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.

29,527 views 54 replies
Reply #26 Top

1) Restructure the tech trees. Idea is fantastic, but Conquest has ... 30 nodes? While some other trees have... 11?

2) Menu option to have the computer not recommend unit designs.

3) Smartererererer AI. I know Frogboy's on this one.

4) Caravans should not double as spies.

5) Pet peeve; fix the reveal spell. It only works in unexplored areas now - as opposed to previously explored and now fog of war'd.

6) Pet peeve; fix the blistering sands spell. I can't cast it on enemy resources if I'm at war with a nation and inside their border - it only works inside my border.

7) Flood / Earthquake / Curgen's Volcano are amazing, I just want to say. With that + raise/lower land, you really can shape the world as you please, which I think is outstanding.

Reply #27 Top

First, all of Xaltotun's (please excuse any misspelling) ideas are good (i.e. I agree with them, ergo...).

Now a few of my own:

Fantasy world (e.g. elves, dwarves, orcs...) not post apocalyptical medieval world.

Real differences between 'races' and 'factions'.

World Creation: more sliders (% land, resource rareness (possibly beyond the current 'extraordinarily few to none at all' range), terrain types(?), roaming monster frequency, etc

Sovereign creation: you pick the point total available; AI gets that value +/- a value dependent on a difficulty (i.e. handicap or cheat)

Wealth: something beyond the current token gold mine and 12 guys named Viy. Taxes won't really work since you need to balance that with (un)happiness, which doesn't exist in the grey world of (select randomly generated sequence of 6-15 letters here). Lack of money is the key tedium generator in the current game. Caravans generating gold is good - sadly the population will all have starved to death before the caravan arrives.

Names: a little more variety in the names of champions. I really do have 9 guys named Viy in my current game.

Adventure Techs - some really should generate a random number of random resources. Within the area you have explored excluding AI ZoCs. Not a gold mine or a bee hive and an apple tree.

Diplomacy: a functional system

Dynasty: I marry off my daughters - what do I get in exchange (nothing, as far as I can tell). Don't say diplomacy benefits until that bit functions (my perceived value '29'; his '18 bazillion').

Magic 'Mana Pool': MoM is an excellent model, global mana pool, available to all (usable amount is minimum of global amount and spellcaster's 'essence rating'). Would be nice to add 'mana nodes' to shards as sources of said mana. Also potential sources from buildings, etc

Make water meaningful: fish, warships, whatever. Historically port cities have always been important; Elemental - waste of time. 

More Lvl1 quests. Some pre-existing dungeons/nodes/ruins/etc from the start of the game. All inhabited by monsters, some easy, some butt kickers until the late game. Rewards commensurate with difficulty (gold, mana, magic items, spells)

Ability to convert resources to gold. Or do a much better job of balancing resources: 4000 materials, 1200 metal, 120 gold: what's wrong with this picture?

Tech tree: Lvl 1 techs should be lvl 1 techs. If it takes 10 turns when I have 1 research point, it shouldn't take 12 turns when I have 24 points 150 turns later. The overall pace of R&D is fine, just differentiate between tech levels (not all, e.g., Tech 1 levels have to cost the same but the cost should be fixed not variable).

Tactical combat - monsters could also come in squads (at least the human ones). Spawning groups of, e.g. goblins, orcs, whatever would also be nice.

 

Reply #28 Top

Sorry, forgot an important one: make it worthwhile for the Sovereign to spend time in his hut (maybe you could give him a fort, mage's tower or something more befitting his rank). Could be accelerated spell research, ability to cast spells in all battles (to his turn limit in essence, potentially with mana penalties as per MoM), whatever. Better than having kamikaze AI sovereigns providing very unsatisfying 'victories'.

OK, since you asked, one more: those potential pre-exiting ruins, etc should be 'monster spawn centres'. that probably needs to be linked to Quest level (say QL+1?).

Reply #29 Top

Anglophile, some good ideas, but keep in mind this is a patch...they aren't going throw out the existing lore and add elves and orcs in 1.1 or any other patch. Let the modders worry about that!

