Age of Wonders 4

[Edgetard]

"Blackwell can annex its first province".

SECTORS !!!!

No not this shit again, God fucking damn can you go back to the good ideas you had in the og for once

 

[Lacrymas]

This was actually quite a fun watch, now I'm cautiously optimistic. Once again, heroes kinda seem OP though.

I watched the last battle now and they do seem to be almost invincible. The hero was taking like 2 damage from a tier 3 dragon. I know units go to T5 now, but still.

 

[Suicidal]

I'm not entirely against the sector idea. The way they were implemented in PF was boring but during the video they said that there will be differences so I'll wait and see for myself.

Heroes do seem much stronger than in AoW3. I hope we won't go back to the times of AoW1/2 where a hero with 10/20 defense can solo the entire map.

 

[Raghar]

I'm not entirely against the sector idea. The way they were implemented in PF was boring but during the video they said that there will be differences so I'll wait and see for myself.

Heroes do seem much stronger than in AoW3. I hope we won't go back to the times of AoW1/2 where a hero with 10/20 defense can solo the entire map.

Not if you played ironman. You couldn't risk hero by soloing.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

You couldn't risk

Absolutely civilized

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Unfortunately, problems with sectors in PF run deeper than them just being fucking boring and a big factor in decline of strategic layer. AI was completely unable to handle them in an even remotely decent way and created completely nonsensical cities crippling itself and then the player would never want to conquer that crap, just raze it to the ground.

 

[Suicidal]

Unfortunately, problems with sectors in PF run deeper than them just being fucking boring and a big factor in decline of strategic layer. AI was completely unable to handle them in an even remotely decent way and created completely nonsensical cities crippling itself and then the player would never want to conquer that crap, just raze it to the ground.

That sounds less like a problem with sectors and more like Triumph finally needing to do something about the shit AI in their games.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Bottom line is don't include stuff that your game can't handle. PF ai couldn't handle sectors, npc factions and needed a lot of patching to be shit instead of hopeless with mods. Which is what, everything that PF had? I'm not hoping for some huge change here, the trajectory is obvious.

 

[Lacrymas]

I don't mind the sectors as a gameplay mechanic that much, it's essentially the same thing as growing your influence radius, but it's not as passive and you can choose what to prioritize. It's kind of lame you can't put your city wherever you want, though, and are forced to found it in the center of a sector. And yeah, the AI can't handle them, but who knows, they might've improved their AI (lol, good luck there).

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Forgetting the most important part, which is that they are boring af, I see zero advantages of sectors over zoc and I hard disagree on them being not as passive. In AoW3 not only could you choose the precise spot for settlement, but there were also mechanics that influenced zoc other than simply growth (and growth was more interesting and varied in AoW3, too). In PF the sector to choose is almost always obvious, you get to 16 pop super quick anyway, and the game just devolves into "tap cosmite asap" p much awlays. That being said, not like any of this will matter much if the maps will be as ugly, featureless and boring as in PF, with no interesting mechanics to interact with them.

 

[Lacrymas]

I don't think there's any advantage of sectors with the possible exception of getting to a strategic building faster instead of having to wait for your zone of control to get enlarged in some way. But yeah, PF's strategic layer is shockingly dull and uninteractive.

 

[Demo.Graph]

AoW3 approach was even worse than PF.

AoW2 cities were of secondary importance to the wargame. They were army spawning points and maybe research boosters and that's it. Building new cities generally took too long in competitive gameplay, but this option was like a timer-based threat for clumsy rushers.

AoW3 had limited army size to 6 units per hex, reducing them by a third and severely limiting tactical options. It offered no compensation on the strategic layer. City building had remained like it was in AoW2 - with buildings that offered no choices and gated army production for no reason.

AoWPF had added sectors and worker placement to cities. This way it had added some specialization to city building, shifting it closer to civ series. I think that it was a change for the better, because tactical layer consisted of the same 6 unit per stack retardation, but at least strategic level got some potential. Also, capturing POIs became more relevant.
It failed balancing it all properly and expanding the mechanics enough to transform the game into a proper 4X.

Both AoW3 and AoPF had generally lost army composition customization and strategic casting that were the core of AoW. In this regard they're not AoW sequels. So far AoW4 seems like it'll turn out to be an "AoPF fantasy remake" (what the fuck did I just typed, FFS).

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

cities were of secondary importance to the wargame

Imagine that in an AoW game. Also, no rat diplomacy.

severely limiting tactical options

Yeah, tactical options were severely limited in 3 compared to previous entries. Severely.

at least strategic level got some potential

Lol, literally none of your "pain points" are addressed by PF. All it does is make strategic layer boring and lobotomizes it to the point of "tap dem cosmite nodes asap to mod your units better". Or fuck that, not like even that is necessary. Just tech rush DD and fire it while AI sits somewhere in the corner getting killed by neutrals or moves one stack back and forwards while the counter runs down. And I'm sure there's a lot of potential in stripping countless features (no strategic upgrades, no climate warfare, no additional growth boosts, no forge, no underground, yada yada, why does it have to be hammered in every time).

Both AoW3 and AoPF had generally lost army composition customization

Yeah, they lost a lot compared to casting some basic +DEF and +ATK enchantments on heroes and blitzing through the entire maps with them.

 

[BING XI LAO]

Superheroes are VERY based, just as long as there's counters to it.

 

[Lacrymas]

Heroes are the hardest thing to balance imo and if I were to create a AoW/MoM-like game I'd probably get rid of them altogether. I'd try some other stuff first, though, but if they don't work it's off to the chopping block.

