Shimohi wrote:


1. Why? Hard works fine for me, Serious too.



2. That's not a good argument for a bad designed window.



3. Played them in my first game, and then never again. :O)

There's two kinds of Difficulty:



1. AI Difficulty.



2. World Difficulty.



The 2nd Difficulty is the one I'm referring to. I believe you're referring to the AI Difficulty.



I can't say I have too much of a problem with the interface.



I hate Cultists too. But, I haven't played them in Shifters yet.

Nasarog wrote:
Sorry mate, but I have to disagree with you on most of your points.



1) Can you point me to any game that doesn't have units dying? Early, late or anywhere in between? A hero dying is tragic, so you have resurgence and in some games, you need to research this. But a run-of-the-mill unit? So it died. So what? Don't take great risks.



2) It's not the worst, but it can use a "cleaning up" of sorts.



3) Regions are the BEST. Sorry, but regions make this game stand out. I wish more 4X games had it. The only one I can really think of off the top of my head is Stars Beyond Reach (if it comes out).



4) What does this even mean? Some heroes can only be achieved through quests. Others come randomly. How interesting would it be if you had everything out in the open. Why even play?



Sorry, but I don't get this post.

I agree with Nasarog

In my opinion Shifters is a great expansion to an already very good game

And Regions are just the best (city spamming is finaly gone for good:colony

Shimohi wrote:
My mistake, much time has past since I played it. That's also why I said similar ;O)

Ah OK. Got ya.

How you can shape the region to your benefit. I love boroughs, because they allow you to modify the region with exploitations and with clever placement even let you climb cliffs. I would like to see more new district-esque things you can place in the region, like watch towers or the new Shifters expansions.

Well they might want to keep the Allayi unique in terms of new district buildings, but it would be interesting if you could create or become involved in events that could change the general climate of a region or maybe replace one anomaly with another. Endless Space had some things similar to that.

It's not the options, they are sufficient, but more the result of them. Some worlds felt too generic, or too chaotic. Sorry, it's hard for me right now to explain it in a proper way, lack of good examples.

Maybe it's because of waters having such a small role in the game.



Edit: Continent Form has only 2 options, Regular or Chaotic.

The only other thing I think they could reasonably add is a water-specific resource. But it could not be something critical for the simple reason that not all maps have oceans or lakes or enough of them to be fair anyway. There could definitely be more continent form options. Even a set of pre-defined world shapes would likely be fine. Of course you could re-roll worlds until you get the one you like and save the seed but that is a bit tedious.

Shimohi wrote:


How you can shape the region to your benefit. I love boroughs, because they allow you to modify the region with exploitations and with clever placement even let you climb cliffs. I would like to see more new district-esque things you can place in the region, like watch towers or the new Shifters expansions.

Shifters adds a number of new districts that makes city planning more interesting and rewarding.

Slashman wrote:
The Total War series actually did not. If you lost all or past a certain number of units in a squad, that squad was dead (no coming back). In fact, the reason you would chase down armies that were routed, was so you could kill off enough of each troop detachment so they could not recover. EL actually works similarly to Total War in that each unit is a number of troops which dwindle as they take damage. The difference is that there is no route mechanic in EL which will make your men/creatures/monsters flee when they get to low enough health. Just like Total War, if your units live through a battle they regain HP (which builds up the unit numbers again).



What kind of interaction exactly? Also, I thought there were more than enough options when making a world. What's missing? Also still not sure what is wrong with regions in your opinion.



I'm all for them adding more heroes with more varying stats, but not just letting you get any hero you want. Sorry. But this is likely the sort of thing you're best off modding.

My mistake, much time has past since I played it. That's also why I said similar ;O)



How you can shape the region to your benefit. I love boroughs, because they allow you to modify the region with exploitations and with clever placement even let you climb cliffs. I would like to see more new district-esque things you can place in the region, like watch towers or the new Shifters expansions.



It's not the options, they are sufficient, but more the result of them. Some worlds felt too generic, or too chaotic. Sorry, it's hard for me right now to explain it in a proper way, lack of good examples.

Maybe it's because of waters having such a small role in the game.



Edit: Continent Form has only 2 options, Regular or Chaotic.

