GFireflyE

Just stewing over this a little, but maybe have an 'elite' %chance exist where smaller stacks have a better chance than larger groups due to the focus of training, whether it be off or on the battlefield. This would give the decision to the player to either have smaller groups with a greater % elite chance, or larger groups with a smaller % elite chance. This can always be controlled by the leveling of your unit....higher level units increase the chance at

Good Morning I've been watching some FE Beta play of late, and I came across an irritating/confusing aspect. It would seem that the map scrolling does not line up correctly with the minimap orientation; appears to be 90 degrees off. ie: When you scroll up, the minimap window shows your view moving left. It's disorientating. Is this a changable feature that this particular individual has chosen to set up this way or is it something that needs adjusting?<

Good Morning This has probably been talked about on occasion in other threads, but I thought I'd centralize it. I've been watching several 'let's play FE' of late, and have noticed a dyametric shift in the game from early to late. Early game is very RPG based; you hero and perhaps a few troops moving around the map and performing quests. However, but mid to late game, that all disappears. Instead, it becomes empire vs empire and wars and all that other

Good Morning So, I've been looking at the troop construction in FE. REALLY like how you can design your own troops. FANTASTIC! Would be nice if you could create enchanted items to equip your troops (ie, a magical cost in addition to the season cost and maintenance). Anyways, I digress. When looking at building a troop, once you have the 'groups' tech, is there ANY reason what so ever to build a 'party'?? I understand the time difference, but that is

Why have hills if you can't use them for benefit? I'll answer my own question: It adds dimension. But most gamers understand the difference between superficial and actual game-dimension. If all hills do is 'look nice', seem impractical that they be there at all...

This is probably a better place for this comment: Combat zones should have the land from the zone the combat occurs in, along with the attributes of that land. A forest gives ranged protection. A hill gives melee protection. City walls grant defence bonus. Outposts grant ranged units a farther attack. A road allows additonal movement along that stretch. Perhaps there is a small lake, and you have units that can

I voted "no I will never buy games that require it". I've thought about it long and hard with several games before coming to this decision, so I shall explain: Reason #1: Will steam/impulse/etc be around forever, garenteeing my ability to play the game I've purchased in the future? That's a big gamble. I love going back to games I've previously played....Master of Magic comes to mind. ;) I'd hate to FINALLY get Master of Magic 2 in the form of Fallen

So, I have just been watching some FE play online, and I noticed that when a city is built near, or expanded on near, a hill, the hill actually changes to accomidate the city. I was quite surprised by this. I would have figured that the city would be build along the curvature of the hill. Would be really nice to have it this way....if it's conceptually possible. Would bring added incentive to building specifically on hills too if land gave different attribute bonuses

Reduced is fine. Having 15 tiles stretched linearly across the screen is silly. Having a 3x3 city (max) as your capital can be quite appealing.

There are more ways that one to make a map 'large'. - Instead of that linear expansion, the map could develop more in depth. - Perhaps, change of terrain spells, or changing terrain random events....or quests. - Maybe an ancient 'ways' (Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time), connecting different points on the map (could be in the form of a quest)? - Maybe instead of having the map larger, make the zones smaller. Cities have 9 sqs (I believe) minimum

Thanks for the thread location tip. Well, I'm glad that Stardock still intends to have the cities expand. I've been following the development of this game, and that is probably the most unique and alluring part that this game has to offer in regards to civilazation development. I can agree that the snake-cities were quite rediculous, but it would still be nice to be able to build a long city across a ridge or shoreline or something like that...

Combat zones should have the land from the zone the combat occurs in, along with the attributes of that land. A forest gives ranged protection. A hill gives melee protection. City walls grant defence bonus. Outposts grant ranged units a farther attack. A road allows additonal movement along that stretch. Perhaps there is a small lake, and you have units that can swim. Perhaps you can cast a 'wall', between two m

I like: 1) The multi-square cities. Shows growth and expansion of your civilization. 2) The combat view. Tatics and strategy are fantastic. Would be nice if different terrains on the battlefield gave you different bonuses though. 3)The ability to make groups/squads/companies. Fantastic way to implement stronger armies in the game. Does need a little more balancing though, as it seems like a group of the above is worth 3x of a group from below...should only be wor

please please please don't lose the cloth-map. I love the look and feel of that part of the game.

