Generic or Unique

[Arthur2]

no i mean the settlements

it only adds like...wut? 15 population?

i think we shold add a little bit more than that

well 15 in SWGB is a lot

but in AoM is very little becauz units cost more than 1 pop, most of the time

[CorranSec]

Ah, so to actually figure out this settlement thing, balance had to be turned on its head? Very nicely done, AoM creators. *applauds*

I'm talking, of course, about the fact that towers were downgraded and made more expensive, practically based on the fact that the game designers decided, as so many are, that "We don't want you to play our game in any way other than the way WE want you to. That is, attack attack attack (including rush), not so much defense, and DEFINITELY no turtling. We also want far more actual man-to-man battles than man-to-defense battles, because we don't like them."

 

Seems.............. very.............. hmmmmm........... what's the word................

BLIZZARD!!!!!!?????

 

Hmm. The much-vaunted AoM has fallen into the pits of despair of a tryhard Craft. Pity.

 

Of course, I may be exaggerating, but towers and defenses SHOULD be good. That's one of the main points of the Age series (excluding AoM, of course): the ability to play defensively if you wish, including turtling, because defensive structures and defensive positions are pretty damned good. But, if you wish, and/or if that's the way your civ works, you CAN plan massive attacks, raids, and rushes.

 

That's the main appeal of the Ages (and GB). The Crafts are mainly attacky/rushy; the 'grand epics' eg. RoN are drawn out campaign/defensy..... but the Ages (in the past) have proven to be able to handle both.

Settlements, if they don't totally eliminate this ability to use any strat, certainly deal it a hefty amount of damage.

If we don't use settlements, varied strats are still available, we don't need to screw around with balance, and there won't be any unbreakable stalemates.

[Arthur2]

yeah i kinda feel the same about AoM

it's turning into something very Blizzard-ish

i like some of the features they added

but i got bored after 2 games cause there is no more large scale siege

i mean, man-to-man combat is cool, no problem with that

but then if we HAVE to fight man-to-man, what about strategy?

the advantage is not to fight ur enemies face-to-face.

It's better to let the defensive buildings do their job, cause IF u dun have any ppl in ur town, ppl can use siege weapons and crush ur town without losing one man.

 

btw, settlements is no fun if ppl won't really use it for further development but conquering it for some population like "15"

can't build anything with that, eh....

even if u conquer all the settlements on the map, i mean...so wut?

each settlement adds 10~15

that's not exactly a lot of population

[simwiz2]

Corran, I'm not sure if you realize this but once in T4 it is incredibly easy for a turtle to make a game of GB drag on for hours, which is no fun at all for the other person. I hate to say this because otherwise the game has great balance, but before LA doubled building HP's with Shields, they should have considered the effects IMO. That is what I was hinting at in my last post. Buildings do not have to be weak, but they don't need to have 10000+ hp and shoot 5 lasers. THAT is probably why you think a game with settlements will be a stalemate: GB buildings are so strong. The fact that grenadiers can destroy any siege in seconds and defensive AC's can destroy any covering units doesn't help much. Believe me, any other game would not stalemate.

 

Actually I think buildings in AoM should have 50-80% more HP, castle-type buildings cost twice as much, and all non-tc defense have +2 range. I'm not too fond of the way some chariots can outrange towers either. Perhaps Eggy's should get an additional +2 defense bldg range tech, while Greeks should get a +4 defense bldg attack tech, and norse should just get some unit improvement. Siege should be more expensive and have a 1.0-1.5 sec deploy time IMO, so you can't micro the hell out of them.

 

I really dislike how easy it is to coat a map with castles, but even more than that I dislike how easily they fall, like paper castles.

 

Btw, 15 pop per TC is very significant. If you capture all 6 contested ones in a game you have 90 more pop, and therefore 45 more foot units to put in an army.