 

I think some of your economic concerns are being addressed with 1.1 making population more of an important resource. Go back and read the dev diaries on 1.1, you should be happy.

Reply #30 Top

I recognize my wish list will not be sorted out in 1.1. I recognize that some of it will stay as wishes. Some of the things would have been on my wish list for MoM (if only they had editors back then). So if I've been wanting some of this stuff for 20 years or so, I'm prepared to wait longer than 1.1. Thanks for starting this thread btw, an excellent idea.

Reply #31 Top

Quoting Anglophile, reply 30
I recognize my wish list will not be sorted out in 1.1. I recognize that some of it will stay as wishes. Some of the things would have been on my wish list for MoM (if only they had editors back then). So if I've been wanting some of this stuff for 20 years or so, I'm prepared to wait longer than 1.1. Thanks for starting this thread btw, an excellent idea.
End of Anglophile's quote


Gotcha, since this was a 1.1 wish list thread, as opposed to a more general wish list, that is what I assumed you were asking for. Anyways, good ideas and I hope we see some of them in 1.1 and beyond.

Reply #32 Top

I very much like the idea of allowing a player to deploy his units in a deployment area before battle starts.

Bigger battle fields is also a good idea, but it should scale to the size of the armies.

I agree also with the idea of limiting archers ammo per battle, but I think that might be harder for them to put in.

 

 

Reply #33 Top
Quoting econundrum1, reply 32

I agree also with the idea of limiting archers ammo per battle, but I think that might be harder for them to put in.
 
 

End of econundrum1's quote

 

 

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.

End of quote

I just googled quiver sizes and there's a surprising lack of info about how many arrows were/are actually carried. It varies a lot. The best referece mentioned a couple-dozen arrows per quiver at most in mideaval times, and modern quivers much less. Archers stuck their arrown in the ground in front of them for easy reload. Research also shows a well trained longbowman could fire 12 arrows per minute. It just seems very odd to me that archers would have only two minutes worth of ammo. Other references said mideaval battles were typically very short, like an hour at most. I guess if only a couple of arrows hit their mark out of 24. that would do significant damage to any attacking army.

Of course, in game systems that use the concept of "hit points" 24 arrows wouldn't cut it. Archers would have 8 rounds worth of ammo before running out (at 3 arrows per round), typically this is enough for most monsters, but larger hp squads it would not be enough. If the archers could go to some other weapon when their arrows were out, that might help, but I don't think is historically this is how archers were used, and they should probably be allowed to conduct a withdrawl off-map once their ammo is used up.

I'd be for having a 24 arrow limit if archers were allowed to retreat afterwards, otherwise forcing them to be sitting ducks when out of ammo is just plain dumb.

 

Reply #34 Top

I've seen other posts talking about the relatively low variety of spells, but it didn't make this list, and it should have.  If you search on "number of spells" you'll find some excellent posts on ideas to make the magic much more interesting.  Illusions, battlefield fogs of war, more buff's, more overland spells, lots of good ideas.  I recently saw MoM had something like 40 spells per 'element'--seems like in 2010 we should be able to be creative enough to come up with double that per element, eh? 

Reply #35 Top

For 1.1 I'd just love to see weapon/armour differentiation and expansion.

WEAPONS

Weapons grouped into types (Swords, maces/hammers, polearms, bows, crossbows, etc etc) each with different benefits. For example:

Swords provide +1 to combat speed (as they currently do)

Polearms provide a small benefit to defense due to their extra reach, and some of them able to use shields (I'd love to recreate the Greek Phalanx, but currently the only spear in-game can't use a shield, and is exceptionally sub-par).

Blunt weapons provide a bonus against metal-armour

Bows take 1.5 combat actions to use, so if I'm willing to fork out for extra equipment, I can potentially get three shots out of them. Unless I put my archers in heavy armour, in which case I'd need to pay for a LOT of magic items and scout/messenger packs to get three shots, making them even more expensive.

