|
A branching skill path instead of a random one is the right move IMO. You could still have random starting skills, but from there they could create deliberately structured choices. Right now most strategies end up as "this went past turn 40, time to rush out the heavy hitters". If there was a branching research path, there would be no harm in throwing in other options. You could have each class unit branch off into empire upgrades for that unit, scaling up in power and research cost so you can field badass lower tier units as an end-game option. Currently if you don't want something it's just in the way, so you're supposed to want everything. The survey acts like randomness = games playing differently, but I think it makes them avoid designing situationally useless stuff. Those things are also situationally useful though, and that's where different strategies become an option. They can't have Monster Hunter upgrades because if you don't have Monster Hunters then it's worse than useless, it's actively hurting your options by existing. Then they don't get to give them dope poo poo like repeating crossbows. Essentially we could have RG type upgrades for class units, with research costs to fit (so you can make them endgame viable), and they wouldn't be in the way. Coldstone Cream-my-pants fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Jun 27, 2015 |
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
I think the major problem AoW3 has right now is its endgame- when everything is all done and researched, the majority of classes usually end up spamming whatever best unit they can get out and rolling with that until they conquer everything. Whatever they can do to alleviate that- whether it's extending the time to reach endgame like Civ does, or by making early-game units more viable to compete with the heavy hitters, will make the game much more replayable than adding any more features to classes. Also specializations would be cooler if they were class based and you got like, three/four of them to choose from. (Bard/Assassin/Merchant for rogue, for example.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Arrrthritis posted:I think the major problem AoW3 has right now is its endgame- when everything is all done and researched, the majority of classes usually end up spamming whatever best unit they can get out and rolling with that until they conquer everything. Whatever they can do to alleviate that- whether it's extending the time to reach endgame like Civ does, or by making early-game units more viable to compete with the heavy hitters, will make the game much more replayable than adding any more features to classes. That's not endgame, that's 'been sitting playing sim city for quite some time'. And even more delightfully, endgame is a mutable term anyway, depending on if you're playing on small or large maps, and how fast you go to murder the AI/other players. I don't think I even saw a T4 unit outside indies in the last 5 RMG games I played.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
The Royal Scrub posted:A branching skill path instead of a random one is the right move IMO. You could still have random starting skills, but from there they could create deliberately structured choices. This. Aow3 already has tiers you unlock in a path to some extent with the way the tech system works. You could simply require that you spend points within a tier before being able to access the next tier. Then you could have different viable choices in each tier, with upgrades linked to those spells/units. You could even have racial stuff linked to the same system. AoW already -sort of- does this with the culture upgrades that force the player to choose between them and are linked to tiers of units. In the end as scrub said a setup like that means situational abilities can actually be desireable because the player can actually look at their game and make a choice to use them. This isn't really a new idea, or even something unique to strategy games. It works great! It also actually adds to the replayability of repeated games. Replayability comes from how the player reacts to the game - that means actual player choice, prompted by situation you find yourself in. The game needs to present things that force the player to act, be that random events, map generation, unpredictable AI behavior, swings in diplomatic alleigances, and strategies adopted by other players (ai or human) in the game. The canvas that you tell the player to paint on changes each game, that is where the randomization comes in, but you have to give them the chance to pick what brush to use. Giving them a screwdriver and them telling them to hammer in nails with it doesn't make for strategic player choice. Being able to choose a screwdriver or hammer, when either could be useful depending on what situation you find yourself in, is the whole point. In Civ, sure, there is generally a better way to progress through the tech tree because there is only one tech tree. Classes, races, and specs all shake that up though, and every other player has some unknown combination of the same. That gives a gigantic potential for different potential strategies to be employed and countered. Players that fear there being one optimal path to be followed every time allowing victory regardless of what the game throws at you ignore that such a problem is both a balance issue, not really related to the way the tech system works, and also exists even in a random system. That same path is still there, it just means it is a total dice roll who gets it each game. If that path is so effective that it really makes a difference in gameplay, which is the only way that fear would be justified, then you've simplified the game down to a coin flip as to who gets lucky. Being able to recognize a balance problem like that sooner and deal with it is a good thing, which is what you get from a tech tree that allows player choice. It also means you can add additional ways to balance techs other than just cost. As someone mentioned earlier, you can have some techs require others, or lock you out of other techs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
