|
OwlFancier posted:City founding is fun, the game offers some nice choices in where to build your cities, the problem is that with city founding on, you can build huge numbers of cities and there is no reason not to. A pisshole in the middle of a frozen swamp on the rear end end of a peninsula nobody cares about will still output a chunk of cash, mana, and spellcasting points if you give it a little while.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Splicer posted:Scaling costs would do this. If every time you build a city it costs you an extra 50 gold to build the next one you're going to start getting pretty choosey about where you put them. Exactly, the point isn't to stop you from expanding, it is simply to make expansion an investment you have to think about. That "pisshole out in nowhere" town example that was used earlier would still be just as viable given enough time - it would just be more of an investment, and it would take longer to see a potential positive return. Also, when your settlers cost a lot having one sniped en route is a much bigger threat. The option to turn off extra cities already exists, this is just an alternative that could promote different playstyles. Being able to control the scaling with a slider wouldn't be too much of a stretch from there, as well. Just say each additional city increases settler costs by x%, and let x be a variety of choices. So you could have a game with tons of cities or a game with very few, easily controlled by that one scaling mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Scaling costs would do this. If every time you build a city it costs you an extra 50 gold to build the next one you're going to start getting pretty choosey about where you put them. I'm not so sure, because building that city will pay for the cost increase quite easily. Cities in this game give an awful lot of resources even with only a couple of resource sites. You'd need some pretty steep costs, and even then it doesn't solve the issue where capturing cities turns the game into a real slog. Big empires spoil the combat a lot, and unless your map is very very small, you will have big empires one way or another. I think the ideal situation is one where T1 units are the basis of combat, with higher tiers becoming progressively rarer while remaining pretty loving awesome when they do show up. I like basically all the higher tier units I've come across, but they're so much more badass when they're wrecking armies full of dudes than they are when they're having wrestling matches with other high tier units. Especially when people can afford quite a lot of them. A juggernaut is cool, when the dreadnought across the sea is throwing a steady stream of them at you, they're a little bit tedious. You can just say that the game is over after a while, but I think it's a little bit of a shame that such an excellent combat and strategy game sort of... goes stale after a hundred turns or so. It'd be nice to be able to perpetuate that quality experience into the later stages of the game, with the high end spells and gear coming into play. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not so sure, because building that city will pay for the cost increase quite easily. Wouldn't adjusting the costs of cities (and perhaps higher tier units) fix all of this? If the investment of a new city won't return a profit vs the cost it took to create for some time (and you have to protect it during that time, which costs more) it would have a sizeable impact on gameplay. If high tier units are too easy to build that is another issue entirely, but a price tweak could help there as well, no? It might not even be needed if an empire's economy is reduced by having less cities. It comes down to math in the end there. On another note, there seem to be two sides to the high end units discussion. Some seem to be saying they are easy to produce and simply become your defacto armies at a certain point, but are not so invulnerable that they can not be killed with some good flanking hits. Others seem to want them to be super units that you can only have a few of and instead of something of a replacement for lower tier troops. In order for them to be worth building/summoning (since it is an investment to get the buildings/tech/etc to produce them) they have to be strictly better than a similar amount of tier 1 units that would cost the same resources to build (since they don't require investments in tech/infrastructure). Still, there seems to be some wiggle room there to either make them limited super units or stabbyman+1. Are people mostly in one camp? I have mostly just heard people annoyed at how dominant high end units are, but not what they would like to see changed about that in terms of mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
I think one reason that income is getting out of hand in the late game is that city base income is very high, on top of gold income multipliers stacking together which gets kind of ridiculous. For reference, the base income of cities is: 2/10/20/30/40 And the base production is: 20/25/30/35/40 40g, being the equivalent of 4 gold mines, seems a bit much to begin with. That gets added to sites and any other bonus effects first. Everything together gets multiplied by happiness as well (up to 50%), and all of THAT can get multiplied by Produce Merchandise (50%). So for example, base town with 2 gold mines and War Effort = (40g (Base) + 20g (Mines) + 10g (War Effort)) * 1.5 (Happiness) * 1.5 (Merchandise) = 70g * 2.25 = 158g per turn Which is a lot. Pays for a Settler every single turn, or 5x T4 unit's upkeeps. Next thing, as far as Forts VS Cities go. Just considering base gold income only, about 10 