.png){kind=avatar}
I can't comment an opposition, even if I would question the number three, limiting enchantments would require reworking the game. It limits their value, and the value of their tomes.
- 3
The "Mono Stacking" Problem
- Thread starter Codyksp
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It's the same thing as with limiting the tomes you can research - there is none. Still, costs are increasing, so the number of tomes you will research in a game is factually very limited, which also means that the number of enchantments is limited. If you increase the upkeep for enchantments the same way as research costs have been increased (that is, enchantment upkeeps not only have a base cost, but also an additional cost depending on how many a unit class already has active), multiple enchantment costs will become prohibitively high (of course, if you play an easy enough realm you will still be able to slap the things on like they cost nothing) - plus, those with a better economy can translate that advantage into a troop quality advantage.
Limiting the amount of enchantments per se will limit the tome choices quite drastically, because you will have decide beforehand which tome combination will allow best enchantment combo for your tome and cultural units.
Limiting the amount of enchantments per se will limit the tome choices quite drastically, because you will have decide beforehand which tome combination will allow best enchantment combo for your tome and cultural units.
- 1
- 1
The way this worked in Planetfall is that higher tier mods had higher costs of application.
All mods also had a different goal, allowing for counterplay against certain strategies.
Just because an enchantment is "weak" doesn't mean you are suddenly going to skip that entire tome.
You can still use cheaper enchantments for a specific goal, or to avoid high upkeep costs early on.
More choice is not bad. What's bad is just clicking every button because there are no consequences.
- 1
In PF you can mod every single unit in a different way - that is, one and the same base unit can end up in VERY different roles. That is, you can fit a unit in an elite way, giving it 3 highest-tier mods, but you can also have other variants of that units which are less expensive.
That is not possible in AoW4.
If you can click every button because there are no consequences, the game is set up too easy for your abilities, simple as that. As long as the cost for enchantments are correctly balanced which is not the case (the best way is to couple this with difficulty levels); since AoW3 Triumph is avoiding to balance the game so that it's right for the elite players which make only a small part of the playing community. The game must be enjoyable for the players who are not squeezing every ounce out of every advantage you can possible get, and don't spend their time optimizing their builds, but just play for the heck of it. Let's face it, hard limits are crap for the fun factor, and creating troops with all kinds of fancy enchantments on them is pretty cool (play AoW 2 to check on single troop enchantment spells).
But if you think about it, upkeep costs increasing based on the number of enchantments already on a unit makes sense: interference. Just assume that enchantments interfere with each other, so the Mana effort to keep them going without the enchantments losing strength grows exponentially.
This will basically tie your enchantment capability to your Mana output which in turn depends on your playing ability and on the chosen realm and difficulty.
There could also be settings that increase the upkeep.
So no need for a hard limit there.
That is not possible in AoW4.
If you can click every button because there are no consequences, the game is set up too easy for your abilities, simple as that. As long as the cost for enchantments are correctly balanced which is not the case (the best way is to couple this with difficulty levels); since AoW3 Triumph is avoiding to balance the game so that it's right for the elite players which make only a small part of the playing community. The game must be enjoyable for the players who are not squeezing every ounce out of every advantage you can possible get, and don't spend their time optimizing their builds, but just play for the heck of it. Let's face it, hard limits are crap for the fun factor, and creating troops with all kinds of fancy enchantments on them is pretty cool (play AoW 2 to check on single troop enchantment spells).
But if you think about it, upkeep costs increasing based on the number of enchantments already on a unit makes sense: interference. Just assume that enchantments interfere with each other, so the Mana effort to keep them going without the enchantments losing strength grows exponentially.
This will basically tie your enchantment capability to your Mana output which in turn depends on your playing ability and on the chosen realm and difficulty.
There could also be settings that increase the upkeep.
So no need for a hard limit there.
- 2
- 2
The issue with increasing upkeep or making it scale with more enchantments or unit tier is that it solves nothing.
You saw my gold/mana stockpile/income with 18 strong units, it is incredibly trivial to just cast them whenever.
The next issue, which someone pointed out earlier in the thread, is that it could lead to small elite armies.
I'd rather have 9 "cheap" stacks with limited enchantments than 3 "elite" stacks enchanted to the teeth.
I am fully aware of how AoW 1 and 2/SM worked and I would very much prefer individual unit enchantments.
