Question: When I promote a leader and assign him to my ... 'social production' ... 'queue', does that then increase the Military production when there is a Shipyard attached to the planet(s)? I'm asking the question horribly, so my apologies.
GalCiv3 Forums
I spam starbases because I like spamming starbases, but when you look at how inefficient the cost versus reward is, it's almost counter productive and the only reason I don't call it counter productive is because I'm not going to insult myself that way. As was mentioned, I think that the best thing it does for you is morale, though once you tech up, manufacturing and research go up, but when you compare that with the flat bonus from most tech trees ... Crap, I like starbases, is t
It took Stardock a while to get the AI right on both the previous civs, I'm more than willing to see what happens either with them or the modders. I wouldn't play this kind of game multiplayer even if I was getting paid to do so. I'll enjoy what they produced and play against gifted. It certainly is not bug free, but it is no worse and actually better than many games I have played of late.
Well, one thing that I would suggest. The AI on Challenging is often grinding it's production to a halt due to unrest. It starts off fairly strong and then gets stuck. It seems to happen most with AI's that are militaristic that keep cities they conquer. They either need to raze them (easiest) or be better at using appropriate buildings/enchantments. Of course, it drives me a little batty that most of the AI's ignore viable essence squares and plop down just about anywhere. A 3/3/
Nope, I figured the same, but I just had one where I knocked the unrest to 0 with a combination of empire wide -unrest and city enchantment. None of the conquered cities were able to do ongoing tasks and they were all at 0-8% unrest. The reload didn't work, but I still have that saved game so I'll double check.
Derek - In .87 will still have the issue that on tactical maps with restrictive terrain (bottleneck) the fast melee troops were in the back, which would cause a loss of turn for them. Any chance for a fix on that?
@Azunai_ It is funny the way we look at the game and how different our view points are. When I attack an AI city and one shot kill his heroes with my troops. They don't seem all that heroic. A level 7 Hero has only had 5 levels of development (pick class at 2) and the first three or four levels of that is selecting bonus XP traits, though I'm guessing you don't do that. To me, they are just getting started, but you see them as godly because they can help clear an ignis lair,
[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="193" id="3354807"] Yves, you are already on record in this thread saying you liked the way heroes were in FE. FE had the exact same XP splitting mechanism. You are wrong. QED.[/quote] No it doesn't have identical split. They reduced the split XP slightly. They also reduced over all XP. They also reduced a Heroes leveled ability at the bottom and lower middle of the curve to try to leave room at the top. They incr
[quote who="Azunai_" reply="195" id="3354810"] the point is - 3 level 10 heroes are on par with one level 16 hero (sometimes better, sometimes worse). with the split - it's a choice. without it, there's no choice at all. you'd be dumb to not put them all in one freaking overpowered stack. sounds like a lot of fun rampaging the countryside with an army of gods. NOT. [/quote] You know, you keep bringing up this 'choice' thing. The choice right
[quote who="Azunai_" reply="188" id="3354778"] let's do the same with 3000 XP total single guy - level 16 2 guys - both level 12 (almost 13) 3 guys - all level 10 (close to level 11) yeah, totally devastating 'nuff said [/quote] You're forgetting that the troops with those heroes level slower too and that it takes a heck of a lot of battle in LH to even think about getting to level 16, muc
[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="182" id="3354754"] I just want you to give the game a chance.[/quote] Look, the Beta is about expressing opinion. I've been playing Stardock games for a while. There have been times when I didn't like one aspect or another, but the core of the game kept me playing. The Heroes are supposed to be central to LH. They just don't feel right any more. Because of how central they are, it ruins the over all game experience for me. I agree wi
[quote who="moi-meme" reply="173" id="3354711"] Quoting Azunai_, reply 171 your logic is flawed. if you want to model the game in a way that allows you to solve it by math, you have to take more then just the single XP split mecahnic into account. i doubt it's even possible to calculate which playstyle is better. if one level 11 (or whatever) hero is better than two level 7 heroes for you, that's great. go for it. claiming that the alternative isn't smart i
