IlluminaZero

[quote who="Kongdej" reply="14" id="3321117"]What? no... I am referring to the amount of tech needed for plate armour for one, and plate armour is still as good vs cutting than chain armour is, so there is little point in using chain amours. and besides that, my games rarely get to the "platemail" part of the game, I focus too much on the wars. I think that there should be added more armours so at the technology level of leather you could specialize some of yo

[quote who="acare84" reply="232" id="3321085"]Steam is the future you should learn to live with it...[/quote] [e digicons]x_x[/e] I like having real ownership of things I purchase, thanks. I tolerate Steam, but I (as many others in this topic, apparently) avoid leasing (not owning) games from Steam when I can. Steam as a future business model to emulate is horrific when you think of the real implications.

[quote who="Kongdej" reply="12" id="3321078"] My problem is, you couldn't really specialize against a certain damage type, because there were no proper armours for the job... Sincerely ~ Kongdej[/quote] I take it you are referring to elemental (crystal costs) + pierce damage? The chain (slash) and plate (blunt) is pretty straightforward, though illogical(plate). I never really saw this as an overly debilitating issue due to the many alternative damage

I always thought the problem was not that the AI was being intelligent by creating alliances and violating them a turn later, but that they were violating the rule-set of the game. I could not find any way for the player to cancel alliances. That and alliance features working, namely your allies declaring war on aggressors. It's perfectly possible that I simply couldn't find how to disable alliances, but that raises a potential interface design issue. [quote who="Amber

[quote who="willie sanderson" reply="85" id="3320644"] ... That's the kind of AI I want to see in this game "from time to time". Some sort of RANDOM choice the AI makes before the game on whether it likes the humaan player or not. The not knowing by the humaan player what he's up against from the start is the fun and challenge of the game. When you see 4 or more AI players marching down upon you, you're going to have a glorious time trying to survive. [/quote] I actua

While I don't think the AI should illogically gang up against the player, I do think it would be appropriate for AIs to create coalitions against dominant powers. This is pretty common in war-sims, for example some of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms games will do exactly this. When the AI only takes into consideration power and becomes increasingly acquiescent as you gain momentum it just makes the end-game increasingly one-sided (and boring).

I do appreciate the work Frogboy (and perhaps others?), the changes look pretty good. I won't have the time to play for quite a while, but I'm rooting for you guys.

Do you have enough crystals to construct it? Nevermind, I was thinking of the Alchemy lab. If you have a herbalist and can't construct an apothecary that's quite strange.

This may seem a bit contrary, but I find that monsters become less of an issue with higher monster densities than lesser densities. This is as you have a greater weaker number of monsters to farm for equipment, summoning items, and experience. I haven't noticed much difference in likelihood of getting "boxed" in by monsters with varying monster densities. With a greater number of weak/medium monsters there is a greater likelihood that I'll be able to kill the monsters boxing m

[quote who="Alstein" reply="74" id="3311309"]2 grain isn't a loser, 2 grain+ garden= lvl 2 city. Then you can build pioneer. You can build up a garden (2 grain= 4 production or 2 essence) by turn 30. THe outposts would help but require tech that takes a few turns. THis change is a buff to Procinipee who ran replace 30 pop with 50 mana. [/quote] That's true. While Gardens needs to be researched, it's the cheapest tech in the game

[quote who="halmal242" reply="71" id="3311271"]Based upon a needed increased growth curve for population wouldn't it then be more necessary to build outposts for the increased population growth improvement? So research for that specific improvement while founding a few initial cities or outposts then grow a single large city with several outposts to have a super fast population growth. This is a more complicated strategy but still possible.[/quote] There are three prob

[quote who="Sanati" reply="68" id="3311237"] It really doesn't matter if it's split. You are getting 6 pop per turn either way, one pioneer every 5 turns, even if you have to cycle building them across however many cities. I definitely agreed with the population cost suggestion, and I'm glad it was added, I just think it needs to be higher to have a noticeable effect. [/quote] This is assuming that the population prerequisite is pooled by all cities. Being

I agree that there are many foreseeable UI improvements that can be done, but complaining about user customization? [quote quoting="post"] It is simply beyond imagination that in 2013, there is still a game that makes me design my own units in order to play optimally. This speaks to the poor quality of the AI as much as anything else. [/quote] This is almost the entire appeal of Fallen Enchantress to me. If anything I want MORE customization option

[quote who="Sanati" reply="60" id="3310725"]Sovereign's Call isn't going to be any more of an advantage than Enchanted Hammers or Propaganda. Unfortunately this change wont have much an impact, since at only 30 population cost an early city is likely the regain that population by the time it finishes building a Pioneer. Pretty easy to get 5-6 growth early on (first ~30 turns)....[/quote] The population cost is most significant with new settlements. It basically equates to:

[quote who="Leeovold" reply="5" id="3310448"] ...I was or thought I was doing well enough until I got invaded. I always lag behind in Research even though I buy into/accept tech treaties with everyone possible. I am fielding squads of 3 against 7...[/quote] For the longest time I thought I was doing something sub-optimally as well. As Sanati mentioned it's a

[quote who="abob101" reply="38" id="3310370"]Brad posted this: "Fixed bug where AI knowledge trading didn't always reduce tradeable knowledge" About 1.2 here: https://forums.elementalgame.com/439150 So i'd say hopefully that the fix above, and maybe reducing the KnowledgeFromResearchPercentage to .1 as it sounds like it should be, will resolve this issue.[/quote] It's reassuring that this is (or has already?) been looked int

I certainly hope so, I had already modified the value to zero before even posting. I've spent the last few days trying to make a massive epic games work and every single time around turn 100 the exponential tech growth of the factions would hit like a hammer. Even if I did play the game all the way through the pacing was hectic. Heaven forbid if I wasted a turn or settled on a tile without an essence for the inspiration spell. Defeats the entire premise of what I was trying to ach

I assumed this was standard for allies and team mates myself until I started doing tests with allies of differing difficulties. IIRC you also still have to negotiate for treaties with the exchange dictated by the power difference as though you were both opposing factions. I would the economic/trade/technology would be pretty much a given for a teammate as both sides benefit. As it is now, if you have a teammate/ally all it means is that you both won't attack each other. Ac

Good to see I'm not the only one with this issue.The problem is NOT with advanced units... Namely as while the computer may cheat tech they frequently have trouble having sufficient iron/crystals to produce said units. It's the material/grain/research/gildar bonuses they get repetitively at the end of the tech trees, and later the damage/defense/accuracy bonuses. It really breaks epic games. Some additional screens: <a href="http://imgur.com/v3vfHGz,tb9NVJz,NUWZna5,UEa