SBFMadDjinn

yup, it's not very good for most hero types. Defenders get chain for free and plate isn't too hard to get (and in the correct path as well). So they get a big boost to early game armour. Most other hero types might as well sell the armour, or save it for the next hero if they are defenders.

yeah, there's no need to give upkeep costs a whack when an easy to do solution is right in front of you. Start with that, and then move to more complicated items if it's not helping. sxyz123 has a couple idea's that are complimentary to my list, but a few might not work too well: [quote who="sxyz123" reply="38" id="3346342"] - give mounted melee a bonus for flanking an enemy adjacent to a friendly infantry unit. &nbsp

got you beat there: An AI dropped this sweet 0/0/0 city right in the middle of settlable spots:

My recent experience (.8 build) is that I also miss encumbrance. It looks like it was taken out, but everything that it was previously balancing didn't get properly balanced with the change (especially traits that used to give the encumbrance and mounts). I can get with the change to remove encumbrance, but a lot more of the game needs to be balanced. As per heros - I think all heros should automatically gain an anti-swarm bonus. I

[quote who="halmal242" reply="24" id="3345986"] The problem comes from the immersion factor in that horses are alive whereas rocks aren't. You can store rocks forever.[/quote] You can also breed horses forever.

nope. If anything, the spell tiers should be a requirement to get access to more spells (even ones from the magic tree or other parts of the mage traits). Having the spells auto-unlock removes choices, which just forces more people to play in a narrower way. But flipping it around makes choices more important as needing level 3 fire to unlock fireballs and the annointed by fire spell means that you're taking one less 'booster' choice. So yo

I agree with the thought line of reducing the output down to .25/stable and bringing back the 2nd level stable (to .5), but put it deep in the tech tree. Changing it to a Civ 5 style (capped output) for a single resource doesn't work, given that all other resources in the game are built up over time so we should keep to that style. It also opens up many other issues (lack of the resources/etc) that would need work, but for a single resource it doesn't make

[quote who="jutetrea" reply="13" id="3345907"] Doh, I get it now - was completely on a different track. Your change is smaller, more elegant and probably easier to implement. Devil's advocate: I don't think a non-recruitable/non-summonable unit should be able to be increased. - i.e. a black widow acquired through beastlord should not be able to increase group size, while a Resoln/hundred eyes faction should be able to increase.&

Empire side summoners do just fine as well. The single skelly is 'menh' but at least you can quickly toss it in front of some unit that might hurt you a lot (Ie, cheap 1 turn meatshield). It wouldn't hurt if this mage trait got boosted beyond just having the single skeleton. Being able to drop 9 skeletons (and they have random gear - mixed sword/shield, spear, axe combo) between you and the enemy is very nice. Toss in the Imp and you get

It's not a bad idea, but getting the right balance will be a bit harder in the mid-power units. It may even start forcing player choices to favour one unit type over another, which would be bad. - for the following I'm assuming that we aren't talking about increasing the 'size' of an army above the 9 slots currently used for armies, but rather a 2ndary 'cap' to what can go into those slots. IE, it's pretty easy to say a Sovereign/hero unit

and what do you need to wear the champions armor? It's magical and all, but more powerful than anything else.

The only hero I'd find near 'useless' would be the ogre champion. He can use a shield and weapon, but that's it. Raza is pretty nice and a decent leveler. Use of Raza -> Coalstone all enemy units. Archers/lancers with bonuses vs. wounded units slaughter everything. next army.

[quote who="thadianaphena" reply="5" id="3340003"] I would also prefer for wandering AI monsters to join up like this. I would also like AI to have several monster factions who fight each other to gain levels.[/quote] Wandering monsters do hook up like this. I've seen odd combinations appear before that could only be due to small groups spawned from camps merging into a larger group.

yeah, somehow allowing that hero type unit to attached to an army seems bad. I've seen him hook up with groups bigger that I'd want to take on already. Made for some bad mojo whenever he came around.

the biggest annoyance for outposts is the sheer production cost. 500+ production for a consulate that only gives +1 growth? Very poor balance for production->benefit.

every single time... :( I've taken to having my first champion walking with the army behind my sovereign (alone or with a scout), and after the inevitable misses in tacticall combat for the 1-1 fight, the army roflstomps Bacco.

You have to keep in mind that a lot of those spells are great in combination with troops that gain +25% vs. wounded units. Even 1 point of damage = get the bonus. Ofc, Storm actually sucks. It's not targettable (would be more useful if it was) and it's only a one time strike. It could be boosted by either allowing targetting, or having the spell hit a random target every other turn for X turns (maybe 1/air shard?) T

it seems fine as is. My current LP is with an Urxen beastlord. You can either be lucky, or very unlucky. It took me 4 attempts to get 2 cave bears (2 tries each at 20-ish%). But that's life. Always bring meat (scouts work) and if it fails, you don't really lose much. Leave the cool stuff with another champion. The familiar/Imp being able to use beastlord tame seems the broken part. If you only can cast i

actually, that wouldn't be a bad idea. The upgrade path part might be troublesome, but the base idea of letting us just design units would be great. It would mean that you could design units for factions that you didn't play as, or make units 'general' for all factions to use.

Yup, I've seen this as well. I think it was the same level sword combo, so it might just be the one hero.

[quote who="Daynarr" reply="22" id="3337301"] Ok, that stands but LH uses multithreading for AI process so AI 'thinks' while you do your turn. It already uses some of computing in current system and I seriously doubt it would need significantly more for the one proposed.[/quote] I wouldn't say 'significantly' either, but was mainly pointing out that the reasoning behind the suggestion was player only related.

[quote who="Sanati" reply="19" id="3337185"] Quoting SBFMadDjinn, reply 17So yeah, there's a computing cost (AIs+you making upgrade choices/calculations) and a dev cost (teaching the AI to do it well). I don't understand your point. It already "computes cost" when you use the current upgrades or build a new unit. There's probably more computation going on right now when it tries to decide what weapon or armor is an "upgrade" for the unit.[/quote] &nb

[quote who="NanakoAC" reply="7" id="3337047"] Quoting schattenjaeger, reply 5 The problem with that, though (aside from suspension of disbelief) is computing cost. Every custom transition would also have a custom cost associated with it (the difference between unit type x and unit type y, plus probably some gildar to cover "retraining"). um, no ? This is a simple one-time cost.Which a player will, at most, do once every few minutes.&nb

The longer range is better as bandits, the primary users, can soften up armies before engaging. I've never lost anyone to a volley of knives though. Maybe a weak scout, but that's it.

You can make Iru Elixers in conclaves once you get the correct building in place (the one after the alchemist). Ofc, I couldn't actually construct that building in a recent game, so it might be bugged (or something else went wrong).