Goontrooper Goontrooper

Additions to 1.1

Additions to 1.1

I'm very excited about 1.1, the first big gameplay patch, since it seems to plan to address some of my biggest frustrations with the gameplay. We have been given some information about 1.1, but it doesn't sound like the final list of changes is set in stone. That means that there may still be time to get a few other things into 1.1

 

What else would you like 1.1 to do for Elemental? Please keep it realistic...this is just a patch, and thus changes need to be reasonable, in keeping with the level of changes that have already been put out. Thus, we can get some small additions and alterations, such as changing the way mana works, but 1.1 is not going to add real time battles or anything like that.

 

Here is what I would most like to see:

 

1) Battle Setup: So far we are getting an initiative system, which could be very cool. Many of us have also asked for some way to setup our forces before a battle starts so that we can apply better tactics. I think this will be especially important since SD says that 1.1 will encourage larger armies. I could see this being done in two ways. 1) Same as current where units are basically randomly thrown on the map, but allow players to reposition units within their deployment zone. 2) Create a deployment window with all units in an army and allow players to drag each unit onto the map and place them in the deployment zone.

 

2) Separate Movement from Attack: As part of the change to Initiative for combat, this is really important. This would fix the 'fast sword adds movement' problem. You could also create units that are fast, but don't have tons of attacks, which would help balance combat. Right now, an archer can shoot several times each turn, mages can cast several powerful spells, etc. Limit each unit to one offensive action or add a new stat that determines attack, separate from Movement or Combat Speed / Initiative. Link the attack to movement to prevent the 'kite' strategy where an archer runs away from a melee opponent while shooting. This should be possible only for fast skirmishers and light cavalry.

 

3) Ammunition: Limit the amount of ammunition for ranged attackers. Each unit should have enough ammo for a normal battle, but should not have infinite  ammo, thus allowing things like the kite strategy against much stronger enemies. This would help balance ranged attackers. You could also create things like special ammunition (bodkin arrow, poison arrow, etc) or extra ammunition as a kit item.

 

4) Create larger / longer battlefields: Currently, there isn't much room to maneuver. Everyone just does a headlong charge, and you are then on top of each other. This makes tactical maneuvering, which is a key part of combat, impossible. The ranges are also so long that you can easily kill enemies in their deployment zone. A larger or at least longer battlefield would allow time for maneuver and formation setup and would prevent ranged attackers from engaging from turn 1.

 

5) Mod Guide: The mod tools are great, and the XML is powerful, but there is so much of it that isn't commented or explained. We don't need huge tutorials (Although that would be nice) but a simple guide explaining more of the XML functions would be nice, especially in how different things link together.

 

6) Quest Editor: We have some great mod tools, but nothing that lets people create new quests. We can certainly do it with the existing files, but it is cumbersome, and as in #5, we don't have a clear guide on what can be done. A nice Quest Editor would really help the community out. I think you would quickly see some really fun, interesting, deep quests, which would really help flesh out that section of the game.

29,559 views 54 replies
Reply #51 Top

I don't know what you mean by "taking up 90% of the free space on the battlefield"? If this is supposed to be some kind of referance to being "hugely outnumbered" then you should lose the battle. If 10% archers could always defeat 90% heavily armored knights (everything else being equal) that would be lame in my opinion. That's just not realistic to me & overpowers a particular unit (why buy macemen then? they're useless).

Should one 4-squad of archers beat nine 4-squads of macemen? I don't think so without some other outrageous advantage for the archers such as quicksand or tar miring the knights, or some kind of spell assist. I don't see anything wrong with the archer killing one or two macemen while they're running up to engage the archers, but once engaged the archers should get their butts kicked (just like the charge of the light brigade finally axed the Russian artillery after taking 90% casualties).

End of quote
, have you attacked a town that had 40+ units stationed in it with a 12 unit army(which is the biggest you can field btw), and I would have lost that battle if I did not have one of my  supersovs with a ton of essence and mana and lots of combat moves, it took 12 casts of blizzard on my first turn(turn 2 of the battle) to level the playing field down to only 14 heavy squads and a couple of heavy casters opposing me, and at that point my attack was almost stopped with a defeat if my attack group had not been half supersovs(kids & grandkids with very high(over 100) strength,intelligence, wisdom, essence, combat speed(over 20) and enchanted bows and vengance coating and the ultimate armour for all, as it was only  half of my attack group survived, and yes it was the kids/grandkids and all the elite company heavy armour lord hammer(3) and archer squads(3) had died in the battle for ONE town, and yes I did REALLY want to put the town to the torch after that battle.

but the biggest mistake of the ai was to attack the weakest opponent(s)( ie the heavy armour lord hammers & archers), if they had attacked the strongest they might have won

harpo

 

Reply #52 Top

I've never seen 40+ units in a town in this game, but I've always been able to win on large maps with max # opponents by the 350 to 500 turn range. It never gets further than that for me. In fact, I've always been able to win before fully reaserching all the techs. In one game I saw an AI with several 10-man catapult squads which were very strong, and I realized I needed to move faster to win, that was the one game I lost, I think that was when the 1.08 patch came out which nixed wandering monsters & affected my strategy (then).