Shimohi wrote:




Well, I thought it was obvious enough that you can't just flip the switch and every winning unit revives with 1hp. A change like this would of course need major balancing around affected game mechanics (like hp regeneration). But the idea is not something completly unreasonable. In games like Europa Universalis 4 you can lose your whole regiment (from 1000 reduced to 0), but it is slowly remanned over time at a certrain cost (in EU4 its manpower and money). The Total War series had similar mechanics.

The Total War series actually did not. If you lost all or past a certain number of units in a squad, that squad was dead (no coming back). In fact, the reason you would chase down armies that were routed, was so you could kill off enough of each troop detachment so they could not recover. EL actually works similarly to Total War in that each unit is a number of troops which dwindle as they take damage. The difference is that there is no route mechanic in EL which will make your men/creatures/monsters flee when they get to low enough health. Just like Total War, if your units live through a battle they regain HP (which builds up the unit numbers again).

As said, regions are a taste thing. I liked them at one point, but not anymore. (world generation is a bit underwhelming)

But I love boroughs. That's for me the best mechanic in the game. But I would love to have more interaction with regions, apart from boroughs.

What kind of interaction exactly? Also, I thought there were more than enough options when making a world. What's missing? Also still not sure what is wrong with regions in your opinion.

Right now you have 7 random heroes und 3 random exclusive ones. You can only cycle through unwanted heroes by buying them, best done with the exclusive ones, since they refresh the next turn and are only for you to buy. And I do not like that mechanic to get heroes I prefer.

I'm all for them adding more heroes with more varying stats, but not just letting you get any hero you want. Sorry. But this is likely the sort of thing you're best off modding.

cj.of.earth wrote:
There's two kinds of Difficulty:



1. AI Difficulty.



2. World Difficulty.



The 2nd Difficulty is the one I'm referring to. I believe you're referring to the AI Difficulty.



I can't say I have too much of a problem with the interface.



I hate Cultists too. But, I haven't played them in Shifters yet.

Yes I was, and I remembering playing with hard world difficulty at one point. Was really funny, because one could easily get stomped by the neutrals.



If you are playing solo vs AI the item upgrade interface it's bearable, in MP it's not.

Slashman wrote:


Maybe it just isn't the game for you, I don't think most of these things are likely to change.

Was never expecting any changes, thoughts about my points are enough for me.

Picrasso wrote:
Micromanaging is just a big part of this game. Shifting population around almost each turn, upgrading units and heroes. It's part of it. Can be frustrating in MP of course. Hate is a bit of a big word IMHO. Once you get used to it, it works fine.

That's why I was using dislike. I only hate the interface mentioned above.

Nasarog wrote:
Sorry mate, but I have to disagree with you on most of your points.



1) Can you point me to any game that doesn't have units dying? Early, late or anywhere in between? A hero dying is tragic, so you have resurgence and in some games, you need to research this. But a run-of-the-mill unit? So it died. So what? Don't take great risks.



2) It's not the worst, but it can use a "cleaning up" of sorts.



3) Regions are the BEST. Sorry, but regions make this game stand out. I wish more 4X games had it. The only one I can really think of off the top of my head is Stars Beyond Reach (if it comes out).



4) What does this even mean? Some heroes can only be achieved through quests. Others come randomly. How interesting would it be if you had everything out in the open. Why even play?



Sorry, but I don't get this post.

Well, I thought it was obvious enough that you can't just flip the switch and every winning unit revives with 1hp. A change like this would of course need major balancing around affected game mechanics (like hp regeneration). But the idea is not something completly unreasonable. In games like Europa Universalis 4 you can lose your whole regiment (from 1000 reduced to 0), but it is slowly remanned over time at a certrain cost (in EU4 its manpower and money). The Total War series had similar mechanics.



As said, regions are a taste thing. I liked them at one point, but not anymore. (world generation is a bit underwhelming)

But I love boroughs. That's for me the best mechanic in the game. But I would love to have more interaction with regions, apart from boroughs.



Right now you have 7 random heroes und 3 random exclusive ones. You can only cycle through unwanted heroes by buying them, best done with the exclusive ones, since they refresh the next turn and are only for you to buy. And I do not like that mechanic to get heroes I prefer.



By the way, you should read the whole thread before just replying to the opening post.

Sorry mate, but I have to disagree with you on most of your points.



1) Can you point me to any game that doesn't have units dying? Early, late or anywhere in between? A hero dying is tragic, so you have resurgence and in some games, you need to research this. But a run-of-the-mill unit? So it died. So what? Don't take great risks.



2) It's not the worst, but it can use a "cleaning up" of sorts.



