pomalley

I don't know about your bug, but as of a while ago grip of winter didn't work on an enemy city: https://forums.elementalgame.com/435390

Right, I've just seen rumors (mainly from the thread at Qt3) that a bunch of stuff isn't working yet. Like, for example, starting bonuses (that you pay for in the astral).

Want to place bets on when it comes out? I'm going to say September. ;-)

Thanks for posting that. I had seen it before somewhere when I was thinking about getting the game, and my eyes glazed over. Having played only the campaign so far, I've only probably built maybe 25% of the buildings on there. So there's a ways to go.

Regarding the lore: I do agree, but it is risky to do your own stuff. I mean, look at how FE turned out: there's nothing wrong with the lore per se, but IMHO it's not really any better than standard elves and dwarves. And if you set out to be different, you need to be better--you're distracted by the setting and story, so they better be good. In E:G's case, because the lore is identical (and boring), you skip over it and focus your attention on other things; in my case, the wr

[quote who="Glazunov1" reply="70" id="3309622"] My impression is that E:M is pretty much E:G with newer graphics, and maybe an expanded tree. So if the price is under $20 US, I'll give real consideration to buying it. It's not the graphics that make the difference to me, but the strategy involved in having more choices for city development.[/quote] Don't get me wrong--unless it's $50 I will also get it. Given all the ravings on various forums that this

[quote who="Glazunov1" reply="68" id="3309187"]How much will E:M be selling for? Does anybody know, at this point?[/quote] I don't know. I would, however, highly recommend picking up Genesis. It's only $6 on GOG, so if you don't mind the quaint style of the graphics and have the time and money, get it! But that's just me.

Gonna bump this thread and say that I just picked up Eador: Genesis and have been playing the ever-lovin' stuff out of it. I do worry that it may get a bit repetitive, but I've now played maybe 5 or 6 shards in the campaign and even though I have used generally the same strategy each time I've loved it. I think maybe the rate at which you get new buildings and units in the campaign could be sped up, but I do enjoy unlocking them. As far as comparisons to other games, I wou

At least since 983: https://forums.elementalgame.com/433771

I usually try to turn my first high-essence city into a fortress. Give it +material and +growth until it gets the blacksmith/barracks/etc built, then go all for unit buffs. In a Pariden game I had one with 4 essence (after the scrying pool) and it was amazing turning out units with +4 fire attack, +4 initiative, +4 defense, and +4 something else. After one or two fortresses, I usually go conclave if they have essence, if not, town.

[quote who="rahal" reply="34" id="3277142"]MoM (and Elemental) start with 4x and adds RPG. MoM is a more complex game than Civ. HoMM starts with tactical rpg (Kings Bounty) and adds a very simple strategic layer. [/quote] I think that's a pretty good way of breaking it down. That also probably explains why I like the tactical battles in HoMM more. (But obviously not the building part of it.) I would probably agree that MoM is more complex, but I think t

[quote who="rahal" reply="32" id="3277055"]HoMM is kings bounty with cities. It's not really a "4x".[/quote] I'm unfamiliar with Kings Bounty. But since you can't build cities I would probably agree that it's not a 4X. It does have enough similarities with MoM, though, that I think it warrants discussion.

Good points about monsters and magic. I usually try to iron-man as well, but not always successfully. ;-) I haven't used any custom factions or sovereigns yet. Are there custom factions or sovs that the AI would be better with? Or would it not matter because they wouldn't have very good units designed?

[quote who="Kamamura_CZ" reply="27" id="3275480"]I think the Heroes series did tactical much better. What? You consider a system that allows you to have 3543123 skeletons occupying the same hex, moving at once and striking at once... better? [/quote] Yes, I do consider it better. I found the tactical choices much more engaging. There is always some realism sacrifices to be made, and the other option is to say that once you have more than six dudes on hors

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1" id="3275132"]There is still some low hanging fruit the AI hasn't made good use of that I'mworking on. For example, it's still pretty rotten about using strategic spells and it's rotten at late game researching that's going to just require me to do a bit of hard coding to make it better at FE specifically. In tactical, the AI is still poor about using items it finds. Bottom line, there's a lot of area

[quote who="Mystikmind" reply="10" id="3275095"]I would believe the OP that the AI is getting a free 'heads up'[/quote] I disagree. Two instances does not a cheating AI make. And I've never seen anything that strikes me as suspicious in my games.

