Caster of Magic II Brainstorming Megathread

[namad]

I had an idea for CoM 2, perhaps you should restructure the spellbook UI under f3. As it stands now, you get to know how many unit enchantments, how many special spells, how many summoning spells that you have unresearched. Which makes it in theory possible to make some educated guesses about what unresearched spells are in your spellbook.

However you have to put just as much effort into this "cheating" tactic as you would have to put into learning things that IMO should be obvious, like how many unresearched rare spells you have left, or even how many unresearched rare sorcery realm spells you have left unresearched in your book.

My proposed solution is to stop showing the types of your unresearched spells and instead allow the apprentice menu to be sorted by rarity and/or by realm. Showing you basic facts about yourself that are fairly self-evident, like the fact you might start a game with 2 unresearched rare chaos spells. Then at the same time making it harder to cross reference the manual with your f3 menu to try and determine if your spellbook contains warp node or wraiths.

If you like allowing players to perform this sort of meta-game-research, well then, fine, leave it in, but I still think that unresearched spells should be able to be sorted by rarity and realm, if you also show the spelltypes this will make this sort of meta-gaming easier. Because well, if it's a feature of the game, it shouldn't be hard and confusing, it should just work. (Or be cut).

If such a UI option can be invented it might also be useful on the spellcasting tab as well. If you know that you wanted to cast a gaea's blessing but you couldn't remember what page it was on, toggling on your nature realm and toggling off your other realms to shrink your spellbook would make it easier and faster to find the spell your were looking for to click on to cast. In other words, even if you don't want to change the function of anything at all, I think there is room to upgrade the spellbook UI with various potential filter buttons along the side/top you could click to find the information you're looking for more easily. Perhaps one button for each realm color, and another button for each rarity tier? The buttons could light up and go dark, when clicked on, to toggle on/off. Or well any other way you'd want to implement it.


edit: Another nifty spellbook idea might be to add enemy spellbooks that would look like the f3 menu but do not show anything but spells you've seen that wizard cast. In master of magic this feature isn't needed. There are 4 enemies, I'm only ever in a war with 3 at once, and those 3 are never all hybrid nature/chaos wizards. In master of magic 2 though I could see myself routinely being at war with three different but similar dual realm wizards, and knowing that one of them has lightning bolt but not chimeras, one of them has lightning bolt and chimeras, and the other one lacks lightning bolt but has chimeras, could really matter a lot. Remembering which front of the war can use lightning bolts and which one cannot would inform tactical deployments quite a lot. With three times as many enemies, keeping which enemy is which straight would be a struggle merely with master of magic 1's UI.

[Seravy]

Disabling the "Spell Book Ordering" option already sorts all spell by realm everywhere. It is a good idea to change that to sort by realm AND rarity instead. Crowding 40 spells into the same category makes this sorting feature kinda useless as is. (although they do appear in the order of rarity anyway, it is simply not on separate pages)

[namad]

Disabling the "Spell Book Ordering" option already sorts all spell by realm everywhere. It is a good idea to change that to sort by realm AND rarity instead. Crowding 40 spells into the same category makes this sorting feature kinda useless as is. (although they do appear in the order of rarity anyway, it is simply not on separate pages)

Oh, yeah, I forgot about the options menu. I rarely change those. Maybe you could make that option a checkmark box on the spellbook itself? It is the sort of thing you might want to feel frustrated for 1 second looking for something, toggle it on, find it, use it, toggle it back off (if you don't like it much usually).

That said, having a button on the side the spellbook that would instantly show me nothing but nature realm spells, would save me the time of turning sorting off, then turning the page 3 times to get past all my chaos spells.

Additionally this is another area of master of magic 1 that does have some space. The big fluffy paper scrollwork art for the spellbook leaves quite a lot of room at the edge of the screen for potential buttons to go. Although maybe that would just make the UI look busy and cluttered? Extra sorting options might also not be needed in master of magic 1, I've certainly never wanted them, why? The spellbook isn't really long enough that I mind just randomly turning the pages to find a spell. If in caster of magic 2 you wanted to potentially double the number of spells in the game (which you probably don't want to do)... Well some sort of sort/filter options (like magic the gathering deck builders use) could be good. Another thing to maybe consider is that, if there are 12 ai wizards, that means trading is probably going to be significantly more likely. Which if you don't adjust balance at all in anyway, does mean slightly increased bloat to the number of pages in the spellbook, although I suppose that will probably only add about one extra page to most wizard's books.

[JustOneMoreTurn]

One thing that bothers me in MOM is building regular units before buildings that make units better (Alchemist's Guild, War College, etc). What if the only way to gain XP was actual combat; maybe even garrison duty didn't add XP? Barracks and War College could either unlock units, or add some other benefit.