I'd like it if specialization and research felt more rewarding and relevant. Right now my criteria for specializations is 1) Does it not fill important research branches (empire upgrades for Warlord, as an example) with junk, 2) Does my class not have too much junk to reliably pick up 1 or 2 interesting spells or abilities (good luck getting an interesting specialization global spell will some of the class/specialization combinations), and 3) Does it have a potent passive. Hence my earlier suggestion to allow trimming research lists. Not having to worry about 1 and 2 on that list would open up so many possibilities and make 3 a much smaller factor. Edit: Taking a mastery ends up better than a third specialization just because you end up with fewer low level spells to research, and therefore a more reliable start, even if they didn't have really nice passive bonuses. It would also make Necromancers feel a lot less punitive. Having a lovely scouting spell, domain of X, and terrain spreading spell take up valuable global research slots makes their slow start even worse. KPC_Mammon fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
KPC_Mammon posted:I'd like it if specialization and research felt more rewarding and relevant. Right now my criteria for specializations is 1) Does it not fill important research branches (empire upgrades for Warlord, as an example) with junk, 2) Does my class not have too much junk to reliably pick up 1 or 2 interesting spells or abilities (good luck getting an interesting specialization global spell will some of the class/specialization combinations), and 3) Does it have a potent passive. Trimming research is something I've often wished for because of the random tech system giving me things I didn't want in games, but it wouldn't be an issue with either more stuff picked at player creation and/or more player choice in tech progression. You can have infinite tech choices available and not need to trim them if you can actually pick which one you want, right? And oh god yes to the necros. So many spells just do nothing for them, including some of their own class spells.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
I got started with Master of Magic, so the random research has a bit of a nostalgic appeal to me. I'd like more ways to control that randomness though. I can see how freely picking would lead to builds that limit replay somewhat, but as it is right now I usually feel like I'm picking the least lovely option, not the coolest. I'd be willing to give a tech tree a shot though. With enough branches, like the civilization games, or tiers, like endless legend (not Civ:BE though, that tech web was terrible), you could maintain enough flexibility to prevent rote build orders. Edit: Trimming research would add another layer of strategy, similar to that of card games. You won't have as many answers to what your opponent can do, but you'll be more likely to get the research that interests you. Plus, as previously mentioned, data mining what people remove from their research pools could be fun from the developer side. I'd prefer trimming research at character creation, instead of in game. Removing all of the direct fire damage from your research as soon as you learn you are fighting draconians just seems lovely and metagamey. KPC_Mammon fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
See, I view lovely tech selection as an opportunity, not a frustration. You're forced to use things you might not otherwise, and really have to maximize what you've got. It's just like losing a starting hero/army to autobattle - it blows, sure, but you've learned something and there's a really high chance the same thing is happening to your opponent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
For a little bit of randomness, sure. But right now I can't justify a fair number of specialization combinations because they will, more often than not, push important spells out of reach. The issue isn't having to adjust to random research in game. The issue is that some combinations just plain suck due to low level research bloat. I'm not suggesting the ability to trim out all the fat, just enough of it to feel like you have some control over the outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
victrix posted:[timg] that poo poo dawg I tried the campaign in Warlock 2 and I could only make crap tier units that got one shot by everything while there are giants and dragons flying around that constantly ruin my day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