 

[Dadd]

Superheroes are VERY based, just as long as there's counters to it.

Based on terrible game design ideas

 

[Demo.Graph]

Superheroes are VERY based, just as long as there's counters to it.

Based on terrible game design ideas

They're cool when they're done properly. e.g. SCs and thugs in Dom series.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Superheroes are VERY based, just as long as there's counters to it.

I actually like them too, because:

a) I can refrain myself from powergaming the most obvious option every single time like a sperg and enjoy trying different, underpowered stuff.
b) as long as the game is cool and fun, I think it's good that it allows vastly different playstyles, even if some of them are hilariously broken.

And AoW1/2/SM is definitely cool and fun.

Still, that doesn't change the fact that the heroes are objectively broken af and AoW3 probably had the right idea about nerfing them.

Heroes are the hardest thing to balance imo and if I were to create a AoW/MoM-like game I'd probably get rid of them altogether. I'd try some other stuff first, though, but if they don't work it's off to the chopping block.

That sounds like a really bad idea.

And AoW3 did it p. right. You can make competent fighting toons out of certain classes, but it takes time, dedication and isn't some be all end all tactic with no counters.

Also, there's different kinds of broken. Older AoW heroes fall on a cheesy fun end of spectrum, while something like HoMM4 heroes is completely 'tarded.

 

[Johannes]

It's not very hard to balance in a AoW-like combat and heroes in a way that you can't use them to solo armies. There's a lot to think about besides that still, especially about the progression to get it right throughout the course of the game.

Then it also comes back to the usual AI problem, when your heroes are lvl 9 and the hardest AI might have a bigger army but his heroes are lvl 3... You either gotta make the AI clear neutrals better or just make it cheat with that, or it's just another 1-sided thing.

 

[Lacrymas]

The problem with heroes is two-fold - gameplay and philosophy of design. First of all, they are outright better units than anything else, especially at the start, so you are already starting with a massive advantage against neutrals and they just keep getting better if the leveling up process isn't well thought-out. Which leads to the intellectual question of what the point of neutrals in this context is. To me, neutrals should curtail your military progress in exchange for an economic one, i.e. they give you stuff when you kill them or are guarding a strategic resource generator. However, when heroes exist it's very easy to not take any casualties against neutrals and to level up on top of that, making your military even stronger. Why do neutrals exist in this case? To fill up your time with pointless battles? This is bad game design from the get-go, imo, without even taking into consideration how the AI interacts with this system.

The first thing I'd do if I'm designing a MoM-style game (in order to try to avoid removing heroes completely) is to make attrition from neutrals actually mean something. I'd remove *all* healing from low-tier units (i.e. no T2 priests that can heal an entire army on their own) and reserve healing for higher tier units and hero abilities. I'd make it so you can heal only in towns or specific strategic buildings in the early game. I'd enable simultaneous and ranged retaliation, so no counting hexes in order to take less damage overall. Interestingly enough, Spellforce Conquest of Eo doesn't feature simultaneous retaliation but made melee fights so lethal that you are better off defending rather than attacking. I'd advise against this, however, as it makes defending the best choice 90% of the time. Then I'll take a look at items and see how I can make them more interesting than pure stat sticks. Speaking of stats, you shouldn't be able to pump up base stats like attack/damage/defense/resistance on heroes on level-up, that is one of the reasons they are so freakishly overpowered in AoW. I'd make leveling up rarer in general, so you aren't level 10 by the time you start facing your actual opponents. If all of this combined doesn't work to curb heroes' power, I'd probably remove them unless I come up with a particularly genius idea.

 

[Suicidal]

Heroes are the hardest thing to balance imo and if I were to create a AoW/MoM-like game I'd probably get rid of them altogether. I'd try some other stuff first, though, but if they don't work it's off to the chopping block.

Leveling up stuff is inherently fun in these sorts of games so I wouldn't mind getting rid of heroes if they were replaced by some other system, like all of your units being able to level up and equip items and etc. You could even do it in a way that you can promote units that manage to survive to high levels to heroes, so you still have heroes but they become something you have to actively work towards to get.

 

[Lacrymas]

Leveling up stuff is inherently fun in these sorts of games so I wouldn't mind getting rid of heroes if they were replaced by some other system, like all of your units being able to level up and equip items and etc. You could even do it in a way that you can promote units that manage to survive to high levels to heroes, so you still have heroes but they become something you have to actively work towards to get.

I was thinking of making units be able to level up and use items, depending on other factors. I might just make it so they can equip items and that's their "leveling".

 

[Johannes]

The downside to stuff that levels up and becomes really unique, is that it's a bummer to lose them. So some stuff being expendable, and staying that way, can promote a less conservative playstyle where you don't mind taking some losses if it's worth the tradeoff. If you've got an army of irreplaceable high level units, you only want to take on fights you can beat without losses - while more even matched fights are more interesting. Optimising who gets kills / xp in battles is kinda tiresome too, just focusing on winning the battle is more enjoyable generally.

Finding / forging / buying items, or other such rewards that are direct rewards for doing a specific thing, are better and should be emphasised more than passive power gain from beating trash mobs. Also stuff like doing a magic ritual in town to gain power / new abilities.

 

[vota DC]

Killing doesn't change: xp Is shared unlike older games.

 

[Space Satan]

That is a better system, because it axes crap where you funnel wounded units to be killed by healers and priests and other crappy attackers. That was a miserable grind nobody will miss