luketan

[quote who="GaelicVigil" reply="227" id="3137369"]TBS games, but standing on it's own two feet, WoM is a great game. I have a fun time playing every time I turn it on, especially with a few mods - and I'm a very picky about my games.[/quote] Think this is delusional, when even the developers have pretty much agreed they failed and at best it can be considered acceptable. But great? Sure FE I wouldn't call it great but I suppose people have different tastes so

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="7" id="3137320"]This is just me, but for the lack of summons, the magic system feels very polished already.[/quote] Depends on what you mean by "magic system" i suppose.

[quote] Model magic somewhat after the research tree, where the casters gain levels and choose perks to unlock higher echelons of magic, and then give them points to spend CHOOSING spells from the trees they have access to. Want to be a largely civics-oriented empire, and win via alliances? Spend your spell points buying city enchants. Want to be an out-in-the-field tactical warlord sovereign? Forget mana for cities; Focus on buying new ways to light people on fire!

I starting to wonder if the "moar magic" types are in the distinct minority here. My guess is not many people play MOM or even AoW as opposed to mainly CIV 4/5 only players , so they quite happy with the current magic system. Oh well.. Actually summons were fairly weak compared to Heroes in MOM unless you got them early. But still fun and useful in some cases. But it was nice to see beta 3 add a few summons and 1 more dispel city enchantment spell.

Seems to be 2 major camps 1) NO meaningful choices camp 2) NO Diversity (in spells, units) camp There's a overlap of course but those in #1 tend to be talking more about how one strategy typically city/outpost spamming + killer unit sovereign + champion owns everything. Seriously, I am in awe of such godlike players that in less than a week, they know what strategies are unbeatable and the best. and not only that, they know what exactly is w

i was deciding between fair and good but in the end voted fair because of some comments by frogboy.\ honestly, i am a old school Mom diehard fan. i am okay with city spamming, god like champions killing everything etc.. that's MOM after all which is the spiritual sequel to after all not civ 4/5 [quote] Look at Master of Magic. It's got some detail, but by and large the purpose of your cities is to become productive enough to progre

Besides what gumbostu mentioned you could also get spells or spell books after clearing very tough lairs. In fact if you think about it spells you can get in MOM is more random in a way then in FE. In FE, if you had Fire Apprentice, you definitely got the same set of spells. While in MOM unless you picked a high number of spellbooks you weren't guaranteed to have all. My problem with FE system is not the randomness or the reverse but rather, what "magic" you

Yes. Traits should unlock spells. I don't like researching unlocking spells as much in FE. It works in MOM because you are researching spells based on your initial picks, eg researching stone skin from your nature spell books. But in FE if you put a extremely powerful spell in tech tree, you could research it and suddenly all your champions can use it even if they are purely warrior types.

Interesting old discussion. There is pretty much only 2 types of counter magic only it seems... Sigh..

I wonder if there are any more new spells not listed in the change logs.. Good to have more summons and I think disenchant enchatnment to fight city enchantments though it's still not enough! Didn't we already have counterspell? Why is it "Added"

What paths are possible?

We should have more magic/spell system discussions.

MTG comment nailed it. I prefer the MTG/MOM magic system over the elements system simply because there isn't a place for countering type spells. Is coutnering/metamagic, water? I don't think so....

Casting points is not the same as having a global mana cap. You can have unlimited mana stored, but you can only use a limited amount per turn. Better yet if you don't have enough skill, it would take over 1 turn to do it. Eg You have casting skill of 50, and you try to cast a spell with 400 man, it takes 8 strategic turns. Reminds me of this game.... hmm whats the name? I don't like a cap of mana stored, cos there is nothing you can do about it. At least

I think each school should have at least *1* in each main category. They can be a lot weaker, or have some other unusual effect, but it's too one dimensional to go Fire = direct damage and nothing else.

I have classified FE 0.86 spells into MOM cataegories of spells (refer to manual pg 39) Do note that its rough, you can quibble etc, some of the tactical creature enchantments that affect a lot of units negatively like horrific wail can be combat spells? I followed MOM examples where combat spells = damage spells, healing dispel magic etc.. but doesn't seem consistent. Under MOM convention, "Special" includ

I have classified FE 0.86 spells into MOM cataegories of spells (refer to manual pg 39) Do note that its rough, you can quibble etc, some of the tactical creature enchantments that affect a lot of units negatively like horrific wail can be combat spells? I followed MOM examples where combat spells = damage spells, healing dispel magic etc.. but doesn't seem consistent. Under MOM convention, "Special" includ

I never liked the imbue mechanic, it was a way to try to shoehorn the "lore" into the game, and I guess even the most devoted SD fan would say the lore isn't really anything to write home about. In any case, the problem with the magic tech tree is that it gave you "techs" / spellbooks without regard to what paths you already had ,so you ran into problems of either a) Allows unlocking of spellbooks without preqs b) Allows unlocking of spellbooks that need preqs

I WANT CASTING POINTS!!!!

[quote] One to think about too is how the current spells might be changed to have more uses and options. You might look at the Target Type tag for each spell. It seems that many of those spells do not reach their full potential because they are limited by what they can target. Did you know for example that AoE spells could be set to work even when friendlies are in the area of effect? It can be set to damage them as well or ignore them and only hit enemies. [/quote] </p

What I want is really 1) Race and factions that play different 2) Champion improvements that play different depending on choices I make 3) Diversity in spell choices The rest is mostly fluff really. Well except maybe city management, but personally I don't need anythign particularly brilliant for that. 1+2+3 if done correctly, should usually lead to decent Tactical combats, since this will affect unit and champion diversity and spells of cours

They should really "go bigger" with spells. The impression I got is that they went that way with damage spells in beta 3 but everyone using that so it's too one dimensional. Creature enchantments (positvie and negative) should also have versions that affect all units in the tactical combat (there are some now and more coming I think) and also global versions that affect ALL units in the game. So graveseal is a really great spell that causes critical hits. Give us a

List of spells as of 0.86 https://forums.elementalgame.com/422011

I would limit the amoutn of mana that could be used by champions depending on their skill.... in tactical combat. But for overall pool, I disagree also.

Mom didn't have this problem. But Mom already had concept of neutral cities so it was simple. FE doesn't I think.. hence it easier for them to make it all vanish.