THE Black Knight's Opinions/Suggestions

  • 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-Black-Knight

Corporal
1 Badges
Mar 15, 2019
37
17
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall Sign Up
While beautiful aesthetically, AOW4 doesn't work in term of gameplay in many ways.


The strategic map generator is much better than that of Planetfall but it is still not as good as that of AOWIII. We need to be able to sail rivers, not just have them as an obstacle in out path. As a wargamer I know that when a map tries to portray a land that is too big, rivers become too small and almost useless and the whole immersion is lost. MAKE THE MAP COME ALIVE BY CHANGING THE PERCEPTION OF “SCALE”.

In the real world RIVERS ARE ALWAYS USED TO TRACE THE BORDERS BETWEEN COUNTRIES. They should be created with that in mind and should be one hex wide. It should be possible to sail them.

We'll see what the devs have in mind regarding the sea aspect of the game. Right now there is no point to use a boat. FLYERS and Teleporters MAKE BOATS UNNECESSARY (flyers should need somewhere to land every once in a while. If they start their movement while flying over water, the next turn thay should land, regroup with a boat... or drown. Also boats can do a forced march which makes no sense and units on a boat fight pretty much like if they were on land which also makes no sense -

I liked the whole AOW2 boat system, where boats were a specific entity instead than being simplified by simply having units entering water and become boats. PORTS WOULD BECOME MORE IMPORTANT IF UNITS COULD JUST LAND AND MOVE WITH NO LIMITATIONS WHEN DISEMBARKING IN PORTS.

The game as it is, is a bit boring, I used to be against teleportation at all cost, but nothing happens for many turns with units just moving around, so I can see where that need comes from. Still I feel it is an ugly fix for an ugly problem. There has never been a movie that showed entire armies teleporting around as it would be very silly and In reality that would be (and is in AOW4) a strategic nightmare. IN ANY CASE TELEPORTERS ARE ANNOYING and should be limited A LOT or made optional.

I would like a little more interaction with the tactical map. If an item has to be found in a location, it should be possible to pick it up during the battle and then retreat without necessarily winning the battle. Imagine an almost impossible battle to win, where one could only use his skills to steal the treasure and leave!

To add some variation/surprise to the game, It should be possible to capture a leader too, not only heroes. LEADERS being immortal could not be executed, but in order to set them free one should capture the fortress where they are held prisoners.

A few spell are a bit overkill “spell of oblivion” can instantly kill anything for example (even if for a limited amount of time).

Enemy Leaders I am at war with, occasionally contact me to tell me someone insulted them. The whole “XY insulted my empire” line is really silly (many criticized it also in planetfall) . It should become something that a real diplomat would say. My enemies in any case should not contact me for trivial things.

Scouts are useless. The whole map can even be exposed with “spying shadows” or other empire developments. That is another thing that removes an important aspect of strategy. The “sensing” of enemy units is the same. Enemies are not “sensed” they are spotted by scouts. I hated that in Planetfall, but I agree that in a SCI-FI situation enemies could be spotted with machines, radars etc... NOT HERE!

Whatever you do, do not allow to unveil the whole map (either or both surface and underground) simply with a spell or an empire development. Some of my most fun games in AOW II and III had my capital city hidden in a corner, sometimes underground and unspotted until the end. That allowed me to slowly take down my enemies who were in theory much stronger than me but could not find me. In multiplayer that is the source for a lot of fun. If there is a spell that uncovers part of a map, do not make it a death sentence for someone who plays guerrilla like that. Also the fact of uncovering part of the surface world doesn't mean that with the same spell the underground should be uncovered too. Sometimes things that are conceived in order to “mop up” in single player are really the death of the best multiplayer games. Maybe the underground at least should be impossible to uncover without scouting it out.

When a castle is under siege, nobody should be able to get in or get out, what is it the point otherwise??? The units inside should only be able to attack the hero who started the siege. An allied to the city under siege should only be able to attack the enemies outside, but not to get inside the castle.

The reward system is a good idea but after my main leader abscends to the pantheon ONLY all my future leaders are able to get the goodies he conquered (new clothes/cosmetics). It should be the other way around. Those items should only be available to the leader that has abscended. They should still be unavailable to the others. New leaders should still have to unlock them.

I really used to like the invisible cities of the wood elves in AOW2. This game desperately needs diversification. Races should have their own unique things.

