[en] Edain Mod > [Edain] Discussion and Feedback

Edain 4.5: General Feedback

<< < (3/8) > >>

GildorInglorion:
Imladris AI is weak due to its not understanding lore masters' support roles. The thing is, they use lore masters too bad. Lore masters are solo, AI use them as other soldiers, so they die easily and the money spent to them becomes a waste. I think each lore master should come with two elven soldiers guarding him passively and middle spell on spellbook should also unlock another passive to lore masters as giving them %25 more arrow resistance or something. That way AI can use them better.

LilJur:
Got around 6 hours into the new game now and played Horde maps with all factions and skirmishes with Imlardis, Gondor and Angmar.

First of all, great work on everything. To me, it feels like one of the most completed and less buggiest mods there is.
The economic system is great. It makes every faction feel different enough to have enough variety in gameplay and I hope this will be expanded upon in the future with more unique upgrades for every faction. I do think some upgrades take to long, like the tools. (would you please consider a upgrade where your siege weapons do not damage your own troops and buildings? Return of Shadow for BFME1 has it and it is a blessing!)

The spellbook is ok-ish. I really like some of the spells and some less, but I think this is more because of my play style.

Than there is Imladris.
I feel they aren't as good as they could be. I played as Imladris vs Angmar. The game lasted almost 2 hours because I simply would not come to strength.
When I played as Gondor or Angmar vs 3 AIs, the games lasted just under an hour.
One of the reasons I think, is their squad size. All battalions of Imladris are 5 units.
All other factions have 10-15 units in their battalions and only 5 units in their elite battalions. Now, one could argue Imladris has 5 units because their units are strong.
But I feel they aren't strong. Some types of units take up even more CP than their equivalent of other factions, yet their equivalent will beat them 1 on 1.

I do like how this mod has added a lot of siege things. It is however very unfortunate these cannot be put to good use. My suggestion would be to look at Return of Shadow for BFME1. They increased building hitpoints and made swords and regular arrows less effective against them. It can literately take minutes to destroy a building if you do not use catapults, axes or fire arrows. This makes sieges and siege engines more relevant.

Bugs?
One thing that really bothered me is how ineffective archers are on walls.
When you put archers on the walls on BFME1, they stay where you've put them down. For some reason, the archers in this mod keep walking around. They walk around the walls, the go from the walls to the courtyard and back, they go all over the place and don't stay. I can't even use postal gates because if I do, the archers will go through the gate to attack the enemies instead of staying on the wall to shoot them.

Another thing I noticed; wall mounted trebuchets will automatically acquire all targets (even though they miss every shot) except other trebuchets.
Playing as Gondor and fighting Gondor, I noticed they would never auto acquire any trebuchets in range, I had to manually select them.

Elendils Cousin 3. Grades:
If you press the "S" button, any selected units will stop moving until they get a new order. You can use it for archers on walls to stop them from running around. Put them into offensive stance as well for good measure.

GildorInglorion:
If you put archers in defensive stance they will not auto attack, but if you put them agressive stance they will attack when an enemy enters their range and they will not move(will not chase the enemy) if enemy leaves their range, but of course they will be more vulnerable since their armor will decrease on agressive stance.

But one of the advantages of defensive stance is, I think, your archers will only auto attack to enemy archers who attacking your defensive stance archers. So with this way your archers automatically will kill enemy archers first, then you can command them to kill the other battalions of the enemy.

dgsgomes:
I will try to be more generic in the feedback; more specific questions will be left for another time and in more opportune places

I already made it very clear how satisfied I was with the release of version 4.5, I really liked the addition of new units, the new spellbook, the bug fixes, the new economy system, the new maps, and so on.

In this context, however, although I have enjoyed many of the changes involving the siege update, there are some points that I consider important for making sieging in Edain more satisfying; currently, we have players who don't care about siege and, in the face of unlikely game situations, prefer to simply declare the "gg" and start another game, and we have players, like me, who think the siege premise is fantastic and that wants the opportunity to see it perfected in the game.

