|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Apr 24, 2021 15:39:16 GMT
When the Conquests drag out, diplomacy is quite desirable.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlecorporal on Apr 25, 2021 15:06:21 GMT
Or Sophia with geography, Lan (I have not unlocked) with geography, and Isabella (I have not unlocked) with explosives instead of Ballistics. Yes, the problem with the not working min-dmg is the biggest bug. For a players EW IV.ΒΉ all min-dmg skills must be changed to max+1 skills! Thanks to Erich von Manstein we know in 2021: All explanations about min-dmg were a way to explain the (only one ?) EW4 bug: Min-Dmg, and all skills for it, don't work ! This gives space to add another skillOne skill I think about would be charge for infantry and artillery, i.e. If they destroy the unit they get an additional attack. Also, fire damage should be changed. It seems now like it is insignificant. |
|
|
|
Post by ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ on Apr 25, 2021 18:17:31 GMT
Yes, the problem with the not working min-dmg is the biggest bug. For a players EW IV.ΒΉ all min-dmg skills must be changed to max+1 skills! Thanks to Erich von Manstein we know in 2021: All explanations about min-dmg were a way to explain the (only one ?) EW4 bug: Min-Dmg, and all skills for it, don't work ! This gives space to add another skillOne skill I think about would be charge for infantry and artillery, i.e. If they destroy the unit they get an additional attack. Also, fire damage should be changed. It seems now like it is insignificant. Cavalary is overpowered in ew4: ++ a kill doesen't consume action kill(s) - move - train/tent works only with cavalary + charge (lower morale) - terain consumes add movement Artillery: + rockets can hit two hex - terain consumes add movement Others: o For the fire: I have the impression, but I can't test it, that a fire dammage works longer on (like poisoned). Some generals have strange health problems in longer conquests: I have the theory that they suffer from a previous fire disaster. This is a theory to discuss. |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Apr 25, 2021 20:27:54 GMT
More aggressive conquest AI. Primarly so that you donβt have an unwinnable situation in the later european conquests where a bunch of allied units swarm a passive general on a city but get injured just enough that they donβt want to attack. And then you get a huge ally blob in the center of the map that you canβt move through and blocks you out of reaching this city forever.
This is a problem if youβre playing some really crappy nations where you have to spend like 20-30 turns accomplishing very little in the beginning.
|
|
|
|
Post by littlecorporal on Apr 26, 2021 0:26:39 GMT
More aggressive conquest AI. Primarly so that you donβt have an unwinnable situation in the later european conquests where a bunch of allied units swarm a passive general on a city but get injured just enough that they donβt want to attack. And then you get a huge ally blob in the center of the map that you canβt move through and blocks you out of reaching this city forever. This is a problem if youβre playing some really crappy nations where you have to spend like 20-30 turns accomplishing very little in the beginning. I think this and fort spams are features, not bugs. The AI is basically telling you that your Conquest is too slow. |
|
|
|
Post by littlecorporal on Apr 26, 2021 0:31:25 GMT
Which changes would improve the gameplay? - stronger flags - medals for fast conquests Can you give us some ideas for what type of changes you can make? Can you buff items or make new ones too? |
|
|
|
Post by littlecorporal on Apr 26, 2021 0:45:53 GMT
For the fire:
I have the impression, but I can't test it, that a fire dammage works longer on (like poisoned). Some generals have strange health problems in longer conquests: I have the theory that they suffer from a previous fire disaster. This is a theory to discuss.
The fire damage should be as important for artillery as charge is for cavalry. That would make the game more balanced, though also leaving infantry even weaker.
I think there are 3 levels of fire damage. The levels should correspond to how long it takes the fire to be put out, so a max of 3 turns.
For damage, I think fire works as a percentage, but it doesn't seem significant. This may also be because we can't see the health scores of damaged units. If the fire damage percentage were increased to 25% a round the game play would be changed. Your best bet to take a capital would be to set it on fire.
