Werewindlefr

I would like to see a damage shield power: an effect that damages the opponent when the enchanted unit is hit in melee.

Thanks a huge lot for fixing this. More than anything, this was what prevented me from playing (it felt like playing starcraft with marines that can kill battlecruisers). Will you please, please tell us what the error was? We won't make fun of anyone. Promised. I swear, seriously.

They're not overpowered. They have a critical bug which makes them more powerful as they lose members. Combine that with a rather poor AI (for now), and you get a very unbalanced game element. Unbalanced not by design, but in the facts.

Please, no rock-paper-scissors. It's a boring game. If I wanted to play rock-paper-scissors, I wouldn't need a computer.

I already mentioned this elsewhere, but it's a critical one: squads get stronger as they lose member, as the total attack value of the unit is not decreased.

Is this bug going to be fixed in 1.08? Because this is really a huge gamebreaker, and it looks like something that's quite easy to fix.

[quote who="Magog_AoW" reply="4" id="2760336"]In the betas you had to build a structure ("training grounds" or something) before you could train units. They removed it because it made the early game quite boring. I think that was the right thing to do. [/quote]They could make higher - quality stuff require better and better buildings, but have wooden sticks and beast hides not require anything.

The current system does strike me as needlessly complicated. Why multiply the individual attack rating by the number of unit to then divide it?

[quote who="LikeTheWhirlwind" reply="24" id="2760326"] Dead soldiers don't get rolls in the current system. If you have an example of a battle where you've seen a squad do more than its max ATK in damage, please send a save our way.[/quote] Well, I don't see how else a unit "down to its last man" with a weapon that is supposed to deal 20 damage can deal 60 (against unarmored guys, which is how I run my tests.). As much as when the unit was full. If dead men don't get

I concur. This approach can be somewhat acceptable in a Pen and Paper RPG - but not in a video game (and not in most non-video games). Mark Rosewater, R&D of Magic the Gathering at WotC, could write a whole novel with what is wrong with that approach: it ends up with things that are cool to look at, but in the end extremely frustrating because they do not possess the complex interactions and large set of valid strategies which make a good strategy game. Turn Based strategy games are first

[quote]For today, I’m going through the a lot of the values (weapons, defenses, city improvements) and relooking at their balance. I’m finding it way too easy to just “rush” nearby enemies because the values grow so much, so fast.[/quote] Yes! Yes, yes, yes! As it is, units deal way, way too much damage. Or have way too few hit points. No weapon should kill an elite knight in one blow. I actually multiplied the health of basic uni

Please make dead units in a group not keep on fighting. If I managed to kill part of a group (which is difficult because it retaliates strongly :p), I want to see some tactical advantage for having done so: namely, that the group isn't as strong anymore.

[quote who="LikeTheWhirlwind" reply="7" id="2758907"]Each member of the attacking squad rolls (0-ATK/NumTroops) vs. a unique defender roll of (0-DEF/NumTroops). All positive results of the attacker rolls are totaled and damage is dealt. [/quote]Is it by design that dead soldiers still have attack rolls though? This make diminishing the HP value of the group useless until you actually kill them altogether.

[quote]With Elemental, the issue is the game itself. [/quote] Demigod was a ~$40 MOBA game with a dozen eight heroes and somewhat inferior maps due to the absence, for instance, of places to hide for an ambush. With Heroes of Newerth/League of Legends available around the same time or slightly later, it wasn't really worth buying. With Demigod, the issue was *also* the game itself. [quote]For fans who are dishearten

[quote who="Ilindil" reply="2" id="2758645"] Main reason was the discipline of troops (especially this one), morale and loyalty of troops (what for die for this king if another one will give same taxes as this one).[/quote]The main reason was that medieval armor (from chainmail to higher protections) was quite effective.

I'd prefer it if elements were defined by more than simple effects. Not only is it quite overdone, if simple to implement... but it'd be better if elements had a larger list of effects than just those; it'd give them a bit more importance and personality. To the list, you could add: fire could blind temporarily, air could slow down unit and make archers miss, etc.

That second part would be doable with the modifications I requested: -Create a custom UnitStat called "size". -Roll a random "chance for the spell effect to take place" based on that UnitStat.

There's something strange about the Semi-Warg mount: UnitStat_Deffend I don't think this UnitStat exists, and it's not a custom one either.

[quote who="Cryptomancer" reply="11" id="2755977"]If you care to do something positive, instead of being passive echoes of one Gamespot reviewer's opinion -- and that's all it is, a personal opinion -- please vote on Gamespot, granting a higher user-rating. [/quote]Why would we do that? Should we be trying to mislead gamespot readers into buying a game they wouldn't like, or artificially push the grade above what it should really be?

Frogboy, please also consider minor-to-moderate changes to the XML language. There is so much we modders could do with a few more tags and functionnality! As for the AI, have you considered (let's be very ambitious) to implement the very beginning of a true computer AI? No, I'm not talking about Skynet here :p. I'm talking about Creatures' Norns. As in, minor learning abilities. It could give something very, very interesting.

This AND/OR (we need a NOT, too!) is indeed an important issue. I really hope devs will understand its importance.

Well, actually, Elemental deserves any grade in the 4.0 - 7.0 range. It depends on what you're ready to forgive, how much importance you give to the potential, and so on. I can understand someone unwilling to compromise and really irritated by the game could give it a 4.0, and such a feeling is perfectly justified - it's a $50 AAA-priced title after all. If Stardock manages to implement the entire (almost) list of suggestion and fixes that BoogieBac posted on the Dev Journals subforum

[Modding][Suggestion] New XML features. After all, a lot of improvment can come from mods.

I've been working on the Elemental XMLs a bit and tried to introduce a few features to the game (abilities and spells, for instance). However, quite a few basic features could not be implemented with the XML tags that currently exist. I think this could be fixed with a mild-to-moderate amount of work, although since I haven't seen what the engine actually looks like in the C++ code, I cannot tell for sure. Here's a list of what could be useful for us XML sculptors: -Condition

[quote who="TheProgress" reply="5" id="2755137"]I'm pretty sure 1.1 will end up being where the game should have started... maybe.[/quote]Are they going to revamp the combat system? Because the game needs that, too.