What I would like is the ability to upgrade units after production. Build an Alchemist's Guild, and a build option for 'upgrade units' would appear, showing how many hammers would be needed to upgrade all existing units. A more complex option would allow upgrading unit types (cavalry, bowmen, etc), or allow you to mark units to be upgraded (more flexible, but more tedious). If Barracks provided a bonus to defense, that would be a separate upgrade. Another option would be to allow upgrading of unit types, such as Spearmen -> Swordsmen, perhaps retaining XP.

Think about it. Would it improve gameplay, worsen gameplay, or just not change things enough to be worth the effort? Is there some way it would break a race or otherwise disrupt the existing game? Changes would have to be made, such as the Heroism spell and the value of the Armsmaster ability.

My guess for why unit upgrading wasn't including in the original MOM was simply hardware and software development limitations. It had to fit on a few floppy drives and run in (I think) under 2 Mb of RAM.

[Seravy]

What if the only way to gain XP was actual combat;

Then AI garrisons would be significantly weaker and the game was easier. Beating AI garrisons is a way too significant part of the game to afford this. In general units leveling up is not an AI friendly mechanic if it requires the units to fight. AI units don't fight, or if you do, they don't survive it because the player is killing them. (more like, if they are losing the battles and feed experience for the AI, they lose the game even without the AI units gaining levels.)
So the only way AI units could gain levels is by fighting other AIs which will then escalate the "runaway AI" situations as it requires one side to be very dominant otherwise the units won't survive the war.

Barracks and War College could either unlock units, or add some other benefit.

There isn't really any unit to unlock with these and the existing races don't need more units either.
We absolutely do not want more permanent bonuses to normal units that stacks with existing ones and can be built in cities. The existing amount already pushes this game mechanic to the limits, any more would break the game balance. (which I guess answers my "Agaric" idea, it' not good either.)

What I would like is the ability to upgrade units after production. Build an Alchemist's Guild, and a build option for 'upgrade units' would appear, showing how many hammers would be needed to upgrade all existing units.

I don't like this feature. If you built your troops earlier and used them to expand earlier, you shouldn't ALSO gain the benefit of having those troops be as good as if you waited. You can't eat the cake and have it remain at the same time.

[massone]

Then AI garrisons would be significantly weaker and the game was easier. Beating AI garrisons is a way too significant part of the game to afford this. In general units leveling up is not an AI friendly mechanic if it requires the units to fight. AI units don't fight, or if you do, they don't survive it because the player is killing them. (more like, if they are losing the battles and feed experience for the AI, they lose the game even without the AI units gaining levels.)
So the only way AI units could gain levels is by fighting other AIs which will then escalate the "runaway AI" situations as it requires one side to be very dominant otherwise the units won't survive the war.

I don't think that's actually true. The AI uses Quick Combat for all engagements not against the player, and Quick Combat consistently results in much more surviving units for the winning side, especially when pitting normal units (which can level) against fantastic units with special abilities. I have tested it numerous times and confirmed without any doubt that the Quick Combat calculation absolutely results in more units surviving and spread out damage among the survivors, and it often allows an entire stack to survive when actual combat would guarantee the loss of half the army no matter how well played. For AI on AI battles, the behaviour is nearly the same, with the added bonus that Death Wizards revive far more undead than they possibly could (an entire enemy stack, for example) in an actual battle.

You made great improvements to the combat AI to target and kill one unit at a time, but the Quick Combat calcs don't have these improvements yet.

Any weakening of AI garrisons would be met with an equivalent weakening of player garrisons. If the player garrisons gain EXP because they keep winning battles against the AI, the problem is not the leveling system, but the AI being unable to judge when to attack cities because it uses strategic strength calculations as if the battle took place via Quick Combat. This is already an issue in the game and a much bigger one than just a little EXP gain. Those lost units weaken the AI far more than any EXP gained by the player, as it's too easy to wipe out entire stacks of AI troops with no losses while defending, as they keep sending underpowered armies to die piecemeal.

The fact is that players know not to attack a stack of ranged troops without preparing relevant counters. The AI on the other hand, has no such wariness against suiciding a stack of good troops that die in a couple of turns of bombardment.

"Runaway AI" is not a problem, it's a good thing having a strong AI emerge as the victor. I mean, if that was a problem, the Myrran boss shouldn't be a thing either. But it is, so the logic should be consistent. Either we want a big boss or we don't. Personally, I'd strongly prefer the "big boss" to be one who conquered their way to the top than one who lucked out having a plane to themselves.

