jshores

Then you would never choose this combo for personal reasons, because you have every reason in the world to do it mathematically if you are not picking another weakness. Let's say you get done picking your spell books, and whatever traits you want. You did not pick "Might" or any weakness. You have 0 points left to spend. Why wouldn't you do this? If you are not picking a weakness, the current design has eliminated the choice, you pick it for logical reasons. If you don&#

[quote who="Darxim" reply="14" id="3360766"] Quoting jshores, reply 11It's never a waste because it is a FREE +1 to attack. The only time you would not do this is if you want another weakness for whatever reason. It would ALWAYS be worth it because it is a free +1 to attack, no matter your build. It's not a free +1 attack. You're using a trait point you could be using for something else. When you take a weakness you get a trait point to spe

That makes sense if you take clumsy every... single... time. But if you don't plan on taking a weakness... Then the might/weak combo becomes +1 attack for the cost of 0 points.

[quote who="Darxim" reply="8" id="3360744"] I think taking Might and Weak together is a waste, and you're nerfing your sovereign by doing so. If you want to max your sov's attack, you should take might and the weakness shouldn't drop that. If you're going for more of a caster build, then you can take weak, but you wouldn't bother taking might. If you could take as many weaknesses as you wanted, sure, it would be a flaw, but since you're limited

[quote who="bortlings" reply="6" id="3360727"] With ranged weapons, Clumsy should offer a chance to randomly shoot an ally and if the hero is by himself, then he shoots himself. Hilarity ensues.[/quote] That would be comical. Really, in Joeball's example there is still a drawback, since even he says you can't place your sovereign next to other units safely. And obviously, Cruel is still giving you 5% unrest. In the scenario I a

Precisely. If you didn't want to take another weakness, there is no reason not to take "weak" and "might" together, that is the design issue. A simple fix for this would be to make "Weak" give a -3 to attack instead of -2.

When you create a sovereign and go to the second page to choose abilities, you'll notice an ability called "Might" and a weakness called "Weak". Weak gives you a bonus design point and Might costs 1 design point. Since weakness only gives you -2 attack and might gives you +3 attack, it becomes a free +1 attack for your sovereign and creates a situation where the player would always do this if they wish to optimize their character.

I think you guys may be looking at WOM with rose colored glasses. The game was terrible, terrible, terrible. You don't have to take my word for it, just look at the reviews from critics and players alike. Fallen Enchantress and Legendary Heroes have greatly improved upon the original product. That being said, I do agree with the last few posters that it does seem like some of the neater features have been stripped out of the game over time, but those features were poorly imp

The final missing pieces... One part pirate, one part diplomat, one part baby's momma. Then we can call this thing done.

[quote who="Borg999" reply="1" id="3352818"] I'm not sure, but I do know that the spider armies in "spider invasion" random event ignore the AI.[/quote] Possibly, but the AI does not ignore them. In a recent game I played, Magnar threw countless armies at the spiders.

I pitched in some cash today. Hopefully this project lives up to it's goals :).

Weird... I was able to do this when we first had access to the beta. To access the new paths you create, you have to use the mouse wheel to scroll to the ones off screen because there wasn't a slider. I was able to create a new path, a custom skill tree as well. Edit: poor reading comprehension on my part, abob pretty much said all these things. My experience is the same as his.

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="21" id="3349720"] Quoting Lord Xia, reply 20Yes, I think FE was a great game, yes I think LH makes it even better, but why ever release a product that isn't your best? There are a lot of bugs and niggling issues that have lingered with the game for a long time, please take the time to fix all known issues before you release it. You are a great company and deserved to be recognised as such, so please releas

[quote who="EffBie" reply="18" id="3349675"] With a company like stardock it IS less of a concern if a game is released in a kind of advanced beta state rather than fully polished retail product due to Stardock's ongoing commitment to improve and refine and patch their games BUT I would hate to see the game not do as well as it should due to ill informed reviewers marking it down due to lack of polish and/or bugs upon release.[/quote] This would not

[quote who="Xerberus86" reply="1" id="3347841"] i don't know, the guy in the video (the dev) looks like a teenager who's living at his mother / grandmothers house and just showing some images and no actual proof of concept / proof of actual progression. the graphics look very dated and the UI very lackluster. the overall experience of the so called developer looks also very questionable. many have tried and more have fallen, i wouldn't raise my hopes up. Fallen Enchatress an

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="49" id="3347461"] Quoting jshores, reply 47 Welcome to the club. I'm the reason they abandoned modding apparently. whatever the hell that means [/quote] [quote] Posts like yours make it hard to justify spending more engineering hours on mod support when it's clear that nothing we do will ever be good enough.[/quote]

[quote who="enoeraew37" reply="41" id="3342179"] So the fanbio spin is Stardock just didnt answer for a month because of -me-? Because I have no manners? I dont know why they went quiet but it had nothing to do with me. I'm not that important. Other people were asking too. They got ignored to but dont have the social heuvos to be public about it. I certainly hope they didnt leave their customers flapping in the wind just to spite one critic.[/quote] Welco

Thanks for the update HF!

[quote who="WaitingOnTheGame" reply="21" id="3346403"] I like some of the ideas that have been implemented, but its really hard to improve on something that sucks as much as this game used to. Anyone would have a tough time improving on something that ugly. [/quote] Interesting comment. I've wondered before what the game would be like now if Kael and some of the other staff had signed on when WOM first entered development.

I've never really thought the Total War series had too much micromanagement. That is an odd comment to make if you actually played the games. I'd love a true fantasy Total War attempt and rumor is that they picked up the Warhammer license a while back, The next Total War game is Rome 2 though, can't wait :).

[quote who="NaytchSG" reply="3" id="3346045"] Well, obviously, Magnar had picked Anemic as a weakness to pick up an extra custom race talent. This will fix it! I have seen this as well. Pioneer spam! Unlock Pioneers like new heroes... using fame. Turn current pioneers into Engineers for outposts and roads.[/quote] Love the joke and love the suggestion.

[quote who="Daynarr" reply="1" id="3345913"] I had 26 factions + mine in 0.75. However I made giant map size that was 12x8 for that purpose. I'd get crashes first 50 or so turns but the game would stabilize later on.[/quote] This is good information. It tells me that it does have something to do with the map gen giving up when trying to place the usual starting resources etc for each player. I've generated custom map sizes in the past with lo

I was curious how far we can push the envelope when it comes to factions per huge map. I created 52 generic factions and started a game with them. The game crashed during map load. I slowly decremented the amount until I found a number that worked. That number was 25 (I didn't test between 26-29, but 30 crashes). I suspected the issue was related to space between starting points, or some other constraint on the map building process, so I went into ElementalDefs and reduced t

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="12" id="3343612"] Quoting sweatyboatman, reply 11Ugh, I tried to find it. But it's buried pages down in some pre-FE-release thread. Found it![/quote] Ah ok. It sounds like they are still supposed to attack the AI players at higher levels, just not as often. Pretty cool,but I wonder if it has been broken along the way and it having the effect at lower difficulty levels as well.

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="8" id="3343530"] Quoting jshores, reply 6Are you sure that is how the AI cheats work? I don't think the difficulty level toggles whether or not the monsters attack the AI players. I think your analysis and your suggestion may be incorrect. Are you sure? I think your analysis of my analysis may be incorrect. I'm pretty confident that Frogboy has stated on these forums that at the higher difficulties the monsters