What is Legendary Heroes?
It's an expansion for Fallen Enchantress that adds the following:
1. A new Champion progression system. Instead of random traits your champions have a trait tree that they can use to select traits as they level up, grow your champions the way you want.
2. The ability to recruit special non-human champions. Champions aren't just humans anymore. Rare opportunities or quests may unlock champions of various monster races that can choose traits and use equipment.
3. New tactical combat options. Swarm gives a bonus for every ally that surrounds the enemy you are attacking. Be careful where you stand as even weak creatures can become dangerous in groups (especially those with traits that improve their Swarm bonus). Weapons all have special abilities and every faction has a special ability they can use in combat so even lowly spearmen have 2 special abilities they can use in addition to their normal move and attack options.
4. New monster types like the Banshee who is immune to physical weapons, or the Garagox who knocks enemies back with each hit (which makes it difficult to get swarm bonuses and control the battlefield).
5. New spells and abilities. New range types have been added that allow for adjacent and line spells and abilities. Use Wall of Fire in tactical to create a line, 7 tiles long, to block allies from enemy units. Master necromancy to summon up to nine different skeleton units at once with the Raise Skeletal Horde spell. Use Resoln's Wraith Touch to drain life from a nearby enemy or Altar's Rush ability to forfeit their attack to get an extra action.
6. A new scenario. Relias has returned to warn the kingdoms of what he discovered in the East, but there is little time left. The war has begun.
Who gets Legendary Heroes for free?
If you purchased War of Magic before 10/31/2010 then you will be receiving Legendary Heroes for free. If you will be receiving Legendary Heroes for free you will receive an email from Stardock when the beta starts.
How much does Legendary Heroes cost?
If you own Fallen Enchantress then Legendary Heroes will cost $19.99. If you don't own Fallen Enchantress it will cost $39.99.
Can I get Legendary Heroes on Steam?
Legendary Heroes is integrated with Steam. So everyone that gets it will have it on Steam, no matter where they purchase it from (even if they purchase directly from Stardock). Those players that will be receiving free copies will be receiving a steam key for the game.
How has the champion system changed?
The biggest change is in how you gain champions. They are no longer waiting on the map. Although I liked having them on the map to encourage players to explore, it made the champion part of the game to random. It also disconnected the champion game from the core game (empire building), creating two separate games that were only loosely connected to each other.
In Legendary Heroes players have a new Fame attribute. Fame is gained by building certain improvements (though you can also get it from researching some techs and completing quests). Completing the Tower of Dominion provides enough Fame to get your first Champion. When you gain enough Fame 2 champions will present themselves to you for recruitment, but you can only pick one. All the champions have been redone to make these decisions more distinct and interesting.
With this new system the amount of Champions you have access to depends on your empire choices, what techs you researched and what improvements you built. Not on map generation.
Champions can still be gained through quests, though these tend to be special cases.
There are also a lot of new champion traits that can be learned. Some that grant access to new spells and abilities, some that improve existing abilities. For example all axes give access to the Cleave ability, which allows the unit to strike 3 adjacent enemies that are next to each other. A champion trait increase the amount of damage done when Cleaving. Others increase damage with fire spells, or the amount of healing done when casting a Heal spell. Traits can reduce casting times or increase the amount of accessories a champion can equip.
Monster champions? Does that mean I can give a bear an axe and enchanted pants?
Each of the monster champions is special, such as Huhrus the Ogre. You can get him through a quest in both FE and LH. But in LH he is a champion with the ability to pick traits when he levels (he starts with path of the warrior) and you can give him whatever weapons and accessories you would like. Since he is an Ogre he gets all their benefits including having more hit points than a normal champion. But he cannot wear normal armor, so there are pros and cons.
Have the graphics changed?
The graphics of the game have gone through considerable updates. Redone forests, new rivers, new mountains, dynamic shadows, lower bloom, less terrain blending, improved lighting, better animations, etc. Ground props have been dramatically reduced and overall the effect is to make the game cleaner and clearer. It is easier to tell what a specific tile is and which tiles have special things on them.
Legendary Heroes has a new Art Lead, Kay Fedewa. It is her first time working as a lead on a game and she has done amazing work making everything look both better and more distinct (often opposite goals).