I don't like this feature. If you built your troops earlier and used them to expand earlier, you shouldn't ALSO gain the benefit of having those troops be as good as if you waited. You can't eat the cake and have it remain at the same time.

Why not? Fighting = more experienced and better troops. It doesn't make much sense that you have to disband experienced troops because they've become obsolete as a result of newer equipment. Logically, you should be giving the experienced troops the newly available equipment first. There's nothing more immersion breaking than giving your adamantium to recruits and disbanding your elites who've fought and bled for you.

Is there a gameplay balance problem with this? I see nothing wrong with peaceful strategies suffering from not maintaining combat readiness and military tradition, speaking as one who prefers focusing on economy over early military.

[Seravy]

You made great improvements to the combat AI to target and kill one unit at a time, but the Quick Combat calcs don't have these improvements yet.

That's intentional. If a war between AIs left both of them weak that would throw the game difficulty all over the place. Even as is, AIs fighting wars get noticeably weaker than those that do not unless one side is so much stronger it can destroy the other quickly.

You are right, Runaway AI isn't a problem, but if it goes too far, the Difficulty setting will feel inconsistent. I rather not have a game on Fair play as if it was Expert because the AI got lucky and not only got those extra 10 cities from the other AI it defeated but on top of that, also elite troops that I cannot produce.

The greatest problem here though is, in this game the life expectancy of units is actually very low if they are used in battle. Aside from a few selected durable units like heroes, troll or units owned by Life wizards, everything else rarely survives more than a few battles even if used by the human player. So this is indirectly buffing the strategies that are already the strongest. No surprise there : EXP from battles is a "win more" mechanic. Not losing units is already a major advantage by itself.

but the AI being unable to judge when to attack cities because it uses strategic strength calculations as if the battle took place via Quick Combat. This is already an issue in the game and a much bigger one than just a little EXP gain.  

I plan to make Quick Combat results more accurate and also plan to make the AI simulate a Quick Combat to predict the results before attacking, but I expect the human player to still win the battles because accuracy has its limits. The spells cast by the human player or positioning of units can't possibly be included in the calculation.

Fighting = more experienced and better troops. It doesn't make much sense that you have to disband experienced troops because they've become obsolete as a result of newer equipment.

This game has extreme early snowballing potential compared to most other 4X and anything that makes doing that even more rewarding is a very bad thing. Being able to upgrade the early troops is such a thing because it takes away the "cost" of having to produce weaker troops that will get obsolete. This might be a good mechanic for other games but I don't think it belongs to CoM.

Peaceful strategies are already suffering from not maintaining combat readiness. If you don't produce troops and fail to keep up the peace, you lose because you can't defend yourself. So you either have to be 100% sure you won't get attacked, or need to produce some troops which might get obsolete.

Honestly, this doesn't have all that much relevance to anything beyond the first 1/3 of the game though - in 1406 the highest tier of units unlock and by then, you will have your adamantium (if there is any nearby) and war college. Anything produced afterwards will never get obsolete because it's already the best available.
So this feature would exclusively only matter in the phase of the game when it upsets balance by rewarding early expansion.
(not particularly important but this is also a feature that mostly helps human players without any effect on the AI. AI troops are extremely unlikely to return to a city to get upgraded. Their fate is to attack something and die in battle.)

[massone]

The greatest problem here though is, in this game the life expectancy of units is actually very low if they are used in battle. Aside from a few selected durable units like heroes, troll or units owned by Life wizards, everything else rarely survives more than a few battles even if used by the human player. So this is indirectly buffing the strategies that are already the strongest. No surprise there : EXP from battles is a "win more" mechanic. Not losing units is already a major advantage by itself.

That's true.

I plan to make Quick Combat results more accurate and also plan to make the AI simulate a Quick Combat to predict the results before attacking, but I expect the human player to still win the battles because accuracy has its limits. The spells cast by the human player or positioning of units can't possibly be included in the calculation.

Good to hear that. Well, you can only do what you can. AI sucks in most other games.

This game has extreme early snowballing potential compared to most other 4X and anything that makes doing that even more rewarding is a very bad thing. Being able to upgrade the early troops is such a thing because it takes away the "cost" of having to produce weaker troops that will get obsolete. This might be a good mechanic for other games but I don't think it belongs to CoM.

I think most 4x games have extreme early snowballing potential. I actually think CoM has less of it--a lot of others are such that if you explore better than the AI and settle faster, anything else is irrelevant as you could be twice as large as anyone else by the time you meet them. One of the reasons I like CoM is that you really can't just out-settle the harder difficulty AIs. Military conquest snowballing is a natural part of any strategy game. There have only been two kinds of solutions used: 1) Internal instability mechanics and corruption/size limitation modifiers which aren't popular, 2) the AI snowballs just as fast and hard as the player so the victors that emerge remain a threat which is difficult to program.

