Galactic_Hunter

I noticed this yesterday as well. No pups [e digicons]X([/e]

Agree. It is annoying to have instant roads everywhere. Would prefer if they got slowly built when you get the appropriate tech, or you get an appropriate unit when the tech is researched.

So Champions and Sovereigns don't count? (Implies: You need 5 trained units for Urxen. Also implies you can have 3 trained units for Tarth and unlimited Champions?). Do henchmen count as champions or trained units?

I think that spears vs mounted is a definite inclusion. Has to be a downside to being mounted, and historically, that was it.

OK, thanks everyone for answering the question. I note there is still some disagreement about what actually happens, but I think I get the gist of it. Can I just inject at this point that it makes no sense at all? Why would troops fighting with two or more heroes be less experienced than troops fighting with one? If the intention is, as I understand it, that there needs to be a mechanism to stop you just fighting with all heroes and not troops, then a more ration

Great idea. Look forward to playing with it.

[quote who="StevenAus" reply="1" id="3265744"]Trainer bonuses apply to all units in the army, and they stack (which is why Henchmen can be so valuable - they can provide Trainer bonuses but they don't reduce experience like regular champions or Sov). [/quote] I have seen this mentioned. How do I know what impact Sov and Champions have on experience? I don't see it in the manual or Hiergemanon?

That sounds good. Anything that can add some clarity and depth to tactical combat. I know it has been asked for before, but it would be good if damage was limited to one guy, unless a special kind of ability was deployed ('sweep' or whatever).

They have a terrific engine but always aim for too much Real Time spectacle and too little 'actual military tactics'. The games are moddable, which is good because I hate to play them as shipped. Key things they could work on would be to set an actual figure and ground scale, and then the battles would start to make sense. And work on the AI. Then work on it some more.

When Steam first came out I hated it. It caused me pain on my PC, deleted files, technical glitches, horrible. Now I use it all the time and have lots of games on it, mostly bought on sale. I impulse buy almost anything if the price is low enough. It is, from a usability perspective, my platform of choice. I want developers to use it, and support it. Where I have bought a game partly direct and partly from Steam, things can be a bit not-worky. Their regional pricing mode

I like limitations that force a choice. 9 tiles (that is really more, depending on how big the buildings are) works for me. Building EVERYTHING was a terrible mechanic.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="12" id="3112473"]We look at you guys as our investor? I wonder how many people have been around long enough to remember Stardock in the old days? Not too many privately owned tech companies these days of significant sized controlled by 1 guy (facebook is one ironically).[/quote] I still remember you from csipgs. That old school enough for ya?

[quote who="seanw3" reply="14" id="3112649"] Here is a comparison to show you the scale: Reduced 45%Original 1024 x 972 This is a 5x5 map. [/quote] It appears to me that it is in fact a 50 x 50 tile map, broken into 5 x 5 large 100 tile 'squares' that are ten by ten tiles each. That is, based on the other poster's comments, the size of a MOM map. The fact that FE will allow MUCH bigger maps than this is interesting, and may

Very good work. That explains why I routinely set my tax rate to 0. I agree with making the changes you suggest immediately. A small quibble, unrelated to the point of your analysis, and possibly where Brad (I believe a libertarian by tradition) is coming from regarding the final comment that we pay 50% taxes and yet don't go on strike 62% of the time. Strikes are not the only way in which high taxes reduce productivity and the size of the economy. The first and most important eff

Instantly ordered. Can't wait, should be fantastic

I agree that some kind of rebalance of stats is necessary. I don't agree with everything you wrote, but toning down the bonuses to realistic levels (?!) may make the game more balanced. It is odd to have my soldiers go up levels and gain fabulous amounts of hit points. The graphics for the tactical battles are already fabulous. The balance and 'rules' for combat need quite a bit of tuning before it would be balanced or fun.

Presumably the cost should actually be related to the cost of the new weapons and armor (at most), or the cost of the new weapons MINUS the cost of the old weapons (at the least, and assuming a thriving market in old weapons). Of course, the cost of weapons is in metal and labor, and we want to pay metal and Gilder, but the conversion rate from labor to Gilder should not be too hard to work out.

I can now recruit SOME L7 champions, and not others. It's all a bit weird. And no, I could NOT recruit L3 champions at the start, I had to get the L5 tech to allow it.

He has now gone to Level 7. I guess he is either learning each turn, or things attack him (while neutral?) and he gains XP?

The champions are now meant to be levels 1,3,5,7,9. Recruitment of L1 works fine. There is no technology to allow recruitment of L3? They say 'Learn Recruitment to be able to recruit Level 3 Champions'. But the tooltip for Recruitment says you can recruit L5 champions? I now come across a L6 Champion (i just noticed he is L6, not L5), who says 'Learn Recruitment to recruit Level 5 Champions' and have Recruitment, and of course, can't recruit him. A little b

Agree completely with: *Experience should be shared between the sov, champs and troops involved in the battle. The current system is a bit mad, and tends to support the idea of taking people along for the ride, because they get FREE XP, just by watching. *One hit one kill A significant change to the combat system, but would give even better value to larger units and trained troops. There could still be a damage type that allows area damage, by exception ('s

I noticed this too. Upgrade costs are completely over the top.

Agree with OP and most of sentiments here

1. City building is not fun (can build everything, everywhere) 2. Tactical battles are not fun (no terrain, morale, forts, weapon differentiation, ranges, etc) 3. Leaders and Heroes OP and tech falls far behind, meaning no need to build troops, etc

Right now, tactical battles are not terribly interesting. They suffer in comparison to older games such as AOW or even HOMM. The following things would greatly improve them: 1. Terrain. There should be some meaningful terrain tiles, which affect movement and combat. Streams, swamps, forests, hills, etc. What is a tactical war-game without terrain? Not to mention the whole 'no forts' issue in sieges. A game that did this quite well was/is Battles of Wesn