Quoted from Picard:

Quite nice though it seemed weird that the dragon could be "flanked" by a single unit regardless of positioning. Kinda makes it seem like flanking attacks will actually be the most common kind of attack. Maybe it's just a pre-alpha thing.

I am not sure yet. It may work very well. In order to flank, you will need to consume movement points, so their is some price and positioning to it. Also, attackers are leaving themselves vulnerable to other defenders (such as the assassins in the video who could then have the advantage).

I would like to know whether that (taking extra movement to attack) will also limit the amount of strikes an attacker can deliver (as it was in AoW2).

I am more concerned about the round-1 attacker opportunities in the game, and the AI using useless gas breath with dragons.

Oh and the FE-style cloth map looks great.

Brilliant!

[This message has been edited by Swolte (edited 03-27-2013 @ 08:40 AM).]

Humm, it's was like seeing a HM&M vidéo.

And skeleton dragon don't fly everytime ? Boring
I hope that's not a general rule for flying units.

Flag that fly with dragon look ridiculous,imho...everything else looks great,and for some reason this video remind me of Heroes of M&M.

Oh and the FE-style cloth map looks great.

I agree, actually the cloth map is one of the few things I liked in Elemental, so I'm happy something similar will be in AoW3.

About flying units - in the Blue Tracker I found this post by Lennart Sas:

"Movement systems remain mostly unchanged. We did change the way transports work as I outlined in the AI thread, and currently we have fliers landing in Combat in between rounds to avoid exploits – seems to work neatly so far."

I like this change, I think the rule that forbids melee attacks on flying units isn't necessary, and in some situations it's too powerful and allows exploits.

[This message has been edited by PawelS (edited 03-27-2013 @ 09:48 AM).]

Quoted from Swolte:

I am not sure yet. It may work very well. In order to flank, you will need to consume movement points, so their is some price and positioning to it. Also, attackers are leaving themselves vulnerable to other defenders (such as the assassins in the video who could then have the advantage).

I would like to know whether that (taking extra movement to attack) will also limit the amount of strikes an attacker can deliver (as it was in AoW2).

Movement is a limiting factor and the number of attacks does go down (you can see the green/yellow/red movement hexes) but it's all much less of an issue in close melee and it feels like there's no reason to ever have a non-flanking attack in those situations. Keep in mind that it drains retaliations as well so it's definitely worth it even with a reduced number of attacks.

But if the game is balanced around this I suppose it's alright and it did allow those weaker units to take down the dragon (that and the huge damage buffs).

Quoted from Swolte:

I am more concerned about the round-1 attacker opportunities in the game, and the AI using useless gas breath with dragons.

The AI really seemed to use the breath attack well, always hitting the largest number of units possible so yeah, I'm worried too. :P

Also, I don't know how many of you noticed but the music in the game was super-awesome. Maybe Triumph could throw us an mp3 bone.

Love the UI as well, namely the attack calculations listing all the contributing factors.

[This message has been edited by Picard (edited 03-27-2013 @ 10:37 AM).]

Movement is a limiting factor and the number of attacks does go down (you can see the green/yellow/red movement hexes) but it's all much less of an issue in close melee and it feels like there's no reason to ever have a non-flanking attack in those situations. Keep in mind that it drains retaliations as well so it's definitely worth it even with a reduced number of attacks.

But if the game is balanced around this I suppose it's alright and it did allow those weaker units to take down the dragon (that and the huge damage buffs).

Well, there only seems to be one possible flanking attack per attack, no matter how many movements points the unit has. So, even if a unit reaches its target in green at a flanking position, only the first strike will have a flanking damage. The other two will be normal strikes. Also, bare in mind that if attacks of opportunity remain as in AoW:SM, repositioning for a flanking attack after the attacker is engaged, will give the defender a free strike. So I can see flanking being used strategically for nice effect, but I doubt that will be the most common kind of attack.

