[quote quoting="post"] ..the Homnomnom [/quote] That's magnificent. I am calling it this from now until the end of days. I agree with most of your more specific points, maybe not some of the "...completely broken" ones.
[quote who="txclown" reply="3" id="3136288"]Just curious. What diificulty level do you play? I always play normal and I agree that taking down cities is not that difficult given a strong army of sovereign and 4 heroes. I like the idea that Wizard1200 suggested linking city size to defenders. That may be the case now, I don't know. If not, then some thought should be given to that idea. [/quote] I'm on standard difficulty at the moment, but th
I thinks it's very very good, and by far the best fun i've had playing elemental in any guise. I'm particularly looking forward to the end of city snaking. But I think this poll is pretty meaningless. More useful feedback can be had on the forums. The main problem with the AI is that it simply cannot deal with an army moving from your city to theirs and conquering it in 5 turns, which in a game as long as this, is basically no time at all. And to be honest I think the play
So I’ve been thinking about territory, sieges, and adventuring recently while playing the latest beta, and I’ve run into some new, and old problems, and come up with some solutions, partly drawn from new games and partly of my own. The problems: 1 – It’s far too easy to move from one town to another in a couple of turns with three or four units and quickly conquer an enemy settlement before the enemy can see you coming or prepare. If the town is an important on
I'm going to echo the comments about the blue canyons. They're great in themed zones and in numbers, but just look wrong in general human ground. The rivers look nice, but like the canyons they contribute to the cluttering of the map and the hemming-in of growing cities. Hopefully this should be less of a problem once city-snaking gets the chop. It would also be very nice if the game could make clearer - both in 3d and paper map
This is why I have been neglecting my trolling duties for the last few months. I apologies sincerely. It's a sort melodic rock meets electronica thing. Link below. You can download it from there and follow me on soundcloud if you like. Please share freely. I'm obsessed with "making it" but it's nice to think someone out there has this on their iPod. Any feedback is welcome, if any of you are into your music. <a title="click here" href="http://soundcloud.com/linrich
[quote who="Kongdej" reply="9" id="3126506"] Quoting Sethai, reply 7 Problem is, boosting armour would always cause tons of stuff to clink off to no damage attacks, and this system would be terribly hard to use and balance at the same time, the reason I proposed the other way is it leaves space for armour to be efficient against 50 damage attacks, but letting 20 damage attacks still deal some damage, while rubbing off the smallest of attacks. Sincerely ~ Kongde
Of course, the mana maintenance would be ridiculous. The huge number of turns involved in this game makes keeping a standing army of summons a really silly idea. Or in fact using any spell with maintenance. Either maintenance for the lowest spells needs to come below 1point per turn, or the general supply of mana and costs of other spells needs to go up significantly.
So, what you’re saying is that attack and defence values DO determine damage, just in a different, more convoluted way? Seems pretty crummy to me. But regardless, it does prove what I was saying: there’s no point adding damage reduction for armour, because that is what it does already. To my mind, the easiest way would be to roll within the attack value and subtract the defence from the result to calculate damage. That is much more straightforward and goes along with brad&
Isn’t this how it’s supposed to work already though? I thought the idea was that the attacker rolled a number between 0 and his attack value, and the defender rolled between 0 and his defence value, and the latter number was subtracted from the former to give the final damage value. Of course, in there as well is a bunch of arcane chicanery involving multiple dice for squads and a normal distribution for the random number generator, but I thought this was the broad idea, and this
[quote who="RogueCaptain" reply="8" id="3115448"] Quoting Sethai, reply 5 Unfortunately with the way how damage calculations are set up your suggestion may not be a solution Sethai. As it stands, FE's system measures X amount of damage successfully dealt equals Y number of units per stack are dead, no exceptions. That includes magical damage too. The problem isn't number of dice versus number of targets but the effects of distribution of the dam
[quote who="Kongdej" reply="7" id="3115355"]Me doesn't think defense outright just reduces damage by 1 per point, I usually have tons of defense which seems to stop decreasing damage after some point (I usually get to play with enchanting Stoneskin and not enchanting with Stoneskin). So to my point of view you got the armor wrong. [/quote] Yes, very possibly. It may will be rolling within the defence and subtracting that from the attack, or rolling within both, but it'
Visually, and in terms of narration, a real cut above the old WoM ones. Kudos.
