It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
Age of Wonders seriesAoW+(390 posts)(390 posts)
(390 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
15
20
26
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 18, 2020
avatar
Paradoxnrt: *basically, I'm suggesting that instead of focusing on terrain penalties (which cripple the AI), focus more on terrain bonuses!
This.
Posted June 18, 2020
Unless I am mistaken, currently you get +1 ATK/RES at silver, and +1ATK/DAM/DEF/RES at gold.
This is very weighted towards Gold Medal, is that intentional? I like double RES though.
Also I know you already read it and probably disagree, and it's rude to repeat, but maybe +2 MV (movement) for one of the medals?

I agree about Morale bonuses and I would like to see +1ATK, +2MV for high morale.

The first Spellcasting level is the most crucial, so if it were up to me, I'd if anything make sucessive levels of it cheaper.
Posted June 18, 2020
I read Paradoxnrt's suggestions and find them to be amazing! I think Paradoxnrt is AWESOME!
Posted June 18, 2020
Wow, great work And G. I had taken yet another hiatus from AoW, but this is actually really exciting. I will definitely be remaking my LAN ruleset with AoW+ in the near future. Lots of great ideas and implementations already. My input would be as follows:

Spellcasting:
I would have assumed that all tiers of a given ability, whether Spellcasting/Vision/Dispel Magic etc, would have the same cost across all tiers? Is this even doable or a moot point to begin with? If doable, which value would we be changing in DevEd for our rulesets, the cost of the initial ability acquisition or the subsequent upgrades? But if it were doable, I do agree with the higher tiers of an ability being more costly. I can't wait to check out the new Spell ATK/DMG values.

Levelling:
I won't have time to playtest until the weekend (hopefully), but did I read correctly that Leaders/Heroes level up more quickly at lower levels, then require more xp as they grow in levels? If so, that's awesome. I really like the 5 skill points per level and 10 per DEF, as it will allow for a much better scaling of ability cost in a ruleset relative to how valuable stat increases are. I tend to agree that Gold Medal level 1 units with 7HP was always something I liked. It would be sorely missed in my opinion as it really made elite infantry feel capable of providing a good screen for important units, while still being killable in a single blow from the game's heaviest hitters. I suspect the goal here may have been limiting Heroes/Leaders from having 30HP (I assume the max HP value is a shared value for all units).... however I think 5 skill points per level, combined with raised cost of DEF and future changes to ability costs via rulesets is enough to make 30HP, or even 20HP, heroes unviable. I'm not sure if 12-15HP Heroes/Leaders should be unattainable, given the HP of level 3 cavalry for example.

Ranged Attacks:
I don't think archers should have their shots reduced to one, I think lowering attack is enough to reduce their effectiveness against lower tier units while keeping their 10% against the demigod units. Any further balance issues in my opinion should be addressed via unit base stats in a ruleset mod. As a sidenote, is the minimum 10% accuracy editable? What if this was further reduced by an additional 1% for each additional difference in ATK/DEF? I have mixed feelings on Ballistas having 1 vs 2 shots. If they only have one shot, they're rendered useless unless Shoot Javelin becomes deadlier (higher ATK/DMG). Then again, I always thought it was kind of silly that the capital city of my vast empire couldn't muster the resources to rebuild a farm or build a road. And a razed Builder's Guild is much more of a crushing blow then it ought to be... so maybe Ballistas and Builders should be switched via ruleset mod so that cities can make Builders, and a Ballista becomes a specialized unit? It'd be well-suited to the highest tier unit slot in the Builder's Guild.

Production:
1-turn installations is hugely welcomed. 100 gold/5 turn upgrades too. Rebuilding already felt to me like it took a long enough time as it was. Otherwise I like how the changes will affect the pace of of the game, especially with the upkeep changes making early game low tier production more worthwhile beyond scouting. I haven't checked out the Looting gold rewards yet but my only thought is that it should be more than the upkeep for a typical stack to hold it.