This is half a request to the Frogboy and half a question to the community: how can the late game AI be better? I've been playing on Challenging/Challenging, and after I beat the first armies the AI has put together it just falls down. Sometimes it can put together a second wave of armies (or army, more likely), but that's it. This wouldn't normally be a problem for me, but this is even when the AI has more than twice my power rating--and more to the point, before I've

[quote who="Viperswhip" reply="23" id="3273373"]So, I don't sit here and compare the technical or AI aspects of FE to MoM because that's not the point.[/quote] That's more or less my whole point. But it certainly doesn't stop everyone else on the forum from doing so (or so it seems, sometimes). (Though I guess Stardock brought that on themselves to some extent by mentioning "spiritual successor to MoM" at some point regarding Elemental.) [quote who="rahal" repl

[quote who="uberlicker" reply="18" id="3272778"]Opinions are like a$$holes. Everyone has one, but no one wants to hear it. [/quote] If you don't want to hear opinions, why are you in this thread? [quote who="Ben Yeoh" reply="11" id="3272432"]I don't think you can sweep the opinions of the majority under the rug and argue that it's all just "nostalgia". [...] Anyway why do I even bother... I suppose I just want to encourage Stardock to take

[quote who="Kamamura_CZ" reply="1" id="3271797"]I smell a heretic.[/quote] That was the plan! [quote who="Lord Xia" reply="2" id="3271800"]Nostalgia's a bitch.[/quote] Yes! [quote who="Emperor_Nero" reply="3" id="3271809"]True that. Everyone compares the game to MoM but they forget how much it wasn't a good game. It was buggy, unbalanced, and fairly bland because the lore was mediocre at best. It was fun though, back then it was original and that is why

We all know these forums need some more spice, so here it is: Master of Magic is good, but not great. There, I said it. Ground rules: This is (obviously) just my opinion. I'm not trying to start a flame fest, so let's not get out the gasoline, ok? There are facts about the game, such as mechanics and units. There are opinions about the game, which are not to be stated (or interpreted) as facts</em

While I appreciate the analysis, I'm suspicious that the number of entries in changelogs correlates to the amount of effort they're putting in. I know you tried to correct it with a rough factor of two here and there, but I'm still not sure it tells us anything useful. Were it up to me, I would put all the effort on UI issues (including things like handling better units that finish their pre-assigned move and have leftover movement) and AI.

I like to imagine that they're going to fix it (and also have it not apply in tactical) but are being held up by: (1) they'd have to write new code to handle non-stacking-effects like that; (2) they'd have to write new code to handle not-in-tactical effects; (3) they'd have to test said code; and (4) it's a relatively minor thing, all things considered. I'm 100% sure they're aware of it, but I still vote that we re-report it every couple weeks so that it ev

Ach! Unclear turn ordering strikes again! I vote to make each enemy have their own turn, in a clear order! [/broken record] [quote who="Derek Paxton" reply="12" id="3269264"]Changing the way the turn order happens is a bad idea at this point.[/quote] I have to agree with that, though. Still, when it says "Immobilizes for 2 turns" and the enemy only loses *one* turn of movement, that's confusing. People are used to playing board games, where if it says "Lose two tur

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="113" id="3267316"] Quoting Heavenfall, reply 110I can understand monsters and wildlands moving first, but why keep factions moving separate? The AI factions move simultaneously. But they have their battles syncrhonously now. It makes the turns take longer but ensures that they're not moving over each other trying to attack one another.[/quote] I vote for moving the AI factions serially. I know you guys belong to the Cult of the Fast Enem