To be honest, there should be some restriction to what you can rush build, and a soft limit in rushing in general.  Let's say you rush three things in one turn, the second and third should cost more because you're basically paying for double and triple overtime.  You can do it, but it will be an inefficient use of your treasury.

I do agree the rushing mechanic should be changed. A small change making this a lot smaller issue is to allow last turn's unused production to go to the next item in the list.

To me it seems the AI is currently left behind in the early game. If it manages to get to middle & late stages of the game, then it will play OK. But, usually at that stage it is already left behind and there is no real fight.

My "rules for winning":

• Never build pioneers if there is no known use for it.
• Build military units only when you have economic backbone to do so without raising taxes. In the early game, do not build them at all.
• Try to minimize unrest, maximize production, then population, and finally economy and research in cities (in this order).
• Rush-build.
• Leveling up your supporting units is _important_. The HP bonuses are important for your success. Autoresolve will kill your fast units often by rushing them to enemy lines. Put high-def high HP units in the first line, then attack flanks with the glass cannons once engaged.

I really fail to understand why people love minimum build times.  A city already has a measure of its production capacity.  It is called, wait for it... production! 

If a city can produce something in three months why the Hell should it take nine instead?  Why do we need to artificially cap and slow down things?  You build an outpost that can control four resource, and now your city has to stop and spend three years on developing them?  No time to dig a well meanwhile, they are too busy?

If a city has X production, it should be able to produce X worth of buildings and units in a turn.  You need a reason not to do it this way, and I have not heard one yet.

How about the rush feature only adding a percentage to the production, reducing the time instead of insta-builds.

CoreDifficultyLevels.xml holds the modifiers for difficulty.

Thank you.

AIIntelligenceFactor - I thought that this means that he is calculating the moves longer than usual

Thank you.

In my "expert" in cheating automatic battle. And after the defeat of his champions without physical injury.

In general, the computer is not very good at using magic bus. For example I put Haste on the main unit. At the beginning of the fight is far outweighs the balance. He can not do this, when the manna little. When a lot of mana, can take a very expensive spells (100 worth at a time), on which aid is less than Haste.

Вообще компьютер не очень хорошо использует магию в автобое. На пример я наношу Haste на самых главных юнитов. В начале боя это сильно перевешивает баланс. Он же может не сделать этого, когда манны мало. Когда манны много, может применять очень дорогие заклинания (по 100 стоимостью за раз), от которых помощи меньше чем от Haste.

It is desirable that the main characters, he puts a spell. I mean global spell.

Желательно что бы на основных персонажей он наносил защитные заклинания. Я имею ввиду глобальные заклинания.

A few more important things. AI does not retreat wounded troops. This is especially true for melee fighters. There are a couple of fighters or teams with full health. Is there an advantage in battle. Why did he send in the midst of the battle of wounded soldiers? It is necessary to send in the midst of units with the highest level of health! Wounded champion lose very sorry (for example, the hero up to 50 HP. If he left 10 HP, then he should withdraw. If archers shoot at him, he should retreat and at 20 HP. And he had to hide behind trees). The same goes for other teams. Injured a stone golem. Wounded troops melee. It is necessary to assess the power of the enemy. Archers good estimate of the enemy. Melee is not. If the fight can be won, it must at all costs keep alive Champions. If possible, it is necessary to save recruiting beings with good (like a stone statue of the Golem. Very good unit to start the game). And the first step is to kill the enemy archers. And those who do more damage (most characters). In second place finish off the weakest.

AI know who the man? I read that there is discrimination against the players. For example neutrals do not attack AI. I myself had ever seen. But now I have persuaded the Allies (Allies team. They had to give a lot of their resources. Money, metal, horse, etc.) to attack the common enemy. In this case, the enemy on which all the power is on me. For which he does not attack my allies AI? By the fact that he started the war with me first? Or he knows who before him (AI or human)?

Ещё несколько важных вещей. ИИ не отступает ранеными отрядами. Это особенно касается рукопашных бойцов. Есть пара бойцов или отрядов с полным здоровьем. Есть преимущество в битве. Зачем он посылает в гущу сражения раненых бойцов? Надо посылать в гущу юнитов с максимальным уровнем здоровья! Раненого чемпиона потерять очень жалко (допустим у героя максимум 50 HP. если у него осталось 10 HP, то ему надо отступать. если по нему стреляют лучники, то ему надо отступать и при 20 HP. и ему надо прятаться за деревьями). То же самое касается других отрядов. Раненый каменный голем. Раненные отряды ближнего боя. Надо оценивать силы врага. Лучники хорошо оценивают силы врага. Рукопашные же не очень. Если бой можно выиграть, то надо любой ценой оставить чемпионов живыми. По возможности, надо спасти призывных существ с хорошими показателями (вроде каменного голема из статуэтки. очень хороший юнит для начала игры). И первым делом надо убивать лучников у врага. И тех, кто наносит больше урона (чаще всего героев). На втором месте добивание самых слабых.

ИИ знает кто человек? Я читал что есть дискриминация игроков. К примеру нейтралы не нападают на ИИ. Сам я такого не видел. Но вот сейчас я уговорил союзников (союзники по команде. пришлось им отдать кучу своих ресурсов. деньги, металл, лошади и прочее) напасть на общего врага. При этом враг по чему то все силы ведёт на меня. По чему он не нападает на моих союзников ИИ ? По тому что он начал войну со мной первым? Или он знает кто перед ним (ИИ или человек) ?

