If there is a second season of expansions and dlc, what would you like to see? What do you think Triumph should focus on?

[Muakhah]

Looking at the previous couple of comments I think Houseboy summed up some of the main areas well.

1. Water - enough said - this needs a fair bit of work.
2. Wonders - More would be good, and wonders enabling a building in city that would give a bonus to particular things would be a great addition like in Age of Wonders 3 where city placement was planned to eventually encompass multiple locations to create the ultimate archer or spear unit.
3: More map structures - like the teleporters and shrines from AOE 1 that anyone could use,
4. Culture development - I'm not sure about what is meant here by tomes per culture. I thought each culture had 1 and Primal was going to be a little different.

To this I would like to add my personal wants.
1: Even more in depth control of what peoples and combinations spawn on the maps I create.
2: The options to set Tome Paths for custom factions I create. At least the first 9 Tomes in order to give a faction a clear unique theme.
3: A Culture with Ancient Egyptian vibes and Pyramids - for Azrac and Tigran reenactors! Seems like a good fit for Order Shadow in my mind. Choose between the Light of the Heavens or the Darkness of the Tomb.
4: A slight reworking of other cultures to give more playstyle options?
5: More customization options for the cultural units. - choosing the weapon and shield from several visual options. That kind of thing.
6: A Tome of the Desert - Tier 1 Materium Astral - Spells to do with heat and dust, minor terraforming. A mounted skirmisher. A province improvement that generates gold and research per adjacent desert.
A Tome of the Djinn - Tier 3? 4? Materium Astral - Spells to do with wishes granting random but powerful buffs. Province Improvement Cavern of Wonders, Summonable Tier 4 Genie unit and recruitable Tier 3 support Djinnbinder unit that does extra damage to magic origin units.
7: I also think that as the adaptation traits grant minor terraforming spells, and the Primal Culture has a means to terraform, Cities should be able to do terraforming projects. This would be like a province improvement but it changes the terrain not the improvement on it. It would be very expensive but get cheaper the higher the city Tier. This would give cities a chance to slowly improve terrain they aren't adapted to at great expense.


I certainly think that the game shouldn't go backwards to the old days of all goblins have these traits. But if you can choose what kinds of goblins show up on your maps that is kind of a compromise.

Anyway that's my two cents.

 

[Orphalesion]

I certainly think that the game shouldn't go backwards to the old days of all goblins have these traits. But if you can choose what kinds of goblins show up on your maps that is kind of a compromise.

Oh definitely. At the very least they should allow us to restrict what forms should spawn on a map. I love most of the furry forms (except the Moles) but I do wish we had to option to not have them spawn for a specific game if we just want the traditional fantasy peoples show up. Or, on the other hand restrict the humanoid forms from showing up if we want an all-furry game. Or any combination of that (want only Halflings for this game? You can have that!)

 

[Kitschy]

I think we can all agree that there isn't much stuff to visit on the maps. I think Triumph overestimated their "random events" system a bit. My guess is they were hoping it would provide enough variety for players (as in "things to do on map"), but maps simply lack in variety. It's especially visible on bigger maps were you have 20x Ancient Caves or 10x Castle Ruins etc. It's extremely repetetive. One thing would be to add some modifier buidlings - ones which give temporary movement, health or maybe a bonus damage feats for your armies. Other idea is ofc adding more Landmarks, especially lower tier ones - which would give you more stuff then only Snakes. Snakes are probably the most overused Wildlife unit in the game, hopefully new mounts/wildlife units will change this. I wouldn't mind if they added a "menagerie" or "wildlife sanctuary" building which would have a few visual variants and wildlife units you can recruit.

Come on, snakes are cool! ;D

I might be misremembering, but devs said something like Ancient Wonder are time consuming to make that's why there aren't many of those.
Speaking about AW the ones that we have now would benefit from some polish especially when it comes to unit variety. Secret Temple, Lost Tomb, Crystal Forest need more thematic units (like for example Crystal Forest could have Wisps and Flow Serpents added to recruitable units, similar things for other two).

PS
Also Ancient Cave could get Hunter Spider after it was removed from Wildlife Sanctuary.

