The "Mono Stacking" Problem

[Codyksp]

Ever since AoW 4 launched, the gameplay has suffered from one major problem. Stacking a single unit class and using that to crush the map.

First it was Hero stacking, and this remained true until the Wolf Update for Single Player. Meanwhile in multiplayer heroes were limited to 3.
This showcased exactly what is happening in the game now and had been happening to a lesser degree already, due to the game's design.

Because of the fact that the enchantment system has no limits, and the same is true for minor transformations, the best option is to stack one unit class.
You can see some of the T1 tomes were designed with synergies in mind. Blight Blades + Poison Arrows or Lightning Blades + Lightning Focus.
Sadly this does not work at all. Part of it is related to Society/Form Traits but the largest offender here is simply how enchantments work in the game.

The only other instances of this design are in Tome of Artificing with Siege Magic + Artisan Armaments, and Tome of Devastation with Focus of Devastation and Flameburst Weapons.
So that's Melee + Battle Mage/Support being covered. I think it's fair to make a split between Battle Mage and Ranged, but Skirmisher can double dip quite heavily in this design.

The problem is that no other tomes offer any kind of support for a multi-class army. Without enchantments you might as well not build the units, that's just how it is currently.
So what do people do? They end up picking all the tomes that offer enchantments for one unit class and just build that unit combined with heroes. Ta-da, army complete.
The problem goes deeper than this. T3 and especially T4 racial units become stacked with enchantments and transformations, thus entirely invalidating the existence of T5 units.

So how do we solve this problem? Simple, we take a page from the previous game, Age of Wonders: Planetfall.

I think the following design would solve the issue:

• Limit Enchantments to 3 per unit class
• Limit Minor Transformations to 2 per race
• Give every Tome at least 2 enchantments

Of course this means there will have to be a way to allow every enchantment to check individual classes, rather than the entire group.
So while the enchantment will be compatible with 5 classes, you would be able to choose which of those 5 to apply it to individually.
This also brings up the point of unit types such as Animal or Construct. Those would simply consume one of the three slots as well.

This will bring down the power of enchantment stacking and promote building a healthy balance of unit types instead.
It will also allow for progressively stronger enchantments throughout the tomes, rather than more of the same being stacked.

I feel this is currently the largest issue the game is facing in terms of balance and it is definitely a source of frustration in multiplayer.

 

[Jolly Joker]

It would suffice to increase the upkeep for multiple enchantments - simply add to the upkeep of each enchantment the upkeep of the enchantments already on the unit. So if each enchantment would cost 2 base Mana upkeep, the first enchantmeent would actually cost 2, but the second would cost 4, the third 6, the fourth 8 and so on. So with 4 enchantments of that type, the upkeep would be raised by 20 Mana (instead of 8).

 

[NorthernDruid]

Some form of limitation to enchantments and minor wouldn't be too bad. Personally I'm more into restricting per type the same way Supergrowth and Spawnkin are mutually exclusive. Like you can only have 1 weapon enchant, only one "skin" transformation, etc.

And uh, giving every single tome 2 enchantments would make Runesmiths mandatory for the research discount alone. So please no.

 

[ReckonerIL]

I haven't really heard of unit class stacking except heroes and shock units. IIRC some high ranged stacking was viable at start, but it was nerfed some time later, so it is no longer a thing.

After trying PF, I certainly would like some middle ground between mods and enchantments. But just restricting unit class to 3 enchantment isn't best solution, imho, it's sure would solve problem of enchantment stacking, but it would also apply mod system's restriction without adding its advantages. Mods allow to specialize different armies player have to counter specific enemy. So players could have several armies with different mod sets simultaneously. In a system where I restricted by 3 enchantments per unit class, I would be able to achieve similar effect only by using completely different sets of unit classes against different enemies.

The way I would want to see it, is to have limit of 3 enchantments per unit, but being able to apply unique set of enchantments per combination of unit type and form (if a form unit). So if you apply enchantment to a knight of your race, all knights of your race will have that enchantment, but if you have knights of other race, you can apply different set of enchantments to them, and if unit isn't form unit, then only one set of enchantments can be applied to that specific unit type, without exceptions. I think it would allow to mostly avoid major issue of mod system which is micromanagement hell of all different templates while keeping most of advantages of this system.

