CdrRogdan

@Hadavar I know what you meant about ping damage. What I'm saying is that there is no apparently no minimum. The reduction in damage is a divisor not a subtractor. I was under the impression that an attack made a roll of it's value versus the value of defense and subtracted each other, but apparently someone digging through the code found it was something like attack*attack/(attack+defense). While it is possible to negate low damage attacks by having defense provide a reduction i

[quote who="DarkGaldred" reply="13" id="3097879"] So this could still easily be corrected, by rounding to the nearest integer number instead of rounding to the superior integer number. [/quote] Unfortunately that would only work for low damage weapons. Once a unit hits 20 damage, there is basically no stopping the attack from being an instant kill. Full plate with sheild gives roughly 30 defense. Damage will be a little less than half. A low leveled unit

Unless they normalize crit chance to be considerably more frequent and hit for considerably less damage they should remove the mechanic alltogether. To be perfectly honest I'm not a big fan of being on the recieving end of a critical strike that, under normal circumstances, would have grazed my unit, especially when the chance of it occuring is probably under 20%. Dexterity isn't worthless because damage-wise it is worse than strength. It is worthless because it's not

I don't mind 'that' much that I have to research basic techs. I would definately prefer that each route of research provide it's own means of advancing and could be focused on while remaining competitive with the others, otherwise why not just use one big linking tech tree?. I have given up trying to persuade the devs into making changes of this nature however.. What really bothers me is that the technologies are bland. Maybe it has to do with being able to desig

Sorry to be the burster of bubbles here but many of your suggestions are not actually very helpful. Addressing Lethality First off apparently there is no such thing as 'ping' damage. Although initially I thought it worked this way as well =/. Damage cannot be reduced below 1 because it is a multiplier of sorts. Additionally, the biggest issue isn't with low damage always hitting for minimum as this can be solved with more hp, but that hi

Some items should definately be exempt. A non-combat oriented item such as the telescope is a good candidate. Horses are exempt and they fall under equipment as well. It likely wouldn't be too hard to create a secondary category of equipment for this purpose.

Neither invisible nor flying units could attack without counter. Invisibile units imposed a penalty to hit to attackers and defenders. Invisible units were immune to attacks until a unit moved adjacent. Flying units suffered the full damage from defenders, but were not subject to attacks from non-flying, non-ranged units. That said I'm all for the counterattacks being added back in, but not before my melee units suffering instant death from all attacks is addressed. I&#

And what is the file name/location? I've spent the better part of the last hour to no avail in finding this information. Help =x If they are in dll, how would I go about modifying this?

Adding additional defense without changing how defense works is unlikely to resolve the matter. Part of the problem is how defense is calculated (there is no minimum value). That means that with an 80 defense it is possible to still take 30 damage from a singular 40 rating attack. By the same token Attacks of 15 against an armor of 30 are just as likely to hit for 10.. The difference is that if you are using multiple attacks the chances of the average being this high are very low. Unl

@Frogboy Are we playing a different version? More than Half of the available weapons currently have an initiative modifier. Let's go through the list: The Following Weapons have no initiative modifier (4): One Handed Clubs, Spears, One Handed Axes, Two Handed Swords The Following Weapons have negative initiative modifiers(5): Bows, Wands, One handed Hammers, Two Handed Hammers,

I suspect they made regular units and champions / most monsters function differently so there was more than a cosmetic difference between them. It also made more sense that squads of units would march around together rather than singular units in their own little troop. This was a neat way to represent this. Personally I like the way this functions because it reduces the effects of the random number generator. The more figures you have defending and attacking, the more likely the number

It wouldn't have mattered if they mentioned it or not. Master of Magic is the basis for comparison withe every fantasy turn-based game. When you look at Age of Wonders you don't see a turn based strategy game, you see how it compared to master of magic. The same is true for Europa Universalis. While the underlying elments between that game and civ are far appart the game still comes up in comparison. If this was a space aged strategy game it would be compared to master o

@Bingjack For the second time you misunderstand how combat works. That squad is -not- attacking for 50. It is attacking 5 times for 10. Meaning if the enemy has 20 armor your max damage will probably average 2 damage per unit, meaning the total damage would be 10. If however if the enemy was wearing no armor your average damage would be 6 per unit, totalling 30. If however the same scenario was used for a champion with 50 attack, average would be 15 against the 20 armor and 25 a

I think you Mean Xarb the Farmer and Tragbuh the Mage. In any case I don't think this is going to happen. While I highly prefer static and intelligently designed champions, I'm fairly certain the whole random levelup thing is here to stay.

Platemail most certainly did not use chain underneath as it was simply a less effective (though much cheaper) form of metal protection. Padding was always used underneath metal armors. In fact wearing just chain would cause considerably more harm from blunt weaponry than wearing nothing at all. Realism aside, different functioning weapon types are much more preferably to simpy inflicting more or less damage to various armors. In addition looking for ways that weapon typ

Just throwing this out there, but making an armor type resistant to multiple types of damage is probably easily within coding perameters and is certainly a viable suggestion. Making weapon types inflict more damage against different armors would be more difficult to code, but might be reasonable enough for the devs to consider it. That said, it isn't entirely necessary to make every armor type weak against some damage type or other. Heck armor could probably even be

@Stupidity Maybe someone at stardock will take the hint and make intelligence affect spell damage :)

The game needs to recognize items gained by the faction (not just champions) and place them in a treasury that can be accessed while within allied territory. There could be a little button beside the item that says: "Teleport" that had a very small mana cost (15 sounds about right), and regular units that defeat enemies have a popup at the end of battle that asks if you want to teleport that item back to the capital or let it be lost in the wilds. Additionally in the options gam

For that matter I would like to know how much production each city has. Telling me the special bonuses to production is worthless if I don't know what is being multiplied. Oh and slightly off-topic but.. Let me view my cities before choosing a city level upgrade!!

This actually isn't true. The champion may be missing traits but they tend to have higher stats. Given that the majority of traits raise stats I don't really see an issue with tihs. Also it can be difficult to level multiple champions to higher levels, making picking up an already leveled champion an ideal way to maximize your army.

1) This took me a few reads before I understood what you meant. I thought you meant wonders when you said world level structures.. but in fact you mean -map resources- Ahem anyway, I have no opinion on this matter. I'm not really a fan of snaking cities though. 2) This makes sense. The initiative penalties/bonuses associated with weapons should probably go. I would also like to see some differentiation in damage ra

Hahaha temple of essence is a carry over from war of magic that can only be built if your city is actually attached to the mana stone. This is incredibly silly as it encourages snaking cities towards resources. And in this case since it can potentially double mana output could be considered required. In any case it is (probably) not a bug that you cannot build it, as I was able to build one last game. It is simply poorly implented.

Yeah at the start of the quest it talks about how it is supposed to be the Druss blade, but upon completing the quest the blade did not change. Oh and this is in the wrong forum. Please edit the title portion and change it to FE Support so the devs get wind of this.

Tasunke has the right of it here. Champions gaining more health per constitution point is fine. With levels rarely breaking 12, the benefits from high constition on heroes needs to be much higher. On units it would quickly ramp into the rediculous. In fact the kingdom nation gains a significant leg up on the empire due to the aura of vitality, it would be bad for balance to improve on that even more. Higher base hp and less hp gained per level makes considerably more sense. As

Personally I give the new items a thumbs down. Rather than provide a viable means of equiping champions with purchasable gear based on technology, you are required to bow to the random number generator for gear, that can either be very generous or excrutiatingly stingy. Not only does this further discombobulate the pacing of the game but it can lead to situations where you are up against impossible odds, or at the other end have near invincible champions.