animageous

[quote who="petrasvu" reply="6" id="3347017"]I am also not happy about city sieges. They sould have much more defence as a city. In middle ages taking a city ussualy fortified was always a costly thing to do. It required more numbesr as an atacked and lots of preparation and even then it always was a costly atack. Cities should have much more archers than they have now and with much better bows and magic staves.[/quote] This has always bugged me. It makes so much more sense to have yo

My main issue with the removal of encumbrance is still the fact that you have the "Strength" and "Muscle" traits, both with completely identical effects, but one costing 8 more labor than the other. How does that even make any sense?

[quote who="joeball123" reply="2" id="3347446"]Did any of those last three armies contain a mirror elemental, or anything else with a damage reflection ability? Another post mentioned that it seemed like the Mirror Elemental's damage reflection ability worked on both the tactical and the strategic level, though I cannot say for certain either way.[/quote] And we have people complaining that mirror elementals are weak, or useless. Ha! Clearly, they exist to dissuade your enemy from

I engaged in a battle against some earth elemental army with a Henchman, Maussolos, and some trained units. During the course of the battle, some of my trained units and my henchmen were reduced to zero hit points, though Maussolos pulled through. Imagine my surprise, then, when after the battle I found my remaining army stack (including Maussolos) recuperating in a nearby town, with the Henchman incapacitated. I was under the impression that if you entered a battle with two or more h

[quote]Every time I got a stack's hp low enough, they would cease to approach and instead pull distance. Against a ranged unit. All I had to do was keep focusing groups until they stopped advancing. No one even attacked me in melee. And no, there were no healers on the field, or any way for the enemy to recuperate. The *only* way for them to win would have been to mob me - which is what they should have done, but didn't.[/quote] The weird thing is, ok, I understand the idea be

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="26" id="3347190"]Even if you give him all that, he is still much worse at defending from defense compared to other heroes. So I really don't see your point. If I wanted a strong melee character I would never pick a monster champion because they are literally unable to fill up 5 of the most important defensive equipment slots. And they also can't equip mounts, adding insult to injury.[/quote] I was kind of hoping when I got Ascian that I would be

[quote who="salikgyula" reply="37" id="3347030"]- 4 knights of asok made me bankrupt. they got 4.5 gold wages/unit and are worst than my first build horse unit... [/quote] You fell for the old "these units are really hard to get and come along super late in the tech tree, so they're probably really, really good" trick. Alas, no, Knights of Asok are terrible and should never be recruited. They are indeed worse than a horse unit you can build about 200 turns earlier

[quote who="Foefaller" reply="15" id="3346592"] 'Course, if you split all the traits between abilites/passives and stat bonuses and gave skill points that can only be used for one or the other, you could get a similar result.[/quote] Skill points or something equivalent have been suggested a lot on this forum, I believe, and I think they're a pretty good idea. Similar to D&D, our champions should get points to spend on their base stats (attack, defense, health, spell power

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="4" id="3346418"] While I agree that this should be possible, I am for having this as a separate treaty that has the prerequisite of Ally status.[/quote] Oh, yes, I would love to see that implemented as a Diplomatic option, too. But with the current shallowness of diplomatic interaction and the fact that Alliances is really, really far down the tech tree for some reason, I don't know how much of an effect such a change would have. I mainl

[quote who="Wizard1200" reply="11" id="3346329"]I think the scaling is a huge problem in the game design and it would help if the spells scale only with the abilities of the hero. The shards should give the player different kinds of mana (air mana, earth mana, ...), like in Disciples, and a player should be able to convert mana at a rate of 2 : 1.[/quote] This is a nice idea, but it seems like a sort of large change/small reward kind of balancing when there are much bigger fish to fry

[quote who="SBFMadDjinn" reply="42" id="3346432"]Keeping in mind that not every single weapon type needs to work vs. mounted and vice versa. I'd be ok if spears are the pro anti-mounted units while maces are the pro anti-infantry units. Swords get counter attacks (vs. anything but spears and special attacks) and axes get splash/multi-target hits.[/quote] This is kind of all I meant. I just want SOMETHING to be good against mounts so I have some justification for not ma

[quote who="sxyz123" reply="38" id="3346342"]- give maces a chance to dismount. Currently all mounted units are 100% immune to prone, and currently everything is mounted by mid game, denying maces a chance to use their passive effect. If dismounted, unit should suffers large initiative penalty until next turn, in addition to being prone and losing mount for remainder of battle.[/quote] Actually, this is a really fantastic idea. I think it would help balance out mounted uni

