You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

AoW3: General Discussion & suggestions
Moderated by Swolte, Enginerd, ChowGuy

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.49 replies
Age of Wonders 2 Heaven » Forums » AoW3: General Discussion & suggestions » My concern is: why only 6 units in a stack?
Bottom
Topic Subject:My concern is: why only 6 units in a stack?
balance11
Member
posted 02-17-13 00:07 AM EDT (US)         
It looks a bit disappointing previously there were 8, like in Warlords and MOM. Heroes series increased this number from 5 to 7. Why AOW is going to move backwards? As for me, this is much more principal than for example, number of races.

And it seems not evident how it will speed up the battle: you will have to split your forces more. In case of smaller groups it will make the combat even longer. Instead of 1 x 1 or 2 x 2 stacks you will often have 2 x 2 or 3 x 3 battles.
AuthorReplies:
PawelS
Member
posted 02-17-13 01:54 AM EDT (US)     1 / 49       
I think reducing the number of units per stack is not a bad idea - it makes it harder to create a "stack of doom", and encourages you to have your forces more spread out. It goes into the direction of Civ5, where only one unit per tile is allowed, which has positive effects IMO - terrain matters more during a war, there are fronts forming, and so on. Of course a game where tactical combat is included shouldn't go into such extreme, but a slight reduction isn't bad, especially when the adjacent hex rule is still in effect, so you can have quite a large number of units in one combat.

A proud member of the Unofficial Patch team.
Creator of the AoW1 Mod.
Picard
Member
posted 02-17-13 04:36 AM EDT (US)     2 / 49       
It also makes battles faster and creates less clutter on the screen due to regiment units (and smaller tactical maps?). Possibly it also helps with system reqs.

As for HoMM, they could add 20 unit slots and it still wouldn't make its combat any better.

[This message has been edited by Picard (edited 02-17-2013 @ 09:01 AM).]

sikbok
VIP
posted 02-17-13 08:47 AM EDT (US)     3 / 49       
Hi balance11,



Yes, this was a hard call to make.
PawelS & Picard already mentioned a bunch of advantages stacks of 6 have.


One of the main reasons for me is that it makes 'reading' a TC map easier.
That then allows me to make decision faster, more accurately and without panning around the map too much.
Basically, with six units in a stack, we were able to make tactical maps much more compact.
Nibbling two slots from a stack gave us a nice balance between stacks still working as a party/small army, while at the same time making tactical battles more intense and easier to take in.


Also in play, I don't miss the two extra slots in the stack.
I'm happily clicking around the map, moving my units much as I did in AoW:SM.

Imho, you'll have to get hands on with the game and get a feel for what I'm getting at.
Unfortunately, we'll have to get some stuff done over @Triumph to make that happen first : )>


Also, all the nice feedback is flattering, but we really appreciate you also telling us what you don't like and what concerns you.
So keep it coming : )>

>>>Delete Yourself; You've got no chance to win<<<

Atari TeenAge Riot

vicbrother
Member
posted 02-17-13 08:49 AM EDT (US)     4 / 49       
@PawelS: Why it's harder to create a stack of doom with six units only? The strength based on the comparsion between two stacks. It is reversed, smaller stacks means lower chances for tier-1-stacks: 6 tier 1 vs 1 tier 5 are worse as 8 tier 1 vs 1 tier 5.
sikbok
VIP
posted 02-17-13 09:02 AM EDT (US)     5 / 49       
Yeah, imho vicbrother is right on this one.
Balance wise, it doesn't matter too much.
The battle against over powered high tier units - as mentioned in the other thread - can be won tinkering just with initial cost and upkeep.

Actually, I'd say number wise in general it doesn't change too much.
Yes, there will be less units in battle.
And yes, moving 24 units across the map will require a click more.
However, relatively speaking, it's pretty much as in AoW:SM.

