MadMagnus

Just a suggestion; the traits, Flame Tongue and Soul Spark. I haven't found a situation where these deal more damage than my other offensive options. My suggestion is to make these automatic. Every melee attack gains Flame Tongue's damage and every ranged attack gains Soul Sparks damage. This kind of pushes the factions in more unique directions (a range focus versus a melee focus) and might make them a little bit more interesting. In addition, I think faction t

I like the idea, it's just the filler that needs love. Just as you guys learned from games like Civ 3 or Civ 4 in Galactic Civilizations 2 about the green End Turn button, let's look at some other games with Skill Tree designs. World of Warcraft, Rift, or any of those super similar MMOs ring a bell? These games have/had a lot of those +1 to Stat, +1% to effect type picks through out their skill trees. You also can expect to gain like 80 levels in those games. I would r

I played it the same way I played the last build and has just as much fun (not saying I had a lot of fun). I agree that the game feels and plays in a shallow fashion. I didn't vote because I didn't play the latest build more than two hours - it held my attention for less then 1 because it felt the same as the last build, even playing as one of the factions that got a big update. If Brad doesn't want me to play, I won't. I'll uninstall it. But quite frankly, I&#

[quote who="Rishkith" reply="8" id="3125617"]He misses the mark. It isn't restrictions that matter at all. As Neo says in the second Matrix movie "The problem is Choice". It is meaningful choices that matter and make the game better. To make the choice meaningful, the act of choosing must place restrictions upon the player. This is why Shooters on rails or any type of "railroading" has a negative connotation in gaming. Restricting a player is a bad thing except when

Can't you raise the tax rate as you get more -% unrest buildings to counter it?

I agree. Trade seems to be "tacked on" at this point, now that it's gotten stripped down. More than gold, there should be incentives to trading resources. Resources that reduce unrest, increase production, increase food, increase gold, increase mana, etc. It would add more to diplomacy, too. I don't have much reason to talk to any AI players except to tell them I plan on stomping them into dust.

RNG for champion progression with traits is cool, but if you are trying to guide a champion down a path and they never get certain options, you just end up with generic champions. Here's my suggestion: At discovery, each champion should get their tree of traits assigned to them, much like we get our tech trees assigned to us. If we can view these trees, we can get a peek at what is available to the champion as they level and we can plan it out. I can say, "Oh wow, he can be a Fire

I just wish "armies" would be taken out of the game. I think they should eliminate the different sizes of armies, and let them be one size. And then don't multiply their HP or attack by any number. Then increase base HP, and then lower attack on monsters and lower the attack on some overpowered magic weapons. This would make the soldier units play by the same rules at the champions, and then they could be balanced toward each other better. So a

First, a response to everyone making a statement about Civ 5 being finished and FE being in beta. I know that. The idea here is to discuss where it falls short now in comparison so that it can be looked at prior to launch. While FE's AI is definitely better in terms of combat, there's a lot of balance issues (*crosses fingers*) that Brad already mentioned that in OUR build, the combat is balanced much better in Civ 5 (especially with the remov

FE ignited my hunger for a 2x strategy game. FE, however, is in Beta and doesn't have the magical awesome charm yet that I found in GalCiv2: Twlight, Civ 4, and... Civ 5. I finally bought Civ 4 the other day and from the beginning, it felt polished and smooth. Progression through the turns was consistent and fun. It FELT like I was progressing. The interface was refined. There was no unnecessary clicking ("Done" buttons, "Build" buttons). I had something to do every turn. I was ne

All they need is an Engage command for units, so that they ride out and meet any enemies that fall within their sight range automatically. I do believe the Civs have this. It's super handy for outposts and resources defense.

I'm so glad to see Faction differences is the front runner, by a mile. That's what made Twilight of the Arnor what I consider the apex of Gal Civ 2. Gal civ 2 was good... but it wasn't awesome until Twilight.