 

[white.kelevra]

I absolutely agree that the map needs to be filled with details.
(new objects/points of interest)

plus - improve the underground.

I'm very glad to see that many people have similar opinions.

I will just add that immersion is very important to me.
Added a new forest - Thank you very much, this is cool!
What I have already asked for many times, keep going - waterfals, snow peak mountains and more ^^

It will be cool if: farms / quarry and ect had a bit of visual variety based off culture.

I want to immerse myself in the world completely "_"

UPD:
+we need map creator like AoW3 (in future)
Just imagine: Primal tribes lupin, birds, snakes vs reavers

 

[Orphalesion]

Yeah when I go back to AoW2/SM the map is sooooo pretty and varied. Each biome has multiple types of forest, it's own appearance for mountains and even map locations like watch towers have different sprites for different biomes (the coastal watch tower was very pretty) . It would be great to have that kind of detail again.

 

[Holiness]

Generally speaking? What I'd like to see is more asymmetry.

Exactly this. To many playthroughs I use the same strategy, despite different tomes and culture. Dragon ruler and last the two latest cultures seem to be trying to make asymmetrical cultures though... so I'm hopeful.

Endless Legends may forever be the goat of 4x asymmetrical gameplay though.

 

[Balthazar69]

I add my grain of salt.

There is a thing with theory crafting in this game that bother me... Cultures seem selective to me in terms of the types of units offered (Shield, mage, shock etc.). I want an awakener or spellbreaker type magic unit with the new culture, I cannot. Yes, it's confusing, but ultimately, it prevents me from easily moving from one to the other if I care about a particular kind of unit.

Perhaps create all kind of units for all Cultures. With deep specificities. Because here, we lose on both counts. Where is the mage for feudal ? Where is the shock unit for High ? etc etc.

You have tomes for complete, but you haven't an infinite choice. For mages (I play a lot with mage so I can speak) A lot of T2 (gold, cold, fire, lightning) but extremly few T3 with gold (often MANA oriented).

I stay with mystic not because I like conceptually this culture, but because I want two unit of his stand. So Cultures lacks of :
- General dev (like others said, when you see the last culture in the DLC and thoses of base game...)
- All kind of units in each culture.

 

[LizardCommander]

I add my grain of salt.

There is a thing with theory crafting in this game that bother me... Cultures seem selective to me in terms of the types of units offered (Shield, mage, shock etc.). I want an awakener or spellbreaker type magic unit with the new culture, I cannot. Yes, it's confusing, but ultimately, it prevents me from easily moving from one to the other if I care about a particular kind of unit.

Perhaps create all kind of units for all Cultures. With deep specificities. Because here, we lose on both counts. Where is the mage for feudal ? Where is the shock unit for High ? etc etc.

You have tomes for complete, but you haven't an infinite choice. For mages (I play a lot with mage so I can speak) A lot of T2 (gold, cold, fire, lightning) but extremly few T3 with gold (often MANA oriented).

I stay with mystic not because I like conceptually this culture, but because I want two unit of his stand. So Cultures lacks of :
- General dev (like others said, when you see the last culture in the DLC and thoses of base game...)
- All kind of units in each culture.

So you want less differentiation between cultures?

More differentiation would be them adding something unique to each culture, say a new T4 Unit that none of the others get. But, you want them all to share the same units, the only differences being the special effect that each culture has?

Additional units, enchants, spells, etc. are added by Tomes. I think I would definitely prefer to not have Awakeners in every Culture, it would remove a lot of the variety in playthroughs. You can play a Shadow Feudal, Shadow Mystic, Shadow Reaver Culture, and they will all feel different for a number of reasons, even playing the exact same Tomes.

I would rather High Culture look and play differently than Barbarian, but if they can both have T3 Berserkers as Shock Units, and T3 Knights, that'd take a lot away from the game.

 

[Seraven]

I stay with mystic not because I like conceptually this culture, but because I want two unit of his stand. So Cultures lacks of :
- General dev (like others said, when you see the last culture in the DLC and thoses of base game...)
- All kind of units in each culture.

I do agree with the General Dev, we could use some subculture for each culture (not always based on environnement or affinity).
More option to play each culture is always better, but i haven't think enough on how to do it.