Must say the coders are getting a bit jumpy, giving up the power of 2 on this one ; )>

[Added a bit more meat to my first point]

>>>Delete Yourself; You've got no chance to win<<<

Atari TeenAge Riot

[This message has been edited by sikbok (edited 02-17-2013 @ 09:47 AM).]

naecO
Member
posted 02-17-13 09:42 AM EDT (US)     6 / 49       
vicbrother has a very good point. The lower number of units in a stack will make single high level units a lot more powerful against low level units. A dragon may have a better chance against 6 archers in a stack behind wall than against 8 like in previous games.

Besides, the 'stack of doom' that Pawel mentioned would still exists in any case. Six Titans or six Reapers will still be able to wreak havoc simply because the amount of units of the counter parties are fewer as well.

One valid point about this is that tactical combats will go faster. However, whether is it worth trading the balance between high level units and low level units? Other minor points of having 8 units is that the variety of units in a stack will be much less than that of 6-unit-stack.

All in all, the less number of units in a stack will favor more and more high level units. That's not a good thing. I highly appreciate the experience that the devs are sharing but there's one true fact that the amount of time they spend on the new features to find out the flaws is be much less than the intensive amount of time that the players will spend on the game. A few weeks of open-beta will probably help judging issues like this.


Tired of manually receiving/sending your PBEM turns everyday ? Try out Dave's PBEM Wrapper!
vicbrother
Member
posted 02-17-13 11:45 AM EDT (US)     7 / 49       
AoW2 has a good game mechanic to fight tier1 vs tier5: The three-melee-attack-rule. After three melee-attacks the tier 5-unit can't fight again. Good rule. In AoW3 and the "regiment"-units it should be an one-melee-attack-rule. This would be realistic, because a lot of people sourround the enemy, and it would be easy to flank an tier5-unit. In my opinion it need as requirement more hitpoints for the tier1-units - they should not die in one melee-attack only.

[This message has been edited by vicbrother (edited 02-17-2013 @ 11:56 AM).]

morgul666
Member
posted 02-17-13 12:26 PM EDT (US)     8 / 49       
honestly I believe that the majority of us 'elders of TBS' has grown up with the 8-units-stacks as it started with the (bows down and prays in silence for this masterpiece of classics) good old Warlods 1 and many games to follow such the AOW series of course ....
So I think its more the natural reaction of reservations against the unknown than profound reasoning which causes people to get concerned...
Im sure that the crafty ones will soon get used to any new system and honestly - I can very well remember when a friend of mine recommended AOWSM to me back in 2003 and I started playing it that one of my first thoughts was: 'now look at this... 8-stacks...Im sure I saw this before in another game series I hope the rest of the game is more ...innovative...' (WHICH - AS WE ALL KNOW TODAY - WAS THE CASE FORTUNATELY ! )
SO - lets allow the guys to be innovative and invent the 6-stack system - innovation prevents stagnation ...(and thus slow but inevitable death)

Author of the following maps for AOWSM:
Version 1.4: DEMONWARS II (Transcendence & Immortalis)
Version 1.3: (also playable in 1.4) Gates to another World 1.4
><-><-><- Planning replaces coincidence by error. -><-><-><-
Katanag
Member
posted 02-17-13 12:57 PM EDT (US)     9 / 49       
Would it be possible to code the stack size as an option?

This would allow people to define the stack sizes of 6 or 8 depending on the map conditions and game style preferences. This would greatly increase the flexibility and in the case stack size of 6 would turn out as a disaster (or size of 8 regarding new balance system), ppl could still stick with the old stack size of 8.

Of course with campaign the size would be fixed, but I am mainly concerned of multiplayer mode.

