XP drain rules

I noticed "feature", if multiple hero units present in same group, amount of XP from combat drop significantly, 5 hero party will get 1xp from nearly any combat, single hero and 4 units get 30+ each.

This "feature" basically enshure doom of any champion - soulsteal, ever if no spell trait present.

Cant see any reason for this, heroes shoud be superior to normal units, but current implementation basically force player to keep only single hero per squad.

At early game, when you get 3 heroes fast, they all doomed, keeping in same party drain XP, train new party - no gold income.

Weak wilndess groups are gone, all medium or strong.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

the point of it is to make troops worthwhile. if there was nothing to discourage multiple heroes, then you'd just run around with a group of 7 heroes conquering empires easily.

Champions represent Leaders of Men. Dominant personalities. They work best when they each have room to express themselves, and troops under their command.

the fact is quite simple, the game is better this way. i didn't like it at first, but it is far more balanced and logical. you don't put 6 generals in a group and send them to the frontline as a unit

a case could be made that the game doesn't adequately support this system. i would perhaps like to see more tiered quests and encounters, perhaps things that would require a certain type of champion, or quests that are only open to low level characters so you'd have an incentive to spread things around and not just mop everything up with your soverign

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting NanakoAC,

reply 1

the point of it is to make troops worthwhile. if there was nothing to discourage multiple heroes, then you'd just run around with a group of 7 heroes conquering empires easily.

Champions represent Leaders of Men. Dominant personalities. They work best when they each have room to express themselves, and troops under their command.

the fact is quite simple, the game is better this way. i didn't like it at first, but it is far more balanced and logical. you don't put 6 generals in a group and send them to the frontline as a unit

a case could be made that the game doesn't adequately support this system. i would perhaps like to see more tiered quests and encounters, perhaps things that would require a certain type of champion, or quests that are only open to low level characters so you'd have an incentive to spread things around and not just mop everything up with your soverign

Exactly ^ and quite obvious to a real strategist. Even in the real world some generals are just desk jockeys.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The formula (from https://forums.elementalgame.com/442183):

There an amount of xp determined by the monster strength and your party strength - call it x.

If you have no heroes, each unit gets x/2, and henchmen get x each.

If you have one hero, that hero gets x, henchmen get x each, and non hero units get x/2

If you have more than one hero, the heroes and henchmen get x/(number of heroes), and non hero units get x/((number of heroes))

They have changed how the first stage is calculated, as compared to fallen enchantress, so that beating monsters stronger than your group does not provide as much of a bonus as before.

Problem is real, also discussed in this other thread: https://forums.elementalgame.com/442157

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting NanakoAC,

reply 1

the point of it is to make troops worthwhile. if there was nothing to discourage multiple heroes, then you'd just run around with a group of 7 heroes conquering empires easily.

Ironically at no point since WoM has a group of heroes been more powerful than a group of decent trained troops. Even now with a cap of x6 instead of x9, well equipped trained troops always outshine heroes in terms of damage and survivability. A lot of people just never wanted to use troops because they were boring and required more effort to setup, they used all heroes and steamrolled and just assumed it was because they were using heroes, rather than the game just being too easy before with an AI that couldn't fight it's way out of a wet tissue paper bag. You'd likely get owned hard now if you tried an all hero army on the difficulty you usually play for a challenge. Sovs and heroes are fun support units, they do work best alone or in pairs amid an army of trained troops. The only thing the exp split achieves is to encourage people to use multiple armies, which is actually a good idea.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Remember Civilization I & II? It didn't have any heroes or sovs or overpowering 1 shot characters that won or lost you the game(s). It had down to earth realistic units with their own stats and traits that didn't go sky high because of a magical find or rings and things. Once again what is wrong with fantasy games is that they emphasis the leader, sov or heroes TOO DAMN MUCH. The games are TOO DEPENDENT on the living or dying of just these particular units. Yeah you can lose 100 infantry units but lose that ONE SINGLE character or hero and it's GAME OVER BABY.

I don't mind the idea of heroes and champions and Sovs per se, but, give them base stats (which can be better than normal troops) but not so much the game is over if one or two or even all of them get killed. Just have an INN or a place where one can go pick up some more like in a game called The 7 Kingdoms.

Almost every FANTASY game I can think up had this type of leveling up of a hero or champion or leader. From WARLORDS to present day Elemental. Please break that mold and just give us a good fantasy wargame without all the RPG crap. If you want a good example of a GREAT ONE go find a copy of SPI's "Swords & Sorcery" that game will show you how to make a fantasy game without it having to have RPG elements in it and still have RPG feeling about it. Nothing levels UP but you still get a lot of adventure and discovery and kewl higher level units that can live and die at your command.

Even Gandalf and Borimir and Thorin? died and still the Ring was destroyed. This is what is missing from fantasy games...reality.

Successfully updated karma reason!

i don't get all the complaints about XP split either. sure, on a small/medium map with default monster density, there's not enough potential XP floating around to level more than 1 or maybe two heroes to decent levels, but on those maps you probably won't need many armies anyway. you will reach the point soon enough where you clash with other factions and then it's more about cranking out soldiers to fight their troops and conquer them and not so much about hunting dragons, liches, titans and all that fun stuff.

play maps with more potential XP (more quests, higher monster density/difficulty, more wildlands) if you enjoy the RPG aspect and want to level up all your champions. slower tech pacing also helps, since that reduces the impact of trained troops (takes a while to get to the juicy techs that make them powerful) and thus makes heroes more competitive for a longer time.

you can also make the AI factions weaker than the environment if you don't really care about conquest and domination and just want to have some fun fighting epic battles vs. powerful monsters. there really is no right or wrong way to set up the game - just don't expect default settings to be the best fun for your you. i often change settings radically between games to get a different type of challenge, there's nothing wrong with experimenting and sticking to settings that you like.

Successfully updated karma reason!