Alstein

Suggestion on a Path of the Governor Fix. Heroes should unlock a Governor's Mansion that can be built in each city- that gives an XP amount per turn for units Governing (maybe limited to path of the Governor). That XP bonus ups with Ereog/Breon techs, or a better building unlocks with each of those techs. It should be a significant building to build (equivalent to a butchery), but not limited to one per faction. As for roads, I&#39

1) Autoresolve 2) The webbing of archers (could be fixed either by changing web or changing the AI. Beguile and web should have an effect on ranged as well. 3) insta-raze by AI 4) Roads going through wildlands and monster lairs 5) AI doesn't seem to understand how to use silver tongue. The militia thing, it can be exploited by the player- if this was MP it would be a ma

Maybe it should be a global unrest penalty that is based on various factors, not just number of cities. Also, I'd like to see this: cities that are conquered lose their last level, and population goes to the minimum of their lowered level. If a city drops to lvl 1, all buildings are destroyed. If it doesn't drop to lvl 1, a percentage of buildings are destroyed. Towers and one per faction buildings are always destoyed. &

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="11" id="3306534"]For FE, I like a lot of these ideas. In the upcoming expansion, the "Faction prestige" thing is going away. Instead, city growth will depend entirely on available food and unrest. The more cities you have, the more unrest you get. [/quote] That sounds much better as a concept. I still think there's a fundamental problem with city spam that I'd have concerns this won't

Idea: make the pioneers production time be based on the growth rate of the city instead of any other factor? That might make overexpansion really hard, as pioneers would take very long to build. also make pioneers unrushable. That might work, though it's a bit wonky. Would also make growth rate buildings like inns and well more useful in early game.

Even a city with 2 food would be able to pop out a settler, they'd just need a garden first. Also, food cap doesn't hurt growth rate, so what you are saying isn't a problem.

The design principle would be something like this School know is +2 Research School under my idea would be +1 Research per city level. Markets could be +2 Gildar per City Level You might have a few additional buildings that give +1's here and there that require a high level city. Certain other buildings like command posts, might have their build times lowered, but require a lvl 3 fortress. Masterwork Blacksmith: lvl 4 fortress

My suggestion: a two-pronged approach 1) Make more buildings for higher level cities, or make the effects of certain buildings at least partially a function of city level or population. This will make growth mean more. The downside is , especially if based on population, this tends to go against Derek's design principles. 2) Have a logistics cap for how many cities you can control at once, that is based on map size, and increases w

My idea would be complicated in execution but simple in concept: make higher level cities more valiable- to the point where 1 lvl 3 city is easily worth 3 lvl 1 cities. Maybe make some of the city buildings increase in power per level, have wonders require a lvl 3 city, and multiple wonders a lvl 4. After playing some Civ V, I noticed that game made expansion a pretty annoying slog with unhappiness, so that concept might work here using different mechanics.<

Realistically, it's a three horse race (another pun) You guys, Smashers, and Injustice.

News Flash (and given my Steam name I should be doing the weather on here LOL) EVO has a donation drive (for breast cancer) for the 8th and final game, and the Pony fighter is on the list. There is a rumor floating around that someone donated a half million dollars to get the Ponies into EVO.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="73" id="3305739"] Quoting mqpiffle, reply 65 Quoting Frogboy, reply 39+ Fixed but that caused AI to disproportionately choose the first level up perk (like Assassin) Does this mean they will choose a random trait at level up, or will the AI pseudo-intelligently choose a trait based on certain conditions? It's not super intelligent about it. I weight the choice based on the unit's equipment and stats.[/quote] I&#

The #2 AI should in general be looking for a partner to gangbang the #1 player, or should try to rush down the #1 player if he can do it.

If a unit requiring a city level isn't coded (would it be different then a building requiring a lvl), perhaps it should be coded? I think limiting some buildings (or adding some) to higher city levels would enhance the game as a general balance rule. I'd love to see world buildings require lvl 3, with a cap of 1 per city level above 2 (so lvl 3 can have 1, lvl 4 2, and lvl 5 3) I think that would solve another problem with the game

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="49" id="3305311"] Quoting Heavenfall, reply 45I don't like that pioneer gold cost one bit. It makes taking wealthy and selling all your items the most winning strategy. If you want to limit early game pioneer spam, just make building a pioneer drain 20-30 population from the town it got built in. This is a very interesting thought. What do others think? I don't think the Civ model would work for Pioneers because g

Are ancient temples coming back into the sandbox mode? I never see them. I like the balance changes listed. I think encumbrance penalties should be 50 and 25% though.

I agree, but I think a minimum strength might be a better idea to avoid player cheesing.

Legislation is necessary in companies that don't have adequate competition. See big cable in the US- who finds it easier to buy legislators to stifle competition than to buy better equipment and improve service.

Classical walls would likely be a huge problem for the AI, walls would be neat but tactical battles aren't developed well enough for that, and I'm also thinking of quick combat.

Static defense= militia and other things. Simply put: noticing way too much raiding being way too effective, for both player and AI. FE is always going to have the stack of doom issue, so make the game revolve around them more. Suggested fixes: Allow cities and conclaves to build walls and other defensive structures. Limiting it to fortresses just makes no sense. 2nd change:&nbs

Tested on my better laptop, and the AI is much more annoying and the performance isn't as impacted. So I would want to keep this improved AI, but it needs to be a slider. One suggested gameplay change: allow non-fortresses to build walls and defensive improvements. I think it needs to be easier to build up static defense.

+ per level weapons are always going to be OP in the hands of high-level units.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="2" id="3302419"] Quoting scifi1950, reply 1I have a pretty good game going on the Anthy's map (Custom Sov & map settings changed to allow denser resources), but I'll start a new game & give this a try. I'll let you know if I notice anything different (good or bad). BTW - Is this just for the Faction AI or did you make changes in the monster/UPC AI also? It's everything. And y

I think one per game buildings should be set by faction. Like say, Resoln_playername_unique building if that's possible. Playername would be needed in case you had two identical factions in-game. Would this be possible?

When someone starts building a project building, or puts it in their queue, no one else can build it. It's ridiculous.