I'm bored by players that want the game never to punish the player. Also bored by games that don't. If you fear maul, avoid creatures with it, or be sure you have some good long range weaponry or spells that can help you out.

It's nice that the combats has other aspects then just pure HP vs HP...... The maul really adds to the uniqueness of the bear in a very goodway I must say. I'd hate to be 100% sure winning before every battle vs those weaker on paper creatures, what's the fun in that? I love special abilities for monsters, like the maul.

Well, you know how maul works. Avoid attacking that bear if you need luck to win the fight. Take the chance if you're desperate, or really wants to get rid of it for some reason. That's a strategical choice my friend, but only if you also take the pain by living with the consequences of your choice without reloading.

The most fun beta version so far for me was the one where new settlements was really vulnerable for creature attacks. Made me really have to be carefull when expanding, if I took too many chances without good planning the game punished me hard.

Was I thinking about reloading? Was i complaining bad luck made me lose those early new cities? Of course not, I was learning that I perhaps should build a military to defend my new cities, not just build as many as possible as soon as possible. The great risk involved made the game not only more challenging, but the feeling of risk also makes the game more exciting.

I agree Hello Kitty might be a better game choice for some.....

I don't reload, but I still agree that Maul might be better with a little less luck.  I agree that playing without reloading is more fun, and that one way of defeating bears is making sure that you are overwhelming powerful, but I kinda think that a max limit on hits would be useful to prevent the times when a bear gets 7 or 8 hits in and brings you down from 50 or 60 hitpoints to zero in one attack.

Also, it will become even more important for MP, when games could be totally decided on whether maul does two hits or 8 for a single attack.

I just think maul needs some more counters, or a maximum limit on hits to allow some luck but not most luck.

I support MP alot, but hope they won't base the game mechanisms on MP but a good SP game. If I kow the Frog correctly

they will make it a grand SP game and then hopefully transform the same game experience to MP.

I'd rather look at it this way in a potential MP game: Be extra cautious before you involve yourself in battles with uncertain results, so it won't cripple your start.

But ppl aint listening, theyre just moaning ^^

I liked the old maul better, before the revamp of the accuracy system, since the 3 dodge gained from shields was enough to "counter" mauls super long streaks of attacks.
I just want a way to "Counter" big powerfull abilities, without having to pick something special at character/faction creation, a way that all factions can use...

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

The best counter is bows and magical long distance strikes..... Or just being powerfull enough to take him out. It doesent take to much to be almost certain of victory, it's just a bear....

now your being stupid, bears are early game creatures, and both bows and staffs lie well deep in the research tree, and being powerfull enough.... -.-

Besides what to do when the enemy brings a lvl 16 hero with the maul axe equipped?...
If they implemented a counter against this effect they would be able to implement it "properly" in the game instead of this half-implementation that is currently at hand.

If maul should not have a "proper counter" why should counter-strike (or is it counter-attack, oh well) have a counter - ability, (in which I dislike the implementation though). I do not think it gives a good aura to the tactical parts of the game...
IMO it should be overhauled...
Now imma be silent in here for now, since Im done with this argument -.-

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Yes, but there is a good reason to limit or provide more counters to Maul, regardless of whether it's in multiplayer or not.  I don't see what is so hard or unbalancing about having a maximum of four hits each attack.  Four hits would be the maximum, often you would get less than that.

Anyway, I've stated my case on this.  That's all for the moment.

A couple of testers have made this thread (and others) a focus on maul with an apparent emotional investment that makes me scratch my head.  Kong, never mind bows or other stuff you get at higher levels to counter that bear--you know how the bear is going to move, it's max move.  Is it really so hard to wait for it to get close before pouncing with all your forces to take it out before it can even swing?  That's simply using tactics within the tactical combat system.  My couple of melee units have never had issues with this unless I blundered and stuck them within claw/bite range (as I did in my very first game, and learned a harsh lesson that was easily avoidable in future games--so why is this such a big deal?).

I have never really had any problems with Maul as is. Bears are dangerous but I have always managed to defeat them using tactics. Yes I my loose people but that is a part of the game.

I also find nothing wrong with Maul.  It's a dangerous ability to be sure and it can easily kill your sovereign or a champion if you are unlucky or don't have very good dodge.  This is just one more thing you need to take into account when you go up against something with that ability.  It often requires you to use lesser units as fodder while you take down the mauling creature from range or with magic.  Or even better, a concentrated effort to slow and/or immobilize the target.  Either way, it's just one of the risks in the game, and it would seem that most people like having such risks in the game as it adds to the experience.

And since it is also available to the player via certain weapons, well, there is nothing quite like having a champion with a Berserker Blade and the Enlarge spell cast on them making mincemeat of an enemy army!  So it works both ways.

As for the thing you are referring to as a 'fake' quest for some reason, while I disagree that such a quest should be removed from the game, I do agree that the player should either be given a choice to attack the original quest giver to get your full reward, or word the 2nd part of the quest text more clearly to indicate that you are being ambushed/attacked by the quest giver in order to renege on payment, the latter seeming to be in line with what they intended with the quest. In the end though, this once again is another of those risk factors in the game like maul and adds to the challenge of what would otherwise be just another fetch/kill quest, and I personally would not like seeing such quests removed.

just because its a 2way thing doesn't make it more fun to have in the game, I would still wish there were a feasible way  to counter it, and wish it wouldn't be so powerful as to decimate armies, I see little fun in my hero bashing the whole of the enemy kingdom because of a stupid axe.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej