This is probably the wrong place to ask this and I'm sure its been answered elsewhere already (I did check, I swear!).

Can we get an estimated release date for Fallen Enchantress? May/June, a few months, by Christmas, or spring 2012 (hopefully before end of the world)?

I remember back in February that Frogboy stated that there will be no boxed or retail version (excuse me if this has changed since), and with the recent sale of Impulse this month I'm also kind of nervous on how we actually acquire the game or prove that we bought War of Magic early enough and are eligible for the 2(3?) free expansions/sequels.

Richness, depth, and polish...that's exactly what I want more of, something WoM let me down with big time.

I am primarily an RPGer who does enjoy richly styled fantasy strategy games also, like AoW:SM, HoMM, Etherlords, FFH.

And I don't take any offense to the creative comment, although I have a very active imagination(told that all my life lol) that's why I buy and play games and not make them.

I've recently realized why I am still playing WoM and haven't moved on despite its downfalls, and that is the art and style of the game.  I may fly off subject a bit here but does it strike anyone as being odd that some of the best games of all time up to this point were from the early 90's to the early 00's and a lot weren't on the PC?  For me, there are a lot of reasons why games back then were intrinsically "better" then most all games produced now.  Back then there was a limit on how graphical you could make a production due to technology.  Even still, I have experienced some of the best worlds within those limited games.  Games such as Chrono Trigger, and Xenogears, and even to the mostly basic graphics of Lord of the Realms II.  Part of the love I have for those graphics was that it was really the first time I'd experienced something like that, nowadays we are all so jaded because we've all "been there done that".  Most of the really good games came from consoles and the main reason they were considered some of the best games was not because of the graphics but because of the depth and quality of the game itself.

WoM is a beautiful game that has yet to show us it's true potential (and this is really being worked on if FE!)  Cutscenes and stills from this game could be amazing and I'm sure they will be in FE.  I feel like I am really attached to most games I play in WoM because of the way things look to me.  It may seem so basic and not very vibrant to most but it has that throwback look except with a modern polish.  It's not straight cartoon and it's not gritty reality.  Speaking of those two sides of the graphical spectrum, I find imo that most of the early games were successful because not so much production was put towards amping up the graphics but instead more time and effort was put in to the mechanics/story/battlesystems/economy etc...  The PC was the pinnacle of graphics back then (and still is) and even then they were limited, however there weren't too many absolutely astounding games, at least not nearly as many as there were available to the consoles. 

Part of me wants a straight RPG game with these graphics.  Coupled with an epic story and fleshed out with great characters I could really get in to that!

While some have said that they don't like the campaigns, I wish to differ. I find them fun, they let you see the lore and backstory of the game, and I for one, like to have some sort of set goals sometimes, and not a total sandbox (which I also like, but to be able to choose is even better).

The book was good because of that, who would have thought that below East Anthys was a huge underground world!? I think the wastelands will give you the chance to show more, like the Imperius one (How about a Calebethon one? I don't mean underground maps, which would still be cool, but sort like if you build a city by one of the entrances, you get a bonus at some resource, or if you build cities at different caves entering the complex, troops can move between them without enemies looking at them!)

I concur with the others, give us some gameplay video, or something! While hearing the details is awesome (what other company let's players talk with the devs?) some footage would be also well recieved, just don't show spoiler things if you don't want, but a gree landscape is hardly spoiler-y

Hope to hear more soon! FE is looking good!

And with HOMM2 - the graphics are quite stylized but hold up well, better than H3's (and even H5's, which is based on H3's look but in 3D) more "realistic" look.  It seems the more "realistic" graphics in a game are, the quicker they age and start to look bad, and good 2D will last a lot longer and generally look better than equivalent 3D.  It will be great in fheroes2 when we can have huge maps (potentially much bigger than current H3 maps with underground), and other new gameplay features.  Anyway, like games like Lands of Lore, HOMM2 still retains its beauty - in its case a simple but attractive 2D beauty of LOTR-style fantasy map/world, races, creatures and heroes.

Best regards,
Steven.

I'll have to disagree with you on most of the post.  But I will agree with you on the WOM art and style, except I don't like it but it is as bad as the graphics from those early games. Now the best Turn-based stratagy games were from PC's and not consoles because these games had more depth than the console, not sure how your getting the console games have more depth in the 90's. In fact I have never played a console game that I have liked that could not be done better on a PC but that is a personal opinion (I also hate console controllers. Give me the mouse and keyboard anyday.)

WoM is all about potential that is never achieved. I hear all the time about it's potential even after it has been out a year there still a lot of "potential" left.  Well I think that all of WOM "potential" will show up in FE.

For some of the things in game they could even have it pick one set of lore at world generation.  You could have a couple different origin stories or groups of info that may or may not be contradictory between groups that the game would choose for the given element. So say darklings are damaged survivors of the cataclysm in one game and in anouther they are outcast scavengers.  These different lore/backgrounds could be tied into how the ai makes them behave.  So the scavengers may avoid attacking groups of units all together and prey on weakend units or those that are by themselves.  The survivors may be more likely to form into large groups to take down anything that is in their territory (behaving more like a faction).

It would make it so you don't 'know' exactly what that bear, ogre or spider unit is going to do without more observation of its behavior- it also ties the lore as more important to the gameplay experience.  Maybe ogres are peaceful (non-agro) on humanoids and only attack beasts for that game.  Even if its only a couple sentances difference or the ai works the same every game, the player's perception of the monsters and other things in the world will be different in each given game creating a unique experience each time.  I see it as similar to how a custom faction fits into the world currently.

Edit: On second thought it would probably be better to have the AI type separate from the lore type for more combinations and less predictability (ie requiring observation or interaction vs. just reading their lore for that game to know how they'll act).