Sethai

I think it's a very sensible change that wouldn immediately improve the game. Is it realistic? No, but the game is in a late enough stage of development that these kind of lesser-evils need to be chosen.

[quote who="StevenAus" reply="39" id="3156498"]I agree. The AI needs to (and could) get better at making armored troops, and not splitting up its armies. One thing that might help is getting players to submit unit designs for different pre-built kingdoms and empires, phases and tech levels of the game (and depending on resources available), and choose the ones that would aid the AI the most. For example, it is almost always suboptimal to not have units with the full three tr

I'd like it because I have 64-bit. I'd feel pretty bad though if I knew that I was getting something others couldn't. I think a better way to come at the question would be "if we've got feature or improvements we could only make work on 64-bit systems, do we have enough 64-bit players who want that, to make it viable?" I'm sceptical on that last point. I want the game to be better, so I'd buy it on those grounds, but I also want the game to be successful, and given how

[quote who="Kalin" reply="14" id="3154215"] Adding a siege mechanic does nothing to help the AI, it hinders it. Instead of building combat ready units, it now has to worry about including wall-breakers in its armies, and properly protecting such armies. Afterall, if the player cast a strategic spell to destroy or immobilize that wall-breaker army... what is the AI going to do? It'll stand around doing nothing. The player? He'll have his wall breaker ready outside enemy terr

[quote who="Kalin" reply="11" id="3154182"]No offense, but if you think the AI has a horrible time taking back the city it just lost NOW, how the heck is it going to ever manage to siege the city with your new mechanic? Or heck, how is it ever going to INVADE anyone that has a proper defense (meaning you). The AI is having trouble just dealing with unrest from conquered towns. The biggest problem isn't walls or siege, but that the AI isn't putting together proper competitive armies. T

[quote who="Satrhan" reply="10" id="3154163"] 1) Add siege mechanics somewhat similar to the Total War games. If we can't have actual siege battles, at least this should somewhat compensate. So an army can attack a town that has no walls straight away. If it has walls, it needs to spend X turns building siege equipment. X can depend on the attackers technology levels (certain techs reduce X), the defenders wall level (better walls increase X), and hero special abilities on each

This is how war in elemental basically works: I’ve reached the midgame, I’ve got a few towns and I’ve run into a faction on my borders. Having largely reached the limits of natural expansion, I realize going to war and taking the first enemy town is the next step towards expanding my power. So I move my sovereign to my most vulnerable border town and begin training troops there in preparation for an attack. Whether I am at war or not, it never comes. I click on the enemy tow

[quote who="Gammit10" reply="19" id="3147541"] "I slowly fall behind the AI, but it's not clear why. Many turns I skip waiting for armies to heal up or units to be built and it just feels dumb: I'm not doing anything, but it's not clear what I could be doing." This is still my number one design issue of FE, and I have felt this way since WoM.[/quote] This bears repeating. For me it's that weird nagging feeling that you're not really sure what

Generally, it doesn't bother me that much, as it's much better than what we had before. I think a simpler way to stop people "grabbing" everything too early, would be to limit the maximum distance of an outpost from a real settlement, and allow the flipping of outposts by a city's influence like in GalCiv. The idea would then be that an outpost was an extension of a city's power (just a little bit further) by military means, but ultimately dependent on a city for support, and

I had this problem with the Desert wildland, but a few more turns after i'd killed everything, it did finally become settlable.

I know it's irresistable damage, but it's still pretty puny damage against troops, as opposed to jundane weapons. Are we alright with that?

As it says on the tin; the quest where you open a cap stone and release a load of spiders, spawned some of them on inaccessible mountains etc when i did it, and they just sit there eating up memory.