At least in AoW:SM there are very many other options too for random maps, so why NOT this one?
balance11
Member
posted 02-17-13 01:05 PM EDT (US)     10 / 49       
sikbok:

Thank you for the explanation. From my point of view the most important is that AOW-3 TC would be very much alike AOW-SM as you say. That's good! Though I enjoyed epic AOW battles with many units

For me AOW-SM was something close to ideal in terms of gameplay. I'd just make some improvements: more scissors/rock/paper concept for units / races, deeper and more diverse heroes development and that is it in general. Since the changes are going to be more serious, I do have some concerns more and would be glad to share them with this expert community. Yes I'm conservative but not a complete retrograde: for example new siege tactical map makes me totally optimistic

PS: Katanag's idea is great if it's technically possible (I would like 6 - 10 range)

[This message has been edited by balance11 (edited 02-17-2013 @ 01:23 PM).]

i30817
Member
posted 02-17-13 01:29 PM EDT (US)     11 / 49       
When i hear devs talking about 'simplification' of tactical combat i get nervous.
Katanag
Member
posted 02-17-13 01:58 PM EDT (US)     12 / 49       
Exactly! Or "decisions faster, more accurately, maps more compact", sounds very scary going away from strategy, towards more boring streamlined game play.
PawelS
Member
posted 02-17-13 02:01 PM EDT (US)     13 / 49       
@PawelS: Why it's harder to create a stack of doom with six units only? The strength based on the comparsion between two stacks. It is reversed, smaller stacks means lower chances for tier-1-stacks: 6 tier 1 vs 1 tier 5 are worse as 8 tier 1 vs 1 tier 5.
By "stack of doom" I didn't mean your chance of winning against another stack. I meant concentrating most of your military power in one stack. In case of AoW, due to the adjacent hex rule, the "stack of doom" can consist of up to 3 stacks. So the change from 8 to 6 units per hex means that the size of an army that can defend together is decreased from 24 to 18 units.

A proud member of the Unofficial Patch team.
Creator of the AoW1 Mod.

[This message has been edited by PawelS (edited 02-17-2013 @ 02:06 PM).]

naecO
Member
posted 02-17-13 09:51 PM EDT (US)     14 / 49       
Hi Pawel,
I understand your point. However, would it also mean the vice-versa?

The attacking side would be reduced to 18 units as well. That emphasizes a lot more the importance of powerful units. With only six can be stacked and max 18 units for a 3-stack block, players will tend to prioritize stronger units rather than massing cannon fodders, won't they?

Certainly, the troops will be more compact, decisions of course will be made faster. Simply because from now on the choice will be limited. I would welcome this idea in a point-and-click game but for a strategy game, that will take away the fun of making decisions, scheming well-calculated moves.

I wouldn't completely rule out the success of this idea but only play test and time will tell. Katanag suggestion about possibility of giving choices between six and eight unit stack is not bad. The dev probably don't have to provide that out right in the game preferences, but they can give it as a choice for modders. People who want to stick to the old 8-stack system would have the option of playing it with a mod. I don't how doable it is technically though.


Tired of manually receiving/sending your PBEM turns everyday ? Try out Dave's PBEM Wrapper!
sikbok
VIP
posted 02-18-13 04:38 PM EDT (US)     15 / 49       
@Katanag
And in general, on streamlining play:


Yes, our goal is to streamline play.
We want to make AoW3 more enjoyable to play than AoW2:SM.
Streamlining in this case, basically comes down to displaying information better.
Particularly in the interface, but also in the world itself.

This - having relevant information presented to you - is what will enable you to make "decisions faster, more accurately".
The "compact map" will cut back on the need to pan the camera and prevent people loosing track of where they are on the map when the camera cuts to the next unit.


I'm somewhat at a loss to see where the "dumbing down" fear comes from, based on what we - the devs - have said.
So, I'll grab this chance to give my thoughts on this and - hopefully - alleviate the "dumbing down" concerns people have.

Since, I don't think presenting information better is not the issue being raised here, I'll skip that one for now.
That leaves the stack size and the map size.

Sure, if you do some math on how choice would be limited by a map with fewer hexes with fewer units you could argue choice would be more limited.
Given such a calculation, choice will likely be limited only in the more extreme battles.
I.e. battles where you'd be kiting a lot and you'd need the extra space, battles with more then 42 - 7x6 - units.
However, I'd also argue that math like that is an over simplification and does not accurately represent how choice works in the game.


