Gorde

*When a city envelops a resource, it places it in the build queue for 3+ turns, even when it's already built (though the rush cost is properly 0 for those who check that option). Can that change take place automatically? *Beginning a fight should not make the game cycle away from that group when they have movement left. This can be a real hassle to keep returning to the stack you are currently using (especially when mopping up several smaller armies).</p

Just finished a magic-centric game and it was properly epic with the power and buildup (though I used extra shards setting to keep from being frustrated with the lack of mana, and so I could experiment--nice to have that option). The run-up to the cool endgame pic for a magic victory is lacking some information and missing an opportunity to feel more epic/dramatic. Simple pop-up windows with nice prose about what is happening would both inform the player and build the anticipation

I remember using the Escape key in previous games. Could it be worked where hitting escape brings up the menu and cancels any movement in progress (so you'd go back to game and the army would be stopped--I tried this before posting to make sure that did not already happen)?

Since the days of D&D tabletop, positioning (travel order) has been important for the beginning of tactical combat. As it is, the AI code for auto-positioning does a poor job of deciding who gets placed on the front line, and who is blocking whom, especially when your armies get larger. I often find my warrior/defender/assassin champs stuck behind my ranged groups. Heh, no (sane) ranged unit would volunteer to stand in front of their protection when going into b

At the risk of these bugs being buried, I'm adding a few more to this post rather than making a separate one. *I cast Crusade to see if it would truly level my trained units, and none of the 3 in the caster's group changed a bit, nor did any other on the map that I could see, so it seems broken, or at least confusing. Leveling every trained unit would be ridiculously powerful, so consider making like the others you cast on a city that affect units trained

*Letting pioneers raze improvements makes those no-cost punks even more out-of-balance, so I suggest allowing only military units (those with an attack above 0) the ability to tear down improvements like outposts. *Along those lines, I also think there should be a cost associated both with pioneers and outposts (small, but not zero), and we already know the game can think in fractions of a gildar (so have a pioneer cost 0.2 gildar upkeep, and an outpost cost as much as

Heh, Kalin, when I first read your post it sounded like, "I want to choose inferior units and still win the game," which I knew couldn't be what you're saying, so in tilting my head a certain way and thinking about it, I might be getting it. Let me know if this is on track. Tailoring units is the mentality behind the game's unit traits , right (like strength and underdog and finesse)? It's a really fantastic aspect of FE, and perhaps it'

FYI, I lose buildings all the time with the Master Scout trait. Aha! Perhaps that's what I should do with all the cheap pioneers--if I park a group on the shards and stables I want to protect will the roaming monsters leave them completely alone? (This is typed tongue-in-cheek.)

[quote who="KingHobbit" reply="20" id="3171329"] Every champion in the game now is a magic user. Again, I still think this change was a mistake, but it is the direction the game seems to be going. There are so many Champions though they seem ubiquitous. The fact they are almost all magic users is taking from the importance of the sovereign.[/quote] I blame that fallen enchantress wench for all the casual magic! It's utterly sho

A couple more I've noticed: *The info for Guardian Statue is missing from the Heirgamenon; players will most definitely want to know the particulars before they invest. *Amusingly, the image for the Ritualist is larger than the window, so it cuts off his head (amateur photographer!). A couple of comments: *More fodder for the "AI is in a cheaty alliance with monsters" sentiment: Because of my

Yeah, Firefly, no one wants a research system that's impossibly long and complicated (at least not until the 2nd or 3rd installment of the game when it's all been refined and play-tested for 3+ years, heh). Let me illustrate a possible solution on this one issue: Let's say Cooperation has a dead-end branch that leads to Battlefield Tactics (5-unit), then Troop Coordination (with perhaps a prerequ of Supply Lines for 7-unit), ending with Large-scale Logistics (9-unit).