[Sithmaster_821]

Yeah simwiz, thats because youre a turtle through and through;) (j/k)

 

Actually Corran, AoM has found the balance between the turtle fests of SWGB and the rush fests of WC3, building hp wise

 

WC3 buildings<AoM buildings<SWGB buildings

 

Buildings are still quite strong and forts/hill forts/migdols still strike fear in the hearts of many, but it isnt as buildings>all as SWGb was

[simwiz2]

Migdols die so easy to regular units and a few MU's that you don't even need siege. Siege is only necessary if you want minimal losses. Buildings fall like paper. They should stand longer but cost more. A LOT MORE. A migdol should be more or less rare. The fact that a player in T4 has the resources to coat a map with Migdols is simply awful cost balancing. Maybe they shoulda left stone in...

[Arthur2]

i think the problem is more about the way ppl siege

when u siege

u cover ur siege weapons

and siege weapons have long range

so i don't think it's a problem

when i siege

i camp my army outside of the enemy base and start firing at their fortresses

if they don't send troops to defend themselves, their base will be torn down sooner or later...

Gernade troopers, well, maybe u haven't noticed, but there is something called Dark trooper, or maybe some other anti-trooper stuff that u can use

mechs are strong, but they are weak against troopers, sometimes

u need to defend them

 

i dun think u can drag on for hours with just defensive buildings

it's either u win the siege or u lose the siege

and there is definitely no way that u can lose the siege if all ur enemy has is some crappy defensive stucture, unless u are some kinda stupid newbie who rely on mass trooper

 

i mean, heavy assault mech, cannons, pummels are all great siege weapons, and they have range longer than most towers (except pummels), how can u possibly , NOT win the siege when there are no troops garrisoning

if there are troops garrisoning then u fight them, and then siege later

 

as simple as that

i've seen some good players around and i don't think that rule applies to any of the AoK engine games.

play against some hardest comps and u'll know

computers build like 50 fortresses, but then it's only a matter of time

 

there is nothing wrong with strong buildings

as long as there are siege weapons, it won't be a problem

and i would say that SWGB's got good siege weapons

[CorranSec]

GB did actually make an improvement over Ages I and II in terms of siege: The introduction of firstly Assault Mechs and Bombers, both very good against smashing down any defensive structure, and in CC the Air Cruiser, which is basically the top anti-turtle unit of all time.

I don't much like the wall shields either, but fact is, walls aren't the major concern when you're trying to attack someone, considering that most units have long range.

The thing is that buildings SHOULD be good. It shouldn't be as easy as it is in WC3 and, according to simwiz, in AoM, to knock a huge fortress down.

Even so, I'd much rather a game equally balanced between attacking and defense. GB attempted this, and the power of fortresses and the like is balanced out by a general lack of ore, but sometimes the balance tipped one way or another. AoM seems to have a great focus on attack, which sounds pretty damned bad.

The siege is one of the critical parts of nearly every RTS, and taking it out is removing yet another essential element. Just the same, purely man-to-man fighting has no place in any RTS, let alone Star Wars, in which- in case you hadn't noticed- amazingly advanced machinery and technology is always present.

A lack of siege and the like is yet another hallmark of Blizzard.... even though the Blizzard games didn't actually focus on the man-to-man fighting as such (there were large mechs and ships and the like), the focus was still on the down-and-dirty toe-to-toe battle.

 

Here's what I think- if you want a Blizzard-ish focussed-battle micromanagement-ish game, go all the way, and make it Warcraft 4, or some such. If you want an Age II-ish economy-heavy defensive-structure strategical-options game, go all the way, and make it Age III. This half-and-half, ATTEMPTING to convert the good points of each into a kind of "Age III," is just a waste of time.

[Arthur2]

oh yeah i forgot to mention the shield generator

i don't think it's a problem...

cauz gernade troopers are strong vs shield, so are bombers

and besides

i don't think ppl build MORE THAN ONE power generator to power up the shield

so, by all means, BLOW UP THE POWER GENERATOR

gotta play smart , dude, if u can't, then too bad u gotta crush down the first few defensive structures before u go in and knock out the shield generator

personally i think the shield generator is good, like CorranSec stated, it's balanced due to a general lack of ore.

besides, the range of the shield generator is not that big, it's pretty easy to get to the shield generator

[simwiz2]

Do you know about air cruisers? Air cruisers, if micro'ed the hell out of, will destroy your cover units. Then in comes the grenadiers! Byebye cannons! AA Mobiles chasing the AC's? Byebye AA mobiles, Grenadiers gonna kill them! Sure, an AC may be lost. But the attacker will often lose a hell of a lot of cannons, and ultimately, the attack.

