My request is quite simple: in the left hand UI, units part, please clearly indicate the units which have still moves left. Indicate the units which are on guard, too. Finding the units I still need to move is really annoying currently! If there is already some nice way to skip to next unit waiting orders I have missed that. In that case, please tell me how you do it :)
After playing the beta 2 for some time, it is clear the army-group AI is very good. However, the "civilization building" AI isn't good enough yet, I can usually get a decent lead and after that it isn't too important how well the AI attacks. I think I know the reason why I can get the lead in civilization building. I don't think I do particularly well in choosing the right build order or anything like that. These are the keys to my success: Collect as much l
Same here. It is a bit sad that we have to wait so long between the betas. I have a feeling half of what we have lately discussed on these forums aren't relevant to beta 2. Or at least it seems it has gotten some pretty nice changes already. I do understand that releasing betas more often is just not feasible. From developer standpoint the current schedule must be the sane choice (if not even slower pace of releases). From gamer standpoint we get multiple small "new game r
I don't think horse archers are going to be that much of a problem. You either need to have fast troops, or ranged attackers on your side to counter them. If you don't it is fair that you lose the battle. Now, if mounted troops can't fight a fair fight against mounted archers, that is a problem. I like the control points idea, but I don't see a nice way to implement them. The best I can think of is adding some controlling terrain elements into the maps. The one holding
Is there any possibility that doing a massed sneak-attack against a city is too easy currently? Maybe slow down the movement of enemy armies in your territory, this way you would have more time to react. The result could be some epic battles, when both sides mass their armies for a huge clash. I would like that :)
On further thought forget about the "stances" part of the proposal. Just implement the rush as a special ability (available to nearly all units) and be done with it.
Sorry for bringing this up once again, but how about the stances proposal? If your enemy has only archers you can rush-kill em. If they have balanced troops, you need to first kill the melee units (otherwise they will get to hit you when you are rushing). If your enemy has 2x initiative, +1 move so that he currently can attack-withdraw, you can still rush-attack him. He will get to hit you, and hit you hard, but at least you can cause some damage to him. The "rush" stance would be act
This is not only a problem of archers. Have a unit with twice the initiative and one move more than your enemy and you have the same problem for normal melee. I wonder if it would be possible to have "total movement per time unit". If you have high initiative you might get three one move turns, while your enemy with low initiative would get just one three move turn. The basic problem is that initiative multiplies your tactical movement, and thus if you get a little more of eac
Hey, playing dwarf fortress is fun! Even if you know you are eventually going to lose, it can be very entertaining to try to fight on as long as possible. I actually would like to have a world difficulty "dwarf fortress" where the monsters will get you eventually :) I guess what I am saying is that if you are losing, changing game mechanics to end the game faster isn't that important. You can always quit. On the other hand, in multiplayer
Just spent some time reading Wikipedia. Here is what Roman army did against those cheesy kiting Parthians. (Must be said: mostly they just lost the battles). The article mentions three key strategies: Secure high ground. A little bit more about this later on. Increase own firepower. So, having a proper force composition is important.
