Can you be careful with releasing too many fixes if the saved games are incompatible between releases? I remember that some of the beta releases caused problems with old saved games, but that doesn't matter so much when you have a beta release. I don't know if this will be a problem, but because Steam automatically upgrades to the latest version, it is something to take into account.
Well it's nice to know that someone still has the old pioneer spirit! And it's not as if Procipinee had any other way of creating Outposts... well apart from Arcane Monoliths that is. Actually I'm thinking that that might be one of the reasons for all the pioneers: that every time the pioneer would normally create an outpost, the Arcane Monolith spell is used instead. I'm thinking the solution should be to have a maximum number of pioneers that the AI can have
How about that it takes a while to raze a city? Say every turn there are -20 population and 1 building destroyed until there are 0 population and 0 buildings, when the city is completely destroyed. During this time there are no city defenders (unless regular troops are there) and no zone of influence.
A horse shortage could create interesting ways to overcome it. For example there could be a horse-lord faction that gets +1 horses/turn. This would give them an all-horse army if they wanted it and opportunities for trading with other players. Or there could be quests with the reward of a number of horses (eg 30), or a new horse resource, at the end of it. Or there could be a research option to increase horse numbers, or a building for the same thing. Or a magic spell ...
Poor game developers: do something and get criticised; fix it and get criticised for fixing it. Wasn't the whole point to prevent the use of horses for all your troops?
What about going the other way and splitting experience with troops as well? So for example in winning a battle you might get 100XP total: so a champion plus 1 troop would get 50 each, the same as 2 champions, but 8 groups would only get 12XP each. Obviously you would probably have to increase the experience due from each fight from what it is currently, but it would make moving around with lower numbers more attractive compared to the current system of creating mega-stacks all the time.
[quote who="animageous" reply="2" id="3351293"] If you had a third warlord, you could build trained units as a source of income - who needs markets when your paid mercenaries instead pay you? I think you should go make a game with a bunch of custom factions, each of which are headed by a Warlord Sovereign. Who knows, maybe you could even get your troop upkeep costs down to -200%, where they are paying YOU twice what you used to pay them for the privilege of fighting and
So I was playing [LH, version 0.85] a warlord (-50% troop costs) and I forced Warlord Verga to surrender. Suddenly my troops were free! Now if only there were a third warlord in this game ...
Even with all the changes in the patch, mounted troops will be superior to unmounted troops. Your top stacks will all be mounted if you can afford it just because they can get around the map faster. If I'm using archers or mages, they will be mounted just so they do not slow the rest of the stack on the map, not for any tactical gain when fighting. Banning them from city fights places a real drawback to any type of mounted troop. Plus (OK this is the real concern!) they do look st
I think that longer term, fighting in towns should be revamped so that you have to knock over walls to get to the defenders. However for a short term fix, consider banning mounted troops from being able to attack or defend towns. That would force the building of a different variety of troops, rather than the all-cavalry force that is used now.
Why not scrap the pioneer population requirement, but have a growth penalty for a set number of turns on all cities above level 1 when a new city is founded? This could be explained as emigration to the new city. On a different note, the current 5 levels of city are boring. I rarely get a city past level 2. It should be 10 levels with most cities at least reaching level 5.
What about using a skill gives a chance of automatically gaining a pick based on the skill? So using a spear would give you a chance of receiving a spear bonus, throwing a fireball would give a chance of gaining a fire mage lavel, sitting in a town would give chances at +research/money/unrest skills. This would be in addition to the normal leveling-up process. It would definitely help mages because if they have a large number of magics (life,earth,fire and water) their other skills suffer if
It's the levels that are not making enough distinction. A level 1 bear should be easy; a level 10 bear should be nasty; a level 20 bear should be absolutely killer. But that's not what happens. Also there needs to be more specialization. There should be monsters that are absolutely killer against mounted troops, but not so tough against foot soldiers. And you should be able to make special troops against certain monsters eg have an anti-maul or anti-swarm ability.
I had a similar thought about having 2 queues and the consequences and they were:- 1) There would be a lot more units in the game => micromanagement problems. 2) So you would need a way to make most of them defence-only units, and play mostly with hero-led stacks of your best troops. Perhaps the manual-battle option should only be available if a hero is present. 3) Perhaps one way would be to make monsters even more nasty so that you are forced to defend all your assets [towns+resources] at
What about a hall-of-fame building that a town can build? Then heroes can donate their trophies to it and the town gets added bonuses - gildar and decreased unrest perhaps? Maybe it could be time-limited so that a hero has to keep donating.
I think the solution is for heroes to be connected to a specific city - they could be known as of . Then all their bonuses should go to that city and they don't have to remain there for the bonuses to work.
When you double-click on the picture of the town for an enemy city (instead of your own) the program crashes.
Hi all! I've been playing for a short time and I came up with the idea that heroes should adopt or be adopted by a city. Any bonuses that they get (such as gildar+2, reduce unrest) should go to that city regardless of whether they are currently in it. At the moment the problem is using the unrest bonuses means staying in the city and not achieving any further experience. Further ideas arising from this:- 1) A high-level hero could allow the town to create a hero building w