I hope the devs look at this thread. I know I read in the next patch they are going to be trying to make factions more distinct. If we use the simultaneous strike deal, look at how unique you can make the factions playing with First Strike, or traits the increase the unit's damage only if initiating the combat. And just to further push the point of simultaneous combat, I have had a harder time thinking of a game that doesn't use it. I'm willing to bet a good

I agree, somewhat. In Master of Magic, which we reference SO OFTEN... combat takes place like this. Swordsmen Attacks Spearmen in melee, both take damage at the same time. Archer attacks Spearmen from ranged, Spearmen take damage only. Archer attacks Spearmen from melee, Spearmen take damage only. OR Spearmen Attacks Archer in Melee, only Archer takes damage. Samurai with First Strike attacks Spearmen, Spearmen take damage. Othe

I went through the list of spells pdf posted by Derek a while back. So this is still an issue I'm going to share my feedback on. I chose the trait summoner because, for me, that was when I had the most fun in MoM. Summoning awesome creatures. I spent the majority of that particular game, which I almost finished, using only a shadow warg and Call of the Wild. There's only one faction left and now I have added a single earth elemental to my group. I chose

They WILL but I have to manually do it square by square. The pathing ignores it.

Why not have ranged weapons require a number of turns? For example, it may only cost 1 turn to shoot a Short Bow, which has shorter range and less damage. It might cost 2 to shoot a Longbow. Getting this same effect might be possible by having each shot lowering your initiative for one turn.

This image is awesome. I prefer playing the game top down - call me a traditionalist. ;)

[quote who="Mortenart" reply="100" id="3078279"]The game world needs far more connection with the gameplay - including the oceans. More than just a hunt for the tiles with the best food/materials, to build a city. As the name Elemental suggests, all elements should be crucial to success - be they forests, water, stone, metal - or rare and magical. We must feel a part of the world in which we are playing - we must feel that everything on the map matters - and we mus

[quote who="LightofAbraxas" reply="69" id="3077871"] Quoting mastroego, reply 67Seems like a lot of users are beginning to feel like I feel. The trees are pre-planned as a linear progression of "Steps That Unlock Things". What those things actually ARE is secondary. Items on a Spreadsheet. Now take for example Civ: if you want to improve your weapons, you can't just research "warfare". You want gunpowder? Sorry, my dear warlord, you'll have to learn some chemistry, fir

Trained units for most races will have a hard time wearing heavy armor and weapons unless some traits are spent on increasing strength further increasing the cost and training time even more than the armor alone did. Archers are welcome to spend their traits on strength so that they can wear heavy armor, but those are traits that aren't making them better archers. Its a valid choice, heavy armor on your strong archers is fine if that is what you want. &nbs

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="38" id="3075494"]Each player in FE has its own theme which comes up when you talk to them.[/quote] You know, I tried to get this to happen to check (just in the event of a bug or something) and it occurs to me I have not engaged in a conversation with another faction yet. I'm sure this is partially because of them dying to the double kill bug, but that would be why their personality may also seem so... inexistent. I haven't even had a

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="31" id="3075427"] The player also needs to be able to see these plans in a way that they can understand; the AI's choices translated into plots and concerns. Excellent. This is one of the most insightful things I've read on the forums recently. My role as an AI developer is partly to write a competitive AI but it is also partly about providing theater for the player. That's one of the things I've been working on recen

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="30" id="3074770"] Quoting MadMagnus, reply 28 Quoting sweatyboatman, reply 16 Quoting Frogboy, reply 15Derek has told me that anything that makes a tactical battle take more than 3 minutes to finish is a bad thing and I have come to agree with that. So anything that threatens to make them actually tactical. Sigh, so much for my suggestion of large stacks for epic tactical battles. I can only hope that ta

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="16" id="3074640"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 15Derek has told me that anything that makes a tactical battle take more than 3 minutes to finish is a bad thing and I have come to agree with that. So anything that threatens to make them actually tactical. Sigh, so much for my suggestion of large stacks for epic tactical battles. [/quote] I can only hope that tactical battles will have some thought put behind them, or we&#