The 'depth in gameplay' - i.e. the things you can do and the choices you have to make - that makes AoW tactical combat what it is does not come from the hex and unit count.
It comes from abilities, unit stats, spells, positioning and maneuvering.
(Note that I'm just discussing tactics here. For me, choices on research, stack composition and how you engage an army are strategic choices in the context of this discussion).

So, lets assume we're making AoW3 with abilities, unit stats and spells on par with AoW2:SM.
Those are responsible for most of the big choices you have in tactical combat.
So with choice on par with AoW2:SM, that should be fine.

Then, getting down to the nitty gritty positioning and maneuvering, most of that is done relative to and nearby other units and obstacles.
So, the size of the map hardly come into play there.
Then, with up to 42 units in a single battle, positioning and especially maneuvering will still involve making some tough choices.
E.g. do I rush in to take out the ranged and expose myself to cavalry, or do I push forward slowly while being pelted by arrows.
I'd even argue that between the more compact map and some of the other changes we've made - such as a flanking system - positioning and maneuvering have become more interesting.


Okay, this has turned into a bigger wall of text then I had intended, so I'll leave it at this.
Hope I have made my line of reasoning clear and that at least some of your concerns have been alleviated.

tl;dr version: Don't worry, we like choice and deep tactical gameplay and plan on giving you more then before.

>>>Delete Yourself; You've got no chance to win<<<

Atari TeenAge Riot

[This message has been edited by sikbok (edited 02-18-2013 @ 04:46 PM).]

i30817
Member
posted 02-18-13 05:53 PM EDT (US)     16 / 49       
I am simply not convinced that larger tactical maps (say, even like AoW1) were ever 'confusing'.
It's even worse if the same decision applies to the strategic maps, or at least it will be if the max size of those can't be configured for huge for the map mappers, even if the campaign doesn't use large maps. I hope this doesn't happen.

[This message has been edited by i30817 (edited 02-18-2013 @ 06:46 PM).]

Picard
Member
posted 02-19-13 01:06 AM EDT (US)     17 / 49       
If I understood correctly it's not so much about maps being confusing but more about the surrounding empty terrain not being all that relevant and therefore needed.

I assume there is still enough map room for some flanking and what not.
PetrusOctavianus
Member
posted 02-19-13 02:44 AM EDT (US)     18 / 49       
What effect will this have on the AI?
Hopefully it will play smarter, especially in combat. This is the one area in which the AoW series really needs an improvement, IMO.
i30817
Member
posted 02-19-13 05:04 AM EDT (US)     19 / 49       
But the terrain _was_ relevant. I've killed orc warlords with horse archers because i was able to bait&switch, and that was only possible due to enough space; i generally retreat with my veteran archers (and send melee units forward) to make the most of them, etc. I don't get how less space will make things more 'intense' considering that without these measure a horse rider typically closed in one turn and with them in two turns!
Unless by 'intense' what is meant is 'lots of casualties' of course.

[This message has been edited by i30817 (edited 02-19-2013 @ 05:09 AM).]

you3
Member
posted 02-19-13 07:13 AM EDT (US)     20 / 49       
This reminds me. I always prefer AOW small 'stack' vs (for example) HOMM large stacks; but one feature I really liked in AOW was the ability to bring more than 1 army into the battle. I.e, all armies adjacent to the enemy enter the battle.
-
Will this 'mechanic' also exist in AOW3 ?
Narvek
VIP
posted 02-19-13 08:26 AM EDT (US)     21 / 49       
Yup you3, the Adjacent Hexagon Rule (AHR) still exists, so you can surround a single stack of 6 very strong units with 6 stacks of 3 archers and 3 swordsmen each, if you'd be so inclined. In the tactical battle map there will then be 7 x 6 = 42 units.