As for the dragon not remaining flying, I like it a lot more this way. Flyers were very exploited in SM. And remember that flying, as opposed to floating, lets you pass obstacles like walls. So it retains a lot of usefulness.

I love the UI, the cloth map and the tooltips. It looks really clean. The flags, not so much. They kinda get in the way. But I understand why they were added.

Edit: The dragon breath actually seems to do a lot more damage than its melee attack (to the hero, anyway). And it targets several units, too.

[This message has been edited by The Harlequin (edited 03-27-2013 @ 11:13 AM).]

I know everyone is aware of this by now but just to drive it home check out the name of the "skeleton unit".

Nice catch! Haha. I did not see that :P

cool video, i would of liked to of seen the abilities of the units though

I love the UI, the cloth map and the tooltips. ~ The Harlequin

I hate the UI, the cloth map and the tooltips.

The UI of AoW:SM is very good, easy to understand and clear. Now in AoW3: Its not in a fantasy look. Its very big. It has hundred of icons - and I'm not good in learning Icons (so I can't read chinese in my life ). Its in the middle of the map and on the top border (Ouch!): no one can't see the enemies anymore! Bad.

The spellbook allows you to see 12 spells at the time. I think the spellbook of Eandor is better: One side with 21 spells on the left and the description on the right one.

3D Map: The 3D map is very detailed. Better as in Elemental, that one is just emtpy. But I hope we can see the game events clearly.

The 2D-paper-map is bad. It lacks of color - did anybody see the troops on the first view?


The tooltips: Tooltips are ok in general, but you have no chronological recording anymore. In my opinion it would be better, if the fight looks like in all other games like "Dragon Age: Origin": Words like "+ flanking" or "+Bane of the unatural" and numbers with the damage appears and goes up in the air.

But the 3D tactical map is nice - if it is not too small and the units not to fast. I want to dodge and bypass enemies on the map - but why is there a bar and no sky in the top of the screen?

[This message has been edited by vicbrother (edited 03-28-2013 @ 07:37 AM).]

I think to be so critical of the game at this early stage, without having played it, is a bit harsh. In any game development process numerous decisions about design and UI elements are made thoughtfully and with due consideration for downstream implications for players. I think it’s only really fair to evaluate these when you’ve got your hands on the game.

Obviously everyone will have their own ideas and opinions about what the game should be like, but if you believe that nothing should be changed from the originals then I am inclined to believe that you simply will not abide Aow III.

I’ve seen this kind of attitude before with the XCOM: Enemy Unknown remake. I played the original games to death, especially Terror from the Deep. Anyway, I had a perfectly great time playing the new game despite a few niggles. Despite this droves of X-COM veterans complained endlessly about features of the old games that were not included. The only valid complaint among them all was a lack of free aim on ballistics / lasers etc. So when people moan like this you have to sift a lot of rubbish before you find a valid point.

I see no problems with the ui. It's so clear, uncluttered and combat is easy to read and understand with all the info presented.

Icons are quite intuitive.

Sword - physical damage
The green blob - poison/gas damage
The shiny star - holy damage
The x1/x2/x3 thing - number of attacks remaining

The only valid complaint among them all was a lack of free aim on ballistics / lasers etc.

And the scripted campaign progression, no base defence, just one base, no (semi)-random maps, static aliens with scripted "get into cover" events, consolised UI that is, on the pc, actually worse than the original's in some respects (imagine having to equip ~15 soldiers with xcom's inventory-meny system), very limited map destructibility, and, yeah, no free-aim.

*sigh* /roll

Hey, you're the one who proclaimed himself the high arbiter of which complaint is valid or not. They're either all valid or none of them are. After all, every change had a reason behind it (including lack of free-aim) whether one likes it or not.

For example you can't say free-aim is a valid complaint but limited destructibility isn't because the two are directly connected.

It all comes down to which feature you miss more but that's hardly conductive to some objective notion of validity.

Sorry for being off-topic guys, will restrain myself.

[This message has been edited by Picard (edited 03-28-2013 @ 12:06 PM).]

