leadership the description is defined elsewhere, so the duration is the only thing I could change without contradicting in-game information. Since this won't be an issue with AoW+ v1.5x I will likely not make any further changes in v1.4x. Depends on what turns out to be possible. I will look into the AoW2 binaries when I start working on AoW+ v1.46.
Nothing in particular yet since I don't know what is possible.
See Leadership and Burning.
southern
Old User
southern Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Jul 2011
From United Kingdom
Posted August 01, 2020
Could you make concealment work on all forests, not just the densest type? This is another change which you'd want to do an ability description edit (achievable via Ruleset, unlike spell descriptions) for, though. Posting it prematurely so I don't keep forgetting.
Thereunto
ɹǝs∩ ʍǝN
Thereunto Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: May 2018
From Canada
Posted August 01, 2020
southern: From terrains.txt:
Frostlings:
- Dislike all underground terrains except ice.
- Hate wasteland and desert.
Azracs:
- Dislike wasteland and all underground terrains except ice.
- Hate ice/snow.
Hmm, I think you misread it, Thereunto?
"the following simplified rules largely apply: ... - Desert, ice, and snow are universally disliked." Frostlings:
- Dislike all underground terrains except ice.
- Hate wasteland and desert.
Azracs:
- Dislike wasteland and all underground terrains except ice.
- Hate ice/snow.
Hmm, I think you misread it, Thereunto?
I thought it was basically saying "here's the universal rule unless otherwise noted". Some race descriptions go out of their way to say they don't dislike surface ice/snow, but others (like the Frostlings) don't mention anything about surface snow/ice.
It is intuitive to think that Frostlings like snow and Azracs deserts but it wasn't stated. I never know what to expect with some mod ideas. The clarity is good!
And G
And G Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2013
From Switzerland
Posted August 02, 2020
southern: Could you make concealment work on all forests, not just the densest type? This is another change which you'd want to do an ability description edit (achievable via Ruleset, unlike spell descriptions) for, though. Posting it prematurely so I don't keep forgetting.
Please post feature requests for v1.5x in the v1.5x thread; otherwise I will probably forget about them. Thereunto: I thought it was basically saying "here's the universal rule unless otherwise noted". Some race descriptions go out of their way to say they don't dislike surface ice/snow, but others (like the Frostlings) don't mention anything about surface snow/ice.
It also says "racial attitudes can deviate from these rules where thematically appropriate" which is clearly the case for Azracs and Frostlings on desert respectively ice/snow. The reason the descriptions for Azracs and Forstlings don't mention these terrains is precisely because they are not disliked. There are no "liked" terrains in AoW+, only terrains that are disliked to varying degrees.
Thereunto
ɹǝs∩ ʍǝN
Thereunto Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: May 2018
From Canada
Posted August 02, 2020
It was ambiguous and now clarified, thank you.
Paradoxnrt
New User
Paradoxnrt Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2018
From Canada
Posted August 04, 2020
@ And G
AI Targeting Priorities = A GOOD IDEA!
Right now, in tactical, the AI is hopeless. If your leader takes a bit of damage, you can run him around = the AI troops will often ignore your troops that are in range, and will instead rush after the MUCH faster leader/hero! This allows you to pick apart a much more powerful AI army.
Especially potent against the AI (in the above situation) is parking your melee units next to their units. During the AI turn, it will try to move it's units closer to your injured Leader = the AI troops take heavy loses from attacks of opportunity. Repeat + repeat + repeat = you can win a battle against a MUCH more powerful AI army!
AI Targeting Priorities = A GOOD IDEA!
Right now, in tactical, the AI is hopeless. If your leader takes a bit of damage, you can run him around = the AI troops will often ignore your troops that are in range, and will instead rush after the MUCH faster leader/hero! This allows you to pick apart a much more powerful AI army.
Especially potent against the AI (in the above situation) is parking your melee units next to their units. During the AI turn, it will try to move it's units closer to your injured Leader = the AI troops take heavy loses from attacks of opportunity. Repeat + repeat + repeat = you can win a battle against a MUCH more powerful AI army!
Post edited August 04, 2020 by Paradoxnrt
Paradoxnrt
New User
Paradoxnrt Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: Sep 2018
From Canada
Posted August 09, 2020
Seems really quiet here...I guess everyone is waiting for the next update.
@ And G
Is there anything we can do at this point to help with the next update?
@ And G
Is there anything we can do at this point to help with the next update?
Thereunto
ɹǝs∩ ʍǝN
Thereunto Sorry, data for given user is currently unavailable. Please, try again later. View profile View wishlist Start conversation Invite to friends Invite to friends Accept invitation Accept invitation Pending invitation... Unblock chat Registered: May 2018
From Canada
Posted August 09, 2020
Feature request:
First strike to apply before touch-based abilities.
Example: a nymph can seduce before a pikeman has the chance to use first strike.
First strike to apply before touch-based abilities.
Example: a nymph can seduce before a pikeman has the chance to use first strike.