 

The defender ovbiously needs some army. But not much of one, just enough to cover some grenadiers to destroy the enemy cannons. AA turrets will protect Air Crusiers. Air Crusiers will knock out a good chunk of the attacker's army, allowing Grenadiers several seconds to destroy many expensive cannons before re-enforcements come.

 

Arthur, I don't know of anyone besides you who would be dumb enough to attack a shielded fortress with nothing but laser troopers. That could only happen to an intelligent person if your dumb micromanagement hero idea was implemented. "That fortress is the most threatening, let's go kill it!."

 

Let's break down your post:

i think the problem is more about the way ppl siege

when u siege

(1) u cover ur siege weapons

(2) and siege weapons have long range

so i don't think it's a problem

when i siege

(3) i camp my army outside of the enemy base and start firing at their fortresses

(4) if they don't send troops to defend themselves, their base will be torn down sooner or later...

(5) Gernade troopers, well, maybe u haven't noticed, but there is something called Dark trooper, or maybe some other anti-trooper stuff that u can use

(6) mechs are strong, but they are weak against troopers, (7) sometimes

(8) u need to defend them

 

(9) i dun think u can drag on for hours with just defensive buildings

(10) it's either u win the siege or u lose the siege

(11) and there is definitely no way that u can lose the siege if all ur enemy has is some crappy defensive stucture, unless u are some kinda stupid newbie who rely on mass trooper

 

(12) i mean, heavy assault mech, cannons, pummels are all great siege weapons, and they have range longer than most towers (except pummels), how can u possibly , NOT win the siege when (13) there are no troops garrisoning

(14) if there are troops garrisoning then u fight them, and then siege later

 

as simple as that

i've seen some good players around and i don't think that rule applies to any of the AoK engine games.

(15) play against some hardest comps and u'll know

(16) computers build like 50 fortresses, but then it's only a matter of time

 

there is nothing wrong with strong buildings

as long as there are siege weapons, it won't be a problem

and i would say that SWGB's got good siege weapons

 

1 - No sh!t

2 - Again, no sh!t

3 - Isn't that nice? Better watch for them defensive AC's if you're camping your whole army there though.

4 - You assume they will have no army at all. I never said that was the case.

5 - In case you didn't notice there is something called Air Cruisers, heard of them? They are very good as an anti-ground unit. Byebye DT's, Strikes, and Troopers!

6 - Mechs? Well AFAIK Strikes are pretty damn strong VS troopers, and if Assaults are well defended they can knock out many troopers with Area Attack... so what mechs are you talking about? Even a mech destroyer can take 3-5 Repeaters down with it.

7 - Could you do us all a favor and not write pretty little poems? Sometimes WHAT? You make no sense. Is it sometimes mechs are weak or sometimes you need to defend them?

8 - No sh!t. Are you sure about that? I was taught one-unit type armies were the best kind of army one could have!

9 - You can drag it on for an hour or more with defensive buildings and a skeleton garrison.

10 - And I thought my French teacher said dumb, ovbious things. You either win or you lose: what kind of dumb@$$ statement is that? I will repeat: no sh!t. Please refrain from stating the obvious in the future, I doubt this forum has many 2-year olds viewing it (besides Sith I mean )

11 - You are a fine one to talk about n00bs, I mean you want a hero to play the game for you because you don't know how to manage troops, but hey, I guess your knowledge is superior. Attacking shielded fortresses with laser troopers is a bad idea. Never woulda realized that, thanks for the strategy hints.

12 - Lasers have range? Where the hell did you hear that? And cannons? I always considered them to be a melee weapon!

