Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.

Here are some screenshots we’ve taken for Legendary Heroes that I wanted to share with you guys:

Main_Map_LH-2

In this one, we’re showing off the complex shadows. It’s really surprising how much easier it makes playing the game when you can see your units pop better.  This is still early but this is the direction we’re going.

It also shows the updated mini-map. We’re still thinking about what color the base map should be (it’s tan in this screenshot). We decided to stop showing terrain (forests/mountains) since what users mainly want to see is the relative position of units, towns and territories.

 

Trait_Tree

This is a fairly big game play change.  In FE, what traits you get to choose from are somewhat luck based.  Here, the player is presented with a tree that they can then choose to upgrade via different paths.

2013-02 SelectChampion2

When a player’s faction gains enough fame, two champions will come forward and demand that you choose between them. The eventual goal here is to make sure every champion is very different from one another so that which ones you pick will significantly affect your overall strategy.

LH-main map-5

This is a screenshot that shows off the new lighting and shadow changes.  We’ve very much gone over to the point of view that we should focus on making the game elements obvious even if it’s at the cost of “art”. 

For example, we got rid of ground cover since it served no game play purpose.  The final game should look substantially better even still.

 

TacticalBattle-LH-1

There are going to be riots about tactical battles. My answer is: Tough. Derek and I are doing them the way we want and not how we imagine other people want them.   They are vastly funner (IMO).  So why do I think some people will hate these? Because the tactical battles get going immediately. 

On most maps, there is melee contact in the first turn. the units aren’t spending 2+ turns trying to run to each other. If you don’t want your archers massacred, you better have melee protectors for them. They’re not going to get 4+ turns of free shots at them. Without melee guards, they’ll be getting hits within a turn or two.

Now, I think most players are going to very much like the changes to tactical battles. First, there’s a lot more strategic variety on each map.  More special abilities come into play and more of the skill will come from how you handle your units rather than feeling like you have to game the “first hit”. Initiative matters vastly more now too.

The tactical battle improvements are my personal favorite change over FE.  FE tactical battles are a form of torture now.

2013-02 LevelUp

This screenshot is more polish than new.  It’s going to get more polish before release but the idea was to try to begin making each of the path choices more meaningful and fit a more distinct path than before.  To do that, we felt we needed to make sure players had a better understanding of the importance of that choice so that we could justify having these choices have more dramatic strengths (and weaknesses).


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Feb 06, 2013

Darxim
Will we be able to choose our own arrangements for units going into tactical combat?  Or am I still going to have archers appearing in front of melee guys, and high-initiative meleers getting stuck behind low-initiative guys?

 

One can hope ... And hold out purchasing the expansion until convinced this was fixed ...

on Feb 06, 2013

So you have just gone and thrown out unit movement speed out of the equation(dont see the point in a unit with 4 speed anymore as far as tactical battles go)

 

Am I missing anything?

on Feb 06, 2013

So you have just gone and thrown out unit movement speed out of the equation(dont see the point in a unit with 4 speed anymore as far as tactical battles go)

 

Am I missing anything?

It'll help against archers.

on Feb 06, 2013

The left side of the screen where your city and unit list is needs to be improved.  Please make it easier to find stuff there.  When you have 15 cities and lots of units is a huge pain to use that thing.

 

Also, there is a mod that extends the info panel on the bottom and adds circle outlines to where you can enchant cities so you can see cities that have openings for enchantments.  I love that mod, and it probably would be a simple improvement to the UI that would make it more functional, same as the info scroll bar on the upper left I mention above.

on Feb 06, 2013

peddroelm

Quoting Darxim,
reply 14
Will we be able to choose our own arrangements for units going into tactical combat?  Or am I still going to have archers appearing in front of melee guys, and high-initiative meleers getting stuck behind low-initiative guys?

One can hope ... And hold out purchasing the expansion until convinced this was fixed ...

While this isn't a game breaker for me, I will certainly agree that the ability to align troop would be a great addition.  In HOMM it was even made into a champion trait that allowed you a chance to adjust before each battle if you had the ability.

on Feb 06, 2013

scifi1950

Quoting peddroelm, reply 17
Quoting Darxim,
reply 14
Will we be able to choose our own arrangements for units going into tactical combat?  Or am I still going to have archers appearing in front of melee guys, and high-initiative meleers getting stuck behind low-initiative guys?

