I think the problem is that damage is in all cases randomized from 0 to maximum. I believe defense also reduces magic damage, so even mediocre rolls will seem weak at late game.

In my opinion the minimum damage needs to rise a bit with the maximum damage to produce more consistent results.

After a few attempts at fixing this by modding the xml files I've discovered this.

It seems like the relevant lines in the CoreSpells_xxx_tactical.xml files are lines like these (here from fire dart):

<GameModifier InternalName="FlameDartModifier">
<ModType>Unit</ModType>
<Attribute>DefendableDamage</Attribute>
<Calculate InternalName="AttackerIntelligence" ValueOwner="CastingUnit">
<Expression><![CDATA[[UnitStat_Intelligence]]]></Expression>
</Calculate>
<Calculate InternalName="Value" ValueOwner="CastingUnit">
<Expression><![CDATA[[AttackerIntelligence] * -0.5]]></Expression>
</Calculate>
<Calculate InternalName="Value">
<Expression><![CDATA[[Value] * [UnitStat_NumFireShards]]]></Expression>
</Calculate>
</GameModifier>

Specifically the line:

<Expression><![CDATA[[Value] * [UnitStat_NumFireShards]]]></Expression>

is not doing anything. For instance, changing it to 

<Expression><![CDATA[[Value] * [UnitStat_NumFireShards] * 100.0]]></Expression>

should make fire dart insanely powerfull, but that is not the case. However, if the part that should account for the number of shards is removed, so that the line just reads

<Expression><![CDATA[[Value] * 100.0]]></Expression>

then the spell will be as powerfull as one would expect (i.e. 100 times as powerfull as it's supposed to be). [UnitStat_NumFireShards] appears to be invalid somehow, causing the game engine to ignore the statement which should take care of the shard number dependency.

How about you leave this kind of commentary to yourself and not attempt to derail another thread into a flamefest? Leave the people to report their issues in peace so the SD guys who have to dig through them don't get berated in each one.

I've only ever had 1 shard in a game (restarting repeatedly, ftw) but I've always felt like they do nothing.

Even if damage is 0 thru int * 2 the upper range for dmg should be higher with a shard and I have NEVER seen a spell do more dmg than my sov's int.  I usually have my sov up to 20 int or so by the time I should be getting a shard multiplier and it pretty much fall out of my chair in shock if a spell does over 10 dmg to anything.

IMO, armor/def should not reduce spell dmg, but that's just me.  I guess if you blow off a resist system you could simplify it that way, but meh.

Sort of agree but IMO, if shards are broken, that's pretty much pathetic and someone should be berated.

Could just be yet another case of information not being adequately related by the UI or "documentation" but spell description text seems pretty clear to me.

I'm getting this same problem.  I like powerful mages in games but my mages have not been nearly as strong as they should be.  In one battle I had 20 intelligence and 2 fire shards, I think my max hit was 15, if I hit at all (fighting trolls with 150+ health, not really useful at all) instead of closer to 100 like it said.

The flamefests come from the horde of fanboys who charge into the thread and claim "that your complaints aren't valid, you don't own the game, PC Mag UK is paying you to post, some other game was buggier so STFU, or that I should keep my complaints to myself and shut up because the devs work hard."

Someone complained in a post and you immediately illustrated the point by telling them to keep it to themselves.

He didn't use profanity, call the devs names, assert that the company should be defunt or anything even remotely flamey, instead he said:

You think that is a "flamefest"? The internet must be a terribly bruising experience if you do.

Disagreement is not flaming, expressing deep disappointment over a game's staus is not flaming, and being annoyed that a company said one thing for 2 years while doing another isn't either. They call it "disagreeing", just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them an unhelpful troll.

I too think I've seen higher damage than my int on occasion (not sure), but the statistics are not right at all, of that I have become quite convinced. Unless each shard is supposed to only give a hard-to-measure increase (5-10% or something) I don't think my experiences can be written off as bad luck on my part.

Hmm, as I said adding

<Expression><![CDATA[[Value] * 100.0]]></Expression>

does make the spell super-powerfull, so the "!" is not making it irrelevant.

Hadn't noticed any one else making noise about the low spell damages with shards, hope the devs take note and get it fixed. Currently it's my biggest gripe with the game. Out of memory errors every other hour I can live with

If I do the multiplication by 100 as described I've seen damages above 1000, so it seems to work correctly here.

Note that what I've done is copy the relevant file into the installdir/mods directory, and enabled mods in options. I've read comments that makes it sound like editing the files in place does not work.

So lets assume that UnitStat_NumXXXShards is incorrect reference in tactical combat based upon the fact it works in auto (which is referenced at the strategic level).   Any other items that reference the UnitStat_NumIceShards stat that do work in tactical battles?  It could be as simple as tactical battles do not support references to strategic resources.

Where's spell damage listed? And how do you see the damage done in autocombat? Or is that just inferred from the outcome?

Damage is listed in the spell book.  In autocombat click details.