[quote who="Lantros" reply="3" id="2844358"]You get 0,1 Gildar from every citizen per turn. More pop = more tax. But you can not raise or lower taxes. But as you wrote, you can raise your tax income by improvements. Mana: There is a talent that gives you +2 mana per turn (attunement). And you can increase the mana income by shards with researching bigger shrines (magic - techtree). [/quote] I'm still not sure I understand, i
After changing to the beta versions with the global resources, I'm a bit confused about the mechanism of gold, population and mana. I see that I get gold from taxes. Do I generate the taxes from the population that was created in the city, from the population used in the city, or somehow connected to the global population pool? Is there a way I can increase the taxes? (not from buildings like merchant, or percentage improvements like the one I get when l
[quote]Wow. To recap: on a sale over the counter today, we can have our £3 by the end of March, or on a digital sale, we can have £20 by Christmas.[/quote] So, does it mean that the prices of games could drastically go down with digital stores compared to retailers? Because that's not what I see in reality. In reality I see no more than 5-10% discount, usually less for new games. It's not a bad thing. As a customer I do
[quote who="RikazeMA" reply="29" id="2825141"] Considering these 'Wonders' would be victory conditions, I find it completely logical to make them take longer than standard wonders, as well as needing to be in the same city, for a couple reasons. First, assuming the idea that the city becomes visible to everyone is implemented, it makes it possible for everyone to gang up on you to stop you from producing the structures. The problem is, with the time it takes to cross the
[quote who="kenata" reply="27" id="2824647"] What I think would be interesting would be to make all three wonders require being built in the same level 5 city, and then adding some mechanic where after the first one is finished the city in question becomes visible to every other faction. Otherwise, a faction could simply rush through the civic tech tree, build all 3 buildings without anyone knowing where or how to stop you. As for the same city req, this would be necessary to stop
In the diplomatic field, there should be two types of victories: The first is like the UN vote in Civilization. A kind of cultural victory that requires a specific tech choices, and diplomatic skills. This type of victory works better in single player games. The second victory is the alliance victory. I think it is important to have a co-op victory, especially in multiplayer games. No need for vassals or any similar idea, since that will be closer to conquest (
[quote]The one I am talking about is the "lots of spell research" condition. I mean that you still have to do all the research, but you also have to control the 4 shards. Which is better IMO, than simply research, because the other players at least can do something to prevent the spell from being cast.[/quote] Controlling 4 shards in a map, usually means that you will need to destroy at least 2-3 different players. If you do that, it's very close to "domination
The "paint road" idea is probably the best (if the interface will be easy), but also the hardest to implement, and I doubt anyone will add it. I suggest a compromise: When you get to a city, a caravan can use an option to "create trade route". From there, the user will get 3 options: 1) Fastest route: As things are today. 2) Safe route: A route that doesn't pass through forests (or any other monster spawning areas) 3) Country road: A safe route t
[quote who="Istari" reply="4" id="2821189"] With magic heavy games, healing is in arcane art, and sewerage/sanitation systems don't have the sophistication to warrant a separate improvement.[/quote] In fantasy setting, sewers are purely a quest area, and have nothing to do with sanitation [e digicons]:grin:[/e]
First, I want to correct something about the victory conditions. It's true that there is a connection between the victory and the path you take in the research, but each victory condition also requires something besides the research, that takes most of the effort. In the quest victory for example, it's not that hard to get to the research itself. Most of the effort will be to explore, find and win the actual master quest. In the spell of mastery, you'll
When it comes to victory conditions, the game currently has one that requires you to walk around the world and do a quest, the one that requires lot's of spell research and the good ol' "kill them all" conquest option. Capture 4 unique shards sounds like a fun idea, but will most likely require you to both explore around the world like the quest victory, AND do at least half of a conquest victory. I'm guessing the implementation of the spell of ma
I don't know what will happen in the 1.1 version, but currently, one of the problems is that the groups are overpowered compared individuals, including cases where the individual unit is much stronger or even a champion. Your suggestion makes the groups even stronger, forcing the champion to hit at least X times to kill a group (where X is the size of the group), regardless of how much damage he can do each turn. Even without that problem, your su
I don't see a problem with the system itself, but it does not solve the problem you described. The problem isn't "whoever attacks first wins", that's just the result of the problem. The problem is that the ratio between HP and the damage can easily turn most heroes into "glass cannons" . In a simultaneous combat round, instead of getting one unit easily killed, now you get two. It still doesn't encourage the heroes to participate in melee
I think the game handles specialized cities very well. You CAN build one of every building, but since most of the bonuses are given in percentages, in most cases you'll get next to nothing unless the city has a resource of that type attached to it. Two different cities with the same buildings can still have completely different resource bonuses.
