fahbs wrote:




Foreign trade either needs to be buffed or the barrier of entry lowered. Massively buffing foreign trade would lead to more incentive to play the passive building game instead of going military genocide every time as you're forced to ask if attacking someone will be worth giving up the trade routes.

I fully support this idea.

Slashman wrote:
I don't know either, but we're 8 months past release and there hasn't been a truly significant AI patch in that time. I wouldn't hold my breath at this point.

They also said during one of the patches that "zone of control was coming", and yet it has never happened.



I mean i like their games. They're aesthetically beautiful and often have really neat ideas, but they never flesh out how their various concepts interact, and the games always fall short because of this. Both ES and EL have an issue with healing existing in a manner that just hasn't been thought about (battle healing means your units come out of combat stronger than before, but run around on the map weaker?), both have fairly awful AI (EL is actually MUCH worse. Builds are just insane and tactical combat is a joke, ES at least had some smart governing stuff going on and decent enemies since they handled combat a little bit better....sorta.), and both ignored these and other problems their entire lifecycle.



It bothers me that so many posts are against "perfect balance" but don't even understand what that means. What most of us hate is "symmetric balance" where everything is the same, as it's boring and does nothing. That doesn't mean you can't have perfect "asymmetric balance" and have lots of cool viable strategies. Right now the game is less interesting on harder difficulties. I'm going to win either way 99% of the time, but on hard difficulties the only thing they do is jack up the resource multiplier, which is okish, but given the weak AI it just means you tech military and take their OP resource boosted cities and win. Same strat works on normal, but not as well because their cities are weaker and not ages ahead of yours, and I can at least pretend to do a diplo/research/quest/whatever victory.



If all the parts were equal(equally viable, not equal stats wise. I should feel like I can win on the hardest difficulties or against humans with tall strats, research, diplo, or quest. Not just wide military only), they actually balanced around the default races (and let custom just be something for fun, because that's a nightmare), made techs attractive to different strats, and made tac combat deeper(zone of control+engagement would do SO much to stop the range spam + some better rules on healing/HP) with better AI, this game could be something for the ages.



As it stands though it's just a very pretty puzzle game that i've already solved.

That is probably true. Personally, I don't expect a perfect AI. I'd still like to see a somewhat reasonable and believable AI. Consistency might be a good word as well, as AIs that rely on random numbers often don't focus enough to make any of their investments worthwhile.

"Problems and sub-problems" is a key phrase here, I believe. Long ago, I read a strategy guide for a different game that suggested that you need to consider your situation on three levels: Your long-term goals, the next step that may be beneficial to those goals, and the little steps to take towards that goal. I think an AI could benefit from that kind of processing to give it a tighter focus.

Let's say, for example, that the AI would play the first 20 turns with a generic AI, just exploring and researching some generally useful techs. Then it takes a look at the score graphs and its surrounding regions and might decide "I'm second place in Dust production and there are an arid and desert region nearby. I will go for an economic victory." and after that all its decisions are weighted towards that, until at a later turn it reconsiders its position and adapts, producing more military to defend itself or investing in research to bring up additional sources of dust production.

The same is true of battles. As far as I heard, the AI currently commands battles on a one-unit-at-a-time basis, just going through the initiative order. It does not pursue any goals within a battle, which is probably one of the main reasons it is so exploitable.

+1.

Good post, I think you hit most of the main points on the head. Your post is well thought-out and hits the key positives/negative of the game.

The game is an addicting one, and hopefully as a community we can help the devs make it even better.



I tried hard to identify things you didn't address but I really couldn't think of much.





A few negatives (imo) not on your list:

• Approval system feels incomplete/unbalanced. Its either a small nuisance or not even worth thinking about.
• A fuller or rebalanced diplomatic system, especially for the AI (how they make decisions).
• Ability to play with friend as allys.
  
  

I want in-game videos for victory conditions instead of just a screen.



Ok, I'm shallow. But I do like polish on a game.

Balance:

Occasionally poor balance between techs/improvements-- compare Aquapulvistics to Empire Mint. Perfect balance is boring, but gaps need to be narrowed.

Battlefield healing is too effective.

Victory conditions unbalanced: military victories occur far more quickly than any other victory types

Factions' quest difficulty and rewards wildly unbalanced.

Problems with faction balance (compare Drakken or Vaulters with Ardent Mages or Roving Clans).

Quest weapons are inferior. Getting one should be exciting, not disappointing.

More military rush potential than I think you intended, or that most players find interesting.