Greetings,
NARVEK

[This message has been edited by Narvek (edited 02-19-2013 @ 08:27 AM).]

you3
Member
posted 02-19-13 08:54 AM EDT (US)     22 / 49       
Thanks Narvek. Hopefully the game will arrive early Looking forward....
Katanag
Member
posted 02-19-13 11:58 AM EDT (US)     23 / 49       
I agree with i30817. I have also used the same kind of bait tactics in multiplayer games. It adds a lot to immersion.

I do not understand why the map size would have to be limited. That is simply restricting the play styles and strategies. People who would like 'intense' combat, could play so regardless of map size, but forcing everyone to play the same way is just simply wrong way to go.
vicbrother
Member
posted 02-19-13 01:17 PM EDT (US)     24 / 49       
I hope we will see more screenshots to the topic soon.
IskatuMesk
Member
posted 02-19-13 04:33 PM EDT (US)     25 / 49       
Huh, I always thought map sizes in AoW2:SM were too small as it is. The combat always felt way too claustrophobic, since parties could easily reach each other in turn 1 with specific units or with range on most of the maps. What made the combat take long is the really broken defense mechanic, where units had ludicrously high "evasion" and spent most of combat missing each other. Enchantments just added to the brokenness by being able to make some units practically immortal. That, and the hardcoded minimum damage, was probably what really turned me off about the vanilla game. That and the AI was dumb as bricks and couldn't aggress TC maps at all - it would take them dozens of game turns to take even a few lightly defenses towns. Then they'd just lose them again.

It saddens me to hear party sizes are dropping as are map sizes. I really hope this is something modders will be able to fix.
Picard
Member
posted 02-19-13 10:07 PM EDT (US)     26 / 49       
To be fair your issue wasn't due to maps being small but armies starting too close to each other. There was always a lot more room in the back.
naecO
Member
posted 02-20-13 00:12 AM EDT (US)     27 / 49       
Hi Picard,

It isn't so IMO. At the beginning of the battle, if you're the attacking side you are close to the retreating area which make you able to exploit by just entering and retreating. The current tactical map in AOW:SM has enough room for 3 full stacks to engage each other. More than that, there would be no room for strategical moves at all.

With the reduced number of units in a stack and the tactical map size being maintained as it is, there would be more room though.


Tired of manually receiving/sending your PBEM turns everyday ? Try out Dave's PBEM Wrapper!
ElJoepo
Member
posted 02-20-13 01:07 AM EDT (US)     28 / 49       
Ah, I'm sorry to read the missing of those 7x2 men. I always considered the more the merrier, adding a bit to the epic feeling of a battle.
Even more so when the combustion or high prayer are casted..
nyarlathotep
Member
posted 02-21-13 07:08 AM EDT (US)     29 / 49       
Is the 6-stack fixed, or are we going to find heroes with access to the "cohort" ability which would give 1 extra slot in the stack? Offcourse, "cohort II" would be the maximum attainable lvl for said ability...

Proud mapmaker for the UPatch team
One gas to rule them all, One gas to find them
One gas to bring them all and with the Spice we bind them
Creator of the following maps: RenaissanceEarth, RoadToHell, YeOfLittleFaith, FrostbiteDelirium, Stormy Seas
Co-creator for: CityDwellers
together with TravisII
Goblin King
Member
posted 02-25-13 02:11 PM EDT (US)     30 / 49       
I agree with both Katanag and i30817, Feels like this more "intense" combat means casualties. How can people be confused with the combat map, And as someone else said some of the speedy units reached combat by turn 2.
Sorry to sound trollish but when I saw the words streamlined dread filled me as I enjoyed the previous combat system as there was a wide tactical choice not including how the terrain effected the battle. Almost feels like they are planning Homm on a Civ 5 map. Please let me be wrong.
Leonaru
Member
posted 02-27-13 03:44 AM EDT (US)     31 / 49       
All that "streamlining" and "maps more compact" sounds like AoW3 will generally be less than its predecessors. I want big maps.
Katanaq
Member
posted 02-27-13 05:57 AM EDT (US)     32 / 49       
Yes. If the goal is to avoid empty areas and multiple turns of just traveling, think about this. Scarcer the resources are, more you appreciate and protect them once you find them. Few of the best MP games I have had had only but a few cities on a vast map.