Again regarding diversification I really don't like how dragons can be spawned after the Dragon Dawn patch. Dragons should be rare. Yeah, I see the whole “imperium” concept has been designed to limit the spawning of tier 4 units, but it feels quite forced and unrealistic. Something else should be figured out.

Right now I can play game after game without building a single defense for my city. That should be addressed because something that made AOWIII very special and fun were those events like the “march of troll” that could tear the world apart if one had not planned in advance. I would like to see events again and have all sort of mosters/units/animals invading the map. I wasn't crazy to see different races of wild animals "organizing" themselves and attacking empires in AOWIII. I would have rather see one specific kind of unit doing it like in the march of the trolls. So we would have a “march of the XY” where XY would be ANY ONE type of unit (wolves, wyverns, giants...) If that was to be set for one random unit out of the many included in the game that would sure offer some surprises and unique situations.

I don't like the fact that roads are built automatically and that any unit can do that. I liked the builder in AOWIII (and it could also build bridges!!)

The thing I really don't like about AOW4 is that everyone can get/build pretty much everything, and pretty much any spell can be acquired by any player. Kill variety and you kill this kind of games, by destroying replayability. Choices should be definitive! For example if one choses two “nature” books all shadow books should become unavailable (just an example).

There was a feature in several TotalWar games that I always was fond of. Leaders and heroes would acquire spontaneously certain attributes without the player choosing them. For example a leader who spent many turns inside a city would lose his military skills over time but become more proficient in political ones. It was also be possible to gain negative traits. A hero who would spend too much time away from the main cities of his world, would become wild or lazy.... (The game I am referring to is Rome TW2, definitely deserves some attention.) I have always believed that it would be a lot of fun if the skills a hero gains were not chosen by the player but were random. As it is now players pretty much chose the same skills for every hero, but in my way they would have to work with what they have and maybe dismiss heroes who have become lazy or useless over time).

Edit: I shouldn't be able to use whatever object i pick up anywhere with any hero instantly regardless of where the object was picked up. In AOW3 one would have to send objects to other heroes and it would take some time for them to receive them. Earlier in the past, objects were teleported (I didn't like that but at least I couldn't use them with two different heroes in the same turn). Avoid teleporting!!! Sending objects is the way to go.

For now that's it. PLEASE developers, do not underestimate our criticism regarding teleporters. I understand the game is slow at times, but moving armies or forming them closer to the front has always been a major strategic issue in any war. Teleporters are a lazy solution for that. They spoil the game by making the terrain: mountains, lakes, roads, forests USELESS.

Dragons have quickly become a bore. Since the Dragon-Dawn expansion there is simply too much of them. Creatures like those should be rare and unique, . When one gets the chance to have them, they should only be spawn in specific places (NOT in EVERY CITY!!!). For example they should only be available in places with a specific climate, or they should be randomly available ONLY in certain cities in order to create a logistic handicap at least for moving them around....
Then again there is the horrible teleporting issue, which makes completely pointless the geography and simplifies strategic choices for the newbies. Unless teleporters are removed or at least limited drastically, why am I even talking about strategic choices? :/

More coming when I have more time to play.

------------ Mid September Update

ALRIGHT I am playing now the last September patch (83something) and I still have the same impression. I get a message that invites me to speak about the AI and whether it is dong things that surprise me... No it is not BUT THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM WITH THIS GAME!

I am a filmmaker and I teach screenwriting other than having been playing AOW since 1999 - I KNOW what the problem with the entertainment in this game is. IT IS ALL TOO LINEAR! There are no complications, there is nothing that stops me from going from town to town (wasting a lot of turns being bored while just moving units around) and conquering one after the other the AI's cities. AND NO the solution is not a dumb teleport network to put an end to the boredom as soon as possible! The solution is to create COMPLICATIONS for the player! (teleporters SPOIL THE GAME make the geography and all defensive strategies useless!!) - Cities must be under attack from within, THE EVENTS of AOWIII were a great idea. They would force players to defend themselves! An army of trolls invading the world? GREAT!

Also once an enemy Leader has been defeated, his armies should not just disappear! In real life they would become outlaws or mercenaries and join the first player that pays them enough! Or stay true to their former lord and fight to the end! - In other words I have played many games of AOW IV by now and not once I was forced to defend myself, I DON'T EVEN BUILD DEFENSES FOR MY CITIES!!! BIG BIG BIG turnoff.
 