Warnings unnecessary due to low risk and cost of cold war-> war.

Strategic armors ignored by most players; early strategic accessories outperform late strategic accessories.

Which one is better Aquapulvistics or Empire Mint? It's a little odd to balance them against each other when you can take both.



What kind of situations are you looking at with battlefield healing? Is it a race vs race imbalance? All races have acess to healing minor factions.



In my experience military victories occur more frequently because people play poorly. Going for a non military victory seems to mean not having a military to many people.



Do you have specific examples about your percieved faction and quest imbalances?



I've never been in a position to try, due mostly to the aforementioned poor state of play online, but would warnings help in getting around a drakken's declared peace? I don't know if they are percentage based, in which case they might apply a more noticeable effect to diplomacy costs in the 6 or 700 influence range.



I'm also interested in your comparison of strategic accessories. Why do you find the early game ones better?

UI:

Need improved transparency on diplomatic points system, compliment/warning system.

Fortification bonus health, morale, terrain effects not obvious enough to newer players.

Confirmation dialogs interfere with elegance of rt click/escape UI. Escape or rt click should take you to a base map, not get you stuck in confirmation loops.

Changing selection (or failing to change selection) should be more obvious, on both tactical and strategic maps.

UI occasionally reveals information that should be hidden, such as a path blocked by an enemy, or the FIDSI count of fogged tiles.

Diplomatic points are shown on the diplomacy graph in your empire screen. You can see your percetage toward goal in the bottom and your total points in the graph. I guess that takes a little math though, so perhaps they could just represent it there as a fraction current/total?



I agree completely about the UI for tactical effects.

Thanks natev for a great post full of constructive comments.



The first thing I'd like to see improved is the balance. I think balance issues tend to hurt the AI too as the AI tries to play the game the way the designers envisioned it to be played, but competitive human players tend to focus on the stronger military strategies.



Once the balancing is improved, the AI needs to get really good at defending itself, which is something that human players struggle with too. Endless Legend favors aggressive play and defending against an invasion is very difficult unless you had a signifigant Military advantage to start. I don't think the AI "gets it" and tries to build static defenses (vision and fortify) which are not effective tools for Defense. Once the AI can defend itself, a lot more will open up.

SpanishMatlock wrote:
I'm also interested in your comparison of strategic accessories. Why do you find the early game ones better?

Here's the list -> http://endlesslegendwiki.com/Accessories



The earlier Accessories tend to improve base stats you want (Damage, Movement, Initiative) where the later ones tend to improve second-tier stats or be more situational (ex. Forest Resonance). One would expect these to get better later in the game.

SpanishMatlock wrote:
Which one is better Aquapulvistics or Empire Mint? It's a little odd to balance them against each other when you can take both.

Empire Mint is probably superior to Dust Dredger until you have at least 6 river tiles exploited in a given city, and superior to Dust Filter until you have 4 water tiles. Both of these situations are spectacularly unlikely during tier 1, and even were they to occur, they're not occurring in every city. That's why no player ever researches AP before EM. Strong imbalances like this lead to a fixed or nearly fixed research and build order.

What kind of situations are you looking at with battlefield healing? Is it a race vs race imbalance? All races have acess to healing minor factions.

There are race vs race imbalances. Drakken starting army is the strongest because of its general. But healing is overly strong across the board, and is related to a lot of other problems I listed. An army with healers can end a battle stronger than it began. If that wasn't true, AI throwing units at battles it can't win could be justified as attempts to cause attrition. Healers are also the largest source of army strength that is undervalued by the AI.

In my experience military victories occur more frequently because people play poorly. Going for a non military victory seems to mean not having a military to many people.

In my experience, military victories can be accomplished at nearly twice the speed of other types of victories. Since even those pursuing non-military victories need to build defense, and once you have military, it's either a drain, or working for you by increasing your empire size, there is a natural push toward military victory for everyone.

Do you have specific examples about your percieved faction and quest imbalances?

Re: quests, compare WW and BL quests, both of which I am very familiar with. The WW quest is completable by turn 130 (normal). All of the steps are things you'd be doing anyways and early steps are easily met. Every random reward is useful, and every non-random reward is simply awesome. There is a chance of an early requirement to settle a city, but it's early in the quest line and there are no special requirements for what kind of city to settle. There are no steps that put you into conflict with another faction.

Compare the BL quest line. The first step requires sacrificing economic development for military development, and gives a random reward (which can be spices, almost useless for BL). Further steps include: spend 100 dust relatively early in the game; research 12 tier 1 techs; settle a city with dust > 12 fairly late; take a random city; make an 8-unit army all equipped with a useless mithrite accessory. Mostly, the non-random rewards aren't very good. Even the good rewards are good only for a certain playstyle (quivering circlet).

