Looks like an overflow error. Which means it can be caused by almost anything, Even if the mod doesn't change anything related to champions price, it can still cause such an error.
Tactical battles definitely need to change considerably to be more realistic. Particularly I vote for devs doing this https://forums.elementalgame.com/418739
There are spells which take multiple turns to cast (like fireball or blizzard). You can interrupt them with counter spell. I've never seen the AI using them, though.
[quote who="Stupidity10" reply="16" id="3093601"]It seems very unlikely that the Devs would change so much of basic tactical combat.[/quote] True, but that's just a suggestion.
[quote who="Tasunke" reply="13" id="3093591"]Its when you have basic armed troops facing off against peasants that you end up killing, say half of the unit with one charge.[/quote] They'd kill all the pesants with or without a charge. And this is a special situation - mounted charge. I think mounted units should have first strike against not mounted units, too.
[quote who="dainamis" reply="10" id="3093580"]A general "locked in melee" approach makes no sense though. One should be able to lock units in melee by surrounding them[/quote] I just think about such a situation in "real" life: if a group of people are engaged in melee, they definitely can't just show their backs and move without receiving some additional casualties from those they are in fight with; even if they are not surrounded, disengagement from melee is not an easy task.</p
Or I have another idea: Spears have first strike against mounted units and mounted units have first strike against not mounted units... that would make some sense. That rather seems like a mod already.
[quote who="Stupidity10" reply="7" id="3093571"]Guaranteed counter attack does seem like it would stop all melee units from attacking, how about a system where defense isn't granted by shields but instead is a trainable trait that is buffed by shields and adds a counter attack? That seems more balanced, you could also add first strike to spears in this way. [/quote] Why would it stop them from attacking? Does it stop them from attacking in Master of Magic? Does it stop
I even think the defender has more time to observe and decide and therefore has a better reaction. But all these things are SOOO negligible in melee that I don't belive we should think about them at all.
[quote who="Kantok" reply="3" id="3093560"]If you and I are standing on a field with swords and I run up to you and get the first strike, assuming we're both trained in what we're doing, I'm now in the advantageous position because I am dictating the flow of action.[/quote] I don't actually think there is ANY advantage of moving first. We both see that we are going to engage in like 10 seconds and it doesn't matter who moved in first. Defender can actually strike b
[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="2" id="3093543"]I hate always counter attacking. And it wouldn't work well in a game with glass cannon soldiers. Every attack would be a suicide.[/quote] They should reduce attack damage or increase too. And if not, then it should be a suicide. Because melee combats definitely can't be resolved like this. Melee combat IS about BOTH sides of similar quality taking similar amount of damage. A group of ten people can't make one melee strike and ki
[quote who="CdrRogdan" reply="1" id="3093128"]Is your unit mounted?[/quote] No. I use mounted units next to never.
I think there should be the counter attack for melee units which is SIMULTANEOUS with the main attack (i.e. done before the damage is applied to the unit under attack). It will make it meaningless to look for first strikes in melee. I think many people here will support me. Moreover, I suggest that units engaged in melee should be somehow "locked in melee" i.e. unable to move after they struck or were struck by another melee unit. Or maybe they could disengage but then their e
[quote who="Bingjack" reply="23" id="3093052"]but neither is making weapon damages *more* similar.[/quote] Not necessarily more similar, just weaker, so we would have, for instance 1, 2, 5, 8, 10 instead of 10, 20, 50, 80, 100 damage. So that it is not possible to kill a unit in one, or even two or three strikes, unless you use a very very late weapon against an unarmed opponet.
[quote] Attack rating shouldn't stack one on top of the other, but rather something more like a +1 for each additional squad member, not +10+20+30, until even low tech units are one-slotting entire planets.[/quote] Don't agree about that. Attack should be multiplied by squad members just like it is now, but the damage should be much weaker overall. Units should be able to answer the first strike with mostly the same strength. I suggest making weapons MUCH weaker and decrease t
Sometimes, when you use the Defend ability of a shield, a LONG (like 10 sec) delay follows before it is executed and the turn is passed to a next unit.
Don't agree about removing negative traits. They should be less effective though, but I like the idea of using numerous but individually weak units.
Often, when battle starts, no tooltips for enemy units are shown when you hover the mouse over them, unless you hover the mouse over your units and see their tooltip first.
When you transform a shard with the improvement already built on it, it can't be used after the transformation. At least, that's true for the spell "Corruption".
I really think battlefield is way too small to allow any real tactics. When there are 5 tiles between you and enemy, and some units can actually cross this distance in 1 turn, there's not much tactics to be done. I suggest you take inspiration from Master of Magic, where there are like 10 or 15 tiles between armies in the beginning and units usually move 1, rarely 2 tiles per turn... Archers will make much more sense if battlefield is bigger, but then again they should shoot much
Ok, I figured it out, I bought the game in December 2010. When am going to get beta access? I guess next round will be next week. Is next round going to be for everyone who bought the game in 2010, or something like "for everyone who bought it before December 1"? Thanks!
In ancient times, the whole world has been ruled by mostly despotic rulers, but I can't say that every ancient nation was "bad".
[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="1" id="3066022"]But there have been plenty of nations that have worked for the betterment of their people and peace with their neighbors and others that have looked to conquer and destroy their neighbors while seeing their people as assets or liabilities.[/quote] I don't think it can be applied to nations. Only to some rulers of these nations. Great Britain for example, has been both, and most nations have. I don't think we can paint the whole nati
I kinda don't like the idea that all the empires are just plain bad, and all kingdoms are just plain good. IMO, Elemental world should not be just "black and white", you know. When I read descriptions of Empires it seems to me that it was written by Kingdoms so that they could paint themselves white and Empires black. I think that's wrong.
Same thing with me. I dont remember when I bought it and can't check it anywhere (. Could you check it for me too? I wish so much to be with the next group (