Crowwbows take 3 combat actions to use but are exceptionally strong, so common crossbowmen will only get one shot, but if I pay for the extra equipment (effectively making them elite crossbowmen), they can fire twice.

Maybe even 'offhand' weapons, a dagger of some kind that goes in the shield hand, that supplies a +1 to damage and a +0.5 to combat speed. Obviously the animation doesn't need to include its use, and I know how unrealistic it could be, but this IS a fantasy game with dragons and fire raining from the sky.

ARMOUR

As for armour, I'd love to see the lighter metal armour being something more than just inferior versions of the heavy armour. For example, I'd love for chainmail to be a bit more expensive, but not give the combat speed penalty or give less of a penalty.

Similarly, I'd love for some kind of 'refined' non-metal armour. Some kind of advancement in leathers. I realise this one is a long shot, but I've love for the option of some kind of magical leather armour (in the same way as the magical metal armour exists), that actually provides bonus', such as an increase in combat speed at the cost of being quite expensive both in gold and crystals.

MOUNTS

It's been mentioned there may be more work done on mounts, but here's a few requests. Beyond the simple "This is a horse" horse, I'd love for specialised horses that cost extra gold/materials/metal. Such as the Barded steed that gives a smaller combat speed bonus, but an attack and defense bonus. Or a lighter warhorse that gives a smaller defense bonus, but a slightly larger movement bonus, so I could equip horse archers effectively.

 

A lot of requests, yes, but it'd be a nice change and provide some more tactical options. Now armies could have Phalanx spearmen in the front to absorb the enemy attack, then skirmishers flank around the side to strike the enemy archers and mounted Knights charge enemy forces in the flank, or horse archers flank around and target the enemy spell-casters.

Reply #36 Top

Quoting cpl_rk, reply 33

Quoting econundrum1, reply 32
I agree also with the idea of limiting archers ammo per battle, but I think that might be harder for them to put in.

I just googled quiver sizes and there's a surprising lack of info about how many arrows were/are actually carried. It varies a lot. The best referece mentioned a couple-dozen arrows per quiver at most in mideaval times, and modern quivers much less. Archers stuck their arrown in the ground in front of them for easy reload. Research also shows a well trained longbowman could fire 12 arrows per minute. It just seems very odd to me that archers would have only two minutes worth of ammo. Other references said mideaval battles were typically very short, like an hour at most. I guess if only a couple of arrows hit their mark out of 24. that would do significant damage to any attacking army.

Of course, in game systems that use the concept of "hit points" 24 arrows wouldn't cut it. Archers would have 8 rounds worth of ammo before running out (at 3 arrows per round), typically this is enough for most monsters, but larger hp squads it would not be enough. If the archers could go to some other weapon when their arrows were out, that might help, but I don't think is historically this is how archers were used, and they should probably be allowed to conduct a withdrawl off-map once their ammo is used up.

I'd be for having a 24 arrow limit if archers were allowed to retreat afterwards, otherwise forcing them to be sitting ducks when out of ammo is just plain dumb.

 
End of cpl_rk's quote

 

Interesting stuff.

 

Historically, archers could fight in melee. Many societies actually trained their soldiers to be very versatile. The Byzantine heavy cavalry (Cataphracts) often had heavy armor, a lance, a sword, and a bow. This was not an uncommon arrangement, especially in the east where you had more horse archers and other mobile firepower. Even foot archers could fight in hand to hand. At the Battle of Agincourt, during one of the main French charges against the English, the French foot knights were so crowded together that they basically got stuck in a big mass trying to get the at English. The English longbowmen were able to attack their flanks with mallets and take lots of hostages for ransom.

 

I would definetly like a toggle between primary and secondary weapons. It would also be cool if you had a penalty for shooting into melee and things like that...line of sight, attacks of opportunity, etc. There have been many threads talking about improvements to the combat system...not sure how much 1.1 is going to do there, but I think a big combat overhaul would be a good thing in a later patch or expansion.

 

I also want one handed spears as an option! Or one handed greatswords or big / strong characters. Oh, and lances and spears that give a bonus for a cavalry charge. Maybe someday.

