"Easy" to Implement Feature-Game Mechanic and Balance Wish list

[Ciruelo]

Regarding magic, at least the unit buffs/debuffs are pretty powerful und useful in battle.
For the effect of damage spells, try to check the hit points, maybe all the damage goes there.

Yeah well, I see the health bar slightly lowering after casting some spells but what I do is comparing Balthasar with other Empire wizards (fire, light and electricity) and I find him far less effective. I am using him in the campaign to complete the adventure missions, but I see no reason to bring him in a MP battle.

[Campaigner]

I think he can assassinate other wizards and lords. He has a direct damage spell that is somewhat similar to soul leech. It is not as powerful because the lord or wizard have to be by themselves. If they are in a group the damage is distributed evenly.

[gyabo]

Try a custom battle with Bathasar against an horde of zombies. After spending 30 points of magic in the 3 damage spells you get 0 kills. Against zombies! Maybe it's too early to say it but for 1200 points you can't do almost anything while the other 3 wizards of the empire are much deadlier and cost only 800 points. I think this is a balance issue. I get Balthasar is more focused on buffs but come on, he has 3 damage spells that do nothing.

Totally much agreed w/ anyone that Gelt is much more support general but his too much underpower compared to other battle wizard. I am not denying Final Transmutation is not a good skill but it cost to much magic to able to use it again. Also it buffs and debuffs aren't useful against all faction except for chaos. In one of my campaign my Bright wizard killed 200 against bretonnia 2 stack of army just using it first spell.

[Stangler]

The book of grudges shouldn't have quests like "assassinate a member of" or get a hero to level X.

I have two grudges in my current dwarf campaign that can't be finished or will just take me grinding to get done. One against Chaos (chaos is dead) and one to get an engineer to lvl 15. All the orcs, vamps, and chaos(and allies) are dead and gone.

[RGA]

Forced march should be reduced (or preferably, removed, at least IMHO). Currently if AI doesn't want to fight you, they would simply forced march away and there is nothing you could do save for using agents (which sometimes come quite late). More frustrating is how AI sack your city and force march back to their stronghold all in one turn. Or how 2 AI armies chasing each other in forced march mode through the map without being able to fight each other. My suggestion is: forced march could not be used in two consecutive turns. After you use it once, next turn (or turns) you are not able to use it again. It should stay as some last-ditch method rather than a way for AI to cheat.

[drillmaster]

Ummm how does forced march make any difference? As long as you move at the same speed it being forced or normal march you will never catch them. Thats just physics. So why would you catch them if you BOTH move at normal speed? Am i missing something?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[RGA]

Ummm how does forced march make any difference? As long as you move at the same speed it being forced or normal march you will never catch them. Thats just physics. So why would you catch them if you BOTH move at normal speed? Am i missing something?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Using forced march I'm able to catch them but cannot fight them, as armies in forced march mode could not initiate battles. See the difference?

[drillmaster]

Yes but you said the AI force marches away as well. So you force march hunt them down. You just have to wait for them to make a mistake as always.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

[Campaigner]

I think rather then change forced march they should introduce better movement penalties for terrains and corruption level. Maybe race specific as well. Army Build type as well. So a vampire army with all flyers cav and large monsters and wraiths should move ver very fast. I think it should work something like that.

[ostendadler]

The force march chase is just annoying on the long run. It should be replaced by a stance for patrolling when in your own region (was very useful in Rome 2 DEI).


Regarding Unit balancing I don't know how feasible it is but they should be done in different ways in campaign in multiplayer. I don't want to be on par with Orcs or Chaos as puny humans in my campaign I want to wave my arms in the air and run back in my fort to levy more men.

Multiplayer move along just balance it and make armies on par.

Agents (regardless of one or 4) should count as one slot in your army.

Flaming pigs ! (I meant flaming arrows)

Regional recruitment

[Campaigner]

^^^^ I agree with Mulitplayer and Campaign unit balancing being different. Blizzard did the same thing for Star Craft. It makes the Campaign way more fun as the units that should be awesome are awesome. It also makes Multiplayer very balanced. I think you should be able to attach agents to units. Like stick a wight king in a grave guard unit etc. They should do the same with Standard bearers and musicians.

Different Ammunition for missile units is a must.

Specialized Recruitment for different Regions is something I think they have confirmed with carroburg Greatswords.

They really do need to figure something out with the movement of armies though. Trying to chase down Archaon after you stuffed his doom stacks is not fun.

[Incontinenta Buttox]

Try a custom battle with Bathasar against an horde of zombies. After spending 30 points of magic in the 3 damage spells you get 0 kills. Against zombies! Maybe it's too early to say it but for 1200 points you can't do almost anything while the other 3 wizards of the empire are much deadlier and cost only 800 points. I think this is a balance issue. I get Balthasar is more focused on buffs but come on, he has 3 damage spells that do nothing.

This is a bug for sure

[X3Keep]

Using forced march I'm able to catch them but cannot fight them, as armies in forced march mode could not initiate battles. See the difference?

Yes but you said the AI force marches away as well. So you force march hunt them down. You just have to wait for them to make a mistake as always.

No. If the AI makes a "mistake" (or you corner it) in marching stance, you can't exploit the error, because you can't attack. Next turn, enemy can march again and if you would want to attack, you can't march -> no exploitation of mistake. Likelihood for hunt-down success with forced march enabled is reduced to... well... barely existant. Unless you manage to trap the AI in a mountain pass - and there are only so many of those.

Next issue is the "block" radius of an army. It's a stupid mechanic. They should change it so that you can move into the "block area", but every action you want to perform inside it can give the "defender" a chance to battle you - basically a choice "battle" or "do nothing" trigger, similar to how ambush works. As of right now, you can't get near the small pesky army that runs away because of it's "magical forcefield" - so if the enemy makes a small mistake, you have no chance to exploit it.

[sobchack]

Ill add making battle reinforcements reflect their campaign geographical location. I confirmed today that army placement is completely random

[Arimahn]

The Ai will always be better at micro managing movement on the campaign map (and movement of multiple units during battle) than a human, so it really shouldn't be able to zip around via forced march to begin with. That particular stance has been an issue since R2 and they still haven't found a proper solution.