taltamir

I meant its a mess to code not that it has to look like a mess... you can certainly make it look and work well.

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="16" id="3228473"]taltamir I think the first post is confusing. It sounds like you agree with us, but when I read the first post it seems like you want to tune the game to more strongly focus on the RPG aspects of it.[/quote] No, I am saying EITHER thing is fine and an improvement from current status. Admit that from the first beta of WoM to the latest version of FE for every single version in between you had an RPG with town building being what s

[quote who="Nehanski" reply="12" id="3228467"]And that is a problem of balance. This shouldn't be all about two legendary heroes conquering the whole world (and having a few cities that you can disregard whatsoever). It's a turn-based 4X game with *some* elements of RPGs (hero development, quests). Every win should come from creating a well-working kingdom, not by running around with two guys.[/quote] Yep... And that is wholly my point. This is MEANT to be a 4X game...

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="11" id="3228465"]They made a TBS with RPG features. That the RPG parts of the game are "stronger" right now is a balance issue. I'm certain we will see heroes nerfed in beta 5 because of this.[/quote] The RPG features were stronger since all the way back in the first beta of WoM. And I am outright PROPOSING appropriate balance changes in the very first post. I am proposing is to increase the quantity of armies by reducing building build

The prone avoidance is obviously done for mechanical reasons... Think about it for a second. A horse and rider being knocked prone TOGETHER and then getting up together? It will LOOK ridiculous and it will also be ridiculous in terms of physics... So what should happen is either the rider is knocked off the horse and the horse keeps on running... or the rider is knocked off AND the horse is knocked off... at which point 1 unit became two units (rider and horse) and its a kluck

[quote]It's a turn-based strategy game, a TBS[/quote] Typo. I used TBS 2 times and RTS 1 time in the original post. Edited to be TBS all 3 times. [quote]Can't help but feel you have the whole thing backwards.[/quote] The developers MADE an RPG with a TBS distraction while INTENDING to make a TBS with an RPG distraction. The TBS portion is massively more fleshed out as it received significantly more developer attention... but winning the game com

[quote who="Trojasmic" reply="1" id="3228209"]Sssssshhhhhhhhh![/quote] Oh I see :) [quote who="Tuidjy" reply="2" id="3228229"]I'm doing a playthrough right now, and on turn 35 I have 3 cities, 6 outposts, and 4 active pioneers. Some people may call that spam.[/quote] Custom race, custom sov, got lucky and was able to find a river AND woods for capital site withing walking distance of starting location (settled on turn 2). And it sounds like the lack o

[quote who="windscion2" reply="1" id="3228148"]2) Some spells require, e.g., water 2 and air 2. This gets more complicated, plus you get problems where you get Air III w/o the pre-reqs, so you get 3-for-the-price-of-one. This way is easier to code, which means fewer bugs to sqquash, which is a Good Thing(TM).[/quote] Air, water, fire, earth, light, and dark spells are actually the EXCEPTION to this rule. Where upgrades REPLACE lower tier abilities. A sov who gains Earth 4 will

This game is a hybrid between RPG and TBS. Perfectly matching the power of the two is very difficult and for people just trying to win rather then "enjoy the ride" (something that is unlikely to happen unless significant sandbox elements are introduced) choosing to use the one (TBS or RPG) that is more powerful (RPG) as a path to victory just makes sense. I believe that the lore supports the RPG element being the more powerful one and I see no issue here. So there is nothing wrong wit

This game is a hybrid between RPG and RTS. Perfectly matching the power of the two is very difficult and for people just trying to win rather then "enjoy the ride" choosing the one that is more powerful (the RPG portion) as a path to victory just makes sense. I believe that the lore supports the RPG element being the more powerful one and I see no issue here. So there is nothing wrong with super sovs... in fact its the main theme of the game. This is like skyrim only instead of cookin

What is this pioneer spam people whine about? (v0.95 to 0.952) 1. The land is in shambles and 99% of it is ineligible for colonization. The limit on my city building is that I can't find a valid spot to build not the time it takes to spam pioneers. 2. Population only gives gold, production and research comes from buildings. Spamming pioneers means I don't have buildings means I am hopelessly behind. (building a careful balance of a few pioneers and many build

Good idea, so: 1. Ability to SEE how many turns remain in an non aggression pact 2. Ability to break non aggression with the result being a high political cost. 3. Separate non aggression from open borders.