Last edited:
  • 11
  • 6
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Well, you essentialy said everything i thought about and i agree, apart from some minor tidbits, This game still needs big overhaul and those things would only help. I think shadow aff needs Age of deception, instead revealing map, shroud it again with ofc memory wipe for ai, so they cant beeline for your cities and strategic targets. And maybe some spell for revealing portion of map. If youre going shadow, you are one click away from revealing everyone anytime you find convenient for you. If you dont, you would never get this perk anyway so on other hand maybe some additional thing needed to do before you can cast it, some timegating or number of scouts or something. I actually never was much fan of landing flyers, i think that was one of few small things that made AoW unique, you either needed archers ready or force those flyers use meele attack and hope they target reaper. Overall i think its stupid that flyers and levitators cant travel over water and lava independently.
 
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
A quote from Dev Diary #20, written by Lennart Sas, one of the co-founders and Game Director.

Freedom versus Constraints

Some design choices (either intentionally or unintentionally) resulted in an overly flexible experience where everything is possible. While accessibility is important, we want choices to have consequences and factions to develop distinctively. We are planning to make significant effort in tightening several aspects of the game in the upcoming updates.

I really hope he delivers on this starting with the Golem update. I don't think any of this has changed in Dragon Dawn or the Watcher update. At best you could include the research changes here, but that's merely a drop in the bucket for me.

I may be biased, as a dedicated AoW 1 player, but I agree with pretty much everything posted. Though I do think flying units needing to land while moving makes little sense and having them be on the ground in combat is honestly just a way of avoiding having to properly balance them and allow counters via ranged units or abilities (this started in AoW II). I should definitely not have to purchase a seafaring trait so that my unit with literal wings can cross the water...

I'd really like to see transport ships return, I hated (dis)embarking in AoW III and I still hate it today in AoW 4. It would make building cities near the coast much more important for any water based strategies and basically provides a risk-reward strategy for doing so. Units should not be robbed of their movement points for entering or leaving the water, it makes no sense.

I think teleporters are fine, they're locked at the end of the general affinity tree unless you choose Tome of Teleportation. In a world of magic it isn't too far fetched that a technology would evolve where teleportation becomes integrated into cities (hextech anyone?).

I also agree that the strategic map could be made more interesting, perhaps give us more objectives to capture like the Magic Materials and Ancient Wonders. Basically, give us a reason to explore the map and build + defend outposts without always turning them into cities.

Capturing leaders sounds cool in theory, but I'm afraid it would be incredibly abusable against the AI and likely non-existent against human players. Multiplayer games generally end with one 3v3 battle where the loser surrenders anyway... Having your leader unavailable would just make that blow even more devastating, leaving you with no hope for a possible comeback

I've disliked the diplomacy system ever since AoW III, human players don't use it except for declaring war or an alliance and the AI does nothing but spam me with a bunch of useless messages. It's also sad how they keep trying to make peace when you're sieging their throne city... Maybe have them offer to be a vassal instead? The simplistic diplomacy of AoW 1 with a few more trading options is perfectly fine for me.

I don't play with Shadow affinity and don't know many people who do, as Materium and Astral are rather broken right now. Spying Shadows is at the very end of the tree and seems fine to me personally. But I do agree that sensing shouldn't exist. Just replace the sensing range bonusses with vision range instead (cut them in half if needed). I should be scouting the map to see if it is safe without my scout being murdered the very next turn because I wanted to reveal a red dot but have almost no vision range.

I agree with a city under siege being locked down, it makes no sense that you can freely move in and out of the city during a siege. Attacking the enemies from outside should still pull all nearby armies in, but it would change the combat map to have some units outside and some units behind walls (as was the case in AoW 1). I also think fortification health is way too easy to stack and siege projects don't scale well enough to counter this. Sitting outside of a city for 6+ turns is really annoying.

Fully agreed on racial diversity, but it seems the devs will never remove the IKEA system of form + traits + culture + traits + tome. I'm afraid we're stuck with it.

I don't mind the dragons being recruitable, but I do think that both new tomes really don't match the existing structure and were just forced in to facilitate the DLC. Dragon rulers also feel like a complete ass-pull from a lore perspective. Dragons have historically (in this game series) always been rare, powerful units, not rulers of their own empire. It doesn't help that the ruler is also incredibly broken (power wise) at the moment.

