[quote]I think mana cost should be proportional to attack bonus[/quote] Yes! They really need to allow the spell resource cost amount to accept calculations... [e digicons]:cylon:[/e]
[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="11" id="3077370"]We must play different games. If I could turn off all my production buildings and claw back the gold maintenance and use this to pay for my upgrades, the current situation would be viable. As it stands, upgrading my old units instead of building new ones essentially means i am paying for them twice: once for the upgrade cost and again for the production capacity i am not making use of. No prudent player would ever do that.[/quote] You
[quote who="taltamir" reply="17" id="3073350"]Currently champions are so overpowering that there is no point in having anything BUT champions.[/quote] Not true.
Nice work!
[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="23" id="3077013"] Quoting mqpiffle, reply 21Summon Wisp (or Will o' Wisp) : When adjacent to any enemy, that enemy has a 50% to become enthralled and lose its next turn. Att: 0, Def: 0, Dodge: Something High, HP: 50 -ish Doesn't work with the mechanics. What we can do is trigger stuff when attacked, or when attacking. But we already have summons doing stuns on attack and defense. I like the creature though. I will think o
Summon Wisp (or Will o' Wisp) : When adjacent to any enemy, that enemy has a 50% to become enthralled and lose its next turn. Att: 0, Def: 0, Dodge: Something High, HP: 50 -ish
Another problem with encumbrance as it stands might be that it's being treated with such small numbers that are only based on strength. Why not start encumbrance at, say, 100, +1 or +2 per point of strength, +whatever for certain traits, and re-adjust the weights of items along those lines. This way, the Strength score is not causing the Encumbrance score to "move" so easily. I hope that makes sense - I'm pretty out of it right now [e digicons]:P[/e]
[quote who="CdrRogdan" reply="39" id="3076818"]Horses shouldn't give an encumbrance bonus, or encumbrance should affect them a different way (you lose move and dodge). The former seems easier to implement though.[/quote] Horses should be best when charging into melee, getting flanking bonuses to melee units who are already engaged or ranged or undefended mage units. If they get "stuck" starting a round already in melee, they should get horrible initiative, dodge, and accurac
[quote who="TheColourOfHeartache" reply="27" id="3076421"]Maybe not, but perhaps becoming a Governor could be a way to "retire" a Champion. When one gets too many wounds or other disadvantages they can be transformed into a governor and cash in their levels and traits for neat city related advantages. They'd still be able to fight if the city got attacked. [/quote] I like this idea.
[quote who="Horemheb" reply="65" id="3075953"]I do understand that the idea I presented goes probably too far. It has the risk of making diplomacy too central part of the game.[/quote] It really doesn't go too far, because currently diplomacy has *no* role in the game so it could use some love to make it a useful strategy, especially if it's there's going to be a Diplomatic victory condition.
^ What he said.
An AI that could intelligently coordinate attacks on multiple fronts would be spectacular. This ought to be available on a higher-end (challenging +) AI setting only, if it were even possible.
One thing I noticed in a game last night was an opponent popping up telling me they weren't quite strong enough to launch an all out attack on me, but they were still going to harass my country-side to the fullest extent (paraphrasing.)
Ah ok! Thanks!
[quote who="Sanati" reply="23" id="3075380"]What is the point of testing like this? Serious question.[/quote] Because he's trying to write an AI that can deal with anything, or at least as much as possible. If we were all to use your logic, why write a video game in the first place? [e digicons]:P[/e]
The AI should focus on getting a basic production building (workshop) and training units. Then they should know how to counterattack once you forces have been weakened. They also might need to know how to attack in concert, with the strongest of their armies directly attacking your city while the others lay siege to your outward resources.
Yay cheese! edit: I mean Go cheese!
Nice thread. These ideas need to be taken seriously.
[quote]Hand-in-hand with overpowered heroes is “worthless” common units.[/quote] This unit is worthless!!!!! Give me a break.
As you can see I've built a monument on a super-shard in the remnants of a Wildland, but as soon as I built it the shard disappeared from the 3d map. It still appears on the cloth map. No monument!! Monument!
[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="7" id="3073991"]Another modbug. When I am using abilities from troops, like skills, I use the defendabledamage. For example, the modifier below should hit for damage equal to 1 per Troopcount in fire damage. Unit  
[quote]1. Provide a smaller damage bonus to keep the base damage of the spell relatively similar and adjusted by less random elements. 1.x Provide no bonus to damage (or effect) [/quote] No, the bonuses are fine the way they are. The Evoker trait is, imo, the biggest current problem to spell damage, and as such it should be toned down to ~ +20% damage per level from the current +50% damage per level. I also feel the Evoker trait should make mana costs go up as w
There's a problem with tiered traits and the unit details UI. As you can see below, the trait Tactician II is only showing as a +1 to my army's initiative, when in fact it is +2 (+1 for each tier of tactician.) This is easily seen if I mouse over the initiative entry under Combat Stats. It would be nice if the sum total of these bonuses showed on the character portrait UI, where all the information is gathered in one place. <img src="http://i.imgur.co
The only really good way to do this in the XML would be something like: (CastingUnitSpellMastery / TargetUnitSpellResistance) * SpellDmg This would amplify the power of the spell if the caster has a higher spell mastery than the target's spell resistance, and vice-versa. Easy to mod. However, since you can't use IF or > < statements in the XML calculates, there's not a good way that I've found, without some changes to the base code, to use
Agree.