Wizard1200

[quote quoting="post"]The Strength trait is accessible to the AI when it designs a unit from scratch. (Is this also where the bonus traits Bloodthirsty and Ironskin are coming from?)[/quote] I think the reason for this bug and probably a few others is that the code is still in the xml, but it should be removed from the xml to make the code cleaner and easier to understand for modders. For example instead of deleting all damage types the new universal damage type is always attack_pierc

[quote who="halmal242" reply="157" id="3349713"]Spears need to lose armor pierce but gain bonus damage to cavalry. Axes should gain an armor pierce but lose accuracy. Blunt should gain a higher armor pierce than axes and also an armor destruct/reduction per hit instead of bash. Make bash a trainable trait that requires a shield or blunt. Swords are fine this way without separate damage types. If separate damage types are re inst

[quote quoting="post"]An example of what I mean by filler choices is: Endurance I (10 hp) -> Chain Mail Proficiency -> Brute (+3 attack vs. lower level) -> Enmity (+25% attack vs. opponents of opposite race) -> Plate Mail Proficiency This tree is three different things. Endurance gives you more hit points, brute and enmity boost your attack power conditionally, and chain and plate proficiency give you the ability to wear armor. I can't see any clear

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="99" id="3348777"]But damage isn't and shouldn't be the only thing a mage is capable of doing. Summonings. Strategics. Logistics. Enchantments. These should also be structured into 'tech' trees such that as you level your mage, you spells become more potent....more flexible....more dynamic....more powerful....more spells.[/quote] Yes, the damage spells should be only one part of the mage and he should able to do many more th

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="15" id="3348604"]I for one like the limitation. It involves more strategic planning on my part and that is quite enjoyable.[/quote] That is exactly my opinion, too.

[quote who="Brainjuggler" reply="94" id="3348678"]Maybe the problem is how the trees are arranged. You go from Flame Dart to Fireball, but the only other tactical spell is Flame Wave and thats way down the magic tech tree, iirc. Maybe there just needs to be better coordination between the hero skills, tech trees, and elemental 1-5 traits.[/quote] Yep, the spells should be linked to air 1 - 5, earth 1 - 5, ... and there should be spells for different situations:

[quote who="Brainjuggler" reply="86" id="3348600"]Lots of good ideas in there. I think every spell should scale based on level. IE: X base damage, +Y per level, +Z per shard.[/quote] I think that scaling per level can be dangerous, because on larger maps you can reach a higher level and that makes those spells stronger, but if the scaling per level is low it would work.

[quote who="fenwe" reply="80" id="3348415"]The problem is that going magic for champ/sovereign is underwhelming at present. The damage done, especially when considering resistance, means that until a unit gets into the high levels, the mage can't kill anything that isn't all ready wounded. It makes for a painfully slow start and it just isn't fun. The fact that you take a serious penalty for having even two heroes together means that you end up having to leave the mage as a non en

[quote who="Trojasmic" reply="76" id="3348379"]If this is true, then please change Tarth's Double Strike penalty to -20 instead of -30 cuz Tarth doesn't need any more gimping.[/quote] I think the reduced accuracy will improve the balance of double strike, because currently the accuracy penalty does not matter if you use level 3 fortress troops, but the initiative and attack bonus should increase to + 4 with the first researched bow, to + 6 with the second researched bow and to

[quote who="Derek Paxton" reply="72" id="3348339"]and though we know we aren't an ios game that anyone can understand in a few minutes, we dont want to be too overwhelming[/quote] I would take a look at the following ios games: :) - Ravenmark: Scourge of Estellion - Neuroshima Hex - Hunters 2 (hard difficulty)

I think it would help if the bonus starts at + 3 initiative and + 3 attack and increases with researching the first bow to + 4, the second bow to + 6 and the third bow to + 8.

I think it would help to increase the mana cost from 500 to 1500 +/- 250 per map size above or below medium.

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="56" id="3348084"]The summoning level also determines attack and, depending on the type of creature, defense, initiative and dodge. At least that is how it works in FE. It should be easy to verify if it is the same in LH: just take a summoner, summon the Shadow Warg, note how high the attack is, take a +1 summoning level trait on level-up, summon the Shadow Warg again, and see if the value for attack has changed. [/quote] Yep, you are right i forgot t

I think the accuracy reduction and the damage reduction are brilliant ways to reduce the scaling of units, because groups will less likely hit the target with every member and even if every member hits the target the damage will be lower.