Just to clarify, does that mean that the way you build your cities matter now? For example, if I have a resource north of my city outside the ZOC (or whatever name you use), building houses and other improvements toward the resource will also help expending the ZOC to that area? Also, besides catching resources and preventing random enemies from spawning, what advantages does the ZOC give? Anything new planned for 1.1?
[quote who="Wentago" reply="5" id="2819269"] I was thinking instead of a true sight ability maybe give scout packs the ability to see through the spells or some new sort of tool to upgrade.[/quote] Why not all of the above? Assuming heroes will be able to pick abilities when they gain levels, let the player decide if he wants to "waste" scouting as an ability to one of his heroes, carry a special unit just for scouting, or spend researc
How will it effect non-computer players? I suggest the spell "illusion" to create a fake non-moving copy of an existing unit. As a result, it will also increase the combat rating of the town. Also, "invisibility" will do the opposite and hide a unit, reducing the combat rating of the army. As an option, movement of the unit might dispel the enchantment. A third spell can be "true sight", that will make the enchanted unit see both the illus
I don't think the "rock/paper/scissors" idea fits to this game. This idea is excellent for tactical games and RPGs, but in strategy games it adds a complexity that might not fit what we want from this game. In the unit generation, the rock/paper/scissors idea will force you to create at least 3 types of the same unit, different only in the type of armor they are wearing. It does add depth to the tactical stage, but places too much effort on the unit gene
[quote who="Brainsucker" reply="19" id="2811178"]I don't want a kick ass champion, I want a useful notable persons who has unique purposes for my kingdom (not only at the beginning but to the entire game).[/quote] I think HP are something that needs a boost, either by a bigger bonus per con or by gaining more HP per level. But when it comes to actual strength and combat ability, I completely agree. The point is not to make heroes stronger, but to turn a hero int
The thing I love the most is the concept of resources. They are rare enough to make a single resource a good reason to open war. It fits the story of the game, it's interesting, it's original, and most of all - it adds to the re-playability since every game I can get different resources around me and change my game style and strategy accordingly. Despite the fact it can and should be improved, I like the ability to design units. Combined with th
The main problem is that they are spawned instead of being revealed by a tech. The quest objects should be created with the map according to the map definition of how common or rare quests are. The quests should be later revealed and be visible and usable only by players who researched the appropriate tech. This way, players will be more motivated to research the quest techs, so they can "steal" the goodies before the others do. If
Oh, I'd like to add one more to my wishlist, hot-seat multiplayer option. I know it is considered a low priority feature that is likely to be completely ignored, still, it's the only multiplayer option I used (and still use) while playing AoWSM.
In the realistic view, it should be a very loose limitation or no limitation at all. I see no reason why someone wouldn't be able to wear 50 rings and 20 amulets. In fantasy-realism view, the question is actually "how many rings can you wear and still be able to use the magic in them?". Obviously there is no clear answer for that. But the most important is the gameplay view. How many should the heroes be able to wear without somehow breaking the g
1) Uniqueness of champions. The right approach is probably with talents or skills taken each level, and magical items found in quests. 2) Better UI in general Enough threads were made on that point, so I don't think I need to elaborate. I do need to emphasize that I'm talking about better and easier control, not about better graphics. A better quest journal (as suggested by <a id="ctl00__Content__LinkAuthor" class="Article_Author hand" title="Cli
[quote who="Black-Knight" reply="4" id="2802411"] Actually the fact that something CAN be made doesn't mean at all that something WILL necessarily be made, nor that it will be made available immediately everywhere. Thinking that way IMO makes more sense. Also in reality prices can very much vary form town to town. If you think of relism, what about having tech descoveries made in SPECIFIC towns? That -way things will be immediately available there and only later in other part