[quote who="Lokitako" reply="21" id="3346083"]dditional note. To help develop heroes without the copy-paste template feeling, you could add some exclusive talents. I pick -10% mana cost for spells OR -1 casting time? This would promote specialization and make heroes uniques even amongst the same class.[/quote] I think you're on to something here. Exclusive talents like that certainly do add something to the uniqueness of a given hero. Having to choose between -10% mana cost and -1

[quote]When all I had to do was cast a heal before combat ended to save a unit, or made a dumb mistake and my Sov got no XP.[/quote] Well, that's kind of your own fault, isn't it? These things happen. It's not the biggest disaster ever, and you can easily recover and move on. I don't think this kind of feature is necessary at all. It would add a (in my opinion) completely pointless functionality to combat. If you care that much, just reload the game - I really thi

I agree. [e digicons]k1[/e] Then again, teams and alliances need lots of love anyways. Everything always ends in war.

[quote who="OliverFA_306" reply="7" id="3346308"] Quoting Alstein, reply 5 Spell tiers should power up certain spells. I think that's the key. A level 5 water caster should cast level 1 spells at a much higher efficiency (ideally 5 times). You can also have other traits that make the spell more powerful, but element proficiency should matter.[/quote] Out of everything on here, this. I agree with this. Super adept level 500 mages still cast level

Crossbows? This game has crossbows? You mean those useless things with really large negative initiative modifiers? All of these points you've made about combat have been talked about repeatedly on this forum. The one I think is most in need of improvement is the formations you have in battles.

[quote who="stein220" reply="29" id="3346099"]it could/should also take considerably longer to train cavalry (increase their production cost?). I think that would be somewhat realistic and cut down on the availability of mounts using existing game mechanics (in addition to reducing the number of mounts from resource nodes, which I support).[/quote] This is another thing that bugs me. Training up a cavalry squad takes a comparable time to an infantry squad. Now, this just doesn&#

I actually really like the city growth system. I have no issues with the way it is currently, and I never look at a city and say: "Wow, I think it's unreasonable that that city's growth rate is so low." I do think as things stand it's extremely difficult to get a city to level 5, but I'm fairly certain that's intentional. Getting to level 5 is a major achievement, and should be treated as such.

[quote who="DsRaider" reply="16" id="3345755"] I always thought the best answer to giving player controlled monsters scaling defense would be a serious of upgradeable items. Thus instead of armor they would get a belt or mark that is unlocked by the same tech and acts like armor without the visual component. It would only be useable by monsters and would keep them relevant all game. [/quote] This would be similar to the outfitting of the Dog in Dragon Age: Origins (yes, I k

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="11" id="3345806"] It's not necessarily making it AI friendly, as their isn't a good solution to the how to use the boats problem. Loading troops into boats is tedious, and having the units magically turn into boats seems funny. The boats with the AI is not really the problem, it's more on how to implement the passage with boats, and so far the devs don't like the options that are currently available.[/quote] I agree with what you&#

[quote who="Schweiz" reply="10" id="3345731"]Building the road should cost at least 1Mv Point. Or even 2Mv Points. Mancer inbuilt +1 Mv, would then let them move forward one square, build a road, then end that units turn. On a horse they would still be limited. Build Move Build (5), Move Build Move (4), allowing them to only cover 2 tiles a turn when mounted.[/quote] That's my point though, at the moment, this isn't the case. As the blood traits stand, they are stupidly unbala

The traits are a little unbalanced inherently, I think. Compare to Invincible - I generally take a defender champion, load him down with initiative-reducing equipment, and then send him into the middle of the enemy army with "Invincible" activated. He tanks like the entire enemy army for several rounds. That's how you beat dragons!

Main issue with water that I can see is that (a), every map is a giant Pangaean continent, and (b), city spots can't be planned and are chosen based on what the random map generator offers you. You can't in any way be guaranteed a settleable city spot next to the water, making sea units a sometimes thing at best.

[quote who="ampoliros5" reply="14" id="3345630"]Actually, ideally each race including playable races should have their own General tab. Replace the word General with the name of the race. I don't know about anybody else, but the only General perk I ever take is Potential 1. I might have taken Quick as an experiment once, but don't anymore. The General tab could use this race specific spicing up - make the perks useful.[/quote] Yes! Race-specific base up