[quote who="petrasvu" reply="47" id="3348012"]Well if to be honest i never using focus. You waste 1 turn to start casting. Second turn to finish it of and only on third turn you can actually start doing SOMETHING. On third turn my army already won a battle and then my mage has to hide behind trees with such a crapy performance [/quote] Hehe, yes the focus ability of staves should be improved to give you the bonus and another action like the rush ability. In that case it would give you

[quote who="petrasvu" reply="45" id="3348007"]You know you can use "focus" on top of it, if so desparate [/quote] Hmmm, perhaps focus should be a staff ability and not a spell to make staves for mages more useful.

[quote who="Azunai_" reply="41" id="3347996"]essence fortresses are also unbalancing; might be a good idea to make heart of fire and aura of grace cheaper, but limit them to a flat 1 damage / 1 init; that's still a decent bonus. getting free +4 fire damage and +4 init from a cheesy 3 essence+scrying pool fortress is over the top, IMO.[/quote] + 1 damage or initiative is perhaps harsh, but i guess + 2 damage or initiative would be very good. [quote who="Borg999" reply="42"

[quote who="petrasvu" reply="37" id="3347984"]Now after changes evoker will be 25 perc. so why you still calculating with old value ? My blizzard with your given setup even without evoker will still do 18 damage per unit. Now that base unit health is 7 and it get 2 hp per lvl, he must be lvl 6 to survive at all. So i dont need evoker really because i am good enough just with out it, Other traits could be much more useful in bigger pool of options, while evoker is only for dama

[quote who="animageous" reply="1" id="3347921"]Essence *is* overpowered. You're right! Next.[/quote] I think that essence is not overpowered, but the distribution is annoying for the player and the AI. EVERY city tile should have 1 essence (25 %), 2 essence (50 %) or 3 essence (25 %).

[quote who="salikgyula" reply="35" id="3347972"]I am worried because the main problems are not adressed. 1. the heroes are useless 2. heores traits tree is too wide, cant reach the fancy traits 3. high init pike units ar OP 4. armor is useless[/quote] 1. Heroes are stronger, because impulsive is less powerful, charge is less powerful and the accuracy of units is reduced 2. Yep, that is a problem 3. I am not sure, becaus

[quote who="petrasvu" reply="32" id="3347963"]Totally agree. I was often tempted to take general talent instead of warlock before. Now i am afraid warlock will be one of usless traits at all, because it benefints only for your sovereign, while armorer, general, warlord boosts all your units and soverin either.[/quote] But if enemy units do not survive the spells of your sovereign your units do not matter: - Warlock - Air 2 - Water 2 - Brilliant

[quote quoting="post"]Added the First Aid Kit (available for unit design, +2 hit points) Added Rations (available for unit design, +3 hit points)[/quote] Aren't those traits redundant? I ask, because both do exactly the same, but one of them is stronger. I would remove the first aid kit.

[quote who="Alstein" reply="28" id="3347945"]Maybe not eliminate evoker completely, but turn it down some.[/quote] I think Stardock should decide how the scaling in the game works: Either use + x or + x %, because using both results in overpowered effects like spells or physical attacks that one shot everything. An example of useful spells at the corresponding spell level would be this: Lightningbolt (air 2): Inflicts 10 + 3 per air shard lightning damage in a

[quote who="sharpxe" reply="19" id="3347865"]magic system require overhaul, spell damage shoud be affected by spell mastery, not raw unit level, linking entire magic system only on character level does not look good, especially compared to other types of damage, where weapon and armor actually matters.[/quote] The spell damage IS already affected by spell mastery, because if the target resists your spells you inflict only half damage, but the defensive stats of many heroes, units and

[quote who="Fallenchar" reply="11" id="3335854"]Buildings already cost a resource. It is called production. Every turn spend on building, you are not training troops.[/quote] But troops cost maintenance and buildings cost no maintenance. I think it would be balanced if both cost maintenance or none of them.