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 seriesDemocratically elected mod for AoW1?(42 posts)(42 posts)
(42 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 23, 2019
I just tried and couldn't do it either; looks like certain battlefield effects, like slow and Turned Undead (not Turn, Turned) cannot be applied to units.

I don't mind AoW's current pace, but increasing it would still be convenient.

However, the game already has a fair number of situations where it's possible to totally surprise-attack someone without them knowing, or where advancing very much allows the enemy to attack you before you can see what might be lying in wait. While this is fun and an inevitable part of the game, I think movement range is already strong enough relative to vision range.

On the other hand, maybe the game would be more interesting if there were more scouting units (ie flyers, concealed, Invisible, Vision), and that would make it practical to increase movement range? In PBEM catapults are pretty useless, and the Builder's Guild has an empty slot; you could move catapults there and give every race a sort of charlatan-themed tier 2 troop that makes a good scout; though I'm not going to do that, it's interesting to consider.
Post edited July 23, 2019 by southern
Posted July 24, 2019
I would certainly have to agree that while increasing movement speed would be fantastic for game-time purposes when it comes to exploration and cleaning up the end-game... you'd run into problems with vision having to be rebalanced as well.
Posted July 24, 2019
avatar
Thereunto: One of the reasons that Masters of Magic would never work as a good PBEM multiplayer is because you can only move a hex or two a turn (and games easily take 200+ turns). Keeping that in mind, in AoW we should be increasing movement, not decreasing. Especially in consideration for larger maps that take more time to explore (especially in maps with inverted terrain where underground slows units). Imagine if all units had a +4 move boost. Would the game be better or worse? My hunch is better. I wouldn't gimp elephant movespeed.
I could see gimping elephant move speed a little; it currently outpaces most of the Azrac units anyway, so a supported elephant probably isn't using its full capacity anyway. On the flip side, unsupported elephants move faster, and faster is something of an azrac theme (along with higher attack and lower defense). Also, I prefer making elephants over azrac archers while letting other races fill the archer ranks.

Some things to consider when changing movespeed:
1) The various terrains that impede movement will magnify the difference in movespeed for units with the appropriate specials. Add just two movespeed to every unit, and Elves vs Dwarves in forests goes from 6 hexes vs 4 hexes to 7 hexes vs 4 hexes.
2) Consider whether you're giving a flat bonus to all units or whether you want to maintain the current level of proportion between move speeds. Cavalry become less useful/important versus infantry when infantry don't need nearly so much time to cross the map.
3) These changes affect the flow of the game. Early gains can be harder to turn around when enemy reinforcements are arriving at your doorstep only 3 turns after production instead of 6.
4) Remember that these changes affect very small maps too, not just very large maps. On a large map, the "distance to the front" could be a similar number of hexes to a small map's "distance between starting locations".
5) Southern already pointed out the dangers of pushing your troops into unscouted territory, and how larger movespeeds will make this worse.
Posted July 24, 2019
avatar
Bookwyrm627: I could see gimping elephant move speed a little...
We could make the same argument for Halfling pony-riders. We could make every type of unit within a race the same movement-speed but my hunch is that would lead to dissatisfaction, not a better experience.

avatar
Bookwyrm627: 1) The various terrains that impede movement will magnify the difference in movespeed for units with the appropriate specials. Add just two movespeed to every unit, and Elves vs Dwarves in forests goes from 6 hexes vs 4 hexes to 7 hexes vs 4 hexes.
1) It would definitely take a bit of experimenting to get a good +movement balance, but I feel that increasing the differences between races improves the experience. I see small differences like an extra hex for forestry to be an improvement on the experience.

avatar
Bookwyrm627: 2) "Flat vs percent"
2) That's a very good point. And if someone were to test the right balance for +movement, flat vs percentage is a good question to explore.

