Malsqueek

Lovely Idea. I support it wholesale.

[quote who="Lothos" reply="49" id="2866308"]I think you guys miss the point If the classify it as a second game and never make an expansion for War of Magic that means the sales pitch they gave everyoen in December that if you guy the game before the end of the year you get the first expansion free has been null envoid and you get nothing for free. [/quote] Considering that Brad explicitly said in the first post that everyone who purchased before end of

1.1 is a MASSIVE improvement over 1.09. -It is stable enough to play for more than 20 minutes. -There is enough of a "Magic" section that the game warrants having that in the title. -The tac combat is less broken than it was. -City building is less silly than it was. That said, Elemental is still on the road to greatness in all three departments; Magic, City Building, and Tac Combat. It needs serious gameplay and balance he

Frankly, I think its a little silly that destroyed caravans don't re-spawn themselves, and that they don't stop running when you go to war with a country.

[quote who="LightofAbraxas" reply="2" id="2852492"]Problem for me is, with a very quick training time, who cares if you lose an army? By the time your enemy marches to a city, you have a new one trained. Anyway, I understand that it's a personal preference, but... I sure hope that the devs don't go any further towards the quick production and building. To answer your question explicitly, there are lots of spells and buildings that reduce training and build times.[/quote] &n

[quote who="Cerevox" reply="4" id="2850713"]Xcom Apoc was a great game. The only reason people say they don't like it is because it has a different feel to it than ufo defense or terror did. The first 2 games felt more like horror games while apoc felt more controlable.[/quote] It's interesting to hear you say that, because I always felt way more out of control in Apocalypse than the first two. I like the style/feel/tech of the first game best. I

[quote quoting="post"] ...allows space for heores to join units, which i believe is the only long term solution to players using archers and spells to "snipe" enemy sovereigns and heroes from distance [/quote] I agree with all your post except this bit. That is what "immunity to arrows" and "spell immunity" magic is for. Heroes should stay heroic.

I just had something similar in the way early game where I wound up having to disband the things which were on autoexplore. They were peasants, though.. so it was cool.

I would just like to see the faction given to the eldest heir, unless there had been some issues with the ascension, in which case, the faction would splinter into several smaller factions. That may be something for an expansion down the road, though.

[quote who="Werewindlefr" reply="19" id="2848301"] [the AI] needs to regroup inside the cities in case of an invasion. It needs better threat assessment: if my units are within range of his city to attack it the following turn, don't lose time patrolling: reinforce ! Only sortie if you can afford it ! Put your back lines cities into full unit production mode so you can actually kick the invader out of there ! And if you can afford it, send one or two fast, cheap units destroy iron/materi

I had this issue twice in a single early game just this morning. I was exploring with 3 champions (sov, janusk, +1), and had an enemy come up to the far side of a city before I had time to build any protector units. In order to defend the city, I ordered the champ stack to attack the enemy (neutral) unit from the other side of the city. The stack entered the city, then left the city to the square I ordered, which resulted in the friendly stack, and the enemy unit (a dar

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="2" id="2848169"]I'm on the AI today actually. But I need your help for those of you who are stream rolling. The AI's weaknesses are more to do with strategy than anything else. To use a Starcraft analogy, it would be like the AI developer not realizing how important it is to block off their base making it easy for the Zerg to win.[/quote] Would it be helpful for you if we did some "how I make tactical decisio

-It is important to get your capital city up to level 3 as quickly as possible so it can begin to generate some respectable money in taxes for you. Cities of size 1 only give you about 1.5 gold per turn, and size 2 will only give you about 5 gold every turn. Considering that you will be using at least 3 of those per turn on a couple workshops and some defense units, it is important that you grow your capital quickly. -Be careful with your city upgrades. Most of

Isn't there a way to check a random integer and use a series of if/then statements based upon what number came up?

[quote] - Attacking cities should require SIEGE tech. Walls should physically block units from attacking other units. They should have high-hp that is only reasonably broken by siege weapons or super-buffed units in the lategame[/quote] This is a bad, bad idea. It's already bad enough that if an enemy sov poops out a poorly placed city on one of two resources you wanted, you have to go 2 tech out of your way to get rid of it and place a real city. At least you can take it from t

[quote who="Das123" reply="2" id="2846016"]I agree that 1.0.9w still is lacking in the AI department but from memory I think that when 1.0 was launched the 'real' AI wasn't included in the betas. Maybe that is happening this time as well. There has certainly been improvements in the last couple of beta versions to the AI so it looks as though it is getting some love. I have had the AI declare war on me in either 1.0.9v or 1.0.9w when it thought it could take advantage of a weakness

[quote who="Kestral2040" reply="17" id="2845516"]as the guy who balanced the numbers for the current system I feel I need to point out a huge part of the equation you are neglecting: what tier of techs these items are unlocked at.[/quote] The tech tree was the thing that caused me to start looking at how these work. We have a row of weapon tech (Kingdom): Basic -> Equipment -> Weaponry -> 1st Tier -> 2nd Tier -> 3rd Tier And a Row of Armor

Do they need to be the exact same name as the file they are replacing?

So, I've modified some values in the CoreArmor and CoreWeapons XML files (which I copied first to another location and renamed). How would I go about using those files in game to make sure they work?

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="3" id="2845056"] So as much as you guys may like v1.1, v1.19 betas (for those who want to play the test builds) will begin right after Christmas I suspect. [/quote] Excellent! I have two weeks with nothing but free time coming up!

[quote who="Arendis" reply="12" id="2845050"]This is just a great example of how balancing can work out. Would really be happy to see those Stats (or similar ones) in the game evne before 1.1 goes live![/quote] I'm putting together a mod right now. Keep an eye out; I'd love the testers.

Yeah, I had a military unit path over a champion and execute him as well. Not that I minded per se, but it would be nice of those things not to happen on accident.

Wow.. There goes about 600 bucks next year. Some impressive titles (Jagged Alliance 3!?!) And a few that I've been pretty excited about for a while.

[quote who="tjashen" reply="8" id="2844631"]Warstaffs are fine, as long as they only become available at the same time as similar swords, hammers, etc...[/quote] WarStaves are pretty much the only weapon in the game which is balanced against the current armor values. Everything else is either WAY too powerful, or horribly underpowered.

[quote who="Werewindlefr" reply="6" id="2844834"] Why is armor only rated by defense value ? 3 things should really go in the benefits of an armor: -Defense Value -Armor Value -Price. And price is a thing with which you can play a lot. For instance, light master plate shouldn't use more metal than heavy plate. More gold ? Yeah ! More materials ? Certainly. Not more metal. [/quote] I'm not sure what you mean by a difference between ar