Well, when I saw Frogboy say: "We've disabled having the monsters attacking them as it was incredibly tedious. We are looking instead at having those outposts give you bonuses in their area of effect." I felt compelled to do a mock-up. (Even if I think the current defensive line of upgrades can be salvaged rather than scrapped). I'm sure there are lot
"I'm not sure why terrain effects such as receiving a bonus while on a hill are a bad thing. Seems kind of natural/intuitive to me." I can imagine they had four problems: 1. They probably made the bonuses too large. e.g. +50% damage, forcing you to stand on the tile to win. Or to never stand on a negative tile. 2. Poor visual effect - those glowing rings that linger are a really ugly way of showing terrain effects. 3. They only changed a couple of terrain ti
I think, while interesting and useful to know that only actually addresses one issue: Lack of spell content. It doesn't make those spells any more viable to be cast in battle (paying 3x for each spell cast), nor does it make the units people already have more viable. (a fully kitted out archer still dies in one round of combat). Range penalties would be nice, and it's nice to know it's within scope. I'm not sure the expansion ideas actually address any of
Blank event:
Unclaimed shards block unit movement, claimed shards do not.
I had 3 neutrals turn enemy with me on one turn with no prior warning (it's so early I haven't even met them yet).
All very valid points. Oh but they changed Verga to the warlord Naphaz in the 0.751 snapshot... (for some reason) so you've got something new to try. Trying to think of a summary then: Not enough spell content, no AI yet, spells are costly to use (using up a unit turn and mana and a sovereign cast), glass-cannons limit battles and use of low-hp units. no cover, LOS, range-penalties etc make archers/mages overpowered against fragile units, Scouts/clerics/o
Thanks. I rarely make maps. (I used to make them for Heroes of might and magic... but it's a lot of work with diminishing returns.) So I assumed it was an editor/coding pic not ingame. Though I'm still curious as to what's actually underneath the S.
Amusing one. My Peregan has no base initiative. I'm not sure when he lost it, or how. But it could have been related to the silly cripple shot bug. A 15 point initiative loss has certainly crippled him. Start a battle to see the crippled effect on him. Save here There's something amusing about the self-imposed challenge of fighting the sorcerer king alone with a crippled Peregan.<img
Had 4x events in a single turn from 'apathy', 'indifference', 'hope' etc (one bug). One of which took -50 mana and I had -11 mana, (second bug) Adding equipment to an army updates the battle rating a turn later. Hit by two crippling shots... which both lack a description or helpful tooltip. The net effect was I had to watch the enemy take a few dozen pot-shots at my unit for a very long time (I had two turns for each enemy turn so that&
Sovereign spell escape costs no mana. (maybe more spells too... shows how rarely I've used them). [edit] Seems I had an amulet of sorcery, I thought it only modified unit spells. Perhaps the UI could clearly show which it effects and list the actual price of spells accordingly. (show -100% in tooltip... why -130%? it doesn't add mana) [edit 2] - Also I'm unable to cast spells that cost 0 mana in battle, if I don't have the full, original cost of the spell in the ban
Another order of events bug. The unit information panel updates upon clicking attack, not after the lengthy animation.
Bug: Mana upkeep costs are removed before mana income is added. So casting a spell with the minimum amount of mana causes it to be instantly lost on clicking end-turn. e.g. I had 20 mana, +3 income, cast tireless march, now 0. I had +3 mana and 0 unit enchantments the next turn.
Another day another topic: Essence in 0.751 Playing a game today I have a level 3 hero. Less than 5 units total but already my city has 4 essence total. The net effect of that bountiful windfall? +5 production. That's it. I can only cast 1 spell on the city. That's all I have to choose from. 1 Spell... it's painfully sad, the spell doesn't even get stronger from increased
Is it just me that saw the picture and felt like it was a picture in some bug thread? A big 'S' which is obviously not supposed to be visible during gameplay. Random props sticking out of mountains (oddly placed stones, a crystal quarry, a skeleton from some quest or something... I thought mountains were supposed to be impassible). Also the name is ' battle grounds', showing a strategic map stamp in the editor rather than a few of the new battle<
On naming: The game is early access. How much work would it really take to rename it? Changed title screens, changed steam stuff, some forum changes, a dev-journal explaining the change and maybe a few interviews with curious gaming sites. It'd certainly make people stop and look again at the game. Perhaps it may even be too early to rebrand the game like that. There have been little game changes in the recent builds and it's still some distance from being featur
to obsoletenexus, I wouldn't say you were in the minority. Not without having two final products to pick from with simple or more developed tactical battles. It's hard to put people into groups about their potential future enjoyment of two different imaginary products where each person is imagining something different. I certainly think there's a future spectrum for how long battles will last going from 1 hit kills and 6 enemies 6x3s = To trading blow
Mock-up of improved outposts. (more choices, several paths. Nice description with thematic context, fluff):
Red tile issue remains, this seen on loading the save mentioned in the OP: Units still stack onto the same tile in battle: (it's hard to see because they share the same model, but notice only one of the two is targettable via the unit order on the left). <img style="vertical-align: top
Perhaps a compromise? Allow monsters to attack them (but not destroy them). Have any bonus they provide be degraded by the ratio of current to maximum HP. e.g. a theoretical 500 health outpost or Fort doing 5 damage and healing +5 hp for surrounding units. at 100/500 health it would do 1 damage and heal +1 hp to surrounding units in AOE. a theoretical disruptive, Nefarious Outpost at 50 HP, slowing enemies by 500% would reduce ene
Thanks StevenAus, I'm still editing them and adding bits for clarity. e.g. adding spell-count figures to the maths, updating things possible in Tactics Ogre. A game that, if nothing else had to do tactics well... if it's in the title it better be good. Talking about titles SK feels like such a bland and generic title. The S doesn't even stand for Sovereign... it's a bland description of the enemy that lacks any real description or emotio
On the argument about the scope of the game and the proportion of it relating to combat: (using in-game help and counting) Techs in LH: 68 Improvements in LH: 161 Spells/abilities in LH: 207 Techs (Sovereign Skills) in SK: 20 Improvements: 43 Spells/abilities in SK: 129 (available in one playthrough... (you'll still see empire techs/units/spells/improvements when playing as Kingdom) counting repeatable techs and continuous improvements as
On terrain and height for inspiration I'd look to old games like the 2001 game Tactics Ogre: Knights of Lodis. Some example tactical maps: Things to note: Lava, Water, Height, Grass can be burned, items can be hidden under tiles, Difficult fights have the enemy start with the high-ground. Range of weapons/abilities is affected by terrain height, criticals/shield bashes cause knockback and falls can hurt you. Movement type matters (flying over obstacles, taking a different path), t
I'm finding myself agreeing with lots that has been said. Weather, interesting terrain, interesting units, good tactical AI are all missing and would add to the tactical 'fun' of the game. But going back to the start I disagree with this quote: "In my view, the purpose is to put to the test the collection of units you have versus the enemy." I think, as you dislike tactical battles you are misunderstanding th
Oddly I had the opposite feeling, Naphaz felt much stronger than Peregan. Mostly because the ranger lacks any HP buffing traits (and I didn't play the ranger till the end-game so didn't get a good feel for his traits). I just find it annoying to die to the odd ranged attack. Anyway I equipped Naphaz early with loot gained from corrupt land spells (He doesn't start with a sword, also increasing doomsday also buffed him later due to doomsday-linked traits) and beelined for the