A few suggestions

from Elemental Forums

I've been thinking about it and trying to come up with ways I wish FE were improved.  

First, let me say I really enjoy the heroes.  However, outside of that, I feel the game needs multiple changes to make it a more complete experience.

Computer AI:

I have played quite a lot and the computer has only ever defeated me through wiping me out militarily.  The computer should be more of a threat in other ways as well.  The simplest one would be to have at least some computer opponents focus on spell of mastery.  They would make sure they get the necessary elemental shards and materials (even trading for crystal and metal with other computers), increase their production in one or two cities, and then focus on the towers and casting the spell with a few cities and on building defensive armies with the rest.  I feel that having the computer be a more multi-faceted threat would add a lot to the game.

 

Cities:

 

Currently, cities feel empty to me.  You are always increasing your city capability, but rarely doing something significant with that capability.  Also, there are too many slight but worthwhile improvements, so it feels like cities have a horde of makework to do.  I have 3 suggestions.  

1) More and more interesting world and nation wonders.  The current wonders are good but honestly a bit lacking in flavor.  Use ancient wonders from earth as your inspiration, and come up with more wonders.  Some could have rewards like a free tech or even the ability to buy a single book that gives a unique ability to a hero.  One shot boosts shouldn't kill game balance, but would still be useful.

2) Add workers to the game.  Basically the reason for this is that the cities have too many little things to do outside of the city.  It would make more sense to leave this to a worker unit, or even two (one for magical improvements and one for non-magical), so that you build the worker unit and then the city can focus on city stuff.  This would add: less makework for the city and more things to keep track of while at peace, both of which would add to the game.  If you don't want to add another unit, make it possible to build a city improvement that allows for a second queue for outside city improvements.  I'm not talking about a second queue for military, just for external improvements like shards and mines and farms etc.

3) Make non-hero units more powerful.  This would give more meaning to building them, which would in turn increase the importance of cities, where they are built.

 

Units:

1) Unit starting stats are actually very nice as they are.  What needs to change for units is their long term potential.  My though is to have units level up like heroes but draw from a different and weaker pool of abilities.  For example, at level up you would get to pick something for a unit like +3 health, +1 defense, +2 attack, +10 carry capacity, +5 accuracy or +1 initiative.  However, they would never get access to abilities like +1 health/ level. or +2 initiative that heroes can access (at least not from level up).  Heroes would still be stronger than units long term, but it wouldn't be as ridiculously one sided, and units would become more interesting.  

2) Sions should be cheaper, influence wise.  If henchmen are 40, then Sions should be 60 or 65, rather than 100.  Basically for the price of 5 henchmen you should be able to get 3 Sions, rather than just 2.  This would make them significantly more affordable long term, and therefore make them more worthwhile.

 

Hope this helps (and that someone reads it :-P)

12,329 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from Elemental Forums Top

1) Unit starting stats are actually very nice as they are. What needs to change for units is their long term potential. My though is to have units level up like heroes but draw from a different and weaker pool of abilities. For example, at level up you would get to pick something for a unit like +3 health, +1 defense, +2 attack, +10 carry capacity, +5 accuracy or +1 initiative. However, they would never get access to abilities like +1 health/ level. or +2 initiative that heroes can access (at least not from level up). Heroes would still be stronger than units long term, but it wouldn't be as ridiculously one sided, and units would become more interesting.
End of quote

I think this is too much for micromanagement for your trained units, I would rather have "classes" as a trait-type thing, that I select when I customize the unit, this class trait will determine how many hp/accuracy/magic resist and whatever stats go up for each level-up

2) Add workers to the game. Basically the reason for this is that the cities have too many little things to do outside of the city. It would make more sense to leave this to a worker unit, or even two (one for magical improvements and one for non-magical), so that you build the worker unit and then the city can focus on city stuff. This would add: less makework for the city and more things to keep track of while at peace, both of which would add to the game. If you don't want to add another unit, make it possible to build a city improvement that allows for a second queue for outside city improvements. I'm not talking about a second queue for military, just for external improvements like shards and mines and farms etc.
End of quote

Your ideas behind giving more life to cities have been on my mind too, but right now, the mechanics around world wonders sucks, and generally, I don't like world wonders in any game, they often give me the sense of failing and ragequitting after losing 1 thousand and 300 turns building this one building, and the AI finishes 1 turn before me (A bit exaggerated, but I hate it).
More national wonders, and a better sense of town develop-ment with less "workshop building-grind"

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top

 

I vehemently disagree it would be good for some of the computer opponents to concentrate on Spell of Making. The last thing I want to do is get well into a game and then get the message that the computer just won by casting Spell of Making. Furthermore, some say the spell is far too easy. However, as a player, I have the choice to use it or not, so it doesn't hurt the game.

Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting coyote303, reply 2
 

I vehemently disagree it would be good for some of the computer opponents to concentrate on Spell of Making. The last thing I want to do is get well into a game and then get the message that the computer just won by casting Spell of Making. Furthermore, some say the spell is far too easy. However, as a player, I have the choice to use it or not, so it doesn't hurt the game.
End of coyote303's quote

 

I think ideally the player would get warnings at multiple points; "AI Player X has completed the Tower of Whatever", "AI Player Y has begun to cast the Spell of Making [with a timer in the corner counting turns until they win]".  

