[quote who="Wizard1200" reply="5" id="3350736"] I think that it would be balanced if mounted units would get: + 2 initiative (horse) or + 5 initiative (warg) + 2 movement (horse) or + 1 movement (warg) - 20 dodge vs. melee and ranged attacks (horse and warg) Charge: + 3 movement and + 40 dodge vs. melee and ranged attacks for 1 turn, cooldown: 2 turns (horse) or 4 turns (warg)[/quote] Well I disagree with giving them add
I think the prone avoidance is probably because they would need a new animation.
Probably syncing your save games in the cloud. Turn it off in steam before it sends you mad.
I have been playing with 0.85 for a few hours. Just focusing on horses. 1. Previously a ranch produced 1 horse per turn. I recommended 0.1 per turn. It was changed to 0.5 horses per turn. I am in the mid-game, produced just a few units so far, and I have nearly a hundred horses spare. Talking to my neighbours, they have hundreds of horses spare. If I were short, I could easily trade for more. <p
I understood the original poster to mean that he did not think there should be 'automated roads' built between cities and outposts. This should be done manually by engineers (or whatever they might be called). FWIW, I agree. I agree because building roads is hard, they are extremely valuable strategically and any such improvement should involve a cost. It also robs me of the opportunity to build the road network that makes the most strategic sense.
This has been noted before and needs a fix. The other thing that has been suggested is that the Fame levels you need to get a hero spread out a bit. I agree with this, since I tend to find I have too many useless heroes that can do very little, given that I have not got the troops needed to get them out fighting. Unlocking a new hero should be something I strive to do, at the moment it just happens quite easily.
The main problem at the moment is the 'queued pioneers' exploit. I love growing my cities to level 4 and 5, but often the reward for doing so is quite disappointing and feels like an anti-climax.
Well this has been done to death and it would be quite encouraging if the devs would respond one way or another. The resource production would have to be reduced significantly so that it was actually a practical limit. Something like 0.1 horses per turn at 1st level, and 0.25 at higher levels. No need to double up and require 2 horses per cavalryman, that is just confusing. Good ideas here about increasing armor capability of wargs, horses, warhorses (in that order). Als
I tend to agree and have suggested it before that we replace an 'attack' with a 'battle'. This is how a lot of TB games of ancient warfare work (for example, Slitherine's Field of Glory, which is a very interesting TB tactical battle engine for Ancient warfare). As you say, attacking without retaliation is then a special effect (Assassin or whatever). It is a big change to the combat model, but might be the right one. You can still get bonuses f
Just throw in by 2 bits that the increase to 3% unrest per extra city is a lot better balanced than the previous 2%. It might be even better at 4%, but I could not be sure without trying it.
[quote who="roy berube" reply="2" id="3345307"] While item 1 looks like a good idea it would require a comprehensive combat redesign. Think of the binary effects such as shield bash or blunt knock-down: how would they be implemented in this system? These combat effects which are hit or miss cannot be adapted to a partial hit from a group. Hence a redesign would be needed to maintain some semblance to the current system.[/quote] Yes, it is a fairly major re-design
Heavenfall, Thanks for your interest and interpretation. I think you were after No, Yes, Yes there? That is, I am saying that each weapon has to count, and that is not how it currently works.
It seems to me that the combat model is broken. Tactical battles are way less fun than they should be, and often become walkovers very early in the game. There is no 'balance' between different units, and often the inferior troops will not just lose, they will melt without doing a single hit on the superior side. I think is partly because the basic combat model is not doing a good enough job to simulate basic things like the effect of having more troops, weapon vs armor
I miss Encumbrance, and want it back. Instead of the 40 / 80 cutoffs, it should just be each 10% of weight takes off 1 initiative. The horses giving encumbrance relief was always a bit silly, and that could be changed, but that doesn't make encumbrance broken.
I had wandering monsters attack one city, and auto-resolve says they won. That city was still there, but a completely other city (my first and HQ as it turned out) was deleted. Odd.
There will be a bunch of considerations that they will have to go through and adjust. Warhorses, Trogs, etc. I note that the backpack has been done, and gives + init. But that is not the biggest thing. All weapons, armor and shields have weights, and now this whole system is being thrown out? I wonder why frankly?
[quote who="Brainjuggler" reply="5" id="3339533"] What if each tower gave you a -2 while the forge of the overlord worth -4 or something? Then your opponents would slowly get more nervous as you advanced. I still want this to be disabled when you turn off spell of making victory, no reason you should take a diplomacy hit. While on the subject, does anyone else think spell of making is too early in the tech tree? Sometimes I feel like the game is just ge
There are some good ideas there, and we still remain pretty much on the same page about what has to happen in this mod. Of course, with LH, I don't see any point in doing the mod without making it for LH. This seems to be the 'live' branch of the game, and the one that will go forward. I have not looked into detail about what is necessary to change the tech tree, but I will start. It seems that we have most of the game armors we need already in there, including the
I really miss this mod in LH. A pity that you aren't going to update it, or better, SD to make it part of the core game.
[quote who="halmal242" reply="32" id="3339660"] You can also add a revenge damage to spears if attacked by a mounted unit. You have to use the damage reflection modifier and then used the tag you have listed above. SO basically if a unit is mounted and attacks someone wielding a spear they will take some of the damage they did to the spear wielder even if they are immune. If you want to make it punitive for mounted units to attack spear set the damage reflect
Will you be updating this for LH?
[quote who="halmal242" reply="38" id="3339905"] I think I have a writeup on how to do revenge damage on one of the threads a while back that I was showing to Heavenfall, that combined with the plus damage to mounted units would be an interesting counter to mounted units.[/quote] If we add revenge damage to all weapons, won't this change the combat system to one where each 'attack' is also incorporating a 'defence', so making it a fight, not a f
The designers have decided to add these weapon effects to make combat interesting. The weapon effects are a bit 'chess like', in that they don't really make any historical sense, but they do provide a variety of different effects which need to be combined in the tactical battle setting. I am against this approach 'in theory', but find that the battles are, indeed, more interesting. However, having made this decision to go 'gamey' rather than 'real
Agree with OP and others that some balancing is required. - Too many horses/wargs available. - Can have both. Would prefer a choice. - Should have combat downsides and costs as well as providing mobility and some combat upsides. Base this on reality if possible.
Me too. Quit game and restart fixes it.