Age of Strategy Forums

A disagreement on discord lead to should their be anymore main races.
@Alexander82
And
@Stratego (dev)
Your thoughts are important and so is other forum members

I think we should discuss and vote why their should/shouldn't be anymore races.

I never said no more races. I rather mean that we shouldn't make races with ideas that can fit other races. For example mystical idea. Mystical creatures until this time were spilted bettwen current races cause they fitted them in terms of "background" (like etns fits elfs). I sure it goes the same with most of unit ideas for that race.
Argument why we shouldn't make such "forced" race is simple: if we make too many races, it's gameplays, as well as "background", will start to overlaps. We will end up having multiple races aimed on ranged (like elfs) or giants and melee units (like orcs) etc. And that's not "development", but coping.
If an race have both unique gameplay and "background" (that cloudn't in any way fit other race as, for example, subrace), I'm fine with it.

Demons will have ther own unique gameplay.
They will have special summoning spell that will allow to summon for them their own copies with vanishing.

Mystical beings - i am planning right now their unique gameplay.

Yet thier "background" can fit other races I think.

Demons no.
Mystical beings maybe.

Yeah I meant mystical. So far that worked.

From original 4 race What needs miticals beings are humans.
Some are in developing (phoenix, valkiry, werewolf)

That is why we have Beastclans they can have many "mitical creatures" what may not fit (with strange, similar role, number, or background) to others (eg kimera, Manticorn behemoth, Harpies )
(For demons - Balrog,cerberus, felbeast )
Both ill have many original units too , different from others.

So if comes the time of new races I vote for this two.


But anyway must change the Mitical race name. Every race has some mitycal beings.
But if they are really miticals being than
unit like Cyclops, medusa, etc should go there.
Wasn't that called celestial? (but don't like this name nor the race as own)

Don't exactly know what is the point of your post (like why in middle of disscusions about need for other races you start putting balancing proposals, they will be flooded by other post about the topic, if you what them to be heared make a topic about them) but it seems you agree there is no need from mystical race, I suppose?

As I've said before I support more the Idea of adding subraces or allies to existing races

Making new races makes the game nearly impossible to balance (we already need to work a lot to balance existing races) unless you make races one the copy of another, otherwise we will have different races with the same role but where one becomes objectively better than another.

Since balance in games is often something dynamic (With new implementations there is always something that end up being better than something else) having more race will make this even less sustainable unless we continously change everything (that is a problem because this might mess up existing games).

Also many suggestions doesn't really fit the game (like mushrooms, instects, vegetables and so on.

My suggestion is to avoid entirely new races, at least for now.

Please @Lynx Shafir don't go OT

I prefer not to delete posts.

Sorry,
I talk about should be the mystical race as own or should be divided to other races
And they have and will gate mystical creatures so I proposed a Name change.
I wasn't clear.
I question was what this mystical race consist, or is the celestial one /?

When i say new races i don't mean soon or now, i mean do you guys want any at all? And from y'all answer you guys don't want any RIGHT NOW which was the answer i was looking for

Right now don't.

So u can set answered.

What I can answer is that at the moment I don't see any need for a new race.

I don't know if that will change in the future with additional development of the game.

If you need a straight yes or no you can take my answer as a straight no