seanw3

Shouldn't a sharp sword do at least +1 damage? That is how I balanced it.

I kind of like the idea that we can go into diplomacy and demand they leave. It is exactly the kind of aggressive posturing diplomacy is full of. But once they back down and leave, they should be physically impeded from reentering for 12 turns. All trade should stop for those 4 years and at the end, the AI should contact you for a deal to pass.

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="9" id="3244264"]I know it exists historically....but we can pretend this fantasy world hasn't figured it out yet.[/quote] Potential Customer: So how would you describe the world of Elemental? GFireflyE: Well, it's alot like this world, except there is magic and the physics prevent wood from floating or arrows from being fired at elevations above 6 feet. Potential Customer: Wow, that is oddly specific...

I don't personally know Kindle White, but it seems a little mean to call her heavy on the internet. Cyber bullying is so 1998. [e digicons]:troll:[/e]

Finally baited someone into a historical conversation about Russia. Imperial Russia and the ages before relied on mercenary officers and serf soldiers. Soldiers only stayed in battle as long as the guy pointing a sword at their back was threatening to kill them. And that guy generally only stayed as long as he was not in mortal danger.

If they were Russian troops they would be retreating after the first one died.

It makes sense if I accept that dusin is to mean dozen. :P Each tile has a list of combat maps linked to it. You could add more to any tile if you wanted.

If I had a hero like that in my army, I would make my famous archer soup.

If only some clever person had laid the groundwork for a better balance and more interesting options for Sov creation. I bet the devs would take a look and update the current options.

I have not seen that level of single unit winning in .982. Perhaps you could make a thread about it and show us your ingame progress?

[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="20" id="3244159"]But my archer is armored and he still dies in turn one. I don't want to have to super armor all my troops when all that should be needed is they stand in the back. That makes the game worse than it could be. I just want to be able to choose who is in back and who is in front when combat starts. I shouldn't have to plate up my mages and archers to tank round one because of poor design.[/quote]

It's as simple as adding a small bit of xml to damage spells that negates the chance to crit. I think it is intended though, as some spells make all spells crit.

[quote who="CogBurn" reply="165" id="3244132"]I make cities just for something to do, but making troops is simply less efficient than rolling everything with my sov. [/quote] Ya, this is still mostly true. I wish I could get an AI to do it so that I could test ways to combat it. I think the best thing to do is to leave it in and balance some late game stuff to mop the floor with high level heroes. I know a strong archer army is quite effective against heroes. Teaching the AI to do thi

I could spend years just making stamps. Which is pretty much what I did in WoM. [e digicons]:D[/e] I think keeping the quest art not only on the map, but as an intrinsic part of the map has alot of potential. Release the shop!!!

[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="16" id="3244099"]High initiative tank? Armored mages? That seems silly that I would have to design my archers mages in ways that are so unthematic. To me it's ridiculous how untactical the tactical battles really are. I just want to put my tanks up front, I shouldn't have to have to walk around with my weakest units up front and then hope my heavily armored tank is fast enough to run in front every time we fight. [/q

[quote who="ddd888" reply="15" id="3244095"]i dont know why you focus so much on army vs army, that part is still not improved enough anyway the counter to archers as usual is magic (or other archers) you cant expect a archer to not be able to kite warriors[/quote] Good point, but I am always hopeful that the AI will get to the point where it trains a good army. I have to think about balance with that in mind. The enemy currently is considered doin

For the sake of debate: [quote who="Lord Xia" reply="5" id="3244085"]Yes, but you are only going to have a tiny fraction of armor if you don't research the chainmail or plate techs, so moving the shield to the weapons techs really isn't going to provide much of an advantage.[/quote] So your argument is that shields offer so little of an advantage, they can be put anywhere? Seems like you are trying to avoid researching Armor and Plate. I smell a politician. The Armor t

I am talking about army vs. army battles. Monsters are almost always outnumbered. They were given those move points to combat exactly the same thing I would like it fixed for army vs. army. If you are losing mages, you need to give them some leather armor or make a high initiative tank to block the field in front of your mages.

You can get +30 Dodge from traits and +8 or so from shields. Light infantry don't needs the muscle and strength traits, so they are free to get dodge bonuses. I am not saying you shouldn't be able to get shields for light infantry. I am saying you should have to research armor to have efficient armor on those light infantry. If you can just get it from techs and be done, the cost is lost.

And do you know that FE is worlds better than HoMM6, Disciples3, Warlock1, etc? I think as far as steam sales go, the game is going to get huge pretty quick. I am betting on it. These things aren't specifically game breaking, but some of it could be solved right? I guess as long as they are on the table for the 1.1 version, I am a happy camper. As a temporary measure, I would block all tiles to the rear of starting positions so that humans can't game archery so much. I was sad to see

So in a given stamp, I can set specific quest locations and add in props?

I actually have a few complaints about tactical and this is one of them. This issue was acknowledged in beta 3, but no word on fixing was given after they promised to look into it, if I recall. I will make a proper post about these: 1. No tactical placement as Das123 illustrates in another thread could be done very easily from the strategic map. 2. There is too much room in the rear of each map, allowing for even the slowest units to kite three or four s

I don't like the idea of being able to bypass armor techs and still get some armor. It is better for balance to have all the armor in the armor tech.

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="1" id="3243599"][Balance] My city leveled up on season 14 with only +1 prestige. Way too fast considering the overall length of the game.[/quote] The first city has the full advantage of the prestige bonus and according to lore, you start your civilization with followers of your travels. On a gaming level, the early game is already too slow and a level 2 city is precisely what we need to get things rolling. Are you seriously asking for a slower early game

If you have a higher faction power and enough influence, you can demand tributes and force people into treaties. The AI demanding gildar for war would be too easily abused by humans, but I also think the AI should not do it either. That is what demand tribute is for.