City defenses are indeed useless vs AI, at best you need to produce a Palisade Wall just to keep random units away. I found it much more interesting when walled cities could be conquered by siege units or units with wall climbing or flying. At the very least I would've preferred the militia system Planetfall used over the current siege mechanic.

I think road building with every unit is a horrible mechanic, either make it a dedicated Builder type unit or remove it completely. Unit movement is also very poor in this game, the underground is incredibly slow and a lot of different terrain types also slow you down heavily. Where are my Elves with Forestry? My Goblins with Cave Crawling and my Dwarves with Mountaineering? Movement feels very poor in this game unless you go for a fully mounted army.

As I mentioned before I heavily dislike the "IKEA" system where everyone can choose everything. It doesn't promote diverse strategies, it simply allows every player to play the exact same build with perhaps 1 different choice. Affinities are literally mentioned by the game to oppose each other, so why can I have opposing affinities in my empire without any punishment? I would go the AoW 1 route and literally lock out any opposing affinities and related tomes/traits. This creates meaningful choice and more diverse strategies by not allowing the same OP combination for every single culture and tome path.

As for items, I am pretty content with the current system. The traveling time in AoW III actually annoyed me quite a bit.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The bsic problem is that the "chunks" that you patch together your faction from are too small, Culture (not enough techs) Society (not enough and/or not impactful traits) and Tomes (too many to research; less Tiers with more in them would be better).

It's actually rather simple: You need to be able to describe to someone what "faction" you played. In AoW 3 you'd say, "I played a Frostling Warlord with Air Master and Explorer Specialization", and that describes it. In Planetfall you might say, I played a Psynumbra Syndicate Leader.

What do you say in AoW 4 when you finished a game to describe what you actually played as?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The bsic problem is that the "chunks" that you patch together your faction from are too small, Culture (not enough techs) Society (not enough and/or not impactful traits) and Tomes (too many to research; less Tiers with more in them would be better).

It's actually rather simple: You need to be able to describe to someone what "faction" you played. In AoW 3 you'd say, "I played a Frostling Warlord with Air Master and Explorer Specialization", and that describes it. In Planetfall you might say, I played a Psynumbra Syndicate Leader.

What do you say in AoW 4 when you finished a game to describe what you actually played as?

I played a Sneaky, Quick, Imperialist, Cannibal Barbarian Halfling culture led by a Human Wizard-King with Chaos, Materium, Nature and Astral magic!

Sadly there is no Clown emoji to express how incredibly dumb the above sentence sounds.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
From the replies I believe I wasn't clear enough when I said "flyiers should land". I don't care for them to land during battles! I was talking about the strategic map: In order for the existence of a ship to make sense, it has to offer something that a flyer cannot offer. My solution for that is that while a ship can be floating for an indefinite number of turns, a dragon or a crow or an eagle at some point should be forced to land. If there is a small distance to cross over the sea, there is no problem for that, but if an eagle is trying to cross the Atlantic Ocean at some point it has to come back or die. Half movement seem perfect because it allows it to come back to where it comes from. Hence the idea that if it ends its turn flying over the sea it can either safely go back to its original point of departure, or try exploring a little more, risking to pass the point of no return. (landing on a boat should be ok)
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Although I understand the interests, as an early-game Alpha Centauri and Frostpunk fan I am more concerned with choices than identities and distinctions, which was more closely presented to me by Triumph than detractors of it's more innovative iteration. But I suppose I can't have everything.

Well, let them make AOW4 2 for a separate series.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Some solid points, some are not so much (like capturing a leader proposal).
When you are pointing out that naval units have no purpose whatsoever I think you are missing the main reason - they aren't even good in combat vs land units. I'm still baffled by how devs could look at naval units and be like - yeah everything is good there. Ou and the most annoying part naval units were ok in previous games, so like what the hell happened.


The bsic problem is that the "chunks" that you patch together your faction from are too small, Culture (not enough techs) Society (not enough and/or not impactful traits) and Tomes (too many to research; less Tiers with more in them would be better).

It's actually rather simple: You need to be able to describe to someone what "faction" you played. In AoW 3 you'd say, "I played a Frostling Warlord with Air Master and Explorer Specialization", and that describes it. In Planetfall you might say, I played a Psynumbra Syndicate Leader.