13 - For the last time, I never said there would be no army at all! Jeez, how many AC's (protected by AA) do you think it takes to force back an army, how many Grenadiers does it take to destroy tightly packed cannons, how hard could it be for a few units to hit and run from the towers!

14 - Except you will be fighting the army under many lasers from garrisoned towers. Tower lasers hurt in this game. A lot. So do AC bolts. Assuming the defender micro's the units correctly, there will be minimal AC friendly fire.

15 - I have, but it is boring.

16 - That is beause the computer is DUMB. STUPID. WORSE THAN A N00B. AI HAS NO BRAINS! IT DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO GET THE FULL POTENTIAL OUT OF ITS UNITS! The AI cannot even use AC's correctly.

 

Arthur, your post seems to convey that you assume I know nothing of late game battle. I am not saying that turtling is the ultimate strategy. I am not saying that a n00b could beat an expert by turtling. All I am saying is that in a game against 2 more-or-less evenly matched people, one can drag a game out for a long time by turtling. And that is boring.

[Sithmaster_821]

Simwiz, the amount of resources (remeber the favor cost) needed to coat the map with even hill forts is better spent on units. Buildings will die to an army that costs more than the building, or to siege or certain MUs that were meant to counter buildings. Also remember that the Eggies and Norse get a chunk of their armies from the buildings, so making them strong and expensive is counter balance. Also remember that this isnt AoC, where casltes ruled everything but trebs, and the weaker buildings lead to more fluid games. I think ensemble learned their lesson from the BBT forests of AoC or games when people relied solely on buildings. In AoM, if you have an army that is even half the size of the attacker, the forts will turn the tide. Only siege and siege MUS are the effective ways to take down even slightly defended buildings.

[CorranSec]

Well, Sith, that also sounds terribly bad. First it was too strong, now it's too weak.... what is WITH this AoM!?

Anyway, if you actually link what you were saying to our debate, I'll happily respond.

 

Arthur! Simwiz! Everybody! PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO ME, JUST FOR A MOMENT.

We are discussing options for GB 2. As such, there may not even be shield generators, laser troopers, fortresses and so on in GB 2. If the majority of game players have their way, the Air Cruiser will definitely not exist in GB 2.

Here's what I'm thinking WILL happen in a GB 2 siege:

Attacker is a ground civ with good heavy mechanized units and heavy assault units (these are like the Heavy Weapons of the current GB).

Defender is also a ground civ, but excelling at light mechs and troopers instead, as well as defensive structures.

If Defender doesn't have a wall, there will be a damned lot of hacking around inside and outside their base, but I'll ignore that possibility for the moment.

Defender's towers are behind the wall, and cannot reach Attacker's heavy attack mechs and destruction mechs (both big attacky things eg. AT-ATs). They start knocking down the wall, but Defender sends out a bunch of light mechs, and battle is done.

*laser fire* *mech collapse noises*

While this is going on, Defender builds some more towers both inside and outside his base. These towers begin to shoot at Attacker's force, which has been reinforced by more mechs.

Depending on the different strategies, units, resources etc. of each force, it would probably go one of 2 ways:

1) Attackers heavy mechs totally smash Defender's towers, and move on to conquer his base, OR

2) Defender's light mechs and troopers, with the benefit of agility and speed, drive away the attackers.

[Arthur2]

that simwiz2's post was too long and it's 3:00 in the afternoon, dozed off on the bus, don't feel like reading some ghetto crap

well let me make it simple

 

wut u are talking about is still unit-to-unit battle

LOL

let's see u gernade someone's mechs when there are laser troopers around, ppl aren't dumb

things won't go as fluent as u think it will

if u successfully defended ur town, i dun see a problem with that

cause that means u got good tactics to break down the enemy formation

 

yeah i did assume u know nothing about the game

cauz u keep saying that defense is too strong

no it's not, defense is the same as offense, u need tactics, and i don't think anyone is dumb enuff to outnumber ur fortresses and towers with laser troopers, the defensive structures are only useful to some certain extent....

and besides, DEFENDERS always have the advantage, no doubt about that...

well read corransec's post

offense and defense are balanced, cause the offense is way stronger, and the range is longer

in AoK, u can almost block ANYTHING both just couple of castles, and only a few units can take down castles, if u don't have enuff paladins, u'll have to retreat when u lose all ur terbuchets...now, that's crap balance, SWGB is a lot better

so stop complaining

 

about corransec's SWGB 2 thing, i need some visual to really understand it....

