I’ve been playing a lot of classic MoM lately and this is something I can 100% get behind.
Briefly read the article. Its long but imho fairly shallow, by which I mean there is another layer to explore when discussing mechanics.
It’s one thing to say “keep mods/adjust mods/remove mods” etc, like in the article, but I don’t think enough attention is being paid to the reason for any one mechanic to exist.
Using mods, for example, I think they were great for one very good reason, which was retaining unit relevancy, i.e. lower tier units were still useful towards the later game, and it was not neceesary, indeed actually sub optimal, to stack higher level units (that comes under another aspect, which would be unit design)
So, moving forward to a future game, the questions I would be asking would be along the lines of:
How do we keep lower tier units relevant?
How do we make units interesting?
How donwe encourage combined arms?
PF was great at this due to each race having 2 distinct pathways (e.g. psionic and arc for Syndicate) and secret tech and cosmite and distinct, interesting faction design (very different experiencebeing Shakarn or Oathbound, for example), the result being that you could play the same faction in very varied ways.
Syndicate with a focus on arc, or a focus on psionic, or a focus on your secret tech (of which there were 8 iirc at the end of the game cycle)
This was a big improvement over AoW3.
Now, the obvious wish is to have a version of cosmite, etc etc, but I think we ought to drill down a level and ask the questions I posed above.
Doing so, i.e. brainstorming answers, generates several answers, and I think, personally, this is much more interesting ground for discussion than just saying "Planetfall but fantasy, " which several people have expressed a desire for.
And I say this as someone who thinks cosmite is the crowning achievement of PF.
I haven’t played in a long time but off the top of my head, and reiterating some things mentioned here:
-
I’d prefer a much more limited use of mods on a unit. I felt like I needed to look at each enemy unit and see what mods they had each battle, which really made things feel tedious. If there is something like unit mods I hope you can make their use obvious and at a glace. I prefer a unit just being a base unit and then you can cast spells to give them perks.
-
Please focus on making the map easy to read. What is just tile art, what is a place to visit or an item to interact with. Please make it obvious. Also please let me click on a place on the map that I discovered but don’t have current vision of so I can determine what it was and what enemies / guards were there at the time I last visited. I know that if it is not in my current sight that maybe it was visited by the AI and the goodies may no longer be there, but don’t make me remember or write down what the site was and what it contained.
Do you mean basically a smaller pool of mods, and simpler?
If it were fantasy I’d say mods more or less = unit enchantments.
That’s how I’d rework mods.
And in tandem, I’d probably redo the magic system entirely.
The first game still has the best magic system imho.
Unit Enchantments and I’d also add equipment that can be used by units, rather than heroes. Maybe units can have (depending on certain factors) one or maybe two Accessory slots for example. But I think equipment should always be found and not “purchased” - like I don’t want to have to deal with creating variants of units that I can then build. That’s one thing I didn’t enjoy in PF, despite thinking it would be fun - it just added to much minutia I think.
I guess I mean that maybe the economy that controls what units have mods and how many mods puts the brakes on how common they are so I don’t need to examine every unit to see how if differs from the unmodded unit. Or in a less wordy way - less units have mods. :-)
This too
I adore the Empire Mode and would love for that to be expanded upon
On a different tangent, I do want to say that one of the best things that Age of Wonders 3 got right was the map generation. Burned in my memory are some little vignette’s of maps I played - the craggy island to the north home to a lost civilisation (dragons, I think). Or the meandering road leading into marshland on the edge of the map and the last vestiges of civilisation, a small tavern where I could recruit anyone down on their luck. Of course this was all chance, but it created those evocative images in my head. I never got the same ‘feel’ in Planetfall though. The maps there felt more chaotic. And to echo @robc04 sentiment, the map was less easy to read.
I’d have to think about what I’d like to see in a future game. Oh, well the first one that comes to mind is more diverse maps when fighting battles! Definitely needs an exclamation point there.
I think it would be an interesting thought experiment to brainstorm a set of desired characteristics, then chart possible routes to them.
I’ll start:
Aim - no obsolete units.
Possible methods:
Gate higher tier units by cost (e.g. population as a resource for demonic units) building requirements;
Design higher tier units to be side grades instead of straight upgrades (e.g. how the shrine of smiting scaled off the number of devout units)
Methods to upgrade lower tier units, e.g. lowering their cost as the game goes on, or soemthing like cosmite which amplifies unit power but costs more for unit tiers.
Tweak upkeep costs, same as purchase costs.
Remove the tier system entirely and have all units follow upgrade paths similar to how battle brothers works, but on a larger scale.