But i personnaly like the difference of unit in each culture, what i found lacking is the fact that the culture gimmick can't be used by everyone.
Why barbarian archer, support or battlemage don't get something too ? It can be different from primal strike i don't care, but give them something.

 

[Balthazar69]

I want more differentiation AND all the possibilities of strategies. My position is simple.
Add missing kind of unit. A mage, Shock unit etc, for all culture with specific moves, talents (= here is the "differenciation", not elsewhere), increase the differentiation, the choice.

And a remark : technically, units are already clones, copies. Give me the difference between a feudal archer, a fury and a dark archer.^^... At best, it is only the skill associated (Stand together, Weakened etc.) I don't condemn that, but this is a simple observation...

At this game, remove all not specific unit, because there already a lot of duplicates. There is no game which stay.

So, this is a false argment. There are already clones if we take this road.

So arbitrary remove a mage, or a shock unit to tell "Look ! this is more specific, more custom because not all kind of units !"... is not really the panacea. You can really well create a tribal mage, or a very conventional mage (like Mystic) etc. A shock unit a little less "warrior style" (Feudal / Barbarian) if you want a way, a specific inspiration for a specific culture. Imagination is the key.

THIS is not contradictory. In a sense, AoWs have always been symmetrical games. If you don't do that, it is extremly difficult to balance. Units are not enough different to justifie lose possibilities. Sorry^^

 

[IHNIFN]

I want more differentiation AND all the possibilities of strategie. My position is simple.
Add missing kind of unit. A mage for all culture with specific moves, talents, increase the differentiation, the choice.

And a remark : technically, units are already clones. Give me the difference between a feudal archer, a fury and a dark archer.^^...
So, this is a false argment. There are already clones if we take this road.

So arbitrary remove a mage, or a shock unit... is not really the panacea. You can create a tribal mage, or a very conventional mage (like Mystic) etc.
THIS is not contradictory.

I have to disagree here with you.

While feudal and dark archers have similar rules of early game ranked damage dealers (with dark also enabling their culture mechanic with weakness status effect), barbarian archers can be used in mid (and even late) game as main damage dealers with their frenzy.
Better example in my opinion would be mages, who give certain cultures built in access to different damage channels, which can make them better/worse in realms based on their wildlife settings. Having (or not having) different types of damage channels in the game makes each culture perform different in similar scenarios.

Also by limiting access to certain units for cultures give them clear weaknesses that can be used in single/multiplayer game.

For example mystic lack access to ranged physical damage channels and their melee options gain damage from their magic buffs, which makes it better to investing in resistance via enchantments, hero gear and transformations. Giving them physical archer would make it much harder to counter them with specificbuilds.

Another example are reavers, who lack shield/polearm units and have to make up with tome units to project their frontline. This weakness can be exploited in early game and in later stages you can build your army composition to counter their chosen frontline unit.


Personally I think, that faction rosters and combat mechanics are interesting and bigger issue is late game, when mythic units come to play and culture combat mechanics are mostly disregarded and here the game could use an improvement. Also at economic and meta systems level vanilla factions feel a bit less interesting, than the dlc cultures.

 

[Balthazar69]

You can frenzy with demonkin. Nothing unique in the Fury, and even that, it is minor difference overall. Archers are globally clones, like all kind of units. And if we speak of "function", so... give all minimal function to all cultures.
After that, minor(s) difference(s) are added and I'm fine. But tell : "This is specific (this is not) and have less options", I disagree with this choice.

The lie is to believe that the game is differenciated and I propose to clones all units... Guys... the units are already copies... I propose to add mores units, equally differenciated that now. So more units.
- If we consider that not enough, it is not the fault of the added choice. It is NOT the kind (Shock, Mage, Scout...) of units that create the specifities of the culture.

- Why I don't have pikeman and a mage with Barbarian ? IF the game have so less difference between units...? ^^...

So my position is clear :
- IF units are really different (Like Starcraft 2), asymetrical could be considered and acceptable.
- But if we do a game globally symetrical with functions and inevitably minor differences (Like AoW since the first...), globally the game will always have clones, so IF we have clones, I want all the clones, because I have more choice^^

 

[Mithrill]

I want more differentiation AND all the possibilities of strategies. My position is simple.
Add missing kind of unit. A mage, Shock unit etc, for all culture with specific moves, talents (= here is the "differenciation", not elsewhere), increase the differentiation, the choice.

