Frogboy

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="13" id="3087731"] I am definitely looking forward to the new AI. [/quote] If you win, Tasaunke, I will stalk you. It's what I do now.

Just lost. Hate. So. Much. Hate.

I think this thread should keep going right up until release. Look, we're all aware that this is a niche genre in 2011. This is a great opportunity for a lot of us who have been into this type of game for years to brain storm different ideas.

My thoughts exactly. Here's the thing I'm bitching about: I've been able to write up all kinds of sick stuff for the AI to do that the human can't realistically do because there's no UI. I've written up rally points, army groups (you guys deal with armies one unit at a time, I look at the map in terms of GROUPS of armies). Even tactically you humans are pathetic. You never look at the big picture. You worry about saving a precious

Trust me on this: The game will be AWESOME. This is the game people have been waiting for in this area. While other games in this genre keep retreading DOTA, Ironclad is the one taking it to its next logical step.

I just didn't realize the significance of army groups when combined with the pure mathematics of AI. I'm in Skype right now complaining to Derek that humans can't see how many turns it'll take their unit to reach a destination but the AI has no problem computing that. Of course, the AI also has the rally points from GalCiv II which we're not currently providing players. But that's different!

You can see our solar array behind Bailey in one of those shots.

I really like what I'm reading here guys. Please keep it up! I'm eager to borrow and steal where applicable.

[quote who="Rebell44" reply="26" id="3086983"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 25In all these discussions, I have never heard someone suggest what alternative should be used for the features Steamworks provides. The issue for us isn't Steam. It's Steamworks. I've talked about this very issue for literally years. IMO, the OS vendor should be providing this stuff for free and aggressively supporting it. But they're not. Frankly, as a game developer

I'm looking for ways that are satisfying to the player. Obviously the AI will eventually just cast the spell of making and win. But that could be hundreds of turns. You have a well defended city with very powerful champions in that one city it can be really hard to conquer it conventionally. So I am thinking of spells that increase unrest or lower defenses (and of course spells that decrease unrest and increase defenses). If player A controls the

[quote who="Trojasmic" reply="52" id="3084805"]C'mon Brad... an experienced gamer like you should be able to win this game on Normal. Do some research, build some buildings, recruit some champions, crank out some units, be smart in your tactical battles, and go take over the world![/quote] The AI was cheating or something. Plus it's a tiny map so not a lot of room to maneuver. Plus I was still doing the "Stacks of doom" thing which is not a good idea early on as I get ou

[quote who="mastroego" reply="75" id="3084839"] Quoting seanw3, reply 74 Were you here several years ago when Elemental was being thought up? As I recall, the game did start out as MoM and the community, most of whom have since left, wanted the game to be significantly different. I read about WoM maybe a couple of months before its release. Regardless of what you just said, at that time it was still advertised as MoM's spiritual successor. Which is the one and only r

Btw, fe already has zones of control in tactical battles. I was thinking of suggesting the concept of fatigue. That basically, each turn units lose a % of their imitative until they're all the same speed. It would take several turns but eventuallythey'd equal out.

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="7" id="3085357"]If your champion gets 3 moves for every 1 the monster gets, why shouldn't you be able to outdistance him? Another solution, then: Archer units may not shoot more than 6 times in any tactical combat.[/quote] Because ultimately what it would mean is that get enough initiative = win.

Wouldn't that just slow it down? My mega champion with crazy initiative gets 3 turns to the monster's 1 turn. So turn 1, he runs back turn 2, he shoots turn 3 he shoots monster moves towards him. turn 4 he shoots turn 5 he moves back etc. I've been pondering about requesting a initiative cap on ranged units. But not sure how to justify that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiting_(video_gaming) This is an issue that, as the AI guy, I'm still struggling with. How to defend against this? I've been tempted to have the AI do it to the human but the more I think about it, the more unsatisfying that would be. In beta 1, the kiting issue isn't huge because the tactical maps are so small. But in Beta 2, they start to get a lot more int

[quote who="RogueCaptain" reply="35" id="3085115"]If magic is channeled from sovereign to champions then shouldn't the flow stop when the sovereign is in the death penalty box? Only comment since the beta started. Just sayin[/quote] That is a very interesting idea.

A good suggestion example: Archers don't scale up. Can we make accuracy be to ranged units what strength is to Melee units. A suggestion example we can't use: I think FE should be the best of Master of Magic (well the one that was modded over several years, not the original release) PLUS Age of Wonders:SW (not the original AOW or AOW2 but AOW2:SW) PLUS Total War.

[quote who="Rishkith" reply="47" id="3083057"] There are points to be made for both sides and it is up to Stardock to consider both sets and make the correct decision. I do hope they pay more attention to beta test feedback with Fallen Enchantress than they did with the abyssmal War of Magic. [/quote] God I find that last comment obnoxious. You learned the wrong lesson from WOM. If you think WOM would have been a great game h

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="12" id="3082329"]From past experiences with WoM ... the general 'feel' of a tactical battle doesn't change. (within a given game) Tactical battles will be MORE BALANCED and LESS BUGGY upon release, but they will use the same philosophies that they have today.[/quote] Given that WOM was based on turns rather than initiative, I don't see how you can really compare the two. In FE, tactical battles are meant to be fast,

Yea, I am looking forard to looking at that code. I have had cases where ranged units are in front.

As a reminder, this is a MOM tactical battle: Small maps, no obstacles, no FOW, battles over quickly. Which is what we're going for as well. This is the FE one: <img src="http://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Jing/media/2e7b5cfe-2814-4e48-8aaf-6923b158e9c0/2012-02-13_1947.

[quote who="OneLion" reply="20" id="3081823"]Well thanks for information but I'm still a friend of agile iterative development with frequent releases. If some people deduce from a beta that the game is broken it's their fault and you can always proof them wrong with a next release. One of the main problems (imo) with infrequent releases is that if there is a change in their that gets bad feedback it is much harder to remove/undo it since from the introduction of the bug/fea

Whatever it means to you.

[quote who="neone6" reply="13" id="3081450"]Yeah right.... Streaming, surfing etc is all good on a hand held, but....... Skinning and designing 3D grafix on a hand held ?? Sure bacon [/quote] Bluetooth input devices. Airplay output to displays.