Title pretty much says it all. I've tried several Trog custom factions (both with and without the no-archery weakness to see if that affects anything) and they do not have the Juggernaut research item. I started a game with the proper Trog faction for comparison and the item was there plain as day.
Even just some sort of spell (in say, rank 2 of each of the schools) that allow a shard without a shrine attached to it, to be turned into the element of that school. It would have to be balanced with the seed ratio of shards, but it could give players an option to avoid excessively missing out on their desired shard colour.
[quote]2) Change map facing from diagonal to straight and KEEP IT.[/quote]\ Easy. In the options menu there is a checkbox in the middle column called (I believe, but don't quote me on the exact name) 'snap rotation' or something similar. Uncheck this and you can rotate the map as much as you want and it remains. I turn the camera so it faces flat north, myself.
In a game I'm running at the moment, I've got two characters capable of casting wither (very low level death spell) and at least one death shard, possibly two. This exploit works off three things. 1. Wither, even cast by the same caster, stacks. 2. Wither affects every enemy target on the battlefield 3. Once a character's stats are too far into the negative, they seem to die automatically. This is likely due to their constitution being so low their hitpoint
Would it be possible, for custom factions, to set up a series of designs for them to use? Maybe in the workshop, or something similar.
[quote] + Razing a city makes its zoc barren so a new city cant be founded there [/quote] That is a change I'm not particularly thrilled with. Plenty of times the AI placed cities seem to have fairly poor benefits (2 production and 3 food, for example), so rather then live with a sub-par city I just remove it and see if there are better alternatives. Other than that, I'm eager to see how the new version plays
Why not just introduce the concept of 'wastage'. As a kingdom/Empire's stockpile of a resource (any resource, gold, horse, mana, etc) grows, it hits a series of 'wastage points' where production of that resource takes a penalty. The justification being that if the civilisation has THAT much of the resource built up, people aren't as careful with it as when it is scarce, corruption creeps in, or just the resource producers get lazier. For example, when the King/Emperor
This. This a thousand times. One of the things that was most fun in GalCiv2 was designing your own ships, aesthetically and practically. I would love the ability to choose not only the equipment my troops used, but how they looked when doing it. It's gotten to the point where I end up making tactically inferior choices on my troops to make them look more unique, like forgoing helmets for hooded cloaks, or using an inferior shield because I like the look rather than
I saw this in a game that recently was lost. What made it weirder is that the unit was of a different race to the AI. It was a Kingdom-human nation using a Trog-Empire force.
Hooray, I made a relevant point! Going to have to print this off and frame it somewhere. As I said, personally I would prefer being able to choose to have access to these techs, but I'll take the offer for gaining access through quests in some manner. Even if there were 'travelling merchants' of some kind wandering around the world who could be tracked down by champions and rare items/manuals bought from, or something similar, just the -option- of gaining access to
I can respect your position, and understand the descriptions you give for the style of advancemen, but it is an extremely arbitrary line for only the masterwork techs to have this, or even if another 20 tech advances were chosen to be these kinds of 'special techs. Personally, that was something I hated in SOTS. For me the biggest problem with it is the lack of being able to choose. The arguement can - and has - been made that I can easily play an armoured warrior-race style of na
[quote who="seanw3" reply="11" id="3081613"]You do understand the choice would be masterwork gear at random or no masterwork gear, right? By the same logic you would have to reload on every levelup to get the traits you want for your heroes. Randomness is part of the story. It doesn't make sense to restart just because your nation doesn't get the random techs you want. Many times you won't get any random techs. Other times you won't be able to find the quests that give unique
[quote who="Wintersong" reply="9" id="3081482"]The current random techs are just nice options and not getting them doesn't cripple any playstyle you may favour. Warmongers can still be warmongers without the Masterwork techs. I think that it's one of the things that has been well done in the tech trees.[/quote] I can understand the reason some people like the random techs, and I get the feeling the way I play the game (almost like setting up an evolving narrative rather than a
