I knew these forums were too damn civil lately. And I also knew Xia would be involved somehow in changing that.

P.S. - Just jerkin' your chain. It's gonna get even more lively when beta comes out, hurrah!

Yea, I plan a number of bitching and moaning sessions over FE beta.  I just hope there is enough wrong for me to bitch about!

Dude, you sound like one of the poorer sports who got beat online.   Rules are rules.  If it's legal and someone uses it to win--including if that player is not yourself--it's called a fair game.   That said, I played around 7 AI opponents.  Back in Civ III, I don't think my computer could have even handled 14-15 opponents.   Do I think I could have beaten that, too?   Sure.   Just not before 20BC.  Once you've beat 4 of them the game's pretty much already won, but it takes a lot of time to clear out the map.    If you want max difficulty, upping the # of AI's is not the way to do it, anyway:   make the map Archipelago.  That'll do it.

Combat being totally different is about the best thing that you could say.  Yea, I do understood that it could suck in a whole new way.  But for me, that was the major flaw in WoM that has been hard to overcome for me.  I can overlook a number of crashes, I can overlook some polish issues, but the flaws in the combat system are grievous and infuriating.  

How are armies working in this game?  One of the big flaws in WoM was how unbalanced the game was with single units vs 3, 4, 6. 8, 12 man units.  The combat system never seemed to work correctly to balance that with single unit monsters or heroes, or even other multi troop units.  I still think that you should patch WoM so that troops weapons and armor are not multiplied by the number of troops, but just their hit points are multiplied.  So they might be a troop of 8 units, but they don't have ridiculous armor and weapon rating that throw of the balance of the game, but have a lot of health.

You start with 3 guys per group not 1 in FE. After several patches in WoM armor didn't multiply with group size although it may have looked like it did. Damage was also changed to be multiplied after armor penalties which makes sense. The problem with the late WoM patches had more to do with balance not mechanics, specifically hp, leveling bonuses, and the huge differences between weapon levels.

I'm not so sure there is a boost to armor and weapon rating for groups.  I think that the interface just encourages you to believe that there is.

EDIT: Beaten by three minutes.

Oh really?  Hmm, so then the balancing of weapons and armor just really sucks that bad then?    My group of 8 with the rare to learn cedar longbows can barely do any damage to the group of 8 in light plate.  And then are killed in 1 hit by their lordhammers.  So crappy...

Also, I know you start with 4 or 8 unit armies now, but there are still monsters, bandits, spiders, etc that are one unit.  Do a quest to give up 5 hp to save a wolf, get 2 cubs with 8 hp each WOOO!!!

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The Great Lord Xia has spoken!

Lord Xia wrote

"Thats not the type of balancing I was talking about. And WoM balancing issues make the game LESS fun. I didn't play MoM, but I want the choice of making a unit with a sword and shield be fairly balanced against a unit with a two handed weapon.  I would like to not have to spend several researching branches to gain the use of a bow that is incapable of hitting/hurting anyone. You can't try many methods, as many methods are useless due to the imbalanced combat numbers and system.  Maybe, "balance" is the wrong word for what I want.  I want a system of research, training, gear, and combat that can be approached from many different styles and still be effective enough to be fun."

The ultimate flaw in concept of WoM is the ability to design units. I will admit that it sounds cool but it is obviously really hard to balance and still be fun. When you add different unit sizes and training... well I cannot be certain that it is even possible to balance this in a reasonable time frame without a small army of testers and programmers dedicated to doing just that. Imagine GalCiv2 with single ships, squadrons and fleets in the design mode. Cool in concept, tough to implement. Also, I think that it just feels generic.

To me it would be better to have specific units either by faction, tech tree or combination of both. Some common units would be ok. Then by buying specific gear the player could modify their stats. I believe that this would be easier to balance. An example of this would be that each faction would have some type of ranged unit. Some would have bowmen some might have crossbowmen or slingers or even some type of natural caster. All of these initial units would have basically the same stats with small differences. Some might have slightly longer range or better initiative or better armor. Then upgrading along the tech tree could allow you to get longbows for your bowmen or faster better crossbows. If you want better armor, fine research better armor. I think that it would be better with small changes to the base units which were already balanced to start with. The way it is now is generic units with even stats, then equipment, unit size and training any or all can make large changes that make other units completely obsolete.