 

If the player doesn't react at any of those points and intervene, it's their own darn fault for being outplayed.  

Reply #4 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Bobchillingworth, reply 3

I think ideally the player would get warnings at multiple points; "AI Player X has completed the Tower of Whatever", "AI Player Y has begun to cast the Spell of Making [with a timer in the corner counting turns until they win]".

If the player doesn't react at any of those points and intervene, it's their own darn fault for being outplayed.  

End of Bobchillingworth's quote

Two words:  Huge.  Map.

I tend to play on Medium/Large maps with all the map settings on "Random".  Even on Medium maps, if the game pace (I think that's the setting that controls research rates) comes up on a fast setting, I can have the tech in place to cast Spell of Making before I've contacted all of the AI factions.

With larger maps and more opponents, it becomes increasingly likely that one of the AIs will have the capability to cast Spell of Making before you've contacted them.  Warnings that "AI Player X will win the game in 10 turns" don't make your loss any less arbitrary if you haven't met Player X, have no idea where in the vastness of unexplored map Player X might be, and, even if you did know, you would have to fight through three other AI opponents to get there.

1) Unit starting stats are actually very nice as they are.  What needs to change for units is their long term potential.  My though is to have units level up like heroes but draw from a different and weaker pool of abilities.  For example, at level up you would get to pick something for a unit like +3 health, +1 defense, +2 attack, +10 carry capacity, +5 accuracy or +1 initiative.  However, they would never get access to abilities like +1 health/ level. or +2 initiative that heroes can access (at least not from level up).  Heroes would still be stronger than units long term, but it wouldn't be as ridiculously one sided, and units would become more interesting.
End of quote

Agreed that it would be nice to see units improve in ways other than just getting more HP as they level up.  I've been thinking about whether it would be possible to let them take a hero-style skill boost every 4 or 5 levels, but I agree with Kongdej that having to pick for them every level would be too much busywork, especially if you're going to spec all your units roughly the same way.  ("New stack just joined my sov and they killed a dragon!  Woo-hoo!  Oh... Now I have six identical units who all just gained five levels at once..." Have fun doing 30 skill selections in a row.)  It also adds a bit more micromanagement in the tactical combat screen because you would presumably want to keep track of which of the two identical-looking units was given +Defense and which got +Attack.

Eventually, I decided that it would probably be better to just give all units (trained and hero alike) +1 (or, better, +5%) on all stats (except Move) every level.  For a pair of equal-level combatants, it's a wash - my level 10 spearman's +50% Defense and HP cancel out your level 10 archer's +50% attack - but it gives a level 10 unit a solid advantage against a level 5, even if the level 5's base values are superior.  (The ideal way to implement this would be to give the higher-level unit an across-the-board bonus of 5% to everything, so that it's all guaranteed to cancel out correctly, but I assume that could only be done in the game engine, not by XML modding.)

Any sort of system for making higher-level troops substantially more powerful does, however, have a serious drawback in this game:  The AI sucks at keeping its units alive.  The trained units accompanying my sov typically get up into at least the teens, if not the low 20s, but I don't think I've ever seen a trained AI unit even get close to level 10.  Until/unless something is done about that, bonuses for high-level units will just tilt the balance even more heavily in the player's favor, which is not a particularly good thing.

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting nDervish, reply 5


Two words:  Huge.  Map.

I tend to play on Medium/Large maps with all the map settings on "Random".  Even on Medium maps, if the game pace (I think that's the setting that controls research rates) comes up on a fast setting, I can have the tech in place to cast Spell of Making before I've contacted all of the AI factions.

With larger maps and more opponents, it becomes increasingly likely that one of the AIs will have the capability to cast Spell of Making before you've contacted them.  Warnings that "AI Player X will win the game in 10 turns" don't make your loss any less arbitrary if you haven't met Player X, have no idea where in the vastness of unexplored map Player X might be, and, even if you did know, you would have to fight through three other AI opponents to get there.

End of nDervish's quote

 

I suppose.  I'm thinking of something more like the Civ IV system, where if an AI decides to pursue a space victory the player gets a prompt when they complete the initial project which unlocks the win condition, a counter on the victory screen of how close any AI ships are to completion, and finally a notification when the AI ship has launched and the player has a dozen turns or so to prevent a win by taking the AI capital.  Civ IV huge maps are much larger than anything FE has (without modding), and it's still entirely possible for a player on one continent to at least set back the progress of a space-bound AI on another, given how much advance warning there is.  But I admit that Civ has more functional diplomatic options to slow down the AI, and a longer preparation period before a peaceful win condition can be fulfilled.  Both being characteristics which would also benefit FE.  