[Sithmaster_821]

Corran's mock battle was cool:cool: I understood it:) Sheilds were one of the best features in SWGB, it made the game a lot less linear.

 

And we were talking bout implenting settlemnts into GB2, and AoM did settlements quite well. I think settlements make perfect sense, seeing that most of the battles in SWGB are meant ot occur on foreign planets, and settlements are the towns tof the indigeous people (like Ewoks)

 

And, since i already know simwiz's response to Arthur's post, let me say they were Wookie troopers, with +30 hp, +2 pierce armor, and regeneration, vs rebel heavies, which were the worst in the game.

[simwiz2]

LOL Sith, are you talking about that 1v1 in April where I had a Last Stand? The last stand that lasted well over 3 hours and slaughtered 300+ of your units, only ending when you kamikazeed an 80+ unit air force into AA to knock out my grenadiers, and I had no more nova to make more? That was funny. I expected the game to end soon after I lost the army battle, yet after knocking down the corner of a hastily-built wall, it took you well over an hour to push my defense line back! And 3 hours to win!

 

Btw I have seen the turtle thing work very well. I tested it once, against Bulzye. I had had a game dragged out by a turtle, and I wanted to see how effective it really was. Assuming the turtle isn't rushed, the game can take quite a while. I held off Bulzye's attacking army with a mere wall and turrets, 2 AC's, 5 masters, and 15 grenadiers, and a few more units as necessary, for over 3 hours.

 

__=wall

T =turret

C =cannon

A =AA turret

FF =Fortress

___________________________________

T T C A C T FF C T A C A C C T T A C T A C C T

 

 

Attacker=Rebs (no SE)

Defender = Reps

 

First Attack:

40 troopers, 30+ MD's, about 40 other army units that I dont remember what kind they were, and at least 10 cannon (packed together) start dropping shells on the corner turret. 3 shielded cannons fire back at cannons rather ineffectively, but the 2 AC's wipe out the 40 FU troopers. They escape back to the AA turrets. 15 grenadiers force the mech destroyers to retreat, then demolish every cannon. About 5 are lost to various other units (including bounties). My jedi are not even needed. The fighters sent to avenge the 40 troopers die a horrible death to the AA turrets.

 

Telling all the details of the turtle test is getting a bit boring... and you must get the idea Arthur, so instead of me wasting 3 hours of my life relating every detail, think of an attack plan, and I will tell you how it would die horribly to a turtle.

[Kryllith]

Should have attacked it with ACs with fighter backups... a couple of shots would have taken out the grenaders and the AC's could have stayed out of the range of the AA turrents while still dealing damage to them, the walls, etc...

 

Kryllith

[lukeiamyourdad]

I'm not sure but in April i don't think they could have had CC.

[simwiz2]

The April game was pre-CC. If it had been post-CC I would have killed MANY more units.

 

I was Reps in the test, and stealth starfighters would have destroyed the enemy AC's easily and fighters could have distracted enemy fighters possibly even taking out an AC as well. I would never have let my Grenadiers die that easy, I would move them back a bit. AC shot misses, and my own AC's would be able to fire back at enemy AC's and aid my fighters in killing them.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Anyway, you sure have a good memory. Remembering one game in April.......

[simwiz2]

I remember it because it was sooo hilarious. Tactics almost triumphed over econ, despite GB being about 70% econ! Well over 300 units, several assaults of 150 or more units, annihilated by a tiny ragtag group of grenadiers and laser troopers, a few rusty cannons, and some other assorted guerilla fighters not totaling more than 40 at any given time (I had almost no resources thanks to his jedi raid, and I was also new to the game and had a lamentable econ). At the end of the game I had lost about 120 units, and 60 of those were from the battle that I lost before the Last Stand. Then, outnumbered at least 3 to 1, I killed over 300 units and only lost 60. And the 60 I lost were cheap trooper-type units mostly, while his were expensive cannons and assault mechs.

