Safe battles should be patched.

[bagas12]

I mean more options are always fine, but, are we honestly asking for the game to be easier?

Is losing a single tier 1 that huge of a deal? Are we not gonna smash the AI anyway?

You can abuse the hell of the AI in manual, winning 2k + equal odds battle without losing a single unit, EASILY.
Those extra turns of production on replacing units will not gonna make you lose, it actually will help you to make the game at least a bit challenging.

So why we need the game to be a breeze from start to finish? Some adversity is good sometimes, or better yet, make a dedicated stack for those sort of things, i mean you if want to go optimal, you should have a optimal stack for node clearing, that way you NEVER gonna lose a single unit. Stategy and stuff, you know.

 

[MaitreBouh]

In general, I find healing too powerful and I fully expect it will be nerfed in the future.

If you play Amazons and equip all your units with bio regulators, it will be extremely hard to lose them, as AI doesn't know how to focus their damage. They hurt a lot of units at once, then they get healed. So, an elite stack with healing will most often take little or no damage even in high risk auto battles.

I wouldn't count on that to balance safe battles.

A toggle would work best, in my opinion. If you check the box, any units lost in safe battles is alive at the end with 1HP. It will massively speed up multiplayer games without affecting those that don't like it.

So, if I understand you well, you don't want to use something that's in the game because you feel it's too powerful, but you want the devs to add something for you for your units to not die when they did in autocombat.

I'd lough if I felt it could be a joke. But at least, if you voluntarily hamper you in the game, don't complain about it.

 

[Sarmatian]

The main issue is multiplayer.

It is a big deal. Snowballing effect is quite noticeable. You lose a couple of turns in production, possibly a couple of turns in transit and potentially miss out. When your entire army is >10 units, losing more than 10% of your army is quite a big deal. The problem is the practical effect that is simply forces all players in multiplayer to play all battles manually all the time.
It's not making the game harder, winning that battle is not a challenge. it is making it more repetitive, makes turn times much longer and makes early exploration feel much more of a chore than it should be.

In single player it is no issue, save, auto battle, reload, play manually if need be.

 

[Sarmatian]

So, if I understand you well, you don't want to use something that's in the game because you feel it's too powerful, but you want the devs to add something for you for your units to not die when they did in autocombat.

I'd lough if I felt it could be a joke. But at least, if you voluntarily hamper you in the game, don't complain about it.

No, you don't understand me well.

 

[bagas12]

The main issue is multiplayer.

It is a big deal. Snowballing effect is quite noticeable. You lose a couple of turns in production, possibly a couple of turns in transit and potentially miss out. When your entire army is >10 units, losing more than 10% of your army is quite a big deal. The problem is the practical effect that is simply forces all players in multiplayer to play all battles manually all the time.
It's not making the game harder, winning that battle is not a challenge. it is making it more repetitive, makes turn times much longer and makes early exploration feel much more of a chore than it should be.

In single player it is no issue, save, auto battle, reload, play manually if need be.

True, but it goes both ways, since they introduced the new mechanic of combat cards, of limited times of manual combat, it balances it out, so the player that plans poorly should still lose.

Also as a side note, multiplayer was always about minmaxing, if you don't want to minmax everything, you should not be winning multiplayer agains't someone that does.

 

[Dreepa]

They game has a gazillions of battles. In Civilization you hust have a quick animations, battle over. And dozens of armies. In AOW you also have dozens of armies, but each fight is a manual must-do fight.

When the game is new and fresh, that is fun.
But once you play the game more regularly, it is no longer fun to fight the same low tier early battles over and over. There is just too many of them and they are boring, a waste of time, slow and tiresome.

The challenges now are with the bigger battles that happen later in the game.

 

[bagas12]

They game has a gazillions of battles. In Civilization you hust have a quick animations, battle over. And dozens of armies. In AOW you also have dozens of armies, but each fight is a manual must-do fight.

