I concur, infinite battles seems too exaggerated, even if this is a 1v1 player game and both are equally skilled. Too fully equip a unit takes more than 1k gold (you won't have more than 2k gold in your stockpile against equally skilled player), buffing unit to such invincible state also takes several turn, a duel between such a unit will be pretty fast, and if one of them die, it is over, no infinite battle. Sure you can resurrect it, but do note that resurrected unit lost all perks except level up perks, you need another 1k gold and several turn to buff it again. Let's say that both player make no tactical mistake, eventually both will run out of gold and resorting to weak unequipped unit, this is the end of the game.
-
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.
The two times I used res to see how it worked, all purchased perks remained (in addition to the level up perks). Only spell buffs were gone.
This could have changed in the patches, as I haven't used either the Arcane or Divine version recently.
This could have changed in the patches, as I haven't used either the Arcane or Divine version recently.
This is the point I think a lot of people keep missing. Players are learning bad habits, using easy exploits, and unit combos that the AI doesn't use or simply is not advanced enough to do. Then they sight how easy it's going to be to counter things like city spam.
For example the uber temple units can be debuffed from their enchantments, something the AI doesn't do, which would still leave them fairly strong assuming they also have all the resource perks. But even then the cost to build them is so high that they won't start showing up until mid-late game. By that point there won't be a lot of size 3-4 cities that they can one shot. Even some of the larger cities may only take 2-3 attacks but these people seem to think they will be undefended like the way they are when fighting the AI. Also it probably doesn't help that most of these players likely use a tiny handful of uber units and leave nearly all their cities undefended thus giving them the impression other people will play the same way since there is little need to defend most of your empire against AI.
The AI uses very poor tactics against uber units that are actually easy to counter for an experienced player. First and foremost is that even though the uber unit can kill almost anything in one hit they can't do more than one attack per turn. Surround them with fliers and if they don't have levitation they can't do anything. If they do have levitation then just dispell it. Even surrounding them with basic troops to bog them down is an easy enough tactic. The AI always attacks the uber unit causing them to kill most of their units and do the work for the player. When they should instead put their units on guard and then get range units to ping it to death. As well as aim for it's weakest resistance with curtain units. Fighting the God Avatars has taught me a few things about countering uber units with not so uber units.
It's stuff like this that I've been considering for quite a while planning tactics to counter the most commonly used tactics people talk about in the forums because they exploit the AI's inability to adapt. And thus I look forward to facing them in MP to show them the error of their ways. Those uber units often constitute a majority of their forces and resources meaning most of their cities are likely open to attack. Several small groups of non-upgraded units could easily flank them and hit multiple cities at the same time. Once I wipe out an AI's main force I often break my army up into a few groups to 4-5 units that take multiple cities simultaneously. Their Uber units won't be able to be everywhere at once to defend all their cities. This is another thing which becomes obvious when the quest system drops a temple unit, or high lvl merc, right in the middle of your empire and it starts attacking cities. Now imagine that quest system hitting multiple locations at the same time and trying to scramble the few uber units to the location.
The major flaw in the current game's victory mechanics though is the Capital city loss means defeat. I suspect a lot of MP games with come down to capital city rushing.
The very fact that cities take a long time to develop is the reason they will not get razed most of the time. Sure capturing them lowers population and destroies some buildings but in the end it won't hinder global income that much. Odds are a few cities will be fought over and change hands repeatedly until someone gains a clear advantage. I doubt the wars will truly go on forever but they could last a very long time between skilled players.
Assuming two players are on fairly even terms, one captures every city and holds it while the other Razes every city to prevent recapture. Odds are the one who captures and holds will win because the person who razes is only under cutting their own resource income. It can also a tactical error because now the other person has no reason to devote forces to that area as well, meaning their free to push the attack on the person who simple runs around razing cities. If the razing player tries to build new cities they will suffer a huge penalty in the form of lost time to get up to the population level that the city they razed was at.
Actually my idea was simply expanding on the system that is currently in place. You suffer global reduced population growth if you don't have enough food to feed your people. So it seemed like a logical expansion that having excess would increase your population growth.Your idea of boosting city growth by excess food is obviously inappropriate for Warlock as currently designed because one of the races will have a huge advantage over the other two. The Monsters have 2 special buildings that boost city food production, in your scheme this would also boost city growth globally. You already acknowledge that the Undead don't fit into the schemeThe idea is simply bad, sorry.
