I would like to see original creatures like this rather than ones ported over from other games. I have the imagination but not the graphic skills to make any myself.

i think that the gryphon and/or hippogryph are good alligned creatures. Have they been added yet?

also, i remember a good alligned butterfly from dwiggs mod.
and there is a sprite of flocked butterflies already in the game/editor, used only for background, maybe put that one to use.

lastly, i might be able to model an imaginative creature in blender (perhaps even with rig & skin), i just don't know how to create ILBs.

best regards,
feargus

Hi,
i like the quest-system of warlords darklords rising: It was possible (with a hero) to get a quest in captured cities (according to the size of the city), like transport a message to a nearby city, kill a group of enemies or get a special item, or find a secret temple and explore it, etc.
if the hero reached the goal, he got money, items or experience...Independent of gods and their punishment ;o)
This could be a great thing for the new patch.

Thx
v.

The work on the patches is looking great. I have aquestion about one aspect of AOW tactical combat that has always bugged me. City Battle Map.

It is always the same map whether it is the capital of the Dwarven empire, some undead outpost in some boondock cavern, or a mid sized human strong hold. It only seems to change for walls or towers. It also makes no sense for those 'final epic sieges' to have to fight the same map twice. Seems to me like there would be city outskirts, various buildings that could be desroyed (We may have lost but no more champipns hall for you!).

Probably wishful thinking... but still.. with all the love for overland maps.. the tactical maps need some love to elevate it above where it is now - slightly better than ssi goldbox series DnD. At least that was one of the first rpg maps that changed based where you are fighting...lol

Keep it up.

Personally, my biggest pet peeve about siege maps is how you're forced to deploy long-range siege engines within bowshot of the walls. :P

I'm not sure either of these could be fixed through a patch, but it would be nice if they could!

~ Weekly update!

Week of the beast! Beastfeast has been very active adding lots of trees and mountains to the patch. Here you can get an impression of some of the new ones:



MagicIceflame also has some nice creatures in the making. Perhaps some more updates on that later!

Personally, my biggest pet peeve about siege maps is how you're forced to deploy long-range siege engines within bowshot of the walls. :P

Practical problem would be that one could shoot down all AI defenders.

And the practical problem with the current way it's set up is that if the defenders have lots of archers, chances are you're going to lose at least some of your siege before you get a chance to act. Most races can get access to flyers, phasers, and other wall-bypassers that can just swarm the defenses, or at the very least a melee wallcrusher or tough nonwallcrusher melee unit to crash the gates, with roughly the same investment as needed for a siege train, and without the requirement to travel at war machine speed. In my experience (albeit all singleplayer) attempting to use siege offensively is often just one of the ways that the AI handicaps itself (holds up their army, after all). Especially since, once you've got some troops within the walls, they often become redundant.

In my experience, taking what would otherwise be a balanced mix of siege and melee against a well-defended fortress tends to mean you don't have enough siege to do its job after the first round of defender shooting (and possibly magic). Going siege-heavy, on the other hand, usually means you don't have the assault troops to properly take advantage of the breaches you do create, and the enemy has that much more time to shoot down your siege engines while hiding behind the sections of wall that remain.

The way I'd probably resolve it is give units on the walls a slight range boost if they haven't already (not so much that a cannon or catapult at maximum range can be hit with bows, but enough that they can't bombard a wall with impunity because the wall is one tile closer than the ballista behind the wall). Ballistas and similar siege weapons used by the defenders would then be able to engage the attacker's siege engines at that range, and would also receive an indirect buff against the flyers, wall climbers, and wall passers that can no longer reach them on the first round due to the greater starting distance. And we know how the AI likes its ballistas...

It would also provide another indirect buff to non-wall-crushing melee (especially non-wall-crushing melee with Block or otherwise intended to be able to survive a ranged barrage) as it would make the classical mode of siegecraft - breaching the walls with siege engines and sending assault troops in - that much more viable.

