Malsqueek

[quote who="Kalin" reply="6" id="3166794"]But do you really need heroes if you aren't going for conquest? It's not exactly hard to level clearing mobs, get PotG, pick up administration, and sit. Why would you need more exp after that?[/quote] Under the current setup of the PotG, no. No you don't. They are borderline pointless considering the number of other things that do what they have to level to do, and they do it faster and easier. <p

[quote who="Kongdej" reply="16" id="3166894"] Cant argue your way out off game mechanics, it boosts your ass to double efficiency during the startup being able (and casting) inspiration and enchanted hammers on your first city [/quote] True, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. [e digicons]:D[/e]

I know its a bit gamey, but I really liked how in Civ V you kinda just weren't allowed to enter hostile territory without a declaration of war or a treaty of some sort.

[quote who="keli2" reply="2" id="3166774"]But looking at the stats of the normal and enchanted weapons it is obvious that the majority of the enchanted weapons are simply better than their normal existent.[/quote] I think "better" is a pretty situational term in this case. Those weapons are half "elemental typed" damage and the other half is "B/S/P typed", which means there are a few situations in which they will perform very well,

[quote who="OrionM42" reply="14" id="3166759"]Malsqueek, I am on record (in a previous thread) as agreeing that I consider Tactical Combat to pretty much be in a solid, finished, form. I know it could be tweeked some; and I confess to not being as interested in Tactical Combat as some of the folks here. However, I think it is so much improved from the Beta 2; and appropriate now, to the overall nature of the game, that I consider it plenty "Good Enough"&n

[quote who="JMiddleton" reply="13" id="3166762"]And I'm still playing on EASY - hats off to those who can beat this game on HARD![/quote] I'm finally starting to accept the fact that the "No Taxes until you are out of money" and "Use your early mana income to boost production and research" strategies are essentially required for any kind of start to completing with the AI. Try those and you should be competing pretty well on normal or challenging in no time. I h

[quote who="Kalin" reply="3" id="3166756"]As for passive exp in general, I think they don't want it because it tends to encourage turtling.[/quote] Which is THE BEST strategy when trying for Civ (alliance) or Magic (research/construction) wins. Why force people to engage in combat if they aren't going for a conquest victory?

The faction differentiation is fantastic. The Tactical Combat aspect of the game is in very good shape, with only minor balance tweaks needed and the odd bug at this point.

I'm not sure what the Suggestion between A and C is, but it sure looks cool! (insert snare drum roll here)

[quote who="Kongdej" reply="9" id="3166707"] Quoting Malsqueek, reply 7Also noteworthy... It does not appear that city debuffs go away when the faction who cast them does. Who is paying that 19 mana per turn upkeep? The mana of the world is... Sincerely ~ Kongdej[/quote] Ha! :D I suppose, considering that the AI pretty regularly spikes up to the hundred-and-fifty-googol mana stockpile, and then somehow b

[quote who="JMiddleton" reply="10" id="3166730"]Who says monsters don't target cities? And no, it isn't fun! Reduced 89%Original 640 x 402[/quote] That really depends upon the turn. Getting a dragon in your grill on Spring of 174 sucks bad. Another 70 turns later, you might be hoping it attacks you, but in your city, and another 40 after that you will be excited to fight a dragon wherever. Looking

My personal preference would be A, and definitely NOT C or D. You are correct in it being aggravating to be sidestepped by an army, though that should happen less now that roads don't work in enemy ZoC.

That is my experience as well. Tooltips say nothing about this.

Also noteworthy... It does not appear that city debuffs go away when the faction who cast them does. Who is paying that 19 mana per turn upkeep?

I think that the points get evenly (or randomly?) distributed among all unresearched upgrades that you have the capacity to research. Considering that after doing some trades I saw things I'd not yet tried to research around 25% I think that is how it works.

[quote who="Kongdej" reply="2" id="3166292"]Worse is, that compared to not doing it, to be competetive you have to buff your cities out to hell, since buffing cities > buffing units.[/quote] Yeah.. I despise the "Everything built here is more awesome" enchantments. No good way to track them once units are built, VERY cheap upkeep for significant bonuses to units.

[quote who="Numdydar" reply="7" id="3165196"] If city spamming is what everyone wants then that if fine and I will go play something else as there are other games where city spamming is not the point of play. I was just hoping for a game that better reflects the struggle that developing cities truely was. Even in the 1900s, towns and cities were abandomed for many reasons. So developing a city and keeping it viable should be much harder in the game than it is now. [/quote

[quote who="DGB246" reply="57" id="3166242"]I think city spam is less of a problem on ravaged/desert maps as there aren't many places to build on in the first place - with dense monsters too it can be a real challenge to get 4 cities up early. [/quote] Ohh.. I'm going to try that. [quote] Pioneers should not just take resources to build but populations as well. [/quote] Thy already do. The probl

Is there any way we can make city debuff spells: Not Stack - Once an AI decides it needs to debuff your cities, it spends all its mana repeating the same debuff on one city, FAR past any additional effect (19 antipathy on one city? Really?). They should be one per. Period. Have Significant effects with one casting - The 10% drops in things is pretty crappy, but if they are going to be a single-shot effect, I think a 25% kick is plenty

[quote who="Kongdej" reply="55" id="3166143"] Yay mal yay, you see the light . I have for a long time with elemental thought the research to gain more food per grain is a must have, and must have technology is in my mind bad design, if there is technology I have to research just to start the game I get annoyed, and I either have to expand really really rapidly or get a tonnage of food techs, (or both ).[/quote] Admittedly, I didn't think the problem was so

[quote who="Kalin" reply="53" id="3166084"]Adding some more "people cost" to pioneers isn't going to change any of these things. Most of the time, my main city (where population is important) is busy building buildings, and I use an expansion city to pump out units (pioneers). Do I care if it cost 10 or 20 people from that city? Not one bit. If you make pioneer take longer to build, it would just mean more expansion cities will be dedicated to pumping them out. It's not a fix to pione

This is a great discussion you guys are having. If I could toss a couple pennies in, I think that aside from early game pacing (which is about 15% or so too slow) is pretty solid in terms of expenditure to benefit in the Civ and Magic trees. You get a good breadth of useful spells/buildings/abilities/whathaveyou at each level, and they seem to scale pretty well with each successive level in terms of expenditure to benefit. The warfare tree, on the

[quote who="Ashbery76" reply="34" id="3165958"]Silly game mechanics with no frame of reference ruin immersion.[/quote] Kinda like learning how to print money automagically farts out roads to every city, abandoned hut, and cave with a blanket in your empire, eh? If we are going complain about "no frame of reference" ruining immersion, let's start with the egg and not the chicken cordon bleu.

Yup. I love the change. Works magically. Values up ZoC-Only spells and gives Players a reaction time.

[quote who="jshores" reply="7" id="3165849"]I love the assessments you have put together for each path. I plan to mod the existing paths and add new ones and I've bookmarked your assessments to draw ideas from. Thanks for the time you put into this.[/quote] You are welcome., and thank you for the interest. You are more than welcome to use any and all of my ideas, and I would be happy to help provide support on more specific implementation if you are at al