Werewindlefr

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="74" id="3102475"] Quoting seanw3, reply 69What about the terrible 18 unit limit for battles? The most defeating and buggy element to battles. It would be better to allow more units in city defense battles so that city militia can matter. I would also like the "cast spell at beginning of battle" to be able to summon monsters. So a summoner can have more that nine units in a battle as well. Militia and such don't count against any sort of limit. &

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="40" id="3101548"] If the goal is to make the tactical battles so basic that they don't affect the outcome vs. automatically resolving, don't include them. I would much rather deal with Civ style auto resolve as the only option, than knowing there is this 'tactical' system tacked on for no other reason than to include it in the feature list. That's a pretty unfair assertion. Tactical battles are pretty fun. T

Any chance we can also have mutually exclusive buildings (non level-up related) /building trees?

[quote] Stop bagging on the people who want MP [/quote] The problem isn't people who want MP, it's the people who insult the SP-only side. I don't think anyone here would flame or troll someone for wanting MP, as long as he doesn't start the sort of arrogant, poorly-written post like the ones ddd888 has written when contributing to this thread.

[quote who="ddd888" reply="16" id="3100099"] Quoting onomastikon, reply 13 Even if you may be right (and frankly I have no idea, since I never made it to whatever "argument" you may be attempting to formulate sry but if you dont understand the argument we are talking about and have NOTHING to say in the matter of the thread you should just shut up come back again when you have something to say about the TOPI

[quote]That means that with an 80 defense it is possible to still take 30 damage from a singular 40 rating attack. By the same token Attacks of 15 against an armor of 30 are just as likely to hit for 10..[/quote] Max damage = Attack * (Attack/(Attack+Defense)). In your examples, Max damage1 = 40*(40/120) = 1/3*40 = 13 and Max Damage = 15*15/45 = 5. Defense works as intended. What doesn't is that base hit points are too low compared to potential damage and on

[quote]like the concept of a destroyed outpost requiring an increased cost to rebuild.[/quote] I don't, because it's currently impossible to defend your territory against this.

[quote]I don't think that the numbers are off on the weapons, per se. It's just that we really don't have a compelling reason not to just go for "highest DPS" and "Highest DPS for cheap".[/quote] I'm going to start sounding like a broken record here, but that's because you can't have situational tactics without situations. And the game has very little of the usual situation-creating elements: complex abilities (usually passive), facing, terrain modifiers, posit

The main issue with the game so far, I think, is how one of the main aspects of the game isn't really entertaining yet. I'm talking about tactical combat. A lot of stuff in Fallen Enchantress revolves around tactical combat: army makeup, for instance, spell research, mana gathering, champion leveling. If it's not the main feature of FE, it's really close to be so. What is the problem of tactical combat? It's bland. Spearmen, axemen, swordmen feel the same.

So? You can still have your bell-curved initiative distribution. Instead of being centered around "unarmed", it'll be centered around an average weapon. Say, axes or spears. And if initiative penalty stack is an issue becauce 19->18 is less of an issue than 9->8, just increase the base initiative of everybody by a certain amount - say, for instance, equivalent to the initiative loss of the aforementioned average weapon. Problem solved, n

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1" id="3092920"] (or HP increased).[/quote] YES, a HUNDRED TIMES YES! I know Derek wants 3-minutes combat, but if the result is that combat is boring because it's flawed beyond repaired, then it's better not to have combat in the first place! I mean, 3-turns cast or not, fireball 1-hit kills anything with 1 fire shard or Evoker I, making all further upgrades useless! What's the point of making strong and stronger spells, what's the p

Because fireball doesn't deal enough damage.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="4" id="3087792"]The thing is, where are MY really point? Where are MY army groups? I hope people rise up with me and complain when beta 2 hits.[/quote] Or not. Not after playing AI Wars and realizing that having competitive AIs sometimes mean reinforcing what AIs can do well and humans can't (to compensate for what humans can do well and AIs can't).

[quote]The calculation behind that simple –4 to +4 number is a bit crazy but it lets the AI get an idea of how he’s doing and what he should do.[/quote] I hope it includes "how much unrest management do I have and can I get lots of money with little damage with the current buildings and spells on my cities?" [quote]The AI likes to get on hills for some reason…[/quote] Tactical map hills, or Strategic map hills? Where does the bonus com

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="20" id="3082399"] Gary Grigsby?[/quote]He makes monster games - hex-based historical wargames with numerous accurate units, detailed maps, and turns that can take hours to play. If you're into that stuff (I sort-of am), he makes impressive games.

[quote who="seanw3" reply="17" id="3082364"]Gotta agree with those three. But what about tile bonuses for hills and such?[/quote] What about bonuses that make good positioning of units matter, in general? Which include both terrain-based bonuses and bonuses for outmaneuvering your enemy (flanking being the most common in games of this type). [quote]The problems *I* have with FE's tactical battles in 0.77 are: Not enough interesting unit abilit

[quote who="Wizard1200" reply="3" id="3080061"]Yep and increasing the XP per encounter or decreasing the XP per level will lead to much more levels for a single hero army. That is the reason why i think splitting the XP is a bad idea.[/quote]A single-hero army is vulnerable to being outmaneuvered, controlled with magic, etc.

I understand. I was just pointing at the fact that in the current paradigm, the damage of overkill spell is redundantly high, and explaining my reasoning.

I still fail to see the point of the DoT on Dirge. With such power, all units will already be dead :/. Maybe super veteran stacks will have 1-2 soldier left, but that hardly justifies an entire new spell of higher power.

The thing is, Dirge's extra power is next-to-useless. Fireball is already so efficient that Dirge basically does the same thing: it kills every trained unit. I don't understand the rationale behind a fireball so powerful it kills the units outright for a moderately experienced spellcaster. If it reduced the number of soldiers in a unit by 50%, it would already be very good. Unless there are many planed ways for extra unit HP, I don't see how this is supposed to work.

Derek, I'm not sure which trained unit has more than 10 HP/soldier, outside of the rare (and occasional) veteran-of-many-battles. Fireball and Dirge waste a huge lot of damage, because they're usually cast with at least a shard, and by proficient spellcasters (who have +100% damage at least, with Path of the Mage + Evoker I). Currently, a Fireball is expected to deal 6+3 (1 fire shard) * 2 (Evoker 1) damage = 18 damage, with overkill. It doesn't just severely damage units,

[quote]Personally speaking, I'm not real interested in listening to people who think we should jetison the tech tree or not have mana in the game or whatever. I'm glad our community is welcoming enough that people feel comfortable posting these ideas. But it's not as if something like that is going to even be considered. [/quote] Hmmm... to what extends does this hold? Can we make suggestion that extend or mod

[quote]14. Modding will likely be officially sanctions starting with beta 2.[/quote] There's a thread by Heavenfall with XML tag functionality requests. Some of them are pretty generic and would greatly expand the possibilities of modding; I don't know how long it would take to implement them, but some should be relatively low in man-hours. Is there a chance we might see some of these implemented?

[quote who="Wintersong" reply="2" id="3071845"] I think that they are overpowered against a poor AI. If the AI was finished and/or we were playing multiplayer, I'd take more seriously the "Champions are totally overpowered".[/quote] The 1st-turn fireball rampage is entirely AI-independent. Also, roaming monsters cease to be a threat really quickly, and become a boring hassle around turn 100.

1) Auras. Specifically, a softer but more flexible version of this: Unit AdjustArmyStat &nbsp