>Total Attack / (Total Defense + Hit Points)

And to whom was he attack first? I just do not quite understand the formula. I attack those who are most prejudicial. In the long battle - is the key to success.

А на кого именно он нападает первым? Не совсем понял формулу. Я нападаю на тех, кто больше всего урона наносит. В длительной битве - это залог успеха.

AI is generally not too bad. I for example a couple of times did: first spell correctly applied the amplifier (after which the MP I had no), put closer to the enemy cannon fodder, and included automatic battle. If the AI at the end of battle has severely wounded away, it would be all perfect (on a fully manual battles long gone). And I'm talking about the battles that in "fast automatic battle" always leads to defeat (ie, all my troops defeated. The enemy occasionally one of the units killed). And with full manual control could they win without losses (but most losses were unimportant 1.2 units). Needed here more elaborate system of priorities. With the division of the enemy's army in two. The use of topographic features. Very often, the victory is that the enemy army droblyu apart. And each of these parts are quickly killed. That is cannon fodder running from the enemy. The strongest teams (champions on horseback. Haste.) To destroy this moment the most important part of the enemy. This is especially effective if the champions of high level (with more than 100 HP. Evage) and in the unit more than two. After that, the city is restored. And again attack the approaching enemy.

ИИ в целом не так уж плох. Я к примеру пару раз делал так: вначале правильно применял усилительные заклинания (после чего маны у меня не оставалось), ставил ближе к врагу пушечное мясо, и включал автоматический бой. Если бы ИИ ещё в конце таких битв отводил подальше тяжело раненых, то было бы вообще идеально (на полностью ручные битвы много времени уходит). И это я говорю о битвах, которые в "быстром автоматическом бою" всегда приводят к поражению (то есть все мои войска разбиты. у врага изредка 1 из отрядов убит). А при полностью ручном управлении удавалось их выиграть даже без потерь (но чаще были потери 1-2 маловажных отрядов).Тут нужна более продуманная система приоритетов. С разделением армии врага на две части. Использование особенностей рельефа . Очень часто победа заключается в том, что вражескую армию дроблю на части. И каждую из этих частей быстро убиваю. То есть пушечное мясо бегает от врага. Самые сильные отряды (чемпионы на конях. + Haste.) в этот момент уничтожают самые главные вражеские части. Особенно это эффективно, если чемпионы высокого уровня (с более чем 100 HP. + Evage ) и их в отряде больше двух. После этого в городе восстанавливаюсь. И снова нападать на приближающегося врага.

p.s. Archers can sometimes be overlooked. If your most important units in good condition.

p.s. Лучников иногда можно игнорировать. Если самые важные ваши отряды в хорошем состоянии.

I understand the desire for competitive starting locations, but I prefer the randomness of the starts. I am a purest when it comes to gameplay, I take the roles as they land and deal with the limitations. Of course it yields a more difficult game, but I play to play and not to win. Some of my most enjoyable games are when I lose and the game turns to how long can I survive, even after 6 hours of gameplay to a loss, I had fun playing. I don't believe in imparting this gameplay to others and I so I like the compromise already in place crtl+n.

As for the AI starting position, I hope that harder difficulties (higher than challenging I suppose), the AI can cheat the starting location, to always have tile yield of at least 4 3 2 for the starting city (as difficulty goes up the yields move to a 5 4 3 tile yield for starting city), and so the AI just needs to find a river or forest nearby to take advantage (Not sure how difficult that is to program, given the current state).

The idea of standardizing the starting locations, leaves me with fewer options of gameplay. I'd prefer if they didn't limit my gameplay. I like starting the game with no shards nearby or other resources. It leaves me to explore to find the resource and then compete withe AI to get that resource quickly. Sometimes my capital city is not my biggest city or the most productive, feels more realistic. I enjoy playing the game where I have no essence for my first city.

This is not like a poker game, where I only play if I think I can win. But I do not begrudge those who only want to play if they think they can win with their current hand. But I don't want this to be a game where everybody starts with basically the same resource cards in their hand and only the draw deck is randomized. Even if the resource hand is randomized, it is still of the same format. Must have at least 1 shard card, 1 resource card, and tile cards of at least 3 4 2 (or variant). It removes some of the replay value, especially if you grow to acquire new tastes in gameplay mechanics.

I choose option A.  Fallen Enchantress is shaping up to have quite a bit of replay value due to the amount of variety found in the beginning of each new game, and the degree to which this effects it's outcome.   The transition from feeling like a RPG to playing like a strategy game is very smooth.

I'm with OrionM42 on this one.  Give me a checkbox.  Random (as it is now) and Balanced (whatever beta testers think is best)

My choice for Balanced would 3/3/2, a shard matching the highest path of the sovereign, a hero, a weak quest, and a few weak lairs.

Just a point regarding these so called "true random maps"...

As I said earlier, most of the land is impassable and empty. A 100X100 tile maps hold actually only 4000 that you can/will walk on, and they are one giant maze usually. This is a type of map, but it's really different from the normal maps. Atleast give us rough options such as found in civ.