I have here this video where Brad says that. It is in fact a very cool concept but I am not sure if it is still implemented.
The reason why I love that is that it implies that there are only 4 elemental shards: one of each kind, that they are therefore extremely rare and they are crucial strategic points. In a place where city spamming is so common that cities become a micromanagement nightmare and a boring thing to see, anything unusual and special is a plus!
Also that concept would add some spice to multplayer by forcing players to explore the map and find them (if more than 4 shards are needed in the actual system, just make 4 hypershards or call them whatever). That would give an incentive to build boats, which at the moment are a cool concept but not very useful since the while map can be explored by walking (unless the AI learns how to use boats that won't change). Of course teleport will also spoil this concept of the game, (making shards too easy to reach, making boats useless, destroying the epic sense of the game by compressing the map, etc...) That's another reason to make teleport spells and gates optional.
Regarding the 4 shards (or "hypershards"), I would also make sure that they would be forced to appear far from each other. We don't want that quest to spoil the game by becoming too easy for a specific player.
When it comes to victory conditions, the game currently has one that requires you to walk around the world and do a quest, the one that requires lot's of spell research and the good ol' "kill them all" conquest option.
Capture 4 unique shards sounds like a fun idea, but will most likely require you to both explore around the world like the quest victory, AND do at least half of a conquest victory.
I'm guessing the implementation of the spell of mastery changed to give an option to a victory condition that relies mostly on research instead of exploration and conquest.
The one I am talking about is the "lots of spell research" condition. I mean that you still have to do all the research, but you also have to control the 4 shards. Which is better IMO, than simply research, because the other players at least can do something to prevent the spell from being cast.
My perspective is always multiplayer, which I believe is where the true potential of this game lies. By the way do you think the AI will ever be able to pursue any other form of victory rather than "kill the player?"
I doubt it, as I doubt that a game with this level of complexity will ever be able to offer an AI able to apply different strategies. It's not by chance that Age of Wonders Shadow Magic still has a large number of fans playing it. They are all multiplayer enthusiasts who mostly play by email (PBEM).
If this game doesn't get a successful multiplayer system (PBEM), in my opinion won't survive as much and as well as AOWSM!
Warning! PBEM plug above.
I've had computer players pursue diplomatic victories.
@ Black-Knight:
Okay... I get the crusade... I'm sure we all do at this point... Make Teleport Optional/Remove It... Yes, we know your stance on that. This isn't AoW bud. Hell, it's not even a whole game yet, just hold yer horses.
PBEM: Great, hope it gets implemented so guys like you can actually use it. Really, no sarcasm there at all. Not even implying I don't want you on my MP Server. Seriously, TBS games take a lot of time as is, and a PBEM feature is a great way to give people a chance to play, either competitively or with friends, when they don't have a lot of time. But enough plugging already bro.
Addressing that, you've contributed little-to-nothing in the way of creative ideas on these forums. No offense, but everywhere I turn, if there's a post by you, it's advocating one or both of these things. Real ideas coming from you are few and far between. Granted, I'm not one to talk, as I don't have any great ideas either, but I at least help others try to conceptualize and brainstorm new and better things, and every once in a while, I even have a good idea. (Read: Not the same one's plugged over and over.)
As far as the AI never being Complex enough... Play Galactic Civilizations 2. I just bought it. I've spent the better part of 3 days just TRYING to beat the AI... On BEGINNER. That's not even the easiest difficulty setting! Seriously, the AI in that game will puppeteer you to your doom if you aren't careful. GalCiv2 also happens to be a Stardock creation, and until playing it, even I thought the AI might've been a little bit ambitious for them... Only a little bit though, and it never occurred to me that they couldn't do it, given enough time and resources. After playing GalCiv.... I've no doubt that implementing strategically, tactically, and politically intelligent AI's will be a friggen cakewalk for them, and only a matter of time and effort.
Lastly, I've been beaten by the AI's twice on Ridiculous, not counting the other three times I was an idiot with my Sovereign in enemy territory.
The first of those two times, Altar snuck a Diplo Victory up on me.
The second of the two, Altar snuck a Diplo Victory up on me.
Yes. You read it properly. I've lost twice to the Kingdom of Altar, via Diplomatic Conquest. While this obviously wasn't their true intent, it happened. So no, the AI is not capable of actively pursuing a victory other than Conquest, but with the correct circumstances, they can still get a Diplo Victory. But this goes back to my previous statement; Programming a 'Play-to-Win' AI will not be anything approaching impossible. Time-consuming? Probably. Genuinely Hard? Probably not.
