Tuidjy

82

Well, I guess barely anyone cares about upgrading trained troops. Maybe after release, I guess.

Yes, the new X-Com is very good. There was a point when I was not sure "Classical Ironman" was even possible to beat, and now I am trying the next difficulty. Any game that gives me this experience WHILE having fun and wanting to take one more turn is A-OK in my book. Fallen Enchantress has had this since late Beta 3. Could have X-Com been better? Absolutely. But then, what could not be improved upon?

The +3 initiative and damage for small armies is not a small bonus in the beginning, and a good beginning is extremely important. Tarth blood is quite fine. A significant advantage, and no disadvantages.

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="5" id="3253307"]You do realize that the actual gameplay is not multi-threaded. This was mentioned by frogboy himself. The multi-threading is used in the AI decision making process, the gameplay itself is not multi-threaded.[/quote] And this somehow makes it better? The decision is made on data BEFORE some actors have moved, but is implemented AFTER that, so that monsters/AIs jump multiple tiles to attack the enemies that they could reach when they made

I have also experienced problems with autoturn, even some not described above - for example, it made me lose a turn worth of moves for a hero I just hired. I fished moving the unit that did the hiring, and the new hero lost his turn. This version wiped my settings, so I do not know how long the problems have been around. I turned autoturn in Beta 3, I never looked back. Goes without saying, it's off now.

[quote who="eaglejk" reply="22" id="3253236"]Inefficient is not that bad. I take it all the time. The penalty is only applied when the sovereign is actually in the city. My sovereign spends 99% of my time in the wilderness, thus I get no penalty for 99% of the game.[/quote] I did not know that. One lives and learns. Then 'Cruel' is the uncontested winner of 'Weakness that only a masochist would take" contest. I played Karavox recently, and I can attest

I do not understand why people like AoW2 more than the original AoW. I mean, I enjoyed the sequel, finished it, and never went back. I still replay the original Dark Elf campaign from time to time, and I still play some of the mods.

They should be additive, i.e. by the time you have the third one, you should be attacking with 75% piercing. I do not know whether that's actually the case, the only character I ever had shadow strike on also had the Champion's lance, so it did not really matter.

Yeah, it never ceases to amaze my how unbalanced the weakness picks are. You go from "Absolutely harmless with a modicum of care" (Clumsy) to "Seriously nasty" (Cruel) to "Damning" (Inefficient) Same with professions: How can you possibly think that "Bandit lord" and "Hunter" are in any way comparable to "General" and "Armorer"? I'm not even talking about professions which can decide a game when properly leveraged, like "Beastlord", which can get you a Black Widow on turn on

I think that it is fine that the AI are uber-aggressive on ridiculous and insane. Actually, for some reason I find it somewhat easier to win on ridiculous than it was in .982. It maybe that my .982 games had really bad starting positions, and my .99 and .991 games had all awesome starting positions. And I assure you, ridiculous is not impossible, even with a standard sovereign (I've tried Relias and Irane) Insane... I have no idea how insane plays now a days. &

[quote who="cardinaldirection" reply="130" id="3252765"]Bethseda's oversight in designing a unique user interface for the PC version did not go unnoticed by the industry.[/quote] Are you sure about this? I have a lot of friends and former colleagues working in the game industry. From what I've heard from them, you are usually under some restrictions on how much different you can make a game from one platform to the next, especially on release. These get relaxed by time, DLC, e

[quote who="indrkl" reply="12" id="3252891"]I don't know how the AI is made, but if it takes into account the hit chance of a creature to decide weather to attack him or not, then it would make him a less attractable target aswell.[/quote] It did not in .982, at least not enough for the AI to stop trying to hit an injured dodging unit behind a fortification instead of focusing on the much more vulnerable one next to it.