Cluttered maps with full of points of interest can fast become tedious and boring. They can overwhelm you, if thats rhe only option for maps.

[This message has been edited by Katanaq (edited 02-27-2013 @ 06:23 AM).]

Picard
Member
posted 02-27-13 06:34 AM EDT (US)     33 / 49       
You guys are kinda getting entangled in your own words, the talk was about tactical maps, not maps maps.

We don't know if strat maps will be smaller and assuming there's several different sizes to choose from it's probably a moot point.

[This message has been edited by Picard (edited 02-27-2013 @ 06:36 AM).]

katieandbo
Member
posted 02-27-13 02:00 PM EDT (US)     34 / 49       
I too will be sad to lose units due to stack size. I was a long time player of MoM and hated to see AOW had stacks of 8 rather than the 9 in MoM. Now to be cut to 6 - definitely less of an EPIC battle feel.
PawelS
Member
posted 02-27-13 02:11 PM EDT (US)     35 / 49       
Remember that in MoM battles are 1 stack vs 1 stack, while in AoW it can be something like 4 stacks vs 3 stacks, so even with 6 units per stack the battles can be still bigger than in MoM.

A proud member of the Unofficial Patch team.
Creator of the AoW1 Mod.
katieandbo
Member
posted 03-01-13 09:19 AM EDT (US)     36 / 49       
PawelS,

You're right, MoM was only one stack battles. I saw the multiple stacks in AoW as the next evolutionary step. However, I still hated to see the reduction in max stacking. Now the loss of 25% of a maxed stack is hard to take.

If this was more of a true military simulation and the reason was due to unit density within the given hex - well, okay. That would also mean the hexes were "smaller" and the rate of movement across them should correspondingly increase.

However, all that aside, I am looking forward to the new game. My biggest complaint with stacking (pardon the pun) anygame against MoM is the feeling of unit/spell uniqueness. MoM was the best at that, IMHO.
Jomungur
Member
posted 03-01-13 12:29 PM EDT (US)     37 / 49       
It's hard to evaluate this change without seeing the underlying balance of the units. I don't have a problem with it in principle, but a few thoughts:

1- Transport units need to have solid combat stats on their own. This was more or less true for standard AoW2 and SM, I believe, but while you could get away with a pure transport unit in an 8 unit stack, it's harder with a 6 unit stack.

2- In a Davids vs. Goliath type of battle, the Davids will have a less change of winning simply because there are fewer of them. Accordingly, the strength between the strongest units in the game and the weakest should be lower, on average. Ideally every unit will have some vulnerabilities.

3- I'm sure it makes things easier for the tactical AI, which is a good thing for single player.

4- Although the adjacent hex rule means bigger fights, in multiplayer at least, those colossal fights were relatively rare. Most fights still happened at the one stack vs. one stack level.

[This message has been edited by Jomungur (edited 03-01-2013 @ 12:31 PM).]

ChowGuy
HG Cherub
posted 03-01-13 02:01 PM EDT (US)     38 / 49       
1- Transport units need to have solid combat stats on their own.
Alternatively, transports might have no combat stats, and not even be counted in the stack; ie, you can load six units onto a transport to move them as a group, but the transport itself makes no combat contribution and may not even appear on the tactical map. This is after all all that the Dwarven Balloon or Transport ship do now besides taking up space, and given we've been told that each unit in for example a sea battle will have and fight from it's own platform, it makes sense not to give them each an additional combat boost as well.
PawelS
Member
posted 03-01-13 02:59 PM EDT (US)     39 / 49       
via Blue Tracker:
In AoW3 every unit gets its own ship when embarking, and is able to use most of its (ranged) abilities during naval combat.
So it seems there are no such things as transport ships that can carry multiple units (which is a similar solution to those used in Civ5 and Warlock). I'm not sure about things like balloons, air galleys and steam tanks though.