Having 2 enchantments in each tome would be reductive, because having 3 enchantments limit already basically solves issue of enchantment stacking. Beside, the idea of every tome having enchantments just sounds boring.

Related to minor transformations, I like idea of being able to have multiple minor transformations, but I think it should have opportunity cost. My Idea here is for all races to start with one minor transformation slot, but allow player to buy additional slots for races they're guardians of in "Races" menu using imperium and imperium cost would scale based on how many minor transformation slots particular race already has. It would give more breathing room for factions that don't heavily rely on form units, but at the same time retain principal ability to stack many minor transformations.

 

[Codyksp]

Some form of limitation to enchantments and minor wouldn't be too bad. Personally I'm more into restricting per type the same way Supergrowth and Spawnkin are mutually exclusive. Like you can only have 1 weapon enchant, only one "skin" transformation, etc.

And uh, giving every single tome 2 enchantments would make Runesmiths mandatory for the research discount alone. So please no.

I would say Runesmiths probably has no place in this new world, but we need diverse enchantments rather than just another "+2 damage".
This will allow players to pick certain tomes for counter strategies, to fit the situation they find themselves in. Rather than a collect-a-thon.

Your suggestion would alleviate the issue as well, though without more interesting enchantments it would fall a bit flat.

 

[Codyksp]

I haven't really heard of unit class stacking except heroes and shock units. IIRC some high ranged stacking was viable at start, but it was nerfed some time later, so it is no longer a thing.

After trying PF, I certainly would like some middle ground between mods and enchantments. But just restricting unit class to 3 enchantment isn't best solution, imho, it's sure would solve problem of enchantment stacking, but it would also apply mod system's restriction without adding its advantages. Mods allow to specialize different armies player have to counter specific enemy. So players could have several armies with different mod sets simultaneously. In a system where I restricted by 3 enchantments per unit class, I would be able to achieve similar effect only by using completely different sets of unit classes against different enemies.

The reason for 3 per class is because it would be a HUGE amount of work to decouple enchantments from unit class entirely.
It would require a redesign of every existing enchant. I would prefer it, but I don't think it is a realistic goal for the developers.

 

[ReckonerIL]

The reason for 3 per class is because it would be a HUGE amount of work to decouple enchantments from unit class entirely.
It would require a redesign of every existing enchant. I would prefer it, but I don't think it is a realistic goal for the developers.

I didn't suggest to decouple enchantments from unit class, my suggestion is to basically change the method of enchantment application, not to change unit class requirements or design of enchantments. I just want enchantments not to be global per player, but global per combination of player, race and unit type. It sure would require some serious work, but I don't think it would be so ground breaking as you try to present it, game is built with ability for every unit to have unique set of modifiers and unit enchantments ain't nothing but modifiers applied to units.

When I say "unit type", I mean things like "Knight", "Dark Knight", "Watcher" etc, I don't mean tags like "Fiend", "Undead" or "Plant". So if it caused confusion, I hope I cleared it out, but I don't get what in my suggestion supposes redesign of all enchantments.

Beside, your idea isn't as simple to implement as well, because there is many pitfalls in game logic that need to be considered.

 

[Lord Sheogorath]

If enchantments and transformations are limited, then why even bother researching new tomes? You are better off almost always casting spells from the affinity you built matrices and amplifying lenses from because they give so much free benefits. And special province improvements are limited by city size and many aren't useful to everyone. This will reduce the value of research.

As for the problem you mentioned first, I don't think stacking one class of unit with enchantments will beat a mixed balanced army composition, in most cases. A stack of 6 cavalry with 4 enchantments will lost to a stack of 3 pikemen, 2 ranged/mage and 1 support, with one or two enchantments. Similarly, a stack of 6 archers will lose to 3 shields, 2 archers/mage and 1 support, even if they have more enchantment. There are exceptions, sure. Like phasing cavalry can win against a mixed composition and the pikeman from primal culture can shut down any unit that isn't shield unit. But those are specific unit and special ability balance issue.

Without enchantments you might as well not build the units, that's just how it is currently.

I don't agree with that. If I really need an unit and I can satisfy the affinity requirement, I will pick the tome and research the unit. For example if my enemy has unicorn mounts and have access to high tier cavalry and I have no t2/t3 pikemen, I will be picking tome of constructs. If I don't have any enchantment for pikemen, it won't stop me, I will definitely get some later.