And a remark : technically, units are already clones, copies. Give me the difference between a feudal archer, a fury and a dark archer.^^... At best, it is only the skill associated (Stand together, Weakened etc.) I don't condemn that, but this is a simple observation...

At this game, remove all not specific unit, because there already a lot of duplicates. There is no game which stay.

So, this is a false argment. There are already clones if we take this road.

So arbitrary remove a mage, or a shock unit to tell "Look ! this is more specific, more custom because not all kind of units !"... is not really the panacea. You can really well create a tribal mage, or a very conventional mage (like Mystic) etc. A shock unit a little less "warrior style" (Feudal / Barbarian) if you want a way, a specific inspiration for a specific culture. Imagination is the key.

THIS is not contradictory. In a sense, AoWs have always been symmetrical games. If you don't do that, it is extremly difficult to balance. Units are not enough different to justifie lose possibilities. Sorry^^

I have to disagree here with you.

While feudal and dark archers have similar rules of early game ranked damage dealers (with dark also enabling their culture mechanic with weakness status effect), barbarian archers can be used in mid (and even late) game as main damage dealers with their frenzy.
Better example in my opinion would be mages, who give certain cultures built in access to different damage channels, which can make them better/worse in realms based on their wildlife settings. Having (or not having) different types of damage channels in the game makes each culture perform different in similar scenarios.

Also by limiting access to certain units for cultures give them clear weaknesses that can be used in single/multiplayer game.

For example mystic lack access to ranged physical damage channels and their melee options gain damage from their magic buffs, which makes it better to investing in resistance via enchantments, hero gear and transformations. Giving them physical archer would make it much harder to counter them with specificbuilds.

Another example are reavers, who lack shield/polearm units and have to make up with tome units to project their frontline. This weakness can be exploited in early game and in later stages you can build your army composition to counter their chosen frontline unit.


Personally I think, that faction rosters and combat mechanics are interesting and bigger issue is late game, when mythic units come to play and culture combat mechanics are mostly disregarded and here the game could use an improvement. Also at economic and meta systems level vanilla factions feel a bit less interesting, than the dlc cultures.

If I may interject, it feels like you're not talking about the same meaning of "choice". @Balthazar69 if I understand your argument correctly, you want additions to cultural rosters to improve playstyle variety  within culture, whereas @IHNIFN is mostly concerned with how different cultures vary in playstyles and how homogenizing rosters might negatively impact it. I think you're both right, it's just that you have different endgoals, and which one is better for the game is mostly subjective.

In my opinion the current way the rosters are designed is fine. Cultures need a bit more meat on their bones, but I think it's better achieved by expanding and deepening unique mechanics rather than anything with units. Which is good, since Reavers and Primals have demonstrated it is possible.

 

[Balthazar69]

if I understand your argument correctly, you want additions to cultural rosters to improve playstyle variety  within culture

Exactly. For example :
- A furious zealot than spam blight-ball with 3 hit repercussion (Like a kind of plague you know ?, Like T2 evoker) and frenzy (Mage, Barbarian)
- Mage of the castle, that cast a classical fireball and have stand together (Mage, Feudal)
- A "technomancer", that do physical damage on 1 hex and applie slowed and sundered defense (Mage, Industrious)

And that only for mage. You can add :
- A magic monk with 40 mov without mount, that hit foes with 3 kind of damage, capable to avoid the first attack of the battle (Shock unit, Mystic)

etc etc.... I don't do them all, you get the idea

 

[Kharyu]

If a Season2 should come, my wishlist would contain the following:

1.) 2 new cultures: Rogues (as in AoW3) & an Asian themed culture

2.) a 4th Lord type: I would love an Undead Lord with different variants (Tomb Lord, Vampire Lord, Wraithlord, Mummy Lord)

3.) 12 new tomes, containing: a Vampire tome, Desert/Tomb Lord tome, Spider queen tome with Drider transformation, Cultist tome with Succubus, Tomes for water & caves, Centaur Tome

