Sythion

While I appreciate this way of thinking, I don't really support this implementation. Having rules which apply differently to different configurations of champions creates a burden of knowledge. We must understand these rules before we understand what is actually going on in the game. In general, this is a huge no-no in the game design world. It weakens accessibility and (more importantly for us) playability. Sometime's its unavoidable, and sometimes the benefit

On Hard difficulty, with normal everything else: Pick a champion with strong combat/adventuring abilities such as Relias or Irane, preferrably with Air so you can get cloudwalk. Send them out imediately to start levelling up and finding armor. Find a path of the mage champion (With air access, if you didn't before). Recruit as many other champions as possible. Combat champions should focus on init, strength, dodge wherever possible.

Thanks a ton for the detailed response Derek! [quote who="Derek Paxton" reply="35" id="3076483"] 1. Leather armor isnt "better" than plate armor. It is cheaper both in training time and resource costs. It is available to more units. But it isn't intended to be "better" than plate for some units. If we made it better we take the choice out of unit design and we enter into a situation where you should use armor a with unit type a, armor b with unit

Has anyone found a good way to tell where a city can be placed (ie. how much grain/materials can be produced) without creating a settler and walking over? With the visual cues being completely random, I really don't have any way to know what to expect from anywhere. A fertile looking area may produce no grain, and desolation could be rife with the stuff.

In regards to point 1: I agree with others here that the world should be threatening, but I think that can be accomplished while avoiding all auto-loss situations due to enemies starting too close. This last game I played I had an assassin demon 2 squares from my starting area (I could have moved, but a 3-4 city!) I had to keep reloading everytime it would destroy my city, because most of the time it just... wouldn't, for some reason. Another game

I like the idea of initiative penalties if and only if the ability to get insane initiatives on champions are tacked down.

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="30" id="3075219"] So you're going to round up 20 heroes? More power to you! I'm pretty sure that stack should be absolutely epic and should not be simply countered by a comparable stack of 20 mundane units. [/quote] You're implying that there is some sort of trade-off to getting powerful champions. There is not.

[quote who="CdrRogdan" reply="48" id="3075150"] It's silly to assume that nostalgia influences peoples opinions any more than new and shiny objects. From a critical standpoint I am aware of the flaws of Master of Magic. Cracks Call was one of -the worst- designed spells ever invented. The computer rarely upgraded their buildings and instead focused on pumping out massive groups of spearmen/swordsmen. It was easy to find an adamantium deposit and pump out hordes of significantly more

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="25" id="3075191"] In chess the queen is the most powerful, but she's not all powerful. The pawns are the weakest, but they are often pivotal in determining victory or loss. [/quote] In chess you don't get to choose to have only queens. Checkmate.

[quote who="Zygwen" reply="2" id="3075154"]Heavier armor is better unless you don't have enough strength to carry it without becoming encumbered. The problem is that it is too easy to get very high strength values. [/quote] Wearing the best armor you can without reaching encumbrance is not a choice, even if encumbrance were really hindering. Also, this runs into an issue with unit design, where how well armored a unit is gets determined by how well he has a horse (and

I think this was discussed in the past, but I haven't seen anything in the FE Beta forums. Currently the heavier armor is always better. There are no reasons to wear anything but plate, since weight is not really much of an inhibitor, and does not impact choice much. This is also a factor in the OP champion issue, since all champions are uber armored. I'd love to see a compelling reason for my archer to wear leather, or for my mage to wear robes. Give me a choice

[quote who="Lord Cobol" reply="31" id="3074772"] Quoting Sythion, reply 19 We were younger when we played MoM, I wasn't much younger last time I played it, and it was still fun. Last time was the day before the FE beta started. [/quote] How old were you when you first decided MoM was a great game? I was about 14 or 15, and it was the shit. So was Stonekeep. Both games are great to me. But my opinions were formed when I was no

[quote who="EviliroN" reply="13" id="3072168"]THIS is what champs should be... all of them [/quote] So... game is ready for release?

If you were 15 and had never played a TBS before, and all your friends agreed with you, E:WoM would be just as sweet as MoM was.

Thank you OP for breaking some rose glasses, it was very much needed :). MoM was fun, but a large part of the reason it was fun was because We were younger when we played MoM, and everything is freaking awesome when you're young. Other games at the time sucked, and our expectations for quality game design were extremely low. Neither of these are at all related to the quality of the actual game. [quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="16

How would my party of heroes embark on their epic quest?

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="17" id="3074437"]I see, you're thinking rock-paper-scissors, kinda like the RTS Age of Mythology. The problem with a rock-paper-scissors approach is that it makes all the units basically equivalent. Which is good for balance, but I really don't think that is a good mechanism for a game like FE. The champions are supposed to be awesome, I personally think they are the heart and soul of the game. [/quote] Two points I want

+1 Direct damage spells are auto-win right now, and I think this gives them a way to remain powerful, but still give defenses.

This is great, but I'm afraid it's too drastic of a change to be inherited into the game at this stage. Also requires a very large number of traits (which is not necessarily a bad thing, but can cause balance issues).

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="14" id="3074383"] But as it stands, an "army" in this game does not represent a significantly larger group of units than a band of heroes. Your idea is to make heroes suck. My idea is to make it possible to have real armies. [/quote] You're also missing the point. My idea is not to make heroes suck. My idea is to make armies work well against heroes, and to make heroes require investment in war-like combat to be a huge

1) I agree the game's narrative should be used to enhance the individual story as we play, and not just as a static backstory. One of the great things about Civ is the amazing narrative that emerges naturally and dynamically. FE has the ability to capitalize on this like no game ever has, and needs to realize it. 2) Don't care about the timelines. I just assume champions have been made immortal and abstract a "building" out to enough of said building for the entire city to tak

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="9" id="3074209"] Starting with the balance issue I think this addresses: that heroes are OP and that the optimum stack is all heroes and no mundane units.[/quote] It's not an elegant solution though, and doesn't fully address the issue. Units can still die, champions still cannot. This means more resources are needed to compete vs champions, especially since there will need to be many more units to compete with champions t

I'm not sure this is the best solution, and it may have balance implications as well (spawning 20 groups of archers, for instance).

Simple solution: make champions struggle vs. units (possibly nerf bat as well). Make it so champions can only have their defense applied to a single attack ONE time, so that a group of 9 would have to face your invincible mage's 50 armor once, and the other 8 attacks would be against 0 armor. Likewise, limit the amount of units a single attack can kill to one or two. In this way champions will not be not meant to fight alone, but can play a support role in an

[quote who="Devon_v" reply="14" id="3073479"]There was more than one viable way to break the game though, that was what kept it fun.[/quote] Not balanced. Not even "balanced." Also not fun. That's what made the late game unenjoyable, just as it is here. In this respect MoM is really just like E:WoM, both have plenty of broken ways in which to win. Anyway, on point: I respect the OP's points, even if I find them to be a little too b