However, in those games I would also just enchant my entire army non-stop. Or make an elite force of 3 armies.
I'd much rather be able to have a choice between weak and strong enchantments, in the same way the mods offered.
I just do not believe Triumph will go back to a "per unit" system which is the only way to offer true diversity in this regard.
So at the very least I'd like to be limited to 3 per unit class, coupled with reworked enchantments (more diversity).
You saw my gold/mana stockpile/income with 18 strong units, it is incredibly trivial to just cast them whenever.
The next issue, which someone pointed out earlier in the thread, is that it could lead to small elite armies.
I'd rather have 9 "cheap" stacks with limited enchantments than 3 "elite" stacks enchanted to the teeth.
I am fully aware of how AoW 1 and 2/SM worked and I would very much prefer individual unit enchantments.
However, in those games I would also just enchant my entire army non-stop. Or make an elite force of 3 armies.
I'd much rather be able to have a choice between weak and strong enchantments, in the same way the mods offered.
I just do not believe Triumph will go back to a "per unit" system which is the only way to offer true diversity in this regard.
So at the very least I'd like to be limited to 3 per unit class, coupled with reworked enchantments (more diversity).
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
Tweaking yes, reworking no. Besides there is already groundwork set with transformations as NorthenDruid pointed out. (so this isn't even completely foreign concept for the game)
Also it wouldn't "limit" their or their tomes value, it would emphasize the value they bring to the table and don't forget all of this would heavily depend how it will be implemented in the first place.
My basic idea is to just create some kind of UI where you select 3 enchantments per unit class.
Imagine 3 circles behind each of the 8 classes and you can place an enchantment in each one, as you please.
They are unique per class, so selecting a Shield/Shock enchantment doesn't automatically give it to both units.
The same would be true for minor transformations, just allowing you to select 2 of them per race owned.
This would require a system of either making them cheaper to cast or allowing you to prep it once for multiple classes.
So if you prepped "Blight Blades" you could then apply it to all relevant unit classes at the same time if you wish to do so.
If you then wished to remove an enchantment and apply a new one, you'd have to wait 1 turn for the removal process.
Just like with Planetfall mods, your units would then be unenchanted for a single turn, so you can't just swap all the time.
The most important thing here is that enchantments will need to do a bit more than just +2 DMG or +randomdebuff.
They would have to become a bit more specialized, so that you have different tools for different situations.
Imagine 3 circles behind each of the 8 classes and you can place an enchantment in each one, as you please.
They are unique per class, so selecting a Shield/Shock enchantment doesn't automatically give it to both units.
The same would be true for minor transformations, just allowing you to select 2 of them per race owned.
This would require a system of either making them cheaper to cast or allowing you to prep it once for multiple classes.
So if you prepped "Blight Blades" you could then apply it to all relevant unit classes at the same time if you wish to do so.
If you then wished to remove an enchantment and apply a new one, you'd have to wait 1 turn for the removal process.
Just like with Planetfall mods, your units would then be unenchanted for a single turn, so you can't just swap all the time.
The most important thing here is that enchantments will need to do a bit more than just +2 DMG or +randomdebuff.
They would have to become a bit more specialized, so that you have different tools for different situations.
- 1
No. I repeat, that works only when you can change every single troop. Once you pick an enchantment not only for every unit of a class you have, but also for every one you build in the future, it gets silly. Who would want those limits? Makes no sense.
The "problem" is that you have so much mana in the first place. That would change if the upkeep was higher (and significantly so for stacking enchantments) AND you would simply play with a (for your ability) ridiculous difficulty. I mean, you cannot help but realize that when the whole game that is not a significant fight against another human is child's play, then, yes, you amass fortunes which you need only for said fights. That's an absurd setup.
EDIT: Look, I'm also not that happy with some things in the game, mainly I think that the tomes are too small, hurting identity building and whatnot, and that instead of nine tomes as regular peak with something like around 45-50 techs (of which you reseearched 36 when you pick your 10th tome) to research you could do with 6 tomes of about 8 techs of which you had to research the same 36 (6 per tome) or even 42 (which would obviously decrease the number of transformations and enchantments as well since each tome would contain at most one of those), but I'm full aware that such a massive change won't happen, no matter how beneficial that MIGHT be.
Since it would have been WAY easier to limit the tomes you can research with a hard cap instead of what they did, I seriously doubt they would put a hard limit on enchantments.
The "problem" is that you have so much mana in the first place. That would change if the upkeep was higher (and significantly so for stacking enchantments) AND you would simply play with a (for your ability) ridiculous difficulty. I mean, you cannot help but realize that when the whole game that is not a significant fight against another human is child's play, then, yes, you amass fortunes which you need only for said fights. That's an absurd setup.
EDIT: Look, I'm also not that happy with some things in the game, mainly I think that the tomes are too small, hurting identity building and whatnot, and that instead of nine tomes as regular peak with something like around 45-50 techs (of which you reseearched 36 when you pick your 10th tome) to research you could do with 6 tomes of about 8 techs of which you had to research the same 36 (6 per tome) or even 42 (which would obviously decrease the number of transformations and enchantments as well since each tome would contain at most one of those), but I'm full aware that such a massive change won't happen, no matter how beneficial that MIGHT be.
Since it would have been WAY easier to limit the tomes you can research with a hard cap instead of what they did, I seriously doubt they would put a hard limit on enchantments.
Last edited:
An arbitrary hard cap of three would not be fun. With a cap of three why take the starting trait of reduced upkeep?
Better to have mana costs increase for each enchantment. That way if you build your race for it and manage your economy well you can get lots of enchantments. If you spend your mana on other things then you won't be able to have as many enchantments. Sounds like some actual strategic choices would have to be made in a strategy game ......
Better to have mana costs increase for each enchantment. That way if you build your race for it and manage your economy well you can get lots of enchantments. If you spend your mana on other things then you won't be able to have as many enchantments. Sounds like some actual strategic choices would have to be made in a strategy game ......
Yes, exactly. And since we are at limits - why not limit the amount of Mana you can store? If that sounds outlandish, look no further than AoW 3.
- 1
This will make mana even more uncompetitive. Compared to mana, gold is used for the vast majority of unit upkeep, used in some enchantments, used to build buildings, province improvements and recruit units. Gold is also used to instantly build and recruit, making gold as useful as imperium to jump start a city. Lastly, gold income automatically increases with higher level town halls.
Mana has no such uses, is limited by casting points (which don't scale as well as more cities and draft) and global spells are already limited to 3 prepared spells.
What do you mean, "uncompetitive"? You need mana for everything in the game we are talking about here: every race transformation, major or minor, every strategic and tactical spell, every Summoning, every enchantment and for the enchantment (and summoning) upkeep especially which is what matters for this thread. An enchantment has to be cast which costs mana PLUS it increases the upkeep of the enchanted units, mostly with Mana.
The complaint in this thread is that armies and units have too much enchantments. My point was, that instead of putting a cap on number of allowed enchantments you can increase the mana-upkeep for enchantments, based on how many enchantments already are on a unit, for example, by adding the upkeep of all enchantments already on a unit to base the upkeep of a new enchantment.
Now, obviously, when you have amassed 10.000 Mana, it doesn't matter much when you have 10 turns with a 500 points mana deficit. However, when you have a mana limit - as you have in AoW 3 - you can't amass these amounts of mana, and consequently cannot afford too high a deficit for too many turns.
Mind you, if the game is scaled the right way (for you) then you wouldn't amass so much mana because you'd need to spend it, and if you spend it, most of the time, the mana uplkeep increases reducing your income. That's how it SHOULD work, at least.
The complaint in this thread is that armies and units have too much enchantments. My point was, that instead of putting a cap on number of allowed enchantments you can increase the mana-upkeep for enchantments, based on how many enchantments already are on a unit, for example, by adding the upkeep of all enchantments already on a unit to base the upkeep of a new enchantment.
Now, obviously, when you have amassed 10.000 Mana, it doesn't matter much when you have 10 turns with a 500 points mana deficit. However, when you have a mana limit - as you have in AoW 3 - you can't amass these amounts of mana, and consequently cannot afford too high a deficit for too many turns.
Mind you, if the game is scaled the right way (for you) then you wouldn't amass so much mana because you'd need to spend it, and if you spend it, most of the time, the mana uplkeep increases reducing your income. That's how it SHOULD work, at least.