Designer Note: The big lesson for me was that art, much like game design, isn't about one big change or fix. It's a culmination of a lot of little things working together. It's the entire scene. Small things that wouldn't be noticed add up. Where a player may notice that Legendary heroes has new mountains, those mountains are actually a half dozen changes all working together, none of which would be that significant on their own.
Are there more changes?
Lots of more minor tweaks and improvements. There is a new game option slider for production pace (so you can modify it seperatly than research pace). Screens have been added (an army screen for managing multiple stacks in one tile) or improved. The battles result screen animates your xp bar and dings when a unit hits a level as well as showing any results of injuries or death so we don't need additional popups for it.
When you adjust the world difficulty it will change the levels monsters spawn at instead of just their hit points. Turn it down to get weaker monsters and up to be facing level 8 bears and worse.
Since you don't have your "free champion" starting by you players start with their sovereign and a group of spearmen and club wielding militia. In general this makes starting sovereigns a bit more powerful but it does a great job of showing off the new weapons abilities (since the spearmen and militia have different abilities) and it gets the player used to using armies. He can start fighting with his starting units and by the time they die be ready to get some new ones trained.
We have also added a feature based on player feedback. The ability to set a city to producing a resource (like additional gold), instead of just having the cities get a bonus when the queue was empty. This is a more intuitive option for the player and works better for game play since we can seperate idle cities from those that have been intentionally to produce more of a resource.
There are more, new items, new weapons, new armor, new quests, etc.
Does the addition of these new mechanics make the game more complex?
Our goal is to take FE to the next level with the expansion. To make it into a better game, not a bigger game. So things that were confusing or overly complex were cut. For example finding champions in the wilderness can be confusing for new players, the new system is both better designed and more intuitive.
I've also removed cutting/blunt/pierce damage. The goal of those damage types was to make the weapons different from each other. To make an axe different than a hammer. But the majority of players ignored or were unaware of the differences and were left feeling like battles were less strategic because the defense strengths or weaknesses didn't impact their strategy.
Now the weapons have special abilities. Spears have Impale, which strikes an enemy and the unit behind them. Axes have Cleave, which can strike 3 units that are all adjacent to the attacker. Crossbows have been added to the game and they are powerful short range weapons, they strike through 5 enemy units in a line. Even shields give a Shield Bash ability which does the units normal attack damage and can knock the victim back a tile (which is good for controlling swarm bonuses from your units and your opponents). Because of these abilities, different weapons feel very different from each other and we no longer needed the stat differences that damage types offered. In other words, stats differences are okay differentiators, game play differences are better.
I've also cut Influence and Faction Prestige. Influence fell victim to the go big or go home rule. It just wasn't important enough to feel like its own thing. Removing it makes gold more important for diplomacy. Faction Prestige is being replaced by a Unrest penalty based on the amount of cities in your empire. The more cities you have the higher your unrest is. This makes anti-unrest effects more critical as your empire grows and does a better job of balancing large vs small empires since it directly reduces production and research rather than just growth (as faction prestige did).
Part of removing Faction Prestige was the change to have the amount of unused food a city has available impact growth. So now when you see a tile with high grain yields it isn't just a higher size that the city can grow to, but the speed at which it will reach that size.
Other links?
Website: https://www.elementalgame.com/legendary-heroes
Of course I am aware of the business rationale. That said, Brad doesn't have to operate strictly from economic feasibility. It's his company and if he wants to run in the red to do penance for failures of previous products, that's his decision to make. I don't see that that alters my desire (and others) to soften the economic cost. This is costing them money, after all, and any long term good will be difficult to quantify.
Well my point is that it was soley a business decision, it had nothing to do with penance. If penance was his motivation, he could just say a few hail Marys and acts of contrition and be done with it.
It may be difficult to quantify, but customer goodwill is priceless. Any savy business person would activty try to build it up.
like the sound of most of the changes provided the AI is properly coded to use them
(otherwise the game will become way too easy)
heros
Governors need fixing. As it stands assassin and warrior, over power mage, and governor is useless, as often stated because they can't level when using their power. Easily fixed by either binding them to cities, but not requiring being stationed there or by making them completely separate no maintenance heroes who can't fight(or maybe only fight defending cities) and only level with their cities. Other things need fixing too, like some upper level magics being worthless, and various worthless abilities, but I suspect the tree structure vs random trait structure is more conductive to fixing these problems.
unrest for more cities??? Please say this isn't final.