[quote who="Anelyn" reply="157" id="3354576"] Is really not as bad as you make it sound. You wouldn't want to get high level with the early game troops or mid game since you don't have access to all the magic enhancements (mounts included), nor the bonuses from well built fortresses (including city buffs and buildings that affect units defense, accuracy, hp, initiative etc). When gaining levels they get a bit of hp, spell resist and accuracy. You can only upgrade their armor / w
[quote who="Azunai_" reply="154" id="3354497"] if you don't want to use heroes, that's your choice. [/quote] Actually, no, it isn't my choice. I don't play games to butt my head into a wall. The way all the math works out, you are always better running a single hero and troops. The single hero and troops will out level and significantly out perform a dual hero set with troops. You are
[quote who="Azunai_" reply="148" id="3354358"] Quoting fenwe, reply 133 They are supposed to be more powerful. There is a difference between that and what is happening on the battlefield. If I have two heroes who's combined level 7 lets me kill a level 14 dragon, then I'm with you. It doesn't work that way in practice though. Those level 7 heroes would just get eaten for lunch, as they should be. Unfortunately, putting two heroes together means that t
[quote who="bpalczewski" reply="22" id="3354286"] I wonder how many of those who claim beastlord to be overpower at times re-load in case of unsuccessful early attempt .... [/quote] Yep, that is the only way that it might be OP. Resistance is bumped significantly, so it is much much tougher than it used to be.
There are certain other issues to. Namely, when the battlefield is constricted and the guys with the highest initiative are in the back. Narsty stuff needing to skip a turn.
[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="111" id="3353365"] Quoting OliverFA_306, reply 109There is an important factor which is being fun. And having a bunch of OP heroes running around with no concern for trained troops would be fun? I personally think not. We have been through all of this in the FE beta. There are really good reasons these things are the way they are. If you don't want to accept it that's fine (it is your opinion after all) b
[quote who="OliverFA_306" reply="131" id="3354055"] Not eating is easy. Not playing LH... that's a much more significant thing.[/quote] I find it fairly easy, considering that currently Legendary Heroes is actually legendary Hero that is actually your sovereign. For those of you who like it, are you playing above Challenging? Is it possible that your not finding an issue because of higher available XP?
[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="72" id="3352830"] Quoting flagyl, reply 71by the time you have earned your second* champion (or third**), do you have an army to accompany her/him by that time? Or have you made plans such that in a few turns you are ready to supply him/her with two or three units? First, I never park my champs. They should be questing/exploring. To answer your question, though, no. I don't always have backup troops for my cha
What happens late game as far as scaling might be over the top. The problem is that beginning game, the mage is doing less damage than a gent with a sword at every level until and unless you take the a couple of levels of evoker and to get past the heightened resistances, and they have been heightened, you need spell mastery. The best way to play right now is to grab an axe for a lot longer in LH than you needed to in FE.
Guys, while logically the city raze should take longer, why should I take the unrest penalty of an additional number of cities? It just drags the game down.
[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="57" id="3352483"] Quoting fenwe, reply 55 ... If you think it is OP, then don't do it. ... But the AI has to be able to follow the same rules of the game as we do. Thus, if I were to choose not to do it and it was available the obvious strong strategy, then the AI would proceed to do it just because it's the obvious strong strategy. Consequently, this would force the player to do the same.....or lose. [/quote]
[quote who="barrywhiteisalright" reply="35" id="3352250"] *Increase XP return when fighting enemy sov troops *streamline the skill trees even further or adjust them to map size *CREATE AN ARENA WHERE CHAMPIONS CAN HONE THEIR SKILLS [/quote] What is even less fun is that they do scale XP due to map size. They scale XP rewards down the larger the map.
I haven't read through the entire thread, but even after the update in .85, leveling just two heroes is problematic. I don't care if people say that stacking heroes into one massive group is OP. This is a single player game. If you think it is OP, then don't do it. It is just so incredibly frustrating to earn the fame or finish a quest and get 'rewarded' by a hero, and then pay that Hero to sit at a town and do absolutely nothing. Quite frankly, it is just straight up bull
Elemental Forums