Age of Strategy Forums

Makaw suggested this:

1st: basic (instead of current "few")
Current many option — worker, laborer, 2 turn cost archer, 3 turn cost light cavalry

2. Construction: (instead of current "normal")
2 workers + 2 laborers

3. Exploration: (instead of current "many")
Worker, laborer, 2 light cavalry

you can post you alternative ideas here

My suggestion would be to use a varying quantity of placeholder units modeled after aog pupae, which would have transform abilities to turn into a selection of player chosen starting units, enabling a greater variety of early game strategies.

What is aog pugae?

If i understand right you suggest a one time unit that can permanently transform into any unit of your choice among specific set of units, right?

can you tell me exact example?

so these "pupas" can turn to what? (in aof)

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 8:12 pm can you tell me exact example?

so these "pupas" can turn to what? (in aof)

Into what is different discussion.

Maybe we may make this as replacement of third option. 4 such units with transformations to choose starting strategy.

Alas since 2 turn cost archer, 3 turn cost worker and 4 turn cost knight are not equial i would suggest to give for players 2 transformers into 2 turn cost units (from specific list) and 2 transformers into 3 turn cost units.

makazuwr32 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 8:11 pm What is aog pugae?

If i understand right you suggest a one time unit that can permanently transform into any unit of your choice among specific set of units, right?

Exactly. In aog these are units able to transform into any insectoid infantry, but our purpose here would be something to turn into basic units only.

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Fri Jul 15, 2022 8:12 pm can you tell me exact example?

so these "pupas" can turn to what? (in aof)

I would suggest we go with mak's example and split it into 2 cost and 3 cost versions, which for ease of use can transform into anything tc can produce of their cost specifics for their race. 2 cost can be cheap laborer/worker, archer, foot soldier, skirmisher, etc. 3 cost can be expensive worker/laborer, light cavalry, shielder, even race specific 3 cost units like zurgo helmsmasher or elf druid as long as they are in tc.

ive now played enough to be off the list at 100+ levels and clearly see how important this simple menu can be. I love the idea of a building vs exploration start etc, but personally would still not change it

IF the important part is the comfort of new players, the current system is perfect - you control the speed of the start, and your choices are what make the direction - even better knowing all players start with same units. its simple and understandable

i view this as an attempt to deal with bad random tc placement - but don't see enough improvement to gameplay to justify a change. and personally, nothing is as pure strategy as 1 worker standing on an empty map

im the only "no" vote but thats my opinion

No it will still give all players same starting units.
Only change is whom to give via all 3 options.

makazuwr32 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 1:53 pm No it will still give all players same starting units.
Only change is whom to give via all 3 options.

if the unit is transformable like the pupae or settler ideas, then technically not the same units for all. a more experienced player has the advantage from turn 1.

probably too difficult to keep the current 3 and add a 4th option of 4 pupae style units? that would appeal to many because you dont know what style your opponent is using

Pupa style if would be implemented it will be much later.
Probably around unity version release.

diesel wrote: ↑Mon Jul 18, 2022 2:47 pm if the unit is transformable like the pupae or settler ideas, then technically not the same units for all. a more experienced player has the advantage from turn 1.

Experienced players always have the advantage. They already know what to build, when. How far each unit can move and how long each option will take to capture available tcs. Even what to start on to counter their opponent based on what factories their opponent builds.

If I might:

1. I agree on Diesel that "single worker option menu" must be kept as desireable option to start AoF match. Match based on this option is the most balanced and the most entertaining to play since in this mode, players synchronize and develop with more strategy to go, from early to end game with many calculation. And that's one of the beauty of a "single worker" option. Again, I vote for this to perserve.

2. Honestly other options are fine by me, tho may be an option for all scout cavalry (without any worker to start) could be good, at first glance at least.

Thanks.