Race Relations/Morale:
The maintained thresholds are absolutely great. I like the idea of meaningful hostile terrain, especially for wasteland and snow, making Path of Decay/Frost vs Path of Life an interesting element on the overland map between opposing empires. I think Snow terrain should have the same morale effect as Wasteland, however not to an extreme degree. I think a further decrease to Resistance would be enough to make it an important aspect to consider. My only other idea would be if hostile terrain could lower the value of what defines a Panicked state, so that facing hostile forces in hostile terrain becomes a major avoidance. I also think a friendly terrain bonus makes sense - a movement point increase makes the most sense to me in terms of realism and balance. Anything further I feel would be too unbalanced combined with hostile terrain effects. Maybe +1 ATK if the Panicked state idea isn't possible and hostile terrain effects are limited to RES stat-wise.
Post edited June 18, 2020 by IniochReborn
Posted June 18, 2020
avatar
IniochReborn: Spellcasting:
I would have assumed that all tiers of a given ability, whether Spellcasting/Vision/Dispel Magic etc, would have the same cost across all tiers? Is this even doable or a moot point to begin with? If doable, which value would we be changing in DevEd for our rulesets, the cost of the initial ability acquisition or the subsequent upgrades? But if it were doable, I do agree with the higher tiers of an ability being more costly. I can't wait to check out the new Spell ATK/DMG values.
I don't think it matters what we put for multilevel abilities in the ruleset, because it's handled by the .exe anyway.
avatar
IniochReborn: Race Relations/Morale:
The maintained thresholds are absolutely great. I like the idea of meaningful hostile terrain, especially for wasteland and snow, making Path of Decay/Frost vs Path of Life an interesting element on the overland map between opposing empires.
Hmm, actually - what if unhappy troops have a very low chance to desert, and instead just have a big malus to all stats, maybe including movement speed if necessary? That way, you could include hostile terrain morale modifiers without causing the AI to populate the map (as much) with rebels.
Post edited June 18, 2020 by southern
Posted June 18, 2020
IniochReborn made a great point about Leaders/Heroes + Leveling. I REALLY like the idea of low level Leaders/Heroes having an easier time reaching the next level up......a sort of increasing exp requirement for each successive level.

So, each level would require a higher amount of kills (xp) to reach the next level....a possible example being:

Lvl1 ---> Lvl2 would require 4 xp points
Lvl2 ---> Lvl3 would require 6 xp points
Lvl3 ---> Lvl4 would require 8 xp points
and so on so on so on
Lvl29 ---> Lvl30 would require 60 xp points

It would make buying 'crappy' low level heroes actually worthwhile....since they can be leveled quickly enough to be of some use. ALSO, you'd feel a little less pressure during campaigns where the AI powerlevels compared to you!

Southern's point about terrain being more about stat bonuses/penalties, and less about morale/rebelling = would work much better with the AI.
Posted June 18, 2020
avatar
southern: Hmm, actually - what if unhappy troops have a very low chance to desert, and instead just have a big malus to all stats, maybe including movement speed if necessary? That way, you could include hostile terrain morale modifiers without causing the AI to populate the map (as much) with rebels.
This is one of the things I was already considering to make things easier for the AI. The problem is that morale depends on a number of things:
- Race/alignment relations
- terrain
- units with Bard's Skills
- hostile units
- Panicked status
- Upkeep

The only thing that seems to make sense here is to keep the Terrible morale as it is, and make the Poor morale affect only stats, not desertion. However, ATK and DAM don't affect the basic ranged units at all, so we're really only looking at RES and DEF here.