 

It wasn't so much exceptional tactics by me, it was mostly terrible tactics by Sith. One assault plan I will never fully understand was this: Sith sent 10 cannons 1500 pixels around to the side to destroy an unshielded fortress, keeping his trooper army 1500 pixels away where it was. My 25 grenadiers (staggered formation) come and start slaughtering the cannons, so he decides to send some units to save them. Troopers? No, that would make too much sense! He sent Rebel Assault Mechs to kill my FU Wookiee Grenadiers!

 

Inevitably he lost 12 cannons then (10 + 2 more that he sent, confident his mechs would kill my grenadiers) and all 8 of the assault mechs he sent to save the cannons. That's 5200 Nova! And I only lost a 550 nova fortress and 2, 20 nova grenadiers!

[Sithmaster_821]

Tactics almost triumphed over econ

They did. Clever tactics uprooted a turtle with all the holocrons.

 

 

You lost about 300 as well. We had equal armies when i first hit you, but mine were +upgraded, under a shield and being healed. The you lost countless cannons and workerstrying to defend your town, not to mention the fact you had to rebuild your grenadier army and lost your army/econ when i wiped you out

 

 

Is it just me or did they add that?

[simwiz2]

Originally posted by Sithmaster_821

(1) They did. Clever tactics uprooted a turtle with all the holocrons.

 

(2) You lost about 300 as well. (3) We had equal armies when i first hit you, but mine were +upgraded, under a shield and being healed. (4) The you lost countless cannons and workerstrying to defend your town, not to mention the fact you had to (5) rebuild your grenadier army and (6) lost your army/econ when i wiped you out

 

Is it just me or did they add that?

 

1 - Hate to pop your ego, but it was only my second game. If I had beaten you that would have meant that you suck horribly at GB. And I wasn't turtling, I was taking a last stand after my army got sliced by lasers.

 

2 - Not even close. Barely over 100. Too bad I didn't save screenshots from then, I would like to prove you wrong AGAIN. And even if I had lost 300, remember that they were cheap units. I was not having 350-nova assault mechs cut down to enemy fire. You simply did not understand the concept of counter units.

 

3 - Yes, and you also had many times more fighters than I was prepared to counter. But like I said, my second game.

 

4 - Not even close to the many you lost trying to push my wall back... you got it back 3 tiles and it stalled there, your cannons exploded under a thick cloud of grenades, and your assault mechs met a similarly tragic fate.

 

5 - Yes, I did periodically have to replace the 1-2 grenadiers (20 nova each) lost as your troopers chased me trying to avenge the 200 nova cannons I had just killed. Occasionally if you got a lucky assault mech shot in, I may lose several, which is why I ended up losing about 60 units total in that defense. But if you had used tactics that even remotely approached intelligence, you should have rolled right over my town. Especially since Wookiee turrets had 1 less range, and there were no AC's for me to use in the last stand.

 

6 - Yes, finally after 3 hours by Kamikazeeing an 80-unit airforce into my base! And remember, my second game, while you had been playing GB since Christmas.

[Sithmaster_821]

actually will, it was like your tenth game Two other 1v1, plus a handful of games on the zone (remember commenting on the fact that neither of us rushed vs each other, something we only started after a bunch of zone games)

 

and grenadiers cost 40 nova

[simwiz2]

We did not start having zone games until after that game, that was when we decided that it would be more fun because our 1v1's were reaching near stalemates.

 

It was my second game. First game we had was on a modified black forest map, second was that game on a flats map.

 

20<350

40<350

 

I don't see the problem. It's not like an extra 20 nova even comes close to your 350 nova mechs. 20 must be the mounties then...

[Sithmaster_821]

We started zone games as the first one hit a stalement. Then we played that map again, while still playing zone games. We slowly got used to rushing, so our next one vs one was on the map we both liked after playing a number of times on the zone: flats.

 

Edit-Post 700, oh yeah!