DsRaider

Ah ha, First! Seriously though I didn't think we would be getting a patch today, it's a nice surprise.

Strategic AI has a few quirks bit other then that it seems pretty good to me. I reckon myself a pretty good player and sometimes the AI gets a higher score then me. The game is somewhat easy because tactical combat is so easy to abuse. The reason being unbalanced equipment and basically nonexistent tactical AI. I routinely stomp AI armies five times my size without losing an unit. The fact that they get such a large army is good, the fact that I can kill them so easy is bad.

[quote]Do not misunderstand me that I believe adding damage types would be a bad thing for WoM or FE. As I pointed out before, it does add a very interesting strategic element to the game as well as gives a framework by which a natural advantage can be given beyond simple unit attack power and accuracy. However, with respect to the actual combat itself, additional combat actions are a simple and easy solution to greatly expand the tactical choices of a player. The term "special ability" is so

This thread leaves me feeling warm and fuzzy inside.

Limiting units to one attack per turn would make weapons much harder to differentiate. What advantages would a dagger or short sword have over a heavy mace.... Agree with Xia that with current tactical map size range on bows is to high. You should have to position your archers not just let them sit back and snipe from the other side of the map. Agree on more unit abilities. I would really like to see monsters get some abilities as well. Every monsters in the game basically jus

[quote]I can't enjoy a game I can't play. If 1.2 comes out without the memory issue being fixed, I'm done.[/quote] They are working through the memory issues. Since you have posted your crashes they will undoubtedly get to your problems eventually.

[quote who="FutileEmotion" reply="92" id="2889579"]When I play Civ, I usually go for the largest map possible. Elemental I usually play medium. This is because the world and cities do not feel as unique, so I don't get the same rush of exploring new territory. Instead the fun is competing with my opponents.[/quote] I would be interested in hearing what makes the difference.

Ya I agree with OP. I want to play Empire and crush my enemies and rule with an Iron Fist, but can't get over the whole blight thing. Apparently the Fallen races just kill everything they touch for no apparent reason or benefit. I mean between living in a paradise and a poison wasteland they prefer the wasteland every time.

[quote]@mentalinstra and other medium advocates. If the memory issues are taken care of, for those that say medium maps, what about large maps with more AI's present? This would allow for that same competitive feeling and allow for even more epic campaigns at the end.[/quote] Wouldn't really help because what Tanafres said. I can reach game ending tech levels at 250 turns with ease. I usually only need 5 or so cities max. Any more just annoy me, and I end up not really upgr

Medium. Larger is pointless. I can win or lose full or near full house games on medium maps without even seeing some of the AI's. Larger maps really don't offer me anything more. They just make kingdoms further apart so that there is no early game competition. I like fighting for territory right from the start.

From the description it seems like it's reducing groups hp by 25% four times. Thus they end up with 0 health.

I agree with all this stuff. Also I would like to see stuff like dmg bonuses for spears vs cavalry etc.

For me it's not about base building or no base building, it's about good base building versus bad. Any game without any sort of base building is usually lacking in depth. However Starcraft II and even SupCom 1 is an example of bad base building, and company of heroes is good. While DowII is also bad. Base building should be minimal, fluid and not a distraction from combat. It should practically be a part of combat not something totally divorced from it. Starcraft II makes players spen

A very nice mod. This will really help liven up the visual aspect of combat and troop production. All units looking the same always bugged me to no end. Makes combat really boring... I really like how unique the factions are looking. You probably have a good reason but since you seem to want input their are two small things that bug me. They are how Paridan tier 1 uses basically all leather and the chainmail for Capitar tier 1. They seem to advanced for tier 1 and out of place. For Pa

Hopefully I still have the CD for this kicking around somewhere....

It's a bug, and a well known one. It's been mentioned a few times but hasn't been completely fixed yet.

1.9b is a bit better then 1.9a for me. So it's on the right track....

I just played a few games and from my experiences AIs do equip their heroes somewhat. With sovereigns and spouses they tended to save up all their money for mid game weapons and completely bypass early game weapons. I just played a game where Yithril jumped straight to a battleaxe for their sovereign and equipped their spouse with a longbow. The bow actually hurt because my armor was only leather..... I didn't see them equip champions though. They also didn't equip any of their heroes with an

I would definitely appreciate a quest log. So I know who is doing what, where, and why.

It does tell you if any monsters enter your territory.

One of the most underdeveloped parts of E:WoM is the minor Factions. The devs have stated that they want the world to be more alive and interesting and I think increasing the functionality of minor factions would really help this. First of all I think they should all start with a random resource tile. That way they have something to trade for and so you have more reasons to conquer or interact with them. It would also explain why they live where they do. I really think t

I am sick, and yet I'm at school......

There is also a Accuracy stat. Some weapons decrease or increase it.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood something but [quote]So a weapon has a chance to penetrate and if it penetrates then it does damage. [/quote] really sounds like dodge mechanic to me. Where you have a chance to to hit and if you do hit then you do dmg. I did not mean to come off rude.

[quote who="psific" reply="30" id="2885147"]Perhaps a better way to balance this would be to separate penetration from damage. So a weapon has a chance to penetrate and if it penetrates then it does damage. Then you could have armor reduce each separately but not below a minimum chance to penetrate and a minimum damage.[/quote] That exists it's called dodge.