Reply #37 Top

actually with regards to the greek phalanx, it was well armoured for its time but it had limited offensive strength because they held the spears overhand above the shoulder which does not lend itself well to producing a lot of armour piercing power, so when the heavier armours started to show up, the phalanx got out-teched. I don't know my history well enough to go into more detail than that but iron > bronze so that was that.

(technically the civ iron legion should have been better then 3.1.1, probably 3.2.1 but they want a fairer fight between the two unit types i guess)

 

Reply #38 Top

Quoting Glowing_Ember, reply 37
actually with regards to the greek phalanx, it was well armoured for its time but it had limited offensive strength because they held the spears overhand above the shoulder which does not lend itself well to producing a lot of armour piercing power, so when the heavier armours started to show up, the phalanx got out-teched. I don't know my history well enough to go into more detail than that but iron > bronze so that was that.

(technically the civ iron legion should have been better then 3.1.1, probably 3.2.1 but they want a fairer fight between the two unit types i guess)
End of Glowing_Ember's quote

They adopted iron I assume, because they were not taken over by an external group till the Macedonians came and from what I understand iron was a wide spread technology by then and the Iron Age had been underway for some time.

The Greek phalax was to push the otherside back and trample over them. The others would come behind them and stab the fallen foes.

Reply #39 Top

Quoting Glowing_Ember, reply 37
actually with regards to the greek phalanx, it was well armoured for its time but it had limited offensive strength because they held the spears overhand above the shoulder which does not lend itself well to producing a lot of armour piercing power, so when the heavier armours started to show up, the phalanx got out-teched. I don't know my history well enough to go into more detail than that but iron > bronze so that was that.

(technically the civ iron legion should have been better then 3.1.1, probably 3.2.1 but they want a fairer fight between the two unit types i guess)
End of Glowing_Ember's quote

This is my limited experience talking, but I was under the impression historians weren't actually sure how they held their spears. Some evidence depicts beneath the shoulder, others depicts below the shoulder, and both have advantages that makes it difficult to tell for certain.

Although as it stands the current spear is quite a good representation of a weapon that does a poor job of harming people. Even leather armour is enough to confound it unless there are dozens of spearmen.

Reply #40 Top

... The spear is by far one of the most deadly weapons used on the battlefield.  It offered range, power, and ease of use.  There is a reason every culture in the world used spears.

Reply #41 Top

I would like this:

 

1) Fix the memory leak bug

2) Make it so that you can learn some abilities on your heroes that you recruit. Archery, healing, spell casting, entanglement, etc.. basically steal the stuff you can do in AOW :P

3) Make the maps more interesting, with far more bottlenecks and things to slow the game down a bit. More mobs, mobs that guard the mines and stuff so you have to kill them first. Rivers with a bridge so you have to go to the bridge to reach another part of the map, etc. Again, basically copy AOW.

4) Add several more spells. Entanglement, healing water, group heal, etc.. again... copy AOW :)

 

I think if you did that, it would probably end up being on a par with AOW2:SM, if not a bit better. And then further patches would make it the clear winner.

Reply #42 Top

Definitely agree that they have to do something about water. They need resources in the ocean to make it more useful.

Reply #43 Top

Quoting Thormodr, reply 42
Definitely agree that they have to do something about water. They need resources in the ocean to make it more useful.
End of Thormodr's quote

This is probably an expansion in the future :) Elemental: The Wet Magic (tm)

Reply #44 Top

many good suggestions.

 

My wish is still that for regular troops, one armor (which is consisting of a set) instead of individual troops are set. There are very seldom cases when I research a new technology and make some new troops that I only give them the breastplate and not the other stuff as well. I think additionally, this should be smarter to balance.

Keep the individual parts for the Heroes and Sov :-) There we don't play with equipment all the time :-)

Reply #45 Top

The only thing taht must be improved in 1.1 is the AI, strategic to tactical. I could care less about all the rest as it can come slowly if the AI would just be challenging and fun and proper difficulty by difficulty levels like GC2.