I think the game is supposed to only stack at most 12 units per side. I was attacked a couple of times when I had more than 12 units in a town and the game only deployed 12 of my units. I think if you're seeing more than 12 it's gotta be a bug, or a mod changed the game structure somehow. I've just never seen more than 12 units on a side in the all the games I've played with the most current patches. I've seen plenty of AI "stacks upon stacks," where I've attacked an AI group and spent the next 20 minutes fighting dozens of AI groups, but I think it was a game bug (or weak AI program feature) that caused some AI units to move and get "stuck" under certain conditions (blocked by terrain or borders).

I don't count on spellcasters as my "heavy-horse" because they're always out of mana. Even with 200+ mana grandkids, I'm going to supply them amply with archers, becuase I can't afford to sit around and wait for 100 turns of mana regeneration & especially when they still get battle experience & level up. So, from my POV magic is just not the prime mover in endgame. Early game, yeah, magic is prime mover, mid game it's about 50/50, endgame fast archers & horse archers are prime movers. Archer stacks with squads moving at 4/5 squares a turn are the "tank divisions" in this game .. I imbue a lot of guys btw, 30+ imbued champs typically, so magic is usually never "completely" useless, but 90% of the time in endgame those spellcasters are mostly used-up mana wise, and I typically use them for archers.

Spellcasters with longbows work well as archers in this game. Combat speed over 20! "wow" how many level-ups is that & how many game turns did it take? For spellcasters, I typically try to raise essence to 20 (more than that is useless in my opinion), then INT to at least 15/18, constitution to at least 20, then I start raising strength to make them better as archers, usually that's as far as I get before winning. Typically I win, or have won (not enought opposition left to make a worthy fight) by the 12th to 15th level-up. And, a lot of those guys are constantly fighting. I have at least 2 to 5 small groups of 2 to 5 champs with longbows + fast archer squads to deal with wandering monsters, keep caravans flowing, and gather treasures in the 4-corners of the map. I rarely use teleport, don't need to. Sometimes I raise combat speed, but it usually increments very small, like 3.1, 3.3, 3.6, etc.. imo, it's better to raise combat speed with some buy items. Frankly, I very rarely find those rare treasures, at least 30% of the goodie hut quests are broken from my experience. I saw that suit of armor once, but it's not worth spending the time searching for since I don't plan risking my sovereign in direct melee anyway.

Instead of making one or two guys really strong, I prefer to make a bunch of guys strong, all those books I just immediatly use for whoever finds them. instead of trying to create a "superman" like some other players suggest in other post. 10 guys can take down 10 cities/armies, one guy only takes down 1 city/army. 

Basically, my attack plan involves speed. I go for more of a "blitzkrieg" approach to conquest in this game, as I think that's the best tactic. City spam & massive caravan highways are a big part of that. Sometimes I bypass stongly defended cities (the attack option gives you that option) and just take out the weakly defended surrounding cities .. in my experience the Soverign will typically sortie and you can flatten their army out in the open somewhere, then take the (now) more weakly defended city later at your leisure.  The Ai isn't competant enough to react to this, or formulate a similar attack plan to attack players cities (it typically suicide-attacks).  

Reply #53 Top

Quoting cpl_rk, reply 50

Quoting dabrownsrphat, reply 49


I am talking about a single battle.  Fighting a force that takes up 90% of the free spaces on the battlefield and if you lose your archers due to ammo, you almost have no chance at winning.  So this would mean either not having archers, or go into battle at a disadvantage.

 

I'm for realism, but this game is not about realism, unless people could throw fire balls, make lightning storms come down, or teleport in the middle ages.   

I mean the whole story is about fantasy, magical monsters coming and making armageddon a reality? I read much more than I post, and I agree with most of what you say, and you are active and have good opinions, but on this one I must agree to disagree.

I don't know what you mean by "taking up 90% of the free space on the battlefield"? If this is supposed to be some kind of referance to being "hugely outnumbered" then you should lose the battle. If 10% archers could always defeat 90% heavily armored knights (everything else being equal) that would be lame in my opinion. That's just not realistic to me & overpowers a particular unit (why buy macemen then? they're useless).

Should one 4-squad of archers beat nine 4-squads of macemen? I don't think so without some other outrageous advantage for the archers such as quicksand or tar miring the knights, or some kind of spell assist. I don't see anything wrong with the archer killing one or two macemen while they're running up to engage the archers, but once engaged the archers should get their butts kicked (just like the charge of the light brigade finally axed the Russian artillery after taking 90% casualties).

I'm assuming for the sake of argument that in a fantasy world or game (when discussing that game) that "magic" is "realistic" for that game or fantasy world environment, and has some kind of logic associated with it (specifically that logic can be enumerated: stronger spells = higher mana cost, the cost of spells, both in mana and learning, should be "proportional" to their effect in a mathematical sort of way).

 
End of cpl_rk's quote

 

When you have 8-12 units per square or group and the enemy has 1 per, it is not that unrealistic.  I have done it. It happens. It wasn't equal amounts in each (forget the names, squad, etc. or whatever)

Reply #54 Top

Quoting cpl_rk, reply 52
I've never seen 40+ units in a town in this game, but I've always been able to win on large maps with max # opponents by the 350 to 500 turn range. It never gets further than that for me. 
End of cpl_rk's quote

 

I was on turn 800-900 somewhere. I build up, and then conquer all. :grin: