Mistwraithe

[quote who="Fallenchar" reply="6" id="3378167"]Every time a city isn't capable of reaching the next level and the growth rate drops, you might as well build a pioneer.[/quote] Correction, you may as well queue a pioneer. There is no need to finish building it, you can unqueue it when you have added more food buildings. I also strongly agree with the OP that outposts costing 30 population makes me very loath to create outposts until late game (I'm quite happy to wait fo

[quote who="AzraelSteel" reply="69" id="3377645"] I still find it incredibly frustrating to watch the computer run up to danger areas (say, right beside Lord of the Flame and build an outpost, and then have said Lord walk around the outpost to harass me. I don't know why this happens sometimes as I had a game just happen like this where there were no resources at all near the built outpost. I certainly can't take a Deadly monster that early in the game, yet the compu

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="3" id="3377716"]Indeed. It does feel quite backwards. You get ahead and you are able to steamroll as a result. At the very least, the remaining factions of the opposing alignment (kingdom/empire) should consider working together to bring you down.[/quote] Excellent suggestion, they should have a strong bias towards dropping any internal wars (unless one AI has almost finished off another in which case it might decide to finish the job) and gang

Agreed with OP. FE is a long game, more help to make it faster/easier to play would be great (and yes the OP's suggestions will do this by reducing the amount of time spent double checking whether you have done everything you should do).

[quote who="NaytchSG" reply="1" id="3375762"]That is a clever exploit! Thanks for pointing it out to the devs.[/quote] It was pointed out to Stardock almost as soon as they changed pioneer's to costing 30 population. I'm really puzzled that Stardock don't think it is worth fixing. As others have said the solution is simply to make population only deducted when the pioneer is completed, plus also check that there is enough current population to build all queue

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="55" id="3373812"]Ultimately, since FE/LH is a single player game, some of the onus (imo) is on the player to choose not to make use of exploitative strategies. For example, you can exploit the game by training pioneers and then canceling them. Is that going to get "fixed"? Probably not because it's a single player game and that's a self-inflicted exploit.[/quote] I have to disagree with this approach, serious exploits should certainly be

Have they fixed the pioneer exploit yet? Basically you can ignore the pop limits and ensure you always get maximum growth by queuing enough pioneers that your population is below 25. Just unqueue them when your max pop is high enough for the city to go to the next level, wait a turn to level up, then requeue them again.

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="49" id="3373437"]My issue is that Civ V is tedium from the word go. IMO, they boiled out all the decision making and refined the game to the point that there's very little left. Polish is a double-edged sword; Civ V is living proof that you can polish a game until there's nothing left.[/quote] We obviously disagree about how good Civ V is which is fine, everyone likes different things. But I take strong issue with the idea that Civ

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="42" id="3373012"] And yet, for all its polish, Civ V is still an utterly boring exercise in button pushing. They should fix the save bug. They might address some exploits (not requiring resources to upgrade units) -- though I doubt it. I think, in a few weeks, we'll see a patch to upgrade the AI and maybe a couple more like that over the next 6 months as long as Brad's interested and then Stardock will move on and le

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="36" id="3369719"]ah, but there is the autosave loophole....move anywhere on the map for free by just setting autosave turns to 1 and continually reloading your game. [/quote] I haven't had time to play LH in a while now so haven't posted much on the forums recently (that time thing again!). But I wanted to just pop in and point out that this sort of problem is exactly why you still have people like legaceez creating his (poorly written) rant threa

[quote who="Hawntah" reply="1" id="3363786"]I thought the point of the game was to win. It makes absolutely no sense to completely ignore the players that are most likely going to win before you (or even help them win by giving them tribute) and instead waste your resources on warring players that pose no threat to you. Even if the AI is the strongest player, they should be focusing on eliminating their strongest competitors first.[/quote] It isn't quite that simple. Taking out th

I too was puzzled about why henchmen were so much better than heroes when I played Altar (that was back in FE but the same basics applied). Henchmen are a cool idea but they need to be balanced appropriately so that in a part of a couple of heroes and several henchmen the heroes are still, well, legendary!

I agree entirely. One of my biggest problems with the game. Of course one of my other big problems with FE/LH was that the AI wasn't providing a good challenge mid to late game. These are conflicting complaints. The only way to solve both of them at the same time is to continue to improve the AI to the point that it can provide a strong challenge WHILE following the rules of the game (or at least bending them in ways which less obvious than they currently are).

The whole yield cap seems totally unnecessary for me. It removes one of my remaining reasons for enjoying exploring, and coming on top of also removing the heroes from the map, has really affected my enjoyment of the game (I understand why they removed heroes but the fact remains it did impact the exploring aspect). And for what? I struggle to see what problem Stardock think they were solving by implementing a hard cap - were people having too much fun building really strong cities? Oh, the h

The game I ended up playing does indeed have a shard next to a wheat field, the square has 3/3/3. I rebuilt the map well over 50 times in the end before giving up (crashing the game twice in the process). There were some maps which had half a dozen tiles grouped together with 9 total yield, but never any with more then 9 yield. As I said I'm pretty confident that either I've changed the file wrong or it doesn't work (or I was just incredibly unlucky!).

I agree. Frankly it annoys me when the pathing goes around the AI's territory even when we do NOT have a non aggression pact. The AI certainly doesn't seem to have any compunction about walking through my land!

Given that LH is a half price game for an FE owner surely it merely needs to justify being an extra 'half a game' rather than a full game? Apart from the obvious sales/marketing benefits (which are obviously more than a little bit important when you are making games as a business!) I can see there would also be advantages in making a standalone game because Stardock could remove mechanics and make bigger changes while still letting people who preferred the old ways play the ol

Mmmm, restarted at least 30 times and no joy. Plenty of 9 yields but nothing above. I've either done it wrong (not sure how, I just changed the 9.0 to a 13.0) or it doesn't work.

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="10" id="3360809"]yes, but you can change that hardcap within the elementaldefs. 9.0 [/quote] Thanks. I think the hard cap is "anti-fun" and am puzzled why Stardock did it, but at least I can fix it myself (though the correct solution would probably be a scaling semi-hard cap which I am guessing would require coding). Actually do I just change the Data\English\Elementaldefs.xml file dir

Basically the way it is designed if you are making a custom sov you should always pick at least one weakness, "Weak" if nothing else. I would prefer it if it was more of a balancing act where it was still sensible to not take any weaknesses but it is a minor point I guess.

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="5" id="3360621"]In the files on the terrain, there are bonuses to certain facets to the tile. fertile land gives bonus to grain, forest material.... everything. As sweatyboatman says the game does the math for you. If the sum of the tile yield exceeds a minimal threshold (6 I believe) it will display on the map as a settable location and mark what that single location tile will provide as a whole for ALL the tiles surrounding it. [/quote] You know a lot

Seconded, needs fixing.

I much prefer AI intelligence improvements over cheating. However if the AI must cheat (which is must on higher difficulty levels) try to make it non obvious. Small bonuses within the existing rules, rather than big obvious bonuses/values. Helps with immersion rather than it being obvious the AI is playing a different game.

[quote who="Alstein" reply="5" id="3359827"] Dragons can't be knocked prone. [/quote] Doh, I wondered that when I posted it but couldn't remember ;-). The point still stands, being prone shouldn't be instant death to a weak maul.

[quote who="Skyjack" reply="3" id="3359717"]It actually seems realistic. [/quote] ... until you consider the scenario of a prone Dragon vs a Bear Cub. Then maybe a bit less so!