Beric01

[quote who="smakemupagus" reply="26" id="3093297"] Quoting Bingjack, reply 24 Yeah, I don't buy this. There's no way a completely optional feature that you claim you don't like, and don't want to use, can intrude on your game unless you want it to. if you try it a couple times to find out you don't like it, the AI keeps using the units you designed. I like unit design in principle, e.g. in SMAC and Galciv, but in E:FE it ha

[quote who="Bingjack" reply="24" id="3093282"] Quoting Beric01, reply 21 Quoting Bingjack, reply 20 Quoting Beric01, reply 18 Make unit customization a disable-able feature. Why should something that's completely voluntary be "disable-able"? Because there's almost an obligation to use it, and it's then assumed the AI uses it as well. Yeah, I don't buy this. There&#3

[quote who="Bingjack" reply="116" id="3093272"]Everyone wants faction differentiation with meaningful gameplay impact. The players want this. The Devs want this. I want this. Theres a guy that feeds the pigeons in a park by my house, and he's never played the game, but I'm pretty sure he wants this. Out of curiosity, though, would you be willing to launch the game with only 3 different factions as long as they were sufficiently different?

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="29" id="3093259"]Yea I think a progression from Stone -> Bronze -> Iron -> Steel would be awesome much better than the current progression imho. At the beginning you only have clubs, slingshots, and stone axes. Pathetically weak, but better than nothing.Stone axes are the most expensive of the three, and can kill clubs pretty easily, but not quite as strong as anything

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="5" id="3093265"]So is the only penalty for running out of money ... not being able to build new units? I think it should increase unrest in some way.[/quote] Agreed. And perhaps lead to a full-flung rebellion if people's trust in their government is too hampered. We could also add in interest rates and decreased growth/economic investment...

Encumbrance needs to be entirely redone, yes. Both weapons and encumbrance affect initiative, and this is confusing. The solution? Combine the two. Make encumbrance's penalties be more severe/positive, and remove initiative as a directly affected stat from equipment. Encumbrance is actually a pretty cool system (harkens to RPG's), but the 1-2 initiative penalty is pretty pathetic, and almost never a factor in determining equipment choice.

[quote who="Rhadagast" reply="22" id="3093255"]While I love a great restaurant, with a solid menu, sometimes you just want a buffet. Please don't encourage them to take away our buffet.[/quote] The problems with AI coding and offering this feature take resources away from further improving the tech and building trees. These need to be improved first.

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="7" id="3093076"]Just make it possible to reorder the queue. Or at the very least, as malekith said, let us insert to the front of the build order[/quote] This would solve the problem. You can do this in Civ4. The game retains memory of how far you have constructed the unit or building, and resumes after you finish constructing the item inserted into the queue.

Unless treasury figures are publicly available, why should the AI know how much money you have? I'm not sure if there's a debt system in the game, but I don't see why you shouldn't be able to go into it.

[quote who="Bingjack" reply="20" id="3093178"] Quoting Beric01, reply 18 Make unit customization a disable-able feature. Why should something that's completely voluntary be "disable-able"?[/quote] Because there's almost an obligation to use it, and it's then assumed the AI uses it as well.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="105" id="3093145"] That's reasonable. On the other hand, I hope you understand that our focus is going to be on the people who voted Fair or above. Someone who thinks Beta 2 is "poor" is likely looking for something so different than what we are envisioning that there's not a lot of incentive to put resources to winning them over. [/quote] I agreed with his post to a considerable degree, and I really like b

It'd highly inaccurate. I care about HP, defense, and attack. The individual importance of those all depend on my own army's strengths and weaknesses. If I have a high-attack army, my enemy's defense is less important to me. A good rating system is not an individual index, but a direct matching of my army versus another's.

I find custom unit design in any game annoying, and frankly just another thing to do that detracts from playing the normal game. I'm playing a strategy game, and find the detail too tedious. The game should make the best units automatically for both me and the AI. Then there's no imbalance. I like building a civilization from the ground up, researching technology, and building cities, and I'd prefer to do that rather than spend hours in the unit editor. Having to customize units t

[quote who="puntarenas" reply="59" id="3091953"]I voted "poor" and I really cannot say if you are on the right track. I had some fun with the current beta, but replayability beyond curiosity is low. I feel not much spirit or inspiration around this game, it is just the same old stuff we had a thousend times before. No sophisticated character building on the "rgp side", somehow bland mechanics on the military side and city building is completely unfun. The tech tre

Well-stated issues with the current game, and all of which I'd fully agree. I still think a lot more life could be pulled out of both the tech tree and the building tree to give it that FFH2 "feel" of more vastness, excitement, and choices but that's another story. Regardless, all of the above issues need to be taken care of.

It's a half-decent game now. Might get a 65-70 on metacritic. What's done in the next few releases will determine whether it stays at 65-70, or gets an 80-85. I don't think I want FE to get a 90+. It's then too mainstream, and I probably won't like it. Many people reviewing these games are not players or enjoyers of strategy games. But it should get an 80-85 if it irons out the bugs and imbalances, and gains that "special" touc

In Civ4, I can just use the 'G' key to see the unit's path to the highlighted square, before right-clicking to confirm sending it there. Doing something similar would be for the best.

This happens to me depending on how you click around, alt-tab, etc. But it comes back if I switch to a different sovereign again.

I don't think there are very many loot items in the first place (wish there was more variety). But random is random. Meaning if it does its job right, you're not going to get one of every single item in the game before you get two of the first. Understanding probability might help here.

If anything, tactical summoning is too cheap. If I only use a 20 mana summon spell every 20 rounds or less, it's actually cheaper for me to summon when needed, rather than maintain.

Confirmed. Monster lairs also.

Coincidentally, I've also never had it miss. And is it supposed to be affected by the "backswing" ability?

Pathfinding also is still not as smart as it could be. I can make better choices when dealing with trees. Units don't adjust pathing when meeting obstacles, etc.

[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="12" id="3089804"]Then why have two build queues? The question is...what were *you* doing prior to turn 50 that caused you to lose? I almost always build a basic military unit first thing to defend my capital. ***Because defending my capital city is important.***[/quote] But if you don't defend your capital, that's a ton of extra economic advantage you'll get over your competitors. For the 20% risk you'l

Spiders are uber-easy to kill. They spam their web spell, and thus never attack me. I kill them with my ranged units in the meantime. The spider in casting a spell stopping my unit from moving, but the unit doesn't need to move, only shoot arrows. The monster AI clearly needs some direction on when and when not to use spells.