avatar
Bookwyrm627: 3) These changes affect the flow of the game. Early gains can be harder to turn around when enemy reinforcements are arriving at your doorstep only 3 turns after production instead of 6.
3) I agree that some moderation would have to be taken into consideration. The type of changes I was thinking about would be something like arriving at the doorstep at turn 5 instead of 6. Or, to arrive at the doorstep in an inverted map with the same timing that would be expected on a normal surface map (enough +movement to counter the cave penalty).

avatar
Bookwyrm627: 4) Remember that these changes affect very small maps too, not just very large maps. On a large map, the "distance to the front" could be a similar number of hexes to a small map's "distance between starting locations".
4) The design considerations for city distances would be roughly the same between large and small maps (testing a change against one would roughly address the other). Decreasing the time between locations increases map pressure. Cults vs Keepers has a high map pressure due to starting locations being so close between goblins and elves (to the point that you can run cavalry into eachother's starting locations before there is enough time to raise a wall. While +movement might increase this type of pressure on some maps, decreasing something like elephant speed might unintentionally reduce map pressure in some cases. Think about the difference you would see if drills could get to a location in 12-15 turns instead of 18? I see increased map pressure as a good thing. It encourages panic and hasty decision making. "Should I wall my city or make units?"

avatar
Bookwyrm627: 5) Southern already pointed out the dangers of pushing your troops into unscouted territory, and how larger movespeeds will make this worse.
5) It would increase risk vs reward in exploration. More hex-moves means you have more to play with. You could run right out into the darkness, or you could creep hex by hex until you see something dangerous (and have more movepoints to run away if you did see something).

My hunch is still that increasing movement leads to a better player experience.
Post edited July 24, 2019 by Thereunto
Posted July 24, 2019
avatar
Bookwyrm627: I could see gimping elephant move speed a little...
avatar
Thereunto: We could make the same argument for Halfling pony-riders. We could make every type of unit within a race the same movement-speed but my hunch is that would lead to dissatisfaction, not a better experience.
Not really. Pony riders are significantly faster than halfling infantry, and ponies (unlike elephants) are the cavalry for their race.

You might send elephants with other dudes to help take some heat, but you wouldn't slow down your wall-blocked ponies with infantry.

avatar
Bookwyrm627: 1) The various terrains that impede movement will magnify the difference in movespeed for units with the appropriate specials. Add just two movespeed to every unit, and Elves vs Dwarves in forests goes from 6 hexes vs 4 hexes to 7 hexes vs 4 hexes.
avatar
Thereunto: 1) It would definitely take a bit of experimenting to get a good +movement balance, but I feel that increasing the differences between races improves the experience. I see small differences like an extra hex for forestry to be an improvement on the experience.
Racial diversity is a worthy goal, but not at the expense of badly gimping some races. Forests are pretty common in maps, while making mountaineer-only connections are not.

avatar
Thereunto: 5) It would increase risk vs reward in exploration. More hex-moves means you have more to play with. You could run right out into the darkness, or you could creep hex by hex until you see something dangerous (and have more movepoints to run away if you did see something).
I don't think we're looking at it the same way. Since most tiers of units have roughly comparable movespeeds (barring things like forests), you can't run if you suddenly see something deadly; you're already in range because you've spent some of your move while they haven't spent theirs. Trying to push into an opponent's territory when they have expanded move range can be absolutely fatal if they have vision (and since it is their land, they likely have the vision structures).
Posted August 01, 2019
I'm inclined to agree with Bookwyrm that increasing movement speeds wouldn't really enhance the game. Knowing that little tid-bit about the forestry ability is quite interesting and I think playing around with movement speeds would cause quite a few issues if a player as the Elves was able to almost move double the distance through a forest than anybody else. Of course one could claim that it's not that much of an issue because you're not "locked" into one race... but I would say that a forest-heavy map would be completely unbalanced towards a good-aligned player because they would have access to Elves and an underground-heavy map may be unbalanced towards an evil-aligned player because they would have access to Goblins.

Perhaps the reason Elephants are alright the way they are is because even though they tend to be a better choice for map pressure than basically anything else as a tier 1 unit is that any player would be able to make Elephants just the same as it is a neutral unit no matter what starting race you play.

