phazonfreak

[quote who="StevenAus" reply="24" id="3349187"]Speaking of build time, how about casting Arcane Monolith produces a Monolith that builds in a few turns, rather than appearing fully-functional instantly?[/quote] Instead of Arcane Monolith taking several turns to build, I would like to have this: [quote who="phazonfreak" reply="1" id="3349098"]My suggestion would be to add mana upkeep once they are placed, but they maintain the ability to be placed anywhere outside enemies borde

That first sentence must be one of the weirdest I've read on the entire forum. Apart from the fact that the analogy does not even fit the point you are trying to make, it is also quite unnecessary.

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="5" id="3348151"] Quoting phazonfreak, reply 4 Quoting GFireflyE, reply 3 Why can't we summon a bear during tactical battle? You can summon wolves, bear, panther or naja during tactical combat with "Nature's Call". I myself am happy that FE did not become a spiritual successor to MoM and that it became its very own game. As much as I love MoM, I think it is a little

[quote who="Fallenchar" reply="2" id="3349117"] Two faction trait points too cheap? I would say that's a hefty price tag. Especially since the rest of the trait isn't very useful. Imho, the real problem are the pioneers: they are too expensive to be used for outposts, if you can also build a city with them.[/quote] Since expanding your zone of control is THE most important aspect of the game for a start, I think 2 faction points for an instant-on-the

It was removed because individual mana pools didn't work in this game and people were asking for a global mana pool. I understand some of the frustration here, but the stuff that was cut and changed almost always has been reflected in the wishes of the community. As annoying as it may seem, but games can break very easily because they try to do too much and WoM was a prime example for that. A game might not go the route you personally would like it to, but you have mods for that.<

Indeed, they seem way too powerful compared to other faction traits, even though they cost 2 faction points to get. Compared to the pioneer unit building an outpost you can put it down instantly, you don't need to walk there and you don't have to tap into population/city growth, which is a really big thing considering how slow cities generally grow. 50 mana is too cheap. My suggestion would be to add mana upkeep once they are placed, but they maintain the ability to be placed

There is a bug fix for the next patch: [quote quoting="post"]If a unit is standing on a city at the end of its turn, and it doesn't have a destination set to leave at the start of the next turn, it will auto station that unit in the city[/quote]

I don't really see how Gilden is not competitive. Sure, you can always add more types of golems to spice up their gameplay, but even if golems were to be completely removed, Gilden as a faction would still be pretty damn strong, because their focus is on outfitting and upgrading their regular troops. Tarth are extremely strong early game and don't need the swarm trait for their archers.

I have never seen yellow numbers. I've only seen green signifying an increase and red signifying a decrease. There are no useless buildings in this game, because they don't cost maintenance and only very rarely some resources, the only limiting factor is production time and tech/city level. There are very few buildings (black market for example) that actually increase a certain aspect of the city while at the same time decreasing another one, rendering them useless in certain

[quote who="random_thoughts_7" reply="2" id="3348699"]Even with all the changes in the patch, mounted troops will be superior to unmounted troops. Your top stacks will all be mounted if you can afford it just because they can get around the map faster.Banning them from city fights places a real drawback to any type of mounted troop. Plus (OK this is the real concern!) they do look stupid fighting indoors.[/quote] Indeed, IF you can afford it. The game has to change so that putting you

Magnar is the zerg overlord. Very powerful early game, able to throw cheap slave troops at everything, but also kinda frail. Even though faction/sovereign differentiation is already quite good, Quendar race would be the one that needed some more flavour the most. +50% fire resistance and -50% ice resistance is not really worthwhile.

Tarth is an early game powerhouse that is able to unvover and settle the map very quickly with the stealth/master scouts trait and can snipe monsters with their 3-man ranged armies utilizing their blood trait. As an offset they have to deal with increased unrest and have to watch out that they don't fall behind midgame research- and productionwise. They are basically wood elves. Gilden are the slow but mighty faction that starts off pretty standard, their advantages kick in midgam

I agree, overpower would be a very sensible addition to the traits of a catapult as well as being able to build a smaller, less powerful version in midgame. Apart from that, I think catapults should become more important with the newest patch since melee (mounted) units will be nerfed movement- and attackwise.

