Wizard1200

[quote who="OliverFA_306" reply="2" id="3354812"]Is a bit strange to move from 0.87 to release. Isn't it?[/quote] Yep.

[quote who="moi-meme" reply="155" id="3354501"]Just smashing with bands of trained troops, always with the same tactics because troops have so few abilities...[/quote] The number of the abilities is not the problem in my opinion. The problem is that you can use them in most cases only once per combat, because they have a cooldown of 5 turns. [quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="160" id="3354598"]It doesn't matter because the AI can't compete. As with wom and fe every stra

[quote who="Alstein" reply="13" id="3352723"]Best solution there would be to make armor proficiency a 4th trait slot.[/quote] I think it would be better to have a single "Armor proficiency" trait that removes the initiative penalty of all armors. Without the trait a full set of leather armor has an initiative penalty of 2, a full set of chain mail has an initiative penalty of 4 and a full set of plate mail has an initiative penalty of 6. Commanders, defenders and warriors should have

I think it should be a tactical spell in the path of the assassin tree that summons a group of bandits.

As suggested multiple times: Rain of arrows should be the bow special attack. The assassin ability expert archer should increase the damage of rain of arrows by 25 % and master archer should increase the damage of rain of arrows by 50 %.

Instead of reducing the power of magic staves it would be better to give players a chance to protect themselves against the damage. The protection from fire and protection from cold spells should be moved from the mage path tree to the fire 3 spellbook and water 3 spellbook and there should be a protection from lightning spell in the air 3 spellbook.

[quote who="abob101" reply="30" id="3353155"]4) The spells are perfectly fine as they are. If someone is doing too much damage with a given spell, it means they have a large amount of shards of the specific type which influence said spell (can't compare a blizzard with 1 water shard, non upgraded vs one with 8 fully upgraded). Which means is your fault for allowing them to control that many resources [/quote] You do not need shards to make blizzard powerful, because it has a good

[quote who="Azunai_" reply="2" id="3353180"]i mean, they specifically changed that portion of the spell trees from FE to LH. apparently, the devs don't want "Hank the Tank" to be able to waste 100 mana to summon a weak ass level 1 earth elemental - they want summoning to be a mage thing, and more specifically a specialization. summons are decent now since you have to pick up some extra levels and have to unlock them specifically. that's a better mechanic IMO, since it protects AI and

Spells are available through spellbooks, the path of the mage tree, quests and the magic tree. I think it would be better if the access to spells would be streamlined: - Most of the spells should be available through the spellbooks including most summons - A few spells should be available through quests - The path of the mage tree should improve spells with higher effect, lower mana cost and lower casting time - The path of the mage tree should increase the att

[quote who="nukularpower" reply="7" id="3352911"]Personally, it bothers me that there is no way to improve your magic whatsoever from research. There are very few new spells, damage boosts, or anything there. It feels like the whole tree should have been named "magic items", cuz that really seems to be all it's about. I would really like to see some techs like "Improved Elemental Manipulation" or whatever that would increase the scaling of certain spells.[/quote] <p

[quote who="schattenjaeger" reply="11" id="3352826"]The part of Spears that bothers me the most is the Immune to Counter factor. Spear-wielders are the only late-game units which duly threaten a high-level Warrior champion. Anything else will get countered for its trouble - up to 3 times, depending on the warrior's weapon choice. Spears completely negate this (making an otherwise powerful Warrior trait worthless, might I note)[/quote] I think it is great that there is a counter to

I think spears and especially the impale ability are very good, but spears should double the swarm bonus instead of reducing the defense, because it is easier to attack with many spears at the same time. [quote who="Azunai_" reply="7" id="3352674"]so i think the ironeer special attack (can attack at 50% strength, and puts the attack in def stance) would be just perfect as a special move for swords.[/quote] That is a great idea.

[quote who="Arcayer" reply="15" id="3352564"][The cooldown of player and monster abilities should be reduced to 3 turns to make the combat more interesting. (Wizard1200)] [Bows and staves have no special abilities. Bows should have the rain of arrows ability and staves should have the focus ability that works like the spell with an additional action. (Wizard1200, GFireflyE)] [Staves definately need some kind of ability like 'surge' or 'Spell Focus' that i

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="52" id="3352307"]Imo the swarm bonus should simply have it's +1 atk removed. It would still be a powerful ability increasing the accuracy of all who are hitting. It would simply remove the extra abusive damage that goes along with the mechanic.[/quote] I think the attack bonus is the important part of the swarm mechanic, because it scales perfect with the group size and makes the swarm mechanic useful at the early, mid and late game.

