Hi all
Just wondering is there going to a mechanism to stop steamrolling? Something like unhappiness in Civ and the Total war series of games? (ie if unhappiness drops too low the city revolts etc)
I just feel like currently once you have a stack of doom u can steamroll all the AI cities leaving them no time to build up any defenses or armies to fight you... does anyone else get into that kind of situation?
Hi guys. I stupidly made a related post on a similar issue. Rather than posting my suggestion here (which was rather long) i'll just link it and you can comment if you like.
click here
I was thinking the same thing. The AI is playing very poorly which allows easy steamrolling. Part of this seems to be due to how much room there is on the map for expansion. Everyone crammed tightly together at the start with bottlenecks and monsters everywhere.
The AI cities, I took over, had very poor research output too. This possibly explains why I'm not seeing them build good units.
Heck, once I started taking an AI's cities one by one. It didn't even change the build queues to crank out defensive units.
10, Don't switch the ZoC immediatelly. Make it so that, for a few turns depending on the infrastructure and level of the city, you're still in a hostile environment. The defender, then, has a chance to retake the city fighting with the domestic bonuses. Can also port (forgot the spell name), right there, since it's still their territory. Also the defender doesn't lose their resources in the ZoC, if any.
Maybe we can make unrest more noticeable? Like people walking around the towns in protest if the city is on the verge of revolts + icons in the city management screen showing unrest as red?
Something like that might help?
From 911 patchlog.
This will certainly prevent players who capture a city from gaining an immediate boost to their economy anyway. It also makes captured cities worse then ones you built yourself which gives you an incentive to raze captured cities and lowers the huge boost capturing a city gave to your economy, which was out of whack with how hard it was to grow a city.
Cool. Will there be a building like in Civ to overcome that unrest? Where did you get that patchlog, btw?
911 patchlog
https://forums.elementalgame.com/422890
Cool! Ty!
Woah looks like we were heard!
After playing many of these types of games I think an affective way to slow down the steam rolling is with having walled cities such as in AOW:SM and Total War that you need special equitment/ and or abilities to get past. And yes this should show in Tactical combat as well. Couple this with militia and buildings like Towers that shoot all matters of projectiles and a way to upgrade walls and gates both through mundain (wood to stone) and magical means. This of course would involve the player to build up his city defense, no city should have these from the start with the exception of militia.
Not only would this make for fun city battles in TC. But also slow the steamrolling of cities. Yes you could build that stack with abilities to by pass the walls but it would take you longer to get them.
Plus I never liked the unrest mechanic that CIV has. I do want unrest in the game but this should only last a few rounds.
Maybe a combination of both unrest and walled cities...
But wouldn't having walled cities make monsters useless?
Not at all depending on thier skills/equitment. And you could like in AOW:SM be able to have any unit break down gates. Gates would have so many hit points which the attack would have to damage before getting in. They would have to have an ability Wall Breaking in order to do damage to walls. Catapults would automatically have wall smashing.
This worked very well in AOW:SM
This is exactly what I was thinking is a missing element from the game. There is a crazy amount of offensive power at the hands of the player but there is not a whole lot going on in the defensive aspects of the game. Making it hard ( as it should be ) to take a fortified city should slow the player down some.
1. Keep captured city unrest mechanic.
2. Nerf troop level-ups dramatically.
3. Keep dividing XP by number of heroes in stack.
4. Give defence bonus for troops defending foundation cities but not captured cities.
5. Add one more defence militia to cities.
This would largely stop stack-of-doom unbalance and would allow AI to better protect their areas.
I agree with all the points Das123 made. And also, possibly, use seanw3's suggestions for different levels of cities and armor/weapon makeup of city militia (that he uses in his mods), including city archer militia.
There is another problem fundamental to the way this game is made. And that is, a full stack of superior troops would simply steamroll through numerous full stacks of inferior troops.
This problem is caused by the limit to how many troops can be in one stack.
No matter how you reduce the level gain, or increase defence bonuses (this would compound the problem if defenders are the superior stack)
A reinforcement system similar to Mount and Blade would be the best to alleviate this.
In Mount and Blade, if the system was identical to that of Fallen Enchnatress, then say a max Army size of 20, then no matter how many armies the enemy has, so long as they are of a significant inferior quality, the superior single army will destroy everything simply because the numbers aren't given any advantage.
Think Thermopylae
Anything that promotes slower expansion for both the player and the AI would be welcome in my book. The world fills up too fast for my taste (and I'm playing on really big maps).
If AI factions would meet enemy hero-led armies on their territory with a barrage of overland spells then steamrolling would end quickly. However, at the moment an army can use roads to cross an entire ZOC inside of one turn, leaving no scope for defensive maneuvers. A building or spell that slows enemies down will help here.
That is a terrible way to solve the problem. The reason being that it gives the player absolutely no control over the units while they die, simply by being pummeled by the fist of "god".
i dont think unhappin in this game really does anything at all bad.
in civ futher you where from your captial more un happy people where also that kept empires civs from branch out all over the place making taking over capture citys all time not worth while becuase futhere you got more unhappy they where also if they civs where not of your people they also where unhappy, making it possiable for citys that where captured to turn back to there orginal owner unless you had alot of troops to supress it and i mean alot of resrouces had to go into doing that.
it would help with steam rolling also in civ 5 when someone started warmongering then every one would pretty hate them just becuase they would worry about being the next one took over, in this game dosnt seem like any one cares if you steam rolling every one in game.
Replicator i wold agrre with you if the ai managed its mana better and kept a portion of it back at all times to microwave its opponents, but it isn't even doing it once or twice. You have a spell that will lower initiave before a fight starts, and a spell that will slow world map movement speed and a spell that will divide up a stack and toss it around the world map a bit, and a spell that deal raw damage. i never see the ai use these spells. it uses city enchantments, but not other spells in this regard.
If the ai could manage its army better, slow you down, burn you up and chill your bones before engaing you in battle, that would rock.
It would rock... the first time you face it... then you start sending in fodder to waste all of its mana before your real army arrives... and then it's right back to normal again.
The 2 biggest thing in my mind that needs to be changed:
1) Roads, the bonus to movement effect shouldn't apply unless it's on your territory, heck, improve the bonus inside your territory. This prevents you from rushing a city before they can even react, while allowing the defenders to gather quicker.
2) Base HP of units should increase, lower HP increase per level. This makes high level units (that you've been training) less like unkillable HP stacks of doom, while making rookie defenders a bit more beefy so that they might be able to kill something.
If you can just do that, you should lower the steamrolling quite a bit.
I'll put it this way. Losing troops to events that are beyond your control is by far the most annoying aspect of a game, to me.
From disease in Total War games to nukes in Starcraft or Rise of nations.
But, if you guys are fine with it, then sure.
all i am saying is i expect the ai to do to me what i do to it lol.
i look at the patterns i use when i play, ,i think about ho i can use this spell or that trait, then i would hope that brad does the sme thing and program the ai to do it too. If you don't want the ai to microwave you, dont have the spell in the game. Mind you, there are very loose restrictions on how many times you can cast a spell per round which i find very unnerving and pray the ai never starts to abuse. Kind of like a theoretical pulse cannon pointed at someones head, you dont know when its going to recharge
(MAN i HATE this keyboard the buttons stick and its makin me glook illiterate)
^^^^ =====right there, just like that....
Nah, that's why i wrote "enemy hero-led armies on their territory". That might weaken or slow said armies just enough in order for the tactical battle not to be a pushover.
And naturally a large mana supply would lead to swift annihilation of the player's army, which might not be fun. That is why similar games always have a "casting power" stat, which determines how much mana a side can expend per turn.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
