DarkGaldred

The problem is not that building options are lacking at the beginning of the game, but that they remain so most of the game : 95% of my cities build nothing 95% of the time. I usually raze my first opoonent with spears, and my second one with shortbows. I only see the later techs for the mopping up phase, so the small number of building decisions, and army composition remains so during the whole game for me. I could stall to unlock techs, but what fun would that

It's not really a terminology thing : For me researching trivial things (like agriculture, mining, spear making) gets in the way of doing cool stuff, like developing magic weapons and armors, researching spells to destroy cities, raising dragons. My point was that we could still keep a cataclysmic background without having to go back to stone age.

I know the game is about rediscovering technology and reclaiming the world, but for me, having to research spears, and agriculture every game just kills immersion, as it just really does not add up (as I 've said in this technology thread , there already was a decline of civilization when the Roman Empire collapsed, and although many technologies were lost, trivial things like planting seeds, horse riding, and metal smithing were not.</

Concerning the need to rediscover techs, it does not even make sense from a thematci point of view : when the roman Empire crumbled, and barbarian hordes were roaming in Europe, people did not forget how to use spears, and plant grain. As it does not make any sense theme wise, and is terribly boring gameplay wise, I don't see the rationale for keeping everything locked in the tech tree.

[quote who="DGB246" reply="59" id="3099118"] Some good stuff in this thread, I'm very interested to see how this affects the next beta. I'm glad that shops are getting hit with the nerf hammer; bringing them in line with the rest of the game will make the economic side more important[/quote] Not really, it will just make buildings with a maintenance fee even worse than they are now, and same for garrisons, which will be completely impractical. &nbsp

I too wish buildins costed more labor and much less maintenance (most of them should have their maintenance cost removed for them to be any viable). I completely support the city level up buildings requiring to be more interesting. And there should be something to do when you run out of things to build. I don't think I've ever played another game in which you spend that much time building nothing (most other 4x games allow you to convert production into

I completely disagree with your assesment, EviliroN : I first played XCOM, Master of Orion 1, Master of Magic, and Darklands between 2005 and today, and I found all of them great. That had nothing to do with having no better game at the time, as I found them superior to anything made before... So the only conclusion you can come to is that you would have found the game sucked back in 1995 too. Deducing from your lack of enjoyment of the game that people like it because

I don't think the problem is resources flowing too quickly, I think it is a side effect of the other problems which is that we have to unlock everything to unlock even the most basic things : basically, most of my games are over before I even have any use for metal, because I typically raze my first opponent with speamen and the second with shortbowmen (on hard). I could produce metal weapons, but I don't because they suck when compared to spears (which is still another problem that h

In FE, Gold and production are closely related, as gold is more or less buying the same things production does, except for army upkeep : For instance, items have a production cost when training troops, but a gold cost when upgrading troops or decking out champions. When rush buying, to directly turns gold into production. One of the current problems is that getting gildar from taxations has a way too severe penalty, which makes adventuring the only reasonable way to acquire gold.

[quote who="malekith" reply="2" id="3098353"]Why reward stacked heroes with higher total XP? Why should killing two ogres with one army reward more total experience than killing one ogre with each of two armies? All that does is force the player into creating a stack of doom again. If anything, I'd like to see interesting incentives to splitting armies up, and fighting more competitive battles. I can see a very persuasive argument for not allowing the number o

[quote who="CdrRogdan" reply="19" id="3097880"]Unless they normalize crit chance to be considerably more frequent and hit for considerably less damage they should remove the mechanic alltogether. To be perfectly honest I'm not a big fan of being on the recieving end of a critical strike that, under normal circumstances, would have grazed my unit, especially when the chance of it occuring is probably under 20%. Dexterity isn't worthless because damage-wise it is worse t

Heh, you are right it would be somewhat cumbersome to produce individual armor pieces :D The idea of having to micromanage this does not seem that good after all. The damage needing to be toned down (or rather the HP needing to be beefed up) is another problem (which I agree is much more crucial) that needs to be adressed.

Thanks for the technology dependant traits correction. I would have missed this one, as I usually stop when the game seems won, which usually happen before I have anything better than shortbows and spears. [quote who="CdrRogdan" reply="69" id="3097867"] What really bothers me is that the technologies are bland. Maybe it has to do with being able to design my own units, but finishing researching chainmail doesn't provide the same excitement as getting a de

[quote who="CdrRogdan" reply="12" id="3097852"] Addressing Lethality First off apparently there is no such thing as 'ping' damage. Although initially I thought it worked this way as well =/. Damage cannot be reduced below 1 because it is a multiplier of sorts. Additionally, the biggest issue isn't with low damage always hitting for minimum as this can be solved with more hp, but that higher damage attacks become impossible to negate without ludicrous ammounts

[quote who="seanw3" reply="84" id="3097607"] Quoting Nathan E, reply 83Good point! I think giving archers a 4 tile range would possibly make the battles more fun. Currently, I just retreat them as far as possible. There is a certain amount of disbelief in Elemental battles. The battle in reality would take place on much larger fields of battle. Archers would start shooting from much farther away. In Elemental there seems to be a certain leve

[quote who="jamie slaughter" reply="9" id="3095968"] How about just pulling a CIV and have worker units to build roads and construct the all of the various improvements?[/quote] Please, no! That is just tedious micromanagement that should not have its place there. It already bores me to death in civ, I'd rather not have the same to do there.

The funny thing is that MoM already somewhat had the same problem (balance of multi figure squad vs single figure one). Multi figure squads were already strongly favored by enhancements (exsperience, adamantium weapons, buffs...), which made most single figure units obsolete, except for heroes and high level monsters who had an insanely high attack and defence ratings. I think the minimum 1 damage has to go (to mitigate the use of crap conscripted clubmen, and to

I wish Dex affected initiative too, or accuracy : it is weird to have both of these not linked to any attribute, but being some kind of attributes of their own when attributes already do too little.

[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="58" id="3096184"]I think my big problem with research is that I have to research basic shit like pointy sticks and how to plant crops. I don't want to research that shit, shit that I need for having a basic functioning nation should be automatic. Maybe eliminate the first half of the tech trees? Or give the option of starting with those complete, like the first two or three rows. [/quote] I agree : I usually

[quote who="CHiZZoPs" reply="31" id="3095041"] Quoting Lonemessiah, reply 10Basically actions could dynamically reduce your initiative for the following round. This is the cleanest solution and would open the door to a lot more flexibility in what the tactical system could do... +1 OP solution is good, too.[/quote] Indeed, this would make the system much mor

I agree with both of these issues : First strike is too powerful, so we need either counter attack, either base HP being much higher compared to damage than they are now to mitigate this, or anything else to stop the tactical battles from being a boring exercise of counting spaces. Archers being able to kite from melee without penalty, and having endless amunition is a problem too. It allows a single horse archer to obliterate a complete stack of ennemy fo

I second the units needing more HP at start, and less/level (it's already the case in MoM and AoW). Damage from a group should be distributed among the models of the target group, and not affect a single model, until it is killed, before going to the next one... There is no way a squad of 10 swordmen would be able to focus against a single opponent before going to the next one. That or make units start losing models at 50% (the first suggestion would make single mod