bamhand posted:I tried the campaign in Warlock 2 and I could only make crap tier units that got one shot by everything while there are giants and dragons flying around that constantly ruin my day. Yeah, like I said, it's not entirely intuitive. The 'proper' way to play (as in, you can probably stomp the Impossible difficulty in <150 turns) is expanding like a plague, churning units, and then transitioning to a handful of roided up super heroes and super units that conquer the universe for you. It has some gotchas like a 'city limit' that actually does about fuckall to you, so it's sort of telling you 'hey mister, don't expand too much, ~bad things will happen~', which turns out to be a horrible lie, because the penalties are minimal and the benefits are enormous. Understanding how the combat works helps a lot too, and I don't think the game does much (or anything?) to teach you how to utilize it well. If you don't, or if you dawdle, or don't specialize cities well, you can definitely get overrun by an increasingly nasty wilderness (which, hilariously, is generally more of a fight than the AI will put up). There are some exceptions to the difficulty though, Warlock 1 actually had a really good 'you vs an unfair opponent' expansion pack/game mode that pitted you against world eating horrors that had baked in challenge even if you knew how to break the game. But getting to the point where you stop playing because you can squish it easily takes awhile, and it's a pretty fun trip imo. I like the on-map combat quite a bit, it's more interesting than Endless Legend, if not nearly as good as an (even) battle in AoW3. Mostly because it keeps the pace of the game up, you can really blitz through a full game in an afternoon or evening, and I had a lot of fun doing so with a ton of different race/god/magic combinations. I dunno, I'm not sure where the right place to do a post on it would be. It's not nearly popular enough to make a thread about. I think there might actually be an lp of WL1 somewhere in the lp forum, I'm not sure if he/they ever tackled WL2 (which, honestly, is just WL1 with a bunch more stuff to play with). Maybe I can write up a sort of cliff notes guide to it for anyone who wants to check it out, without continuing to go wildly off topic in this thread 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
So I spent like four hours today trying to each my friend how to play this game, and she's a god drat savant I mean I dunno if she's any good with tactical combat per say, but the first thing she did was spend 20 minutes crafting the perfect Draconian, then she named him "Argo gently caress Yourself" I didn't even have to tell her that that was how everyone named their leaders, she just went ahead and did it. She's a natural at the game, I tell ya, already mastered the two single most important parts of playing
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
I feel like removing tiers and production limits would go a long way towards a more fun game all game. Right now it's all about spamming best t1, best t2, then best t3(if you get to t4s, your game will become longer than RiskTego) Like keep variances in upkeep and production cost, but by having all tier 1 have the same upkeep you are making some strictly better than others. Like, if hatchlings were cheaper and had volunteer, they could be almost useful. They could actually be useful if you could produce 1.5 for every flamer you have. This way you can specialize based on your needs or the style/strategy you want. Because damnit i want to use a lot of mounted archers, but spamming racial cav is better for warlord.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
Carnalfex posted:This. Aow3 already has tiers you unlock in a path to some extent with the way the tech system works. You could simply require that you spend points within a tier before being able to access the next tier. Then you could have different viable choices in each tier, with upgrades linked to those spells/units. You could even have racial stuff linked to the same system. AoW already -sort of- does this with the culture upgrades that force the player to choose between them and are linked to tiers of units. In the end as scrub said a setup like that means situational abilities can actually be desireable because the player can actually look at their game and make a choice to use them. This isn't really a new idea, or even something unique to strategy games. It works great! Eador basically has a tech structure like you're describing. You have a slew of possible tier 1 buildings you can build, but may only get 4. Only then may you start constructing tier 2 buildings. This rule is the same for unit production, magic guilds, retailers (where you buy equipment for heroes) and to an extent economic buildings. It works well for the game, but for it to work with AoW3 would require some careful adjustments. The AI really is kind of bland right now. Not bad, just bland. The leaders have no personality. I'd really like to tinker with that, but I don't think there's any tools for it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
victrix posted:That's not endgame, that's 'been sitting playing sim city for quite some time'. Well, try replacing "everything" with "the unit tech tree" and you still get the same result. In 1v1s yeah it's unlikely you'll ever see any late game units, mostly because once one or two key battles happen the game's pretty much over. The more players you add to the mix, though, the more likely you're going to get people hitting endgame and spamming whatever their best unit is. You can tell people to get good to avoid an issue, but that doesn't change the fact that it's an issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