I assume you mean banning them from fighting in any city, not just towns? I don't think that this is a good idea or even a short-term fix. The new patch will decrease the horse/warg production of stables to 0.5 (from 1.0), it will increase the production cost for mounted units, it will put the defending army into defence mode and it will nerf overpowered traits like charge (from +3 Moves +3 Attack to +1 Moves +2 Attack) and impulsive (from going first in combat to +2 Initiative),

I don't really see the need to limit it to wartime only. The influence of a city is obviously much larger compared to a mere outpost and if an outpost was built very close to a growing city if should allow the city to "incorporate" the outpost of a friendly faction. I see it as working similarly to the culture border in Civ4.

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="3" id="3348122"]Why can't we summon a bear during tactical battle? [/quote] You can summon wolves, bear, panther or naja during tactical combat with "Nature's Call". I myself am happy that FE did not become a spiritual successor to MoM and that it became its very own game. As much as I love MoM, I think it is a little overrated. It's a very nice fantasy sandbox game, but only passable strategy game.

[quote who="Hawntah" reply="10" id="3347828"] Quoting webusver, reply 8 Is it good for AI to remove encumbrance? Yes!!! Encumbrance should be removed. Removing game mechanics just because the AI can't handle them is stupid; a much better solution would be to improve the AI instead. [/quote] An ideal sentiment from a gamer perspective, but not a realistic one from a developer perspective. Regardless of the AI, I really don't u

Ideally, I also want the AI on higher difficulties to use spells to annoy and surprise me, to beat me around in tactical battles. Realistically, I know that it is Sysiphean task to teach the AI to grasp the full complexity and possibility of spells. But I agree that there is still a lot of room left and that it should be possible to teach the AI better without a big effort.

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="7" id="3347059"]Not to sound too critical of the posts here I would say that Phazonfreak, did a great job identifying what he would like to see, and I can agree with it. As for the differences between the races, I for one see large differences between the races.[/quote] I also don't want to sound too critical of the differences between the factions, I think they did a great job and I agree with you that factions play very differently if you really g

[quote who="adam95" reply="5" id="3347048"] Quoting phazonfreak, reply 4But both players have the same amount of figures with exactly the same distinct abilities. ins2 is right, the analogy does not really fit because we want factions that have differing and unique "figures" that support varied playstyles. Although I disagee with the chess analogy, I actually can't disagree with the original post. The factions do have differences, but not *that* different.&nbs

Balance is fine, because wargs give + 2 Initiative as an offset for less moves. My archers like their wargs.

[quote who="petrasvu" reply="5" id="3347027"] Quoting phazonfreak, reply 4 Quoting petrasvu, reply 3 Dont know how, but playing with some races i had scouts which could build roads. You picked a faction with mancer blood, their pioneers have the road-building trait and you can choose the trait when you design a new unit. Again, you can always use a commander to build roads. That way they are really worth something beside thei

[quote who="Hawntah" reply="3" id="3347014"] Quoting ins2, reply 2 For the original poster I have only one comment: in Chess, each side has the EXACT SAME units... But each side has 6 distinct types of units which all play differently..[/quote] But both players have the same amount of figures with exactly the same distinct abilities. ins2 is right, the analogy does not really fit because we want factions that have differing and unique "figures" that

[quote who="petrasvu" reply="3" id="3347002"]Dont know how, but playing with some races i had scouts which could build roads.[/quote] You picked a faction with mancer blood, their pioneers have the road-building trait and you can choose the trait when you design a new unit. Again, you can always use a commander to build roads. That way they are really worth something beside their buffs on your armies and can actively do something for your cities.

I actually really like the current system. Everyone can use a commander to build roads; The trait is at the very start of the tree and it provides for varied options of how to utilize a commander (city management or troop buff). Being a roadie can be a very useful occupation for a commander :-) In addition, factions with mancer blood can train road-building troops, which is a very nice and unique faction trait. The only problems are that some faction traits seem much weaker in compari