Reply #46 Top

Limited instead of infinite ammo is not a good idea.  I am guessing you have not played a very long game yet.  When you come into a battle where every spot on the battlefield has an enemy unit except the squares right above and below your army, THEN think if limiting ammo is such a good idea.  When archer units run out, they are useless.  No limited ammo.

Reply #47 Top

Quoting dabrownsrphat, reply 46
Limited instead of infinite ammo is not a good idea.  I am guessing you have not played a very long game yet.  When you come into a battle where every spot on the battlefield has an enemy unit except the squares right above and below your army, THEN think if limiting ammo is such a good idea.  When archer units run out, they are useless.  No limited ammo.
End of dabrownsrphat's quote

 

Yeah, but they would auto-replenish after a battle, that's what archers did back then according to my research, they picked up arrows after a battle. Thus, arrows would be limited only on tactical battles not the strategic map.

Overpowered Archers & unlimited ammo is just as bad an idea too. Personally, I'm all for realism. Archers that have 24 bow quivers that can fight as footman when their ammo runs out, as #36 suggested, would be great from my POV, which knocks down two birds with one stone: one, it's more realistic/logical & two, archers are now only overpowered only while they have arrows, just perfect from my POV. Quivers of different sizes would probably be a good idea too, since my reasearch indicates no "standardized" quivers, and only a mention in a encylopedic article that some mideaval archers carried 24 arrows in their quiver. "Modern" quivers have as little as 6 arrows. So, my opinion is that a range of quivers sizes, say 6, 12, 18, 24 arrows would be great .. maybe a 30 arrow quiver but it should be tied to portability somehow (say strength + constitution must >= 30 to use that one ... just an idea anyway).

Reply #48 Top

Quoting Femmefatal48, reply 45
The only thing taht must be improved in 1.1 is the AI, strategic to tactical. I could care less about all the rest as it can come slowly if the AI would just be challenging and fun and proper difficulty by difficulty levels like GC2.
End of Femmefatal48's quote

 

I agree 100%. AI is the most important, and its ability or lack thereof will ultimately decide how long I stick with this game.

Even if they did nothing else in the 1.1 patch but fixed the AI ridiculous level to "truly" ridiculous, and not "joke" ridiculous like it is now, I'd be happy with the game ... and perhaps fixed the things that are still broken, like memory crashes, horse archer speed in tactical battles, and those goodie hut quests that are broken; I think I can only do 50% of those white-hut quests, half the time nothing happens when I enter the hut with the correct level hero. 

Reply #49 Top

Quoting cpl_rk, reply 47

Quoting dabrownsrphat, reply 46Limited instead of infinite ammo is not a good idea.  I am guessing you have not played a very long game yet.  When you come into a battle where every spot on the battlefield has an enemy unit except the squares right above and below your army, THEN think if limiting ammo is such a good idea.  When archer units run out, they are useless.  No limited ammo.

 

Yeah, but they would auto-replenish after a battle, that's what archers did back then according to my research, they picked up arrows after a battle. Thus, arrows would be limited only on tactical battles not the strategic map.

Overpowered Archers & unlimited ammo is just as bad an idea too. Personally, I'm all for realism. Archers that have 24 bow quivers that can fight as footman when their ammo runs out, as #36 suggested, would be great from my POV, which knocks down two birds with one stone: one, it's more realistic/logical & two, archers are now only overpowered only while they have arrows, just perfect from my POV. Quivers of different sizes would probably be a good idea too, since my reasearch indicates no "standardized" quivers, and only a mention in a encylopedic article that some mideaval archers carried 24 arrows in their quiver. "Modern" quivers have as little as 6 arrows. So, my opinion is that a range of quivers sizes, say 6, 12, 18, 24 arrows would be great .. maybe a 30 arrow quiver but it should be tied to portability somehow (say strength + constitution must >= 30 to use that one ... just an idea anyway).
End of cpl_rk's quote

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.

Reply #50 Top

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.
End of dabrownsrphat's quote

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).