a!n posted:Eador basically has a tech structure like you're describing. You have a slew of possible tier 1 buildings you can build, but may only get 4. Only then may you start constructing tier 2 buildings. This rule is the same for unit production, magic guilds, retailers (where you buy equipment for heroes) and to an extent economic buildings. It works well for the game, but for it to work with AoW3 would require some careful adjustments. Yeah I would love to see some interesting mods for aow3. Whenever conversations crop up like this where people say "I would like to see X" whether that is new content or a change in mechanics, it REALLY makes me wish we had a mod friendly environment. It could be a really big boon for the devs too, doing lots of their work for them to see if certain ideas can work or not, or how popular they are. Even big studios can benefit tremendously from it, but man for a small studio being able to get what amounts to lots of free labor is a big deal. The players are happy to do it, too! Hopefully whatever the upcoming sequel is will have a more open mod friendly setup. I know XCOM2 learned from XCOM 2012 and they've already said they're having open mod support from day 1 when it releases, for instance. Arrrthritis posted:Well, try replacing "everything" with "the unit tech tree" and you still get the same result. A few of the systems in aow3 don't scale well the longer the game goes on. It used to be really apparent at release with the crazy economy shenanigans going on then, but the fixes to that have never reworked the systems as much as they delayed how long in a game it takes for those cracks to show. If you play a big enough, long enough game those same problems return. Sure, if you finish the available research candles become useless, but that takes an extremely long time to become an issue. Being encouraged to beeline for one or two units and spam them could be solved with more reasons to use combined arms army makeups, and the talk right now about tiered tech levels that force you to invest in each one means that even if you beeline to your favorite unit you're forced to have some other options available too. People will cut each other over the idea of production/research rollover. What I've always found wonky is the way mana/casting points works. MoM had a pretty elegant solution that gave the player solid control of their resource management and used a soft cap diminishing returns on investment so it could always scale higher, just at increasing cost. It surprises me that it is something aow3 didn't use, instead throwing out mana cap band aids to staunch the flow of infinite mana available to players once they get their economy rolling. It would mean a smooth transition and meaningful strategic choice for a caster focused player, sacrificing current resources for the potential to spend future resources faster. In AoW you get an early game starved for mana and then start building a glut since taking more territory means more mana income but no increase to CP. Gold doesn't have this problem since more cities also means more production, so you always have a way to spend it. I did really like the idea that was passed around earlier in the thread the last time we talked about CP as well, that would split strategic and tactical CP into two different stats. That would certainly help to make mana more of a premium by allowing more ways to spend it, and not discourage use of tactical toys on classes that have summoning as a main source of units. Heck, random events could offer a chance to spend mana as well the way we already have mercenaries and hero hiring. Carnalfex fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Frostling Sorcerers are driving me/my friends insane. They have their absurdly convenient phantasms and terrifying witches dominating the t2/t3 stage in murderous blitzes, transitioning into an arguably even more absurdly powerful mid-game state wherein Ice Queens accomplish their bullshit, mopping up considerably more expensive armies and ending the match before t-4s or appropriate spells (or cannons) can be fielded in numbers sufficient to overcome them. I'm not saying they're unbeatable, especially if time can be bought, but they feel so much more effective than any other class-race combo to the extent that we've kind of put an in-house ban on it. I remember some tips earlier in the thread for dealing with sorcerers, but nevertheless it seems even here that a lot of enmity is held for FroSorcs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
While Frostling Sorcerer is basically Hitler, I wouldn't say they're that much stronger then Draconian Sorcerers. It's more the class than the race, IMO though the two do have terrifying synergy in this case. I wonder how Frostling Necromancer would do in this matchup...100% cold immunity on all racial units is certainly a thing, but Necromancer early game is so incredibly painful against Sorcerers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
If you can drag things out to the T4 stage of the game Sorc gets hit hard. They just can't summon fast enough to meet troop demands. That's about all the advice I can give Yeah Sorcs are bullshit and Frostling Sorc is one of the best
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Will increasing the strength of guards hamper the AI too much? I'm getting a bit bored with the average camp fight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
FroSorc is probably the best combo in the game right now, but honestly I think that's a testament to Sorc being stupid powerful more than Frostlings. Frostlings *do* have a lot off bullshit in their favor, but on the other hand they have poo poo defense on all of their racials and absolutely melt (heheh) against Fire damage. They're high-variance: fantastic in the right situations, awful in the wrong ones, much like Goblins. The real problem, as we've mentioned recently, is Inflict Stun. There's no good answer for it regardless of the situation, but it's worse for Frostlings because it meshes so perfectly with their strengths. (Of course, even aside from Inflict Stun, Sorcs still have arguably the best scouting in the game, the most all-around useful and cost effective summon in Phantasms, a three-channel ranged phasing steal enchantment T2 support, and, well, you get the idea - Sorcs are playing on easy mode.) If you really want to gently caress up a FroSorc's day, you could try to use DracSorc. It'll be bloody on both ends, but IMO DracSorc comes pretty close to FroSorc in overall strength. Use lots of Phantasms and prioritize Apprentices over Elders for Steal Enchantment. DracSorc gets a ranged AOE stun attack, which is super bullshit but no one really seems to talk about it ever. Plus you get the +mana passive, which is super nice. edit: beaten to the punch, not once but twice. drat. orangelex44 fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