When the game is new and fresh, that is fun.
But once you play the game more regularly, it is no longer fun to fight the same low tier early battles over and over. There is just too many of them and they are boring, a waste of time, slow and tiresome.

The challenges now are with the bigger battles that happen later in the game.

Yea, yea, except losing a single unit in some battles is hardly a setback to the player, since whem the big boy battles start you can smash the AI regardless.

 

[Ericridge]

And you fail the understand the very real, extremely simple argument:
1. If that is the case, they have to manual everything.
2. If they have to manual everything, Autocombat is not doing it's bleeping job - saving time not doing manual combat.

I do not get what you do not understand or disagree with here. Please clarify with of those 2 (two!) points you disagree with and why.

The reason: I do not want the devs to do an kneejerk patching and ruin my games against the AI. The current difficulty is fine as it is. What I won't mind is Devs adding in an toggle for online pvp matches only.

I DO NOT WANT RIDICULOUS NERFS HAPPENING IN PVE just because pvp players can't control themselves and exploit the game very hard.

1) I fucking hate the mortar turn 1 cooldown.
2) I fucking hate the flame tank turn 1 cooldown.
3) I fucking hate the ironclad mortar turn 1 cooldown.
4) I fucking hate the one time per battle only for engineer repair in battle, I went to all the trouble to reaching elite with such a fragile unit and it gets nerfed.
5) Musketmen nerfs.
6) Golem nerfs.
7) Healing spells for Theocrat that 25 hp heal that used to haev like 1-2 turn cooldown? Got nerfed to once per battle.

Yet, AOW3 Devs trot out their base and dish out one sided nerfs for exploits that I didn't do. All because of pvp players whining big time.

I want nerfing to the game for the sake to be limited to only online matches and I want your nerfs to fucking stay out of my pve against the AI.

I do not particpate in online matches. SO i don't understand why I have to suffer the unjust nerfs for the sake of fragile egos of pvp players. Hands off my offline games. No touchie.

In fact I dumped AOW3 after the final rounds of nerfs being handed out to dreadnought players. I got tired of taking unnatural actions of making my ironclads, flame tanks, juggernaughts flee on turn 1 so they can fire on turn 2. It gets old when it happens every single battle because I play on enormous maps with underground enabled.

 

[Sarmatian]

Well, let us put aside the fact that this is very rude and entitled stance, the underlying premise is wrong.

1) "I want to abuse AI" is not a valid reason to keep the game imbalanced

2) You are talking about a different game

3) This proposed change doesn't affect units in any way

Even in singleplayer, it would be a QoL improvement. I know many single players dislike when their favourite strategy gets nerfed. It often borders on irrational. But, in multiplayer, even minute imbalances, those that often can't be noticed in singleplayer can ruin games.

 

[Ericridge]

Well, let us put aside the fact that this is very rude and entitled stance, the underlying premise is wrong.

1) "I want to abuse AI" is not a valid reason to keep the game imbalanced

2) You are talking about a different game

3) This proposed change doesn't affect units in any way

Even in singleplayer, it would be a QoL improvement. I know many single players dislike when their favourite strategy gets nerfed. It often borders on irrational. But, in multiplayer, even minute imbalances, those that often can't be noticed in singleplayer can ruin games.

It's always the other party that is the rude party while the supporter is the perfect party. This kinda stuff is old hat to me by now.

I've had bad changes and decrease in QoL changes forced upon me in name of fake pvp balance. Most of the changes that was forced upon me actually made it an hassle to play.

The stuff I'm most angry about is turn 1 cooldown on mortars and flame tanks plus heals being set to once per battle. Do you have any idea how much of a chore it is as a dreadnought to waste an turn in battle doing nothing on a enormous map repeated over 100 times because of pvp this is huge decrease in so called QoL change.

And they was done in name of pvp balance that I dont even care about I dont care about what u guys do online as long as you dont involve me in your shenanigans.

