animageous

[quote who="ampoliros5" reply="6" id="3345636"]One way to balance road building is to make building a road in one square take the whole turn (and possibly also costing a gold or 2). Building 3 road segments in one turn is rather silly.[/quote] Or more! Later after I got horses I mounted my scout on a horse. A horse! I was spamming roads like there was no tomorrow. It's great how building a road doesn't even slow you down. If the Romans had had some of that Mancer blood,

[quote who="Takao21" reply="3" id="3345460"]I think of it as being kind of like public option, which would affect public unrest. You make peace with the a close by kingdom and your population breaths a little easier. Make war with an opposing faction and the public is filled with righteous fury. Making war has political advantages and disadvantages and I believe public unrest can be a great way to integrate political diplomacy with the rest of the game. [/quote]<

[quote who="Schweiz" reply="2" id="3345387"] Was building roads from Legacy of Serrane or Mancer Blood? I usually play with both so I can't remember. Though it doesn't seem over powered to me, roads are basically their special unit. Compared to some of the other crazy things you can do with blood traits. Or just outright better performance in battle from two equally equipped and lead forces.[/quote] Also, they get +1 moves. It's kind of silly when compared to my favo

[quote who="Tormodino" reply="12" id="3345414"]I think, as a rule, all regular units should be able to counterattack. Perhaps not at full strength, but being "locked in combat" should be a thing.[/quote] This idea of initiating a "fight" rather than merely attacking is a tempting one, but it would have to be balanced out somehow. Otherwise high-initiative units would be punished because attacking wouldn't be all that much better than defending. However, this kind of counter-attack

[quote who="vanderbilt_grad" reply="4" id="3345399"]I'm going to go on a limb and guess that one reason for the change was the fact that the xp gain traits can be chosen and aren't random anymore. They clearly are trying to respond to board sentament by altering the trees and slightly increasing the XP. That said I don't think that they've gone far enough.[/quote] I don't like the XP gain traits. They should be removed entirely, because they are about j

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/105034567/Pictures/TooManyParticles.png Picture speaks for itself. Regeneration particle effects appearing everywhere - need to be nerfed! No, but seriously, they are slowing down my graphics processor. I had to dispel the effect on all my units because every turn a particle cloud would spawn wherever my enchanted units had been standing at the end of the previ

[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 think this is crucial and almost single-handedly might prevent the "Oh, I guess I'll take this stack of doom and wipe

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3xv4i10txryu1a6/WildlandExtension.png Surely this can't be legal. I don't have a building permit for unconquered wildlands teeming with beasts! My town's builders must be the ballsiest guys in Elemental. No, but seriously, I don't think I should be allowed to put buildings in unconquered wildlands. It's not very realistic that my people, already terrified

[quote who="sharpxe" reply="12" id="3345312"]some upkeep cost shoud balance this, like 0.06 horse turn per horse used (0.36 per company) (3 company will drain over 1 horse per turn, exact value can be balanced, but this will return infantry units to game, player\AI simply wont be able to maintain many mounted units.[/quote] Oh, an upkeep cost, I like this. Good suggestion! Like many things, upkeep costs stop spamming. [e digicons]k1[/e]

I have a lot of problems with the "blood" traits. I like the distinction they create but think a lot of them are either unpolished or just plain underpowered. Compare Quendarian blood giving you a nearly useless elemental resistance (and weakness!) to the Mancer ability to BUILD ROADS, currently the most overpowered ability that exists, in my opinion. Top the road-building off with +1 accuracy per level and bam! unbalanced bloods. I agree with the unpolished-ness of some of th

This sounds like a plausible solution to one of the issues I have currently, that of there being no reason not to spam mounted units always and forever. [e digicons]k1[/e]

[quote who="Stupidity10" reply="2" id="3345058"]As the game stands you really cant afford to level useless heroes.[/quote] If I had a nickel for every time people brought up the difficulty of leveling champions in LH, I would have a nickel for every post in this forum.

I don't know if this is necessarily the way to go about it. There are a lot of other combat fixes that are more appealing and this problem would be less of an issue if these other changes that more directly address the current flaws of combat were to be implemented.