What do you say in AoW 4 when you finished a game to describe what you actually played as?
Despotic High Fire Frogs (that sadly have no lizard mounts) or Barbaric Snow Elves lead by A Frost Dragon or Imperialistic High Undead Humans or Mana Addicted "not" Vampires, etc. So it is still possible you just have to have a relatively coherent vision in mind and self-restraint to follow it.
 
Despotic High Fire Frogs (that sadly have no lizard mounts) or Barbaric Snow Elves lead by A Frost Dragon or Imperialistic High Undead Humans or Mana Addicted "not" Vampires, etc. So it is still possible you just have to have a relatively coherent vision in mind and self-restraint to follow it.
:D

Play word association with the Highlighted words in the quote of yours.

On a more serious note, the thing is, that your descriptions say not much about what you actually played. Despotic High Fire Frogs with no Lizard Mounts? You could play those your whole life without ever having two which are alike. It doesn't have much meaning in game terms.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
:D

Play word association with the Highlighted words in the quote of yours.

On a more serious note, the thing is, that your descriptions say not much about what you actually played. Despotic High Fire Frogs with no Lizard Mounts? You could play those your whole life without ever having two which are alike. It doesn't have much meaning in game terms.
Lol sure, as Freddie once said "if you hear it, it's there baby".

But on more serious note, you can do the same with Psynumbra Syndicate Leader example that you provided as playing syndicate without touching Psynumbrta tech much if at all, going for Indentured spam or going with Psynumbra Wraiths build or going for Indentured/Initiates. So saying you played Psynumbra Syndicate Leader isn't much more specific than saying I played Despotic High Fire Frogs.

With Frogs example - High - meant High culture; Fire - meant Fire tomes like (Pyro/Chaos Channeling); Despotic - was about tome of Subjugation specifically, this narrows down what was played quite significantly.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
But on more serious note, you can do the same with Psynumbra Syndicate Leader example that you provided as playing syndicate without touching Psynumbrta tech much if at all, going for Indentured spam or going with Psynumbra Wraiths build or going for Indentured/Initiates. So saying you played Psynumbra Syndicate Leader isn't much more specific than saying I played Despotic High Fire Frogs.

With Frogs example - High - meant High culture; Fire - meant Fire tomes like (Pyro/Chaos Channeling); Despotic - was about tome of Subjugation specifically, this narrows down what was played quite significantly.
You are just playing with words and picking what you like. When you say you played Psynumbra Syndicate your tech will be from Syndicate and Psynumbra, and as long as you don't conquer or assimilate anything you don't have access to anything else. Whether you play one more than the other is irrelevant for your identity.

Whereas with AoW 4, Frogs don't mean anything at all - you could also pick the color combo of your shield - High means culture, sure, but that's only THREE techs, albeit important ones; Fire means 1-2 CHAOS tomes while Despotic, if you make the Subjugation connection, means ORDER just as "High". All in all this doesn't tell even half of the story.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
You are just playing with words and picking what you like. When you say you played Psynumbra Syndicate your tech will be from Syndicate and Psynumbra, and as long as you don't conquer or assimilate anything you don't have access to anything else. Whether you play one more than the other is irrelevant for your identity.

Whereas with AoW 4, Frogs don't mean anything at all - you could also pick the color combo of your shield - High means culture, sure, but that's only THREE techs, albeit important ones; Fire means 1-2 CHAOS tomes while Despotic, if you make the Subjugation connection, means ORDER just as "High". All in all this doesn't tell even half of the story.
How would you answer your own question if the game was changed to your proposal?

question was - "What do you say in AoW 4 when you finished a game to describe what you actually played as?"
 
The Godir is the decisive thing here, so you need to know the ruler type (which includes race for Champion, but an aspect for Dragons), and the Culture (which would have a much-bigger-than-three-skills Tome). When you reduce Tome Tiers to 3 (still with 2 different tomes per aspect), the 5th tome you pick can be the highest tier one. Important is only the aspect situation of the ruler, not the empire. Most of the time this would give probably two main aspects, but you could also add traits, if they were important (say, Cannibals).
So you might play a Dark Astral Wizard ruling over Feudalistic Cannibals.
Probably.
 
Some of your thoughts on rivers and teleporters resonate with me.

