as poor as the ai is, i don't really see how they can really get to grips with it until all the games basic mechanics are in place, and judging by the list they apparently aren't.
there's nothing necesarrily wrong with endlessly accumulating resources: we have endlessly accumulating gold but no one complains about that. the difference between mana and gold is that you very rarely spend mana to make mana, or spend another resource to make mana. it is part of the resource system but not yet fully integrated yet. while there are ways to spend mana to make other resources, there are very few ways to make up a shortfall. so maybe if there were more ways of making and spendi
a flow system would be atrocious. you'd replace the pressure to never use mana with a pressure to use it every turn. every turn that went by without you casting a spell (even if it was just a map reveal or some other subtle fluff thing) would be a waste. sovs would be powerful beyond imagining if they cast spells every turn. this is a many-term game. people should be able to just spam end-turn 5 times every now and then to get things moving. you can't force people to micro that much, not the
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="29" id="2902971"] Fine example of how no game can be all things for all players. I loathe the idea of such limits on mana. But then I'm still seriously hoping that FE will include major new options for using mana, like item creation, stupendous summonings, and spells with an open-ended mana cost so players have to decide just how big a firestorm they want to rain down on an enemy city. [/quote] to quote an old post of mine:
i too miss essense. many reasons. to elaborate on GW's comments: firstly as a means of limiting imbuing it was much better than mana maint. a one point per turn mana maint over the course of the game is absolutely huge, because the system is so coarsely grained. we have now created a situation where you'd be stupid to imbue anyone or summon anything (for more than a couple of turns) until you have a huge mana income (ie, late to mid game, when the game is
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="92" id="2901280"]Well in v1.3 the game takes a pretty different course as I'll be the one implementing features directly. Tactical AI changes Strategic AI changes No more training of individual units (4 will be the new minimum) No requirement for buildings to build a unit (buidings will enhance units but not be a requirement) FOW will matter more (money generation) Changes in the food/housing/prestige mechanic: Food/Housing = fas
i said earlier that i don't care about multiplayer, but i've simultaneously no desire to go all Egyptian over this issue. i respect stardock's judgement and dislike the way this has taken over the forums. even if multiplayer is only included to shut up reviewers "con: it has no multiplayer," then it will have some value i guess.
citywolfdreams; your thinking is very similar to mine; weapon properties are the best way to improve strategy, not special rules. personally though, i think pushing units back would look sort of silly in elemental with the low resolution grid - i'd prefer a damage multiplier for charging. i'd also rather have integer properties (spears have 3 reach, pikes have 5) and a few more of them (like a measure of how easily units can turn to face attackers, ie swordsmen sacrifice stronger
[quote who="kenata" reply="1" id="2898065"] To address a couple of your point though, I agree that the term special ability is the wrong term for this. I think we should consider these as normal abilities as they should simply be normal actions associated with the particular weapons. As for your point about the AI being incapable of using these abilities, this is simply not true. The same code that drives the AI to use spells is used for abilities, and thus since even the earliest versio
alright so there's been a lot of posts and discussion on how to improve tactical battles and make designing, recruiting and using armies more fun, and i agree completely. the system as it is is just crude and lacking in nuance. some things that battles lack that i think most people agree on: - the lack of importance of maneuvering; being attacked from the rear or flank is currently no worse than being attacked head on. the game has just become a race to make the most attacks as quickl
No, i have no desire to play multiplayer turn based strategy.
the game really needs to make people aware that "increasing knowledge" and researching the next spell level are the same thing.
hmm, yes that probably would explain how it works, and it sounds like a decent system. so you think it's only ever possible to perform one action in each turn? that could work, and keep thing moving quickly. or does each unit still have a pool of action points they can spend in various ways. it makes sense in combat, but what about outside of it? if a unit with a short sword has higher initiative, and gets more moves to make, won't we still have a situation where men with swords run f
yay for initiative system; that will really help with the pacing, and mechanics (or so i hope). it was mentioned a while ago that this would be the replacement for combat speed, which i always thought was a horrible system. i'm curious as to how it works though. is there a random element? (ie you roll a dice and add the result to your iniative stat), or does everyone move in the same order in each turn? to my mind the former makes more sense, because that way initative is a gi
will be really cool to read a blog or two on what exxactly these map changes are, once the news is ready. i want some info i can argue with people about [e digicons]}:)[/e] but i'm not going to get really exited until i hear more details about the changes to tactical combat, or if the spells are going to get an overhaul (specifically, damage formulae), or simply some of the cool new units and content we can expect in FE. really hope some parts of
the arguments about realism are pointless, and it is unlikely that any specific requests made here will make it, however i think most people would like some implementation of the following ideas - mechanics that favour maneuvering: being attacked from the flank is not the same as being attacked from the front - mechanics that distinguish weapons by their type as well as their quality, and make certain weapons (spears, daggers, lances) better in different circumstances
i think a gameplay focus is more useful than speculating on the nuances of a mythology that isn't really our to know. from a gameplay point of view, what does the separation of factions into empires and kingdoms, with different tech trees and visuals styles really ad? for me, the only useful part of the distinction is helping to encourage conflict through negative relations modifiers. it creates that "us and them" factor, and feeling of dread that middle earth has in sauron, or that the wheel
[quote who="Archonsod" reply="17" id="2890529"]Realism is pointless. Turn based combat is in itself an abstraction so you're forced to abstract further. A better guiding idea would be what makes for a fun and interesting game. Particularly since it's supposed to be a war of magic .. [/quote] i'm just saying that asking "what might happen" and basing your mechanics on that is probably better than basing them on the predictions of goats intestines. or whatever the alternatives are.
At the moment i really don't see the point for the massive distinction between the two. All the differences seem at best cosmetic and at worst just arbitrary. I don't see what the fact that only empires can build a +2 mana building says about their philosophy, or how different numbers for the housing buildings make them a fundamentally different gameplay experience. I get that it's good to have ideological opposition between factions, because it nudges them towards war, which (turtler
this man speaks the truth: listen to him.
[quote who="citywolfdreams" reply="6" id="2887974"] As far as your realism points, I think you're vaguely seeing what I'm trying to say, but grossly exaggerating it. I don't care about "realistic" combat, I just want combat to be more interesting, with more variation in tactical choices. My examples of different weapon qualities are easy changes to make which make the game far more tactical. Why do you feel these changes have to occur "under the hood?" Each
the problem with the terrain and the battlefield is that ranges are effectively unlimited, the resolution of the battlefield grid is so low and there is no deployment phase. in the example you give with archers preferring to fight in swamps because it slows movement... i just can't see it working. i mean, if you have the swamp tiles off to the left so you have to move there to make use of them then you'll have to move there first (which will take you twice as long just like the enemy)
no. or upgrading. sorry. it's important that we keep asking though.
i would like movement paths displayed. without them i don't trust the game to remember my orders and just end up moving my units individually every turn, which is really tedious.
i think there is a more fundamental issue here: how do you make a combat system where there are dodge mechanics and armour blocking mechanics (which come into play often enough to be relevant), without bombarding the user with loads of tedious dodge messages? most games that have thse kind of mechanics have an auot-attack feature. i can now see why they originally wanted to keep the game simple and have almost every attack do some damage. but at the same time, i wouldn't want to sacrifice thi