Das123 Das123

Request List

▼

Request List

from Elemental Forums

The game has come a long way but there are still a few deal-breaker issues with it. Please fix these before releasing it.

The big one for me is the tactical battle placement of units. Currently this is really really poor. Yet I've not seen one post from anyone from Stardock acknowledging that it is an issue or that it is even being looked at. Is it just too hard?

Every time a change-log is posted I look to see if this is being addressed. And every time I'm disappointed.

There is so much to like about this game but when you lose units because of the screwed auto-place for tactical battles it makes your blood boil (yes, I am posting this after just such a rage-quit - and no, it's not the first time this problem has annoyed me to the point of rage-quitting).

I can forgive that the game can't handle naval or flying units. I can forgive that pioneer spam is the road to victory (although that one would be nice to be addressed as well but I think we're too far along now). But in a game where the focus is on squad-based battles it is not forgivable to run with the current system of random placement of units.

Thank you for letting me rant. I feel a little better now. :)

31,516 views 33 replies
Reply #26 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 7
...I don't think this *feature* request could remotely be considered a "must have" prior to release.

Personally, I'd put the ability to define how units will behave in battle above placement (i.e. aggressive vs. passive vs. flee).  These are all things we'd like to look into along with things like rally points on the main map, units spawning ON the city tile (not outside the city to the bottom left), showing the path a unit is going to take before executing on that path, etc...
 

Thanks for the reply. :)

See, I think all the other things you mention as nice to have but not essential. But being able to start a battle with some semblance of order to me is a fairly critical element for a battle-based strategy game.

To try and have this done effectively through programming seems a little too hard. You need to juggle a unit's initiative, its movement (compounded with Charge as a perk), its defensiveness, and its attack ability. If the programming, as an example, only put high initiative troops in front then the player can't use a turtle strategy with tank units. Conversely, if the programming focuses on high defense/hitpoint units up front as a shield-wall then your impact charge units are left useless in the rear for that all-important first attack. I have no idea why on earth a weak, low initiative ranged unit would ever be in the front line - but there they often are. Trying to solve this through programming seems a flawed concept to me.

The player should be able to enter a battle with some say in how the units will be arrayed.

I'm trying to think of one other strategy game that does this and where the impact on the game-play is so dramatic - and I can't think of one.

+1 Loading…
Reply #27 from Elemental Forums Top

The 9 tile grid used to represent armies on the strategic map should just be made to relate directly to a 9 tile grid on the tactical map, with the top row being the back, bottom the front (middle - middle).  :yes:   This would gradually decrease the initial space between opposing troops on the tactical map a bit as the larger (more offensive) army sizes are researched as well.

Elemental: Reforged
Reply #28 from Elemental Forums Top

Please implement Das's solution as illustrated in his other post (ie position in army section on strategic map effects placement on tactical map).

If we cant have unit placement, at the very least melee units should be in front of archers who should be in front of mages. The way it plays right now makes no sense whatsover.


 

Reply #29 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting ddd888, reply 9
these stats make no sense

warlock is bad despite some ppl trying to defend that untested and flawed game, i dont believe someone really played it more than once, there is nothing else to it after a full game

 

and in general there are few strategy games, even less TBS

combine that with the fantasy and you dont have the numbers to really make a meaningful statistics here

 

market as always will follow good games imo

 

 

 

 

My Friends and I play it all the time and I will have to strongly disagree with your assessment of the game.  The spells and spell research are very weak but the reset of the game is pretty good.  Logged many hours on steam playing it.

Reply #30 from Elemental Forums Top

the movement of units is so boring that makes you wanna cry every time

they dont have a clue what UI means probably

and these neverending empires... you HAVE TO make a city every time you have the chance, its kinda lol

you can NEVER stop to build cities, 20 30 40 its never enough you have to keep building them

 

yeah maybe if some real human tested it b4 releasing...

Reply #31 from Elemental Forums Top

I too find this very frustrating, including the reverse problem too when my high initiaitive high move melee hero starts as the only unit on the back line and can't reach the enemy until a turn after the rest of my units as a result.

I'm really not convinced that this sort of thing is as minor an issue from a review/sales point of view as Frogboy thinks. We've all read plenty of reviews where the reviewer says it's a fun game at core but marred by poor ai, bugs and unpolished design (the bug in question could arguably come under all 3 of these). In most cases the reviewer then gives a score around 80%.

That is exactly where I think FE is currently headed, particularly as it is not a big name release (who seem to get free passes on bugs). Whereas if most of the 20 or so most serious and annoying bugs/features were fixed and polished I think it would hit the 85-90% area which is necessary for it to stick out from the crowd. Right now tho I see many fixes in the beta release notes but they are mostly minor, easy to fix issues.

So I'm really puzzled about Frogboy's attitude. Stardock have fixed the core game to the point where it should score around 80%, why do they seem to have no interest in polishing it to stand out as an 85+% game?

Reply #32 from Elemental Forums Top

Well, for one thing, many people have such lowered expectations from the last disaster, there will be a minor bonus to most scores based on how far the game has come. On the other hand, there are alot of trolls in this niche market that are just hoping for bugs and design flaws to jump all over. Even at 80%, it will have good enough sales to get me my updates and expansion. That is my main focus and thus will not push the issue as long as it gets solved at some point near 1.1. That's just my position though. 

Reply #33 from Elemental Forums Top

Shoot for the moon.


At least if you miss you'll still hit the stars.