I am with you. I want a two handed weapon to be balanced against a sword and shield etc. However, I just don't see a practical way to do all of what WoM wants to do. I remember Sword of Aragon had some of these features but it was not a sandbox style game. I have small hope for FE if this is the path that they choose.

I believe that you don't have to reinvent the wheel. Nearly everyone agrees that MoM is one of if not the best strategy game ever. WoM was supposed to be a spiritual successor to MoM. However, WoM ignored most of MoM. About the only things similar are "of Magic" in the title and tactical battle mode.

As evidenced by all of the people on this forum who are supporting what is best described as an over ambitious and flawed game. We are starving for the true spiritual successor to MoM. I am not wealthy. In fact, I am disabled and live on a fixed income. However, I would pay $200 for a true spiritual successor to MoM and be happy because it would be worth every penny.

Well, if you bought WoM in 2010 you get FE and I think the next game for free.  So you wouldn't need to buy FE in that case.  Fingers crossed that FE is fantastic, or at least great.

I agree. Tried to play multiplayer with TBS game with my brother, and we quit just because we waste our time more to wait for other players to finish their turn rather than playing the game itself. Bad for me.

I think MP feature is good for RTS and FPS game; while TBS game is best for SP.

I have not gotten 40 hours of enjoyment from WoM, far from it... I will not be purchasing another Stardock game, unless hell freezes over.  Much like I will not touch another Kerberoes release with a 10 mile pole made of "I hate you."

When did you buy WoM?  If you bought it early on, you will get FE with no further cost.  Even if you would not purchase another Stardock game, if you get FE for free, why not give it a shot?  That's a bit like what Frogboy aims to achieve by giving away subsequent game/s at no further cost - he realizes that he and Stardock dropped the ball with WoM, and he thinks it worth it to take a short term hit, and get a great FE in the hands of as any people as reasonably possible who bought WoM in 2010 (and maybe a bit after).  I can't remember off hand what the exact dates are - FE and third game at no further cost (probably buying WoM in 2010) and buying a little bit later just FE at no further cost - I'll check with Frogboy.

Coolerking, I agree that the way that they did the unit design in WoM, it would have been better if they didn't let you create your own units.  BUT, I believe with great religious-like zeal that in FE you will be able to design more than one good type of unit at a time.  In WoM, because of how weapons and armor were balanced, you were stuck with getting the biggest weapon and creating units with it, no real choice.  I'm hoping that weapon types and armors will be more balanced and will give the designer of units much more ability to create unique units.  Other than tech straight to lordhammers and call it a day.

Lord Xia, You have more confidence than I in this type of design. I am not  pessimistic by nature. However, unless they drop the unit sizes and training from the options I just don't see how they can have enough man hours to get it right.

Really, they could probably get away with the training by limiting what the training does. Anything too drastic like adding hit points and it will be a balancing issue. Once again making the units that don't have it obsolete.

I have tried too stay away from watching FE too closely. I was really hoping that they would be able to fix WoM. Now that 1.4 is essentially the end of WoM. I want to start following FE more closely. Stardock has a unique relationship with its fan base. There is genuine affection that goes both ways. I won't give up on Stardock even if FE is not perfect. For me the fact that they are here on the forums more than a year after WoM, that they listen to ideas and advice. That they usually take grief with good humor. This and more makes Stardock a rare gem among developers. Unless they drastically change their attitude or give up on themselves I will stick with them. Man that sounds sappy, but it is how I feel about it.

I am hopeful that they looked at MoM's tactical battle system. (I know that that referencing MoM is getting old but it really does apply.)  It had many different units. Some were squads ranging from two to nine in size. (It has been a while so I may be off on this.) Some were single units. Some magical some mundane. You could get mithril upgrades and gain experience. I don't ever remember feeling like a unit was useless. In fact that little cheesy tactical combat mode is the standout part of a game that essentially a civ clone with magic. There were so many strategies even within each faction, that led nearly countless tactics on the battlefield. If memory serves, I believe each unit was treated separately. If a squad had six, each man attacked and defended separately. So it attacked six times. When defending one "man" defended until dead then the next picked up the overflow damage. With this design they could balance a pair of griffons etc. against a squad of pikemen etc. by tweaking the the hit points and damage of the individual units.

