[quote who="feelotraveller" reply="122" id="3086462"]How about allowing any unit which entirely skips its turn get one counter-attack? This would prevent any Melee kiting (no point moving away any longer) if the unit is prepared for it. [/quote] This is what I always thought defense should do. Rather than just an ability that comes with shields, Defense should be purchased abiltiy for all infantry squads. Giving a counter instead of an attack and a defense bonus (greater with shields)
Stupidity10
Catapult abilities + spells
[quote who="Alfdaur" reply="92" id="3086016"]This is a rather harsh method I'm suggesting. But in White-Wolfs Vampire: The masqeruade, you could get extra turn actions for your character trough diciplines. What I'm proposing is that initiative only gives extra actions, but no extra moves and actions. The champions could attack two times extra, move two times extra, or move and attack one extra, each. This would make initiative less overpowerd, but will change the system. I'm reall
[quote who="ks83" reply="13" id="3085381"]One tweak that might help is archers suffer penalties to damage/accuracy if they moved this turn or last turn (or possibly even the turn before that). The idea is that archers are most effective when they hold their ground, once they break and run they need to time to regroup and size up their targets.[/quote] Still just slows it down. My solution: lower initiative gap between units and everything said in first response
Evoker is the most game breaking trait in the game. A lv 4 mage hero can reach Max spell Dmg, evoker/Spell cost reduction trait are the only 2 mage abilities worth getting and always will be with current system Kill/change/nerf it and add Int bonus Damage/Resistance instead
Thanks for the awesome chart Troops in beta are too raw for any meaningful analysis. Just comparing stats though i'd say that Dex and Intelligence need a subtle boost. (Int giving dmg resistance to spells, Dodge/Acc reworked)
Is it just me or is that path not optimal? It seems to be going through the woods when it could just go around.
Ughhh... Is that the overpowered Fast trait I see? Bah, hills? Now i'l really be looking down on your AI! Haha, sry jk Ty for adding to tactical combat and the new scenery looks great Do hills do extra dmg to units also on hills or just units lower?
Placing units at the start of battle could be an trait, adds a little variety to the Leader Champion. Normally each army could just have a predetermined setup. No Backstab, when was that said? My biggest simple problems: Overpower needs reworked. Different levels? Overpower max 3/6/9 Defend needs reworked. Suggest spammable, +def +counterattack and special weapon bonus (Extra ranged Def for shield, Pike first strike counter, sword multi counter)<
Simple Fast Fun
Ya it's terrible and i'm worried about it's future. [quote who="seanw3" reply="3" id="3082280"] I plan to pop out new Path mods every few weeks as they are very modular and take little time to make. [/quote] Paths like the ones we already have or advanced paths? Ex Rogue ---- Assasin ---- &nb
Chapter 1: Sov doesn't really need a unique tree, it is already the only character you can cutomize yourself. Simply adding some unique traits would be enough. Chapter 2: Agree completly. I really dont understand why focus is a fire spell, wouldnt it make a much better mage ability? While I don't see them removing all numbered traits it would be nice to see less of them. Chapter 3: unlocking dual specialization would be a really nice addition, i
Because nothing we have heard shows any ambition for adding actual tactics to tactical combat? (3min rule) Please correct me if I am wrong
[quote] - Clear delineation of racial differences. In FE, especially when designing a custom kingdom/empire, racial selection doesn't come with any sort of indication of whether or not that decision is important, or how it might be important.[/quote] Of course [quote] - Spell Research. Sure it's convenient to just get all the spells as soon as one's hero advances to the right level, but it's also boring. Additionally, it takes away a play choice: in WoM I could
[quote]c) Research spells independently.[/quote] No, WOM had this and it was terrible. That said, it is way too easy to become an Arch Mage or whatever lv 5 magic is called. Personally I would fix this by making a mid-late tech requirement in the magic tree for lv 5 magic and an early game one for multi elemental magic. Also for spell differentation you just need more quest reward spells, ex Alchemy and Shadow World (Unlock mini schools maybe or a common quest to unlock a random
Cover bonus > Range penalty Battlefields are tiny but if your behind a tree you should get a dodge bonus or something.
[quote who="seanw3" reply="23" id="3079623"]As I've said earlier, I think a basic melee attack should only be able to kill 1 figure at a time. (if the attacker is only 1 human sized figure). Obviously large monster sized figures might can attack more than 1 ... but a 2000 damage champion killing a 20 person unit in 1 hit without using any special abilities seems kind of strange. If you want him killing a bunch of dudes, just increase his initiative or something ???[/quote] It'
A small bonus to champion strategic movement would be an interesting and simple experiment.
There should be a flee ability for assains that just removes the assasin from combat. With some kind of condition (Higher movement than enemies) or multi turn cooldown.
I shall join this chorus of agreement.
An original idea but I don't see it happening because it slows down games (as opposed to an XP giving Spell), you can lose troops and to be honest combat isn't that fun. 90% of people wont want to spend mana to fight unless theres a chance for loot or just rediculous exp.
XP split is a necessary change. Not only were champions overpowered but they made up too much of armies composition. With limits to army size and no XP split you will always shove as many champions into your main army as possible in an effort to feed them. With split XP, XP becomes a resource that requires management, adding strategic choices to the game and working against the one massive army strategy. I am positive it will be balanced by Beta end.
Couldn't agree with last two posts more, tactical battles need more terrain variance and a slight defensive terrain bonus would be an interesting mechanic.
[quote who="Grizzyloins" reply="4" id="3078517"]Well that is very encouraging because, as I noted in the MoM vs FE thread, right now FE has a chess set that is all pawns. Some little pawns, some medium, some larger and maybe sometimes an ineffectual bishop. Too easy to beat, very little tactical thought required. Just bring a bigger sword and whack away until they're all dead. More/better spells and a tactically challenging battle system are what FE (IMHO) is missing most at this point in