It is a horrible mechanic. Civ has proved this. If I remember right some of Frogboy's early posts said as much. I'd have to dig up the post but it something to the effect of penalties are BAD. In the same vein as maintenance is BAD. Keep things simple and make choices between 2 awesome things.
Adding unrest penalties with lots of cities is sure to make conquest a negative at some point. This is an inherent result of the mechanic; it cannot be avoided. Every game with the mechanic has had this problem and consequently they have not been FUN. Civ 5 has this problem. Alpha Centauri had the problem and reportedly every other civ game also had it. The problem is so bad in civ 5 that at times I just have to burn every new city I conquer and sometimes even refrain from conquering new cities until my existing conquests have finished burned. It makes no sense why winning the war should skrew my empire and even halt the advance of my armies. I understand that lots of cities makes them not special and managing them a tiresome chore. The solution of only having certain spots allow settlements was a good direction. To finish the job, there just need to be less of them and the locations and thus cities should be much more unique- see ability differentiation being better than stats.
on steam:
I feel like I understand both sides.
+ I love the simplicity of buying and installing the games.
+ Automatic updates. Less hassle, better and more secure software, less pain for devs == cheaper software. no more, remember to check for an update find the download link and run the installer crap.
- DRM (which is always subject to change- thus games I bought could always be rendered useless w/o practical solutions- say what you like suing isn't pleasant) e.g. the never really owning the game
DRM is the reason I never bought an MP3 until Amazon broke Apple's monopoly and offered DRM free music.
- can't resell the games
I can live with steam because:
* its convenient
* I don't really resell/loan games, nor play them many years later.
* they offer great sales -> If I don't pay full price I don't mind as much not owning the game- for the right price and use, I can think of it as a weird form of renting
Not everyone uses games the way I do, so I understand their reaction here to steam.
The threat of steam going away is a very real threat. Apple has changed the world or software with their iPhone and its appStore. It is a great relief from viruses (though no ads which are an insidiously common appStore plague). Google, Amazon, and Microsoft copied them... Their competition is only just getting started.
Adding unrest penalties with lots of cities is sure to make conquest a negative at some point. This is an inherent result of the mechanic; it cannot be avoided.
WRONG! Because just like in Civilization you don't have to TAKE POSSESSION to conquer the map. You merely just RAZE the cities that cause you problems. No maint no revolts no unrest. Plus if you take the SLAVE trait all the more merrier.
I don't care for Steam because every damn little thing that HAS to load to run things adds boot overhead, slows things down while it spins in the background, periodically updates itself in a malignantly resource-sucking way, and has the potential to go flooey, sucking up valuable time on trouble-shooting that could be better spent playing. Every background program adds one more annoying step to trouble-shooting.
Once upon a time I knew what every file on my computer did. Then, things got more complex, but I still knew what every program did. Now, I don't even know everything that's running on the damn thing. I'm a biomedical scientist, a power-user for 30 years, not unsophisticated about computers. Steam just comes out my ears; I'm sure it helps the vendors, but for me, it's a burdensome solution to a problem I didn't have. I really wanted to play FE, so I've got it, but my computer's acted like it's got a mild case of pneumonia ever since I installed the blasted thing.
Welcome to the world of you're being watched and everything you do online is recorded...muahahahahahah Remember that movie "I know who you are and I saw what you did"?
Agree and Disagree.
I agree in that the conquering of a city should NOT imediately cripple your empire's ability to produce in order to continue that war. This has been a very frustrating aspect of games that I've played that have included this mechanic...and I'll agree, I don't find it very fun.
I disagree however because I really do like the concept of larger empires having more unrest/corruption to manage and deal with. However, the approach used in FE, imo, is wrong.
The solution needs to be dynamic. - When you conquer an enemy city, the conquered city should have a high unrest penalty to begin with and decrease over time as they adjust to rule under your faction. - When you conquer an enemy city, the other cities within your empire should receive a unrest bonus/penalty depending on the influence you have over your population, ie how much support your nation is giving you with the decision to continue the war. Over time, the faction unrest should result in a net penalty, greater than that from before the conquering of the city...because the empire has increased in size and it's more difficult to manage and control.