The last WW quest step gives you a passive tech with -25% (?I think?) building cost reduction in a faction with existing building cost reduction on its starting (and its quest-given) hero, at a time when building cost reduction is basically the most important stat to have: you're about to build a wonder, after all! The last BL quest step gives you an improvement worth +2 dust/pop and +5 dust. That's less than the tier 3 dust improvements, it costs more industry, and it does nothing for your wonder.



Factional imbalances have been detailed a million times elsewhere on this board and would take hours of discussion. I find that most users' threads about imbalances are correct (but usually exaggerated). I agree with the chart that Propbuddha signs at the end of his or her posts, but I could probably subdivide it further: I think WW are the best of the mid-tier, and BL the second best of the mid-tier.

Diplomatic points are shown on the diplomacy graph in your empire screen. You can see your percetage toward goal in the bottom and your total points in the graph. I guess that takes a little math though, so perhaps they could just represent it there as a fraction current/total?

How diplomatic points are created from the expenditure of influence is opaque. Do empire plans contribute? No, but you could be excused for thinking they do. Do larger empires, with larger influence expenditures on diplomacy, generate more diplomacy? I don't know. Do offers from other factions generate diplomacy? I don't know. Do rejected offers generate diplomacy? I don't know.



I think Propbuddha addressed accessories sufficiently. I don't know about the interactions between warnings and force truce.

Good post. I have to agree with most of it.

I intended to just state that, to back it up, but i'll speak my mind on two things too:



-> Not really another point, it goes with the uselessness of fortifications and the easier military victory types you talked about (and Propbuddha about defending oneself), but yeah: you can't prevent someone who's got the edge in military power to erase you from the map once you lost the first fights. Desapprobation of taken cities (for non-cultists) is probably meant to prevent that, to slow people down a bit, but it's not enough. Aiming for one more city in a row should be a tougher decision. Armies should suffer from it somehow, if not healthwise (from a prolonged siege they'd be force to do?) maybe movementwise (striking army forced to stay in garrison of the newly taken city until 100% approval?).

-> Things seem to go this way, even if a little, with the allied declaration war possibility, but I still feel like having an ally doesn't mean much in the game yet (especially if non-human). I'm so sad when i'm being scolded (and usually thrown out or attacked myself) by a suffering ally I'm trying to save from the Necrophages because I'm on his territory :'(

Idaho wrote:
I want in-game videos for victory conditions instead of just a screen.



Ok, I'm shallow. But I do like polish on a game.

If Amplitude is the small developement studio I think it is, in-game videos sounds like a waste of time, money and energy to me.. (regarding the work it'd take and the comparatively little enjoyment that would give us).

Honestly I don't play single player very much, but I appreciate how hard it is to write an AI for a game like this with all the choices to be made at any given juncture.



The diplomacy points argument is pretty solid. It would be good to see some kind of log of what increases the total. Do larger empires spend more points on diplomacy? I did not know that. I thought it was solely based on recent compliments/warnings and your current level of relationship with the target empire.



I don't know that I would call garrisoned units a drain, they're not sucking money from you and they're pumping your governors up while protecting your cities from invasion, or grinding out quests rewards with endless mechanisms, but I also think that a lot of people who play this game place way too much emphasis on expansion, which is oftentimes actually hurting them with increased costs for empire plans, luxuries and additional underlevelled governors.



Also I think the wild walkers settlement quest gives you a specific territory to settle, which could possibly involve disputes with your neighbors. I haven't played a lot of broken lords, but I find the drakken and cultist quest missions on par with the Wild Walkers one.





Honestly though, everything else aside, I see a lot of bad play in multiplayer games. A lot of the time one player usually ends up winning just because they actually built a military, whereas the others have 1 or 2 troops defending all of their cities. Whatever balancing changes occur as time goes on, it's my opinion that if at least filling your garrisons isn't one of your goals, you're probably approaching the game in a fundementally incorrect way. I have a feeling that +defense accessories might make more sense in a world where everyone has a functional military and is trying to defend their cities with full stacks while they work on a non-military goal.

natev wrote:
I agree with the chart that Propbuddha signs at the end of his or her posts, but I could probably subdivide it further: I think WW are the best of the mid-tier, and BL the second best of the mid-tier.

