iamaddj

I think Arcane Monolith is amazing. I honestly have a hard time playing without it! (which I admit, may mean its OP, I dunno). That being said I think its one of the best faction traits because it really changes how I play the game, i use a very different strategy when I have AM and its really cool, I wish all factions were like that, changing how your play the whole game. I really feel like the bigger issue they need to fix is that the AI doesn't actually see

[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="10" id="3348790"] Quoting Antermosiph, reply 8 I think the scariest thing I've had so far (with a curve of course) was a full statted up defender with the 42 attack 2h sword. It was scarily powerful in that anyone hitting him in melee he just killed with a counterattack, and he was damned near indestructable since he could use heal. So you're saying the heroes are legendary then?[/quote] I don't think

The problem is mage heroes, especially sovs, have a power curve a lot like an old school D&D wizard. Basically at low levels they are pretty useless in combat, mine tend to sit back and plunk away with a bow, maybe doe some hasting or slowing, etc. At around the time the get fireball, they get to be kind of useful, but honestly they most likely don't have the perks to make fireball that good yet, unless they are a warlock sov. and since combat goes so fast often times fireball isn&#39

I've always thought reap should be 1 HP per man in the unit. So early game reap gives you 3 hp, if nearly everyone is up, and late game it can give you up to 6. Seems like it would make it more useful and keep it more in line with how the + damage abilities work.

I don't know if this is technically a bug... but in my current game I am playing against a team of four AI races and several times now I've had the AI asking me to go to war with them against one of their teammates, or trying to pay me to attack one of their teammates. Now while I guess this could be seen as totally awesome and sneaky faction politics (I can't attack this guy, but I can pay someone else too) it really doesn't seem to fit how a team should work.

I have no idea if its still random, though the description says it is. Either way I agree with you, 1 xp per season is still pretty meaningless for most heroes.

So does anyone else think that the Adventurers Guild is pretty useless? I mean a 25% chance to get 1 xp a season... really? Whats the point? I mean I often put heroes in the same city as it just because I have nothing else to do with them, but its not like the guild really does anything for them. I would really like to see this building get a bit of a buff to make it worthwhile and cool.

I wish there was an option when starting a new game to just turn off water. It would be cool to play a big open map (in the middle of the continent if you need a rationalization). With only mountians breaking things up.

[quote who="jutetrea" reply="14" id="3345280"]Here's an idea - once that tipping point is reached and the game can tell its toast. A mega hero arises and unites the opposing nations - both empire and kingdom For the next X turns he and his band are traveling to super spiffy mountain to do something heroic Upon success the hero and all surviving (some could heroically die) sidekicks get more powerful If not stopped, for the next Y turns he brings the thing he

[quote who="Schweiz" reply="17" id="3345746"]Despite being a turn based game. They're a lot faster than an unmounted soldier, making them harder to track and hit with a bow or magical staff bolt.[/quote] But that's not really true in either real life or in how the game works. Yes, mounted units are faster than units on foot and that's already reflected in the game, they get bonuses to movement and initiative, that's already a huge bonus. But mounted unit

One thing I have never understood, why do mounted units get a bonus doge vs. ranged attacks? It doesn't really make any sense, realistically they should be taking penalties to doge vs. ranged attacks or even just to doge in general. Bigger target = easier to hit.

[quote who="jutetrea" reply="14" id="3345280"]Some better way to finalize/kill a civ - needing to clear each individual city is just too much drudgery.[/quote] Well you can force the AI to surrender to you. On the normal setting they will pretty much do this when they have one city left (I don't know if they have to have most of their units killed also or what). You get control of their Sov. and all their cities, units, champs, etc. are destroyed. It basically helps speed up end g

[quote who="DsRaider" reply="11" id="3345262"] Part of the problem is that the tech for Alliances is so late. I think in general AIs need to go for sweet and short wars, and really avoid prolonged ones. [/quote] Speaking to that, does anyone know if the AI is scripted to act differently when its at war or at peace? I ask, because I wonder if those times when the AI is at war with me even though I have no idea where the AI even is and we never see each other units (which

