By the way, I moved the discussion on guilds and how to make cities more unique here ( https://forums.elementalgame.com/416510/page/1/#3068731 ) I hope you guys can contribute with ideas to help correct/improve this idea!!
Hey, thanks, but the aim of this post is truly to develop this idea a little more. I was hoping that people would participate enthusiastically... maybe I was wrong? Anyway, I think I have refined the idea a little bit. Here it is: Every city can have at most one guild. A city must be of level 4+ to be eligible for a guild. There are three main groups of guilds: Fighters guilds: warriors’, paladins’, assassins’ and ran
One guild per city is already what I meant, since you only get to choose one at level 4 - sorry if I wasn't clear. But maybe you mean that one can have only one guild of each type in the whole realm, making each guild what a national wonder is in Civ IV. Unique buildings/guilds are a nice and easy way to make cities unique, but we should not forget that games should also be unique. If in all games I end up having the paladin city, the assassin city, the mage city, the worrior ci
Hi all, some of the suggestions to improve FE that I have been reading these days focus on giving more flavor to cities , making them more unique and diverse - something more than making a Production city, a Research city and a Money city, although this could possibly be already a slight improvement with respect to what we have now. Starting from an idea of Sathran "I miss something that
I notice that shooters enganged hand-to-hand with melee opposing units can, on their turn, retreat one tile back and then shoot to the enemy. I find this a little weird. Shooters should have some form of disadvantage when engaged to melee units. This can be fixed in many ways, the easiest possibly being to penalize shooters when they move and shoot in the same turn. Others: free attack on retreting units, cannot move and shoot in same turn, cannot disengage...
The choice of including MP in FE or in future expansions is hard to justify from a purely financial perspective. Not including the MP feature will cause a reduction in demand only for those MP-fan for whom the MP is an essential feature in game, one without which purchasing the game makes no sense. Admittedly, this is not a large share of the market, and it would hardly cover for 30% of the budget - though this number seems really huge to me. But the financial perspective is not all,
My understanding about units is that the game will work more or less as Master of Magic did (which is great). That is, there is a set of standard units that all the factions have (bowmen, swordsmen, pikemen, horsemen, halbardiers, healers, explorers...). Each of these units, despite being the same template (bowmen can shoot, pikemen have first strike, halbardiers have high defense, explorers move fast...) is slightly different for each faction because of different race stats and di
Sounds very interesting! I hope that Carrodus, among other traits, has one that makes him very tough: as all units that are not great themselves but enhance others, it will be the first and favourite target in every battle...
You can’t distance from Elemental with this title, it would hint that you are trying to hide the connection with WOM, which is not only very hard to do, but also wrong. Given the effort you have made in making FE a great game, there is no reason to hide the connection, on the contrary, it shows high commitment and is a positive attitude you want people to know about. If the game is good as we have reasons to hope for, there will be good reviews and people will be more than willi
I agree. More simply, I'd say that to have fun there must be interesting trade-offs , as Derek pointed out. This may be, but it not limited to, risk. So I agree that sending out immortal champs is no risk, so no interesting tradeoff, hence no fun. A permanent scar may also me too small a risk to make an interesting tradeoff. A scar, some significant downtime, loss of experience, loss of some items, et cetera may balance it in the right way. Btw, aging champ
Yes, FE is supposed to be the spiritual successor of MoM. And, as a broader feedback on Frogboy's long list of features, I'd say that: 1. I adore tooltips! Having unrest at 80% and not knowing why is something despicable in a game, and I am happy to know it won't be the case in FE 2. Magic. You fly over it, which is good for suspence. But if I may ask for one thing, I hope you includes mass tactical spells (e.g. a mass haste or a b
The issue of (im)mortality of champions is common to several games, and each games tackles it differently. What matters imo is that the death of a champion in battle should come at a significant cost to the player. This may be a permanent scar, but there are plenty of other options: 1) some items are lost/stolen 2) the champ is unavailable for some time 3) experience is lost 4) there is a chance that it leaves your cause and becomes independent a
[quote who="Alstein" reply="65" id="3046770"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 63 Quoting OneLion, reply 60Thanks for the update, I'm eager to test Fallen Enchantress since I'm still vastly discontent with WOM (simply still too many bugs/crashes - yes I'm on 1.4). However the lack of different resources scares the crap out of me. I'll see how it goes but to me it looks a bit dumped down, I enjoy a wide variety of resources so I can specialize my to
I adore random maps generation when it's well done. Thank you a lot for this feature. And I agree it is a very challenging task. I play again and again random maps on some games, and never play them on others, simply because an unbalanced random map is a very, very, very bad thing imo: after 6 hours of playing you find out that your opponent had the luck to get that special resource/tile/hut/temple/mine close to its capital that gave him so much advantage that he is waaay far ahead of you
Interesting post yours. I also think that magic can be a much interesting and intriguing part of the game. I am just afraid that focusing too much on spells could make other aspects of the game less important. But I really look forward a more spell-focused mod! Of course I don't mind if you pick some ideas from my list. Good luck!
