I'd go with the first option. While it's not very original, it addresses a core problem in the game. If the strategy is still viable, I'm sure you (and the dev's) will see a few things that just shouldn't happen and need fixing. Your second option is not bad, but I'd rate the balance issues with one or two races as a lot less important than how overpowered heroes are.
[quote who="Adjuvant774" reply="45" id="3241081"] I took a screenshot but I don't mess with stuff enough to know how to link it to a URL.[/quote] There are a few options. One of the easiest is uploading on a site like http://imageshack.us/ . You can upload it there, and then you recieve a link to your image that you can post here. [quote] It's pretty silly looking and a case-in-point how the AI seems immune to monster attack. Can you re
Exactly! [e digicons]k1[/e]
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="19" id="3240411"]It needs to be random because it makes it fun not knowing when or if a monster might attack. [/quote] Why does random equal fun? Not only does it give the perception of giving the AI a pass (if that is what is happening) when it ignores the AI but comes after you like some psychopath with a vengeance, it is not something the player could ever exploit in a fun way. You're not going to try and sneak an invasion force into enemy
Once upon a time, this was supposed to be in EWoM. Despite assurances that it was in the game, at release it wasn't. I agree it would still be a nice idea. However, as FE is feature complete, this won't make it in..
My my, feeling a bit self-important GFireflyE? I think I've got a pretty good idea what this game is about, as I have been following it's development for the past four years. The debate about snaking has been done to death more than a few times. Now that the dev's have finally made a small step in removing it, it's a bit annoying to see people calling to get it back. I've been trying to explain why snaking is a rather poor mechanic, and I was hoping you would expla
I think you'll find that I can, already have, and will do so again; you're wrong (see?). I believe you are confusing busywork with dynamic gameplay. At the moment you settle your city you already know: What resources can be, and therefore should be, incorporated into the city. Which terrain features can be, and therefore should be, incorporated into the city. Which choke point can be blocked by the city. As you don't know for sure if this will be useful when
[quote who="taltamir" reply="16" id="3234988"] Also, would someone please explain to me what the justification was for putting in such a "feature" in the first place?[/quote] Pretty sure it was to prevent players from raising and then rebuilding every city they conquered, to avoid the unrest penalty you get in conquered cities.
[quote who="Blackmantle_" reply="40" id="3234267"]Grr. Forums ate my post.... reminds me why I usually start a post and then edit it instead of writing and then submitting. No matter how hard it is to the other participants in a discussion to respond to it. Is there no way to put in a clipboard instead of a writeboard as first step so stuff one tries to post isn't lost when the forums are wonky...? [/quote] I usually copy my reply to the windows clipboar
[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="21" id="3233968"] I disagree. It's different strategic planning, and imo, more dynamic. In the case where snaking is NOT allowed: You require strategic planning in where you rigidly build your cities. In the case where snaking IS allowed: You still require that strategic planning in where you build your cities, but there is some flexibility when doing so. However, you also require strategic planning in HOW you build your citie
[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="14" id="3233466"] I never called for the elimination of snaking cities. That was one of the MOST unique features that attracted me to playing this game. I really like how Stardock has limited the snaking as it has greatly improved the game. However, by eliminating the ability to snake towards these two specific resources, they are doing the following: 1) They are not being consistent, as you can snake towards ANY other resource, pushing it to be w
Thanks for the bit about why the citizen types were scrapped, I've been wondering about that for quite some time. Too bad you didn't get it to work properly, it could have been the thing needed to make FE's economy a bit more interesting. Of course, had you implemented it the way I suggested it would have worked perfectly [e digicons];P[/e]
I agree. What really needs to be done is to give each individual, weather it is a single hero or a soldier in a group, separate attacks and separate health points. So if a hero attacks a group of soldiers, each of his attacks can at the most kill one soldier, rather than two, three, or four-and-a-half. Area spells like fireball could damage each unit in the group. But if the spell doesn't do enough damage to kill them all soldiers would remain alive, just with say half their healt
Thank you ins2, for telling all those enthusiastic people to STFU and GTFO. They should have realised that these forums are only for people who think this game is (nearly) perfect as is, and only small incremental changes can be discussed. There is no harm in discussing big changes, even if they never will be implemented as FE is apparently feature complete. Having followed these forums for over 4 years now, I can tell you that discussions about great sweeping changes are a lot more i
Maybe they'll show a little more restraint in their sacrificing. Unlimited blood sacrifice is unsustainable. But regulated sacrifice, that's where the money mana is! [e digicons]*_*[/e]
Sounds good, indeed a bit like the Lizardmen from Warhammer, but with more evil leaders. But wouldn't they have learned from their near-annihilation?
@CogBurn; could be, but 'wait until you see what we have in our internal build' is something we heard more than once in the weeks before WoM's release. As it turned out, there was very little we hadn't seen yet. Not saying that this will be the case again, but I'm not going to assume certain things are added/fixed until we have actual evidence. @Sean; I hope they will take their time. I'm not sure about the focus on just polish and balance, not content th
Well I like your idea. It can add a lot of flavour that the whole random availability of shards could never match. As a side note, yesterday I came across this article. How awesome would it be to have themed armies like you see in there? They could be an option if you combine an elemental allegiance with a focus on summoning and/or enchanting units.
Beta 5 this week? That's fast, how long has the last version been out, less than 2 weeks? I wonder how much could have been added/changed in that time..
Don't know if you guys are trolling or just not aware, but labeling map features was one of the things in EWoM's list of promised features that just never materialised.
I really hope the dev's step up to the challenge and find a way to curtail the pioneer spam. If there is one thing I dislike in games it is being forced to rush things. Imho it does not belong in a tbs game, especially not at the beginning. It removes strategy and kills immersion. IMO there are three things that need to be done to drastically improve this part of the game: First and foremost have monsters guard most of the suitable city locations, like many have said before
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="27" id="3218650"]Here's a craptastic screenshot of the tile editor. You use this to make goodie huts and quest locations and other special things that you want on the map. [/quote] Has the editor undergone any changes? I spend quite some time with it, and although it is generally nice to work with, it did have some annoying issues. Location, orientation, and scale of objects were controlled by sliders. Which are easy enough to
Thanks for the support guys, I do hope the dev's consider this idea. @Bellack: That's what I figured. They could get away with giving such bonuses in galciv, but in a land based fantasy game, with tactical battles , it just doesn't work. You need to have those reinforcements actually show up in combat. @loggerhead_shrike: I agree with you on the wizards tower, there are way to many spellcasters as it is, which doesn't fit in the lore of this game. Since
This looks awesome, thanks for sharing. Btw, Heavenfall talking about dungeon keeper reminded me of a preview I saw about a month ago of a game called Impire. Looks like it might be a worthy successor to dungeon keeper, with some rpg and strategy elements added to it.
Looks very nice, will be interesting to see if they can reach all their goals..