Well I think it is early to judge either way as this was pre-alpha. I think the biggest concern is that it might be a long long time till release
-
I'm sure there will be changes in both the graphics and UI and perhaps we should wait for beta before comment or suggesting changes.
-
I do have one comment contradictory to some posted here and that is in combat I thought having flying opponents that could only be hit via range weapons was an important strategy aspect. Perhaps I misunderstood but it sounded like in combat there is no flying and everything can be attacked via mele. Is this correct ?

"Movement systems remain mostly unchanged. We did change the way transports work as I outlined in the AI thread, and currently we have fliers landing in Combat in between rounds to avoid exploits – seems to work neatly so far."

Dev quote from Pawel's post above. I do love that walking is still a "special ability". Only in AoW. :P

[This message has been edited by Picard (edited 03-28-2013 @ 12:18 PM).]

As for me, the video is quite inspiring. It does manifest a good old AOW spirit, and that's most important. The global map part added a few information to what we've already seen in screenshots, but the combat part explained much:
- once again - it's true AOW!
- regiments are definitely right innovation!
- new combat mechanics (no misses, higher hits) seems to be
able to work.

That's good )

Yes, flanking seems to be overpowered. As it works now, it probably gives too much advantages to quantity vs quality. Imagine the fight between a dragon and a pack of swordsmen: if I'm in right understanding, 3 of them can strike once from different sides to remove the dragon's backlashes, than other 3 will strike up to thrice each. That's not fair, is it? So flanking should be balanced somehow. One of the ways - the special ability like 'round defense' which makes a unit immune to flanking.

And of course I liked the presentation of the Theocrat class and I'm looking forward other classes (races?) presentation

[This message has been edited by balance11 (edited 03-28-2013 @ 02:49 PM).]

Yes I saw the dev's post; my comment is I think flying unit in combat adds an additional strategy point that should be reconsidered.

I am utterly and totally impressed. Love the video, the graphic, the battle mechanics, the UI... everything.

I am sure there will be several people who will have legitimate complains and will not like AoW 3. It happens all the time: some people in love with HMM 3 'hated' HMM 6; others who liked Eador:Genesis are complaining about Eador: MofBW. Unfortunately it boils down to the difference between people who like changes and people who don't. Nothing works for everybody. In the end, evidence suggest that it will be easier (and economically more viable) to please new fans than trying to convert old fans.

"I think to be so critical of the game at this early stage, without having played it, is a bit harsh. In any game development process numerous decisions about design and UI elements are made thoughtfully and with due consideration for downstream implications for players. I think it’s only really fair to evaluate these when you’ve got your hands on the game." ~Davespice

I'm not your opinion. An alpha version is a version to check and change game mechanics, graphics and UI. A released game with a problematic UI is a bad thing and can't be patched easily then. So it needs our critical view today not in the future.

"Icons are quite intuitive.

Sword - physical damage
The green blob - poison/gas damage
The shiny star - holy damage
The x1/x2/x3 thing - number of attacks remaining" ~Picard

With four icons: no problem. But if your have 100 spells and 100 aviabilitys, it is not so easy. We will see.

Well you won't have hundreds of icons present at the same time. When it comes to attacks icons there can't be more than ~10-ish imo. In AoW2 attack types were: physical, fire, frost, shock, poison, death, holy and magic.

I'm doubtful whether magic will be its own damage type since it had very limited usability in AoW2/SM but that's 7-8 icons for attacks types. The rest are abilities that affect attacks which are spelled out below (like holy champion and such).

The only problem I saw was that the listed damage types were a bit too close together making it difficult to see which icon is referring to which damage value at a glance.

Hi everyone,



Good to hear people are enjoying the gameplay video.
Thnx for all the feedback.


Just two quick comments:

1) On flying:
- Units with flying can fly over obstacles and units.
- Flying units are not subject to attacks of opportunity when they move through hexes threatened by the enemy.

