coyote303

I haven't played AoW, but I can tell you I like the combat in LH as is. Now I have played more complicated combats systems in both computer and board games and enjoyed them. However, the simplicity and elegance of the combat in LH keeps the game moving. There is enough to the combat system to make it fun without bogging down the overall game. Now, in fairness, there are some who feel like you do and crave a more complex combat system in LH. I (and certainly others)

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="7" id="3371981"] In the xml file that is marked as a block tile. In the editor it is difficult to see since it is also a starting point for a defending unit (or attacking I forget which). It has nothing to do with elevation, just a blocked tile that is difficult to see in their editor.[/quote] So, can this file simply be edited to remove the block tile for this starting point tile? If so, is there any reason why making the change wouldn't be a

Interesting ideas, but I'm not sure this is the game for them. I know I like the simplicity and speed of the combat system.

[quote who="pomalley" reply="16" id="3370421"]Sorry, I was attempting to make a joke. Will use a smiley next time. [/quote] Oops! My bad--it went right over my head! [e digicons]:D[/e]

[quote who="pomalley" reply="9" id="3370318"]In case you haven't noticed, I know I'm right about this.[/quote] I know you strongly feel you should take the square. I don't; I strongly prefer it the way it is. However, I don't claim that I'm "right" because I know it's just my preference.

I hope they get this fixed also. I was going to report this map as well, but I found this thread. Also, the map is difficult to target the correct square for movement.

There are plenty of times I have been content to attack an enemy stack but remain in my original position. Since attacks no longer end movement, it's easy enough to make sure I will have a movement point if it's important for me to take the square on the same turn.

There's a scenario?

[quote] You should play the cards you are dealt. [/quote] If you don't like your hole cards in Texas Hold 'Em (popular Poker variant), you aren't allowed to ask for new ones; however, you are entitled to fold your hand. In my last game, I had to be aggressive early to find a second city tile on a small map. If I knew the map was always fair (and thus guaranteed me a nearby second city tile), the

I quit playing FE for a while and am just getting back into LH. Overall I am very pleased with LH. I'm enjoying some of the changes quite a lot, and some of the them I wasn't sure I would even like. However, I do have two complaints, one minor and one major. Minor: Autosave defaults to 5 turns. I found this out the hard way after I decided to reload to due a pr

In FE, once my mage got to a certain level, flame dart was the only spell worth casting. It would 1-shot anything. So, if the changes actually let/force me to use the rest of my spell book, I don't see that as a bad thing.

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="35" id="3361543"] Grammar Error Troupe of the Wind Upon entering the camp, you're accosted by a haggard individual wrapped in bandages. "M'Lord, our caravan is under attack! I rode out for help but no one here will fight off the

[quote who="Burress" reply="24" id="3358255"]I like bpalczewski's ideas. Those implementations seem to appeal to both sides of the problem.[/quote] I cannot agree. Saying two get full XP (and three split XP) means--as I said before--you should have two heroes in a group. Furthermore, it also means you should never, never, never have three or more. I'm not sure one is called for, but if a compromise must be had, this would be better: Two heroes get a 10 percent

Derek, you consistently make this error in your posts. I mention it here so it doesn't bleed into the game at some point. You use "to" when you should use "too." "Too" is the word to use in the following examples: too much too little not too important Thank you for fixing the typos and grammar in the game! ============== too (taken from dictionary.com) adverb</

[quote]...but i would do compromise: i would make it that xp split happens only if you have more than two heroes in an army.[/quote] Sounds reasonable, but the reality is it would make it almost mandatory to have two heroes in a group or you would be throwing away a lot of experience. I also believe Azunai makes a convincing argument why XP-splitting works.

[quote who="WaitingOnTheGame" reply="26" id="3346439"]"troll mentality" or "helpful and constructive criticism"?[/quote] The answer is "troll mentality." There is nothing helpful nor constructive about Reply 21. [quote]I'm here because I care.[/quote] While I cannot know your motivation for certain, I doubt this; evidence strongly suggests otherwise. [quote]It's better to have people express dislike than to have people fawn over the worthless nonstop.[/

Paraphrasing the troll (he would want me to mention his name) replying to Reply 19 in his Reply 21: Other game is so much better. Game's name sucks. Sarcastic personal put down. Game sucks. Graphics suck. Combat isn't sophisticated, therefore it sucks. Strategic map sucks. Combat format sucks. Rambling conclusion further putting down the company. I really don't understand the troll mentality. Th

[quote who="phazonfreak" reply="5" id="3345823"]Tactical but quick turn-based combat a'la Master of Magic was an essential part of WoM/FE/LH from the get go and I must say your suggestion is probably the weirdest I have ever read on the forum. How RTS is supposed to fit this game and playstyle is totally beyond me...[/quote] +1 Also, using the word "weirdest" is quite accurate, although I might have used a different, less polite word.

In theory, some kind of manual road building would be preferable since it would solve any issues with auto-roads. However, the increased micromanagement is NOT worth it IMHO. In practice, I love that roads get built automatically. So, if any changes get made, I hope it's only to tweak the logic of auto-road building.

I'm confused. In all my games of FE, I have yet to have a monster successfully attack and raze one of my cities. So, I assume you are all talking about me, but my name isn't AI. So what gives?

[quote who="NorsemanViking" reply="10" id="3330967"] Snaking has little or nothing to do with strategy and hard choices. I always play auto-placement of buildings, so the choices where to found my cities gets harder (drawback/benefit) and so that I'm not getting any gamey advantages over the AI. Game is better this way.[/quote] +1

For me, FE has paid for itself many times over its retail price. Besides the hundreds of hours of game play, it kept me so entertained that I stayed away from World of Warcraft longer than I expected, which I had dropped just before the last expansion. I eventually went back to WoW but only after the expansion went on sale. I credit FE with saving me at least two of the four months worth of unspent WoW subscriptions fees and half the cost of the expansion. Again, that's on

I have been wondering this myself. The storehouse is pretty expensive for a lousy +5 grain increase.

Unless your units are 100+ percent accuracy, this would still be possible. Chance to hit = accuracy - dodge rating. What is confusing is a whiff is reported as "dodged" even if the defending unit has zero dodge rating. Getting a "dodged" result is more likely with a single-entity attacking unit, such as a champion, since all entities must miss in order to get a "dodged" result.

I would recommend not playing on a crowded map. In other words, choose the lowest recommended number of players for any given map size. At least, until you're comfortable with the game. Also, realize that some random maps will not be winnable for us mortals. So, if you're well into a game and are still looking for a spot to found your second city, it might be time to try a restart. Finally, don't shy away from saving the game before any battle you are not sure of.