turns to go from Outpost -> Village, a city pays the difference over a fort in about 13 turns (10x2g + 3x10g), after which it starts turning a profit. This is also not considering happiness (which speeds up growth and income), or using Produce Housing to get you to a Village ASAP, or using Produce Merchandizing to make more money from it, or things like War Effort which gives you a flat +10 bonus regardless of the size of the town. More ideally you'd probably use Produce Housing to get to Village level, then switch to Merchandise for the money, which puts you roughly at 6x2g + 3x15g = 9 turns. HOWEVER, do note this doesn't include the money lost from not producing merchandise for however many turns it takes to make the settlers, which as seen above can be as much as 50g per turn (or more)! On smaller cities it might be significantly less though, maybe 20g x 3 turns, so 60g total. But taking a funnier example into account, say Warlord with War Effort active, the new town's income is (2+10)*1.3*1.5 = 21g per turn just on FOUNDING. Doesn't take long to turn a profit. Anyway, Production can be another issue, simply because as mentioned before, it is possible to get to the point where you can be cranking out T3 units (maybe T4? not sure) in a single turn, so you are actually wasting time by producing lower tier units. The reason this contributes to the 'ballooning' effect of your economy is that the faster you produce units, the fast you can return to Producing Merchandise. Which means as your production gets better, you can crank out gold faster too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Carnalfex posted:Wouldn't adjusting the costs of cities (and perhaps higher tier units) fix all of this? If the investment of a new city won't return a profit vs the cost it took to create for some time (and you have to protect it during that time, which costs more) it would have a sizeable impact on gameplay. If high tier units are too easy to build that is another issue entirely, but a price tweak could help there as well, no? It might not even be needed if an empire's economy is reduced by having less cities. It comes down to math in the end there. Far as I can tell most of the people who want them to be harder to get also want them to be nerfed, so heck if I know. They aren't amazing super units to begin with, just a decent bit stronger then T3 units with double the upkeep. To the extent that they can be spammed it's only even possible with near maxed out research and obscene gold income. A single stack of t4 units is ~200 gold every turn in upkeep alone, enough to finance almost 50 T1 units, 24 T2 units, or 12 T3s. It's not cheap or fast on any level. Personally speaking, I think T4 units are pretty much ok in terms of strength but I'm fine with smoothing the progression a bit so they come out a little later and give the mid-tier units more time to shine. That was basically already done in the first patch but it's technically possible now to get them out with less building investment then basic racial T3's once you have the research so adding another building to close the loophole should handle it. After that, doing something about Mana Income being overly generous late game and taking steps to keep Gold Income from spiraling out of hand through mass city spamming/ownership I really don't think there will be much to complain about. At the very least I'd rather see those changes in effect before calling for something more drastic. quote:I think one reason that income is getting out of hand in the late game is that city base income is very high, on top of gold income multipliers stacking together which gets kind of ridiculous. I think that's the root of the problem, yeah. I'm pretty sure it's impossible to get production up to 1/turn for T4 units but I haven't done the testing to see exactly how high production can go, either. madmac fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Are specialization spells in a good place? Class spells naturally ramp up and heroes don't interfere with your research priorities which in my mind puts them ahead. It seems tough to justify getting a master specialization for a single spell like firestorm or earthquake when a archdruid can cast vengeful vines or a dreadnought's mana nuke, you just need them in your loot-grabbing roaming parties and they have army bonuses too good to pass up. Class spells even dominate the cheap spell field like steadfast ward, moving target or sphere of protection. The opportunity cost of leveling up heroes and using them primarily for their spells and passive bonuses (which have no equal beyond other heroes) is far less than choosing a master specialization over two adept ones that would have spells suited for the early game until your heroes find their footing. I'm not really sure what I was expecting, that you could research an improved versions of combat spells, that there were more spells/a world enchantment for master specs or if the specs would give unique temporary buffs to the different mana nodes that you could collect with an army. In the latter case there seems to be definite room for improvement as they provide a special effect on fights on that hex but that's it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