[quote who="seanw3" reply="6" id="3081477"]What? You can still do any of those things without getting the specific random tech for that game. Nothing is stopping you from ignoring masterwork longbows in favor of hordes of minions with spears. The random techs are balanced. They don't make any one strategy superior, they just add new options. Masterwork bows for instance would cost more labor that even yew longbows. So you could choose to make some really powerful bowmen, but it wouldn'
[quote who="seanw3" reply="2" id="3081444"] >Currently there are only 2 techs to be gained from quests and about 6 that are randomly available. It would be nice to have a system where there are around 20 random techs and each time a new game is started, you get 3 of those 20. That, combined with about 20 new techs from rare quests would add a level of uniqueness to each game.[/quote] I can't agree with this. I personally enjoy going into a game knowing how I would like to
Edit: Additional: Forgot to answer the first question in my neverending quest to bore people silly with text walls. My score would probably be 2.5 or so. There needs to be changes, but nothing to massively sweeping or drastic. Currently a lot of the techs are so intermingled (either with multiple requirements across the tree, or requirements within another tree) that it feels like you need to pretty much research everything anyway. It isn't so much a choice of which
[quote who="Beric01" reply="28" id="3080359"] I don't see how that's a problem! If I have 22 cities idle, it means it's time to build 22 things! I also don't see why a feature which is slightly annoying to a small minority of users, but would be tremendously helpful to the majority, should be removed, particularly if there is a disable option. And, just like in Civ4, if I really want to build nothing in a city (which is almost never true), I set it to producing extra rese
Personally I'd prefer the champion-slots limited to a starting number of 2, or even possibly 1. If someone wants three slots they can start with an advantage that increases the number of slots, but that comes at the cost of not choosing other advantages. That way they are forced to make the trade off for extra champions early on if they want that to be one of their advantages in-game. Starting with 3 slots means they could have a stack of 4 champions (3 + Sovereign) rocking around the wor
One of the big problems with champions in the numbers are so variable. If I start in an area and have one poor quality champion I can recruit, things may be a bit difficult to start with, Alternatively if I have 5 I can recruit from the get-go, I'm going to have a fairly easy time of things in the beginning, and an even easier time later on. So the following could be enacted to counter these concerns. Two changes: 1. Change champions so they are NOT NPCs sta
On re-reading it looks like they're suggesting that the abilities reduce the amount of encumbrance the rogue can endure. So if a normal amount of encumbrance someone can take is 100, the rogue can take 80. Edit: Additional: Thinking about it, this could work. The rogue could get a traits such as one that lowers their encumbrance limit, but gives them a dodge bonus proportional to their level (like Discipline). Eventually it would add up so only a few traits could have this encumbr
I'm hesitant about making encumbrance its own stat with its own traits since we only have three trait slots to play with when designing troops, which is already very few when trying to make heavy armoured lightning-pike blackguards to form the vanguard of the unnumerable horde of Lord Scourge, but the extreme number of traits that a high level champion gets means anyone could end up with plenty of slots to do with it. Although a possible flaw with making encumbrance
I could target him. Standing back in the starting area, there were a few squares behind him a fireball could hit that caught him in it. Unfortunately this rendered the fight particularly unenjoyable.
Personally I put archers in partial leather armour, but for other troop types chain armour becomes entirely redundant once I have access to plate armour. And if I've put all that time and effort into researching heavy armour, I want to damn well use it. With Champions any melee damage based champions have more than enough strength to wear every bit of armour. Assassins just can't compete with the high strength damage amounts, and I know this because I usually include one in my
I've been having this problem consistently for the past 30 minutes or so, roughly. It happened roughly in time with a short downtime on the website, so I'm assuming they're having server problems.
This is probably known already, but AOE spells or spells that affect the entire enemy army (E.G. Wither) basically cripple enemies that take up multiple squares. None of the green-location-based-faction bosses I faced in a recent game posed any difficulty because of their multi-squares. Go into the fight, cast Wither then cast Mass Curse, and suddenly I'm up against an enemy with -27 dexterity and about 10 strength, a negative dodge rating and 0 defense. This was further compounded when d