Gates should be placed in city walls where roads intersect with the walls. Sorry, don't know how to include images.
mqpiffle
I agree unquestionably with every point up to and including number 7. Add in the extremely bland city / empire growth and you have a winner.
A level one and two city should only have the adjacent 8 tiles to build on. Level three and four the next ring. Level five the next ring. OR I'm starting to like seanw3's idea of simply using the surrounding eight tiles, then everything from there builds up. Eight tiles = 32 city tiles, which should be plenty of tiles.
I have a few issues with champions in general, but this issue doesn't bother me so much. It could me made more compelling if there was a serious diplo hit with every slaughtered champion, although since there is basically no diplomacy whatsoever at this point, it would be a worthless mechanic. And if an enemy murders one of your potential hires, there should be a pop-up saying such. Maybe you should be able to kidnap enemy heroes and hold them for ransom, so you can
One thing I use to notice about WoM is that if you were view the map from a lower angle, the visual position of the mouse didn't necessarily reflect which tile was actually "under" the mouse, often times causing confusion. Hopefully that makes sense. [e digicons]:S[/e]
[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="3" id="3066677"]When this occurs, you de-select whatever you had selected and select the city. You can find lots of info in the bottom left corner. http://i.imgur.com/ZLit6.jpg [/quote] Yeah it did this in WoM as well, and people STILL complained that there was no info, even though it was right in their face. I feel your pain, Jean-Luc.
31% of the way there. Thanks, Brad!
Yeah this was a weird "feature" of WoM as well. Thought they would have ironed it out by now.
After reading this a second time I get it. And it ought to be looked at.
It's up to the developers to implement a sound game design. Does the proportion of people who are saving and reloading in a strategy game have any bearing on whether the game is a market success or failure? Do people save and load chess games because they made a bad move?
[quote who="Alstein" reply="22" id="3066362"]I'd also like to see a tactical mana limit based on spell affinity and intelligence. This would make using those high-level spells require some specialization.[/quote] Good call.
Title.
[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="25" id="3066028"]Did you know you can LOSE BATTLES in this game?[/quote] Do I at least get a trophy that says something like "You're special, too!" on it?
[quote who="Goontrooper" reply="6" id="3066320"]Quoting taltamir, reply 4 I agree with the OPs criticisms but not his plan of improvement. (except the 1 hit 1 kill plan, that is good idea) I think the first step is to take the sovereign off the battlefield. Age of wonders had the right idea about how to do that.. the sovereign should not gain XP from combat, the sovereign should be relatively weak in melee, and the sovereign should be able to cast into combats within thei
It sounds to me like the recruitable champions' level needs to keep pace with the game level. Maybe the mana cost of the imbue spell ought to scale with the level of the champion your trying to imbue.
Well hopefully the balance pass we're getting today will alleviate some of these issues.
I don't see why not.
But this is different: a unit with first strike would gain the ability to possibly make a preemptive strike on an incoming melee attacker if they're defensively set to do so. I like it. There ought to be many actions like this to engange at the front end of a battle, instead of just standing around and waiting for the AI throw themselves upon your swords. This sounds like a great Path of the Defender trait.
Great screenie Derek!
Rename.
I agree that out-of-combat weight is inconsequential. I do feel that weapons / shields / armor should have functional weight as well as an item weight. Without using a strength prereq per se, the item could have a certain functional weight value, and the wielders' initiative and accuracy could be negatively affected if their strength falls below the value. Or, alternatively, you could just do away with item weight and the encumbrance system as it is and use a functio
Maybe mana for tactical spells should increase with the number of appropriate shards being used for the casting of that spell. Because really, you're getting more power out of the spell, so why shouldn't it cost more mana?
[quote who="dragoaskani" reply="19" id="3065619"]So odd, just this last game my Cersea was getting 180+ damage outta blizzards, can throw firebolts for 55-80 damage. I 3 shotted Torax with the spell based off fire and death shards. And he only had 280 hp. Obviously I was pretty high level at this point in the game. Sitting on about 3 fire shards, 1 earth, 1 air, 2 death, and 5 waters. (large map normal shard count option) I was untouchable pretty much. I could have my soveriegn take out whole
[quote who="scyldSCHEFING" reply="20" id="3065772"]So are beta players just not bothering to read anything the developers have posted before they speak, or what? Why has no one posted the following link yet? https://forums.elementalgame.com/410595 This is not a DEMO, as the OP called it. THIS IS A BETA. BETA MEANS NOT ALL FEATURES, SPELLS, ETC. ARE IMPLEMENTED. MORE MAGIC IS GOING TO BE
[quote who="Fistalis" reply="110" id="3065778"]This beta sucks because I don' have access yet. [/quote] Amen, brother. Just about 12 more hours...