On large+ maps, once you start snowballing with city possession, your income is going to be stratospheric, which makes it easier to snowball, etc. They're talking about adding a speed timer which would slow down research/production etc, but it's still not going to change the fact that if you have X cities on the map, once you own something like x/4 or even x/3, you're well on your way to victory. I don't know that there is anything to fix - if you've reached majority conquest, you're either close to winning or have already won, and there's little that can be done to stop you, barring some sort of masterful strategic or tactical stroke. One that I'm not sure an AI is capable of, and I don't even know if any human players would want to play mp on maps big enough that that would be an issue (I could be hilariously wrong on that point, perhaps mp players are far more patient than I). It's just the nature of games like this where production power and resource income is tied to static control points (essentially what you're fighting over).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Delacroix posted:Are specialization spells in a good place? Class spells naturally ramp up and heroes don't interfere with your research priorities which in my mind puts them ahead. It seems tough to justify getting a master specialization for a single spell like firestorm or earthquake when a archdruid can cast vengeful vines or a dreadnought's mana nuke, you just need them in your loot-grabbing roaming parties and they have army bonuses too good to pass up. Class spells even dominate the cheap spell field like steadfast ward, moving target or sphere of protection. Perhaps have spells scale based on the hero casting them? The casting skill of the hero would work as a basis for this, right? (Is that still a thing? In 2/SM it was, picked at level up similar to attack etc).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Are there any deals on this game yet? I really want to play but not for $40.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
It is well worth 40
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Some of these T4 slugfests are pretty rad. I just had a battle between a fire and stone giant and a horned god. And some shamans running around just for scale.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
victrix posted:On large+ maps, once you start snowballing with city possession, your income is going to be stratospheric, which makes it easier to snowball, etc. Snowballing is fine, mainly I just would like the number of units and number of cities a bit lower in general so cleaning up is less tiresome. The end effect may be the same, but if I achieve it with 3 battles and 20 stacks instead of 10 battles and 60 stacks, that's a lot less micro and each battle means a lot more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Gwyrgyn Blood posted:Snowballing is fine, mainly I just would like the number of units and number of cities a bit lower in general so cleaning up is less tiresome. The end effect may be the same, but if I achieve it with 3 battles and 20 stacks instead of 10 battles and 60 stacks, that's a lot less micro and each battle means a lot more. Play a smaller map  I don't think there's really any way to fix larger maps without fundamentally reworking the resource system, or doing something drastic like putting in a unit cap per tier based on the size of the map. It's the same if you have 25/33% of the cities on a smaller map as a larger map, but it's a lot less logistics in terms of travel time, city/army management etc. You'll have the same proportion of map domination, but less absolute income, and since unit costs and upkeeps don't scale, that's the best way to have tighter limits on what you can build and maintain right now. Which of course is related to the settling issue - if its cheap and easy to expand and grow your income, why wouldn't you do so?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
What throws me off is how the tiered units appear to have specific niches but in reality they don't. At least I wouldn't know how to use, say, the t1 goblin melee guys for anything once the mid-game hits. You can move on to spearmen and get better results even though regular sword'n'board infantry should be good at something, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
I am a complete noob in mission 2 and haven't seen the city sprawl problem first hand even once but I like to think about game design. My idea is to make cities NEED eg three or more nodes or goldmines or whatever nearby, or they will be terribly slow to develop. Cities in good spots will be good for producing units but cities elsewhere will be stuck in a rut. You could tweak it so they're still worth founding (gold, mana? tweak building production costs so they can build eg an observatory?) but building units and their buildings would take ages. You'd have your New York and Los Angeles to get poo poo done and the other cities would be flyover country whose contribution is mostly to pay taxes. I don't know what forts would be for but I don't know what they're for now either. I don't like the small domain they put out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 11:48
|
|
|
NihilVerumNisiMors posted:What throws me off is how the tiered units appear to have specific niches but in reality they don't. At least I wouldn't know how to use, say, the t1 goblin melee guys for anything once the mid-game hits. You can move on to spearmen and get better results even though regular sword'n'board infantry should be good at something, right? The majority of units do in fact have a niche. Irregulars have good movement and can move and shoot, making them effective for flanking attacks. Archers are obvious. Support units provide elemental damage and useful spell-like abilities. Pikes are extremely cost-effective against Cavalry and Flyers. Cavalry has mobility and charge allowing them to dominate in field battles when used carefully. Flyers are typically an advanced form of Cavalry, somewhat slower but even better at setting up flank attacks. Heavy infantry units are good in head to head slugfests and siege