[quote who="Emperorjarin" reply="26" id="3252875"]I think you're confusing Sean's mod with HF's. As far as I know, Sean is mostly doing a balance mod, while Heavenfall has his amazingly cool-looking Stormworld mod.[/quote] Shame on me. In my defense, I had decided NOT to look at mods before release, and ended up on a mod page because I followed a link that was supposed to explain game mechanics. I navigated away... but I did read the list of the races.

I have reported these before, in multiple threads. Instead of bumping, I am creating this thread in which I will post a few issues which I have noticed while upgrading trained troops. I have never seen a developer post anything about upgrading troops, but I believe that this is one of the greatest mechanics in Fallen Enchantress. So I would really appreciate having these issues addressed. First a brief list: [User

I use my familiar as an extra Tremor/Freeze caster. These do not get affected by mana efficiency bonuses anyway, and often my sovereign is the only one with the Earth/Water magic (That's what my custom sovereigns always pick) Having the ability to stop a second army in its tracks is quite valuable. As for the one hit point, who cares? I do not restore, so if my sovereign drops below 50% it means that I completely misjudged the fight. I do not think I have h

[quote who="seanw3" reply="24" id="3252729"]At least for me, any player that I know to be talking about higher difficulties is not a factor in the conversation. If the AI is getting massive bonuses, the balance is already worthless and does not enhance the discussion as far as balancing the game.[/quote] And you are right when it comes to _balance_. But here, they are talking about completely neutering land grab, and I believe that land-grab should be possible, the same way that

[quote who="harmonius_" reply="8" id="3252444"]Old way to win without land-grab on ridiculous and above - not having land at all - playing with one hero. Tarth is good here.[/quote] When was the last time you pulled this one off? I haven't tried it in .991 yet.

Yes, we need this before release. Even when it does not kill your unit (it sometimes it does, and loses you a city in the process) it is really annoying. I just move my units one tile at the time if I am moving over AI or FoW tiles. Oh, and counting quarters, because there is no display of fractional moves.

The great wolf's army counts as weak. Now, I haven't even tackled it with a low level champion, but I just had a level 8 soloing champion barely make it. After he barely got alive through two rounds of combat, he used a despair scroll. He has 11 attack and 10 defense. I do not consider him weak. Why is the great wolf's army so effective? To begin with, it has a total of 10 units. These are high attack/no defense units with high initi

I'm one of the people who prefer Civilization IV to Civilization V, but I am still glad that the latter got made, and I think its designers made the right choice for their employer. But Brad has an extremely good point. Make tactics powerful, and you make civilization development less important. Civilization V is a lot more of a tactical game. I remember playing Alexander close to release, and using a cavalry/artillery combo all the way to the end on the largest

[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="21" id="3252326"]Balancing Growth/Prestige properly wouldn't negate a land-grab strategy, it would just make it nigh-impossible for those cities to grow, which is fine.[/quote] Oh, I see. "We will not prevent you from running the race, we will just break your knees, which is fine." Would you care to to win a game on... well, I guess easy should be right down your alley. On a large map, with a land grab strategy, WITHOUT INCREASING YOU

Does anyone here play mostly on ridiculous and above? If you do, do you have any way of winning without a land-grab that prevents the AI to make a patchwork of your lands by plopping cities/outposts on every resource?

[quote who="Trojasmic" reply="20" id="3252323"] We're not trying to remove a strategy from the game. We're trying to add a strategy to the game.[/quote] Which strategy is added to the game by utterly stunning the growth of level 1 cities? [quote who="mqpiffle" reply="21" id="3252326"]Not everybody always finds it necessary to use a sovereign with the Wealthy ability like you do. [/quote] You mean, the way I used a wealthy sovereign in 33% of the playthroughts w

It is clear to me that mqpiffle has set my posts to 'ignore', because he keeps saying 'never necessary' despite the fact that anytime he brings up 'Reduce the automatic sovereign prestige', I post a list of my playthroughs, in everyone of which the sovereign prestige is insignificant, none of the cities are maxed out, and every single growth enhancement is built as soon as possible. And of course, only two of the 6 playthroughs have had wealthy sovereigns.