The time duration should be approx 20 turns.
What GFireflyE said above. Good Stuff..
I believe Civ has proved how overwhelmingly popular this general approach is. I have not played a 4x game in years (including Stardock's) where people weren't complaining about ICS, by whatever name. Civ 3 had the corruption system which was crude but was a true breakthrough for the 4x strategy genre. It took something that had always been a no brainer (build more cities as long as more cities can be built) and made it something you actually had to think about. It wasn't a true tall vs wide choice but it did make a small empire viable and made creating a large empire require some forethought. But you could still go seriously large, double ring palace core, double ring forbidden palace core, double ring Versailles core, and on top of that fully corrupt cities could still pump out 1gpt each.
Civ 4's hybrid happiness/health system did a little better job of creating distinct playstyles and considerations for large vs tall empires but it was just mostly a less gamey mechanic. Civ 5's happiness system works so well at creating a real choice between wide and tall empires being distinct playstyles including social policy interaction. Taking this away is just removing a layer of strategic thinking from the genre.
This is completely untrue. Watch MadDjinn's let's plays. He ends up carpeting large maps with true ICS empires on Civ 5 Deity. We all did in Civ3 cause corruption didn't create any roadblocks for creating large empires, just for their efficiency. Civ5 happiness can seem like a roadblock but it isn't. By managing city size, happiness sources, and happiness modifiers you can completely carpet the world in minimum spaced cities. I'm not enough of a masochist to attempt this on Deity but it does not appear to even be challenging for the best Civ players. The only limit on Civ5 expansion is in the quality of one's plan or its execution.
This is a huge improvement in replayability. In most 4x games like FE sometimes I'll will stop expanding for a change of pace but nothing really changes and it's not very satisfying. In Civ you have to make a conscious choice early on whether you're going tall or wide because you have to plan and execute accordingly in order to get the best results.
This is the diametric opposite of strategy: make only one answer correct every time; remove the choice completely. Winning the war does not halt anything. If you succesfully plan for the expansion and research/build/acquire what is needed on schedule your expansion should not be halted. The game mechanics (Civ series) never prevent expansion. They just require you to plan for it, That is the nature of strategy games. This is so good: a reward for planning well, penalty for planning poorly!
Maybe FH's unrest system won't be good, but how unfair is it to condemn a system that hasn't even been unveiled yet? Even if it is as crude as Civ3's corruption system that is still better than nothing. It means empire building requires some forethought and planning even if it doesn't require much thought in execution. And you never know, it could be something really slick and impressive. Let's see it before we write it off.
Why not make the unrest per city amount dynamic and can be decreased through techs. For instance we don't know what their thought is for the amount of unrest per city but it could be as high as 20 or as low as 5. If it started as 20 per city you would be restricted to a small empire to deal with the secondary effects. This could then be a "gateway", nice word to use for this devs, to add the ability to expand by having a tech unlock a lowered value of say 15 and then 10 per city. Then it becomes a numbers game. If however the value of unrest per city is 5 it just limits you to no super empires or you have mass unrest and stagnation. If no modifications are made and 10 unrest per city a moderate size empire is possible but has to be managed properly or your unrest will quickly overrun you. 5 seems the best number to me as this allows you to reasonably expand with impunity but once you start taking over enemy cities, unless you expand a whole lot, you have to deal with long term unrest factors. Also realize this actually makes the governor a viable class for your heroes to have stationed in cities. Possibly even have a "minor" hero henchman that reduces unrest.
Thanks
I'm fine with an unrest mechanic so long as it adjusts for map size. Having the same city/unrest limit as a small map would be a big problem in a large map.
Very good suggestion! At the begining, each city contributes a lot of unrest, but as new Civic techs are discovered better ways to administrate and to keep people happy are put in practice. A backwards kingdom would have huge corruption levels with just 3 cities, but a really advanced one could have 15 cities with almost no unrest.
This, and making it scalable with map size.
but a really advanced one could have 15 cities with almost no unrest.
No, that's too much to the extreme of the other end. Say 5-7 with "some" unrest. No civilization has ever had zero unrest as there's always those that want something for nothing and their chicks for free. Take a look at American welfare and unemployed. If someone's got 15 cities it's game over anyways and nobody would really care about unrest.