All affinity branches give enchantments to all kinds of units. Most melee tome enchantments affect all type of units and most later tome enchantments affect other tags, like plants, animals or magic origin, no matter the class. And most affinities have enchantments for archers and some like astral, shadow focus more on battlemages/supports. High culture has a very good battlemage enchantment. Chaos and nature has enchantments that affect both archers and mages. All seems fine to me. If you are following a specific affinity and your opponent is beating you by amassing a single class of unit, the problem is most likely elsewhere, like you falling behind on research for example.

Give every Tome at least 2 enchantments

It simply isn't possible. With the many tomes we have and any future additions, the devs will run of ideas. Or we will have 2 enchantments per tome but most will be useless and not worth using. I like the current system better. Many of the defensive enchantments are situational, the offensive enchantments are stacking, but all affinities give something to all unit classes.

 

[KDubya]

It would suffice to increase the upkeep for multiple enchantments - simply add to the upkeep of each enchantment the upkeep of the enchantments already on the unit. So if each enchantment would cost 2 base Mana upkeep, the first enchantmeent would actually cost 2, but the second would cost 4, the third 6, the fourth 8 and so on. So with 4 enchantments of that type, the upkeep would be raised by 20 Mana (instead of 8).

I think Jolly Joker has the best idea.

Increasing the cost lets you take al the enchantments you want, you just need to pay for them. It'd be really easy to implement. Add in a way to undo an enchantment and you are set.

 

[Jolly Joker]

With regard to the Planetfall comparison: It's not a good one, because the mods are VERY different in effect and cost. Which means, although mods are limited you can make a unit more powerful (or change their purpose), which will also make the unit more costly, even though you still have three mods only. This is NOT the way things work in AoW 4.

 

[Balthazar69]

Exactly : the main problem with a change like this is that the system himself must be rebuilt. Actually, the different buffs are designed for stack with little value and there is no counterpart in all channel damage for example. Like said before, if a given system born, you must create more enchantment for counter play. Each enchantment must become more relevant to create his gap of efficiency. Less enchantment but with more effect, more counters. Entire rework expected. Planetfall system was awsome, but here this will be limit the gameplay more than other expected effect if we keep actual values. With the syndrom of hollow skill, three enchantment that doesn't change really anything.

AoW 4 was clearly designed around the concept of freedom. I think this is why he have good sales. Pick tome what you want, combine effects what you want. Stay one thing : build order.

Actually, it is really mid-endgame that the difference appear. Three enchantments only is a way to tell Gold / Mana / Production > Research (Already the case in fact, but even more)

 

[Codyksp]

As for the problem you mentioned first, I don't think stacking one class of unit with enchantments will beat a mixed balanced army composition, in most cases. A stack of 6 cavalry with 4 enchantments will lost to a stack of 3 pikemen, 2 ranged/mage and 1 support, with one or two enchantments. Similarly, a stack of 6 archers will lose to 3 shields, 2 archers/mage and 1 support, even if they have more enchantment. There are exceptions, sure. Like phasing cavalry can win against a mixed composition and the pikeman from primal culture can shut down any unit that isn't shield unit. But those are specific unit and special ability balance issue.

This isn't about 6v6 or battles on turn 30. This is about large 18v18 battles with units that have 5+ enchantments and 2-3 transformations.
At that point there is no reason to ever bring another unit type to your army unless it is either Mythic or a hero. The AI won't show you these battles.

When you get into the later game even the Mythic units will be heavily out scaled, despite their special abilities and beefy base stats.
The largest offenders of this are Stormbringer, Exemplar and Warbreed/Tyrant Knight, being racial T4 units they also get more perks.

 

[Lord Sheogorath]

Mana is already in short supply, if you like me want to make full stacks of magic origin units. Mana income isn't increased by town hall structures, unlike gold. And most enchantments cost only mana or more mana than gold.

Another matter I would like to bring to attention is that, shield units have the most enchantment affecting them, followed by pike units. Fighters have the least, probably tied with shock units.

