I'll try going through the lore texts in the game files and see if I can list every interaction relevant to race relations.

Hi And G.

So, you are considering raising the initial skill points? Does that mean that just the lower levels will now give more skill points? Yeah, I like that idea....even feels more 'realistic'. Always easier to learn the basics...but mastering takes a long time.

Combined with the lower levels leveling more quickly (as you have it already), that will help new heroes/leaders become significant within a reasonable timeframe.

Next up, I also like your ideas about asymmetrical race relations! Adds a nice layer of 'lore' that was missing from the game!


Great work!

*I'll say it again, I LOVE how you are freezing health upgrades to units/heroes! I always though the concept of 'buying a big health pool' = makes no sense!

"Raising initial skill points" would mean that when creating a leader, you start off with more skill points at level 1. Skill points at level-ups would remain unaffected.

I just uploaded a minor update that fixes the rampant desertions. Units with Neutral and Polite relations now have better morale than they used to, while Poor morale has been given the same stat penalties as Terrible and Okay has the stat penalties that Poor used to have. So basically Good is the new Okay. Also, mana generation is now calculated correctly. With these changes AoW+ should be largely multiplayer-ready.

As always, download the latest version at AoW Heaven.

Hey Paradoxnrt, sorry for my lack of clarity - I liked your first idea better. I think it would get a late game Lvl 1 Hero "into the game" so to speak, but I think two turns to Lvl 2 is too aggressive.
While I think your first idea would be ideal, I still like And G's current change. Huge improvement to 1.36.

I don't think you should raise initial skill points. It would raise the baseline of how weak a Leader/Hero can be at the beginning of any given map. I would prefer the freedom of raising/lowering a Leader/Hero's starting level. Also, wouldn't this require an accompanying ruleset to assign the points?

And glad to hear about HP, that seems ideal to me. It will allow for some Heroes to have greater potential at the expense of other starting stats/abilities, which is very interesting.

I have to log off but will give some thought to the matrix. Asymmetrical relationships is a good idea.

Hi IniochReborn!

So you liked my initial suggestion on Leaders/Heroes leveling. My first suggesting was 100% Lore based!

It worked IDENTICALLY to how lvl1 units level up! As in, the next level requires 2x the experience of the level itself.

As you know, for lvl1 units, it is like this:

Lvl1 unit needs 2XP (total) to reach Level 2 (silver star)
Lvl1 unit needs 6XP (total) to reach level 3 (gold star)

So I suggested heroes/leaders follow the same rules as Lvl 1 units

Lvl1 Hero needs 2XP (2 total) to reach lvl 2
Lvl2 Hero needs 4xp (2+4 total) to reach lvl 3
Lvl3 Hero needs 8xp (2+4+8 total) to reach lvl 4
and so on.

It would be 100% compatible with game Lore....Heroes/Leaders would level up fast at low levels, but would would really slow down quickly after that.

That said, And G's 'slightly faster hero leveling at lower levels' + 'extra skill points for lvl1 heros/leaders' = works fine as well. I'm happy with however he chooses to go on this.

Edit: Thinking this over, my suggestion above would quickly lead it taking far too long to for heroes/leaders to level once they get around lvl7. That is why I made my second suggestion....where the next level IS ALSO the xp needed to reach that level.....so for a lvl9 hero, they would need 10xp to reach Lvl10.

So this would result in Leaders/Heroes leveling quicker than vanilla up to lvl15...but then leveling slower than vanilla after lvl15.

Hi And G!

I've been looking over and considering your racial relation matrix. Good call!

First up = I LOVE how this limits buying up tons of cities belonging to other factions (simply because they fall into the same 'race alignment' category as your start race. So, no more 'humans can buy up every Frostling/Lizard/Azrac city on the map right at the start of the game (for example)! AWESOME change that will make multiplayer more skill based, and less 'random luck' that benefits the faction that gets the most friendly race cities nearby!

*seriously, how many games have you lost because your opponent got lucky = random race cities near them started friendly. Turn 5 = you have an unbeatable wall of mixed friendly race troops coming at you!


As for the campaign Lore....I've always thought it strange how the Elves/Halflings/Dwarves liked the Highmen....the Highmen represent the end of all non human races! Maybe not a fate as bad as what the Undead want....but still, the Lore of the Highmen would not encourage many races to like them!

Undead being disliked by most = makes perfect sense. The Dark Elves would be the only ones who would tolerate them...for their own selfish goals!

