LNQ

The best thing is, those huge bonuses wouldn't have to be perfectly balanced, since you're not playing a multiplayer game.

Ok. Then let's just hope the balance is eventually gotten right.

I'm beginning to wonder if the game is too complex for it's own good, even after the cutbacks from WoM. It seems like balancing is really difficult, with the dominant strategy thread pointing out that you can steamroll the game with just the very basic of units. To me, the whole unit design system, just like city building tile placement, is an added layer of complexity that really doesn't give that much back. Just like caravans and city tile placement, the unit design syst

I voted fair. Immersion (city building, techs and factions), balance (combat, wildland risk/reward), UI (leveling, city buliding) and AI still need a lot of work.

Besides, in large maps you will have a lot of cities on idle a lot of the time. If you miss one of the cities that you DO want to build in going into idle mode, you will probably forget about it for quite a lot of turns which might cripple your game easily. It hasn't been just once or twice when I have forgotten a city for 20+ turns just because I missed the notification that the city has become idle. It just doesn't make any sense NOT having a popup that asks you once whether

It makes no sense of being able to have 0.5 attack per unit if minimum damage is 1 per unit. Can't be intentional.

I guess this is why pathfinding was non-existent in earlier versions.

How can anyone think that this is working as intended? As Kantok says, it makes zero sense.

Thanks for posting about this. I hope the team understands that the average gamer needs this kind of information.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="7" id="3087685"]I'm in Skype right now complaining to Derek that humans can't see how many turns it'll take their unit to reach a destination but the AI has no problem computing that.[/quote] Before reading this I actually thought about making a pre-emptive BETA 2 UI problem report thread saying that the path indication system you are going to implement doesn't have turn labels for each square in the path. As a human I need this information

On second thought, better to have it inside brackets to not confuse for an armor bonus, so "Armor type: Plate (+2)" is probably best.

For armors such as plate, I would say: "Armor type: Plate +X" For the material stuff, Eviliron's idea is good.

isRanged, isMelee and isSpellCaster would be useful. Might seem redundant to have both isMelee and isRanged, but units like pioneers might be considered 0 for both. Also, there might be cases where Spellbook is 0 and the unit is still a caster.

Blackmantle, but it doesn't prevent kiting, as you said. I would prefer to prevent it altogether. And if you take away the special bows / abilities I mentioned, my proposed system is pretty simple, too. Actually I'll go ahead and remove them from my post.

One solution: When you have archers in an army, in tactical battles you have a supply wagon outside the battlefield in in your end of the map. If this supply wagon is destroyed, you can no longer make ranged attacks. The wagon can only be destroyed by an activated ability when a unit is standing next to it. Another solution: If an archer moves, it is considered to have an initiative of whatever the initiative of the slowest unit on the

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="59" id="3085448"] Apparantly X/(X-X/N) will always give you a fraction-> N/(N-1) ... while N is any number greater than 1. If N is a negative number (anything below zero) ... we will get a positive fraction of N/(N+1)[/quote] Here's why: X-X/N = X*(1-1/N) So X/(X-X/N) = X/X * 1/(1-1/N) = 1/(1-1/N) = N/(N-1) And (-N)/(-N-1) = N/(N+1) for negative values. No need to overcomplicate!

Frogboy, I really like the world map replay of the game that you can look at in Civilization games after you retire / win. It would be really cool if after giving up you could look at how the game played out after you were gone. If I lose to Gildar, I want to see if they eventually won, and how.

Does it make me worse than most if I'm willing to admit that I can't really be bothered by this? If I had a button I could press that would make all of the despicable slave labor stuff go away, I wouldn't hesitate a moment before pressing it, and I'm glad to see any of the corrupt fuckers to burn, but I accept that things are the way they are and that I exploit the lives of millions of people every day as I live in the western world. I'm not about to go out of my way to sa

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="32" id="3077557"]If you are going to significantly decrease tech costs, can you please consider trimming the tech tree into fewer techs? There doesn't need to be 60, if 30 will do just as well. With too fast techs, techs will become an annoyance, it already interrupts the gameplay with pop-ups constantly, now it will be "significantly" worse.[/quote] I'm glad I have Heavenfall to almost always post the things I want to say for me. Often all I nee

I don't mean to restart the conversation, but I stumbled here from recent posts and have to point out that for example that steel hardening discovery could've just as well been eventually discovered once we understand the fundamentals of material sciences down to the molecular level better. Same goes for medicin; the reason why medicin has a tough time being scientific is that biologial systems are still much too complex for us to dissect with deterministic accuracy with scien

I still don't like the building tile placement system though. It never has been fun, and it has never served any proper purpose. I never understood why it was there in the first place.

Quickblades Blades of War Peacekeepers Kingdom's Proud Empire's Proud Convincers Axe Trained Trained Woodsmen Farkillers Falcon Bows Ruthless Bows

And that's definitely a problem. The system you first thought existed in WoM should be installed in my opinion, especially as it would work just fine with the current system. Otherwise modders have a hard time setting proper probablities for loot drops in a complex system.

Yes in a 2-item system but does it scale?

Wait a minute, with that kind of a system, does a likelihood of 2 even mean twice the chance of getting it with contrast to a likelihood of 1?