[quote quoting="post"] I am of the opinion that either the number of horses/wargs you get per turn should be decreased or their cost for trained units should be increased. Currently, if you build even a single stables, you will have so many horses that by turn 100 you won't even care anymore about your horse number (and you can trade them to AI without a source of horses for absurd amounts of money). No other resource is like this - crystal is in dire supply almost all the time, and
NorsemanViking
Multiplayer: Sequential Turn Mode, Hybrid (standard simultaneous multi outside of combat, sequential inside combat) Not sure how this will work. Will it help vs. doubble movement exploits?
[quote who="Ratatosk7" reply="136" id="3345507"] Great patch! Forgetting multiplayer, LH seems to be stripping away all the legacy baggage FE carried over from WoM. Its just amazing how much more of a polished experience it is overall, its like playing an entirely different game (ignoring bugs that happen with beta development of course). I don't mean to nag but it would be nice if we could do something with all that water though, even if we don't ha
Civilization series, GalCiv2 and FE; Legendary Heroes! Don't care for other games actually, but Europa Universalis series of course (but it's not turn based, just slow paced rts grand strategy).
Strange indeed.
[quote who="NorsemanViking" reply="27" id="3343279"] Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 26 Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 25 Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 24 Quoting MM77, reply 23 [/quote]Removing the XP-split again would be the most terrible thing they could do to this game. It would reduce a level of strategy regarding heroes and also open up for unfun exploits again, pluss making units once again useless.[/quote] 1. I disagree.... It would open up
[quote who="NorsemanViking" reply="26" id="3343278"] Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 25 Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 24 Quoting MM77, reply 23 [/quote]Removing the XP-split again would be the most terrible thing they could do to this game. It would reduce a level of strategy regarding heroes and also open up for unfun exploits again, pluss making units once again useless.[/quote] 1. I disagree.... It would open up new levels of strategy for a LOT of peo
[quote who="NorsemanViking" reply="25" id="3343277"] Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 24 Quoting MM77, reply 23 [/quote]Removing the XP-split again would be the most terrible thing they could do to this game. It would reduce a level of strategy regarding heroes and also open up for unfun exploits again, pluss making units once again useless.[/quote] 1. I disagree.... It would open up new levels of strategy for a LOT of people who don't use them now like me.
[quote who="NorsemanViking" reply="24" id="3343276"] Quoting MM77, reply 23 [/quote]Removing the XP-split again would be the most terrible thing they could do to this game. It would reduce a level of strategy regarding heroes and also open up for unfun exploits again, pluss making units once again useless.[/quote] When it comes to money and upkeep. I think some people here have just become to used to a playstyle where they dont need to worry about money, going none or l
[quote who="MM77" reply="23" id="3339845"] [/quote]Removing the XP-split again would be the most terrible thing they could do to this game. It would reduce a level of strategy regarding heroes and also open up for unfun exploits again, pluss making units once again useless.[/quote] When it comes to money and upkeep. I think some people here have just become to used to a playstyle where they dont need to worry about money, going none or low taxes forever and waiting forever to
[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="82" id="3343201"] I understand the first instinct of a designer is to just cut a mechanic that doesn't work out as envisioned, but I had thought the encumbrance overhaul should have gone the other way, by making it deeper and cutting the unnecessary base initiative bonuses from weapons. By release the game is going to be a console friendly strategy-and-rpg lite. Not good. [/quote] + New sys
[quote who="xaltotun" reply="56" id="3342587"] I think it would be better to give people a game start option (slider) on city distance. Not everyone feels the same way on the subject. In addition, the further we go into making city unrest a driver for the game the less fun the game will be for some people. Notice the latest unreleased patch increases the amount of unrest based on the num
Removing the XP-split again would be the most terrible thing they could do to this game. It would reduce a level of strategy regarding heroes and also open up for unfun exploits again, pluss making units once again useless. When it comes to money and upkeep. I think some people here have just become to used to a playstyle where they dont need to worry about money, going none or low taxes forever and waiting forever to build out the economy..... Finally we have got more depth into this
An alternative could be to be able to hit a unit one tile away with the spear, but that would have to be evry turn, not just every 5th turn. Anyways, I like the current mechanic too. As people say her it has added alot to tactical battle.
[quote who="TorontoRock" reply="64" id="3334753"] Quoting Dhuran, reply 17 I rarely use them for the following reasons: - Since they use the same queue as a city, I usually end up building stuff in the city instead since they impact the game more. - It's hard to justify diverting resources (by that I mean building those instead of city upgrades) on something that is inherently more vulnerable than a city. In
[quote who="NanakoAC" reply="17" id="3335660"] ok so, same problem as before. administrative heroes are still useless, basically. we need heroes to be able to gain some administratively related xp while governing a city. The exact numbers can be tweaked so that it's generally weaker than adventuring, but the concept has to be there[/quote] I don't find it a problem that a hero class is rather specialist and more seldom chosen. Neither I see it as a probl
I like the trade-off that Governors need to get out off the cities to fight now and then to get experience, and not just stay safe in the city and get loads of exp (while living their decadent city lifes). You just need an army to fight for him, and to pick the targets carefully. For instance will long ranged opponents be spooky. Also give him some fighting abilities so he can survive abit in combat if cities are attacked or when you go out in the field with him.
[quote who="OliverFA_306" reply="3" id="3334600"] I prefer small incremental upgrades because it's more entertaining. Usually levelling up is a "wow!" moment. If the abilities effect are small, then we can have more level ups. Also, there are several threads saying that heroes are weaker compared to trained units. If heroes level up more often that would keep them balanced with trained units.[/quote] + It's all about those small level ups
[quote who="DevildogFF" reply="15" id="3333283"] Pioneers cost gold instead of population Wait, why? Why are we going away from the population requirement? I thought this was done to combat pioneer spamming? I don't get it....[/quote] Oh noooooo (But of course the AI has to learn to live with it)! But I can't see it on the patch list. Am I blind, or just not seeing it because I don&
[quote who="OliverFA_306" reply="45" id="3334574"] I use them a lot. But perhaps it's because I like to play with Procipinee. In fact I do exactly the same as Draxim said: Quoting Darxim, reply 34 I use most of the upgrades. Outposts can be strategically placed for high benefit. Superhighway - Place them between cities and build High Tower and Stables. You will get your units to where you need them the most much faster, thereby al
Wolves are more dangerous now, I can't see anything wrong with that.
Some people live to whine and complain. Why be angry because Stardock still invest in making new and better versions of the game we love? Would the OP feel better about it if they dropped making expansion packs, and halted the development of this game? I want them to make as many expansions as possible for this game, and guess what, development cost time and money. And to answer OP's question: You should buy it because you'll love it and because you de
I actually think the placements now, smaller battle maps with more choke points, and the swarm mechanic all makes for alot better battles where you actually risk to lose troops. Never happened to me before.
Thank you very much Stardock. You're almost too kind. Please charge me for the next expension. ;) ..And thank you once more for the development of Fallen Enchantress. The game really is a gem, and now it's potential really starts to be fully exploited. Wishes for the future to further build on the potential of this game: Naval features (sea quests, naval warfare, naval yards, naval techs, naval hero traits, naval units etc.) and multiplayer. :D
[quote who="ulysses_31" reply="40" id="3334515"] Quoting Wizard1200, reply 38 I do not use Outposts, because it is to easy to capture and raze them. Why build an outpost when you could be building a city for the same cost ? Wait for the AI to build them and either flip them with your snaking cities or capture them...[/quote] We don't all play with snaking cities. As your post tells; it's rather gamey. I agree outpost