Giving stat bonuses for good morale is problematic since this would by default apply to units of your own race. It would mean that playing as Elves, Elven units are better on Wasteland terrain than (neutral) High Men units, which is precisely the opposite of what I'm trying to do with hostile terrains.

avatar
Paradoxnrt: .....if the resulting city was somehow hardcoded to be undead (regardless of player's start race), THAT would be a big help. Re-animated cities being undead would even fit the games lore quite well on several levels. The resulting militias would also be weaker than the other races lvl1-2 units (undead lvl1-2 units tend to be weaker, but have regeneration).
This is how it worked in an earlier version of AoW+, but I reverted the spell to its original behaviour since casting it on a map without Undead would result in a crash that I wasn't able to fix. On top of that, with the new looting you run into the exploit Thereunto mentioned, so it's probably not coming back.

avatar
Thereunto: How is gold cost coded? Can you make a negative gold upkeep? If so, a "fishing ship" could be a unit that could make you gold.
Upkeep is dependent on unit level.

avatar
IniochReborn: I would have assumed that all tiers of a given ability, whether Spellcasting/Vision/Dispel Magic etc, would have the same cost across all tiers? Is this even doable or a moot point to begin with? If doable, which value would we be changing in DevEd for our rulesets, the cost of the initial ability acquisition or the subsequent upgrades? But if it were doable, I do agree with the higher tiers of an ability being more costly. I can't wait to check out the new Spell ATK/DMG values.
In theory, I can give each level a different cost. However, there's a bug that causes SP to be calculated incorrectly when adding and removing multilevel abilities with different cost for each level, and fixing bugs in assembly without proper debugging tools is not exactly my idea of a good time.

avatar
IniochReborn: I won't have time to playtest until the weekend (hopefully), but did I read correctly that Leaders/Heroes level up more quickly at lower levels, then require more xp as they grow in levels?
The original progression was 15-15-20-20-25-25 (for each group of 5 levels) which I've changed to 10-10-15-15-20-25, but every level is now effectively only a half-level. So you level up more frequently, but still progress slower.

avatar
IniochReborn: I tend to agree that Gold Medal level 1 units with 7HP was always something I liked. It would be sorely missed in my opinion as it really made elite infantry feel capable of providing a good screen for important units, while still being killable in a single blow from the game's heaviest hitters. I suspect the goal here may have been limiting Heroes/Leaders from having 30HP (I assume the max HP value is a shared value for all units).... however I think 5 skill points per level, combined with raised cost of DEF and future changes to ability costs via rulesets is enough to make 30HP, or even 20HP, heroes unviable. I'm not sure if 12-15HP Heroes/Leaders should be unattainable, given the HP of level 3 cavalry for example.
I fundamentally consider HP an attribute that should not ever be increased, and MOV as well to a certain extent, though in this case I simply made it more expensive. Increasing HP with medals is definitely not coming back since L1 units already have such a low upkeep.


avatar
IniochReborn: I don't think archers should have their shots reduced to one, I think lowering attack is enough to reduce their effectiveness against lower tier units while keeping their 10% against the demigod units.
This was my original idea but it simply isn't the case. If you want 8 archers not to win against 8 swordsmen most of the time, reducing the number of shots is unfortunately the only option.

avatar
IniochReborn: As a sidenote, is the minimum 10% accuracy editable?
Possibly, but it's a simple rule that I don't intend to change.

avatar
IniochReborn: I have mixed feelings on Ballistas having 1 vs 2 shots. If they only have one shot, they're rendered useless unless Shoot Javelin becomes deadlier (higher ATK/DMG).
Of course ATK/DAM has been adjusted.

avatar
IniochReborn: Then again, I always thought it was kind of silly that the capital city of my vast empire couldn't muster the resources to rebuild a farm or build a road. And a razed Builder's Guild is much more of a crushing blow then it ought to be... so maybe Ballistas and Builders should be switched via ruleset mod so that cities can make Builders, and a Ballista becomes a specialized unit? It'd be well-suited to the highest tier unit slot in the Builder's Guild.
Sure, why not. Or you could give the Construct ability to other units.

avatar
IniochReborn: My only other idea would be if hostile terrain could lower the value of what defines a Panicked state
The Panicked state is just a passive "ability" like Stunned, Poisoned etc. that doesn't depend on terrain at all.
Posted June 18, 2020
Hi And G! Was looking over your latest ideas.....I have't been this excited about AoW in years! :)

I really like your solution on morale+terrain, penalties/bonuses and desertion (where only Terrible would result in desertion). GREAT point on ranged units not be effected by ATK+DAM reductions = RES and DEF should be what's effected. Is it possible for morale (both low and high) to effect movement speed? That would be pretty realistic and would be a neat addition to the campaign.