a!n posted:Will increasing the strength of guards hamper the AI too much? I'm getting a bit bored with the average camp fight. Carnalfex posted:A few of the systems in aow3 don't scale well the longer the game goes on. It used to be really apparent at release with the crazy economy shenanigans going on then, but the fixes to that have never reworked the systems as much as they delayed how long in a game it takes for those cracks to show. If you play a big enough, long enough game those same problems return. Sure, if you finish the available research candles become useless, but that takes an extremely long time to become an issue. Being encouraged to beeline for one or two units and spam them could be solved with more reasons to use combined arms army makeups, and the talk right now about tiered tech levels that force you to invest in each one means that even if you beeline to your favorite unit you're forced to have some other options available too. People will cut each other over the idea of production/research rollover. What I've always found wonky is the way mana/casting points works. MoM had a pretty elegant solution that gave the player solid control of their resource management and used a soft cap diminishing returns on investment so it could always scale higher, just at increasing cost. I agree with a lot of the ideas and statements in this post. I think removing global enchantments and keeping the mana bonuses from the Shrine tree of structures did a lot to harm the mana economy in the game- which soft caps really only kind of put a band-aid on (and really, the only classes I've had to worry about mana with were Druid and Sorcerer- sometimes Necromancer, but not as often as the former two.) I think the idea Triumph had was that they wanted that trade-off. Sure, the Sorcerer could cast Chaos Rift to win this battle, but would it be worth it if it meant not having an Eldritch Horror available to defend a structure somewhere else in the world? Would casting Chaos Rift even be worth it if there's the possibility of the other caster being able to disjunct it on the very next turn? In theory these are the kind of decisions I want to be making in a game about being a wizard/warlord, but in practice I don't think it's one I've ever had to make- this might be the fault of the people I play with, or me being overly cautious about the tactical battles I engage in. I think the game could do to have Global enchants return in one form or another- to help curb the flow of mana for the more unit-oriented classes. You could also introduce a scaling element to them too (based on tier level) so that there's still an incentive to drop them on lower tiered units to make them as competitive (or even more-so) as the higher tiered ones. This might discourage people from actually teching up in the first place, so they could probably change the unit advancement scheme from one of power/raw stats to one of versatility? Tier 4 units could get more interesting and cool stuff to do that isn't just hit them with your sword. I'm just thinking out loud at this point, though. For all of its faults, I still greatly enjoyed Age of Wonders 3 and consider it to be the best in the series (although replaying through them all, Shadow Magic is a close second.) I just wish there was more unit composition strategy to the game, and there wasn't a soft time limit to when the fun stopped and the manticore spam began.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
orangelex44 posted:DracSorc gets a ranged AOE stun attack, which is super bullshit but no one really seems to talk about it ever. Oh people talk about it plenty It's pretty much the #1 reason why the OF always looks at me like a crazy person when I try to say that White Witches make FrostSorc one of the best choice
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
orangelex44 posted:If you really want to gently caress up a FroSorc's day, you could try to use DracSorc. It'll be bloody on both ends, but IMO DracSorc comes pretty close to FroSorc in overall strength. Use lots of Phantasms and prioritize Apprentices over Elders for Steal Enchantment. DracSorc gets a ranged AOE stun attack, which is super bullshit but no one really seems to talk about it ever. Plus you get the +mana passive, which is super nice. We used to laugh about the absurdity of a DracSorc apprentice stack completely wiping manticore armies before Eternal Lords came out; when we first made the Ice Queen Realisation, and the fact that they could phase into the midst of anything and make DracApprentices look like chumps (including phasing into the Apprentices themselves), we stopped complaining about lizard wizards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Arrrthritis posted:I think the idea Triumph had was that they wanted that trade-off. Sure, the Sorcerer could cast Chaos Rift to win this battle, but would it be worth it if it meant not having an Eldritch Horror available to defend a structure somewhere else in the world? Would casting Chaos Rift even be worth it if there's the possibility of the other caster being able to disjunct it on the very next turn? In theory these are the kind of decisions I want to be making in a game about