Here are my thoughts in the topic:
  • Reworking map generation to make rivers embark-able is likely out of scope for the Devs
  • HOWEVER, It would be awesome if rivers were more worth fighting for. Some options: Rivers also give production bonus to adjacent lumber mills, quarries and mines; Rivers function as roads if you have the embark skill;
  • Teleporters not only seem to mess up pathfinding but make positioning much less important and devalue roads and sea travel in the late game. Some ideas: Teleporters can only be built in the throne city and outposts and cost substantially to maintain, encouraging you to only have them during wartime; Limiting it this way will also make vassal cities and allies more valuable as a way to increase your teleporter network without the added cost.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The Godir is the decisive thing here, so you need to know the ruler type (which includes race for Champion, but an aspect for Dragons), and the Culture (which would have a much-bigger-than-three-skills Tome). When you reduce Tome Tiers to 3 (still with 2 different tomes per aspect), the 5th tome you pick can be the highest tier one. Important is only the aspect situation of the ruler, not the empire. Most of the time this would give probably two main aspects, but you could also add traits, if they were important (say, Cannibals).
So you might play a Dark Astral Wizard ruling over Feudalistic Cannibals.
Probably.
What is an aspect, are you talking about affinity?
 
Yep. Affinity.
Roger.
Adding more culture tomes is a good idea (and I believe it will happen at some point it or it could be just more culture spells instead). Reduce Tome tiers to 3 with 2 different tomes per affinity will just streamline the experience, it is kinda cool but doesn't change a lot (also there will be more tomes regardless with all the dlcs that are planned, so 2 different tomes per affinity is unattainable). Restricting main affinity to rulers only is the most interesting proposal, but you didn't explain how would you assign or get those affinities.

Now to your example: Dark Astral Wizard ruling over Feudalistic Cannibals

Society traits:
Unless we are talking about Chosen Destroyers and a few more like Chosen Uniters (vassal spam), Prolific Swarmers (low tier spam), etc. are for the most part of low consequence. Cannibals is one of the top inconsequential society traits, so other than fluff it doesn't add much (so why add it to your example).

Culture:
With your proposal or without, culture is quite important mechanically (it's not just tomes, it is also culture gimmick and building quirks) so we are in agreement there.

Ruler Choice:
I don't see how specifying the ruler type is drastically consequential. It is also strange to see you mention "race" for the Champion when you specifically said that it don't mean anything at all, so why even mention it. Hero background in Planetfall was more consequential and informative than Wizard/Champion/Dragon and you didn't mention it in you "Psynumbra Syndicate" example.

Affinity:
I assume Dark/Astral means Shadow/Astral how does that specify what you have in fact played even with your proposal - 3 Tiers with 2 tomes per affinity (so 6 tomes per affinity in total). How is that helpful to narrowing down what you played as?
Just saying Shadow is quite a range is it Frost Shadow or Undead Shadow or Shadow Shadow (talking about Tome of Oblivion), adding Astral in to the mix doesn't help either (it become 12 tomes now).

So the question is why can't you say "Dark Astral Wizard ruling over Feudalistic Cannibals" now, it would still convey same amount of information. So when you say "All in all this doesn't tell even half of the story", how Dark Astral Wizard conveys more?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Roger.
Adding more culture tomes is a good idea (and I believe it will happen at some point it or it could be just more culture spells instead). Reduce Tome tiers to 3 with 2 different tomes per affinity will just streamline the experience, it is kinda cool but doesn't change a lot (also there will be more tomes regardless with all the dlcs that are planned, so 2 different tomes per affinity is unattainable). Restricting main affinity to rulers only is the most interesting proposal, but you didn't explain how would you assign or get those affinities.
Well, I didn't suggest to add more culture tomes, but to make them bigger and more important. That's more or less ´the whole point of the suggestion: To have LESS tomes to pick and therefore make each pick more important and more defining.

So the question is why can't you say "Dark Astral Wizard ruling over Feudalistic Cannibals" now, it would still convey same amount of information. So when you say "All in all this doesn't tell even half of the story", how Dark Astral Wizard conveys more?
Well, that's exactly the point - NOW you don't actually know what Dark Astral Wizard actually means (or how Dark and Astral the Wizard actually is, while Feudalistic Cannibals is - in game terms - a very specific information (that leaves one thing out which is as important as the cannibals).

The actual situation is also, that it is perfectly possible to pick a tome (especially later in game) and to research just one (or even zero) spell out of it, before you can pick the next one.
 