Great follow-up, OrionM42. I see the current game mechanic as a placeholder, and this type of suggestion should be relatively simple to implement. With luck, the devs will agree with us. :)

[quote who="Gorde" reply="6" id="3170462"] *Road pathing--sometimes the travelling group goes offroad and loses movement when there's an obvious road/path to the destination, so this causes players to have to micromanage movement to get the results they want (which is probably not a good thing). I haven't really figured out when my guys will faithfully follow the road, and when they decide to get sidetracked--sorry I can't be of more help. [/quote] I

When you first encounter a new potential ally/opponent, you have no choice in how you greet them, which I believe is missing gameplay flavor that would be relatively easy to add. Why not offer a variety of random greetings (within the major categories of friendly, neutral, wary, and hostile)? As examples: An aggressive empire meets a smaller kingdom, and they don't feel like being friendly, they can taunt or threaten, making that upstart sorry they ever met the bigger em

[quote who="Malsqueek" reply="17" id="3170678"]The basic argument is: If every single step up the unit size chart flatly outclasses the previous step(s) by at least half with absolutely no down-side, what you have is not a choice. What you have is a new standard. Consider the impact of that across factions. One of the most important things you can do is learn to build 5 person units. The instant you do that, you outclass everyone that can't on a unit-to unit basis. Again, if it is not a C

Don't lose heart about the difficulty of protecting your territory--definitely some tweaking required there (and it's no simple task, but I bet everyone involved knows how important it is). That said, I like the threat level being there (so long as the AI facing the same threats, rather than some cheaty "truce" with the vicious roaming monsters)--this reality forces you to strategize about the risk of leaving your valuables undefended in a nasty, chaotic world. I have been

LoL, Firefly, I guess you did indeed break this thread. My above post was trying to quote UmbralAngel (reply #2). It's great to see such thorough discussions about the gameplay mechanics and such, because we know window dressing gets you in the mood, but it's the gameplay that will keep you coming back.

Umm, I've played some of those games, and this configuration still looked counter-intuitive, but I'm fine with it as long as it's explained (please see outside your perspective to understand how confusing it is to any gamer not expecting to see it oriented in that particular fashion). And actually, I think I've already seen improvements (based on our discussion, maybe? are the devs that quick?) with the small "Next" on the bottom tile and it's slightly larger appeara

Playing devil's advocate here for the sake of thoroughness (and to ease my confusion), why would you want to buff small groups more when you have spent the time researching and building the larger groups? No big army of similarly equipped/trained units should lose to a smaller army (or single hero), though some element of that is important for the fun/fantasy feel that this game is chasing so diligently. The natural progression should be all about researching how trai

Some more quickies: *Road pathing--sometimes the travelling group goes offroad and loses movement when there's an obvious road/path to the destination, so this causes players to have to micromanage movement to get the results they want (which is probably not a good thing). I haven't really figured out when my guys will faithfully follow the road, and when they decide to get sidetracked--sorry I can't be of more help. *There's

This is the easy yet boring stuff, eh guys? But so worth it to squash them bugs. :D Please forgive any repeats. *Quest mob left his spawn spot (on a second-level quest to kill a troll) so I ran it down, slew it and got no credit. Then I moved onto his original spawn spot, received the quest credit without having to return to the inn, and had a tough random encounter (of a mix of mobs, with no trolls) that had nothing to do with the quest as far as I co

Simply because it humors me, I'll mention that gildar seems to be interchangeable with our term money , and is therefore a common noun. By the most widely used style guides in the publishing industry, the "down" style of capitalization is preferable (parsimonious use of capitals), and gildar certain does not qualify as needing capitalization for its own sake.

*Tooltips (that display on loading screens) longer than 2 concise sentences in length are most likely wasted information, since no one has time to read and digest lengthy help/instructions in the time it is visible (roughly 2 or 3 secs, though my SSD storage device might affect that a bit). Think short and helpful, like newspaper headlines. *Tutorial vids are a nice touch, good hand-holding for the beginner. Anyone who needs the vid might be confused when it

Heh, all I see is "tons of coding/graphics for almost no benefit." :) Game scope has to think about all the cool things, then whittle them down into what is actually doable (usually some cost/benefit analysis). If something is cool, but behind a long list of much-needed work, then it's not going to happen unless it's simple enough for a dev to churn out on his coffee break.

While no one wants the devs to sacrifice one aspect of the game for another, limited and repetitive tactical battles (and there is usually a ton of them every game) kind of kills the fact you even have tactical combat. Perhaps the smart balance lies in doing something (relatively) subtle and random that changes your looks and options. Different spots that add small bonuses or obstacles (similar to the first game) would go a long way. And even a limited positioning b