It's him



I didn't imply with anything with the order but I agree with your assessment. Here's my thinking behind these (mostly from multiplayer experiences).



Strong

• Vaulters/Mezari - Holy Resource bonuses are an incredible boom mid/late game, even with removal of the bonus in last update. Useful selection of Average strength units that are made great via Technolover bonuses in Era 2+. They are usually swimming in Strategics resources, especially the Era 3/4 ones that many factions can't utilize effectively. Teleport allows defense of a large empire with a small number of armies, even though their economy and Strategics allow them to build what ever they want. Viens of Auriga + Winter resource bonus usually pay back the Strategic booster and then some, so boosters can be up the entire game. Strong start allows them to tech up quickly. They have no weaknesses and the only thing keeping them from being broken (I think) is an average early game and the free-for-all nature of the game. They should win most games when they aren't checked early or ganged up on.
  
  
  
  
• Drakken - Tough starting units/hero and Forced treaties (with massive amounts of to back it up) allow them to dictate who fights them and when. Very difficult to eliminate without ganging up. If opponents are strong, can hold on to a strong position and win via Diplomatic/Score if necessary.
  
  

Average

• Wild Walkers - Amazing starting unit and bonus let them start strong. Option to rush other Empires or expand quickly. Advantages reduced mid-game when other factions can offset with better tech. The slight reduction in Ranged unit power and reduction of Industry Efficient from their starting hero, knocked them down a couple patches ago.
  
  
  
  
• Broken Lords - Good unit selection and can keep units in the fight with healing. Can get a strong start with bought population and Empire Plan. Ignoring food techs/building allows focused development. Don't boom as much as some other Empires late game.
  
  
  
  
• Ardent Mages - Strong offense with Stun spell and Era 1 unit that is best in game (when teched up). Rewards lots of micro management. Will lose if aggression doesn't start until later. Decent head start with Pillars and starting hero as governor.
  
  
  
  
• Necrophage - Good units. Stronger late-game and can field a massive army if allowed to grow. OK economy and lack of ability to cooperate.
  
  
  
  
• Cultists - Lots of useful bonuses and nice starting hero. Poor starting unit. One city means super vulnerable, especially to sieges, so need to invest in defense techs more than others. Need to be super-aggressive (Razing cities) and check opponents to keep up with economy. Fare poorly on large maps where other Empires can expand. Scoring system is biased toward expansion, so they cannot win by holding out.
  
  

Weak

• Roving Clans - Weaker units. Can develop a great economy mid-late game but run out of things to spend it on. Vulnerable early game as advantages come too late (better Trade Routes) or not significant (Market Ban can be ignored or negated with , Privateers rely on overpriced Mercenary units that can't hang with teched-up units, very few situations where moving cities and taking production queues offline are a good idea). Lack of ability to declare war means opponents fight on their terms.
  
  

I completely agree to natev's inititial post, as well as Propbhudda's assessment of the different factions.

That so many of the problematic points revolve around the AI is rather telling. I really hope they can eventually work out the kinks in it, but I am worried that this will not happen. I know barely anything about programming, especially not of the AI kind, but I just can't believe that an AI algorithm fundamentally based on weighted random numbers is ever going to reliably fool us into believing that it made an informed decision.

Programming good AI for a simple game is difficult. Programming good AI for a game with as many "moving parts" as a 4x game a monumental challenge. And for a small company like Amplitude, it must be next to impossible.

I think that when it comes to AI, the perfect is very much the enemy of the good. Trying to design AI to behave genuinely intelligently is a nearly impossible challenge. But trying to iterate on simple AI to make it increasingly effective doesn't require genius. It requires a willingness to focus on the particular rather than the general, it requires breaking problems down into sub-problems, and it requires a lot of testing and rejection, but it's doable. It's not like Amplitude needs to beat Kasparov!

There have been a lot of these threads from various users. I suppose one more won't hurt.



What's good:

• Default world generation is perfect. Resource (strategic and luxury) rarity is perfect. Anomalies feel special, but aren't so rare as to be game-breaking. There are just enough cliffs to make battles interesting.
• Factions feel unique.
• Gameplay at lower player skill levels is varied.
• Variety of factions and victory conditions leads to lots of replay value.
• Art is beautiful.
• The battle system is an intriguing and unique minigame.
• Units and minor factions are mostly well balanced.
• Wonderful sense of risk (from minors, ruins, enemy scouts) in early game.
• Empire plan rewards mostly well balanced, while remaining imaginatively asymmetrical.
• Great sense of change/growth as exemplified by the growth of Dust production vs Industry production throughout the game.

