As I understod it, walls would only apply to the territory the city center is in and not to other territories the city control. This mean it would be alot harder to defend large cities and castles would likely be pretty important to defend territories.
@Narcisse included the japan one in the units image thread... along with Hittite, persians and norsemen
one... we could only see the ones from the cultures we were playing as far as I know, not the ones we were playing against
So I just finished all four combat scenarios, and I’m impressed so far. The AI really knows how to play the tactical game.
The Japanese one is the hardest by far since you’re defending 3-1 odds and unless you use cover the Koreans will destroy you.
forest and high ground are huge combat advantages, and rivers make things difficult. Crossing at the wrong time, especially if there’s higher ground on the other side, is an absolute death sentence for units. Even a unit good against another unit is at a disadvantage if the countered unit has the high ground. I wonder if that advantage will be tweaked? Because right now it’s almost unfair, but it is accurate to have an advantage on the high ground so idk.
the AI knows very well how to use high ground, forest, and cliffs to its advantage when defending. I got smashed in my first attempt at Plataea and had to reposition my armies before attacking so I could get a decent battlefield.
Siege battles are AWESOME. You have to build the siege weapons by maintaining the siege for a turn or so, and fortified city tiles need to be attacked with the siege weapons or you have a penalty to moving into and attacking into the city tile. You CAN destroy a walled tile on the coast to let your troops into the city and create a new invasion point, which is fun.
the battles are excellent and a HUGE step up from endless legend.
It's pretty late here but just wanted to pop in and say I got in! Unfortunately I'm not at home this weekend and didn't realise the scenario went offline on Monday, oops.
I do hope to hope get some playtime in on my laptop while I'm away however, so not all hope is lost!
It's pretty late here but just wanted to pop in and say I got in! Unfortunately I'm not at home this weekend and didn't realise the scenario went offline on Monday, oops.
I do hope to hope get some playtime in on my laptop while I'm away however, so not all hope is lost!
Haven't had much of a chance to check these forums over the past few days but I did play through all the battle scenarios yesterday. I have to say I was bemused, looking through the games2gether forum, to see mostly negative response to the battles because personally I was really impressed. Interesting that people over here generally seem to be closer to my own opinions on it.
There's just so much to love here! The scenarios were all challenging and fun and really required a depth of tactical thinking to win. All the EUs on display had their own unique, interesting features and none were just stat blocks. The different unit models for Edo and Joseon arquebusiers struck me straight away, as another poster already mentioned.
I absolutely LOVED the siege in the third battle. The siege mechanics in this game just seem so, so well designed. Integrating the actual city that a player has built on the map into what, for the first time I've personally experienced in a 4X game, actually feels like a real siege, it's just so enjoyable.
The fourth battle was really hard and I really liked how I was able to defeat such huge odds through a heavy use of tactical thinking and having to use terrain to my advantage. It took me a whole bunch of attempts and I definitely felt like the AI had some idea what it was doing. Eventually I worked out a good strategy involving using my arquebusiers to hoax the enemy halberds into a flanking attack by my hidden samurai, whittling down the enemy before eventually using one "safe" river tile at the far west of the map to gradually cross my samurai over. I definitely agree with what others have already said that terrain is a bit too powerful and needs toning down, though.
It was a little sad to see so much negativity on the combat at G2G the last thing I'd want is the depth to be sucked out. Makes me wonder what the reception to the final supposedly very hard scenario next week will be like haha!
Yeah, sometimes some posters are extremely nitpicky and overblow some issues. I agree there's a lot to polish there, especially regarding feedback on Line of Sight and attack range of enemy units, but the CORE idea of the combat works great. I like that terrain and unit abilities are fairly simple (makes them easy to grasp and juggle in your mind) but can create powerful combinations.
I'll make a post later, but for what I've seen the devs have a clear vision and can take the constructive criticism out of negative posts (especially the knee jerk ones that come after not being able to win a battle in 2-3 tries without trying to learn the depth of the system).
I have to say I was bemused, looking through the games2gether forum, to see mostly negative response to the battles because personally I was really impressed. Interesting that people over here generally seem to be closer to my own opinions on it.
I think it's because most of the people here are so used to Civ's battle system that this type of tactical battle system is a breath of fresh air. I don't know how the battle systems are supposed to work in EL and ES, so I can't judge on them properly.
Yeah, sometimes some posters are extremely nitpicky and overblow some issues. I agree there's a lot to polish there, especially regarding feedback on Line of Sight and attack range of enemy units, but the CORE idea of the combat works great. I like that terrain and unit abilities are fairly simple (makes them easy to grasp and juggle in your mind) but can create powerful combinations.
I'll make a post later, but for what I've seen the devs have a clear vision and can take the constructive criticism out of negative posts (especially the knee jerk ones that come after not being able to win a battle in 2-3 tries without trying to learn the depth of the system).
Some poeple take the opendev as a demo, instead of an alpha playtest to help devs. When I register to Opendev, I looked at what it consists of, like the first opendev stream or threads. They have explained than some of the battles were intentionaly harder, for testing. So when I read threads just about "it's too hard and frustrating" ... it's just meh...
Thought I would add my impressions to the thread on the second scenario(s), although much of what I thought has already been said by others! First and foremost, so much fun! Combat and Sieging was difficult but tactically gripping. I felt a real sense of accomplishment when I won. If some aspects of combat became more transparent Humankind's combat system will probably be my favourite of any 4X game.
Line of sight is difficult to understand (both from a defensive and offensive perspective), when moving a ranged unit any enemies that will be available to fire upon are highlighted in red, but it does not show the unoccupied tiles that would also be available (should an enemy unit move to it). Frustrating in the final battle. I personally feel that the higher ground "contours" could be made a little more obvious. One option would be a toggle-able terrain view that fades the units into the background, but that would be rather inelegant. The advantages conferred to units related to terrain (forests, rivers, high-ground, etc) are enormously beneficial, perhaps just a little too much. Right now it feels like positioning and terrain is the be-all and end-all. The reinforcement system does not yet feel intuitive or well explained.
As others have mentioned, these battles take a long time (although I think this is at least partly because the player is at a such a significant disadvantage). While I did really enjoy these encounters, I think I wouldn't have patience for more than about 2 manually resolved combat/sieges per era.
Judging from what I've seen so far, considering that battles take long to manually resolve, I think the best way to manage combat is to manually resolve decisive or high-stakes battles while auto-resolve the ones that don't have any consequence in the bigger picture.
Yeah I think a LOT of people just don't get what playing a pre-alpha version of a product means.
For my part, I'm just amazed at how polished this game already looks and feels, and I'm having a ball with the Open Dev. I'm trying real hard to make my comments in a way that will be helpful to the devs, because in my mind, that's the unwritten contract we have with each other.
I can’t believe there’s been so much negativity on G2G. The battles are AWESOME, yes they will get polished but if they released the battles like this I would be supremely happy.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