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="12" id="3139812"] Quoting DsRaider, reply 3 There is a difference between randomness that effects how you play a game and randomness that effects how well you play. Getting a 3/5 instead of a 5/3 is randomness that makes your experience different and allows you to try different strategies. Getting a 3/2 with no room for expansions is just a totally random handicap that you can do nothing about. It doesn't require you try out a new strategy you w

[quote who="DsRaider" reply="66" id="3139414"] Quoting Sethai, reply 65 Am I really supposed to have a level 15 sovereign before my troops have chainmail? Exactly, throw in the fact that it is also possible for that level 15 champion to have pieces of platemail and uber powerful magical weapons and you end up with some seriously warped balance.The ability of champions to level and acquire equipment needs to be slowed. Also a lot of equipment could use a nerf, champion equipmen

They’d do so much good by simply applying a little bit of holistic design and balance to it all, even with the mechanics just as they are. It’s not just that they haven’t worked out how powerful a late game champion and a late game unit are and made sure they’re competitive against each other, it’s that I’m not sure they’ve even worked it out so they’’ll both arrive at the same time. Am I really supposed to have a level 15 sovereign before

Was quite excited by this new addition to unit design, but have found them rather underwhelming thusfar. The damage seems always usually to be lower than archers, and while I appreciate they shouldn’t necessarily be “better” than bows, they need to have some advantage I think. The initiative penalty also has the problem of, strangely, making them unsuitable for spell casting champions because it slows down their spell casting. I think maybe they’d benefit from

[quote who="Colbert30" reply="45" id="3138242"]Yes, we could even post our own save for inspection after each log. I think it would be a great way for all of us to learn, too. I don't know or understand many of the game mechanics yet and the game help is still incomplete.[/quote] Thirded.

[quote who="Colbert30" reply="36" id="3137894"] Opinion: Level 1 champion shouldn’t be able to take out a black widow. Suggestion, Stone skin should do +4 defense plus +4 per earth shard. The problem I see with spells that scale with shards, is that their power also scales with the size of the map. I like to play large maps, and large maps contain many, many shards. With a +4 bonus, it can build really high. So if you're not going to cap them, I'd rather have

Hi guys. I stupidly made a related post on a similar issue. Rather than posting my suggestion here (which was rather long) i'll just link it and you can comment if you like. click here

On the stoneskin thing: I'd like to think (and actually suspect) that there is more of a holistic strategy to game balance than this, and that decisions aren't made simply on these kind of anecdotal experiences. But more than this: we all broadly agree that spells should get more powerful as you get more shards and your caster improves his abilities. We also agree that we don't want to have spells that are simply "greater fireball," because it seems like lazy duplication.

[quote who="seanw3" reply="6" id="3137384"]The issue isn't how powerful the Hero is, but where the power comes from. Heroic weapons and armor found in loot are so incredibly OPed that nothing else can really compete. Traits IMO should be where the Hero's power comes from. A hero with a spear should be as good as 5 men with a spear because he is an expert at parrying blows and attacking weak points in armor. I don't like that a hero simply finds a spear that does 5 times the attack

The beta is very good and the best instalment of elemental I have yet played. With regards to the OP, I'm particularly looking forward to outposts gaining defenders, terrain changes, and no longer having to worry about whether a city will be able to fit in the location I have identified. The idea of players being able to gold-plate their units if they have the resources is an interesting one. The idea, I assume is that you can get similar advantages (attack bonuses

[quote who="joasoze" reply="3" id="3137090"]Make a pioneer cost 10 population. That would slow down spamming. [/quote] That would be a nice little tweak, but broadly I'm surprised how happy I am with the current system. The limited supply of fertile ground works pretty well at limiting city clutter. But to be honest, someone's going to build a city on every patch of fertile ground that isn't too near another city. It would be easier to just

[quote who="Kongdej" reply="2" id="3135530"]I honestly hope they soon are going to put proper range on overland spells.. The current "everything on endless range" is abit... Sincerely ~ Kongdej[/quote] On a related note, last time I tried strategic summon spells always spawned at the sovereign's location, which is rather annoying once you have a large empire.

It's really difficult to just power down champions, because although they are wading through enemy infantry, against monsters and each other they feel more or less ok. The problem is that the game cannot distinguish between VOLUME of damage output, and QUALITY of damage output, because it rolls everything into one big Attack stat. Heroes should take a long time to take down infantry, but be one of the few units capable of really hurting enemy monsters, while units should be much m