Formations, Tough XP Needed - 7 Tough Units Lined Up - Dragon Fries 3 Before Move, Then Kills 1 More In Second Move.

This is a situation that particularly highlights the need for SOME options for alignment. Knowing that a Dragon can target 9 Units if they are lined up, no sane commander with control of the situation would put all units next to each other.

Even if we had an option before battle to choose Close or Spread, it would still be an infinite improvement on the current situation. Commanders don't go lining up for a Dragon's Breath, well I wouldn't.

Clearly, LH needs SOME option/s for preparing formation of troops before battle.

Also, check out amount of experience the units got, WITH XP boosts. For a unit that can damage pretty much all of your units and kill 3 instantly on its first turn, do you think 17 XP is sufficient? (+10% Altar, +10% Brilliant, All three Potential Traits, 2 +XP Artifacts)

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Subscribe to this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Cubia,

reply 20

On the note of the whole formations thing,

I want to second that one as being quite a bit of a problem. Particularly when you're new to the game... as I am... it's very, very easy to just abruptly have a unit obliterated on the very first turn of combat simply because the game decides to plop it down 2 spaces in front of your guy, and then it gets the first turn and eats him. Noticed this with the cave bears, for example. The fight starts, I wonder "wait, why is that moron already standing RIGHT in front of the bear?", and then the bear gets it's turn instantly, and just wrecks the guy. There's no strategy or tactics here when this happens, because what in the world could I even do about that? I've no way of knowing that positioning will be that bloody stupid BEFORE the fight, and even if I did, I'm not given a chance to do anything. Not to mention that, logically, it doesnt make a lick of sense; why would anyone just casually waddle all the way up to being right in front of something like that BEFORE pulling weapons out and starting to, you know, DO things? Ideally, I would want to maybe smack it with a spell or use some helpful item before the distance is completely closed, but the fight STARTS with it already closed.

Pretty darn annoying, really. I end up saving alot before fights like that just in case it decides to be a snot in that way.

Now as I said, I'm still pretty new to this, but I figured I'd chime in nonetheless, for feedback and all.

yeah, this bugs me too - not knowing how/why the battle layout is going to start. I've had starts like you mentioned - my guys standing directly in harms way, and lose several units before I can even act once - and then the opposite, for some reason - a fight with an enemy faction with several ranged units that, for some reason, started at the other end of a looooong chasm map, about 20 or 25 tiles away. no range limit on bows, and no mounted troops for me (hey, it was early in the game!) meant a LONG walk while it was raining arrows. (To make matters worse, the enemy spellcaster had the ability to guard her troops, so my archers had a 8% chance to hit back... *sigh*

Don't get me wrong - varied tactical maps and battlefields (and even starting positions) are not necessarily a bad thing; but I should kinda know what to expect a little (maybe based on the terrain I'm fighting in) and have some control over it - or, if not control, then at least know what it'll be so I can decide not to fight if the terrain is going to be a problem. Or, if no control and no warning, at least make it seem less random!

(edit: for the record, after looking at some reviews, I went and grabbed AoW:SM off of steam for $10. figured it looked like the kind of game I'd like, and I bet I can get $10 worth of fun out of it!)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting joeherbert48,

reply 17

Lol Gamerankings and Metacritic? you actually BELIEVE those scores? lmao The reviewers have been sooooooo WRONG on sooooooooo many games it's hilarious. Well I see where you "mentality" is now well below "intelligent" when you start spouting and BELIEVING scores from those websites.

Also "everyone" here does NOT agree with you because I have seen others who don't like AOW:SM so don't try to use false information to bolster your own "opinions" lol

A review is an opinion, it can not be wrong. It can be poorly written, or misinformed, but that's why you never just look at one. I do not read reviews, I usually do not care what other people think of games, I form my own opinions. However what sites like gamerankings and metacritic provide is the average opinion of a game. AoW:SM has a high average rating, meaning most people liked it, you can't really dispute that without... well... sounding like you.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I like the idea that meager little men or trogs tend to be toasted morsals for the dragon. Its a bad a** creature of the game. I don't mind the sacrifice but I would like to see an option to bring reenforcements to the battle if my faithful followers go up in a pyre of flame for a dragon snack as long as more can come do battle and feed the dragon more once my cannon fodder have been sacrificed to the firey beast. I Like the idea of some things that would have the devotion of substasintial resources to take down, so long as thay don't simply wonder some poor backwater kingdom to obilterate town apon town as it tours the scenic countryside.

Also from an earlier comment of battle alignment, it might be a good idea to add this trait to the commanders traits or general traits of all.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What an awesome thread! Two things:

1. Getting scaled down XP for managing to kill a monster more powerful than you is about as unfun as anything I can imagine. It has to be fixed.

2. AoW:SM was a really good game despite the poor AI. With great AI it would probably be the best fantasy strategy game of all time and we would quite likely still be playing it rather than FE/LH...

All IMO of course.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting sweatyboatman,

reply 7

From my perspective stardock can go two diametrically opposite directions.

A: Continue to obfuscate everything that has to do with experience. In which case, get rid of the after-battle report. The information there is pretty much useless. If you don't want the player to strategize and min-max experience, then don't show it to us. Heroes will continue to level semi-randomly, meaningless battles will continue to generate outsize gains while epic battles with mass casualties result in tiny benefits. The RPG element of the game will suffer, of course, but c'est la vie.

B: Make experience explicit. Make monsters give a fixed amount of experience and show us the experience gain on the pre-battle report and on the quest's opening page. Any calculation that goes into experience should be explicit and consistent throughout the game. Don't use secret sliding scales based on army strength; in fact, don't do anything tricky behind the scenes. If the monster gives heroes 10xp, and your hero is in the army that killed it, your hero gets 10xp.

Personally, I prefer B. I agree with you that the issue isn't experience progression, but the number of factors that interrelate in a way that approaches rocket science. There's no apparent rhyme or reason why a very tough battle should net next to no XP, while a battle that is much easier should net considerably more.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'll just put in my 2c.

In every game when a player faces a challenge he expects and deserves a reward. When you kill a dragon, getting about 8xp is just plain silly. I'd put that in a bug section, not suggestion, balance or whatever because the game fundamentally fails to do what it's supposed to do - place a challenge in front of the player and then REWARD him for overcoming that challenge.

Successfully updated karma reason!