3) Regions are the BEST. Sorry, but regions make this game stand out. I wish more 4X games had it. The only one I can really think of off the top of my head is Stars Beyond Reach (if it comes out).



4) What does this even mean? Some heroes can only be achieved through quests. Others come randomly. How interesting would it be if you had everything out in the open. Why even play?



Sorry, but I don't get this post.

Ok, I agree. That accessories selection box is not that nice. Here.s to hoping that Amplitude will have another look at it ...

Shimohi wrote:




1. Early game unit loss.

I like heroes having resurgence (if you win the fight, your hero comes back to live with 1hp), and I wish normal units had that too, or something similar. Losing one of your starting units in the early game is a massive draw back and slows you significantly down. Assuming every other player plays well and is not AI.

Depends on your play style right? I do not fight often early game, often get Language Square early and do quests. But I do mostly play SP.

2. Interface for updating units and heroes

It gets so messy in the late game, and it takes ages to update your heroes if you have more than just one.

Micromanaging is just a big part of this game. Shifting population around almost each turn, upgrading units and heroes. It's part of it. Can be frustrating in MP of course. Hate is a bit of a big word IMHO. Once you get used to it, it works fine.

3. Regions

They are not my taste and feel restrictive.

If it's your personal opinion, fine. Regions do offer strategic choices like: how many villages are there? Do I want to assimilate this minor race? Does it have resources/luxuries I want to exploit? Good yields? Defensible/strategic position? Especially with the unhappiness from expansion you can't just pick any region to settle. With the Allayi this becomes even more important.

4. Heroes to hire

Also restricted and RNG based, not my taste.

What else should it be? I do sometimes wait for better heroes. It's just like the tavern in HoMM3/5, a limited choice but most of the times a hero from your own faction available. A possible addition could be a 'wishlist', while still random but perhaps more in a category you want.



Funny thing: recently I got the Roving Clans quest to hire a Wild Walker hero. At that time there was only one in the marketplace. Imagine there were zero. :S

Anyway, thanks for the expansion, like seeing the game is still being worked on!

I know, and Amplitude will keep improving the game.

2. Interface of heroes and unit design has been largely discussed. I agree with you, but Amplitude seems not found a way to make it easier without having to completely rework these screens. IMO this is the main drawback of the game.



3. Regions are the best idea of this game. Again IMO, but after lots of hours with Civ I to Civ V, SMAC, CivBE, MOO I and II, and all sort of 4X, I found that in non space games, where planets are limiting to do some things, the found-cities-everywhere strategy, founding cities in strange places (in games where you have to conquer ALL cities to win), and in general a meaningless of the territory/biome in some 4X, I felt Regions a good and interesting innovations, which makes me rethink lots of my previous tactics. Still I understand some people dislike it, but you have lots of gameplay on youtube and you were aware of it before buying this game.

Greetings,

I was playing the expansion with my brother and again got annoyed by some of the mechanics of the game.

And here I am to share them with you, with the slight hope, someone shares my feelings, or a dev stumbles upon the thread and shares his/her point of view.



1. Early game unit loss.

I like heroes having resurgence (if you win the fight, your hero comes back to live with 1hp), and I wish normal units had that too, or something similar. Losing one of your starting units in the early game is a massive draw back and slows you significantly down. Assuming every other player plays well and is not AI.



2. Interface for updating units and heroes

It gets so messy in the late game, and it takes ages to update your heroes if you have more than just one.



3. Regions

They are not my taste and feel restrictive.



4. Heroes to hire

Also restricted and RNG based, not my taste.



Anyway, thanks for the expansion, like seeing the game is still being worked on!

Shimohi wrote:
1. What is the point in losing your early 10 turns in a game which evolves around snowballing (like every 4x turnbased game)? I mean it's just too punishing and I can assume most people who play solo just reload their save.

I'm guessing the lesson here is play smarter or accept that if you're focused on multiplayer, there is always going to be someone who gets an early hurt. This has always been my experience in multiplayer strategy games.

2. I wouldn't want less either, but this is just hideous : http://i.imgur.com/Sq5TRiO.png

Wasted space everywhere, just a small box for so many items, it's just a pain to compare with alle the clutter.

I know that has been mentioned before but I can't remember what the response was from the devs. Maybe one of them will reply to this thread.

4. To me, the strategic difference is marginal.

If it is actually a marginal difference, then why is it an issue at all?