This still gives them a substantial advantage in battle, while avoiding the "hovering over obstacles" and "omg, flying unit with ranged attacks" exploits.
As a consequence, getting "double gravity" is no longer a "must do this or I'm doomed" thing.

2) On Icons:
- Yes, we'll have a nice number of icons.
- Most of the time we'll show both icons and names, to ensure we cater to people that prefer pictures and those that prefer text.
- If we have to little screen real estate - which is infrequent - we'll have popups on the icons.

Will there be an attempt at range vs mele orientation ? I guess this is related to my comment on flying unit - and if I accept that this aspect of the game will be removed - it still raises the question if an army can be forced to contain range units to be effective in certain cases ? Perhaps the smaller size of the army limits the amount of diversity and is related therefore limits what can be done in this regards ?

@Picard: I don't understand: There are hundreds of icons. Yes, not at the same time, but you must know them in the game though.

Take look in the video on 4.57m. You see there a special avability from the human assassins: a running man. What does it mean? Flee? Attack? Fast move? A word like in AoW2 is self explaining, a icon a mystery.

@sikbok: Can you tell us, why the unit-UI is in the top-center of the screen? I mean, its 3D and we see the enemies in the middle and in the top-middle of the screen. It seems to be
impractical, all other games has the unit-UI on the bottom and I think there are reasons for it.

Quoted from vicbrother:

@Picard: I don't understand: There are hundreds of icons. Yes, not at the same time, but you must know them in the game though.

Take look in the video on 4.57m. You see there a special avability from the human assassins: a running man. What does it mean? Flee? Attack? Fast move? A word like in AoW2 is self explaining, a icon a mystery.

I don't think there are icons without explanation - I'm sure they have tooltips, so you can use them to know their meaning before you get used to them.

I like the video: it feels like AOW with fresh mechanisms, graphics & UI.
That is all I want

I like it. It does have the AoW feel. Though I noticed no auto-combat screen, which I don't really miss.
Cool video.

As described by the devs, there is no special auto-combat mechanic in AoW3. The auto-combat in is just like tactical combat, where both both sides are controlled by the AI. And it can be replayed if you want to view it.

I know the first part about them being the same. I did not know you could review an auto-combat.
Thanks.

As far as the combat went in the video it seemed reasonable to me. The dragon was pretty tough and did a lot of damage maybe killed like 6 opposing units. So the flanking did not matter all that much, its still a dragon. Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, the player sort of walked into it towards the end of the fight where he moved up some units into the dragons breath weapon range. Essentially stacking around a dozen units within the range of its breath.
Good work to all involved. Flowers for everyone. I am excited, and I don't get excited about much these days.
Lol!

@ffbj: Interesting: The dragon attacks all units from the front, but one of them make the first counterattack as flanking, and it needs no second attack?

The player was basically setting up to use the Evangelists to convert - having two sets of evangelists meant it was unlikely to fail, and the third unit of crusaders was there so the assassins couldn't simply run in and murderise the evangelists. Clumping was the price being paid for making that work.

It's the standard tradeoff that you have to make - do you spread out and risk being picked off individually, or clump up and make yourself vulnerable to AoE?

Did anybody noticed that 'scoundrels' in the video fight unarmed, although on the global map they are wearing spiked clubs?

Now that I think, troops can parry, dodge or miss? In video seems to always hit like homm games.

Thanks for the explanation Drazynnic.

Now that I think, troops can parry, dodge or miss? In video seems to always hit like homm games.

Units always hit now but the damage still varies. Attack = damage now and defence reduces the damage taken.

[This message has been edited by Picard (edited 04-02-2013 @ 05:20 PM).]

Picard, where did you get that info from?

But that is like Homm series. AOW was unique because troops fight in a realistic way, not like Homm or many real time strategy games.

The attack system has been changed to avoid the - in dev team’s opinion – abundant misses for regular attacks in the previous games. It also makes more sense with entire regiments clashing now, its not an old school D&D game where a guy takes a single swing. Added benefit is that it makes lower level units more useful, but there’s still a healthy damage fall off curve. Of course we still have damage protections and immunities.