And now you pvpers is trying to force other bukllshit change like auto win in safe battles because you guys lose a single unit. Do you guys even understand how ridiculous and heavy handed your demands is? It'll turn aow planetfall into aow:carebear for me because vast majority of battles I fight is usually safe battles which means there is now very many fights with no risk for me, all I have to do is hoard troops and bum rush a node and win with no deaths because my soldiers is now immortal and can become prime very easily and then do upgrades and leverage them to crush ai ezmode.

As long as this option is an toggle to be switched on for pvp online then I am fine. But if its gonna be forced upon me. I have to express my displeasure so that devs will be aware and know that I wont be fine with it. I wont accept it meekly.

PVP and PVE is two very different content. Accept this simple truth and itll be easier for everyone involved. I mentioned aow3 nerfs because it's relevant to this particular topic because you guys is discussing about nerfing something that's would obliterate the playing experience for pve players.

At that point it's not age of wonders but age of boredom.

All the ironclad mortar Nerf did was make me waste time ramming enemy galleons and frigates instead of enjoying an nice big boom making them sink or fleeing from manticore for the first turn. Do you even understand how annoying it is to engage and start battle then retreat in fight while waiting for mortars to ready then start battle on turn 2? And I have to keep on doing it all the time forever now.

Not all changes that pvpers suggest results in qol improvement. Some yes but not all.

 

[Sarmatian]

So, you're slighted by a different change in a different game, and now you're on a crusade?
Also, why would you assume that your preferred play style is the play style of all who mostly play singleplayer??? I play mostly single player as well, actually exclusively so far. I find early safe battles a chore, as there is no challenge, but, I can simply save and reload if I lose a unit, and then fight the battle manually.

The entire idea that SP players all want the game to play in the exact same way, and then there are evil MP players who ruin it for them is ludicrous. So, yes, your behaviour is rude and entitled. In fact, you're behaving like a spoiled brat who's screaming "me, me, me!!!" all the time.

 

[Van-d-all]

I'd like to point out two things. Firstly it's not about making the game easier, but about wasting (or saving) time - it's a "If combat AI is going to waste my units, fine I'll just win it by hand" kind of situation. Secondly, the loses are clearly RNG dependent, and the rolls themselves seem to be deterministic as well. You can check this easily by attacks from a different hex having always the same result (in a given turn), yet the losses can vastly vary between those results.

This really becomes an issue with squishy and/or melee units, making Amazons a chore to play with since their base units are squishy and the animals they rely on, are melee. Effectively auto resolution can get 0-4 units in a stack killed depending on above mentioned RNG, and save scumming gets boring equally fast as hand holding them through every quest mob fight...

 

[bagas12]

I'd like to point out two things. Firstly it's not about making the game easier, but about wasting (or saving) time - it's a "If combat AI is going to waste my units, fine I'll just win it by hand" kind of situation.

I can't shake the feeling this isn't about time, but the hidden "can't lose" mentality that is a real thing in those sort of games, you just can't ever have something go wrong for the player or he feels the need to savescum.

This really becomes an issue with squishy and/or melee units, making Amazons a chore to play with since their base units are squishy and the animals they rely on, are melee. Effectively auto resolution can get 0-4 units in a stack killed depending on above mentioned RNG, and save scumming gets boring equally fast as hand holding them through every quest mob fight...

Up to 4 units is pretty generous i have to say, you need to really make a bad call to do that, but anyway, losing your starting units at this point in the game are a net loss of whooping 80 energy at most, and after you can make a dedicated node squad, amazons can steamroll every auto battle with full health without losing a single unit.

But to be honestly, this thread is a good thing, it means the game is so good that the only problem that people found it is a niche thing like this.

 

[MaitreBouh]

I'd like to point out two things. Firstly it's not about making the game easier, but about wasting (or saving) time - it's a "If combat AI is going to waste my units, fine I'll just win it by hand" kind of situation. Secondly, the loses are clearly RNG dependent, and the rolls themselves seem to be deterministic as well. You can check this easily by attacks from a different hex having always the same result (in a given turn), yet the losses can vastly vary between those results.

