Very interesting and should give Stardock some excellent starting points to track down and fix the bugs.
Mistwraithe
OP is so bossy and I disagree with everything they said.
Well said. I have made the same point several times but perhaps have been a bit too vitriolic for the message to be heard or heeded! The truth of the matter is that LH is now a good game but the AI still does too many stupid things. I wrote a whole post about this somewhere, it isn't that the AI is bad, it plays a reasonable game when it is playing well. The problem is that there are too many occasions where the AI goes off the rails and does something completely stupid. I suspect
I don't have a problem with experience splitting amongst heroes but even so the total experience given out to heroes shouldn't drop as you add heroes, it should just get cut up into more shares. I have a big problem with scaling the XP given based on the comparative levels between the monsters and the player's group. It's already challenging to level up heroes and it certainly isn't fun to pop every item, special ability and spell you have to kill a higher level dr
[quote quoting="post"]I'm starting to think that it might be better if cities were not entirely destroyed after a successful attack by monsters (or any other non-faction units).[/quote] Excellent idea, wish I had thought of that!!! [Sorry, couldn't resist the sarcasm, no way you could know assuming you are new to the forums but unfortunately this, and other interesting variations of it, have been suggested dozens of times and for some reason Stardock have shown no
The problem with the AI is that it too often does blatantly stupid stuff. I think there are two parts to a strategy AI which affect the players opinion of it: 1. Does the AI do stupid things? 2. Does the AI provide a challenge? (without cheating to a ridiculous level, I would add). Most strategy AI's struggle to really nail #2 because it is very hard to write an AI that can compete with a player in a complex game. LH is probably about on par with similar bu
I agree with OP in that it would be nice to have more items. But I also agree with many others that I bought the loot pack (and the other DLC) primarily because I could afford to and wanted to support Stardock. Particularly as I got the last two games for free - I think WoM deserved giving us FE for free but giving LH as well was a bonus. If I was buying purely on value I would have definitely bought the Quest pack (because I really felt the game needed more quests to play wel
I knew it was your fault stein220...
As others have said summoning is very worthwhile, if only for the fact that it distracts some of the enemy and helps either delay them or at least delay some of them so that they arrive at your front lines piecemeal. Of course that might not work as well for the AI vs the player but there are still plenty of reasons why the AI should try summoning.
When I returned to the game last week after a long hiatus this was one of my biggest annoyances too. Several times while traversing or even just arriving at choke points I ran into a neutral troop going the other way... and every time the neutral unit stopped there and as far I can tell stayed there blocking the chokepoint indefinitely (certainly 20+ turns anyway). I'm pretty sure there is some bug at play, in one case the neutral unit wasn't even completely blocked but it sti
[quote who="merlinme" reply="11" id="3393601"] Quoting Mistwraithe, reply 10Unfortunately it really turns me off making any game harder by just giving the AI crazy stats and as far as I can tell that is what the top difficulty levels are like. Don't pretty much all of of this style of game do that? Civilization certainly does, which is the closest comparison. I believe the Civ AI cheats with fog of war, too. [/quote] Sure all games cheat at higher difficult
I've never really felt threatened by the AI. By monsters yes, sometimes monsters which were unleashed by the AI and proceeded to beeline towards me. And of course there was that one game where I started in a big valley with only one settle area in the valley (ie my capital) and only three routes out, all of which were blocked by monsters which were beyond my ability to defeat. I did eventually get my sovereign through one exit and found another fertile area... which a dragon right in the
Nice post. I haven't had time to play in ages but managed to find a half a dozen hours for a game last weekend. Overall my thoughts were similar to yours, LH is a pretty good game but there is plenty of scope for it to become even better with more polishing and refinement. One thing which really annoyed me was that by half way through the game AI scouts had just stopped moving. Maybe they had scouted the whole map? (seems unlikely, there was still plenty I hadn't seen)
I agree with everyone. ;-) One point worth making is that part of the reason arcane monolith is so useful is that the alternative, pioneer based outposts, are so expensive. I'm firmly on the bandwagon of all the people who think that outposts should also be buildable by a cheaper unit (eg engineer) that doesn't cost 30 population.
I hate bugs. The fewer the better.
[quote who="SerinMaldy" reply="150" id="3321075"]On top of that the game usually cheated horribly. Worse game I played during the rise of RT (no S as there is little to no strategy in these type of games) was DUNE. I forced myself to accept my empire was struck with no long term memory as I had to rebuild each map and relearn all my tech, but on the final map the enemy had a full city, full tech, and had the world killer Nuke/Bomb. On turn 2 or 3 <
Agreed on all counts but particularly the caravans!
I think there is some special code which identifies if you are running FE/LH on a non Stardock computer and if so it makes the AI pioneers semi-invulnerable. There has to be some explanation for why Stardock don't see the same problem, it has existed to various degrees of seriousness ever since WoM came out...
Tui's ad?
[quote who="Kantok" reply="5" id="3382473"]Yes, because Steam trading cards would do you a world of good if you're not using the game on Steam.[/quote] LOL
I can see Frogboy's point. However the counter argument to this is that you don't see many reviews saying the AI in so-and-so strategic game is too smart (too hard maybe but that invariably means the AI is cheating up the wazoo which is usually compensation for a LACK of smarts). Whereas I frequently read reviews criticising strategy games for having poor AI. So I agree with Frogboy's final point that perhaps 'good enough' isn't really good enough. BTW it is wo
Good post. Looking forward to seeing these long standing problems fixed, it is what is needed to make an already good game great.
[quote who="rowyerboat" reply="86" id="3380395"]Dude...it's a game. And a SINGLE-PLAYER game at that. If it FEELS like an exploit to you....don't do it.[/quote] Heh. I think I summed it up best by saying we disagree. I see your point, I just don't agree with it. To give you some idea of my perspective the most fun I've had in strategy games in the last 5 years has been playing Civ 4 and Civ 5 game of the months from the CivFanatics website. Preset maps an
[quote who="rowyerboat" reply="82" id="3380271"] On a separate note, I agree with Frogboy's stance on not placing high priority on player exploits. If a player is saying "Why isn't this game harder...but I just can't help myself from training 3-man units and then upgrading them to 6 to save oodles of crystal etc..." then that player simply has a problem. I'd definitely rather see improvements made in the actual AI, and players left to their
I think FE/LH would be better with a limit on how much mana can be expended on strategic spells each turn, like MoM has. Nonetheless, it is good to hear that the AI has learnt to cast spells! (I don't have time to play right now so haven't experienced myself :()