Usage of mana is already globally bottlenecked by casting points which doesn't scale as well as new cities. Unit summoning is competing with strategic spells, players who focus on summoned units can find that they can't cast as many strategic spells. Also mana income is hard to come by early game. Mana isn't granted by town halls and I have seen guaranteed gold mines near every starting city (free city or player) but mana nodes are scarce. And also in coastal cities you can't build conduits and have to rely on oyster reefs, which is based on luck, unlike gold which is generated by the seafarer's guild.
Gold income is also more versatile because buildings and unit cost gold and gold can entirely substitute production and draft. Mana can only be used for spells, any type of spell is limited by casting points. Lategame combat spells cost disproportionately high amounts of mana compared to casting points (like 60 casting points and 200 mana, 80 casting points and 300 mana). A limit of maximum mana will negatively impact the use of those spells, especially for players relying on summoning units.
After OP admitted to extensive use of moods and house rules, especially the rule about no more than 1 high level spell use per battle, I understood the issue. The problem here is not with the base game balance (which isn't perfect by any means) but OP's expectations about how the game should be at the detriment of other players. Some affinity builds are dependent on high level spell usage and taking that away from them and then complaining about balance is disingenuous.
You have no idea how quickly that would inflate the cost of even the 3rd, 4th and progressive enchantments. And before you say, "that's the point! We should only have one or two enchantment" then why would people research later enchantments? Or why would people research early enchantments, if they are planning on researching later enchantments?
- 1
I obviously agree with most of what you say and posted a lot to the setup of OP's games. STILL, depending on game difficulty it doesn't make a lot of sense when you can effortlessly cast everything you want, never having any mana problems. Plus, Triumph already changed the game insofar that they reacted on the complaint "later on we can research all lower-tier tomes effeortlessly and slap a ton of additional enchantments on". The idea is obviously, to put no hard caps anywhere (or most anywehere), but to limit things by increasing costs in a way that makes sure that you have to make a choice at some point and cannot simply do everything.
That should be reflected in the game difficulty. A simple upkeep cost modifyer might suffice here, but it SHOULD be possible to allow a simple setting to do that.
That should be reflected in the game difficulty. A simple upkeep cost modifyer might suffice here, but it SHOULD be possible to allow a simple setting to do that.
Look, dude, *I* use my mana. But OP doesn't; on the screens he posted he has 4300 Mana plus an income of +607 per turn - after paying upkeep. You cannot even use all that income because that would mean you had to have a combined tactical and strategic map casting allowance of 600.
Nah man, 1 high level spell use per battle isn't that outlandish as a rule. The only reason you don't see people complaining about this, is 'cause AI plays like a gentleman. If AI would spam Tectonic Shatter or something like that peeps would riot and you would see no end to it.
Huh, you talk about game difficulty quite a bit, but game difficulty doesn't give any malus or bonus when it comes to player resource acquisition. So what exactly are you talking about when you say "depending on game difficulty it doesn't make a lot of sense when you can effortlessly cast everything you want"?
Are you really suggesting maluses for players based on difficulty?
I have investigated this a bit further.
It could have been symptom of another problem. Here's my alternative hypothesis.
Enchantment stacking should not cause mono stacking because many of the tomes that provide enchantment enhance more than one unit class.
- Cryomancy: Melee and Ranged
- Pryomancy: Melee and Ranged
- Roots: Melee and Ranged
- Enchanting: Melee, Ranged, Shield
- Mayhem: ranged and battle-mage
- Scrying: ranged and battle-mage
- Amplification: ranged and battle-mage
- Cycles: ranged and battle-mage
- Artificing: melee and battle-mage
- Evocation: melee and battle-mage
- Severing: melee and shield
- Wind
- Inquisition
- Crucibles
So why are Stormbringers are busted ? not because of enchantment stacking, but because of Stormbringers.
Stormbringers are skirmishers, meaning they receive nearly all melee and ranged enchantment,
they are also racial, means they receive transformation on top of it.
They are also T4 and do AOE damage, of course they'd be broken.
The fix is simple: Stormbringers should be mythical while ironclad should be ranged.
Preventing enchantment stacking would also incidentally make tech pointless after 10 tomes or so.
Last edited:
Once again.... I am playing Primal Crow and I have 5 cities. I can still get another 95 income and build 3 more Storm Megaliths for ~30 each.
What do you want me to do? Summon 18 units for no reason whatsoever and drain my mana? I am playing a Draft unit based build.
I'm already casting Fanatical Workforce and Revels of Carnage every turn. I am limited by Casting Points, not Mana.