Well, after this introduction, below are some aspects of sieging that I consider relevant to be discussed:


1. Siege weapons are generally produced from far away from the enemy base and move slowly, which makes sieging tedious - with rare exceptions, such as Lothlorien, who produces Beornings and Ents in settlements and has much more flexibility in choosing where to produce their siege weapons, what happens in games is that when an enemy is forced to retreat to his defenses because he has lesser military strength, moments of long wait start from the production of expensive siege weapons at the attacker's initial base (which often need to destroy other constructions to start making siege weapons), until they move to the enemy base; if these siege weapons are destroyed, the long process is repeated. Would it be an option to extend Lothlorien's dynamics involving siege weapons to other factions? Historically, siege weapons did not normally travel long distances, but were prepared/assembled close to the enemy's base. For me, this is a major issue.


2. Towers remain very efficient in Edain, especially those that can be produced in large quantities, and this reduces the dynamics of the sieges - although they have suffered a reduction in health and an increase in price, the towers usually remain quite threatening; Castle with many towers (like Mordor and Isengard) and even Camps (including Rohan) almost completely prevent enemy direct attack, as the damage output from the towers remains very high and can decimate armies without strong upgrades. Another advantage for these factions is that they are able to gradually acquire these defense towers, while in the walled Castles, although the towers are efficient and resistant, they require a very high initial investment (700) which in many scenarios is not accessible. Would it be possible to further reduce the damage of the towers against units (with the exception of heroes, who are already highly resistant to towers) a possible solution? With the current potential of the towers, siege battles are often limited to siege weapons (the attacker with the army away from the wall, using battering rams or catapults until they reach a freer path to the opposing citadel).


3. The versatility of the siege involving other means, especially troops, has been little explored - this fact has much to do with the previous point, if the towers are so much stronger, I will seek to attack my enemy from a distance, in this case, I choose catapults; the opponent sees that I am attacking purely with catapults, sees that there is no need to place archers on the wall, as they will not normally cause significant damage to siege weapons and are extremely vulnerable to catapults, and either expect me to destroy his gate or it produces a catapult on the wall to retaliate mine, and there the battle continues at a distance. Another important point is that alternative resources, such as stairs or siege towers, are shy about the fact that simply breaking the gate always seems like a better alternative; Castle gates are currently quite vulnerable, and if the enemy has not prepared for an enemy invasion by building defenses on its walls, it is much better to simply break down the front door. In that sense, if gates were more resistant, wouldn't it be more interesting to surprise the enemy with tunnels / stairs / siege towers to invade before it is actually possible to destroy the gate? Of course, added to that, the gate would need to be repaired much more slowly. Well, these alternative resources must be explored, including plans for the Goblins to also have tunnel-digging systems to invade enemy bases.

Bug (?): The archs on the side of Imladris Castle prevent siege towers from being able to stick and function properly, and may need to be removed (or at least reduced in length)


4. Lothlorien's base is very vulnerable, especially in Camps, where the citadel has the same health as the citadels of other factions, besides being a much bigger and easier target to attack, not having walls around and having fragile defenses, with archers that cannot be controlled to attack specific targets; furthermore, even if the attached buildings remain intact, by destroying the citadel without another base elsewhere on the map, the player is automatically defeated

Bug (?): Beorning hut does not count as military construction, and therefore its presence alone does not prevent a player with Lothlorien from losing when his Camp citadel is destroyed.


5. Denethor remains an extremely effective counter against siege weapons in general, especially catapults, and this is a potentially irritating factor. Is it a possible solution to reduce the range of your attacks? Reduce your damage against siege weapons? Make sure you don't gain range bonuses when over the wall? Frankly, I have no idea - but something definitely needs to be changed.


Well, all that said, I'm very pleased with the work done so far, and I'd like to congratulate Edain Team for this patch.

Thanks for the attention  :)

Navigation

[0] Themen-Index

[#] Nächste Seite

[*] Vorherige Sete