4.) bringing some of the "old" marauders back, like: Cockatrice, Hydra, Djinns/Efreet, Basilisk, Spirit Elemental, Blight Elemental, Manticore, Griffin

5.) new forms: Insectoids, Mindflayers, Snail-kin, Maer, Syrons, Archons

6.) re-visit of the old cultures and polish them a bit & introduce T4 units for cultures

7.) a couple of new Society traits & mounts (Beetles, Chocobos, Camels, Manticores, Griffins, Big Frogs)

8.) Shadow Daemon Invasion mechanic (realm trait option ?) similar to Voidbringers in Planetfall

9.) Empire Mode

10.) some new tree elements for the Empire tree

P.S.: also reworking the Magic Victory would be very appreciated (after the Watcher rework it wasnt fun at all for me)

 

[Akkarothyr]

If a Season2 should come, my wishlist would contain the following:

1.) 2 new cultures: Rogues (as in AoW3) & an Asian themed culture

2.) a 4th Lord type: I would love an Undead Lord with different variants (Tomb Lord, Vampire Lord, Wraithlord, Mummy Lord)

3.) 12 new tomes, containing: a Vampire tome, Desert/Tomb Lord tome, Spider queen tome with Drider transformation, Cultist tome with Succubus, Tomes for water & caves, Centaur Tome

4.) bringing some of the "old" marauders back, like: Cockatrice, Hydra, Djinns/Efreet, Basilisk, Spirit Elemental, Blight Elemental, Manticore, Griffin

5.) new forms: Insectoids, Mindflayers, Snail-kin, Maer, Syrons, Archons

6.) re-visit of the old cultures and polish them a bit & introduce T4 units for cultures

7.) a couple of new Society traits & mounts (Beetles, Chocobos, Camels, Manticores, Griffins, Big Frogs)

8.) Shadow Daemon Invasion mechanic (realm trait option ?) similar to Voidbringers in Planetfall

9.) Empire Mode

10.) some new tree elements for the Empire tree

P.S.: also reworking the Magic Victory would be very appreciated (after the Watcher rework it wasnt fun at all for me)

Couldn't agree more. For me this is a perfect list of what the game is still missing. Just do it Triumph i beg you.

 

[Balthazar69]

6.) re-visit of the old cultures and polish them a bit & introduce T4 units for cultures

That said, this is not a christmas wishlist, and dev cannot redo absolutely everything. It is credible to wait for few more units beside preexisting units. A complete redesign is costly in time and money.

That why, add "missing" units to complete the board is simpler, with good depth to balance than redo everything. I repeat myself, the creative qualities of new units, is not linked to there class. Only limited by imagination, balancing. So problem solved, with or without my previous idea.

Add T4 is OK, but objectively, I am FAR more interrested with new T1 / T2 / T3 because that what I play the most ! T4 is over endgame. A lot of ressource of dev-time for too few players. (But yes... if it is done, I pick obviously !^^)

Personnally if I must chose ONLY one kind of unit, with ONLY one tier available ? If devs want to do the less possible ? A T3 whose culture does not yet have this type of unity, is very interresting IMO, because this is the more intensive mid-endgame and without cost of imperium of T4...^^ So a good chance to be used more or less intensely/Frequently.

 

[Kitschy]

...
1.) 2 new cultures: Rogues (as in AoW3) & an Asian themed culture
...

Hopefully if they will go for Asian themed culture it won't be plain old samurai aesthetics and more Chinese/Mongolian one. Like Xiahou Dun from TW Thee Kingdoms or mongol-esk from Ghost of Tsushima.

 

[white.kelevra]

A lot of ressource of dev-time for too few players.

Yes, it's frustrating.

_________________________________________
Ideas on how to attract more people?
Maybe some tournaments/streams?

What are you missing for replayability?

 

[seperamos]

Cultures have their units that play to a certain strategy. If you want to veer from that planned strategy, use tome units to cover gaps in your roster. We need more tome units for order, materium, chaos, shadow, astral, and nature. They should be stronger than tier 1 at least.

Tome units or rally of lieges are the answer to stabilizing your roster if you want to focus units for melee, range, magic, or seige aoe!