A good player don't waste fortress for wall.

Novo. In general yes, but you build it for raduis not for "walls". And so it depends on sites in radius.
Applicable to both - fortresses and cities.

And it's also important in terms of defence. Ranged units are much stronger on a wall and can stand their ground against stronger armys.

If you build a beacon for example in most casesone stack of t2 archers on a stone wall is enough to repel the attack of the indies.

So you have to take it as defult reward in really exceptional case like you got nourishing meal item. Even some legendary like sanctum now less reward than 400 gold, so most case I sell it.

epic->mystic

About tempo side, RP is critical in early game. So eventhough you get trash reward, it's worth to take wizard tower and sphinx temple as reward not gold. But other site should be considered as gold to give tempo.

In just simple thinking, produced army can earn more than their upkeep before the end stage of game. However 1epic item can't give that much benifit(in most case) and it cost 160 gold from tomb.

So I suggest everyone to think about this way and sell in most case.

I usually sell all common things except for Sun Spear and Fishing Spear which is useful at all times. However in the beginning, if no other option is present I might keep them dependable on the situation. Weapons can be useful in the beginning before any better things arrive.

Can't we link the gold reward to the price of the items. Let'say the total reward should be about 400 gold. So can get either 400 gold or 1 mhytical item (can be sold for 120 gold an 30 mana? Not sure about that) + 250 gold or 2 mythical items and 100 gold an so on for the other combinations of legendary items.

Wow, I had to write my report 3 times!!...

the server just kept on timing out... and got a "gateway error"

El Lobo, it's supposed to be like that but devs just did a very poor work of designing site rewards so sometimes it doesn't actually work like that because the item reward multiplier is too high or the excess reward multiplier (converting the extra value to gold or mana) is too high. Also I think another issue is that the sale value multiplier (0.75) is too high so the sale value is too high overall.

I've been trying to improve the situation, starting with Ziggurats but some weird stuff happened for the change approved for v1.3, basically it seems there is a lower threshold under which the "excess gold" is lost. That makes the balancing pretty annoying to do... But given what novo (and keika) is telling, I think an overall of low-level sites is required. A minimum would probably be to lower the sale value multiplier to 0.5

So basically you would get 2/3 of the gold you currently get when selling. Which should tip the scale a bit in favour of taking the item/whatever regular reward

Well for low level sites, I think current gold reward is ok compare to high level site. So I think better buff defult reward also and reduce multiplier.

If you always sale for gold for low level as you said, then it means it's not "ok", it means it's too high

It could mean that reward is shitty. I think it is ok to have good compensation for bad items (or useless RP).

Devs need to fix bugs. I detected another exploit, the game has some big problems in programming as it seems

It can ruin games for sure. Such a crap. I hope we can fix it but I guess we need the developers

The shitty rewards are in line with the low difficulty of the sites. It is abnormal that shitty rewards yield high amount of gold

I am talking about different thing.
You can clean the very same site and defenders and can get "good/ok" item or "shitty" item.

If you get good item - you take reward, otherwise - sell for gold.
So for example one player could get "picnic basket +6HP regen" and another player "second breakfast" for the same site and defenders.
And if I get "picnic basket" I should have option to sell it and not for 40 gold of course.

Please don't focus your attention on items comparison above. There always will be "good" and "bad" items and actually there are not so much items to pick them as a reward, so don't be surprised that even if we reduce sell cost, we will not start taking reward.
My point is - if you got bad reward, you still should have an option to sell it with appropriate price.

That is why for example I think lost library is a bad site. You can get very bad skill for it and can't sell for anything useful. Sometimes it is even better to refuse reward, but you can't.

Yesterday and today this website barely loads for me. A lot of times it just times out or doesn't do anything when I try to open it.

I believe you are right Sin. Site is timing out. Perhaps its stable now

I couldn't load this site this morning but is working fine for me now

yes, it has been problematic...

the game report has been really annoying, but now I do ctrl C on each paragraph... lol

That is what I always do.

Yeah, but what you say and what novo says is different keika. novo talked about lower than Epic items being bad overall. Not Nourishing Meal vs +6 HP regen

Either I don't understand something or you. I also think that lower than Epic items in general are bad with a few exceptions. Both nourishing meal and picnic basket are "strong" as far as I remember.
But again, my point is even if you get bad item, it would be good to be able to sell it with good price.
You are lucky with nourishing meal or sell basket for 140 gold.