I like how it's no longer so clearly divided into 'Good' 'Neutral' 'Evil'...those 3 group categories really didn't make much sense according to lore. The whole 'Good' 'Neutral' 'Evil' concept was pretty forced...and kind of anti-lore!

This is the unit lore for the Doom Priest: I notice that you've already reflected this by making Humans only Wary of the undead.
But shouldn't it also be possible for the other non-good races to foolishly tolerate or work with the Undead?

Maybe, but that would have implications for the other relations. If Undead and e.g. Azracs are Wary, then Undead and Humans would have to be at least Neutral, and that just seems wrong considering Humans had to be saved from the Undead by the High Men at one point.

Unfortunately, AoW lore is just too self-contradictory to take all of it into account, especially if you want the default self-relations for most races to be Polite rather than Friendly. Lore texts also contain plenty of statements that clearly are just there to justify certain in-game mechanics or the original (largely alignment-based) relation matrix.

Wouldn't Azracs be a special case because they were the guardians of the Horn of Death IIRC?
But I feel the other neutral and evil races could be Wary like the Humans.

You really don't think Humans should have less hostile relations with the Undead than the other races? I'm pretty sure AoW mentions multiple times how Humans are particularly receptive towards Undead ideology due to their shorter lives and all. There's also a scenario where the Undead leader is a (former) Human.

BTW the Azracs weren't exactly the guardians of the Horn of the Dead; they stole it from the Keepers so they could use it as a deterrent.

Edit: Here's the intro text of the scenario I was thinking of, Rocky Hollow:

Good points!

Hello, And G.

I've been playing Age of Wonders for roughly 7 years now -- multiplayer for that matter, never really touched the campaign. I also play IniochReborn's mod (highly suggest looking at it) so the meta is a little different, and the ruleset would definitely need a complete rework for your changes; and that's fine.

The primary problem with your ideas are that people don't want a campaign rework, they want a multiplayer rework (myself included). That's why you're seeing so many ideas that heavily conflict your own. That's also fine, though. Because if your dream is to reshape the campaign, then by all means!

However, my circle play on Emperor, and auto-combat only. It was the only way to balance things out for the A.I., and we also only play the scenario After The Fall. One of them tends to die a lot in crypts, while the other two of us tend to die a lot in 1/10 odds of winning a battle to level up our leader. We thoroughly enjoy the, "high risk, high reward", combat. Although, I still miss watching the A.I. spam cast Terror, it was scary..!

Significant notes, in regards to the ruleset (in my opinion) include: Human Air Galley being turned into a fast transport unit, because it was insanely OP, and everyone would always migrate over to Humans for that reason alone lol It sounds bad now, but it's great for ambushing people, especially their super leader. Boats can only shoot arrows, for the same reason as the above, due to Free Movement. I suggested that the Lizard Men have a Battering Ram turtle, because it made no sense why they didn't already have one. I also suggested that a few level 4 units have ranged attacks that made sense to their lore, to help fight dragons, because their also OP.

People like having a Demi-God leader, because it's fun. We like starting off with, and obtaining a decent amount of skill points, because it's a roleplaying game, that should have build diversity. You want to start off as an HP Tank with Regeneration, and terrible Attack? Ok. That's my main build, anyways. I mean.. are we really talking about realism in a fantasy game lol You can't buy health, use magic on machines, you move painfully slow, and your level ups are unrewarding? Gah. There are better ways to address this, instead of nerfing leaders to hell.

Instead of making this game only about spamming archers, and shunning leaders - I'd say:

1. Either cap HP at 15, so that your leader is actually capable of fighting alongside his breathen, and not being nearly immortal with 30 HP - or give items such as Chest Armor, and Rings upwards of a +3 bonus, so that you can have 16 HP (bonus depends on rarity, so you at least have 12 HP, if you're lucky).

2. Another thing - why limit the capabilities of magic? It's magic, it defies realism lol .. That's the point. If we're talking about realism, though - then leaders should inherently start with Leadership.. because their supposed to be the one's leading the armies.

3. Increasing the cost of Moves from 2 to 5 seems too extreme, as you'd essentially be waiting two level ups to move a single hex faster.. not to mention trying to traverse caves. I'd suggest keeping it at 2, and capping it to 42 moves. That's another moot point to realism in a fantasy game, because a horse shouldn't be able to move nearly twice as fast as a dragon lol

4. Level ups are a tricky one. I haven't played Age of Wonders in months now, and don't currently have access to my laptop, but I'm hearing that you receive 40 skill points at level 1? I'd suggest 1-5 requiring 5 experience, 5-10 requiring 10 experience, 10-15 requiring 15 experience, 15-20 requiring 16 experience, 20-30 requiring 18 experience. At level 1 you have 45 skill points to spend, so that you can choose an useful ability, and still have some room to build your character. The leveling system is a little more modern now. You level up fast in the beginning, and have some trouble maxing out, but it isn't impossible. Levels 1-10 give you 5 skill points, and 10-30 give you 10 skill points. So, you're leveling up fast, and you're strong, but you aren't becoming a Demi-God any time soon; but.. it's still very possible, which keeps the gameplay interesting.