That looks like a short list, but that's because there's no need to go into great detail about what works. I obviously think this is a great enough game to spend way more time than I ought to playing and thinking about it



I'll subdivide what needs improvement.



Strategic AI:

• Techs appear to be researched based on weighted randoms, without taking into account any details of the particular game being played. This is okay for normal difficulty-- leads to variety in gameplay-- but leads to poor decisions and limits the ability of the AI. Higher difficulties should be increasingly less random in choices made, even if game particulars can't be taken into account. (I'm tired of seeing Endless difficulty Vaulter AI without strategic extractor tech.)
• Aggression is too low at higher difficulties.
• Improvements seem to be built, like techs, based on a list of weights that don't take into account any details of the particular game/region. AI will build river techs in regions without any rivers, for instance. Additionally, weights are off: I generally build zero watchtowers, and find the AI wasting a ton of its resources on watchtowers. Fortification improvements, almost universally shunned by players, seem to be built by the AI with a high priority.
• There doesn't seem to be any anticipation, leading to threatened AI playing identically to unthreatened AI. Judgments about the likelihood of war should be vital to the decision to invest militarily or economically.
• AI do not appear to make any decisions based on approaching victory conditions (for example, attacking/defending capitals when supremacy victory nears, or attacking a faction nearing science victory).
• AI overvalues quantity of military over quality of military.
• AI engages in battles when it is not likely to win. This is a losing move appropriate only to easier difficulties.
• AI never revises its judgment of the effectiveness of a human-controlled army based on performance.

Tactical AI:

• There doesn't really seem to be any tactical AI-- units appear to rely on default orders instead.
• AI doesn't have tactical goals, goals such as minimize losses or cause attrition, which leads to it treating every battle as a pitched battle that could go either way.
• AI is poor at maintaining formation.
• AI is poor at using unique unit capacities such as charge or Ancients' morale boost-- it only ever seems to use these capacities by accident.

Balance:

• Occasionally poor balance between techs/improvements-- compare Aquapulvistics to Empire Mint. Perfect balance is boring, but gaps need to be narrowed.
• Battlefield healing is too effective.
• Victory conditions unbalanced: military victories occur far more quickly than any other victory types
• Factions' quest difficulty and rewards wildly unbalanced.
• Problems with faction balance (compare Drakken or Vaulters with Ardent Mages or Roving Clans).
• Quest weapons are inferior. Getting one should be exciting, not disappointing.
• More military rush potential than I think you intended, or that most players find interesting.
• Warnings unnecessary due to low risk and cost of cold war-> war.
• Strategic armors ignored by most players; early strategic accessories outperform late strategic accessories.

UI:

• Need improved transparency on diplomatic points system, compliment/warning system.
• Fortification bonus health, morale, terrain effects not obvious enough to newer players.
• Confirmation dialogs interfere with elegance of rt click/escape UI. Escape or rt click should take you to a base map, not get you stuck in confirmation loops.
• Changing selection (or failing to change selection) should be more obvious, on both tactical and strategic maps.
• UI occasionally reveals information that should be hidden, such as a path blocked by an enemy, or the FIDSI count of fogged tiles.

I think that is the whole point. No one expects a perfect AI. No one expects that the AI (at least not a single AI) should beat a competent player.



I think most people just want to feel like the AI is decently challenging them by doing some logical things. Pressing the attack where appropriate. Using diplomacy where appropriate. Playing in a style that suits the faction. Not in a generic way that uses the same methods of play for the Wild Walkers as for the Necrophages or Cultists.



When the concepts and designs for the races were materialized, someone had to realize that a generic AI personality would not be adequate because these were truly unique factions.



The whole thing makes me more nervous when I hear of expansions and DLC. Not because I don't want new content, but because I fear they will only widen the gap between player and AI with the player having more options to use and the AI still not able to use the options it has with any effectiveness unless it has large, cheating bonuses.

I will only list what needs improvement for me:



Diplomacy. It getting there, but has plenty to go still.

Late era tech 5th/6th ring

Espionage

Aquatic faction/naval warfare

More heroes and the ability to rename them

End game (not cinematic but maybe a panel of art 3 or 5 tiles or something)

Improved strategic/tactical/diplomatic AI

Bug squashing/optimization



They've actually done a lot already and I am very happy with the improvements to the mid game and early late game.

SpanishMatlock wrote:
Whatever balancing changes occur as time goes on, it's my opinion that if at least filling your garrisons isn't one of your goals, you're probably approaching the game in a fundementally incorrect way.

