player1_fanatic

Could probable reason be that maces take more iron to produce? Thus making maces a cheaper replacement.

Concurred. It's great sword to do first strikes, but since all heroes are just glass cannons (due to pitiful health), you could easily die if enemies survive to round 2 or 3.

Exactly. It's supposed to be too strong.

Well, you can browse all building from in-game help page, and there you can see maintenance cost, if building has any,.

Hmm... don't all those quests with ZOC have spawned army (may be wrong?). Maybe, just maybe ZOC was there to prevent AI from botching your quest accidentally, by taking out those armies.

Well, it's issue for shields too, since they give dodge from 2-15, depending of shield type. Which is pitiful if that's just 1/10 of % value.

^Cruel? Heh, that -20 morale from you, plus another -20 from intimidating. No wonder why soldiers panicked very quickly.

[quote quoting="post"]Pushing the pricing on Bows to 30 and 40 gold is a nerf and strong discouragement to not use them. Sorry, either put them at reasonable pricing and fix the issues surrounding their use or remove them from the game for now until you get it figured out. 4 bowmen may be very expensive, but they are still very deadly. There are plenty of threads on the topics of bows.[/quote] Nerf? They were always priced that much.

[quote who="Novaburst" reply="40" id="2779229"]Notably the last tag, adds the influence radius/Zone of Control to them as far as I can tell. Setting the Radius value to 0 removes the ZoC, and prevents the terrain from changing from it's default to the new value listed in EnvironmentType.[/quote] Wasn't this done to prevent quest locations from being settled by enemies, which would make these quests uncompletable.

[quote]Despite the above mentioned changes, a Kingdom of Men Sovereign can still purchase Traveling Boot's from a city. I didn't manage to find the issue for that.[/quote] I really doubt that traveler boots were supposed to be campaign only items, since many recruitable heroes have them as part of their default equipment. Also they have a cost in sovereign creator, so why it would be set if they were not intended to be used in sandbox. P.S. There i

@NTJedi You mean stone giant? Personally, I think that all giant summoning spells are misplaced, and should switch place in spellbooks with summon elemental spells, since all elementals are actually weaker then corresponding giants.

Fallen races and human races don't share same armor set. So if sovereign is fallen, it can't wear same armor as most other heroes (that are pretty much all humans). P.S. Just to make it clear, kraxis are considered a human race in that regard. And I'm not sure how wraiths are handled (since their unit models are much more human like).

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="29" id="2778781"]Probably a better way to look at it is that shards will provide N mana. Spells, therefore, will cost M mana and come from a global mana pool. Because mana is global, strategic spells no longer need a caster but can simply be "cast" on the map which gives rise to all kinds of things that just didn't make sense when the caster had to be physically located nearby. [/quote] Idea: have some teleport spell t

^it's not increased cost. it's rolling back to old cost before 1.07. Although I would agree that shortbows are waaaay overpriced. Twice weaker then longbows and yet only 25% cheaper.

Instead spawning additional resource to correct every single imbalance added with next patch (gold mines, shard), maybe single per faction building should be added to mimic that. Or just have adventuring techs beefed up to unlock similar resources.

Isn't it a bit weird to have additional channelers have exactly same upkeep as summned monsters? I mean, while giants are cool (probably because they are overpowered anyway, and have their own "spells"), most lower level summons like familiars or anything from summoning school (imp, bear) is just plain pitiful. Current mana regen is already a pain (if it wasn't an issue people would not mass imbue more channelers), and new solution dosn't help in that regard. Also, ano

fallen or kraxis.they both are considered fallen

There are a few units and buildings in a game that for some reason instead kingdom/empire requirement have race requirement. Which leads to bugs like this, when using custom made factions.

The biggest problem here is also in difference between kingdom and empire tech trees. For example, all hammers, plus mace are unlocked with single tech for empire, while on the other hand, they are unlocked one by one with kingdom tech. So, should weaker weapons be cost-effective, in order to still be useful for empire faction? Or should stronger ones be clearly superior, so that advanced research pays off properly for kingdom?

Is your custom faction, by any change, using one of the default kingdom races?

This is one of few cases were it actually makes sense to have different ruleset for human players and AI. Keep player on his toes in regard of his sovereign, but have AI sovereigns either more difficult to kill or let dynasty system take its place in case of their death.

In current system, if you have overwhelming army and treaties with AIs they will adore you. So diplomatic victory gets very easy to get. Way to easy.

Frogboy, please think about adding updated version of Orgainized in 1.1. Something like +1 to army movement (that's already +50% speed with most troops).

There is also a small "exploit". If you are on offensive, and take out enemy city, while enemy sovereign succeeds in escaping the battle, he becomes target of opportunity, since he is now in your own newly newly acquired territory. If you kill him while still there he will die for good.

[quote who="Robert Hentschke" reply="22" id="2777367"]The new Min/MaxValue format is more powerful so no real reason to stay backwards compatible to the old one.[/quote] There is one reason: bug resistance. If something works, and doesn't need to be changed (things like creature abilities or bow mechanic) then don't change it, or otherwise there is risk of bugs creeping in.