[quote who="bpalczewski" reply="5" id="3281601"] Since this is persistent problem and no reporting or begging ever got any response from devs, you can safely presume that this problem will never be fixed. [/quote] Or maybe they are still thinking about it and have not decided how they can approach the problem?
[quote who="ProteusJN" reply="1" id="3281356"]The only solution that I can think of at the moment is, to refrain from clicking tiles too far away (that is, not in direct distance, but in distance that your unit would travel, if you manually would select the path) and instead divide longer travels into lots of shorter legs[/quote] I think that that would prevent efficient use of movement points.
If you have spell leech on a unit with enough initiative, you can build up a lot of mana in a single battle. Air elementals, fell dragons and a few others love casting 1 turn spells... Stinking Mud can help here, and so can defensive abilities (for when things go wrong. I do not know how much mana you can suck out of a dragon, but it's over 9000. Mind you, that would be really boring.
I have been having a problem, understanding what I am asking my units to do. One solution here is to save and then reload if they do not do what I expected them to do. But that is tedious and slow, and sometimes save and reload makes things happen (like scheduled movement) that I might want to make happen differently. Meanwhile, I have pioneers running into dragons, and... in one case I clicked on a square to move to, and my unit ran exactly
So... I have this town being threatened by an obsidian golem, I cloud walk my sovereign's army in to tackle it, but I thought I had a move left and I do not, and when I advanced to the next turn, it attacks my town which has only one single monk unit defending it. 7x3 attack, 24-ish total health, that sort of thing... So, hit auto-resolve, hit ok, look to build a pioneer to start rebuilding the town... which is still standing? The monk (albeit, wit
The spell that rejuvenates land has a (significant) cost. Perhaps snaking should also have a cost? If you make the production cost of the improvement be proportional to the square of the perimeter divided by the area of the city, I think you can pick a multiplier that gives you about the same current production cost for an unsnake-like city and give players a strategic choice to make when thinking about snaking...
On a related note, I have found passive-aggressive victory rather easy: do not declare war, trounce krax when he declares war, give peace when it is offered, ally with him, then let him deal with the other AIs... Actually, it might not be fair to call that game a win, it crashed before it ended and I had way too much of a power advantage to bother starting it up again.
When my mage path champion crits, I sometimes seem to get almost 10x damage -- I think this is because of damage reduction mechanics combined with +250% critical hit damage on a weapon.
The starting sovereigns are your opponents, so if they optimized those then beginning players would have a tougher time (or have to turn the AI down which ruins the fun). Also, any strategy that involves avoiding conflict for hundreds of turns while you build strength is both world and ai dependent. Perhaps Stardock should create a LUA option for strategic and tactical decision making for NPCs?
I have tried beast lord, and it is nice (especially when compared to having the ability to summon a single level 0 shadow warg), but it does have some significant downsides. First, the one use per 10 turns thing can be a significant problem in some contexts. If this ability does need to be balanced, I think I would do so by playing with this number. Second, beast units have significant weaknesses and if you buff them you need to pay mana upk
I have not played a beastlord, but maybe there should be a cap based on the sovereign's level? Examples of this concept could include "total number of tamed beasts cannot exceed the sovereign's level" or "cannot exceed 1 plus half the sovereign's level" or "total number of beast levels cannot exceed (sovereign's level) * (sovereign's level + 1) / 2 or... whatever... Presumably the right way to pick the rule would involve trying different suggestions and see
[quote who="NanakoAC" reply="11" id="3276440"]three[/quote] You fight three dragons, but you "only" get to keep one dragon.
[quote who="dihir" reply="40" id="3276431"]Personally, I think the +3 hp/kill could use a level up bonus. I am not sure how fast it should level up though.[/quote] Actually, after thinking about this, I think I was wrong. I believe that traits should not be considered in isolation, but in synergies. And, I feel that the Wraith racial trait has a synergy with Empire's Death Magic. It gives the death magic sovereign low level survivability and favors a "s
All files verified successfully -- nothing was wrong there.
Ok, I am running "verify integrity of game cache" (since I got FE through Steam) I hope this fixes it...
Personally, I think the +3 hp/kill could use a level up bonus. I am not sure how fast it should level up though.
I often prefer 6x metacritic scored games over 8x and sometimes even 9x games. Some of that is genre, and most of it is that I often have different criteria than the reviewers. When I read metacritic, I tend to read a low rating review and a high rating review. If I do not care about the negative issues raised in the low rating review and if I like some issues raised in either review I will probably buy that game... Also, when I buy a
When you go into unit design, you can edit them and you have a gender option.
If I understand the question properly, you are asking: "If you have a single unit that can survive long enough to kill three dragons, what use would you have for another powerful unit"? I hope you noticed that specializing in powerful units tends to reduce the number of armies you can field, compared to specializing in growth? From that perspective, do you notice any balancing elements here? If not, perhaps it's worth pointing out that d
[quote who="kwm1800" reply="17" id="3276141"]Beastlord is not overpowered. If we are talking about overpowered, we have to deal with this armorer and dodge/armor stacking first because those are far more game-breaking than everything else.[/quote] I think the game is designed so that if you can survive to late game you are overpowered. The ending conditions look like they were designed to be difficult in a race-to-the-win situation (midway through one research tree).
I am wondering if the non AI bonuses that the sovereigns get have their logic reversed between easy and hard games? I tried some easy games when I was learning the concepts and while the AI's building efforts were pointless, an enemy sovereign I met was level 5 within a few turns of the beginning of the game.
My first encounter with a chambercoil ended before I could move -- my entire army went up in flames. So an impulsive caster with an opening resist fire spell might be a good thing. Also if you can turn the ground to mud, you get a lot of control against fast and aggressive opponents. Another approach is to ignore it, and suffer any city loss while you build up your strength. If you have strategic spells you can slowly kill it without ever engagi
I have played several games now, and in none of them has military been my primary focus. My initial "learn how to play" games were civilization based (zergs ftw!) but I went for the quest ending -- storm dragon camps made this easy). And then I played a large random game with a mage sovereign (where I cloned Pourpupine and tweaked a few things), and in that one, I had no champions and a small and useless army, and once I learned how to play in that style... nothing has a chanc
Thank you for the background on offer surrender -- I am glad that I stuck with demanding surrender from defeated opponents. Meanwhile, I do not even see enemy AIs dealing with monsters in their lands, and I rarely see any damage to their efforts from monsters. On the positive side, this issue has made my sovereign's level shoot through the roof in my current random game (a large, random game with military and quest victory conditions, where apparently there were no champions
Under treaty terms, I have the option of "offer surrender" but the text there is wonderfully ambiguous about whose surrender is being offered. Is this a gentle way of suggesting to my (city-less AI) opponent now might be a good time to surrender? Or is this end of game for me?