Creslin321

When it comes to faction differentiation, there is one 4X/grand-strategy game I have played in my entire life that stands out above all others. And that game is Fall From Heaven 2. I am SO glad that you are working on faction differentiation now Kael, because honestly...I couldn't think of a better person to do this. Every faction is FFH2 just felt so unique, I played it so many times because I wanted to experience the game from different perspectives. So

I don't think there's any problems with the scenarios you mentioned OP. Basically, you just said that terraforming is actually useful. Because if you couldn't use it to give yourself a strategic advantage then well...what's the point :)? The only concern I see is that there needs to be counters to terraforming other than...terraforming. I guess cloud walk is one, but I think that's really it. Personally, I would like to see some high e

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="30" id="3075219"] Quoting Creslin321, reply 28 First, in both Chess and Stratego, you only move ONE PIECE A TURN. I'm pretty sure that's how FE's tactical battles are. The innovation of initiative allowing units to skip ahead of others. WoM was each side moves all its pieces and then the other side does, but they got rid of that system. [/quote] It's not the same. In C

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="25" id="3075191"] Quoting Creslin321, reply 21 If you have like 20 units per side, that's FORTY moves per turn. This can really slow a tactical battle down to the point where it becomes a chore. How many units are on a chessboard? How many in Stratego? Games are not a chore because they have too many pieces, they're a chore because they aren't interesting. Adding units doesn't magically

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="16" id="3074640"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 15 Derek has told me that anything that makes a tactical battle take more than 3 minutes to finish is a bad thing and I have come to agree with that. So anything that threatens to make them actually tactical. Sigh, so much for my suggestion of large stacks for epic tactical battles. [/quote] I'm with Brad and Derek on this one...I even posted so

I would love to see additional soldiers shoved into one unit, but I'm reticient about having more "units" in a battle. Remember that you have to take a turn for EACH individual unit on the battlefield. If you have like 20 units per side, that's FORTY moves per turn. This can really slow a tactical battle down to the point where it becomes a chore. I think there has to be a happy medium between having enough units so that it seems "epic" and n

I actually liked the system from Dominions 3... In Dom3, if your "God" (Champ/Sovereign) died, you had to pay an exorbitant amount of resources and wait several turns to bring them back. I think they could get brought back an unlimited amount of times, but it was pretty costly. So it put losing a champ kind of on the same scale as losing units. In both cases, it took time and resources to get them back.

[quote who="dracophoenix" reply="11" id="3072628"] I find it humorous that," The goal of stopping/slowing on the-the-field regeneration and/or ability to advance for a short while is not to turn it into an "end turn" situation, but rather to incent the player to have more than one Stack of Doom/have other armies to advance to AVOID being in a position to have no choice but just hit "end turn". " is being presented as a good alternative. Yes, I want someone else to eliminate my play

[quote who="CdrRogdan" reply="10" id="3072622"] Just as an aside, who have you been having playtest this derek? Retarded monkeys? I think I've only had a champion die twice, both times from some rediculously lucky maul stream attack. Champions are rediculous for reasons other than that they don't die. It's just that the lack of death mechanic and their recovery rate means steamrolling is easier. On the other hand it is =much= less likely that the defending army will be d

I've noticed that in Elemental it seems like once you can take over one city, you've pretty much won the game, and it just becomes a "mop-up" exercise from there. But in a game like Civ or GalCiv this is simply not the case. I pondered on this for a while, and I think I found out why. In other 4X games, your military power is spread out into a lot of different units. These units are all expendable, and you will generally lose a lot in a difficult w

Yeah...as others have said, champs need a nerf. But it's not just that champs need a nerf...it's also that getting decent regular units takes much longer than getting powerful champs. I can usually get my sov to "strong" in like the early game when regular units have, at most, leather. By the time you get chain, your champs may already be "Deadly." In addition, if you want units you have to STOP producing buildings in your cities which c

Great suggestion, this would help a lot.

[quote who="Magog_AoW" reply="3" id="3071189"]We've talked so much about all of this since before the beta of WoM. There are threads with hundreds of posts like this that are two years old. They are obviously not going to redesign TC at this point in development. * We have squares instead of hexes because Brad likes squares better. And he will not code a new game engine. * There were all kinds of fuckups in WoM because they tried to support older systems. Pixel shade

For what Elemental is, I don't think the tactical battles need a complete overhaul. If you're looking for something with the depth of a TT tactical game...then you're not going to find it here. But IMO, that's okay because Elemental isn't completely about the tactical battles...they are just part of a larger whole. Tactical combat could use some tweaking for sure, especially in the realm of balance and maps, but I don't think it needs to be sc

I did a game with the enemy AI on hard recently. They had like 100 points on the scoreboard and I had like 20. I declared war on them and steamrolled their hordes of armies with my sovereign alone lol :).

I like research. I just think that right now, it doesn't seem to matter much because champs are so OP. They essentially make research unnecessary. Research gives you a way to specialize your faction.

[quote who="OrleanKnight" reply="14" id="3070821"]I don't think Champs should be gods, and this really turns me off. Champs really should be important for the moral and benefit of a larger army. But then again I'm thinking about strategy games that are far better than this game. I think the only ways champs can be worthwhile is if the entire Tactical Battles system is completely and utterly redesigned from the ground up. So far it was always something of a back-seat to the world build

Hehe it's funny, but I see this as a major indicator of imbalance. I actually thought about trying to do this as an experiment when I got home today, but since it's already been done I don't have to :). You seriously should not be able to win the game without a city. The game is supposed to be a strategy game with RPG elements, not an RPG game with an option to build a city just for fun. Champions are just far too strong and they make nearly all t

[quote who="Blackmantle_" reply="8" id="3070606"] Also the jump from weak champion to all-powerful champion seems to happen to fast imo... Stretching out the progression in some sensible way not sucking out the fun might help (seems also to be related to equipment, maybe a bit to random and very powerful stuff dropping to often / from to easy monsters / to early-level chests and way to much in abundance ect...) [/quote] Completely agree. In the beginning of the game, c

I think one of the biggest current issues with the beta is the strength of champs. As it is now, champs can basically wipe the floor with entire armies of regular units at just about any point in the game. Personally, I think this is OP, but I know some members of the community really prefer stronger champs. So I'm interested to see "how strong" everyone thinks champs should be in the end. My personal ideal for champs would be to make them strong enough to kill

Just wanted to add another two cents to the "champs are OP" pile. I just played a game on hard difficulty and, despite Resoln being like 5 cities, 80 points, and TONS of armies ahead of me, I absolutely wiped the floor with them using just my Sov. I mean, it wasn't even a challenge. One Sov, about level 8, just destroyed armies of spearmen and other early game troops. I just walked over city after city and each one offered hardly any resistance.</

Same thing happened to me. Something is definitely out of wack with the AI getting wiped by the world.

<p style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.2

Just had a hilarious experience. I was playing as Gilden...something, the guy that makes lots of money :). Anyway, everything was going well, pretty early into the game, I had 3 champs, hadn't encountered any of the other factions yet, and was just building up my city basically. When all of a sudden: "Faction such and such has been eliminated!" "Conquest Victory!" I never even saw the other faction lol :). So

[quote who="dracophoenix" reply="15" id="3068042"] I can't express how strongly I oppose taking Sovs off the battlefield! So many people are hating on Sovs and Champs, while they are one of the main reasons I play the original and now the expansion/sequel! [/quote] I don't think they should be taken off the battle field. I just think they just be toned down a little so that you can't win with ONLY your sov and champs. Granted, this may have already