[quote]I would easily pay 200g for a horse with only +1 move, its that good. [/quote] I would pay more, move is the most important ability a hero has by far. But that is what horses DO, they improve movement... However, it is a HORSE... how hard is it to ride an animal? How expensive would one be? The fact it requires a ridiculous 80g (considering game economy prices) and a ludicrous 2nd tier warfare tech (which is much more expensively then second tier techs in

[quote who="Glazunov1" reply="39" id="3225524"]We've had numerous threads about how the magic system can be made better. Each one is different, and each time many people come forward to say how wonderful the changes would be. Seems to me everyone has their own way of improving magic in FE.[/quote] Actually, this is a case of "current situation is so bad that so many things would be an improvement" rather then every single person having a different idea of what magic SH

[quote who="ins2" reply="18" id="3225174"]I'm sorry but I don't like this idea - first of all, it would look ridiculous as heroes would have to go bootless and armors would remain incomplete because they have to ride a horse...[/quote] Currently the ONLY boots worth wearing are the +1 speed boots. Your arguments are sound though. so how about making horses incompatible with those boots and no other boot type? That way you could wear some actual armor on your feet.

[quote who="Supreme Shogun" reply="9" id="3225186"]Also need to address the stupid pioneer who got thru and built a crappy little outpost on the edge of your territory. Which usually creates a new border adjacent / overlap yours.[/quote] Oh yea, I had carefully positioned an outpost such that once I upgraded it with the +1 zone of control it got several mines at the edge of its range (3 squares). I built the mines. Then the AI sends a pioneer and builds an outpost such that it

[quote who="CHiZZoPs" reply="1" id="3224757"]In addition, we need to separate the non-aggression pact with an open borders treaty. Just because I dont want war doesnt mean I want to open my borders to them![/quote] This plus the OP's idea really need to happen.

interesting story, but where is the "Spell of Making Victory" the title promises?

[quote who="puntarenas" reply="17" id="3070409"]Combine it with another idea I read on the forums. Let's say each individual has to be attacked and taken down seperately[/quote] I am the one who posted that idea in other threads as I was formulating the suggestion I made here. And this idea is the very cornerstone on which my suggestion builds. The rest of your post seems to basically be exactly what I had in mind.

My old suggestion was to split units into "hero" "army" and "AoE" IIRC with equivalents for monsters. Significantly increase the QUANTITY of enemies in an army/swarm. With the sov and champions being developable as either a hero or AoE (or a hybrid that is master of neither). as well as some of the greatest monsters (dragons and elemental lords should also be hero/AoE hybrids) Heroes deal massive damage but only to 1 unit. AoE deal small damage but to all units in a tile.

[quote who="NaytchSG" reply="14" id="3224995"] We need flying mounts as well as either a quest reward or an expensive tech that only shows up randomly and down both air magic and warfare lines.[/quote] That would be awesome... Also perhaps as a summon... Heck, I want a dragon mount (like the bad guy from the master quest has)

horses might be second tier but that tier is not exactly cheap to research... and there are all those other awesome things you want/need to research too...

[quote who="Malsqueek" reply="33" id="3224802"]To be fair, at that point, the game was not stable, had boring factions, and horribly unbalanced tactical combat. Magic wasn't the biggest concern at that time.[/quote] Exactly. Heck at v0.951 I was still consistently getting corrupted saves which stopped me from finishing the game. Not at 0.952 this no longer happens (and the corrupt saves I submitted work when loaded in 0.952). Magic was a low priority compared to ho

[quote who="luketan" reply="27" id="3224584"]To be frank, I suspect people who feel the magic system needs to be improved is a very small minority.[/quote] what? looks to me like every single player thinks that. And whats wrong with an RPG like spell selection system?

[quote]Could the Explore button light up and remain obviously highlighted while the unit is in explore mode? [/quote] Not that just, but explore mode should be aborted the moment you give a manual order to a unit! This was really irking when it happened with my sov.