In situations where an attacker can bombard a defender that lacks siege engines to shoot back with, this could be treated like the AI currently reacts when an exclusively melee defending force is attacked - they sally against the attacking force.

Now, I don't think this is something that can be fixed in a patch, nor do I think it really should be - a patch IMO should generally be things that don't fundamentally change the way the game is played, and this would be a significant change to the way sieges work that would have knock-on effects through the rest of the game. But I do think the current system is one that puts offensive siege engines at a significant and unrealistic handicap.

(One simpler fix that might work would be changing the deployment pattern so that at the very least the siege engines aren't in the front rank as long as you've got other units to shield them, so that the defenders might at least have to deal with cover rather than being able to pick off the siege with a volley of arrows.)

I think a resolution to that would be possibility to develop more levels of spells that strenghten walls protecting, like few layers of wall enchating (freezing, burning, etc. units that cross those walls). Or some additions to those spells like anti phrasing barriers, gravity enhancers (that would put the flyers down to ground)...

Why rather spells (cast on the cities on worldmap, not battle, lasting permanently like units enchanting spells), and not buildings that provide those features? Because buildings can be built simultanously on many cities at once, and in case of spells, the player is limited not only by cost in mana, but also in casting time in turns. So the players would choose to protect only the most important cities with powerful spells.

---------------------------
Edit: Some typos corrected.

[This message has been edited by DarkLynx (edited 01-23-2012 @ 08:11 AM).]

Does AoW2/SM still have the concept of enchanting individual cities? All the city enchantments I can think of affect all cities in your domain.

You could have it as spells you cast in combat, like Double Gravity or Regenerate Walls, although when you take into account the effect of spells Crash Gates then goes and makes siege engines redundant again. The problem, IMO, really is the unrealistically short distance at which sieges begin - it makes fragile shooters on the attacker's side (like most siege engines) too easily destroyed before they even get a turn, and makes it too easy for wall-bypassers to get at the defender's fragile shooters in return.

Making it harder for walls to be bypassed only really fixes half the problem. If that happened, I don't think it would result in more siege being taken, just a higher reliance on tough ground-pounders to smash their way in (and taking cities by siege being that much harder in general).

It's so great this new patch is still under development. I love you all!

There are city instant spells like forge blast, but yeah, the city enchantments might be too difficult or impossible to implement.

I agree this is a very good idea to modify shooters/siegers range depending of the height of their position. This could not only accord to walls but also higher terrain in field battle.

The other problem with siege engines is that they are much more useful as siege defenders (at least from my exp). Not only they can be destroyed easly in the field, but they're too slow, so they slow all the army, that's why I use them only for defence. Maybe giving them more move points (same as standard foot units) would encourage players to use the siege mahines as they are really meant to be used - for fortifications attack.

They get better accuracy on higher terrain. Isn't that good enough?

Under the current system, probably, although given that how far inside your range your target is influences accuracy, a range increase for high ground could substitute for the accuracy bonus (the main difference would be that you don't have an artificial cutoff, and when you think about the physics involved, higher ground should lead to greater range). The hard part would be programming in a range that varies according to the height of the target.

If sieges were modified in some hypothetical future installment of AoW so that attackers started at longer range, though, a range bonus for units on walls of at least one hex might be necessary to stop siege engines from being able to smash the walls from one hex outside the range of defending siege engines.

(Personally, I don't mind siege engines being slow. It should require a certain amount of planning and time investment to get a siege train to an enemy city. However, you should get a more significant benefit from doing so than 'arrow magnet'. With the mechanics as they currently are, catapults and cannons are actually higher on my priority list for destruction when I encounter them in the field than when they're attacking one of my cities.

Mind you, without a change in the siege mechanic, speeding them up to make them more viable as field weapons might be a stopgap to make them a little more useful.)

[This message has been edited by Draxynnic (edited 01-24-2012 @ 10:58 PM).]

They get wider range on higher ground, too - I remeber playing online when in a duel of two archers one was in a range and the other was not.

~ Weekly update

Here we go, another image from Beastfeast showing some of the new atmosphere possibilities with the new mountains.