Go for a more modular unit Design system like in Endless Legend, so races get blank units and the costs scale the more stuff is added to the unit, e.g. have mounts cost 100 gold, so a unit that is allocated a mount now costs +100 gold.
Have units that serve purposes not just in combat, for example how in Dominions your mages affect your research rate.
Byild more support units ==> increase your research or mana generation.
A logistics/supply system, e.g. food, that favours lower tier units (horses eat so much more than humans…)
Edit: another idea:
Change battle system to shift the point at which higher tier units provide more bang for buck.
Currently, in AoW3, with 6 units per stack and the adjacent hex rule, it is very difficult to leverage the economic advantage of lower tier units.
It is much easier to have a 6 stack of Manticore Riders than it is to have the equivalent cost in Pikes and Archers, which would be 6 stacks, even though that later combo will win.
One possibility would be to remove the hard unit limit of x units per stack, and link it to supply and morale mechanics, so a larger stack uses progressively more supply/upkeep etc.
In other words, you could theoretically have a stack, or army, of 50 units, but that would require more upkeep than 10 armies of 5 units each.
This reflects, to a degree, real life logistical issues where the more people there are in one area, the harder it is to service them.
For a holidays relevant example, try cooking Christmas dinner for 3 people and then for 15.
Your energy costs are 5×, but your cooker capacity is not, and you probably don’t have 5*the number of plates, cutlery, seats, table space etc to hand, so one more thing to consider.
You could link this supply system to the sector system, so each sector produces x amount of food, some uses by the local city/citizens, and more used when an army is in that sector.
So the bigger the army in the sector the faster the food goes.
So, a big army in a desert sector ==> problems! Which makes an intuitive sort of sense to me.
This also opens up more distinction in units. Some units would require more (cavalry)or less (peasants) food, or maybe none (undead)
Devil’s Advocate: What’s wrong with obsolete units? When I play Total War Warhammer I’m not looking to field a lot of low grade Spearmen in my main army, after all. Those units are for garrisons and the like while the real army seizes new territory.
It limits the strategy of army composition. There’s also a problem of units that are interesting, unique, and fun to use but if they get obsoleted you really can’t use them past a certain point.
Which would mean they’re not obsolete.
:P
Does Warhammer have a garrison system anyway?
Obsolete in an AoW context is better understood as a useless unit.
Ovwr the course of a game, raw and lower tier units might indeed be made less useful (evwryone wants a Dragon as it should be,) but the intent here, i.e. my intent, is for a system whereby your early game units still have utility towards the end.
This could be done by making higher tier units have higher requirements like certain buildings, and even better (imho) having tensions in those buildings (i.e. not every settlement can byild every building. Perhaps limit it by space or population etc) so that lower tier units are by definition the most available.
If I were designing AoW I would have sectors, much more numerous but smaller than PF sectors, and I would put nearly all the city buildings onto those sectors, and have building dependency (barracks level 2 requires level 1, archer requires barracks and range etc) because that results in more thought required to gain units, more counterplay to stop your opponent having units (burn the sector down, not the whole city) and because the value of a city goes up the larger it is, the limiting factor is now map size, which incidentally helps against Infinite City Spam.
You can see that just by discussing units, with a fairly easy to understand goal of “keep them relevant and fun”, that other mechanics come into play.
A game like AoW3 has interlocking systems/mechanics, which is why I thought starting with a desired outcome was a more interesting line of discussion than just advocating for a desired mechanic.
The above goal, of “units relevant throughout the game,” (or words to that effect)
Has thrown up:
Sector system
Logistics system
New building/city system
Unit design
Adjacent hex and other combat rules
Fwiw I like more organic systems or hard systems, e.g.
“as a city expands, it takes up more space with its buildings,”
or,
“a supply system where the more armies you have in an area the greater the strain on the area,” as opposed to (x units in a stack, y stacks max in a battle) but the downside there is (x units per stack) is very very easy to understand.
Btw, Dominions has a pretty cool (imho) command points system whereby you can out however many troops you want under a commander but if you exceed the command ability, those troops do their own things in combat.
That would mesh quite well in an AoW where stack sizes were unlimited/larger and also cut down on battles taking longer and longer with higher combatant numbers. Downside is some people would lose their shit at not being able to micro every single thing.
It’d also open up more varied hero upgrade paths where commander type heroes are more viable and interesting.
Hero mechanics would be an interesting next step in this wishlist.