Personally, I like your stance on HP! Units (including heroes/leaders) shouldn't get more health....but should get more skill/abilities with experience! I 100% back you on this concept!

As far as 'archers/ballistas with only 1 shot'....I see your point and agree with your adjustments. Calvary now will chew up archers (which they did historically)...but since Calvary upkeep is higher, makes sense. Lol, Pony Riders for the win in Auto-Combat!

I really like your idea of 'faster leveling for low level heroes/leaders'! I mean, I REALLY like this idea! :)

What do you guys think about the number of xp required to reach the next level, being the same number AS the next level.

For example:

Lvl1-Lvl2 = 2xp
Lvl2-Lvl3 = 3xp
Lvl3-Lvl4 = 4xp
and so on
Lvl29-Lvl30 = 30xp

So, up to Lvl15, Leaders and Heroes would level more quickly....but once you reach Lvl15, the leveling would be slower than vanilla! So leveling would get progressively harder for each successive level! Sounds pretty realistic + would make hiring low level heroes more appealing. Plus, it would make the '5 SP per level' less punishing.
Post edited June 18, 2020 by Paradoxnrt
Posted June 18, 2020
avatar
southern: Hmm, actually - what if unhappy troops have a very low chance to desert, and instead just have a big malus to all stats, maybe including movement speed if necessary? That way, you could include hostile terrain morale modifiers without causing the AI to populate the map (as much) with rebels.
avatar
And G: The only thing that seems to make sense here is to keep the Terrible morale as it is, and make the Poor morale affect only stats, not desertion. However, ATK and DAM don't affect the basic ranged units at all, so we're really only looking at RES and DEF here.
That's why I mentioned movement modification as an option - out of interest, is it possible? Since Archer DEF is 2 already, only movement reduction would seriously debuff them.

avatar
And G: Giving stat bonuses for good morale is problematic since this would by default apply to units of your own race. It would mean that playing as Elves, Elven units are better on Wasteland terrain than (neutral) High Men units, which is precisely the opposite of what I'm trying to do with hostile terrains.
Maybe this is overthinking it, but what if Highmen didn't have lowered morale in Wasteland, because of their agenda to purge the undead?

avatar
IniochReborn: I don't think archers should have their shots reduced to one, I think lowering attack is enough to reduce their effectiveness against lower tier units while keeping their 10% against the demigod units.
avatar
And G: This was my original idea but it simply isn't the case. If you want 8 archers not to win against 8 swordsmen most of the time, reducing the number of shots is unfortunately the only option.
The game can't be balanced with just ability modification; without a ruleset, Pony Riders and Elephants will be even more brutally powerful than before with weakened Archers, not to mention the various weak t3s, overpriced spells, and so on. I know you said you wanted to do without a ruleset, but in that case, addressing unit balance issues might lie mostly outside the practical scope of AoW+, though of course it's not my place to say so.

Then again, the one-shot archery is working fine, but I think lowered ATK - maybe even down to 2 - could work too. Real-life archery involved a lot of feeble shots, after all, unless you are talking composite or longbows.

BTW, could you reduce Tunneling movement cost from 10 to 6?
Post edited June 18, 2020 by southern
Posted June 18, 2020
1 shoot for Archers and Javelin shoot for Ballista works perfect.