Maybe it just isn't the game for you, I don't think most of these things are likely to change.



And I do agree that when the game first came out and for a good while after, the AI was abysmal. But they have made good strides with it and I think it is well worth it now. But that's just my opinion. YMMV

I miss the game balance before the Shadows patch.

queenkimba wrote:
To see what buildings have already been built in a city, in the City Screen, at the top under where it shows the population is the word 'Browse', click on that and it will show you all the buildings.

Thank you, I keep getting back to that from time to time.



But I would somehow expect that button to be somewhere where the building queue / available buildings options are - although I admit that it also makes sense to put it at the top as well, since it's focused on upkeep ...

Slashman wrote:
1. If there is NO risk to fighting, what would be the point?



2. Not sure that they can make it much better with the number of options you unlock as you play. I don't want less options for sure.



3. Regions are one of the best ideas Amplitude has had for a 4x game in a long time! Restriction is exactly the point. It makes territory matter more and it limits the ridiculous city spam of games like Civ and just about any other 4x strategy game I can think of which isn't space-based.



4. I think it works just fine. You should never have exactly the option you want all the time because that equals lack of meaningful choice. If you don't get exactly the hero you want, you go with the next best thing or rethink your strategy.



Thankfully most of this is not going to change. I think Amplitude did a great job with this game and I'm looking forward to see where they take it next.

1. What is the point in losing your early 10 turns in a game which evolves around snowballing (like every 4x turnbased game)? I mean it's just too punishing and I can assume most people who play solo just reload their save.



2. I wouldn't want less either, but this is just hideous : http://i.imgur.com/Sq5TRiO.png

Wasted space everywhere, just a small box for so many items, it's just a pain to compare with alle the clutter.



3. Fair enough, it's more a taste thing.



4. To me, the strategic difference is marginal.

icarus86 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree on all four points.

Regarding unit-loss, think about HOMM - if you lose some units in the early battles, your whole economic balance changes, which is actually GOOD.

I find the interface very "clean" and streamlined. One thing I don't like is that I can't quickly see which buildings are already built in the current city (or I don't know where to look ...).

As @Slashman said, regions make the game stand out among other 4X games. I really like this concept.

Random heroes, random quests, random regions - these all contribute to replayability. If everything would be deterministic, I think it'll just make the game much more boring.

After 900+ hours of Civ V I got bored of EL pretty fast, but not because of the game itself, MP is enjoyable, but playing vs AI isn't fun or challenging. And super-cheaty AI is not a challenge, it's just grind (to me, taste and so on).



@clean interface, I mostly agree, but not for the hero upgrade window. It needs work, in MP it's a big time waster.

cj.of.earth wrote:
1. Play on Easy World. It's faster and the game is probably more balanced.



2. You'll get used to it.



3. Try playing Cultists perhaps. I don't disagree with this point. They are overly restrictive. But, they are a good idea.



4. More Heroes would be fine by me. 10 Heroes is not enough IMO. Also, too many of the Heroes are bad. Two bad sets of Heroes can ruin a good game.

1. Why? Hard works fine for me, Serious too.



2. That's not a good argument for a bad designed window.



3. Played them in my first game, and then never again. :O)

I agree in point 2 about upgrading units. It needs time (I'm old and slower than younger players I guess), time you don't have in multiplayer games (usually timers are set). I used to play roundbased games, because I can take the time I need. But the youth today... always hurrying on

To see what buildings have already been built in a city, in the City Screen, at the top under where it shows the population is the word 'Browse', click on that and it will show you all the buildings.

1. Play on Easy World. It's faster and the game is probably more balanced.



2. You'll get used to it.



3. Try playing Cultists perhaps. I don't disagree with this point. They are overly restrictive. But, they are a good idea.



4. More Heroes would be fine by me. 10 Heroes is not enough IMO. Also, too many of the Heroes are bad. Two bad sets of Heroes can ruin a good game.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree on all four points.

Regarding unit-loss, think about HOMM - if you lose some units in the early battles, your whole economic balance changes, which is actually GOOD.

I find the interface very "clean" and streamlined. One thing I don't like is that I can't quickly see which buildings are already built in the current city (or I don't know where to look ...).

As @Slashman said, regions make the game stand out among other 4X games. I really like this concept.

Random heroes, random quests, random regions - these all contribute to replayability. If everything would be deterministic, I think it'll just make the game much more boring.