battles. These are all unit types you can use through-out the entire game though irregulars tend to fall off just on account of having the lowest stats unless you have a stronger variety. (Like Monster Hunters or the various Rogue Units.) Tier 1 swords are the one unit-type that is pretty-much perishable. You have two flavors, the two-handers that are powerful hitters against both pikes and sword-n-board units but weaker against ranged attacks, or one-hand+shield which are able to tank most units effectively head on but weaker when flanked. They're strong units early game but are just fodder in the long run. Their niche is effectively covered by Heavy Infantry and Cavalry. Or to phrase it differently, sword units "niche" is being the dominant melee unit of their tier. It's not something that can scale effectively without undeservedly gimping their higher-tier brethren. madmac fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
This game seems like a really great sequal for what little I've played so far. But wasn't the positioning of troops on the battlefield during a city siege based on their positioning in the overworld in the previous games? It seems to still work that way in regular battles, but during a city siege it seems like my troops are always deployed in a straight line. Am I misremembering, doing something wrong, or is it just changed from the previous games?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
quote:This game seems like a really great sequal for what little I've played so far. But wasn't the positioning of troops on the battlefield during a city siege based on their positioning in the overworld in the previous games? It was changed. You can no longer launch flanking sieges on multiple sides.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
itsnice2bnice posted:This game seems like a really great sequal for what little I've played so far. But wasn't the positioning of troops on the battlefield during a city siege based on their positioning in the overworld in the previous games? Sieges are now head-on to be more focused and intense, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
Ah, okay. I guess it might be a pretty good change, the city sieges sometimes involved a lot of moving around scattered units in the previous games IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
I really don't like that the reduced road movement cost is gated behind two naval techs. They're cheap techs, but it still rubs me the wrong way for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
Carnalfex posted:Wouldn't adjusting the costs of cities (and perhaps higher tier units) fix all of this? If the investment of a new city won't return a profit vs the cost it took to create for some time (and you have to protect it during that time, which costs more) it would have a sizeable impact on gameplay. If high tier units are too easy to build that is another issue entirely, but a price tweak could help there as well, no? It might not even be needed if an empire's economy is reduced by having less cities. It comes down to math in the end there. I don't think it'd fix all of it. If you play the game with city founding turned off and a small map, it turns out that even two or three well developed cities is enough (for the AI at least) to start sending out a steady stream of high tier units, and not really bother with lower tier units. The AI does get gold bonuses I think, but it still leads to it being a little bit grindy and takes some of the flavor out of the game. I think all the units are well balanced against each other for the most part, but the problem is that once you start including two or three T4s per army, you need a huge number of lower tier units to oppose those if you don't have a direct counter to them or if you can't throw magic at them. That's good for a small aspect of a fight, using a large army to beat down a powerful unit, but when the AI is throwing it at you for every single fight then it loses a lot of the impact. City founding limitations only stops people from growing big on their own, it doesn't stop the problem with just having lots of resources. You can get a lot of resources pretty easily in the game, so something to eat into your surplus or to reduce your income would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
victrix posted:I really don't like that the reduced road movement cost is gated behind two naval techs. They're cheap techs, but it still rubs me the wrong way for some reason. How many times would you research them if you didn't have to in order to get the cheaper movement? I think anything that encourages people to use water at all is going to be a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
I hope they crank out a bunch of haphazard race DLCs, gently caress balance more shiny variety. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
I'd love to also have DLC to flesh out the existing races and classes. Flesh out being "throw in even more cool poo poo"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
ceebee posted:Are there any deals on this game yet? I really want to play but not for $40. None yet, but there's always a Steam sale around the corner!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