Honestly, this doesn't have all that much relevance to anything beyond the first 1/3 of the game though - in 1406 the highest tier of units unlock and by then, you will have your adamantium (if there is any nearby) and war college. Anything produced afterwards will never get obsolete because it's already the best available.
So this feature would exclusively only matter in the phase of the game when it upsets balance by rewarding early expansion.
(not particularly important but this is also a feature that mostly helps human players without any effect on the AI. AI troops are extremely unlikely to return to a city to get upgraded. Their fate is to attack something and die in battle.)

Actually, I think it could matter quite a bit in some games, depending on how it was implemented. I agree that the AI would be hardpressed to take advantage of it, but suppose for the sake of argument that they could, this is where it would matter in the mid/late game:

-1406 is when the advanced buildings appear, but building the buildings is quite an investment. You aren't likely to have more than 1 or 2 such building by 1407, if you're keeping up on Wizard Guilds, an equally big investment, since you won't have enough developed cities by then. You are doubly unlikely to have War College AND the advanced building in one city, especially when you need to balance that with actual troop production, but you could have them in separate cities. So an optimal strategy would specialize each city in one type (and most experiened players probably already do that with WGs vs Armourers vs Fantastic Stables vs Economy), so that only one city gets the "equipment upgrade" or "EXP upgrade" building which upgrades all others. This has strategic implications throughout the mid-game for city curses and protecting vital cities. For Large and Huge maps, cities continue to develop long into the Rare tier.

-If there is no natural Adamantium, or your own territory doesn't have any, you have to get it through conquest or opening Myrror unless you're a Nature Wizard. For everyone else, you might have to conquer territory from the Nature wizard. Regardless of where you conquer (or settle in the case of Myrror), it means that you potentially are getting new Adamantium production centers later in the game, which could help boost your other troops. This isn't really a "win-more" scenario--if the upgrade path existed, there is a completely different level of strategic value assigned to that Adamantium, which you would expend far more effort and resource to get, possibly even at the cost of weakening other areas. This is especially relevant if the upgrade could apply to other race's troops, not just the city's own native troops.

-There are some troops that can contend with Very Rares after getting boosted with Adamantium and EXP. Slingers, Elven Lords, Paladins, Pikemen, Berserkers, Gladiators, and most of the Myrror race advanced troops. But they also have fairly high production costs, such that your one Adamantium prod. centre might take 3-5 turns to make one, depending on just how rich the surrounding land is. If you could produce these units elsewhere then upgrade for a lot less production, then it'd be a major boost in overall speed of producing the best troops. Eg. if upgrading cost 50% of the production, then by using that city to upgrade 2 other cities' units, you could output twice as many adamantium troops as the one city could before.

[Seravy]

But they also have fairly high production costs, such that your one Adamantium prod. centre might take 3-5 turns to make one, depending on just how rich the surrounding land is. If you could produce these units elsewhere then upgrade for a lot less production, then it'd be a major boost in overall speed of producing the best troops. Eg. if upgrading cost 50% of the production, then by using that city to upgrade 2 other cities' units, you could output twice as many adamantium troops as the one city could before.

A solution to this already exist within the mod. Buy the unit for gold every turn and have those other cities produce Trade Goods if necessary. It has a 50% gold conversion rate so it's roughly similar in cost (yes, it effectively is 100% more but the adamantium city pays part of the cost with its own production so only the remaining cost is doubled.)

[zitro1987]

Barracks and War College could either unlock units, or add some other benefit.

What I would like is the ability to upgrade units after production.  Build an Alchemist's Guild, and a build option for 'upgrade units' would appear, showing how many hammers would be needed to upgrade all existing units.  A more complex option would allow upgrading unit types (cavalry, bowmen, etc), or allow you to mark units to be upgraded (more flexible, but more tedious).  If Barracks provided a bonus to defense, that would be a separate upgrade.

A good Age of wonder mechanic we can bring over:

Advanced military buildings to increase experience of less advanced units only:
Fighters guild allows spearmen, swordsmen, bowmen to start at veteran
Armorers guild allows halberdiers, pikemen, berserkers, etc to start at veteran
Fantastic stables allows cavalry to start at veteran
War college: all units start at veteran
Wizards guild: all shaman, priests and other lower tier support units at veteran
Barracks: unsure maybe garrison units earn 3xp per turn, but costs a bit more
Why? It prolongs use of lower tier units when advanced units get unlocked