I think fighter units are plain and don't have a niche. In any circumstances shield, pike or shock units can do the job of fighters better. The tooltip says fighters have no specific counters, but from what I saw, fighters are countered by all three other melee roles. Shield units have shield and can also protect surrounding units, they have somewhat less dmg than fighters. Pike units have mostly the same dmg as same tier fighters, but also have first strike, charge resistance and cavalry/giant slayer. Shock units have more single action point dmg (hence more retaliation dmg) and cancels retaliations. What use are fighters?

 

[Lord Sheogorath]

This isn't about 6v6 or battles on turn 30. This is about large 18v18 battles with units that have 5+ enchantments and 2-3 transformations.
At that point there is no reason to ever bring another unit type to your army unless it is either Mythic or a hero. The AI won't show you these battles.

When you get into the later game even the Mythic units will be heavily out scaled, despite their special abilities and beefy base stats.
The largest offenders of this are Stormbringer, Exemplar and Warbreed/Tyrant Knight, being racial T4 units they also get more perks.

If you follow a single affinity line of research, you will have more or less similar numbers of enchantments available for all of your class. Of course, some affinities focus on certain types of units. The materuim branch has more enchantments than others, it seems to me.

If someone is focusing on a certain type of enchantment, they will fall behind in other areas. For example, if someone thinks they will research all the elemental blades enchantment and focus on all the elemental blade enchantments, they will net around 10 dmg. But they will have not progressed very far into the affinity tree bonuses, they will have slower research (because increased research cost hurts more for higher level tomes than lower level tomes) and they will have few high level enchantments. High level enchantments are almost always better, compare amplified arrows and fiery arrows.

If you follow a affinity path rather than dipping into several affinity, you will have better enchantments, higher level spells (which can get bonus from structures) and more high level enchantments. If you then let your opponent catch up to you, then it's your fault for not striking earlier.

Mythic units do scale poorly, but some of them are better than others. The gold golem was always good, now they lost charge resistance, which I think is unintended. If they can get it back they will be great again. People say dragons are weak, but they have draconic rage, which is a free 30% dmg, equal to an enchantment from a t5 tome. And most dragons are single figure units so they don't lose dmg. They are costly, so I use them to soak dmg and cancel enemy defense mode. The horned god can disable multiple ranged units and if the entangle succeeds, it's game over for ranged units.

Stormbringers are definitely OP, people have made posts about them. That's a unit issue, not enchantments. Their ranged attack needs a 1 turn cooldown maybe.

For warbreeds and tyrant knights, use pikemen, prefarably t3, they have 40% dmg boost against them and have charge resistance.

Exemplar has the symptom of too many enchantments for shield units, which I marked in a previous reply. It also has uncharacteristically high dmg for a shield unit. But still they are vulnerable to shock units and battlemages.

And all these t4 units cost imperium, I use at most 1 t5 unit in a stack or 2 t4 units. That is in my main attack stacks. So 3 t5 unit or 6 t4 units at most.

 

[Nerdfish]

How about disruption waves, disrupting blade, and severing golems ?
It's probably more of a problem of MP games being decided super fast before late game tech can make an entrance.

 

[Codyksp]

Here's an example of a multiplayer game, I played the army on the left.

The unit damage you see is without Strengthened, Fortune, Wet or Storm Crow being active.
AND this is a nerfed version of Stormbringer in my mod, 1 turn CD on Trident and a 2-hex line.

Meanwhile the opponent's Tyrant Knight did like ~50 damage on a full Charge attack (+90% in the mod).
These units have 155/160 HP... That's without Gaia's Chosen. Tell me how you're going to kill them.

Disrupting Blades wouldn't even be able to touch me, as his entire army was affected by Slowed.
I also had Lava Burst ready just to slow him again if needed. Severing Golems are very bad units sadly.

Disruption Wave is the only counter to this, but then I can just retreat and cleanse it from my units.
Or you could do the big brain play and also go for Disruption Wave, countering the counter.


Shock units scale very poorly, as they don't have great supporting enchantments and cannot access their targets.
Battle Mages are also horrible beyond T3. Chaos Eater and Transmuter aren't units, but they also have no range.

So where my Zephyr Archer deals 32 damage per shot from 6 range, a Battle Mage has 4 and deals less damage.
On top of this Zephyr Shot is dealing 49 damage at 7 range, whilst a Battle Mage AoE deals around 22 at 6 range.
All of this is without High culture giving them another +1 bonus range, which is incredibly insane in my opinion.