victrix posted:Play a smaller map Why do you think I've asked for Tiny sized maps OwlFancier posted:City founding limitations only stops people from growing big on their own, it doesn't stop the problem with just having lots of resources. You can get a lot of resources pretty easily in the game, so something to eat into your surplus or to reduce your income would be nice. Yeah, I think city founding AND overall town income needs looking at. Some other income related things: - Plundering a city is just straight up the worst option? Migrating or Absorbing a city gives you a global +150 happiness bonus for 10 turns. As mentioned in my last post, pushing your city happiness bonus higher can give you a +15%, +30%, or +50% bonus to all income (gold/mana/prod/research). If you have any number of big towns, that bonus is going to be much, much, much bigger than any flat value you get from plundering. Razing at least makes sense in that you'd only do it to deny the other player a city if you can't hold it, but Plundering can take a while to do so it doesn't seem like a good option pretty much ever. Am I missing something? - On that note, the Migrated City penalty to the city you migrated (-100) is less than the global bonus you get from adding the city to your empire (+150), sooo you actually make a town happier by migrating it. It also lasts less time (5 turn penalty, 10 turn bonus). - Having a lot of money in the bank ... increases your global happiness modifier. Which means you make money faster. So having more money means you make more money. :I
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Gwyrgyn Blood posted:Why do you think I've asked for Tiny sized maps The global happiness boost from migrating cities is nice and all but you can only be so happy and it doesn't take very much between the actual terrain type, Domain of X spells (almost guaranteed to knock them to max happiness if they're fully in the right climate) and all the little global bonuses that stack up without you even trying, just from winning battles, even. I know everyone keeps saying 'play smaller maps' 'play faster games' but the appeal of AoW to me has never been 40 turn rushfests where you barely get to the cool spells/abilities. The fact of the matter is, tier 3/4 units and endgame spells are cool and fun.. in moderation, and running your starting stack over to the AI's city before he can even react isn't that interesting. Wolpertinger fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
MrBims posted:How many times would you research them if you didn't have to in order to get the cheaper movement? Not very often when there's no water on the map to use!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
I find something else problematic, if you split off your stacks to defend a city the AI is too stupid to attack them instead of the city. This is an easy way to limit AI attacks on cities to only 1 stack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
What if you could build something to improve the lower tier units and to produce a upgraded tier 1 or tier 2 that is now effectively a tier 2.5 or 3 for stats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:What if you could build something to improve the lower tier units and to produce a upgraded tier 1 or tier 2 that is now effectively a tier 2.5 or 3 for stats. Probably would invalidate a bunch of other units and make upgraded Archers/Pikes dominant through pretty much the entire game. Would also reduce the uniqueness of several classes and races where higher tier versions of basic units are a large part of their appeal. This game doesn't have a very granular stat system that allows for minute adjustments, the difference between unit tiers is often just an extra +1 or +2 here and there, and those have a fairly large effect. madmac fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Wolpertinger posted:The global happiness boost from migrating cities is nice and all but you can only be so happy and it doesn't take very much between the actual terrain type, Domain of X spells (almost guaranteed to knock them to max happiness if they're fully in the right climate) and all the little global bonuses that stack up without you even trying, just from winning battles, even. True, you need 600 happiness total to hit the max tier (Cheerful), which often isn't that much unless you're in a disliked terrain type. +250 from just terrain isn't that uncommon of a thing for bigger cities. I'm not really sure what the cap on happiness from terrain is because it's not entirely clear how it's calculated in the first place. Sometimes 'liked' tiles are worth +3 happiness, sometimes they're worth +6? Edit2: Okay, it just seems to be based on the total number of tiles the city covers. So a full sized Metropolis that has a full sized domain (not losing any to other cities) gets +3 happiness per happy tile, but say a starting town gets +24 per tile. A perfect terrain outpost could have +456 from just terrain bonuses. Gwyrgyn Blood fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Gwyrgyn Blood posted:True, you need 600 happiness total to hit the max tier (Cheerful), which often isn't that much unless you're in a disliked terrain type. +250 from just terrain isn't that uncommon of a thing for bigger cities. Also remember that there's both 'terrain', like forest/wetlands/fertile/barrens, and 'climate' like tropical/arctic/volcanic/temperate/blighted, and no race likes a climate, but they may dislike it, and all the domain spells add a climate like - so there's never a 'useless' domain spell for any race. As far as I can tell, a climate + terrain like counts double? I haven't really done the math but it'd be funny if it didn't stack and was a waste of time both foresting and freezing my elf cities. I know that like+dislike on the same tile does work, to help cancel it out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
What is the exact math behind how much happiness increases production/income anyway?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
I like how the AI will focus fire on your mission critical hero every single chance it gets. Makes using them really fun. Not. 
