[quote who="UmbralAngel" reply="8" id="2774577"]The problem is that there is no complex actions available to the AI... if the AI has melee units and no archers what should it do except charge?[/quote] The AI (and the player = ) needs more ways to combine trivial actions like "move into attack range" into more complex ones. Only then can the AI judge the value of two squares that are both in attack range. The implementat
One thing that bothers me about the WOM units is how our older, smaller units become completely obsolete. This does not have to be so. Unit size should have a direct impact on combat speed. A large formation is harder to turn around and one man can travel faster than a unit of 20. The default speed of units should be 3. Any formation size above 1 should reduce movement speed by 0.5 </ul
Battle bears and armored dolphins .
This gets really interesting once Line Of Sight and hidden units are added. In some wargames, infantry can hide in forests, ruins, or similiarly obstructed terrain. Obviously that would be different in WOM because practically everything is an infantry unit... In spirit, it would mean "small and easy to hide unit". Make it... unmounted troops with a squad size of 8 or less. Summoned c
So on to the next big issue. Flanking units. Making use of position. That's a staple of any halfway serious wargame. Again, the red team is attacking the blue team. The rules are actually pretty simple. 1. Have a red unit in any of the yellow fields
A major problem with tac battles is the size of the battlefields - or rather their lack of size. Spells having unlimited range and even (long)bows having unlimited range for all practical purposes - that's a big part of the problem with first-turn annihilation of the opposing forces. There is not even a chance to maneuver or do anything else "tactical" when one side is heavy on ranged troops and can start decimating the enemy in turn 0. <span style="text-decoration: under
Tactical Battles. With the current movement system it's impossible to create any sort of useful formation or make use of "position". While these posts seem to address separate issues, they do not. They interlock. You simply cannot have flanking when movement is not restricted. Of course you would always move the attacking units "in position" and get the extra bonus without any challenge or cost in achieving it. Not doing so would be stupid so it would merely be a free b
I played it just this Sunday... A common mistake is to go full screen on a current monitor. True full screen on 19"+ it looks like crap. The game is really only 640x480 so what I do is force a resolution of 800x600 on my 19" screen and have the game displayed centered in that area - with a black border around it. Then the graphics look a lot better because you can't see every single pixel any more.
Simply use Search&Replace and replace all occurrences of "we" with "we (for values of we)". Then everyone can go back to talking about the game instead of about which "we" in which post was erroneously applied to "us". (for values of us)
[quote who="Gravedancer" reply="3" id="2774142"]While on the subject of old games... any chance we'll ever see Master of Magic on Impulse?[/quote] Maybe they didn't want it to cut into WOM sales? =P
[quote]@Jingseng : That it is. What I mean is that the AI can only explore the things that thinkable by it's creator.[/quote] In many cases, yes. However, there can be surprises of the AI figuring out some things on it's own. This here is the closest I ever got to creating an "AI" and it's quite effective at it's job. While usually not referred to as one, that's how it's built on the inside.<br
Ranged units would have to scale differently because quite obviously, being in the back row of a longbow squad isn't such a terrible disadvantage. Generally, bows do far less damage than swords and maces, so it's heading in the right direction already. Still, the number of "shooters" should be limited in a similiar way because 20 or 50 longbowmen would destroy practically everything before it could get into range. Bows and other typical medieval missiles fire ballistic
[quote]If you can create a 50 man squad that doesn't become a "nuke" in this game, I'd be all ears. And going along with this, making the AI competent enough to use it & counter human's using it against it is more important than adding this new unit. The games AI is already a "walk over", I don't want to become a "steam roll-over".[/quote] The number of men that cna actually attack the enemy would be lower than 50. You're seeing all square formations and you can't have
To shard influence: Water: shard would have a small chance every x turns to spawn a "fertile land" in the vicinity. Earth: same with metal or crystal mine. Air: erosion unearths some ancient whatchamacallits. Library maybe but multiple options would be better. Fire: uhh, fire isn't so great at creating anything positive. Spawns a true neutral fire elemental that doesn't destroy the shard improvement you built there? Instant guardian, just add wa...
If WOM Book 1 is what people use to decide if they "want a campaign", it's understandable that they wouldn't want one of those. Neither would I. If Book 2 would be anything like that then by all means do not waste any time on it. A WOM campaign that I would want to play is one along the lines of what I posted in the thread you mentioned . A campaign based on the sandbox games but with additiona
I disagree with removing crystals. Nothing wrong with using exotic materials to craft magical items. "built in" spell buffs are an interesting idea, though. The units would cost a mana upkeep every turn just as if the actual spell was cast on the unit. Of course you might run OOM if you overdo it with the upkeep but that's not the game's fault. The only downside: you'd have access to all the buffing magic without the need for any magicians
But can't we just Raise Land more often to build an entire bridge to the new continent, making harbors absurd and obsolete? =)
IF there is a campaign at all then it should be worth playing. Otherwise - can it completely. If the Book1 campaign took 2 hours to write than it was a waste of 2 hours in terms of content created. (nothing personal...) It probably was advertised already so there had to be "a campaign" in some shape or form. That I could understand. I just can't see myself ever wanting to replay Book 1. It's a crippled version of the sandbox game witho
We have no idea how the AI ticks so your guess is as good as mine. If the AI is smart enough to realise situational demand for certain spell effects, then it might see the enemy cavalry unit heading towards it's archers in the rear. It could decide that slowing down this unit is a good idea and try Air (stun) or Water (freeze/slow) nukes to achieve that. It is very hard to define such situations but easy to parse spell "worth" based on their contribution towar
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="88" id="2772829"]If the info is elsewhere on this, I apologize, but can we expect books 2 and 3 to be more significant in terms of gameplay hours than book 1 (which took me about 2 hours, and I was taking my sweet time)? I'm not sure how they will work out. I'm writing Book 2 and 3 myself and the tools are somewhat more powerful now than when Book 1 was made. The campaigns weren't really designed to be a major feature of the game so it reall
Of course, magic should not use the cookie cutter system it does now. It's okay that every colour of magic should have direct damage spells even if Life is more on the protective side... they should just be different . And I mean beyond fire checking fire resist and water against water resist. (oh, really?) Fire is the obvious candidate for damage. There should be a chance (related to vulnerability?) that it adds a damage over time component
The real reason to not research more than the Lightning nuke is that the elements are meaningless. https://forums.elementalgame.com/395415 ... And yes, Air (or Life) damage spells are a stretch of imagination. Playing with arrows, increasing their chance to hit, range, or making enemy arrows go astray... those Air spells I can believe. Raising clouds of dust, hiding units and breaking line of sight -
[quote]Infinite number of units? 1 army = 12 squads/groups max. right now. The maximum number of armies in 1 battle would be 12 using this "joint attack system".[/quote] There is no limit for how many stacks can be in one square. That means infinite or if you'd like to split a few hairs, one square containing all units that your empire controls. There could be 7 complete armies of 12 units each in either X1 or X2. Not e
[quote]Also what about meat armour? Like Lady Gaga?[/quote] That must be blood magic. A really scary spell focus item.
I think the adjacent units should not physically enter the battlefield but the attacker/defender should get global adjustments for "being outflanked" or the likes. Battle Isle was probably the first (non-asian) computerized board game that used such a system. Even in a turn based game you had to cover your flanks... There can be more than one army stack per square. If any adjacent units would enter the battle (regardless from what particular squares) then there