*** I agree that racial diversity is a worthy goal, but I think it's less relevant in the context of a turn-based game because everyone needs to have a reasonably equal chance. Making the races too different would be like playing chess with different pieces on each side.

I think what really unbalances the game is the difference in magics. Difference spheres of magic really change how you have to play the game. In Kin Slayers against Southern that I'm currently playing, he (as the Elven player) has access to both Stone Skin and Bless where as myself (playing Dark Elves) don't have either. It really means I have to play a much more stealthy and roundabout style of play. Having access to elephants wouldn't make a bit of difference in this game.

= = = = =
So on that note: what is it that REALLY unbalances this game?
Posted August 01, 2019
So I've been reading this conversation and thinking about it and I'm beginning to think that we're looking at this the wrong way. I'm inclined to agree with Bookwyrm, I don't think increasing movement speeds would make the game better, I think if anything it would UNBALANCE the game.

Knowing that little tid-bit about the forestry (and I assume cave crawling as well) makes me think that on a forest-heavy map, a good-aligned player would have a decisive advantage due to likely having access to Elves and an underground-heavy map would have an evil-aligned player with a decisive advance due to likely having access to Goblins. I can't really see any reason that it would be a good thing to let one player have such a huge movement advantage over another.

* * * * *
I do think having racial diversity is a wonderful thing in many games; especially in an RTS game for example where there is much more to the game in terms of skill and unit control. In a turn-based strategy game such as Age of Wonders, I think it's much less important to have SO MUCH diversity between the different races. That would be like playing a game of chess where one player has 4 rooks and the other player has 4 bishops.

In the case of our wonderful Age of Wonders, I think having some balance between the good and evil races may be of importance, but we can get away with letting the neutral races be a bit more powerful because of everybody potentially having access to their units throughout the game. Perhaps it's more something to think about when it comes to new map design rather than trying to rebalance the old already existing maps?

= = = = =
What I think I've found that REALLY unbalances the game, is perhaps the magic system. The spells available to a player can get them out of a bind, or they can snowball a player into a winning position.

Take the game I currently have going with Southern for example: He is playing Elves and I am playing Dark Elves. As the Elven player, you have access to both Stone Skin and Bless rather quickly which can be used to beef up a hero, a strong unit, even a lowly swordsman can really benefit from buffs like that.

As the player playing Dark Elves... you don't have access to anything to increase defense, nothing to heal up after battles... the available spells are great for attacking in battle, but don't give any ongoing benefits. It's much more difficult to use spells that can only be used to attack in battle to get further into the game against a player with 10 defense by about turn 10.

Again, this is possibly something that needs to be taken into account during map design rather than trying to balance the already existing maps.
Oh okay then... first it eats the post, then the post shows up after I finish rewriting it... fine then... read my thoughts twice.
Post edited August 01, 2019 by DaemonVirus
Posted August 01, 2019
The problem I have with the elephant is not that it's beefy, or a strategic game-changer for low-level armies wanting to threaten cities without being slowed by rams such that having even a single Azrac hamlet changes your map presence, but that it's so cheap for what it does, and that for some reason it's a default unit while the relatively useless and totally overshadowed Scorpion is the Special unit.
Posted August 01, 2019
avatar
DaemonVirus: any player would be able to make Elephants just the same as it is a neutral unit no matter what starting race you play.
Anyone can use Elephants because they are Creatures and have no alignment, not because they are neutral. I speak from experience when I say that Neutral aligned guys by default don't want to work with High Men or Undead because of the two step alignment difference.

