carn112004

The magic tree lacks (early) armor, armorer and barracks. Therefore one cannot go one sided into magic.

The range is 4-6 depending on map size i think. I always save/load to test.

[quote who="Kongdej" reply="4" id="3325589"] Quoting carn112004, reply 3cheapest weapon (probably club) Use a sword for free counter attacks ~ K[/quote] Yes, good idea. I also just remembered that there is a perk that gives added bonus when defending and is rather cheap.

As an addition, that depends on AI stupidity, create 1 unit per army, which uses best shield, cheapest weapon (probably club) and high armor/dodge. Move it in front of the archers, fortify somewhere and always pass. If the AI is stupid enough, it will try to kill this unit first, which should last with fortify, + 8 def and shield bonus quite some time for its price. (Edit: ini for this unit is probably irrelevant, because except for the first fority, it always passes)

As i think Kraxis are the +8 defense under 50% hp with +10 accuracy/+20 dodge fortify ability guys, capitilizing on this could be an option. The way to go would be level 3+ fortress cities with impulse (=act first in combat) and either bows or mage staves + little armor (maybe so that +20 weight perk are enough to keep medium or even light encumberance)+ dodge items (some cloak, some jewels give dodge)+maybe fire/ice damage items + 2-3 dodge boosting perks (especially t

Fall from Heaven 2 (its a mod for Civ 4, but its better than Civ 4 and from the designer Derek/Kael, who did FE; as a caveat the AI is not optimal and it has stacks of doom, but bringing Hell to entire world is fun)

[quote who="attackdrone" reply="5" id="3325096"] Quoting carn112004, reply 2 It already sucked in Civ 1 and it took many iterations (i think some patch Civ 4) to stop. If you can't increase or decrease production turn-by-turn, there is no need to worry about production overrun. In Civilization, the player would have a small incentive to change production to trade / food temporarily then change it back. Fallen Enchantres

I do not understand this. It already sucked in Civ 1 and it took many iterations (i think some patch Civ 4) to stop. Especially its stupid, that one has to check every turn all 1 turn to finish productions, whether they are worth rushbuying. They often are, as often its 25 gildar, which is a great deal as resource production if often well beyond 25 and 1 gildar for 1-2 production is a great deal.

[quote who="ThrakaAndy" reply="9" id="3325065"] Don't say it would take too long for multiplayer, allow me to decide how much time I want to spend playing multiplayer games. [/quote] Thats not the point, the point is how many people would enjoy multiplayer and for how many its very unimportant and what effort would it take for Stardock to make it multiplayer. From the type of game its rather likely that few people would play multiplayer, therefore it likely is a

[quote who="NorsemanViking" reply="4" id="3324816"] You don't need to nerf the game for MP. That's a pretty hard lived myth. Look at games like Civilization 5 and Europa Universalis. No need to change the MP game. [/quote] Its not a myth in case of individually controlled battles involving 2 players taking alternative moves that to have mass appeal a game needs to different. A multiplayer TBS game in which completly alternate moves take place one after

Its one tech to have crystal equipment and crystal mines are not mroe expensive than horsemines and the resource costs are unlike metal items rather low. Maybe for solution it would be enough to include some resource cost for horses and wargs? That would be far simpler than altering game mechanics.

[quote who="Star Adder" reply="55" id="3324803"] IIRC Derek stated that he dropped the pop cost due to issues with the AI draining their settlements of inhabitants. I'm a bit afraid that it will happen with gold cost that they stay broke for ever from trying to spam more pioneers...[/quote] No worry, on high difficulties AI starts with something like 1000-2500 gildar.

[quote who="willie sanderson" reply="3" id="3324768"] I want SPIDER MOUNTS!![/quote] Spider mounts exist, i got once spider from quest and once from recruiting a high level hero. There are also heroes with drake mounts i think.

[quote who="willie sanderson" reply="4" id="3324779"] Quoting carn112004, reply 1Spiders as mounts exist, though only therough recruited heroes and quests. You should consider lucky trait, works great with maul. I do have the lucky trait. [/quote] Now you just need a path of the warrior hero with +30 acc for the army and it could be enough "cheating" to beat insane.

Spiders as mounts exist, though only therough recruited heroes and quests. You should consider lucky trait, works great with maul.

[quote who="BruntFCA" reply="6" id="3324719"] Actually the Dungeons and Dragons RPG has always had such a combat system. All Players and NPC roll for initiative. A "Round" proceeds through the initiative list form highest to lowest (dex, feats and spells can boost your initiative). If you're a Rogue and gain a flanking bonus, it's often best for the high initiative Rogue to delay his action unit after the slow Fighter has taken his turn and hit a targ

And whenever one has enough crystals its a no brainer to put out units with enchanted items. So the balance is best restored by changing number of horses. Furthermore often AIs pay 5 gildar per horse, so its not always a no brainer.

[quote who="ulysses_31" reply="52" id="3324667"] While ideally it would be nice to increase game difficulty with a more competent AI, without altering game mechanics and keeping all options open to the player, that's unfortunately wishful thinking. If we want to play more challenging single player games, that means higher levels and tradeoffs to be made. To avoid excessive penality to player experience, these need to be based on an analysis of both game mechanics and AI weaknesses,

You remember which game it was? HOMM V maybe. If it is coded such way, then the change in initiative order would have to show prior selecting it, otherwise it would be too much guessing, as the actual ini values are not shown.

All those games had wait, because they were one side moves - the other side moves. With a continous ini system one needs to decide, what the effect on ini would be. E.g. unit order unit 1 - enemy 1 - enemy 2 - unit 2 - enemy 3 - unit 3 - unit 1 - enemy 1 - enemy 2 - unit 2 - enemy 3 - unit 3 What should the effect of wait be? How should the list look afterwards?

[quote who="ulysses_31" reply="44" id="3324295"] Screwing balance in favor of the AI: that's exactly the point of higher levels (although I would agree that artificial limit in total # of cities, if confirmed, should be fixed to something not limiting in terms of gameplay) [/quote] The problem is not tilting the field towards the AI, the problem is tilting the field and without realizing altering the game that way. Simply example, in Civ 3-4 on medium difficulty wond

I guess multiplayer is rather low priority. The game is designed to take up to 800 turns with each nation taking turns one after another and each battle involving humans (does AI vs AI use auto resolve?) would include both sides taking 1-20 turns one after another. Assuming that each turn is on average 2 min and each battle is on average 2 min and there are 1 battle per player per 5 turns, a game involving 5 human players running for 400 turns would take 5*800 (time needed for each human to d

[quote who="halmal242" reply="29" id="3324318"] XP traits stack as far I understand how all traits work. So a 15 an 20 would then be 35.[/quote] I just even tested, whether different trainer bonuses stack and with 3 heroes of those 2 having trainer 1 i got 1 xp more than in the same fight with just one of them having trainer 1.

The other suggestions are good, but this one is bad: [quote who="ulysses_31" reply="39" id="3324178"] - on higher levels, AI starts with bonus settler(s): it's more fun to have them start out strong and struggle to catch up rather than perk them up so much that they runaway no matter what you do (ie on insane) [/quote] Reason is that game mechanics limit the number of cities to something like 5-6*number of players. By giving AI bonus pioneers this

Doesnt taking pop cost away from pioneer mean that now nothing except earthquake and death level 5 mana spell reduces pop? That is quite a balance shift, with pop cost population growth was important, sovereigns call and well rather useful, pop growth will be more limited by food than by speed. Shifting it to gildar weakens life and strengthens air and wealthy a lot. Furthermore faction prestige will be a lot less important.