I agree totally with you. Sovs and even champions run by the AI are totally random, make no sense are are pretty laughable in combat because of this. I've thought about having a standard script for them also and if that would help, but then you run into the issue of player made sov's. that the AI can use. I think the best option is probeblly to have a number of paths, maybe one or two per profession. Basically this would mean that when the AI first gets the opti

I've noticed the same thing. Whats even weirder is that they often don't even have a mount equipped. The only thing I could think of is that maybe when they surrender they get the gear from all the champs they had?

I agree with a good many of your points here. I think the real issue is how damage vs armor scales. Basically as I under stand it a units attack damage is attack value (weapon + any bonuses) times number of models in the unit. So a unit of 3 armed with spears (attack 6 I think?) does 18 damage a hit (modified by some random factor I don't really under stand.) Meanwhile a units defense is simple the defense of any member of the group, so a unit wearing all leather ha

Honestly at this point I'd almost rather they just take horses and wargs out of the game as a resource. While making them a cap seems like fair option, it seems like really it would have a small effect. Any good sized kingdom would still have enough of a cap to field an army of two, which is all most players make anyway, you'd still have no reason to build non-mounted units over mounted units, all it seems like it would really do is hurt the AI (since they build the big armies anyway)

[quote who="Lord Micheal" reply="8" id="3345090"]I think what contributes to this problem more than anything is the behavior of the AI factions towards each other. As long as this game remains a "every man for himself" attitude, nothing will change. If Factions were able to forge alliances early in the game then the mid-to-late might be more interesting.[/quote] I'm actually kind of trying this out in a game I just started. I've put the AI factions into to teams

[quote who="Azunai_" reply="2" id="3345032"] i agree that the late game has a tendency of getting boring. i don't really know a good solution, and i don't remember a 4x game that didn't suffer the "boring late game" syndrome. once the early intense part of the game is over and you established a strong base, the snowballing starts and exponential growth ruins late game balance. AI either can't keep up or (on higher difficulty settings) plays by a different rule set (handi

So while I really love this game, it does seem to have one major major flaw. All my games go pretty similarly. Early game is a tense struggle to survive, my sov and a small band fight some often tense battles with wandering mobs, its hard and fun, building a second and third city are often major milestones, a new tech unlock can change everything for me! Then comes mid-game I have a solid base, a good army or two, I can clear out some of the powerful lairs, and this phase is normally dominate

I think a good change would be for every profession to give your sov. a unique ability/spell that they can use. Some already do this and they tend to be the coolest/most useful professions (with the exception of I guess bandit lord).

[quote who="Daynarr" reply="50" id="3344876"]Personally, I'd like encumbrance back. Improve it, make it more gradual, have more impact but definitely back. [/quote] Honestly, whatever we may think, I would assume at this point, since they have taken away encumbrance, and it seems to be part of their plan to do so, that its not going to come back. [quote who="mqpiffle" reply="35" id="3344782"]I've been thinking this myself. Armor pieces are fun in some ga

[quote who="DsRaider" reply="29" id="3344760"]I agree that the current system is alright, although very buggy and unfinished. It does make unit design easier and upgrading much harder for the AI to screw up.[/quote] I mean clearly it is unfinished and buggy, but its a beta, i don't think anyone can suggest that Stardock is going to leave it how it is, so i feel like complaining about the messed up traits at least it a bit of wasted breath, im sure they know about the issue and are

I'm finding that I really like the new system. It does simplify things a lot, and you can either like that or hate it. The main thing is it seems to be easier on the AI, at least thats how it looks to me, since it was really easy for me to make a unit that had great amour and stuff, but still had had high initiative, using muscle or strength, picking a warg or a horse, etc. I could min/max really well, but the AI can't and often seemed to have units with just terrible initiative, this