I believe that I read somewhere that they eventually changed WoM combat to something similar. However, even if they did, it all goes out the window with the ability to make different unit sizes. Unless the power of all of roaming single units and monsters and all of the heroes scale with the new larger squads it won't work. And if it did that the older smaller squads would become useless against the up-scaled single monsters and heroes. I believe that if designed properly the older player built single units and smaller squads might be ok but it would have to be a one for one trade off. What I mean is that a similar unit of six would have cost six times as much as a unit of one and take six times longer to build, have six times the maintenance etc. This way the player that does not research squads of six could counter with six single units. But as you can see, this is a lot work for what exactly? So that you can design your units squad size? I don't think that it is worth it. Why not just have units and squads of set sizes and if you want more, build more.

I am actually being too simple because the six single units would have an advantage because the carryover damage when a unit in a squad dies would not apply to the single units. So, they would have either eliminate carryover damage or tweak build time and maintenance for the single units, but the squads can put more individuals in a single battle ya-da ya-da ya-da..... It gives me a headache just thinking about it. 

I am really glad that you brought up the "balancing issue" I have had these thoughts and feelings on this subject since the first time I played WoM.

I don't think it is getting too old to reference MOM. The races and wizard leaders were not balanced which made it fun, but in combat there was always a counter to various units. Maybe they just got lucky when they made MOM. If WoM was too ambitious, then there is little hope for a spiritual successor to MOM. Maybe turn based combat is a thing of the past. Look what they are doing to the new XCOM. Squad based combat out the window.

Having spent a lot of time on both, the biggest problem with WOM's combat system was lack of variables. It was too simple and as a result, Lord Hammers were always the best melee unit and it was always best to have the heaviest armor. 

The saddest part about WOM's combat is that it didn't really need a lot more variables, just a few.  

In FE, you've got things like weight, accuracy, initiative right off the bat. Then we have the ability to give weapons their own attributes like big battle axes having a back swing hit potential.

As a player, I still struggle sometimes trying to decide whether I care more about initiative or about brute force.  And that's a really simple difference that WOM didn't have.

Sometimes, I look at WOM and just get irritated at the engine and the compromises and get more irritated that it was our engine so I can't even vent about using a screwy third party engine.  

That's why, however, WOM will never have a good combat. There's no way to address the fact that it's a per side turn system which throws out all kinds of really basic mechanics.

In FE, even spells have a casting time. And you can counter-spell a slow casting spell if you try (and if you can beat their magical ability roll).  Again, not complicated stuff really but only  possible in a system that isn't premised on Side A moving and then Side B but rather turns occuring at the unit level.

The modders are going to go nuts with what's in there.

All sounds very good Frogboy, can't wait to get my hands on it next week and see if it lives up to expectations..

Now that you've introduced unit based turns it is difficult to see why they haven't appeared earlier in games. Like Frogboy has said, unit based turns offer much more depth than player based. I'm really looking forward to playing the beta.

I imagine casting time will make level 1 spells useful even in the endgame because they are harder to counter. So many nuances and I haven't even gotten the beta yet!

Since you guys were talking about Multiplayer, and whether or not to include it without tactical combat: I still believe that a good world conquest strategy game should be interesting even once you pull out tactical combat from it. Look at Age of Wonders, its lifespan is amazing thanks to MP (mostly Play By E-Mail), although tactical combat is not there!!! That is because the game's main features are not so much about specific weapons and battlespells but about an entire world of strategic possibilities, which is present even more on the strategic map than in the tactical one.

Let's face it: battle spells are usually quite redundant anyways: whether you cast a 'fire arrow' or an 'ice shard' not much changes (alright you may have different armors too, and other tricks, but you see what I mean)

In AOW you can turn the tide of a war by casting spells like a Shroud of Darkness (or whatever it is called) that prevents factions to see the map, and other "dominion" spells of all sorts. I can't say that can be don also in FE, but it is certainly a possibility to explore, because the lack of tactical combat is really not a problem for the AOW MP community, and that game always got excellent reviews anyways!

I don't think that spending at least some time testing whether that works would be a waste of time!