Well, I didn't suggest to add more culture tomes, but to make them bigger and more important. That's more or less ´the whole point of the suggestion: To have LESS tomes to pick and therefore make each pick more important and more defining.
Yeap I got that (and imo it's not a bad suggestion), but how would you solve the issue of new tomes that are inevitable. Even if there will be only 1 or 2 new tomes with every new DLC, tome number will eventually get bigger and bigger and bigger.

Well, that's exactly the point - NOW you don't actually know what Dark Astral Wizard actually means (or how Dark and Astral the Wizard actually is, while Feudalistic Cannibals is - in game terms - a very specific information (that leaves one thing out which is as important as the cannibals).

The actual situation is also, that it is perfectly possible to pick a tome (especially later in game) and to research just one (or even zero) spell out of it, before you can pick the next one.
Even with less tomes Shadow/Astral Wizard is a vague description, the range on that is huge. Absolutely agree about Feudalistic as I said before, but still don't see how society traits are more than fluff (unless we are talking about the ones that change the way how you play in a big way).

I did know you can research a few, but didn't know you can get away with actual zero spells out of a new tome.
 
I did know you can research a few, but didn't know you can get away with actual zero spells out of a new tome.
It sounds somewhat paradoxical (that you would do it; after all, if you don't want a spell from a tome, why pick it?), but now that it doesn't actually matter for research cost which tome (tier) you pick, you could just reshuffle your first draw after picking a new tome. Chances for that would be higher, the higher the tome tier (you have more older spells in your pool), so you could make short work with your second T4 tome to get the T5.

Yeap I got that (and imo it's not a bad suggestion), but how would you solve the issue of new tomes that are inevitable. Even if there will be only 1 or 2 new tomes with every new DLC, tome number will eventually get bigger and bigger and bigger.
Every new DLC, as it is now will just increase the amount of tomes available, not the amount you can pick. If Tomes would be bigger, the first DLC would have had only ONE new tome, obviously, so I don't think new Tomes would be a problem.

Even with less tomes Shadow/Astral Wizard is a vague description, the range on that is huge. Absolutely agree about Feudalistic as I said before, but still don't see how society traits are more than fluff (unless we are talking about the ones that change the way how you play in a big way).

We would have to look how the Tomes were named to combine Tome and affinity names. I mean, don't get me wrong: I wrote the description thing only as a kind of symptom of what the problem with the game is: you pick a) too often b) not meaningful enough things in the game. So needed are less picks which are more meaningful. Obviously, in AoW 3 you had two important picks to make and 3 less important ones. In AoW 4 it is more like you pick a new AoW 3 specialization each time you pick a tome, except that there are not 2 tiers of specializations but 5 now. The average game as envisioned by the devs should consist of 9 of those plus 3 more at start.
If you accept the development target of offering more picks than in AoW 3, which are consequently less impractful, the sweet spot might logically be (since culture offers teh fighting style) a bigger culture tome to actually increase the importance of the pick. My personal preference would actually not be a bigger culture tome, but a culture spell/skill in each tome you pick (so that tomes would actually look slightly different depending on your culture), but that might be kind of difficult and possibly require to shift spells from affinity to culture.
Secondly, no matter how many spells a tome may contain, 4 research cycles isn't much for each tome, even if the researched skills are important, because it doesn't feel important. It feels more like you picking raisins and then hopping to the next one.

Anyway, I doubt there will be much change with this in the future - it would probably take too much time and resources to restructure the game, which is a pity.

We lost a lot of very interesting game features, quite possibly because of the inability of the AI to keep up. Example: City Founding. City Founding in AoW 3 has been extremely gratifying, imo - but the AI wasn't good at it, so that was - imo - dumbed down in PF already: it doesn't matter that much now, where you found a town, because a province can have only one feature, so it's more of a no-brainer. Another example: XP gain. In AoW 3 that was a question of skill. Starting with PF it became a boring thing. Another example: Unlimited upgrades for units. (unit upgrades in general are boring now compared with AoW 3).
I would have expected the AI profiting from this, since the footing would be more equal, but that's not the case, while at the same time the game requires you to spend more time with stuff like diplomacy (even if a lot of it is meaningless), build stuff in towns the only purpose of which is to allow you to build more and so on.

Meaning, I'm somewhat unhappy with the game right now. For me it's something of a mush at this point, a flurry of heaping enchantments on units so much so, that it's difficult to keep track of them and get a clear idea of how exactly units will do against other units and battles happen more like in a black box.

That got longer than I imagined, sorry for that.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions: