LightofAbraxas

Love this idea. Keep up the good work!

Consider me signed up for this petition.

This was actually in WoM, too, believe it or not. It worked then (although I'm not sure if it had a value tag or not), so I can't see any reason that it wouldn't work in FE.

[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="46" id="3101750"]But when the shit is Battle of Badon Hill, god damn it I want to play a deep tactical battle.[/quote] I have to say, I agree with this completely. And I've never understood this response: [quote who="Frogboy" reply="40" id="3101548"]They're not intended to allow someone who is clearly strategically defeated to pull out a victory.[/quote] Because isn't this primarily an AI issue? But, then again, there are lots o

Q: Combat mechanics. How do they work? I know which values are compared against one another (I think, anyway), but I have no idea how rolls are generated from stats and compared against one another to get hits, misses, clinks and the like.

If you're still taking suggestions, I'd like to request UnitStat_BG_UnitSize (referencing the literal size of the unit, rather than the troop count) that takes the following values: 1= Small 2= Medium 3= Large 4= Very Large. You could then link the Shrink and Growth spells to this stat and do all sorts of fun things. For example, I think it wo

I played about 30 quick turns on a couple of games, and I liked what I saw generally (especially the Life Shards and casting animations). One thing that I noticed is that movement animations are waaay too fast for my taste. Seriously, all the units in the game are The Amazing Flash or something. This is probably the one thing about WoM that I prefer over FE. Also, I still don't understand how primary stats relate to combat stats or how com

Well, it's not a big deal, and everything else looks great. Can't wait to give it a go.

[quote who="DsRaider" reply="6" id="3088570"]It's probably just so scores are somewhat equal, ie it's hard to judge a game that lasts 100000 turns. [/quote] People play TBS games for high scores? Huh. Also, when I say that I'm confused about it, that's really just a polite way to say that I don't like it.

Yeah, I love all these changes, but I'm a little confused about the 1000 turn soft limit, as well.

Wow, I'm impressed. I agree that something could be done to make the tax system a little deeper and more enjoyable. I especially liked the suggestion of using government as a way to do this.

[quote]I can tell you that the AI behavior now follows the writing.[/quote] I love you guys. Seriously.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="67" id="3085805"]I was thinking of suggesting the concept of fatigue. [/quote] Not crazy about it. Why not try toning down initiative boosters first? Barring that, please consider making fatigue optional through xml. The way I see it, no unit should ever be moving at more than a 2:1 ratio, even fully enchanted. Except for cavalry, which should be able to kite non-mounted units to a limited degree.

Good idea. This is now on my wish-list, as well.

[quote who="Winnihym" reply="13" id="3085055"]Right, the question is whether there's support to implement a straegically more satisfying solution, like we once discussed, or if, like LOA suggests, it should be scrapped because it wonmt get any love, and the current system doesn't really add anything strategically, as outlined above. Lead design is the only one who knows what kind of resources are available and allocatable to improving this system.[/quote] True true. I&#3

[quote who="Alstein" reply="7" id="3082760"]I'd like to see city placement removed completely if it provides any sort of performance bonuses.[/quote] I agree completely. I don't think we're talking major changes here. Just remove the graphics from the map and a little UI work to handle improvements in a city. There, it's done. It doesn't add anything to the gameplay, it doesn't look that great, it makes the game world feel really small (especially

Wow, this is good stuff. Thanks for all of your work here and elsewhere.

Looks great. Sure would be nice to know exactly how the +11 attack on that neat sword affects its average damage, though.

[quote who="Cruxador" reply="8" id="3077465"]Played for like an hour. Unfortunately this thing is shittily coded so I had performance issues for no goddamn reason and since the demo doesn't allow you to save and restart there wasn't a damn thing I could do about. Finally crashed just now.[/quote] Yeah, I have the demo, and it just crawls , even though the graphics are, uh, not that great.

[citation needed]... dick.

It may just be me, but does anyone else think that the combat mechanics are unnecessarily opaque? For example, I have no idea how accuracy(?) is calculated against dodge. Same for attack and defense. Last I heard, it involved simulating multiple rolls and somehow selecting for higher than average to-hit and damage. Is this still the case? The main reason I don't like it is that I like to know exactly how much +3 attack is going to get me, on average. It must be a nightmare to

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="31" id="3078773"]Well a big thing is listening to people play the game. Can you imagine how cool it would be to write the Starcraft AI to deal with the Korean champions?[/quote] Yep, but not from a modelling perspective. As people become experts in task domains, you get a transition from the deliberative process that an AI uses to something like a huge collection of If-then statements linked to a pattern-recognition system. AI and human

As someone with a big interest in modeling human decision-making, I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall while the AI gets programmed. This journal is the next best thing. Keep it up!

[quote who="mastroego" reply="67" id="3077851"]Seems like a lot of users are beginning to feel like I feel. The trees are pre-planned as a linear progression of "Steps That Unlock Things". What those things actually ARE is secondary. Items on a Spreadsheet. Now take for example Civ: if you want to improve your weapons, you can't just research "warfare". You want gunpowder? Sorry, my dear warlord, you'll have to learn some chemistry, first. In a tech tree conceived this way,

If I had played the beta already, I'd tell you that this is a great suggestion.