Werewindlefr

Oh, spell specific cooldowns can already be implemented in the XMLs :D. Well, that could be an awesometastic solution !

To the Stardock devs, I think you need to read this: https://forums.elementalgame.com/401719/page/1/#2840106 https://forums.elementalgame.com/401719/page/1/#2840122 I think these are excellent suggestion. The second one might be a bit difficult to implement yet, but it could be very interesting, especially if you giv

[quote] int scaling is a simple, easy fix that ought to be patched in for as many spells as possible as soon as possible.[/quote] This. [quote]Shouldn't there just be a cooldown on all spells? Maybe Heal only once every two or three turns. Fixes the problem right up, so far as i'm concerned.[/quote] and this are not only really nice suggestion, but I believe they're vital in balancing magic. I'm going to link your suggestions in the 1.09r changelog thread because

[quote]-Likewise, while I like the decision to make gildar bonuses apply to taxes (this actually makes the level up bonus a little more of a decision to make, which is a good thing), there is currently--as there has been even in 1.09p--an overabundance of gildar. Generally when building troops, the real limitations are materials (barring the Great Mill thing; that is a balance issue in itself), metal, and the other resources. Gildar's never really a problem. [/quote] Hmm,

[quote]I wonder if maybe only a certain proportion of your population should be considered as specialists. After all, there are presumably the very young and old in your cities as well as healthy workers. [/quote] That wouldn't solve the other problem: there's nothing to build for most of the game but libraries, a few workshop and labs. We need at least 2 or 3 more small buildings of the sort, and a few more non-spammable at city level 2-3-4. [quote]small idea t

Mid-game, a 10 HP heal isn't such a big deal. Maybe it should heal 3/4 Intelligence ? Or 1/2 ?

Hello Elemental players ! So, 1.09q was another good step forward. I see lots of improvements, the game is definitely going towards a better direction. In the end... it's really nice. Armor values are balanced, cities now produce the gold they should be producing, the AI is less and less dumb. I'm starting to enjoy the game. There are still quite a few issues, and I'd like to discuss them and the solutions that could be used to fix them. So, let's start:</

[quote]Strength plus spear[/quote] Most units don't have a strength bonus. It's important to consider strength in the balance too, but the main question is: if it's available for units, how can we make it worth it to equip units with them.

A warstaff isn't a lump of wood.

[quote who="Dsraider" reply="7" id="2839743"]How about it does 50dmg - targets intelligence. That would balance out i think. Would make it less a kill all and more a warrior killing spell.[/quote] Too good against warrior-type sovereigns, who already have to split between 3 stats. [quote]A b etter solution would be to make sovereigns invulnerable to all spell damage. Forcing victory through strength of arms is fine by me.[/quote]It can still one-round kill major ch

[quote]2 Attacks at Str 9 (18 max damage potential), or 3 attacks at Str 5 (15 max damage potential). This has more considerations. Are you fighting lightly armored things? That extra attack may be more worth your while.[/quote] How could it be worth your while ? Having an extra attack is good if you end up dealing more damage. All you did was prove that the daggers were unredeemable. The point of a fast weapon is the following: dealing more damage but over all attacks means that you'

[quote]Although I notice we now seem to have separate to hit and counter attack to hit chances,[/quote] We don't. The number in the tooltip is the probability the opponent will hit you with his counterattack.

[quote]4. Oak Spear and War Staff (and Boar Spear???) are overpowered for early-game weapons. Suggest making them 7 and 9 rather than 9 and 15. [/quote] Meh. Oak spears are two-handed, and if you lower them, they'll be useless as soon as leather kicks in... which is 5 turns later. Remember 9 damage means 7 average damage, and then you reduce by armor... which will reduce that to 5 or 4 with even just 3-4 armor. No, I really think they're good. Edit: and

Uh... real life isn't turn-based to begin with, so....

Actually, for the early tier weapon, you don't need to worry about how strong they'd be with high strength either. Sure, they'd scale more... but by the time you reach enough strength to make this an issue, the champions already betters 2 or 3 tiers above. So I think it's a problem with all fast weapons: they're all underperforming. For the shortsword, for instance, compared to the mace, you need at least 16 strength to make the shortsword better against unarmored units. And it's clea

 [quote]Also as you said the benefit is generally only significant with a decent strength bonus, however, you are neglecting HOW much better it can be with a high strength.[/quote] Well, in the case of the longsword, to have it become slightly better than the hammer against light infantry, you need *very* high strength. And to have it become really better... you need tremendous strength. With 40 strength: + 15 damage. Against unarmored units: -Longsword 32*4 = 1

I don't. It isn't an efficient choice as it is. I just replied to a post discussing fast weapons vs. strong weapons. I think the fast weapons need a bit more love, and that includes the dagger. They're supposed to be here to clean up lightly armored infantry (at the dagger level, it's actually "unarmored" infantry), but they don't perform so well in that job because even with the increase in speed, their total damage is lower.

 [quote]That's why Longsword specifically is a 17 attack vs the 30 attack of the slower battle hammer. [/quote] Actually, there's a small issue with that I believe. There are 2 factors which make combat speed a bit less desirable than an increase in attack power: -If you already increased combat speeds with other powers or tech, then the +1 in combat speed won't take you from 3 to 4, but (say) from 5 to 6. 5*30 compared to 6*17... well, not exactly good. -

Make it 25+1/2*Int, at a huge cost. Or make it 40 give it a draining effect: if you cast it, your sovereign is drained for 3 rounds and can't act. Also, it's spammable...

[quote who="Wizard1200" reply="91" id="2839529"] Quoting Werewindlefr, reply 88- Cloak of Thwarting: Probably useless in the late game, because Accuracy scales with the level But most units are created at level 1, even in the late game. So it's still useful against most non-champion units. Good point, but i think an item that works against all units is the safer bet, like Arielle's Shield.[/quote]Arielle's shield sacrifices a huge dodge bonus (late shields have +10

Thanks for the frequent update Derek. Can we have a fix for the "unit skipping a tile in tactical battles when given the order to attack an enemy 1 or 2 tiles away" bug in this patch, pretty please ?

-The 5 materials at the start of the game are a huge improvement. You can even produce a couple early soldiers now if you so choose ! -I love the current monster system. Yes, early game is tough, but that's even better. It brings a natural selection: who's going to expand the most despite being under constant attack by barbarian tribes ? -I still dislike the resource spawning system, but well... okay, it's not gonna change in 1.1 anyway. -I agree with the sword of wrat

I agree for the sword of wrath. Both its attack power and penalty are exagerated. 50 attack, -5 Constitution would be a good set of values. But then, you need to lower the great scimitar's power a bit (50's a tad exagerated too). Also, I found an enemy with a sword of wrath during the early stages of the game, which I think wasn't supposed to happen. I was able to kill the dude with 2 arcane arrows (-10 Constitution is too big a penalty; I understand the purpose of this, but if I push

Test number 1: armor is much, much more balanced so far. I get a low fewer of those "blocked, blocked, blocked, blocked" chains. It feels like I'm actually fighting ! "Slightly", however, was an understatement. I would have said "significantly". But yeah, it's really fine now :D.

Sorry for having been a bit aggressive. My main issue is the following: a weapon of a given tech level will give a lot of "blocked" results on an armor of exactly the same tech level. Broadsword against light plate, for instance. Mace against leather, although it's still okay-ish. Longsword against heavy plate. Broadsword's tech line is: equipment, weaponry, cutting weapons. Light plate's is : equipment, armor, light armor. "Blocked" results, in my opinion, are wa