Mistwraithe

I'm pretty heavily against combat ending your turn. FE/LH is already a slow game to play, making combat end your turn just adds another layer of micromanaging by encouraging you to split your army so that you have a follow up group to take the loot after you kill the monsters. Stardock should be reducing the need to micromanage (eg by implementing production overflow, fixing pathing bugs, etc) rather than increasing the need!

[quote who="igncom1" reply="100" id="3339469"]If you don't want city's burned to the ground then defend them, it is exactly the same as colonising during a war.[/quote] There is a key difference here. I am quite happy to defend my cities from the AI. What about defending cities against roaming monsters though, some of which are mid to late game groups that are too powerful to fight, monsters which were quite likely unleashed by the AI disturbing them, monsters which then ignor

[quote who="quartzium" reply="20" id="3337482"]I love Fallen Enchantress, but MoM has the best-designed, most fun magic system I ever played with. Even if it was unbalanced. In MoM, your nodes, inhabitants and champions would generate "magic", which if I remember correctlly you'd distribute between research (only spells came ut of this), Mana, and Power. Power represented the amount of mana you could cast on each turn, and it increased in a arithmetic progression (i.e.

[quote who="UncleJJ44" reply="7" id="3339240"]Sorry I don't agree with you 3 at all. Many players are making this point and I doubt they really understand the powerful effects that levelling faster has. I'm not saying you don't understand but these skills are certainly not a waste of time unless you have a champion that will gain very few more levels. These skills add a great deal of depth to the game and are not "pointless" or a "waste of time"[/quote] I

Very tough choice. I would have to go for Civ IV BTS because it is the most fun and balanced empire building game I have played. It was very hard to go past MoM, Master of Orion 2 and Alpha Centauri though, on another day I might have picked one of them.

Well said vanderbilt (meaning mainly the original post but your last post was pretty good too ;-) ). I don't mind the game being slowish (keeping in mind I have only played FE, not LH yet) but the game does need to be streamlined as much as possible so that turns flow quickly. There were/are some relatively minor bugs such as pathfinding (particularly leaving cities via forest instead of the road), losing move when armies are merged, autoresolve using mana or always doing damage t

Agreed entirely. To the OP that is, the whole 're-loading is cheating' discussion is pointless in a single player game. So long as the game isn't balanced on the assumption that all players reload whenever something goes wrong then I don't care. But as for the razing issue, yep, irritates me no end. Two points in particular as others have said: * Most monsters should only damage cities, not raze them. Dragons should perhaps destroy (although even then for a big

Agreed.

My thought exactly Galactic Hunter. I already love to pick Scrying Pools and Oracle is a compulsory upgrade for my conclaves. They don't need buffing, if anything other options need buffing to be on an even footing with them. The other points are pretty good though.

As others have said it is only compounding so massively because you have already won but choose not to take the victory. Think about it, you have 2.3 million guilder in the bank. You could have used a fraction of this money to buy troops and steamroller your opponents ages ago. It is only because you haven't that you have so much money. In a competitive game where the player is struggling on an even footing against the world and the AI they would be spending that money bef

I haven't played LH yet (not enough time unfortunately) but this problem was one of my biggest frustrations with FE. It was particularly galling when the AI would settle in a prime spot that I hadn't been daring to settle because of the dragon (or similar strong creature) right beside it... and worse, the AI would get away with it! This seemed to gradually improve in FE (the AI sometimes got attacked) though it was still a problem. Frustrating if it still persists or has got w

I'm strongly against maintenance costs for buildings. However I don't mind up front costs if they make sense and are balanced against the buildings usefulness.

I don't want them to reduce the number of traits to the point where level-ups become scarce... leveling is fun and I wouldn't want it so that you couldn't ever get your hero past say level 12. That concern aside I agree completely that there need to be lots of interesting traits scattered around. Perhaps not every level but every second level you should be reaching something interesting.

Excellent post. I agree with virtually all of it.

Excellent point in fact.

Was there really a consensus that people like the hard cap? For me it is the biggest step backwards the game has made, I really, really dislike it. If the problem is that good settle spots were too common without the cap then they could have a soft cap where high numbers need progressively higher base values from the surrounding terrain (eg a sort of Log relationship). That would be better, although I would still like the cap to be removable or modifiable by mods.

I agree. Perhaps it is 'realistic' that in the FE world fledgling kingdoms/empires wouldn't be able to keep people from entering their territory (although in that case why can they boot them out by going to the diplomacy screen?) but from a gameplay point of view it would be many times better if it was like Civ and you couldn't enter enemy territory without declaring war.

[quote who="Morkleb" reply="7" id="3333845"]How about as someone else mentioned trying to get the AI to plan an attack before declaring war and thereby surprising and threathening a player the moment the ai declares and perhaps now and then catching a player unawares? For me just the uncertanity of having a friendly ai player mobilizing units near my borders not knowing but suspecting an attack is fun. Is this hard to do?[/quote] I think that is a great idea (in fact it might have bee

Wow. I had just written quite a long reply talking about FE to the thread started by id_est ( https://forums.elementalgame.com/441654/page/2/#replies ), only to find that Frogboy had locked it. Weak sauce in my opinion. Frogboy says there isn't enough concrete criticism about the AI for him to act on and then as soon as the thread started getting more constructive (including the post by bpalczewski which Frogboy ref

I enjoyed AoW 2 Shadow Magic. Not as free form as MoM but a decent turn based fantasy game given how few there are. FE is more like MoM in gameplay (than AoW anyway) so if you like MoM you should like FE. Personally I enjoy FE and certainly don't regret owning/playing it but I look forward to further improvements to the game mechanics and AI because I think it still has a lot of untapped potential.

To a certain extent the problem is that the AI isn't providing a strong enough mid/late game challenge. If the AI was keeping up with your growth and providing a strong mid/late game challenge AND the wildlands offered sufficient reward (most don't IMO) then it would make sense for the player to take out the wildlands in the hopes of getting an edge from the rewards. So you could try upping your difficultly levels although that makes the AI stronger without making it smarter.

A reasonable idea, but I don't know why they don't just make excess production carry over to the next building/unit (with a cap equal to 1 turn of the cities production to prevent building lots of cheap things and building up massive overflow). It's something that TBS games like Civ have been doing for years and it seems pretty much the accepted solution to avoid your game turning into micro hell.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="6" id="3329013"]Then don't. I can tell you right now, I won't be writing another line of AI code for FE. I've used enough of my weekends to take an AI that is already pretty good and tried to satisfy people like you only to get no acknowledgement on the matter.[/quote] Apologies if my comments cause you distress. They weren't meant to but unfortunately they are still based on my experience. I like FE and I have p

[quote who="Sythion" reply="23" id="3328964"]Based off the nature of all the bugs I see it's pretty likely that the AI is not connected to the same rules system as the players at all, and instead tries to mimic all the rules the player has in a way that makes sense to the AI code. This probably means every time something changes that is part of the players rules, the same change has to be made to the AI rules in such a way that makes the net outcome exactly the same. If so, thi

I think the current Civ 5 AI (ie after patches) is rather better than FE but perhaps more importantly it's cheating is mostly hidden from the player. Most of the time the Civ 5 AI appears to be playing by the rules and at the higher difficulty levels it gives a reasonable challenge, although its inability to fight in a one unit per hex game nearly as well as a human continually brings it down. Whereas the FE AI on many occasions breaks rules and does things that the player can&#39