being a wizard/warlord, but in practice I don't think it's one I've ever had to make- this might be the fault of the people I play with, or me being overly cautious about the tactical battles I engage in. You're right, but I think there is more to that as well. With the class system in, some classes require you to spend your cp on summons in order to field your troops. It isn't really optional since for some reason you're allowed to drop summons directly onto your armies in the field which is a gigantic deal. Yes, later in a big game having several production cities can vastly outclass the ability of a summoner to pump out units. Still, being able to grow your army in the field with fresh troops, often of whatever new tier of power you just researched, is huge. It means summoners get a big advantage early and even later when they can be outproduced by a class with economy benefits they can still keep up the strength of a focused army on the move. Combine this with relatively small army sizes compared to those earlier games it means having just one more unit in a fight can be a big deal, and summons aren't really something you can afford not to use if you have the option. Also, those summon focused classes have synergy with their class units and upgrades just like any other class, so not using your class units tends to just mean fielding worse armies. Druid and sorc both rely on their summons to protect their squishy range units. Carnalfex fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
I can confirm that Drac Sorc can kick everyone's rear end except Frost Sorc. The thing is that a frostling sorc will be fielding Phantasm warriors(0% fire weaknesd, good resist) And white witches which will buff eachother to 40% fire resist. It's pretty one sided even when you have equal forces. Also, although AOE stun is rad against orcs and warriors, hitting someone 3 times almost guarantees stun instead of a single 25% chance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
I am gonna be playing my Tourney match against Shifted today. I won't spoil this for fear of Shifty eyes, but I will say that madmac has demanded a specific race/class and strategy out fo me, so it might be an interesting game http://www.hitbox.tv/NINJEWTSUSA/ Stream should be starting soon!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
NEVER MIND THE GAME IS AFOOT
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Goblin blight blunderbuss, or Chunderbuss, is pretty strong, good luck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
If Ninjew beats Shifted, it means Ninjew advances and Madmac has to come up with a three-way tiebreaker for second place. If Shifted wins, it means he and Ninjew advance. Thus, Madmac has suggested that Ninjew try out the sweet combo of Dreadnaught and a race with no native armored units whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
I feel like golems and blightbusses will still be a solid combo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Only if Ninjew ever starts building Golems 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Why would I ever want to build machines as a Dreadnought? That was a pretty fun fight
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
So what are the gentlemanly rules of conduct on huge army fights? Ninjew had 3 stacks + 1 unit, and I moved in to attack with 3 stacks myself. Is it a dick move to attack him in a way that doesn't bring all his units into the fight? I also could have gotten my leader stack in there and, I think, attack 3 of his stacks with 4 of mine. Would that be crossing the line? Anyways, this happened 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
The Royal Scrub posted:So what are the gentlemanly rules of conduct on huge army fights? Ninjew had 3 stacks + 1 unit, and I moved in to attack with 3 stacks myself. Is it a dick move to attack him in a way that doesn't bring all his units into the fight? I also could have gotten my leader stack in there to, I think, attack 3 of his stacks with 4 of mine. Would that be crossing the line? You can hit me with all 4 of your stacks. The attacker has the advantage. Basically you can do whatever positioning garbage you want, as long as you give me adequate time to respond before attacking. So I can attempt to run away to maybe reshuffle some of my units around or whatever in response. But ultimately, there's nothing really stoping you from splitting me up to bring 4 of your stacks to bear against my 3. The Royal Scrub posted:Anyways, this happened ahahahahaha holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Gonna be playing that OF dude who crashed every time the turn counter hit 20: http://www.hitbox.tv/NINJEWTSUSA/
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
ninjewtsu posted:You can hit me with all 4 of your stacks. The attacker has the advantage. Alright, that seems to makes sense. I'm not sure I could have done that with you on a city anyways, I was just wondering. Here's our fight for anyone interested. Goblins have a tough time against the goblineers because my ranged units weren't much help. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Where's the stream? and/or archive video
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
video here: http://www.hitbox.tv/video/569319
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
Incorporeal undead are huge fuckers for Goblins. Blight damage doesn't work, lifesteal doesn't work, physical damage barely works, and then you throw on some poo poo like the lifedrain on Wraith King and you end up with autobattles like this. Also when calculating the strength of your army pretend Marauders don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 03:22
|
|