In Broken Bow, my High Men weren't able to make use of my Fire Sprite summon because it was Neutral aligned while I was Pure Good (and it would slow down any stacks that could keep it in line, being slower than any other unit that would work for me).

avatar
DaemonVirus: Making the races too different would be like playing chess with different pieces on each side.
Having lopsided ability sets can be quite interesting, as long as there is balance in chances to win. I offer Starcraft as perhaps one of the best known examples, where each race has very different units and abilities.

avatar
DaemonVirus: Oh okay then... first it eats the post, then the post shows up after I finish rewriting it... fine then... read my thoughts twice.
You probably fell victim to the New Page bug. Sometimes the first post on a new page doesn't show up until a second post for that page is created.

avatar
southern: The problem I have with the elephant is ... that for some reason it's a default unit while the relatively useless and totally overshadowed Scorpion is the Special unit.
I'd wager dollars against donuts that the Elephant is available by default because it is the T1 wall crushing unit for the Azracs. Being their version of the Battering Ram, the developers opted not to require an Azrac player install it before being able to build a unit that can get past walls.

I agree that it is massively better than a battering ram.
Posted August 01, 2019
Swap elephants and scorpions, but try giving scorpions wallclimbing. Needs testing.
Post edited August 01, 2019 by Thereunto
Posted August 01, 2019
avatar
DaemonVirus: any player would be able to make Elephants just the same as it is a neutral unit no matter what starting race you play.
avatar
Bookwyrm627: Anyone can use Elephants because they are Creatures and have no alignment, not because they are neutral. I speak from experience when I say that Neutral aligned guys by default don't want to work with High Men or Undead because of the two step alignment difference.

In Broken Bow, my High Men weren't able to make use of my Fire Sprite summon because it was Neutral aligned while I was Pure Good (and it would slow down any stacks that could keep it in line, being slower than any other unit that would work for me).

[DV]
- Oh yes, I know the Elephant isn't actually "neutral" per se, but that's just another reason that makes it a little bit more fair as even Highmen and Undead can use it without issues in morale.

avatar
DaemonVirus: Making the races too different would be like playing chess with different pieces on each side.
avatar
Bookwyrm627: Having lopsided ability sets can be quite interesting, as long as there is balance in chances to win. I offer Starcraft as perhaps one of the best known examples, where each race has very different units and abilities.

[DV]
- Sure, but from many years of experience... Starcraft is a vastly different game than Age of Wonders. It's balanced by the fact that though the tech trees are completely different for each race, there's only three races total and the difference between them isn't measured by all three races having the same unit with different stats, but rather completely different units that are balanced by more than just statistics.

- We're talking about some units being faster than others with clear differences in costs for specific reasons because the economy of the game is so much different than how much gold you bring in each turn. As a Zerg player, you can lose by making only Zerglings against a Terran player who just has too many marines or you can win by making only Zerglings if they don't make enough defense.

- Starcraft isn't just a balance in CHANCE to win; It's a totally different skill-set. If I attack you with a unit in Starcraft there's no CHANCE that unit is going to miss. It hits regardless, but what is happening WHILE that attack is going on changes things completely. I can be making more units back home while you're busy watching the fight, or I can control my units better than you to come out on top of the fight, or even to distract you while I kill something else that you're not paying attention to.

- Totally different game... Age of Wonders is like having two players with the same pawns, only whenever you attack you have to roll a die and one player needs a 3 or lower to hit and the other player needs a 2 or lower to hit. Starcraft is like having one player with pawns that can move in any direction and the other player has bishops that can attack from two spaces away without moving... and at the same time there's a game of Catan going on, but the turns don't pass from one person to the next, they just keep going and if you miss something you don't get to go back and do it again, you just miss out on it. -- Oh, and you just lost the chess game but you still might win with invisible units because your opponent hasn't had enough money to make anything to see them with. :P

avatar
DaemonVirus: Oh okay then... first it eats the post, then the post shows up after I finish rewriting it... fine then... read my thoughts twice.
avatar
Bookwyrm627: You probably fell victim to the New Page bug. Sometimes the first post on a new page doesn't show up until a second post for that page is created.