Link: http://www.ageofwonders.com/aow3live/topic/enviroment-effect-on-combat/#post-1556

It's also evident from the video. It will take some acceptance on the part of old AoW players but it's a pretty good change imo. It means that the player is now more responsible for his wins and losses rather than random chance which is still present (varied damage) but to a lesser degree. The game will be a bit more chess-like.

Eador uses a very similar system as well and it works great there. While Eador has a HoMM-like appearance it's combat system is much closer to AoW actually.

[This message has been edited by Picard (edited 04-03-2013 @ 08:51 PM).]

Too much randomness in combat is one of the things I don't like in AoW1-2, so I like it that it will be less random in AoW3.

I've seen the "this is like HoMM" argument multiple times, used in discussions about the combat system, the fact that flying units can be attacked in melee, and how the siege combat looks like. But I think these ideas are good, and I have nothing against using good ideas from other games. I wouldn't like it if bad ideas from the HoMM series were used, for example the stacking system (100 dragons take the same space as 1 dragon), but fortunately this won't happen in AoW3.

[This message has been edited by PawelS (edited 04-04-2013 @ 10:03 AM).]

i agree,the new system seems to be an improvement,since its less randomized.
My only worries left,are the ones about 6max stacks and that the "used to be expensive" fliers might be a bit underpowered now during the actual battles if they dont get a raw boost in stats compared to Aow 1/2.

[This message has been edited by Mardagg7 (edited 04-04-2013 @ 11:28 AM).]

So with the flanking rule, you could attack 1 guy with 6 guys in the red, one attack each, and the defender would never be able to retaliate? Unless of course it survives, and then can go on offense. This makes monsters with high attack/damage and low/moderate defense much less viable.

I think the flanking is a good idea, but it's difficult to come up with anything that can't be used somehow by us humans. Whether the 'use' is an 'abuse' can be a gray area sometimes. Maybe there should always be at least one retaliation, whether attacked once or twice.

Landing each move is ok, but don't think it's really necessary. I don't think infantry should be able to defeat a flying dragon. Powerful monsters should always have some sort of attack which can affect a flyer, spread attack or entangle or whatever. If your army is *entirely* low level ground troops you're doing it wrong.

So with the flanking rule, you could attack 1 guy with 6 guys in the red, one attack each, and the defender would never be able to retaliate? Unless of course it survives, and then can go on offense. This makes monsters with high attack/damage and low/moderate defense much less viable.

Yes essentially but it's also your job to be mindful of positioning and prevent these situation. Especially in case of low-def units.

From what I see much of tactical combat will revolve around using close formations to prevent flanking and then using AoE attacks to counter clumped unit positioning.

[This message has been edited by Picard (edited 04-04-2013 @ 03:01 PM).]

I'm starting to suspect Picard has bugged our office ; P>


That's pretty accurate Picard.
One of the pushes we're making to add more depth, layers (pick a term you prefer) in gameplay is through implementations of mechanics that invite and reward players for using tactics.

Tactics here being - shamelessly stealing the definition here from wikipedia:
"Activities at this level [i.e. tactics] focus on the ordered arrangement and maneuver of combat elements [i.e. units] in relation to each other and to the enemy to achieve combat objectives [i.e. winning]".

The nice thing of using this definition is these mechanics will work for anything we add to the tactical map that can attack, move or at least block a hex.

Stacking system in Homm justify the fact units always hit.
Here may have sense in a regiment of 6 against a unit, but there are still fight 1vs1 or 3vs3 where is awful to see. Is it sure they didn't use multiple rolls for regiments? Like a regiment attack rolls 6 times for attack and for defence? Damage already decrease when members of regiment die. A regiment is more a single unit or more units forced to merge?
With multiple rolls there won't be all this randomness, anyway is the damage chance (for example in AOW1 a unit of 2 damage often deal only 1 damage) that can cause problems.

