OliverFA_306

Derek, would you be so kind to share with us the different modifiers that affect the XP you get by killing an enemy? Thanks in advance [e digicons]:)[/e]

Have you tried applying your changes to the standard general personality? Just to know if your changes do have an effect. Once you know for sure those changes work you can concentrate in trying to move those changes to a new personality instead of overriding the default personality.

I agree that games can break when they try to do too much (in fact I said a couple of posts above). The problem is not focusing on a subset of features. The problem is to continue reducing this subset of features and cuting more and more features. With each iteration the game become less deep and enjoyable. The reason why encumbrance didn't add much was because it only had effect at two points. So again oversimplification is the problem. Instead of having arbitrary points at which

[quote who="halmal242" reply="15" id="3348996"] Individual mana pools do not work when readded back into the game, I tried for a long while to readd them back into E:WoM after patch 1.10 since that was the one that removed it. [/quote] Even the simplest (or "streamlined" as Marketing guys like to say) games have this feature. Why was it removed? Specially when the solution has been there from AoW1, a global mana pool that can be channelled in small amounts depending on

[quote who="tjashen" reply="13" id="3348927"] Removing encumberance, IMHO, is just another retreat by the developers, because they didn't want to have to be bothered with tweaking it a bit more. I didn't notice anything amiss when encumberance was in place, and I'm sure that any 'misapplied' modifiers could have been fixed. I do think that LH is a good game, and I'm glad that the reviewers are receiving it well. However, the missed pot

This suggestion makes a lot of sense

Hi all, I am releasing an early version of the Population Mod I've been working on. I believe it is in a playable state, but might still need some balance adjustments. You are more than welcome to comment about it and suggest improvements or modifications. It can be downloaded from Skydrive in that link (Wincustomize link will take some time) http://sdrv.ms/ZNjeWa MOD DESCRIPTION</

[quote who="thadianaphena" reply="26" id="3348774"] I wish attacking had a cost of like 2 movement points, so that when mounted late game, I could use 2-3 stacks to "control" an AI army of 1000 bajillion junk troops.[/quote] That's what makes most sense. I disagree with the argument used to support the "attack ends movement" change that says "then an army with more movement would move more". Isn't that what's supposed to happen?

At the very least attack must equal movement. It does not make sense attacking a monster lair and then waiting outside the lair for a full season...

[quote who="halmal242" reply="16" id="3348473"] Alright looking at the CoreAIDefs file I can't see why the AI won't build food improvements at level 1 cities as they are weighted pretty heavily once they research them. The only other thing I can think of is that the biggest problem is that they are likely not researching them and working on other techs. The only things that are weighted equally or higher are commandposts and study. This seems very silly in my o

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="15" id="3348449"] Thanks for the heads up. That's exactly what I was about to try and do. Want to have the city level up at 100, 200, 300, and 400 in interval. The fact that the AI behaves differently with different city levels is very important. [/quote] Look at the tags that the default setup have: Level 1: 1 to 49 - Outpost Level 2: 50 to 199 - Vi

[quote who="ins2" reply="4" id="3348392"] Quoting FuzzyGold, reply 3 Quoting ins2, reply 2I see the point behind this limitation (preventing uberstacks from rolling over several smaller stacks in 1 move) What's wrong with that? It's called blitzkreig. In real time, even in blietzkrieg, there would be some time for the enemy to respond and adjust. In turn-based environments, doing several battles in 1 turn is like moving in frozen time (no chance

What about giving each unit a random "cool down counter" at the begining fo the combat? So, if a unit has a 3 turns cool down instead of starting always at turn 0 the unit would start at a random place between 3 and 0. In the worst case the unit would need to wait the full cool down cycle and in the best case the ability would be ready to use.

[quote who="halmal242" reply="9" id="3348290"] I also like the idea of units requiring food as a support but like OliverFA_306 said it may not be possible with the engine the way it is. I know he has been trying to implement something like this for a little bit.[/quote] The problem is that food is a resource stored at the city level, and units can only produce global resources. There are two possible workarounds: - Create a new resource, something like UpkeepF

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="11" id="3348320"] Is there a location in the code where you can change at what levels cities will level up at? I'm wishing to play with the figures....if possible... [/quote] In the Core Improvements folder, the file CoreImprovements.xml, look for the CityHub1 improvement. You will find a of the type LevelBarrier. There, you can change the values. However, I should warn you about the

Yes, I think so. Pioneers should reduce food of the parent city by until they settle. That way the effect on the parent population would not recover until the Pioneer has settled.

That's a lot of work. Good work- Congratulations DsRaider [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e]

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="23" id="3347370"] Derek Paxton has commented on this in an earlier thread back in FE. He was very clear that cities should be considered resource PRODUCERS. The trade-off for creating something is measured the production necessary to build it. In LH you also have indirect tradeoffs from focusing a town on something like growing.[/quote] Of course there is no single answer and it depends on personal taste and what everybody likes more. I suppose tha

[quote who="halmal242" reply="21" id="3347449"] Quoting abob101, reply 19 Had a look at that spell.... I see it uses a PermanentDeath GameModifier. Which doesn't kill them (rather seems to sop them resurrecting if they are killed). However it's also got the StealSpirit modifier. Did a quick test and added the StealSpirit to my "KillChampion"

It depends on th nature of what you add. if you add something completely unrelated then you are making things more complex for nothing. But if you expand naturally what you already have it can be understood (even by the AI) easily as it fits with what was in place already. Adding upkeep costs to buildings (gold, money or wathever) is just a continuation of the idea that you need a wealthy empire. The rule is simple: Don't grow too much too fast. Don't spread too thin. Ab

First of all, thanks for asking [e digicons]:D[/e] I have been evaluating this idea for many days. At first I tried to make health regeneration cost population, and it passed through different stages until I found something doable that can be interpreted as similar. I will explain (*): 1 - Create two resources: FoodUpkeep and Cities. Both not stored not global and not shared. 2 - Each unit in the army produces a resource of the type A_ADDITIVE_FoodUpkeep. For example,

[quote who="abob101" reply="13" id="3347270"] Quoting OliverFA_306, reply 12Quoting abob101, reply 11 Yeah not sure how this might be possible? I tried casting a strategic spell on them that applies PermanentDeath but it doesn't kill them (until they get killed in tactical battle next). Theoretically I suppose that you can create a new strategic spell, something like "KillFatallyWoundedHenchman" and give the AI very high priority so it wants to cast

[quote who="abob101" reply="11" id="3347232"] Yeah not sure how this might be possible? I tried casting a strategic spell on them that applies PermanentDeath but it doesn't kill them (until they get killed in tactical battle next).[/quote] Theoretically I suppose that you can create a new strategic spell, something like "KillFatallyWoundedHenchman" and give the AI very high priority so it wants to cast it whenever it cans. B

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="8" id="3347214"] Looks compatible with SW to me, are you having any issues? Seems like a weird solution though, the AI autoresolves all its battles. The AI will stack up on wounded Henchmen that will die as soon as they are confronted by the player, severely gimping their armies in relevant battles. What you could do is make a strategic spell that kills the user, that the AI will cast when it has X injury.[/quote] If you don't mind m

A very well written post with lots of good reasons for bringing back encumbrance and detailed explanations about why it's good. I congratulate you for it. [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e]