Also the CURRENT system doesn't fit that well for undead as I just posted in the Bug section and exploit regarding undead. You can have a large amount of negative food stocks and because undead don't use food it won't effect your population growth so you can easily continue to expand your undead cities. So the problem is already present and I am just trying to improve on the existing system.
I would be surprised if the MP base doesn't quickly adapt to the dangers of Human players. Investing in enchant buffs will, as MANY have pointed out, be far riskier on all but a few units. Dauros' temple units and Dauros worship is one tool present in the game to ignore dispells. The Helia transition is another way to safeguard your enchants in the present game. And who knows what alterations the Devs will make to the game when MP launches.
Those who leave their cities undefended will be open to rude awakenings. The basic archer units for each race are cheap to use for garrisons.
My experience with end game uber units in the genre is that they are best used attacking. I didn't need the city to establish my uber unit, and razing it prevents me from having to defend it. Leaving the uber unit army free to continue the attack, and destroying all those movement cost reducing roads. A highly buffed temple unit (like an AoL or Death Paladin) can 100+ damage on a strike. More if it crits. In essence, I will be surprised if the blitzkrieg endgame style isn't used.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see how MP plays out.
On an unbuffed unit. I've noticed damage can be easily reduced by over 90% with non-spell buffs...
The quote you refer to was talking about cities. Cities have no default resistance. On a swamp or lava field, they take +50% more damage. Yes, defenses can rise quite high in the game.
A WoH/Court Werewolf hybrid can have over a base attack of over 160. If it has city defender, it can do even more damage to a city. I don't know if finisher applies to attacking cities, but at that point you could be looking at damage of 300 for a city on the plains.
A WoH/Court Werewolf hybrid can have over a base attack of over 160. If it has city defender, it can do even more damage to a city. I don't know if finisher applies to attacking cities, but at that point you could be looking at damage of 300 for a city on the plains.
I know this thread is about city, but i want to say that you got the math wrong for finisher perk, it doesn't increase total damage, the increase of damage to weakened unit is based on base damage, do the experiment your self if you don't believe me.
Hint for the experiment: use blade master, unless you want to train a fighter unit to level 7.
Hint for the experiment: use blade master, unless you want to train a fighter unit to level 7.
Right (I think?). Finisher adds a 29% bonus to the base damage inflicted when the opposing unit is damaged. City Defender likewise adds to the base damage if the attacking unit is in an improved tile/attacking a city (unsure about the latter). In that situation, if the attack crits, I think over 300 is possible for a city on the plains.
If the city is located on Lava Fields or a Swamp, the additional bonus of +50% definitely makes it possible.
If the city is located on Lava Fields or a Swamp, the additional bonus of +50% definitely makes it possible.
I thought that was non crit attack, if the attack is crit, yes 300 is reachable, not quite common though.
I don't need a primer on MoM,
It is obvious to anyone who stops to think about it for a moment that Warlock is an attempt at a MoM like game set in the Majesty universe. Indeed the CEO of Paradox has stated something similar although I can't quite recall his exact wording.
You may not recall it (as you admit), but optimal play in MoM required extensive micromanagement of production, as overflow hammers are lost. On the last few turns a build there was optimisation to turn workers into farmers to avoid lost hammers and maximise food production in the city and hence improve production elsewhere (keeping global food constant) or even to produce excess food for more gold (2 food = 1 gold, as in Warlock). Another major source of micromangement was the use of gold to rush buy units and buildings. In my games a major use of gold was for this purpose and not upkeep of units as you state, I seldom paid much as my Fame reduced the gold costs to nearly zero Another use of spare gold was to convert to mana to pay for spells and enchanment upkeep. Nearly all mana from nodes and cities was channeled into increasing the Great Mage's casting skill. Managing the global tax rate and city happiness was the most important factor in generating excess gold. The economy in MoM was a management nighmare, but very satisfying when done well. It was absolutely nothing like any version of Civ.
Warlock has a much better economy, well thought out, very streamlined and slick. Production (hammers) and gold have been merged simplifying unit production. It allows me to concentrate on the enjoyable parts of the game.
My greatest wish is that the Warlock gets a better magic system, the spell casting in Mom was much better, but that is a subject for another thread, this one is on city spam.