A proud member of the Unofficial Patch team.
Creator of the AoW1 Mod.

[This message has been edited by PawelS (edited 03-01-2013 @ 03:01 PM).]

vota dc
Member
posted 03-07-13 05:57 PM EDT (US)     40 / 49       
Isn't simpler customizable stacks? Base game could have 6 but they should be moddable, also would be fine to see some unit that occupy 0.5 or 2 stacks for example.

Micronazione Impero
PawelS
Member
posted 03-09-13 06:49 AM EDT (US)     41 / 49       
Adding customizable options means more complicated process of game development and testing, so I don't think it will happen.

A proud member of the Unofficial Patch team.
Creator of the AoW1 Mod.
vota dc
Member
posted 03-09-13 08:00 AM EDT (US)     42 / 49       
They have just to test how much the engine can keep without crashing or lagging too much: they don't mean to be balanced, just like HOMM series has the handicap feature or there could be mods about unbalanced things (LOTR armies on paper weren't balanced at all, also if someone wants something like a survival horror mod wouldn't be balanced).

Micronazione Impero
balance11
Member
posted 03-09-13 12:32 PM EDT (US)     43 / 49       
The option to vary the maximal stack size (6 to 8 or 10?) would be a real gift for hardcore players, who a) like the way it was in AOW-1 and 2; b) just enjoy epic battles. And we can only guess if it's too much difficult to introduce or not.
Violet Lev
Member
posted 03-23-13 05:15 AM EDT (US)     44 / 49       
This is good decision, at least we can finish all those dwiggs games, and killing of AI stacks will be less boring.
cyancurve
Member
posted 04-29-13 08:06 PM EDT (US)     45 / 49       
I dont think 6-stack is a good idea, for the only reason, it is less fun than 8-stack.

If it is for the performance reason why dont you just make it 1-stack? I would say do some pretty coding and still support 8-stack.
PawelS
Member
posted 04-30-13 08:58 AM EDT (US)     46 / 49       
Other than things mentioned above, there are battles in AoWSM where there are too many units for me, so I get lost and spend too much time wondering what to do next. So max 42 units per battle is enough for me.

A proud member of the Unofficial Patch team.
Creator of the AoW1 Mod.
meeber
Member
posted 06-12-13 06:26 PM EDT (US)     47 / 49       
I loved (actually still love) the stack size and tactical map size of AOW:SM and was disappointed in hearing that they dumbed it down to 6. And that the maps were smaller.
That seems for some odd reason to be the trend these days with TBS games with TC. Please allow use to choose max stack size in options for map (I would love a 20 stack but I'll settle for max 12) and you could have a min of 1 for those that don't like stacks.
Also as with strategic maps allows us to chose tactical map sizes in the options (with a Random per battle) as one of the options.

Also why is it that the number of races and the number of players in the game keep shrinking for every new version of the game? AOW1 had 12 players while AOW2/AOW:SM had only 8 and now were are stuck with only 6?
PawelS
Member
posted 06-13-13 04:08 PM EDT (US)     48 / 49       
The number of races didn't always shrink - in AoW1 and AoW2:WT it was 12, and in SM - 15. The lower number of races in AoW3 is probably because of "making room" for DLC.

As for the number of players, I found this in the Blue Tracker:
We won't be cutting player count.
Which probably means that there will be max 8 players like in AoW2/SM.

A proud member of the Unofficial Patch team.
Creator of the AoW1 Mod.

[This message has been edited by PawelS (edited 06-13-2013 @ 04:09 PM).]

jwj442
Member
posted 06-15-13 05:37 PM EDT (US)     49 / 49       
It sounds like player class will affect the way you play just as much as race, so I'm not worried by a lower race count.
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Wonders 2 Heaven | HeavenGames