The path trees are too long and the abilities have too many prerequisites. For example instead of evoker I - IV there should be only aeromancy, geomancy, ... that increases the damage of air, earth, ... spells by 50 % or instead of vital strike I - III there should be only vital strike that increases the critiacal hit chance by 15 and the critical damage by 50 %. As soon as a medium or high level commander is in an army the unit stats are unbalanced. The commander should use active ab

[quote who="Glazunov1" reply="4" id="3351668"]diplomacy remains the largest gameplay element in the game that is both impoverished in options, and wonky as hell. It really could use some TLC. Hard to believe it's part of a game put out by the same folks who did GC II.[/quote] Yeah, in the current state it would be better to remove diplomacy from the game. I think that this would fit better to the dangerous world of FE, too. A very good example of a strategy game that is amazing wi

[quote who="mdonais" reply="5" id="3351252"]Instead of taking commander to get a big boost to accuracy you can make a custom race and choose lucky. It is +25% accuracy and +25% dodge for you and all your troops. A crazy powerful ability.[/quote] Yeah, lucky should cost 2 points or should be changed to give the attacker a second attack roll like backswing.

[quote who="Azunai_" reply="6" id="3350760"]afaik, it doesn't affect AI anyway. don't know about the low difficulties, but on challenging or hard, their capitals always have essences. i don't think i ever saw an AI capital with less than 4/3/2 resources - i guess they just get those values for their capital regardless of the actual tile yields it's founded on.[/quote] Oh, i did not know that. In that case starting without essence does not matter, because you can always

[quote who="Galactic_Hunter" reply="6" id="3350796"]Well I disagree with giving them additional initiative. That makes them faster at everything, including shooting bows. How does that make sense?[/quote] They would be able to get faster into a firing position and it simulates that they have a better view of the battlefield.

[quote who="SBFMadDjinn" reply="4" id="3350526"]Also, Derek has specifically stated (somewhere) that he's not interested in properly balancing start locations, so if you get a start you don't like, just reload or roll with it. Consider it a better handicap.[/quote] That is a strange game design in my opinion, because no essence at the beginning of a game reduces the strength of the player AND the AI.

I think that it would be balanced if mounted units would get: + 2 initiative (horse) or + 5 initiative (warg) + 2 movement (horse) or + 1 movement (warg) - 20 dodge vs. melee and ranged attacks (horse and warg) Charge: + 3 movement and + 40 dodge vs. melee and ranged attacks for 1 turn, cooldown: 2 turns (horse) or 4 turns (warg)

Yep, i think the path of the commander is overpowered and boring, because as soon as a commander is in an army the unit stats are unbalanced and the commander is not even using an active ability. The commander bonuses should be active abilities with a duration of 1 turn and a cooldown of 3 turns. During one turn the commander could increase the accuracy of the army by 25 and during another turn he could increase the spell resistance of the army by 25, ...

[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="20" id="3349690"]Yes, I think FE was a great game, yes I think LH makes it even better, but why ever release a product that isn't your best? There are a lot of bugs and niggling issues that have lingered with the game for a long time, please take the time to fix all known issues before you release it. You are a great company and deserved to be recognised as such, so please release LH in tip top shape instead of just as

[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="1" id="3350628"]What they need to do in the descriptions of upgrading traits is something like this: Shadow Strike I: Ignores 25% of the victim's defense. Shadow Strike II: Ignores 25% (50% total) of the victim's defense. Shadow Strike II: Ignores 20% (75% total) of the victim's defense. This would clear up a lot of confusion.[/quote] Yep, the evoker abilities have the same problem.

[quote who="Necaradan666" reply="4" id="3350653"]Is it even a problem with mana? I know I can hit auto-resolve and my highly magical sovereign just runs up with his stick to do melee, surely the AI is at fault here.[/quote] Yeah, i guess it is the AI, because not a single strategic spell (pillar of flame, freeze, ...) was cast on my units in all games that i played (hard difficulty).