Archers are not changing the battlefield into shooting range. Single powerful Javelin feel right.
This unit are support troops, as they should be. They still are needed to fight flying unit or weaken some tougher opponent.

HP of troops is good, and I would like to not change it with medals.

I play AoW+ with Souther mod:
4 def Swordsman are now like durable pawns. They dont have too much HP, so big monsters kill them quite fast. But they stand their ground for weaker attack.

Plus lowered Resistance make them very susceptible to conversion, which grant great edge for female troops (that I find before underwhelming).

Elephant requiring installation is good (southern mod). Im not sure about pony, i think shifting them to tier 2 is obvious step. And switch it with Satyr (nerfed?), who is in line with other races special-infantry.

------------------
I think the little movement bonus with medal would be good. This 1 hex more to move is sometimes critical to city capture. Or reach enemy in battlefield in same turn and hit them.

this would make very good feeling of experienced troop as they know their stuff, and contrary fresh are just greenhorns.

Plus vast majority of troops are regulars, unless you find the training area (this coliseum, forget the name) and have loads of spare money (which is rare with AoW+ ruleset).

------------------
I like the idea of shifting machines into builder guild.
but them it create vacuum slots that would have to be filled with other units.
So unless someone propose something good for each race, maybe dont change it.

-----------------
ships:
only transport ship, should be able to transport troops, so we can have some navy battles with more than 2 ships.
Posted June 18, 2020
> "Upkeep based on level"

Can you set level to a negative number?

> "HP should not be allowed to increase"

HP actually doesn't scale that well. If you set a syron to 50 HP, it loses larger chunks of life at a time for whatever reason, even if you have the unit with 10 def. I recommend not touching HP.
avatar
Paradoxnrt: I read Paradoxnrt's suggestions and find them to be amazing! I think Paradoxnrt is AWESOME!
I read this, and then read the author. So funny
Post edited June 18, 2020 by Thereunto
Posted June 19, 2020
Swordsman units should have 'parry' to represent their shield.....just a thought.
Posted June 19, 2020
avatar
Paradoxnrt: So, each level would require a higher amount of kills (xp) to reach the next level....a possible example being:

Lvl1 ---> Lvl2 would require 4 xp points
Lvl2 ---> Lvl3 would require 6 xp points
Lvl3 ---> Lvl4 would require 8 xp points
and so on so on so on
Lvl29 ---> Lvl30 would require 60 xp points

It would make buying 'crappy' low level heroes actually worthwhile....since they can be leveled quickly enough to be of some use. ALSO, you'd feel a little less pressure during campaigns where the AI powerlevels compared to you!
Those numbers seem shockingly low at first glance, but the more I think about it, the more I agree (I don't think it should be equal to next level as you later suggested though). I think having the game's weakest Heroes catching up to the stronger Heroes that some races will randomly get is a good thing. And by level 5, we're already back at 10 - and I'm actually okay with the god tier levels taking massive amounts of xp to achieve. In fact, I like it. It would (fully) stop level ups from speeding up as you get stronger. Its similarity to unit levelling is also appealing to me.

avatar
southern: Hmm, actually - what if unhappy troops have a very low chance to desert, and instead just have a big malus to all stats, maybe including movement speed if necessary? That way, you could include hostile terrain morale modifiers without causing the AI to populate the map (as much) with rebels.
avatar
And G: The only thing that seems to make sense here is to keep the Terrible morale as it is, and make the Poor morale affect only stats, not desertion. However, ATK and DAM don't affect the basic ranged units at all, so we're really only looking at RES and DEF here.
Agreed on Poor morale affecting stats and not desertion. I wouldn't discount ATK and DMG due to ranged units though. It makes sense that a foot solder may have poor footing in treacherous terrain they are unfamiliar with, yet an archer may still shoot a bow with no penalty. I guess that would reflect the physical obstacles of unfriendly terrain moreso than a loss of focus/discipline, which kind of makes sense if Poor morale doesn't mean mass desertion. If it's possible, lowering movement points could reflect both though.