Next week, I will try and work towards a new workbuild for the team. It mostly depends on getting all the racial heroes done!

i... waaaaaaaa

looks fine

healing showers should only heal allys not enemys

There should be an equal cuantity of the use of magic in every wizard of the game, I mean. if there are 15 races would be nice if we could have 2 wizards of each magic and the rest 5 (to complete 15 wizards 1 of every race) would have cosmos.

If possible, new AI for battles on the sea, with new sea units as already planed, with especific new ships or sea units for every race.

The possibility to get new units that with some aditional money and time could build towers, rebuild them, and also could participate into wars healing or repairing machines. I would suggest 1 for each race

Humans should be somehow powered, they dont usually have advantages ans many other races. May be using that secret magic for them and with new adds for this secret magic.

If possible, I would try changing the AI when using magic like cosmic spray, The computer usually kill his own units using this skill, also great hail

Turn undead as skill is not working properly, It would be supposed that with this skill we would kill undead and if they dont die they would get in panic. by now, turn undead only works to panic, but dont damage the undead at all.

Chain lighting should be used only against a group of enemys not against 1, if possible I would change computer AI for this.

AI could be better if the computer would attak more often and using stronger units, instead of giving the advantage that the computer have wich is that it has more gold to produce units per difficulty level.

Bug, spider webs does not work against computer if possible to change it would be great.

As soon as we enter battles units usually apear the same formation and the enemy will attack inmediatly lower hp units with arrows killing them almost inmediatly. if possible, I would change formations puting in front of the line bloking units and behind mages or lower hp units. (like siege machines)

I know I could tell more changes but by now... thanks and if I can help somehow plz tell me

[This message has been edited by odavid (edited 01-31-2012 @ 10:40 AM).]

"healing showers should only heal allies not enemies"

Why? Nothing in the spell description says the healing rain is discriminate. It's up to the player to place it for maximum advantage - if you want to heal a single unit, there are other options for that.

"There should be an equal quantity of the use of magic in every wizard of the game, I mean. if there are 15 races would be nice if we could have 2 wizards of each magic and the rest 5 (to complete 15 wizards 1 of every race) would have cosmos."

I'm presuming you're giving 15 as an example, since there are more in vanilla SM? 'Twould certainly be good to see more balance across the races, but a higher proportion of cosmos wizards is fine, since there's a greater variety among them (from wizards such as Julia that are nearly a specialist but dabble in something else to wizards like Merlin that have a little in everything).

"Humans should be somehow powered, they dont usually have advantages ans many other races. May be using that secret magic for them and with new adds for this secret magic."

Knights are among the toughest level 3 melee units, probably the toughest of those with movement above 30, and they also benefit from a flying transport with a ranged attack. While humans have their weaknesses, they also have their strengths.

~ Weekly update

Thanks for the suggestions! Keep 'm coming!

MagicIceFlame has made a truly amazing Shadow Demon Ranger for us last week!! You can see it, if you look closely, in between some of the new mountains in this image:



Also, some opinions one whether the pinetrees as shown in post 2376 should be added, or not, would be helpful. There have been some doubts...

[This message has been edited by Swolte (edited 02-05-2012 @ 10:29 PM).]

What are the doubts in relation to the pine trees? They look fine to me for a sparse forest, and a mapmaker could just choose not to use them...

They are very pixelated. I had suggested that they be worked on a little, and not implemented as-is.

Well, if you're asking... I find the trunks too orange compared to the rest of the vegetation in the game (although I assume that could be easily fixed).

But to begin with, regardless of any artistic merits, I'm not sure the game needs more trees.
I would say the same thing about mountains, though. 'More trees, more mountains' is not a request I would ever have made.
But then we get presented with some preview pics and we see that indeed some mountains enhance the atmosphere...
And with all this stuff being optional it makes it hard to really complain.