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

I think the AI should pursue the Magic victory as well as the quest victory, (which is why you can turn it off for once), I also think that there should be plenty of warning.
In my opinion the master quest should be re-cooked, and the magic victory should warn you and give vision and all the stuff you need. The AI NEED to RUSH people going for magic victory, throw everything at them, even if its an AI.
Ps, if its still too early in the tech tree, it could be moved 1 tier up, after the AI learns how to pursue these victory conditions, it will be far easier to balance them out so it is possible to do something against this move.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #7 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Kongdej, reply 7
In my opinion the master quest should be re-cooked, and the magic victory should warn you and give vision and all the stuff you need. The AI NEED to RUSH people going for magic victory, throw everything at them, even if its an AI.
End of Kongdej's quote

Agreed that both Master Quest and Spell of Making need a good deal of reworking.  I'm a little iffy on AIs going all-out to take down anyone pursuing Spell of Making without first defining what constitutes "going for magic victory".  In the thread on whether Spell of Making victory is too easy, there seemed to be a lot of people saying "the AI should get increasingly aggressive with each tower you build", but that ignores the other, completely unrelated benefits the towers provide: Each one gives you two shards to boost your spell power.  Personally, when I get the tech for it, I build all four towers ASAP, but I don't even consider starting to cast Spell of Making until a hundred or more turns later, if ever.  Building the towers does not necessarily reflect any interest whatsoever in going for a magic victory.

The other thing with a "stomp anyone building towers/casting SoM" is that it rather explicitly turns magic victory into nothing more than conquest victory in different clothing, and I thought the general consensus was that each victory condition should be distinct, rather than all of the others just being conquest-victory-by-proxy.

Reply #8 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting nDervish, reply 8
I'm a little iffy on AIs going all-out to take down anyone pursuing Spell of Making without first defining what constitutes "going for magic victory".
End of nDervish's quote

I was only thinking once you started casting the spell, not when building the towers, but when the AI players had the "25 turns till you lose the game" signal, that is the magic victory.
again, it have to become a balance of conquest and/or technological and industrial pursuit, because it's easy to either remake it as another way to win conquest, or it becomes "I am fiddling in the corner, and then I won" victory. The balance is difficult because its either too hard or too easy.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #9 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Kongdej, reply 1
I think this is too much for micromanagement for your trained units, I would rather have "classes" as a trait-type thing, that I select when I customize the unit, this class trait will determine how many hp/accuracy/magic resist and whatever stats go up for each level-up
End of Kongdej's quote

 

I honestly think that if the upgrades are random and have some variation then it wouldn't be too much micromanagement.  For one thing I often go through this already for henchmen, and it feels like part of the reward for defeating something impressive.  

 

Quoting coyote303, reply 2
I vehemently disagree it would be good for some of the computer opponents to concentrate on Spell of Making. The last thing I want to do is get well into a game and then get the message that the computer just won by casting Spell of Making. Furthermore, some say the spell is far too easy. However, as a player, I have the choice to use it or not, so it doesn't hurt the game.
End of coyote303's quote

 

I honestly don't care how they do it, I just want the computer to be a multi-faceted threat, rather than a one dimensional one.  You could set it as a timer: the computer only starts going after spell of making after a certain number of turns.  That should balance out your objection while allowing the computer to win through a different method.

Quoting Kongdej, reply 7
The AI NEED to RUSH people going for magic victory, throw everything at them, even if its an AI.
End of Kongdej's quote

Also, in general, I don't want going for spell of making to make everyone else hostile.  It should give a very significant negative modifier, but if you are strong enough or they like you enough they shouldn't attack.

Reply #10 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting archdrake, reply 10

Quoting Kongdej, reply 1I think this is too much for micromanagement for your trained units, I would rather have "classes" as a trait-type thing, that I select when I customize the unit, this class trait will determine how many hp/accuracy/magic resist and whatever stats go up for each level-up

I honestly think that if the upgrades and random and have some variation then it wouldn't be too much micromanagement.  For one thing I often go through this already for henchmen, and it feels like part of the reward for defeating something impressive.

End of archdrake's quote

It's not just the micromanagement of selecting the upgrades when they level up, but also the ongoing micromanagement of keeping track of which unit has which upgrades so that they can be used appropriately based on those upgrades.  Unless all units of the same base design are automatically assigned identical upgrades at each level, you're going to be have a hard time avoiding that one.

Quoting archdrake, reply 10
I honestly don't care how they do it, I just want the computer to be a multi-faceted threat, rather than a one dimensional one.  You could set it as a timer: the computer only starts going after spell of making after a certain number of turns.  That should balance out your objection while allowing the computer to win through a different method.
End of archdrake's quote

Not really.  I hear there are others on the forum who consider 100 turns to be "end-game".  I, on the other hand, have had games run for around 700 turns (IIRC, my longest ended at 699).  Any timer long enough to allow me to enjoy killing monsters and building up my cities without cutting my game short at turn 300 will will also be long enough that it's completely irrelevant to people who wrap the game up at turn 150.

I definitely agree that the computer should be a multi-faceted threat, but the AI shouldn't actively pursue Spell of Mastery at this time because, in its current form, it's too easy to achieve.  Once it's changed into something other than "research a few techs, construct a few buildings, and press the 'I win' button", then, by all means, teach the AI how to do it.  Just not now.