If you don't allow me to stack 3 billion enchantments, then this problem suddenly becomes far less extreme.

 

[Jolly Joker]

It just seems to be a well-played game. I count 9 tomes researched (or started to research) - if no hero with the affinity special was hired. Income in knowledge and Mana is high (Mana is too high, realm settings would be interesting to know), and with that knowledge we are far less than 100 turns in, maybe 80ish, maybe even less.

The problem is obviously that the mana income is way too high (the income makes enchantment costs not even a bother anymore) and the STACKING enchantment costs are way too low.

I mean, if you can find a way in Planetfall to get so much Cosmite that you can field a comparable army with every unit having 3 T3 mods the same thing applies, but in PF you cannot get these amounts of cosmite.

So Mana must not be allowed to go completely overboard, and stacking of enchantments must cost additional (and serious) upkeep.

 

[Lord Sheogorath]

Here's an example of a multiplayer game, I played the army on the left.

You already had the advantage here, you had a total hero level of 52 while your opponent had a total hero level of 39. You had a high level battlefield enchantment active (downpour). You had blight damage against your opponent who had angelic transformation. Your opponent brought too many shied unit and not enough ranged and support units.

Things I don't know, but did your opponent use the army wide buffs, heals and resurrects?

I agree that archers scale better than battlemages, I have been telling that since the start, people disagree. Stormbringers are broken as usual.

What is accelerated recovery?

 

[Balthazar69]

Exactly, it is just a well optimized build order + global advantage.

I agree with the fact that Battle-mage lose advantage of range VS archer. They have 6-7 (1 hex of range) only the first turn of contact and do generally less damage overall.

 

[Codyksp]

this must be some shit about multiplayer or 150 turn games

It is turn ~70. Playing with the AoW 4 Evolved mod, which slows down research and unit acquisition by quite a bit.

But before you ask, it nerfs both the Zephyr Archer and Stormbringer quite a bit for this combat.
It makes Celestial less weak to Blight (-2 instead of -4) and make Wet less insane (-2 instead of -4).
Charge is 30% instead of 20% per hex and Constructs are also less weak to Lightning (-2 instead of -4).

It just seems to be a well-played game. I count 9 tomes researched (or started to research) - if no hero with the affinity special was hired. Income in knowledge and Mana is high (Mana is too high, realm settings would be interesting to know), and with that knowledge we are far less than 100 turns in, maybe 80ish, maybe even less.

The problem is obviously that the mana income is way too high (the income makes enchantment costs not even a bother anymore) and the STACKING enchantment costs are way too low.

I mean, if you can find a way in Planetfall to get so much Cosmite that you can field a comparable army with every unit having 3 T3 mods the same thing applies, but in PF you cannot get these amounts of cosmite.

So Mana must not be allowed to go completely overboard, and stacking of enchantments must cost additional (and serious) upkeep.

I have Zeal > Alchemy > Winds > Revelry > Amplification > Cycles > Stormborne > Crucible > Paradise and was about to start researching Goddess of Nature.
As for the Mana income, I am playing Primal Crow and Wizard King. My cities are maxed out regarding their Knowledge/Gold/Mana structures as well.

Enchantments also cost Gold, as do high tier units. I've even increased their Imperium upkeep from 3/7 to 5/10, which is quite noticeable honestly.
But do you know how we avoid the penalties? Cast the cheapest enchantments and keep the final 3 in your spell slots until you do battle with someone.

This is why I propose a 3 enchantment limit with a 1 turn CD to swap them out, just like Planetfall's mod system. To counter this kind of gameplay.
I would like it to be PER UNIT but I will also accept it being per unit class, that would already be a massive improvement over the current system.
The catch here is that we need more interesting/counter strategy enchantments in that world, no 99% duplicates should exist in any of the tomes.

I don't think introducing an Imperium cost would work because that resource is used by Cities, Heroes, Perks and unit upkeep. It's stretched thin already.
Planetfall's Cosmite (iirc) was only used for founding Cities, applying mods and purchasing high tier/flying units. The system doesn't translate very well.

What is accelerated recovery?

It originates from Support units, they grant a stacking +5 HP regen to their army (like Planetfall).
This was added because domain regeneration is 10 rather than the insane base game amount of 25.
It also allows for better regeneration when out in the field, assuming you decide to invest into it.