I'm a bit confused; or perhaps I am not - but it sounds like the general philosophy is divide and conquer or more specifically destroy one at a time and the primary tactic one can employ defensively is to try to prevent this tactic or to lure.

I guess my concern is that the above (with the new mechanics) will become the primary or in practice the singular tactic. Historically by being able to have 'hard' to hit troops you could prevent the above because you force the opponent to mix the army with non-combat attack (i.e, range/magical) and in mixing the army it becomes more difficult to surround singular opponent with mele.

So now I have to ask Sikbok - since I am sure he has actually played the game (or at least current incarnation of such) what I am missing from the above description ?

@vota dc

I've answered questions about 'regiments & attack rolls' here earlier, so please check that post/discussion.
There's also some more answers about this and related questions in The Harlequin's Blue Tracker.


@you3

What you appear to have missed is that I was discussing flanking - and other 'positioning and maneuvering' encouraging - mechanics in isolation.
I.e. a player using tactics would win, assuming all other conditions are equal.

Everything changes as soon as players come into battle with different units, with different stats and are capable of casting different spells.
As soon as that happens, just plain tactics won't save the day.
This is where things get interesting and where you'll have to use tactics that take all those factors into account to gain an advantage using tactics.

In addition, if one side has a stronger army and better spells chances of the other side winning by virtue of tactics quickly get smaller.
I.e.

[This message has been edited by sikbok (edited 04-05-2013 @ 08:15 AM).]

Some things to ponder upon:

- In addition to gold, mana and casting points there is now a seperate category for research (or knowledge?) displayed by a burning candle... nice!

- In the spellbook there are 4 different tabs: a spark(global), swords(battle), a spade and a temple. Any thoughts on this?

- The Scoundrel and Assassin look very similar in appearance and in the portrait. Could it be that one is an upgraded form of another? ... and why does the Scoundrel have Dirty Fighting in the place of Melee Strike? They both have Flanking but the Assassin also has Backstab!

- One for the devs: I'm sure you will do a thorough grammar check later on, but here's one for ya; 'Cleanse the Lands'-spell description is currently: "Target land become fertile lands." I think it needs an 's' after land to make it plural like the rest of the sentence.

- So Eoldor is a Warlord, despite all of his friends and his leader being Theocrats!? ... interesting. And he is mounted as well as cavalry!? ... interesting.

- One more thing; I think we are all aware that the demonstrator/narrator cheated . He cast Cleanse the Lands in turn 2 and then restarts at turn 1 to be able to use casting points in the battle. So who noticed that when the cut is made (2.43 - 2.44) there is suddenly a fortress/watchtower to the northeast of the city, near the pioneer .... any explanations?

Greetings,
feargus

sikbok:

I might be mistaken but it sounds like we said the same thing.

Not sure if I'm understanding the concerns correctly but there's no reason why special attacks and abilities would lose relevance due to flanking or why balance would become even more of a problem (compared to AoW1/2) due to flanking and "formation dynamics".

The game is probably easier to balance now with results of attacks being more predictable/less random and that evangelist ability certainly came in handy in the video as will any area, immobilization and other types of attacks.

I'm starting to suspect Picard has bugged our office ; P>

Oh what I wouldn't give...

The video impressed me so much I logged in after oh, 3 years of not logging in, to say I love it. It makes me very excited for the release of the game.

I'm also pleased to see the developers active in the discussion, too. I'll be crossing my fingers everything stays civil and we don't get the troll-fest that was HoMM VI.

I just did the same thing camelotcrusade. Great to still see so many familiar names here.

Exciting news. Looks like AoW but in 3D. I like the fresh concepts and the strategic battle enhancements. Awesome! Hopes are high. Can't wait, but I will. Good to see old names from old email game days. Huzzah to Triumph Studios!

Fubarno, good to see you too. Seems we can continue our good old PBEM-wars in a few months time.