To change the subject, what I'm much more excited about is mountains that are impassible (impassible for all units, including flyers) - a thing that has been mentioned way earlier in this thread. The ability for a map maker to create a natural barrier in a map is missed just now.
Is it clear yet how this is going to be implemented? A duplication of an existing graphic with a different property (which is what I'm hoping) or using a new graphic for it?

As I'm posting anyway, another question/suggestion:
* Is there a reason why the existing brown reeds are not made available for water tiles as well? They would look fine there, in real life these reeds can be found on the edges of water and land.

Then a few wilder mind bubbles:
* Would a corpse graphic be interesting? Might be interesting for RPG-type map as a story element.
I'm not sure if the last pic in the ILB files of some generic looking unit - a hero perhaps - would do.
A skeleton would still be more generic, perhaps
Again, I'm not sure how many map makers would want this.

* A switch, handle or lever or something, to be used by map makers in combination with events.
My furthest worked out idea goes like this, but comes with an excentricity warning: make a lever, pointing one way for certain terrain types, then flip this graphic for a few other terrain types.
In game,unit steps on tile with lever, gets question: do you want to pull the lever? Answer yes = terrain change event - to terrain with flipped graphic. Lever has now been pulled. Attach to event (fire works, units spawn, whatever).
As the lever would cover the terrain, the change to a different terrain type shouldn't be obvious.

I admit, the majority of map makers wouldn't bother writing these events, but we know some map makers who just might.

I'm not a big fan of pine trees in general but I kind of liked the ones depicted above.

I thought the vegetation in the next picture after the pine trees was a little too bright green though. Something a little darker would look better.

imho
the pinetrees in question look OK, perhaps not as nicely blended in with the background as we've seen in other pics. I think the bright-green trees Bam was referring to look way cool just as they are.

I like some of the things Sunicle said, levers and such, nice!

At the risk of sounding redundant i would like to make a request for more of these:

- Variations of the Hasteberrytrees.
(perhaps a hasteberry-storage or restaurant or even hasted mushrooms for the underground)
- Variations of production resources.
(A pile of barrels, a shack, a quay with crates)
- Variations of Signs.
(A shadow sign, a hanging sign, a buoy for in the water)

Some of the Income structures and the new magic vault (UP1.4) might be copied and mirrored to make them more placeable.

It may just be that i am capable of making some of these myself .... we'll see about that later on this week.

cheers

Aren't the crystal mountains usually associated with the shadow world impassable? Not to mention void itself?

Although I guess a suitable alternate would be to have Himalayan-esque mountains that are so high they're impassable even to dwarves and flyers, while fitting better into a map that lacks a shadow connection than piles of dark crystal.

Yeah, it's all about the looks, of course. But that discussion has already been, a very long time ago, except I can't retrace the discussion in these 80 pages, sorry.
Swolte said at some point that something was being worked on.
Anyway, it's probably a long finished part of the process.

If it hasn't been, I was just thinking about how such super-mountains could be made visually distinct from the regular ones, and a thought suddenly struck me: Cloud banks. A peak rising out of the clouds is a pretty effective shorthand for a particularly tall mountain, and if traversible mountains never have clouds attached to them (except when mist is placed in their square) it should make it pretty clear which mountains are and aren't traversible.

Thoughs from an old vainly modder and mapmaker

I think this weekly reports are great but I sometimes miss the praise for uptach workers like MagicIceFlame in this case.
The image and the unit look damned dark and cool in my opinion.
Also the whole picture with he new mountains show an evil dark style.

I knew this picture and the stuff before from upatch work forum but want to thank MagicIceFlame for this fantastic unit made from zero, Beast Feast (mountains) and not to forget Swolte (implementation) for this work.

Maybe you think I am Mr. vain because I call you for praise the upatch workers but thats what every one needs sometimes.
In this case the focus is laid on MagicIceFlames self made unit. I know many people do what ÄI call for but in some cases the discussion goes on after a weekly update as there was nothing new and I really think thinks like this unit should be honored.

Thanks a lot for this great unit MagicIceFlame!

I like the pine trees. Just one more way to add a certain type of "feel" to a given map area.