Plutonium239

Moving the forge later while keeping the other buildings early would be nice. You could benefit from the boost to magic power for quite awhile instead of for just a few turns, even when not pursuing a Spell of Making victory. I don't know about collecting the relics; if they go back to towns I think it overlaps with the conquest victory too much by forcing you to take enemy cities. I like the idea though. Perhaps if each map had one or more wildlands (based on map size) which cont

Building outpost upgrades by sending a train of scouts is still using the city's production queue and so is essentially what we have now except with the addition of mindless micro. Please, for the love of all that is good, do not bring constructor spam to LH.

It would be nice. I never play for this victory condition because it's very unsatisfying. Moving it later in the tree would go a long way towards making it feel like an accomplishment.

Does the Commander class get a Tactics skill that allows arranging troops before the battle begins? That would be pretty cool.

That's the Tarth trait. It's sort of the defining feature of Tarth. Monster AI seems to be fine. Earlier I watched a monster ignore my outpost and wipe out 3 AI stacks while my army made it's way there. I figured I'd lost the outpost but it was the AI that suffered at the hands of the stack it loosed.

Hightower is what I've used most often. This is especially useful when outposts are costly to make. I would have used consulates if outposts stopped costing pop but cities continued to cost pop. If both or neither cost pop I have little use for consulates. The problem with investing in an outpost is that if it gets caught undefended just once everything is gone in an instant. This means border outposts are too exposed to justify putting the combat enhancing upgrades into and

I hope to see this updated soon as well. Do the early ice staves still upgrade to the later fire staves also? That's an old one but I'd like to see that updated too.

But why do you want to get more xp from a method that removes choice instead of simply getting more XP per kill? If XP rewards were doubled and still split normally you would have your faster levelling but you would not be punished for splitting your heroes up. If you remove the split then the only real difference is you no longer have a choice in how to use your heroes.

That makes sense and the new mechanic does create some uncomfortable decisions (which I still like). Now that I really understand your position I'm surprised you didn't like the suggestion to move the pop cost from creating the outpost to only if the consulate is built...?

The whole point of pop cost for pioneers is to slow the rate of building cities. Cities are so important because, yes, they produce pop, gold, research, production - and now we have to pay pop to create new cities. They are already tightly limited by available settle spots where outposts are not limited to settle spots. You are trying to say I should be against city improvements because they don't have various costs. They are city im

It zooms in to your mouse cursor. It allows you to zoom into any part of the map you want to without having to move the map.

Then keep turning up the difficulty. If you hit insane and can't ever lose a game then it's time to whip out notepad and edit some XML files or play a multiplayer game. May I suggest DOTA 2? It's deeper than you likely think. Sure you can play it without thinking but it rewards thought and has the depth to justify it. This is consumer grade software running on a home computer. It does not think. Consumer products are not going to possess intelligence in the fore

Please do not remove the split. Currently, we get the same total XP for each fight regardless of whether we send one or 10 heroes (I think it's a plain divide, haven't actually tested). This means I can choose to spread the XP around or concentrate it on one hero. I also decide whether I can clear lairs faster with my heroes split up or whether I need to group them together for strength which is in turn a choice of how much production to spend in supporting units. If t

I would like to see more but shorter paths (branch type paths within each class) and only have enough max levels to get some of the paths. That creates a lot fun variations for different games. That said I really like the new system. Not only is it way more interesting than the old system but in the process of building it they came up with some cool new skills. I hope they continue to develop the system in future expansion packs but honestly alot of RPGs have shallower character

First: I like roads to outposts regardless of whether I have arcane monoliths. Do you mean pop cost on outposts makes arcane monoliths overpowered? They were very powerful before by allowing roads to be created with mana. Unlike outposts they cannot be upgraded. You think they are overpowered now? Maybe you're right; I'm not sure yet. Second: "Outposts should not stuck." I don't know what you are trying say there. I don't know what you are asking with g

Consulates don't appear late in the game at all. It's the third rung in the cheapest of the three tech trees. You could choose not to research it in the early game but I don't why you would do that - the first half of the civ tree is filled with super cheap techs that are all about getting the power snowball rolling. I have always picked up roads to outposts as a fairly high priority tech (especially if I have Arcane Monoliths) and Consulates are on the way the

Except that outposts generate population through consulates. Removing the pop cost for outposts would undermine the purpose of having a pop cost for pioneers at all. I love scouts. I always produce one or two immediately. Extra vision range and full movement through rough terrain makes them perfect for revealing the map quickly so I can plan ahead.

Splitting isn't a penalty either way. Not splitting XP is a huge penalty for having heroes in separate armies. If 2 fights give 10XP each then without splitting I get a total of 20XP no matter how I do it (with heroes), but if we don't split XP then I need to have every hero at every fight to multiply XP gains. If I have 3 heroes I can get 30 XP per fight by having them together. I want XP to always be split (even quests) but XP rewards be larger to accommodate.

[quote who="jonmdewey" reply="253" id="3325087"] ... unrest for more cities??? Please say this isn't final. It is a horrible mechanic. Civ has proved this. If I remember right some of Frogboy's early posts said as much. I'd have to dig up the post but it something to the effect of penalties are BAD. In the same vein as maintenance is BAD. Keep things simple and make choices between 2 awesome things. [/quote] I believe Civ has

I've got my fingers crossed that henchmen are going away. I prefer heroes to be rare and powerful. Otherwise GenericHero4812 and his legion of generic brethren kind of are just regular units because it becomes necessary for Stardock to balance heroes against regular units. I think that's part of why current heroes are so boring (personal opinion of course).

Having new cities be a burden until they develop past the break even point is actually the same as an economic cost to building pioneers. It's a flat cost differing only in whether you pay up front or get the new city as a loan that you have to pay off. An ever expanding empire is still always better. More cities are still always better. It is only the rate of expansion that must be managed. That's not inherently bad but I am under the impression that the devs want both

I think they're getting it right in LH. Pop cost for pioneers (or gold cost for that matter) doesn't ultimately change anything. City spam is still the answer it's just slower. More cities is still always better and the only "right" decision. By having an increasing number of cities cause an increasing empire unrest penalty (in LH) there is actually something to manage and balance expansion against. I don't care if pioneers in the base game are free (labor c

Everything described in the original post sounds great! It sounds like much of FE's fluff is getting removed in favor of meaningful decision making which is awesome. I especially like that tactical combat and hero development are being fleshed out into interesting gameplay elements. I pre-ordered WoM. I didn't like the game because I thought the game mechanics were weak and uninteresting. Whatever, I've bought worse games. When I got an email down the road that Stardock wa

[quote who="zlefin" reply="14" id="3323434"] this doesn't feel like an acceptable kind of ai cheating to me. Games are supposed to have mechanics; giving ai advantages is one thing; letting the ai ignore mechanics that are supposed to exist in the game, like monstsers being a threat, violates that. Unless it's absolutely necessary to let an ai ignore something to be functional it shoudln't be done.[/quote]It's the opposite of cheating though in that it is in t

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. That soldiers in XCOM are actually more likely to die to a single shot than to shots over time gives the feeling of randomness over skill even though it's no less strategically/tactically valid. There we're managing the odds; you can minimize the chances of casualties but nothing you do can ever eliminate the chance of a soldier getting killed. It's our faulty expectations of zero casualties that makes it feel wrong. I kno