Just a follow-up idea to the sprint/testudo stances: the sprint ability should be severely limited for troops having a lot of weight carried. So, if you go for a lot of defensive equipment, you might become a sitting duck for ranged-arms troops. I actually like the stances idea (well, who doesn't like their own ideas): it adds a lot of different tactics, and makes troop specialization more interesting: cavalry might have charge: additional +50% attack against vs defense stance tro
I haven't read this thread in full, so I hope I am not repeating the ideas of others. Have different "stances" for units: sprint halves your dodge and defense, but you get double the moves. This way you can reach your ranged enemy but it costs you. "Defense" mode gives you +50% defense, +100% ranged defense (no dodge bonus) but you lose one move (or half your moves maybe?). This could be viewed as something like the Roman <a title="testudo - wikipedia" href="http://en.wikipedia.or
Yes, counter-attack would work. However I like the current system. It really makes the tactical battles interesting. From the bottomless pit of bad ideas: How about the attacker slowly loses initiative if nothing is happening in the battle? The idea is that if you attack, then you must do something or face losing by the defender gaining the initiative. This way in the tied position the attacker must move (which makes sense in my opinion). If he doesn't, in a couple of turns he wil
The problem is bigger than the above mentioned "perfectly similar units in 1-1 fight" tied-position. In standard fighting situations you don't want to move into striking range of your enemy, as then he gets the first strike and gets an advantage. At least in the public betas this has given a massive advantage to the human player. Really, the neatest solution is such that as often as possible, one player benefits more by standing back, because they have better ranged attack/spells. Give un
It is true that an AI that does nothing will not be liked too much. I would like to know which strategies the AI tries to use? I can see at least 3 potential base strategies: Sit back and inflict damage with spells and ranged attacks. Attack the enemy in controlled fashion: try to move in in a way which maximizes hits done by you vs hits done by enemy. Rush-attack the enemy. When to use the first one is obvious. The second one should
In chess there is "stalemate if the same playing position is seen 3 times" rule and "stalemate if no captures in 50 moves". These forbid forever lasting games. I think the last rule would be good for elemental, too. Stalemate if no damage dealt in last N moves. I don't know the right N, probably something like 3 * number of units in the battle or something... This way the AI could play the most intelligent strategy. Playing out a draw in a situation where your other choice is losi
A good diplomacy system doesn't consider the relations between the factions in isolation. Having a system where an action against one faction affects the whole system is better. I was going to say more realistic, but as this is a game about magic I don't know if that is the right word to use here... I do understand that the idea I presented goes probably too far. It has the risk of making diplomacy too central part of the game. If a really good implementation of the "council"
Maybe something like this for the "council". You claim: "I am going to declare war against "Al-Froglar" in 10 turns, what say you?" And then you would have a select list for each faction with choices like: Im going to join "Al-Froglar" (Value: 0) Im going to hate you after this (Value: 20) Im going to be neutral about your actions (Value: 40) Im going to support your actions (Value: 60) Im going to join you in your attack
This one is going straight into feature requests impossible to implement, but here goes... In real world pre-war diplomacy is much about building justification for your war, and getting acceptance for your actions from other major factions. Now, building justification isn't easy to do in the game, except maybe something like border pressure could be used here. But getting acceptance from other players could be part of the game. You get acceptance if you bribe other players
If you are going to use diplomatic penalties as (one) solution to this, make sure the player is warned that "declaring war on this faction will be viewed [very] badly by other [kingdom/empire] players". Confirm? Maybe you could be given an option to spend some diplomatic capital to mitigate that effect? That is how diplomatic capital is used in real life.
[quote who="rwemack" reply="45" id="3075546"] Quoting Beric01, reply 43 Seeing as guerrilla warfare IS the counter to a stack of doom in military strategy, if the AI can't do it, it's pretty near worthless. Based on the fact that most games don't do it well. It appears to be a non-trivial AI programming challenge. I'm hopeful these guys try it, and pull it off.[/quote] Such an AI could also be very, very fr
If the AI has two (or more) cities to defend, and you have stacked all your power into one stack, the AI can't defend all its cities. So, what options does it have? Counter-attack. While you are getting his cities, he can get yours. Of course, the AI needs to know where your cities are to do that, and this is a MAD (mutual assured destruction) tactic. At least in the earlier betas it was a very effective tactic to left your cities nearly undefended. So, the AI should exploit that. <p
Couldn't you solve this with just killing the old process with all its threads, and launching a new process. You would need some parameters to the new process so that it would go directly to new game / load game, but that seems fairly simple to implement vs completely clearing all state from hardware and threads. The user would get the start new game / load game UI. You would not need to spend time on this. The downside is that start new game / load game could be a little slower t
Isn't part of the problem that some monsters have very low dodge. If I am not mistaken accuracy vs dodge is used to calculate your hit chance. Now, if your enemy has near-zero dodge, 12.5 percent attack is still going to likely hit. So, units with low dodge are still easy to kill in one turn.
I did buy the Zenbook. The game is fully playable although in the end game it is a bit slow. I had to disable most effects. Wouldn't recommend for playing on huge maps, but for small maps it seems Zenbook with its HD3000 graphics is good enough.