Here they are, rearranged by Element. Thanks Edwin. DEATH Excruciating Pain, Tactical, Death: target enemy unit receives x damage; until the end of battle, whenever this unit receives damage this is increased by %. This additional damage is illusory and is healed at the end of the battle if the unit survives Bone Guardians, Strategic, Death: if one of your city is attacked and there are less than 8 units defending it, skeletal berserkers units are instantly
[quote who="seanw3" reply="3" id="3012825"]Now that we know when the beta is, I will be waiting to see what the new game can do before I commit to making any spells. I am making the spellbooks though. I would probably use Rampant Lust in one of my more mischievous German spellbooks. I really hope we get a "target all allied heroes" type of system. That would really open up level 5 spellcasting. [/quote] What does "Target all allied h
Look promising. The only thing I do not like so far is that I won't be able to play FE since I have not purchased WoM. I LOVE the breakdown panels that allow to understand the detail of every stat in the game. I'd rather get no disease... someone wants two? ;-)
Any comment anyone? Some of these are taken from MoM with some adaptation, some are (I believe) new... it'd be nice to hear what you think, which one you like, which one you don't like, or any change you might suggest. Btw, one thing I like in spell descriptions is the introductory sentence before the technical description, like "the enemy is engulfed in flames and suffers damage..." or "dark clouds gather on the battelfield: each enemy unit is striken by
I posted it here already https://forums.elementalgame.com/410595/page/10/#replies but it was a month back, and there were some typos, plus it fits well in this FE wishlist/Ideas forum as well so... here it is again. Some ideas for new spells (level depending on the strength of the effect). a. Acid rain, Tactical, Fire&Water: units in a certain area get x damage and
Thank you Derek for listening to us. I believe I wrote down a few spells in this thread where you might find some good idea here and there. We all believe this game will be a great one to be remembered in the years to come. And if you include the Time Stop spell, you'll be my hero :-) ps: ok... a Slow Time spell with increasing upkeep - where you take 2 turns in a row while others take only 1 - could work fine as well! And I am sure you can come up with a
[quote who="seanw3" reply="128" id="2996626"]I see it this way: Every city level-up you draw five building cards. Each cards represents a different path to victory. You choose the one that makes the most sense for the way you want to specialize that city. You now have the option to build that structure in that city. As you level up higher you will see better buildings. Certain buildings will only be available next to specific terrain. Others will be faction specifi
The basic message that more queues = faster building rate is wrong. The reason is that your total production rate should stay the same regardless of the number of queues, hence splitting it among many queues will not hurry the whole production at all, but only get you all things later instead of some earlier/ some later. I mean, if we all work on the library and then we all work on the temple we get both done in the same total time as if we were to work on both simultaneously - only i
Personally, I see the whole issue about buildings as trying to avoid having all cities the same. Having each city unique is at the other extreme, but I'd be content with something in the middle. I mean, I'd be happy with the option to have different types of cities: focused on research, on commerce, on producing certain units, on producing settlers to expand my civilization, on producing mana, on supplying food for sustaining my troops, and so on. One idea for such a thing wou
I must say that the idea to be able to build more than one building per type sounds very interesting. Even a small change that allows a city to have only two of one particular building of choice would be giving players the option to specialize cities: do I put 2 temples or 2 libriaries? Actually, another way to accomplish this would be to make sure that even the highest city level has not enough room for all buildings, so that the dilemma now would be: do I put the temple or the library