Age of Strategy Forums

I think it would be cool to have a turn cost setting. What I mean by that is a setting in the map setup where you can set it anywhere from (+0, +5).

What it would do is add turn cost to every single thing in the game. Although this may seem like a bad suggestion, I think it would be fun to play games where a single swordsman cost 5 turns to make, as it will cause players to build armies much more carefully and strategically, and it would result in much fewer units on the board. I had this idea because some large maps can become absolute spamfests, and even killing 20 units is insignificant so long as the opponent spams a good variety of cheap units. I think a setting like this could prevent such things on large maps and allow some interesting variety in general.

+1

A static cost upgrade would skew the relative cost of expensive to cheap units. A 2 cost unit that gets 4 extra cost gained 200% more cost while the 8 cost unit that gained 4 cost only increased cost by 50%. This means that more expensive units would suffer less proportionally, and thus become the better choice. Better to give a percentage based cost increase, where units gain 50% or 100% extra cost. This means a 2 cost unit gains 1 or 2 cost, while the 8 cost gains 4 or 8 cost.

Exactly sunrise. that is the point. It will make more expensive units more viable options, as of right now it is extremely rare that anyone builds a 5+ cost unit.

DoomCarrot wrote:As of right now it is extremely rare that anyone builds a 5+ cost unit.

Fortresses, catapults, and trebuchets. All very common.

In AoF it's Cave Trolls, which are too common.

Not sure how the aos multiplayer setting handles cost comparison, but I've noticed in AoF the start of the game tends to swarm cheaper, faster units to capture tcs early, then a switch to expensive stuff to hold them and break down resistance as the game progresses and defenses are built. This may be because many abilities, like fireball and raise dead, punish swarms.

Puss_in_Boots wrote:

DoomCarrot wrote:As of right now it is extremely rare that anyone builds a 5+ cost unit.

Fortresses, catapults, and trebuchets. All very common.

In AoF it's Cave Trolls, which are too common.

All buildable by workers, which is mainly why they are common. Because workers are extremely common units

DoomCarrot wrote:

Puss_in_Boots wrote:

DoomCarrot wrote:As of right now it is extremely rare that anyone builds a 5+ cost unit.

Fortresses, catapults, and trebuchets. All very common.

In AoF it's Cave Trolls, which are too common.

All buildable by workers, which is mainly why they are common. Because workers are extremely common units

Not Buildable by workers.

Puss_in_Boots wrote: and trebuchets.
In AoF it's Cave Trolls, which are too common

Ok, I admit trebuchets are heavily used, but they are also arguably the most OP unit in the game in some ways, if used correctly, so it isnmt really surprising. Most expensive units that are so so for their cost are rarely used though. Anyways, the point still stands here, I think if every unit was raised in cost equally, it wouldnmt really make cheaper units obsolete. Cheaper units would still be very useful in emergency situations, but it would be more practical to build more expensive units in the long run if you have the time to do so.

There could be 2 settings maybe? A flat cost increase setting and a proportional increase cost setting?

Maybe it's an idea to consider. In the meantime, until new game creation options can be programmed, it might be a good idea to suggest/vote units and abilities that can kill multiple weak units at once, but don't perform against stronger units. An easy option there is just trample, maybe with some increase to the aoe range. If something can stomp 10 basic soldiers at once, but dies quickly to elephants or something like that, it encourages making bigger units instead of swarming little ones. Alternatively, drop the population limit to 50 and watch those players sputter out as their production grinds to a halt.

sorry but i think it would not be good for the gameplay, i would not even start or join such game ever, i never want to play more turns for a single archer than 2, it is so turn consuming to play my games online (because of others taking turn delay / timezones) so it needs some other solution for that.


actually there is a solution: if you have many TCs than you will be more to build more costy and stronger units, because you can afford and if we have a good balance than 3 swordman (6turns) worth less than eg. an elephant or any more costy unit.

if we have too few costy but more worthy units than we simply need to make these new units so players will choose them instead of cheap units, or changing the existing ones to be more worthy - eg. elephants upgrades to gain speed, so it will be a good alternative to swordman having same speed.

archers could have better alternative as eg. ballistas, maybe changing the ballistas a bit because i never see them in multi games, maybe it is too fragile now or too slow, so we can changes on speed, by default or via upgrades.

what do u think?

That's probably the way to go. And with so strong a statement from the dev, I have to say this topic needs an "answered" tag.

Very well. I think ballista is underused mainly because catapults are just so far superior in almost every way, and a single catapult is almost always more effective than two ballistae

DoomCarrot wrote:Very well. I think ballista is underused mainly because catapults are just so far superior in almost every way, and a single catapult is almost always more effective than two ballistae

True, catapult while more expensive are more powerful and with strategy can become an op siege units (especially in defense). Mostly because their damage and range.

Yeah. There are not many things that can stand up to a wagon full of heavy catapults with area damage. They are also extremely easy to mass produce if you get enough workers