Mistwraithe

A very good topic of conversation. I agree with many of the OP's listed problems with the magic system but I don't agree so much with the suggested solutions. That in itself probably reflects the problem Stardock face, there are many ways the magic system could be improved and someone is bound to hate any system. However there does seem to be general concensus that, despite recent improvements, it could still use more love. One thing, I don't think strategic spells

I agree with both your points in principle

The whole build sovereign part of the game needs a bit of work, it appears to be basically the same as when first created. For example: - When creating a custom sovereign you have to pick a faction but can't see what the faction/race bonuses are. - When creating a custom faction you have to pick a race but can't see what the race bonuses are. - If you pick the ability which gives free recruiting of champions and combine it with the penalty that gives you 50% ex

I agree too. I struggle to see why they felt a 3 turn minimum was necessary. If I have a super city with 150 production then yes indeed it SHOULD be able to build a cheap building in one turn! That is rather the point!

Firstly I must say I am enjoying FE. It plays like a game, and a strategy game at that which was one of my criticisms of previous builds where city management was too anemic for me to enjoy it as a 4X game. FE still doesn't quite have the compulsive feel for me yet but it is close, close enough that polishing, balancing and bug fixing alone could get it there. Hard to say. I have however found a lot of bugs and issues so polishing, balancing and bug fixing are certainly re

[quote who="Bingjack" reply="19" id="3215246"]Notes from the new build. We should probably try it out before we form an opinion on pioneers: Fallen Enchantress 0.951 Changelog AI less likely to build pioneers and instead focus on improving cities AI now takes into account essence when deciding where to build a city AI fixed bug that caused AI to build pioneers instead of city defenders AI a bit smarter regarding expansio

I think this has probably reached the level of my biggest single UI gripe with the game. Got to be sorted out.

[quote who="seanw3" reply="10" id="3214677"]With the current balance, Essence is too good.[/quote] Agreed. Although I like the idea of Essence being more powerful/useful than grain and materials, we're talking about way too much of a difference once you get to 3 or 4 essence. [quote who="seanw3" reply="10" id="3214677"]Idea for balance: Towns should be good at growth and gildar. Conclave should be good at research and mana. Fo

I love essence and I like that it is useful. However I agree it is a bit too powerful at present and this is almost entirely from the fact that so many enchantments scale with quantity of essence. Of course the number of enchantments you can have also scales with essence. This means that there is square affect going on where a city with 4 essence can get about 16 times the benefit that a city with one essence. This needs to be scaled back so that it is closer to linear. I thin

I think the reason the tooltip shows a different value from the actual amount healed is that the tooltip is factoring in bonuses to spell damage done from being a warlock etc. Except of course the Heal spell isn't eligible for these bonuses. When I checked the spell was healing as much as the full Heal description said it should, it was just the tactical combat tooltip which was wrong.

Just got it again. The text says: 'We would would (sic) like to offer you tribute. If it pleases you, we would even be willing to give you 69 gildar up front.' If you say yes then you end up paying THEM tribute, not receiving it from them. The text isn't just misleading, it is plain wrong (as well as having would repeated).

Happened to me too, I can confirm that the wording on the dialog option is EXTREMELY misleading, it very much sounded like they were offering me tribute (I am bigger than them), and I did try reading it fairly carefully because it was a bit confusing on a quick scan. Does anyone know how to cancel the treaty? Is it just a matter of time or do I have to start a war?

Lovely! Now just allow me to see the details of a city that is levelling up before I pick the level up path and I'll be happy! [e digicons]O:)[/e]

I agree that the early settler spam phase doesn't fit with the game history of struggling to rebuild civilisation, nor do I find it very fun because rapid settling has to take precedence over all other options early game (if you are going to optimise your play). There are lots of possible solutions but I fear very, very few good ones. This is one of the main challenges which the Civilization games have battled through their evolution. In Civ 3 they tried corruption which was disas

Very good thread. I also find Governer heroes a waste of time BUT I like the idea of them and would like them to be useful. Several possible ideas have been suggested but I think something simple like this: Path of the Governer heroes (only) get 0.5XP per turn per level of the city they are garrisoned in. This should stack with Adventurer's Guild if you manage to build it. Possibly it should be split if there are two or more Path of the Governer heroes in a single

[quote who="onomastikon" reply="100" id="3185423"]I couldn't agree less. I find the Civ 4 BTS building queue to be, like its earlier iterations, poor after mid-game has been established, and mind-bogglingly boring once late-game has been reached. In CivIV, the only thing I end up doing is building mechanized infantries in cities A, B, and C, jet fighers in D and E, and bland unit X in cities F, G, and I - because there is nothing left to build.[/quote] Fair enough. Late game if yo

[quote who="Derek Paxton" reply="36" id="3183867"]I don't like maintenance. It is a nessesary evil sometimes, but if you can design systems that don't use it, that's even better. I don't like there being a downside to work the player has done. I don't like the most effective strategy being to to go wipe improvements you aren't using (growth buildings when you hit your pop limit, trianing buildings if you aren't going to be training units there for

I know I'm a bit late reading Derek's post but I must say it is great news. We'll have to see how the actual implementation works but in theory Derek is fixing virtually all of the problems I had with FE. This could truly be awesome. I am a little unsure what sort of trade-offs there are to building more cities. Needing to defend them and getting slightly less growth per city due to prestige help mitigate the effects but don't really change that expanding is crucial. N

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="39" id="3174176"]Quote this for the ages: ASSUME that Fallen Enchantress will never ever have multiplayer. That way, if things don't work out for it, you won't be disappointed. The reason we want to put MP into FE is, really, because I want it in. There's no business rationale for it. But so much of the MP is there I just hate seeing it not finished off.[/quote] Frankly multi-player is the sort of feature which s

[quote who="JamesMoriarty123" reply="33" id="3168164"]That's the beauty of it, as far as I know Valve isn't a publicly trading company. They cannot be "bought out" and don't have to fold to shareholder pressure, because there are no shareholders. [/quote] That is very naive. Private companies are bought and sold all the time. Maybe Gabe doesn't want to sell it now but one day that will likely change (or Gabe will eventually die from old age!). At that point anything co

Steam is a pretty good service but there is still much that annoys me. I still occasionally get offline issues where I can't play a game without an internet connection and the number of times Steam has automatically updated a game to a new patch that contains bugs or that is incompatible with my save game is really annoying (I know I can turn automatic updates off but you have to remember to do this when you install the game and even then it seems to not always stick, I distinctly remembe

Really good traits need to cost 2 picks, great traits should perhaps cost 3 picks. Of course that means you need to start with 4 or 5 picks. It will make the whole character building more interesting.

[quote who="dalekdan" reply="26" id="3164683"]The unit que idea could've been attached to say a barracks. No barrack = units wait till buildings completed, with barracks = units and buildings trained side by side. Not disbelieving anybody perse, i'm only a recent arrival and as such is still seems like a good idea - perhaps a more detailed reason why it removed opportunity cost, or why that phrase is so important.[/quote] A significant part of the 'strategy' of typical

Great posts, I find myself agreeing with most, if not all, of what you say. [e digicons]k1[/e]

It isn't that big a stretch to assume that taking roads through your own territory where you can resupply from villages along the way would be faster than taking roads through enemy territory where the enemy would obviously be doing everything they could to destroy bridges, bring rocks and trees down on the roads, etc. We're making far bigger stretches of logic elsewhere in the game than this would be! It also isn't a completely new and scary idea. Various TBS games includ