This is a good idea. I'm sick of the unwinnable task of making symmetrical cities. So long as the new cities still look like large sprawling cities (even if zoomed out) then i'm happy. The total war games do a decent job of this. Agree with the calls for sieges. Not necesarrily flashy 3d battles, but again, a total war style system where you have to wait a few turns before you can launch your assault. Right now you can just walk to a city and conquer it in 4 turns be
[quote who="sjwt" reply="3" id="3115207"] i.e. a standard sword dose say 100 damage, a dagger say 50 whilst a war hammer dose 200 A flaming enchanting adds 10%, a lightning one might add 50% and 'Deaths touch' adds 100% Cloth armour would have a defence of 50, leather 70, chain 100, scale armour 120, lorica segmentata 140, light plate 160, full plate 180 and kings plate 200. <br
[quote who="Vallu751" reply="1" id="3115202"] I feel the problem is the huge leaps the values take with e.g. weapon attack scores. Higher tech tier weapons have incredibly high attack scores when compared to the lower ones. I don't see any reason why this can't become balanced.[/quote] I agree, this is the main problem, and this is my way of helping us achieve that. When you increase the attack value of a soldier by 3 for a unit of 5, it doesn't just count at three, i
Currently, combat in Elemental works in the following way: Each unit has an attack score. When it attacks it generates a random number between 1 and that score (aka, rolls a dice with that many sides) and subtracts the defence value of the unit it is attacking to determine its damage. Groups of men are displayed as having the same attack and defence values as 1 man, multiplied by the number of men in the unit. This means that when a unit of three guys is described as having 60 attack, it is s
[quote who="Mystisism" reply="3" id="3078161"] quoting post * It feels to me like outposts should have some sort of maintenance cost of some sort. In another post I read that outposts should be captureable and allow a garrison force. If that gets implemented I think this would be a good balance. [/quote] IMHO the maintenance is the cost of the troops you use to garrison them. But I also think they should
All sounding very good. Especially the monster recruitment, which I have always wanted to do in elemental, but never made a go of. Simply increasing the tech costs is not the way to fix the problem. I still won't have the economy I need to support them. Similarly, giving (as suggested by others) people swords and bows etc in the first place will just make more basic equipment redundant. The pacing is jut (and has always been) all over the shop. I really think the des
[quote who="Sarudak" reply="6" id="3077156"] quoting post I should easily be able to afford to give my characters the same equipment my troops have, if I should have to pay at all. This is just silly. I can't agree with this. Too easy to outfit champs. [/quote] Surely though, the sheer IDEA that the king of your faction has worse equipment than your troops is pretty weird, isn't it? If that amounts to an intolerable power bo
[quote who="Murteas" reply="3" id="3077019"]I actually like have strong rated monsters near my start. It makes the land that much more dangerous. And it provides a barrier of sorts from other players. It provides the early game danger, rather than it becoming a go fetch this or that, level up, etc. [/quote] Likewise. I'm not anti-monsters. I don't think they need generally to be weakened. It's good to have barriers to expansion, and something
I think we all agree that elemental has made a lot of progress in the last few years, but given that this is such a huge game that tries to do so much there is still huge room for improvement. To be honest I haven't gotten to the midgame yet in 5 starts, and I thought I knew the mechanics pretty well. Rather than argue about fundamentals of gameplay and how we'd ideally do things if we were designers, I think it would be more helpful to high
Are we even sure the game can display units bigger than the current maximum, without a serious art revision?
I had the "monument" that counts as three earth shard disappear on me earlier too, once I had built on it (though it still showed in my UI). I could build city tiles on the square it had departed, which was weird.
Agreed. Needs saying.