[.915] [BUG] [Stop 'tireless march' from stacking]

But then, the game goes a lot faster when I do it.  Winning could be very tedious at 4 squares per turn.

Well if you don't have tireless march, it means that you can never catch up to the enemy army and they can decimate your resources.

I think 5 squares a turn should be enough.  (Horse + Longstrider Boots + Only 1 Tireless March applying per stack)

In agreement with you, Steven--as amusing as it is for my charging stacks to always reach the enemy and kill them the opening round of combat, it's too over the top.

Disagree. And strongly. The game in strategic layer is way to slow the way it is. Cutting anything that gives speed is exactly the wrong direction imo.
Give enough of other speed-boosting stuff (yes I also mean for normal units) thus making the stacking tireless march have a less profound impact overall in comparison.

Its not over the top its how the rest of movement should be or a good measure less.

If necessary, scale up the size of tactical maps (which offers more room again for intersting features in tactical...) when there is no possibility to divorce strategic from tactical moves (which imo might be the better option).

Only my opinion of course, I feel ever since the outcry against organized at the very start of WoM the whole movement thing has went downhill (one of the few things FE gets worse than WoM imo is strategic movement being a crawl). Hope this one is revisited sometime down the road (Not because its a show-stopping overwhelming issue, just because there are so many ways how it could be done better resulting in a more fun game.)

Have to admit I can't even fully understand what those who favor slow-moving stacks in strategic where features slow a move of 2 further to a movement of 1 through forests and hills (so it may very well be a problem with my own perception and I'm just ignorant and dead wrong about the topic overall).

Oh and the AI uses it to good effect either (more intensly than I do actually in my games not least since in impossible AI gets there way early...) so It would also hamper harder AI thus cutting part of the challenge some of us playing harder difficulties actually choose to expose us to...

Then there is the catch that this just works with lots of heroes in the stack (since from what I can see it just can be cast on heroes) something that is discouraged by split XP and a considerable tradeoff / offering a different playstyle for hero-oriented players and AI alike... So not all bad (am not 100% certain of this but I believe it really is hero exclusive. If it isn't: make it so ;))

There are other ways to stop the AI in its tracks than catching up (and they cost considerable Mana) so that is covered in a sensible way (and the AI should very much use those methods as well, strategic spells cast on stacks can be very powerful if used shrewdly something obviously and sorely missing from the AIs considerations...).

So overall I consider that one a feature (and one that increases my fun of the game as it seems to be for some of the people posting in this thread in spite of holding a different opinion) not a bug...

I think Tireless March shouldn't apply in combat.  Tireless March implies endurance, not speed.

Oh I'm all for divorcing strategic movement and tactical movement altogether.
Walking and fighting need not be the same...
Since it is an obvious limitation for movement-design and map-design as well as unit-design and many other things since movement affects alot and in both layers...
Doesn't seem to be considered by the devs so far (or at least wasn't publicly discussed as a topic which needs work) either for reasons of having a different vision or for the reason of limitations (be it memory or time to look at or implement).

If the devs for whatever reasons can't do the above, bigger tactical maps fix the issue just as well and as an added bonus also allows for a more interesting layout and tac-battle design (tac-battles do work the way they are + are negatively impacted much more than strategic does though. So please no misunderstanding of where I see the main issue.)

6 moves in tactical is op no matter how you look at it. I'm fine with a large amount of moves late-game in strategic mode.

@ Havenfall: only if the move of most units is 2 (maybe someone can explain me while units need to crawl in either tactical or strategic "no matter what". The conditions themselves might be the real problem which should be tackled head on is another way of thinking about the issue) and there is just flat land and excessively small, otherwise I can't blindly agree.

If the average is at 4-5 or higher that whould be much less of an issue pair that with a bigger tactical map and even some features to spice it up (that last thing is unlikely from one of the devs posts about their direction).

Takes some time to cook up a good result for sure but might be very well worth the effort in terms of raw fun and strategy depths alike (needn't be AoW:SM-style combat by a long shot to acheive the above though...).

I must agree that tireless march stacking is a pain, I generally dislike all the movement speed buffs you can get. A few turns of warning when one is attacked is what I want when the enemy is at the gates.
If the game where ment to be played with 7 movement speed armies then the game devs should set the normal movement pace up there as to not make tireless army the speed-winning spell.

Making more ways to improve movement speed would further destroy the current tactical combats as well as the lightning-fast rushes on enemy towns turning towns and villages into rubble before anyone have time to respond to this furious speedy blitz.

IMO its ridiculous the way it plays ATM , you have to almost rush tireless march on later difficulties, or just pick master scouts (Or both!) to have any chance to catch the same pace as the AI.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Nope you can just cast freeze or tremor (not even very hier tiers of elemental spheres) or have distributed forces all works just alright. So does tornado, pillar of fire or firestorm in different yet effective ways (as an enchanter those options even work offensively in neutral territory thanks to arcane monolith. Zone of influence does and should matter a great deal imo).
I get along without it in most of my games allright. (until maybe mopup but at that point its a huge boon without much of the negatives...)

Actually garrisoning stuff also works since the AI doesn't attack and then move. Yet (but in my experience the above options cover the whole thing in strategic quite well and garrisoning would be far more tendious. Its only the AI which should learn to use the above either. How players will cry when Frogboy teaches it to... :D)

Strategic spells are there to be used and imo its right to be forced to use strategic spells to good effect to win ridiculous if winnable at all.


That said I come to the same conclusions like you Kongdej about what tireless does to tactical (disagree about the strategic part. The whole move-system on that layer has only changed for the worse since WoMs launch imo, not seing any clear makeover or even directed vision there besides cutting all stuff granting moves and could very very much use a makeover like many other parts of the game got to great effect. Maybe its time to put it to the axe?). But I see this as a very clear sign that the regular rest is not well and do see what you described as problematic very much as a desirable state (if the problematic rest is tackled with it but that I consider a given if it is tackled at all looking at how other things are adressed by the FE-Team :)).



Also dialing down the difficulty if the AI flattens you with tireless march is an option (since it will use tireless later the lower you go). I don't see how that brakes tireless march or how that is actually undesirable (if you would be forced to use certain paths exclusively on normal or even challenging I could understand your argument better). I assure you there are ways to handle an AI using it right now in the game waiting to be used (in tactical the counter-measures are harder to set up but possible. Tatical might also change though and take some work to be truly shining. But unlike in strategic, this has been recognized as a place needing work by brad himself back in beta 2 and seen steady improvements so I'm hopeful it'll get another look).


On a good note though: I'm sure that is in the realm of what is moddable in some good way, so if the devs don't do it well modders might... Sad enough for the game if it comes to that though since I'm sure it needn't be...

1: I think you are excusing one bad mechanic by using spells that are poorly balanced. Lets face it, being able to lock an army stack in place due to tremor is bad design.

2: Oh what marvels its going to do for the games publicity to have if you have to mod the game before it becomes "decently playable"
As I said before, I might just be too... ehh whats the english word... needy?
I just try compare it to all the other games on the market though, and right now there is a lot I could play instead, A new level of immersion for civ 5 for example (Some expansion upcoming 19 or 20...)
But I guess this game have some more focus on developping the game and have the potential to break the roof (if you ask me, mostly because it is a follower of the way "Master of Magic" played, and it has magic and heroes and dragons and... and... Ok gotta stop myself now

Sincerely
~ Kongdej