Fire was a significant weapon in the Napoleonic Wars, especially the Russian campaign of 1812.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Apr 26, 2021 7:03:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Apr 26, 2021 7:04:42 GMT
... and advanced graphics for android  Looks really nice |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Apr 26, 2021 7:27:29 GMT
More aggressive conquest AI. Primarly so that you donβt have an unwinnable situation in the later european conquests where a bunch of allied units swarm a passive general on a city but get injured just enough that they donβt want to attack. And then you get a huge ally blob in the center of the map that you canβt move through and blocks you out of reaching this city forever. This is a problem if youβre playing some really crappy nations where you have to spend like 20-30 turns accomplishing very little in the beginning. I think this and fort spams are features, not bugs. The AI is basically telling you that your Conquest is too slow. I can agree with you on fort spam since thatβs just tedious and boring and not actually an unwinnable situation. Like having hundreds of allied units surround one city that theyβll never take. And I think there should never be such a situation in any conquests, regardless of how fast you play. Not that fort spam is good either though. The general consensus is that itβs boring. And if itβs boring, then it should probably be changed anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Apr 26, 2021 7:37:58 GMT
I think this and fort spams are features, not bugs. The AI is basically telling you that your Conquest is too slow. I can agree with you on fort spam since thatβs just tedious and boring and not actually an unwinnable situation. Like having hundreds of allied units surround one city that theyβll never take. And I think there should never be such a situation in any conquests, regardless of how fast you play. Not that fort spam is good either though. The general consensus is that itβs boring. And if itβs boring, then it should probably be changed anyway. Forts must actually be denied as a condition of victory because they don''t move and capture cities |
|
|
|
Post by ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ on Apr 26, 2021 17:07:41 GMT
I can agree with you on fort spam since thatβs just tedious and boring and not actually an unwinnable situation. Like having hundreds of allied units surround one city that theyβll never take. And I think there should never be such a situation in any conquests, regardless of how fast you play. Not that fort spam is good either though. The general consensus is that itβs boring. And if itβs boring, then it should probably be changed anyway. Forts must actually be denied as a condition of victory because they don't move and capture cities. Fort specials: + can be build everywhere in your terretory + don't consume food - limited to build one per round - take more rounds to build I believe the 'fort-spamming' in long conquests could be reduced, if forts consume food. To take out forts out of the winning conditions, will not work, as you can put generals at forts. Info: Land forts are modified Airfields from EW III, as Napoleon never has seen a plane. |
|
|
|
Post by ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ on Apr 26, 2021 17:18:12 GMT
More aggressive conquest AI. Primarly so that you donβt have an unwinnable situation in the later european conquests where a bunch of allied units swarm a passive general on a city but get injured just enough that they donβt want to attack. And then you get a huge ally blob in the center of the map that you canβt move through and blocks you out of reaching this city forever. This is a problem if youβre playing some really crappy nations where you have to spend like 20-30 turns accomplishing very little in the beginning. To make AI more agressive is an interresting idea. Your analysis is really good SolidLight, maybe the weakness of some countries like Spain, comes from different (higher) levels, where troops start to rest. It seems that the more agressive russians troops, in contrast to spain, fight untill a lower health level, what makes them more 'agressive'. I never thought about this - has anybody better info's? |
|
|
|
Post by ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ on Apr 26, 2021 19:25:38 GMT
Which changes would improve the gameplay? - stronger flags - medals for fast conquests Can you give us some ideas for what type of changes you can make? Can you buff items or make new ones too? I will explain in a smaller circle what is my plan: Im developing two mods: 1. XD-mod. Pretty exact the Vanilla EW4 with these changes: - advanced graphic. Freshed up UI and XD-Graphics (where possible)
- 12 slots
- No Badges(Shields)/IAP - all generals cost π
- free academy refreshes
- (maybe more π for 5β
missions)
2. EW 4.1 - will use the new XD-graphics
- with new / additional gameplay
This is what I want to collect here - Thank you all for your Ideas:
+ additional Items: stronger flags, cavalary horse, loan, more books ...
+ reduce fort spam
+ removing min dmg / changing skills
+ changing dmg-stats
+ adding partisans
+ changed ranks
(-- add here --)
Min-dmg has no effect - I remove min dmg and have Assulting (100%) for units or as skill instead.
Many game-limits can't be changed: number of: skills(4), conquests(6), campaigns(6), save-slots(6+auto), cheverons(max=5,value=2), star-value(5), training(5), flag range(1) - sadly, I can't add a bonus for fast conquests. What can be easy changed are stats for: - Troops - stats for every country, - generals - items - terrain Much more time take changes to single missions. |
|
|
|
Post by ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ on Apr 26, 2021 19:54:31 GMT
For the fire: I have the impression, but I can't test it, that a fire dammage works longer on (like poisoned). Some generals have strange health problems in longer conquests: I have the theory that they suffer from a previous fire disaster. This is a theory to discuss. The fire damage should be as important for artillery as charge is for cavalry. That would make the game more balanced, though also leaving infantry even weaker. I think there are 3 levels of fire damage. The levels should correspond to how long it takes the fire to be put out, so a max of 3 turns. For damage, I think fire works as a percentage, but it doesn't seem significant. This may also be because we can't see the health scores of damaged units. If the fire damage percentage were increased to 25% a round the game play would be changed. Your best bet to take a capital would be to set it on fire. Fire was a significant weapon in the Napoleonic Wars, especially the Russian campaign of 1812. Fire has an impact - setting London on fire helps a bit in french conquests. I don't think it is a percentage: The game has little percentage dammage, more likely it will be the formation (HealthFactor 1-5,1-6,1-7) like for morale - but only once per round, so it wonΒ΄t affect this much an general. (If it doesn't stay - my theory from before) P.S. Having the actual HP in the information view, was the best advane I found in EW6,1914 |
|
