CdrRogdan

[quote who="taltamir" reply="8" id="3069851"] Rest of the time I relied on my move 8 to get to where i needed to be.[/quote] While I am the same way (I see no reason to waste mana). This is clearly an issue with moves being much too high. 3-4 Should be the travel speed limit, perhaps with effects that reduce travel on hills/forests. The majority of talents/gear/spells that effect move speed should affect tactical moves only. Even 2 moves is plenty when traveling on fully upg

So the merchant both got reduced by 1 gold per turn - and is only buildable at city level 2. Because.. you don't want us to build armies? I mean on the one hand you've got your undefended city sitting out in the middle of nowhere and lacking the gold to maintain units to protect it. And on the other you are recommending we build armies to assist our soveriegns in killing neutral baddies. Anyone notice the AI dying off frequently for no reason... almost like they have no defend

I like the idea of evoker affecting only the base damage of the spell and shards providing small or unique bonuses (like 20% burning over time damage). Although perhaps that could be a talent added to fire mages specifically. In any case in light of adjusting base values they should add a talent "Thaumaturge" that adjusts the base values of buffs/debuffs and also take a look at reducing the effect shards have on these buffs. Additionally, while I understand it is for the purpo

I hate the 'nerf' mentality too.. that is to say it bugs the crap out of me when someone complains not to make something less powerful, when making everything else just as strong would have the exact same effect, except take considerably more time. Don't nerf spell damage! Increase HP! ..... In any case.. I think you mean that cloud walk needs a cooldown, not a cast time, and it probably does. Mana blast is pretty broken, as you can easily make it cost zero mana

Totally disagree here! The paths are unique to 'champions' and have little to do with the sovereign. The professions of your soveriegn should adjust the way you play the game (they are currently too minor to do so, but hopefully that will change). In the event you simply mean to adjust the effects of the available paths, that might be okay, but your numbers should really be percentages as +5 attack to a group is worth more than 3 levels of tech. Plus.. the governer.. sho

In regards to your efforts to reduce the 'stack o doom' mechanic: A hard cap on the number of champions in a group skirts the issue of 'realism' a bit too much for me. I honestly can't think of a good reason they wouldn't work together. Regular D&D groups attest to this. I would much prefer positive reasons to use other units. Using bonuses to army abilities is a good

Some interesting points. There are a couple things I disagree with though: They don't need an additional resource limitation. There are already enough resources to keep track of, and diplomatic capital does a fine job of keeping the number of them that can be hired in check. The camps themselves could provide a source of diplomatic capital. Allowing them to be customized could easily result in balance

Yeah I had this happen too. The art is simply not there. And fyi, you can change the forum this is located in by 'editing' your post and altering the forum. (It's right above where you enter the title).

[quote who="bentheman939" reply="5" id="3069254"] 5. Stacks should only have so many slots for units. Once it is full, you need to start another one. [/quote] I'm not sure I understand this one. Do you mean army size? There is a limit to that of 5 that increases up to 9 with techs. Not that I see any unleveled (same-tech) force threatening a city any time soon, but the army limitation does already exist, even if your 8 move stack of champion doom makes it irrelevant

It is not your imagination. Currently the game makes casting combat spells in the beginning of the game devastating, and later in the game inconsequential. They need to make a decision which way they plan to go with this. Either make combat spell costs inconsequential or keep the cost static throughout the game. You could even do both - Ei: lower firedart mana cost to 1 or 0 and leave fireball at 30. Though personally I think 'limited use' is a very poor balancing method. Spel

Thirded. Seems easy enough to do.

A very interesting addition would be unloackable formations, where when you place units on certain tiles in the layout screen they recieve different bonuses. Obviously they wouldn't need to stand on these tiles for this bonus, they simply need to be placed in that formation to recieve them. Things as simple as +x or x% attack, defense, initiative, or things as complicated as 'If a life master is in the tile the army recieves +1 tactical health regen' Feel free to go nuts w

You don't need cavalry to counter archers, you just need charging spearmen. When he is using 6 move archers - then you need horses, but I presume he is obtaining 6 moves via horses also. Unless he is abusing stacking compasses.. I have to try that. Also he is talking about using chainmail and platemail.. If the enemy also has chainmail.. 8 damage shortbows aren't going to do anything. On that note.. perhaps there should be a 20 turn time limit to combat. To prevent