[quote who="sharpxe" reply="5" id="3345318"]it just broken, magic staffs shoud deal constant damage agains most enemy types, but it is not.[/quote] Is it broken? I have noticed my ice mages dealing less damage against enemies with cold resistance or more against enemies with things like Quendar blood (-50% cold resist), but they seemed to be dealing consistent damage to everything else. I'm pretty sure it's working as intended, though maybe check the enemies' traits and eq

1) has been spammed to death on this forum. This is basically universally agreed upon already. 3) I like, it reminds me of bonus feats that Fighters get in D&D. The idea is that every few levels (not every level - that's too much) you get a bonus "feat" or trait, but this bonus trait comes from some diminished pool of traits which depend entirely on your chosen path/the traits you've taken so far. That way, you're still gaining that nice little bonus ability every few

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="3" id="3345308"]1. is how it works already.[/quote] Is it? I was under the impression that your guys either all hit or all missed, with some random damage swing. Does that mean when a unit "dodges" an attack, it has successfully evaded every attacker that was aiming at it? And that the damage assigned when you successfully attack is modified by "how many" of your units hit?

I think what you're referring to here is some sort of extended "war weariness" mechanic wherein good diplomatic ties lower it and poor relations (and/or war) increase it. It's a good idea, but the main issue is that at the moment the diplomacy is a bit too limited for this kind of implementation. Here's a specific objection to this kind of mechanic at the moment: AI gets high power score. You have lower power score, on account of not being a military-focused empire. AI rel

[quote who="Zarkis" reply="3" id="3345075"]I agree that they should be made considerably more rare. I am swimming in horses and wargs and so is the AI.[/quote] Yeah. Again, compare to crystal, which you can't get enough of. I mean, in my current game, I have 4 crystal quarries and still a severe shortage of crystals, whereas I have exactly *one* stables (not even a ranch) and I have never wanted for horses yet. [quote who="Xerberus86" reply="7" id="3345138"]i know this thr

I am of the opinion that either the number of horses/wargs you get per turn should be decreased or their cost for trained units should be increased. Currently, if you build even a single stables, you will have so many horses that by turn 100 you won't even care anymore about your horse number (and you can trade them to AI without a source of horses for absurd amounts of money). No other resource is like this - crystal is in dire supply almost all the time, and is exceedingly hard to get i

[quote who="Azunai_" reply="3" id="3344873"]by that time, trained armies are a lot more powerful than champions[/quote]\ Alas that this is how the game should end up, that your mighty heroes get so outclassed by your normal units in the lategame that they're not even worth considering!

[quote who="ogredpowell" reply="39" id="3344747"]BTW great for all the hard work Stardock. This game is shaping up to be a life-ruiner. [/quote] This. I think it's nearly there, actually. Just a few more fixes and it will be unstoppable!

[quote who="FuzzyGold" reply="6" id="3344702"]Present road building by a Commander is terrible micro management. You have to repeatedly move and click Road. Takes forever. Also takes forever to get the Road Building trait. If I'm going to move a pioneer into position to settle a city why not let it build a road at the same time?[/quote] You misunderstand. I'm not saying that the road building trait is any better. It's absurd that if you're

[quote who="Sanati" reply="4" id="3344298"]I saw somebody report a champion getting cracked skull and dying, not sure if the two were related. They didn't get knocked out or escape, they just died and stayed dead. It sounds like a bug, but maybe if they hit -1 exp they disappear.[/quote] The realm of negative experience must be a scary place indeed. It's basically saying: "Wow, you're not even good enough to be level 1. LEVEL ONE. You don't even deserve to live, get ou

[quote]3: One could do a lot of shenagians with versions of the Altar "Rush" mechanic. For example, one could add a "taunt" mechnanic that makes neighbouring AI units prioritize the taunting unit while attacking, and also gives a new move. There are skills one doesnt use because one would rather attack anyway, and making fairly weak skills not cost the turn could be a great way to buff these skills. Similiarly, some races could perhaps get a "rush" skill that is just an attack and then adds a

[quote who="Grogtank" reply="36" id="3344273"]I am totally for anything done manually by the player. I would favor both a setup phase and the inclusion of a player defined army formation for each army used as the default auto placement. Anything else is second rate.[/quote] While I see your points, I still disagree with the idea that manual setup is the best alternative. Especially when I think about manually placing each and every defender in a city attack, where I can have up to 14