Mistwraithe

Mistwraithe

Joined Member # 655176
1 Posts 86 Replies 581 Reputation

Personally I have a strong dislike of the unrest mechanic as implemented. But I've posted my thoughts in detail several times before so I'll just say I don't like it ;-).

16 Replies 22,670 Views

I like the fact that 0.85 fixes the bug with the whole army being teleported to a city of the leading hero dies. Can we please have more long standing bugs like this fixed? Pretty please? Fixing these sorts of issues really do improve the feel of the whole game.

212 Replies 639,738 Views

Too true JShores (although I disagree about LH not adding more bugs, it feels like there is enough new code that there will inevitably be a moderate number of new bugs). The bigger bugs have been fixed and overall LH is a pretty stable game but there are still a moderate number of little bugs and annoyances, quite a few of which can be tracked back to much earlier in the development. These little things really get in the way of it feeling like a AAA game and I think it wou

31 Replies 97,920 Views

Interesting thread. I'm with Sythion though. I don't think LH is well balanced currently (in particular it should be called Pathetic Heroes to be accurate ;-) ) which really makes the gameplay suffer but if they fix the balance then I think LH will be a much better game than WoM was for much the same reasons as Sythion says (and few more that I've already gone over in depth back when WoM was released and don't really want to regurgitate!). However it is nice that

39 Replies 52,917 Views

I think Arcane Monolith is very strong and agree it makes a massive difference to how easy it is to play the game because of how much map control it gives you. However I think the main reason it is so strong currently is because the alternative (outposts from settlers) is so incredibly underpowered. 30 pop plus a few turns production, then a few more turns walking there, to get an outpost is vastly more expensive and cumbersome than just paying 50 mana and getting an outpost immediate

31 Replies 33,724 Views

[quote who="Sanati" reply="55" id="3347576"]Rather than simply removing the AI's ability to declare war, you can "fix" those weights yourself, a few quick changes and you can make the AI value treaties much more, not be as zealous about the totally worthless game score, and not rage at everyone who builds the wrong tower. This way you can set it up so that you have to put some effort into keeping the peace, and even set up the AI diplomatic traits to have more effect so maybe a warmonger

63 Replies 141,995 Views

If you hadn't previously played WoM/FE with encumbrance and were just starting to play LH then would you notice the absence of encumbrance? I don't think you would. That isn't a compelling argument but it indicates it isn't a critical part of this sort of game. So then the question is whether encumbrance adds enough interesting choices to outweigh the extra complexity. I'm undecided on this but I haven't seen a really compelling argument for reinstating it yet.

18 Replies 62,771 Views

Interesting post. Like Xia I expected the opposite complaint from the title. At higher difficulty levels the AI will only declare war on you if they have more power (or at least comparable). A large part of power comes from army size and settlements. Assuming Easy difficulty works the same way then recruiting enough troops and settling enough to keep your power at or above the level of the AI should make it much less likely they will declare war on you. The other thing you can do is c

63 Replies 141,995 Views

Too true. At least it appears Kael and Frogboy know about it. (I don't agree at all with the people wanting to get rid of XP splitting for heroes though, the old way without XP splitting meant there was no sensible choice but to have ALL your heroes in one stack, anything else meant you were throwing XP away. The current scheme means that so long as you have one or more heroes in each stack you don't waste any XP).

38 Replies 101,566 Views

The problem isn't XP splitting. The problem is that heroes level too slowly and are too weak mid-late game (fighting heroes anyway). Without XP splitting the only optimal path is to put all heroes in one stack and use that stack to take as many monsters as possible. With XP splitting it is viable to split the heroes into several armies which all try to clear monsters. Keep in mind that XP splitting doesn't make you lose XP, you just divide the XP from monsters up betwe

46 Replies 51,647 Views

Excellent post, [e digicons]k1[/e] I agree entirely. I'm an empire builder at heart (sounds like OP is the same) but there is little point building an empire and strong heroes etc because there is nothing to do with it once you reach past mid game. I think fixing this will require lots of changes and you've mentioned some of them. Just improving the AI to the point where a war between a strong AI and a weak AI will pretty quickly result in the strong AI conquering the

20 Replies 74,450 Views

[quote who="ogredpowell" reply="9" id="3344984"]Let heroes start out wimpy, require some grooming but w dedication become major forces.[/quote] Exactly. At low levels heroes should need to be cautious and have other troops supporting them (although fighting class heroes should still be able to survive on the front lines in a fair fight, just not when outnumbered/outleveled). Mid game heroes (eg level 10) should be pretty strong but still quite vulnerable if they get th

17 Replies 16,544 Views

This has always been one of my biggest bugbears with FE. As someone said the game is either too easy (at difficulties around challenging) or you ramp the difficulty up and then struggle simply because the AI is cheating so much. Some players obviously enjoy the challenge of beating an AI which is effectively playing a different game and has much stronger units etc but I much prefer at least the illusion of a more level playing field. Dunno what can be done about it though. Do

22 Replies 35,882 Views

How do you reload them with one hand encumbered with a crossbow? However realism aside it seems a decent idea, though I think they should only get to fire every second turn.

9 Replies 4,878 Views

What an awesome thread! Two things: 1. Getting scaled down XP for managing to kill a monster more powerful than you is about as unfun as anything I can imagine. It has to be fixed. 2. AoW:SM was a really good game despite the poor AI. With great AI it would probably be the best fantasy strategy game of all time and we would quite likely still be playing it rather than FE/LH... All IMO of course.

32 Replies 96,513 Views

My vote is for seeing the heroes details. As others have said it is a strategy game which pretty much by definitely is about winning through making good choices. Not showing the detail is mainly just punishing players who haven't played often enough to remember the details (either that or forcing people to go to a wiki/the xml files in order to find out the details).

22 Replies 46,479 Views

I think they need mechanics like swarm however I would prefer it to be a more complex mechanic where flanking was more advantageous than swarming from one side only. In any case even the basic version they currently have adds a bit more strategy. A big problem I think is that heroes are currently underpowered. Swarm just accentuates that basic problem. The other big problem is as you have said, the game is all about glass cannons currently.

32 Replies 38,007 Views

[quote who="Darxim" reply="1" id="3341437"]I'd say you can double-click to cast, but it too often uses the second click of the double-click for targeting, so you'll often end up casting the spell on the wrong spot.[/quote] This bug drives me crazy, particularly when casting Arcane Monolith! Really needs a fix.

9 Replies 22,297 Views