Heroes of might and magic had very controlled random level ups. Your heroes had a restricted pool to choose from, and if you played your cards right you could usually force the game to give you all the skills you wanted (just not necessarily at the right times), since you could only have 'x' number of skills with varying levels. Random in this game is 'random'. You are just as likely to get Fast, Quick, Strength, and Constitution, as you are Fire II, Water V

Challenging and Under: Offense: Use custom soveriegn with might, fire magic, brilliance, and the starter bow. Cast flaming weapon on him and destroy everything around the area picking up new champions whenever possible (up to 6). Defenders(Early): Fast, Iron Skin Spearmen to escort settlers/defend new cities. Tech(Early): First 5-6 star

[quote who="Autarkhos" reply="12" id="3067616"]I really have no idea why you guys can enjoy randomness like this for the levelling of heros. It limits strategic choice and just makes it into a game of rolling the dice, especially when rare ones are, 99% of the time, just outright superior to the hero regardless of it's class.[/quote] This! Randomness has a place in strategy games, but not for decisions that have major tactical impacts.

[quote who="seanw3" reply="1" id="3068442"]Would not a simple "XP is gained for defenders so the can be somewhat competitive in defense" solve many of these issues? [/quote] No, It solves one of them ^^; And to be honest I didn't adequetly describe the issue - I'll add another point to explain. I do like the buildings that grant different unit types (rather than just more defenders) and have added

The issue is not so much with champions or armies being more powerful than the other, it's that leveling up a singular unit or group of units makes all future trained units pathetic by comparison. (The currently rediculous upgrade costs not withstanding) Let's look at each of the issues causing the disparity (feel free to add more to these in your replies): 1. Not splitting xp : This highly supports the stack o doom mechanic

Ugh... stupid lack of a preview button

Most of the recommendations I agree with. I would lean towards removing the mana component for tactical combat entirely, as this both allows magic to be properly balanced by time and effect (as apposed to stockpiling mana) and gives reason for neutral caster enemy heroes to use their spells against you. It also makes considerably more sense that a champion starting with a spellschool has had the opportunity to test it. Lack of magic in the world could simply refer to enchantmen

I fully support this and the above. Right now the only champion that provides any sort of attachment is my soveriegn. The others are just a collection of stats that I either got unlucky or lucky with during level up selection. I mean seriously, who here doesn't remember Mystic X, Roland, Torin or Deth Stryke. Heck even the lower tier heroes like Shin bo, Gunther or The Golden One are unique enough to remember. Randomly selected traits is a poor idea. A selection of trai

[quote who="dracophoenix" reply="46" id="3068026"] I like the idea of Maul I, Maul II, Maul III. Maul I starts out to where every instance of Maul is -6 accuracy at 50% damage. Maul II is -4 Accuracy at 75% damage, and Maul III is -3 Accuracy at 100% Damage. Each reoccurence of the Maul effect gets the Accuracy penalty added to the previous one as is currently designed.[/quote] Except maul is a weapon ability not a champion trait... either way repeated attacks with no hard l

There are reasons for the links. It would be pretty silly if you could rush champion armors, however.. I see no reason that magical weapons/armor couldn't see a similar progression to the warefare techs, or use summoned units as pre-requesites for champion armor. Champion armor is pretty broken with 1stat/level, but that is another issue. My biggest complaint is that the civics tree is nothing but a tech loop. Removing links and overhauling the tech tree do not seem to b

[quote who="EviliroN" reply="10" id="3067951"]One thing you should look at for the AI and that I have noticed since 0.75, is that the AI sovs and champs will clear a monster den, then not capture it to get the loot. I just played a game where there were 3-4 cleared dens just sitting in AI ZOCs. If the AI started using better items, they would be harder.[/quote] Maybe they are farming the spawns ^^;

I prefer master of magic, where heroes would offer to join like-minded kingdoms. It makes balancing the available champions considerably easier as their availability can simply be tied to technology, and not whether another faction has depleted the supply through purchase or murder. Alternatively they should be harder to kill (no more non-casting mages please) and impose a diplomatic penalty.