Meh. You could misread again.
These two examples were from ancient ruins. And of course you don't sell only basket for 140 gold but additional RP from the reward.

I don't know what I or you don't understand? I think we both understand. Anyway, so do you think you would sell Common or Strong item 75% of the time before turn 20?

You're probably right that the Basket of the Roadside Picnic (+6 HP regen) should be Common and not Strong though, I note that down

I think the thing we disagree on is that I think Ancient Ruins (and other Strong sites) should only yield shitty rewards or something like 100 gold, not 140 or more. Gold Mines and "Common" sites yield 50 gold. For me it's only reasonable to yield about twice as much or equivalent shitty rewards. So the abnormally is not to get a +6 HP regen item, it's to get a powerful item. Based on what you wrote, I think you should probably report the items you don't sell so that we upgrade them to Epic

>Anyway, so do you think you would sell Common or Strong item 75% of the time before turn 20?
Depends on the item, but if it is "shitty" item, in most cases I will sell it for gold.

Just think in average, the last 100 items you got.... how many did you sell?

not expert here, but I also use the feature a lot...

sometimes that extra gold can be more useful than some items

As I feel, hili just want to reduce tempo as he tried before. You never said about strong sites reward before eventhough it was fixed so long.

Index of open balance topics: https://forum.paradoxplaza.co...

This is the topic on site balancing: https://forum.paradoxplaza.co... You'll see that it takes a lot of time to balance a site, and that so far, we had time to work only on Ziggurat and Lost City

That's why nobody talked about Strong sites before

Why does some heroes get the same skill twice?

and also, when you get a skill twice, if you improve it, does the benefit of the same skill stack?

+20% Blight Protection can be stacked yes. See the hero upgrade tree in the Wiki or the Tome of Wonders: https://age-of-wonders-3.fand...

I have had heroes that have Chaplain twice... if I take it 2 times, does that mean that I get +400 morale?

I thought that was just graphical bug. I have seen similar, but the when offered a skill you already have it just disappears after a turn later or so.

I never tried to take the same skill again.

Yeah, it's a kind of graphical bug. You can't actually take it twice

Oh, I see... thanks guys!

What are some good ways to quickly level up units and heroes/leaders?

For heroes and leaders it's very important to use the shooting weapon. Weapons with 3 shots grant experience of the tier once per shot. Heroes and leaders count as t3 unit when shooting. Shooting 3 times with a bow will give 3*3=9 exp to your leader. You can get 5 times exp for shooting with a 3-shot-weapon and additionally the exp for the killing blow. One-shot-weapons grant experience of 2 times of the tier. For example shooting with a musketier (tier 2) grant 2*2 = 4 exp.

Have a look at the wiki. Once you understand how to get exp you'll improve your AoW3-skills a lot.

Check out the videos of my match vs keika in Round 7 of the Duel Tournament: https://www.youtube.com/watch... keika is highlighting all my mistakes in the comments so a lot to learn from those videos!

Updated (and probably final) changelog of v1.3: https://steamcommunity.com/ap...

v1.3 probably updated on the beta branch this week end and then on the main branch in 1-2 weeks

Sea Creatures never take attack of opportunity (like units using Sprint).
This could be dangerous. So they just swim behind the units to flank them? Wasn't it possible to simply do it like Flying units? So they can dive under units but will get attack of opportunity?

@El_Lobo & Hiliadan thanks1 some helpful tips there I can use

@gladis, well accroding to the document you voted for that change

@Hiliadan So, based on the link you gave me, I think I'm not understanding xp counters very well. In keika's comments, it seems like he's saying that your HE initiates stole an xp counter from your leader. But don't different tier units and leaders have separate amounts of xp counters they can claim per battle? Or is it a cumulative pot that everyone pulls from?

Then you don't know the whole picture, keika

I wrote that I originally talked about an ability like flying. Now I just say we have to be cautious

Ok. So people voted for GC61a and then it was replaced by GC61e and no one voted again for this changed proposal. Votes just moved as is.

" Wasn't it possible to simply do it like Flying units?" No, it wasn't.