The city spam in Warlock is very much like it was in MoM and so it doesn't worry me at all. Players that feel they have too many cities can just stop building them or even delete some, that's up to them, I just wish they'd stop trying to change the game and make other players, like me, play the same way. That worries me as it would spoil a most promising game.
Well said. I enjoyed reading your post. Especially the last sentence: ....I just wish they'd stop trying to change the game and make other players, like me, play the same way. That worries me as it would spoil a most promising game.
As the old saying goes, "Too many cooks spoil the broth." Warlock is better than any other game I have purchased this year. Let's not mess it up by changing things around to suit a small minority which makes the game less enjoyable for a large majority.
Who says which of the two sides is the majority and which the minority?
So much asssumptions, so much arrogance... :/
I think it's more arrogant to try pressing other players in your game style, even when you can play it in the game as it is now.
We other players cant play our style when your suggestions will get in the game.
sarcasm on:
But maybe you are a bit upset because the Netherland team did play so badly at the European Soccer Tournament?
sarcasm off.
Last edited:
I third the wish that they don't change the game. I like having too many cities. There are fixes I wish for the game, but they reinforce the existing game's themes.
It's not my playstyle...
I just see many many issues if it remains as such in MP-play due to skewed balance... :/
This is the point I'm trying to make that they don't seem to want to hear. It's not about changing the game to force people to abandon their play style. It's instead make the game more interesting by allowing multiple play styles. My suggestions have all been ones of balancing the mechanics between the build tall and city spam. Yet all the replies sound like typical forum defenders of an over powered strategy or imbalanced system. "You don't have to play with that uber stuff." "Just because you don't like to use it don't nerf it for the rest of us." and so on.
Right now City spamming is the only valid tactic. The only reason it's viable to survive without doing it is because the AI sucks so much. Just read some of the forums about people looking for a challenge by setting the AI to impossible and clicking 20-40 times on end turn to give the AI a head start. And they still wipe the floor with the AI.
Come MP those who don't city spam are likely to fall by the way side. I'm already starting to find things a little boring in terms of city management because it's the same thing in 50+ different cities. You have to build a ton of cities to get the funds needed for end game units. Pumping out a bunch of settlers and make rows of identical gold producing towns gets old fast. And while sure you don't "HAVE" to do this odds are other players will so they will field high end fully upgraded units while your struggling to field mid-tier units with decent perks. And it's like that because of city spam and the way most cities don't actually do anything besides produce resources.
I see no reason why it can not at least be made an option to keep both camps happy, kind of like Marathon mode in Civ, you could have a setting where settlers cost population, so sending out settlers every 3 turns slows the growth of your city/cities, as it is now it is way too easy, and as stated above, will ruin multiplayer.
Why is it that everytime a decent game comes out.you go to the forums and the FIRST thing you see is people trying to change it.
Its a good game LEAVE IT ALONE !!!!!!!
This isnt CIV 5 !!!! City stam isnt a problem IN THIS GAME !!!!
Its a good game LEAVE IT ALONE !!!!!!!
This isnt CIV 5 !!!! City stam isnt a problem IN THIS GAME !!!!
I can't see how unlimited cities will be a problem in MP, there will be many counter strategies to careless expansion. You say it will be a problem (your opinion) but have not taken the trouble to explain why that should be so.
Even if it is seen as a problem by some players, then by agreeing a self imposed limit before the game everyone can be satisfied.
In this thread you have never put forward a convincing argument for why I should have to play the game according to your personal preferences, why doesn't my opinion / preference count as much as yours? Why do you need the game to enforce your imagined, vaguely defined desire? Can you tell us exactly what is the right number of cities for each stage of the game, give us an example?
What is particularly annoying for me, is that I and several other players have pointed out to you (and any others supporting your view) several times already
that you can easily limit yourself to any particular number of cities in any of your SP games. So what is the problem, why don't you do that if that will give more of a challenge? And now I'm pointing out that by using houserules agreed with your opponents this limitation can be extended to MP games that you play.There's an obvious solution to that problem. Rather than remake the game that many like, allow people to set up a build order which they can quickly do for any city. With most cities you'd have a very similar build order anyway.
In multiplayer you always have to copy the best tactics. Rushing is always an important tactic.