One can hope ... And hold out purchasing the expansion until convinced this was fixed ...


While this isn't a game breaker for me, I will certainly agree that the ability to align troop would be a great addition.  In HOMM it was even made into a champion trait that allowed you a chance to adjust before each battle if you had the ability.

 

Yes, I can deal with this not being improve, but in Eardor (sp?) you can position your units prior to battle, to a certain extent, and it adds to the tactical aspect of the battles.  Terrain having more of an impact on attack/defense wouldn't be bad either.

on Feb 06, 2013


I agree that the new combat paradigm will help against archers and ranged staff attacks uberarmies.

The same could have been achieved by limiting the range of bows - i.e. Shortbows  - 5 tiles, Long Bows - 8 tiles, Staffs - 8 titles.  Fast moving mounted units would only be exposed for a single turn.

That said, I look forward to the new tactical system.

For Archers I have always wondered if higher level archers should get a bonus to initiative. Why? Experienced archers reload & shoot faster.

Example: Base Archer Level 1 = (Shortbow -8 initiative), Archer Level 3 Shortbow (-7 initiative), Archer Level 8 Shortbow (-4 initiative penalty)

For crossbows - if short bows have -8 initiative, then crossbows should probably have -12 initiative or a cool down of 1 as crossbows take longer to reload.

on Feb 06, 2013

All of this looks great, but since you're polishing can I make a suggestion: design the UI to allow the player to defer these decisions

All these modal level-up dialogs look awesome!  But sometimes in FE I am not really sure what I want to do in that moment.  I just finished fighting a nerve-jangling tactical battle and now you're forcing me to make a strategic level decision?  I don't want to do that right away.  First, I want to look at my champion, my other champions, the status of my empire, the forces of my enemies, and all the other strategic elements.  And then I want to look at them again, and then I want to end turn just so I can think about it a little more.

The reason I love turn based games is because I want to think about my choice, but these dialogs force me to just pick blindly in order to continue playing the game.

Pop-up your beautiful notification, even pop it up in a screen-covering dialog, but let me click "Not right now" and then put a message in the notification bar and a shiny  icon in the Details window.  Then I can, at my leisure, click on the notification, see the details page, and click on the level up icon and make my choice.

Frogboy, can you please, please, please try to get that into the game?

 

on Feb 06, 2013

Frogboy

 

There are going to be riots about tactical battles. My answer is: Tough. Derek and I are doing them the way we want and not how we imagine other people want them.   They are vastly funner (IMO).  So why do I think some people will hate these? Because the tactical battles get going immediately. 
On most maps, there is melee contact in the first turn. the units aren’t spending 2+ turns trying to run to each other. If you don’t want your archers massacred, you better have melee protectors for them. They’re not going to get 4+ turns of free shots at them. Without melee guards, they’ll be getting hits within a turn or two.
Now, I think most players are going to very much like the changes to tactical battles. First, there’s a lot more strategic variety on each map.  More special abilities come into play and more of the skill will come from how you handle your units rather than feeling like you have to game the “first hit”. Initiative matters vastly more now too.
The tactical battle improvements are my personal favorite change over FE.  FE tactical battles are a form of torture now.

 

May I suggest - allow players to pick a range preference  (start combat at long range or short range) before each engagement ?  The actual range the combat starts should be a factor of map, skills (tarth master scouts; or having a scout unit with the army for this bonus) , army size (smaller armies should get a bonus vs big armies) , total army experience levels , spell effects (stealth//camouflage) and of course army initiative ...  With the right combination of factors ambushes should be possible but not the norm (as would appear from reading your post (player army ambushed by AI army in every combat)) ...

And of course some ability so pick the formation the units are positioned at the battle start .. Probably a template that can be set out of combat ...

Having some skill based ability to tactically reshuffle the army based on the terrain battleground (map) would be icing on top ..

========================================

Make elevation//terrain factors on the tactical battles .. +Range & damage for ranged units attacking targets on lower elevation ... Give movement bonuses/penalties for movement towards lower//higher elevation tiles ... Give defensive bonus/penalty for the terrain underneath ( defense bonus in forest/  defense penalty in swamp) ...