I was excited about the idea of bonuses but it would definitely lead to scenarios that don't really make sense. Also, races like the Azracs for example, can't generate their own friendly terrain as the Elves could with Path of Life. But all races can still avoid Poor/Terrible morale through gameplay, so it does seem better balanced without bonuses.


avatar
And G: This was my original idea but it simply isn't the case. If you want 8 archers not to win against 8 swordsmen most of the time, reducing the number of shots is unfortunately the only option.
In my opinion, AoW 1.36 is non-viable for a balanced game. I also think most people still playing 1.36 may not want to try mods. But regardless this can be balanced to anyone's liking via ruleset, and actually the more I think about it, maybe it will help bring relevance to some of the less useful ranged attacks. Lowering ATK to 2 is also interesting to me though. It would maintain two 10% shots at dragons, which seems doubly important if I'm building way less archers. I know Ballistas counter Dragons well (especially with raised ATK/DMG), but I still think Dragons will vastly outclass other Lvl 4 units on the overland map. I also like the idea of a flurry of inaccurate shots.


avatar
And G: I fundamentally consider HP an attribute that should not ever be increased, and MOV as well to a certain extent, though in this case I simply made it more expensive. Increasing HP with medals is definitely not coming back since L1 units already have such a low upkeep.
I definitely like the increase to MP cost, raising the value of Haste to match Stone Skin's higher value. Is the base HP of a Hero still editable in DevEd? Or will it be hard-locked to 10HP for all Heroes? I'm just wondering if it allows for certain Heroes to start with 12HP, as some of the tougher Heroes I believe did in 1.36?


avatar
southern: BTW, could you reduce Tunneling movement cost from 10 to 6?
So long as this doesn't cause the AI to start building ant hills underground and ruin maps, this seems like a great idea. Drills are laughable as it stands but I've always wanted to use one to launch a sneak attack.
Posted June 19, 2020
Hi IniochReborn, glad to see you also like And G's quicker experience gain for low level Leaders/Heros.

I actually walked back my 'xp per level' requirement suggestion. I guess you missed that post.

Now I think the following xp:level ratio would be better.

vl1-Lvl2 = 2xp
Lvl2-Lvl3 = 3xp
Lvl3-Lvl4 = 4xp
and so on
Lvl29-Lvl30 = 30xp

So basically, the next level IS ALSO the value required to reach that level.

So, basically, Leaders/Heroes would level more quickly (but progressively slower) until level 15. After this point, they would level slower than vanilla.

This would allow new heroes a chance to become reasonably useful.
Post edited June 19, 2020 by Paradoxnrt
Posted June 19, 2020
Leader/hero levelling works fine now IMO so I'm going to leave it the way it is for the time being. However, I'm considering raising the initial skill points. Any concerns about this?

I haven't changed hero base HP; I only made it impossible to increase.

I'll look into tunnelling cost.

Regarding unit upkeep per level, I can give any level any upkeep, so I could e.g. make an L5 unit cost nothing or an L8 unit generate gold. Honestly though I don't see the point, and units that generate gold would create a number of balancing issues.

I have a new concept for terrain and morale that seems promising so far. I'm also considering reworking the relationship matrix to make it asymmetrical, so that e.g. Elven cities/units have a different attitude towards High Men leaders than High Men cities/units have towards Elven leaders. I'd like to see what you guys think such a matrix should look like, taking into considering only AoW1 lore. Feel free to post a complete matrix or just list the particular relations that you consider critical. (Note that AoW+ also contains a sixth unnamed status which is the same as Hostile except it cannot ever be improved by any means.)

Edit: For reference, see the attached current relation matrix.
Attachments:
_relmatr.png (156 Kb)
Post edited June 19, 2020 by And G
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
10
15
20
26
This is my favourite topic
Community
Age of Wonders seriesAoW+(390 posts)(390 posts)
(390 posts)