I’d rather have interesting army compositions of different mid- and late-game units than feel obligated to keep using the units I started a campaign with, tbh. I do want to have a reason to build low tier units, as maybe some of them are scouts or have other functions that are still important even in the end game and we don’t want to be removing any potential interesting strategic choices or anything, but my “army composition” strategy in the mid- and end-game should be very different from the early game, or it will all feel samey.
What you are maybe wanting is a system in which low tier units are still required because the more powerful stuff is limited and rare/hard to have more than at most one or two?
Yeah, as you expand the cities capabilities the built-in units that protect it during an attack improve. So a lot level city has maybe 3 archers and 3 spears and then as you expand a late game garrison could be 2 knights, 2 wizards, 2 master archers, 2 archers, 2 spears, 2 heavy armor spears, 1 griffon (I made those up as a quick example). It’s a great system, but even there your late game garrisons are useful due to having higher quality units.
Usually what makes low tier units useful is they cost little to train/upkeep so you can have them in a second or third army. I still want that for a game like this, but I’m not going to like feeling obligated to keep a slot for an early game Swordsman in my main army(s) - I don’t think that’s reasonable in a game where I’m summoning Medusa or able to train more elite mortal troops, like Death Stalkers or Paladins or something.
From “keep units relevant” there’s a very natural segue into "make units interesting "
And here I would lean towards fewer ubits, but with higher upgrade paths.
Endless Legend gave you blank units and you designed the weapons etc, as did Fallen Enchantress, and in both games it was clunky.
But in AoW a tier 1 spear is usually quite useless quite quickly.
So I would instead go for a sort of hybrid.
I would have a set spearman unit, and when it gets a medal it can be upgraded in various ways, e.g. increase the HP, attack, special abilities etc.
Now higher tier spearmen would be the same as lower tier, except starting with the upgrades.
As you level your cities up, and build things like training halls, arenas, fighting pits etc, you unlock higher starting levels.
And some buildings could unlock upgrades that are effectively free (meaning don’t need experience, but still need resources,) for example building an armoury would unlock super-steel-armour which you could then upgrade all your existing spears (or applicable units) with.
In effect a Planetfall mod but without the mod slot.
As a unit gets better, it requires more pay/upkeep.
Thus the dynamic is less (higher tier versus lower tier units) and more (veteran versus fresh units)
Having, for example, upgrade paths like in battle brothers, would allow more roleplaying (with armies/units therein as opposed to just heroes) and early game units would remain useful, on account of having unlocked more abilities.
Use buildings and/or map resources to unlock other units and upgrades, e.g. a mithril mine for mithril stuff, or a pasture/wolf den for mounts.
Incidentally, having mounts be found on the map would make them a strategic resource and thus an interesting choice.
Having different mounts allows more roleplaying, as in you could have unicorns ridden by Goblins because the Goblin player found a unicorn den.
AoW3 already put paid to some of the more enduring fantasy cliches so mechanics like this would further allow the player to project themselves onto the game. :)
That’s one way to approach the task.
The inverse of this is feeling obligated to keep those slots for only the highest tier units available, which is also boring.
I think PF approached this very well, because your late game units synergised with the early game stuff very well, and rarely were late game units powerhouses in and of themselves. The Syndicate House Boat thing is a good example.
Ugh. Yeah, I hate that. The problem is at some point the resources WILL free up to have more and more high tier units, which are now godlike as they are balanced around just having one or maybe two of, or worse they are boring and not very exciting.
I’m not a fan of lateral upgrades - as a game like this progresses, I like to feel like I’m unlocking new and more interesting and more powerful tools for my toolbox. I don’t want to keep returning to my well-worn hammer since it will always get the job done.
I’m not following this - if I play a game of AoW3 or PF I don’t have empty slots in my army just waiting for more powerful units to fill those slots. Your army should evolve over the course of a campaign.
One key to all of this talk is the AI - if the AI is only using low tier units in the end game and you have high end power house troops, that’s where boring comes in. The units should be exciting and also well matched by your enemies - if you have incredible Dragons and Behemoth units in your army, they should be necessary at that point when the AI is fielding Demons and Angels or whatever.
This is a good approach - let high level units be very powerful but then keep around some of the low tier units as their support and syngery is still useful. But it should also be a choice - sometimes low teir units are NOT going to be the answer. A low teir Priest unit with a powerful buff and a solid heal could always feel useful even in the late game, but a low tier Swordsman should be outclassed by newer, more expensive units that are better equipped and better trained.
This did give me an idea - it would be neat if the system of non-Hero units leveling up provided some sort of cosmetic upgrade, like a starting unit of Swordsman as it levels up gets noticeably better and more magical armor and weapons, so by the max unit level they have like runes inscribed on their armor and their swords are glowing or something.