Lastly, I'd like to touch on defense. Doubling the cost from 5 to 10 also seems too extreme. It's really useful to have, but it shouldn't take you the entire game to acquire. Especially as maxing out defense will be a lot riskier now, due to the HP being only 10, and whatever hits you will be a critical hit; so, it'll probably nearly kill you, if not kill you. I'd suggest the cost of defense being 6, instead of 10. That way, you at least have 3 defense in 3 level ups, instead of 3 defense in 6 levels ups. Both are an equally long time to help protect your fragile leader.

This way, it gives people less incentive to immediately cling to Earth magic. Stone Skin would be game breaking, despite it already being insanely useful, and let's not forget about Entangle.. shouldn't need to elaborate too much there. Earth magic is already arguably the best with those two spells alone. At this rate, the only way that I see people using the other Spheres is by preventing them from cancelling each other out -- but I'm not even sure if that's possible, along with half of what I've suggested..

I don't really have anything to add to the walls, terrain, cities, morale, etc. They all seem interesting so far, and are still being thought out.




Best regards to you, And G. Humbly - Alcedes1611

Hi Alcedes1611....just a heads up, but I am interested in redoing the campaign playthrough....but I also think And G's mod will work well with multiplayer.

I'm pretty sure you can't put health on items....but maybe And G has some knowledge on the subject that I am ignorant of.

Spent a good while analyzing the matrix, good stuff. My thoughts below, along with a slightly revised matrix attached for reference.

Highmen: I agree with being neutral with the other Good races, much more accurate to their relationship with the Humans. I suggest switching back to Hate towards 'Evil' races, however I like the 'Evil' races being only Wary towards them, given the Undead threat. I think this would be a good example of the asymmetry you suggested.

Elves: I like the change you've made. I switched them to Wary towards Humans, which I think could make sense, however would be indifferent to them remaining Neutral as there's a strong argument for that as well. I left Humans Neutral to Elves though in either case..... Also, I especially like Wary towards Azracs; this is accurate to the long-lived Elves remembering the conquests of the Azracs.

Halflings: I like that they dislike the Goblins more than the Orcs/Dark Elves. I think they should be Wary towards Frostlings. If I remember correctly, they had a trade agreement or alliance that fell apart and they began to feud. Wary of Lizards makes sense.

Dwarves: I see you've made Dwarves and Frostlings Wary of one another - this seems plausible but to be honest I don't remember that lol. I believe the entrance to Deepmir was close to Frostling territory though? I would maybe make Dwarves Wary of Humans, given they were largely driven to their underground cities by them. With the new maintained thresholds, it wouldn't be that hard to get a Neutral relationship, but they'd always like you less than the Halflings for example.

Humans: Agreed on higher susceptibility to Undead

Frostlings: I think they should be Wary of Halflings as I wrote above. I like that they're Wary of Lizards and Azracs.

Lizards:I like that they're wary of Halflings/Goblins based on territory.

Azracs: Azracs and Orcs Wary of one another makes sense.

Orcs: As above

Goblins: Looks good to me

Dark Elves: I like the changes you've made, especially that now only the Cults of Storms will be able to field Undead along with other evil race units, though they'll have to be in adjacent stacks.

Undead: Much more accurate now. You'll see I changed from 'X' to simply Hate towards Orcs/Golbins, which I think makes sense relative to being Wary of Humans. I also changed other Neutral and Orcs/Goblin views towards Undead to be Hate instead of 'X'. That would be my suggestion but either way I still like it.


*** Dwarves/Elves being Wary/Neutral towards Humans both make sense to me. So knowing that Wary is 20-39, Neutral 40-59 ..... maybe make them both on the lower end of Neutral at 40 or 45, instead of 50, towards Humans so they are less tolerant of Human wrongdoing? Same with the Frostlng/Halfling relationship if you disagree with Wary - it should still be somewhat tenuous in my opinion...... I'm trying to think what value the Highmen relation towards Golbins/Orcs/Dark Elves would have to be so that a single declaration of war towards Humans would immediately change them from Wary to Hate? Just throwing ideas.