GC61e was not put to vote because it was generated due to technical difficulty to implement GC61a (itself a duplicate of GC61 which was not feasible). I asked only core group members about the technical change, and did not put the whole proposal to vote. If it's not appropriate, we can still reverse or change in v1.31

@Rippjack: the target has XP counters. The Dwarf Prospector had 5 counters (tier 1), consumed by Initiate twice for 2 counters each time, so 2x2 = 4. Only 1 left for my Leader

If I recall correctly, Hiliadan linked the forum post here when the intended flying change couldn't be implemented, so that we would be aware. Maybe even asked opinion? I think that's what prompted me to reply to his post.

*swimming change

@Hiladan Oh, snap! Ok, i understand now, thanks! So, with all the mods that have come out since, are the xp counters per unit in the wiki still current?

To be honest, I wonder why that patch is needed. sea creatures strong enough in water. After that patch, water structures too strong compare to land structures

Agree. Don't know what was the intention of that change.

@Rippjack: the Wiki is always about the official (vanilla) game and never takes into account mods. So you need to combine the Wiki + the balance mod changelog: https://docs.google.com/docum... Counters are lower in the balance mod

The Natural Swimming + Sea Creature boost proposal comes from here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.co... The idea is 1/ to reduce mobility of most units on water, to limit their advantage compared to land-based units. And 2/ to boost Sea Creatures which are not very useful on Continent map (and I haven't heard of them being OP on Island map either...)

Any opinion on 179. Henge is required to produce Shaman (was Arch Druid’s Dolmen) ?

From the consistency perspective - t3 class units should require t2 class building and t4 class unit should require t3 class building.
Currently there are two exceptions - shamans and death bringers.

From the balance perspective I don't see any reason for AD to have advantage.

Currently there are 3 exceptions but then we don't know if they are exceptions or the rule Evangelists too

Didn't we fixed evangelists in 1.30?

Also, from a balance perspective, it's not "an advantage", it's the status quo. The question is: does that make AD OP? I don't think it does, but I haven't really played a lot of AD players, so I might be underestimating the "Shaman strategy"

Yeah, you right. DN is too OP, so cannons must requre t2.

v1.3 is not yet released on the main branch and, no, the Evangelist require T2 building is a proposal for v1.31, not yet on v1.3

Well, I said my opinion. For me t2 building for t3 unit looks ok from the consistency and balance.

Totally agree with Keika. T3 units should require the t2 buiilding without any exception.

agreed too

I think, I, too, agree with that. It feels a bit cheap to be able to produce T3 class unit from a newly acquired city by just building one building (or two if we count Builder's Hall).

If you want to nerf something from a class, you have to add something to cover that nerf to fix power of that class. And for 1.31, I can't see anything for that side. Elf AD highly focused on hunter, so no matter the shaman building is, it's the strongest except against MC rush in very close starting.

However theo in 1.30 already middle tier class and there are several serious nerfs in 1.31. So I hope they just delete that class.

About Dreadnought also, I still can't understand faster road movement can solve problems vs floating, flying, swimming. There are also problem of upkeep as I said before.

@Hiliadan Yeah, that's what i assumed. my units/heroes leveled up way easier in the vanilla game than they have with the mods (which was why I posted about my xp gain problem in the 1st place). Appreciate the link, thanks.

Hi there. Rookie-question. If I build a city on a fortress with 1 turn to go to be a stone fortress will the city then get the stone wall when erected on the following turn?

I have the same question, seems like a bug that could cost you 120 gold

I think no, the city will get only Wooden Wall, but I'm unsure

It will get a wooden wall. Tested it in a custom map. The settler registers a wooden wall even though it finishes the same turn as the stone wall upgrade on the fortress.

omg

u guys are all vetrans and you did not know this ?

u guys must have been smoking the good shit laterly hey ?

Havn't known that too. Sometimes even a simple question leads to an important insight! :-)

A good player don't waste fortress for wall.

Novo. In general yes, but you build it for raduis not for "walls". And so it depends on sites in radius.
Applicable to both - fortresses and cities.

And it's also important in terms of defence. Ranged units are much stronger on a wall and can stand their ground against stronger armys.

If you build a beacon for example in most casesone stack of t2 archers on a stone wall is enough to repel the attack of the indies.