End Rant/Anti-Crusade
...Which outlines the flaw in diplomatic victories. When they occur all remaining players should win, which would mean they should all be allied with everyone.
The arguable problem with this is that it feels like an "everybody wins!" consolation prize. Not that I disagree with you, but there are people who strongly dislike that sort of thing.
But that IS the essense of a diplomatic victory. Unless everyone wins the allying with other players in multiplayer would be risking giving away victory, thus limiting it to only something that can be achieved against the AI or when someone has allies and knocks off their enemies (at which point it would feel like for the others that they were tricked into giving away victory).
Those that what only one winner without killing everyone or doing the Quest/Spell victory are looking for domination, not diplomacy. I will be posting about that in another thread soon.
You miss the point: TELEPORT SPOILS ALL ASPECTS OF THE GAME, almost whatever I talk about is connected to something spoiled by teleport. It is almost impossible to mention anything that has to do with strategy without realizing that it could possibly be spoiled by teleport: In this case I am stressing the coolness of having far away locations, hard to find, hard to reach that could potentially bring victory... And then immediately I realize that they may not be too hard to reach and defend after all, as long as you build a city next to them, realistic strategies won't apply anymore: you'll get Mario Bros and his teleporting Circus popping in at any time.
Regarding PBEM i wasn't really trying to bring it up for any particular reason other that all strategic aspects of the game are enhanced by Multiplayer, while Single Player dies pretty soon comparatively since the AI becomes foreseeable. Adding complexity to a way to achieve victory, will obviously be more interesting from a MP point of view, since the AI will always be exploitable by complexities.
So it is true in conversations related to strategy I find very hard to abstain from mentioning the hidious teleport and Play By EMail (PBEM), which for me is the only possible way to make multiplayer work.
Controlling 4 shards in a map, usually means that you will need to destroy at least 2-3 different players.
If you do that, it's very close to "domination" and "exploration" victory, only harder.
Getting the magical victory is not easy, you need to spend a lot of your resources on something that is useful only for that victory, giving the other players more time to advance beyond your current techs and spells.
When casting the spell, all the enemies know it, and have enough time to wipe you out, and also enough motivation to unite against you.
As a result, it requires you to invest a lot of effort in research, arcane research, and defensive armies that can hold off attacks for some time. Something completely different from the quest victory and the conquest victory.
I don't see why this type of victory is more complex to the AI compared to other victory conditions. With general AI rules like "defensive" and "arcane focus", you can easily get the AI go to that victory.
I don't mean that it is hard for te AI to achieve, but rather that it is hard for the I to counter. For example Imagine I wait until the last second before conquering the last shard... I am sure something of that sort would be possible to figure out that players could prevent while the AI would fall every time for.
.
Personally I have never felt that teleport "spoils" any aspect of the game. Teleport doesn't really spoil diplomacy, nor city building, nor research. The only thing one could even argue is that it can play a heavy role in the defense of your empire or the movement of your troops, but it does not inherently spoil these aspects of the game. I know some players are use this spell heavily and even go as far as to make every champion a spell caster simply to have more teleporters. Yet, this is only possible since every spell caster has a separate mana pool which you can exploit, which will not be the case come 1.1. Honestly, teleport adds some good qualities in the face of some systems which are lackluster. From my own experience, I had one game where the wild goose chase hut was placed on the other side of a vast mountain range which took me about 50 turns to get around. If it had not been for teleport, my sov would have been completely MIA from my faction for 100 turns simply to do one low level quest. I think most people who think that teleport is somehow strategically detrimental simply ignore the downside to their strategic choice. Consider a situation where your sov is deep in enemy territory with his party of doom and an enemy stack tries to attack one of your cities. Now, in this situation, the sov can easily teleport back and save the city which you may argue spoils the strategic value of catching someone off guard. However, if this sov jumps back to save his town, he is giving up his entire momentum in enemy territory, since this sov will have to waste 15 mana just to jump back and another 15 is he wants to jump back to the front (assuming there is a newly friendly city near where he was). I dont know about you but spending 30 mana just to hold off an attack would completely ruin any plans I had to charge into enemy territory with this stack.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
