|
|
Post by John Marston on Apr 27, 2021 5:19:30 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? maybe |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Vader on Apr 27, 2021 12:11:18 GMT
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? maybe There is a AI strategy but, editing it makes the game crash. I believe the movement is programmed into the levels. For example, when you see the map in the levels, it predicts movement of the soldiers. |
|
Hsueh Yueh
Captain
Yo! It's Hsueh-Yueh here, formerly known as Ismet Inonu. On a hiatus right now.
Posts: 125
|
Post by Hsueh Yueh on May 5, 2021 15:35:32 GMT
less anything spam
probably also more ways to get medals
|
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on May 6, 2021 10:02:57 GMT
ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ, I completely forgot that if the academy system is removed and generals are made more expensive, then there will be a medal shortage because in WC3, there are Bronze, Silver and Gold star levels so 150 medals per level and also medal generating wonders. So by that logic, maybe the medals per mission should be 175
|
|
|
|
Post by ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ on May 6, 2021 13:54:31 GMT
ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ, I completely forgot that if the academy system is removed and generals are made more expensive, then there will be a medal shortage because in WC3, there are Bronze, Silver and Gold star levels so 150 medals per level and also medal generating wonders. So by that logic, maybe the medals per mission should be 175 Yes John Marston, we need more medals. Even to buy some Tier 3 generals (1750-2000π). littlecorporal's idea to give some medals as reward for a fast conquest is perfect, but for now, I don't arrive to give any extra reward in conquests. I still try it, but without the possibility of earning medals in conquests, I think, 175π are necessary for a great Victory in missons. I dont't want to destroy the balance of the game, but you should be able to buy some Tier3 generals. (Maybe even 200π or 250π for a 5β
victory -1 round) - more π Β Β β |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on May 6, 2021 14:03:22 GMT
ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ, I would like to replace the Princesses with IRL gens, and to not make all of the great gens IAPs. That's literally all I would change.
|
|
Hsueh Yueh
Captain
Yo! It's Hsueh-Yueh here, formerly known as Ismet Inonu. On a hiatus right now.
Posts: 125
|
Post by Hsueh Yueh on May 6, 2021 18:52:39 GMT
Same. I don't get the big thing ET has with princesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ on May 6, 2021 21:03:34 GMT
The Princess are OP-generals. Because the 8 princess are not war-historical, I personally like them as ' Over Powered Generals'. Princess or maybe Kings. But Kings crash with the historical context. And religious or mystycal beeings are more strange. The princess are aliens and took not part in history. When you did good conquests you can get them as extra to play your alternate battles. To replace them with historical war workers is in my oppinion a fauxpass Gerd von Rundstedt. Have you generals that you are missing in EW4 ? ... |
|
|
|
Post by STILETT0 on May 9, 2021 14:22:00 GMT
Which changes would improve the gameplay? - stronger flags - medals for fast conquests remove princesses for more historical accuracy, and since nobody actually uses any generals except for Arnold. Stop the random gens thing. Give us academies and an HQ board like in WC3. Also, when all movable land units and all cities captured, that country should be defeated. |
|
|
|
Post by ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ on May 9, 2021 17:30:22 GMT
Which changes would improve the gameplay? - stronger flags - medals for fast conquests remove princesses for more historical accuracy, and since nobody actually uses any generals except for Arnold.Β This was my personal experience: I got Sophia before, my choosen, Scharnhorst showed up in the Academy. And the saved Medals I spend immediately in the potent gunpowder for her. The board is full of advices which generals to buy and which not - and how to grind for the medals you need extra to buy these generals. Maybe the princess are too easy to get, now that we know How-To. EW4 has 208 different generals. 100 in Tier 1. So on each refresh, You just have a 6% (1:15) chance to get your desired general on the lottery. The mods have unlimited refreshes - to find the right general requires sometimes 40 and more refreshes - this is not unusal for a lottery like ET put in EW4. No, you have to take the fortess. Especially the big fortress close to the capitals are historical absolute correct and without taking the fortress you can't win the war. IE: Christiana (Oslo) was occupied and even destroyed a few times, but without taking the fortress. And all these campaigs were failures. I understand the problematic of small forts in too slow conquests, but farms are limited and so there is no other way to invest in other troops. I think about to replace the small fortress, with Guerillia/Rebells. One education camp per round, somewhere in your teretory. They will supply themself (no army-food) But: after two rounds of education, they can move. |
|
|
|
Post by littlecorporal on May 10, 2021 4:23:01 GMT
Rebel training camp! Great idea. I really wish that there was a way to more effectively use forts.
|
|
|
|
Post by pathdoc on May 10, 2021 12:24:54 GMT
Just give us a separate save file that I can e-mail to myself to ensure all is not lost, and I will come running back to this game. But I am sick and tired of losing all my progress at the whim of either a bug in the program or a problem with my device. I can't go on slamming my head against that brick wall.
I really love the game, this forum and all the people I've met here... but I've had so many uncommanded resets and losses of progress I cannot be bothered playing any more until this is fixed.
|
|
|
|
Post by ks on May 10, 2021 20:31:13 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 damage is 4/6/8% depending on the level (you are correct that there are three levels) according to something I read on here (from a respected poster, donβt remember who). Note that it is percentage of total health, not current health. |
|
|
|
Post by ππ³π°π΅π΄π¬πΊ on May 10, 2021 22:20:57 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 damage is 4/6/8% depending on the level (you are correct that there are three levels) according to something I read on here (from a respected poster, donβt remember who). Note that it is percentage of total health, not current health. Sounds not bad, but seems too much. And: I have never seen an unit to die for fire. |
|
|
|
Post by littlecorporal on May 11, 2021 0:36:06 GMT
There are very few scenarios which require you to play defensively, Retreat of Empire in Iron Eagle seems like the only one. I think a campaign scenario where you are outnumbered 2 to 1 with limited resources to spam units would be fun.
|
|