This really becomes an issue with squishy and/or melee units, making Amazons a chore to play with since their base units are squishy and the animals they rely on, are melee. Effectively auto resolution can get 0-4 units in a stack killed depending on above mentioned RNG, and save scumming gets boring equally fast as hand holding them through every quest mob fight...

You're blinding yourself. It would definitely make the game easier. And it would be especially abusable in pvp.

And if your Amazon get killed in autocombat, you are just bad at this game.

 

[Van-d-all]

You're blinding yourself. It would definitely make the game easier. And it would be especially abusable in pvp.

I can't shake the feeling this isn't about time, but the hidden "can't lose" mentality that is a real thing in those sort of games, you just can't ever have something go wrong for the player or he feels the need to savescum.

Wow, you people are really projecting things. No. I simply expect the game to show reliable information feedback. If it assumes there will be losses - tell me and don't waste my time, I'll do it by hand and there won't. Simple as that.

There's no bad decisions or "git gud here", it's pure RNG, and I could even post examples of the same battle auto resolved with zero and major losses (as I wrote 0-4), but I'm plain too lazy to put so much effort into an internet squabble, since as I wrote above, it's fairly easy to reproduce any number of times.

 

[MaitreBouh]

So that's what I was saying : the best and easiest fix would be to write "low risk" instead of "safe" so that no one would believe the game cheated on him.

 

[Van-d-all]

So that's what I was saying : the best and easiest fix would be to write "low risk" instead of "safe" so that no one would believe the game cheated on him.

Except there already is a "low risk" rating, further implying "safe" means, gasp, safe. I'd assume that's a major factor for most players to choose if they want to auto resolve it at all, so bunching those together would effectively deem auto resolve to be always unreliable and borderline broken.

But to be honestly, this thread is a good thing, it means the game is so good that the only problem that people found it is a niche thing like this.

The game is great, but it does have some issues. Information clarity & strategic map AI among the most noticeable ones. Number of available units and overall impact of secret techs also leaves something to be desired, especially compared to earlier AoWs.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

The ratings aren't really all that useful or reliable at the moment anyway. I'm routinely winning high risk fights without a loss, but am taking a loss on low/moderate risk fights. It usually comes down to the composition of both armies rather than the arbitrary military rating.

 

[Kanjejou]

indeed which can be quite annoyign because early on the T1 T2 unit have very different strenght depending on each faction...

usually assembly amazone and dvar can auto most of the early battle but vanguard syndicat and kir'ko can't or they may lose a t1 unit

 

[Ericridge]

So, you're slighted by a different change in a different game, and now you're on a crusade?
Also, why would you assume that your preferred play style is the play style of all who mostly play singleplayer??? I play mostly single player as well, actually exclusively so far. I find early safe battles a chore, as there is no challenge, but, I can simply save and reload if I lose a unit, and then fight the battle manually.

The entire idea that SP players all want the game to play in the exact same way, and then there are evil MP players who ruin it for them is ludicrous. So, yes, your behaviour is rude and entitled. In fact, you're behaving like a spoiled brat who's screaming "me, me, me!!!" all the time.

I'm very sorry, I see the light now. From now on i'll respectfully agree with you on what you want for aow planetfall, for you only matter not anyone else. I'll just go stand at the side and listen to your orders on what you think should be done.

From my limited knowledge of app planetfall game engine there is two possible ways to meet your requirements.

Plan A: implement an resurgence buff on your units everytime you wage an autobattle because your military genius has no equal under heaven.

Plan B: Delete safe battle rating, and put its rating under low risk battle rating.

For it to be utterly predictable, we'll need to remove random chance of crits from enemy units, and morale as well.

My master, which plan do you like the best? Plan A or Plan B? Please choose so I can pass your orders to triumph studios for you because I dont matter at all.