[DV]
- Sounds accurate.
Post edited August 01, 2019 by DaemonVirus
Posted August 01, 2019
avatar
Thereunto: Swap elephants and scorpions, but try giving scorpions wallclimbing. Needs testing.
It is an idea, but it doesn't solve the basic "How do Azrac walkers get past city walls without having to install something?" question. It does sort of look at "How are Azracs affected by the walls?"

avatar
DaemonVirus: - Oh yes, I know the Elephant isn't actually "neutral" per se, but that's just another reason that makes it a little bit more fair as even Highmen and Undead can use it without issues in morale.
I noted the alignment difference because it is important when playing the game. Neutral is definitely not the same thing as No Alignment.

avatar
DaemonVirus: - Sure, but from many years of experience... Starcraft is a vastly different game than Age of Wonders.
You missed the forest for the trees. My only reason for mentioning Starcraft is as an example of the idea "Balance can be achieved even if all sides function completely differently from each other".
Posted August 01, 2019
avatar
Thereunto: Swap elephants and scorpions, but try giving scorpions wallclimbing. Needs testing.
avatar
Bookwyrm627: It is an idea, but it doesn't solve the basic "How do Azrac walkers get past city walls without having to install something?" question. It does sort of look at "How are Azracs affected by the walls?"
I don't think it's a problem for Azracs to be a little slower off the mark for wallcrushing, especially since the Elephant still reaches the target first if it's more than 60 movement points away.
Posted August 01, 2019
I don't think I missed your point at all. I agree that balance can be achieved even if all sides function completely different, but you're talking about a totally different style of game. You're comparing turn-based strategy to real-time strategy which is like comparing apples to oranges.

The reason Starcraft works is because the gameplay as a whole is not based around how effectively one uses their total number of TURNS, but rather how effectively one uses the total amount of TIME they have available to them. A player who is able to multi-task better than another player is more likely to win a game of Starcraft whereas that skill has much less value in Age of Wonders.

Is it possible to balance Age of Wonders while making each and every race completely different from one another? Maybe... but not in the same way as can be done with a real-time strategy game. Because of Age of Wonders being turn-based you have to keep things quite equal otherwise thing would get unbalanced quite quickly. In real-time you can balance a stronger unit by having it be slower allowing counter-play by just avoiding it. In a turn-based system, you cannot just avoid this slower unit because you'll run out of income-generating locations way before you manage to catch the enemy leader / kill their last living unit.

I think probably the most important thing to note in this case is that true balance between different races cannot be researched, maintained, and achieved because a huge part of the game revolves around the use of multiple races rather than your single starting race. If we had a way to lock everyone into using only their single race then we'd have something more we could look at I think.
avatar
Bookwyrm627: It is an idea, but it doesn't solve the basic "How do Azrac walkers get past city walls without having to install something?" question. It does sort of look at "How are Azracs affected by the walls?"
avatar
southern: I don't think it's a problem for Azracs to be a little slower off the mark for wallcrushing, especially since the Elephant still reaches the target first if it's more than 60 movement points away.
That's true, with Elephants being so close, it's just a matter of installing the Elephant and then start producing. Not too much of a slowdown at a 2 hex village. It only really hurts if all the nearby towns have walls right from turn 1.
Post edited August 01, 2019 by DaemonVirus
Posted August 02, 2019
avatar
southern: I don't think it's a problem for Azracs to be a little slower off the mark for wallcrushing
Honestly, I tend to agree, especially since Elephants are so good. On this point, I'm just sort of Devil's Advocating.

avatar
DaemonVirus: Is it possible to balance Age of Wonders while making each and every race completely different from one another?
I say the answer to this question is "Yes", and that was my whole point. I don't disagree that Starcraft is a whole other genre, etc etc etc. Neither Starcraft nor AoW are board games, but it is also possible in a board game to have very different factions that never-the-less each have a solid chance to win.

I'm just saying that balance doesn't require mirror imaged factions. That's it! :)
Post edited August 02, 2019 by Bookwyrm627
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Community
Age of Wonders seriesDemocratically elected mod for AoW1?(42 posts)(42 posts)
(42 posts)