Good Morning So, I've been reading a lot of back and forth on the issue of 1-tile cities being incorporated into the beta 4. Is this indeed the case? If so... . I really like the way the cities are able to expand into multiple squares. It shows your empire growing into an urban greatness. With 1-tile cities, I might as well play Civ 4....it's a move in the wrong direction, imo.

Further considerations when dealing with the outpost and the city: First, I would limit the number of resources that can be picked up by a nearby Outpost. An outpost is a defensible position. It should not have the same capabilities of resource collection compared to a city. This would give the added complication of building a city for the resources....or building an outpost for the defense. Spamming outposts to pick up every resource in the area seems ov

A few things I would like to add about the differenciation of the outpost and the city: First, I would limit the number of resources that can be picked up by a nearby Outpost. An outpost is a defensible position. It should not have the same capabilities of resource collection compared to a city. This would give the added complication of building a city for the resources....or building an outpost for the defense. Spamming outposts to pick up every resource in the area se

I had originally thought that they would have gone the same route of Master of Magic in regards to the races. Unique race attribute traits that stay with the city, even when conquared by another race. Over time the alien population would mingle and spead through your empire and the bonus (and penalties) of that race would also spread. This would give important strategic decision as to whether or not you want a specific race incorporated into your society. Alas, they didn't g

Instead of 'moaning', it could be 'mourning'

Wow. Fantastic answers guys. Explains quite clearly the difference between a city and an outpost. Would like to reemphasis an idea I read in an earlier thread: Have outposts and cities built by different unit types. The outpost would be built by a scout, thus allowing faster movement across terrain until a sutible boarder is found. The city would be built by a settler, slower, yet with obvious benefit to expanding your empire. Don't know if the

[quote who="The Thrill" reply="18" id="3164531"]I completely agree with the OP, as well. To my mind, there should be Scouts - cheap units to explore/build outposts that should be consumed when the outpost is build, thus weighing the decision between Exploration and Outpost Building; and Settlers - much more expensive units to found new cities and Expand the empire. I also wish there were different types of Outposts, or techs to make outposts do more than plant a defensel

Good Morning I haven't played the game yet, but am eagerly awaiting it's release....and watching all sorts of gameplays and following all sorts of threads. Anyways, one aspect of this game that has got me raising my eyebrow is what is the difference between cities and outposts? More to the point, why build outposts if cities do so much more? When is it worthwhile to build an outpost over a city? Do outposts eventually become cities? From what I've gat

When I first saw the reviews for this game; being able to expand your cities on the main map was one of the primary attractive features for this game. The way it's done in WOM is FANTASTIC, if not for the unfortunate side effect of being able to warp your city and abuse it. I recommend keeping the squares there, such the units moving through the city would still have to travel the distance of the squares...also, an attack on the city would place different troops closer

So, I'm going to lump this with a recent thread I just read here: https://forums.elementalgame.com/420896/page/1/#replies Several concepts are touched on: 1) Should the city be 1 square or multiple squares on the main map? Definately multiple squares, imo. I strongly believe that 1-sq cities would be a step backwards in game design. 2) Should a city be allowed to 'snake' on the main map?

Good Morning So; I've been looking at the 'Stack of Doom' functionality in the game. Just in case I need to clarify, the 'Stack of Doom' is your heros all collected into a single near-invicible stack able to go around and beat the snot out of anything that crosses your path. Anyways, I REALLY hope it is somehow removed from the realm of possibility. Here's my reasoning: First, as a disclaimer, I have not played FE Beta yet&nbs