Instead of scaleable with map size, could it work scalable with map explored? I think that might work better and be easier to balance.
I don't know if this is doable, but it would be a great way to handle scaling organically, as your unrest would increase gradually, and you would have it increase in a similar fashion regardless of map size, and it would scale as the game went along, instead of all at once.
Weird edit: does the forum require Flash? Ugh, that's more hideous than the old design.
has it already been announced when the beta will start in march?? (beginning, middle or end of march?)
I can't believe nobody has asked this question yet...! ^^
In another thread, Brad said he was planning on releasing the beta next Thursday, but will delay it another week, so around mid March.
thx alot!
Good, I never understood the logic in rendering an effect produced by a flaw in photographic technology. Rendering isn't held back by focus issues so why is so much time and effort spent on artificially creating them. Not to mention the whole glare/blood/dirt on the "camera" thing some devs are doing.. I'm playing a video game.. unless I'm playing a GD camera in said game then this shit breaks immersion.
If these effects are used it should be for pre-rendered cut scenes.. not in game. People get caught up in what they think has to be included to make it "next gen graphics" and ignore the logical implications and applications of these effects.
Edit: Also gotta give a shout out to all the devs who add "motion blur" for 90% of the players who turn it off. I mean really you spent all that time making assets and then just gonna make it blurry most of the time wtf.
it makes me sad that a company that once railed against restrictive DRMs and third-party download managers has decided that Steam, rather than their non-restrictive, sold-out Impulse engine is the way to go. I see, just like the US constitution's Bill of rights, Stardock has decided to let theirs slide and deteriorate.
I'm one of those who got in on the Collector's WoM, and consequently, received Enchantress as compensation. As a show of support, and appreciation, I purchased the map pack, and I hadn't played Enchantress for weeks, and haven't again, since, either. I've been playing other things. I just did, because of what Stardock did, and I felt they were truly putting their money where their Bill of rights was. In grabbing the update from last week, I saw the upcoming expansion, and the notes with it, and was proud again, to have supported a company with these standards. And then I saw "Steam".
It makes me sad.
Will the "Map Pack DLC" be included in the finished Legendary Heroes game?
If not, will it be eglible for Legendary Heroes if I own it?
according to Derek Paxton ( see reply # 35 in this thread) people who bought the map pack for FE will also get the map pack for LH
Ah thanks, I even read the first few pages of the thread, but I seem to have missed that, or forgot about it already...
I'm truly impressed, I for the most part agree how disconnected the Heroes integration and their role within the "4X" aspect of FE was. Also, it was a chore and really unbalanced that whomever found their Faction's random Champion first, could potentially recruit them. Huge gameplay imbalance, utterly and without unnecessary revulsion injected.
Not trying to brag, but I did wish I posted ideas of mine for confronting the Unrest Penalty system much much earlier when Frogboy first released a snippet of it. I think it's a potential system, but if not done right, will cripple the game.
What's worse than the Unrest Penalty hypothetically, and, Civ 5, is the City Capture system as it currently is. I haven't played FE for a while nor posted and read here, but its absurd. Cities need to require turns till they're completely destroyed, depending upon its growth level, and most importantly, Neutral monsters can NEVER Raze a city, only destroy a single Improvement per invasion and percentage of that victims treasury.
My biggest fear is as people already raised here, and that is capturing enemy cities. Its simple but a bit complicated, in that we need to make sure when an enemy city is captured, that it does NOT add to the conquerors Unrest Penalty.
The game needs Assimilation and Puppetry. An immediate capture of any foreign city should always be allowed to be placed in some status that prevents it from raising your Unrest Penalty, in return for not being "annexed into your Empire/Kingdom and subsequently wedded, but in return lose at least 50% of all its Output.
If Stardock blatantly adds captured cities to the UP, than the game is fucked till patch lol. I personally would prefer Civ 4's in that its Maintenance rather than Unrest, because game-wise its much more manageable as proven when it came to deciding to found another city, and/or creating Improvements in any settlement.
UP is much more streamlined, yet, dangerous if not appropriately handled.
I have all love for Stardock, and Derek because of having played Fall From Heaven and witnessing how awesome of a total conversion that was. Absolutely talented man, If I could, I'd force him to personally produce GalCiv3, GalCiv4, and all their expansions without doubt of failure.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account