 Add terrain based movement costs on the tactical battlefield (swamps, forest, rugged terrain ... )

==========================================

Allow spells have greater impact/shape on both strategical and tactical maps ... (earlier in the game)

Strategical - grow forest (life) - allow lumber-mill line of improvements , burn forest(fire), corrupt land (death) , raise/lower land(earth -already in but too late game) , drain river tile (air/water) ,  create water canal (water/earth) - connect city to nearby river - enable river based improvements   

 

If units get various tactical terrain type bonuses - altering the would be tactical combat tile on the strategical map beforehand could turn the tide ... 

 

Tactical :  multitude of options - raise/lower land (earth) for the elevation bonuses, grow vines (impede movements/ defense penalty) , grow forest(defensive bonuses), allow fire spells area of effect for multiple turns - firewall (enhanced by presence of forest//grass on tile) ; ability to ignite certain tile types and burn for a few turns , allow water based spells to put out fires, allow air based spells to further enhance damage/tile spread for fires (combo) ...Allow earth spells to create and clear obstacles ...

 

Make magic a much greater factor on the tactical battles from earlier in the game ... (mana is currently terribly expensive/scarce in the early-mid game) .. And game is typically already won after that and plenty of mana will only reduce the grinding to the final victory a bit ... 

==========================================

You've made pioneers cost population (good thing - you cannot manufacture population - you are not cylons/meklar/.. )

..In the same vein - most human trained units (not golems or other constructs) should cost population .

City defending units (militias) should cost population when killed during city sieges  (they are essentially free atm)...

on Feb 07, 2013

Will we be able to turn the hex outlines on ?

on Feb 07, 2013

If not complete unit arrangements before combat, you could just have 3 rows of troops for arrangements. You would just assign each unit to a row.  Units wielding ranged weapons would default to row 3, but you could change it if you wanted.  It wouldn't matter much to me how rows 1 and 2 were arranged by default as long as I could change it manually.  

It's certainly not a deal-breaker for me.  I'd have preordered the expansion already if I could.  It's just an option I'd like to have.

on Feb 07, 2013

Just had an idea that could be added in, that would be nice (though maybe a bit of work)

 

WHy not have goodie huts or quests that spawn minor bonuses/ open up unique items you can make?  Not full-fledged techs, but maybe things that unlock a bonus weapon, or improve one of your existing weapons?

 

Example:

 

A master fletcher's quests- you get bodkin arrows.  All bow units gain a skill to ignore 25% of the opponent's armor on an attack if they have those arrows.

 

A master blacksmith's instructions in a lair- you gain the ability to produce guiding spears instead of regular spears, or sharp axes instead of regular axes.

 

I think this could add some immersion/neato stuff, and would make games seem a bit more different, but wouldn't be too much of a slot machine if you keep the bonuses reasonable.

 

on Feb 07, 2013

Frogboy
It'll help against archers.

It might, but thats IF they have both archers and other units in a mixed army - the AI was never smart enough to field the correct mix let alone use it. It would seem that a lot of units that used to be fast and able to keep away out of fights when not needed (wolves and such) will now get attacked and killed?

 

I havent played the game with the new combat system obviously but it would seem to me that without seriously reworking the movement points for all units this is a pretty bad formula - I can see it working better in combat if the basic movement for a unit is 1 instead of the usual 2

on Feb 08, 2013

Why not make the initial distance between your units and the enemy's units different in every battle? Like some of the time they would start right next to each other like in the screenshot, other times they'd be on completely opposite sides of the map. I think it would make tactical battles slightly less repetitive and therefore more fun.

on Feb 08, 2013

Hawntah
Why not make the initial distance between your units and the enemy's units different in every battle? Like some of the time they would start right next to each other like in the screenshot, other times they'd be on completely opposite sides of the map. I think it would make tactical battles slightly less repetitive and therefore more fun.

 

Not random ! 

 

"allow players to pick a range preference  (start combat at long range or short range) before each engagement ?  The actual range the combat starts should be a factor of map, skills (tarth master scouts; or having a scout unit with the army for this bonus) , army size (smaller armies should get a bonus vs big armies) , total army experience levels , spell effects (stealth//camouflage) and of course army initiative ...  With the right combination of factors ambushes should be possible but not the norm (as would appear from reading your post (player army ambushed by AI army in every combat)) ...

And of course some ability so pick the formation the units are positioned at the battle start .. Probably a template that can be set out of combat ...

Having some skill based ability to tactically reshuffle the army based on the terrain battleground (map) would be icing on top ..

 

"

3 Pages1 2 3