NihilVerumNisiMors fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Wolpertinger posted:Also remember that there's both 'terrain', like forest/wetlands/fertile/barrens, and 'climate' like tropical/arctic/volcanic/temperate/blighted, and no race likes a climate, but they may dislike it, and all the domain spells add a climate like - so there's never a 'useless' domain spell for any race. As far as I can tell, a climate + terrain like counts double? I haven't really done the math but it'd be funny if it didn't stack and was a waste of time both foresting and freezing my elf cities. I know that like+dislike on the same tile does work, to help cancel it out. I thought I had mentioned this but I must have edited it out. As far as I can tell, you can only get one bonus per tile. A tile simple counts as Liked, Neutral, Disliked, or Hated. So if you like both the terrain and climate for a tile, you don't get double happiness bonus. It seems like Liked cancels out disliked, so a Human city with Fertile Plains in Arctic climate just counts as a liked tile, but Mountains in Arctic climate counts as disliked. Not sure how Hated plays into that though. LibbyM posted:What is the exact math behind how much happiness increases production/income anyway? It's in the Tome of Wonders though it's split into a bunch of different pages, for reference just search 'happiness' and it'll give you them all. But in a nutshell: Happiness Tiers: Cheerful = 600 and up Very Happy = 599 to 400 Happy = 399 to 200 Content = 199 to -199 Unhappy = -399 to -200 Very Unhappy = -599 to -400 Rebellious = -600 and down Effects (Bonus effects Gold, Research, Mana, Growth, Production): Cheerful = 50% Bonus, 10% chance of special event Very Happy = 30% Bonus, 4% chance of special event Happy = 15% Bonus Content = No Bonus Unhappy = -15% Penalty Very Unhappy = -30% Penalty Rebellious = -50% Penalty And as I mentioned, all multipliers for the city multiply against everything. So (City Base + Sites + Spells + etc) * Happiness * Any special production type (such as produce merchandise/housing/mana/research).
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Has anyone tried multiplayer? Playing with a buddy and ran into a weird situation where was choosing rewards from a battle just as I started another battle. When he got out of spectating my fight, his reward options were gone. Edit: Ok, starting a new turn gave him the reward option again. Still, seems like a bug that it was a turn late? Don't know if Gerblyn knows about this yet? Carnalfex fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:55 |
|
|
Carnalfex posted:Has anyone tried multiplayer? Playing with a buddy and ran into a weird situation where was choosing rewards from a battle just as I started another battle. When he got out of spectating my fight, his reward options were gone. I think that's just a screen that gets closed because the game got forced to another view. Did he try opening it again from the events list? I know that if you decline a hero, scrounge together the cash to recruit them after all and change your mind, you have to bump into them with a unit to force the recruit window to open again. Maybe moving out and back in the hex with the rewards would have triggered it again?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 08:47
|
|