The game play around Garrisons and Sieges is a little counter-intuitive and it doesn't surprise me that folks have trouble with this. In single player vs a passive AI, players rarely find themselves in situations where they have to defend themselves.



Endless Legend (and the years of 4X titles that came before it) leads you to believe that parking units (Garrisons) in cities is the best plan. You get a HP bonus so your units are better, right? However, what happens most of the time is a smart Attacker will put the city under siege (which, for some reason, is an ability that doesn't require research and can be done by a single unit), leaving the Garrison with a tough choice:



[LIST=A]

Rally the Garrison immediately and fight without any Fortification Bonus

Wait a few turns before your Fortification is reduced to zero, build a couple units or reinforcing from another city, rally the Garrison and attack the Besieging army, again losing all of the fortification bonus. The Besieging army may have reinforced too. During this, you are losing production from your Expansions and Exploitation

Do nothing and either the Besieger attacks when the Fortification is zero (or less) or you are dead.

Negotiate with the player, maybe giving up the city.

[/LIST]



There are a few corner cases where a sneaky player tries to ninja a city and attacks blindly, but unless the Attacker is impatient (or dumb), fortification bonuses rarely factor into City fights. Fortification is really a clock and only protects from the "ninja" scenarios.



The upkeep difference between a Garrisoned army and one in the field is the maximum army size (4 initially, more with techs) in , which is a pittance. The best strategy is to put your army in the field within 4 hexes of the city, so you have the option of reinforcing a fight or running away. Garrisons are more useful to save that little bit of , to heal/XP quicker or to protect a city from being ninja-ed.

What about versus Drakken influence bankers? I would think that ninja strikes would be the only way to hurt them.

natev wrote:
What about versus Drakken influence bankers? I would think that ninja strikes would be the only way to hurt them.

Exactly, which is why the Drakken are so freaking good. Siege is not an option since they will Force Truce on you. If the Drakken player closes their borders, you may not even be able to make it to the city. You have no choice but to attack into that Fortification bonus.



The only other option is collaborating with another player to get some quality Privateers on the board, because the default Mercenaries suck. But that option is so late in the game (unless one player is Roving Clans) it's tough to pull off.

Hi all. Hapshant here. It's my first time posting, so forgive me for being verbose.



Lots of good points in this thread. Just wanted to add a few thoughts of my own.



First of all I enjoy the game a great deal and I think the many positive points listed in the first post are spot on.



For me I find the choices on offer throughout the game are really challenging and fun. Compared to similar games where there are similar choices especially on the first few turns, such as research, city placement and so on, choices in Endless Legend are well presented and the consequences of them feels like they matter more. There are fewer obviously better choices thanks to the wide variety of play styles needed to exploit the advantages of the factions or the advantages offered by the terrain. The quests add another layer to this and many decisions feel well contextualized.



Perhaps all of that is just my perception, but if so then I think it's due to the alchemy of the mechanics, themes, look and feel of the game. I really enjoy the large diversity of unique faction mechanics and how they interact with the choices available. It really reflects the personality of the faction. For example, the way finding a lush green region with a perfect collection of food tiles and anomalies can make you weep when playing as the Broken Lords. You suddenly find yourself empathizing with the sentiments expressed by their King in the main quest. It's great!



Now, regarding the unique weapons and items, I think one way to make them viable choices compared to the increasing scale of strategic resource weapons would be to grant them unique support functions and utility. Area damage or chain lightening or even those restricted to faction units such as Ardent Mages's or Necrophage poison. Restricting unique weapons to one in your empire might help justify improving them or making them scale more favorably. While more minor faction and ruin quests could unlock technologies for equipping all your heroes with weapons that behave as the unique ones currently do. (ie: can be equipped on all heroes at once, etc.)



Lat point I wanted to make was that sieges currently feel lackluster. They are too similar to regular battles. Perhaps that's a strength as they are not cluttered with complicated mechanics and therefore feel familiar. I just feel that a few small changes would make them seem a lot more like I'm attacking or defending some place. Fore example having unit placement restricted more heavily by the shape of the city districts, such as having defending units start on and around the city tiles by default. Putting a reinforcement flag on the city itself for garrison units and having the siege works play some role in some way (the little graphic used to display a city is currently beseiged). Perhaps restricting movement or attack direction.



Any how, I think any improvements should be light and subtle, and contribute to the abundant sense of choice which is already there. Most of the time choices in game are hard because there are often several good choices rather than because I am unable to make obviously good choices.





Peace out!



Hapshant